|
Rarity posted:I agree. Not nearly enough fart jokes and cross dressing John could stand to put on an evening gown every now and then.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
I remember John Oliver riffing on british humor and mentioned that it is far more "pun-based."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Narcissus1916 posted:I remember John Oliver riffing on british humor and mentioned that it is far more "pun-based."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Some British sitcoms still end with the audience clapping and the actor grinning and waving over their name in the end credit sequence. Horrifying stuff that should've been left in our dark past.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k2AbqTBxao
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
I guess people in the John Oliver thread like John Oliver  but I keep seeing his stupid face on my YT homepage and every time I do its like "Ugh, can we not?"EL BROMANCE posted:Some British sitcoms still end with the audience clapping and the actor grinning and waving over their name in the end credit sequence. Horrifying stuff that should've been left in our dark past. The Coventry Hillbillies
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Harold Stassen posted:I guess people in the John Oliver thread like John Oliver Even John Oliver doesn't like John Oliver's face so you're not alone there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Harold Stassen posted:I guess people in the John Oliver thread like John Oliver "A parrot wearing glasses that works at a bank..."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
lifts cats over head posted:It is but it's enough of an explanation for Senate majority to declare they aren't even going to consider any nomination. It's all very childish but to be fair the Dems have tried almost the exact same strategy in the past. No, no they have not. At no point in the history of the country has the Senate refused to even hold a hearing on a nomination to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. The closest instance to this is way back when Rutherford B. Hayes went and nominated someone to fill a vacancy in the January following his successor's election, which is not at all the same. The dumbass Biden quote being trotted out to create an imagined Biden Rule, which does not exist, was a stupid posed hypothetical for a situation that was entirely imagined. Should a Supreme Court vacancy open up during the summer of the '92 election, then George H.W. Bush should wait until after the election was over since the Senate couldn't adequately hold hearings during the last months of the election. Biden said this in June, referring to an August/September/October vacancy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Gyges posted:No, no they have not. At no point in the history of the country has the Senate refused to even hold a hearing on a nomination to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. The closest instance to this is way back when Rutherford B. Hayes went and nominated someone to fill a vacancy in the January following his successor's election, which is not at all the same. I think the GOP is certainly being childish and unconstitutional but I wasn't implying that Democrats have gone to the same lengths, but they certainly haven't always readily agreed and prepared for a Republican nominee for SCOTUS. In 2006 Obama himself attempted to filibuster Alito's appointment. In 2007 Democratic members were pushing for avoiding a future Bush appointment if it ever was needed. These actions are certainly a much less extreme example, but it's not as if they're completely diametric.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Most of a politician's powers come from their ability to do pedantic rules-lawyering and making enough of a fuss that the other side will give up/concede more when a compromise is made. That's how a legalistic society works. The incredibly loose premise that the republicans are threatening to block any potential appointments over is weak, but it would be remiss of them to not try. They call the out-of-power party "the opposition" for a reason, after all. If Obama really wanted to gently caress with the republicans, he'd pull out an old tactic and try appointing 3 new justices instead of 1. That's not likely to happen though, since Obama hasn't really been one for heavily exerting executive power, which is bad if you want his policies pushed through, but good in the context of being the guy who followed after the patriot act.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind SCOTUS appointments being for life, as opposed to a fixed term of tenure (Like say, 10 year appointments, where they rotate out, so you'd get a new appointment every 2 years or something like that)? The latter would still have the same protections against political retaliation as the former, but without the problems they've had with an entrenched supreme court, where a president can indirectly exert power for potentially decades after their term ends just because someone happened to die while they were in office.
