Politics 20/20

[Malcador]

28 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

We should trade Poland to Putin for free vaccines

I see you have read The Art of the Deal

[Raithe]

 

[Gromnir]

8 hours ago, Raithe said:

image

 

gross misunderstanding.

the reconstruction amendments 'tween 1865 and 1870, as well as the civil rights legislation o' the mid 1960s is the governmental action which most ardent addressed mayor lightfoot's concerns. weren't the Court. what brought 'bout real change were the will o' the people as realized through legislation that were written and enacted to end abominable evils. 

in 1850, before the civil war, the state supreme court o' massachusetts held that, among other issues, the US Constitution did not make school segregation illegal. the court decision resulted in widespread anger and a groundswell o' public support demanding change. in 1855, massachusetts solution were to pass state legislation desegregating schools. problem. solution. 

scalia were an originalist and a textualist. am not sure why folks tend focus only on the first aspect, 'cause they is not same thing. scalia, to whom acb has been unfair compared, specific observed how the intent o' the authors o' a law were largely immaterial when applying textualism. is the meaning o' the words, fair interpreted and in context o' the time and framework o' the legislation, which guides a textualist judge/Justice. more than one person has suggested an originalist would need have brown v. board of education fail. after all, the writers o' the reconstruction amendments specific addressed school segregation as they debated the amendments and from the legislative history it is kinda clear they didn't believe equal protection would result in segregation. for scalia, finding school segregation illegal based on equal protection were not a hard case, 'because he were a textualist. didn't matter what the legislators thought or intended 'cause the clear meaning o' the written words o' the fourteenth amendment would, from scalia's pov, have precluded school segregation. course the Court in brown applied a sociology argument to decide the case, so...

judges and Justices is 'posed to declare what the law is and not necessarily what it should be. if law is not to be interpreted as something immutable as it were written, then how should it be interpreted? at what point in history were school segregation Unconstitutional? am not asking when school segregation were wrong, but rather when it were repugnant to a Constitution which the mayor o' chicago correct observes did not view her as a person worthy o' protection in 1787. were school segregation Unconstitutional in 1787 and nobody realized until 1954? 

perhaps some folks believe society evolves and so too should the Constitution? sadly, hasn't history (recent and remote) shown how easily our idealized notions o' American values may be subverted by voices filled with hate? if you believe as a nation the US progressed forward in an ever improving cycle as evidenced by Court decisions correcting the mistakes and failures o' Congress and the people, then you are a poor student o' history. those obsidian board history buffs such as @Hurlshot and @Guard Dog will no doubt be able to name many examples from US history which tends to prove society may regress with equal speed and vigor as it progresses.  

to let you know just how not-controversial the decision were, buck v. bell is one o' the most brief decisions you will ever read.

...

in our federalist system, is Congress which is purposefully designed to represent the evolving standards o' the electorate, not the Courts. does it seem wise to have those nebulous evolving societal standards nobody can adequate identify or define be established by an elite group o' nine men and women who have lifetime terms? 

we got concerns 'bout acb. she is not a textualist same as were scalia. woulda' liked to see her sit on the appellate court a bit longer 'cause a few o' her espoused and more controversial positions has not been tested in the crucible o' a rl decision. am not liking the dissembling all nominees to the Court increasingly engage. of course acb has an opinion 'bout voter intimidation, but she cannot answer even simple questions 'bout such? say she ain't lying when she avoids answering even the most simple questions is undermining her perceived legitimacy as an impartial and honest adjudicator. etc.

regardless, originalism is all too often used interchangeable with strict construction and textualism. fail. blame originalism for the evils Americans perpetrated 'pon their fellow men for more than two hundred years o' the history o' this nation is also a fail. however, having read slapjack definitions o' originalism even at law school sites, am not surprised by the confusion o' many, though such understandable and correctable ignorance is all too often magnified by politicians with an agenda.

...

oh, what the hell,

originalism?

HA! Good Fun!  

Edited October 14, 2020 by Gromnir
added buck v. bell

[ComradeYellow]

New poll shows Trump ahead in Florida by 2 points, which leads me to believe that national polls don't mean too much anymore.  A state-by-state average followed by a tally would be more sufficient, or even better, get rid of the electoral collage completely.

[Gromnir]

it is smart to ignore national polls. only the battleground states matter insofar as the election.

however...

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/florida/

trafalgar is a notable outlier.

most o' the recent polls for florida while having biden ahead is w/i margin of error. is too close to predict as o' today.  

there are so few undecideds this year, so will be less funkiness than 2016. biden is also far more consistent in popularity than were clinton. that said, is 'tween five and eight states with any relevance to the election results... save for trump shenanigans insofar as voter fraud bs. 

less than 77k votes determined the 2016 election. three states with less than 1% difference 'tween clinton and trump decided the election. 

