Total posts: 2,049
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I don't want to give speed a pass either, but if we can't get a wagon on speed, bear is the next best thing.
I feels you but won't say more for now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Let's wait and see what Speed has to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
THEN EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION INSTEAD OF TELLING ME I DIDN'T READ THE DP
Luna claims to have a role in which he is privy to the info that scum have 3 mafia players; 1 not in a PM. He said he was mafia in the DP allegedly to test reactions. Apparently someone(s) liked his post saying he was mafia.
Now Lunatic could either be lying about this and faking the whole thing; the post could have been liked by a townie simply thinking he was making a joke; or the post could have been liked by 1 or more of his teammates acknowledging his post as true. The latter would not be a huge risk because nobody knows for sure who liked the post. However Luna deduced it was likely someone online at the time (Pie, Speed, Chris and Croc).
Luna asked everyone to post screen shots proving they were not the ones who liked the post. Even though liking the post would NOT PROVE someone was scum, the fact that nobody admitted to liking it has now made the entire thing suspect. So either Luna is lying and taking a weird ass gambit, which is appearing less likely, or scum does not want to provide screen shots. You have been making incredibly dumb excuses about how screen shots are a "waste of time" even though they literally take 4-15 seconds to to produce. You've said not everyone will have time to provide them even though everyone has already posted, and we shouldn't assume all would be inactive for the next 32 hours (and inactive people would draw suspicion for aforementioned reasons if everyone else provided a screen shot).
So your behavior is just very anti town and your logic is incredibly bad... or you're scum. But anyway, make yourself useful and vote for someone. I think waiting for a wagon to build on Luna is a waste of time, but he's already said he'll claim so you should place your vote elsewhere in the meantime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Pie wants my claim for the sake of just knowing it, and bearman literally hasn't read the day phase and is making mis-assumptions about my reaction test being only about a like, because he's a retarded cunt nugget lol.
Yeah. If you and I stop posting, the day phase would just not go anywhere lol. Should we do it? I'm getting kind of bored of having to tell people that they should be voting or pressuring someone. Pie unvoted you but then didn't vote for Speed or anyone else. Greyparrot isn't pushing the game forward so his presence is useless. Even someone pressuring me for rambling so much would be useful or indicative of giving af, but nobody is doing anything. And it's very hard to read Bearman and Skittlez if they are just meh mafia players. Their logic is flat out wrong and behavior arguably scummy. For this reason I'd be willing to vote them for claims since I have no idea how to read them, but once again I don't feel like doing all the leg work to get people to get on that wagon. So at this point I'm pretty close to just giving up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Are we in agreeable that Lunatic should full claim first thing DP2?
Yep. It's possible he staged this whole thing by liking his own comment lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Screenshots wouldn’t even prove anything cause even if Mafia is the one like, they can take it off and have their buddy like it, screenshot it, and then switch back.
Then why not let them have figured that out on their own and went for it...? Anyways it seems you agree it must have been scum who liked it, or else they would have just said "It was me and I didn't mean anything by it" which I would have believed. Now not so much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
First, most people are inactive. Second, most people are stubborn anyway. It's going to take about the two days of time to get everyone to provide a screenshot of the like button, and even if we do, the person who liked the post can just say they were inactive and didn't know about the like controversy. We don't have enough proof even if they liked to lynch anyone.
Once again I disagree with everything you're saying. It doesn't matter if people are inactive rn when there is nearly 32 hours left in the DP. If 1 or 2 people mysteriously don't post within the next 32 hours, and everyone else was able to provide a screen shot, then it narrows down the 'like' to being from one of those people who hadn't posted.
I never said the 'like' was proof of definitive guilt, and in fact said the opposite multiple times. But I noticed that you have twice dodged my question of why the person hasn't just outright said they liked the post. Literally every single player has posted since Luna's comment on page 1.
