• 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

otterpop said:
President Trump is looking like a very good possibility. That is bad enough. What it says about the citizens is worse. We're becoming a scared, miserable, and hateful lot, ready to grasp at straws because so many of us think we are drowning when in fact the water isn't up to the heels of our shoes.
Click to expand...
otterpop for President!

But you're probably too smart to want the job anyway. ;)
 
So the Democratic debates are so much different from the Republican debates. Policy orientated with very little fear mongering. They even argued over who loved Obama more :)

My take aways:

- Hillary is scared. She is trying to paint herself as pragmatic and realistic.
- Bernie is confident. He had one liners and strong responses for every attack from Hillary.
- Hillary wants everyone else (including the media) to attack Bernie like she has been attacked. Although it seems she forgets what she has brought onto herself...
- Bernie can't put numbers on anything. He can't be honest about the cost of his policies. This was his weakest point in the debate.


I think Bernie did very well. The Clinton machine is going to try and knock him down, and get the media to attack him more, but it seems like Bernie has some swagger.

I look forward to Saturday's R debate. The less fluff the better. Now Kasich will be attacked by Trump. We will see if he can handle it. Rubio and Bush will have to save themselves. And Carson will sit in the corner talking to himself.
 
I'm just amazed that Clinton basically has changed the focus of her campaign to one that is all about Sanders instead of her and what she can/would/try to do with the country. She's simply so unlikeable which is the real reason that Bernie is even in this thing at all. At this point I can't imagine casting a ballot for anyone that is currently running.

Joe Walsh for President!
 
AG74683 said:
How do you think Clinton would be doing if Benghazi or the Email Scandal wouldn't have happened?
Click to expand...

I think Clinton has two problems - 1. She is a Clinton. People are tired of Clinton's and Bushes. And 2. She is unlikable. She is abrasive and doesn't come off as genuine. She seems like a polished politician who has spent her whole life looking for power. Not someone of the people or for the people.

Benghazi and the email scandal only matter to Fox News and Republicans. The hardcore D's could care less about those things, yet she still isn't getting the kind of votes Obama got in 2008. Why? Because of the two reasons above.
 
Exactly. I think Clinton has the same base she had 8 years ago and nothing more. She hasn't done anything to convince anyone else to jump on board.

The email thing is all over the place. It seems like such a pissing match between agencies about WHAT is classified and WHEN it was classified. Which if you do any digging it seems nobody really understands the method to it. That said, it was still beyond stupid to do anything related to your State Department job on your personal email.

I'm probably just going to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate. Not that it really matters. Big business runs the country (and the world) anyway.
 
Hink said:
I think Clinton has two problems - 1. She is a Clinton. People are tired of Clinton's and Bushes. And 2. She is unlikable. She is abrasive and doesn't come off as genuine. She seems like a polished politician who has spent her whole life looking for power. Not someone of the people or for the people.

Benghazi and the email scandal only matter to Fox News and Republicans. The hardcore D's could care less about those things, yet she still isn't getting the kind of votes Obama got in 2008. Why? Because of the two reasons above.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct and I think it is not just the D's that are like this, but also the R's. How else can you explain Trump.
 
michaelskis said:
I think you are correct and I think it is not just the D's that are like this, but also the R's. How else can you explain Trump.
Click to expand...

But I think the R's have different problems. Mainly they have backwards social ideas. They also look (whether they actually do or not is another thing) like they don't care about the poor. The R's also have a huge demographic problem. Young people, latinos, Africian Americans, and women on the whole, don't support the republicans. Mostly because of social issues.

1. The Republicans would win with a platform of economic and in a lot of ways foreign policy ideas. Most people support the idea of progressive taxes, but not the way the D's want to make them. People would support reforms to social security and medicare, even if uneasily.

2. They need to get over gay marriage and abortion. These positions are in line with a small (and shrinking) percentage of Americans. Most young Americans support gay marriage. It isn't even a question to them. Yet the R's are trying to overrule the Supreme Court. Spending money to defund planned parenthood is a waste of time and money. Poll it. When people actually understand what 80-90% of what Planned Parenthood does, they support it.

