Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 198: The Manchinian Candidate

(+) Yeah! (+)

Wow this is getting toxic as hell, and that's only the posts I can see.

Politics topic series might be done after tomorrow.
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

Well to be fair I'm hardly in here anymore really.

thank god.
---

I thought you were an atheist.
---

thank ulti
---

Yeah shouldn't that have been "thanks Obama"
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

I feel like this is a tacit admission that you'd have been okay with the lifetime appointment as long as it had been one of your guys.

A more informed electorate wouldn't be a bad thing. And it would keep all the Judges on their toes.

Well yeah obviously I would want someone on the SCOTUS that reflects my interpretation of justice. But Im okay with the idea of the SCOTUS lifetime appointment, and I have no PROCEDURAL qualms with Kavanaugh being appointed for life. Nobody cheated the system to get this seat like they did with Gorsuch. Hell be appointed by a majority of fairly elected Senators. Theres not much to complain about in a technicalities sense.

On the second point, more elections doesnt mean a more informed electorate. The electorate isnt even informed (on ANY side) for the elections we have now.
---

Thanks Goku.
---

Also w.r.t trolls, honestly ExTha I don't consider you that bad, and would rather have a dozen of you than a single Seph/Ulti.

You've got your one specific problematic issue, but beyond that you're actually possible to have a normal, reasonable conversation with in my experience (And hell, you're even showing that fact off right now!)

Thanks Reg, I'm glad at least someone admits as much.
---

Reg posted...

Also w.r.t trolls, honestly ExTha I don't consider you that bad, and would rather have a dozen of you than a single Seph/Ulti.

You've got your one specific problematic issue, but beyond that you're actually possible to have a normal, reasonable conversation with in my experience (And hell, you're even showing that fact off right now!)

ExThaNemesis posted...

I didn't think Kavanaugh was a good choice but let me just say

LMFAO GET FUCKING REKT

salt levels off the charts, work was hell today so I needed a great read like this topic. A+ work Sephy/Ulti. Sucks about the Yankees tonight but ya win some ya lose some.

LtM's rage, totally worth it.

yeah, you're not allowed to ever shit on me for engaging red sox again.
---

Nah, I'm not raging about this. I knew Kavanaugh was getting confirmed the second he was nominated as Kennedy's replacement.

It's just very sad all the future rulings that will actively hurt people. Erosion of Roe v. Wade, worker's rights and protection, net neutrality likely dead forever, etc. This was gonna happen no matter who Trump nominated, to be fair, but it feels rather brazen when Kavanaugh did everything in his power to come off as a terrible choice, get accused of sexual assault, and still make it.
---

Thanks Superman
---

Also I'd like to say. Elected SCOTUS Justices is an interesting idea, but I'd still rather try to cling to the notion of Justices being supposedly apolitical. And if they're elected through the usual Primary -> General Election process, we're just going to wind up with extremists that appeal to 'the base' on both ends.

I'm not raging about this but I'm definitely angry. I don't think it's a wrong emotion to be feeling. This outcome is fucked up on many levels.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

net neutrality likely dead forever

Im still super impressed in a gross way that the Russian trolls masquerading as alt-right influencers managed to feed the alt-right audience a bunch of false canned anti-Net-Neutrality talking points, and they bought it. Now all these people that 8 years ago were libertarians are all pro-FCC meddling

You would think if there was one area they wouldnt want messed with just to own the libs...
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Reg posted...

Also w.r.t trolls, honestly ExTha I don't consider you that bad, and would rather have a dozen of you than a single Seph/Ulti.

You've got your one specific problematic issue, but beyond that you're actually possible to have a normal, reasonable conversation with in my experience (And hell, you're even showing that fact off right now!)

ExThaNemesis posted...

I didn't think Kavanaugh was a good choice but let me just say

LMFAO GET FUCKING REKT

salt levels off the charts, work was hell today so I needed a great read like this topic. A+ work Sephy/Ulti. Sucks about the Yankees tonight but ya win some ya lose some.

LtM's rage, totally worth it.

yeah, you're not allowed to ever shit on me for engaging red sox again.

To be fair, there is a difference between ExTha troll-ING (which is still exceptionally dickish since he's still treating political decisions that have real impacts on people's lives like it's a stupid Red Sox/Yankees rivalry) and people like Red Sox and Seph and Ulti who are outright trolls at all times.
---

I don't think electing SCOTUS justices is the way to go. I'm more open to term limits (18 year terms yo.)

Court as it is now though is just broken.
---

to be double fair, extha's post isn't entirely about political teams as much as it is his paralyzing fear of sexual assault accusations
---

Reg posted...

Also I'd like to say. Elected SCOTUS Justices is an interesting idea, but I'd still rather try to cling to the notion of Justices being supposedly apolitical. And if they're elected through the usual Primary -> General Election process, we're just going to wind up with extremists that appeal to 'the base' on both ends.

