hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 3 of 226 FirstFirst 1234561353103 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 4516

Thread: US Politics Thread, 2.0

  1. #41
    Movember 2012 Elriche Oshego's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 21, 2011
    Posts
    8,009
    What

  2. #42
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    4,517
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    "Maybe, instead of demonizing and alienating an entire swath of America, we could grow some balls and change the party's message to resonate more with the electorate, especially with disaffected white Christians. That way, people will be less inclined to support fringe candidates like Trump, and the Republican party won't be able to keep taking over the judicial branch."

    "ARE YOU CRAZY!? We obviously have to change the US Constitution in order to make a minuscule difference in the end result, which will trigger a legal battle that will take years to wind its way through the system and eventually reach the Supreme Court. Our moral high ground is CLEARLY superior, and there's no way we can lose!"

    "You want to change the Constitution, even though you still can't ratify the ERA after a century. You want to engage in a years-long battle in a venue that has been stacked against you by your opponents. And you still haven't figured out why you lost in 2000, 2004 and 2016."

    "Yes!"

    "And you still want to party to be run by condescending personalities from coastal states."

    "Absolutely!"

    "I'll pass."
    Some pretty serious changes need to happen otherwise we're looking at ~70% of the population being told no by the ~30% who see nothing wrong with rising sea levels or selling your house to afford chemo

    And it's not even the electoral college, it's the courts who will be carrying out the will of that 30% well past their death.

    90 year old Gorsuch striking down another single-payer law is the real dystopian future
    Only takes a simple majority in Congress to expand the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. FDRs mere threat to do this got the troublesome Justices in line in the 30s, ending the Lochner era. Threat probably wont work this time, but actually alterin the makeup of the Court may happen in the 2020s or 2030s, depending on how stubborn they are.

  3. #43
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    2,655
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    "Maybe, instead of demonizing and alienating an entire swath of America, we could grow some balls and change the party's message to resonate more with the electorate, especially with disaffected white Christians. That way, people will be less inclined to support fringe candidates like Trump, and the Republican party won't be able to keep taking over the judicial branch."

    "ARE YOU CRAZY!? We obviously have to change the US Constitution in order to make a minuscule difference in the end result, which will trigger a legal battle that will take years to wind its way through the system and eventually reach the Supreme Court. Our moral high ground is CLEARLY superior, and there's no way we can lose!"

    "You want to change the Constitution, even though you still can't ratify the ERA after a century. You want to engage in a years-long battle in a venue that has been stacked against you by your opponents. And you still haven't figured out why you lost in 2000, 2004 and 2016."

    "Yes!"

    "And you still want to party to be run by condescending personalities from coastal states."

    "Absolutely!"

    "I'll pass."
    Some pretty serious changes need to happen otherwise we're looking at ~70% of the population being told no by the ~30% who see nothing wrong with rising sea levels or selling your house to afford chemo

    And it's not even the electoral college, it's the courts who will be carrying out the will of that 30% well past their death.

    90 year old Gorsuch striking down another single-payer law is the real dystopian future
    Only takes a simple majority in Congress to expand the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. FDR’s mere threat to do this got the troublesome Justices in line in the ‘30s, ending the Lochner era. Threat probably won’t work this time, but actually alterin the makeup of the Court may happen in the 2020s or 2030s, depending on how stubborn they are.
    Yea I imagine the next President would have to actually go through with it.

    So there might be like one candidate who'd be willing to change the Courts so we don't have to deal with a modern day Lochner era

  4. #44
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    4,517
    We’ll probably call this the Citizens United era in the future, tbh.

  5. #45
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,551
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    "Maybe, instead of demonizing and alienating an entire swath of America, we could grow some balls and change the party's message to resonate more with the electorate, especially with disaffected white Christians. That way, people will be less inclined to support fringe candidates like Trump, and the Republican party won't be able to keep taking over the judicial branch."

    "ARE YOU CRAZY!? We obviously have to change the US Constitution in order to make a minuscule difference in the end result, which will trigger a legal battle that will take years to wind its way through the system and eventually reach the Supreme Court. Our moral high ground is CLEARLY superior, and there's no way we can lose!"

    "You want to change the Constitution, even though you still can't ratify the ERA after a century. You want to engage in a years-long battle in a venue that has been stacked against you by your opponents. And you still haven't figured out why you lost in 2000, 2004 and 2016."