3. They need to find a middle ground on immigration. The idea of closing our country off to anyone else is not how our country came to be. We are a country of immigrants. This is a loser of a position, even if the extreme right loves it.

My caveat is that healthcare is a no win. There isn't a solution that I have seen yet that would satisfy 50% of the country. So many people want free healthcare, but there is no way to fairly pay for that. Socialize medicine is expensive and in many ways creates a system that will dissuade our best and brightest from pursuing medicine. Maybe that is a good thing, but personally I don't think it is. Privatizing healthcare also has many flaws, the first being that without strong regulations, that system will run amok, as all "free" markets do. There are very few examples of a truly free market balancing itself. Usually it corrupts the system with cheaters and swindlers.

I think the Republicans could focus on their core values of economic and tax reform, balanced (or at least limited) budgets, and strong foreign policy, and get more traction with the nation. They lose face when the say that someone has to have a baby, but once that baby is born, the mother shouldn't get food stamps to help feed it. They lose face when their parents came from Cuba to leave oppression and they want to block others from leaving that same oppression.

I think Trump will in the end, be a good thing for the Republicans. They must re-calibrate their party. They need to move past the evangelical vote and look to get new and younger voters. Otherwise they will just be a whiny party who doesn't win.
 
I dunno. I am kind of pulling for Hillary to be elected President. Whether it is Hillary or Bill the inevitable sex scandal will be awesome!
 
12733505_10153901374443764_7730458966445637404_n.jpg
 
otterpop said:
Yertle the Turtle says the President shouldn't nominate a successor to Justice Scalia and and the Untied States should wait about a year to get a new Justice.
Click to expand...

I think he should nominate one before July. As much as I don't like his policies, I think he should do it in a quick but timely as to not interfere with the election.
 
michaelskis said:
I think he should nominate one before July. As much as I don't like his policies, I think he should do it in a quick but timely as to not interfere with the election.
Click to expand...

Yes but the R's won't let that happen. They have already come out and said no matter who President Obama puts up, they will not confirm. Canadian Rafael (Ted) Cruz has already lied trying to set precedent. We'll have to see his face more and more when his filibuster starts. This will be a battle royale for them. I do like that President Obama has said it is his Constitutional responsibility to appoint and have confirmed a replacement.
 
Planit said:
Yes but the R's won't let that happen. They have already come out and said no matter who President Obama puts up, they will not confirm. Canadian Rafael (Ted) Cruz has already lied trying to set precedent. We'll have to see his face more and more when his filibuster starts. This will be a battle royale for them. I do like that President Obama has said it is his Constitutional responsibility to appoint and have confirmed a replacement.
Click to expand...

There's no way they can stall it long enough to last through November. They are currently in recess, and we could see Obama make a recess appointment in the coming days. Both the Senate and House are recessed until Tuesday, February 23rd. I think the longest they've attempted to block an appointment is 125 days or something like that. I think stalling will make the R's look like a bunch of petty people (not that they don't already). I feel it will ultimately hurt them in the election.

This will be a true measure of how true to his State of the Union speech Obama is. I'd like to see him appoint a moderate, someone right down the middle, rather than a true left Justice.
 
AG74683 said:
There's no way they can stall it long enough to last through November. They are currently in recess, and we could see Obama make a recess appointment in the coming days. Both the Senate and House are recessed until Tuesday, February 23rd. I think the longest they've attempted to block an appointment is 125 days or something like that. I think stalling will make the R's look like a bunch of petty people (not that they don't already). I feel it will ultimately hurt them in the election.

This will be a true measure of how true to his State of the Union speech Obama is. I'd like to see him appoint a moderate, someone right down the middle, rather than a true left Justice.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think the R's will try to stop it, but it is his duty to appoint someone and I think sooner will be better for everyone. He will still be in office for almost a full year.

