|
I'm not sure the average voter cares about the DNC position, while the politically informed voters are far too invested in their party to let this once again super dumb Democrat position depress their turnout.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
Umm isn't this the obviously correct position? Am I missing something or wouldn't the only alternative to the yes voting dem be a yes voting republican?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Umm isn't this the obviously correct position? Am I missing something or wouldn't the only alternative to the yes voting dem be a yes voting republican? A no voting Democrat, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
joat mon posted:No, marriage equality rests on additional and truly constitutionally foundational ground. Appreciate it, goat lawyer. I need to get better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
The idea is that in signalling the party has few if any core beliefs, you turn people away from the party overall. So basically the idea is you have Manchin only at a cost of more other Dem senators in purple states. I'm not sure if that's right but that's the idea. The other idea, and current prevailing wisdom, is anyone with a d by their name in a red state must be kept afloat at any cost to the party brand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
CoffeeQaddaffi posted:A no voting Democrat, maybe? primaries are over are they not?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:04
|
|
Jarmak posted:primaries are over are they not? Regardless, don’t voice your dogshit stance. That seems pretty reasonable.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Kavanaugh says he'll continue to "cooperate". I can't wait for more "cooperation" faces.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
What the hell else is he supposed to say? "gently caress Joe Manchin and gently caress him specifically?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:What the hell else is he supposed to say? "gently caress Joe Manchin and gently caress him specifically?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Is it even within the realm of possibility to quietly position someone to primary Manchin in the near future? The only thing more horrific than losing a seat to the Republicans is losing it to someone to the left
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
not caring here posted:Wouldn't the FBI already be investigating this poo poo from a counter intel point of view? You wouldn't want a supreme court justice out there with someone holding dirt on him. Yeah it would suck if there was somebody in a national office that was compromised in some way despite the FBI/intelligence community pointing it out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Is it even within the realm of possibility to quietly position someone to primary Manchin in the near future? If Ojeda wins and holds his seat for a few years than maybe, but otherwise I don't even know who in West Virginia you could even find that could even come close to beating Manchin, let alone winning in a statewide race. Someone did try to primary him this year, and only got 30% of the vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:What the hell else is he supposed to say? "gently caress Joe Manchin and gently caress him specifically?" Love to throw women under the bus for realpolitik
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:34
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:What the hell else is he supposed to say? "gently caress Joe Manchin and gently caress him specifically?" Yes
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Internet Wizard posted:Yeah it would suck if there was somebody in a national office that was compromised in some way despite the FBI/intelligence community pointing it out.  https://twitter.com/heyitschili/status/1045718359713681408 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
throwing women under the bus to own the left
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:The only thing more horrific than losing a seat to the Republicans is losing it to someone to the left Its West Virginia. Trump won it buy 40+ points. Romney won it by 25 points. The other senator from West Virginia, a republican, won by 30 points. You will never get a democratic senator not named Joe Manchin in that state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Manchin votes in line with Republicans 61% of the time. I guess that's slightly better than 100%
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Sacrist65 posted:Its West Virginia. Trump won it buy 40+ points. Romney won it by 25 points. The other senator from West Virginia, a republican, won by 30 points. Ok so you hand over a clip of you saying that you support a rapist through inaction and sour the voting population nationwide so you can protect one seat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Manchin votes in line with Republicans 61% of the time. I guess that's slightly better than 100% West Virginia ain't electing any other Democrat and all that matters is getting the total Democratic count to 51 after this election. That's the magic number for subpoenas, chairmanships, and agenda control. Manchin can do his thing as much as he wants so long as he's one of that 51. It's unlikely as hell already, drat near impossible if you alienate Manchin, who already almost took an administration position earlier. It's already really obvious that he's not going to be a deciding vote on any of this stuff, but the moment Republicans lock up 50 on Kavanaugh, Manchin will happily join them and be 51.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
Maybe we've been thinking about this all wrong. If we're going to end up with an ultraconservative on the court either way then we should want him to be an alcoholic who will die early!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
Yes. This is why I love video editing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:We still can't tell one dude because he will absolutely go to jail for beating him to within an inch of death. The evil person didn't get charged even though there was video evidence, so why are you so sure your friend would go to jail?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
EBB posted:Play nice children, daddy has a headache. It could be a tumour 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Radical 90s Wizard posted:It could be a tumour IT'S NAHT A TOOMAH!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
Vasudus posted:If the republicans have the floor votes then all the red state dems up for reelection will probably vote for them. It'll be 53-ish yeas. Because it wouldn't change the outcome, and the math for those dems isn't energizing your base to vote for you, it's to give the guys voting against you a reason to stay home. McCaskill has declared herself a no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Every time Ford and Kavanaugh dodged a question in one chart.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
That is a really good article, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
Oh my god, I didn't realise you could click the thing and read the transcription.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
DoktorLoken posted:I'm not a lawyer so explain the latter part to me. The Mann Act is generally, an example of how Congress can criminalize going across state lines to do something illegal. Specifically, it is an example of how Congress made interstate transport of "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose" illegal. If you wanted to punish the participants in a underground railroad for reproductive rights, you could make a good argument that taking a woman from where abortion is illegal to where it is legal is an immoral purpose. The Federal courts rarely see overreach by the US Attorneys as a bad thing and would most likely follow the prosecutor's lead. However, clearing up that ambiguity would be as (procedurally) simple as amending the Mann act to specifically include abortion - which might not be politically simple. Chevron deference: Another way to do it would be for the DoJ to declare that "immoral purpose" includes abortions. "But wait," you might ask, "it's the legislature that decides what the law is, and it's the executive that enforces/executes those laws. DoJ is an agency of the executive, not the legislature. That's a separation of powers problem" "On the other hand," as your civics teacher would want you to ask, "federal agencies are kind of the subject-matter experts of the laws they are required to execute, so shouldn't we listen more to them?" This is the tension that a Supreme Court case called Chevron seeks to resolve. When courts interpret laws, how much should they defer to the subject matter experts in making that determination? There have been a good number of follow-on cases that have built up a decent amount of guidance on the issue, broadly called "Chevron deference." Lately, the courts have moved to giving federal agencies a huge amount of deference. This raises serious separation of powers issues for both the legislature and the judiciary - it's the legislature's job to write clear laws and to clarify them when necessary, and it's the judiciary's job to decide what a law says in the absence of such clarity. What can happen is that the executive agencies take over the duties of the other two branches of government - legislating what the law is, and also declaring what it means if it's unclear. At its worst, Chevron deference forces a court to adopt an executive agency's interpretation of a law. That's pretty much the state of the law right now. During the Obama administration, given the silence from Congress and lack of speed in the judiciary, the Department of Education declared that in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibited discrimination based on sex, the word 'sex' included transgendered people. Using Chevron deference, the schools covered by Title IX and the courts ruling on the issue would have to defer to DoEd's new interpretation. While that goal is laudable, the DoEd taking on the powers of the other two branches of government isn't because ... What if the executive changes and its 'subject matter experts' declare the law means otherwise? What if an executive you don't agree with wants to change laws without having Congress do their job or preventing the judiciary from doing theirs? Like, for example, declaring that abortion is an 'immoral purpose' under the Mann Act? I think the tide is turning on the current level of extreme deference given to executive agencies, so things may be slowly improving. On the other hand, with the GOP in charge of all three branches and the accelerating regulatory capture of the executive agencies, why would they? Caveats: Whoah, rambly. Also, not an expert on Chevron deference by any means. Mr. Nice! posted:Appreciate it, goat lawyer. I need to get better.  Also, transitioning to rabbits from goats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
Yo my dudes, I don't think trump has tweeted anything for 24 hours, is he dead? Or are we all going to die? The break from the constant drivel is unsettling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
not caring here posted:Yo my dudes, I don't think trump has tweeted anything for 24 hours, is he dead? Or are we all going to die? "The phone repairman is working on it right now, he should be done in a few days." "Fine!" *Sulks in corner
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
My gal said joat is lawyer santa claus so that’s my permanent mental image.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
I propose we refer to him as Injustice Kavanaugh for the entirety of his tenure at SCOTUS
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
not caring here posted:Yo my dudes, I don't think trump has tweeted anything for 24 hours, is he dead? inshallah
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
Ok, so who wants to start betting on the bad news of tomorrow. And maybe good news.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
not caring here posted:Yo my dudes, I don't think trump has tweeted anything for 24 hours, is he dead? Or are we all going to die? H'es preparing the phone alerts
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
Trump ordered the FBI to conduct an investigation into Kavanaugh
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1045832351211835392?s=21 Reads like a commercial for the next season of Law & Order.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 01:35
|
|