The Supreme Court, Mitch McConnell and the Wages of Hypocrisy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Saelune:
SNIP

You know Hilary was the con right? She cheated to win the nomination. Voting totals were changed, she got help from debate moderators, and the DNC was openly weighing the scales in her favor. Bernie was the real liberal, democratic candidate. Hilary was a conservative hawk Democrat(historically pro-War and anti-gay and anti-black) who rigged a democratic election in her favor, and unfortunately believed her own bullshit that her faked poll numbers were real and that she actually had a chance in the general election.
Hilary conned the Democratic party(meaning the actual voters) and now the nation is paying the price.

Bernie could have beat Trump. Hilary never had a chance.

erttheking:

Silentpony:
If I had to guess what will happen, Trump will get his second appointment through, he'll fire Robert Mueller, Mueller will go to the Supreme Court to reverse is, they'll side with Donald Trump, then Trump will move to have RowVWade removed, same-sex marriage removed, the 4th amendment removed(Gorsuch has already said that's his goal) and then probably the 22nd Amendment because we all know Trump wants to be president for life.

Yeah, great, thanks, really helpful with the "I'm trying to resist the urge to kill myself" thing I'm working on right now.

Oh just try to outlive the bastard. Trump is a obese, heart disease and dementia riddled 72 year old drug user who thinks its unhealthy to workout. Even when he cancels the next election he'll die in office.

That is one thing that sticks in my craw about current era Republicans and Trump cultists. They're acting like they'll never be out of power, that no one will ever hold them to account, as if Trump literally is the God-Emperor of Mankind and when he dies of a heart-attack he'll be interned in the Golden Throne and be alive for 10 millennia. Even if Trump sets himself up for president for life, he'll be dead in less than 10 years. What then? Do Republicans think Mike Pence will declare himself God-Emperor 2.0?

Silentpony:
If I had to guess what will happen, Trump will get his second appointment through, he'll fire Robert Mueller, Mueller will go to the Supreme Court to reverse is, they'll side with Donald Trump, then Trump will move to have RowVWade removed, same-sex marriage removed, the 4th amendment removed(Gorsuch has already said that's his goal) and then probably the 22nd Amendment because we all know Trump wants to be president for life.

I'm not quite sure Mueller could go to the supreme court no matter what, the law are pretty clear on that. DOJ can fire special prosecutor and president can fire and appoint DOJ heads. This is supposed to the be kept in check by the chambers since its a blatant abuse of power and if they don't do anything then the population is supposed to vote them out... except the population clearly does not care about abuse of power, as demonstrated by the turtle Mitch McConeell.

Meiam:

Silentpony:
If I had to guess what will happen, Trump will get his second appointment through, he'll fire Robert Mueller, Mueller will go to the Supreme Court to reverse is, they'll side with Donald Trump, then Trump will move to have RowVWade removed, same-sex marriage removed, the 4th amendment removed(Gorsuch has already said that's his goal) and then probably the 22nd Amendment because we all know Trump wants to be president for life.

I'm not quite sure Mueller could go to the supreme court no matter what, the law are pretty clear on that. DOJ can fire special prosecutor and president can fire and appoint DOJ heads. This is supposed to the be kept in check by the chambers since its a blatant abuse of power and if they don't do anything then the population is supposed to vote them out... except the population clearly does not care about abuse of power, as demonstrated by the turtle Mitch McConeell.

Actually Mueller could challenge being fired under the Wrongful Termination clause. For example if Mueller is investigating Trump for crimes, and Trump fires him to prevent that, that's not legally allowed and the supreme court could reverse the firing.
Also in terms of pardons, Mueller can challenge those in court too. I think the phrase is 'In regards to due justice'. The example always given is the President can't have a friend rob a federal bank, then pardon him and they split the money. If the president stands to benefit personally or legally from a pardon he can't issue it, or at least a court can over-turn it.

Blood Brain Barrier:

Saelune:

BreakfastMan:

lolno. Sorry, none of this is true, in any way. Wanting the democrats to be an actual left-leaning party didn't cause Trump.

If you cared about left-wing values, you would do anything to keep Trump out of power.

The short term game doesn't tell the full story here. Electing a moderate like Hilary sure wasn't going to help bring in left-wing values. Trump might be the best thing that "people who care about left-wing values" could have wanted if, by the end of his term, people look at the state of the country and see how much damage he has done. And policies can always be reversed.