I think the first person he will try to appoint will be super extremist far left knowing there is no way that they would get appointed, but the second one will be only slightly left but will look like Rush Limbaugh compared to the first person.
 
I read over Bernie's ideas and I am not convinced the numbers work or that the Constitution allows it. Can someone give me a rundown on how the numbers work beyond saying that the rich pay more?

I have to admit that I like his message but I fear he is saying he is giving away free stuff without a way to pay for it, which does not make it free anymore.
 
michaelskis said:
I agree. I think the R's will try to stop it, but it is his duty to appoint someone and I think sooner will be better for everyone. He will still be in office for almost a full year.

I think the first person he will try to appoint will be super extremist far left knowing there is no way that they would get appointed, but the second one will be only slightly left but will look like Rush Limbaugh compared to the first person.
Click to expand...

I imagine he will nominate somebody who very recently sailed through the approval process for one of the federal appeals courts with near unanimous Senate approval. That way when the Senate refuses to even bring them up for a vote (or does vote but votes them down) they (the Senate) look even more petty after recently approving the very same person something like 90-6 or 97-3.
 
michaelskis said:
I read over Bernie's ideas and I am not convinced the numbers work or that the Constitution allows it. Can someone give me a rundown on how the numbers work beyond saying that the rich pay more?

I have to admit that I like his message but I fear he is saying he is giving away free stuff without a way to pay for it, which does not make it free anymore.
Click to expand...

I have the same issue. It's almost a "too good to be true" situation to me.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
I imagine he will nominate somebody who very recently sailed through the approval process for one of the federal appeals courts with near unanimous Senate approval. That way when the Senate refuses to even bring them up for a vote (or does vote but votes them down) they (the Senate) look even more petty after recently approving the very same person something like 90-6 or 97-3.
Click to expand...
This would be a smart play. Bottom line is Scalia's passing comes at a bad time for the GOP establishment. Even if they manage to successfully delay/block an appointment til after the Pres. elections, they run the very real risk of losing control of the Senate and failing to take the Presidency.
 
Maister said:
This would be a smart play. Bottom line is Scalia's passing comes at a bad time for the GOP establishment. Even if they manage to successfully delay/block an appointment til after the Pres. elections, they run the very real risk of losing control of the Senate and failing to take the Presidency.
Click to expand...

The other item is regarding the redistricting in NC. There are some people who are saying that it will now go to SCOTUS.
 
Count on the Onion to be entertaining approaching crossing the line. ;) :lmao:
Obama Compiles Shortlist Of _____________________ To Replace Scalia
 
Maister said:
Bottom line is Scalia's passing comes at a bad time for the GOP establishment. Even if they manage to successfully delay/block an appointment til after the Pres. elections, they run the very real risk of losing control of the Senate and failing to take the Presidency.
Click to expand...

Whether or not one likes his interpretation of the Constitution, the passing of a seated SC Justice is never a good thing, and the timing of Scalia's death does put the GOP establishment in a no-win situation. The Dems are going to keep the Presidency (unless Sanders wins their nomination), but the GOP could easily costs themselves the Senate if they block a SC nomination from Obama out of spite. Best case for all involved is Obama nominates a centrist, and the Senate just quietly approves it. But, that won't happen, and politics will continue to suck...
 
With all the politics flying around Scalia's passing, have we stopped to look at how this is all the President's fault to begin with? :D
 
michaelskis said:
The other item is regarding the redistricting in NC. There are some people who are saying that it will now go to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

The biggest issue with delaying Scalia's replacement is that the Court is now an even vote, possibly resulting in a tie. A tie basically defaults to the Court of Appeals decision and does not set any legal precedent. From a GOP standpoint, this is a major problem because the Court of Appeals is in the Democratic favor already, meaning that Court of Appeals decisions have a left leaning tendency.

It's ridiculous to me that Republican Senate leaders want to block this nomination based on "allowing the American people to have a voice in the selection" alluding to that voice somehow changing with a new president. McConnell himself voted on Justice Kennedy's appointment in Reagan's last year as president, how is this any different?!

