[Terez]

I am going to bed but the DVR is set. Also for Stewart's last show.

[LinearPhilosopher]

so i was listening to this speech bernie sanders gave a little while ago. He seemed to make a lot of sense, espcially the part about calling out the GOP for refusing to admit the whole global warming thing. What are everyone's take on this fellow?



is the aforementioned video. Idk if there are any highlights for those who don't want to listen to 30 minutes of the guy talking (good interview questions though gotta admit)

This post has been edited by LinearPhilosopher: 06 August 2015 - 08:27 PM

[Terez]

LinearPhilosopher, on 06 August 2015 - 08:26 PM, said:

so i was listening to this speech bernie sanders gave a little while ago. He seemed to make a lot of sense, espcially the part about calling out the GOP for refusing to admit the whole global warming thing. What are everyone's take on this fellow?

Good ideas, bad candidate.

[amphibian]

Terez, on 06 August 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

Good ideas, bad candidate.

The above is a very, very good summation of what Bernie Sanders is.

[Gust Hubb]

Any commentary on how FOX is using copyright to shut down every live stream not provided by itself (which requires a paid subscription or cable subscription to watch)?

[LinearPhilosopher]

amphibian, on 06 August 2015 - 10:06 PM, said:

Terez, on 06 August 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

Good ideas, bad candidate.

The above is a very, very good summation of what Bernie Sanders is.

I don't suppose it'd be too much to ask for an elaboration on that. As an uncivilized igloo living canadian i don't know too much about this fellow

[Illuyankas]

LinearPhilosopher, on 07 August 2015 - 03:00 AM, said:

amphibian, on 06 August 2015 - 10:06 PM, said:

Terez, on 06 August 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

Good ideas, bad candidate.

The above is a very, very good summation of what Bernie Sanders is.

I don't suppose it'd be too much to ask for an elaboration on that. As an uncivilized igloo living canadian i don't know too much about this fellow

He's a left wing socialist who occasionally has some tone-deaf moments, and is probably very probably running to push Hillary (or the eventual candidate, but it's Hillary) to the left rather than let them be their centre right self unchallenged.

Also thank you for your concern Terez, but I'm just dandy


e: isn't Carson the guy who's a neurosurgeon who doesn't believe in one of the core tenets of his profession or am I thinking of another dude

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 07 August 2015 - 06:31 AM

[Terez]

Illuyankas, on 07 August 2015 - 06:31 AM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 07 August 2015 - 03:00 AM, said:

amphibian, on 06 August 2015 - 10:06 PM, said:

Terez, on 06 August 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

Good ideas, bad candidate.

The above is a very, very good summation of what Bernie Sanders is.

I don't suppose it'd be too much to ask for an elaboration on that. As an uncivilized igloo living canadian i don't know too much about this fellow

He's a left wing socialist who occasionally has some tone-deaf moments, and is probably very probably running to push Hillary (or the eventual candidate, but it's Hillary) to the left rather than let them be their centre right self unchallenged.

That's partly true, but he's running to win at the same time, and he's pulling huge crowds. It's conceivable that Hillary could come up against some scandal that can't be explained away and Bernie wins. In that case, Democrats better hope that the GOP nominates Trump.

Terez, on 06 August 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

Also thank you for your concern Terez, but I'm just dandy

Glad to hear it. But be careful out there.

Now I'm going to make some popcorn and hopefully it will help me finish watching the GOP debate from last night. I haven't even made it through the first round yet, but we've already had a nice spat between Trump and Rand Paul, whose longtime political advisor/SuperPAC chair was just indicted the other day. His campaign is falling apart but that's not yet reflected in the polling. I suspect Carly Fiorina will take his place before too long.

[EmperorMagus]

I watched a few 2 minute videos of this on Guardian. Any entity with any form of logical thought capability cannot endure watching more than that of this farce. I'm kinda hoping Trump becomes the Republican nominee though, it would be absolutely amazing to hear him say this much BS for a whole year.

[Terez]

EmperorMagus, on 07 August 2015 - 11:27 AM, said:

I watched a few 2 minute videos of this on Guardian. Any entity with any form of logical thought capability cannot endure watching more than that of this farce.

Be glad you don't live here. Some of us have to watch it to stay informed.

[EmperorMagus]

Terez, on 07 August 2015 - 12:40 PM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 07 August 2015 - 11:27 AM, said:

I watched a few 2 minute videos of this on Guardian. Any entity with any form of logical thought capability cannot endure watching more than that of this farce.

Be glad you don't live here. Some of us have to watch it to stay informed.

From my two minutes I found out that the GOP candidates are expected to be misogynists, racists, homophobes, and hypocrites. I don't think I need more. I can't remember cause I was too young, but did Bush spew this kinda of BS before being elected? And are they likely to do this shit when/if they get elected? Because if the answer is yes I need to start stockpiling food and weapons.

[Terez]

EmperorMagus, on 07 August 2015 - 12:49 PM, said:

I can't remember cause I was too young, but did Bush spew this kinda of BS before being elected? And are they likely to do this shit when/if they get elected? Because if the answer is yes I need to start stockpiling food and weapons.

