Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

Donald Trump

1159615971599160116021661

Comments

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 18,750
    mrussel1 said:
    brianlux said:
    jeffbr said:
    mrussel1 said:
    tbergs said:
    ikiT said:
    Discussing Gorsuch...

    Trump tells Republicans to use 'nuclear option' to confirm supreme court pick

    On Wednesday, Trump explicitly backed Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell if he decides to use this “nuclear option” maneuver. “Yes, if we end up with the same gridlock we’ve had in Washington for longer than eight years, in all fairness to President Obama, a lot longer than eight years,” he said in the White House.

    “If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear.’ Because that would would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was put up to that neglect. I would say it’s up to Mitch, but I would say, ‘Go for it.’”


    POS


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/01/neil-gorsuch-donald-trump-congress-nuclear-option
    I may not align well with Gorsuch, but I at least thought he was a normal conservative judge pick that 20 years earlier probably would have skated through the process, but after the Garland debacle, Dems were pissed. Kavanaugh was a complete partisan hack. No matter what his legal expertise, he showed his true colors. He should not be a justice. So the stage is set to go even further right with this justice.

    The universe sure is one fucked up place. Who would have thought one of the worst presidents would end up getting the chance to pick 1/3 of the court in less than 4 years. I sure hope there are some changes made to the process that limits a president's ability to stack the court. The pendulum must be about ready to swing back any day now and you know conservatives will not like it, but they've really come at this as a team approach the last 10 years. The fact that people are so stuck on one party is so odd to me.
    Actually won't 5 justices be appointed by presidents that did not win the majority vote?  Assuming 3 tRump and 2 Bush
    Weird since the majority vote doesn't matter in a presidential election to even bring it up.
    Trump has exposed how fucked up our system is.
    The Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the majority.  Look at what was happening in France at that moment in history. 
    the founders did not account for the tyranny of the minority. how can a party that has lost popular votes in the last several elections and only holds the white house and the senate continually screw over the majority who voted against them?
    Exactly right. It is time to address the tyranny of the minority. The founders fucked that one up. They weren't infallible, after all, and naturally couldn't see every consequence of their framework.

    Time to clean up those mistakes.  And hopefully do do with vigor, strength, and commitment. 
    Easy to say,  yet I haven't heard any great ideas that don't have effects that can be s bad or worse than today.  At least none that have a chance to actually happen under this Constitution. 

    If Biden wins and dems take the 4 R seats they are leading in the polls there are many things that can be done to get better odds in the senate and Judiciary.

    End the filibuster for all judiciary matters.  Start adding SCJs. There is no constitutional provision prohibiting it. 9 Justices is from law and laws are passed all the time.

    End the filibuster for statehood. Immediately admit PR and DC. Create North and South California. This will add 6 likely democratic senators and give democrats a better long term chance at holding the senate. This could eventually swing the senate and statehood enough to think about amending the constitution. 


    All of the above is perfectly constitutional. But dems are too worried about "established norms " instead of doing anything possible to represent its constituents. 
    I'd be down with all of these.  I think the Dems can govern from center left but be aggressive in expanding its power 
  • static111static111 Posts: 1,394
    static111 said:
    jeffbr said:
    mrussel1 said:
    tbergs said:
    ikiT said:
    Discussing Gorsuch...

    Trump tells Republicans to use 'nuclear option' to confirm supreme court pick

    On Wednesday, Trump explicitly backed Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell if he decides to use this “nuclear option” maneuver. “Yes, if we end up with the same gridlock we’ve had in Washington for longer than eight years, in all fairness to President Obama, a lot longer than eight years,” he said in the White House.

    “If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear.’ Because that would would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was put up to that neglect. I would say it’s up to Mitch, but I would say, ‘Go for it.’”


