Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kalbear Total Landscaping

US Politics: Ruthless ambition

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

You’re conflating two different things here. You can both believe, accurately, that the average American isn’t very informed, and craft a strategy without throwing it in their face.

Hell, why do you think all these elected Ivy League lawyers talk like junior high students?

And yet we still have a massive non-voting population.  Maybe actually offer them something substantive and they'll turn up to vote for it instead of baby talking to them out of one side of the mouth and mocking them constantly out the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say it is pretty funny to see folks acting shocked that Romney is going to vote for a Trump nominee. The dude has always been and always will be a Republican, and Republicans suck. Really kind of puts into question this whole idea of flipping centrist Republicans when their figurehead just decided it is time to jump in line.

Pretty interesting article in the WaPo on how congressional staffers assume their consituants are more conservative than they actually are

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/11/02/congress-thinks-public-is-way-more-conservative-than-it-actually-is-deep-pocketed-lobbyists-are-blame-according-new-research/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court seats are the payment for every Republican voter and donor that held their nose at various times during the Trump era. Every time an American right-wing Christian was forced to defend adultery and sexual assault. And the bill is due. So, it was a much harder vote than the impeachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: NVM, already been posted

Edited by aceluby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

And yet we still have a massive non-voting population.  Maybe actually offer them something substantive and they'll turn up to vote for it instead of baby talking to them out of one side of the mouth and mocking them constantly out the other.

Or maybe politicians already have and a plurality of the public just doesn't care for whatever reason. Ignorance mainly. As the cliche goes, you bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Offer them something substantive."

You can take that la la land bullshit somewhere else. The American people don't care about anything that isn't in their line of sight. Stupid fucks deserve what they've got coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Romney and Gardner will vote on a nominee, so whichever huckster (I beg your pardon, originalist/textualist) Trump wants to put up will probably go through. Its time to expand the court in 2021.

It'd never be in a million years. But I'd love it if Trump's nominee straight up said at the hearings "Roe v. Wade is settled law and I will not vote to overturn it." just to see the shitstorm that would occur after all these Republicans said they'd vote for whoever Trump put up.

(I know Romney only said he wanted a vote and would decide on the merits, but we all know how that'll turn out).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Kalibear said:

I think that it is one more  thing that is 100% in the pocket of Republicans now. We had police, we had several states, we had the federal executive branch and now we have the entire judicial branch. I had already thought that his chances were likely to be around 80% or better - but I think this is the absolute nail in the coffin, because I think most dems will simply accept whatever shitty choice is handed down from SCOTUS like they continually have.

Um, yes? I'm sorry, I don't follow this logic. SCOTUS shouldn't be binding because you think the judges have a political preference that is affecting their rulings? I'm not trying to "both sides" here, but that is basically exactly like Republican rhetoric and I damn well expect them to comply with the SCOTUS rulings they don't like.

Illegal activities should be stopped. We need to do better at holding people accountable for breaking laws and ignoring House subpoenas etc. We need to establish laws for things that turned out just to be important norms. We need to fight at every level to get smart, compassionate, and dedicated people elected into government. We even need to amend the damn Constitution if the original text is senseless. But yes, in the meantime, I do plan to accept SCOTUS rulings.

What you're advocating for is anarchy and a civil war. Perhaps you think we're at that point. But I think you will find the vast majority of people do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ See, everybody. Once you accept your place and give up these fancies of resistance it's actually quite alright. You can even believe you still see a path to recovery, however impractically your dreams define such a concept.

Best to stop rocking the boat though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Starkess said:

What you're advocating for is anarchy and a civil war. Perhaps you think we're at that point. But I think you will find the vast majority of people do not.

If Biden wins the popular vote +7 and the Supreme Court hands Trump the electoral college, I think you'll be surprised at just how far people will be willing to take things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fez said:

If Biden wins the popular vote +7 and the Supreme Court hands Trump the electoral college, I think you'll be surprised at just how far people will be willing to take things.

I find that scenario to be extremely unlikely. But yes, I agree that might change the calculus. But sitting here now and making scathing remarks that the Dems "continually" follow the law is ridiculous.

And please, I never said anything about not rocking the boat. Rock the fucking boat! But no, I'm not currently interested in a revolution.

Share this post


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

Or maybe politicians already have and a plurality of the public just doesn't care for whatever reason.

Why do you keep saying a "plurality" are nonvoters.  Are you treating nonvoters like a political party, i.e. comparing GOP voters, Dem voters, and nonvoters?  Cuz that's a pretty strange thing to do.  VEP turnout the last four presidential cycles has been around 60%, and it hasn't been below 50% in a presidential cycle since 1824.  

As for our comparatively low turnout rate, this is government 101 - yes, we have low turnout rates when comparing the overall population, but that's because registration rates are so low.  When you calculate turnout by number of registered voters, US turnout ranks among the highest in the world - at 86.8% in 2016:

Quote

In many countries, the government takes the lead in getting people’s names on the rolls – whether by registering them automatically once they become eligible (as in, for example, Sweden or Germany) or by aggressively seeking out and registering eligible voters (as in the UK and Australia). As a result, turnout looks pretty similar regardless of whether you’re looking at voting-age population or registered voters.

In the U.S., by contrast, registration is mainly an individual responsibility. And registered voters represent a much smaller share of potential voters in the U.S. than just about any other OECD country. Only about 64% of the U.S. voting-age population (and 70% of voting-age citizens) was registered in 2016, according to the Census Bureau report, compared with 91% in Canada (2015) and the UK (2017), 96% in Sweden (2014), and 99% in Slovakia (2016).

