All Things POLITICS 3.0

[Jeffrey]

Didn't this happened when Obama became the Democratic nominee 8 years ago?

[Oscirus]

Oh, I think she'll pay off those "favors," just not with federal judicial nominations. She's going to ensure that a woman's right to choose will be enticed in stone for decades to come. That means nominating socially liberal judges for the most part. And I think she'll do that.

Judges, I'm not worried about. I assume she'll go more liberal then Obama with her picks. Though I can see a favor judge or two getting slipped through on the local level.

Repubs are going to mess around and get a half woman supreme court if they aren't careful. Watching all those old conservatives get a heart attack over that would be entertaining

They can take turns leaving their pubes on Clarence Thomas' coke can

I sadly think that Thomas would probably enjoy that.

We actually went from Thurgood Marshall to him SMDH **** you for that, Bush.

[DaKnicksAreBack]

Your view on Hillary is conflicting though. You think Hillary will say and do anything to get in power, but then you think she will do things that will actively impede her from staying in power.

Nominating conservative judges will wipe out the support of her entire base in one fell swoop. It would guarantee she's a one term President. There is literally no reason for her to even consider doing that.

So is she this cold, calculating, power hungry President who will do anything to get votes, or is she a self-destructive sell-out who will do something that blatantly goes against her interests and only helps her fiercest opponents for no apparent reason?

Theres no doubt hillary clinton will nominate progressive judges to the SC. She said as much publically, which is outrageous considering ideology shouldnt be a factor in picking a judge at all. The fact that she said publically that it would be a priority exemplifies how partisan politics have become.

Republican candidates say all the time that they would nominate "conservative" judges.

Yeah well thats the state of politics today. It is outrageous. Because of bad presidents the SC is an battle of right vs. left, instead of following the constitution. Partisanship has seeped to the SC. Hillary will escalate that. Trump is a wildcard, theres no telling whom he would nominate, but hes too dangerous to elect for other reasons.

[Greenie]

Warren? No thanks. I'm tired of them all. No more blue or red.

[DaKnicksAreBack]

Your view on Hillary is conflicting though. You think Hillary will say and do anything to get in power, but then you think she will do things that will actively impede her from staying in power.

Nominating conservative judges will wipe out the support of her entire base in one fell swoop. It would guarantee she's a one term President. There is literally no reason for her to even consider doing that.

So is she this cold, calculating, power hungry President who will do anything to get votes, or is she a self-destructive sell-out who will do something that blatantly goes against her interests and only helps her fiercest opponents for no apparent reason?

Hillary will nominate a consecutive judge and then apologize for it. That's he track record. Do something messed up and then say sorry. She will do whatever she wants and then clean it up when need be. She can nominate whoever she wants I don't care. I don't like extreme lefts or rights as judges anyway. That will never be a selling point for me.

I care more about social policy here and not fighting wars overseas.

There is no reason for Hillary to nominate a conservative SC judge. It goes against her agenda as a President in a very fundamental way. It would be the single most illogical thing for her to do. There is no reason for her to even consider it.

If you care about social policy, then SC judges and district judges should be a major concern. They are the most effective social legislators now that Congress is so gridlocked.

Judges arent legislators, its scary that you want them to take on that role.

[Greenie]

Elizabeth Warren? Though so many millennials have soured on the democratic party and understandably so. They all pissed at her too ... and all the other establishment "progressives" that endorsed Hillary in the primary.

I can't mince words, but fuq all those babies whining about Bernie backing Clinton. They'll get over it. When they wake up and realize they dodged a bullet and could have been living inside the movie Idiocracy then those who really do want change will get behind somebody sooner this time. Since these waves of activist sentiment go in cycles, there has to be a groundswell for a fresh party with somebody, it could be Warren, sure (but unlikely), taking the reins and saying alright giddy yap let's organize this puppy we've got time to do this right now.

