• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

michaelskis said:
I have no problem with them supporting the BLM movement. I think it is terrific. I have a problem that they are not all inclusive of other movements including the safety of our first responders. I think that if you are going to open the doors that much, be sure that they are open to everyone.
Click to expand...
So I ask again, are you aware of anyone who is currently asking to support the first responders and isn't able to? I am not. Maybe it isn't an issue because there are a lot bigger problems than the perceived support of law enforcement (which is still generally high). Police don't have it easy for sure, but there is a reason this is happening, and it is happening now.

The idea that the NFL is just being unfair or uneven is not really a valid complaint. Anyone can protest or support any movement. They just may have to pay a price (either monetarily by a fine, or monetarily by society and a loss of sponsorship). I don't believe the NFL can stop someone from wearing a shirt they want... that person just may have to pay a fine to prove their point. I am not aware of anyone who has even contemplated that or publicly said they are not being allowed to support first responders. Any links that are of this year?
 
Hink said:
So I ask again, are you aware of anyone who is currently asking to support the first responders and isn't able to? I am not. Maybe it isn't an issue because there are a lot bigger problems than the perceived support of law enforcement (which is still generally high). Police don't have it easy for sure, but there is a reason this is happening, and it is happening now.

The idea that the NFL is just being unfair or uneven is not really a valid complaint. Anyone can protest or support any movement. They just may have to pay a price (either monetarily by a fine, or monetarily by society and a loss of sponsorship). I don't believe the NFL can stop someone from wearing a shirt they want... that person just may have to pay a fine to prove their point. I am not aware of anyone who has even contemplated that or publicly said they are not being allowed to support first responders. Any links that are of this year?
Click to expand...

I am not sure about now, but they have in the past and were denied. I don't care if you think it is or is not valid. It is wrong. In the past they have been fined for wearing things.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/10/03/an-nfl-player-will-stop-wearing-his-man-god-headband-after-league-fined-him
Granted he did not need to pay, but they started down that road.


www.espn.com

Williams: NFL nixed plan to wear pink all year

DeAngelo Williams was told by NFL vice president of football operations Troy Vincent that he couldn't wear pink accessories because there are no exceptions to the uniform policy.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

Should I keep going or are you going to deny these too?
 
michaelskis said:
I am not sure about now, but they have in the past and were denied. I don't care if you think it is or is not valid. It is wrong. In the past they have been fined for wearing things.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/10/03/an-nfl-player-will-stop-wearing-his-man-god-headband-after-league-fined-him

Granted he did not need to pay, but they started down that road.


www.espn.com

Williams: NFL nixed plan to wear pink all year

DeAngelo Williams was told by NFL vice president of football operations Troy Vincent that he couldn't wear pink accessories because there are no exceptions to the uniform policy.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

Should I keep going or are you going to deny these too?
Click to expand...
You've proven your point that you disagree with the current NFL's private corporate policy decision(s) and you're boycotting them.

Got it. Noted.

You should be done now.
 
Last edited:
michaelskis said:
I am not sure about now, but they have in the past and were denied. I don't care if you think it is or is not valid. It is wrong. In the past they have been fined for wearing things.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/10/03/an-nfl-player-will-stop-wearing-his-man-god-headband-after-league-fined-him
Granted he did not need to pay, but they started down that road.


www.espn.com

Williams: NFL nixed plan to wear pink all year

DeAngelo Williams was told by NFL vice president of football operations Troy Vincent that he couldn't wear pink accessories because there are no exceptions to the uniform policy.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

Should I keep going or are you going to deny these too?
Click to expand...
I don't deny these. But you picked stories from before the current time. Your argument is that it isn't fair. I am asking, is anyone now (since the NFL has changed their stance on supporting players in 2020 due to the BLM movement pushing it to do so) being denied? My guess is that since you provided links from 2015 and 2019, you aren't able to find any cases for this season. Which is my point. You should be happy the league has started to allow its players to support a cause or maybe even causes. That should be a positive thing... right?

My issue is that you seem to be fixated on this and I don't see the reasoning. Would you be happier if one player wore a support the Blue headband? Or does it need to be an entire team to keep it "fair". I'm just not sure I understand why this matters in the context of the NFL or the majority of its players supporting a specific movement.
 
