-->
@Vader
Also let's made it clear that court packing is a shitty and crooked thing to do. FDR did it in 1937 and it's always sat distasteful in my mouth despise his amazing legacy
Glad you know your history unlike someone I know
Can't wait for Trump to lose like a bitch
Posts
Total:
206
-->
@ILikePie5
Only difference is FDR had a somewhat legit reason of doing it looking at the circumstances. Even as a Conservative/Moderate, I think FDR's policy was essential in helping the return of the economy due to the lack of knowledge we knew.
In 2020, there is no need for that
-->
@Vader
Only difference is FDR had a somewhat legit reason of doing it looking at the circumstances. Even as a Conservative/Moderate, I think FDR's policy was essential in helping the return of the economy due to the lack of knowledge we knew.In 2020, there is no need for that
Nah the whole reason for an independent judiciary with life terms is so it doesn’t get affected by partisanship. FDRs own party disagreed with him and they were the ones that passed New Deal legislation
-->
@Vader
Trump "won big" in the electorate which is not predicated on any type of majority, so the phrase silent majority is stupid. There is no majority.
The excuse of people in blue states being too cowardly to admit who they support as president (or rather do not want to have to justify it because they know deep down it's wrong) obviously does not imply any type of majority either. I'm glad they're too embarrassed to admit it. They should be.
I also think the quip about Kamala's history of locking up blacks is incredibly ignorant. As a prosecutor she doesn't make the laws she prosecutes (I could expand on this later) and more importantly what type of dumb ass says they are afraid of how a vice president will hurt black people (lolol how the fuck will Kamala affect policy or prosecutions in Chicago? Please ask your family lolol) when Trump bragged at rallies about cops intentionally roughing people up; when Trump took out a full page ad asking to kill the Central Park 5 he falsely accused of rape, and then when DNA evidence exonerated them he *still wouldn't admit* he was wrong in wanting them killed and a plethora of other racist nonsense? He is the "law and order" president who champions Giuliani.Giuliani IS A HUGE ADVOCATE OF BROKEN WINDOWS POLICING a.k.a. policing minor and petty crimes to the fullest extent possible... so that anti Kamala sentiment from your family is just mind bogglingly stupid and nonsensical. I don't agree with what she chose to prosecute or brag about her history as a prosecutor by any means, but that logic you just gave is trash. And so is the electoral college. And so is every defense for the electoral college. You should let YYW lecture you about it because he's actually right about that one.
-->
@Vader
Also let's made it clear that court packing is a shitty and crooked thing to do
Yep but they can use the law and their majority to justify it just like Republicans did regarding their shitty, immoral and crooked response to Merrick Garland.
I don't like the idea of court packing either but here we are. And like I said if Republicans actually believed they had the "silent majority" they would have no problem whatsoever waiting to let the next president pick. They fear they're going to lose which is why this appointment is imperative for them.
There is no majority.
There are a majority of states.
Relax with the gaslighting.
Edit: there is one good argument for the EC, but more and better arguments against it. That's another topic though :)
-->
@Greyparrot
There are a majority of states.Relax with the gaslighting.
These people are against the Connecticut Compromise. It’s disgusting.
-->
@Greyparrot
You clearly just learned the word "gaslighting" when I used it against you 10 minutes ago, because you tried to use it incorrectly twice in that time. You should look up what it means. I'm not gaslighting - I'm clarifying.
"The silent majority" does not refer to states or have anything whatsoever to do with winning the majority of states. You literally just made that up. It's a term coined by Richard Nixon that referred to people who were not vocally political (like protesting the Vietnam War). He was calling to the majority of people that did not participate in outward political activity but still wanted their votes.
Trump won with a minority of votes and he is preferred by a minority of citizens. Call yourselves something else like "the racist minority" or "tyranny of the minority" or something like that. Obviously I did not deny Trump won the majority of states.
-->
@Danielle
You clearly just learned the word "gaslighting" when I used it against you 10 minutes ago, because you tried to use it incorrectly twice in that time. You should look up what it means. I'm not gaslighting - I'm clarifying.
Now you're just being silly, gaslighting the definition of gaslighting.
Relax.
