All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Revolutionary_Jack]

You could point out something similar about Sandra Day O'Connor. It's even starting to look that way a bit for John Roberts.

Don't hold your breath. O'Connor was one of the five who dishonored the court with Bush v. Gore. She wasn't as bullish about Roe v. Wade as Scalia would have liked and she was a moderate conservative judge but when the moment came she swung an election on the party line.

As for Roberts, he's someone who has a sense of history and doesn't want a Dred Scott situation where the SCOTUS put out a ruling so absurd that the wrath of the public sends a POTUS to the WH who is going to make the SCOTUS his little b-word which is what happened with Taney and Lincoln. So Roberts would occassionally make a concession of sort. Now of course with a 6-3 Conservative judge, Roberts occassionally voting alongside the Liberals means that close rulings of 5-4 does not reflexively have an air of partisanship.

Interesting that though that switch only happens once in awhile, it always indicates a shift from right to left, never from left to right. I mean, has there ever been a Supreme Court Justice appointed by a liberal leaning President who turned out to rule from a more conservative perspective?

Ginsburg and Kagan have ruled sometimes alongside the conservative majority and have a spotty record on criminal justice among other things.
https://www.thenation.com/article/po...cotus-dissent/

But yeah, on the big issues, they have never entirely swung to the right on a consistent stretch. The same by the way is true of John Roberts, he's been consistently a conservative with occassional sops. The last Judge appointed by a Republican who turned liberal was David Souter but in general the Federalist Society and other ghoulish organizations have learned from that and that's why the newer Republican SCOTUS tend to be so inexperienced and party hacks in the main. Sandra Day O'Connor, backstabber of the people's will that she was, was at least a trained legal professional with experience and stuff. That's not the case with the new one, not with Clarence Thomas either (quite apart from him being what Anita Hill accused him of being).

[Adam Allen]

You do realize he won the popular vote, don't you. The only minority vote Presidents in modern times are Bush and Trump. And people have been talking about doing away with it since Bush.

I've known people who complained about the EC even before Bush/Gore. It's the argument/defense some people give, for why they don't bother voting; their individual vote doesn't actually count, so why bother?

Not saying it's right, but I've heard that argument pretty much all my life. "Our votes are symbolic, the electoral college really decides."

[numberthirty]

I'm not that good at debate so I'll let someone else rebut this, but can I ask a question? Why does something have to just be "good enough"? Why can't it be made better?

One guy's take...

Right now, "Good Enough..."?

It's the accepted "Final Word" Might take a minute. Might Be some grumbling. Once the grumbling dies down? It's the final word.

You admit to the flaws, and set out to make it better?

Can you actually tell me exactly where that ends, and if you chosen outcome will be once whatever "Better..." winds up being comes to pass?

In this instance, I'll take the devil I know.

[Mister Mets]

There doesn't have to be Equality of Outcome, but that doesn't mean we can't give everyone the opportunity and support needed to actually rise as high as we possibly can (If we desire it).

There would be some limits to support we could provide (IE- we can't afford to give everyone who would benefit from it a full-time aide) but we should make sure people have more opportunities.

Opportunity is great, but it's not always about that. There really does need to be some baseline of outcome that we bring people up to. In Life, the consequence of not keeping your head up is you die from poverty. That's just not acceptable.

It's a fair point about some baseline of outcome, although dying from poverty isn't that common in the United States.

I find this one to be much better at illustrating the divide.

I'm not sure that's applicable.

The arguments about equality and equity aren't necessarily about race. Obviously, many people of color have grown up with disadvantages, and an effort to provide equity would correct for that. However, there will be plenty of white people who have all sorts of disadvantages. For example, while a higher percentage of African-Americans in the United States are below the poverty line, the raw number of white people below the poverty line is higher.

That's also a different discussion from whether equality of outcomes is a reasonable thing for a major politician to insist on.

[The no face guy]

Looks like Texas Republicans are losing their shite, over the fact that polls are showing that Trump's turned their home into a swing state, demographic change is a b.