Remember where the term "left-wing" came from - revolutionary change, not keeping the status quo.

Scalia tormented our country for 30 years. 1986-2016. Short term my ass.

Silentpony:

Saelune:
SNIP

You know Hilary was the con right? She cheated to win the nomination. Voting totals were changed, she got help from debate moderators, and the DNC was openly weighing the scales in her favor. Bernie was the real liberal, democratic candidate. Hilary was a conservative hawk Democrat(historically pro-War and anti-gay and anti-black) who rigged a democratic election in her favor, and unfortunately believed her own bullshit that her faked poll numbers were real and that she actually had a chance in the general election.
Hilary conned the Democratic party(meaning the actual voters) and now the nation is paying the price.

Bernie could have beat Trump. Hilary never had a chance.

Screwing over Bernie Sanders is a far less of a loss than Trump screwing over the entire country and large chunks of Mexico and the rest of the world.

Silentpony:

Meiam:

Silentpony:
If I had to guess what will happen, Trump will get his second appointment through, he'll fire Robert Mueller, Mueller will go to the Supreme Court to reverse is, they'll side with Donald Trump, then Trump will move to have RowVWade removed, same-sex marriage removed, the 4th amendment removed(Gorsuch has already said that's his goal) and then probably the 22nd Amendment because we all know Trump wants to be president for life.

I'm not quite sure Mueller could go to the supreme court no matter what, the law are pretty clear on that. DOJ can fire special prosecutor and president can fire and appoint DOJ heads. This is supposed to the be kept in check by the chambers since its a blatant abuse of power and if they don't do anything then the population is supposed to vote them out... except the population clearly does not care about abuse of power, as demonstrated by the turtle Mitch McConeell.

Actually Mueller could challenge being fired under the Wrongful Termination clause. For example if Mueller is investigating Trump for crimes, and Trump fires him to prevent that, that's not legally allowed and the supreme court could reverse the firing.
Also in terms of pardons, Mueller can challenge those in court too. I think the phrase is 'In regards to due justice'. The example always given is the President can't have a friend rob a federal bank, then pardon him and they split the money. If the president stands to benefit personally or legally from a pardon he can't issue it, or at least a court can over-turn it.

Hum, but yeah that's definitely something the conservative judge would side against. Trump could flat out says he's just firing him because he's about to prove he's a criminal and they'd say you can't use context.

That is one thing that sticks in my craw about current era Republicans and Trump cultists. They're acting like they'll never be out of power, that no one will ever hold them to account, as if Trump literally is the God-Emperor of Mankind and when he dies of a heart-attack he'll be interned in the Golden Throne and be alive for 10 millennia. Even if Trump sets himself up for president for life, he'll be dead in less than 10 years. What then? Do Republicans think Mike Pence will declare himself God-Emperor 2.0?

They're mostly in damage control mode. They know that demographic are heavily against them and they need to rig the system ASAP before being voted out forever, so that's why there sticking to Trump like crazy. They'll change the system to suppress vote against them as much as possible and give them advantages(watch the census, they'll try to make it seems like rural region have more people than they actually do so they count for more in the electoral). Once that's done, it doesn't matter what happen to Trump, they might well kick him out themselves if he become an hindrance, they'll be assured to win the next election anyway.

Saelune:

Silentpony:

Saelune:
SNIP

You know Hilary was the con right? She cheated to win the nomination. Voting totals were changed, she got help from debate moderators, and the DNC was openly weighing the scales in her favor. Bernie was the real liberal, democratic candidate. Hilary was a conservative hawk Democrat(historically pro-War and anti-gay and anti-black) who rigged a democratic election in her favor, and unfortunately believed her own bullshit that her faked poll numbers were real and that she actually had a chance in the general election.
Hilary conned the Democratic party(meaning the actual voters) and now the nation is paying the price.

Bernie could have beat Trump. Hilary never had a chance.

Screwing over Bernie Sanders is a far less of a loss than Trump screwing over the entire country and large chunks of Mexico and the rest of the world.

And if the primaries had no bearing on the national election, I would fully agree. Unfortunately whoever wins the primary goes on to be the national candidate, and if you 'win' a primary with rigged polling and backroom deals you're not exactly set up to win a national election which are much harder to rig.
Not saying Bernie would have beaten Trump, but he had a greater chance than Hilary and she stole the Primary and then fucked up the national election, thus screwing over the entire country and large chunks of Mexico and the rest of the world.