Since I am on the prowl I guess... what says the brain trust on what I have seen via Social Media?

28th Amendment: Abolish the electoral college.
29th Amendment: Prohibit gerrymandering.
30th Amendment: Reform disproportionate representation in the Senate so 15% of the population doesn’t control 50% of the senators.
31st Amendment: Age limitation on President at 65 when taking office for the first time.

What would be an argument against this? Would the argument be from small states who like that their low population gets way more bang for the buck than large states? From Republicans who enjoy a party largely due to gerrymandering? From old politicians?

I would vote for all three in a heartbeat, as I think they all would make our parties stronger (by forcing people to actually be rational to win votes).
 
Hink said:
Since I am on the prowl I guess... what says the brain trust on what I have seen via Social Media?

28th Amendment: Abolish the electoral college.
29th Amendment: Prohibit gerrymandering.
30th Amendment: Reform disproportionate representation in the Senate so 15% of the population doesn’t control 50% of the senators.
31st Amendment: Age limitation on President at 65 when taking office for the first time.

What would be an argument against this? Would the argument be from small states who like that their low population gets way more bang for the buck than large states? From Republicans who enjoy a party largely due to gerrymandering? From old politicians?

I would vote for all three in a heartbeat, as I think they all would make our parties stronger (by forcing people to actually be rational to win votes).
Click to expand...

28th Amendment: Restructure Electoral College. (Each congressional district is independent and two senate votes go to popular win for the state)
29th Amendment: 100% agree
30th Amendment: I would be curious to hear more about your reform. Personally, I think the 30th Amendment should repeal the 17th Amendment. If you get a chance, Alexis De Tocqueville has some really compelling thoughts on this concept. I do think that there should be term limits on Senators.
31st Amendment: It would give people a 30 year window to get elected the first time. I don't think it is a bad idea.
 
michaelskis said:
28th Amendment: Restructure Electoral College. (Each congressional district is independent and two senate votes go to popular win for the state)
29th Amendment: 100% agree
30th Amendment: I would be curious to hear more about your reform. Personally, I think the 30th Amendment should repeal the 17th Amendment. If you get a chance, Alexis De Tocqueville has some really compelling thoughts on this concept. I do think that there should be term limits on Senators.
31st Amendment: It would give people a 30 year window to get elected the first time. I don't think it is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
28th Amendment: Abolish the electoral college.
Idea being that we are capable of having one vote per person. There is no need for this any longer, it is a relic and really no one should think it is necessary any longer. Why shouldn't every vote count?

29th Amendment: Prohibit gerrymandering.
This is easy, but it will have to be defined, as the Supreme Court wimped out on making this better. I think everyone knows what needs to be done here.

30th Amendment: Reform disproportionate representation in the Senate so 15% of the population doesn’t control 50% of the senators.
Remove the 2 senators per state junk that gives Wyoming equal power to California. One Senator per state, and the rest are based on population. So that would meet the federalism part of providing opportunity for each state, but give the largest population centers the votes they deserve. The idea that South Dakota has the same number of senators as Texas is stupid.

31st Amendment: Age limitation on President at 65 when taking office for the first time.
I would even go to 60. We need younger people in politics, not old people who likely screwed up the country by the time they get to that age after 50 years in politics. I mean look at the founding fathers. They weren't 80 ;)
 
Hink said:
28th Amendment: Abolish the electoral college.
Idea being that we are capable of having one vote per person. There is no need for this any longer, it is a relic and really no one should think it is necessary any longer. Why shouldn't every vote count?
Click to expand...
I am not sold on it. How would people in rural areas have a voice? An election could also be decided before the polls close on the West Coast. How would you address those situations?

Hink said:
29th Amendment: Prohibit gerrymandering.
Click to expand...
Hink said:
This is easy, but it will have to be defined, as the Supreme Court wimped out on making this better. I think everyone knows what needs to be done here.
Click to expand...
I agree and it is frustrating.