    POS


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/01/neil-gorsuch-donald-trump-congress-nuclear-option
    I may not align well with Gorsuch, but I at least thought he was a normal conservative judge pick that 20 years earlier probably would have skated through the process, but after the Garland debacle, Dems were pissed. Kavanaugh was a complete partisan hack. No matter what his legal expertise, he showed his true colors. He should not be a justice. So the stage is set to go even further right with this justice.

    The universe sure is one fucked up place. Who would have thought one of the worst presidents would end up getting the chance to pick 1/3 of the court in less than 4 years. I sure hope there are some changes made to the process that limits a president's ability to stack the court. The pendulum must be about ready to swing back any day now and you know conservatives will not like it, but they've really come at this as a team approach the last 10 years. The fact that people are so stuck on one party is so odd to me.
    Actually won't 5 justices be appointed by presidents that did not win the majority vote?  Assuming 3 tRump and 2 Bush
    Weird since the majority vote doesn't matter in a presidential election to even bring it up.
    Trump has exposed how fucked up our system is.
    The Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the majority.  Look at what was happening in France at that moment in history. 
    the founders did not account for the tyranny of the minority. how can a party that has lost popular votes in the last several elections and only holds the white house and the senate continually screw over the majority who voted against them?
    Exactly right. It is time to address the tyranny of the minority. The founders fucked that one up. They weren't infallible, after all, and naturally couldn't see every consequence of their framework.
    The system was initially setup so that wealthy male property owners had more representation.  I’m not positive that the founders wouldn’t like a bunch of rich republicans running the show.
    Yeah, sure, the founders would want a bunch of rich republicans who look the other way when the president acts more like a king than a president to be running the show. Suuuuuuuure they would. 
    The main reason for leaving England was so they could keep more money, the dream of “we the people” was sold separately to whip up support and not originally intended to be applied to all.
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 38,086
    static111 said:
    static111 said:
    jeffbr said:
    mrussel1 said:
    tbergs said:
    ikiT said:
    Discussing Gorsuch...

    Trump tells Republicans to use 'nuclear option' to confirm supreme court pick

    On Wednesday, Trump explicitly backed Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell if he decides to use this “nuclear option” maneuver. “Yes, if we end up with the same gridlock we’ve had in Washington for longer than eight years, in all fairness to President Obama, a lot longer than eight years,” he said in the White House.

    “If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear.’ Because that would would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was put up to that neglect. I would say it’s up to Mitch, but I would say, ‘Go for it.’”


    POS


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/01/neil-gorsuch-donald-trump-congress-nuclear-option
    I may not align well with Gorsuch, but I at least thought he was a normal conservative judge pick that 20 years earlier probably would have skated through the process, but after the Garland debacle, Dems were pissed. Kavanaugh was a complete partisan hack. No matter what his legal expertise, he showed his true colors. He should not be a justice. So the stage is set to go even further right with this justice.

    The universe sure is one fucked up place. Who would have thought one of the worst presidents would end up getting the chance to pick 1/3 of the court in less than 4 years. I sure hope there are some changes made to the process that limits a president's ability to stack the court. The pendulum must be about ready to swing back any day now and you know conservatives will not like it, but they've really come at this as a team approach the last 10 years. The fact that people are so stuck on one party is so odd to me.
    Actually won't 5 justices be appointed by presidents that did not win the majority vote?  Assuming 3 tRump and 2 Bush
    Weird since the majority vote doesn't matter in a presidential election to even bring it up.
    Trump has exposed how fucked up our system is.
    The Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the majority.  Look at what was happening in France at that moment in history. 
    the founders did not account for the tyranny of the minority. how can a party that has lost popular votes in the last several elections and only holds the white house and the senate continually screw over the majority who voted against them?
    Exactly right. It is time to address the tyranny of the minority. The founders fucked that one up. They weren't infallible, after all, and naturally couldn't see every consequence of their framework.
    The system was initially setup so that wealthy male property owners had more representation.  I’m not positive that the founders wouldn’t like a bunch of rich republicans running the show.
    Yeah, sure, the founders would want a bunch of rich republicans who look the other way when the president acts more like a king than a president to be running the show. Suuuuuuuure they would. 
    The main reason for leaving England was so they could keep more money, the dream of “we the people” was sold separately to whip up support and not originally intended to be applied to all.
    lol
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 18,750
    static111 said:
    static111 said:
    jeffbr said:
    mrussel1 said:
    tbergs said:
    ikiT said:
    Discussing Gorsuch...

