|
Themagicalgoat posted:Do you think the party would have the political will for that? Does the Democratic party even want that? Wouldn't they prefer the Supreme Court take care of all those things in 15 years (except the Constitutional Amendment stuff. I don't see how the Federal Government could tell the state anything about voting districts. Maybe I'm wrong?). Specific instances of gerrymandering have been struck down by the Supreme Court, but it hasn't ruled that gerrymandering in general is unconstitutional. Yet. And generally, it's been the conservative side standing up for gerrymandering, so a liberal SC might strike it down entirely.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
Can your abuela drink you under the table while also fielding the most progressive platform in decades?? no? I think we're done here e: to put some content here, is there any reading as to why the Dems are terrible during midterms? I feel that with our changing demographics there might be better D turnout but I have no clue
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
smg77 posted:https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/784944534283100160 Delayed, but!  Themagicalgoat posted:The complete failure of the Republican party to uncover or act on the very public information about Donald Trump's extensive dunghill of a life leads me to believe that competent political operatives may have finally stopped being willing to work for the GOP. The real thing was this: the GOPe, much like most of the country, felt that Trump wouldn't make it to Iowa. Look at 2012! The clown show showed up, and the only "reasonable" candidate in  won. Surely Trump's open racism would end his campaign. Why do oppo work when he's spewing poo poo that would immediately disqualify him.Only it didn't and it royally backfired.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:42
|
|
gif handy?
|
Kilroy posted:I think what people are getting at is that at some point they want to act as if Bill Clinton is a rapist, or act as if he's not, as opposed to acting as though he's Schrodinger's Rapist going forward. It's almost like it's a complex issue you can't boil down to Good or Bad. Even if this particular accusation is false Bill Clinton has proven at very least that he's been willing to have a pretty coercive relationship with an intern. If someone wants to point out that Clinton has done some skeevy-rear end stuff that at very least involves hosed-up power dynamics they're not wrong. Bill Clinton tends to get whitewashed by the Democratic voters as much as he gets demonized by the Republicans. The actual answer is that he's probably a predator even if he isn't a literal rapist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
If Trump resigns the nomination, how long do you think the nomination will be vacant? The RNC has contingencies in place for them to vote for a replacement, but how long would it actually take given all the politicking involved?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Themagicalgoat posted:Do you think the party would have the political will for that? Does the Democratic party even want that? Wouldn't they prefer the Supreme Court take care of all those things in 15 years (except the Constitutional Amendment stuff. I don't see how the Federal Government could tell the state anything about voting districts. Maybe I'm wrong?). A proposed Constitutional Amendment killing Citizen's United could easily get momentum. Nobody on the individual level, Republican or Democrat, likes Citizens United. It's only the political elites who benefit from the ruling who have an interest in keeping it afloat. Even bumfuck rural state legislatures are going to feel serious pressure to ratify it. Recall that Hillary has made this an explicit part of her platform. There just hasn't been any talk of amending the Constitution directly because until recently that process was completely pie-in-the-sky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Why does it cast doubts on the validity on the claim? Yes, especially if they know the person they are supporting sexually harasses people. My willingness to believe anyone like that without hard evidence drops to 0%. I don't believe her not because she's a woman, or I think she's a horrible person, or even different views on politics. I don't believe her because she is supporting a man who described in detail how he commits sexual assault while claiming another man used the the same methodology to sexually assault her. Don't like it, don't care. But I'll tell you one goddamn thing, I bet I've done more in this world for rape victims than you could dream of, from working as a nurse with victims of rape to manning rape crisis lines to poo poo I'm not willing to discuss as there's statues of limitations attached, so what the gently caress you're not going to do is paint me as a rape denier, and that's for goddamn sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:"I have read books on the subject and there is definitive proof that she is probably lying" is very different from "She is supporting Donald Trump so she must be a liar." But the thing about the Broaddrick case is that there's no evidence, it's complete he said she said. Literally the only thing you can base your opinion on is whether or not you believe Broaddrick or Clinton. I suppose the ideal thing would be to have no opinion on it at all. But it lee[s coming up in the press, which makes that difficult.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
