[amphibian]

It always bugs me that the photo of the US Cabinet and OBL's task force watching the Pakistan raid is cropped on the right. The man who was in charge of the whole hunt is the one with the dark sleeved elbow just barely visible.

I am ticked off about this because initial releases of the photo showed him and because this is a reminder of how many people are OK with drone strikes and targeted assassinations that have high degrees of uncertainty and risks of murdering innocents.

[bubba]

On the front page of Reddit Donald Trump is dropping out of the race. Plus the full CNN interview.

[EmperorMagus]

Bubba, on 17 March 2016 - 04:02 AM, said:

On the front page of Reddit Donald Trump is dropping out of the race. Plus the full CNN interview.

errm, what version of reddit are you browsing?

[bubba]

EmperorMagus, on 17 March 2016 - 04:09 AM, said:

Bubba, on 17 March 2016 - 04:02 AM, said:

On the front page of Reddit Donald Trump is dropping out of the race. Plus the full CNN interview.

errm, what version of reddit are you browsing?

 Capture0o=.JPG (128.81K)
Number of downloads: 0


No Idea of a version

[Terez]

Blame the Twitter trolls.

This post has been edited by Terez: 17 March 2016 - 04:16 AM

[bubba]

https://youtu.be/PmqhTynfCxg

[EmperorMagus]

oh,
You're subscribed to The_Donald.

Also, What kind of mod Rickrolls people in the DB?

[bubba]

EmperorMagus, on 17 March 2016 - 04:26 AM, said:

oh,
You're subscribed to The_Donald.

Also, What kind of mod Rickrolls people in the DB?

Don't let the online name "Bubba" fool you, I chose that name to mislead the people on the otherside of the pond......I would never subscribe to The_Donald

But if you want to see what social manipulation looks like, browse Reddit from the "All" tab.

[Tsundoku]

Briar King, on 17 March 2016 - 03:06 AM, said:

Obama nominates Merrick Garland for Justice.

This is what we got:

http://www.news.com....258224c53e5a9a0

Doesn't really say much besides that he's popular and does some charity type work.

What's he like? Progressive or Conservative, or a little from column A, a little from column B? Or something else?

On why the USA electoral system is so fucking broken: you'll never get reformists voted for by a people who are willingly, nay proudly ignorant. And are kept that way by the oligarchy/plutocracy whose best interests lay in keeping them so.

Bread and circuses man, bread and circuses.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 17 March 2016 - 07:55 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

He's an interesting choice. Republican Senators have in the past said they wanted him on the court, and now they are going to have to once again blatantly show that they aren't to be bothered with actual governance, merely stopping anything Obama does.

He's a moderate who'd be a swing vote.

[Terez]

Briar King, on 17 March 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

Yep not feeling her response vid at all. Not even bothering to post the failure.

What are you talking about? It doesn't seem to follow anything in the previous posts.

[Nevyn]

HoosierDaddy, on 17 March 2016 - 05:57 PM, said:

He's an interesting choice. Republican Senators have in the past said they wanted him on the court, and now they are going to have to once again blatantly show that they aren't to be bothered with actual governance, merely stopping anything Obama does.

He's a moderate who'd be a swing vote.

The fun part will be when they don't have a vote on him and then Hillary wins the election.

Angry republicans will be trying to pressure her to renominate him rather than name her own, more liberal choice. It would be the ultimate irony if they passed up a guy they kinda like and got stuck with someone they hate because of it.

[Terez]

A more liberal choice is contingent upon a major shift in the senate. Otherwise they'll still hold the cards. The only different thing is that they won't have an excuse (thin as it is) to preemptively reject any nomination at all.

[HoosierDaddy]

Yeah, both of his more "moderate" liberal justices joined before the Republicans took control of the Senate 2014. It'll be contentious for sure. The conservatives social plan basically relies on having a split or majority of Supreme Court.

[Nevyn]

Terez, on 17 March 2016 - 07:02 PM, said:

A more liberal choice is contingent upon a major shift in the senate. Otherwise they'll still hold the cards. The only different thing is that they won't have an excuse (thin as it is) to preemptively reject any nomination at all.

That difference is likely to be enough. Unless they can find justification beyond the candidate being liberal, it would be very tough to block it for 4 years.

And if I'm wrong, it would be funny enough and make them look silly enough for this guy to just get renominated and approved.

[HoosierDaddy]

Nevyn, on 17 March 2016 - 08:03 PM, said:

Terez, on 17 March 2016 - 07:02 PM, said:

A more liberal choice is contingent upon a major shift in the senate. Otherwise they'll still hold the cards. The only different thing is that they won't have an excuse (thin as it is) to preemptively reject any nomination at all.

That difference is likely to be enough. Unless they can find justification beyond the candidate being liberal, it would be very tough to block it for 4 years.

And if I'm wrong, it would be funny enough and make them look silly enough for this guy to just get renominated and approved.

You think? They've been doing this since Obama took office. They'll gladly put the Dem pres in a vice-grip of "overcome our majority."

They are anti-government. They do not want to govern. The more the system breaks the better for them.

[Nevyn]

HoosierDaddy, on 17 March 2016 - 08:06 PM, said:

You think? They've been doing this since Obama took office. They'll gladly put the Dem pres in a vice-grip of "overcome our majority."

They are anti-government. They do not want to govern. The more the system breaks the better for them.

Yes, but Obama still got 2 liberal nominees through to the high court. He did have a Senate majority for those, but not enough to overcome a filibuster. They could have fought those harder, but even as they are eroding, there are degrees where even these people hesitate to stoop.

[Illuyankas]

Nevyn, on 17 March 2016 - 08:46 PM, said:

there are degrees where even these people hesitate to stoop.

Ted Cruz and the suicide caucus say hi

[Nevyn]

Illuyankas, on 17 March 2016 - 08:49 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 17 March 2016 - 08:46 PM, said:

there are degrees where even these people hesitate to stoop.

Ted Cruz and the suicide caucus say hi

They might want to get themselves re-elected first. 10 democratic seats vs 24 republican seats up for grabs, and the presidential nominee might not help down ticket races too much.

[HoosierDaddy]

Nevyn, on 17 March 2016 - 08:46 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 17 March 2016 - 08:06 PM, said:

You think? They've been doing this since Obama took office. They'll gladly put the Dem pres in a vice-grip of "overcome our majority."

They are anti-government. They do not want to govern. The more the system breaks the better for them.

Yes, but Obama still got 2 liberal nominees through to the high court. He did have a Senate majority for those, but not enough to overcome a filibuster. They could have fought those harder, but even as they are eroding, there are degrees where even these people hesitate to stoop.

He had a majority and "moderate" justices. If he'd have tried someone truly left they'd stand no chance. With a Republican controlled Senate that won't be the case. The 2008-2010 Senate had a supermajority (with Blue Dogs who were R by nature). Both got in then; that will not happen now.