Jump to content
Tywin Manderly

US Politics: Mail and Managers for Mitch

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Okay, the real answer to your previous question is that they had people perform in the clutch.

 

My step-father literally yelled out “We’re gonna win” just before the kick.

Don’t be shocked if Walsh changes his gender and attempts to commit murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Sorry. @Ser Scot A Ellison for quoting a random post of yours  to get your attention.

But I was wondering, as a fellow southerner, how you convince others that the Civil War was actually about slavery, and not about State's Rights.

The methods I've been trying haven't been working as well as I've hoped.

Well, in a simplistic fashion you can simply ask what right was it that State's were fighting to preserve? 

More concretely and with more depth the reason Lincoln's election was fighting words for the Southern elite was the perception that Lincoln's election was a threat to the elite's power base which was based on slavery.  Lincoln, throughout the campaign, made clear he had no intention of attacking slavery where it already existed he only wanted to prevent Slavery's expansion into the territories.

Had no war started and had Lincoln been successful that would mean that the Southern States would have lost the veto their 50% control of the US Senate provided as new, non-slave holding, States were brought into the Union.  That illustrates that the threat to the elite Southerner's power is why they drove their States to secede from the Union so that they could preserve their existing power structure that was based on Slavery.

I also make clear that Slavery wasn't the only issue in the American Civil War.  However, it is absolutely the one issue that drove the Southern Elite to behave as it did.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is tweeting support for Sanders, which leads me to believe he must have some internal polling data that suggests he can beat Sanders. handily (or he got a look at the opposition research). At the same time, the Ukraine scandal occurred because he was worried about Biden's chances.

I dont know if the above holds though. No matter how good the internal pollster, there is still tremendous uncertainity in the outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Administration was bullshitting on the Iran missile retaliation. There were 11 US casualties. CNN link.

Bah, don't be silly. The big news was thatk there were no deaths. All of these are brain related injuries, concussive type injuries that likely didn't show up for days, long after the Defence department announced "no apparent casualties". Once they started to show up, they likely decided to wait and see how many woud show up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Trump is just trying to stir shit in the Democratic primary.  If Sanders loses, his supporters are likely to be very disgruntled (probably more so than supporters of other candidates).  Trump knows that dissatisfaction in the Democratic electorate was a key reason why he was able to win the election with 46% of the vote when Romney lost with 47%. 

I'm not sure this particularly means that he thinks Sanders will be easy to beat, I think it just shows that Trump is going to be working to foster disunity and resentment in the Democratic party.  He'd laugh with glee if this thing went to the convention (which is well within reason). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had completely forgotten that Ken Starr's ethics adviser resigned from his position on the Clinton impeachment team because Starr did so many unethical and outright illegal things.

eta, lol, the WH team was announced today and former Florida AG Pam Bondi is one of them. Lev Parnas immediately tweeted a picture of him with Bondi. Great trolling!

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dershowitz has also joined the impeachment trial team. He is supposed to be this towering intellect, but being from the sciences I have no way of judging (so was Scalia, maybe them legal folks have a different way of defining intellect). Anyway, since he also defended Epstein and OJ, I am going to assume that means Trump is guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Dershowitz has also joined the impeachment trial team. He is supposed to be this towering intellect, but being from the sciences I have no way of judging (so was Scalia, maybe them legal folks have a different way of defining intellect). Anyway, since he also defended Epstein and OJ, I am going to assume that means Trump is guilty.

The legal community is weird. One person’s argument can sound brilliant to one crowd and completely ridiculous to another. For example, I think the textualists/originalists are completely idiotic, but their theories are very popular in the conservative legal community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The legal community is weird. One person’s argument can sound brilliant to one crowd and completely ridiculous to another. For example, I think the textualists/originalists are completely idiotic, but their theories are very popular in the conservative legal community.

Why is "textualism" idiotic? 

If the text used in a foundational document is unimportant to its interpretation and use why does the text exist as anything more than a suggestion anyway?  Shouldn't that give you pause when thinking of important civil rights protected and defined in text?  Without textualism any foundational document is essentially written in sand.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an old debate and one that wont be decided here, but the constitution was written at a different time and its text reflects realities of those times (similar to many religious texts). Myself and others find ludicrous the ways those original words are interpreted in a modern context. "Pork is bad" for instance was probably good advice for times where food hygiene was terrible, but makes less sense today.

Thats probably a superficial analysis but also the gist of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

This is an old debate and one that wont be decided here, but the constitution was written at a different time and its text reflects realities of those times (similar to many religious texts). Myself and others find ludicrous the ways those original words are interpreted in a modern context. "Pork is bad" for instance was probably good advice for times where food hygiene was terrible, but makes less sense today.

Thats probably a superficial analysis but also the gist of it.

Then amend the document or start over.  Don't claim we can make it say anything we want.  That means having the document in the first place is useless.  If you want to claim having a written Constitution is a waste of time that's perfectly legitimate.  But to pretend like it doesn't exist... that's bizarre.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Sorry. @Ser Scot A Ellison for quoting a random post of yours  to get your attention.