gfsincere posted:Yes, especially if they know the person they are supporting sexually harasses people. My willingness to believe anyone like that without hard evidence drops to 0%. Okay...? But uh, we have actual proven cases of people who have legally proven sexual harassment who also have defended or allied with other sexual harassers. This is proven fact. gfsincere posted:Don't like it, don't care. But I'll tell you one goddamn thing, I bet I've done more in this world for rape victims than you could dream of, from working as a nurse with victims of rape to manning rape crisis lines to poo poo I'm not willing to discuss as there's statues of limitations attached, so what the gently caress you're not going to do is paint me as a rape denier, and that's for goddamn sure. And yet you're denying a rape with no evidence to deny it beyond your feelings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Honestly, I want to election reform. Overturn Citizen's United, mandate anti-gerrymandering requirements for states, national holidays for Presidential and midterm elections, automatic voter registration, the works This will never happen as long as either party can benefit greatly from the current system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
...I also want to state that, given the slightest hope, I would much rather these issues be solved through Amendments rather than Supreme Court appointees because I hate how the Supreme Court itself has become a political issue. They're not supposed to be making law, they know they're not supposed to be making law, and they don't want to make law, but they have no choice because Congress straight up refuses to pass legislation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:If Trump resigns the nomination, how long do you think the nomination will be vacant? The RNC has contingencies in place for them to vote for a replacement, but how long would it actually take given all the politicking involved?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:The original tweet is actually hilarious I know the comment on this was a joke... but she actually did drink McCain under the table. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2013729/US-elections-How-Hillary-Clinton-beat-John-McCain-at-vodka-drinking.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It's almost like it's a complex issue you can't boil down to Good or Bad. Even if this particular accusation is false Bill Clinton has proven at very least that he's been willing to have a pretty coercive relationship with an intern. If someone wants to point out that Clinton has done some skeevy-rear end stuff that at very least involves hosed-up power dynamics they're not wrong. Bill Clinton tends to get whitewashed by the Democratic voters as much as he gets demonized by the Republicans. The actual answer is that he's probably a predator even if he isn't a literal rapist. Actually, here you are being wrong again. Lewinisky is a grown rear end woman who can speak for herself, and she has said repeatedly that there was no coercion, so why exactly are you so interested in taking agency away from women?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:If Trump resigns the nomination, how long do you think the nomination will be vacant? The RNC has contingencies in place for them to vote for a replacement, but how long would it actually take given all the politicking involved? I don't think it matters at all, it's already too late to get the ballot changed for quite a few big states. Leaving him on the ticket and having him resign once in office on the off chance he wins is literally their best option right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Oh hey I'm 90 pages behind, let's see what's up - Actually I have a pet theory that it was early Bush election opposition research as Bobby Bush is right there, he'd know about the conversation and would know where and how to get that information. The Bushes planned to use it to destroy Trump if it came down to Jeb and him and then nothing happened. They then fed it to the media because they hate Trump and think he's dangerous. The Bushes can work with the Clintons and do have an ongoing cordial relationship with them. They won't work with Trump and fear him getting anywhere near the levers of power. So to me it screams republican primary oppo-research. I imagine favors exchanged. Or it was just dropped off anonymously in order not to play into the narrative of the republican party elites sabotaging the Trump campaign in order to keep the republican party from eating their own in the frenzy of blame.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:A proposed Constitutional Amendment killing Citizen's United could easily get momentum. Nobody on the individual level, Republican or Democrat, likes Citizens United. It's only the political elites who benefit from the ruling who have an interest in keeping it afloat. Even bumfuck rural state legislatures are going to feel serious pressure to ratify it. Recall that Hillary has made this an explicit part of her platform. There just hasn't been any talk of amending the Constitution directly because until recently that process was completely pie-in-the-sky. We are due for an amendment based on years between amendments, but I feel like your first instinct that the Supreme Court would take care of this is more palatable. I don't think it would even take that long, would it? Edit: Based on your follow up comment, i agree with you. I'd prefer legislation on the issue, but the legislature is in the doldrums and I have no faith in lawmakers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:But the thing about the Broaddrick case is that there's no evidence, it's complete he said she said. Literally the only thing you can base your opinion on is whether or not you believe Broaddrick or Clinton. I think it's perfectly fine to have an opinion on the case based on actual facts. gfsincere isn't doing that though. He's going "She allied with Trump so she MUST be lying."