The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
What the gently caress would you do after 10 years? go back to the courts?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
A 20 year term would be reasonable imo. No matter what age the person was appointed to the Supreme Court, after being there for 20 years it'd be reasonable for them to retire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Just out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind SCOTUS appointments being for life, as opposed to a fixed term of tenure (Like say, 10 year appointments, where they rotate out, so you'd get a new appointment every 2 years or something like that)? The latter would still have the same protections against political retaliation as the former, but without the problems they've had with an entrenched supreme court, where a president can indirectly exert power for potentially decades after their term ends just because someone happened to die while they were in office. The Supreme Court basically gave itself the power of judicial review. I doubt the framers anticipated that the court would become the political battleground that it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Just out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind SCOTUS appointments being for life, as opposed to a fixed term of tenure (Like say, 10 year appointments, where they rotate out, so you'd get a new appointment every 2 years or something like that)? The latter would still have the same protections against political retaliation as the former, but without the problems they've had with an entrenched supreme court, where a president can indirectly exert power for potentially decades after their term ends just because someone happened to die while they were in office. The idea of a lifetime appointment is that they are wrapped in a protective mantle that means they don't have to give a single gently caress about politics or patronage. 10 year or so and they'll have a long post Justice life where they would be looking for money, power, respect, and influence. With a guaranteed job until they die they wield massive power and influence without being beholden to anyone. Once appointed they are free to ignore the wishes of the President and members of the Senate who appointed them. Free of all constraints that would influence their interpretation of the law. Whether or not that actually works in practice, making it a fairly short term gig would probably impact judges. I mean, no one is going to hand them a bag of money explicitly in exchange for a ruling so there's no need to worry about bribery or anything. However long terms of appointment serve to mitigate the inherently political nature of their appointment. Yes, the President is going to make drat sure that they nominate people that have similar judicial and political philosophies as them at the time of appointment. But 20 years down the line even if they start off in ideological lock step with the President who appointed them, changes in society and their experiences are generally going to mitigate that. For instance, when Reagan was nominating people no one in the room would have even thought to ask about how the nominee felt about gay marriage. Of course you do then run into the issue of ideologues of decades past calcifying in their safe seat while the country moves past them, leaving a court out of touch. I don't know that I'd necessarily agree with a 20 year appointment, but till death does raise a lot of issues. Not only of ancient avatars of discarded ideas holding the country hostage, but also the infirmities of age robbing them of their minds and bodies. Of course with the general idea being to nominate a spry 50 year old or so now, maybe go with the average term length since the 70s and say 26 years? When they retire they'd be old and ready for full retirement but still young enough you don't have the lingering fear of dementia or something. Hell make it some actuarial thing and set the retirement age at 10 years before the end of their life expectancy. Gyges fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
I guess my issue isn't so much with the length of the appointments as it is the natural consequence of it, which is that the opportunity for NEW appointees is essentially random, rather than occurring on some kind of fixed timeline. A single president could theoretically have the opportunity to appoint multiple people, or none at all, depending on the whims of chance and medical science. It seems like a weird anomaly in a system that's actually a lot more rigid about election cycles and term lengths than most other nations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
The idea is that if anything goes wrong with the supreme court justices, congress has the power to impeach justices. Congress can also counter judicial review by just straight editing the constitution. People always have a low opinion about congress, but they're the body that was intended to have the most power. People are always looking to the supreme court for things, but it's congress that is supposed to be doing basically everything. But then for all the poo poo that people give congress as a whole, individual congressmen constantly get reelected and have high approval rates among their own constituency. It's always all the OTHER people's congressmen who are the problem. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I guess my issue isn't so much with the length of the appointments as it is the natural consequence of it, which is that the opportunity for NEW appointees is essentially random, rather than occurring on some kind of fixed timeline. A single president could theoretically have the opportunity to appoint multiple people, or none at all, depending on the whims of chance and medical science. It seems like a weird anomaly in a system that's actually a lot more rigid about election cycles and term lengths than most other nations. It would probably make the court more political than it is now though. As it is, Carter is the only President since Reconstruction to not get any appointments. Of the other 3 Presidents to never appoint a Justice, two died early in their first term and the other was Andrew Johnson, who wasn't getting poo poo done after Lincoln's death. Since Eisenhower it's been pretty much two each for 2 term presidents with the exceptions being Nixon(4), Reagan(3) and Obama(2 plus an open vacancy). Single termers are Ford(1), Carter(0), and H.W. Bush(2). Edit:With some sort of set rotation you know exactly who is rotating out and how the court is going to be changed with a new President. Which isn't necessarily bad, but there's something to be said for not taking into account exactly who is being replaced on the bench come November. Gyges fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
You could do a weighted lottery. Roll a dice and if the number is greater than the number of years you've been a justice (Say, 2xD20 - 10 years) you get the boot. Minimum of ten, theoretical Maximum of 50. Because yes death is also a lot like that but what happens when people start living to 90 or 120 in the SCOTUS?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Edit:With some sort of set rotation you know exactly who is rotating out and how the court is going to be changed with a new President. Which isn't necessarily bad, but there's something to be said for not taking into account exactly who is being replaced on the bench come November. A lot of bullshit would then happen where justices "retire" early so that certain presidents can nominate for their party and such and such bullshit it'd make it really political thus defeating the purpose of the courts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Veskit posted:A lot of bullshit would then happen where justices "retire" early so that certain presidents can nominate for their party and such and such bullshit it'd make it really political thus defeating the purpose of the courts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:I can't tell if this is a joke, because that is exactly what they do now. I think that literally a plotline on House of Cards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:I can't tell if this is a joke, because that is exactly what they do now. It happens but not with that much frequency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
