This Hatch character is something else.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
He couldn't do it without the help of his magical underwear.
There are no good Republicans
McCain replacement is named
"The Roberts Five has gone on 80 of these partisan excursions since Roberts became chief.
There is a feature to these eighty cases. They almost all implicate interests important to the big funders and influencers of the Republican Party. When the Republican Justices go off on these partisan excursions, there’s a big Republican corporate or partisan interest involved 92 percent of the time.
A tiny handful of these cases don’t implicate an interest of the big Republican influencers — so flukishly few we can set them aside. That leaves 73 cases that all implicate a major Republican Party interest. Seventy-three is a lot of cases at the Supreme Court.
Is there a pattern to those 73 cases? Oh, yes there is.
Every time a big Republican corporate or partisan interest is involved, the big Republican interest wins. Every. Time."
--
"When the Roberts Five saddles up, these so-called conservatives are anything but judicially conservative.
They readily overturn precedent, toss out statutes passed by wide bipartisan margins, and decide on broad constitutional issues they need not reach. Modesty, originalism, stare decisis, all these supposedly conservative judicial principles, all have the hoof prints of the Roberts Five all across their backs, wherever those principles got in the way of wins for the Big Republican interests.
The litany of Roberts Five decisions explains why big Republican interests want Kavanaugh on the Court so badly that Republicans trampled so much Senate precedent to shove him through; so let’s review the litany.
What do big Republican interests want? Well, first, they want to win elections.
What has the Roberts Five delivered?
Help Republicans gerrymander elections: Vieth v. Jubelirer, 5-4, license to gerrymander.
Help Republicans keep minority voters away from the polls: Shelby County, 5-4 and Bartlett v. Strickland, 5-4. And Abbott v. Perez, 5-4, despite the trial judge finding the Texas legislature actually intended to suppress minority voters."
--
"And the big one: help corporate front-group money flood elections — if you’re a big special interest you love unlimited power to buy elections and threaten and bully Congress. McCutcheon, 5-4 counting the concurrence; Bullock, 5-4; and the infamous, grotesque 5-4 Citizens United decision (which belongs beside Lochner on the Court’s roll of shame).
What else do the big influencers want?
To get out of courtrooms. Big influencers hate courtrooms, because their lobbying and electioneering and threatening doesn’t work. In a courtroom, big influencers used to getting their way have to suffer the indignity of equal treatment.
So the Roberts Five protects corporations from group “class action” lawsuits: Walmart v. Dukes, 5-4; Comcast, 5-4; and this past term, Epic Systems, 5-4."
--
A classic: helping big business bust unions. Harris v. Quinn, 5-4; and Janus v. AFSCME this year, 5-4, overturning a 40-year precedent.
Lots of big Republican influencers are polluters. They like to pollute for free.
So of course the Roberts Five delivers decisions that let corporate polluters pollute. To pick a few: Rapanos, weakening wetland protections, 5-4; National Association of Home Builders, weakening protections for endangered species, 5-4; Michigan v. EPA, helping air polluters, 5-4; and, in the face of emerging climate havoc, there’s the procedurally aberrant 5-4 partisan decision to stop the EPA Clean Power Plan.
https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/n...te-right-wing-record-in-scotus-hearing-opener
There is a feature to these eighty cases. They almost all implicate interests important to the big funders and influencers of the Republican Party. When the Republican Justices go off on these partisan excursions, there’s a big Republican corporate or partisan interest involved 92 percent of the time.
A tiny handful of these cases don’t implicate an interest of the big Republican influencers — so flukishly few we can set them aside. That leaves 73 cases that all implicate a major Republican Party interest. Seventy-three is a lot of cases at the Supreme Court.
Is there a pattern to those 73 cases? Oh, yes there is.
Every time a big Republican corporate or partisan interest is involved, the big Republican interest wins. Every. Time."
--
"When the Roberts Five saddles up, these so-called conservatives are anything but judicially conservative.
They readily overturn precedent, toss out statutes passed by wide bipartisan margins, and decide on broad constitutional issues they need not reach. Modesty, originalism, stare decisis, all these supposedly conservative judicial principles, all have the hoof prints of the Roberts Five all across their backs, wherever those principles got in the way of wins for the Big Republican interests.
The litany of Roberts Five decisions explains why big Republican interests want Kavanaugh on the Court so badly that Republicans trampled so much Senate precedent to shove him through; so let’s review the litany.
What do big Republican interests want? Well, first, they want to win elections.
What has the Roberts Five delivered?
Help Republicans gerrymander elections: Vieth v. Jubelirer, 5-4, license to gerrymander.
Help Republicans keep minority voters away from the polls: Shelby County, 5-4 and Bartlett v. Strickland, 5-4. And Abbott v. Perez, 5-4, despite the trial judge finding the Texas legislature actually intended to suppress minority voters."
--
"And the big one: help corporate front-group money flood elections — if you’re a big special interest you love unlimited power to buy elections and threaten and bully Congress. McCutcheon, 5-4 counting the concurrence; Bullock, 5-4; and the infamous, grotesque 5-4 Citizens United decision (which belongs beside Lochner on the Court’s roll of shame).
What else do the big influencers want?