Hink said:
30th Amendment: Reform disproportionate representation in the Senate so 15% of the population doesn’t control 50% of the senators.
Click to expand...
Hink said:
Remove the 2 senators per state junk that gives Wyoming equal power to California. One Senator per state, and the rest are based on population. So that would meet the federalism part of providing opportunity for each state, but give the largest population centers the votes they deserve. The idea that South Dakota has the same number of senators as Texas is stupid.
Click to expand...
Wow, you hate rural places don't you. You have proportional representation... it's called the house of representatives. When the Senate was created, they were appointed by each state and were responsible for making sure the Federal Government was fiscally responsible with the State's Money since at that time the Federal Government did not have income taxes. Then it all changed in 1913 when senators became elected and the 16th amendment was created to allow the federal government the authority to tax the incomes of people... and it has been downhill ever since. The current senate is the last vestige of a check and balance to give rural states a voice.

Tell you what, let's do away with the legislative branch and the judicial branch. After all we elect the president. Let him or her have full discretion on the operations and spending of the federal government. More so, instead of states, let's break everything into 12 districts.

Hink said:
31st Amendment: Age limitation on President at 65 when taking office for the first time.
Click to expand...
Hink said:
]
I would even go to 60. We need younger people in politics, not old people who likely screwed up the country by the time they get to that age after 50 years in politics. I mean look at the founding fathers. They weren't 80 ;)
Click to expand...
Yea, I don't care much about this one. Overall, all but three presidents were under 66 when they got elected. Trump, Reagan, and Harrison are the exceptions.
 
Yeah, you kind of need the Senate and the House. One rules by population and on by state. The problem is that the Senate no longer represents their states, but their parties. If we're going to stick with this two party system I would require one senator from each party. Can't get anything done? Then maybe start compromising on something. Maybe make some rules to break up strangleholds in the Senate.
 
Hink said:
Since I am on the prowl I guess... what says the brain trust on what I have seen via Social Media?

28th Amendment: Abolish the electoral college.
29th Amendment: Prohibit gerrymandering.
30th Amendment: Reform disproportionate representation in the Senate so 15% of the population doesn’t control 50% of the senators.
31st Amendment: Age limitation on President at 65 when taking office for the first time.

What would be an argument against this? Would the argument be from small states who like that their low population gets way more bang for the buck than large states? From Republicans who enjoy a party largely due to gerrymandering? From old politicians?

I would vote for all three in a heartbeat, as I think they all would make our parties stronger (by forcing people to actually be rational to win votes).
Click to expand...

28th amendment - nope, we need to keep it - the 2016 election is exactly why it needs to stay and is the exact reason why it was put in place - I am not a Trump supporter but the middle of the country is and they need to have a voice, even if I disagree - candidates need to do a better job at working with rural populations

29th Amendment - I would like to prohibit gerrymandering but what is the system to prevent it - using census tracts? county lines? having a statewide election to accept or reject its district boundaries? what is the best way to divide up a district?

30th amendment - nope - the Senate was created to be just as it is so that each state has equal say - Congress is set up to represent populations - things aren't working right now because the people that are elected to the Senate may not reflect what others want to see happen but don't throw out the whole system because we don't like the majority - vote/run to change the majority

31st amendment - I think 65 is too low - I mean Social security upper limit is now 67, so again, get better and younger candidates! Generation X needs to step up and take over! I think if we did do an age it should be 72 (current life expectancy is 78 right now in the US)

I think, and not sure how to do this so it'll stick, as this Administration doesn't follow the Constitution, but I do think if you are running for President, it needs to be a requirement to release tax returns and release medical records
 
Hink said:
Since I am on the prowl I guess... what says the brain trust on what I have seen via Social Media?

28th Amendment: Abolish the electoral college.
29th Amendment: Prohibit gerrymandering.
30th Amendment: Reform disproportionate representation in the Senate so 15% of the population doesn’t control 50% of the senators.
31st Amendment: Age limitation on President at 65 when taking office for the first time.

What would be an argument against this? Would the argument be from small states who like that their low population gets way more bang for the buck than large states? From Republicans who enjoy a party largely due to gerrymandering? From old politicians?

I would vote for all three in a heartbeat, as I think they all would make our parties stronger (by forcing people to actually be rational to win votes).
Click to expand...

You left off repealing the 19th amendment...