W ran on being a "compassionate conservative". That was the political climate then: conservatives were viewed as being unsympathetic to disadvantaged groups, and W won (insofar as he did win) precisely because he bucked that characterization. If not for 9/11, he might have had an interesting effect on the party in the long run, but 9/11 happened and his presidency became focused on foreign policy in a way that his campaign never did.

[Terez]

From another board I go to: this is your above-average Republican voter in a nutshell. I mean, this guy is in law school.

Quote

What did we get for the Iran deal? We got humiliated. Our "Commander in Chief" (embarrassing to say) couldn't even get our four hostages released. John Kerry even admitted that Iran can't be trusted, so why the hell did we do this?! Then Obama goes out and compares GOP opponents to the Iran savages chanting death to America. This president is the biggest disgrace and disgusting idiot we have ever had. He's not American leader. Anytime someone disagrees with him, he denounces and calls them out.. Well, only if they're Americans. He sure as hell doesn't call out those who are our enemies, like Iran. Honestly, I seriously question who he supports between Israel and Iran. Ally or leader in terrorism support / eternal enemy. His actions indicate the latter. I hate to say that, but this deal made zero zero sense. Either it's what I just mentioned, or he is the biggest dumbass imaginable (which is true) and doesn't understand negotiation. He already demonstrated that though when he told the world that military action is off the table. Seriously, you don't tell your enemy that we won't use military if they commit crimes. Everything should always remain on the table and in secret, even if military action is slim

[amphibian]

EmperorMagus, on 07 August 2015 - 12:49 PM, said:

From my two minutes I found out that the GOP candidates are expected to be misogynists, racists, homophobes, and hypocrites. I don't think I need more. I can't remember cause I was too young, but did Bush spew this kinda of BS before being elected? And are they likely to do this shit when/if they get elected? Because if the answer is yes I need to start stockpiling food and weapons.

As Terez said, George W Bush ran a very different primary campaign (in which the "base" of the party is catered to before the candidates move towards the center for the general election) than what these yabbos (besides Kasisch and Bush) are doing.

The Tea Party - funded by the Koch brothers and others - rose up and befouled (even worse than normal) the national Congress, the state governments in places like Kansas etc. They drove the "base" so far right that the primaries almost require all of the misogyny, racism, homophobia, and hypocrisy.

When elected due to demographics and/or terrible Democratic/independent challengers, the Republicans generally don't pass laws explicitly reinstating misogyny, racism etc. What they do is defund/disembowel programs that raise barriers to such things - like the Supreme Court's demolition of the Voting Rights Act, which intended to preserve access to voting for the poor, the discriminated against (who were primarily non-white people).

Kansas went very heavy Tea Party in the last few years due to the shift of the Tea Party's focus from national elections - in terms of money being funneled into state elections - and they're paying for it heavily in terms of a terrible economy and stumbling state government.

But the chief piece of magic that Republicans/Tea Party have is that the base doesn't allow their failures to "stick". They don't hold the Kansas shift in philosophy responsible for the worsening of Kansas. They blame President Obama and the Democrats for not cooperating fully or ruining their agenda. That tactic is so catchy that it's blared even louder and becomes even catchier to a certain demographic.

It's a horrible thing to say, but these people electing these yabbos and evil politicians genuinely don't give a shit about truth. They're angry and appeasing their anger, however irrationally, is more important than doing the right thing.

[amphibian]

Jeet Heer makes a crucial point - immigration/treatment of minority groups is a very complex issue, even within the Republican primary.

http://www.newrepubl...ld-trump-effect

[EmperorMagus]

amphibian, on 07 August 2015 - 05:32 PM, said:

Jeet Heer makes a crucial point - immigration/treatment of minority groups is a very complex issue, even within the Republican primary.

http://www.newrepubl...ld-trump-effect

Fun times. If these people get elected it will be like the world going back 50 years in time.
I find their comments about a rogue supreme court extremely interesting. Does the US president have any power to influence past decisions of the Supreme court? Can a new court overturn the precedent set by others?

[Terez]

EmperorMagus, on 07 August 2015 - 09:20 PM, said:

amphibian, on 07 August 2015 - 05:32 PM, said:

Jeet Heer makes a crucial point - immigration/treatment of minority groups is a very complex issue, even within the Republican primary.

http://www.newrepubl...ld-trump-effect

Fun times. If these people get elected it will be like the world going back 50 years in time.
I find their comments about a rogue supreme court extremely interesting. Does the US president have any power to influence past decisions of the Supreme court? Can a new court overturn the precedent set by others?

Starting with the last question: yes, precedent is overturned all the time. That's not to say that precedent has no weight, but when decisions are balanced (especially 5-4) the precedent has less weight. A plurality decision (no majority; 'concurring' opinion differs from the would-be majority on key points) is even weaker. Public opinion has to make major shifts (the kind that take a century or more) in order for a unanimous decision to find its way into a dissent. I'm actually not sure that has ever happened. Dred Scott v. Sandford was a famous 7-2 that was nullified in less than 10 years, but it wasn't nullified by the courts.