King Vidiot posted:Some people were claiming that Bernie Sanders supporters would avoid voting for Hillary out of spite or being whiny babies or... something... if Hillary is nominated. I don't think that's really the case at all, I can't imagine people being so disenfranchised over a Bernie Sanders defeat that they'd just let Donald Trump get elected. I'm all for Sanders myself even if I'm under no delusions that he's going to get nominated, but I would still vote for a million Hillary Clintons over Drumpf. At worst, at absolute worst Hillary would just be an extension of Obama's presidency of making things kind-of-okay. We'd continue to coast along on our present course instead of crashing into the sea while the whole world looks on and hates us. I earned this avatar, buddy. I don't want to go deep into the philosophy of it, because I really hate trump and have put a fair amount of money and time in for Bernie so I can vote for a candidate I want, but I don't like the prospects of the DNC after hillary clinton if she wins. A victory for moderate/conservative democrats on the national stage will pretty much ensure the party is pulled further to the right, and frankly I'm willing to put up four or eight years of abject misery under a horrible idiot in order to keep the party at least where it is, if not push it to the left in the interim. This just won't be possible with a hillary president.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Acceleration is great, except for all the dead and ruined. But at least then the masses will awaken and rise up. Like Germany after the treaty of Versailles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:I earned this avatar, buddy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
You're committed to some philosophy beyond any comprehensible standard. HRC is not my ideal president, but we're talking about a guy who literally wants a unilateral ban on Muslims entering the country. He's a megalomaniac. I can't express how stupid you must be to think that Trump is a better choice than Hillary in any world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
I see short term damage of an R presidency and I see the long term damage of a hillary presidency to the progressive movement, a more complete separation and commodification of social issues with increasingly conservative fiscal policy, and I will frankly take the lashes up front than deal with the long-term fallout of a 'successful' conservative democratic presidency. There is no longer enough meaningful distinction between the two parties to me, and to me this doomsaying about a republican presidency is tantamount to insanity to me. You survived bush, you'll survive donnie, and the people who allegedly support your interests won't feel nearly as emboldened to slide further into the pockets of big business, which is a worse outcome than surviving 4 years of drumpf
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
The past 8 years hasn't set the progressive movement back any (same sex marriage, Healthcare Reform, a socialist running as a non-joke candidate) The trump movement can undo much more and set the reset point for the progressives far lower than another term or two of a similar centrist democrat will. The "burn it all down and start over" mentality isn't the best strategy to keep the momentum going. Hillary and bernie's policies are much more alike than they differ when compared to the Republicans. It's disingenuous to call hillary a "conservative" democrat and I say this as a disappointed Bernie guy. GutBomb fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
I'm not being disengenuous, she is an old school conservative. So she doesn't dress her platform up in the language of the bible belt like republican candidates do, but that changes very little. Fiscally, she is going to do many of the same things a republican would. To me, A clinton presidency is the same as a republican presidency in this regard. It's nice that she's pro-choice and even if she was late to the party i'm glad she's decided tolerating my sexuality was politically expident, but that's not enough window dressing to make me look past the fact she would have run and won as a republican in 1988.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
She voted the same as Bernie 93% of the time while they were both Senators.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:She voted the same as Bernie 93% of the time while they were both Senators. If they were that similar, Bernie would not be running for president. A statistic like that doesn't paint the whole picture and there are plenty of infographics that have nearly become memes in themselves that back this up. Any similarities are superficial, and Clinton has taken a lot of money from groups that effectively hobble her as a useful reform president. The best we can hope for is lip service to progressive social issues while she continues what her husband and the DNC have been doing since in selling out the party and marginalizing the truly left wing elements more than they ever have been.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:...but that's not enough window dressing to make me look past the fact she would have run and won as a republican in 1988. That could also be seen as the republican's recent extreme shift rightward as opposed to the perceived current rightward shift of Democrats. The parties were a lot closer on some things in 1988 than they are now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:If they were that similar, Bernie would not be running for president. A statistic like that doesn't paint the whole picture and there are plenty of infographics that have nearly become memes in themselves that back this up. Any similarities are superficial, and Clinton has taken a lot of money from groups that effectively hobble her as a useful reform president. The best we can hope for is lip service to progressive social issues while she continues what her husband and the DNC have been doing since in selling out the party and marginalizing the truly left wing elements more than they ever have been. Superficial similarities despite voting the same 93% of the time. Hmm. Do you want to try again with a meaningful response? Or just some more vapid rhetoric? Seems like you're committed to your ideology at the expense of real-world consequences for real-world people. I mean it doesn't matter because Trump will not win the election, but it's still foolhardy to support Trump over HRC if you fancy yourself committed to progressive values and social justice (which may not be the case). Regardless of how you feel about HRC, she will appoint good SC justices, and who the flying gently caress knows what rear end clown Trump has in mind?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
The idea of accelerationism is based on historically unsupported and, frankly, idiotic assumptions. If you hit the accelerator on the country's slip towards regression the people will not rise up and see the light. Trump is the result of the people feeling that the country has been driven into the ditch and that the economy and world are burning around them. He is what the country will turn to, a strong man who makes them feel good even if they're no better off. Fascism and totalitarianism are the only things to ever rise up from the people having their joy turn to ashes in their mouths. The idea that since we couldn't go forward 3 steps the best idea is to go back 5 instead of going forward one is just the worst. But I'm glad to know that you're cool with the suffering of millions because you'll make it, and that'll learn 'em good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:You survived bush, you'll survive donnie, This is a bullshit argument, because 8 years later, we're still dealing with the consequences of the Bush Jr. presidency. I don't really want to take the risk of what we'll be dealing with for the decade after Trump leaves office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:You survived bush, you'll survive donnie, Yeah, it's not like he went to war or something and people died from it and its ramifications.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Yeah, it's not like you can draw a direct line from Bush's invasion of Iraq to ISIS or anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
Empire's crumbling, guys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 08:19
|
|