:halo:
 
michaelskis said:
I am not sold on it. How would people in rural areas have a voice? An election could also be decided before the polls close on the West Coast. How would you address those situations?
Click to expand...
I live in a rural area. I certainly don't hate rural voters. But the idea that because I chose to live where I did, I get more representation is stupid. I get one vote. You get one vote. The guy who lives in NYC gets one vote. Why should my vote count more or less because of where I live? I would argue that the Republican in NYC should like this too.

michaelskis said:
Wow, you hate rural places don't you. You have proportional representation... it's called the house of representatives. When the Senate was created, they were appointed by each state and were responsible for making sure the Federal Government was fiscally responsible with the State's Money since at that time the Federal Government did not have income taxes. Then it all changed in 1913 when senators became elected and the 16th amendment was created to allow the federal government the authority to tax the incomes of people... and it has been downhill ever since. The current senate is the last vestige of a check and balance to give rural states a voice.
Click to expand...
Yep, I hear you. I would say gerrymandering if the last check and balance to give rural states a voice, but I get what you are saying. I just fundamentally disagree that Wyoming, which pays little to nothing into the federal coffers, has less people than Boston, and likely doesn't impact the lives of the majority of the US, gets the same weight as places who do. I understand the HoR and the Senate are different, and were designed that way. We can make them still be different, but instead of handing over undeserved power to Delaware, we provide more opportunities for malleability based on population.

michaelskis said:
Tell you what, let's do away with the legislative branch and the judicial branch. After all we elect the president. Let him or her have full discretion on the operations and spending of the federal government. More so, instead of states, let's break everything into 12 districts.
Click to expand...
This is why we just continue to move towards this path that everyone generally agrees is undesirable. The second someone proposes a solution, the screaming about a slippery slope, or the FRAMERS, stops it. This wouldn't destroy our republic. It would strength it, by forcing people to actually get the majority of Americans to support something. It wouldn't put too much power into one group... you still have the House and the Supreme Court and the President.
 
For the past 2 weeks, I've received one to two phone calls a day from the RNC. They must be feeling desperate in the Old North State.
 
Planit said:
For the past 2 weeks, I've received one to two phone calls a day from the RNC. They must be feeling desperate in the Old North State.
Click to expand...

I have not had any calls, but based on the number of visits from Trump over the past two months, they are trying to work the state. I did run into someone campaigning for him a week ago. They did not like that I was in opposition to his character, ethics, lack of moral value, or defiance of reality.
 
Planit said:
For the past 2 weeks, I've received one to two phone calls a day from the RNC. They must be feeling desperate in the Old North State.
Click to expand...
When there's one of those massive spreader rallies scheduled, it's possible to reserve a couple of tickets (and then an emergency arises so you can't possibly attend).
The email results are fairly entertaining. I signed up under the name "Sparkle Plenty" and there are messages to her several times a day.

No, red is not my color ...
 
Here in South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is in a fight with challenger Jaime Harrison. For some reason Graham started tweeting that he wanted Harrison to release his tax returns. So Harrison did just that and in his post he said "Done. Now do President Trump". I'd say that was pretty much getting owned.
 
Too big to fail. That's what we heard over a decade ago. But you know you never see the local mom and pop hardware store get bailed out when Lowe's or Home Depot rolls into town.
 
I noticed on my run this morning that about 15 Biden/Harris signs sprouted overnight in various yards along my street. I normally don't put up a lawn sign supporting any candidates (the only time I've put up signs were for a regional millage for the art museum and another for a regional transit authority) but I feel like I'm being peer pressured into adding a sign to our lawn this year.

I was thinking one of these this time around:

1600278416053.png
 
Lindsay Graham tried to attack his opponent in the SC race by calling him out for not releasing his tax return & saying he must have something to hide.

His opponent, Jamie Harrison subsequently released his tax return & in reply said “Done. Now do President Trump.”
 
Hink said:
Since I am on the prowl I guess... what says the brain trust on what I have seen via Social Media?

28th Amendment: Abolish the electoral college.
29th Amendment: Prohibit gerrymandering.
30th Amendment: Reform disproportionate representation in the Senate so 15% of the population doesn’t control 50% of the senators.
31st Amendment: Age limitation on President at 65 when taking office for the first time.

What would be an argument against this? Would the argument be from small states who like that their low population gets way more bang for the buck than large states? From Republicans who enjoy a party largely due to gerrymandering? From old politicians?