The previous question: the president has the power to nominate new justices. They have to be confirmed by the Senate.

PS: Perhaps he scariest thing about GOP talking points, especially as espoused by Ted Cruz, is the phrase "unelected judges" used as a pejorative against SCOTUS justices. That's crazy talk. Any politician who does that is a very dangerous person who should be kept away from the presidency at all costs.

PPS: perhaps a clearer explanation of how a president can affect past SCOTUS decisions. Two ways: 1) executive order, and 2) rallying Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment. The first is a weaker way to challenge a SCOTUS decision, and can only be done in certain situations. The strength/weakness of the decision (from 9-0 to [x+y=5]-4 plurality) plays a part, but also the type of decision plays a part.

In Dred the Court merely told Scott that he had no standing because, by the law, he could not be a citizen. That is very different from, for example, the Court saying that school segregation deprives citizens of their Constitutional rights. The latter kind of decision could only be (justifiably) overcome by an amendment to the Constitution, which requires a 2/3 majority in Congress. Dred could be overturned by executive order (Emancipation Proclamation), which was followed shortly thereafter by amendments to the Constitution to make the decision permanent.

Another nuanced case is the recent decision to overturn a portion of the Voting Rights Act which singled out former Confederate states for extra judicial review of any new voting laws. The Court did not disallow Congress from writing a new formula to determine which states must undergo extra scrutiny; they merely declared that singling out former Confederate states based on a formula devised decades previous was unconstitutional. If the Confederate states are to be singled out, there needs to be an updated justification for it.

This post has been edited by Terez: 07 August 2015 - 10:06 PM

[amphibian]

EmperorMagus, on 07 August 2015 - 09:20 PM, said:

I find their comments about a rogue supreme court extremely interesting. Does the US president have any power to influence past decisions of the Supreme court? Can a new court overturn the precedent set by others?

Indirectly, yes, the President does have the power to shape a court that can reach back and alter past decisions or make new ones.

The President nominates and appoints justices after a Congressional hearing/questioning/confirmation process. Sometimes, the nominees don't get through to the end because they're unqualified (Harriet Miers), because they have an objectionable record/opinions (Robert Bork), or because they don't want to go through with it.

Once on the court, the justices basically do what they want. In recent years, the "conservatives" on the Supreme Court have become very, very active in overturning precedent - while yelling about their holding to tradition and so on. In a way, the current justices on the Supreme Court are the most open in terms of actually explaining their decisions and logic - even if their opinions are occasionally "loony" in legal views (looking squarely at Scalia and Thomas here).

Quite frequently, the justices veer off from what their prior records were. People thought Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor would be very staunch allies of the Republican agenda. Instead, they veered far away from the Republican party and got reputations as "liberals", when they were/are more of the "centrist" types.

[HoosierDaddy]

I'd rather listen to the squirrel's fucking outside.

Possibly more important policy news there.

[Morgoth]

amphibian, on 07 August 2015 - 04:35 PM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 07 August 2015 - 12:49 PM, said:

From my two minutes I found out that the GOP candidates are expected to be misogynists, racists, homophobes, and hypocrites. I don't think I need more. I can't remember cause I was too young, but did Bush spew this kinda of BS before being elected? And are they likely to do this shit when/if they get elected? Because if the answer is yes I need to start stockpiling food and weapons.

As Terez said, George W Bush ran a very different primary campaign (in which the "base" of the party is catered to before the candidates move towards the center for the general election) than what these yabbos (besides Kasisch and Bush) are doing.

The Tea Party - funded by the Koch brothers and others - rose up and befouled (even worse than normal) the national Congress, the state governments in places like Kansas etc. They drove the "base" so far right that the primaries almost require all of the misogyny, racism, homophobia, and hypocrisy.

When elected due to demographics and/or terrible Democratic/independent challengers, the Republicans generally don't pass laws explicitly reinstating misogyny, racism etc. What they do is defund/disembowel programs that raise barriers to such things - like the Supreme Court's demolition of the Voting Rights Act, which intended to preserve access to voting for the poor, the discriminated against (who were primarily non-white people).

Kansas went very heavy Tea Party in the last few years due to the shift of the Tea Party's focus from national elections - in terms of money being funneled into state elections - and they're paying for it heavily in terms of a terrible economy and stumbling state government.

But the chief piece of magic that Republicans/Tea Party have is that the base doesn't allow their failures to "stick". They don't hold the Kansas shift in philosophy responsible for the worsening of Kansas. They blame President Obama and the Democrats for not cooperating fully or ruining their agenda. That tactic is so catchy that it's blared even louder and becomes even catchier to a certain demographic.

It's a horrible thing to say, but these people electing these yabbos and evil politicians genuinely don't give a shit about truth. They're angry and appeasing their anger, however irrationally, is more important than doing the right thing.

To be fair, the Bush campaign were incredibly nasty towards McCain during the primaries.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 08 August 2015 - 10:16 AM