Silentpony:

Saelune:

Silentpony:

You know Hilary was the con right? She cheated to win the nomination. Voting totals were changed, she got help from debate moderators, and the DNC was openly weighing the scales in her favor. Bernie was the real liberal, democratic candidate. Hilary was a conservative hawk Democrat(historically pro-War and anti-gay and anti-black) who rigged a democratic election in her favor, and unfortunately believed her own bullshit that her faked poll numbers were real and that she actually had a chance in the general election.
Hilary conned the Democratic party(meaning the actual voters) and now the nation is paying the price.

Bernie could have beat Trump. Hilary never had a chance.

Screwing over Bernie Sanders is a far less of a loss than Trump screwing over the entire country and large chunks of Mexico and the rest of the world.

And if the primaries had no bearing on the national election, I would fully agree. Unfortunately whoever wins the primary goes on to be the national candidate, and if you 'win' a primary with rigged polling and backroom deals you're not exactly set up to win a national election which are much harder to rig.
Not saying Bernie would have beaten Trump, but he had a greater chance than Hilary and she stole the Primary and then fucked up the national election, thus screwing over the entire country and large chunks of Mexico and the rest of the world.

If Bernie could have beat Trump, it is out of sexism. And I am not saying that just cause Hillary is a woman, but because for some strange reason all the powerful Dem women are so vilified, even by their own side when they are not actually so bad. People hate on Pelosi so much, why? Its not cause she is terrible.

Saelune:
SNIP

Not saying sexism wasn't part of the reason Trump won, but keep in mind Trump won the majority of white women voters. So if it was sexism, white women were just as sexist.
But I think its a little...silly to ignore political views in a political election. For example Bernie never called black kids Super Predators. Hilary did. And if that was a deciding factor for a black voter is that sexism or is that political?
Remember the party line was that Hilary was more popular with the African American community that Obama was, and on election day it turns out that really wasn't true. Was that sexism?

Again not saying sexism wasn't a factor, but there were legitimate reasons to dislike Hilary that have nothing to do with her gender, and regardless of her gender she ran a horrifically bad campaign and ignored multiple key states.

Saelune:

Silentpony:

Saelune:
SNIP

You know Hilary was the con right? She cheated to win the nomination. Voting totals were changed, she got help from debate moderators, and the DNC was openly weighing the scales in her favor. Bernie was the real liberal, democratic candidate. Hilary was a conservative hawk Democrat(historically pro-War and anti-gay and anti-black) who rigged a democratic election in her favor, and unfortunately believed her own bullshit that her faked poll numbers were real and that she actually had a chance in the general election.
Hilary conned the Democratic party(meaning the actual voters) and now the nation is paying the price.

Bernie could have beat Trump. Hilary never had a chance.

Screwing over Bernie Sanders is a far less of a loss than Trump screwing over the entire country and large chunks of Mexico and the rest of the world.

As you enjoy Nazi comparisons so much, Bernie Sander's loss was the Treaty of Versailles to Trumps Nazi rise to power.

While it did no direct harm, it created the opportunity for the true harm to take place.

Silentpony:

Saelune:
SNIP

Not saying sexism wasn't part of the reason Trump won, but keep in mind Trump won the majority of white women voters. So if it was sexism, white women were just as sexist.
But I think its a little...silly to ignore political views in a political election. For example Bernie never called black kids Super Predators. Hilary did. And if that was a deciding factor for a black voter is that sexism or is that political?
Remember the party line was that Hilary was more popular with the African American community that Obama was, and on election day it turns out that really wasn't true. Was that sexism?

Again not saying sexism wasn't a factor, but there were legitimate reasons to dislike Hilary that have nothing to do with her gender, and regardless of her gender she ran a horrifically bad campaign and ignored multiple key states.

See, all of this just deflates when you put it up against Trump. Like, Trump was so blatantly horrible, there is no excuse. Some Republicans are capable of presenting themselves as humans, but not Trump. Maybe if Hillary was against one of those, I could sit back and accept your answer, but Trump did everything he could short of literally saying 'I like Hitler' (and he has said a lot of things close to that) to prove how horrible he is.

No, anyone who can sit back and not vote against Trump knew what they were doing. No excuses, no denial of responsibility, no cop outs.