I would vote for all three in a heartbeat, as I think they all would make our parties stronger (by forcing people to actually be rational to win votes).
Click to expand...

28th Amendment: I am in favor of keeping the electoral college, however the electoral votes should be awarded on a proportional basis rather than winner takes all.
29th Amendment: 100% agree with this. I am in favor of geographically compact districts.
30th Amendment: No.
31st Amendment: No.
 
The democrats in the Senate are proposing a bill that would cancel up to $50,000 in student loan debt per person.

(LINK)

The note that "Even before the coronavirus pandemic plunged our economy into chaos, student loan borrowers were already in crisis. The President of the United States has the power to broadly cancel student loan debt, help close the racial wealth gap and give a big boost to families and our economy."

What are your thoughts on this proposal? Do you think that there is enough bipartisan support to make something like this happen?

I think that they have a great point and I do think it will help boost the economy.
 
As an old fart parent I'm not crazy about Tik Tok, but as an American I am concerned about our government outright banning an app. It seems like a red herring to me. . . first ban an app that kids/teenagers (who can't vote) use, "for security concerns," then ban other apps and media outlets that you just don't like, because "security concerns."
 
michaelskis said:
The democrats in the Senate are proposing a bill that would cancel up to $50,000 in student loan debt per person.

(LINK)

The note that "Even before the coronavirus pandemic plunged our economy into chaos, student loan borrowers were already in crisis. The President of the United States has the power to broadly cancel student loan debt, help close the racial wealth gap and give a big boost to families and our economy."

What are your thoughts on this proposal? Do you think that there is enough bipartisan support to make something like this happen?

I think that they have a great point and I do think it will help boost the economy.
Click to expand...

I don't think it all should be cancelled. A certain percentage should be cancelled and the rest financed at 0%. It's just not sustainable and not fair to the graduates that already paid off all of their tuition.

That's one of the problems I heard - the interest rates were as high as 8%. Of course, we will need a new president before any of this can even begin to be hammered out.
 
As a person who has a sh!t load of debt. Literally what the amount says on my bill. They don't even bother to write in a number. I'm all for getting rid of some or all of my debt, but I can understand how people who already paid their debt would feel ripped off. I would also worry about how that effects the loan institutions. Granted the money is all virtual money of some kind, but somewhere along the line it needs to become real money and you can't just wipe out billions of dollars of real or virtual money without some kind of impact.
 
The 2020 Shitshow continues.

"Sometimes, when I'm reading the history of Nazi Germany and World War II, I find it hard not to feel like there was some outside force guiding events. The number of times Hitler could have failed early on but didn't, the number of times Germany could have been stopped before it inflicted too much damage but wasn't, the number of times Hitler was targeted for assassination and miraculously survived. I'm not a superstitious individual, nor a religious one, but it genuinely does feel like there's some sadistic asshole god setting these things up to maximize suffering.

It's not on the same level, of course, but that's a thought that comes back to me when I contemplate Trump's improbable victory and the number of Supreme Court seats he may get to fill as a consequence of it. It's like there's some asshole god out there who delights in watching things get as bad as possible. "

-Ivan the Terrible.
 
michaelskis said:
The SCOTUS appointment and lack here of is an interesting example of how nothing with DC is absolute and past decisions could change. The original intent of SCOTUS was to be above politics but both sides have used it as a tool to manipulate opinions on the intent of the constitution to fit their agenda. We live in sad times when the corruption of DC is so bad and so out of control that people trust Donald F-ing Trump more than people who have been in the "game" for years.

I personally don't have the answers, but we as a society need to find a way to get special interests out of DC, get big money out of the political process, and demand that our elected leaders stop being politicians and start being statesmen. The sooner that happens, the better we all will be.
Click to expand...

I said this 4 years ago about the situation and I stand behind it today.
 
michaelskis said:
The democrats in the Senate are proposing a bill that would cancel up to $50,000 in student loan debt per person.

(LINK)

The note that "Even before the coronavirus pandemic plunged our economy into chaos, student loan borrowers were already in crisis. The President of the United States has the power to broadly cancel student loan debt, help close the racial wealth gap and give a big boost to families and our economy."

What are your thoughts on this proposal? Do you think that there is enough bipartisan support to make something like this happen?