But I was wondering, as a fellow southerner, how you convince others that the Civil War was actually about slavery, and not about State's Rights.

The methods I've been trying haven't been working as well as I've hoped.

You will never convince them because it's their religion.

However, tell them to read the works of the firebreathers in the years leading up to Secession.  It's ALL about slavery as their god-given righteous right, and abolition is from satan.  Hell, just to put it all in one place so they don't have to go looking for the works and sources, tell them to read The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave Breeding Industry.  It all in there, all of it, every current of history and development from the earliest colonial era to 1863, every figure, black and white, with extensive quotes from them all, with complete sourcing and references of titles, authors and footnotes, so anyone can easily look up for more reading of a particular person and work for verification.

But it won't matter.  They don't want facts, so they call it all partisan or fake or -- 'so what?'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why is "textualism" idiotic? 

If the text used in a foundational document is unimportant to its interpretation and use why does the text exist as anything more than a suggestion anyway?  Shouldn't that give you pause when thinking of important civil rights protected and defined in text?  Without textualism any foundational document is essentially written in sand.

They should be. The document must evolve with the times. Jefferson said so himself.

Plus the document itself is poorly written in many ways. Just look at the Second Amendment.

And lest we forget, Scot, that I have caused you to rethink about the concept of rights verse privileges. If they are merely privileges, then they’re already written in sand.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Then amend the document or start over.  Don't claim we can make it say anything we want.  That means having the document in the first place is useless.  If you want to claim having a written Constitution is a waste of time that's perfectly legitimate.  But to pretend like it doesn't exist... that's bizarre.

Oh come on this is a total straw man.

So there's no ambiguity in the Constitution?  Never been any ambiguity about what certain phrases mean? 

Never been any changes in the world the Revered Object failed to anticipate?  

I think we all know that arguments against originalism do not claim that you can make the Constitution say anything you want.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They should be. The document must evolve with the times. Jefferson said so himself.

Plus the document itself is poorly written in many ways. Just look at the Second Amendment.

And lest we forget, Scot, that I have caused you to rethink about the concept of rights verse privileges. If they are merely privileges, then they’re already written in sand.  

I do not recall this conversation.  Could you please elaborate?  The items set out in the "Bill of Rights" and in further amendments like the 14th and the 19th Amendments are clearly stated to be "rights".  Are they not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Oh come on this is a total straw man.

So there's no ambiguity in the Constitution?  Never been any ambiguity about what certain phrases mean? 

Never been any changes in the world the Revered Object failed to anticipate?  

I think we all know that arguments against originalism do not claim that you can make the Constitution say anything you want.  

It isn't a strawman.  If we can "interpret" the document without reference to the text (all textualism states is that the text of the document should control its meaning) then the document itself does not control its application.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally separate argument, but is the US constitution not democratically illegitimate anyway? There was no democratic input into its creation, several classes of people were barred from every having any democratic input, and although it has subsequently been ammended, it was ammended through the application of its own rules, which were themselves illegitimate. And it definitely had no democratic input from anybody alive today. I'm not sure why anyone would consider themselves morally bound by it.

Sure, in practical terms you can't just ignore it, because lots of other people with power will still try and enforce it in some way (whether in good faith or otherwise). But if you want to do something good, and the constitution says you can't, and changing it isn't a realistic option, then trying to get around it in some way seems like a totally legitimate tactic from my point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I do not recall this conversation.  Could you please elaborate?  The items set out in the "Bill of Rights" and in further amendments like the 14th and the 19th Amendments are clearly stated to be "rights".  Are they not?

If rights can be taken away, were they ever rights to begin with? American citizens of Japanese descent probably didn’t think so as they were being thrown out of their homes, which is ironic because this country was founded in part due to disputes over property rights.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Totally separate argument, but is the US constitution not democratically illegitimate anyway? There was no democratic input into its creation, several classes of people were barred from every having any democratic input, and although it has subsequently been ammended, it was ammended through the application of its own rules, which were themselves illegitimate. And it definitely had no democratic input from anybody alive today. I'm not sure why anyone would consider themselves morally bound by it.

Sure, in practical terms you can't just ignore it, because lots of other people with power will still try and enforce it in some way (whether in good faith or otherwise). But if you want to do something good, and the constitution says you can't, and changing it isn't a realistic option, then trying to get around it in some way seems like a totally legitimate tactic from my point of view.

The first paragraph is an interesting point.  However, if true the Articles of Confederation are no more legitimate and (arguably) the Union itself would be a nullity. 

Practically speaking people of all political strips, where it serves their purposes, seek to end run the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

If rights can be taken away, were they ever rights to begin with? American citizens of Japanese descent probably didn’t think so as they were being thrown out of their homes, which is ironic because this country was founded in part due to disputes over property rights.  

Practically, that is true, legally, the SCOTUS was careful in the internment cases to limit their impact by noting the unusual circumstances and the deference given to the elected government and the military it controls during a "time of war". 

I've always been underwhelmed by that limitation because if the Constitution can be set aside for "emergencies" (which is when most abuses of power are going to take place) then the protections listed are not protections at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×