And Trump's ENTIRE PRESIDENCY has been vindication after vindication that I am right.

Abomination:

Saelune:

Silentpony:

You know Hilary was the con right? She cheated to win the nomination. Voting totals were changed, she got help from debate moderators, and the DNC was openly weighing the scales in her favor. Bernie was the real liberal, democratic candidate. Hilary was a conservative hawk Democrat(historically pro-War and anti-gay and anti-black) who rigged a democratic election in her favor, and unfortunately believed her own bullshit that her faked poll numbers were real and that she actually had a chance in the general election.
Hilary conned the Democratic party(meaning the actual voters) and now the nation is paying the price.

Bernie could have beat Trump. Hilary never had a chance.

Screwing over Bernie Sanders is a far less of a loss than Trump screwing over the entire country and large chunks of Mexico and the rest of the world.

As you enjoy Nazi comparisons so much, Bernie Sander's loss was the Treaty of Versailles to Trumps Nazi rise to power.

While it did no direct harm, it created the opportunity for the true harm to take place.

Bernie is the surrendering of France.

Silentpony:

erttheking:

Silentpony:
If I had to guess what will happen, Trump will get his second appointment through, he'll fire Robert Mueller, Mueller will go to the Supreme Court to reverse is, they'll side with Donald Trump, then Trump will move to have RowVWade removed, same-sex marriage removed, the 4th amendment removed(Gorsuch has already said that's his goal) and then probably the 22nd Amendment because we all know Trump wants to be president for life.

Yeah, great, thanks, really helpful with the "I'm trying to resist the urge to kill myself" thing I'm working on right now.

Oh just try to outlive the bastard. Trump is a obese, heart disease and dementia riddled 72 year old drug user who thinks its unhealthy to workout. Even when he cancels the next election he'll die in office.

That is one thing that sticks in my craw about current era Republicans and Trump cultists. They're acting like they'll never be out of power, that no one will ever hold them to account, as if Trump literally is the God-Emperor of Mankind and when he dies of a heart-attack he'll be interned in the Golden Throne and be alive for 10 millennia. Even if Trump sets himself up for president for life, he'll be dead in less than 10 years. What then? Do Republicans think Mike Pence will declare himself God-Emperor 2.0?

Take a look at Venezuela, and you'll have a glimpse of the future. Since 1999, that country has fallen into a nationalist dictatorship after Hugo Chavez was elected. And even after Chav?z died in 2013, while 90% of their population lives in poverty, his regime still continues thanks to his cultists:

"Chavez vive. La lucha sigue" (Chav?z lives. The struggle continues)

Will you outlive 19+ years of poverty?

Silentpony:

erttheking:

Silentpony:
If I had to guess what will happen, Trump will get his second appointment through, he'll fire Robert Mueller, Mueller will go to the Supreme Court to reverse is, they'll side with Donald Trump, then Trump will move to have RowVWade removed, same-sex marriage removed, the 4th amendment removed(Gorsuch has already said that's his goal) and then probably the 22nd Amendment because we all know Trump wants to be president for life.

Yeah, great, thanks, really helpful with the "I'm trying to resist the urge to kill myself" thing I'm working on right now.

Oh just try to outlive the bastard. Trump is a obese, heart disease and dementia riddled 72 year old drug user who thinks its unhealthy to workout. Even when he cancels the next election he'll die in office.

That is one thing that sticks in my craw about current era Republicans and Trump cultists. They're acting like they'll never be out of power, that no one will ever hold them to account, as if Trump literally is the God-Emperor of Mankind and when he dies of a heart-attack he'll be interned in the Golden Throne and be alive for 10 millennia. Even if Trump sets himself up for president for life, he'll be dead in less than 10 years. What then? Do Republicans think Mike Pence will declare himself God-Emperor 2.0?

My racist great grandmother refuses to die at 90something. (Though she surprised me by actually voting for Hillary, despite thinking women should stay out of men's jobs)

Saelune:
Bernie is the surrendering of France.

France did not invade itself.

The Treaty of Versailles was the Democratic party getting greedy and shooting itself in the foot.

bastardofmelbourne:
Saelune's right.

People who declined to vote for Clinton - or who voted third party - on the basis of desiring a more left-leaning Democratic party essentially surrendered Garland's seat and allowed the Republicans to set a conservative judiciary who will still be handing down conservative decisions decades from now.

