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

[Mister Mets]

Can't be true, Chief Justice Roberts assured us there is no longer any need for the Voting Rights Act just before he gutted it.

And there are those who refuse to admit there isn't a link to crap like this and why a woman who won by 3 million votes isn't President.

Do you think a liberal Supreme Court would have abolished the electoral college?

[JackDaw]

Do you think a liberal Supreme Court would have abolished the electoral college?

Surely they couldn’t?

I can see that they could reject some of the detailed laws around that area, and obviously re-interpret way some of the “process” worked...but would be gob smacked if nine people could actually introduce sufficient new law to abolish Electoral College.

Surely actually generating new law lies with the two Houses..it’s the Supreme Court’s role to interpret the new (and existing) law, and to reject it if it violates the Constitution...but the Court itself can’t write and introduce new Law..

[Kirby101]

Do you think a liberal Supreme Court would have abolished the electoral college?

You missread my post. It was about voter suppression. The first part was about how completely wrong Roberts was in saying the VRA was no longer needed. The second was about how voter suppression lead to the small margins Trump got in the 3 States that put him over the top.

The Electoral College can only be abolished by Constitutional Amendment. Since it was put in speciffically to stop someone like Trump from being President, I would say it's pretty useless. (not to mention it gave us Bush, th second worse President in modern history)

[kidfresh512]

It's an easy win for him because his side has no stakes and only has to defend one stance while the other side has all the stakes and has to get bound down in a minutia that not everyone is in agreement with. It's also something that most people directly involved with (football fans) would rather not care about.

And that is part of the problem. Not caring. All the minorities that have to put up with racism and profiling, and fearing for their lives when encountering law enforcement even for innocuous things would rather not have to care as well. But, since its a life and death thing, yeah we kind of have too. And sorry if "football fans" have to be diverted from life for 2 minutes to look at guys peacefully kneeling.

These guys get concussions, break bones, etc. for entertainment of the masses. But, I guess the public will be dammed if they dare silently have something to say about improving society.

[Malvolio]

Hell, until a few years ago, the TV networks wouldn't even air the national anthem. They would cut to commercial. But then, the NFL decided to ask the networks to air the anthem to prove how "patriotic" they were. This was in 2009. I wonder what changed. Could it be conservative forces were scared of a Black president and wanted to remind people that the NFL were still "loyal Americans?"

[SuperiorIronman]

It's a problem to them because the NFL gets funding from the United States military and has advertising rights. How does that line up?

Potentially it disenfranchises the audience from serving if they find out that our government ain't all it's cracked up to be. And going back to cops, it's actually pretty common for law-enforcement to have come from military service which potentially changes career paths for those who go along with it.

America has a whole thing about guns and "fuck yeah America" rooted from the fears of a standing army and owning people which is what a lot of the second amendment actually applies to. From there once we did get a standing army it became a point of pride for the people that being a gun owner or serving to defend the homeland was the thing to do. But do any of them want to be told that maybe what they're doing is archaic and a little wrong? No, of course not. Gun culture is rooted in racism and fear not helped that media glorified its existence. It's embedded in culture and a deep rooted racism. America is pretty young all things considered and note that segregation and even slavery are not that long ago. Whether they realize it or not, it is a problem, and noody wants to face it because that's as if saying that America is wrong. Guns aren't all of America, but it's not from nowhere that America is associated with violence and guns. We as a nation pride ourselves (even possessing a Holiday) over wartime victories.

Of course the establishment doesn't want to address it and stamp this out. To them its an attack on their pride, culture, and military gains.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Hell, until a few years ago, the TV networks wouldn't even air the national anthem. They would cut to commercial. But then, the NFL decided to ask the networks to air the anthem to prove how "patriotic" they were. This was in 2009. I wonder what changed. Could it be conservative forces were scared of a Black president and wanted to remind people that the NFL were still "loyal Americans?"

No it had more to do with the DOD paying the NFL to be more patriotic

[InformationGeek]

Ted Cruz takes a shot at Gunn... when he's defended Trump, Moore, and Jordan in the past. F**k off.

[kidfresh512]

Ted Cruz takes a shot at Gunn... when he's defended Trump, Moore, and Jordan in the past. F**k off.

of course it will be all over Fox News "liberal elite Hollywood" this is why we shouldn't listen to them....

But, call them on trump and its suddenly completely different that he's never held accountable for anything. And its the media's fault or Obama did it first

[Mister Mets]

Hell, until a few years ago, the TV networks wouldn't even air the national anthem. They would cut to commercial. But then, the NFL decided to ask the networks to air the anthem to prove how "patriotic" they were. This was in 2009. I wonder what changed. Could it be conservative forces were scared of a Black president and wanted to remind people that the NFL were still "loyal Americans?"

Or it could be that decision-makers finally felt proud of the country with Obama in the White House.

You missread my post. It was about voter suppression. The first part was about how completely wrong Roberts was in saying the VRA was no longer needed. The second was about how voter suppression lead to the small margins Trump got in the 3 States that put him over the top.