At this point you're either a n00b and really poor mafia player (no offense, but your logic is shite) or scum. Everyone keeps suggesting it's the former so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... for now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
my opinion on luna rn is a slight scum read however im willing to hear out his claim next dp
Same which is why I'm not voting for him and would like to focus on someone else for right now.
fair enough however im mainly doing this because greyparrot isnt talking at all he claimed dp1 as vanilla an that was basically it
Greyparrot has already claimed, so you're wasting your time by keeping a vote on him unless you think his lack of activity + randomly claiming his character and role for no reason means he's scum, and you're voting him for death. If that's the case, please say so. If that is not the case, please progress the game by placing your vote elsewhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
If you think I'm suspicious, you're sadly misguided.
Perhaps. Can you explain why you think it's a "waste of time" to share a screen shot which takes about 4-15 seconds to do, and there is 31 hours and 45 mins left in the day phase? If you think it's because the person who liked the post isn't necessarily mafia, then can you explain why you think they haven't just said who they are by now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
that was on page 4 an it was just a hunch
So yesterday it was a gambit he wouldn't pull as scum but now it is...?
the vote on grey parrot was a joke ppl vote random ppl dp1
Anyway, we've generated some discussion since then so who do you want to vote for and pressure for a claim and why? You're asking everyone else but not giving your own reads.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
I am willing to bet the literal guy who liked it isn't mafia.
Like I said, I did not think the correlation was meaningful, but the fact that someone didn't admit to liking it makes me think now that person is scum. If it were you (or Speed, or anyone else) they would have just said "Yeah I liked the post but it didn't mean anything" and I would have agreed. Instead the appearance of trying to hide it and people outright denying the plausibility of any possible correlation reads suspect to me - or at least more suspect than other things we have to go on at this point.
When did he claim?
He didn't; he claimed one aspect of his role. It's possible he is scum trying to bide time and last the DP but meh. It would be a weird gambit.
Asking everyone to provide screenshots to prove that they didn't like the post which isn't even going to benefit town, which wastes town's time anyway. Lunatic's going off on a very thin line of logic that it's "fishy" to like someone's post. MAFIA WOULD NOT MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THEY LIKE THE POST'S CONTENT. It doesn't make any sense.
How do you know it won't benefit town? IF IT WAS A TOWNIE WHO LIKED THE POST (which is very possible if not probable) WHY HAVEN'T THEY JUST SAID SO BY NOW. The fact they haven't is making me think they are less likely town. And how are we "wasting time" when we literally have nothing else to go on and have two whole days left for DP1? What would you prefer we do? It wasn't until just now you voted for Luna even though he hasn't said anything aggressive since the last time you posted. Why didn't you vote for Luna before? The sudden focus on him now when I've done most of the talking since you were last online, along with acting as if screen shots are a massive "waste of time" (it literally takes 15 seconds to take and post one - and we have like 46+hours left for the day phase) is very weird.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Cool. I consider myself a fair debate judge, so if my services are ever needed lemme know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
Lunatic is going off like a madman talking about someone liking the post, which is GETTING NOWHERE. It's gonna take forever to get everyone to provide screenshots, and even if we do, we DON'T KNOW that the person that liked the post is mafia (not enough for a lynch). I don't understand why we're wasting our time doing this weird crap.
I disagree with all of this. #1 He questioned his logic multiple times as well as sought input from others, so that barely even qualifies as tunneling let alone acting like a madman. #2 You say it isn't getting us anywhere but it's the only thing we have to work with whereas everyone else (aside from me) has truly contributed nothing. The astute observations about having "little to go on" day phase 1 by one person after the other is maddening. We know there's not much to go on - we know we have to contrive reads based on having NOTHING to start with. We literally have to scrutinize if not outright fabricate reasons to pressure someone. Luna provided one. Maybe he is lying about his role, maybe not, but he's giving us something to analyze including his own affiliation.
Which brings me to #3 in that I didn't realize Luna was asking us all to submit screen shots - and I will if we're going that route - but this request seems very pro town to me and your response seems very anti town. Even if it would take a long time, we have like 2 days left in the day phase and every player should be posting within that time. You seem very concerned about this. What info do you hope to get by pressuring Luna and why didn't you vote for him earlier?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Libertarians generally support the free flow of people and money, civil liberties, fiscal responsibility, and the protection of private property. Trump is an anti-immigrant protectionist espousing economic populism; he has scaled back civil rights; he has advocated and overseen more spending than any president in memory; and he does not respect private property as he has repeatedly tried to use eminent domain for his border wall. So I do look forward to your justifications of how "libertarian" Trump is lol. I'm amused in advance :)
Btw I forgot to note that when you said Biden would force companies to do things whereas Trump would just incentivize, Trump did use the Defense Production Act to force companies to make PPE and ventilators a few months ago. So yes Trump would force a company's hand if he felt necessary and like all politicians will use government whenever they feel it's justified or worthwhile - such as when Trump sent in the Feds to protests and some threw people into unmarked vans (so libertarian).
