Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2018 2:40 AM
256 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 253 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,528 Year: 15,351/29,783 Month: 1,295/1,502 Week: 52/241 Day: 5/47 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
166167168169
170
171Next
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 2536 of 2557 (841365)
10-11-2018 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2535 by Taq
10-11-2018 5:22 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
Two words for you. Merrick Garland.

TWO more words for you: Mitch McConnell. Shortly before the 2016 election when it still looked like Clinton would win, he promised publically that if she won then for her entire term he guaranteed that none of her Supreme Court appointees would ever be confirmed, but rather the Republican Senate would block each and every one of them.

Now that, plus what they did to Merrick Garland, is obstruction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2535 by Taq, posted 10-11-2018 5:22 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2539 by marc9000, posted 10-14-2018 4:23 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
marc9000
Member
Posts: 948
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2537 of 2557 (841529)
10-14-2018 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2532 by ooh-child
10-10-2018 12:38 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
marc9000 writes:

Would you favor your Democratic party making a list of new government mandates to combat global warming, (you know, the disaster we'll all face if the globe warms 1 degree over the next 10 years), and then putting that to a Democratic vote?

I'm not sure what your point is with this question, but political parties shouldn't be in the business of proposing national Propositions to be voted on during general elections. Are you talking about a system like we have here in California? Just to let you know, generally I am not a fan of our ability to vote on anything that gets enough signatures to be put on our ballot. I usually vote 'no' on all of them.

My point is that it would be "democratic" to take 'issue' votes a lot more than we do. The U.S. is a democratic republic, not a strict democracy, so we allow elected leaders to make many political decisions for us. It's supposed to be the best of both worlds - the people decide, without a tyranny of the majority. I personally don't think we get enough issues votes, considering what the 10th amendment says.

Also, I don't believe your excuse for the use of 'Democrat Party', unless you've lived in a cave since Limbaugh went on the air. But if you promise to use the correct term going forward, then I'll chalk it up to 'lesson learned'.

From your link above;

quote:
Pollster Frank Luntz tested the phrase with a focus group in 2001, and concluded that the only people who really disliked the epithet were highly partisan Democrats.

I just can't understand this sensitivity to such minor term usage. One term is an adjective, and the other is a noun. If the noun is getting more and more distanced from the adjective, it only makes sense to use them each where they best belong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2532 by ooh-child, posted 10-10-2018 12:38 PM ooh-child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2541 by ooh-child, posted 10-15-2018 11:53 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 948
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 2538 of 2557 (841533)
10-14-2018 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2535 by Taq
10-11-2018 5:22 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
You need to watch it again. Trump made some outrageous claim, like "Our administration has done more than any previous administration" and the foreign leaders immediately started laughing. Trump wasn't clowning around, he was being serious. They laughed at him. After they laughed at him he then said "That's not the response I was expecting". Watch it.

You might be right, but it's debatable. Some people do laugh at something, when they're nervous about it, or uninformed about it. If foreign leaders are only getting their information from our mainstream media, they're largely uninformed of course. Unemployment is at an all time low, GDP is at an all time high, etc. but it's all seldom reported.

Every time a president has been elected in my lifetime, members and supporters of the opposite party have been angry about it, but after the first year or two, they tend to accept it and the anger does subside somewhat. Not with Trump, as angry as they were when he was elected, the anger has increased. The reason is obvious, the good economy, and other things he campaigned on that he is actually doing.

marc9000 writes:

Now, a few weeks later, we have a 53 year old dignified, well qualified man nominated for a very high position, that, with only a few exceptions, has in the past gone through an orderly, respected process to be confirmed to that position. But this time, the opposing political party dug up 36 year old dirt, unproven allegations, from when he was a school child, and this actually saw the light of day, including weeks of wasted time and money, from the U.S., a major player in world affairs, a country over $20 trillion in debt. with troops stationed around the world. And sets everything aside to squabble like school children over the actions of school children. To repeat what you said;

Two words for you. Merrick Garland.

It's been fairly customary in the past, for a new Supreme Court Justice to have views similar to the Justice he or she is replacing. Garland's views were very different from those of Scalia. As examples, Obama appointees Sotomayor and Kagan replaced Justices Souter and Stevens, who had similar judicial philosophies. The vote for Sotomayor was 68 - 31, so several Republicans voted for her. The vote for Kagan was 63 - 37, same thing. So many Republican senators actually respect how the process works, they know that judicial picks are the job of the president, they're only job is to make sure they're qualified.

