Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 183: For HARDCORE POLITICAL PUNDITS

(+) Yeah! (+)

Usually capital letters mean that it means something different from the conventional usage - like it's referring to some specific policy. So, I guess the question, then, is what does "Open Borders" mean? Must be something bad!
---

So Susan Collins just came out and said shes not going to vote for any justice that's hostile to choice.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Usually capital letters mean that it means something different from the conventional usage - like it's referring to some specific policy.

he also capitalizes the first letter of words like "country" and "crime." does he mean something different in those cases too?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Usually capital letters mean that it means something different from the conventional usage - like it's referring to some specific policy.

he also capitalizes the first letter of words like "country" and "crime." does he mean something different in those cases too?

That would explain why his statements don't make sense! Maybe the meaning even changes from day to day and even hour to hour.
---

I'm way behind, but has this been brought up?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1013139532290625538

I never pushed the Republicans in the House to vote for the Immigration Bill, either GOODLATTE 1 or 2, because it could never have gotten enough Democrats as long as there is the 60 vote threshold. I released many prior to the vote knowing we need more Republicans to win in Nov.
12:17 PM - 30 Jun 2018

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1011952266268545024

HOUSE REPUBLICANS SHOULD PASS THE STRONG BUT FAIR IMMIGRATION BILL, KNOWN AS GOODLATTE II, IN THEIR AFTERNOON VOTE TODAY, EVEN THOUGH THE DEMS WONT LET IT PASS IN THE SENATE. PASSAGE WILL SHOW THAT WE WANT STRONG BORDERS & SECURITY WHILE THE DEMS WANT OPEN BORDERS = CRIME. WIN!
5:39 AM - 27 Jun 2018

It was only three days. THREE DAYS. How is this even possible?
---

it has been, yeah.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/76759040/904256969
---

Our president is a liar.

Our lying president lies unnecessarily about things even when there is no tangible benefit to the deception.

Our unnecessarily lying president lies about things that are easily disproved.
---

http://money.cnn.com/2018/07/01/news/canada-us-tariffs-steel-aluminum/index.html

Who's ready for a trade war with the entire rest of the planet, yaaaaaaaaaaay.
---

Eddv posted...

So Susan Collins just came out and said shes not going to vote for any justice that's hostile to choice.

*openly hostile

I hope I'm wrong and she won't vote for anyone who doesn't explicitly say that they will honor precedent, but I'm sure Trump's nominee won't be dumb enough to explicitly admit that they plan to overturn Roe v Wade.
---

If Obergefell is overturned, the next person to tell me "TRUMP IS THE MOST PRO LGBT CANDIDATE EVER" is getting punched in the face. I'm not an advocate of violence, but this I will make an exception for.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Eddv posted...

So Susan Collins just came out and said shes not going to vote for any justice that's hostile to choice.

*openly hostile

I hope I'm wrong and she won't vote for anyone who doesn't explicitly say that they will honor precedent, but I'm sure Trump's nominee won't be dumb enough to explicitly admit that they plan to overturn Roe v Wade.

Collins had literally said days before that she wouldn't make Roe v Wade a deciding factor over whether or not she'd confirm. She's also said she doesn't think Gorsuch would overturn Roe so take that as you will.

Trump's list was constructed by a conservative think-tank, right? I don't think there's much doubt as to whether or not any name on the list would overturn Roe. Collins will just look for what passes to her as plausible deniability in this case.

tl;dr: Don't believe her lies. *Memento screenshot*

Ashethan posted...

If Obergefell is overturned, the next person to tell me "TRUMP IS THE MOST PRO LGBT CANDIDATE EVER" is getting punched in the face. I'm not an advocate of violence, but this I will make an exception for.

I actually think Obergefell itself is safe. I don't think Roberts/SCOTUS is willing to wade into the nightmare that would be flying in the face of public opinion as well as the legal disaster of what to do with all the marriages already performed.

That said other LGBT rights? I'd expect them to start eroding.
---

Putting aside how bad it would be, Obergefell getting overturned would be interesting because it'd basically be the same court that originally ruled it.

Are there any such similar incidents in the history of the country? I can't think of any, but I'm also not particularly versed in this.
---

Reg posted...

Are there any such similar incidents in the history of the country? I can't think of any, but I'm also not particularly versed in this.