You've already hinted that you think it's okay to use government or override individual rights when you believe it's justified as well. Of course the NAP is pretty straightforward and libertarians don't make too many exceptions. It's either force or it's not. It's aggression or it's not. Libertarians don't think what's about in the best interest for "the country" which is Trump's entire shtick. Libertarianism is predicated on INDIVIDUALISM, which makes Trump's "America first" rhetoric incompatible with libertarianism. And his policies and spending reflect that pretty clearly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
How is it different? Well, one spends billions more than the year before, one spends trillions.
Which one spends "billions" more than the year before? You literally just made that up lol. Trump and the 116th Congress have kicked off more than $2.3 trillion in new spending since the start of 2019 alone. Congress increased the money they appropriated by a ton and passed the Bipartisan Budget Act, which enabled nearly $300 billion in additional spending on top of mandated and perpetually ignored discretionary budget caps - and it wasn't all for coronavirus either (not that we give government spending a pass when it's in response to emergencies). So clearly you don't know what you're talking about.
Again I will ask you what difference does it make if they're both spending trillions more? You can't defend Trump's spending because the fact that he increased the size, scope and spend of government beyond his "socialist" predecessor Obama, but is somehow considered "more libertarian" than his Democratic rivals is laughably indefensible.
Don't get confused. It's a private market. Not sure where you're getting "congratulations, the government isn't useless, therefore communism!" from.
Once you start regulating it's arguably not a private market. But I did not say communism was justified, so let me clarify since you just presented a straw man in response to my question. What I asked was if government regulation can provide a better outcome than the market or laissez faire principles here, why stop at trade protectionism - why not apply that to everything else? (I should have said anything else.)
This was a rhetorical question about the efficacy of libertarianism. You said "Free markets are great and ideal, but only if other countries comply and don't extort the policy" which means you think it's okay to override libertarian principles (specifically the NAP) and capitalism, and for the U.S. government to ignore citizen's right to free trade because someone else, like the Chinese government, may be violating their rights too (btw not all libertarians believe in intellectual property but I digress).
That is the antithesis of libertarianism lol. That's like saying yeah guns are great and all, but since so many people abuse them now we can take them away from everyone or regulate them into oblivion in response to OTHER people messing up. That's funny. "China doesn't play fair, therefore, we can now dictate the parameters of your trade and force you to buy more expensive goods through tariffs." Gee thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
yeah i read the discussion an like i said im unsure of speed an are finna wait an see ur claim
Really? Cuz in post #77 you said you town read Luna for what he did per it being a crazy gambit, and your vote is on Greyparrot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
no solid reads rn there isnt alot to go off of
Yes. We all know that. Who are you voting to pressure and why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
True, but I'll still elect for the guy who if by some chance did get his way, it wouldn't go against just about every value I have.
Uhh... if Trump got his way he would be a full blown dictator. He doesn't believe in term limits for himself and has "joked" about extending them or not accepting the election results if he loses. He hates checks and balances and the separation of powers. He has literally praised authoritarian governments, their leaders and how they are run...
Like I said Trump has expanded the size, scope and spending of government more than any other president so how is that different than Biden doing the same if he got his way? Trump invests in defense vs. green infrastructure but that's still government spending; it's still government interference in the market and manipulation of the economy and where we invest tax dollars.
I think protectionist trade policy has its place
If government regulation can provide a better outcome than the market or laissez faire principles here, why stop at trade protectionism - why not apply that to everything else?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I haven’t had much experience in this, but I plan to develop it quickly.
