All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[lancerman]

You claim you see the "Macro" and then argue that the Supreme Court isn't something we should spent a lot of time really thinking about.

That's because I do see the macro. The current Supreme Court argument over this specific spot is an extremely short term one if for nothing else that Scalia was the most conservative Justice on the Court and it would quite frankly be hard to replace him with anyone who was worse than him. And even if you managed it, you still have the same Supreme Court that legalized same sex marriage and upheld the ACA. Anything else is a massive assumption that has far too many variables tied to it.

[lancerman]

That's because I do see the macro. The current Supreme Court argument over this specific spot is an extremely short term one if for nothing else that Scalia was the most conservative Justice on the Court and it would quite frankly be hard to replace him with anyone who was worse than him. And even if you managed it, you still have the same Supreme Court that legalized same sex marriage and upheld the ACA. Anything else is a massive assumption that has far too many variables tied to it.

Edit: If anything the Supreme Court is the most short term issue you could argue. If the Republicans ever felt like they lost control on this, they have a massive out in Garland that they could utilize at any given time.

[Kevinroc]

That's because I do see the macro. The current Supreme Court argument over this specific spot is an extremely short term one if for nothing else that Scalia was the most conservative Justice on the Court and it would quite frankly be hard to replace him with anyone who was worse than him. And even if you managed it, you still have the same Supreme Court that legalized same sex marriage and upheld the ACA. Anything else is a massive assumption that has far too many variables tied to it.

Let's look at the make-up of the current Court.

John Roberts is 61.
Anthony Kennedy is 79.
Clarence Thomas is 67.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83.
Stephen Breyer is 77.
Sam Alito is 66.
Sonia Sotomayor is 61.
Elena Kagen is 56.

Let's be real. The idea that the next President won't be picking a new Supreme Court justice beyond Scalia's replacement is not something I would feel comfortable gambling on.

(Edit: And it really does piss me off how the Republicans have played politics with Garland.)

[Tendrin]

Show me how you're point of view is less short term and micro than mind. Lets have a discussion on it.

Well, first of all, I don't pretend that my viewpoint is macro in the first place. It's just my viewpoint, from where I sit. The same as your's. The only person declaring that they're the only one to see the big picture here is you. To say that you see it clearly while the rest of us are poor, benighted fools limited by our short-term, small-time thinking is the height of philosophical arrogance. To pretend that only you can see the world clearly and with certainty as to the righteousness of your cause is problematic.

It's not so much religion per se, it's false certainty that worries me, and religion just has more than its fair share of false certainty or dogmatism. I'm really concerned when I see people pretending to know things they clearly cannot know.

-- Sam Harris

You can not know, for example, that human progress in our society will continue. Above, you stated that it will and use this to dismiss arguments that the progress and protections of those closest to us aren't worth anything and are of no concern because nothing will happen anyway. You declare this to be an example of macro vs micro thinking. I would argue that it's the height of arrogance to believe that progress is inevitable. The rights of minorities have been lost or traded away many times through out history. Do you really think this is the first advance gay rights have seen in human history? Those rights were lost swiftly in times of tumult or social upheavels. You seemingly have no indication just how fragile these advances we've made are. The advances we have made in human rights must be protected fiercely because they can go away /that easily/. Just ask African Americans who lived through Reconstruction and then saw the wall of Jim Crow fall upon them.

Stop pretending that moral arc of the universe will ensure that advancements keep coming.

Meanwhile, a transgender human is murdered every twenty nine hours.

And read this:

http://linguabarbara.com/denkfabrik/what-now/

[lancerman]

Well, first of all, I don't pretend that my viewpoint is macro in the first place. It's just my viewpoint, from where I sit. The same as your's. The only person declaring that they're the only one to see the big picture here is you see it clearly while the rest of us are poor,benighted fools limited by our short-term, small-time thinking is the height of philosophical arrogance. To pretend that only you can see the world clearly and with certainty as to the righteousness of your cause.

-- Sam Harris

You can not know, for example, that human progress in our society will continue. Above, you stated that it will and use this to dismiss arguments that the progress and protections of those closest to us aren't worth anything and are of no concern because nothing will happen anyway. You declare this to be an example of macro vs micro thinking. I would argue that it's the height of arrogance to believe that progress is inevitable. The rights of minorities have been lost or traded away many times through out history. Do you really think this is the first advance gay rights have seen in human history? Those rights were lost swiftly in times of tumult or social upheavels. You seemingly have no indication just how fragile these advances we've made are.

Stop pretending that moral arc of the universe will ensure that progress will continue.

Meanwhile, a transgender human is murdered every twenty nine hours.

I'm going off trends that have existed since WWII in this country. Not putting my fate in some fucking higher power.

Lets put it this way. The two parties on economics and foreign policy generally agree on most everything. There differences on those are minuscule in the grand scope of the philosophies of which they abide. To me (maybe not to you) that's the problem. It's fundamental. Because they have such high agreements on those, to shore up voters bases and have a way to win elections they sort of pick and choose wedge issues based on demographics (IE "I'm going to stand for conserving Christian values, that will get a bunch of southern Evangelicals"). And for the people that have those wedges issues very center to those lives, they all but kind of have to vote in their interests, and then maybe by proxy you make people who aren't as invested to pick a side and become voters. Then you play a game of demographics and turnout. All while the bigger policies that they generally agree on remain the same and that agenda continues.

