Page 140 of 661 FirstFirst ... 4090130136137138139140141142143144150190240640 ... LastLast
Results 2,086 to 2,100 of 9902
  1. #2086
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    Well, I guess that's game over then.

    Not this was ever going to lead to anything, the investigation...but some of the DC swamp got drained in the process, so that's good. And it was annoying as hell to Trump, also good.

    Now everyone just needs to vote. Ha, whoops, i know that's not gonna happen. Ah well.

  2. #2087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieHavoc View Post
    Also, if Mitch McConnell gets a SCOTUS pick before 2020...man.

    If only there were some way, some place people could have gone and like checked a little box in November 2016, that could've prevented a conservative super majority Supreme Court for decades to come. Something that would've been like super easy to do, require very little time and have a huge impact on the country for decades. Siurely people would not sit out something that imporant, right? No way. Not in America, you commie!
    A vote about Supreme Court justices usually favors Republicans. Polls consistently show their voters caring more about it, and that if it made a difference in 2016, it was to encourage more voters to back Trump.

    https://www.vox.com/2018/6/29/175110...kennedy-retire

    I'd also argue there's a better argument for the conservative view of jurisprudence (an understanding of laws should be based on the original intent of the lawmakers and/ or the ordinary understanding of the law) versus the liberal view (all conservative legal arguments are pretext to get what they want; this is not actually an argument for a particular vision of legal understanding although the subtext is the left should act in the same way.)

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieHavoc View Post
    Also--it may not be Ben Shapiro's intended purpose, as he sees it--but those on the more extremist right view him as such.

    And he definitely bridges that gap, intentionally or not. He is a whiny, white-man-is-the-reall-victim type of dude. And he presents himself calmly, intellectually, level-headed, etc., and that is way less threatening at first to someone who just, you know, leans right or whatever.

    I had a friend who began as just someone who was conservative because he was really religious and therefore pro-life. By way of Shapiro, he became a real victim complex, white people are persecuted, etc., kinda guy who became insufferable. Fortunately, to my knowledge, that dude never fully crossed that bridge. Well, I guess aside from thinking Steve Bannon and Joe Arpaio are good guys.

    Shapiro is in ways one of the worst of this crop of...political analysts(?) because he seems reasonable at a glance.

    I don't know how people in the media can approach this kinda topic though. I think it's important to point out (though I don''t think you can ever turn someone back once they've gone down that hole), but at the same time, it feeds into the persecution complex that people like Shapiro, his followers, and conservatives have anyway.
    If someone makes a strong claim based on their understanding of the political views of people they disagree with, it's important to determine whether their understanding is accurate and they know what they're talking about. In this case, there is the claim that Ben Shapiro intentionally bridges the gap between Fox News and white nationalists, which would be a vicious slander if untrue, even if Shapiro wasn't Orthodox Jewish.

    There may be a different discussion about Shapiro's shortcomings, but someone has to actually make it. People shouldn't be expected to come up with a better articulated version of someone else's argument.

    Arguments have to be followed where they lead. If the claim is that people who are fans of Shapiro are disproportionately likely to become terrible, and that this means Shapiro is bad, that logic has to be applied in all cases. When there are left-wing lunatics, we've got to look into whether they liked Maddow or Thinkprogress at any point, and be willing to make the same argument.

    Good and bad people can find something in particular ideologies and communicators; it doesn't make the ideology automatically good or bad. You might agree that the people who go to Shapiro because they're conservative and find Hannity/ O'Reilly intellectually dishonest or too focused on tradition have a point.

    To determine whether Shapiro's a problem, it's more important to look at what he actually does. What does he actually say to incite violence? What does he say that no one reasonable can agree with?

  3. #2088
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    A vote about Supreme Court justices usually favors Republicans. Polls consistently show their voters caring more about it, and that if it made a difference in 2016, it was to encourage more voters to back Trump.

    https://www.vox.com/2018/6/29/175110...kennedy-retire

    I'd also argue there's a better argument for the conservative view of jurisprudence (an understanding of laws should be based on the original intent of the lawmakers and/ or the ordinary understanding of the law) versus the liberal view (all conservative legal arguments are pretext to get what they want; this is not actually an argument for a particular vision of legal understanding although the subtext is the left should act in the same way.)



    If someone makes a strong claim based on their understanding of the political views of people they disagree with, it's important to determine whether their understanding is accurate and they know what they're talking about. In this case, there is the claim that Ben Shapiro intentionally bridges the gap between Fox News and white nationalists, which would be a vicious slander if untrue, even if Shapiro wasn't Orthodox Jewish.