Otherwise, if people wait two years they'll discover moods change and then wham! the whole shebang revs up again and people hem and haw about getting into the race as if a lone individual is the answer. That's the thing. Bernie was not THE answer. He was a stimulant, but there is no real movement that will form around him. He was basically symptomatic of a populist need in the zeitgeist on the prog side and Trump captured the pop impulse on the trog side.

So waiting for somebody, another Sanders, to latch on to is not the answer. And since Warren is basically a career party member it probably won't be her. But she has the piss and vinegar to lead the charge and to chop the balls off of the Trumps of the world and most of the other weasels who ran in the primaries like Cruz. So I like her temperament. She's a warrior and that is what is needed. Better that it is a woman. It scares the crap out of male politicians to stare down someone like Warren during a debate.

It'll be that democrat who steps up and challenges Hillary if she strays off from the platform which Bernie negotiated with her team. I'm sure Bernie will lead the charge, but it'll be interesting to see who else steps up.

People have a right to be pissed at anyone who supports Hillary. They won't get another fuqing vote from me. Warren and Bernie lost my vote. Fuq them. Let them role with Clinton.

[GONYK]

Hillary will nominate a consecutive judge and then apologize for it. That's he track record. Do something messed up and then say sorry. She will do whatever she wants and then clean it up when need be. She can nominate whoever she wants I don't care. I don't like extreme lefts or rights as judges anyway. That will never be a selling point for me.

I care more about social policy here and not fighting wars overseas.

There is no reason for Hillary to nominate a conservative SC judge. It goes against her agenda as a President in a very fundamental way. It would be the single most illogical thing for her to do. There is no reason for her to even consider it.

If you care about social policy, then SC judges and district judges should be a major concern. They are the most effective social legislators now that Congress is so gridlocked.

Judges arent legislators, its scary that you want them to take on that role.

I never said it is what I want. I'm just saying what the current reality is.

[Oscirus]

Theres no doubt hillary clinton will nominate progressive judges to the SC. She said as much publically, which is outrageous considering ideology shouldnt be a factor in picking a judge at all. The fact that she said publically that it would be a priority exemplifies how partisan politics have become.

Republican candidates say all the time that they would nominate "conservative" judges.

Yeah well thats the state of politics today. It is outrageous. Because of bad presidents the SC is an battle of right vs. left, instead of following the constitution. Partisanship has seeped to the SC. Hillary will escalate that. Trump is a wildcard, theres no telling whom he would nominate, but hes too dangerous to elect for other reasons.

Obama just nominated a centrist and the conserves won't put him through because lol Obama so it's more then the presidents messing up the court in those regards.

[GONYK]

Republican candidates say all the time that they would nominate "conservative" judges.

Yeah well thats the state of politics today. It is outrageous. Because of bad presidents the SC is an battle of right vs. left, instead of following the constitution. Partisanship has seeped to the SC. Hillary will escalate that. Trump is a wildcard, theres no telling whom he would nominate, but hes too dangerous to elect for other reasons.

Obama just nominated a centrist and the conserves won't put him through because lol Obama so it's more then the presidents messing up the court in those regards.

At this point, if Hillary looks like she's going to coast across the finish line, Obama is going to pull Garland.

[DaKnicksAreBack]

Republican candidates say all the time that they would nominate "conservative" judges.

Yeah well thats the state of politics today. It is outrageous. Because of bad presidents the SC is an battle of right vs. left, instead of following the constitution. Partisanship has seeped to the SC. Hillary will escalate that. Trump is a wildcard, theres no telling whom he would nominate, but hes too dangerous to elect for other reasons.

Obama just nominated a centrist and the conserves won't put him through because lol Obama so it's more then the presidents messing up the court in those regards.

The only reason why obama nominateed merrick garland is because garland is an anti second admendment zealot. And you dont get it. It shouldnt matter if youre a liberal, consevative, or centrist. The only thing that should matter is knowledge of the constitution.

[Greenie]

Yeah well thats the state of politics today. It is outrageous. Because of bad presidents the SC is an battle of right vs. left, instead of following the constitution. Partisanship has seeped to the SC. Hillary will escalate that. Trump is a wildcard, theres no telling whom he would nominate, but hes too dangerous to elect for other reasons.

