ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 28th June 2018, 09:55 AM   #241
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,104
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You have learned nothing. Democrats destroyed the judicial filibuster, and now face the consequences of doing so. ...
Oh puhleeese, spare us this alt-version of reality.

I would get into it but it won't matter to you anyway, so let me just say that doesn't have jack to do with McConnell's subversion of the Constitution.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 09:57 AM   #242
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,888
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's not a demonstration, it's a claim. And a claim that you're wrong about. See, for example, what happens in iterated prisoner's dilemma games. Tit for tat is not only a winning strategy for individual players, it actually makes the game ecology more moral as well.
Moving it to the supreme court would be escalation and not tit for tat. Tit for tat would be passing lower court nominees also without a filibuster.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 09:58 AM   #243
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Presidents don't own Supreme court seats. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

And your lack of self-awareness isn't about Supreme Court seats. It's about this idea of punishing your political opponents.
Well then, it's a good thing I was just using McConnell's theft of the Supreme Court seat as but one example of the insidious things you people have done and continue to do.

Point remains - payback's a bitch and at this point I'll support anything that makes the loggers of the world upset. I don't care if Bernie Sanders is president and forces every gun off the street, and forces a national healthcare system for all, education for all, and whatever other "OMG SOCIALIST!!!11!eleventy!!11" things he can conjure up.

You made your bed. Best hope you don't have to lie in it.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 09:59 AM   #244
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Nobody can steal a Supreme Court seat from the President, because Supreme Court seats don't belong to the President. What belongs to the President is the authority to nominate someone to sit on the Court.
What an adorable distinction. Doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to what actually happened, but cute. My point that Obama's NOMINATION (better?) was stolen.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:00 AM   #245
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,452
Okay people seriously the cycle of "Well the other side did this.." has got to stop at some point.

And when we've reached the point where the only political motivation is to get back at the "other side" we've lost. All of us, not just "the other side."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:00 AM   #246
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,888
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Oh puhleeese, spare us this alt-version of reality.

I would get into it but it won't matter to you anyway, so let me just say that doesn't have jack to do with McConnell's subversion of the Constitution.
The senate didn't hide anything. The president was well aware of the senate's advice.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:00 AM   #247
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,572
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Oh puhleeese, spare us this alt-version of reality.

I would get into it but it won't matter to you anyway, so let me just say that doesn't have jack to do with McConnell's subversion of the Constitution.
The filibuster isn't part of the constitution. And the constitution doesn't require the Sentate to vote on any nominee.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:03 AM   #248
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,572
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
What an adorable distinction. Doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to what actually happened, but cute. My point that Obama's NOMINATION (better?) was stolen.
It wasn't stolen. Obama nominated him. Nobody prevented Obama from nominating him.

But say it again with even bigger font, maybe rainbow color, and I might get convinced.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:05 AM   #249
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,452
So what do people want? A Constitutional Amendment that says any nominee you like doesn't have to approved by the Senate if the Senate disagrees with you?

I'm like legit scared as to what answer I would get if I could force an honest answer to the "Would support a Constitutional Amendment that gives your party more rights and freedom than the other party" question out of some people.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:05 AM   #250
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,572
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Well then, it's a good thing I was just using McConnell's theft of the Supreme Court seat as but one example of the insidious things you people have done and continue to do.
"You people". What exactly do you think I've done?

Quote:
Point remains - payback's a bitch
Yes, it is. You don't seem to be aware of the implications of that.

Quote:
You made your bed.
And who made yours?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:07 AM   #251
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,888
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
So what do people want? A Constitutional Amendment that says any nominee you like doesn't have to approved by the Senate if the Senate disagrees with you?

I'm like legit scared as to what answer I would get if I could force an honest answer to the "Would support a Constitutional Amendment that gives your party more rights and freedom than the other party" question out of some people.
How about an amendment mandating a vote after so many days?
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:13 AM   #252
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
So what do people want? A Constitutional Amendment that says any nominee you like doesn't have to approved by the Senate if the Senate disagrees with you?

I'm like legit scared as to what answer I would get if I could force an honest answer to the "Would support a Constitutional Amendment that gives your party more rights and freedom than the other party" question out of some people.
Up to this point we didn't need something as major as a constitutional amendment to get Congress to do their job. But now we have to lead these children by the hand to make sure they do what they're supposed to, so I guess now we do need an Amendment.

Supreme Court nominees must have a fair hearing within 30 days of being nominated. Seems fair. If the children on the right feel the need to whine like the little bitches that they are, maybe we can throw them a bone and say that no nominees will be considered between the election and the inauguration. But what McConnell did was wrong. Flat out wrong.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:15 AM   #253
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,888
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Up to this point we didn't need something as major as a constitutional amendment to get Congress to do their job. But now we have to lead these children by the hand to make sure they do what they're supposed to, so I guess now we do need an Amendment.

