Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 322: Anarchist Jurisdiction Since 2016

(+) Yeah! (+)

TheRock1525 posted...

I mean, the GOP are fighting a long-term losing battle here. They're struggling in every demo except uneducated rural whites. SC rulings against Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges would just made them struggle with even more with women (even white women) and suburban voters. The fact that immigration has fallen completely off the map for them as an issue heading into this election, and that trying to run on it in 2018 got them blasted.

You have more faith in the electorate than I do. Most are too selfish to care about anything but themselves.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The Republicans did filibuster judicial appointments (a ton)! Thats why Harry Reid killed the judicial filibuster for the lower courts!

I just linked you the information. The filibuster was considered taboo to use for judicial. Democrats started using it. So Republicans started using it. So Democrats removed the filibuster. So the Republicans removed the supreme court filibuster when Democrats filibustered the supreme court noms.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

I mean, the GOP are fighting a long-term losing battle here. They're struggling in every demo except uneducated rural whites. SC rulings against Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges would just made them struggle with even more with women (even white women) and suburban voters. The fact that immigration has fallen completely off the map for them as an issue heading into this election, and that trying to run on it in 2018 got them blasted.

It is reassuring that progressive ideals are moving forward in this country, it just sucks that the GOP are putting up some pretty damn good roadblocks.

Conservatives have been fighting a "losing battle" for decades now, I'm tired of this argument. They always find ways to hold on to power because our government is inherently structured to give the most benefit to conservatism.

Abolish the Senate, expand the House, abolish the electoral college, neuter the courts.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

It's the only apt analogy. One side keeps making up rules and the other doesn't. You keep accusing the side that isn't making up rules of making up rules. The Republicans make up a rule, the Dems have literally no choice but to follow it due to lack of power, then when it comes time to apply the rule again, the Republicans say "psyche!" and make a new rule.

There is no equivalency here.

Literally false. Educate yourself.

---

JeffreyRaze posted...

Topic: Republicans just kicked a puppy
Corrik: Dems would have kicked a puppy too!
Topic: Republicans just stole candy from a baby.
Corrik: Dems would have stole candy from a baby too!
Topic: Republicans are being mustache twirlingly evil.
Corrik: Dems would be mustache twirlingly evil too!

Maybe try pointing out things the dems are actually doing wrong instead of constantly whining about hypothetical hypocrisy?

Read instead of looking for what you want to look for.

I showed how the Dems do the same thing.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Literally false. Educate yourself.

I have educated myself, unlike you. It's why I wouldn't be caught dead voting for the GOP.

---

Also no chance in hell Dems would've tried blocking for a year if roles were flipped in 2016 / Garland. Dems care way too much about appealing to conservative voters to scare them off like that.

Garland wasn't even much of a liberal pick in the first place!

---

We're all going to be dead and gone before any of the visions we want actually happen. So many people are still fighting the civil war to this day that they lost, not content for anyone to be happy.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

I have educated myself, unlike you. It's why I wouldn't be caught dead voting for the GOP.

Keep spouting falsehoods and lies then while ya do it! More power to ya, bud!

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Conservatives have been fighting a "losing battle" for decades now, I'm tired of this argument.

They really haven't. They used to win the Hispanic vote. They used to have completely control over several states that are now purple. The younger generation isn't becoming more religious as they got older like previous generations. Less and less people are identifying as religious in general.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

I mean, the GOP are fighting a long-term losing battle here.

Pre-Trump I would have agreed with you

We're boned now though. Conservatives will win in the long term simply because Trump has established that they're willing to subvert the government to get what they want, while Democrats won't. Biden will undo maybe 20% of what Trump did and then then another Republican takes office and it's ten steps back again.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

We're all going to be dead and gone before any of the visions we want actually happen. So many people are still fighting the civil war to this day that they lost, not content for anyone to be happy.

Eh, I dunno if we will ever see the liberal dreams tbqh. The dream will forever go further and further, despite the current dream itself being a literal Eden and utopia that can never be achieved (liberals have unrealistic ideas).

Even with all 9 supreme court justices and every branch of government, those dreams would never come to fruition.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Keep spouting falsehoods and lies

That's your entire gimmick. It's why everyone mocks you.

---

Republicans filibustered 36 judicial nominees in Obama's first five years as president. In the history of the United States, from 1776 to 2008, there were a TOTAL of 36 judicial nominees filibustered. Nominees in GENERAL (beyond the scope of the judiciary) were 79 under Obama, and 68 in the entire history of the United States. So yes, Harry Reid removed the filibuster on non-Supreme Court judicial nominations. But only after the GOP abused the FUCK out of the system to obstruct the Democrats to an UNPRECEDENTED level. Also important to note is that it took FIVE YEARS of Republican obstruction before the Dems finally grew fed up and decided to abolish the filibuster. The GOP then IMMEDIATELY abolished the Supreme Court filibuster at the first possible sign of opposition. These instances are NOT comparable. It's like morons comparing "the Dems RUSHED Obamacare through in the dead of night (except there were two years of debate and allowances for amendments from the opposition party)" and the Republicans rushing their unwritten repeal bill through in the LITERAL dead of night, and giving the Dems no chance to even read the bill.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

We're all going to be dead and gone before any of the visions we want actually happen. So many people are still fighting the civil war to this day that they lost, not content for anyone to be happy.

