US Politics

sport2793 said:
This is something that will never change as this represents the core of a federalist system. Changing this would mean changing the entire foundation of the country. Ultimately this is why the speaker of the house in 3rd in line to the presidency and not the senate majority leader.
Click to expand...
Said federalist system actually didn’t start out requiring popular will at all to elect its officials.

We have to move with the times. As much as state pride is still a thing, you have a national identity now. Most would think of themselves as American first and foremost rather than Texan or Californian.

Besides, there are workarounds within the system like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that do not require amending the Constitution.
 
ErranMorad said:
I know, I am not disagreeing with him on the Republican party gradually converting into a Trumpian party. However, if a candidate is thinking of running in 2020 republican primaries, he/she cannot hope to run on the Trumpian agenda and hope to beat Trump. So, he/she will have to believe (or hold out hope) that folks will come back to there traditional conservative/republican position. Otherwise they got no chance in hell.
Click to expand...

Anyone who attempts to primary Trump would get either get ignored or obliterated since the power structure of the party has shifted from ordinary political party to cult of personality Trump propaganda operation. Also, I've read the GOP's slice of the electorate has shrunk from 33 to 28%, which may explain how the party has gotten more intensely nutty while the sane ones jump off the ship.
 
MrMarcello said:
@InfiniteBoredom, ever met a Texan? Many firmly identify as Texan first and foremost. Not sure what other citizens do so with their home state but Texans are certainly a different breed in this sentiment.
Click to expand...
I defer to you in this regard.

The larger sentiment though is that changing the current system wouldn’t necessitate something as drastic as secession like it once was in the 1850s. I doubt that if we decide to scrap the EC tomorrow (not that it’d even be necessary), the majority of Texans would take up arms against the US.
 
It would be funny if there could be a truthfull vote on how many gop senators would still vote yes if they knew Kavanaugh was guilty.

I think we'd be shocked.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Said federalist system actually didn’t start out requiring popular will at all to elect its officials.

We have to move with the times. As much as state pride is still a thing, you have a national identity now. Most would think of themselves as American first and foremost rather than Texan or Californian.

Besides, there are workarounds within the system like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that do not require amending the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate? I do agree with the national identity but I would argue that with a country as big as the US that it is smart to delegate powers between the federal and state governments. The 2 senators per state rule represents an extension of that. Now in certain circumstances it may become more prudent to shift powers to the house. In the case of the judiciary, it's clear that it is becoming more political which is why it might make sense for this to reside in the house of representatives. Note however that Kavanaugh would already have been confirmed had this been the case, leading to an even bigger issue than the federalist system, gerrymandering.
 
Pagh Wraith said:
The shouting down of contrary opinions (see the reaction to the posted Shapiro video) has been getting out of hand here lately which is sad to see. If someone had posted an anti-Kavanaugh video from a left-leaning source would a possible reply have been "How about you actually articulate your own opinion for once?". Obviously not.
Click to expand...

Fwiw I agree with you to an extent. Guys who are so anti-brexit and anti-trump (like myself tbf) are so quick to shout down opposing opinions without grasping why we are all in this mess and how that just makes it so much easier for them to win.

However, if you want to pop into threads and drop a poxy Shapiro video then you aren't making any valid points so there's not a lot else to discuss. So that poster did deserve flack for being a coward and hiding behind other people's views, especially one of a complete prick.
 
KirkDuyt said:
It would be funny if there could be a truthfull vote on how many gop senators would still vote yes if they knew Kavanaugh was guilty.

I think we'd be shocked.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be. Wouldn't put anything past the current GOP.
 
sport2793 said:
Can you elaborate? I do agree with the national identity but I would argue that with a country as big as the US that it is smart to delegate powers between the federal and state governments. The 2 senators per state rule represents an extension of that. Now in certain circumstances it may become more prudent to shift powers to the house. In the case of the judiciary, it's clear that it is becoming more political which is why it might make sense for this to reside in the house of representatives. Note however that Kavanaugh would already have been confirmed had this been the case, leading to an even bigger issue than the federalist system, gerrymandering.
Click to expand...

This is what James Madison said regarding the necessity of the Senate

In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, the people ought to have permanency and stability.
Click to expand...