The irony being that public sentiment and the unelected judicial branch (usually governed by the cultural trends) have generally been the primary decision makers on those wedge issues. So regardless, that's generally not being controlled by who you vote for anyways. But who really cares when at the end of the day the economy, the military, and wall street and big business are getting the treatment you both agree on.

I want to bring up your last point:

"Meanwhile, a transgender human is murdered every twenty nine hours."

So that current statistic (which I'm going to take your word for) is presumably happening right now under Democratic President Obama. I'm going to assume that you made that statement to tug on some heartstrings and convey a sense of urgency. Do you have any objective proof that this particular situation will be alleviated if a Democratic President Clinton replaces Obama? Especially since Hillary Clinton has generally been later on these social issues than Obama. Because right now it sort of sounds like some last ditch effort to make it seem like we are in a dire situation, without any real context to show how your vote will make it better.

[lancerman]

Let's look at the make-up of the current Court.

John Roberts is 61.
Anthony Kennedy is 79.
Clarence Thomas is 67.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83.
Stephen Breyer is 77.
Sam Alito is 66.
Sonia Sotomayor is 61.
Elena Kagen is 56.

Let's be real. The idea that the next President won't be picking a new Supreme Court justice beyond Scalia's replacement is not something I would feel comfortable gambling on.

(Edit: And it really does piss me off how the Republicans have played politics with Garland.)

Okay. Then the next step is, who is the next Supreme Court Justice that retires/dies. If so are they are conservative, a liberal, or middle ground. Then who is the replacement. Keep in mind, Trump once said his Pro Choice sister would make an excellent judge, and Bush nominated Roberts and Reagan nominated Kennedy.

Like I said there are to many variables tied to it. It's still a debate that a Republican President would even get someone more far right than Scalia.

[Kevinroc]

Okay. Then the next step is, who is the next Supreme Court Justice that retires/dies. If so are they are conservative, a liberal, or middle ground. Then who is the replacement. Keep in mind, Trump once said his Pro Choice sister would make an excellent judge, and Bush nominated Roberts and Reagan nominated Kennedy.

Like I said there are to many variables tied to it. It's still a debate that a Republican President would even get someone more far right than Scalia.

There's a big difference between saying I think there will be more openings in the Supreme Court during the next President's term, and outright predicting who will leave the court (either by retirement or death).

One is looking at historical precedence, and the other is outright guess work.

But this is all parlor tricks to outright ignore how important the Court is.

Edit: You also outright ignored Trump's list of Supreme Court picks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us...nees.html?_r=0

[lancerman]

There's a big difference between saying I think there will be more openings in the Supreme Court during the next President's term, and outright predicting who will leave the court (either by retirement or death).

One is looking at historical precedence, and the other is outright guess work.

But this is all parlor tricks to outright ignore how important the Court is.

Edit: You also outright ignored Trump's list of Supreme Court picks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us...nees.html?_r=0

This why it's really a waste of my time to talk to you. Nobody said it's unimportant. The only actual fact is the only real vacancy is going to be extremely hard to be any worse than the previous guy, and that's still a court that did two significantly progressive rulings. And if Clinton wins the election or looks like she will, they will probably just rush in the olive branch that was Garland.

As far as any other potential nominee you are arguing on assumptions that there will be vacancy, who will cause that vacancy, what the makeup of the Senate will be at the time (has a smidge of an impact), and who the choice would be. That's not a parlor trick. It's reality. You just don't have anything to substantially argue besides "well maybe this that and the other could happen". Maybe the next judge that leaves is in 5 years. Maybe it's in 3 and a half and the Democrats pull the same thing the Republicans just did? I mean I hope your strategy isn't sit in a corner and pray a Democrat is always President just in case, because that's just not realistic.

[jeanvaljean]

Very good piece on Hillary's strengths and weaknesses :

As a young Hillary hater, I often compared her to Darth Vader — more machine than woman, her humanity ever more shrouded by Dark Side gadgetry. These days, I think of her as General Leia: No longer a rebel princess, she has made a wry peace with her rakish mate and her controversial hair and is hard at work, mounting a campaign against the fascistic First Order.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...candidacy.html

Long but worth it.

[Kevinroc]

This why it's really a waste of my time to talk to you. Nobody said it's unimportant. The only actual fact is the only real vacancy is going to be extremely hard to be any worse than the previous guy, and that's still a court that did two significantly progressive things. And if the Clinton wins the election or looks like she will, they will probably just rush in the olive branch that was Garland.