    There may be a different discussion about Shapiro's shortcomings, but someone has to actually make it. People shouldn't be expected to come up with a better articulated version of someone else's argument.

    Arguments have to be followed where they lead. If the claim is that people who are fans of Shapiro are disproportionately likely to become terrible, and that this means Shapiro is bad, that logic has to be applied in all cases. When there are left-wing lunatics, we've got to look into whether they liked Maddow or Thinkprogress at any point, and be willing to make the same argument.

    Good and bad people can find something in particular ideologies and communicators; it doesn't make the ideology automatically good or bad. You might agree that the people who go to Shapiro because they're conservative and find Hannity/ O'Reilly intellectually dishonest or too focused on tradition have a point.

    To determine whether Shapiro's a problem, it's more important to look at what he actually does. What does he actually say to incite violence? What does he say that no one reasonable can agree with?
    Who knows. I think Ben Shapiro, as a person, is bad. I don't think he is trying to turn people into full on nazis. That's about as much of a compliment as I'm willing to pay him.

  4. #2089
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieHavoc View Post
    Well, I guess that's game over then.

    Not this was ever going to lead to anything, the investigation...but some of the DC swamp got drained in the process, so that's good. And it was annoying as hell to Trump, also good.

    Now everyone just needs to vote. Ha, whoops, i know that's not gonna happen. Ah well.
    I guess I get a different view from you trump supporters. Mr. Mueller left it up to congress whether to continue, and they are. trump is doing his best to stonewall congress which makes it difficult to believe he's innocent.

  5. #2090
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    A vote about Supreme Court justices usually favors Republicans. Polls consistently show their voters caring more about it, and that if it made a difference in 2016, it was to encourage more voters to back Trump.
    Uh, yeah, obviously. 2016 is proof that we on the left can't get our shit together, even it means destroying the country via the Supreme Court for 40 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I'd also argue there's a better argument for the conservative view of jurisprudence (an understanding of laws should be based on the original intent of the lawmakers and/ or the ordinary understanding of the law) versus the liberal view (all conservative legal arguments are pretext to get what they want; this is not actually an argument for a particular vision of legal understanding although the subtext is the left should act in the same way.)
    Conservative view of jurisprudence hahahahahahahahahahaha original intent of the lawmakers hahahahahahahahahaha.

    Okay.

  6. #2091
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shooshoomanjoe View Post
    I guess I get a different view from you trump supporters.
    Wait, wait, wait. You think I'm a Trump supporter?

  7. #2092
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,433

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieHavoc View Post
    Wait, wait, wait. You think I'm a Trump supporter?
    Shhhhh whenever anybody disagrees with whatever the fashionable take in this thread is you get called a Trump supporter/Republican.

    Anyways I called the Mueller report from the jump. It would be messy and inconclusive enough for nothing to result from it and Trump had enough smart people protecting him from anything flagrant

  8. #2093
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post

    I'd also argue there's a better argument for the conservative view of jurisprudence (an understanding of laws should be based on the original intent of the lawmakers and/ or the ordinary understanding of the law) versus the liberal view (all conservative legal arguments are pretext to get what they want; this is not actually an argument for a particular vision of legal understanding although the subtext is the left should act in the same way.)
    The problem is most of those laws were made in a time when lawmakers were hostile or apathetic to the needs of marginalized groups.

  9. #2094
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Farealmer View Post
    The problem is most of those laws were made in a time when lawmakers were hostile or apathetic to the needs of marginalized groups.
    Exactly. The original intent of the lawmakers was "what's best for wealthy white men". So yeah I guess is how conservatives view the constitution.

  10. #2095
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,433

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Farealmer View Post
    The problem is most of those laws were made in a time when lawmakers were hostile or apathetic to the needs of marginalized groups.
    Ironically the SCOTUS has been the most progressive arm of the government when it comes to marginalized groups historically.

  11. #2096
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    Just out of curiosty--why is the policy that you can't charge a sitting president with a crime?

    Like, is that in any situation at all? Like, if a president murdered someone in front of a ton of witnesses and it could be easily proven, the only course would be to see if both sides of elected representative leadership agree the president should be removed from office?