You mean right after Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer surrendered that seat? If they won't stand up, why should we stand for them?

CaitSeith:
And even after Chav?z died in 2013, while 90% of their population lives in poverty, his regime still continues thanks to his cultists

Chavista "cultists" are the working class poor in that country who have an understanding of what global capitalism has done to them and an understanding of their own situation and why they are in it. No, that understanding does not perfectly align with capitalist media propaganda.

Silentpony:

erttheking:

Silentpony:
If I had to guess what will happen, Trump will get his second appointment through, he'll fire Robert Mueller, Mueller will go to the Supreme Court to reverse is, they'll side with Donald Trump, then Trump will move to have RowVWade removed, same-sex marriage removed, the 4th amendment removed(Gorsuch has already said that's his goal) and then probably the 22nd Amendment because we all know Trump wants to be president for life.

Yeah, great, thanks, really helpful with the "I'm trying to resist the urge to kill myself" thing I'm working on right now.

Oh just try to outlive the bastard. Trump is a obese, heart disease and dementia riddled 72 year old drug user who thinks its unhealthy to workout. Even when he cancels the next election he'll die in office.

That is one thing that sticks in my craw about current era Republicans and Trump cultists. They're acting like they'll never be out of power, that no one will ever hold them to account, as if Trump literally is the God-Emperor of Mankind and when he dies of a heart-attack he'll be interned in the Golden Throne and be alive for 10 millennia. Even if Trump sets himself up for president for life, he'll be dead in less than 10 years. What then? Do Republicans think Mike Pence will declare himself God-Emperor 2.0?

You're right when it comes to most form of government and Trump himself in that they won't be in power forever, but the thing that's really got me concerned is the courts. Judges appointed by Trump will maintain those positions until they die, retire, or are impeached, and impeachment of a judge is very rare from what I understand. We're gonna be feeling the pain from this presidency for goddamn decades.

erttheking:
and impeachment of a judge is very rare from what I understand.

Non-existent rather than rare, IIRC, just after the SCOTUS was formed, they tried impeaching one of them, but didn't get it to stick. They've not even tried again in about 200 years.

Thaluikhain:

erttheking:
and impeachment of a judge is very rare from what I understand.

Non-existent rather than rare, IIRC, just after the SCOTUS was formed, they tried impeaching one of them, but didn't get it to stick. They've not even tried again in about 200 years.

To be fair I was referring to the impeachment of all federal level judges, not just SCOTUS.

erttheking:

Thaluikhain:

erttheking:
and impeachment of a judge is very rare from what I understand.

Non-existent rather than rare, IIRC, just after the SCOTUS was formed, they tried impeaching one of them, but didn't get it to stick. They've not even tried again in about 200 years.

To be fair I was referring to the impeachment of all federal level judges, not just SCOTUS.

Ah, ok, fair enough.

bastardofmelbourne:

The plan is to get a replacement for Kennedy before the Senate and confirmed as soon as possible before the November midterm elections take place. For nearly a year, McConnell shrugged off calls to hold hearings on Garland's nomination, because there was no rule saying that he couldn't do that. Now he's doing the opposite, because there's no rule saying that he can't, and because Republican voters refuse to punish their elected representatives for their dishonesty and hypocrisy. Mitch McConnell is playing fucking Calvinball and getting away with it.

The harsh reality is that the Democratic Party are a bunch of losers.

They can see the rules just like anyone else, and where the Republican party whips their backsides with manipulations (noting of course that the Democrats aren't above their own gerrymandering and procedural hijinx), they fall back on some vague moral high ground and fair play that they can't seem to translate into votes.

So get ready for another ultra-right winger for the Supreme Court and control of it for years to come... the Democrats are just going to have to cry into their cappucinos until some other of 9 oldsters snuffs it or otherwise can't keep up. And that's most likely to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, so with Trump eyeing up another four years, maybe the liberal justices will be 7-2 down soon enough. If Trump's really lucky, he'll manage to appoint someone about 50 who can sit there for well over 30 years.

Seanchaidh:

CaitSeith:
And even after Chavez died in 2013, while 90% of their population lives in poverty, his regime still continues thanks to his cultists

Chavista "cultists" are the working class poor in that country who have an understanding of what global capitalism has done to them and an understanding of their own situation and why they are in it.

One would think then that with such understanding they would had gotten out of their crisis after 19 years...