And when you take into account that these people can be directly appointed by states governors (popular election for senatorial position didn’t happen across all states as late as the late 19th century if my memory doesn’t fail me), and not all people were eligible to vote (women, for starter), it’s fairly clear that the federalist system wasn’t dependent on a popular will, but rather the interest of a minority of wealthy men (or at the very least, property owners).

As for the judiciary, it’s my long held belief that neither president nor Congress should have power to nominate and appoint judges to federal courts, but the judiciary itself. You can’t filter out political bias but at least competency wouldn’t be an issue.
 
Last edited:
InfiniteBoredom said:
I defer to you in this regard.

The larger sentiment though is that changing the current system wouldn’t necessitate something as drastic as secession like it once was in the 1850s. I doubt that if we decide to scrap the EC tomorrow (not that it’d even be necessary), the majority of Texans would take up arms against the US.
Click to expand...

Though I do find overall they feel as much American as Texan. I once felt that "Texan" sentiment but reality eventually won me over. I don't see Texas as this greatest thing ever, god's country, blah blah.
 
Are there numbers on how voters from both sides are motivated to turn out for SC picks?
 
Dumbat12 said:
It's not really bizaree. He's blamed for raping a girl in a drunken state. Him saying "yeah, I drank a little too much sometimes" would make it so that the media would twist it in a way that basically implies his guilt "Well he obviously drank a lot, so that means that he raped the girl when he was in a blackout". And he would have no way to prove it isn't true. It was more than 30 years ago. That will be just enough to discredit him, regardless of whether it's the truth or not.

As for him drinking during high school/university, I mean - who didn't?
Click to expand...

As a judge of supposedly the highest integrity, this shouldn't matter. The fact that he is willing to lie about it to get the job he wants, means he isn't the right calibre to serve on the Supreme Court. He's going to judge similar cases that could result in somebody being sent to prison that hinge on the very thing he's lying freely about when it suits him.
 
Grinner said:
Come again? Voters don't vote for that and weren't motivated for HRC despite knowing shed be picking some.
Click to expand...

I thought I read somewhere that getting a like minded supreme court justices is amongst the reasons why people vote this or the other side in 2016. So I thought that maybe it'd be interesting to consider those numbers, if there are any.

Edit: And I'm not talking about HRC. If it turned out that the political right (US standard) were more likely to turn out if a SC pick was on the table, not saying it's their only reason, then maybe it could help Republicans - in this scenario, that is.
 
Dumbat12 said:
It's not really bizaree. He's blamed for raping a girl in a drunken state. Him saying "yeah, I drank a little too much sometimes" would make it so that the media would twist it in a way that basically implies his guilt "Well he obviously drank a lot, so that means that he raped the girl when he was in a blackout". And he would have no way to prove it isn't true. It was more than 30 years ago. That will be just enough to discredit him, regardless of whether it's the truth or not.

As for him drinking during high school/university, I mean - who didn't?
Click to expand...

He's not accused of rape.
 
McUnited said:
You could try, my son. Mourinho calls for effort from everyone.
Click to expand...
I did, it was worthless drivel. Honestly, you'd have to be pretty thick to listen to think anything that comes out of that intolerant midgets mouth is worth listening to.

By the way, you've yet to answer my question about how many languages you're fluent in. Since you like correcting non-native English speakers' mistakes instead of actually responding to them, I'm assuming it's several.
Pagh Wraith said:
The shouting down of contrary opinions (see the reaction to the posted Shapiro video) has been getting out of hand here lately which is sad to see. If someone had posted an anti-Kavanaugh video from a left-leaning source would a possible reply have been "How about you actually articulate your own opinion for once?". Obviously not.
Click to expand...
I'll add a voice to the choir and say that McUnited gets that response because he's not looking for serious discussion. He knows that most of the people active in this thread dislike Ben Shapiro, so that's why he posts a Shapiro vid as a "contrasting opinion". That way he can annoy us lefties, plus he gets to be all "so much for the tolerant left".
 
Published letter on Judiciary Committee website: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/im...Ketterer Statement - Swetnick Allegations.pdf

From someone saying:
  • she approached him despite knowing he was married and had marital issues
  • she told him she liked group sex, first tried it in high school and still liked it from time to time
  • Swetnick never said anything about being sexually assaulted
  • he called Swetnick's father who said Swetnick had psychological issues and he wouldn't want her working on his campaign
and most outrageously of all, she told him she was *gasp* a Democrat!
 