    Also, on the topic of shit in our system that is nuts, is that it is the elected representative leadership that decides if the president should be removed. The people vote to get the president elected (kind of--obviously the EC decides who is elected, but symbolically, the people get a vote), but if that president is not good, not doing a good job, mentally in decline or turns out not to be fit, the only people who can decide to remove him from office is a really really really small group of people who are pretty much controlled by corporations anyway.

    So like basically, Tylenol and the NRA are the only ones who can decide who should be president.

    The more I think about it, the more surprised I am it's taken this long for the American Empire to crumble.

  12. #2097
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    A vote about Supreme Court justices usually favors Republicans. Polls consistently show their voters caring more about it, and that if it made a difference in 2016, it was to encourage more voters to back Trump.

    https://www.vox.com/2018/6/29/175110...kennedy-retire

    I'd also argue there's a better argument for the conservative view of jurisprudence (an understanding of laws should be based on the original intent of the lawmakers and/ or the ordinary understanding of the law) versus the liberal view (all conservative legal arguments are pretext to get what they want; this is not actually an argument for a particular vision of legal understanding although the subtext is the left should act in the same way.)
    Also I asked the same person this question I asked the immigration question you asked earlier in the thread. They said this.
    I think that the first part of the statement is correct. Conservatives care more about the courts than the left does most of the time. But its kind of minsunderstanding the conservative view of the law. It isn't original intent that is supposed to be the controlling factor. Its original meaning, what the people who ratified the constitution or amendment in question thought they were authorizing. We do know that the idea that originalism is just a rationalization for conervative tendencies is wrong because of cases like Texas V Johnson, where Scalia ruled that Flag-burning is protected speech despite his own wishes. But there are actually now lots of left-wing originalists. So its kind of a moot point. I don't know that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a left-wing originalist. But some of her public statements about the civil war amendments and her dissent in Macdonald V Chicago kind of hint at it.
    I guess more to the point, the fact that there are now left-wing originalist think-tanks proves that originalism isn't just a rationalization for conservative tendencies.

  13. #2098
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,433

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieHavoc View Post
    Just out of curiosty--why is the policy that you can't charge a sitting president with a crime?

    Like, is that in any situation at all? Like, if a president murdered someone in front of a ton of witnesses and it could be easily proven, the only course would be to see if both sides of elected representative leadership agree the president should be removed from office?

    Also, on the topic of shit in our system that is nuts, is that it is the elected representative leadership that decides if the president should be removed. The people vote to get the president elected (kind of--obviously the EC decides who is elected, but symbolically, the people get a vote), but if that president is not good, not doing a good job, mentally in decline or turns out not to be fit, the only people who can decide to remove him from office is a really really really small group of people who are pretty much controlled by corporations anyway.

    So like basically, Tylenol and the NRA are the only ones who can decide who should be president.

    The more I think about it, the more surprised I am it's taken this long for the American Empire to crumble.
    You need to get them out of office first

  14. #2099
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    You need to get them out of office first
    I feel like that sets the stage for some seriously messed up stuff--and I can't believe it hasn't been exploited. Maybe it has, I don't know. History is good at covering stuff up. Just ask the kids in 2207 attending Donald J. Trump, Jr., middle school, in honor of the 47th president, or the activists in 2215 trying to get the school's name changed after learning about the horrendous stuff DJT Jr. did while in office.

  15. #2100
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    To determine whether Shapiro's a problem, it's more important to look at what he actually does.
    And yet, you somehow see fit not to apply the same logic to Democrats with regards to issues like immigration ("open borders") where Democrats have routinely proposed legislation for strengthening borders and presided over significant decreases in illegal immigration -- where it's apparently not "more important to look at what they actually do" but to judge them by an article of clothing someone once wore.

    Mets, you routinely support a hypocritical party with hypocritical arguments -- do you really think people here are so ignorant that we can't see that?

    Purely rhetorical question since the answer is obvious.

    -----
    "McConnell Would Fill Potential Supreme Court Vacancy In 2020, Reversal Of 2016 Stance"

    "In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., refused to hold a hearing on President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, saying that it was an election year and that the American people "deserved a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice."

    That was then.

    Speaking to an audience in Kentucky on Monday, McConnell said should a vacancy occur on the court in 2020, another presidential election year, he would allow a vote.

    He was asked at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon: "Should a Supreme Court justice die next year, what will your position be on filling that spot?"

    McConnell responded with a grin, "Oh, we'd fill it."

    https://www.npr.org/2019/05/29/72784...sal-of-2016-st
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 05-29-2019 at 09:58 AM.

Posting Permissions

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