CaitSeith:

Seanchaidh:

CaitSeith:
And even after Chavez died in 2013, while 90% of their population lives in poverty, his regime still continues thanks to his cultists

Chavista "cultists" are the working class poor in that country who have an understanding of what global capitalism has done to them and an understanding of their own situation and why they are in it.

One would think then that with such understanding they would had gotten out of their crisis after 19 years...

Who is this "one", and why are they unaware of the violent fascist opposition funded by the United States, the capital strikes and foreign sanctions that constitute an economic war against the Maduro government, the fact that the country has never been wealthy (if they've been in a 19 year crisis, they've been in a multiple centuries long crisis by the same standard)?

Venezuela's problem is that its economy is still controlled by capitalists. One thing neither Hugo Chavez nor Nicolas Maduro did was change to any significant degree the amount of private vs. state control (for the longest time it's hovered around 2/3 private). Their selective nationalization caused capitalists in their country great indigestion but ultimately did not achieve worker control of the means of production (nor was that the aim). Private companies in Venezuela have been caught hoarding a bunch of food and medical goods; that's a problem of capitalism, not socialism. They have a class interest in bringing down any somewhat progressive government, so they deliberately sabotage the economy; instead of selling domestically, they smuggle to Colombia. That's why "socialism doesn't work"; capitalists deliberately cause shortages.

BreakfastMan:

An assumption was propagated by Hilary's supporters and her campaign.

Yeah, and I'm not excusing her shoddy campaign and poor prioritisation. As I said earlier, culpability rests on multiple places. It rests also with those who allowed their unfounded assumptions to guide their voting habits.

BreakfastMan:

And who is to blame then, for that spoiled vote?

An odd question; people are responsible for their own actions, barring exceptional circumstances.

CaitSeith:

People chose to vote based on the polls prediction that Hilary was the winner. Under this misguided assumption, people voting for a third-party candidate would supposedly be assisting Hilary. In reality, it was backwards, and voting third-party had the same effect as sabotaging her (even if that wasn't the intention).

Had Clinton won, third-party voting would have assisted her, yes (depending on the State). This wouldn't have been the intention of the third-party voter, of course, who intends to help neither of the two candidates.

My point is that voting third-party in order to avoid assisting either of the two main candidates doesn't work. That's not the impact of a third-party vote. It still assists one of the two.

Saelune:
I hold Trump responsible for his follower's actions, as I do Bernie.

When the candidate encourages such actions (as Trump incited his supporters towards violence at his rallies), then this is justified. If the candidate did nothing to encourage such actions, then it simply doesn't make sense.

Silvanus:

People can be angry at two things at once; I'm angry at everything all the time, and although it's exhausting, it's manageable. Culpability rests in more than one place.

In a two-party system, a vote for a third-party candidate (or a spoiled vote, or a non-vote) ends up assisting the winner, whoever they are. The winner did not need that vote, but the loser did.

Nobody's arguing that third-party voters wanted to assist Trump, but that was to some degree the impact of their decision.

Seems like a bad argument regardless. Democrats aren't the 'magicallynicer party'. They're often not even the lesser of two evils. And this is particularly true at the state level (where, ultimately, a lot of consideration on candidates is going to be made). Moreover, while the SCotUS is important, at the same time so is your run of the mill legislation and international action.

Things like wars, for instance?

The biggest presidential candidate name to truly speak out against the military iindustrial complex that sticks in my mind was Ron Paul. And arguably he's kind of the candidate the rest of the world would have liked over Obama, or at least in places that could actually be expecting casualties with either your run of the mill Democrat or Republican.

It took a Nixon to get detente with the Soviet Union and peaceable relations between a still Maoist China and a trigger happy U.S. Let's face it ... Kennedy was shit, and probably worse than Trump when it came to diplomacy. Kennedy almost ended the world with his stunt on international waters and Turkey. The blockade of Cuba was throwing stones at a hornet's nest for no reasonable purpose and risked an altercation in Berlin. And that was precisely the whole point ... to simply provoke the Soviets over Berlin.

Why? I ... uhhh ...to look tough? I suppose? It's only civilization as we know it ...

It is a very dangerous thing indeed when people start collectively deciding independents don't deserve your vote because it assists a bad series of candidates.

