• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court says Ginsburg released from hospital 11 minutes ago (1 Viewer)

trouble13 said:
Your opinion may be that Trump is a walking disaster as a president but as you said people should not be throwing around words they dont understand. Anyone who passes the vetting process is qualified to be president regardless of your opinion of them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion :shrug:

I think he's unqualified. His track record shows that. He's a bad President in my eyes.
 
Trump said:
Imagine Clarence Thomas saying same about Hillary....we all know it would be true but would it be proper?:roll:
Click to expand...

Do you have a point to make? If so it escapes me.
 
SLC said:
She should retire and enjoy her life. :mrgreen: If you genuinely care for her you should want Trump to win in 2020. That way she would forsure fight to live at least 4 more years. If a Dem wins in 2020 her will to live may not be as strong.
Click to expand...

Now that's a very stupid thing to say
 
TurtleDude said:
interesting analysis-perhaps you have a solution?
Click to expand...

A solution for humanity or for Americans? Not to get too abstract, but competition might be a bigger part of human nature than I used to think it was. We seem to desire conflict amongst one another. A more rational species would have stopped viewing every transaction as a zero sum proposition around the time that we achieved the ability to produce and transport enough resources to support the entire population. I think if competition for competition's sake alone is indeed part of our ethos that we are doomed to poke each other until we encounter a single, unifying adversary. Climate change was a good opportunity, but the manmade angle gave plenty of space for division. It will have to be an asteroid impact or an alien invasion or some other cosmic event that convinces humans to stop treating each other like jealous ex-lovers. But that's why I said I didn't want to get too abstract.

As far as my other post related to Americans, I'm pretty sure the only way we can make things better is to convene a constitutional convention of the states and try to save what's left of our broken government. I know (believe me, I know) that a convention would also open the doors to malicious actors seeking to corrupt the system even further, but I just don't see a way toward reconciliation without a massive overhaul of the existing nightmare.
 
Dans La Lune said:
I'm glad we're agreed that no quarter should be given to the other side.

Trump will probably get three SCOTUS seats and the far-right Supreme Court and Lower Courts the right have always wanted. You'll get your overturn of Roe V. Wade, repeal of Affirmative Action, repeal to Obamacare, overturn of gay marriage, more pro-discrimination laws, probably some more corporate-centered rulings, etc.

Then what?

Careful what you ask for.
Click to expand...

This post really resonates with me. "Then what?" To undo social changes (I would call it progress, but I don't want to exclude anyone) is one thing. What do we do after that? What do we want to do? Who do we want to be? Is our goal just to restore the social norms of some past decade or do we want to do something, anything else?
 
Northern Light said:
You're entitled to your opinion :shrug:

I think he's unqualified. His track record shows that. He's a bad President in my eyes.
Click to expand...
I respect that and where your coming from, i disagree with you but i respect your opinion. I honestly dont have any problem with you.expressing your opinion, whatever it may be. However you dont sit on the supreme court. I dont begrudge Ginsburg her right to express her opinion, she has that right. At the same time i do wuestion her judgement. Its somewhat inappropriate for a judge to express opinions outside of rulings.

Ftr i adamentally disagree with her but i rrspect her as a judge. Her written opinions are formidable. I just think she had lapse in decorum but who am i to le tire anyone on decorum, im a trumper

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
jmotivator said:
It's an interesting argument, but I think what makes it more interesting is to consider it in the light of 2016, and the aftermath.

What Trump represented, for good or bad, was an actual departure from business as usual in Washington DC. His election was as scary to the entrenched Republicans as it was the entrenched Democrats. Trump represented a successful revolution in the Republican party of the loping, uncouth, blue collar masses of the flyover states and he won against the epitome of the entitled, Business as Usual political class in Washington.

The average working class American was sick of it. The Republican base was tired of hearing "wait until next election" whenever it seamed like it was time for their concerns to be addressed, and the Democrat working class in the Midwest was tired of unanswered promises, and fail policies when Democrats attempted to address them.

I think, if nothing else, Trump turned the tide in the election with one statement that he almost certainly didn't write himself: "It used to be that they built cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they build cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."

That line cut to the core of what pissed off the rust belt more than anything else. Creeping, persistent, Democrat lead decline and all Hillary could offer them was "well, get a different job!" .. her "let them eat cake" moment.

Trump is still seen as a thorn in the side of establishment Washington, and Establishment Washington is a term that is increasingly associated with Democrats now that so many anti-Trump Republicans have bailed from politics in favor of the chattering class. That isn't a good place to be for Democrats, and I think, given the severe distrust of Washington in both parties, being the party of bigger authoritarian government programs will not serve them well in 2020.

one last point: Sweeping government benefits is an effective political selling point during recessions when the electorate is feeling most vulnerable and looking for easy hope. That is increasingly looking to be an unlikely scenario in 2020... and yet the Democrats keep pushing forward like they'll get a recession just in time for election day.
Click to expand...

