The Political Discussion Thread

[Chaka-Z0]

the only small difference is that they're not quite as behind-the-scenes as the regular deep state but at their level of power & total impunity why should they care

There is an oversight committee for intelligence agencies in the US, via Congress if I'm not mistaken. Both on the executive and legislative level.

That doesn't mean they have any control over their operations though.

[Annoyed]

the SCOTUS is that, and more: unelected & unaccountable people (like regular govt officials they have an indefinite tenure, worse than that they are completely unaccountable can't be fired, hence 'Supreme' Deep State) and they go beyond administering law because they interpret the law & in effect make their own laws which trump those passed by legit (elected) bodies like the parliament/congress/legislature etc. they of course have their agenda which is to further that of the elites like Koch (and their minions like Trump) to the detriment of the People

the only small difference is that they're not quite as behind-the-scenes as the regular deep state but at their level of power & total impunity why should they care

The SCOTUS should not MAKE law, as you said, it's job is to interpret the laws enacted by the legislative branch and ensure that those laws (both federal AND state) are within the bounds of the constitution.
In fact, this is one of the things that have gotten those on the right and conservatives worked up about SCOTUS; for a long time now, it has been pulling new "rights" and creating new laws out of thin air.

And there is accountability. If the President appoints someone to the court(s) that the people don't like, they can choose not to vote for that President or Senate member that votes to confirm the appointment.

And in point of fact, "the people" did have a chance to weigh in on judicial selections BEFORE going to the polls in 2016, as the SCOTUS had a seat open, and the Republicans wouldn't approve Obama's nominee, Garland. So everyone knew full well that at least one (and probably more) seat on the SCOTUS hinged upon the outcome of the election that year. And everyone knew full well what flavor justices would be put in by Trump & The Republicans, and that the Democrats/Left would be completely powerless to stop it, which is why the tried the character assassination stunt, which backfired on them, badly.

Yet, Trump won the election, and the Republicans held control of the confirming authority, the Senate.

So you can't possibly claim that the people didn't have a chance to speak their minds on judicial appointments.

It all goes back to the bottom line; the Democrats screwed up beyond belief in 2016 by designating Hillary to be their candidate. Trump was eminently beatable, in fact, I didn't expect him to win. But not by Hillary, as it turns out.

So, here we are, with Trump having seated 2 SCOTUS justices, numerous lower court justices, and has very good odds of seating a 3rd SCOTUS justice when Ginsburg retires for health concerns or dies in office. I don't think she will last through the end of 2020. This will give the SCOTUS a 6-3 Conservative tilt.

If the electorate didn't want this, why didn't they speak their mind at the voting booth, in 2016 & 2018, where they could have taken the Senate, if the voters felt that strongly about it?

If I were a "leftie", I don't think I'd be wasting time, effort and energy worrying about what has happened, and where we are now. I would be wanting to burn the party leadership at the stake for screwing up so badly in 2016, and from all appearances, preparing to screw up even worse in 2020.

The Dems need to stuff sewage-soaked socks in the mouths of "the squad" and all of their socialist followers who have jumped on the bandwagon, and move to a more tolerable platform that has a chance of winning in 2020.

Biden is more centrist, and is the only one of 'em who has a prayer of beating Trump. Yet, the kindergarten class that won't shut up is going to eat him alive before the election is even held.

'Cause if they don't, they're going to guarantee Trump another 4 years. Just think of that in terms of the judiciary. Another few SCOTUS seats? How many more lower court appointments? Remember, with the R's holding the Senate, which is is a given if Trump wins, the Democrats will be powerless to stop any of this.

[SoulReaver]

And there is accountability. If the President appoints someone to the court(s) that the people don't like, they can choose not to vote for that President or Senate member that votes to confirm the appointment.

what thef has that got to do with the accountability of the SDS/SCOTUS?

unlike government officials of the regular deep state, those of the SDS have ZERO accountability to the people or even the government (or so close to zero might as well say zero considering how it's virtually impossible to get rid of a rogue SDS justice)

And in point of fact, "the people" did have a chance to weigh in on judicial selections BEFORE going to the polls in 2016, as the SCOTUS had a seat open, and the Republicans wouldn't approve Obama's nominee, Garland. So everyone knew full well that at least one (and probably more) seat on the SCOTUS hinged upon the outcome of the election that year. And everyone knew full well what flavor justices would be put in by Trump & The Republicans, and that the Democrats/Left would be completely powerless to stop it, which is why the tried the character assassination stunt, which backfired on them, badly.