I'm sure there are. Plessy v Ferguson being overturned by Brown v Board of Education was the first to come to mind though I'm sure a bunch of others exist.

Not sure about one with as quick a turnaround time as this hypothetical would be though. There were 58 years between Plessy and Brown, for example.
---

xp1337 posted...

Not sure about one with as quick a turnaround time as this hypothetical would be though. There were 58 years between Plessy and Brown, for example.

Right. Literally every Justice on the court had been changed between those two rulings. In a hypothetical "Obergefell gets overruled in the near future" scenario, we'd be at 7/9 the same people ruling on it.
---

Right. I think I read your question too literally. When you said same court I naturally thought "SCOTUS overturning SCOTUS" but I think you meant something more like "Roberts court overturning Roberts court." Not sure of any examples of the latter off the top of my head.
---

I actually think Obergefell itself is safe. I don't think Roberts/SCOTUS is willing to wade into the nightmare that would be flying in the face of public opinion

I really, really don't see Roe vs Wade being overturned for the same reason. I'd personally put it at less than a 5% chance no matter who is confirmed to the court. Of course, it's still possible for abortion rights to be subtly eroded/undermined from the current status quo without outright overturning Roe vs Wade.
---

I disagree on Roe, but I see where you're coming from. I think it would come down to Roberts, honestly. He has shown in the past an unwillingness to rock the boat in some cases but I dunno.

Definitely think such a court would curtail rights in other areas regardless of whether or not they address Roe directly.
---

I seriously doubt Roe or Obergefell will be overturned because of the new justice, but I do expect the court to much more open to allowing states to place limits on those rights. So states could be required to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but not necessarily rights equal to those that married heterosexual couples get. Similarly, abortion will be legal on paper but states will be allowed to tack on any ridiculous requirements they want just to make it impossible to actually perform them. So it'll be too gradual for most people notice that these things will have effectively been taken away.

That said, this all depends on Roberts being the "swing" justice. The rest of the court's conservatives are probably fine with blatantly swinging to the right, but Roberts usually avoids openly overturning precedent for partisan reasons. If Trump gets to replace one of the liberal justices later on, Roe is 100% dead and Obergefell could be in serious trouble.
---

redrocket posted...

I actually think Obergefell itself is safe. I don't think Roberts/SCOTUS is willing to wade into the nightmare that would be flying in the face of public opinion

I really, really don't see Roe vs Wade being overturned for the same reason. I'd personally put it at less than a 5% chance no matter who is confirmed to the court. Of course, it's still possible for abortion rights to be subtly eroded/undermined from the current status quo without outright overturning Roe vs Wade.

I was of this opinion until recently, but last week the Court overturned a precedent from just a few years later (saying that unions can no longer take fees from non-members in the represented class).

Now, I dont think Roberts will definitely overturn Roe, but I am worried about it.
---

I mean, think about the Iowa heartbeat law and you could imagine how a conservative SC could rule in Iowa's favor and pretty much outlaw abortion that way.
---

Good news for South Korea:
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2018/07/01/0200000000AEN20180701000951315.html
---

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-cohen-family-country-president-trump-loyalty/story?id=56304585

When I asked Cohen directly what he would do if prosecutors forced him to choose between protecting the president and protecting his family, he said his family is my first priority.

Cohen added: Once I understand what charges might be filed against me, if any at all, I will defer to my new counsel, Guy Petrillo, for guidance.

But when I pointed out to Cohen that he wasnt repeating past vows to take a bullet and do anything to protect the president, the longtime Trump loyalist left little doubt about where he stands now, saying simply: To be crystal clear, my wife, my daughter and my son, and this country have my first loyalty.

He's making a plea deal with Mueller, that's for sure.
---

If his country had his first loyalty, he wouldn't be in this position.
---

Maybe he thought trump was going to lose and was just trying to make a quick buck.
---

Still not convinced that means anything/isn't just a desperate plea for a pardon.

I'll believe it when I see it.
---

I honestly think that's the most likely thing, ed.
---

https://twitter.com/chrispjgodfrey/status/1013171453796278273?s=21

100% agree. Super disappointing that left-leaning comedians still think shit like this is funny
---

I always thought the joke there was more that Trump would probably hate it if he saw it, not "hahaha it's funny because they're gay"

I agree it's more than a little bit juvenile though
---

Actually I think the joke is that he suddenly wants to bang this dude who a few months ago was his target for dropping nukes on.