I read this post twice because I found it, in a very welcome sense, dense. Your assessments of recent, domestic politics are reasoned and well worth discussing. My post to TurtleDude, however, was intended to be much broader. The differences between Democrats and Republicans, in the most objective sense, are inconsequential. We have differences, of course. As individuals. As constructed groups. But the things that Americans fight about politically are usually argued in such a narrow focus that the two "opposite" choices for us would each be about a mile away from the extreme proposals for other people.

For these reasons and more, I just don't find myself very engaged in conversations about the differences between Republicans and Democrats. They're both self interested and petty. They both use opposition to a supposedly hostile force to attribute importance to their actions. My critical point is that people are wicked smart. They're so smart that they prey on the weaknesses of other people in ways that could almost be imperceivable if you aren't looking for them. In that spirit, I reject American partisanship as helpful or necessary or consequential. It's just a tactic to keep existing power brokers in charge of power.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, I have seen partisans willing to compromise after compromise suits them politically. I think it might have been advantageous to defuse the Garland bomb after it became clear that the appointment of Garland by Obama would have made no difference to the court ideological lean.

Granted, if RBG and Breyer leave the bench whiles Trump is in office then that would be proven true regardless of Trump throwing the Democrats a bone.

Edit: Let's face it, the problem of increasing conservatism on the Supreme Court has nothing to do with Merrick Garland and everything to do with 4 Progressive Justices who refused to retire under Obama and thought they'd wait for Hillary.

But then, again, throwing the Democrats a bone would have required the Democrats to behave very differently than they have for the last 3 years (or 11.. or 19, depending on how you look at it). They can't put that toothpaste back in the tube, no matter how much they may want to if they lose in 2020.
Click to expand...

That's just more of a zero sum game that I don't really find worth my time. The Democrats and Republicans can salt the earth after they finish burning it down, but it's not really going to matter who did what when we come out the other side.
 
SLC said:
Ukraine ..that reminds me Obama gave them blankets an MREs to fight Russian tanks. Trump sold them offensive weapons including Javelin anti tank missiles. And yes the Ukraine got their funding once Trump felt like they were trying to combat corruption. Even people like Lt. Col. Vindman admitted Trump has done more for Ukraine than Obama ever did. How do you think Putin feels about knowing if he moves his tanks more into the Ukraine they will have a US made Javelin missile jammed up their A**es. I bet he is pissed at his puppet. :roll:
Click to expand...

You mean they got their funding when Trump found out there was a whistle blower, and so he released everything quickly to make it seem like he wasn't trying to extort Ukraine for political ends.

lol
 
Nalu said:
I read this post twice because I found it, in a very welcome sense, dense. Your assessments of recent, domestic politics are reasoned and well worth discussing. My post to TurtleDude, however, was intended to be much broader. The differences between Democrats and Republicans, in the most objective sense, are inconsequential. We have differences, of course. As individuals. As constructed groups. But the things that Americans fight about politically are usually argued in such a narrow focus that the two "opposite" choices for us would each be about a mile away from the extreme proposals for other people.

For these reasons and more, I just don't find myself very engaged in conversations about the differences between Republicans and Democrats. They're both self interested and petty. They both use opposition to a supposedly hostile force to attribute importance to their actions. My critical point is that people are wicked smart. They're so smart that they prey on the weaknesses of other people in ways that could almost be imperceivable if you aren't looking for them. In that spirit, I reject American partisanship as helpful or necessary or consequential. It's just a tactic to keep existing power brokers in charge of power.
Click to expand...

I would agree and disagree, or agree in fact and disagree in spirit. There are few things more diametrically opposed in politics than the concept of self determination and government directed welfare. Personally I find that the former is more fulfilling and the latter is more seductive. In practice there is little difference in how the two parties have administered the government.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are lying about the federalist society and I know that for a fact since four of the five founders were close college friends: one was a suite mate.
Click to expand...

Anecdotes are worthless.

Two of them were agnostic Jews who had no religious bias against abortion. The society has noted that abortion is one of those issues that its members are split over. Do many anti Roe v Wade attorneys support the Federalist Society? of course
Click to expand...

Members of the Federalist Society have presented oral arguments in every single abortion case that has been before the Supreme Court since 1992.

By the way, that's a quote.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Anecdotes are worthless.



Members of the Federalist Society have presented oral arguments in every single abortion case that has been before the Supreme Court since 1992.

By the way, that's a quote.
Click to expand...

Yeah Members have

I was one of the first members of that group-my biggest regret was not being the sixth founder-when asked I was too busy attending law school and coaching a varsity college team to do so. I have always supported legal abortion even though I believe that John Hart Ely's law review article on Roe V Wade had much merit. As I noted, Federalist Society Members split on abortion
 
jmotivator said:
I would agree and disagree, or agree in fact and disagree in spirit. There are few things more diametrically opposed in politics than the concept of self determination and government directed welfare. Personally I find that the former is more fulfilling and the latter is more seductive. In practice there is little difference in how the two parties have administered the government.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying. Republicans and Democrats are 2 sides of the same coin in the same currency. Yet look at our political situation. An impartial observer who didn't know the causes of our disagreements but only saw the reactions they provoke would think we're arguing about whether or not to continue living or commit mass suicide. We're not. Partisans of every shape and color tend to overestimate the importance of their ideals and think that opposing their political adversaries is more important than taking an affirmative position on anything.
 