Supreme Court nominees must have a fair hearing within 30 days of being nominated. Seems fair. If the children on the right feel the need to whine like the little bitches that they are, maybe we can throw them a bone and say that no nominees will be considered between the election and the inauguration. But what McConnell did was wrong. Flat out wrong.
Garland got a fair hearing.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:16 AM   #254
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,000
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
What an adorable distinction. Doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to what actually happened, but cute. My point that Obama's NOMINATION (better?) was stolen.
Nobody stole Obama's nomination, either. Remember how Obama did in fact nominate someone? But the president's authority to nominate a Supreme Court justice does not carry with it an entitlement to a particular outcome. The authority over the outcome resides entirely with the Senate. To ignore or override the Senate's authority over the outcome would indeed be stealing--from the Senate. Is that the theft you had in mind?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:20 AM   #255
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Your talking points are again, adorable.

What Mcconnell did was unprecedented in US history, and he did it solely for the purpose of obstructing Obama, something he mandated to the republican congress from day one.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:23 AM   #256
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,888
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Your talking points are again, adorable.

What Mcconnell did was unprecedented in US history, and he did it solely for the purpose of obstructing Obama, something he mandated to the republican congress from day one.
Which isn't the definition of stealing.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:24 AM   #257
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Which isn't the definition of stealing.
If those people can spew all the ignorant crap that Trump does, I can surely use a little hyperbole in my posts. If you don't like it, scroll past.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:24 AM   #258
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,452
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
But what McConnell did was wrong. Flat out wrong.
Oh well I guess that solves everything doesn't it!

"One of the sides was wrong once!" That's the retort for everything!

I swear Whataboutism better be like having an orgasm while eating chocolate cake.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:25 AM   #259
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,000
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The filibuster isn't part of the constitution. And the constitution doesn't require the Sentate to vote on any nominee.
That would actually be an interesting case for the Supreme Court to take up: Does the Senate Majority Leader advising the President, that the Senate will not consent to confirm his nominee, nor even vote on the question, fulfill the "advise and consent" requirement in the Constitution?

I bet it does. And if the Judiciary doesn't weigh in on the question, then it's up to the Executive and the Legislative branches to decide it. Looks like Obama decided the Senate's "advice" was constitutional. And it looks like the Democrats in the Senate aren't in any rush to say differently--certainly they're not pushing for rules changes along those lines.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:26 AM   #260
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,888
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
If those people can spew all the ignorant crap that Trump does, I can surely use a little hyperbole in my posts. If you don't like it, scroll past.
Now you claim it was hyperbole after several posters wasted energy pointing out you were wrong?
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:29 AM   #261
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Oh well I guess that solves everything doesn't it!

"One of the sides was wrong once!" That's the retort for everything!

I swear Whataboutism better be like having an orgasm while eating chocolate cake.
No, it doesn't solve everything. But at some point turning the other cheek won't work! That's quite obvious at this point. I don't get the sense that you appreciate how bad this can get if it keeps going at the rate we're in. How far are you willing to dial back the clock? Do you want to remove the right for blacks and minorities to vote? Do you want to remove a woman's right to choose? How far back do we go before we fight back?

Please be specific.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:30 AM   #262
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Now you claim it was hyperbole after several posters wasted energy pointing out you were wrong?
Thought the hyperbole was obvious.

Actually, it was obvious as I don't imagine McConnell actually put Garland in his trenchcoat and walked out with him. Is that the image you had?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:34 AM   #263
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,000
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Your talking points are again, adorable.

What Mcconnell did was unprecedented in US history, and he did it solely for the purpose of obstructing Obama, something he mandated to the republican congress from day one.
Not only is that not stealing, but it's also not unconstitutional. And there is no requirement in our system of government that the branches cooperate with each other. Quite the opposite: the possibility of an obstructionist legislature is an intentional feature of the system.

The president has near-absolute authority, within the constitutional boundaries of his office. But that authority does not entitle him to the cooperation and support of the other branches of government. And when the country is sharply divided, and the issues being debated are contentious, it is to be expected that the Executive and Legislative branches will be at odds. That's how it should be.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:35 AM   #264
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,452
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
No, it doesn't solve everything. But at some point turning the other cheek won't work! That's quite obvious at this point. I don't get the sense that you appreciate how bad this can get if it keeps going at the rate we're in. How far are you willing to dial back the clock? Do you want to remove the right for blacks and minorities to vote? Do you want to remove a woman's right to choose? How far back do we go before we fight back?

Please be specific.
You're not fighting back. You said it yourself your goal is just to piss off the other side. That's not going to do anything.

And save the me speech about how bad it could get. I'm aware.

That's what I want actions that are going to actually do something, not feel good "Well at least my side has the moral high ground" tribalism.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:41 AM   #265
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,572
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Up to this point we didn't need something as major as a constitutional amendment to get Congress to do their job.
I don't recall you getting upset when Reid's Senate wouldn't pass a budget for years.

And the Senate did their job in this case. It refused to confirm Garland. You're just upset that it's Garland they refused, and are using the mechanism of that refusal as a pretext.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:44 AM   #266
autumn1971
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,356
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
From a Facebook friend:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/835/4...43cb9021_z.jpg

Best to remember about 4 in 10 Americans probably feel this way.
So killing 10% of that will return the country to representative democracy. I am fine with that.