Obama was in the last year of his second term. If McConnell had the ability to stall the vote to keep the Court from becoming one of a "personal opinion" majority instead of a " constitutional" majority, then it was good that he did it.

Ginsberg is 85, Breyer is 80. Suppose one of them dies in the spring of 2024. What chance do you think Trump would have in the last year of his second term getting a conservative judge to replace them, if he doesn't have a Senate majority in 2024?

Chances are, one or both of them will die before then. It will be interesting to see if Trump nominates someone somewhat more moderate than Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, or if he goes for another Constitutionalist. Won't matter to Democrat senators, they'll waste as much of the nations time and money to block it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2535 by Taq, posted 10-11-2018 5:22 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2542 by Taq, posted 10-15-2018 5:49 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 2545 by Chiroptera, posted 10-17-2018 12:59 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 948
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 2539 of 2557 (841534)
10-14-2018 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 2536 by dwise1
10-11-2018 6:21 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
TWO more words for you: Mitch McConnell. Shortly before the 2016 election when it still looked like Clinton would win, he promised publically that if she won then for her entire term he guaranteed that none of her Supreme Court appointees would ever be confirmed, but rather the Republican Senate would block each and every one of them.

Now that, plus what they did to Merrick Garland, is obstruction.

Because McConnell knows that Democrats long ago quit nominating Justices that actually interpret the Constitution, they prefer those who consider the Constitution to have very broad principles and concepts, subject to the whims of today's Democrat party. (whoops, I mean today's Democratic party.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2536 by dwise1, posted 10-11-2018 6:21 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2543 by Taq, posted 10-15-2018 5:51 PM marc9000 has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1725
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 2540 of 2557 (841536)
10-14-2018 5:16 PM


birds of a feather
Unsurprisingly Trump praises a loser white supremacist who came in second.

https://www.cnn.com/...-great-general-ohio-rally-sot-vpx.cnn


  
ooh-child
Member
Posts: 192
Joined: 04-10-2009


(1)
Message 2541 of 2557 (841565)
10-15-2018 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 2537 by marc9000
10-14-2018 3:40 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
Frank Luntz, from 17 years ago? Yeah, I take his advice to the Democratic Party as just partisan polling.

And of course members of the party are offended, that's my point! They do it on purpose, all the conservative pundits, to 'own the libs'. That's a badge of honor for them. The emphasis on 'rat', just like Jeanine Pirro's slur 'demonrat', is meant to insult, not engage.

So why pretend you want some dialogue about an issue with us, while insulting us at the same time? That was my point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2537 by marc9000, posted 10-14-2018 3:40 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7575
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(4)
Message 2542 of 2557 (841584)
10-15-2018 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 2538 by marc9000
10-14-2018 4:19 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
marc9000 writes:

It's been fairly customary in the past, for a new Supreme Court Justice to have views similar to the Justice he or she is replacing.

That's complete BS. This has never, ever been a tradition. The tradition is that the President appoints judges that have similar views to the President. Do you really think Trump would appoint a liberal if RBG retires? Do you think a Republican Senate would turn down a conservative to replace RBG? Seriously?

It's is hypocrisy in the extreme to chide Democrats because they asked for an investigation when Republicans refused to let Obama appoint Merrick Garland for absolutely no valid reason.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2538 by marc9000, posted 10-14-2018 4:19 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2546 by marc9000, posted 10-17-2018 8:20 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7575
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 2543 of 2557 (841585)
10-15-2018 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 2539 by marc9000
10-14-2018 4:23 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
marc9000 writes:

Because McConnell knows that Democrats long ago quit nominating Justices that actually interpret the Constitution, they prefer those who consider the Constitution to have very broad principles and concepts, subject to the whims of today's Democrat party. (whoops, I mean today's Democratic party.)

Care to give an example?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2539 by marc9000, posted 10-14-2018 4:23 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2547 by marc9000, posted 10-17-2018 8:23 PM Taq has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6522
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 2544 of 2557 (841596)
10-16-2018 7:40 AM


Kai Wright on the context of the Kavanaugh fiasco
From The Nation:

White Men Have Good Reason to Be Scared

Hell hath no fury like a white man scorned. If you take nothing else from the Senate’s confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, take that much.

Kai Wright, a regular columnist at The Nation has an opinion piece that puts the fight over Kavanaugh's confirmation in the context of white men's fears of losing their privileges.

We’ve told ourselves that our most bitter conflict is “conservative” versus “liberal,” “free enterprise” versus “big government.” Maybe now we are finally ready to be honest about the real point of contention: We are, as we have always been, a nation divided on the topic of white-male power.