    Trump tells Republicans to use 'nuclear option' to confirm supreme court pick

    On Wednesday, Trump explicitly backed Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell if he decides to use this “nuclear option” maneuver. “Yes, if we end up with the same gridlock we’ve had in Washington for longer than eight years, in all fairness to President Obama, a lot longer than eight years,” he said in the White House.

    “If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear.’ Because that would would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was put up to that neglect. I would say it’s up to Mitch, but I would say, ‘Go for it.’”


    POS


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/01/neil-gorsuch-donald-trump-congress-nuclear-option
    I may not align well with Gorsuch, but I at least thought he was a normal conservative judge pick that 20 years earlier probably would have skated through the process, but after the Garland debacle, Dems were pissed. Kavanaugh was a complete partisan hack. No matter what his legal expertise, he showed his true colors. He should not be a justice. So the stage is set to go even further right with this justice.

    The universe sure is one fucked up place. Who would have thought one of the worst presidents would end up getting the chance to pick 1/3 of the court in less than 4 years. I sure hope there are some changes made to the process that limits a president's ability to stack the court. The pendulum must be about ready to swing back any day now and you know conservatives will not like it, but they've really come at this as a team approach the last 10 years. The fact that people are so stuck on one party is so odd to me.
    Actually won't 5 justices be appointed by presidents that did not win the majority vote?  Assuming 3 tRump and 2 Bush
    Weird since the majority vote doesn't matter in a presidential election to even bring it up.
    Trump has exposed how fucked up our system is.
    The Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the majority.  Look at what was happening in France at that moment in history. 
    the founders did not account for the tyranny of the minority. how can a party that has lost popular votes in the last several elections and only holds the white house and the senate continually screw over the majority who voted against them?
    Exactly right. It is time to address the tyranny of the minority. The founders fucked that one up. They weren't infallible, after all, and naturally couldn't see every consequence of their framework.
    The system was initially setup so that wealthy male property owners had more representation.  I’m not positive that the founders wouldn’t like a bunch of rich republicans running the show.
    Yeah, sure, the founders would want a bunch of rich republicans who look the other way when the president acts more like a king than a president to be running the show. Suuuuuuuure they would. 
    The main reason for leaving England was so they could keep more money, the dream of “we the people” was sold separately to whip up support and not originally intended to be applied to all.
    Well, "we" always meant WASPs originally. 
  • static111static111 Posts: 1,394
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    static111 said:
    jeffbr said:
    mrussel1 said:
    tbergs said:
    ikiT said:
    Discussing Gorsuch...

    Trump tells Republicans to use 'nuclear option' to confirm supreme court pick

    On Wednesday, Trump explicitly backed Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell if he decides to use this “nuclear option” maneuver. “Yes, if we end up with the same gridlock we’ve had in Washington for longer than eight years, in all fairness to President Obama, a lot longer than eight years,” he said in the White House.

    “If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear.’ Because that would would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was put up to that neglect. I would say it’s up to Mitch, but I would say, ‘Go for it.’”


    POS


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/01/neil-gorsuch-donald-trump-congress-nuclear-option
    I may not align well with Gorsuch, but I at least thought he was a normal conservative judge pick that 20 years earlier probably would have skated through the process, but after the Garland debacle, Dems were pissed. Kavanaugh was a complete partisan hack. No matter what his legal expertise, he showed his true colors. He should not be a justice. So the stage is set to go even further right with this justice.