I think that they have a great point and I do think it will help boost the economy.
Click to expand...
See this is where I don't sit with either party. I am adamantly against paying off student debt. I support rethinking how we pay for and actually "do" college, but if you take out debt, you should pay it back. I am for paying for a portion of everyone going forwards college bills. But in the end this is just our government giving money to people who made a choice.

I would rather see our government structure a program that allows a single debt servicer at great rates for future college student, or existing ones who want to refinance their debt. The problem I have with the current system is the private loan system and the government making getting student loans so impossibly difficult.

I understand that it seems somewhat heartless, but I feel like we have to keep personal responsibility as part of our country as well. This isn't medical debt. This isn't predatory lending (in most cases). This is someone making a choice. If the solution was to provide a more reasonable financing solution that is government backed and allows for lower payments and easier payoff, then I support that. I don't support just forgiving money people agreed to pay and in almost all cases, received a benefit from.
 
I don't mind student debt either but the predatory lending of student/medical loans is crazy and cruel - I don't think the financial industry needs to make that much money off those loans and there should be a 3% cap on them (if it goes too low, then no one will do it, government loans should be 1.5%)

What needs to change with student loans is FAFSA - it is based on your gross income so the number they think you as parents can give your kid is astoundingly high and completely unrealistic - so these schools that say they will make sure you can go if you get in no matter what is a part lie because they base that on that FAFSA number

also it is virtually impossible to put yourself through college until you are 26 years old as FAFSA bases your ability to pay on your parents until you are completely emancipated from them which is 26 under ACA

I do like states who reduce or make free their state college tuition if you stay after graduation and work in that state - that's a great incentive

I would pay more taxes to make community colleges virtually free as well

I don't see a place for government intervention in this but it is shameful these schools with high amounts of cash stowed away let their students go so far in debt, and, also in this pandemic world, have not pivoted well to go online (that is, taking your tuition check and then sending everyone home when there's an outbreak of COVID and being shocked that the students are not social distancing - that's pretty disgusting)

the Senate should not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court but they likely will - hopefully that will piss off enough people to vote for Biden
 
luckless pedestrian said:
What needs to change with student loans is FAFSA - it is based on your gross income so the number they think you as parents can give your kid is astoundingly high and completely unrealistic - so these schools that say they will make sure you can go if you get in no matter what is a part lie because they base that on that FAFSA number

also it is virtually impossible to put yourself through college until you are 26 years old as FAFSA bases your ability to pay on your parents until you are completely emancipated from them which is 26 under ACA
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you noted, but specifically this. FAFSA is one of the most backwards systems. If I am going to college, I should be required to based what I can and cannot get on myself, not my parents. My parents are not, and should not, be required to support me through college. If they can, great. If they can't, great. It should be based on the kids, not the family. I understand that we want to prioritize families who have no options and the parents that "could" be paying, "should" be paying so those kids do have options. My problem is exactly what you stated, which is the formula is broken and the expectations on families is unfair. I would much rather see a system that prioritizes providing low interest rates for everyone who takes debt, and one servicer of that debt that is government backed.

Then after that part, provide additional incentives to remove that debt after the fact (but have clear guidelines before taking the debt) - like working in a state, in government or other public service, etc. If you have one servicer and one set of rules, the forgiveness issue is much easier and doesn't get clusterf@#ked like our current system. Or maybe not as badly? ;)
 
Maister said:
Merrick. Garland.
Click to expand...
The hypocrisy is thick, even for the republicans who are pretty good at it. I mean Mitch McConnell can't possibly look at himself in the mirror and think he is a good person for straight up lying about this.

I do wonder if this is the last straw though when it comes to the democrats playing nice. If Trump gets a 6-3 majority in the SC, will the Democrats blow up the filibuster, pack the supreme court, bring DC and Puerto Rico in for statehood, something else that was "too crazy" previously if they get the Presidency, House, and Senate?
 
Hink said:
The hypocrisy is thick, even for the republicans who are pretty good at it. I mean Mitch McConnell can't possibly look at himself in the mirror and think he is a good person for straight up lying about this.

I do wonder if this is the last straw though when it comes to the democrats playing nice. If Trump gets a 6-3 majority in the SC, will the Democrats blow up the filibuster, pack the supreme court, bring DC and Puerto Rico in for statehood, something else that was "too crazy" previously if they get the Presidency, House, and Senate?
Click to expand...