When ExTha proposed it, I imagined we elect 3 every odd-numbered year, so they get 6-year terms like the Senate, and theyd still be non-partisan technically

And at the ballot box you would pick 3 from all the eligible people running, including the incumbents
---

xp1337 posted...

I'm more open to term limits (18 year terms yo.)

Court as it is now though is just broken.

I absolutely agree with both of these and meant to include term limits + supermajority required for confirmation as my more ideal answer but got sidetracked before including that part.

Obviously requiring supermajority (or even just 60+) for confirmation is a complete nonstarter in the current political climate where one side continually shits on any attempt at bipartisanship, but you get the idea.

Inviso posted...

To be fair, there is a difference between ExTha troll-ING (which is still exceptionally dickish since he's still treating political decisions that have real impacts on people's lives like it's a stupid Red Sox/Yankees rivalry) and people like Red Sox and Seph and Ulti who are outright trolls at all times.

i don't see the difference. honestly can't remember the last time extha wasn't acting like a garbage-tier troll in these topics. the only difference is that he posts way less than the others - i'll admit that does make him less insufferable, but it's hardly a reason to go "oh extha is not a troll he's so reasonable!"
---

Or maybe we could elect SCOTUS judges via an elimination reality show

Each week, an increasingly nuanced hot button case is presented, and we get to see all the wannabe judges present their hypothetical rulings, and then America Votes like on American Idol
---

Extha doesn't care that much about political parties. He just hates women, which is why today is the day you're seeing him here today and not any other day

Jakyl25 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

net neutrality likely dead forever

Im still super impressed in a gross way that the Russian trolls masquerading as alt-right influencers managed to feed the alt-right audience a bunch of false canned anti-Net-Neutrality talking points, and they bought it. Now all these people that 8 years ago were libertarians are all pro-FCC meddling

You would think if there was one area they wouldnt want messed with just to own the libs...

Yeah this is completely bonkers. There's Leopards Eating Faces and then there's convincing people who spend their entire lives on the internet to...mess with the internet.
---

america's next top judicial appointment season 1
---

I said it before and I'll say it again. Since the Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical, then during the presidential campaign, one of the events (televised on CSPAN or something before the debates) should be all major candidates (those who reach the 5% polling threshold) meeting up for a civil discussion. They prepare a list of Supreme Court nominees and negotiate with one another to get a finalized list of 10-20 names. This is a way to ensure there's no partisan divide, because all sides are working together to reach consensus. Then, should a Supreme Court seat need to be filled, the winning candidate selects whomever they want from the pre-determined list, and the Senate can debate over it if they want (there SHOULD be a thorough vetting process to make sure that someone unqualified didn't slip through the cracks). And as a result, everyone on the court is moderate and no one can complain about activist judges, or legislating from the bench.
---

KamikazePotato posted...

He just hates women

So literally all you have to do is drag him off that topic.

This week, the secret ingredient is States Rights regarding Polygamous Marriage
---

extha literally supported roy moore to piss off liberals (at least initially). he's not that apolitical.
---

Inviso posted...

I said it before and I'll say it again. Since the Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical, then during the presidential campaign, one of the events (televised on CSPAN or something before the debates) should be all major candidates (those who reach the 5% polling threshold) meeting up for a civil discussion. They prepare a list of Supreme Court nominees and negotiate with one another to get a finalized list of 10-20 names. This is a way to ensure there's no partisan divide, because all sides are working together to reach consensus. Then, should a Supreme Court seat need to be filled, the winning candidate selects whomever they want from the pre-determined list, and the Senate can debate over it if they want (there SHOULD be a thorough vetting process to make sure that someone unqualified didn't slip through the cracks). And as a result, everyone on the court is moderate and no one can complain about activist judges, or legislating from the bench.

And what if both candidates select extremists? This wouldn't work.

tbqh, I think I've mentioned it before, but honestly I think we're at the point where the illusion of impartiality and apolitcalness is gone and Democrats should just expand and pack the court. They won't, but it's broken and there needs to be a serious national conversation on how to fix it and if that gets us there, so be it.
---

Inviso posted...

I said it before and I'll say it again. Since the Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical, then during the presidential campaign, one of the events (televised on CSPAN or something before the debates) should be all major candidates (those who reach the 5% polling threshold) meeting up for a civil discussion. They prepare a list of Supreme Court nominees and negotiate with one another to get a finalized list of 10-20 names. This is a way to ensure there's no partisan divide, because all sides are working together to reach consensus. Then, should a Supreme Court seat need to be filled, the winning candidate selects whomever they want from the pre-determined list, and the Senate can debate over it if they want (there SHOULD be a thorough vetting process to make sure that someone unqualified didn't slip through the cracks). And as a result, everyone on the court is moderate and no one can complain about activist judges, or legislating from the bench.

This actually sounds like a really good idea.
---

xp1337 posted...

Inviso posted...