2016 is not same, but lesson should be learned how national polls is nothing but misleading.

good news for trump is that unbeknownst to the President, puerto rico don't have any electoral college delegates. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

New poll shows Trump ahead in Florida by 2 points, which leads me to believe that national polls don't mean too much anymore.  A state-by-state average followed by a tally would be more sufficient, or even better, get rid of the electoral collage completely.

Why would you be surprised by the Republicans possibly winning Florida?

Its has a loyal, Republican base in many areas. It also has the Cuban, American community who understandably vote Republican, ask Orog. Dont repeat the same mistake many of us made in 2016 where we assumed " Trump will never win" 

[Gorgon]

 

Awfully convenient timing isn't it. Don't believe it. 

I mean I could believe that Biden is corrupt, but I believe Trumps terrible polling more. 

 

 

 

[ComradeYellow]

2 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Why would you be surprised by the Republicans possibly winning Florida?

Am not, just saying these national polls where Biden is leading by 10 points or so is a bit offset by a Trump poll-lead in Florida.  Florida is like the swingiest of the swing states after all.

[Skarpen]

14 hours ago, Sarex said:

Invasion of Poland was pretty much a land grab by the Soviet Union in preparation for the war they knew was coming. They wanted to have as much of a buffer zone as they could against the 

Sure they did. That's why they supported Germany military industry.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi–Soviet_economic_relations_(1934–41)

To prepare for war that Stalin didn't believed would ever occur up until German soldiers were at his doorsteps

https://www.history.com/.amp/news/how-stalin-was-caught-napping

Do your homework. Class dismissed.

---------------------

So how about some opinions on Biden's NY Post story about his corruption deals with Burisma and lies about never making deals with them. Oh, and you can throw your 2 cents about Social Media attempts to block and bury this biggest story of the momemt.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Skarpen

[ComradeYellow]

^You realize the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact only happened because western countries cut off all treaties the the USSR, right?  They would have preferred a Western Pact against the Nazi's I think, but that simply wasn't in the cards.

It was such a long time ago anyway, why do people keep bringing it up?  Let's focus on the here and now:  Russia and China are now in a pact, because liberals wouldn't allow Trump to pull Russia into our sphere of influence and isolate China (Henry Kissenger wisely pulled China away from Russia during the Nixon era, because he correctly prophesized that Russia and China teaming up would spell the end of US dominance).

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Am not, just saying these national polls where Biden is leading by 10 points or so is a bit offset by a Trump poll-lead in Florida.  Florida is like the swingiest of the swing states after all.

I remember in 2016. I was an absolute, hardcore Clinton supporter ( I still support her ) and she did indeed represent the continuation of the Obama legacy. I was under the impression that most Americans supported this because of polls and certain  feedback from some US friends and family ( to be honest I also didnt exactly listen to dissenting voices I knew or general Republican views )

The global media houses also generally had the same view that Trump was bad and Clinton would definitely win

So it wasnt just me and my view which was selective 

This forum should have been a relevant way to understand  this real political dichotomy  because most US forum  members didnt seem that keen on Clinton for a variety of reasons  which I also disagreed with for legitimate reasons at the time

Then Trump won which irrevocably shattered  how to interpret accurately  US traditional  ways of voting choice 

Anyway what I learnt is many Republican supporters will not participate in polls and arent necessarily going to use the mainstream media to openly support Trump. So you cannot assume victory for either party and this is to be expected because I can still see valid reasons I can vote for either candidate ..now if someone who is not a US citizen can possibly vote for either candidate I can understand how being a US citizen and there voting choice can also be undecided 

 

[BruceVC]

14 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Sure they did. That's why they supported Germany military industry.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi–Soviet_economic_relations_(1934–41)

To prepare for war that Stalin didn't believed would ever occur up until German soldiers were at his doorsteps

https://www.history.com/.amp/news/how-stalin-was-caught-napping

Do your homework. Class dismissed.

---------------------

So how about some opinions on Biden's NY Post story about his corruption deals with Burisma and lies about never making deals with them. Oh, and you can throw your 2 cents about Social Media attempts to block and bury this biggest story of the momemt.

 I watched  a movie recently based on a true story about a UK journalist who after WW2 uncovered the mass murder of Polish citizens by the Soviets 

So Poland was treated incredibly badly by the Nazis and the Soviets and I can both understand and agree why nowadays many Polish people are concerned with the correct, historical representation of the events of history and how Poland was treated by many countries  

[Skarpen]

41 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

You realize the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact only happened because western countries cut off all treaties the the USSR, right?  They would have preferred a Western Pact against the Nazi's I think, but that simply wasn't in the cards.