That right there is an argument for a race to the bottom. Where a Democrat can just pretend to be a little better to win your vote. I honestly don't put it past Republicans to put up candidates that their backers expect to be awful so that Democrats can just be marginally better with only marginally better policy positions if that's pretty much how corporate lobbyists want to play the game.

Moreover it's worse for everyone not American who has to deal with a Democrat that can smile and is actually literate, but all the while planning still yet another Predator drone squadron purchase bound for Pakistan and Yemen.

If anything, all those people that will be voting independent are the only ones, ultimately, that will be holding Democrats to a higher standard than where they currently reside. And even if that takes 20 years, that's better than never.

Silvanus:

BreakfastMan:

And who is to blame then, for that spoiled vote?

An odd question; people are responsible for their own actions, barring exceptional circumstances.

If I purchase my groceries from wallmart, do I share responsibility for keeping wallmart in business?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Seems like a bad argument regardless. Democrats aren't the 'magicallynicer party'. They're often not even the lesser of two evils. And this is particularly true at the state level (where, ultimately, a lot of consideration on candidates is going to be made). Moreover, while the SCotUS is important, at the same time so is your run of the mill legislation and international action.

Things like wars, for instance?

The biggest presidential candidate name to truly speak out against the military iindustrial complex that sticks in my mind was Ron Paul. And arguably he's kind of the candidate the rest of the world would have liked over Obama, or at least in places that could actually be expecting casualties with either your run of the mill Democrat or Republican.

Right! And if a voter has an opinion on that run-of-the-mill legislation or international actions, then voting for a candidate who cannot possibly win is a surefire way to ensure that that opinion doesn't have an impact.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

It took a Nixon to get detente with the Soviet Union and peaceable relations between a still Maoist China and a trigger happy U.S. Let's face it ... Kennedy was shit, and probably worse than Trump when it came to diplomacy. Kennedy almost ended the world with his stunt on international waters and Turkey. The blockade of Cuba was throwing stones at a hornet's nest for no reasonable purpose and risked an altercation in Berlin. And that was precisely the whole point ... to simply provoke the Soviets over Berlin.

Why? I ... uhhh ...to look tough? I suppose? It's only civilization as we know it ...

I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the wisdom of voting third-party. I'm not claiming anything about Kennedy.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

It is a very dangerous thing indeed when people start collectively deciding independents don't deserve your vote because it assists a bad series of candidates.

That right there is an argument for a race to the bottom. Where a Democrat can just pretend to be a little better to win your vote. I honestly don't put it past Republicans to put up candidates that their backers expect to be awful so that Democrats can just be marginally better with only marginally better policy positions if that's pretty much how corporate lobbyists want to play the game.

Determining the party's platform is the role of the Primary contest.

In the Presidential election, voters cannot realistically change the course of the party's platform. Those who believe that withholding votes in the Presidential election (and letting somebody worse win) in order to send a message, must be willing to sacrifice four years to send that message.

Those four years determine peoples' lives and livelihoods. The price is unacceptable, and the message itself isn't even effective.

Make a stand for the party's platform in the Primaries. That's what they exist for.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Moreover it's worse for everyone not American who has to deal with a Democrat that can smile and is actually literate, but all the while planning still yet another Predator drone squadron purchase bound for Pakistan and Yemen.

If anything, all those people that will be voting independent are the only ones, ultimately, that will be holding Democrats to a higher standard than where they currently reside. And even if that takes 20 years, that's better than never.

Hand those 20 years to the Republicans, and many more people will die in those overseas conflicts. That's not an acceptable price to pay in order to send an ambiguous, ineffective message to nobody at the wrong stage of an election cycle.

Seanchaidh:
snip

You are missing the forest for the trees. My point is that radical nationalism has brought more suffering than progress to Venezuela.

CaitSeith:

Seanchaidh:
snip

You are missing the forest for the trees. My point is that radical nationalism has brought more suffering than progress to Venezuela.

Venezuela isn't a good example of "radical nationalism", and what you're calling "radical nationalism" has not brought more suffering than progress to Venezuela. You are calling a rice paddy a forest.

Silvanus:

Right! And if a voter has an opinion on that run-of-the-mill legislation or international actions, then voting for a candidate who cannot possibly win is a surefire way to ensure that that opinion doesn't have an impact.

That seems unfair. After all, the existence of choice alone does help improve policy decision making. I vote Socialist Alliance and Australian Sex Party precisely because at the very least I personally want to tell them they have backers.