I'm teasing you. I have a pet peeve of people complaining about "nothing happening" when they aren't actively contributing in a meaningful way. With very little to go on, day phase 1 suspicions are necessarily contrived, so it's frustrating when people bring this up as if it's a useful point. But I just realized you are new to the game in which case you get a pass. Welcome! I'm just getting back on DART so I feel a lil new myself.
Why not vote for Speed? Do you have a better candidate for pressure?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
AOC has a more libertarian position on drugs than any other member of Congress. Bernie Sanders and Julian Castro have more libertarian positions on immigration than Rand Paul, Justin Amash or Thomas Massie. Ilhan Omar referred to Obama's foreign policy as "mass murder with a pretty face."
Why is it that opposing Obamacare and loving guns gets you a bunch of libertarian love, while being the foremost critics of police brutality, border enforcement or imperialism doesn't amount to much in credibility in libertarian spaces?
Of course Biden is not as progressive as the aforementioned people so I'm not necessarily disagreeing Trump is more libertarian than him, although I could make that argument if I wanted to. Regarding the "Green New Deal," Biden can't pass anything - Congress has to - and just because a president supports something doesn't mean it will get done, even if you have all branches of government on your side. Just ask Obama what it was like getting the ACA passed and the ACA is infinitely more popular than the GND.
But anyway while I agree the GND or Biden's similar plan isn't very libertarian, neither is Trump's economic populism. Neither are Trump's anti capitalistic trade wars. Trump like Biden said he would consider backing a $15 minimum wage. And sure Biden wants to tax businesses more, but Trump wants to control them. Remember when he gave Foxconn, a Taiwanese manufacturer, a bunch of taxpayer money to get them to move their manufacturing plant in southeastern Wisconsin to create jobs that never materialized? He's done plenty of shit like that.
Trump has also praised authoritarian regimes. His exponential spending has increased our debt and deficit. He increased the breadth of government by adding 2 million federal jobs to the payroll and public sector. He dog whistles to white supremacists, plays to nativism by increasing Islamophobia and has asked his supporters to attack protesters among other dismissals of first amendment protections (the constant attacks on the media being questionable as well).
Trump hates all checks and balances that weaken his power. He dismisses those that challenge his authority. He thinks executive agencies are his own personal fiefdoms there to protect and defend his agenda rather than safeguard against public corruption. So eh. I'm sure if I did a point by point analysis I would draw the same conclusion about Trump being more libertarian than Biden... I just think that no libertarian should support Trump over Biden.
In theory Trump might sound more libertarian, but in actuality government has grown in size, scope and spending since he took office while our civil liberties have arguably decreased, and Trump loves the expansion and utility of state/government power like sending in the Feds or backing police 100% of the time. It's just such a weird correlation when I think about Trump and liberty lovers. It don't make no sense.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Without rapists, who's gonna buy your whistles?
There are many things wrong with the critique of capitalism presented in the OP, but just for the record there could be zero rapes and you could still sell a shit ton of rape whistles so long as #1 people still fear rape will occur and #2 people think rapes are being deterred by the whistles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
eh, not really policy-wise. Especially if you consider yourself even remotely libertarian
How is Trump more libertarian? Not disagreeing - just curious of your reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Largely what I expected: a lot of accusations with little evidence. Enjoy watching it play out, though.
I'm glad you are enjoying yourself :) Now tell us how you will make yourself useful.
Created:
Trump is racist. One pretty clear example of this (there are many, some more obvious than others) was when he told four brown Congresswomen, three of them born in the U.S., to "go back to the countries they came from" if they wanted to criticize the US. Meanwhile Trump's campaign was literally predicated on criticizing the U.S. (Make America Great Again implies it was no longer great).
If anything Trump's constituents are anti-American. They believe the wrong side won the Civil War. They openly fly the flag of the enemy. They constantly berate the country and claim that some of our best cities are third world hellish wastelands. They don't care about and often explicitly wish harm on many of their fellow countrymen. They actively oppose liberal democracy and all its institutions, from voter enfranchisement to the separation of powers. They resent the free market and call for the quelling of private enterprise in exchange for nationalist economic populism spearheaded by the government (like Bernie Bros but worse). They shit on immigrants even though we are a nation of immigrants...