To get out of courtrooms. Big influencers hate courtrooms, because their lobbying and electioneering and threatening doesn’t work. In a courtroom, big influencers used to getting their way have to suffer the indignity of equal treatment.
So the Roberts Five protects corporations from group “class action” lawsuits: Walmart v. Dukes, 5-4; Comcast, 5-4; and this past term, Epic Systems, 5-4."
--
A classic: helping big business bust unions. Harris v. Quinn, 5-4; and Janus v. AFSCME this year, 5-4, overturning a 40-year precedent.
Lots of big Republican influencers are polluters. They like to pollute for free.
So of course the Roberts Five delivers decisions that let corporate polluters pollute. To pick a few: Rapanos, weakening wetland protections, 5-4; National Association of Home Builders, weakening protections for endangered species, 5-4; Michigan v. EPA, helping air polluters, 5-4; and, in the face of emerging climate havoc, there’s the procedurally aberrant 5-4 partisan decision to stop the EPA Clean Power Plan.
https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/n...te-right-wing-record-in-scotus-hearing-opener
From the url I was mystified, wondering if Trump suddenly developed an anti-corporate streak
Little Marco v Alex Jones (round 1)
Little Marco v Alex Jones (round 1)
fecking coke head.
You can see why his wife divorced him. He's an embarrassment.
He's a prick but I don't mind seeing Rubio get harangued either.
So undocumented immigrants are 'not employees'. But he sides with a scum company that employs these people.
A true corporate stooge.
Trump has one certain vote.
A true corporate stooge.
Trump has one certain vote.
I can't understand what these women are yelling.
The Republican party is shrinking - used to be in the low to mid 30s in terms of the national political spectrum and Kasich believes it is now in the mid to high 20s. This would also explain why Trump has such a high rating in the party (even though its falling of late) - its because centrist Republicans are leaving and the only ones remaining are the cult of personality sycophants who treat Trump like a political version of Jim Jones.
Did a US Senator just say bollocks?
The Republican party is shrinking - used to be in the low to mid 30s in terms of the national political spectrum and Kasich believes it is now in the mid to high 20s. This would also explain why Trump has such a high rating in the party (even though its falling of late) - its because centrist Republicans are leaving and the only ones remaining are the cult of personality sycophants who treat Trump like a political version of Jim Jones.
The good thing for Dems is that even if the disillusioned Republicans don't vote Dem, they at least will not vote.
how is that worse than anything Trump says?
(better angle)
Helped by sulking leftist dems who refused to vote agains him, cos Hilary. Bet they’re all feeling pretty sheepish right now, huh?
Is there any evidence that actually happened? Hasn't it been shown that percentage of Bernie supporters who voted Clinton is no higher than the percentage of Clinton supporters who voted Obama?
Its actually lower.
helped by their own incompetence and their refusal to visit wisconsin and hilarious anecdotes like this
and this
and nominating someone with record unfavorables
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-clintons-unfavorable-ratings-hit-a-record-high/
and making this their campaign strategy
the centrists are the people responsible for this
there is a systemic rot in the democratic party and has been for decades. only a once in a generation charismatic politican could stem the tide but his rising tide didnt raise all boats. the democratic party after the obama clinton years is a pile of rubble and the people who caused it were the centrist party leaders. but sure, blame everything on a few thousand people who didnt want to vote for a terrible person who would cause massive human suffering. even if i and all these people did vote for hillary, republicans still control a huge amount of state legislatures, both houses of congress and most of the influential court positions. thats the real legacy of neoliberalism.
Have you listened to the Podcast the wilderness? It's superb and does a deep dive into all aspects of the party.
She had solid Democratic base support but couldn't connect with enough independents. The Sanders voters also weren't the Democratic base, they were instead a combination of some base voters, new voters, and a lot of independents.
She couldn't hold together the Obama coalition.
Some folks here bring up Hillary as often as Trump does.
Yes indeed. Which in addition to traditional base voters included independents and moderates. She was too heavy on base support and not good enough with centrists and independents, which Trump did well enough with to take FL, NC, PA, MI, and WI.
Last edited:
Romney won among independents. I believe McCain reached close to 50% too.
But neither animated their base in sufficient numbers to win. You have to have a balance of both to get the job done.
Obama animated his base and lost independents and he won.
He had plenty of independents and centrists, which were apart of the so called Obama coalition.
Independent vote in pres elections:
2004: Kerry +1
2008: Obama +8
2012: Romney +5
2016: Trump +4
Where is the correlation
2004: Kerry +1
2008: Obama +8
2012: Romney +5
2016: Trump +4
Where is the correlation
So, Trump did worse among independents than Romney, but Hillary's problem was among independents.
Every coalition is different in each cycle and each candidate has a different level of support among their constituent groups relative to how they as well as their opponent connects with voters. But one thing that is not in question is that you can't ignore independents and expect to win just on a base message. It didn't work for Hillary, it wouldn't have worked for Sanders (who had considerable non-base support), and it wouldn't have worked for Obama either.
I don't know how many ways to put this.
Hillary's performance among independents was better than Obama's, and she lost and he won. Her campaign was centred around moderate Republicans and ideological moderates uniting for an already-great America against Trump's uncouth anger.
It failed to turn out base voters, notably African-American turnout went down in swing states, and union households went 50-50 for her and Trump.