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

(+) Yeah! (+)

So like, New York 14th district primary was tight. She's probably going to be really great for the democratic party because she is never losing that seat and she's beautiful so she will be a major player for years to come as a face of the party.

Also her giving credit to Bernie must have made someone in DC die inside.

This will probably purge because you know, I don't care THAT much about politics but if I see an article or news story...!

Also man Trump is a silly guy.
---

I don't know much about her, but from what I have seen in the aftermath of the primary, having her near/at the forefront of the Democrats for the foreseeable future will be a very good thing for them.
---

Casually talking about politics?

Now that I can get into.
---

This woman that won and everyone is talking about, including Trump, is she the one you are referring to?

Yeah, I looked her up. That's who. She def got some teeth on her but she is pretty good looking. I think a lot of people are trying to jump the gun talking about her running for president in 2020 though.
---

I agree with a lot of her platform, but then again I agreed with a lot of her opponents platform as well. I am definitely against free college for all, at least in the way college is currently implemented. I also don't necessarily want ICE abolished like she does, and I think the problems with it are more of an extension of the current administration and our border policy over the past couple decades. So I'm fine with the concept of ICE, but I don't like the way it is currently implemented.

Beyond that everything I've seen from her looks positive! I didn't necessarily want her opponent replaced though, so I wasn't particularly excited for her win either.
---

Corrik posted...

This woman that won and everyone is talking about, including Trump, is she the one you are referring to?

Yeah, I looked her up. That's who. She def got some teeth on her but she is pretty good looking. I think a lot of people are trying to jump the gun talking about her running for president in 2020 though.

Has Trump said anything about Ocasio-Cortez? I thought it was more just a "haha Crowley you suck" kinda thing without referencing her directly.
---

They are really jumping the gun considering she can't run for president in 2020!

Also she doesn't take money from big business which is one of my biggest problems after obvious things that 99% of democrats agree on. We need to get the money out of politics and the fact that she was outspent 10-1 and still won is beautiful.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

This woman that won and everyone is talking about, including Trump, is she the one you are referring to?

Yeah, I looked her up. That's who. She def got some teeth on her but she is pretty good looking. I think a lot of people are trying to jump the gun talking about her running for president in 2020 though.

Has Trump said anything about Ocasio-Cortez? I thought it was more just a "haha Crowley you suck" kinda thing without referencing her directly.

That is pretty much all he said. But, the article I read in reference to the tweets talked about her so I accidentally put the two together.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

We need to get the money out of politics and the fact that she was outspent 10-1 and still won is beautiful.

I am not sure that is even possible, but it is encouraging that candidates can get outspent and outraised and still win now. Trump and Cortez.

Usually whoever raised the most won. Shocker.
---

Just need to reverse one Supreme Court decision.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Just need to reverse one Supreme Court decision.

When Democrats get a majority on the Supreme Court in 2065, they'll be so screwed.
---

The problem isn't democrat vs republican it is the fact that much of both parties are bought and paid for. And sure, money talks 'fair' but... they aren't serving the American people :/
---

I think the Supreme Court end of times going on for democrats right now is a bit exaggerated. Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court for like the past 46 years or something.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

The problem isn't democrat vs republican it is the fact that much of both parties are bought and paid for. And sure, money talks 'fair' but... they aren't serving the American people :/

Well the case you're referring to broke 5-4 along ideological lines. I know people like to default to the "but both sides" thing, but this is one clear instance where one side is demonstrably worse than the other on the issue you're arguing for.

Not that big money in politics isn't an issue on the democratic side as well, but it is just less of an issue at the moment.
---

Corrik posted...

I think the Supreme Court end of times going on for democrats right now is a bit exaggerated. Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court for like the past 46 years or something.

My worry is that Kennedy was a fairly moderate voice. Yeah he was a Republican but he was in the mold that I can respect. Trump is thinking about nominating some really conservative people.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

The problem isn't democrat vs republican it is the fact that much of both parties are bought and paid for. And sure, money talks 'fair' but... they aren't serving the American people :/

Well the case you're referring to broke 5-4 along ideological lines. I know people like to default to the "but both sides" thing, but this is one clear instance where one side is demonstrably worse than the other on the issue you're arguing for.

Not that big money in politics isn't an issue on the democratic side as well, but it is just less of an issue at the moment.

Yeah but I am not sure if the guy Obama would have appointed would have not made it 5-4 is all I am saying.
---

Corrik posted...

I think the Supreme Court end of times going on for democrats right now is a bit exaggerated. Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court for like the past 46 years or something.

Interestingly, the previous swing judge, O'Connor, was also a republican. But there is a difference between republicans like O'Connor and Kennedy and people like Alito and Gorsuch.

To your point though, Roberts is also not all that ideologically different than Kennedy, so the current impact won't be all that significant. Kennedy sided with Republicans for everything except abortion and gay rights. Those are big issues, obviously, but I'm not entirely sure Roberts is going to want to rule against a recent ruling in his own court like that.