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
I think we all need to train ourselves to fill our minds with white noise whenever Juanita Broaddrick is mentioned. Just whistle the theme song from Andy Griffith in your head until the topic changes
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:The original tweet is actually hilarious 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:As we've been saying, have an opinion but accept the possibility that you could be wrong. There's not enough evidence to support gfsincere's level of absolute certainty. Never said I was absolutely certain. What I am saying is that I'm willing to dismiss her claims on their face considering she's willing to dismiss Trump talking about actually sexually assaulting women, including a specific woman in particular, as "just talking".
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
gfsincere posted:Actually, here you are being wrong again. Lewinisky is a grown rear end woman who can speak for herself, and she has said repeatedly that there was no coercion, so why exactly are you so interested in taking agency away from women? Why are you considering that apparently the only way you can decide if a woman is lying is if you point out what man she associated herself with?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I suspect they would pass a budget including generous infrastructure repair spending, probably do some fiddle-loving with the college finance system to the benefit of the kinderlach, probably various other aspects of Hillary's platforms... definitely get the SCOTUS refilled, possibly replace a retiring RBG. They would probably have some contention over what to do with Obamacare but I wouldn't be surprised if we got a public option. Paid maternity and paternity leave would probably get an aggressive push as well, even if it's "only" a several week period. I'm not sure if that's as high on Clinton's list of favorites as healthcare reform but it's a pretty solid legacy builder and literally every first world nation except the US has it. If the GOP were to actually fracture hard enough to cost them both chambers of Congress then Clinton and the Dem leadership are going to tattoo "mandate" on the forehead of Paul Ryan and the GOP as they past whatever they drat well please. Rebuild the VRA and pass a new version that includes preclearance for all, automatic voter registration nationwide, and other such stuff while daring the GOP to try and challenge it in the courts. Repeal CU? Yep. Require all campaigns to use public funding? That'd probably see some pushback from the rank and file but maybe. e: Roland Jones posted:Specific instances of gerrymandering have been struck down by the Supreme Court, but it hasn't ruled that gerrymandering in general is unconstitutional. Yet. And generally, it's been the conservative side standing up for gerrymandering, so a liberal SC might strike it down entirely. Gerrymandering in its entirety is being challenged in the courts right now thanks to NC's insanely rigged setup. IIRC a major thrust of the argument is "the government is supposed to be chosen by the people, but Gerrymandering allows the government to pick and choose its voters instead" which is a pretty accurate summary of Gerrymandering. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It's almost like it's a complex issue you can't boil down to Good or Bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Can the thread please not descend further into a slapfight over whether alleged victims of rape are faking it
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
The one thing that confuses me about the whole Juanita Broaddrick thing is that her accusation against Hillary is that she... said thanks in a possibly passive aggressive way I guess? I don't get how that's supposed to be intimidation at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Paid maternity and paternity leave would probably get an aggressive push as well, even if it's "only" a several week period. I'm not sure if that's as high on Clinton's list of favorites as healthcare reform but it's a pretty solid legacy builder and literally every first world nation except the US has it. I like some of that and find some of it unlikely. But what's your personal ideal piece of legislation? I would personally settle for a truly progressive income tax for the first time since...what? 2002?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
This Tokyo based burger chain started this ad campaign apparently just a few days ago:  I guess they thought of this campaign back when the election was just a referendum on nativism (already a complete given in Japan) and not on pussy grabbing (somewhat more controversial here).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I think it's perfectly fine to have an opinion on the case based on actual facts. gfsincere isn't doing that though. He's going "She allied with Trump so she MUST be lying." False again. I'm saying I'm dismissing her claim on it's face unless she has actual hard evidence considering how willing she was to dismiss Trump describing sexually assaulting women as "just talking". I'm saying that without proof, she's "just talking", just like she says Trump is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Themagicalgoat posted:Do you think the party would have the political will for that? Does the Democratic party even want that? Wouldn't they prefer the Supreme Court take care of all those things in 15 years (except the Constitutional Amendment stuff. I don't see how the Federal Government could tell the state anything about voting districts. Maybe I'm wrong?). Anti-Gerrymandering is kinda dubious, but if the Supreme Court is liberal then