Realistically speaking, climate change ends civilization before we get M4A lmao

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Realistically speaking, climate change ends civilization before we get M4A lmao

As someone with a 3 year old son this hurts me so badly.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

That's your entire gimmick. It's why everyone mocks you.

No, it's why everyone in your little bubble can't stand me for pointing out your hypocrisy. You sit there and moan and whine all day that Trump lies yadda yadda, while you sit here doing the same. And, as you said, it's not out of ignorance. I literally put the information in this topic itself. You continue on your way making baseless analogies that make no sense and purposely overlooking everything that again doesn't make it literally the GOOD VS EVIL fight you want it to be.

It's politics.

---

The people would revolt because it's my body I shouldn't have to have birth control. Government control. Etc. But, let's be honest, that's a better solution than aborting.

Im going to be honest: this is not a better solution.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

They really haven't. They used to win the Hispanic vote. They used to have completely control over several states that are now purple. The younger generation isn't becoming more religious as they got older like previous generations. Less and less people are identifying as religious in general.

People keep pointing to these demographics but they aren't monoliths. "Hispanics" in particular vary wildly by regional culture and are nowhere near monolith. And youth is more of a function of diversity and the current polarization - young white men are, shockingly, still fairly conservative. They simply make up a lower percentage of younger generations. Hell, even Black voters, though they vote overwhelmingly Democrat, can be very conservative! But the GOP is blatantly anti-Black so you don't get a lot of agreement there. But this all shows the inroads that conservatism can use in the future.

Currently the GOP's plan is also to just...suppress votes, and disenfranchize voters. So that's another angle against it. They will adapt, as they always do, and just waiting around to eventually outvote them maybe in the future is a terrible fucking plan.

---

This country doesn't deserve a great man like Bernie Sanders tbh.

It's always something with conservatives. Slavery, black rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, wanting people to be taken care of and not forced to lead horrible lives.

Solve one issue another crops up because they are history's losers who hate losing.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

This country doesn't deserve a great man like Bernie Sanders tbh.

The country deserves a progressive who can actually win the seat of power tbqh

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

The country deserves a progressive who can actually win the seat of power tbqh

No it doesn't, because that person doesn't exist. Look who people elect. They get what they deserve.

There is no magic bullet because people would rather cry about things than get things done.


---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

The country deserves a progressive who can actually win the seat of power tbqh

At the moment, I don't think this is possible. The closest you're going to get is someone like Obama, whose campaign slogan was literally CHANGE but didn't actually change that much.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

As someone with a 3 year old son this hurts me so badly.

Climate change won't end civilization, but it will make the world a different place from what we're used to. I don't think there is enough in fossil fuels in the planet to trigger a runaway warming beyond the temperature levels of say, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, even if we burned 100% of it. In that case we can survive as a species.

I think that is really pessimistic though. Apparently carbon emissions are actually DOWN from like 10 years ago. That is a huge deal, as up until very recently carbon emissions only ever went up, virtually monotonically up, and was highly correlated with GDP growth to boot. But now, first world countries have cut emissions without killing their economies.

Before, people spoke of peak oil as in when the amount of discovered oil supply reached a peak - now they talk about peak oil to mean peak demand, and believe it's right around the corner. Saudi Arabia has been trying to maximize their market share even at the expense of driving down the price of oil - I think they believe that the future in oil may only be a few years to a couple decades, and if we move on to other energy sources, then any oil left in the ground in Saudi Arabia will never be monetized. So they exert a ton of effort to maximize marketshare and force US and Canadian shale oil out of business, so they can while humanity is still using oil we'll buy it from Saudi Arabia, and the American/Canadian reserves never get used, because by the time they're needed, we will have moved on to other energy sources

Technology has little impact on the world until it gets to the point where it can be profitable, and then suddenly it moves at lightning speed. The important thing is/was to get carbon emissions to hit their peak, to prove that alternate means are possible. The downside of that slope can be very steep.

I don't think giving up is anywhere near a reasonable thing to do at this time.

---

electable progressive is the new generic dem

it's an illusion

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

No it doesn't, because that person doesn't exist. Look who people elect. They get what they deserve.

There is no magic bullet because people would rather cry about things than get things done.

...

You...you do realize...that second sentence is...self-fulfilling, right?