-->
@Danielle
Obviously I am just mocking you for your "gaslight" post as it genuinely shocked me. As one of the most intellegent, and well versed members on this site (admittedly much smarter than me) I was suprised you stooped to Cathy Neuman level with your condescending "what you really meant to say was"
Why would you even go there when I repeatedly said the problem was centered around known agitators with an army of lawyers? All these lawsuits against Trump and the police are public record for fucks sake.
Relax.
-->
@Greyparrot
Shitting on bad points is very relaxing for me. It's like going to the driving range or boxing gym, but instead of hitting balls or punching bags I just annihilate all of the bad and wrong points ya'll keep making. It's fun :)
-->
@ILikePie5
If the citizens of California and New York get to elect a president the likes of their governors, I shudder to watch the South Amerification of the USA.
Ole Deathbed Cuomo would know what to do.
-->
@Danielle
Shitting on bad points is very relaxing for me. It's like going to the driving range or boxing gym, but instead of hitting balls or punching bags I just annihilate all of the bad and wrong points ya'll keep making. It's fun :)
Relax!
Although your suggestion that Sovereign Citz are right-wing anarchists made me chuckle a bit.
-->
@Greyparrot
I shudder to watch the South Amerification of the USA.
Relax. No need to start shaking.
-->
@Danielle
It's fine, the Hispanic refugees in Florida who fled that crazy batshit will keep New York and California out of the whitehouse at least.
-->
@ILikePie5
You clearly didn’t both reading the comprehensive article I sent you that showed there’s historical precedent for Mitch McConnell’s actions against Garland and for Barrett. Maybe read the history before gaslighting my friend
that is a contradiction in terms. McConnel blocked an appointment because it was "too close to an election" and is now ramming through a confirmation weeks before an election. Those are exact opposite things done a few years apart. That is rank hypocrisy and political game playing with the courts. IE he is politicizing the courts. So don't be surprised or whiney when the dems respond in kind. McConnel started this, be pissed at him when the dems are forced to answer.
-->
@Danielle
It was a shitty thing for Republicans to do then. I've never said it wasn't, but Obama would never get his pick for judge in because the Senate was Republican. Even if Obama were to have a nominee, it would be declined. It is a shitty thing to do and never denied it's shittyness, but in 2016, they would veto the judge, that's why they said to wait
New York City has more people than 40 STATES. The population of NYC has more people than Vermont, Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana and West Virginia combined. Sixteen senators represent the same # of people as one NY senator. So a Wyoming voter has 65x more voting power than a New Yorker or Californian.
Since the 2000 election, Democrats have received more votes in the Presidential election than Republicans 80% of the time but have held the presidency only 40% of the time. In most of the 21st century, Republicans have held control of the Senate but not once have they represented the majority of Americans (calculated by assigning each Senator one half of the population of their state). This minority rule nonsense is not representative democracy.
There is something to be said for preventing a tyranny of the majority and for ensuring that a few heavily populated regions, ignorant or unconcerned with the needs of the rest of the country, can't run the show only to their own benefit. But what we have now is a country consistently run by the minority. Subjecting people to tyranny of the corn fields and tyranny of the bible thumping rednecks is wrong.
@Supa Regarding your point about winning the Senate, Republicans are arguing that because they won the Senate in 2018 that they ought to be able to appoint a SCOTUS nominee despite the impending election, the exact opposite of their position in 2016. But it's worth noting that Republicans got 20 million less votes and 20 million less percentage points than Democrats in their Senate races. If majority rule is wrong then minority rule is definitely wrong.
Like I said you should ask YYW to lecture you about the electoral college. It'll be painful but at least he is correct on this tirade.
-->
@HistoryBuff
that is a contradiction in terms. McConnel blocked an appointment because it was "too close to an election" and is now ramming through a confirmation weeks before an election. Those are exact opposite things done a few years apart. That is rank hypocrisy and political game playing with the courts. IE he is politicizing the courts. So don't be surprised or whiney when the dems respond in kind. McConnel started this, be pissed at him when the dems are forced to answer.
You clearly didn’t read the article. The precedent you’re talking about is historical. When the parties controlling the Senate and Presidency are different there haven’t been confirmations. Period. Read the article genius. Gives you every example in history.