    The universe sure is one fucked up place. Who would have thought one of the worst presidents would end up getting the chance to pick 1/3 of the court in less than 4 years. I sure hope there are some changes made to the process that limits a president's ability to stack the court. The pendulum must be about ready to swing back any day now and you know conservatives will not like it, but they've really come at this as a team approach the last 10 years. The fact that people are so stuck on one party is so odd to me.
    Actually won't 5 justices be appointed by presidents that did not win the majority vote?  Assuming 3 tRump and 2 Bush
    Weird since the majority vote doesn't matter in a presidential election to even bring it up.
    Trump has exposed how fucked up our system is.
    The Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the majority.  Look at what was happening in France at that moment in history. 
    the founders did not account for the tyranny of the minority. how can a party that has lost popular votes in the last several elections and only holds the white house and the senate continually screw over the majority who voted against them?
    Exactly right. It is time to address the tyranny of the minority. The founders fucked that one up. They weren't infallible, after all, and naturally couldn't see every consequence of their framework.
    The system was initially setup so that wealthy male property owners had more representation.  I’m not positive that the founders wouldn’t like a bunch of rich republicans running the show.
    Yeah, sure, the founders would want a bunch of rich republicans who look the other way when the president acts more like a king than a president to be running the show. Suuuuuuuure they would. 
    The main reason for leaving England was so they could keep more money, the dream of “we the people” was sold separately to whip up support and not originally intended to be applied to all.
    Well, "we" always meant WASPs originally. 
    Yep
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 32,323
    edited September 22
    mrussel1 said:
    brianlux said:
    jeffbr said:
    mrussel1 said:
    tbergs said:
    ikiT said:
    Discussing Gorsuch...

    Trump tells Republicans to use 'nuclear option' to confirm supreme court pick

    On Wednesday, Trump explicitly backed Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell if he decides to use this “nuclear option” maneuver. “Yes, if we end up with the same gridlock we’ve had in Washington for longer than eight years, in all fairness to President Obama, a lot longer than eight years,” he said in the White House.

    “If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear.’ Because that would would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was put up to that neglect. I would say it’s up to Mitch, but I would say, ‘Go for it.’”


    POS


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/01/neil-gorsuch-donald-trump-congress-nuclear-option
    I may not align well with Gorsuch, but I at least thought he was a normal conservative judge pick that 20 years earlier probably would have skated through the process, but after the Garland debacle, Dems were pissed. Kavanaugh was a complete partisan hack. No matter what his legal expertise, he showed his true colors. He should not be a justice. So the stage is set to go even further right with this justice.

    The universe sure is one fucked up place. Who would have thought one of the worst presidents would end up getting the chance to pick 1/3 of the court in less than 4 years. I sure hope there are some changes made to the process that limits a president's ability to stack the court. The pendulum must be about ready to swing back any day now and you know conservatives will not like it, but they've really come at this as a team approach the last 10 years. The fact that people are so stuck on one party is so odd to me.
    Actually won't 5 justices be appointed by presidents that did not win the majority vote?  Assuming 3 tRump and 2 Bush
    Weird since the majority vote doesn't matter in a presidential election to even bring it up.
    Trump has exposed how fucked up our system is.
    The Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the majority.  Look at what was happening in France at that moment in history. 
    the founders did not account for the tyranny of the minority. how can a party that has lost popular votes in the last several elections and only holds the white house and the senate continually screw over the majority who voted against them?
    Exactly right. It is time to address the tyranny of the minority. The founders fucked that one up. They weren't infallible, after all, and naturally couldn't see every consequence of their framework.

    Time to clean up those mistakes.  And hopefully do do with vigor, strength, and commitment. 
    Easy to say,  yet I haven't heard any great ideas that don't have effects that can be s bad or worse than today.  At least none that have a chance to actually happen under this Constitution. 