---

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-filibuster-gorsuch-really-unprecedented/

I mean, at some point you have to learn your history.

This is your filibuster lesson. (Whether you technically consider them or not).

"Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration. (This counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 183536 and 198788.) The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases. George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Thomas Jefferson did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Dwight Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up a nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate.

During the 1844 election, for example, there were two open seats on the Court. John Tyler made nine separate nominations of five different candidates, in one case sending up the same nominee three times. He sent up a pair of nominees in December, after the election. When those failed, he sent up another pair in February (presidential terms then ended in March). He had that power. Presidents have made Supreme Court nominations as late as literally the last day of their term. In Tylers case, the Whig-controlled Senate had, and used, its power to block multiple nominations by a man they had previously expelled from their party.

At the same time, in terms of raw power, a majority of senators has the power to seat any nominee they want, and block any nominee they want. Historically, that power of the majority was limited by the filibuster, but a majority can change that rule, and has. Norms long limited the filibusters use in judicial nominations in the first place, and violation of those norms led to its abolition. No Supreme Court nominee was filibustered by a minority of Senators until 1968. Senate Democrats attempted filibusters of William Rehnquist twice, and launched the first formal filibuster of a new appointment to the Court on partisan lines against Samuel Alito in 2005. Joe Biden participated prominently in the Rehnquist and Alito filibusters. Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and joined by Biden, were the first to filibuster federal appellate nominees in 2003. After Republicans adopted the same tactic years later, Senate Democrats eliminated the filibuster for appellate nominees in 2013. Republicans extended that elimination to Supreme Court nominees in 2017."

Don't sit here and act like Democrats play by rules and don't change them while also saying Republicans do. They both do.

What your stupid analogy left out was the entire surrounding circumstances.

It would be them changing rules for house rules back and forth when at each other's house. Then the umpteenth time the one person changed them at their house, the other person going what you doing you can't change the rules! And the other person going, we have always changed our rules when at our houses however many times.

(Though you would have to add complaining each time at each other's houses about changing the rules despite doing it in their own homes umpteenth times also and however many things).

It's why your analogy was literally dumb.

---

Inviso posted...

...

You...you do realize...that second sentence is...self-fulfilling, right?

No, it is reality. That is who the American people are as a whole. 1/5th of the population is still crying that black people aren't slaves and that was dealt with 150 years ago. They don't value answers, or someone who genuinely would run through a wall for their sake, they just want buzz words and to be fed answers on tv.

That is America.

And really it has always been America. There is no great vision of America that isn't surrounded by trampling on the natives, or slaves, or the poor, or the working man, or LGBTQ people.


---

don't catch you slippin now

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

People keep pointing to these demographics but they aren't monoliths. "Hispanics" in particular vary wildly by regional culture and are nowhere near monolith. And youth is more of a function of diversity and the current polarization - young white men are, shockingly, still fairly conservative. They simply make up a lower percentage of younger generations. Hell, even Black voters, though they vote overwhelmingly Democrat, can be very conservative! But the GOP is blatantly anti-Black so you don't get a lot of agreement there. But this all shows the inroads that conservatism can use in the future.

Currently the GOP's plan is also to just...suppress votes, and disenfranchize voters. So that's another angle against it. They will adapt, as they always do, and just waiting around to eventually outvote them maybe in the future is a terrible fucking plan.

White age 18-29 voted heavily with Democrats in the midterms. 50-65 men and 65+ men were the only demos they won among age groups. Even women 45+ went for Dems. Everything about GOP demos is trending in the wrong direction.

---

FFDragon posted...

electable progressive is the new generic dem

it's an illusion

Well, I don't think it's a total illusion. Bernie Sanders was an electable progressive.

And the moment it looked like he might secure the nomination, the entire Democratic establishment united against him. So while an electable progressive is technically feasible, in practice there's no such thing.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

White age 18-29 voted heavily with Democrats in the midterms. 50-65 men and 65+ men were the only demos they won among age groups. Even women 45+ went for Dems. Everything about GOP demos is trending in the wrong direction.

When people get older, they tend to become more conservative. Those 65+ people now used to be young, and when they were, a lot of them voted against Nixon.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Everything about GOP demos is trending in the wrong direction.

Okay yes, but you're not accounting for the fact power is being taken out of the hands of all those demographics you're citing, and the government itself is transitioning to a facist state

If Trump get re-elected, it's the last election we'll ever have, who gives a fuck what the demographics will look like in 15 years

---

Also I don't know why Corrik keeps posting irrelevant stuff. Does he think just by sheer force of will if he just posts it over and over and over again it will somehow prove his point?

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Okay yes, but you're not accounting for the fact power is being taken out of the hands of all those demographics you're citing, and the government itself is transitioning to a facist state

If Trump get re-elected, it's the last election we'll ever have, who gives a fuck what the demographics will look like in 15 years

I fundamentally disagree with this. A 6-3 court has no ability to make Trump president for life.