I cannot see a situation where the GOP somehow wins the Presidential election anyways. Their leading candidates are a racist bigoted big business man with no political experience, a young robot with faulty programming causing him to repeat himself in an endless loop, a Canadian evangelist, and a guy who's only relevant because of his last name. The Democratic candidates aren't really that much better, but they are still far more electable no matter who you side with.
 
My wife watched Maddow last night and she explained that the last time the court had an empty seat for a year was during the civil war. I think we all know the pres needs to appoint someone. The best part of not appointing, a lot of very right leaning cases won't be made and the sensible lower court rulings would stand.
 
Lower court rulings do not become precedent. If the vote ties, the Court will re-hear the case once the ninth Justice is seated. SCOTUSBlog

IMO, Obama should appoint a moderate Republican - Jon Huntsman? - to really fracture the GOP.
 
Gedunker said:
Lower court rulings do not become precedent. If the vote ties, the Court will re-hear the case once the ninth Justice is seated. SCOTUSBlog

IMO, Obama should appoint a moderate Republican - Jon Huntsman? - to really fracture the GOP.
Click to expand...

Jon Huntsman would be great, but Obama isn't going for kindness. He is going to go left leaning. Loretta Lynch would be my bet. Even though she has no chance of getting R support.
 
Gedunker said:
Lower court rulings do not become precedent. If the vote ties, the Court will re-hear the case once the ninth Justice is seated. SCOTUSBlog

IMO, Obama should appoint a moderate Republican - Jon Huntsman? - to really fracture the GOP.
Click to expand...

SCOTUSBlog is usually right on the money but Goldstein fails to point out that the Supreme Court is under no constitutional obligation to re-argue cases because of a vacancy. For what it's worth, split decisions occur even when there isn't a vacancy on the bench because justices can, and do, occasionally recuse themselves from cases in which they may have a material interest. In the end, re-arguing only applies to those cases that were already argued before the full bench, and the decision to re-argue them will come down largely to the discretion of Chief Justice Roberts (these procedural things are one of the few powers that come with being Chief).

Cases that are on this term's docket but have not yet been heard, and there are still about 40+ of them, will be heard by the 8 sitting justices. If they come out with a 4-4 split, it will reaffirm the lower court's ruling.
 
Gedunker said:
Lower court rulings do not become precedent. If the vote ties, the Court will re-hear the case once the ninth Justice is seated. SCOTUSBlog

IMO, Obama should appoint a moderate Republican - Jon Huntsman? - to really fracture the GOP.
Click to expand...

That article doesn't really indicate that this is common practice, nor constitutionally required though (unless I've read it wrong).

The longest since the Civil War that a seat has been "vacant" was something like 391 days. I say "vacant" because the spot was open because of a resignation. Nixon had two failed nominations back to back. Essentially the seat wasn't empty so it wasn't as big of a deal. I sincerely hope that Obama plays ball and doesn't try anything vindictive. I want to see how willing he is to stick to his word and stop perpetuating partisan division.
 
Gedunker said:
Lower court rulings do not become precedent. If the vote ties, the Court will re-hear the case once the ninth Justice is seated. SCOTUSBlog

IMO, Obama should appoint a moderate Republican - Jon Huntsman? - to really fracture the GOP.
Click to expand...

My limited understanding of SCOTUS rulings is that in a situation like this the case would most likely not be picked up by the court to make a ruling. They could easily pick it up next year if they wanted, but when the court doesn't pick up a case it sets the precedent that the lower court ruling is correct. For some of the cases they either accept the lower court ruling or they hope for a SCOTUS ruling next year. I'm not sure if there is some general practice for how many times a case can be filed or how long after the lower court ruling they get to appeal, but if the court keeps refusing to take up the case then that's the end of it.
 
Oh Snap!

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/hi...l-that-george-w-bush-committed-treason/22854/

Hmmm. I think we need Congressional hearings right now. Let's pull Cheney, Rumsfeld and Dubya in front of a Congressional committee, turn the grill on high and grill these mofos on TV. This could make Benghazi look like a Boy Scout weenie roast.