Yee ha! Saddle up boys they ain't taken Texas without a fight! Were going to surround a bus like thugs and interfere with the Democratic process. Biden is a puppet of George Soros. Yee ha! God bless America!

[worstblogever]

I am surprised. Given the number of big money donors, the GOP has (like the Mercers), why don't these people just cut his campaign a check or are they afraid he is going to steal their money?

Trump bankrupted a casino, and grifted the big GOP donors out of a billion dollars for his campaign... and wasted it on this losing effort.

Don't be surprised. He's the ultimate s*** businessman.

[numberthirty]

...

I'm not sure that's applicable.

The arguments about equality and equity aren't necessarily about race. Obviously, many people of color have grown up with disadvantages, and an effort to provide equity would correct for that. However, there will be plenty of white people who have all sorts of disadvantages. For example, while a higher percentage of African-Americans in the United States are below the poverty line, the raw number of white people below the poverty line is higher.

That's also a different discussion from whether equality of outcomes is a reasonable thing for a major politician to insist on.

Dude...

That it ain't the entire picture does not actually change that it is a pretty accurate representation of part of the picture.

[Powerboy]

I've known people who complained about the EC even before Bush/Gore. It's the argument/defense some people give, for why they don't bother voting; their individual vote doesn't actually count, so why bother?

Not saying it's right, but I've heard that argument pretty much all my life. "Our votes are symbolic, the electoral college really decides."

I hold that philosophy. I vote but I don't know why I bother. I lived in Michigan and now in Indiana and I vote Democrat. My vote is useless.

[BeastieRunner]

I'm not sure that's applicable.

The arguments about equality and equity aren't necessarily about race. Obviously, many people of color have grown up with disadvantages, and an effort to provide equity would correct for that. However, there will be plenty of white people who have all sorts of disadvantages. For example, while a higher percentage of African-Americans in the United States are below the poverty line, the raw number of white people below the poverty line is higher.

That's also a different discussion from whether equality of outcomes is a reasonable thing for a major politician to insist on.

Says the guy on the ledge.

There is more white on white crime in the US than any other. Raw numbers. Don't see the tough on crime Rs jumping on that, do you?

Dude...

That it ain't the entire picture does not actually change that it is a pretty accurate representation of part of the picture.

The box cartoon makes it easy to ignore the cause.

Hence why I dislike it.

[Robotman]

I really loved this sketch but it was one of those laugh then cry, because it’s true.

[Username taken]

I find this one to be much better at illustrating the divide.

This is just perfect.

[BruceWayneJr.]

The arguments about equality and equity aren't necessarily about race. Obviously, many people of color have grown up with disadvantages, and an effort to provide equity would correct for that. However, there will be plenty of white people who have all sorts of disadvantages. For example, while a higher percentage of African-Americans in the United States are below the poverty line, the raw number of white people below the poverty line is higher.

That's also a different discussion from whether equality of outcomes is a reasonable thing for a major politician to insist on.

It still amazes me that anyone takes you seriously, but that seems to be analogous to the problems in this country.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Looks like Texas Republicans are losing their shite, over the fact that polls are showing that Trump's turned their home into a swing state, demographic change is a b.

Yee ha! Saddle up boys they ain't taken Texas without a fight! Were going to surround a bus like thugs and interfere with the Democratic process. Biden is a puppet of George Soros. Yee ha! God bless America!

Y'all Queda hard at work! Thankfully, there weren't any violence or injuries, just a lot of frayed nerves on that bus. Imagine what Trumpanzees might do if their precious leader loses the election.

[ChangingStation]

Y'all Queda hard at work! Thankfully, there weren't any violence or injuries, just a lot of frayed nerves on that bus. Imagine what Trumpanzees might do if their precious leader loses the election.

Many will probably get themselves killed.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Many will probably get themselves killed.

If you're talking about COVID picking off those idiots, yeah, that's a safe bet.