except the people are not that relevant remember (cf. electoral college)

If the electorate didn't want this, why didn't they speak their mind at the voting booth, in 2016

they did but the system decided otherwise (cf. electorate college)

& 2018

they did but the system decided otherwise (rigged so the DNC can't get the Senate)

now you're just being dishonest
more than usual

where they could have taken the Senate, if the voters felt that strongly about it?

nowhere other than where it was foreordained: remain under GOP control

The Dems need to stuff sewage-soaked socks in the mouths of "the squad"

they only need to disavow 3 of them & not because of the socialist thing

and all of their socialist followers who have jumped on the bandwagon, and move to a more tolerable platform that has a chance of winning in 2020.

we've had that discussion before socialism could have the potential to attract voters in the current context (at least the economic side of it) people are more than ever fed up with the elites & their GOP puppets

[Annoyed]

what thef has that got to do with the accountability of the SDS/SCOTUS?

unlike government officials of the regular deep state, those of the SDS have ZERO accountability to the people or even the government (or so close to zero might as well say zero considering how it's virtually impossible to get rid of a rogue SDS justice)except the people are not that relevant remember (cf. electoral college)they did but the system decided otherwise (cf. electorate college) they did but the system decided otherwise (rigged so the DNC can't get the Senate)

The founding fathers deliberately wanted the judiciary to be immune from political pressure. In my view, that was a wise choice. Equally wise was the electoral college system, which in practical application guarantees that the smaller regions have a voice in govt. Without it, they would have no voice at all. How would you like to be disenfranchised?

now you're just being dishonest
more than usual nowhere other than where it was foreordained: remain under GOP controlthey only need to disavow 3 of them & not because of the socialist thingwe've had that discussion before socialism could have the potential to attract voters in the current context (at least the economic side of it) people are more than ever fed up with the elites & their GOP puppets

And you're ignoring reality. The only people who favor socialism is those that want everything handed to them, and those who want to use those people to gain political power.

The reality you're ignoring is that in a society where most people have to work for their living, a political platform which supports the government stealing the benefits of their labor in order to give it to freeloaders isn't going to fly.

[SoulReaver]

The founding fathers deliberately wanted the judiciary to be immune from political pressure. In my view, that was a wise choice.

so now you defend the (supreme) deep state
that was a quick u turn
problem is it's not immune from corporate pressure as Koch has shown last year

Equally wise was the electoral college system, which in practical application guarantees that the smaller regions have a voice in govt. Without it, they would have no voice at all.

the twisted collectivist mind of the GOP
notice you don't mention the people of those states

this is like a quote from Benito
"nothing outside the State above the State against the State; all to the State for the State & within the State"
(technically not the same State he was talking about but the gist is exactly the same)

How would you like to be disenfranchised?

I wouldn't that's why I'd hate to have an electoral college

And you're ignoring reality. The only people who favor socialism is those that want everything handed to them,

as well as those who hate the elite$ (a lot more of those nowadays)

and those who want to use those people to gain political power.

like Don in 2016

The reality you're ignoring is that in a society where most people have to work for their living, a political platform which supports the government stealing the benefits of their labor in order to give it to freeloaders isn't going to fly.

especially if most of that stolen money already goes to corporate welfare right?

[Womble]

So, what is the -point- of Israel?
A safe home for Jews I can understand, we all want a "home"
What if we took religion out of Vatican City?
Would it still be what it supposed to be?
What would it's point be then?
If I set up "new Asgard", as a state, then ignored anything to do with Asgard, why would I do it?

That's the thing that you, for inexplicable reasons, keep ignoring.

Israel as a state was never about religion. It was not founded by religious people (not a single one of Israel's founding fathers even more a skullcap). The religion vs. state issues that we have are either an unfortunate heritage of the complicated politics of the country's beginnings (the Chief Rabbinate, for example, is a British colonial invention), or a consequence of disproportionate influence of religious parties due to the quirks of the electoral system. That you can't unstick "Israel" from "The Bible" in your mind is not our problem.

[Gatefan1976]

That's the thing that you, for inexplicable reasons, keep ignoring.

