Donald Trump
Comments
-
I'd be down with all of these. I think the Dems can govern from center left but be aggressive in expanding its powerLerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.brianlux said:jeffbr said:
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.gimmesometruth27 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
The Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the majority. Look at what was happening in France at that moment in history.Gern Blansten said:
Trump has exposed how fucked up our system is.cincybearcat said:
Weird since the majority vote doesn't matter in a presidential election to even bring it up.Gern Blansten said:
Actually won't 5 justices be appointed by presidents that did not win the majority vote? Assuming 3 tRump and 2 Bushtbergs said:
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.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
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.
Time to clean up those mistakes. And hopefully do do with vigor, strength, and commitment.
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.0 -
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 Juggler said:
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.static111 said:
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.jeffbr said:
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.gimmesometruth27 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
The Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the majority. Look at what was happening in France at that moment in history.Gern Blansten said:
Trump has exposed how fucked up our system is.cincybearcat said:
Weird since the majority vote doesn't matter in a presidential election to even bring it up.Gern Blansten said:
Actually won't 5 justices be appointed by presidents that did not win the majority vote? Assuming 3 tRump and 2 Bushtbergs said:
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.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
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.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
lolstatic111 said:
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 Juggler said:
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.static111 said:
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.jeffbr said:
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.gimmesometruth27 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
The Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the majority. Look at what was happening in France at that moment in history.Gern Blansten said:
Trump has exposed how fucked up our system is.cincybearcat said:
Weird since the majority vote doesn't matter in a presidential election to even bring it up.Gern Blansten said:
Actually won't 5 justices be appointed by presidents that did not win the majority vote? Assuming 3 tRump and 2 Bushtbergs said:
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.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
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.www.myspace.com0 -
Well, "we" always meant WASPs originally.static111 said:
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 Juggler said:
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.static111 said:
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.jeffbr said:
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.gimmesometruth27 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
The Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the majority. Look at what was happening in France at that moment in history.Gern Blansten said:
Trump has exposed how fucked up our system is.cincybearcat said:
Weird since the majority vote doesn't matter in a presidential election to even bring it up.Gern Blansten said:
Actually won't 5 justices be appointed by presidents that did not win the majority vote? Assuming 3 tRump and 2 Bushtbergs said:
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.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
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.0 -
Yepmrussel1 said:
Well, "we" always meant WASPs originally.static111 said:
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 Juggler said:
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.static111 said:
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.jeffbr said:
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.gimmesometruth27 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
The Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the majority. Look at what was happening in France at that moment in history.Gern Blansten said:
Trump has exposed how fucked up our system is.cincybearcat said:
Weird since the majority vote doesn't matter in a presidential election to even bring it up.Gern Blansten said:
Actually won't 5 justices be appointed by presidents that did not win the majority vote? Assuming 3 tRump and 2 Bushtbergs said:
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.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
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.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.brianlux said:jeffbr said:
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.gimmesometruth27 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
The Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the majority. Look at what was happening in France at that moment in history.Gern Blansten said:
Trump has exposed how fucked up our system is.cincybearcat said:
Weird since the majority vote doesn't matter in a presidential election to even bring it up.Gern Blansten said:
Actually won't 5 justices be appointed by presidents that did not win the majority vote? Assuming 3 tRump and 2 Bushtbergs said:
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.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
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.
Time to clean up those mistakes. And hopefully do do with vigor, strength, and commitment.
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?
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
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.0
-
-
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 :(0
-
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!
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
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.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 :(0 -
Today is National Voter Registration Day
In honor of our fearless orange leader I'm going to register again0 -
0
-
-
is the house really even talking about this? i have not followed any new developments since the weekend.ikiT said:"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
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.gimmesometruth27 said:
is the house really even talking about this? i have not followed any new developments since the weekend.ikiT said:By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
But they won’tHughFreakingDillon said:
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.gimmesometruth27 said:
is the house really even talking about this? i have not followed any new developments since the weekend.ikiT said:Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
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.static111 said:
But they won’tHughFreakingDillon said:
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.gimmesometruth27 said:
is the house really even talking about this? i have not followed any new developments since the weekend.ikiT said:0 -
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.mrussel1 said:
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.static111 said:
But they won’tHughFreakingDillon said:
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.gimmesometruth27 said:
is the house really even talking about this? i have not followed any new developments since the weekend.ikiT said:By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
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."0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help