    If Biden wins and dems take the 4 R seats they are leading in the polls there are many things that can be done to get better odds in the senate and Judiciary.

    End the filibuster for all judiciary matters.  Start adding SCJs. There is no constitutional provision prohibiting it. 9 Justices is from law and laws are passed all the time.

    End the filibuster for statehood. Immediately admit PR and DC. Create North and South California. This will add 6 likely democratic senators and give democrats a better long term chance at holding the senate. This could eventually swing the senate and statehood enough to think about amending the constitution. 


    All of the above is perfectly constitutional. But dems are too worried about "established norms " instead of doing anything possible to represent its constituents. 

    LOL.  I'm laughing at myself.  I'm am so knee-jerk against splitting up my home state.  How would splitting California- which would very likely create a new red state (Southern California)- be good for the country?.  How would it be good for California? 

    And what are the arguments against making California, Oregon and Washington a separate nation?

    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • bootlegbootleg Posts: 267
    I think the concept of splitting California is because the Senate will continue to skew towards a minority of the population.  California has like 40 mil people and gets 2 senators.  North and South Dakota have about 1.5 million people combined and they get 4 senators.  Add in Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, WV, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho, and your at about half the population of California.  That’s 18 senators to California’s 2 yet representing only half the amount of people.  Hence why things that a majority of people want can never get done because there is unequal representation in govt.
  • ZodZod Posts: 7,200
    bootleg said:
    I think the concept of splitting California is because the Senate will continue to skew towards a minority of the population.  California has like 40 mil people and gets 2 senators.  North and South Dakota have about 1.5 million people combined and they get 4 senators.  Add in Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, WV, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho, and your at about half the population of California.  That’s 18 senators to California’s 2 yet representing only half the amount of people.  Hence why things that a majority of people want can never get done because there is unequal representation in govt.

    That's one view on it, but you have to look at the legislative branch as a whole.     When they were creating the United States, there was very much concern the small states would run all over the small ones.   Thus they created two legislative chambers.  The House is elected based on population of the state, and the Senate evens the playing field by putting all states on equal footing.  Laws need to pass through both chambers and reflect both population and geography.

    As a Canadian, our government overly focuses on the needs of Ontario and Quebec.   Our two most populous provinces.    What I wouldn't given to have our Senate do something like that, so that it's a bit more of a level playing field.   Because of the timezones most people make jokes by the time our votes start getting counted, because they won't count for anything :(
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 32,323
    bootleg said:
    I think the concept of splitting California is because the Senate will continue to skew towards a minority of the population.  California has like 40 mil people and gets 2 senators.  North and South Dakota have about 1.5 million people combined and they get 4 senators.  Add in Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, WV, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho, and your at about half the population of California.  That’s 18 senators to California’s 2 yet representing only half the amount of people.  Hence why things that a majority of people want can never get done because there is unequal representation in govt.

    Dang!  That's just screwy! 

    I still hate the idea of spitting up California.  I'm old, stubborn, and for better or worse, was born in- and still am in- a California goooooove!  :lol: 
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • bootlegbootleg Posts: 267
    Zod said:
    bootleg said:
    I think the concept of splitting California is because the Senate will continue to skew towards a minority of the population.  California has like 40 mil people and gets 2 senators.  North and South Dakota have about 1.5 million people combined and they get 4 senators.  Add in Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, WV, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho, and your at about half the population of California.  That’s 18 senators to California’s 2 yet representing only half the amount of people.  Hence why things that a majority of people want can never get done because there is unequal representation in govt.

    That's one view on it, but you have to look at the legislative branch as a whole.     When they were creating the United States, there was very much concern the small states would run all over the small ones.   Thus they created two legislative chambers.  The House is elected based on population of the state, and the Senate evens the playing field by putting all states on equal footing.  Laws need to pass through both chambers and reflect both population and geography.