Obama just nominated a centrist and the conserves won't put him through because lol Obama so it's more then the presidents messing up the court in those regards.

The only reason why obama nominateed merrick garland is because garland is an anti second admendment zealot. And you dont get it. It shouldnt matter if youre a liberal, consevative, or centrist. The only thing that should matter is knowledge of the constitution.

This. Hence why I don't give a damn about the SC. I care about the Pres, the house and senate. They make the laws. Judges only uphold them.

[Oscirus]

Yeah well thats the state of politics today. It is outrageous. Because of bad presidents the SC is an battle of right vs. left, instead of following the constitution. Partisanship has seeped to the SC. Hillary will escalate that. Trump is a wildcard, theres no telling whom he would nominate, but hes too dangerous to elect for other reasons.

Obama just nominated a centrist and the conserves won't put him through because lol Obama so it's more then the presidents messing up the court in those regards.

The only reason why obama nominateed merrick garland is because garland is an anti second admendment zealot. And you dont get it. It shouldnt matter if youre a liberal, consevative, or centrist. The only thing that should matter is knowledge of the constitution.

And which Supreme Court judge would you say doesn't have that knowledge? As a matter of fact the only nomination in my lifetime who failed in those regards would probably be Miers.

[HarthorneWingo]

Yeah well thats the state of politics today. It is outrageous. Because of bad presidents the SC is an battle of right vs. left, instead of following the constitution. Partisanship has seeped to the SC. Hillary will escalate that. Trump is a wildcard, theres no telling whom he would nominate, but hes too dangerous to elect for other reasons.

Obama just nominated a centrist and the conserves won't put him through because lol Obama so it's more then the presidents messing up the court in those regards.

The only reason why obama nominateed merrick garland is because garland is an anti second admendment zealot. And you dont get it. It shouldnt matter if youre a liberal, consevative, or centrist. The only thing that should matter is knowledge of the constitution.

Oh, I didn't know that he interpreted the second amendment as it had been since at least 1939 up until Scalia's 2008 decision in Heller. But, hey, I'll take it. And I'm sure Garland has assured Obama that he would (1) vote to overturn Citizen's United; and (2) uphold a woman's right to choose under Roe v. Wade. I would also have to believe that Garland believes in science and math. So, we're off to a good start.

[GONYK]

Obama just nominated a centrist and the conserves won't put him through because lol Obama so it's more then the presidents messing up the court in those regards.

The only reason why obama nominateed merrick garland is because garland is an anti second admendment zealot. And you dont get it. It shouldnt matter if youre a liberal, consevative, or centrist. The only thing that should matter is knowledge of the constitution.

This. Hence why I don't give a damn about the SC. I care about the Pres, the house and senate. They make the laws. Judges only uphold them.

It would be nice if things worked that way

[Capn'O]

I can't mince words, but fuq all those babies whining about Bernie backing Clinton.

Sanders told us exactly what he was gonna do when he said "on her worst day Hillary Clinton is 100 times better than anything the Republicans have" back in... November, I think it was. Like Trump, people projected a lot of things onto Sanders that weren't really true.

Better that it is a woman. It scares the crap out of male politicians to stare down someone like Warren during a debate.

Tulsi Gabbard is everyone's early pick to **** some **** up. Granted she's got some "evolving" to do to grab the progressive zeitgast but she's got the F Wall Street and bad trade deals thing down pretty well.

[HarthorneWingo]

Obama just nominated a centrist and the conserves won't put him through because lol Obama so it's more then the presidents messing up the court in those regards.

The only reason why obama nominateed merrick garland is because garland is an anti second admendment zealot. And you dont get it. It shouldnt matter if youre a liberal, consevative, or centrist. The only thing that should matter is knowledge of the constitution.

This. Hence why I don't give a damn about the SC. I care about the Pres, the house and senate. They make the laws. Judges only uphold them.

