Irvine thinks compromise matters. Not true! Sad! #makeinterferencegreatagainNegotiation and compromise are key in democracies.
Not everyone agrees with you. You still have to get along with them.
Irvine thinks compromise matters. Not true! Sad! #makeinterferencegreatagainNegotiation and compromise are key in democracies.
Not everyone agrees with you. You still have to get along with them.
So Mike Pence has endorsed Paul Ryan.
Actually, I would want someone who didn't have an agenda either way.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Actually, I would want someone who didn't have an agenda either way.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Negotiation and compromise are key in democracies.
Not everyone agrees with you. You still have to get along with them.
Yes, I would oppose a justice who disagreed with marriage equality were I a Senator, however, tradition dictates that elections have consequences, and generally the president, having been elected by a popular majority, does get to name people to the court. This spirit of compromise stops, of course, when it comes to extremists (i.e., Bork), but if we are talking about SCOTUS, specifically, the sitting president gets some deference. What the GOP is doing with Garland is beyond the pale, but one gets the sense that their tactics would be applauded by some of our more Hard Leftists.
Oh, I'm not defending what the Republicans have been doing, refusing to even have a hearing or vote on him. Like you say, that's beyond the pale. Absolutely unprecedented and ridiculous.
I was just saying that I would understand if some on the left would be in favor of the President pulling the Garland nomination after the election(if Hillary won and we took the Senate back) so that Hillary could nominate someone more decidedly liberal.
Now let's go one step further. Imagine there is a big terrorist attack somewhere in America on Nov. 1 and Trump wins the election. He governs badly and by 2020 has an approve/disapprove rating of 20/80, the worst in history. Every Democrat and his uncle thinks he can beat Trump in 2020, so 30 Democrats run in the primary, each averaging about 3%. Kanye West and Kim Kardashian flip a coin and Kim wins. She enters the primary as a Democrat (mostly as a publicity stunt) and with 5% of the vote becomes the leading candidate. Since the Democrats have eliminated the superdelegates and opened all the primaries to please Bernie Sanders, large numbers of Republicans vote in the Democratic primary and she gets the nomination. She is totally unqualified and knows nothing about politics, but campaigns in a skimpy bikini and draws crowds far larger than any candidate in history. Once in a while she reads a speech written by a staffer from a teleprompter and seems like a normal Democrat. As her running mate, she picks a standard Democrat, say Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY). The question now is would Democrats support her in the general election against Trump, even though by comparison she makes him—now with four years in the White House under his belt—look like a real statesman. Once again, our guess is yes they would, even though Republicans would say "She's completely stupid and has never run anything."
Does any other country in the world have such a politicised process of appointing judges? Looking at the other international posters here.
[...]
Because seriously, I find this one of the more mindboggling parts of American political culture.
Does any other country in the world have such a politicised process of appointing judges? Looking at the other international posters here.
I only know the names of some Australian and New Zealand judges, and practically nothing about their political inclinations. The only time a recent appointment has become a serious political issue is when Campbell Newman, the Queensland premier who won the greatest landslide in state history only to then somehow lose the next election, appointed a grossly unqualified mate who eventually resigned because he lacked the capacity for the job and nobody in the legal profession took him seriously.
Because seriously, I find this one of the more mindboggling parts of American political culture.
Interesting analysis on the success of Donald Trump in becoming a nominee (and not (yet) being crushed in the polls by Hillary): Would Democrats accept a wackadoo nominee?
The site Electoral Vote continues this analogy quite well:
ElectoralVote
Define "politicised".
Because your example describes just as much a political process as the US process. In both situations the judge was appointed by a politician. Only, in the US there's (in theory) a checks and balances system in that the nominee needs to be approved by the Senate. Where it goes wrong nowadays is that the Senate (or at least, part of it) is no longer looking at qualifications, but at the position of the judge on several issues.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that a lot of this has to do with the fact that judges in the US actually have a lot to do with setting policy, because Congress has to deal with the constitutionality of what it passes, and constitutional theory is open to interpretation. So, the stakes are very high here. Too many right-leaning judges could easily result in abortion being banned in the vast majority of the country, for instance.
I was going to raise a variant of the objection #2 from the first article, and I don't think the author satisfactorily dismisses it.
[...]
But Clinton really does fall into a centrist position; if she were in Australia, I promise you she would be a member of our centre-right Liberal government rather than in Labour or the Greens. The idea that she is the devil incarnate is based - as has been discussed here at length - on a decades-long character assassination almost entirely divorced from reality. The fact that the hard right, the hard left, the Trump populists, and the BMP populists all despise her proves the point that she sits in the middle; go to an extreme and they're shooting in towards her. I would suggest any reasonable Republican able to step back from the hyper-partisanship of today's politics to consider abandoning their party's nominee would not find Clinton as objectionable as the author suggests; she would be the D's Romney rather than the D's Cruz. (And, in fact, I can attest that the handful of Republicans I know outside here are all stumping hard for Clinton. His nuclear weapons comments swung the last who was undecided.)