Javi said:
I thought I read somewhere that getting a like minded supreme court justices is amongst the reasons why people vote this or the other side in 2016. So I thought that maybe it'd be interesting to consider those numbers, if there are any.

Edit: And I'm not talking about HRC. If it turned out that the political right (US standard) were more likely to turn out if a SC pick was on the table, not saying it's their only reason, then maybe it could help Republicans - in this scenario, that is.
Click to expand...
Per the 2016 exit poll, among the 21% who said SCOTUS picks were the most important factor in their vote, Trump won 56-41. So there was likely an enthusiasm gap regarding that. I think that'll be relatively drowned out in Nov, though.
 
Damien said:
Published letter on Judiciary Committee website: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-02 Signed Ketterer Statement - Swetnick Allegations.pdf

From someone saying:
  • she approached him despite knowing he was married and had marital issues
  • she told him she liked group sex, first tried it in high school and still liked it from time to time
  • Swetnick never said anything about being sexually assaulted
  • he called Swetnick's father who said Swetnick had psychological issues and he wouldn't want her working on his campaign
and most outrageously of all, she told him she was *gasp* a Democrat!
Click to expand...
And now they've got a letter from Ford's ex-boyfriend.



He says:
  • Ford never mentioned Kavanaugh or that she was a victim of sexual assault
  • he witnessed Ford help someone prepare for a potential polygraph test and said she explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped the person become familiar and less nervous about the exam
  • Ford never indicated a fear of flying
  • Ford was unfaithful and used his credit card after they broke up, spending $600
 
I really wish we could erase Trump from the history books - if there is anything at all I hope that comes from this it's more people being tired of the extreme divisiveness. His petty, shameful and hypocritical behavior just never seems bottom out. For the sake of the country I hope for a blue wave next month - not just because I align myself more with that side - but also because I fear the divisions and rhetoric will become many times worse than it already was before if Trump and Co come out of the midterms with better than expected numbers.
 
If someone did not commit sexual assault in high school, then he is not a member of the male sex. The Democrats have discovered that 15-year- olds play spin-the-bottle, and they have jumped on a series of supposed spin-the-bottle crimes during Kavanaugh's minority, which they characterize as rape, although no one complained or reported any crime for 40 years.

The Democrats have become a party of tutu-wearing pansies, totalitarian sissies who lack virility, a sense of decency, or the masculine judgment that has characterized the greatest civilizations: classical Athens, republican Rome, 18th century Britain, and the 19th century United States. They use anonymity and defamation in their tireless search for coercive power.

The Kavanaugh hearing is a travesty, and if the Republicans are going to allow the sissy party to use this travesty to stop conservatism, then it is time found a new political party. In the future, having committed sexual assault in high school ought to be a prerequisite for all appointments, judicial and political. Those who did not play spin-the-bottle when they were 15 should not be in public life.

-- I am currently associate professor of business at Brooklyn College.
Click to expand...

http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2018/09/kavanaugh.html
 
MrMarcello said:
@InfiniteBoredom, ever met a Texan? Many firmly identify as Texan first and foremost. Not sure what other citizens do so with their home state but Texans are certainly a different breed in this sentiment.
Click to expand...
Texas, New York, and Hawai'i are the only states I know of that have a state first, nation second mentality. All 3 couldn't be more different from each other.
 
Sky1981 said:
Accusations aside these man had no quality to become scj.

I like beer? Homer simpsons at his best can deliver a better speech

And this is a prepared question...
Click to expand...

The accusations against Brett Kavanaugh are a million times worse than those made against Clarence Thomas,

You should watch Clarence Thomas describing what it is like to face these types of accusations, hearing about it first when it is about to be published in the papers and facing a public hearing about the matter. No sleep, dead emotions, family fractures etc. I'm guessing he wasn't in the best of shape, in fairness.

I know he is 'the bad guy' and if he is guilty he should face justice and deserves no sympathy but there is a presumption of innocence and if he is innocent it's literally a nightmare scenario.

In response to the tweet about recusing- Justice Thomas also accused liberal groups of 'producing' the accusation at the last stages for political reasons- as far as I know, he's not had to recuse himself from politically charged judgements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.