Or they overturn them ... sometimes in whole; sometimes in part. And it's not "just" the Supreme Court. It's all the other federal and circuit/appellate courts across the country. It can set back voting rights and women's rights and criminal suspect's rights and police rights. They can f*ck up so many things! And those are lifetime appointments.

[Capn'O]

Also:



Eat your heart out, Gary Johnson and your mountain climbing.

[GONYK]

The only reason why obama nominateed merrick garland is because garland is an anti second admendment zealot. And you dont get it. It shouldnt matter if youre a liberal, consevative, or centrist. The only thing that should matter is knowledge of the constitution.

This. Hence why I don't give a damn about the SC. I care about the Pres, the house and senate. They make the laws. Judges only uphold them.

Or they overturn them ... sometimes in whole; sometimes in part. And it's not "just" the Supreme Court. It's all the other federal and circuit/appellate courts across the country. It can set back voting rights and women's rights and criminal suspect's rights and police rights. They can f*ck up so many things! And those are lifetime appointments.

Yea, if you want actual change, the courts can't be ignored.

[DaKnicksAreBack]

Obama just nominated a centrist and the conserves won't put him through because lol Obama so it's more then the presidents messing up the court in those regards.

The only reason why obama nominateed merrick garland is because garland is an anti second admendment zealot. And you dont get it. It shouldnt matter if youre a liberal, consevative, or centrist. The only thing that should matter is knowledge of the constitution.

And which Supreme Court judge would you say doesn't have that knowledge? As a matter of fact the only nomination in my lifetime who failed in those regards would probably be Miers.

Im not saying the judges now are underqualified, im saying that ideology has become the main critirea for nominating a SC judge, when it shouldnt be a critera at all. And becouse of that when it comes to making decisions in the SC we now see ideology trumping the constitution.

[CJackson]

I can't mince words, but fuq all those babies whining about Bernie backing Clinton.

Sanders told us exactly what he was gonna do when he said "on her worst day Hillary Clinton is 100 times better than anything the Republicans have" back in... November, I think it was. Like Trump, people projected a lot of things onto Sanders that weren't really true.

Better that it is a woman. It scares the crap out of male politicians to stare down someone like Warren during a debate.

Tulsi Gabbard is everyone's early pick to **** some **** up. Granted she's got some "evolving" to do to grab the progressive zeitgast but she's got the F Wall Street and bad trade deals thing down pretty well.

Yes, very true. Trump is a scrim many fantasies got projected on to just like Bernie. Populist momentum is often synonymous with very broad strokes.

Bernie really lacked nuance too much of the time and after a while it started to dawn on some of his supporters he was usually vague and as driven by his own anger as the people supporting him. He started to sound shrill and brittle to more discerning observors. It was his undoing, because he basically stumbled upon a rare window of historical opportunity that required him to transition during the primaries from a firebrand to a statesman and he never did. If he possessed more gravitas and less Toscaninni gesturing he would have won the primaries and have won the election.

In Trump's case it went far beyond broad strokes into the vague realm of caricature. After spending months looking at this phenomenon I'm convinced the only reason Trump got this far is many Americans are stupidly in love with celebrity. It is not just his bluster being the antidote to establishment politics. I mean the guy is a mental hard on and you really have to be a dimwit to think the country would be safe with him at the helm.

I reckon about a third of this country is strictly TV educated and actually does value celebrity that much. That he is a complete joke and one of the most odious celebrities of all time doesn't seem to matter. People really don't care about politics. They really are simply more comfortable with somebody they spent time with watching on a dreck reality show.

It is not like the country was ever well-informed across the board. It is also a result of the destabilization of the news gathering and evaluation process. The evolution of the web and the role of these technologies of info distribution in the destruction of the ad revenue base for journalism has basically overweighted the media into yellow journalism.

Trump is the true indicator of this and turning the presidential race into a stupid reality show was actually savvy in his idiot savant way. He did tap into the zeitgeist, but it is not just about anger, it is about the population seeking connection through celebrity. Look at the way people react to Trump. He's a total douche, but some of these people relate to him like he's a god.