Yes I am aware of the many botched political decisions that made WWII possible in the shape and scope it has occured. Not to say western countries didn't have it's reasons for not allying with mass murderer Stalin until it was necessary to defeat Germany. But the "why" is not the question here. The question was people dismiss or forget that it was a thing.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Skarpen

[Sarex]

9 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Sure they did. That's why they supported Germany military industry.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi–Soviet_economic_relations_(1934–41)

 

Germany wasn't the only power who wanted the Soviets to fall. Historically Russia has sought to increase the distance between itself and Europe, in the same way China is looking to push out towards to mountains and move it's border defenses there (exempting a few river sources they want to control).

They had an interest in economic ties with Germany, the same way the US had interest with Germany and supporting Hitlers rise to power. Everyone is playing the game, that both Russia and the US were outplayed doesn't point to ignorance of the pending treat.

9 hours ago, Skarpen said:

To prepare for war that Stalin didn't believed would ever occur up until German soldiers were at his doorsteps

https://www.history.com/.amp/news/how-stalin-was-caught-napping

Do your homework. Class dismissed.

I guess we didn't have the same homework. Mine says that Stalin was preparing an offensive against Germany and was just beaten to the punch.

 

[Darkpriest]

Soviets would love to work in such a reality

 

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If the worse tyranny you have to worry about is getting banned from Twitter, then you've got it pretty good.

[Malcador]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-unmasking-review-no-charges/2020/10/13/0f63fd2e-0d67-11eb-8074-0e943a91bf08_story.html

I guess Trump will want to fire Barr now.

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Malcador said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-unmasking-review-no-charges/2020/10/13/0f63fd2e-0d67-11eb-8074-0e943a91bf08_story.html

I guess Trump will want to fire Barr now.

Why would you  ever think Trump would dismiss such an industrious and useful ally ?

[Malcador]

1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

Why would you  ever think Trump would dismiss such an industrious and useful ally ?

Well, was more a joke on his personality issues having him turn on people when any setback perceived or otherwise (for a funny example look up Bowden talking about him destroying a fountain pump). 

[Darkpriest]

23 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

If the worse tyranny you have to worry about is getting banned from Twitter, then you've got it pretty good.

You can become my personal wage slave, once my corporation will fully own the narratives of all communication. 

Make sure to stop by the nearest re-education center for your new chip and set of medicines. 

Otherwise your contract will be terminated and your flesh will be used for nutrition, as we need to comply with the rules on animal meat consumption, yet other working citizens still need more of the single wage affortable nutrition. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Darkpriest

[Malcador]

49 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

If the worse tyranny you have to worry about is getting banned from Twitter, then you've got it pretty good.

The rights a private organization has is always in flux. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Malcador

[Skarpen]

49 minutes ago, Sarex said:

I guess we didn't have the same homework. Mine says that Stalin was preparing an offensive against Germany and was just beaten to the punch.

That is obvious we had different homework, or that I actually did mine. Stalin was preparing so much that he was sending unarmed soldiers to fight the Germans when Hitler attacked. 

38 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

If the worse tyranny you have to worry about is getting banned from Twitter, then you've got it pretty good.

If a president press secretary is banned from any media then it's about as bad as it can be. Silencing people is never good, something leftists never learned, obviously.

[BruceVC]

2 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

That is obvious we had different homework, or that I actually did mine. Stalin was preparing so much that he was sending unarmed soldiers to fight the Germans when Hitler attacked. 

 

This is a good point, the USSR were woefully unprepared initially  when Hitler attacked so there is no logical way they would have been preparing to attack Germany 

[Elerond]

10 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

^You realize the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact only happened because western countries cut off all treaties the the USSR, right?  They would have preferred a Western Pact against the Nazi's I think, but that simply wasn't in the cards.

That is just simply bull****.

There was no war when Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was made and both parties were aggressors in war that followed said agreement.

Also western nations made pacts with USSR and they even sold them lots of the weapons that they used in their invasion.  And US for example traded lot with Soviet union after 1933, which made it possible that USSR was able to build it industries.

Also still in beginning of 1939 France and UK were seeking military alliance with USSR after Germany took over the Sudetenland, but those ended in May when Molotov become the foreign minister as Molotov was skeptic towards France and UK and saw better opportunities in dealing with Germany

[Gorth]

23 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

This is a good point, the USSR were woefully unprepared initially  when Hitler attacked so there is no logical way they would have been preparing to attack Germany 

There is more to it... apparently nobody does their homework

 

Stalin knew war was coming with Germany, but he had some "house keeping" to do first before he was ready to start a war (hence he would do anything and sign anything to appease Hitler until he was ready. Mass execution of the senior officers and anyone who could possible threaten his position (I'll leave it to people to look up "The Great Purge" and it's effects) left The Red army completely shattered and without leadership in 1941. Even such small things as lessons learnt from fighting against the Germans in the Spanish Civil war was lost because the Soviets who had fought in that war were show-trialled and executed. If it hadn't been for the winter 1941-1942, they would probably have had Swastika on the spires of the Kremlin today.