Board 8 > Chris' political topic. Where Chris posts super casually about political stuff.

(+) Yeah! (+)

And make no mistake, we definitely have nothing like that right now. Kennedy may have sometimes been a swing vote, but he still voted with *googles* Alito 86% of the time, Roberts 88% of the time, and Thomas 84% of the time.

This is the main reason why this isn't as concerning to me as it is to some other people. Kennedy was essentially just Roberts but slightly more pro gay rights and abortion rights. That's it. If Kavanaugh really won't overturn Roe v. Wade (and Roberts won't relitigate gay marriage), not all that much has changed. Look at Kennedy's votes from the past year. He's identical to Roberts in every way.

And @Corrik, you asked me how crazy r/the_donald was and why it was worse than the echo chamber we had here before.

The idea that Scalia was assassinated by Obama in order to take our gun rights away and form a dictatorship is mainstream thought there. This is not an exaggeration, or me being silly. They believe Obama had Scalia assassinated.

So. Yeah. It is worse than what we have here.
---

jesus fucking christ
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Me too. This is a simple place to discuss politics.

The nominee: Could be worse in theory but it is really shitty for a lot of things I care about. This is why we should have nominated Bernie but the democratic party voters disagreed and now look at this.

did *anybody* actually want Hillary over Bernie?

*actual people
---

MajinZidane posted...

did *anybody* actually want Hillary over Bernie?

*actual people

Right here
---

*raises hand, tentatively*

I wasn't a huge fan of either Bernie or Hillary, but Bernie was anti-Nafta and anti-free trade much in the same way Trump was. I think that is going to be disastrous to the American economy in the long run.

I also think Hillary is kind of a liar and would've been "safe" and fairly moderate all things considered. She wouldn't have done anything to rock the boat, and I was perfectly happy with how things were. I'd take almost any democrat over Hillary honestly, but they weren't running, so...
---

ok cool
---

I actually don't know a lot about politics and almost never click on the other topic, that's why I was down for some casual conversation.

Actually, there's a huge barrier to entry to participate in this topic, too. When Jakyl disagreed with Corrik, he'd just post "fake news" like two or three times and expect me to know what he meant by it. Clearly he disagreed for some reason, but I don't know specifically why
---

Like I think Bernie is a good person and a good politician. And I think his supporters are good people too so don't take that as a slight.

But I am not going to support a candidate that is anti-fair trade, most other things being equal.

(I mean I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over Trump if it comes down to that in 2020).
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Scalia was assassinated, so Obama had no actual right to that seat. Republicans did the right thing.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

Scalia was assassinated, so Obama had no actual right to that seat. Republicans did the right thing.

I wonder if it was the pizza pedophiles or the gay frogs that got to him
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

Scalia was assassinated, so Obama had no actual right to that seat. Republicans did the right thing.

Anybody who thinks Scalia was assassinated genuinely doesnt deserve to vote because they are so uneducated, ignorant, and almost legitimately unintelligent.

Also just a reminder that this will be Trumps second stolen seat. If republicans actually followed their own rules we would wait until after midterms to appoint.

But LOL do they ever?

No

The answer is no

ColZach posted...

Also just a reminder that this will be Trumps second stolen seat. If republicans actually followed their own rules we would wait until after midterms to appoint.

But LOL do they ever?

No

The answer is no

This is untrue
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

MajinZidane posted...

did *anybody* actually want Hillary over Bernie?

*actual people

Right here

Same. This country shouldn't be about the extremes, and electing a cult of personality on the Republican side doesn't mean we should have a cult of personality on the Democrat side. Hillary had more substantial and realistic plans, plus she had a lot more experience actually working to get things done. Yeah, Republicans would've obstructed whatever she tried, but at least she could better navigate Washington, especially since Obama was too naive about the whole process.
---

Same.

I liked Hillary more than Bernie and Trump but I wouldn't say I really loved her or anything.

