|
theblackw0lf posted:If this hits 2.5 million I wonder what the stretch goals will be "Imprison Hillary Rodham Clinton" seems to be a big draw.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
Young Freud posted:I can't recall, but did this get mentioned? NYT article from yesterday about judges ruling that Wisconsin's redistricting provides an unfair advantage to the Republican party. Yes, but the consensus was it's extremely threatened at the SCOTUS level, unless Kennedy's been making murmurings about being willing to jump aboard an anti-partisan-gerrymandering case and I've missed it. Personally I suspect the partisan lines will be drawn approximately where they were for the case that gutted VRA, i.e., 5-4 with conservatives in the majority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Stallion Cabana posted:
It's also worth remembering that federal judges below the Supreme Court tend to get appointed a lot younger and consequently serve longer. And because of lesser national scrutiny they get, a lot of Republican federal court appointees aren't nearly so die-hard as you might expect. Hence why a lot of bush (I and II) appointees, for example, stamped out creationism in public schools stuff or ruled in favor of LGBT rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:If this hits 2.5 million I wonder what the stretch goals will be Win an electoral vote in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Top 5 problems with American universities: This was a really good and eloquent post. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I'm talking about undermining faith in the system as a whole, not faith in Trump's legitimacy. The people doubting that aren't going to be Republicans, and sitting Republicans in Congress are going to work with him whether they like it or not because this is their one chance to push their legislative agenda. Republicans are too good at this to let two years of total control go to waste. Republicans are republicans and are going to vote republican stuff. I don't like that but I accept that. Trump is his own thing, an alternative right, and a country where the republican party feels free to say "this doesn't represent us" is better than one that says 'welp, this is what people wanted I guess, heil hitler"
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Anyone else think Trump (or whoever runs his Twitter) will just mass wipe all of his tweets before Jan 20? Just wondering...
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Domestic Amuse posted:Anyone else think Trump (or whoever runs his Twitter) will just mass wipe all of his tweets before Jan 20? Just wondering... He will but only so he can then take them all and put out a book of them
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
They can do that but just because it's deleted doesn't mean it goes away. Plus at this point what does it matter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
He clearly doesn't care what people think about his tweets and clearly nobody else cares either
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
If we were supposed to learn the lessons of Brexit to predict Trump, not sure what this means for the future of the Bernie coalition https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/800473643679621120
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Just a friendly reminder though I have no idea what this says about anything. https://twitter.com/JeffersonObama/status/799434064512118789
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There will be significant evidence that the election might have been stolen, but Republicans will shut it down and nothing will happen. Republicans? Obama himself would shut it down because he'd rather see a peaceful transition than widespread riots if the integrity of the election is destroyed by hard evidence of direct tampering by another country. Isn't he also pushing back at Ellison being DNC chair? We're going to get another avoidable attack like 9/11, or worse, attack under Trump's watch only instead of him giving a speech stating that Islam isn't to blame like W he's going to give a speech announcing his final solution to the muslim problem. Mr Interweb posted:You guys may have already discussed it, but that poo poo that's happening in North Dakota is disgusting. A peacefully protesting woman's arm gets blown off, but the inbred members of Y'allqaeda get off without a scratch. This is everything that's hosed up about this election. Don't worry, this will change once Trump is in office. Because he's going to institute a media blackout of the area and then purge protestors with force. Fojar38 posted:There are only 13 out of 179 federal judicial positions open and only 1 out of 9 supreme court positions open. 53 Federal judges are Obama appointments. Out of all currently active federal judges, 75 current ones were appointed by Republicans, while 91 were appointed by Democrats. The judiciary is not a democracy and Trump's SCOTUS pick means more than if every single appeals court was 100% ultra leftwing liberal. Just like why the GOP has consistently filed all of its lawsuits against Obama in the 5th circuit. size1one posted:The mere idea of recounts is going to be damaging. "Could undercut talk of a Trump mandate" says media outlet run by idiots or assholes who know full well that the GOP's unified control of the government is all the mandate they care about. Young Freud posted:I can't recall, but did this get mentioned? NYT article from yesterday about judges ruling that Wisconsin's redistricting provides an unfair advantage to the Republican party. Kennedy claiming that he'd be willing to strike it down but hasn't accepted a rationale for it yet is meaningless. If arguments on the level of "this undermines the foundation of our country's political process to allow the party in power to ensure it can't be voted out even when the voters want it to happen" aren't something he accepts then what will he consider? While a SCOTUS ruling that strikes down political Gerrymandering is probably the only thing that could help the Dems retake the House, or multiple states, in the foreseeable future, I suspect Kennedy's bar is too high to reasonably clear but hopefully he proves me wrong. Democrats would still probably gently caress up and squander the opportunity if he did rule against the practice though. In reality we're probably going to get a 5-4 ruling with conservatives deciding it's a-ok if the Gerrymandering is political and not racial, with Thomas writing that racial Gerrymandering is ok too because he's just that much of a spiteful monster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The judiciary is not a democracy and Trump's SCOTUS pick means more than if every single appeals court was 100% ultra leftwing liberal. Just like why the GOP has consistently filed all of its lawsuits against Obama in the 5th circuit. SCOTUS doesn't hear every single case that's appealed and most of the time things stop in Appeals Court Also Scalia being replaced with another Scalia is just the status quo
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
if you live in one of the three states the greens are trying to do recounts in, they're looking for volunteers to help http://www.jill2016.com/2016recounts
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
It's very very unlikely that another 9/11 scale event will happen again. The perfect storm of terrible circumstances that led to it and allowed it to be so damaging is thankfully extremely difficult to replicate. Now that changes if its a major state actor and not just a terrorist group trying to do it but in that case its World War 3 so we're hosed anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/798918102507548672 hmmmmm
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:if you live in one of the three states the greens are trying to do recounts in, they're looking for volunteers to help Just because the thread was wondering earlier, this page says: quote:We hope to do recounts in all three states. If we only raise sufficient money for two, we will demand recounts in two states. If we only raise enough money for one, we will demand a recount in one state. If we do not raise enough for any recount (which is highly unlikely) we pledge to use the money for election integrity efforts and to promote systemic voting system reform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:SCOTUS doesn't hear every single case that's appealed and most of the time things stop in Appeals Court The status quo Supreme Court is very bad. Also, the reason many cases stop at the Appeals Court level is because they cite Supreme Court precedent and the Supreme Court declines to hear the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
size1one posted:The mere idea of recounts is going to be damaging. Damaging for who? I say loving good. Stuffing a bullshit madeup mandate of the the stupidest poo poo since Nixon sounds great. Fojar38 posted:SCOTUS doesn't hear every single case that's appealed and most of the time things stop in Appeals Court I still think it's god drat EMBARRASSING that some twat on NPR was babbling about how it should be normal and good for judges to be replaced with likeminded individuals. Sweet thought bro, lets not change anything ever... NPR is a joke. Buckwheat Sings fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Nov 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The status quo Supreme Court is very bad. Supreme Court precedent favors the left for a lot of social and civil rights issues. It's economic issues where it favors the right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:2.5mil for a recount? wow. Au Revoir Shosanna posted:How does it cost over $2m? Where does that money go? Are investigations into voter fraud really fronted by the public in the US? There are a lot of ballots in these states, like millions. It's a lot of legwork and a lot of overtime. We got quoted like $10K for a Town Council recount. Multiply that by 100 to go from Town to State, and suddenly a million bucks a state seems reasonable. Plus you need lawyers of your own to oversee things and file stuff. Weird BIAS posted:Just because the thread was wondering earlier, this page says:
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Republicans? Obama himself would shut it down because he'd rather see a peaceful transition than widespread riots if the integrity of the election is destroyed by hard evidence of direct tampering by another country. Isn't he also pushing back at Ellison being DNC chair? This is what the thread seems to have decided but no, even in the original article there was nothing about Obama himself, just some of his aides muttering about preferring Perez.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:There are a lot of ballots in these states, like millions. It's a lot of legwork and a lot of overtime. We got quoted like $10K for a Town Council recount. Multiply that by 100 to go from Town to State, and suddenly a million bucks a state seems reasonable. Plus you need lawyers of your own to oversee things and file stuff. if they don't file on friday it's because they failed to file, not because they didn't have the money. donations are already less than $1m away from the $2.5m goal
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:If we were supposed to learn the lessons of Brexit to predict Trump, not sure what this means for the future of the Bernie coalition At least their competitors, the PSOE, is a legit socialist party instead of fascists. Evil Fluffy posted:We're going to get another avoidable attack like 9/11, or worse, attack under Trump's watch only instead of him giving a speech stating that Islam isn't to blame like W he's going to give a speech announcing his final solution to the muslim problem. I was seeing talk about this on Twitter that one of the big ironies of Trump not divesting his business while being the President is that his overseas business are now super-vulnerable to terrorist attack since Trump==America. Terrorists targeting specifically Trump hotels and resorts in foreign countries are sending a message and doing harm directly to him. And he can't just deploy Marine guards like an embassy or a consulate, he'll have to rely on the host nations' police or internal security. I'm sure that he'll try to get diplomatic protections extend so his properties are treated as embassy ground, but it opens up the possibility of the government nationalizing those assets whenever he leaves office (which I don't think he's considered either). And I've talked about his error of staying in Trump Tower in New York already. It's took 200 years for the White House to become a practical fortress, capable of withstanding nuclear assault and terrorist attack, and if it can't, then it allows easy access to places like Raven Rock and Mount Weather or Andrews AFB that are either resistant or mobile enough to handle the threat. Meanwhile, Trump Tower is located in an easily targeted corner of Central Park, because it offers a great view of the park. 9/11-style attack against Trump Tower would likely result in us watching the President die with his family while his precious skyscraper collapses around them. Pence will probably ended up making that "Muslim final solution" speech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Edit: Yeah, that ^^^Shimrra Jamaane posted:It's very very unlikely that another 9/11 scale event will happen again. The perfect storm of terrible circumstances that led to it and allowed it to be so damaging is thankfully extremely difficult to replicate. Now that changes if its a major state actor and not just a terrorist group trying to do it but in that case its World War 3 so we're hosed anyway. There are a bunch of Trump branded high rises all over the world. I can see the GOP and a lot of Americans considering an attack on a Trump building in Istanbul or Mumbai nearly on par with an attack here. Trump sure would. I kind of feel bad for anyone living/working in one of his buildings. Kind of. follow that camel!! fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Nov 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Don't forget that it costs from hundreds of thousands to multiple millions of dollars (mostly dependent on the size of the state and consequently the amount of votes) in most states to have the vote counted the first time around, and when you do a recount you're doing it in a more labor intensive way because you believe some of the automated systems may have hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Trump is better at robotically reading a teleprompter than Clinton is at delivering anything
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
1:24-26, just me or was this edited? KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Trump is better at robotically reading a teleprompter than Clinton is at delivering anything
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Trump is better at robotically reading a teleprompter than Clinton is at delivering anything I think we'd all prefer Clinton hiding any sense of humanity while reading a teleprompter than five seconds of a Trump presidency. But that's like, just my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Star Man posted:I think we'd all prefer Clinton hiding any sense of humanity while reading a teleprompter than five seconds of a Trump presidency. But that's like, just my opinion. You don't understand, a woman being anything less than warm and homemakerly makes me feel uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Honestly the recount stuff is the first worthwhile thing the Greens have done in forever. If the Dems did it they'd look like sore losers and all the talk about respecting the results of the elections would look enormously hypocritical. This way they get to keep their hands clean and are spared embarrassment in the (very) likely possibility of the results being upheld, while still getting them looked at, because goddamn imagine finding out three years into President Trump that he didn't actually win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Some terrorist detonating a car bomb in the lobby of some Trump hotel isn't going to create the same kind of national outrage as loving 9/11 did Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Some terrorist detonating a car bomb in the lobby of some Trump hotel isn't going to create the same kind of national outrage as loving 9/11 did Jesus Christ. Trump can't handle the audience of Hamilton booing Pence. ISIS shooting up or blowing up a Trump hotel will be amplified by President Cheeto to 9/11 proportions even if they failed to kill anyone but themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Some terrorist detonating a car bomb in the lobby of some Trump hotel isn't going to create the same kind of national outrage as loving 9/11 did Jesus Christ. Not from the general public. But from President Trump, Commander-in-Chief of the United States military? Maybe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Lol holy poo poo Jill Stein is really going to raise 2.5 million by Friday. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if there was voter fraud and Hilary won? I know its the slimmest of chances but that would rule.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Lol holy poo poo Jill Stein is really going to raise 2.5 million by Friday. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if there was voter fraud and Hilary won? I know its the slimmest of chances but that would rule. This election has already been enough of a bizarro-timeline clusterfuck, may as well go all out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Trump can't handle the audience of Hamilton booing Pence. ISIS shooting up or blowing up a Trump hotel will be amplified by President Cheeto to 9/11 proportions even if they failed to kill anyone but themselves. 9/11 didn't spark national outrage on a scale not seen since Pearl Harbor just because Bush told us to get mad about it. It's because the entire nation saw 3,000 people get brutally murdered in the most extravagant way imaginable all on live TV. I shouldn't need to go into detail on just how deep the damage went into the national consciousness. Trump can say what he wants but people will NOT feel anywhere near the same way about one of his properties getting attacked, especially if it's in another country and it was a bunch of foreigners who got murdered there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:It's very very unlikely that another 9/11 scale event will happen again. The perfect storm of terrible circumstances that led to it and allowed it to be so damaging is thankfully extremely difficult to replicate. Now that changes if its a major state actor and not just a terrorist group trying to do it but in that case its World War 3 so we're hosed anyway. Yeah good thing terrorism is over forever and can't happen again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:9/11 didn't spark national outrage on a scale not seen since Pearl Harbor just because Bush told us to get mad about it. It's because the entire nation saw 3,000 people get brutally murdered in the most extravagant way imaginable all on live TV. I shouldn't need to go into detail on just how deep the damage went into the national consciousness. "How Dare they attack Trump [Whatever]" "But President Trump they're just Muslims killing Muslims. Who cares." probably what will happen
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 04:17
|
|