---

Also can you imagine Bernie, the guy whose main policy was Free Healthcare, being the nominee in a pandemic? It would have been a perfect storm and we didn't get it. Fuck the Democratic party.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Well, I don't think it's a total illusion. Bernie Sanders was an electable progressive.

And the moment it looked like he might secure the nomination, the entire Democratic establishment united against him. So while an electable progressive is technically feasible, in practice there's no such thing.

That's sort of the point. There's always going to be a Moderate Voltron to stamp out any actual possibility.

---

Democrats focus way too much on the electability of individual candidates and not nearly enough on the electability of the party. The party turns a blind eye to the poor and working class. I don't think they are going to have success as long as they ignore them and spend 95% of the energy trying to win votes from upper middle class voters who have an economic interest in voting Republican.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

I fundamentally disagree with this. A 6-3 court has no ability to make Trump president for life.

https://politics.theonion.com/trump-claims-he-can-overrule-constitution-with-executiv-1830106306

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Okay yes, but you're not accounting for the fact power is being taken out of the hands of all those demographics you're citing, and the government itself is transitioning to a facist state

If Trump get re-elected, it's the last election we'll ever have, who gives a fuck what the demographics will look like in 15 years

This is EXACTLY what Michelle Bachmann said about Hillary in 2016 and why conservatives needed to hold their nose and vote for Trump.

---

Yeah, I'd rather worry about actual issues that can arise from a 6-3 Supreme Court instead of impossible scenarios.


---

All I'm saying is that there's still time to organize a write-in campaign for Vermin Supreme.

has said that if elected President of the United States, he will pass a law requiring people to brush their teeth. He has campaigned on a platform of zombie apocalypse awareness and time travel research, and promised a free pony for every American.

If this isn't the man to lead us out of 2020, who is?

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Yeah, I'd rather worry about actual issues that can arise from a 6-3 Supreme Court instead of impossible scenarios.

You are being extremely naive. 3/4 of the things that have happened in the last 4 years would have been deemed 'impossible scenarios' in 2015. Every facist state is deemed as an impossible scenario until it actually happens.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

No it doesn't, because that person doesn't exist. Look who people elect. They get what they deserve.

There is no magic bullet because people would rather cry about things than get things done.

The entire point is that the electoral system is so fucked up that you can't just whine and blame the voters for deserving their fate. For all his talk about revolution, Bernie largely tried to play a fair game within the rules of the system and lost within it.

Not to disparage the man because he's a good politician but he's still a politician. If the moderate voltron is an impossible obstacle then you need a different strategy. You either have to hijack the voltron or stop it from forming. That's "getting something done."

---

Good point, it is actually the giant corporations that manufacture consent, it's not really the average voter's fault they have been manipulated their whole life.

---

I mean, honestly, I think the realistic scenario is that America splits into smaller countries. When democracy no longer determines how the country is run, some parts of the country are just going to peace out.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

You are being extremely naive. 3/4 of the things that have happened in the last 4 years would have been deemed 'impossible scenarios' in 2015. Every facist state is deemed as an impossible scenario until it actually happens.

If Trump was going to become a fascist, it was going to happen whether or not has a 6-3 majority in the SC or whether or not he loses this election.

You can't argue "well if he wins in 2020 he will install himself as president for life but if he loses he'll graciously accept defeat and quietly leave the White House."

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Also I don't know why Corrik keeps posting irrelevant stuff. Does he think just by sheer force of will if he just posts it over and over and over again it will somehow prove his point?

*Excuse me while I put my fingers in my ears and yell Republicans are evil while supporting my team of heavenly politicians.*

---

FFDragon posted...

That's sort of the point. There's always going to be a Moderate Voltron to stamp out any actual possibility.

The only way we're ever going to get an actual progressive dem nomination at this point is if we all just get pissed off at the democratic party as it stands now for continually not delivering on helping those they claim to care for. They're supposed to be the part of the people but the same issues year after year are here. So long as they can fluff their way and do things that only seem like legitimate change without changing much at all, the moderates will keep winning.

It's one thing for all these politicians to say black lives matter, but it's another thing to see what they're going to do to improve their lives and what they're going to help them with.

Tragically, Biden winning is only going to set things back again and let people become complacent enough to not fight or get angry over the establishment Dems running thing.

The alternative to that this year is Trump though. So yeah. To anyone else who wants to see progressive change, you're looking at it being another 8 years depending on how Biden/Harris goes, unless Trump wins and we probably get a bigger surge in progressive support in 4 years.

---

Corrik7 posted...

*Excuse me while I put my fingers in my ears and yell Republicans are evil while supporting my team of heavenly politicians.*

I must have missed that post where I referred to the Dems as heavenly politicians.

I'm sure you can quote me to show me it, though.

---