    "Yes!"

    "And you still want to party to be run by condescending personalities from coastal states."

    "Absolutely!"

    "I'll pass."
    Some pretty serious changes need to happen otherwise we're looking at ~70% of the population being told no by the ~30% who see nothing wrong with rising sea levels or selling your house to afford chemo

    And it's not even the electoral college, it's the courts who will be carrying out the will of that 30% well past their death.

    90 year old Gorsuch striking down another single-payer law is the real dystopian future
    Only takes a simple majority in Congress to expand the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. FDR’s mere threat to do this got the troublesome Justices in line in the ‘30s, ending the Lochner era. Threat probably won’t work this time, but actually alterin the makeup of the Court may happen in the 2020s or 2030s, depending on how stubborn they are.
    Yea I imagine the next President would have to actually go through with it.

    So there might be like one candidate who'd be willing to change the Courts so we don't have to deal with a modern day Lochner era
    bring on the era of 101 justices.
    meh

  6. #46
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    4,517
    15 is probably plenty.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    367
    The number of justices has been reduced in the past, by legislating that the next X vacancies will not be filled. I’m not too worried about getting to an unworkable number, but then I’m an optimist.

  8. #48
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,507
    More justices means more justice, surely?

    A change to the electoral college isn't a "fight it out in court" thing, it is a constitutional amendment thing. The process is nearly impossible with our political environment, can't be done without state governments on board, so the correct course of action is just to campaign harder, and craft you message and policies so that they appeal to a broader geographic and cultural swath of voters, pure numbers won't do it.
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


  9. #49
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    4,517
    Which is why we need to focus on policies that can be enacted by congressional majorities, without need of a supermajority or state government approval (eg constitutional amendments).

    Things like admitting DC and PR as states, altering the size and makeup of the courts, expanding the House of Representatives, etc.

  10. #50
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,551
    More justices is a hedge against any president being able to materially affect the status quo of the court, which shouldn't be political, but has become so.
    meh

  11. #51
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    19,187
    The whole thing looks like it was set up to become political, what suggests it shouldn't be?
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  12. #52
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    4,517
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    More justices is a hedge against any president being able to materially affect the status quo of the court, which shouldn't be political, but has become so.

    That’s a solid argument, aside from the one president who gets to pick the 6 new Justices when the Judiciary Act is amended.

    You could always phase in the new seats over a period of presidential terms, but that might make things worse not better.

  13. #53

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    367
    Phasing in one pick per each 2 year election cycle could work and I think it works better than expanding the court when it suits the executive and legislative branches. You'd probably also want to write in that if vacancies occur on the court during the rollout period, you delay the addition of new seats so you don't get one president making a lot more appointments than others. Even though it sounds like a lot of picks, it ends up creating sort of a pick cap that should take a few presidencies to actually add the 6 new seats. The cap also keeps a president & senate from rushing 2-3 picks through in one election cycle.

  14. #54
    Movember 2012 I Legionnaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    1,897

  15. #55
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    4,517
    Quote Originally Posted by I Legionnaire View Post
    I have a trebuchet.

  16. #56

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    9,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by I Legionnaire View Post
    I have a trebuchet.
    Pics or it didn't happen ...

  17. #57
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by I Legionnaire View Post
    I have a trebuchet.
    What was the old EvE meme? I have 15M can I help?
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


  18. #58

    Join Date
    August 24, 2011
    Posts
    319
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorvil Barranis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by I Legionnaire View Post
    I have a trebuchet.
    What was the old EvE meme? I have 15M can I help?
    Can I bring my drake?

    New thread is better than old one,

    Trump sorting the china-us trade deal means he should stick around awhile, business and politics kinda like death and taxes,
    china will make the Mexico wall with free shipping IF china understand USA stronk

    Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk

  19. #59
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    4,517
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by I Legionnaire View Post
    I have a trebuchet.
    Pics or it didn't happen ...
    Behold the mighty Trebuchet of Freedom™.


  20. #60

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Hollandistan
    Posts
    7,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by I Legionnaire View Post
    I have a trebuchet.
    Pics or it didn't happen ...
    Behold the mighty Trebuchet of Freedom.

    That looks sturdy enough to hurl a empty six pack of Bud light about 5 feet.

    Verstuurd vanaf mijn LENNY2 met Tapatalk
    Schopenhauer:

    All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •