|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:or like an american version of the five-star movement. the Favstar Movement
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
Scary! posted:Unfortunately I think this is the best indicator, but I’m hoping court packing will be one of the litmus tests for anyone running (amongst a plethora of other issues that are in dire need such as UHC, which we won’t get unless the courts are changed) policy matters a lot less than fundamental politics right now: what good is Medicare for All when it's overturned in a 5-4 decision.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:policy matters a lot less than fundamental politics right now: what good is Medicare for All when it's overturned in a 5-4 decision. In the scenario where Medicare for All is passed into law there are more than 9 seats on the SCOTUS
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
Rastor posted:In the scenario where Medicare for All is passed into law there are more than 9 seats on the SCOTUS You've got people signing on to M4A who haven't signed on to an expanded court right now, so I'm not so sure about that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:You've got people signing on to M4A who haven't signed on to an expanded court right now, so I'm not so sure about that. The only reason they haven't signed on is because it hasn't been brought up in mainstream discussion yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
repeal marbury vs madison
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:Mike Pence, trump thread's allover it I found two trump threads and it was not fun at all
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:The only reason they haven't signed on is because it hasn't been brought up in mainstream discussion yet. yes it has https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.48b17efae67a https://newrepublic.com/article/148358/democrats-prepare-pack-supreme-court https://www.vox.com/2018/7/2/17513520/court-packing-explained-fdr-roosevelt-new-deal-democrats-supreme-court https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/06/democrats-need-to-pack-the-supreme-court-with-libe.html https://mic.com/articles/190053/court-packing-might-become-the-next-internal-battle-for-democrats#.KupvvsK8d
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ericandre/status/1037413585847087104 andre 3000? more like andre 2020
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
I wonder how the hillfolk cheer squad can explain all the primary recent upsets for bad dems by Berniecrats? Also Trump presidency is only half-way completed, with more weak grovelling bad dem more Berniecrats will win.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i interpret "I'm not really sure you can look at the historically poor performance of establishment candidates across the board in primaries" as referring to past primaries, not primary polling. but even so, the only other person being polled that any knows is biden. most people still do not recognize warren, booker, etc. and biden is usually running about even with bernie in the low 20s or teens. i think people are very open to an alternative to either. this isn't a hypothetical mental exercise i literally saw fox news making fun of biden w/ these video reels over the last thanksgiving holidays lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
etalian posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
etalian posted:I wonder how the hillfolk cheer squad can explain all the primary recent upsets for bad dems by Berniecrats? There haven't been that many upsets
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
The only thing about packing the Supreme Court is that Republicans could do the same thing and appoint a dozen people who will vote to end democracy if they ever got >60 votes, or if Republicans decided to expand the exceptions to the nuclear option from just SCOTUS appointments to include court packing legislation, regardless of whether Democrats judge such a move to mean the death of the filibuster entirely. Republicans have always the ones to sink to new lows first when it comes to breaking norms, so I think this is probably the right thing to do. It'd need to be followed up with a constitutional amendment firmly setting the number of judges at a certain amount and guaranteeing that every president gets two appointees to make sure the consequences never boomerang back, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H07ygGZxjE
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:The only thing about packing the Supreme Court is that Republicans could do the same thing and appoint a dozen people who will vote to end democracy if they ever got >60 votes, or if Republicans decided to expand the exceptions to the nuclear option from just SCOTUS appointments to include court packing legislation, regardless of whether Democrats judge such a move to mean the death of the filibuster entirely. Republicans have always the ones to sink to new lows first when it comes to breaking norms, so I think this is probably the right thing to do. It'd need to be followed up with a constitutional amendment firmly setting the number of judges at a certain amount and guaranteeing that every president gets two appointees to make sure the consequences never boomerang back, though. They don't need >60 votes. They could do it today. E. Oh, would it need actual legislation? They could still probably do it today, especially after the 5-4 decision that says that Democratic Senators don't get to vote on things any more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
anime was right posted:the absolute best part of the jungle primary is there's gonna be like 5 different rich idiots backing their favorite corporate dem so they're all gonna cancel each other out. none of them are gonna all get behind one person. obama coalition, clinton coalition, moderate republicans that hate trumps decorum. i mean they're all the same group, but there's different actors in them. lol this is exactly how the GOP establishment ended up with Trump against their will. Would be hilarious if the same exact thing gets Sanders in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
you don't have to worry about your policies being used against you if you never lose elections
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
Why are Concerned Citizen and LinYutang in this thread again right now, is there no work for centrists while Congressional hearings are in progress
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Graphic posted:lol this is exactly how the GOP establishment ended up with Trump against their will. Would be hilarious if the same exact thing gets Sanders in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
docbeard posted:They don't need >60 votes. They could do it today. E. Oh, would it need actual legislation? They could still probably do it today, especially after the 5-4 decision that says that Democratic Senators don't get to vote on things any more. Yeah, I looked it up on the SCOTUS wiki article and the number last changed in 1869, after the Chief Justice requested it reduced from ten to seven as judges retire, probably as an administrative thing. Congress decided that was a bad idea a few years later and set it to nine. The Republicans could do pass court packing legislation today, but they wouldn't at least until after midterms. I suspect that as long as the balance looks like it will firmly be in their favor, Republicans wouldn't pack the courts so they can keep the filibuster when they're the opposition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
loquacius posted:Multiple people in my Facebook feed have linked this article unironically I got it linked to me by someone who said it’s a very damning and troubling account. I read the first few paragraphs laughed at it and was told I needed to read it, it’s important to save our democracy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:The only thing about packing the Supreme Court is that Republicans could do the same thing and appoint a dozen people who will vote to end democracy if they ever got >60 votes, or if Republicans decided to expand the exceptions to the nuclear option from just SCOTUS appointments to include court packing legislation, regardless of whether Democrats judge such a move to mean the death of the filibuster entirely. Republicans have always the ones to sink to new lows first when it comes to breaking norms, so I think this is probably the right thing to do. It'd need to be followed up with a constitutional amendment firmly setting the number of judges at a certain amount and guaranteeing that every president gets two appointees to make sure the consequences never boomerang back, though. Who gives one poo poo. If they want a worse 1861, except this time with gulags, let them try. Hey Poland, now has almost a hundred people on it's court.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:could the GOP have theoretically and formally ratfucked trump w/o breaking their own convention rules if he just got a huge plurality of the votes/delegates and not a majority through the primaries? the gop has the same rule as the dems, if no one gets a majority in the first round it goes to a brokered convention. one big difference between the gop and dem rules is that the gop has winner-take-all rules in a lot of states that make it much easier for a candidate with a plurality to end up with a healthy majority. they also have a rule that a candidate has to win a majority in 8 states to be nominated. there is not likely to be 2 candidates who meet that criteria. however, since convention rules are basically calvin ball, a motivated base of delegates could change that rule prior to voting. Concerned Citizen fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Sep 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:there will almost certainly be people trying to outflank bernie on the left, probably on guns and immigration. but i do not agree that "establishment candidates across the board" are performing poorly. the vast majority still won their races, mostly by a lot. Probably should have amended that to "High profile establishment people losing races" rather than making a sweeping statement. I don't think guns will matter at all in the primaries (they will never matter probably), immigration though I wouldn't be surprised if Abolish ICE becomes the standard candidates are held too from the left because Bernie was basically on board with it and I don't think there will be anyone else running that agrees we should abolish ICE.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:they also have a rule that a candidate has to win a majority in 8 states to be nominated. aka the ron paul rule
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:the gop has the same rule as the dems, if donors like you you win
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:The only thing about packing the Supreme Court is that Republicans could do the same thing and appoint a dozen people who will vote to end democracy if they ever got >60 votes, or if Republicans decided to expand the exceptions to the nuclear option from just SCOTUS appointments to include court packing legislation, regardless of whether Democrats judge such a move to mean the death of the filibuster entirely. Republicans have always the ones to sink to new lows first when it comes to breaking norms, so I think this is probably the right thing to do. It'd need to be followed up with a constitutional amendment firmly setting the number of judges at a certain amount and guaranteeing that every president gets two appointees to make sure the consequences never boomerang back, though. the importance of court-packing isn't in the details. it's an acknowledgement from the Democrats that the court is openly partisan and has lost its legitimacy once both sides are openly loving with the court, the status quo becomes unworkable and something has to give
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
loquacius posted:Multiple people in my Facebook feed have linked this article unironically Same. And only one person has pointed out that whoever this person is, they're a huge part of the problem and putting up with Grandpa Smooth brains because it gives them cover to take the country backwards by a century.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
that Democrats didn't respond to Republicans attempting to put party operatives in the Court ever since Bork's nomination is pretty damning to the competence of the party as a whole
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
lol @ the cognitive dissonance of this interview and the rest of msnbc cheerleading everything is great in the economy
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hedges quoting Marx on MSNBC
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Kept waiting for it, and there it was right at the end when she's trying to get him off the air. It's perfect. We need more people just hot dropping in marx quotes to interviews. Not a whole interview about marx, but just people saying "as Marx said." etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Nothus posted:Aside from Zuck, there has to be some tech dipshit(s) with more money than brains itching to give it a go. Mark Cuban Also no one mentioned Cuomo yet, do you even succ?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
the best part is when he starts dunking on fracking she starts shutting down the interview
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
lmfao at trying to be taking seriously while holding a selfie stick eat poo poo you shameless self promoting binch
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
succ The Intercept: Tom Carper Backs Re-Importing Drugs From Canada, After Voting Against It Repeatedly quote:Delaware Sen. Tom Carper portrayed himself as a health care populist at the Democratic primary debate this week, championing his role in writing and defending the Affordable Care Act and declaring, “We oughta re-import drugs from Canada.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
The documentary that's going to be made about the next time the economy shits it's guts out is going to open with that Hedges interview. Assuming we still have electricity and aren't bartering ammo for canned goods, of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
i really wanna read hedges' book now but it sounds insanely depressing
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
emigrate and then read it imho.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 03:16
|
|