But the next two oldest judges are RBG and Breyer. If Democrats can't get their act together, and I have no faith in them to be able to do so, it could soon be heavily Republican dominated.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

I think the Supreme Court end of times going on for democrats right now is a bit exaggerated. Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court for like the past 46 years or something.

Interestingly, the previous swing judge, O'Connor, was also a republican. But there is a difference between republicans like O'Connor and Kennedy and people like Alito and Gorsuch.

To your point though, Roberts is also not all that ideologically different than Kennedy, so the current impact won't be all that significant. Kennedy sided with Republicans for everything except abortion and gay rights. Those are big issues, obviously, but I'm not entirely sure Roberts is going to want to rule against a recent ruling in his own court like that.

But the next two oldest judges are RBG and Breyer. If Democrats can't get their act together, and I have no faith in them to be able to do so, it could soon be heavily Republican dominated.

Wasn't the supreme Court like 7-2 or something in the 70s.

Nothing is happening to gay marriage even if it is 9-0 conservatives at this point.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

The problem isn't democrat vs republican it is the fact that much of both parties are bought and paid for. And sure, money talks 'fair' but... they aren't serving the American people :/

Well the case you're referring to broke 5-4 along ideological lines. I know people like to default to the "but both sides" thing, but this is one clear instance where one side is demonstrably worse than the other on the issue you're arguing for.

Not that big money in politics isn't an issue on the democratic side as well, but it is just less of an issue at the moment.

Yeah but I am not sure if the guy Obama would have appointed would have not made it 5-4 is all I am saying.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/merrick-garlands-record-and-style-hint-at-his-appeal.html

He joined a unanimous opinion in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, a 2010 ruling from a nine-judge panel that allowed unlimited contributions to super PACs, nominally independent groups that support political candidates. The logic of the Supreme Courts decision in Citizens United required the move, the appeals courts opinion said, transforming the political landscape.

Citizens United concerned only independent spending by corporations and unions, not rich people. But it said that there was only one justification for restricting political spending: quid pro quo corruption akin to bribery. It added that independent spending could never satisfy that standard.

While Judge Garland unhesitatingly extended Citizens United when he believed its logic compelled him to do so, he was unwilling to push further than it required. In July, writing for a unanimous 11-member panel in Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, Judge Garland upheld a ban on campaign contributions from federal contractors, saying the interest in preventing corruption that survived Citizens United warranted the move.

Interesting. Fair enough! He was extremely moderate and might've been slightly left of Kennedy but right of any of the liberal justices on the court. It isn't clear though from my brief search if he agreed with Citizens United or was merely ruling in regards to the previous Supreme Court decision though. He still would've been far more likely to reverse the decision than someone like, say, Gorsuch.
---

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

I think the Supreme Court end of times going on for democrats right now is a bit exaggerated. Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court for like the past 46 years or something.

Interestingly, the previous swing judge, O'Connor, was also a republican. But there is a difference between republicans like O'Connor and Kennedy and people like Alito and Gorsuch.

To your point though, Roberts is also not all that ideologically different than Kennedy, so the current impact won't be all that significant. Kennedy sided with Republicans for everything except abortion and gay rights. Those are big issues, obviously, but I'm not entirely sure Roberts is going to want to rule against a recent ruling in his own court like that.

But the next two oldest judges are RBG and Breyer. If Democrats can't get their act together, and I have no faith in them to be able to do so, it could soon be heavily Republican dominated.

Wasn't the supreme Court like 7-2 or something in the 70s.

Nothing is happening to gay marriage even if it is 9-0 conservatives at this point.

It has been republican for a very long time, yes, but like Chris said a lot of these Republicans were moderate republicans. If Trump is looking to put someone like Thomas in there, then this is almost a very conservative court in a way we haven't seen in quite some time. They really just need one more at this point.

And the decision in favor of gay marriage was 5-4, with all the current Republicans on the court (except Gorsuch obviously) against it. Even Roberts was against it. We know where he stands on the issue, the only question is if he feels strongly enough about it to relitigate it even though it was just ruled the other way by his own court. I don't know for sure. I would guess no, but that isn't a guarantee.
---

Very true. Not trying to make them to be the same but Democrats, some of them, make me sad.
---

I think Roberts won't actually. He seems pretty fair.
---

Do you have the list of his judges from before Suprak?
---

Chuck Schumer:

"I strongly disagree with those who advocate harassing folks if they don't agree with you," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Monday on the Senate floor. "If you disagree with a politician, organize your fellow citizens to action and vote them out of office. But no one should call for the harassment of political opponents. That's not right. That's not American."

Bernie Sanders:

"Im not a great fan of shouting down people or being rude to people," Bernie Sanders said. "People have a right to be angry when Congress gives tax breaks to billionaires and then wants to cut nutrition programs for low income pregnant women."