I'm not ignoring it Womble, it's about THIS:

Israel as a state was never about religion. It was not founded by religious people (not a single one of Israel's founding fathers even more a skullcap). The religion vs. state issues that we have are either an unfortunate heritage of the complicated politics of the country's beginnings (the Chief Rabbinate, for example, is a British colonial invention), or a consequence of disproportionate influence of religious parties due to the quirks of the electoral system.

It seems that Israel ITSELF has issues with it as well, Are you secular, or are you religious?
Individuals can make up their mind, and you have made up yours, Israel is, for want of a better term a "safe space" for Jews, for you, and I absolutely understand that, I have no beef with that at all.
As an "outsider" however, I see the consequence of that. (usually by people trying to use Israel for something else)
As someone who lives there, you FEEL the consequence of that every day.

That you can't unstick "Israel" from "The Bible" in your mind is not our problem.

Isn't it?
My perception? sure you can ignore it.
Can you ignore millions or billions of people?
Weather you like it or not, that's where you are, and you say as much. You want it to change, GREAT!!
You vote for progressive secularism?
GREAT!!
You want better for your wife and potential kids?
GREAT!!

What you seem to keep missing though is WHY in my arguments I bring up religion. Why not call yourself as a nation, Judeah?
Israel has CONTEXT in a religious sense.
Vatican city has CONTEXT in a religious sense
Asgard has CONTEXT in a religious sense.
If I strip out the notion of religion, what is the context of those names? They are, by definition linked to religion.
Names have power Womble, weather we like it or not, or weather we like what that name is used for. In fact, I would say that my seeming "inability" to unstick Israel from the bible is more your problem than mine, you live there.

[Gatefan1976]

The founding fathers deliberately wanted the judiciary to be immune from political pressure. In my view, that was a wise choice. Equally wise was the electoral college system, which in practical application guarantees that the smaller regions have a voice in govt. Without it, they would have no voice at all. How would you like to be disenfranchised?


And you're ignoring reality. The only people who favor socialism is those that want everything handed to them, and those who want to use those people to gain political power.

The reality you're ignoring is that in a society where most people have to work for their living, a political platform which supports the government stealing the benefits of their labor in order to give it to freeloaders isn't going to fly.

You went to civil war over this issue, and you were, and still are in favour of the view of the south.
Think about it.

[Womble]

I'm not ignoring it Womble, it's about THIS:

It seems that Israel ITSELF has issues with it as well, Are you secular, or are you religious?

Like I said, here it comes in shades of grey. Socially speaking, I'm firmly in the secular camp, but I don't suffer from obsession to remove all conceivable trappings of religion from public life. Only that which gets in the way of normal life.

Individuals can make up their mind, and you have made up yours, Israel is, for want of a better term a "safe space" for Jews, for you, and I absolutely understand that, I have no beef with that at all.
As an "outsider" however, I see the consequence of that. (usually by people trying to use Israel for something else)
As someone who lives there, you FEEL the consequence of that every day.

Isn't it?

Yes, but I also know how to keep the steaks separate from the flies. Even when one attracts the other, you don't have to eat both.

My perception? sure you can ignore it.
Can you ignore millions or billions of people?

We've been in the business of ignoring that since back when millions and billions of people believed that Jews use baby blood for Passover.

What you seem to keep missing though is WHY in my arguments I bring up religion. Why not call yourself as a nation, Judeah?
Israel has CONTEXT in a religious sense.
Vatican city has CONTEXT in a religious sense
Asgard has CONTEXT in a religious sense.
If I strip out the notion of religion, what is the context of those names? They are, by definition linked to religion.
Names have power Womble, weather we like it or not, or weather we like what that name is used for. In fact, I would say that my seeming "inability" to unstick Israel from the bible is more your problem than mine, you live there.

What you are saying, basically, is that your beliefs - the contect that YOU assign to our country - should somehow be my problem. I happen to think that it shouldn't be.

The Vatican is a religious entity that has no nationhood. It's a paper state which isn't home to any Vaticanian people, and as a parallel to Israel it doesn't hold; it only highlights the inadequacy of your understanding. Asgard is a fiction with no real-world relevance. If your understanding of nationhood is on the level of comic books, this discussion will go nowhere.

[Womble]

Btw, did anyone find out how much Greenland costs yet?

[Chaka-Z0]

Asgard is a fiction with no real-world relevance. If your understanding of nationhood is on the level of comic books, this discussion will go nowhere.

It was real for the Danes and paegans, no difference with God and his kingdom actually, both are fiction or real depending on your beliefs.

