Politics 2020

[Guard Dog]

3 hours ago, Achilles said:

 

Person A: *talking about X*

Person B: *completely ignores X* "Oh yeah? Well is it fair what happened with Y?"

EDIT: And yes, I do think that elected senators ("some part of the populous") should be held to different standards. After all they swore oaths of office agreeing to do precisely that.

First off don't mistake anything I've posted as any kind of endorsement of what Trump & McConnell are trying to do here. If I were Trump I'd make that vacant Supreme Court seat the central focus of my campaign. I'd also make the Democrats threats to "pack the court" an issue as the naked power grab it is. Even though they have backed off of it I still would not let it go if I were him. It can only help him because the Democrat voters cannot be any more motivated than they already are. Just my take. What they are doing instead, succeed or fail, is a cynical play. If they nominate Amy Coney Barrett her religion has already been made an issue. They are expecting that to happen again. Whether she ends up being nominated the fire she will take from the Dems might galvanize the "religious right" to Trump.  

As you already know I am not a Republican and hold them in only slightly less contempt than the Democrats. But to answer your question "yes" if all the roles were reversed the Democrats would do that same things and hypocrisy be damned. Look, these are all nice people probably individually. They are good to their friends and family, kind to their dogs, and don't cheat on poker night. But the political machine they are all a willing part of is not nice. It's ugly, it ruthless, and it collectively understands a fundamental truth about government: it does not exist to "help" or "lead" it's people. The idealized and wholly fictitious notion of it is not the reality. Government exists solely to perpetuate it's own existence. And what they are all fighting over is control of what that existence is going to look like and how that power over it can be perpetuated. Plus these folks are fighting for cushy jobs that leave them far wealthier than the sum of their paychecks. Anything goes. 

As you can probably 

[Darkpriest]

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3102047/us-spy-planes-posing-airliners-serious-threat-south-china-sea

 

If true, then this is disgusting on US part. This could make a real airliner a target by accident and create some dangerous incident. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Darkpriest

[Guard Dog]

8 hours ago, Gromnir said:

why on earth would you read more than one? if you think Gromnir is repetitive...

and sure, the democrats would be doing the exact same thing. we have repeated many times how the whole current Court problem is a democrat legacy o' their killing o' filibuster, a fail which obama clear learned nothing from given his john lewis eulogy.  wanna go back further? scalia had unanimous senate approval in 86. unanimous. one year later and democrat borking forever changed Justice appointments. had many decades where President's Justice appointment and senate confirmation were merit based and curiously non-political. democrats went and f'd that up and they did so to reject one o' the most impressive American legal minds o' the 20th century.

however, like it or not, this situation is the hypocrisy o' mitch, lindsey graham and others and not the democrats. IF the republicans in february o' 2016 had stated they had the votes and were gonna sit on an obama nominee come hell or high water, then they would not be facing the scorn and ridicule o' justa' 'bout every non hardcore trumper today. we will let the voters decide, rings hollow at the moment, no? the republicans tried to legitimize their power grab 'cause they didn't want torpid and indolent democrat voters to come out in numbers to reject what we all knew were gutlevel wrong at the time, but it were legal and Constitutional. don't like the Constitution? tough noogies. solution is to vote.

is nothing illegal 'bout what the republicans is doing. is skeevy and a bit underhanded, but am suspecting In The Current Political Environment, democrats would do the same. the thing is, this is not an insular choice. republicans need to win this November 'cause if democrats take back both houses o' Congress after republicans forced through a new supreme court justice in october, or worse as could be a lame duck appointment in december, there will be a reckoning come January 4, 2021. that reckoning will be Constitutional and legal.

and so the cycle will continue until somebody has the sense and courage to say, "no more."

we keep telling folks that legal and Constitutional is NOT same as right and moral. unconstitutional is never okie dokie, but Constitutional is not same as good or right or just. Constitutional gives republicans the power and the right to make a choice, and their choice will be judged, perhaps quicker than  they would hope.

"“You’ll regret this and you might regret it even sooner than you might think,” McConnell warned."

mitch were right in 2013.  the thing is, as mitch 2020 pushes ahead, he should listen to his 2013 self...

just to make #s qq

HA! Good Fun!