Warning: this essay is polemics. If that's not your cup of tea, then you're allowed to give it a miss.


We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. -- John McCain

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6522
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 2545 of 2557 (841649)
10-17-2018 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 2538 by marc9000
10-14-2018 4:19 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
It's been fairly customary in the past, for a new Supreme Court Justice to have views similar to the Justice he or she is replacing.

Seriously? marc9000 says this on a thread discussing Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy?


We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. -- John McCain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2538 by marc9000, posted 10-14-2018 4:19 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2548 by marc9000, posted 10-17-2018 8:28 PM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 948
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2546 of 2557 (841655)
10-17-2018 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2542 by Taq
10-15-2018 5:49 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
That's complete BS. This has never, ever been a tradition. The tradition is that the President appoints judges that have similar views to the President.

Never, ever? How about the 'lineage' (for lack of a better term) leading up to today's Steven Breyer? Breyer replaced Harry Blackmun;

quote:
Appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon, Blackmun ultimately became one of the most liberal justices on the Court.

Blackmun replaced Abe Fortas, (nominated by Johnson), who replaced Arthur Goldberg (nominated by John F. Kennedy)

A list of 4 left leaning judges. Nixon was being co-operative, I'm sure it's happened many other times in the country's history. Of course, there are always exceptions. By Democrats of course. Clinton nominated Ruth Ginsburg, who replaced Byron White. He was nominated by John F. Kennedy, but was much more conservative than Ginsburg.

quote:
He was seen as a disappointment by some Kennedy supporters who wished he had joined the more liberal wing of the court in its opinions on Miranda v. Arizona and Roe v. Wade.[8]

So hopefully, today's Republicans won't try to be co-operative like Nixon was, expecting today's Democrats to return the favor. Any co-operation today's Republicans offer will just be used by Democrats to stab them in the back with. That's the reason Lindsay Graham was so fired up at the Kavanaugh hearing. (he voted FOR Sotomayor) I don't look for him to vote for a liberal justice again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2542 by Taq, posted 10-15-2018 5:49 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 948
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2547 of 2557 (841656)
10-17-2018 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 2543 by Taq
10-15-2018 5:51 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
marc9000 writes:

Because McConnell knows that Democrats long ago quit nominating Justices that actually interpret the Constitution, they prefer those who consider the Constitution to have very broad principles and concepts, subject to the whims of today's Democrat party. (whoops, I mean today's Democratic party.)

Care to give an example?

How about 4, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2543 by Taq, posted 10-15-2018 5:51 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2550 by Taq, posted 10-18-2018 1:45 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 948
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2548 of 2557 (841657)
10-17-2018 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 2545 by Chiroptera
10-17-2018 12:59 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
marc9000 writes:

It's been fairly customary in the past, for a new Supreme Court Justice to have views similar to the Justice he or she is replacing.

Seriously? marc9000 says this on a thread discussing Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy?

Seriously? Chiroptera sees differences in Kennedy's Supreme Court decisions versus Kavanaugh's Supreme Court decisions when Kavanaugh hasn't even been there long enough to make a Supreme Court decision yet? And they're both WHITE too!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2545 by Chiroptera, posted 10-17-2018 12:59 PM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 2549 by Taq, posted 10-18-2018 1:43 PM marc9000 has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7575
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 2549 of 2557 (841673)
10-18-2018 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 2548 by marc9000
10-17-2018 8:28 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
marc9000 writes:

Seriously? Chiroptera sees differences in Kennedy's Supreme Court decisions versus Kavanaugh's Supreme Court decisions when Kavanaugh hasn't even been there long enough to make a Supreme Court decision yet? And they're both WHITE too!

What differences have you seen between Merrick Garland's Supreme Court decisions and Antonin Scalia's decisions? Remember, you are the one who said it was inappropriate to replace Scalia with Garland, so let's see those Garland SCOTUS decisions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2548 by marc9000, posted 10-17-2018 8:28 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2553 by marc9000, posted 10-18-2018 8:44 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7575
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 2550 of 2557 (841674)
10-18-2018 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2547 by marc9000
10-17-2018 8:23 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
marc9000 writes:

How about 4, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan.

I was asking for decisions based on "consider the Constitution to have very broad principles and concepts, subject to the whims of today's Democrat party". Can you name any such decisions?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2547 by marc9000, posted 10-17-2018 8:23 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2551 by Percy, posted 10-18-2018 6:40 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 2554 by marc9000, posted 10-18-2018 8:49 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
166167168169
170
171Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018