Which brings me back to the original point. Telling these Congresswomen they are somehow LESS AMERICAN than Trump and all of his followers for criticizing America is obviously ridiculous, and implicitly racist as Trump has never made this dumb remark to any white person regardless of political affiliation. Why would we assume they are from other countries...? He's such a tool.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Why are you acting like me and Bear are the only ones who could have liked the post?
I didn't say that. I said you're the best person to pressure and I maintain that now.
And why would I like a post as a "hint" when the person who posted can't see who liked it?
I don't know if you liked it or not, but #1 Luna might assume it was liked by a player that was actively posting (which was you, Chris, Croc and Pie at the time) and #2 maybe that's what the "Huh" reply to him was for in response to draw attention to it. Not sure. Why would mafia make their profile picture their fake character claim? Scum misfires sometimes...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Listen to 4 lawyers talk about it. If you have the patience.
Well right off the bat the black lawyer starts saying Breonna Taylor's apartment was a stash house. There is zero evidence of that. He says there is surveillance of cars going to her house, picking up drugs and then going back to the trap houses. That is wrong. Cops have video surveillance of her and the ex bf driving somewhere together - there is no proof at all whatsoever of drug deliveries.
In order to get the warrant police said they surveilled her ex boyfriend leaving her house with a "suspected USPS package in his right hand." The bf said it was clothes and shoes, and the Louisville Postal Inspector looked into it. He said his office found no sign of suspicious mail going to Taylor’s apartment.
The police surveilled the ex bf going to her apartment in January and as a result suspected she had drugs and money there. They did not find any. There is no evidence that substantiates the claim that Taylor was handling drugs or money for anyone.
Nate The Lawyer references Breonna telling her ex on the recorded jail call that his drug buddy was "back at the trap" house, but of course that proves positively nothing about her involvement in drug activity. She dated this guy on and off for two years - obviously she knows he's a drug dealer.
I wanted to have the patience to watch this, but if they're just gonna share half truths and falsehoods, meh. Appealing to a lawyer's authority only has so much utility for me. First of all my wife is a brilliant attorney so I prefer her takes to most, and secondly I know lawyers are not always right all the time and that's why we argue so much (jk, we argue for the make-up pillow fights).
Seriously though I think they make some good points (from the few minutes I watched) about not necessarily convicting the cops who acted on the warrant - it wasn't their fault the warrant was trash. That's the city's fault; it's the department's fault and others should be held accountable -- not just the tax payers who have to pay 12 million dollars to the family because law enforcement failed to do their job properly. I'm tired of tax payers footing the bill for this shit.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump: “I’ve rejected the KKK from the time I was 5 years old"CNN headline: "Trump shockingly admits he was a white supremacist at age 4 in a rare moment of honesty."
Lol, true. I just don't get the focus on CNN though when every single media outlet is biased. There are so many right wing rags and bullshit punditry by bitch ass conservative momos, including ya boy Tucker Carlson whose commentary is flat out garbage. I can't stand his pearl clutching outrage predicated on straw mans even more annoying than his stupid face. He's a fucking idiot.
I get why people are upset at "fake news" and all - I just don't get the hyperfocus on CNN. And I can't take it seriously from conservatives who don't acknowledge the fact that Trump put Steve Bannon, former editor of BREITBART, in his inner circle. Like we're gonna criticize CNN but turn a blind eye to giving a position to the guy who spearheads Breitbart? Mmk. More reasons right wing faux outrage can't be taken seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Btw, I am so glad you are on board here
Aww thanks - we'll have a great day phase together and then you're on your own lol. I hope you're town.
I'm voting for Speed cuz everyone has posted and so far he's the best person to pressure for a claim.
I only know MisterChris from DP1 of last game but I didn't think anything was weird about his A.B.C. comment.
Created:
Posted in:
It doesn't look like Bearman had posted yet when Luna made that "I win with the mafia" post. Do we suspect he was online?
The thing is if Speed was scum and liked Luna's post as a hint, I don't see why'd he follow that up with "Huh" and draw attention to it. If he is scum and believed Luna was scum with him, he'd want Luna to shut up and stay under the radar (unless he knew Luna was lying and was trying to get info about his role which is possible). Hmm.