LOL! OK Sowell IS repetitive. Not Bernard Cornwell repetitive but you do get the feeling you've read it before. But the three I listed are very different. He has a sharp mind and very readable writing style IMO. 

Oh I agree with you on Garland. They should have followed the process and voted him down. They had the votes to do that and it could easily have run out the clock on the Obama administration without all the acrimony. And like we both said, it would not have changed the wailing and gnashing of teeth going on right now about Trump getting a third justice. But, no one ever suggested the folks on 1st St. were wise.

I don't think there is a path back to normal. And I don't think someone will say "no more". I think they will all fire their missiles. 

One thing I would like to see happen ASAP is a Convention of States or a Constitutional Amendment fixing the Supreme Court at 9. 

As you once pointed out, slavery was once both Constitutional and legal. Constitutional and legal are by no means synonymous with right.

[Guard Dog]

10 hours ago, Achilles said:

So you're just here to beat the drum about how "both sides do it" even though only one side *has* done it? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

 

Yes. Read Gromnir's posts. In this case I was saying either side would do the same thing if they were in the position to do so. But you have the idea.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Guard Dog
spelling

[Guard Dog]

10 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

I think it's fun to compare the judicial record of Garland, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Because we make it seem like these are some sort of polar opposites, when the reality is much more minute. 

The most common SCOTUS vote is 9-0. 7-2 is the second most common. 5-4 comes in third. Most Supreme Court cases are mundane and only of interest to the litigants. The big "landmark" cases like Obgerfell, Kelo, Heller, etc are rare, 

For all the fear about Roe being undone the truth is a Congress and President could fix that right now by passing a law that made it illegal for states to interfere with elective medical procedure. Just like that abortion is legal. I know 9 lawyers in DC who would be VERY happy if they did!

[213374U]

6 hours ago, Gromnir said:

would be pointless. as we noted, you are a mod. have seen this sad little drama play out where we embarrass a mod and next thing you know, the poor dear is forgetting board rules and abusing shiboleth. see, another mod is the one who uses the qq shibboleth, which is precise why we brought it up this time. honest didn't expect such a quick strike at the bait.

I'm just using your own words. Go ahead, since you like diving into the depths of the forum to, how does that go... "selectively quote" people? See if I've ever referred to "qq"ing before.

As for your accusation that us mods are above review, ah, how to put this...

12 hours ago, Gromnir said:

says more 'bout those who use than it does 'bout those you claim it applies

In any case, if you have a problem with the guidelines or their application, or with members of the moderation team, I suggest you bring it up with @Fionavar. It will no doubt be more productive than the constant passive-aggressive moaning and sniping you have been indulging in for a while now.

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Darkpriest said:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3102047/us-spy-planes-posing-airliners-serious-threat-south-china-sea

 

If true, then this is disgusting on US part. This could make a real airliner a target by accident and create some dangerous incident. 

Eh only mostly non Americans will be
in danger, so no skin off their nose.

Reminds me of a funny graphic I saw with 9/11 deaths next to Iraq War civilian deaths, trying to calculate the exchange rate.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Malcador

[Hurlshort]

9 hours ago, Orogun01 said:

Look, I don't live in one of this state so my views come from far away observation and second hand anecdotal evidence. I watch a lot of Youtube and form my views from both the fact that a lot of Tubers living in these states have spoken about the subject of high taxes as well as seeing through my workplace people that have left these states. With Joe Rogan, Elon Musk and others quite visibly leaving California because of the conditions of the place, as well as all the strange problems borne out their policies. It paints a picture of  States with a high cost of living whose extremely ideological policies have devastated their States. A good example would be how California Green policies contribute to the yearly wildfires because of their refusal to do controlled fires. They also are experiencing rolling blackouts because of their switch to exclusive solar power sources. People that I know that live there are very much looking to move.

Speaking as a Californian, this is a bit of an oversimplification of very complex issues. I'm not going to bend over backwards to completely defend my state. I still grumble about state taxes, cost of living, homeless policies, and plenty of other issues in the sunshine state. But the issues you brought up have some big question marks.

First off, Elon Musk is posturing. He is using the threat of leaving California to get what he wants out of the state. But take notice that Tesla was started in California for good reason. California is not going to collapse if Tesla leaves. Silicon Valley is still the tech capital of the world. Hollywood is still the entertainment capital of the world. Handfuls of celebrities and companies leaving for greener pastures is not going to change that because they keep getting replaced by new celebrities and companies. It's the same reason I can't get the housing prices to go down in this area. They are building new homes, and people keep talking about leaving the state, but at the end of the day the population keeps growing up, and a good chunk of that is wealthy immigrants. 

As for the green policies, wildfires, PG&E, and all that jazz, it is super complicated. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/why-isnt-california-using-more-prescribed-burns-to-reduce-fire-risk/

 

[HoonDing]

 

[Guard Dog]

This narrative is becoming seriously tiresome: https://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-sounds-alarm-trump-120810706.html

There are two things I want out of this Presidential election. 
1) Jo Jorgensen gets as many or more votes than Gary Johnson did

2) The outcome is not close. This thing needs a clear and unambiguous winner on the night of. 
 

I don’t really care which turd gets flushed and which one stays in the bowl. In my opinion they are both terrible even if it’s a different terrible. But this cannot come down to recounts, court battles, absentee ballots shenanigans. If I can only have one of the two things I want I will take the latter

[HoonDing]

Johnson would prolly go "What's corona?"

[Malcador]

2 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

Johnson would prolly go "What's corona?"

Or say he prefers wine to beer ?

[Guard Dog]

23 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

Johnson would prolly go "What's corona?"

He would think it was a beer or something

 

doh! Malc beat me to it

Edited September 23, 2020 by Guard Dog

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Yes. Read Gromnir's posts. In this case I was saying either side would do the same thing if they were in the position to do so. But you have the idea.

As I said in my very first reply:

Of course both parties would move to fill the seat. There's nothing controversial or even questionable about this (despite your framing).

The difference is that in the last two cases, the GOP has engaged in dirty pool (to use your term). That's what the fuss is about. But continue with your false equivalence campaign.

[Guard Dog]

3 minutes ago, Achilles said:

As I said in my very first reply:

Of course both parties would move to fill the seat. There's nothing controversial or even questionable about this (despite your framing).

The difference is that in the last two cases, the GOP has engaged in dirty pool (to use your term). That's what the fuss is about. But continue with your false equivalence campaign.

You are missing my point. Suppose Merrick garland had been a Republican appointee facing a democrat senate. If everything had played out exactly the same then and now the only difference would be who is screaming. Government is an ugly and dirty business.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Guard Dog

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

You are missing my point. Suppose Merrick garland had been a Republican appointee facing a democrat senate. If everything had played out exactly the same then and now the only difference would be who is screaming. Government is an ugly and dirty business.

Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? I doubt it.

Look, I'll use an example: do both sides get caught taking money they shouldn't? Yep. But when it's the democrats, it's one guy with 100,000 in his freezer. When it's the republicans, it's like a 1/3 of them with vacation homes paid for by lobbyists.

I don't say this because I just love the democratic party so much (because I really don't), but not being able to distinguish between who is who and what is what is playing politics with blindfold on. Have your considered that your false equivalence actually helps to make the problem that concerns you worse?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

But the political machine they are all a willing part of is not nice. It's ugly, it ruthless, and it collectively understands a fundamental truth about government: it does not exist to "help" or "lead" it's people. The idealized and wholly fictitious notion of it is not the reality. Government exists solely to perpetuate it's own existence. And what they are all fighting over is control of what that existence is going to look like and how that power over it can be perpetuated.

Man, if only there was some mechanism by which we the people could do something about this.

Sure sounds like a serious problem that sober people need to figure out how to address.

[Guard Dog]

2 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? I doubt it.

Look, I'll use an example: do both sides get caught taking money they shouldn't? Yep. But when it's the democrats, it's one guy with 100,000 in his freezer. When it's the republicans, it's like a 1/3 of them with vacation homes paid for by lobbyists.

I don't say this because I just love the democratic party so much (because I really don't), but not being able to distinguish between who is who and what is what is playing politics with blindfold on. Have your considered that your false equivalence actually helps to make the problem that concerns you worse?

Not really. Because even if they were all honest paupers the country is still $27T in real debt an unfunded future liabilities. Both political parties have badly mismanaged they’re spending all while blaming the other for the problem. Neither of them is going to fix it. They have to cut spending and they’re not going to do it.