Kind of like with Putin. The joke isn't that they're gay, it's that Trump is for some bizarre reason all over him.

These are people who are, not even supposed to be contemporaries, but by national terms supposed to be enemies. Trump is all over them. Treating it like a romance is the joke.
---

I can agree to disagree on this. I just remember being super disappointed when Colbert made a Trump/Putin oral sex joke too.
---

XIII_rocks posted...

I always thought the joke there was more that Trump would probably hate it if he saw it, not "hahaha it's funny because they're gay"

I agree it's more than a little bit juvenile though

Also even if this is true, I dont think thats how it plays to homophobes, and I think stuff like that is tonally important. The same way Trumps language plays super well to white supremacists, even if it isnt explicitly white supremacist.
---

Yeah, sure, I can buy that
---

Ashethan posted...

If Obergefell is overturned, the next person to tell me "TRUMP IS THE MOST PRO LGBT CANDIDATE EVER" is getting punched in the face. I'm not an advocate of violence, but this I will make an exception for.

It's really easy to prove that he failed on his promise to be the most pro-LGBT candidate ever, and is possibly the worst in our lifetimes.

He banned transgender troops from the military.

(And did a number of smaller things like remove the restriction on government contractors that the government not provide contracts with organizations that fire people for being gay. Some of those you can maaaaybe excuse with "well he was just trying to reduce regulation and red tape", okay, but the trans military ban is extra red tape. Oh, also, he was the kenote speaker at an anti-LGBT conference while president, something no other president has done).
---

I never took it as "haha they're gay" as being the punchline

I took it moreso as just a way of trying to highlight how oddly close/friendly they're being. It's like the grade school "If you love it so much, why don't you marry it."

Like, I know I've seen stuff like the "blowjob" joke made about a man and a woman, too.

I assumed the punchline was just how oddly enamored Trump is with these people
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I can agree to disagree on this. I just remember being super disappointed when Colbert made a Trump/Putin oral sex joke too.

I submit that the joke there is less "haha trump's gay" and more of just how subservient Trump has been to Putin.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Like, I know I've seen stuff like the "blowjob" joke made about a man and a woman, too.

Well the joke can be misogynistic instead of homophobic if you frame it like that.

Why shame people that want to give blowjobs?? Super counter productive to a happier world
---

From the comments:

Now that last one is problematic in it's own right because it implies performing oral sex makes you weak/subservient, an idea usually applied to women or gay men. The old "bend over for him" joke is problematic the same way, But I don't think either is inherently anti-gay.

---

It kinda reminds me of Trumps Pocahontas nickname for Warren

If you dissect it to the bone, you can make a case that its not a slur. I dont believe he uses it as a slur. But if it makes people who DO use slurs and DO hate gays feel more welcome to expressing those ideas, its not a good look.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

It kinda reminds me of Trumps Pocahontas nickname for Warren

If you dissect it to the bone, you can make a case that its not a slur. I dont believe he uses it as a slur. But if it makes people who DO use slurs and DO hate gays feel more welcome to expressing those ideas, its not a good look.

To be perfectly fair, that being a qualifier is basically going to leave us completely screwed, because those kinds of people are going to get something out of anything when they want to.

I mean, hell, we've had white supremacists go "They said nothing, that means they're on our side!"
---

Well there are no hard and fast rules about comedy.

Again, I can agree to disagree

I think we can all agree that those original jokes are more cringe than funny though!
---

Yeah they arent funny.

It also is a good reminder that you dont need to necessarily be socially liberal to oppose trump.
---

If we're trying to riff on somebody being subservient to somebody else, and we're cutting out sexuality for the gay-community and misogyny for women...

...I mean, there's the slave-angle, but that is NOT going to play well.

So in the PC-world of comedy, are there other angles to poke fun at for being subservient that doesn't offend a protected class?
---

I missed the conversation the other day, but I would love Sherrod Brown running for president.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

It kinda reminds me of Trumps Pocahontas nickname for Warren

If you dissect it to the bone, you can make a case that its not a slur. I dont believe he uses it as a slur. But if it makes people who DO use slurs and DO hate gays feel more welcome to expressing those ideas, its not a good look.