    As a Canadian, our government overly focuses on the needs of Ontario and Quebec.   Our two most populous provinces.    What I wouldn't given to have our Senate do something like that, so that it's a bit more of a level playing field.   Because of the timezones most people make jokes by the time our votes start getting counted, because they won't count for anything :(
    I generally agree with that except now we have two branches of govt that are skewed towards a minority of the population (senate and President due to electoral college).  And now that the Supreme Court has been increasingly politicized we will have a 3rd branch of govt that skews hard right for decades.  It’s frustrating that progress for the country is held back because of the outdated ideas of the rural states (and I live in one of them).  If it were up to WV the whole country would still run on coal.    I guess you could flip that and say it equally wouldn’t be fair for the large coastal cities to dictate policy for farmers in the Midwest.  But if we don’t progress as a country and move on past the early 1900s were just going to get left behind in an increasingly global economy.
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 8,084
    Today is National Voter Registration Day

    In honor of our fearless orange leader I'm going to register again
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 8,084
  • ikiTikiT USAPosts: 9,331
    YO


    10 years in the 10club... 2010-2020 
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 17,818
    ikiT said:
    YO


    is the house really even talking about this? i have not followed any new developments since the weekend.
    "There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed."- Hemingway

    "i'm not here to start the fire. i am here to fan the flames..."

    If you have never failed, you have never lived.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 23,043
    ikiT said:
    YO


    is the house really even talking about this? i have not followed any new developments since the weekend.
    yes. pelosi was asked about this fairly directly and she danced around it. she used the phrase "many arrows in our quiver". they can impeach either barr or trump again and tie that shit right up until inauguration day. 
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • static111static111 Posts: 1,394
    ikiT said:
    YO


    is the house really even talking about this? i have not followed any new developments since the weekend.
    yes. pelosi was asked about this fairly directly and she danced around it. she used the phrase "many arrows in our quiver". they can impeach either barr or trump again and tie that shit right up until inauguration day. 
    But they won’t 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 18,750
    static111 said:
    ikiT said:
    YO


    is the house really even talking about this? i have not followed any new developments since the weekend.
    yes. pelosi was asked about this fairly directly and she danced around it. she used the phrase "many arrows in our quiver". they can impeach either barr or trump again and tie that shit right up until inauguration day. 
    But they won’t 
    Because it won't do anything.  There is no obligation for the Senate to take up the trial in any particular timeframe.  So even if he was impeached again, the Senate could still ignore it and move to the SCOTUS issue.  Other than R's voting, there's nothing really that can be done to stop it.  
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 23,043
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    ikiT said:
    YO


    is the house really even talking about this? i have not followed any new developments since the weekend.
    yes. pelosi was asked about this fairly directly and she danced around it. she used the phrase "many arrows in our quiver". they can impeach either barr or trump again and tie that shit right up until inauguration day. 
    But they won’t 
    Because it won't do anything.  There is no obligation for the Senate to take up the trial in any particular timeframe.  So even if he was impeached again, the Senate could still ignore it and move to the SCOTUS issue.  Other than R's voting, there's nothing really that can be done to stop it.  
    actually what I read was that impeachment takes precedence and congress is obligated to look at that first. I'll have to look for a link. 
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 5,193
    I haven't heard anyone say "tough, that's politics." I hear excuses that try to explain why this is different like "well, its different because Rs didn't have the senate, having the senate means we are doing the people's will," or "its different because it was Obama's second term."
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 23,043
    mace1229 said:
    I haven't heard anyone say "tough, that's politics." I hear excuses that try to explain why this is different like "well, its different because Rs didn't have the senate, having the senate means we are doing the people's will," or "its different because it was Obama's second term."
    I find both of those excuses to be just that, excuses. this whole thing mcconnell said that it was different because with obama it was a divided government, so it wasn't the will of the people is horseshit. not just on its own, but the fact that he's also saying they'd ram it through even if trump loses the election and the senate turns blue makes it absolute horseshit. and obama tried to nominate 8 months before he was done. at what point are people going to stop reaching with this lame duck shit. Fine, don't do anything between election and inauguration, but seriously, in his last YEAR as president he can't nominate? just partisan bollocks. 
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 38,086
    mace1229 said:
    I haven't heard anyone say "tough, that's politics." I hear excuses that try to explain why this is different like "well, its different because Rs didn't have the senate, having the senate means we are doing the people's will," or "its different because it was Obama's second term."
    Those excuses are essentially "tough, that's politics."

