Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Smokey, Depends on how many of them get in. Obama's two appointments are probably safe (that's 2), Kennedy swings liberal on LGBT issues (abortion is iffy, but let's say that's 3), Roberts values the integrity of the system above all use and is probably unwilling to overturn precedents without cause (that's 4). He might swing right on abortion though.
On the other side we have Scalia's replacement (bad). Then we have Bayer and Ginsberg, who you better hope live and don't retire while Trump is Fuhrer. Thomas and Aliito are just as bad as Scalia was.
So, assuming Trump gets to appoint one judge, gay marriage is at 5-4 in favor, while abortion is iffy. If he only replaces right-wing judges that holds out.
If Ginsberg, Bayer or even Kennedy die or retire? Things get ugly and fast. And stay that way for decades.
edited 10th Nov '16 1:08:09 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.First of all we'd need a challenge from the lower courts regarding abortion or gay marriage, and Kennedy has already signaled that he'd side with the other four liberal justices in the case of gay marriage. And Roberts hasn't been outright against gay marriage but treated it as a matter of popular mandate, which could be his way of covering his ass over personal biases, but not entirely wrong.
Abortion is the bigger risk I think, marriage equality is probably secure thanks to Kennedy and Roberts.
Now if the worse happens and Trump gets to replace the three older liberal/moderate Justices in addition to Scalia (Ginsberg, Bayer, Kennedy), yeah the US is probably screwed and there's nothing anyone can do about it short of major reform or waiting generations.
edited 10th Nov '16 1:10:27 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.I'm getting very tired of this conspiracy theory BS. Post a link from an actual news source if you're going to claim garbage like this.
Yeah it comes down to if Trump gets to replace a liberal/moderate judge or not, he may need to replace two to get things overturned due to the moderate judges not wanting to trash the S Cs reputation. But one could be enough if the moderate republican judges swing towards crazy town.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
Wikileaks had a leaked email that said as much. Whether or you not you believe it was authentic is up to you, but the DNC really needs to look at their nomination process in the post-mortem in this election, in addition to looking at the causes of their defeat in the general election.
Magical thinking didn't stop President-Elect Trump from becoming a reality, and while conventional wisdom would indicate Sanders was a vastly inferior candidate to Clinon, his massive upsets in the midwestern primaries (which eerily foreshadowed Trump's rust belt victories) merits serious investigation by the party.
edited 10th Nov '16 1:17:42 PM by CaptainCapsase
I know previous courts weren't willing to overturn a predecessor's ruling, but I doubt his picks would care.
Trump only needs to appoint political hacks to the bench to use any case caused by the GOP get oppressive at the state level. He already has two, and Roberts and Kennedy are unreliable on certain issues. Two or more justice from Trump, and the Supreme Court becomes a rubber stamp for the GOP.
Honestly, the US Supreme Court is a total disgrace by any standard. Judges are supposed to be apolitical.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.The DNC will probably need to take up a dramatically laissez-faire approach, funding whichever candidate wins and immediately falling in line — it would stymie the accusation of tampering if they're completely hands off.
Being completely apolitical is impossible.
edited 10th Nov '16 1:21:39 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
Don't think this has been posted yet. Jim Cornette has something to say about the election. For those who don't know Cornette was a wrestling promoter, he is a Caustic Critic of the promotions and talent. He is a proud atheist and staunch Liberal. He is essentially a traditionalist and model of stereotype of a Republican except he is all for gun control, all for Obamacare, and here...well, he admits he has anger problems and he cuts a promo here.
![]()
I hate to say this, but they also need to take a long, hard look at whether or not they did in fact push down on the scale hard enough to change the result. If wikileaks is to be believed, they scheduled the primaries in a way they thought would benefit Clinton over a potential challenger from the left, presumably in response what happened in 2008 with Obama. They have those emails, and they know whether or not that actually happened.
![]()
![]()
Maybe. But its clear that the American judicial system is too politicized by democratic standards. At the highest levels it looks and acts like a Banana Republic.
Around campus I'm still feeling an annoying air of "they were both terrible so, eh."
But I will say, I don't see the part against arguing "Bernie should have gotten it" one, because if he couldn't get enough people to vote for him I don't particularly care if most millennials (of which I am one) wanted him or not, and two, when the stakes are Trump it just makes the "lesser of two evils" argument even stupider than I already think it is. There was no meaningful "principled" vote here.
As an aside, I had a conversation with a Bernie turned Stein supporter and I really hope the Dems don't take away from this what he wants them too.
edited 10th Nov '16 1:44:23 PM by LSBK
![]()
Are you capable of doing more than parroting the same five or so platitudes about how much you despise the US over and over again? I'm starting to wonder why you even hang around here if you're not going to actually contribute anything useful to discussion.
edited 10th Nov '16 1:41:33 PM by AlleyOop
@LSBK: I agree, but I'm still fairly confident in my assertion that Sanders would have won; his primary upsets in the midwest (beating polls by around 13 points in Michigan IIRC) mirror Trump's critical states far too well for me to dismiss it as a coincidence (though obviously without extensive study into what happened we can't be certain), and while he probably would've done much worse in southern swing states like Florida and North Carolina, Trump won those anyway.
He might very well have lost Nevada to Trump, which means a Trump victory if he couldn't have contested PA, but that's a much closer race electorally than what we got.
edited 10th Nov '16 1:49:17 PM by CaptainCapsase

No, that is a new information.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman