|
Killing senators to appoint a Judge gives a whole new meaning to extra-judicial killing.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
algebra testes posted:Killing senators to appoint a Judge gives a whole new meaning to extra-judicial killing. Ain't nobody gonna tell me this ain't an amazing joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Packing the court with the bodies of the slain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:There is maybe some truth to the idea that Obama was far too naive in dealing with the GOP, but how could anyone have known that a solid amount of Americans don't care? He didn't exactly push Garland too hard during the campaign, and Garland himself wasnt exactly a motivating pick for voters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:He didn't exactly push Garland too hard during the campaign, and Garland himself wasnt exactly a motivating pick for voters. The theory behind the pick was the same as it has ever been under Obama: if we just act reasonable enough, people will respect our sober, responsible leadership and rally to our side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:There is maybe some truth to the idea that Obama was far too naive in dealing with the GOP, but how could anyone have known that a solid amount of Americans don't care? Probably by stepping outside the liberal echo chamber for a second, why on earth would you think the average person is going to care about it? It's just not something that moves the needle to non-wonks (99.9999% of the population). Obama really didn't have any good options. People say he should have nominated a more firebrand leftist to try drum up support and force but that would have opened a whole different bag of chips because replacing a far right wing judge with a far left wing judge would have been politically problematic as well. In the end the election would have drowned out everything though, "  they aren't voting on the judge I want a blooo blooo" just isn't an issue ordinary people care about, it's the economy, stupids. Or terrorism. Or a billion other things people think about every day (none of which include some old people in robes).Raenir Salazar posted:I think Obama didn't realize the depths they would sink, but also that 4 years of Trump will also quite possibly cement Obama as a Democratic Reagan. Reagan did immigration reform and poo poo, the right doesn't do the whole MUST BE 100% IDEOLOGICALLY PURE OR I HATE YOU that the left does. Which is why we have Trump in the first place. e: a major problem was that all the people that would vote for the dems because they cared about the supreme court were already doing so. It wasn't something that could bring new people to the table. TROIKA CURES GREEK fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
U-DO Burger posted:All you needed was for 9 Republican Senators to suddenly die in mysterious circumstances and Garland would have been set for confirmation. Why be mysterious? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLUktJbp2Ug
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
quote:Reagan did immigration reform and poo poo, the right doesn't do the whole MUST BE 100% IDEOLOGICALLY PURE OR I HATE YOU that the left does. Apparently you have not been paying attention to the last 8 years or so of Republican politics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Reagan did immigration reform and poo poo, the right doesn't do the whole MUST BE 100% IDEOLOGICALLY PURE OR I HATE YOU that the left does. They absolutely do. The difference is that if their ideologically pure conservative loses the primary to a moderate or a charlatan they still turn out and vote for the winner because they hate the Democrats so much that defeating a Democrat is sufficient motivation to turn up even if they don't particularly like their candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Apparently you have not been paying attention to the last 8 years or so of Republican politics. Yeah, and then they elected Donald Trump anyway. Checking all the right conservative boxes is no where near as important as winning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
The right wing runs on "I DIDN'T GET WHAT I WANT. gently caress THE DEMOCRATS WE HAVE TO DESTROY THEM" and then they vote straight ticket Republican in elections because they want to win, period. Meanwhile the left works on "I DIDN'T GET WHAT I WANT. gently caress THE DEMOCRATS WE HAVE TO DESTROY THEM" and they stay home instead of vote because both parties are the same Bernie was robbed so gently caress Hilary etc etc. Also they don't show up for midterms, ensuring the Dems can only win if the GOP's voters are even more apathetic, or manage to gently caress the country badly enough (IE: 2006). Maybe when these people spend the next couple years getting hosed sideways by the GOP they'll care. Assuming they're able to vote, since millions are going to lose the ability to do so and there's nothing to actually stop the GOP from destroying voter rights. Even if Kennedy were to side with the Liberals against Gerrymandering (or anything else) there is zero chance of Trump's DoJ not just dragging its feet on any reports about vote shenanigans except VOTER FRAUD loving LIBS STEALIN ELECTIONS 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
It's not an immutable fact of the universe that the Democrats have to suck at motivating turnout. The GOP is a lovely party, but it does a fine job convincing people that voting for them is important and will make a real difference in their lives. Maybe the Dems could try doing that, instead of bathing in their own self-pitying tears and whining that people owe them their votes because at least they're better than the other side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah, and then they elected Donald Trump anyway. Checking all the right conservative boxes is no where near as important as winning. Conservative credentials are different to the country's gerrymandered voters than to congressmen, and that was evident as early as 2010.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
JUST MAKING CHILI posted:How could someone be MORE conservative than Scalia? I don't see how it's going to get any worse than it was. Appoint Roy Moore. His schedule's free!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The right wing runs on "I DIDN'T GET WHAT I WANT. gently caress THE DEMOCRATS WE HAVE TO DESTROY THEM" and then they vote straight ticket Republican in elections because they want to win, period. When Democrats win elections they shift to the right a bit in the interest of compromise and also triangulation for future elections. And when they lose elections they shift to the right to capture those sweet, sweet moderate conservatives who always vote Republican. It's a great way to demoralize people who actually loving voted for you. When Republicans win elections they... pretty much do as much as they can get away with of the horrible poo poo they love to talk about. It's kind of admirable even if they're loving over 90% (at least 90%) of the country and dooming the human species to ecological collapse. Maybe Democrats could try something like that? Like if you talk about a public option during your campaign and then you win a mandate to do exactly that then... do exactly that? Or at least try, and when you fail have something to point to as the reason for your failure other than "we capitulated before we got to the negotiating table". If you promise to close Gitmo and Congress is being a dick about putting them in prisons in the US then... oh I don't know - send them back where they came from? And so on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
JUST MAKING CHILI posted:How could someone be MORE conservative than Scalia? I don't see how it's going to get any worse than it was. A clone of Samuel Alito, for one perfectly obvious example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Maybe Democrats could try something like that? Like if you talk about a public option during your campaign and then you win a mandate to do exactly that then... do exactly that? Or at least try, and when you fail have something to point to as the reason for your failure other than "we capitulated before we got to the negotiating table". If you promise to close Gitmo and Congress is being a dick about putting them in prisons in the US then... oh I don't know - send them back where they came from? And so on. There weren't sixty votes for a public option because Lieberman is a poo poo goblin wearing human skin. And we've already done just what you propose for everyone we can in Gitmo, the ones who are left literally nobody wants, not even their home countries, usually because they did a bunch of normal crimes in addition to/rather than a terrorism. Worse, Congress has blocked all funding for transporting or releasing them, so we literally cannot even let them go unless another country foots the bill for getting them there. You're not wrong that playing hardball from the word go would've resulted in more success for the Dems but they had way less power than I think you imagine, even when they theoretically had control of Congress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
I think Obama said the other day that at this point they are down to the final 40 or so in Gitmo that nobody wants. Now of course there is a decent possibility that Trump starts putting more people down there but who really knows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:They absolutely do. More to the point, they feared Hillary Clinton would appoint a hyper-liberal justice in Scalia's seat and finally begin the dark communist ritual to destroy global freedom and prosperity forever. Dems didn't have the same hopes, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Quorum posted:There weren't sixty votes for a public option because Lieberman is a poo poo goblin wearing human skin. And we've already done just what you propose for everyone we can in Gitmo, the ones who are left literally nobody wants, not even their home countries, usually because they did a bunch of normal crimes in addition to/rather than a terrorism. Worse, Congress has blocked all funding for transporting or releasing them, so we literally cannot even let them go unless another country foots the bill for getting them there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, so release them from being prisoners, hire them as staff, and relocate them to whatever US base they like, fly them in Air force One if you have to. I don't get why people act like moving 40 people from point A to point B is something the President can't do even if Congress gets huffy about it. Your understanding of how the US government functions is juvenile at best if you think the president has the power to unilaterally do anything remotely like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:01
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, so release them from being prisoners, hire them as staff, and relocate them to whatever US base they like, fly them in Air force One if you have to. I don't get why people act like moving 40 people from point A to point B is something the President can't do even if Congress gets huffy about it. Because they can't? Duh? The President violating a whole bunch of laws and getting himself impeached isn't going to help anyone but his opponents.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Technically the president could simply order Guantanamo abandoned, yes, but he'd be impeached for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Could he pardon the Guantanamo prisoners of all crimes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Hurt Whitey Maybe posted:Could he pardon the Guantanamo prisoners of all crimes? They're effectively stateless persons at this point. They would still have to go somewhere and there is literally no one in the world willing to take them in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Hurt Whitey Maybe posted:Could he pardon the Guantanamo prisoners of all crimes? I don't think so, they haven't been charged with anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Its really a hosed up situation and there isn't a good way to resolve it. There are people wanted for a number of crimes around the world being held that have no welcome arms waiting anywhere in the world. No one wants to take them in for better or for worse. It's not like we're holding innocent people and their home country is begging for their return.
Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Bush screwed the pooch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It's not like we're holding innocent people You don't know that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:38
|
|
botany posted:You don't know that. It's more the second part of that sentence that you didn't quote that is the problem.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:It's more the second part of that sentence that you didn't quote that is the problem. no I'm gonna say the fact that the US has been imprisoning 30odd people without charging them with a crime or otherwise respecting their human rights is more of an issue
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Because they can't? Duh? The President violating a whole bunch of laws and getting himself impeached isn't going to help anyone but his opponents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
CellBlock posted:He's floated his short list, here's some of the people on it: Which one has the best hair? That's what Trump cares about
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
twodot posted:It might help the 40 people we are unjustly holding prisoner, and I'm not seeing Obama accomplishing all that much in the next few weeks. They probably couldn't even put together an impeachment hearing in that time frame, and that's assuming Congress even has the will to do it, which even if the House does, I'm not convinced the Senate would convict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:He doesn't want to try them under the military commission rules, quote:He can't just let them walk out the front door into Cuba, quote:there are concerns about releasing them into a country in the throes of famine and civil war, to put it lightly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
twodot posted:What physical process is preventing this from happening? Like I can see it's possibly a bad idea, but I don't understand what you think is stopping this from happening that the President can't overcome. The Cuban government shooting them? No one wants them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 21:12
|
|
twodot posted:It might help the 40 people we are unjustly holding prisoner, and I'm not seeing Obama accomplishing all that much in the next few weeks. They probably couldn't even put together an impeachment hearing in that time frame, and that's assuming Congress even has the will to do it, which even if the House does, I'm not convinced the Senate would convict. It would not help them because even if Obama orders it it won't happen because it's illegal. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm seeing a want in this sentence and not a can't. He doesn't want to because that would deny them a jury trial and set a precedent. It'd also tacitly be agreeing with the Bush-era policies. Drone-happy as he is, Obama doesn't want that. quote:What physical process is preventing this from happening? Like I can see it's possibly a bad idea, but I don't understand what you think is stopping this from happening that the President can't overcome. Well for one nobody wants to be released into whatever passes for supermax in Cuba's prison system so that's right out. Bad as Gitmo was at its worst, that'd be one hell of a trade-down. As far as Yemen goes if the country doesn't accept them back then AFAIK it legally doesn't matter what anyone else wants. Besides, they'd probably have a target on their back for all of the 900 factions involved in what's going on in Yemen right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 21:45
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:He doesn't want to because that would deny them a jury trial and set a precedent. It'd also tacitly be agreeing with the Bush-era policies. Drone-happy as he is, Obama doesn't want that. quote:Well for one nobody wants to be released into whatever passes for supermax in Cuba's prison system so that's right out. Bad as Gitmo was at its worst, that'd be one hell of a trade-down. As far as Yemen goes if the country doesn't accept them back then AFAIK it legally doesn't matter what anyone else wants. Besides, they'd probably have a target on their back for all of the 900 factions involved in what's going on in Yemen right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
That's fair.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 22:04
|
|