Nalu said:
That's what I'm saying. Republicans and Democrats are 2 sides of the same coin in the same currency. Yet look at our political situation. An impartial observer who didn't know the causes of our disagreements but only saw the reactions they provoke would think we're arguing about whether or not to continue living or commit mass suicide. We're not. Partisans of every shape and color tend to overestimate the importance of their ideals and think that opposing their political adversaries is more important than taking an affirmative position on anything.
Click to expand...

Right, but I think the differences now are at least slightly more substantial partly because the Republican in the white House is interested in giving more than lip service to the actual meat of party ideological differences.
 
trouble13 said:
Im not even sure she will then. Remember she turned obamas request for her to retire down. Its very possible the only way she leaves the office is by casket.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well, it is a lifetime appointment.
 
jmotivator said:
Right, but I think the differences now are at least slightly more substantial partly because the Republican in the white House is interested in giving more than lip service to the actual meat of party ideological differences.
Click to expand...

Well, he's interested in himself. Let's not pretend that Trump gives one rip about any ideological difference between the parties. He's not even a Republican. That, and all the Trump mania, on both sides, is temporary. He's a distraction. He'll be out of office and dead while the larger story continues. Trump didn't invent partisanship. He just exploits it. The themes I'm talking about were present before Trump and will be there after him.
 
Nalu said:
Well, he's interested in himself. Let's not pretend that Trump gives one rip about any ideological difference between the parties. He's not even a Republican. That, and all the Trump mania, on both sides, is temporary. He's a distraction. He'll be out of office and dead while the larger story continues. Trump didn't invent partisanship. He just exploits it. The themes I'm talking about were present before Trump and will be there after him.
Click to expand...

I think arguing about Trump's motive for breaking from the two-party status quo is ultimately meaningless when the point being made is just that he has broken from the status quo.

Regardless of why Trump chose the path he has, the fact remains that he took it, has been successful with it, and has stuck to it. That is more than you can say for most politicians in either party.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Well, it is a lifetime appointment.
Click to expand...

You can still retire. Kavanaugh replaced Anthony Kennedy, who retired.

I think any remaining 80+ year old progressive justices should have agreed to Obama's request to replace them with younger progressive judges... I think they gambled that they would be replaced by Hillary appointments and they lost. If Trump wins in 2020 I think it is a lock that Ginsburg and Breyer are replaced by more conservative judges.

But, I should also point out a glimmer of hope for Progressives.. I have this theory that the Ideological positions of a Supreme Court Justice change like a clown fish changes it sex to address an imbalance in the school. :lol:
 
jmotivator said:
I think arguing about Trump's motive for breaking from the two-party status quo is ultimately meaningless when the point being made is just that he has broken from the status quo.

Regardless of why Trump chose the path he has, the fact remains that he took it, has been successful with it, and has stuck to it. That is more than you can say for most politicians in either party.
Click to expand...

Ah, there we diverge. "Trump's motives are meaningless," to me, is just another shade of, "The ends justify the means." Again, you're overly fixated on Trump when he was never the topic of anything I posted nor is he even what this thread is about. I offered an analysis on the political nature of humankind and the political situation of the US. We had a good exchange about it, but I'm not interested in talking about Trump here.
 
Nalu said:
Ah, there we diverge. "Trump's motives are meaningless," to me, is just another shade of, "The ends justify the means." Again, you're overly fixated on Trump when he was never the topic of anything I posted nor is he even what this thread is about. I offered an analysis on the political nature of humankind and the political situation of the US. We had a good exchange about it, but I'm not interested in talking about Trump here.
Click to expand...

Well, I should point out to you that my first response to you did reference Trump a few times because, in response to your statement, I found it interesting to point out that your argument that both parties are the same has less meaning given the changes in the Republican party since the nomination of Trump, and that the parties are differentiating more as a result.

I'm not litigating the sea of Trump's supposed crimes with you, the Democrats are failing at that enough for both parties.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, I should point out to you that my first response to you did reference Trump a few times because, in response to your statement, I found it interesting to point out that your argument that both parties are the same has less meaning given the changes in the Republican party since the nomination of Trump, and that the parties are differentiating more as a result.

I'm not litigating the sea of Trump's supposed crimes with you, the Democrats are failing at that enough for both parties.
Click to expand...

I have no interest in litigating the sea of Trump's supposed crimes with you here nor the Democrats' efficacy or lack thereof. There are about 7 million other threads dedicated to that purpose. I didn't say both parties are the same. I said their differences are exaggerated because people who go through life searching for enemies make good partisans. You say that the parties are "differentiating more". Perhaps. In the grand scheme of things, though, Americans are more alike than they are different. The range of the political spectrum that is seriously debated, considered, and implemented in the US is a small portion of its total length. Trump, while interesting from a social perspective, has not done the Republican party many favors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom