Obama will nominate someone within the next few weeks. The Republican Senate will obstruct, like the impacted colon they have become. They will do what hasn't been done since the Civil War - prevent a nominee for SCOTUS from being appointed in an election year. If the public doesn't care about that, then they deserve their country returning to the glory days of the mid-1800's.Trouble is the public has no influence on who is nominated or approved. Yes. We can change the way we vote, but that's after the fact and will have little impact on a Supreme Court nomination. Lois How we vote or don't vote will absolutely have an impact on who will be selected and approved to be SCOTUS justices. If you don't realize that, you haven't been paying attention. How we vote will only affect the next presidency, not this one. Whoever Obama nominates will be voted on or rejected by the present Senate. Of course I'm in favor of a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President, but our votes have no impact on who sits on the Supreme Court this year. Meanwhile, several important issues are coming before the 8-member Court and the decisions will probably be split 4-4, which means the lower Courts' decisions will hold--at least until they're brought before the Supreme Court again, which could take years. One result will be that abortion clinics will completely disappear from several states. If a SCOTUS justice is not approved by November, how we vote, this year, will effect an appointment or lack thereof, this year. How we didn't vote in 2014, effected the composition of the Senate, and thus the likelihood of an SC Justice not being appointed this year. Our vote for Obama over the last 2 Republican nominees for President, effected the appointment of 2 justices, so far, that would otherwise have been reactionary right wing appointments.
That is excellent justification for being a disestablishmentarianist. But the bullshit is not the same from both sides. One side says that corporations are people and that they deserve the "free speech" to influence elections. It was Republican appointed justices who put that in play.So before that ruling Corporations had no influence in elections? Democrats don't take corporate money? You're going to need something with more substance Tim. That's a wash right there. Convincing you of the error of your narrative is too big a job for a single post or even a single thread. I can only hope that you will come to your senses over the longer term.
He'll pick someone the GOP can't refuse..you watch. Mark my words. We'll get a real doozy in there. Someone who thinks gays are OK, but Unions already have enough power. Someone who thinks women don't get paid equally, but School vouchers are ok for Religious indoctrination. He'll choke. Here we go with another one of his wilted Olive Branches.Whoever he picks, it will not be a Scalia clone, thus it will be a step up, and we will (if someone is approved) have a functioning Supreme Court that is better than it was.
That is excellent justification for being a disestablishmentarianist. But the bullshit is not the same from both sides. One side says that corporations are people and that they deserve the "free speech" to influence elections. It was Republican appointed justices who put that in play.So before that ruling Corporations had no influence in elections? Democrats don't take corporate money? You're going to need something with more substance Tim. That's a wash right there. No, it isn't a wash. The Citizen's United ruling overturned campaign finance laws that limited the amount of money corporations could contribute and opened the door to unlimited contributions.
No, it isn't a wash. The Citizen's United ruling overturned campaign finance laws that limited the amount of money corporations could contribute and opened the door to unlimited contributions.Corporations had no limits on the amount of money they could give before Citizens United. Citizens United just changed the rules on how they could do it. What they had to disclose, where they could campaign and how they could campaign. Before "Citizens" there were plenty of backdoors. Social Welfare Groups was one such method. And my point was that both Democrats and Republicans use Citizen United rulings to their advantage. So dispute my point, don't tell me things I'm already aware of. And reveal things you're probably not aware of.
Convincing you of the error of your narrative is too big a job for a single post or even a single thread. I can only hope that you will come to your senses over the longer term.Tim, you didn't answer my questions. Probably because they seemed rhetorical... Did corporations give money before Citizens United? Do Democrats take money from Corporations now and before Citizens? What was your point? Something about a narrative....? What is the narrative you want people to believe Tim....that Democrats aren't corrupted by money and influence? Drum roll......here it comes.. "Yeah, but not as much." Is that what you got? Is that your response?
Your point about both parties dipping into the Citizens United till is well taken Vy, but the statistics show that the Republican Party advantage far outweighs the Democrats. Conservative billionaires provide, well, billions of dollars to be used for candidates who further their personal agendas, whereas Democrats rely primarily on the Unions (those that are left that is) and middle class contributors. IMO shutting down Citizens United makes a more level playing field as those billionaires would have to reveal themselves to the public. Personally I would like to see a cap on campaign spending and a change in the FCC rules mandating all candidates to be factual and tone down the flaming attack ads. Yeah, in what World, right? Here’s a series of graphs: check out #s 3and 4.
Cap’t Jack
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/01/21/how-citizens-united-changed-politics-in-6-charts/ Cap't Jack
That is excellent justification for being a disestablishmentarianist. But the bullshit is not the same from both sides. One side says that corporations are people and that they deserve the "free speech" to influence elections. It was Republican appointed justices who put that in play.So before that ruling Corporations had no influence in elections? Democrats don't take corporate money? You're going to need something with more substance Tim. That's a wash right there. No, it isn't a wash. The Citizen's United ruling overturned campaign finance laws that limited the amount of money corporations could contribute and opened the door to unlimited contributions. Thanks for clarifying that for our learned friend. :coolhmm:
Your point about both parties dipping into the Citizens United till is well taken Vy, but the statistics show that the Republican Party advantage far outweighs the Democrats. Conservative billionaires provide, well, billions of dollars to be used for candidates who further their personal agendas, whereas Democrats rely primarily on the Unions (those that are left that is) and middle class contributors. IMO shutting down Citizens United makes a more level playing field as those billionaires would have to reveal themselves to the public. Personally I would like to see a cap on campaign spending and a change in the FCC rules mandating all candidates to be factual and tone down the flaming attack ads. Yeah, in what World, right? Here's a series of graphs: check out #s 3and 4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/01/21/how-citizens-united-changed-politics-in-6-charts/ Cap't JackThat article is 2 years old VA. That's 1/3 the lifespan of Citizens United so far. There's plenty of data that shows that the Dems are benefiting from Citizens just as much as the Republicans. Just as much, near as much or more than. depending on what you read, what actual metrics you include and so forth. But that wasn't my point anyways. My point was that the Dems take corporate donors in all levels of election, just like the GOP does. The fact that we are sidetracked on this Citizens Argument shows the one-dimensionality of some of our posters. People love to jump to Hot Button issues they know nothing about.It's the typical echo chamber reaction.
Thanks for clarifying that for our learned friend. :coolhmm:That's about as attentive as your Professor Microprocessor post there CC. Lucid man...real lucid.
The narrative that you have chosen (that both sides are equally bad) may result in revolutionary change (but probably not), or it may result in much worse entrenchment of the Republican narrative.It doesn't result in revolutionary change Tim..it results in 39% of voters identifying as Independents. A larger percentage than GOP or Dem identifiers. It results in Candidates like Sanders and Trump. Both of which have taken very little corporate donations..if any. So I didn't choose this narrative. The people have already chosen this narrative more and more. But we're still stuck with candidates like Clinton and Jeb Bush and Cruz. All three are egregious Citizen United users.
Answer to your question is, yes, I am supporting Hilliary Clinton. Right now I think she represents the highest probability of retaining a democratic executive branch. Not at all saying she is the best candidate, I still think the best candidates don't want to submit to the system.We'll get back to this a little further on up the road....although there is some outlying data on this already. A little early though.
The narrative that you have chosen (that both sides are equally bad) may result in revolutionary change (but probably not), or it may result in much worse entrenchment of the Republican narrative.It doesn't result in revolutionary change Tim..it results in 39% of voters identifying as Independents. A larger percentage than GOP or Dem identifiers. It results in Candidates like Sanders and Trump. Both of which have taken very little corporate donations..if any. So I didn't choose this narrative. The people have already chosen this narrative more and more. But we're still stuck with candidates like Clinton and Jeb Bush and Cruz. All three are egregious Citizen United users. I am among those who find it to be an attractive quality in candidates - that they don't take corporate (or large donations from wealthy individuals). That would mostly just be Sanders, in my book, since Trump does have one wealthy donor (himself). But even including Trump as one of the unsullied, the narrative that both sides are equally bad, doe not ultimately fly, and I think can be ultimately destructive if it leads to the side with the most dishonest narrative, gaining more power.
the narrative that both sides are equally bad, doe not ultimately fly, and I think can be ultimately destructive if it leads to the side with the most dishonest narrative, gaining more power.No you're right, the Dems are slightly less bad. No doubt. Citizens United...awful ruling. Hideous. But that is at an oblique angle to my point. The Dems take graft and contributions just as willingly as the GOP. And labor and the poor have suffered from it.
the narrative that both sides are equally bad, doe not ultimately fly, and I think can be ultimately destructive if it leads to the side with the most dishonest narrative, gaining more power.No you're right, the Dems are slightly less bad. No doubt. Citizens United...awful ruling. Hideous. But that is at an oblique angle to my point. The Dems take graft and contributions just as willingly as the GOP. And labor and the poor have suffered from it. I voted for Bernie in the primary (early voting has started in Texas). In order to have my vote count, I had to show a picture ID, before I voted. (That is due to the false narrative of the Repubs that voter fraud suppression requires such. When in actuality it is a way of disenfranchising some potential voters.) Bernie is trying to defeat the establishment corruption from the outside. I am pretty sure that he will not succeed. Thus we are left with a system that is corrupt. Within that system we will or will not have an impact on just how far that corruption goes. If we choose those who profess a myriad of false narratives (e.g., the voter fraud narrative, Corporations are people, trickle down economics floats all boats, tax breaks for the wealthy is best for our society, private entities are always superior to public ones, socialist programs inevitably lead to tyrannical communism, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc...) that WOULD be worse, IMO.
Bernie is trying to defeat the establishment corruption from the outside. I am pretty sure that he will not succeed. Thus we are left with a system that is corrupt. Within that system we will or will not have an impact on just how far that corruption goes. If we choose those who profess a myriad of false narratives (e.g., the voter fraud narrative, Corporations are people, trickle down economics floats all boats, tax breaks for the wealthy is best for our society, private entities are always superior to public ones, socialist programs inevitably lead to tyrannical communism, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc...) that WOULD be worse, IMO.How do you fight it from the inside Tim? He won't succeed because he won't be allowed to succeed. If that's what you mean? Tim I'm far to the left of Bernie in my ideology. So when you focus only on the narrative of the GOP as an active degradation(which it is) and neglect admission of the Dems as a passive degradation, it bristles me. As you already know. Like I stated before, in some ways this makes me more disgusted. Because obviously that's what the GOP narrative is supposed to be. They're doing their job. The Dems are supposed to represent the people. The working class. The downtrodden. And it is woefully inexcusable that they have not done a better job on getting the narrative. But that's coming from me. And my ideology. If someone is a Democrat, then yeah, there gonna be positive about the Dems. Oh they're trying! Fight the good fight!!! Yaaaay! Better Hillary than a GOP. Hillary is the worse joke in the election. She is an impostor. She is bought and paid for. The same establishment that wants Trump or Bernie out..wants Hillary in. Or Rubio. Or Bush. It's the same. That establishment's money spends just as good in both directions. Now here's a big Smiley for you :-) . Because I don't want to revisit this argument with you. It's ideological.
Glad you do not want to revisit. With your attitude you should just sit in the corner with your thumb in your mouth.AMH, claws? Good for you. I'm not certain what attitude you're talking about. Probably my opposition to Clinton as is evidenced below.
Hilliary Clinton is not the worst joke or a joke at all. I do agree we all would be much more satisfied with candidates that are not truly a joke . The republican candidates.I don't know what to tell you there. All my best to ya.
As far as fighting any establishment it is very difficult if not impossible from the outside. An establishment is a paradigm. Paradigms are extremely resistant to change from the outside.I see you added something. Let me clue you in on something. Clinton is part of the paradigm. Newsflash.
Bernie is trying to defeat the establishment corruption from the outside. I am pretty sure that he will not succeed. Thus we are left with a system that is corrupt. Within that system we will or will not have an impact on just how far that corruption goes. If we choose those who profess a myriad of false narratives (e.g., the voter fraud narrative, Corporations are people, trickle down economics floats all boats, tax breaks for the wealthy is best for our society, private entities are always superior to public ones, socialist programs inevitably lead to tyrannical communism, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc...) that WOULD be worse, IMO.How do you fight it from the inside Tim? He won't succeed because he won't be allowed to succeed. If that's what you mean? No. I am pretty sure that he will not succeed, because the current system is weighted against him succeeding and because he will probably not be able to marshal enough supporters to overcome this and gain the nomination. If he does, he may very well lose the general election (without full support of the current system and maybe not even then). In the unlikely event that he wins both the nomination and the general election, he very well may not have enough support in Congress to effectively press forth his agenda. And he can't count on his supporters during the campaign to continue to press for his agenda after he is elected because people lose their intense motivation, become politically tired, &/or just have too much other stuff they would rather do. But that didn't stop me from voting for him, as a way of fighting the system from the inside. How do you fight it from the outside? (I suppose you could encourage the development of more corruption, until the system breaks down completely, and then hope that something better emerges from that, but it probably wouldn't, not anytime soon, and not without a lot of horrible events in the meantime.)
No. I am pretty sure that he will not succeed, because the current system is weighted against him succeeding and because he will probably not be able to marshal enough supporters to overcome this and gain the nomination. If he does, he may very well lose the general election (without full support of the current system and maybe not even then). In the unlikely event that he wins both the nomination and the general election, he very well may not have enough support in Congress to effectively press forth his agenda. And he can't count on his supporters during the campaign to continue to press for his agenda after he is elected because people lose their intense motivation, become politically tired, &/or just have too much other stuff they would rather do. But that didn't stop me from voting for him, as a way of fighting the system from the inside. How do you fight it from the outside? (I suppose you could encourage the development of more corruption, until the system breaks down completely, and then hope that something better emerges from that, but it probably wouldn't, not anytime soon, and not without a lot of horrible events in the meantime.)This isn't like you Tim. Alot of negativity in there. There's ways Bernie could effect change. He already has. He is doing it right now. Just remember your gonna have alot of "I voted for Bernie" stickers. 1 piece at a time. That's all we can get. This cycle is huge. On both sides. Trump is cracking molds too. Really. There's going to be alot of disaffected voters if this goes the normal route. On both sides. And I see it as a referendum on bringing both of those sides together. Despite all the rancor and garbage Trump spews. There's a commonality there too.(believe it!) It could be germinating...no it is germinating! It's like I have always said...if both sides of the people realized they wanted basically the same thing, the people would be unstoppable. I think you have a bad case of Voters Remorse. You'll get better. I'm voting for Bernie too. I've given Act Blue a good chunk of my dough.