It was a genuine question, actually. Especially as to me your example seemed to contradict your statement "Does any other country in the world have such a politicised process of appointing judges?"You know what I mean by politicised. Let's not play word games here.
Apart from the Queensland case where there was brazen defiance of advice received, nobody pays any attention to who's appointed or how, yet there is confidence in the independence of the judiciary. It is not seen as a tool of politics, nor is it seen important whether the judges are appointed by left- or right-wing governments. Nobody would suggest that a particular legal decision was reached because one side of politics or another had stacked the courts.
if anyone is still fighting back tears and anxiety attacks, take heart: Trump is down 10 points in the latest Fox News poll.
the Fox News poll.
The newest polls are devastating for Donald Trump - Vox
It's been a pretty great week to watch FiveThirtyEight. Hopefully this isn't just a going-to-fade convention bounce.
It's been a pretty great week to watch FiveThirtyEight. Hopefully this isn't just a going-to-fade convention bounce.
Amazing that everyone cheers when Hillary says "we are going to raise taxes on the middle class", who was at this rally, a thousand Bernie supporters?
WASHINGTON — The last time Donald Trump's income-tax returns were made public, the bottom line was striking: He had paid the federal government $0 in income taxes.
The disclosure, in a 1981 report by New Jersey gambling regulators, revealed that the wealthy Manhattan investor had for at least two years in the late 1970s taken advantage of a tax-code provision popular with developers that allowed him to report negative income.
Today, as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Trump regularly denounces corporate executives for using loopholes and "false deductions to "get away with murder" when it comes to avoiding taxes.
"They make a fortune. They pay no tax," Trump said last year on CBS. "It's ridiculous, okay?"
The contrast highlights a potentially awkward challenge for Trump.
I think some of it was the convention. The GOP had none of the smashing star power of Biden, Bill, and especially Barack and Michelle. Sanders (and even Warren) don't have their magnetism. And the convention effectively otherized the GOP as a party of freaks and losers.
Plus, Obama is pretty popular. She is running as Bush 1 to his Reagan.
I know!!! I hadn't learned to do the cut & paste right on my tablet (vs compueter) yesterday when I saw this, so thanks. As some who lived with spikes of high anxiety through much of the cold war in NYC (#1or#2target) the idea of someone being THAT reckless. I'm not sure my jaw could drop much lower after reading this.This is batshit insane:
Joe Scarborough Claims Trump Asked Advisor Why US Can't Use Nukes (VIDEO)
And apparently Trump himself said a similar thing in an interview earlier this year.
It's not surprising, but the Republican Presidential Candidate doesn't understand nuclear deterrence.
!!! Was once at a patti smith group show where Springsteen showed up to duet "because the night", soon after the Fire Marshals showed up and closed the concert down. Trump #fuckingidiotApparently the ferret-wearing shitgibbon thought that the fire marshalls limiting the number of people in the building were working for Clinton.
Instead of doing what fire marshalls do.
Just be carful, mikal. Don't let any Super Trumpeters hear you muttering under your breath!So Drumpf is speaking in Green Bay on Friday and I'm thinking about going just as a social experiment.
What's funny is that basically all GOP senators and the governor (Fuck Scott Walker) are not showing up. Must be in response to Drumpf being a dick to Paul Ryan.
They used to, though! That's how they to hold all these State Houses,Assemblies, Governorships etc. After the Goldwater Debacle they decided to work their way up to rebuild their party a long term strategy to take the Federal races by controlling lower political offices. And how people suffered because of that success!The GOP seems to only react, there's no vision of what's ahead by their actions.
Their inability to see further than their nose down the road is one of the many reasons they have a dysfunctional sociopath at the top of their ticket.
you got that right!It's difficult to have sympathy for Ryan.
Oh, no!If he eats at Kroll's, I don't want to know, because then I'd never be able to set foot in there again.
#obligatoryGreenBayreference
love John Stewart, thanks for the gif!So Mike Pence has endorsed Paul Ryan.
Not necessary. Some of these people may have gotten Cs in history & government, but they did better elsewhere in their studies because a fair amount are in various at least middle level occupations or higher.I mean your simple answer about people believing Obama and Clinton want a "Stalinist regime" isn't a serious discussion. People who believe this have nothing more than a C average high school knowledge of world history and government. They don't know what that means. They're just sheeple who replay lines they've heard before, and equate left to social to socialism to communism to Russia to enemy. Not worth a discussion.
I believe you mean "worse president."
#Trumpgrammar
Irvine thinks compromise matters. Not true! Sad! #makeinterferencegreatagain
I think most who follow her understood that this was a slip of the tongue. It's well documented that she wants to raise taxes for those families making more than $250k a year.
So Mike Pence has endorsed Paul Ryan.
that is probably about half of us that post on this board,
class warfare