    It's called paraphrasing. It's also called hypocrisy. 

    chinese-happy.jpg
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 38,086
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    ikiT said:
    YO


    is the house really even talking about this? i have not followed any new developments since the weekend.
    yes. pelosi was asked about this fairly directly and she danced around it. she used the phrase "many arrows in our quiver". they can impeach either barr or trump again and tie that shit right up until inauguration day. 
    But they won’t 
    Because it won't do anything.  There is no obligation for the Senate to take up the trial in any particular timeframe.  So even if he was impeached again, the Senate could still ignore it and move to the SCOTUS issue.  Other than R's voting, there's nothing really that can be done to stop it.  
    actually what I read was that impeachment takes precedence and congress is obligated to look at that first. I'll have to look for a link. 
    I don't think that would be smart. I also don't think it's smart to start broadcasting that they will, indeed, pack the courts. They are slight favorites to regain the senate but if they don't after saying such things, guess who will pack the courts instead?
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 23,043
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    ikiT said:
    YO


    is the house really even talking about this? i have not followed any new developments since the weekend.
    yes. pelosi was asked about this fairly directly and she danced around it. she used the phrase "many arrows in our quiver". they can impeach either barr or trump again and tie that shit right up until inauguration day. 
    But they won’t 
    Because it won't do anything.  There is no obligation for the Senate to take up the trial in any particular timeframe.  So even if he was impeached again, the Senate could still ignore it and move to the SCOTUS issue.  Other than R's voting, there's nothing really that can be done to stop it.  
    actually what I read was that impeachment takes precedence and congress is obligated to look at that first. I'll have to look for a link. 
    I don't think that would be smart. I also don't think it's smart to start broadcasting that they will, indeed, pack the courts. They are slight favorites to regain the senate but if they don't after saying such things, guess who will pack the courts instead?
    I don't think "they" are saying such things. there is much conjecture out there and in the press, but I haven't seen anyone in power specifically say anything to that end. hence pelosi's "dancing". 
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 38,086
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    ikiT said:
    YO


    is the house really even talking about this? i have not followed any new developments since the weekend.
    yes. pelosi was asked about this fairly directly and she danced around it. she used the phrase "many arrows in our quiver". they can impeach either barr or trump again and tie that shit right up until inauguration day. 
    But they won’t 
    Because it won't do anything.  There is no obligation for the Senate to take up the trial in any particular timeframe.  So even if he was impeached again, the Senate could still ignore it and move to the SCOTUS issue.  Other than R's voting, there's nothing really that can be done to stop it.  
    actually what I read was that impeachment takes precedence and congress is obligated to look at that first. I'll have to look for a link. 
    I don't think that would be smart. I also don't think it's smart to start broadcasting that they will, indeed, pack the courts. They are slight favorites to regain the senate but if they don't after saying such things, guess who will pack the courts instead?
    I don't think "they" are saying such things. there is much conjecture out there and in the press, but I haven't seen anyone in power specifically say anything to that end. hence pelosi's "dancing". 
    I know they're not. Not yet at least. Everyone knows it's what they want though. Hope they're smart about it.
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 18,750
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    ikiT said:
    YO