Also can't wait to see the right realize that leftists have guns and actually read and understand history. They might want to ask the French aristocracy about that... oh, ****, you can't.
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:47 AM   #267
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,324


How delicious
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:49 AM   #268
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,471
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And Republicans might decide that court-packing schemes are better than living with a liberal SCOTUS for decades.

Do you really think continual escalation is the path of wisdom?
If the status quo is a conservative court for decades? Yeah, I think the Dems will find that unacceptable. Half a loaf is better than none at all.

Quote:
And do you not see the irony in complaining about Trump discarding Democratic norms when advocating for doing exactly that?
The number of judges on the court has been changed in the past. The constitution is clear on that.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:50 AM   #269
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I don't recall you getting upset when Reid's Senate wouldn't pass a budget for years.

And the Senate did their job in this case. It refused to confirm Garland. You're just upset that it's Garland they refused, and are using the mechanism of that refusal as a pretext.
Don't project your whataboutism on to me. Either produce an exchange between us that discusses Reid's senate actions or retract.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:51 AM   #270
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,324
Lol
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:52 AM   #271
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,452
Okay can we just all accept that both of the major political parties are willing to use official or quasi-official legislative stalling tactics when it suits them yet take the other side to taks when they do it and MOVE ON!

My frickin' God is it in the Bible that Jesus is gonna return if we Whatabout enough?
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:53 AM   #272
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,020
Originally Posted by autumn1971 View Post
So killing 10% of that will return the country to representative democracy. I am fine with that.

Also can't wait to see the right realize that leftists have guns and actually read and understand history. They might want to ask the French aristocracy about that... oh, ****, you can't.
Yeah, that French Revolution worked out super good for the leftists.

J'ai réalisé que les hommes ne sont pas nés pour être libres.

Napoleon
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:54 AM   #273
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,020
All this court packing stuff and I swear to God Trump is going to appoint like 30 Justices next week.
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:55 AM   #274
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
I'm still trying to figure out when the right became the party of Putin. Was a black president REALLY that bad? Was intelligence really that intimidating?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 11:02 AM   #275
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,758
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Democrats should campaign to make such documentation free, which would solve that problem. I bet they could get a lot of popular support for it, and it would be politically very hard for Republicans to oppose it.

Doesn't matter if the ID is free, there are other ways to suppress voters.

Alabama's republican government shutdown most DMVs in predominantly black areas making it harder and more expensive for them to get a drivers license. This was right after they made a photo id required to vote.

https://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf...eys_drive.html
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 11:07 AM   #276
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,000
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Thought the hyperbole was obvious.

Actually, it was obvious as I don't imagine McConnell actually put Garland in his trenchcoat and walked out with him. Is that the image you had?
The image I have is that you imagine McConnell stole Garland's entitled seat on the Supreme Court. And that you imagine the workings of our system of government as being very different from how our system of government actually works. Adorable talking points, indeed.

Last edited by theprestige; 28th June 2018 at 11:08 AM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 11:08 AM   #277
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,452
Doesn't matter. It's America. You could send a limo around to pick up everybody, drive them to the voting station, carry them on one of those Roman litters into the voting booth, and buy a steak dinner afterwards and like 60% would still find a way to not vote.

I get that "We would have won if the evil Republicans hadn't done X" is where the Democrats need to be for their egos right now, but I don't get why anyone would waste time in doing voter suppression when A) most people aren't going to vote anyway and B) the system is so rigged on an official level

I care a lot more that voting is 100% suppressed everywhere except like a dozen counties in Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Virginia.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 11:10 AM   #278
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,687
Interesting argument here:

Quote:
However, it’s fair to wonder just how much Justice Anthony Kennedy’s departure will really alter the dynamic on the Court. (For what it’s worth, he voted with the “conservative” majority on 15 out of 20 cases this term.) Those of us who can remember the era of Sandra Day O’Connor will recall her as the perceived “swing vote” and a time when Kennedy was considered a reasonably reliable ally to Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and, sometimes, William Rehnquist.

We’ve already seen Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, shock the world and outrage the Right by ruling that the individual mandate in Obamacare was indeed constitutional. In all likelihood, the appointment of one of the reliably strict-constructionist judges on President Trump’s pre-election list of potential nominees will move the Court one notch in the right/Right direction . . . but only one notch. There’s always going to be one justice who is the least rightward justice on the right, or the least leftward justice on the left, and that person will realize that they are, arguably, the most powerful person in the country. Quite a tempting position to be in.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 11:13 AM   #279
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,572
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
If the status quo is a conservative court for decades? Yeah, I think the Dems will find that unacceptable.
That you describe a conservative court as "unacceptable" rather than "undesirable" gives the game away.

There are no actual principles at stake here, only partisanship.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 11:13 AM   #280
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,154
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Presidents don't own Supreme court seats. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.
Yes they simply appoint them, and the senate can advise on it. Obama should simply have bypassed the senate as they were refusing to even hold hearings. So the senate abdicated their power to advise on supreme court seats.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.