I fully agree with this. Unfortunately...yes, I want to bring up Hillary Clinton again. The problem is, I suppose someone could easily say the same about her giving "license" to SJWs in a similar way. Doesn't help that in her book she said she still believes the goal of feminism is equal rights for women, which would make tons of people laugh.

I understand that some leftists are going too far, yes, but personally I never saw any of it as being a big enough deal to want to elect Donald Trump! None of the major gamers/gaming sites I follow ever bring up Gamergate, Anita Sarkeesian, or anything similar for instance. I was completely unaware of what Gamergate was until 2016. The only reason I started paying any attention to politics was due to the Ghostbusters 2016 fiasco.

I have no idea if Trump actually knows about the "regressive left", or if he was BS'ing as usual with his "bigots on both sides" comment last year. I could believe either one by this point.
---

My problem with the right's portrayal of the "regressive left" or "alt left" or "PEOPLE THAT AREN'T LIKE YOU OoOoOoOoOo SPOOKY" is that they paint them as, at the same time:

1) Effete, weak, pansy little soy boys that can do nothing but REEEEEEE and cry into their gluten-free free-rang non-GMO kale salads while bemoaning the fact that we still have free speech and legal penises

and

2) Violent, destructive, Herculean anarchists that have taken over most of our major cities and are roaming the streets with bike locks, swat gear, and spiked bats in order to kill you, blue colored America, and anyone that has ever heard a country song.

They simultaneously portray the left as comically weak and terrifyingly strong, pulling out some random out of context articles of one or two insignificant morons so they can both laugh at us and attempt to scare anyone right of center.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

They simultaneously portray the left as comically weak and terrifyingly strong, pulling out some random out of context articles of one or two insignificant morons so they can both laugh at us and attempt to scare anyone right of center.

Literally the exact same mindset needed to buy into most 'conspiracy theories' these days.
---

Reg posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

They simultaneously portray the left as comically weak and terrifyingly strong, pulling out some random out of context articles of one or two insignificant morons so they can both laugh at us and attempt to scare anyone right of center.

Literally the exact same mindset needed to buy into most 'conspiracy theories' these days.

True that

Globalists secretly control the world behind the scenes...but WE have put together the clues they carelessly drop and know the truth!

Like life is a DaVinci Code novel
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

My problem with the right's portrayal of the "regressive left" or "alt left" or "PEOPLE THAT AREN'T LIKE YOU OoOoOoOoOo SPOOKY" is that they paint them as, at the same time:

1) Effete, weak, pansy little soy boys that can do nothing but REEEEEEE and cry into their gluten-free free-rang non-GMO kale salads while bemoaning the fact that we still have free speech and legal penises

and

2) Violent, destructive, Herculean anarchists that have taken over most of our major cities and are roaming the streets with bike locks, swat gear, and spiked bats in order to kill you, blue colored America, and anyone that has ever heard a country song.

They simultaneously portray the left as comically weak and terrifyingly strong, pulling out some random out of context articles of one or two insignificant morons so they can both laugh at us and attempt to scare anyone right of center.

those damn soy boy super soldiers
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

My problem with the right's portrayal of the "regressive left" or "alt left" or "PEOPLE THAT AREN'T LIKE YOU OoOoOoOoOo SPOOKY" is that they paint them as, at the same time:

1) Effete, weak, pansy little soy boys that can do nothing but REEEEEEE and cry into their gluten-free free-rang non-GMO kale salads while bemoaning the fact that we still have free speech and legal penises

and

2) Violent, destructive, Herculean anarchists that have taken over most of our major cities and are roaming the streets with bike locks, swat gear, and spiked bats in order to kill you, blue colored America, and anyone that has ever heard a country song.

They simultaneously portray the left as comically weak and terrifyingly strong, pulling out some random out of context articles of one or two insignificant morons so they can both laugh at us and attempt to scare anyone right of center.

First group is white, second group is black/brown, and they only work towards similar goals because they've been brainwashed by the mainstream media and their globalist masters (unlike REAL Americans). Obviously it's a crazy worldview (and wrong), but it's not completely nonsensical.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

blue colored America

This is a great typo
---