Well a constitution isn't like a holy book, because it can be amended through a political process. I don't see what's wrong, in absence of such amendment, to insist that the laws of the land conform to the Constitution. If the Constitution is just going to be interpreted in terms of what's convenient at the moment, then we might as well chuck it out altogether. Although you could argue the New Deal already did that.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
- Status
The strict wording stuff is honestly what five years olds use for gotcha moments. By his own logic would he allow the govt to ban ammunition sales? (not "arms" under the 2nd amendment). Or condone people buying MANPADs? There's obviously a limit to how precise one can be with language, and context is essential when interpreting something written centuries ago, when slaveholding was moral and women were officially un-people.
Edit: And the new deal possibly saved the world
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/u...ch-debate.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
I think it's by now fairly clear that Scalia meant to discuss mismatch theory - and also that he did a godawful job of phrasing his comments in that regard. I'm fascinated by this point though, from the article:
"Oren Sellstrom, one of the lawyers on a brief attacking the mismatch theory, said that “there is a vast body of social science evidence that shows exactly the opposite of what the mismatch theory purports to show, that actually minority students who benefit from affirmative action get higher grades at the institutions they attend, leave school at lower rates than others, and are generally more satisfied in higher education, and that attendance at a selective institution is associated with higher earnings and higher college completion rates.”
Italicized well obviously no shit, if a guy graduates from Harvard rather than a less prestigious school he will have greater lifetime earnings. But bolded interests me because it seems counter-intuitive that a student with weaker grades would do better in a tougher school rather than a weaker one. I would be very interested in seeing evidence for that, though.
I think it's by now fairly clear that Scalia meant to discuss mismatch theory - and also that he did a godawful job of phrasing his comments in that regard. I'm fascinated by this point though, from the article:
"Oren Sellstrom, one of the lawyers on a brief attacking the mismatch theory, said that “there is a vast body of social science evidence that shows exactly the opposite of what the mismatch theory purports to show, that actually minority students who benefit from affirmative action get higher grades at the institutions they attend, leave school at lower rates than others, and are generally more satisfied in higher education, and that attendance at a selective institution is associated with higher earnings and higher college completion rates.”
Italicized well obviously no shit, if a guy graduates from Harvard rather than a less prestigious school he will have greater lifetime earnings. But bolded interests me because it seems counter-intuitive that a student with weaker grades would do better in a tougher school rather than a weaker one. I would be very interested in seeing evidence for that, though.
The problem with giving SC justices life terms, they don't give a feck in the end, and with a Republican Congress, short of calling African-Americans n***ers and monkeys, he wont be impeached.
Not really counter-intuitive though. In a tougher school you presumably have better teaching, peers, facility etc... which create a positive, studious environment. There's the possibility of de-motivation if you are too far behind but I don't think it's the case.
Trump is actually the most liberal of all Republican candidates. He's just saying controversial things because he knows he can appeal to the xenophobic tea party crowd to get the nomination. Once he has it, he won't be able to win the Presidency unless he can tap into normal voters, so he will have to move his rhetoric to the middle. He probably doesn't believe most of these policies. He's just savvy enough to know what works.
Yeah you could well be right, that's a plausible explanation. We'll see when SCOTUS rules on this what they thought of the cogency of such evidence, I suppose.
Yeah - I expect him to do a complete back-flip on the Mexican and illegal immigrant stuff. The rhetoric against Muslims will continue - it won't cost him any votes.
Donald Trump is NOT a patriot. Want proof?
[
This is what I think. I doubt he actually believes the stuff he says but he knows how to appeal to the base. People call him an idiot but he's run a very smart campaign thus far.
Why do everyone think Trump will be the republican nominee ?
Follow the science folks, follow Nate Silver: Donald Trump’s Six Stages Of Doom
Follow the science folks, follow Nate Silver: Donald Trump’s Six Stages Of Doom
He is increasing his support gradually. Any sign that he is being pushed aside by the establishment, will anger his base.
His credible opponents are well...not very credible. Do you think the establishment love Cruz? Rubio is fading fast. He will not overtake Cruz. Who else is left? Bush? He is polling 3 or 4. Carson is done.
Donald Trump is NOT a patriot. Want proof?
[
It should have bitten his fecking toupee right off!
Well so far he's survived stage 1 and 2. His media attention is on the increase rather than on the decrease, and he's so far survived the extra scrutiny infact he's thrived because of it.
I still don't think he'll be the nominee though, but he's certainly doing better than people would've thought and he's not going away anytime soon.
I like Donald.
Well, I like the Donald Trump phenomenon ---- nobody could like Donald.
He's given a voice to the voiceless, to those whose views have been 'delegitimised' (to use Ubik's language in this thread) by liberalism's control of public discourse, and their determination to drive illiberal expression underground. It's tragic that the timidity of mainstream conservatism, terrified of being demonized by the media, has left demagogues like Trump as the sole speakers of inconvenient truths.
Well, I like the Donald Trump phenomenon ---- nobody could like Donald.