As far as any other potential nominee you are arguing on assumptions that there will be vacancy, who will cause that vacancy, what the makeup of the Senate will be at the time (has a smidge of an impact), and who the choice would be. That's not a parlor trick. It's reality. You just don't have anything to substantially argue besides "well maybe this that and the other could happen". Maybe the next judge that leaves is in 5 years. Maybe it's in 3 and a half and the Democrats pull the same thing the Republicans just did? I mean hope your strategy isn't sit in a corner and pray a Democrat is always President just in case, because that's just not realistic.

"I think in the Macro. I don't worry at all about the Supreme Court."

Okay.

[Tendrin]

I'm going off trends that have existed since WWII in this country. Not putting my fate in some fucking higher power.

You're presuming that trends will continue. That's not necessarily true, as such trends have existed before and have been reversed in the right social conditions. Gays were seeing increased acceptance in Germany, for example, for a long time. Then the Third Reich happened. The first male-to-female surgery happened in Berlin in 1930.. They found their rights were expendable in the face of other people's economic anxiety. The same thing can happen in the USA. It can happen anywhere. The rights of the minorities are always the first thing to go. Whatever 'liberal' order exists can and will be challenged again and again, as has happened throughout human history. No trend is inevitable. Progress is not inevitable.

Lets put it this way. The two parties on economics and foreign policy generally agree on most everything. There differences on those are minuscule in the grand scope of the philosophies of which they abide. To me (maybe not to you) that's the problem. It's fundamental. Because they have such high agreements on those, to shore up voters bases and have a way to win elections they sort of pick and choose wedge issues based on demographics (IE "I'm going to stand for conserving Christian values, that will get a bunch of southern Evangelicals"). And for the people that have those wedges issues very center to those lives, they all but kind of have to vote in their interests, and then maybe by proxy you make people who aren't as invested to pick a side and become voters. Then you play a game of demographics and turnout. All while the bigger policies that they generally agree on remain the same and that agenda continues.

They agree on the basics of the capitalist system. Obviously, they don't 'agree on most everything'. You're not really arguing that the two parties are alike, are you? Because, as we've seen, the differences are pretty major unless you're so ardently against the system that the basic acceptance of 'capitalism' is a bridge too far for you. Obviously, I think we'd benefit from a larger, multiparty system, but the parties are absolutely /not/ the same, and to state that they are is sort of ridiculous, especially in the wake of the Iraq War. Yes, Democrats voted for it, but not because they wanted to give Bush carte blanche to go in. They were wrong, of course. It's amazing how swiftly people forget what the Bush years were actually like. I mean, do you really think a Republican would've put regulations in place that stopped the Pfizer/Allegran inversion/merger? Little things add up to big things. Overtime protections for salaried employees means an end to the abuse of salaried employees that I have first hand witnessed. This helps reduce inequality. These are policies that will be scrapped by a Republican.

The irony being that public sentiment and the unelected judicial branch (usually governed by the cultural trends) have generally been the primary decision makers on those wedge issues. So regardless, that's generally not being controlled by who you vote for anyways. But who really cares when at the end of the day the economy, the military, and wall street and big business are getting the treatment you both agree on.

They tend to settle the matter after a point, yes, but as we've seen that hardly matters to the GOP in many cases. We still have plenty more anti-gay laws on the books, which ties into my point about Transgendered people. If you don't think Hillary will at least continue Obama's policies for the limited protections we do have for transgendered people, I don't know what else to say. It's certainly better than the alternative. If you can't see that, I don't know what else to tell you. There are real people being impated right now by the policies in GOP-ruled states and you seem to be saying that there's no difference between the two parties, except for all the black, Hispanic, LGBT and others who will, and have already been, harmed by these things. Transgendered people are even MORE vulnerable. It's hardly last ditch. Just a statement that pretending that it's no big deal is utterly ludicrous. They are being harmed right now and their lives will be /worse/ under Trump or any GOP Candidate by any stretch of the imagination.

The reality is you're welcome to vote for whoever you want. Only you get to pick who you're willing to sacrifice for your own sense of your morality. You just don't get to pretend that you're all high minded while the rest of us are doddering along in the mud.

[numberthirty]

Obviously, they don't 'agree on most everything'. You're not really arguing that the two parties are alike, are you? Because, as we've seen, the differences are pretty major unless you're so ardently against the system that the basic acceptance of 'capitalism' is a bridge too far for you. Obviously, I think we'd benefit from a larger, multiparty system, but the parties are absolutely /not/ the same, and to state that they are is sort of ridiculous, especially in the wake of the Iraq War. Yes, Democrats voted for it, but not because they wanted to give Bush carte blanche to go in. They were wrong, of course. It's amazing how swiftly people forget what the Bush years were actually like. I mean, do you really think a Republican would've put regulations in place that stopped the Pfizer/Allegran inversion/merger?

If someone is going to make that statement, I'm going to need an in-depth explanation of how they are not both working to keep the two party system exactly as it is.

[Tendrin]

If someone is going to make that statement, I'm going to need an in-depth explanation of how they are not both working to keep the two party system exactly as it is.

Someone made that in-depth explanation daily.

[numberthirty]

The system.

Not the "Dog And Pony Show".

[Tendrin]

The system.

Not the "Dog And Pony Show".

A representative system of government is defined by its representatives, isn't it?