Then again, how we manage votes is a significant departure from the 'democratic' systems you see in the U.S.

I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the wisdom of voting third-party. I'm not claiming anything about Kennedy.

Well it was more so attached to ideas of presidential candidates. Ron Paul was a Republican, and honestly while the entire party itself might have been defined by chickenhawks with collective heel spurs, at the time ... arguably that's better than a Democrat that is nominally about 'anti-war' yet uses it as a quiet platform and makes no efforts to bar it as a tool of international diplomacy.

Ron Paul is the last U.S. presidential candidate I can think of where the world's living condition might have improved under, and was a Republican.

Determining the party's platform is the role of the Primary contest.

In the Presidential election, voters cannot realistically change the course of the party's platform. Those who believe that withholding votes in the Presidential election (and letting somebody worse win) in order to send a message, must be willing to sacrifice four years to send that message.

Those four years determine peoples' lives and livelihoods. The price is unacceptable, and the message itself isn't even effective.

Witholding voting is dumb, I agree.

Make a stand for the party's platform in the Primaries. That's what they exist for.

But the problem is Democrat voters weren't given that choice. In fact their hopes of altering the Democratic party platform were routinely undermined.

Hand those 20 years to the Republicans, and many more people will die in those overseas conflicts. That's not an acceptable price to pay in order to send an ambiguous, ineffective message to nobody at the wrong stage of an election cycle.

What? As opposed to just having your votes taken by default? Under Obama youhad the fall of Libya and a world that is more dangerous and hostile because of it. There has been active attempts by Democratic voters to improve the quality of their representatives in top and middle positions of power, and this last election made it all the more galling that the Democrats as a whole thought they could excise that.

The same people that would vote independent in their state elections will likely rally to a Tulsi Gabbard. The only way to get more Tulsi Gabbards is to vote for more Tulsi Gabbards irrespective of what party they belong to.

This isn't a one way street, either. The fact that Trump lost the popular vote should speak volumes of the fact that it was a Democrat's election to lose. And if choosing to ignore that these elections it is their personal failings that will be the reason ... not the people that otherwise would of voted for them, but felt insulted by the candidate and the platform presented to them.

Republicans will lose if the Democrats field better options. Republicans won the slimmest ofslim majorities before simply because of that deficit in Democrat leadership. The whole 'Justice Democrat' and 'Wolf PAC Democrat' movement started before Trump for a reason.

The failure of a Democrat majority this year will be because of Democrats yet again.

BreakfastMan:

If I purchase my groceries from wallmart, do I share responsibility for keeping wallmart in business?

A small fraction of the overall responsibility, but yes.

If this is leading to an analogy with the Presidency, it's a poor analogy to make.

BreakfastMan:

Silvanus:

BreakfastMan:

And who is to blame then, for that spoiled vote?

An odd question; people are responsible for their own actions, barring exceptional circumstances.

If I purchase my groceries from wallmart, do I share responsibility for keeping wallmart in business?

...Uh, yeah. That's how businesses work.

Silvanus:
In the Presidential election, voters cannot realistically change the course of the party's platform. Those who believe that withholding votes in the Presidential election (and letting somebody worse win) in order to send a message, must be willing to sacrifice four years to send that message.

Those four years determine peoples' lives and livelihoods. The price is unacceptable, and the message itself isn't even effective.

Make a stand for the party's platform in the Primaries. That's what they exist for.

If candidates aren't willing to do what it takes to build a large enough coalition to win, then fuck 'em. They shouldn't be in politics. And they get out of politics by losing.

But, your point about primaries is well taken.

Or maybe not.

Seanchaidh:

If candidates aren't willing to do what it takes to build a large enough coalition to win, then fuck 'em. They shouldn't be in politics. And they get out of politics by losing.

They can indeed-- and their opponent, whose victory is assisted in this manner, is rewarded for the very same (or worse) behaviour.

Voting outside of the two party system still assists one of the two main candidates. It assists the eventual Victor.

So, the message ends up being, 'fuck 'em- if they lose'. Very principled!

But, your point about primaries is well taken.

Or maybe not.

You'll notice, of course, that Ocasio-Cortez' own path has been... through the Primary process.

Who has helped to shape the Democratic Party here? Those who voted for her in the Primary, and handed her the nomination? Or those who refused to engage with the process?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here