-->
@Danielle
Regarding your point about winning the Senate, Republicans are arguing that because they won the Senate in 2018 that they ought to be able to appoint a SCOTUS nominee despite the impending election, the exact opposite of their position in 2016. But it's worth noting that Republicans got 20 million less votes and 20 million less percentage points than Democrats in their Senate races. If majority rule is wrong then minority rule is definitely wrong.
Did you bother reading the National Review Article that states how history is on the side of Mitch McConnell or does history not matter to you?
-->
@Danielle
Trump "won big" in the electorate which is not predicated on any type of majority, so the phrase silent majority is stupid. There is no majority.
Well he won the individual states he competed in. So he won the majority there, didn't he. You're using the broad terminology of majority to refer to a national scale. When Illinois, California, and New York (all Democratic states) make up a reasonable sum of the population in America. You're going to decide the fate of the election based upon 3 states? That's ridiculous. The electoral college makes every state important but gives power to bigger states such as California, Illinois, and New York, but still making it a competitive race. The electoral college is fair in all aspects. If you don't win a state, you don't get a states electors
The excuse of people in blue states being too cowardly to admit who they support as president (or rather do not want to have to justify it because they know deep down it's wrong) obviously does not imply any type of majority either. I'm glad they're too embarrassed to admit it. They should be.
Or maybe it's because our society is teaching us that voting a certain ideology is wrong and you should shame someone base off that belief. That isn't true. Civil discourse is essential to having a society function in America. To be frowned upon and silenced for your ideology is fascism in the making. No one should feel embarrassed or scared for who they vote, but feel safe and not have the worry of losing their job or being attacked over it. That's ridiculous.
I also think the quip about Kamala's history of locking up blacks is incredibly ignorant. As a prosecutor she doesn't make the laws she prosecutes (I could expand on this later)
Ok. So California does. Cool. And you know who runs California? The radical left. Continue.
and more importantly what type of dumb ass says they are afraid of how a vice president will hurt black people (lolol how the fuck will Kamala affect policy or prosecutions in Chicago? Please ask your family lolol)
When your prosecutor fails to let 250k innocent people free because of policy, there's an issue. Just like Amy K, where she could've charged the cop that killed George Floyd for other misconducts on the job 11 times, but failed to do so. I see a pattern.
When Trump bragged at rallies about cops intentionally roughing people up; when Trump took out a full page ad asking to kill the Central Park 5 he falsely accused of rape, and then when DNA evidence exonerated them he *still wouldn't admit* he was wrong in wanting them killed and a plethora of other racist nonsense? He is the "law and order" president who champions Giuliani.
I never said Trump was right about anything and I've stated, I am not a Trumpite who believes he is justified for everything he does.
As for the law and order part, I made a point of talking about law and order when in a call with you on Discord. I said that police have an intent to do good and there needs to be people who enforce the law. However, there should be reform within the police to be more adapt to certain scenarios. Police should also be held accountable by their peers, which you responded to saying "preach." I've maintained the position that law and order is not a negative thing in society, but the execution of law and order is handled can be fixed to make it better for society
I have said in the past that I believe statements such as "ACAB" are pathetically stupid and idiotic. Because that is true. Let's look at the literal meaning of each words
All=the total amount in a group of people
Cops=person/law enforcer
Bastards= I think we know the definition
So they say cops are bastards by being complicit in a system in which they have no control over. You can site the various officers who have disowned and shamed the cop of George Floyd for the actions he did. Most cops are against those actions. The cops themselves are not bastard over a system that forces them to be complicit. You know who else forced people to be complicit? Dictators such as the Kim Jong's/Stalin's etc. Is it the people who are forced to live in that system's fault for the bad things that happen? No. You can say the system itself is bastard and needs to be fixed. I have no issues with that, but to take issue with the specific cops is regurgitating ANTIFA nonsense
Giuliani IS A HUGE ADVOCATE OF BROKEN WINDOWS POLICING a.k.a. policing minor and petty crimes to the fullest extent possible... so that anti Kamala sentiment from your family is just mind bogglingly stupid and nonsensical. I don't agree with what she chose to prosecute or brag about her history as a prosecutor by any mean
I'm not aware of what Giuliani did in his time or is doing, so I can't comment on that action. All I know about him was he was the mayor during 9/11, so my knowledge on him is little
-->
@ILikePie5
The real paradox is that having diverse State jurisdictions CREATES the cultural differences that make the EC necessary for cohesion.