    is the house really even talking about this? i have not followed any new developments since the weekend.
    yes. pelosi was asked about this fairly directly and she danced around it. she used the phrase "many arrows in our quiver". they can impeach either barr or trump again and tie that shit right up until inauguration day. 
    But they won’t 
    Because it won't do anything.  There is no obligation for the Senate to take up the trial in any particular timeframe.  So even if he was impeached again, the Senate could still ignore it and move to the SCOTUS issue.  Other than R's voting, there's nothing really that can be done to stop it.  
    actually what I read was that impeachment takes precedence and congress is obligated to look at that first. I'll have to look for a link. 
    Historically and morally, but not Constitutionally.  
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 5,193
    edited September 22
    mace1229 said:
    I haven't heard anyone say "tough, that's politics." I hear excuses that try to explain why this is different like "well, its different because Rs didn't have the senate, having the senate means we are doing the people's will," or "its different because it was Obama's second term."
    Those excuses are essentially "tough, that's politics."

    It's called paraphrasing. It's also called hypocrisy. 

    I understand paraphrasing, and I already said its hypocritical. But I don't see "tough that's politics" as paraphrasing what I said. One is basically admitting its wrong and saying too bad just deal with it, the other is trying to justify it by making up reasons why this is in fact not like 2016 and a completely different scenario than back then. 2 different reasons. 
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 38,086
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I haven't heard anyone say "tough, that's politics." I hear excuses that try to explain why this is different like "well, its different because Rs didn't have the senate, having the senate means we are doing the people's will," or "its different because it was Obama's second term."
    Those excuses are essentially "tough, that's politics."

    It's called paraphrasing. It's also called hypocrisy. 

    I understand paraphrasing, and I already said its hypocritical. But I don't see "tough that's politics" as paraphrasing what I said. One is basically admitting it wrong and saying too bad, the other is trying to justify it by making up reasons why this is in fact not like 2016. 2 different reasons. 
    It's "tough, that's politics" anyway you slice it. Republicans are better at it because they are ruthless. 
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 3,751

    Zod said:
    bootleg said:
    I think the concept of splitting California is because the Senate will continue to skew towards a minority of the population.  California has like 40 mil people and gets 2 senators.  North and South Dakota have about 1.5 million people combined and they get 4 senators.  Add in Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, WV, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho, and your at about half the population of California.  That’s 18 senators to California’s 2 yet representing only half the amount of people.  Hence why things that a majority of people want can never get done because there is unequal representation in govt.

    That's one view on it, but you have to look at the legislative branch as a whole.     When they were creating the United States, there was very much concern the small states would run all over the small ones.   Thus they created two legislative chambers.  The House is elected based on population of the state, and the Senate evens the playing field by putting all states on equal footing.  Laws need to pass through both chambers and reflect both population and geography.

    As a Canadian, our government overly focuses on the needs of Ontario and Quebec.   Our two most populous provinces.    What I wouldn't given to have our Senate do something like that, so that it's a bit more of a level playing field.   Because of the timezones most people make jokes by the time our votes start getting counted, because they won't count for anything :(

    Its important to remember when the constitution was written, there was no Attorney General and no Dept of Justice. Over the course of many years,  the executive branch decided it could give itself these powers despite not part of the original framework. The executive has added many powers since the constitution was written. 

    Now add in that the minority of people (small states) gets more voting power per person in the two elective bodies that have all of the final say of justice and the courts. 

    The one elected body that somewhat follows the majority gets zero say in justice . Further, the bigger blue states would have zero say on gerrymandering.  They will be able to completely legislate the democrats out of existence and a 6-3 court ready to rubber stamp.

  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 17,818
    face it. we're fucked.

    there is nothing that can be done. the stupidest man to ever hold the office gets 3 fucking justices. a man that did not win the popular vote, backed by a party that did not win the popular vote, gets to seat 3 justices for probably at least 30 years each. fuck this bullshit.
    "There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed."- Hemingway

    "i'm not here to start the fire. i am here to fan the flames..."

    If you have never failed, you have never lived.
Sign In or Register to comment.