Was sort of warming up to Bernie when he senselessly began attacking free trade.
---

Bernie pulled Hillary left (regardless of how much of it was lip service to his supporters). He did his job imo.

That said, I do think the country would've been just fine if Bernie won.
---

I just don't actually think he would have beaten Trump either so its sort of moot.
---

I think ANY Democrat in the White House wouldve been better than the far right abominations that could actually win the Republican nomination. I just prefer Hillarys realistic approach to governing over Bernies idealist approach.
---

MajinZidane posted...

When Jakyl disagreed with Corrik, he'd just post "fake news" like two or three times and expect me to know what he meant by it. Clearly he disagreed for some reason, but I don't know specifically why

I was told not to blow my top in this topic <_<
---

Does it still count as casual after someone runs in in their underwear and accuses a former president of having a supreme court justice murdered?
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Youre saying this while supporting Hillary Clinton, really? Communist radical feminism is as extreme as it gets.

Hillary is a radical communist?

Funny, I thought Bernie was farther to the left than her.

That's why I voted for him in the primary.
---

Eddv posted...

I just don't actually think he would have beaten Trump either so its sort of moot.

He certainly would have had a better chance, considering Trumps entirely platform for being elected was a smear campaign.

Corrik posted...

ColZach posted...

Also just a reminder that this will be Trumps second stolen seat. If republicans actually followed their own rules we would wait until after midterms to appoint.

But LOL do they ever?

No

The answer is no

This is untrue

McConnell says we shouldnt appoint judges in election years, so if they proceed to try and fill this vacant spot before the midterms, yes, absolutely it is true.

ColZach posted...

Eddv posted...

I just don't actually think he would have beaten Trump either so its sort of moot.

He certainly would have had a better chance, considering Trumps entirely platform for being elected was a smear campaign.

Corrik posted...

ColZach posted...

Also just a reminder that this will be Trumps second stolen seat. If republicans actually followed their own rules we would wait until after midterms to appoint.

But LOL do they ever?

No

The answer is no

This is untrue

McConnell says we shouldnt appoint judges in election years, so if they proceed to try and fill this vacant spot before the midterms, yes, absolutely it is true.

They said you shouldn't appoint a judge in a presidential election year when the sitting president is a lame duck president.
---

Of course they did. Because thats the exact situation in which we should disallow the president to do what hes entitled to do as the president.

In case you cant tell this is sarcasm and that argument was still bullshit.

Edit: LOL, considering that Corriks argument is me no like president there seems to be plenty of hypocrisy here.

ColZach posted...

Of course they did. Because thats the exact situation in which we should disallow the president to do what hes entitled to do as the president.

In case you cant tell this is sarcasm and that argument was still bullshit.

Edit: LOL, considering that Corriks argument is me no like president there seems to be plenty of hypocrisy here.

So wait. You said something and took it out of context. I provided context and showed you where your comment was wrong. Then you did not acknowledge it but instead tried pivoting to a different position.

Okay.

There is no reason to discuss much else with you regarding it then.
---

Out of context? It certainly wasnt out of context. This idea that the PRESIDENT shouldnt get to exercise his powers to appoint a justice in the last year of his precidency is downright RIDICULOUS.

Youre correct, theres no point in talking with you further about it, because you clearly dont give a shit about the constitution and are willing to look the other way if the president is a lame sitting duck

But not if the sitting president is an actual buffoon

Thats the difference between us I guess. This pick would be entirely legitimate if the right hadnt pulled that egregious shit with Obamas pick.

I think Colzach needs to find himself to the liberal extremist topic.

Think he doesn't realize this is the casual topic with his arguing in bad faith.
---

Theres like eight political topics

Sorry

Ill casually say I dont like how these judge picks have been handled and we can agree to disagree about it friend

Also nice job jumping to calling me an extremist *thumbs up* constructive

ColZach posted...

Theres like eight political topics

Sorry

Ill casually say I dont like how these judge picks have been handled and we can agree to disagree about it friend

I understand you disagree. I was simply stating your comment about blanket election years was untrue when you tried to say it applied to a midterm.