it's possible we could see some significant action taken against it. I doubt we'll see Congress do anything about it, though. National holidays for voting and automatic registration would almost certainly benefit democrats considerably more than Republicans so it's certainly possible. Overturning Citizens United is a big deal for Hillary (remember what Citizens United, the group, actually was) and I doubt she'd appoint any Supreme Court justices who wouldn't vote to overturn it. But yeah, passing Constitiutional Amendments is hard and it'd almost certainly take that to overturn Citizens United or eliminate Gerrymandering through legislative means. I'm fine with letting the Supreme Court handle some of those things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Why are you considering that apparently the only way you can decide if a woman is lying is if you point out what man she associated herself with? So dodging the question and putting up a straw man. Your shitposting bores me now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Trevornoah/status/784908263406141440  
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I guess they thought of this campaign back when the election was just a referendum on nativism (already a complete given in Japan) and not on pussy grabbing (somewhat more controversial here). lol they had to make special women-only train cars because of dudes acting like Trump
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:lol they had to make special women-only train cars because of threats of dudes acting like Trump Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Well no poo poo - my statement was a positive one not normative. You can complain that people don't want to carry around the probability that Bill Clinton is a rapist when reasoning about American politics, but I think if you're surprised by it you might be a bit dumb. You're asking people to, when Bill Clinton does a thing, to take an account of it which includes a chance of him being a rapist and without ever resolving it in their own mind one way or another. That style of reasoning doesn't come naturally to anyone and human brains have to train for decades to do it, and even then no one does it in all situations 100% of the time. I don't think it takes training your brain for decades to not instantly jump to conclusions based off who they associated with. I have no problem with actual arguments based off facts but when you just spring to "she must be lying, look at who she's associating with" then it gets really gross, especially when you go "and I don't have any sympathy or compassion for her anyway" which sounds dangerously close to "even if she really did get raped who cares?" gfsincere posted:So dodging the question and putting up a straw man. Your shitposting bores me now. If you want an actual answer is is because that isn't denying agency to anyone. Saying that Bill Clinton and Monika Lewinsky's relationship may have been inherently concercive isn't instantly nullified by her saying it wasn't. Many people who end up in that kind of power dynamic say they weren't coerced for a variety of reasons. It is a reason that sort of relationship is discouraged in the first place because it is hard to have that sort of relationship without it becoming that way. (The actual answer is that you're really angry you got accused of rape denying and tried to turn it around on me in a lame-rear end way.) ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Holy poo poo that SNL Melania Moments short. "Melania wakes up in a cold sweat, sensing her replacement was just born in Colombia. 'I must find this girl and vanish her into the woods' she thinks. 'Not for my sake, but for hers'"
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
- Accused a high-profile Democrat of rape with no further evidence. - Supports a GOP candidate who is too rapey for the Republican Party against that Democrat's wife. I mean, I'd be open to further evidence, but if you aren't a little skeptical of this particular claim, you might be an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Themagicalgoat posted:We are due for an amendment based on years between amendments, but I feel like your first instinct that the Supreme Court would take care of this is more palatable. I don't think it would even take that long, would it? Isn't it possible to ratify amendments by popular vote in the 50 States rather than through state legislatures? Do the legislatures have a say in which method is used? Fake Edit: Yep, Congress gets to choose whether it is sent to the legislature or to state ratifying conventions. So if they are popular enough, they can bypass the state houses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
When did Juanita Broaddrick back Trump? I'm surprised anyone could look at her story and decide it doesn't sound credible. Credibility isn't the same as truth, but backing Trump doesn't change the underlying story. None of us are ever going to prove anything because it happened, what, forty years ago? Just because she backs Trump now doesn't change that this story was a known factor 20 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
remusclaw posted:Isn't it possible to ratify amendments by popular vote in the 50 States rather than through state legislatures? Do the legislatures have a say in which method is used? Yeah, I knew that. I'm skeptical of both routes to be honest. Do you think that state legislatures would be less friendly because of Republican control? I think it would be easier to get the necessary number of states than a constitutional majority in the federal government. I haven't thought about it too closely though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:58
|
|