I read an article that suggested exactly this.
 
Bubba said:
This concept in a vacuum, without the partisan politics of it - at what point does a court have too many justices to operate in an efficient manner?
Click to expand...
Great question. I mean if FDR couldn't get it done, I don't see how it would get done, but maybe 15? 6 more to make it 9-6 for the D's, which would last them for at least 40 years...
 
Bitch McConnell is salivating at this. He has always wanted to influence the judiciary branch.

Lindsay Graham is no better, as well as the majority of Rs in the Senate. Just look at the ones who lined up in 2016 & are now saying this is different.

Murkowski & Collins have said they'd oppose this (if you can trust them), so you need 2 more no votes for it to fail. Romney is probably one...others???
 
DOJ brands 3 US cities as 'anarchist jurisdictions'
www.justice.gov

Department Of Justice Identifies New York City, Portland And Seattle As Jurisdictions Permitting Violence And Destruction Of Property

UPDATE The guidance and designations described in the press release below were withdrawn on February 25, 2021 pursuant to a memorandum signed by Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson. All Department grantmaking components shall ensure that no state or local jurisdictions are disfavored in any...
www.justice.gov www.justice.gov
 
Planit said:
Bitch McConnell is salivating at this. He has always wanted to influence the judiciary branch.

Lindsay Graham is no better, as well as the majority of Rs in the Senate. Just look at the ones who lined up in 2016 & are now saying this is different.

Murkowski & Collins have said they'd oppose this (if you can trust them), so you need 2 more no votes for it to fail. Romney is probably one...others???
Click to expand...


If you want to know who said what in 2016, check it out:

www.huffpost.com

What GOP Leaders Said About Merrick Garland In 2016

“I think we’re too close to the election," one Republican senator said about then-President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
 
Lindsey Graham is in my fair city today with the governor to announce a transportation project and some significant industrial development. I should be there. Alas, I'm out of town. :smirk:
 
Ok, it is time to drop kick a beehive. Has your view on the matter changed in 4 years or are you just repeating your parties talking points?

I need clarification on this. In 2016, one party flipped out because the senate would not approve President's recommendation for SCOTUS. because it was an election year. In 2020, the same party is flipping out because the senate will approved the President's recommendation for SCOTUS because it is an election year.

Read that carefully... When you remove the politics out of it shows the hypocrisy is thick regardless of the letter behind the name.

4 years ago, I thought that it was ridiculous that the GOP led senate would not approve the nomination. President Obama was the sitting president and he had the constitutional authority to appoint someone with Senate approval. As much as I don't like Trump, I still feel the same. Last I checked, the person in the WH will still have the title of President of the United States of America until January 20th, 2021. All the constitutional rights that are awarded him as President do not diminish just because it is an election year.

My point is I think it is ridiculous that people are demanding a delay right now and they were the same people demanding that the GOP affirm Obama's pick 4 years ago. Pick a stance on a position and stick with it. The wrong from 4 years ago by the GOP does not make a delay in appointing someone right in 2020.
 
michaelskis said:
My point is I think it is ridiculous that people are demanding a delay right now and they were the same people demanding that the GOP affirm Obama's pick 4 years ago. Pick a stance on a position and stick with it. The wrong from 4 years ago by the GOP does not make a delay in appointing someone right in 2020.
Click to expand...

I think we ought to draw the line at lame duck and be done with it. All recent events have done is remind me how pissed I was about Merrick Garland.

At this point, outrage doesn't matter. Voting and turnout might matter, or they might not. The Supremes, including this next appointee, might end up deciding the outcome of the election.

It's about power, it's been about nothing else for a very, very long time. The only way for the Dems to make it not about power any more is to get back into power.
 
michaelskis said:
Ok, it is time to drop kick a beehive. Has your view on the matter changed in 4 years or are you just repeating your parties talking points?

I need clarification on this. In 2016, one party flipped out because the senate would not approve President's recommendation for SCOTUS. because it was an election year. In 2020, the same party is flipping out because the senate will approved the President's recommendation for SCOTUS because it is an election year.

Read that carefully... When you remove the politics out of it shows the hypocrisy is thick regardless of the letter behind the name.

