2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
democrats removed it for all nominations except SCOTUS first, the republicans removed it for SCOTUS judges, as I wrote.
2013, Dems nuke it
The Senate approved a historic rules change on Thursday by eliminating the use of the filibuster on all presidential nominees except those to the U.S. Supreme Court.
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/h...
incredible "fact check" of something that shouldn't be controversial. Democrats fired the first shot in weakening the filibuster (so anyone who considers the filibuster positive and important should forever blame democrats on that)
I am advocating for a legally using the current laws of the state to enact change. Im not making a value judgment. thats what you are doing when you claim that overriding the filibuster is akin to "communist dictatorship" (which is pretty much an oxymoron and you would realize that if you even cracked open wikipedia let alone a history book).
Victor I don’t care for your dishonesty or rhetorical flourishes. You want to do a paper coup like Trump did, flout all the laws and the norms. That’s my point, it’s not about any individual thing you propose which in a vacuum reasonable people can disagree on. We’re not even close on first principles and that’s all I’m pointing out.
The Senate is absurdly undemocratic anyway. Imagine if there was a national legislative body in Italy where someone from the province if Isernia had 50 times the representation of someone from the province of Rome.
well without the filibuster you exacerbate that a lot, 51 senators could represent 30-35% of the people yet have all the power.
the Senate can get rid of the filibuster at any time with a simple majority vote.
they did that for nominations, they didn't do that for passing laws yet.
democrats started that btw
Ok, I looked that up. 2013 Harry Reid.
Still, the filibuster is not some axiom of democracy.
Wait...it got overturned 4 years later, but Trent Lott did the nuclear option in 1996.
I don’t pat myself on the back for crap. It’s stunning that you can’t even see the point of what I’m saying. You guys say “oh if yoy don’t support y tactic you don’t care about x” and I’m pointing out that if you care about y, and y is better under democrats, you should give them props for that. But no, you just want to posture as the most moral person on the forum. I’m sick of you people online and irl, you’re a cancer to liberalism and society at large.
Man something like 40% of democrats support court packing, why do you pretend it's a fringe extremist issue?
well without the filibuster you exacerbate that a lot, 51 senators could represent 30-35% of the people yet have all the power.
I don't much care about the filibuster in and of itself, and codifying the number of votes in the Senate in the Constitution is not inherently objectionable. But, it's not some pillar of democracy one way or another and changing it, or not, should not be characterized as "evil" as it was.
Man something like 40% of democrats support court packing, why do you pretend it's a fringe extremist issue?
They support court packing as a response to what they perceive as Republican court packing and lack of respect for court norms like the repeal of Roe v Wade. Republicans and the right have brought into question the legitimacy of the court because of it. We’re in a very tumultuous time for American politics and it’s largely because of Republicans.
We never would have considered having to pack the courts if the people that voted for Jill Stein in swing states in 2016 had instead voted for Clinton,
Also the number of justices is not some kind of pillar of democracy, but man, if you don't admit that McConnell stole a SCOTUS appointment you have no integrity.
I can't agree to use stealing to define an action that was legal.
I can agree that mc Connell broke with 100+ years of unwritten, non binding norms to achieve a political advantage and I am happy that happened.
Rules should all be written, and with heavy threshold required to change them if they are important.
Also the number of justices is not some kind of pillar of democracy, but man, if you don't admit that McConnell stole a SCOTUS appointment you have no integrity.
He absolutely did. But stole from who? A democratic president, the same people you are crapping on. Don’t try to have it both ways where you hate on Republicans for doing bad things to Democrats and hate on Democrats for being evil. Under your world view it was just two equally evil people doing evil things to each other.
I can't agree to use stealing to define an action that was legal.
I can agree that mc Connell broke with 100+ years of unwritten, non binding norms to achieve a political advantage and I am happy that happened.
Rules should all be written, and with heavy threshold required to change them if they are important.
Under your worldview you should have no problem with court packing then lol see every time I think you are making good points you end up on the side of evil
Victor I don’t care for your dishonesty or rhetorical flourishes. You want to do a paper coup like Trump did, flout all the laws and the norms. That’s my point, it’s not about any individual thing you propose which in a vacuum reasonable people can disagree on. We’re not even close on first principles and that’s all I’m pointing out.
overriding the filibuster is not nearly what you are claiming. again, its you who is using rhetorical flourishes by calling it a "communist dictatorship" or "paper coup" or all the other derogatory analogies you are shoehorning. I am the one speaking in fact and procedure and advocating the usage of a legal and established precedent to enact change to allow for full women's rights to their own bodies and other supposedly liberal policies.
you are the one who rhetorically likened that to shooting SC judges in the head.
They support court packing as a response to what they perceive as Republican court packing and lack of respect for court norms like the repeal of Roe v Wade. Republicans and the right have brought into question the legitimacy of the court because of it. We’re in a very tumultuous time for American politics and it’s largely because of Republicans.
We never would have considered having to pack the courts if the people that voted for Jill Stein in swing states in 2016 had instead voted for Clinton,
ye republicans have brought the legitimacy of the court in question because after decades of leftist control we finally have a non leftist SCOTUS lol.
Under your worldview you should have no problem with court packing then lol see every time I think you are making good points you end up on the side of evil
court packing would be legal, but I am not proposing to do it on the right, I actually hope no party has a trifecta after these elections as I repeatedly stated.
i fully believe smart enemies of America (as you called them) would do what victor and microbet suggest which is why I consider those people an existential threat to western civilization and I can't behave as if they were 1% of the population, because they are a much larger and growing portion.
so we must act as if the worst possible people could end in power at any time and reform institutions to make it as hard as possible for those people to destroy everything.
which is why plenty of rules should be written in stone in the constitution
Under your worldview you should have no problem with court packing then lol see every time I think you are making good points you end up on the side of evil
i am not sure what your point is btw.
a 80% flat income tax on the first 100k earned and nothing above that would be perfectly legal but insanely terrible as well
They support court packing as a response to what they perceive as Republican court packing and lack of respect for court norms like the repeal of Roe v Wade. Republicans and the right have brought into question the legitimacy of the court because of it. We’re in a very tumultuous time for American politics and it’s largely because of Republicans.
We never would have considered having to pack the courts if the people that voted for Jill Stein in swing states in 2016 had instead voted for Clinton,
Libertarians got 3x as many votes as Stein and there were also Republican votes going to McMullin, but yeah, you are owed people's votes regardless and it's Stein's fault and not Clintons.
He absolutely did. But stole from who? A democratic president, the same people you are crapping on. Don’t try to have it both ways where you hate on Republicans for doing bad things to Democrats and hate on Democrats for being evil. Under your world view it was just two equally evil people doing evil things to each other.
You are just mindlessly partisan. None of you partisans have any actual principles.
"world view" is in contention for the most overused expression on the board. It's like you're just declaring that you refuse to even think about anything in particular and the only thing that matters are broad categorizations meant to protect you from thought.
ye republicans have brought the legitimacy of the court in question because after decades of leftist control we finally have a non leftist SCOTUS lol.
Did we have a leftist SC in 2000 when they gave the election to Bush on procedural grounds? Which was a legitimate election I’m not claiming it’s not but the reasoning was not substantive at all.
And yes it doesn’t matter what the composition of the court is. When people lie in confirmation hearings saying they won’t overturn Roe v Wade, people lose confidence in the court. When McConnell denies Obama a SC pick because it’s too close to the election and then does the exact opposite when Trump is in power 4 years later even closer to the election, people lose confidence in the court. When settled precedence is being overturned left and right on purely partisan grounds, people lose confidence in the court.
This comes off as so hollow when put into the context of the last few pages where you were arguing that a democratic process is less important than just getting the stuff you want done by any means necessary, but go off king.
I’m ok with being partisan in a highly partisan political environment where people can’t even agree on simple facts about the world.
"world view" is in contention for the most overused expression on the board. It's like you're just declaring that you refuse to even think about anything in particular and the only thing that matters are broad categorizations meant to protect you from thought.
A world view is specific to a person, it necessarily is not intersubjective but purely based off individual values and principles.
codifying womens bodily prerogatives and giving rights to an exploited underclass of wage slaves is "evil" says the Democrat.
Even if we say both parties are otherwise exactly the same--some of trump's Day1 promises wrt labor regs are more than enough reason to vote D this election. And using things like what's going on in Gaza as an excuse to rationalize not doing it is just dumb and a cruel thing to do those same working people bud.
This comes off as so hollow when put into the context of the last few pages where you were arguing that a democratic process is less important than just getting the stuff you want done by any means necessary, but go off king.
I’m ok with being partisan in a highly partisan political environment where people can’t even agree on simple facts about the world.
That's not what I was saying at all. Can you read for comprehension?
A world view is specific to a person, it necessarily is not intersubjective but purely based off individual values and principles.
Based on what info I've given you and your interpretation of it thus far, there's not a ****ing chance in hell that you could accurately describe my individual values and principles.
This comes off as so hollow when put into the context of the last few pages where you were arguing that a democratic process is less important than just getting the stuff you want done by any means necessary, but go off king.
I’m ok with being partisan in a highly partisan political environment where people can’t even agree on simple facts about the world.
You're not just partisan, you're mindlessly partisan. You can unabashedly support the Dumbocrats because you like some of their ****, but not all of their ****, and you really hate Trump, without having to be dishonest, irrational, unintelligent, uninformed or whatever it is that is making you say the things you say.