But of course it won't happen because the Republicans are in control and their poop don't stink.
 
otterpop said:
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/hi...l-that-george-w-bush-committed-treason/22854/

Hmmm. I think we need Congressional hearings right now. Let's pull Cheney, Rumsfeld and Dubya in front of a Congressional committee, turn the grill on high and grill these mofos on TV. This could make Benghazi look like a Boy Scout weenie roast.

But of course it won't happen because the Republicans are in control and their poop don't stink.
Click to expand...

What bothers me the most about the whole email thing is the fact that being the Secretary of State is inherently a dirty job. It HAS to be. It should be expected that any Secretary of State has done shady stuff, and any future one will do the same. Sorry, but not all of our foreign friends play the same ballgame we do. Hillary screwed up by taking her work home, and now the whole charade of "good guy" SoS is blown.
 
AG74683 said:
What bothers me the most about the whole email thing is the fact that being the Secretary of State is inherently a dirty job. It HAS to be. It should be expected that any Secretary of State has done shady stuff, and any future one will do the same. Sorry, but not all of our foreign friends play the same ballgame we do. Hillary screwed up by taking her work home, and now the whole charade of "good guy" SoS is blown.
Click to expand...

While I don't approve of what they do and I think that we as Americans should demand better, I agree with your comments.

I also believe that there was some level of corruption and misleading in regards to the Iraq war. But as I have said before, I think that our national defense should be just that, Defense. Not offense. We should not be getting involved in most of the places in the world that we are and we should not be the world’s police enforcement.
 
The GOP needs to figure out that their party has done more "corrupt" things lately and the more they dig the more they'll pull out their own skeletons.
 
I am enjoying Trump and Cruz going at each other. My only hope is that it takes both down and Rubio or Kasich win. I can work with Rubio or Kasich.
 
Hink said:
I am enjoying Trump and Cruz going at each other. My only hope is that it takes both down and Rubio or Kasich win. I can work with Rubio or Kasich.
Click to expand...

Kasich was your governor so you probably know his tendencies. Rubio is from Florida & my family still lives down there, one next to Rubio's district. He has done nothing. That's his record, nothing. They are not fond of him or Jeb.
 
Planit said:
Kasich was your governor so you probably know his tendencies. Rubio is from Florida & my family still lives down there, one next to Rubio's district. He has done nothing. That's his record, nothing. They are not fond of him or Jeb.
Click to expand...

Kasich is a horrible governor. He gutted funding for local governments and schools to "cut an 8 billion deficit and create a 2 billion surplus". That is why I want him as President. So he can't be our governor anymore. ;)
 
Hink said:
Kasich is a horrible governor. He gutted funding for local governments and schools to "cut an 8 billion deficit and create a 2 billion surplus". That is why I want him as President. So he can't be our governor anymore. ;)
Click to expand...

Be warned... that is how America ended-up with George W. Bush... :-|
 
Gedunker said:
Lower court rulings do not become precedent. If the vote ties, the Court will re-hear the case once the ninth Justice is seated. SCOTUSBlog

IMO, Obama should appoint a moderate Republican - Jon Huntsman? - to really fracture the GOP.
Click to expand...

That's a fascinating idea. I actually think Huntsman would make a really good Justice.
 
ursus said:
That's a fascinating idea. I actually think Huntsman would make a really good Justice.
Click to expand...

As do I. Huntsman is/was one of my favorite politicians. It really is a shame he never got traction. A ding against him for SCOTUS is that he is not a lawyer. While that is not a requirement to be a justice, it does make him easier to attack. I think he would bring healthy pragmatism to the debate. I like the idea of getting someone in there that has actually held an elected office rather than a career justice (I think it is important to get outside of the judicial branch vacuum in order to fully understand the Constitution). I'm not sure there's ever been a former diplomat on the court either... at least since the founding era.
 
Back
Top