4 years ago, I thought that it was ridiculous that the GOP led senate would not approve the nomination. President Obama was the sitting president and he had the constitutional authority to appoint someone with Senate approval. As much as I don't like Trump, I still feel the same. Last I checked, the person in the WH will still have the title of President of the United States of America until January 20th, 2021. All the constitutional rights that are awarded him as President do not diminish just because it is an election year.

My point is I think it is ridiculous that people are demanding a delay right now and they were the same people demanding that the GOP affirm Obama's pick 4 years ago. Pick a stance on a position and stick with it. The wrong from 4 years ago by the GOP does not make a delay in appointing someone right in 2020.
Click to expand...
Ehhh. I mean taking the politics out of it is impossible to do, when you are referencing something that negatively affected a large group of people. It isn't exactly the same. I get your point, but I would say that once one side does something, the other side can do it too. I certainly agree that both sides are to take some heat, but clearly once one side does something, it isn't as bad to do that thing. It is kinda like breaking the dam.

If, 4 years ago, Merrick Garland was eventually approved, this would be a different conversation. But that isn't the case. The Republican Party did something that had never been done before, for completely ugly, political reasons. And they won. Now it is the Democrats turn to make them face the flames. This is what happens in Washington. It is tit-for-tat. If you look at this and think the problem is the Democrats being hypocrites is the problem, you are seeing what you want to see. Usually the losing side of an argument is given some leverage in future scuffles. In this case, the Republican party won by essentially changing the way our country has always done it. They now have to deal with what is now what we do in this country... even though it is wrong. But that is their fault for doing it in the first place.

So, sure. You can agree the President is President until January 20, 2021. But you must then also agree that the Senate has the "right" to stop that nomination in an election year. Because they have that right. Whether they should have or not is irrelevant. They already did.

Now the real question is will the Democrats stand up for themselves and make the Republicans pay for their hypocrisy, or back down like they always do? I think it may just be the time for the D's to get a spine, if they win in November.
 
michaelskis said:
Ok, it is time to drop kick a beehive. Has your view on the matter changed in 4 years or are you just repeating your parties talking points?

I need clarification on this. In 2016, one party flipped out because the senate would not approve President's recommendation for SCOTUS. because it was an election year. In 2020, the same party is flipping out because the senate will approved the President's recommendation for SCOTUS because it is an election year.

Read that carefully... When you remove the politics out of it shows the hypocrisy is thick regardless of the letter behind the name.

4 years ago, I thought that it was ridiculous that the GOP led senate would not approve the nomination. President Obama was the sitting president and he had the constitutional authority to appoint someone with Senate approval. As much as I don't like Trump, I still feel the same. Last I checked, the person in the WH will still have the title of President of the United States of America until January 20th, 2021. All the constitutional rights that are awarded him as President do not diminish just because it is an election year.

My point is I think it is ridiculous that people are demanding a delay right now and they were the same people demanding that the GOP affirm Obama's pick 4 years ago. Pick a stance on a position and stick with it. The wrong from 4 years ago by the GOP does not make a delay in appointing someone right in 2020.
Click to expand...

I think the challenge is the principle of it all - why should the party of one president (D) not get the vote in an election year, but the other one can. If Mitch wouldn't let Obama proceed, he shouldn't let Trump; you don't get to do the right thing only when it is convenient for you, which is exactly what is happening with Mitch's leadership. It is also worth noting that Obama's appointment was around 300 days before the election, not 45.

If anything, Trump should nominate Merrick Garland.
 
I keep seeing 45 days... and your right, that is the number of days until the election. Unfortunately, even if Trump loses in 45 days, he is still in office for 120 more days from today.

I am 100% in agreement what happened 4 years ago was a load of crap. There is zero question about it in my book. Garland should have been appointed. But if there is someone recommended by Trump that the Senate can get behind now, they should be appointed.

But let me ask you this... if Garland was appointed 4 years ago, would the left be raising a fuss about this now? I think they would because politics are what they are. To assume that either side is capable of doing the right thing is itself ridiculous.

I agree that it is acceptable to be angry about the principle of the situation. But I think it is hypocrisy to demand the same thing that you were opposed to 4 years ago.
 
Back
Top