Obviously every liberal is upset at another conservative judge replacing a conservative judge.
---

If applies to a presidential election year (and it shouldnt, call me a liberal if you like but I rest right in the middle of the political spectrum) the same faulty logic should apply to a midterm, given that McConnells argument was that the people should get a voice

Granted I believe the people got a voice in 2012 for that pick, just as people got a voice for THIS pick back in 2016

Hello user ColZach, I see you're just now meeting Corrik for the first time.
---

Reg posted...

Hello user ColZach, I see you're just now meeting Corrik for the first time.

I actually like and respect Corrik a lot. Much better than types like Ulti/Vlado who would have already resorted to straw man.

Just because you say something should apply to something else doesn't really mean much.

Should they went ahead with Garlands process? Probably. Would he have passed? Probably not. Republicans probably would have just turned him down.

On one hand, the Constitution states a president can appoint a supreme Court nominee. On another hand, the Senate has to approve said nominee.

Thus, the Constitution argument doesn't exactly fly.

Should you be mad if you wanted a liberal appointment. Sure.

Was it a highly politically motivated partisan move. Yes.

However, trying to apply it to the midterms to me is just the bitterness of the move talking.

For example, you are arguing they should have ran Obama's pick through the process. While arguing they should not do it now before a midterm.

You are in fact the one arguing a contradictory stance based on your "constitution" argument.

Republicans at least had enough nuance to differentiate the two appointments. With proper context is a presidential election for lame duck president versus a midterm.
---

And if you are down the middle, I apologize. You are just rehashing many arguments regarding this that I have seen from extreme views.

Like, if you disagree with it, that is fine. You can. I just felt you were spinning or omitting context in your argument.
---

Youre correct

Except the republicans did what they did and stole a seat

Would he have been approved? We certainly wont be able to ever know given he didnt even get a hearing and thats the point.

Republicans shouldnt get to pick and choose when they want to adhere to the constitution. They should have adhered to it then, and now they should play by the rules they have set.

Like I said...if Garland had actually gotten a hearing this wouldnt be a topic of conversation for me. But Republicans just never play by any rules except rule of fuck democrats

Its a distinction without a difference.
---

I'm going to start putting people who respond to Ulti on ignore. Be careful.

Btw this is why we need new political parties in general, and no trump is not this, trump is a republican puppet thats a win-win for republicans, he gives them the hardcore right agenda they want and he can be a scapegoat later if things go south

ColZach posted...

Youre correct

Except the republicans did what they did and stole a seat

Would he have been approved? We certainly wont be able to ever know given he didnt even get a hearing and thats the point.

Republicans shouldnt get to pick and choose when they want to adhere to the constitution. They should have adhered to it then, and now they should play by the rules they have set.

Like I said...if Garland had actually gotten a hearing this wouldnt be a topic of conversation for me. But Republicans just never play by any rules except rule of fuck democrats

I go back and forth between amazingly brilliant political move and travesty.

I mean, I guess it had little downside for them. They clearly wanted Garland to not be denied due to politics so they wanted to put it off with the thinking they definitely would have accepted him if Hillary won.

They also clearly wanted to try and not replace a conservative with a liberal and wanted to do anything they could to get out of that situation.
---

ColZach posted...

Btw this is why we need new political parties in general, and no trump is not this, trump is a republican puppet thats a win-win for republicans, he gives them the hardcore right agenda they want and he can be a scapegoat later if things go south

Two party system polarizes things too much. 3 or 4 parties would be better, but neither party is going to take the split/s because they know it would cause them election losses.
---

Aren't you glad you made this amazing topic, Sir Chris?
---

Bernie Sanders is 100% much further left than Hillary.
---

Oh yea Bernie is hardcore. I liked him more than Hillary but some of his ideas were a bit out there for me.

Corrik posted...

I think Colzach needs to find himself to the liberal extremist topic.

Corrik: Im in the middle, lol
---