The Electoral College can only be abolished by Constitutional Amendment. Since it was put in speciffically to stop someone like Trump from being President, I would say it's pretty useless. (not to mention it gave us Bush, th second worse President in modern history)

Pennsylvania had a Democratic governor, and it was one of the three states that pushed Trump over.

There is an argument that new voting restrictions made the difference in Wisconsin, but that would have changed Trump's electoral college win from 304-227 to 294-237.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ton-trump-2016

Voter purge frenzy after federal protections lifted, new report says: Nine states with a history of racial discrimination are aggressively removing voters from the rolls, the Brennan Center for Justice says.

This isn't that shocking.

The states were held to a tougher standard to past injustices committed generations ago when a different party was in charge. When they're held to the same standard as every other state, the bottleneck will be opened, and there's going to be a period of greater activity.

[Mister Mets]

Ted Cruz takes a shot at Gunn... when he's defended Trump, Moore, and Jordan in the past. F**k off.

Whenever there's this kind of controversy about someone saying something stupid in a private venue, there should be more blame for anyone with a megaphone who repeats the comments.

James Gunn made his jokes as an obscure filmmaker, years before he was offered Guardians of the Galaxy.

Ted Cruz is posting this as a prominent Senator, with millions of followers. He is the one exposing children, whose parents might have assumed that the twitter feed of a right-wing Senator would be appropriate for all-ages, to the comments that he claims to denounce.

And then there's the freedom of speech implication of calling for someone to be prosecuted over a sick joke.

For maybe the third time in response: we don't know, which is why it's useless (to me) to argue about it.

At the very least we should wait until the hearings are over -- and we have more information -- before making judgments.

Unless the Meuller investigation shows something like the hacking of election machinery, it is entirely likely that we're not going to get more evidence of the actual effects of Russian meddling. What we'll have to go on is what we have now (there were hacks, weird memes, and Russian bots.) Much of the investigation is about what people knew and when they knew it, rather than on the effects.

[Tendrin]

Ted Cruz is posting this as a prominent Senator, with millions of followers. He is the one exposing children, whose parents might have assumed that the twitter feed of a right-wing Senator would be appropriate for all-ages, to the comments that he claims to denounce.

This might be one of the more unintentionally funny things you've written in a while.

I mean, the idea that anything relating to Ted Cruz is appropriate for all ages...

[Kusanagi]

Or it could be that decision-makers finally felt proud of the country with Obama in the White House.

Or it could be the NFL loves that sweet sweet military money they were paid.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-p...t-games-2015-5

https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-car...tml/?a=viewall

No kind of Patriotism like paid patriotism.

[ouroboros]

That's not even close to what he was saying...

No justification of the "bad taste" accusation was given, so I advanced one, based on the fact that the poster was objecting on the grounds that the person slain was a black woman.

I don't know why posters who use "identity politics" arguments don't just cop to them. They can always resort to the "long history of suffering abuse" claim, and most everyone will agree with them.

[aja_christopher]

Unless the Meuller investigation shows something like the hacking of election machinery, it is entirely likely that we're not going to get more evidence of the actual effects of Russian meddling. What we'll have to go on is what we have now (there were hacks, weird memes, and Russian bots.) Much of the investigation is about what people knew and when they knew it, rather than on the effects.

Let's take a real objective look at this situation Mets: you keep trying to tell me what the "facts" tell us when I'm (repeatedly) telling you that we don't have all of the facts yet, so it's ridiculous to even have this argument.

Stop trying to tell me what to think, Mets -- you're welcome to your opinion, but repeating it over and over again doesn't make it any more true than it was the first time around. Maybe you feel that it's okay to repeatedly belittle and dismiss out of hand a direct Russian attack on America's democracy -- as that serves the interests of your chosen party -- but I don't.

A month or so ago we didn't even know about the extent of the Russian infiltration into the NRA and now we have an entirely new realm of corruption to explore within the Republican party.

Should be fun to watch -- especially once the subpoenas hit and the trials start.

And you ignore MI and FL and NC.

So you are in the Roberts camp of nothing to see here and that was decades ago. Even though, as soon as he took the breaks off, these same states put forth the exact type of laws and efforts that the VRA was meant to stop.
I guess as long as it helps your Party, what is the denial of a few voters rights?

It is a bit ironic to sit here debating this with someone who doesn't seem concerned with doing more than giving lip service to issue of civil rights -- why would you think someone is concerned with your political opinion when they don't even seem concerned with the fact that their party is openly using illegal means to suppress your vote as they know that's the only way that they can win?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ession/565355/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwb...-black-voters/

Despite all of the rhetoric, the bottom line is that the Republican party will do whatever it can to suppress the minority vote including taking illegal action against said minority groups -- Mets seems to see this (and things like illegally separating kids from their parents) as just "politics" despite the fact that the civil rights of women, LGBT citizens and "minorities" of all different racial backgrounds are being openly attacked by the party in question.