[Guard Dog]

Just now, Achilles said:

Man, if only there was some mechanism by which we the people could do something about this.

Sure sounds like a serious problem that sober people need to figure out how to address.

Sure. We go to the polls and vote. And the pattern continues. “Oh no the Republicans have screwed up the country let’s elect the Democrats“. Four years later it’s “oh no the Democrats have screwed up the country let’s elect the Republicans.“

meanwhile the Republicans and the Democrats are working together to keep the other parties off the ballot. No problem has ever been solved by employing the same processes that created the problem. A new political perspective is needed.

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Not really. Because even if they were all honest paupers the country is still $27T in real debt an unfunded future liabilities. Both political parties have badly mismanaged they’re spending all while blaming the other for the problem. Neither of them is going to fix it. They have to cut spending and they’re not going to do it.

Smh

Again with the false equivalence.

Red on the left is digging the country out of Reagan and Bush 1. Red on the left is the first term of Bush 2.

Any discussion of Obama's numbers *have to be filtered through the lens of the Great Recession and GOP obstructionism*

So in the last 40 years, we've had 10 presidential terms. In 6 of them, republicans have been in office and run federal deficits. In 4 of them democrats have been in office. In two of those we had budget surpluses and in the other two economic recovery after one of the worst financial periods in american history. "Both sides!!!" he cries.

So if you want to debate economic theory, we can do that (I'm guessing you're Team Hayek). But let's not spend any more time trying to pretend that this isn't largely a republican issue.

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Sure. We go to the polls and vote. And the pattern continues. “Oh no the Republicans have screwed up the country let’s elect the Democrats“. Four years later it’s “oh no the Democrats have screwed up the country let’s elect the Republicans.“

Yeah, only if we keep doing it the way that we have been: 50% participation in presidential elections and sub-30% participation in mid-term elections. Many of those voters deciding who they are supporting on Election Day (i.e. "low information voters")

Quote

No problem has ever been solved by employing the same processes that created the problem. A new political perspective is needed.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

The new political perspective is called "take **** seriously" and it looks like informed voters actively participating in democracy.

ADDED BY EDIT: Serious question for you: do you honestly think that if we waved a magic wand and replaced the democratic party with the libertarian party, but left everything else the same (voter participation and engagement, etc) that anything would be different? I don't believe the root of the problem is necessarily either of the political parties. I believe the issue is that the feedback mechanism is broken.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Achilles

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, 213374U said:

I'm just using your own words. Go ahead, since you like diving into the depths of the forum to, how does that go... "selectively quote" people? See if I've ever referred to "qq"ing before.

 

do the same for Gromnir. serious. not hard. only one other poster we has ever previous directed the qq, and you followed the exact same trend. sure, you didn't have the self-awareness to recognize how you were being chastised. 

have no doubt behind the scenes mods has been admonished. tn had a little flip-out a while ago and while am certain Gromnir woulda' been scolded public, we wouldn't be shocked if tn were admonished private. however, try and pretend as if mods don't get more freedom and more benefit o' the doubt from fellow mods is ludicrous. 

there will be an eventual general warning to stay on-topic and not discuss the motivations o' other posters, an admonishment #s will ignore... which would be no biggie if he were just another poster, but he has been given responsibility. 

and still not even trying to be on topic? all the recent board warnings, but a mod can't seem to follow board guidelines? 

have never resorted to the report function as is pointless. we do find public shaming has a tendency to fix behaviour or drive the violator to even more extreme behaviours. win either way. 

no james baldwin? harry belafonte is much underappreciated by the current generation as he is known most as an entertainer. mr. bellafonte were a guest on the muppet show and sesame street (multiple times.) given the ludicrousness o' continued off-topic and extended qqing o' #s. a sesame street number feels increasing appropriate.

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

You are missing my point. Suppose Merrick garland had been a Republican appointee facing a democrat senate. If everything had played out exactly the same then and now the only difference would be who is screaming. Government is an ugly and dirty business.

tougher call to make. that said, obama and reid had already shown a willingness to violate long standing government norms. however, they did specific tap the brakes at the Supreme Court. when filibuster for appointees were exorcised, the democrats, perhaps outta guilt but mayhap in a moment o' clarity, stated Supreme Court Justices were not affected by their alteration o' senate rules. 

your hypothetical suggests the democrats, who in spite o' their underhanded efforts to alter Congressional norms to suit their current needs but nevertheless insulated the Supreme Court from their actions, would so soon afterwards show a callous willingness to burn it all down. you could be right. naked opportunism is the current situation. the problem is four years has changed so much. much o' what we all thought were impossible four years ago has already happened. with every trump violation and excess which the senate allowed, they made it that much more possible to excuse the next mistake. 

describe 2020 to any senate republican in 2015. unilateral government shutdowns. ignoring Congressional power o' the purse and pilfering from discretionary funds to force through construction specific denied by Congress. 1000 former prosecutors accuse the President o' obstruction of Justice. attempt to bury an IG report from reaching Congress 'cause it makes the President look bad. send federal troops to states and localities where they routine ignore due process rights o' those detained. dozens o' other examples. the current Court situation were made possible by the democrats, harry reid and obama back in 2013. the reason why is happening, as has so much else, is 'cause somewhere between 2016 and today, the republicans gave in and became the party of trump. it were not an overnight thing.

the problem is, the democrats ain't what they were in 2015 neither. clinton and the dnc underhanded efforts to prevent bernie from gaining the nomination helped split the party and the last two years (in particular) o' trump has polarized democrats even further. as angry as were republicans in 2013, democrats is more furious in 2020, and there is more than a little justification for fire and fury.

justification ain't enough. gonna help destroy faith in institutions 'cause that is what trump has been doing for four years? vindictive and immature is predictable but is no way to run government. is very democratic, and am not referencing the party. the tyranny o' the masses is what our system is s'posed to prevent, but we are throwing it all away, bit by bit, and norm after norm.

disagreeing with gd: am not thinking democrats woulda' done reverse in 2016. they would today. too much has changed in four years. most of it bad.

HA! Good Fun!

ps @Achilles show by president for budget deficits as you are doing is misleading. is republicans who forced through balanced budget. give clinton credit is dubious. am not suggesting you be convinced by a single cato institute article o' all things, but even so, am thinking is gross unfair to describe as you do.

obama deficits were as much 'bout obamacare, his misguided stimulus efforts AND bailouts o' banks and automakers 'stead o' individual citizens than were 'bout the recession, a recession which were as much the fault o' clinton's bank deregulation as any other dozen reasons. because o' the recession, obama woulda' had deficits no matter what. fair point. he just did everything wrong to fix and we would be paying for those mistakes already but for the fact trump is compounding by expanding the debt 'stead o' trying to control... at least pre covid.

oh, and democrat Presidents routine cut nasa budget.

...

the nasa bit ain't really relevant to the deficit issue, but am thinking clinton and obama both deserve more scorn and ridicule for cutting nasa dollars.

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Gromnir

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Whelp looks like ****s going down in Louisville.

[Guest]

lol

the one cop who was charged is guilty of accidentally endangering other innocent people while actually killing a different innocent person

[213374U]

15 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

do the same for Gromnir. serious. not hard. only one other poster we has ever previous directed the qq, and you followed the exact same trend. sure, you didn't have the self-awareness to recognize how you were being chastised. 

and still not even trying to be on topic? all the recent board warnings, but a mod can't seem to follow board guidelines? 

I don't care if you have used it before or not. This may come off as a shocker, but I really don't care about you or think much about what you have or have not said. I mostly just skim your posts, if that. The fact remains that you threw your so-called "shibboleth" first, to which I replied. But somehow I'm now identified by it because some other user used it before who also happens to be a moderator, despite never having used it myself before. Peak Gromnir.

Look in the mirror. Your quoting multiple posts so you can mix on- and off-topic tripe to claim you're trying to re-rail the thread isn't fooling anyone.

And as for whatever you think is going on with moderators behind the scenes, I can only tell you that it just doesn't happen that way outside of your private little world. Again, contact the chief moderator if you have any complaints. The fact that you have dodged this and instead continued to play the oppressed victim only shows that you know full well that if rules were to be enforced with an iron fist, you wouldn't be able to play your little game.

With that being said, this is going to be my last post about this. I have wasted too much time on you as it is, and my only regret is that I will never get these precious few minutes back. It seems some lessons are harder to learn than others.