As a consequence, turnout comparisons based only on registered voters may not be very meaningful. For instance, U.S. turnout in 2016 was 86.8% of registered voters, fourth-highest among OECD countries (and highest among those without compulsory voting). But registered voters in the U.S. are much more of a self-selected group, already more likely to vote because they took the trouble to register themselves.

The solution, obviously, is to make registration - and voting - easier, hence the decades-long push for reforms such as same day registration and, of course, vote by mail.

Finally, is the American electorate stupid?  Sure, I suppose, but so is every other electorate.  A person is smart, people are stupid.  The Russians must be morons - only having democracy last about a decade before allowing Putin to takeover.  The Chinese much be complete idiots for letting Mao enact his cultural revolution.  The Brazilians are just as dumb as us for electing Bolsonaro.  Etcetera, etcetera.

40 minutes ago, Fez said:

But I'd love it if Trump's nominee straight up said at the hearings "Roe v. Wade is settled law and I will not vote to overturn it." just to see the shitstorm that would occur after all these Republicans said they'd vote for whoever Trump put up.

He'd just withdraw the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Starkess said:

Um, yes? I'm sorry, I don't follow this logic. SCOTUS shouldn't be binding because you think the judges have a political preference that is affecting their rulings? I'm not trying to "both sides" here, but that is basically exactly like Republican rhetoric and I damn well expect them to comply with the SCOTUS rulings they don't like.

Yes, I think that when the law is decided unjustly the populace needs to act with more than just a shrug.

28 minutes ago, Starkess said:

Illegal activities should be stopped. We need to do better at holding people accountable for breaking laws and ignoring House subpoenas etc. We need to establish laws for things that turned out just to be important norms. We need to fight at every level to get smart, compassionate, and dedicated people elected into government. We even need to amend the damn Constitution if the original text is senseless. But yes, in the meantime, I do plan to accept SCOTUS rulings. 

Good for you. The rest of your plans are completely untenable and will not happen. Meanwhile they're literally planning on nominating a justice who belongs to a society which literally inspired Atwood's Handmaid's tale. 

28 minutes ago, Starkess said:

What you're advocating for is anarchy and a civil war. Perhaps you think we're at that point. But I think you will find the vast majority of people do not.

I agree that the vast majority do not. I also believe that this is precisely the problem; that the populace is happily willing to accept rulings that make the country authoritarian. 

 

15 minutes ago, Starkess said:

I find that scenario to be extremely unlikely. But yes, I agree that might change the calculus. But sitting here now and making scathing remarks that the Dems "continually" follow the law is ridiculous.

Gore decided to not protest the worst decision in electoral law in 100 years because to him, not rocking the boat and putting the country into some chaos was more important. 

15 minutes ago, Starkess said:

And please, I never said anything about not rocking the boat. Rock the fucking boat! But no, I'm not currently interested in a revolution.

Who advocated a revolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that Collins came out with a firmer statement opposing any vote on a nominee before the election shortly after Romney came out for a vote.  Wonder if there's some logrolling there so Collins can stay in the middle without pissing the GOP off (since her opposition is meaningless).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

I want a poster with him saying that he's deeply concerned

Obama has a copyright on that phrase, I am afraid.

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Interesting that Collins came out with a firmer statement opposing any vote on a nominee before the election shortly after Romney came out for a vote.  Wonder if there's some logrolling there so Collins can stay in the middle without pissing the GOP off (since her opposition is meaningless).

Isn't that obvious? Not that it will make a difference (hopefully). The Democrats in Maine have done a pretty good job tying her to Kavanaugh and Trump. So her not voting on a GOP nominee should not save her neck. Talking about the former...

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hell, why do you think all these elected Ivy League lawyers talk like junior high students?

Because they like beer. They like beer a lot...more than what would be healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Interesting that Collins came out with a firmer statement opposing any vote on a nominee before the election shortly after Romney came out for a vote.  Wonder if there's some logrolling there so Collins can stay in the middle without pissing the GOP off (since her opposition is meaningless).

Hope it doesn't work as well for her as it worked for Manchin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Isn't that obvious? Not that it will make a difference (hopefully).

I don't know if you can just assume vote trading, or that it's "obvious," that's a pretty classic post hoc fallacy.  But yeah, I'm hopeful it won't make a difference - if only because her approval ratings are so low that's too deep of a hole to climb out of.

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Hope it doesn't work as well for her as it worked for Manchin.

Indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

Why do you keep saying a "plurality" are nonvoters.  Are you treating nonvoters like a political party, i.e. comparing GOP voters, Dem voters, and nonvoters?  Cuz that's a pretty strange thing to do.  VEP turnout the last four presidential cycles has been around 60%, and it hasn't been below 50% in a presidential cycle since 1824.  

No, I'm grouping them by their behavior, not any kind of ideology. 

Quote

The solution, obviously, is to make registration - and voting - easier, hence the decades-long push for reforms such as same day registration and, of course, vote by mail.

There shouldn't even be a need to register, it should be automatic once one turns 18.

Quote

Finally, is the American electorate stupid?  Sure, I suppose, but so is every other electorate.  A person is smart, people are stupid.  The Russians must be morons - only having democracy last about a decade before allowing Putin to takeover.  The Chinese much be complete idiots for letting Mao enact his cultural revolution.  The Brazilians are just as dumb as us for electing Bolsonaro.  Etcetera, etcetera.

The first two examples are a bit apples to oranges. Anyways, a better comparison would be the average American verse the average person in Western Europe, and it's my understanding that Europeans tend to be more knowledgeable and informed across the board, though the gap isn't as large as many Europeans think. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...