Created:
Posted in:
Re: liking Luna's post, I agree with Bearman and Speed that liking a post (especially if you thought it was a joke) is not indicative of being mafia - at all. But I also agree with Luna that if you liked his post and want to fess up to it, that's fine, but I find it very odd that no one admitted to liking it. Had Speed or Bearman (or anyone) said "I liked your post cuz I thought you were kidding and that doesn't mean shit" I would fully understand and agree with that logic. But the fact that they're disagreeing with him and they nor anyone else will admit to being the one to like his post has me thinking that the person that liked the post WAS in fact acknowledging being a scum partner. Of course we have no idea who that was, but if Luna says he can deduce by time frame I would give that enough credibility to pressure them for a claim. @Luna, do you wanna pressure one of them in particular? I can look back and see what I think. I don't know Bearman so I'd probs have a harder time reading him than Speed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
By the way, the profile picture is not necessarily a hint toward my identity. . . (Since this was a big deal in the last game)
Well I was right :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Lol @ trying to turn your blatant reading comprehension failure into "mental gymnastics" on my part. Take a seat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I never said it was different than what FDR did "lmao" nor did I say I agree with it. I said the opposite -- that I don't like the idea of court packing and that it was bad for democracy and the judicial system... but we've already established you're barely literate so it doesn't surprise me you got that wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
They say it's exaggerated.
Broken windows policing is not an opinion. It's a criminology theory that says it's valuable to prosecute petty crimes. If your parents disagree with this (you said they were against Kamala doing it) then they must be against the kind of policing Trump supports since Trump and all of his advisors are for that same thing...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
"There is no stare decisis in the selection of Supreme Court Justices."
Right... I never said there was. I've already clarified but it's obvious you still have no idea what I meant. I said "Packing the court is very bad for democracy and the judicial system, but Democrats have no choice if certain precedents are not adhered to." The precedents I am referring to are ones like the rulings on gay marriage and healthcare which I just specified in my last post. In other words, if Dems think these issues are on the table because ACB will not follow Supreme Court precedent, they think it's justifiable to pack the court because these issues are that important to them. I wasn't talking at all about the "historical precedent" of appointing judges, which is why the article you shared about it was useless and wholly irrelevant to my point.
Next time just say you don't know what I'm referring to instead of acting like I'm "wrong" when you have no idea what I'm talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I shudder to watch the South Amerification of the USA.
Relax. No need to start shaking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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 :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
Edit: there is one good argument for the EC, but more and better arguments against it. That's another topic though :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hehe. I just wanted to be clear that being "paid to protest" is a false conspiracy theory peddled incessantly by right-wing retards, and also by left-wing anti Semites (many of them black). It's some Alex Jones type horse shit and deserves ridicule every time it's mentioned. It's almost in the same realm as "crisis actors." So I'm pretty relaxed but just wanted to clarify your claim was false. You are talking about the overly litigious people and subsequent "ambulance chasers" that intentionally seek out conflict or injury just to sue. Those people exist but #1 is not the same as being paid to protest, so I wanted to confirm that talking point that Q Anon and others on the right whine about is not accurate, and #2 the examples you cited were right-wing agitators and provocateurs - not CNN. Obviously if you're going to double down on making a point by citing a bunch of irrelevant links I'm going to call it out. You tried to make a point and failed and now you're shifting goal posts by saying you weren't actually talking about "paid protesters" but something else entirely. The overwhelming majority of protesters don't sue. You're just whining and can't back up what you said. Periodt.
Created:
Posted in:
Packing the court is very bad for democracy and the judicial system, but Democrats have no choice if certain precedents are not adhered to. If the status quo of politicians is going to be manipulating every possible legal loophole to advance your ideology then this is a logical next step for Dems, and their constituents will want them to do it. I agree the Republicans also have no moral high ground to stand on when it comes to this issue. At all. Very sad that it's come to this. The best thing to do would be to let the next president pick the Judge. If Republicans are really so confident about being "the silent majority" they should have no problem with this at all whatsoever. Clearly they don't actually believe that.
Created: