Jump to content

U.S. Politics


maqroll

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

Er, from what I understand the Republicans control the house that endorses or not the President’s pick. When a similar situation occurred under Obama, the same Republican house said “too close to an election”. So the Dem’s pretty much only can use that argument of precedent and principle.

in other words the charge you make doesn’t stack up, does it? Or am I missing something with my very limited understanding of how the system works over there.

I'm not making the 'charge' you think I'm making. You're correct, there is absolutely nothing Dems can do before the election. But they will not put in place the measures they need to after the election either, and the 'charge' I am making is that the reason they won't put those measures in place is because they keep thinking they can appeal to the referees and the 'better angels' of Republican senators' consciences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once the Dems get the Senate they need to stop messing around and start playing the game the same way the GOP do. 

1) remove the filibuster 

2) push for DC and PR statehood

3) push for a larger amount of judges on the SC

The Dems are playing a different game. The GOP are stacking their deck for years to come and the Dems are just burrowing their brows. Time to fight back. 

Edited by StefanAVFC
5he to the
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Once the Dems get the Senate they need to stop messing around and start playing 5he game the same way the GOP do. 

1) remove the filibuster 

2) push for DC and PR statehood

3) push for a larger amount of judges on the SC

The Dems are playing a different game. The GOP are stacking their deck for years to come and the Dems are just burrowing their brows. Time to fight back. 

Agree on all points, though Puerto Rico should be offered a referendum with independence an option as well as statehood.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

Agree on all points, though Puerto Rico should be offered a referendum with independence an option as well as statehood.

Fully agreed. 

If anything Trump is just a (very good) distraction from the truly cartoonishly evil shit the likes of McConnell and Cruz want to achieve. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

I hate to think what depraved shitstain on humanity Trump and co will find to put on there. 

Well, he's mentioned Lyin' Ted Cruz, so the bar has been set pretty high (or low, depending on how you look at it).

Susan Collins is in a re-election battle, partly because of here support of Kavanaugh and vote against impeachment, so she won't vote to confirm a new justice before the election, though I doubt she'd commit to voting against one in a lame-duck session.

Romney is fairly principled and doesn't give a feck what Trump or his followers think, so I don't think he'll vote to confirm.

Murkowski could refuse to confirm based on principle and guilt about Kavanaugh, but she's not under pressure to do so.

Graham is in a close race and could probably benefit from demanding to wait until after the election, but he's got no principles and I'm convinced Trump has threatened to out him if he goes against him.   It's the only way to explain his complete 180 on Trump since 2016.

The other Republican senators in danger of losing their seats are all Trump toadies, I believe, so none of them will gamble on trying to appear principled to save their seat.  The Dems need to pick off 4 Republicans in order to prevent a confirmation, and I don't see it happening.  Trump personally doesn't give a sh*t about the actual beliefs of the person he nominates.  He just cares about making his evangelical base happy.  He was pro-choice before he ran for president, probably because he's had to pay for a handful of abortions himself over the years, but he's no longer likely to knock up a woman of child-bearing age and won't care if abortion is outlawed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Agree on all points, though Puerto Rico should be offered a referendum with independence an option as well as statehood.

Don't be surprised if Man United come in with a last minute offer for Puerto Rico.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/09/2020 at 13:03, sharkyvilla said:

I hate to think what depraved shitstain on humanity Trump and co will find to put on there. 

Gilead you say?

Quote

One of the individuals reportedly topping President Donald Trump’s shortlist to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg belongs to a religious group that believes husbands should rule over their wives, among other highly conservative and traditional beliefs.

Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a “head” for men and a “handmaid” for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/trump-s-leading-pick-to-replace-rbg-believes-husbands-should-rule-over-wives-93462IjaBkKkd-p7tXZVCQ?fbclid=IwAR3n3uoeJLGBVkZuWNKc4gtwg_0cjmX6CncBxNTPmxLWvh3C3_1LyGzImtc

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2009, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, a disease that has a very low 5-year survival rate, but rather than quit, the 76-year-old carried on. She could have retired and had Obama pick her replacement any time up to 2014 in all likelihood, but she didn't. This appears to have been because of an entirely vain and hubristic plan to have Hilary Clinton nominate her successor. So there's one old woman who didn't know when to call it a day, **** shit up.

Lo and behold, here's another one:

Dianne Feinstain is 87 years old. She will be 91 when her term ends. Two questions immediately spring to mind - firstly, why did she run in 2018 when she was 85? That's obviously way too old? And secondly, why the **** did Californians vote for her?

California is by far the largest state; if an independent country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world. And its representation in the Senate is a woman running for a higher office and a dotard who is nearly in the grave.

Democrats love gerontocrats, and now this love is coming back to haunt them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are career politicians @HanoiVillan - McCain was still serving when he died. They think they know better because they've been there longer. Look at Grassley on the Republican side. He probably shouldn't be allowed to drive a car, wears diapers and can only eat soup and jelly. Yet he was allowed to preside over the contentious Kavanaugh hearings. 

There' so much wrong with the US political system it's exhausting to spend the energy thinking about it. Perhaps we actually need another civil war so we can move forward or at least rid ourselves of the stupid people. It's just the "people dying" part of the civil war that I don't like.

Calexit has been talked about. I've long thought Manhattan should become a city state like Singapore. The values and ideals of urban folk in the US is so far away from rural, bible worshipping, anti-choice hicks. I just don't know how the next generation who will be raised by two such disparate groups will reconcile the differences if we don't do it now. 

It's quite hard though when the planet is on fire and all the science points to an impending catastrophe. However half of the country believe climate change is a lie made up by a secret cabal of pedophile, baby eating lizards who plan to gain I don't know what. How the f*** to you even begin a conversation?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

firstly, why did she run in 2018 when she was 85? That's obviously way too old?

Is that necessarily the case? Was she struggling at the time?

Whilst there's a fair point to be made about when and if people have age-related illnesses and problems that impinge upon their abilities, the 'way too old' line just isn't right.

Edited by snowychap
and problems that
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, snowychap said:

Is that necessarily the case? Was she struggling at the time?

Whilst there's a fair point to be made about when and if people have age-related illnesses impinge upon their abilities, the 'way too old' line just isn't right.

It's a 6 year term, so the relevant question is not her competence at 85, but by 91. It's important to know when to quit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's a 6 year term, so the relevant question is not her competence at 85, but by 91. It's important to know when to quit.

Well, yes and no.

Firstly, it's an elected post and that part is up to the electorate - if she's advertised as 85...;

Secondly, yes - people in that age group should run for a position with this in mind and with the idea that they give up their post if they're unable to get to the end of the term.

It still doesn't address the 'way too old' line, though. Age is, and I am on the verge of hitting myself for typing this, just a number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Firstly, it's an elected post and that part is up to the electorate - if she's advertised as 85...;

Yes, definitely, as I say in the post, you have to blame the voters, especially when the choice on the ballot was between two Democrats and no Republicans anyway.

27 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It still doesn't address the 'way too old' line, though. Age is, and I am on the verge of hitting myself for typing this, just a number.

People are not very good judges of their own competences. I remember the battle to get my great aunt to quit driving when she couldn't see over the steering wheel. I'm not suggesting that 85 year olds be banned from running for office; she had the right and it was up to the electorate to exercise better judgement. But I'm firm in the belief that it is a Bad Thing to have people of that age, and in no fit state, in the legislature. It was selfish on her part, and now there's a price to pay for that selfishness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â