[mad_gater]

Btw, did anyone find out how much Greenland costs yet?

hope whoever buys it packs their thermal undergarments

[Annoyed]

You went to civil war over this issue, and you were, and still are in favour of the view of the south.
Think about it.

If you're saying I agree with slavery, go take a flying leap.

If you're saying that I agree with the electoral college, I stand behind that 100%. The original reason was the FF's didn't think the "people" were smart enough to vote for the presidency directly, and that has fallen by the wayside. But in practice today, it has the very beneficial effect of diluting the concentrated power of the large, urban, densely populated regions at the voting booth, so that the rural regions also get a voice.

The two types of regions are vastly different, and have different needs. Without the EC, the rural regions have no voice in govt., and are simply dictated to by the large urban centers. Which could be considered slavery of a sort. You can see real world examples of this today in NY, Colorado, some parts of California and other states. There are movements afoot in the rural regions of all of these states to break off from the mother state to escape this political domination. I would like to see the the equivalent of the EC at the state level, too.

As far as the judiciary goes, it should be independent of the voting booth. We don't want long term policy, laws and such to be at the whims of passing fancy and trends.

If you're talking about something else, you'll have to clarify what you are talking about.

[Gatefan1976]

Like I said, here it comes in shades of grey. Socially speaking, I'm firmly in the secular camp, but I don't suffer from obsession to remove all conceivable trappings of religion from public life. Only that which gets in the way of normal life.

When it is inconvenient?

Yes, but I also know how to keep the steaks separate from the flies. Even when one attracts the other, you don't have to eat both.

For sure.

We've been in the business of ignoring that since back when millions and billions of people believed that Jews use baby blood for Passover.

And Pagans burnt innocent people in wicker men.

What you are saying, basically, is that your beliefs - the contect that YOU assign to our country - should somehow be my problem. I happen to think that it shouldn't be.

No, I am saying the WORLD assigns this to you, and weather you like it or not, it's your issue because you live there.
When we were a criminal colony, We were all considered criminals, no matter what, and that continues today.

The Vatican is a religious entity that has no nationhood.

Yes, it does.
It's even considered by other nations.

It's a paper state which isn't home to any Vaticanian people, and as a parallel to Israel it doesn't hold; it only highlights the inadequacy of your understanding.

Really?

Asgard is a fiction with no real-world relevance. If your understanding of nationhood is on the level of comic books, this discussion will go nowhere.

Nordic religion existed before the MCU, so kindly don't make that comparison.
Or, go ahead and do it, and let me consider Yahweh as a comic book character penned by ignorant, stone breaking fools as well.
Your choice on that one.

[Gatefan1976]

If you're saying I agree with slavery, go take a flying leap.

Leaps with style and sticks the landing.
Oh, they might not be "slaves", even you are that evolved, but they are "lesser", and that's what you say.
You prove it with your next argument.

If you're saying that I agree with the electoral college, I stand behind that 100%.

The EC includes black people only being some 40% "worth" of whites.
Do you stand behind that?
It's a PRIMARY FOUNDATION of the EC, so I guess you do.

The original reason was the FF's didn't think the "people" were smart enough to vote for the presidency directly, and that has fallen by the wayside.

They also did not believe in "parties", and them having control of the EC.
Oh, and "people" they allowed to vote were white landowners.
In other words, the corps of today.

But in practice today, it has the very beneficial effect of diluting the concentrated power of the large, urban, densely populated regions at the voting booth, so that the rural regions also get a voice.

In other words, altering the value of the vote.

The two types of regions are vastly different, and have different needs. Without the EC, the rural regions have no voice in govt., and are simply dictated to by the large urban centers. Which could be considered slavery of a sort.

And giving 10 people the power of 100 is not?

You can see real world examples of this today in NY, Colorado, some parts of California and other states. There are movements afoot in the rural regions of all of these states to break off from the mother state to escape this political domination. I would like to see the the equivalent of the EC at the state level, too.

You did this before, it was the civil war.

As far as the judiciary goes, it should be independent of the voting booth. We don't want long term policy, laws and such to be at the whims of passing fancy and trends.

Roe V Wade was no such thing, but you want to break it on a fancy.

If you're talking about something else, you'll have to clarify what you are talking about.

You value "equality" when it helps you, and ignore it if it doesn't.
Single White Male is not a majority, It, like you are a minority. Get used to it, because it isn't changing.
Don't get pissy for being treated like other minorities.