He's given a voice to the voiceless, to those whose views have been 'delegitimised' (to use Ubik's language in this thread) by liberalism's control of public discourse, and their determination to drive illiberal expression underground. It's tragic that the timidity of mainstream conservatism, terrified of being demonized by the media, has left demagogues like Trump as the sole speakers of inconvenient truths.
Not my POV, but I guess some people see stuff from this angle.
Ha!
Which inconvenient truths in particular?
The biggest 'mainstream media' network in the US is a conservative one, a pretty demagoguery one as well.
There are hundreds of conservative radio talk shows, broadcasts, blogs, newspapers, websites that pull in loads of money and audience. You are making it out as if half of the US is suppressed, that conservatism is dismissed, when they have a Republican Congress, majority of governorships, and the news cycle is dominated by their primary.
Obvious ones really:
The impact on the social stability of American society of the huge influx of Hispanics in the last decades; what a continuing inflow presages for the country's sociopolitical harmony in the future.
The degree to which large Islamic minorities can be accommodated in Western societies: people whose basic values may be incompatible with Western norms; and significant numbers of whom may harbour feelings of hostility towards their adopted countries.
1. There have been debates all over the mainstream media about Obama's Dream Act - and it failed. The word Hispanic and illegal immigrant were certainly not absent from those debates.
2. This is the most-watched news channel in the country:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/iiculo/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-weak-constitution
They were on the scene long before Trump came along. He's not speaking for the silent oppressed masses, he's amplifying the demands of bigots.
Hispanic migration has actually reversed in recent years.
this is true.
And illegal migration could be easily curtailed if the proper documents were required by employers. I9s for example. But those who are coming across know they will not be asked for these documents.
So there is no need for walls.
And illegal migration could be easily curtailed if the proper documents were required by employers. I9s for example. But those who are coming across know they will not be asked for these documents.
So there is no need for walls.
Trump doesn't represent mainstream conservatism, in fact he isn't even conservative. Unfortunately, main stream conservatism barely even exists these days, at least not in the traditional Goldwater, Reagan mold.
The question of who is, or is not, a bigot being answered, of course, by you, and other like-minded people; along with the concomitant question of who is entitled to have their voice heard, or their views respected, in a national debate.
I wasn't suggesting the topics I listed had never been the subject of debate. But the terms of such discussions in the West are seriously constrained. The issues are argued exclusively in the argot of political correctness - a language which is incompatible with truth and plain speaking. Conducting an honest argument in an arena shaped by your opponent, and using his language, is impossible.
The great virtue of Trump is his refusal to accept semi-castration.
Seeing a fair number of sensible folk predicting it'll be Cruz now. Sort of scares me the most really - I can imagine scenarios where he beats Hillary, something I can't with Trump.
He'll do very well against Hillary in debates. Love him or hate him, the guy knows how to work the camera and mask his extremist views in verbose speech - without it sounding pompous, a rare gift. Still, he doesn't have the likeable appeal of someone like Rubio, which is important when going against the supposed aloofness of Clinton.
Another thing is he is universally despised by his peers. Congress Republicans will hold their noses and vote for him, but they can't unsay what they said about him, most of which are excellent attack ads materials.
its very difficult to beat Hillary no matter who the GOP nominee is. The key is the EC. I mean she would have to lose by a landslide for such a thing to happen.
Yeah it'd still be very unlikely at best, but I can imagine somewhat realistic scenarios which is troubling given how odious he is. A relatively depressed african-american turnout brings Virginia (and Ohio) back into play, latino voters switching over for the lure of the first hispanic President (I realise in reality most would be put off by his immigration bollards, but it remains plausible) tips Florida over and makes Colorado borderline, and Ohio decides it's had enough of Democrats for the time being and (perhaps aided by Kasich as VP) goes red again, and that's 275.
But as IB said above, he has more than enough weak spots that a competent Hillary campaign could skewer many times over. Even so...
sure. it can get closer than we would like. But Hillary and the Dems are pretty organised.
"I" have literally no influence anywhere, I'm a foreign student who will never get involved in real-life political activities because I don't want to give anyone an excuse for removing me from my course/visa. Fwiw, my definition of a bigot is someone who promotes hate against a race or community based on the actions of a minority.
I just showed you how unconstrained that debate is, on the most-watched news station where literally the same call being made my Trump (to much outrage) was made by someone who is still an employee of that network. Contrast that to the suspension to the CNN employee for her reaction at the refugee vote.
I would really like to know which truths you are referring to. You keep referring to these grand facts that are unspoken in really vague terms. I could suggest that it is facts that are immigrant-friendly that are not being discussed - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html
The "wrongness" of the public is all skewed one way, and it's not conducive to liberals. And that would not be possible if the mainstream media self-censored anti-immigrant views.
Then the Indians would kill them thinking they are Pakistanis
Minority students with higher grades are Asian students, I read somewhere on some magazine.
If they are minority students outperforming the mean then they are not subject to affirmative action, and not relevant to this dicussion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-ted-cruz_566bd6f9e4b0fccee16ec0c4
finally Trump attacks Herman Munster.
finally Trump attacks Herman Munster.
Could the Republican Party disown Trump right now if they wanted to and prevent him from running as a republican?
- Status