I said it before and I'll say it again. Since the Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical, then during the presidential campaign, one of the events (televised on CSPAN or something before the debates) should be all major candidates (those who reach the 5% polling threshold) meeting up for a civil discussion. They prepare a list of Supreme Court nominees and negotiate with one another to get a finalized list of 10-20 names. This is a way to ensure there's no partisan divide, because all sides are working together to reach consensus. Then, should a Supreme Court seat need to be filled, the winning candidate selects whomever they want from the pre-determined list, and the Senate can debate over it if they want (there SHOULD be a thorough vetting process to make sure that someone unqualified didn't slip through the cracks). And as a result, everyone on the court is moderate and no one can complain about activist judges, or legislating from the bench.

And what if both candidates select extremists? This wouldn't work.

tbqh, I think I've mentioned it before, but honestly I think we're at the point where the illusion of impartiality and apolitcalness is gone and Democrats should just expand and pack the court. They won't, but it's broken and there needs to be a serious national conversation on how to fix it and if that gets us there, so be it.

A nominee doesn't make the list unless BOTH/ALL candidates agree to it.
---

Inviso posted...

A nominee doesn't make the list unless BOTH/ALL candidates agree to it.

My point is no one would make the list.
---

xp1337 posted...

Inviso posted...

A nominee doesn't make the list unless BOTH/ALL candidates agree to it.

My point is no one would make the list.

My point is that we need to start forcing solutions to the partisan divide somehow. There needs to be a method to enforce this.
---

Inviso posted...

xp1337 posted...

Inviso posted...

A nominee doesn't make the list unless BOTH/ALL candidates agree to it.

My point is no one would make the list.

My point is that we need to start forcing solutions to the partisan divide somehow. There needs to be a method to enforce this.

How would you propose enforcing this in a world where the Republicans refused to so much as give a hearing to a nominee their most senior Senator outright suggested?

Inviso posted...

xp1337 posted...

Inviso posted...

A nominee doesn't make the list unless BOTH/ALL candidates agree to it.

My point is no one would make the list.

My point is that we need to start forcing solutions to the partisan divide somehow. There needs to be a method to enforce this.

There isn't a method to enforce it though. For example, do you think today's Republican party would accept any Democratic nominee's picks? And they'd complain if none of theirs were selected regardless of how extreme they might be.

I also don't think the partisan divide can be healed and the only thing we can really do is just work on ensuring turnout and vote. Democrats and liberal policy are supported by more people in the country. There are a ton of institutional and systemic biases in place that weaken their power but with enough energy they can be overcome.

It's kind of a bleak message, I know, but I really don't feel there's an answer.
---

One interesting thing to see will be how this affects the California independence movement, especially since IIRC it's on the ballot this November.
---

Voting for SC judges is stupid.

Roy Moore was voted into a state SC.

Term limits would be the simplest explanation.
---

Kenri posted...

One interesting thing to see will be how this affects the California independence movement, especially since IIRC it's on the ballot this November.

On a philosophical level I have no issues with California determining how it wishes to be governed.

on a practical level you guys don't get to just quit on us >_>
---

I recall reading in multiple places that the California Independence Movement was literal Russian astroturfing in every way.

The fact that it's even on the ballot is silly, but I'd expect it to go absolutely nowhere.

Yeah, I recall seeing the same astroturfing reports. In theory I have no issue with California or other states/parts of states determining what they want to do.. but I do think a single state, even one as big as California going solo would be a bad move for most/all parties.
---

Reg posted...

I recall reading in multiple places that the California Independence Movement was literal Russian astroturfing in every way.

The fact that it's even on the ballot is silly, but I'd expect it to go absolutely nowhere.

True but there have been legitimate movements in the past, so it's not like the whole idea is astroturfing.

Also Brexit proves that an independence resolution doesn't have to be well-planned or a good idea or even particularly desired in order to pass. <_<
---

To expand on it a bit, I think a better result would essentially be keeping the East and West Coasts together but you can't really do that unless you either except that it's non-contiguous or you rope Canada into this somehow.

Or to oversimplify it even more, that meme map that split the country that floated around back in 2000/2004, though I think it also went the route of including Canada in there.

Though I don't think we're quite there yet, and there would be a ton of logistical problems with it IMO. It'd be easier to just drive turn up through the roof and work slowly towards fixing the system. ...And that's already stupidly hard.
---

Roe v Wade is going nowhere. Only an idiot thinks it is.
---

Roe v Wade isn't getting overturned unless 2 more liberal justices are replaced by 2 more firebrand conservatives. Roberts is way too concerned with the integrity of the court to vote yes and Kavanaugh has a boner for precedent, so it's going nowhere.
---

xp1337 posted...

To expand on it a bit, I think a better result would essentially be keeping the East and West Coasts together but you can't really do that unless you either except that it's non-contiguous or you rope Canada into this somehow.

Hey, you leave us out of it

Besides, the American left wing does not want to have to deal with Quebec
---

I don't think Quebec wants to deal with anything that isn't Quebec, tbqh.
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

just a heads-up for pxl who was wondering what contest-season poli topics would be like!

the funny thing is the rest of you turned me off from these topics before the randos had a chance to.

great job!
---