But he said that anger needs to be taken out in a "constructive way" and that people should not be kicked out of restaurants over political differences.

Look, as Ive said before, yeah, I think people have the right to go into a restaurant and have dinner," he said.

Both on the Sarah Sanders thing.
---

Gay people have a right to cake and Sarah Sanders has a right to steak.
---

Corrik posted...

Do you have the list of his judges from before Suprak?

Trump's? I do not, but I am also fairly certain Gorsuch wasn't even on the shortlist. Was he? I may be misremembering.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Gay people have a right to cake and Sarah Sanders has a right to steak.

The gay cake thing is really difficult.

And I know the easy reaction is to be like oh my gawd no he didn't.

But, from what I understand, the gay couple was allowed to purchase a cake from the bakery. However, the baker objected to making a personalized gay cake for the couple due to religious beliefs. He also refuses to make Halloween cakes for the same reason.

I agree any gay couple should be able to go into a bakery and buy a cake. Any.

I am not exactly sure I agree you should be able to force someone to create a cake tailored for something you have a religious objection to.

I thought I read he offered alternatives and generic cakes they could decorate elsewhere, but I do not have a source on that.

Either way that is tricky because religion and orientation should both be protected. (As I feel political affiliation should be also). But, how do you unravel that knot there?
---

At what point does a cake become gay? Did they want a generic wedding cake? There names on the cake? Two grooms on the top of the cake?

His shop likely doesn't sell pumpkin shaped cakes so that's simple enough, but if his shop sells wedding cakes and they wanted one then that's wrong.
---

You see how easily casual political discussion turns tricky?

Become hardcore
---

I would but the containment topic is full of people to thr right of me acting as if they are holier than thou to people on the right.

Best just to chit chat!
---

I think one of those should have said left
---

Hm. No? I consider myself more liberal than most of the regulars there but they act very assholeish.
---

charmander6000 posted...

At what point does a cake become gay? Did they want a generic wedding cake? There names on the cake? Two grooms on the top of the cake?

His shop likely doesn't sell pumpkin shaped cakes so that's simple enough, but if his shop sells wedding cakes and they wanted one then that's wrong.

Nobody said a cake was gay. A cake doesn't have a sexual orientation.

But, a cake can be made to symbolize a gay occasion. From what I understand, they were offered a generic cake.

Correct me if I am wrong.
---

Sir Chris Rude Boys The Right

Is what youre saying then?
---

Yes.

I like you though. You a sassy man.
---

Maybe Sarah Huckabee Sanders asked for a straight steak
---

On the subject of the cake thing...I was just trying to look up information because I thought there was a claim that the couple was refused service outright and the baker made an excuse later on that hed gladly serve a pre-made cake. I found something that disturbs me more though. Apparently the guy had, in the past, willingly baked cakes for DOG weddings, so apparently his religious beliefs about the sanctity of marriage involve outright animals, but not gay people.
---

Also very happy that super delegates are gone.
---

None of it changes what the ultimate ruling was based on though. The baker was religiously discriminated against by the people taking him to court which nullifies the case right then and there. Dumb dumbs
---

Corrik posted...

charmander6000 posted...

At what point does a cake become gay? Did they want a generic wedding cake? There names on the cake? Two grooms on the top of the cake?

His shop likely doesn't sell pumpkin shaped cakes so that's simple enough, but if his shop sells wedding cakes and they wanted one then that's wrong.

Nobody said a cake was gay. A cake doesn't have a sexual orientation.

But, a cake can be made to symbolize a gay occasion. From what I understand, they were offered a generic cake.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Was it a generic wedding cake?
---

First amendment rights trump all sadly. I agree with the ruling. The government cant do that.
---

Corrik and I don't share philosophy but he is one of the more thoughtful people in this topic and is very rarely snide.

Methinks you dont know Corrik very well.

I like me some Corrik, but he is notorious for his mocking/condescending posts.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

First amendment rights trump all sadly. I agree with the ruling. The government cant do that.

Interesting verb
---

I probably know Corrik better than almost anyone else here on board 8. Dude and I go to war in mafia on the regular. He can be a bit rough but I wouldn't call him snide.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

First amendment rights trump all sadly. I agree with the ruling. The government cant do that.

Interesting verb

It was a word before our current president it will be a word after.
---

There is no after
---

My impression is that Corrik when unprovoked is generally not trying to be condescending, but his posts often appear to be so unintentionally.

The post from the last politics topic that started all this is an exception to that.
---

Yes there is, the harm Trump is doing can be mostly undone easily enough.
---

I think when you are willing to end your life so that the GOP never holds power of a branch of the government again that you have gone too far down the rabbit hole.

You will wake up the same tomorrow as you did the previous day.

I hope you of course were joking.
---

Corrik posted...

You will wake up the same tomorrow as you did the previous day.

False.

I will wake up stronger and more powerful than you can ever imagine.
---