Abolishing the states would really send chaos across the nation at this point.
How else would you resolve one culture that cherishes property rights and another culture that cherishes the rights of the government to own and manage everything?
-->
@ILikePie5
Did you bother reading the National Review Article that states how history is on the side of Mitch McConnell or does history not matter to you?
Yeah, the article was useless. I was talking about about LEGAL precedents as in the judicial principle of stare decisis, not the historical precedent of choosing a Justice.
But we can talk about historical precedent if you want to. The last time a Democratic president nominated a Justice with a Republican controlled Senate was in 1865 and the Senate confirmed him. The last time a Republican president nominated a Justice with a Democrat controlled Senate was in 1988 and 1991. Both times the Democrats confirmed the far-right judges of Scalia and Thomas.
2016 was the first time since the Civil War that a nominee (whose name had not been withdrawn) did not get considered by the Senate for confirmation, so that author trying desperately to convince Republicans in a right-wing media publication that they are somehow adhering to precedent and decency is amusing.
For the record this is the kind of precedent I was actually talking about: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/09/26/amy-coney-barretts-stare-decisis-problem-and-ours/
A Supreme Court precedent ruling like the ones on gay marriage and healthcare are the kind of things I could see Democrats rallying around to pack the court. Some people I know are all for it if it means that's what it takes to uphold civil rights or quell "religious freedom" rulings that allow for discrimination.
-->
@Vader
I'm not going to get in a line-by-line analysis of why I disagree with virtually everything you said. We can chat about it on Discord or something, but in short I think it's beyond asinine to value each state the same as if "states" have rights or souls or preferences. They don't. People do.
-->
@Vader
On the overpolicing of blacks - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
This is something Giuliani (and Trump) love even though it has been proven to backfire. It's controversial. Curious what your fam thinks about it.
-->
@Danielle
Yeah, the article was useless. I was talking about about LEGAL precedents as in the judicial principle of stare decisis, not the historical precedent of choosing a Justice.
There is no stare decisis in the selection of Supreme Court justices. Idek what you’re trying to say. I disagree with Barrett so I don’t want her is fine. But saying Mitch McConnell is somehow a hypocrite is a lie.
But we can talk about historical precedent if you want to. The last time a Democratic president nominated a Justice with a Republican controlled Senate was in 1865 and the Senate confirmed him. The last time a Republican president nominated a Justice with a Democrat controlled Senate was in 1988 and 1991. Both times the Democrats confirmed the far-right judges of Scalia and Thomas.
Nice try. Those weren’t election year vacancies which is what the topic is about.
2016 was the first time since the Civil War that a nominee (whose name had not been withdrawn) did not get considered by the Senate for confirmation, so that author trying desperately to convince Republicans in a right-wing media publication that they are somehow adhering to precedent and decency is amusing.
Ya nice try. Garland was not going to get confirmed whether you like it or not. The consideration was already present. There were 40 GOP Senators who said they wouldn’t vote for him. Why go through a sham process if it doesn’t even matter.
-->
@Greyparrot
The real paradox is that having diverse State jurisdictions CREATES the cultural differences that make the EC necessary for cohesion.Abolishing the states would really send chaos across the nation at this point.How else would you resolve one culture that cherishes property rights and another culture that cherishes the rights of the government to own and manage everything?
They don’t care about the Constitution. It’s that simple
-->
@Danielle
I would like to have a discussion about as well if I ever get time. I’m a Senior in HS living through a pandemic where all my SAT’s in spring got cancelled, so I have them all in the fall + plus college apps. I’m hoping I get time soon maybe one of these days
-->
@Danielle
They say it's exaggerated. Yes, they see more police cars in these neighborhoods, but crime happens lots more. Englewood is one of the most dangerous sub districts in Chicago and America, so more patrol cars are in these parts. The less crime you see in each district, the less police you see.