On 8/29/2018 at 11:09 AM, StrangeSox said:

gonna love the inevitable capitulation on Kavanaugh

 

as much as the midterms and 2020 are important, we're locked into conservative judicial hellworld for 30+ years now. any remotely progressive legislation will just be torn apart in the courts as more and more rights are given to corporations as they're taken away from actual people

I think the court is the one place everyone should agree a conservative leaning is a good thing.  That way it’s a little tougher for flash-in-the-pan emotional cases to change hundreds of years of constitution.   It should take a long time to change constitution since it’s pretty perfect. 

 

If we had a liberal-leaning court then Skynet would have already rewritten the constitution to give equal rights to the robots with guns trying to kill you. 

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by Jerksticks

1 hour ago, Jerksticks said:

I think the court is the one place everyone should agree a conservative leaning is a good thing.  That way it’s a little tougher for flash-in-the-pan emotional cases to change hundreds of years of constitution.   It should take a long time to change constitution since it’s pretty perfect. 

 

If we had a liberal-leaning court then Skynet would have already rewritten the constitution to give equal rights to the robots with guns trying to kill you. 

Ignoring the fact that it said that black people are 3/5 of a human?  Or that it set up a system where the guy who loses by 3 million votes is elected President?  

The founders did a lot of things well, but they weren't omniscient and they weren't perfect.  They also almost immediately began fighting over what the document actually meant.

 

3 hours ago, illinilaw08 said:

Ignoring the fact that it said that black people are 3/5 of a human?  Or that it set up a system where the guy who loses by 3 million votes is elected President?  

The founders did a lot of things well, but they weren't omniscient and they weren't perfect.  They also almost immediately began fighting over what the document actually meant.

 

 

5 hours ago, Jerksticks said:

I think the court is the one place everyone should agree a conservative leaning is a good thing.  That way it’s a little tougher for flash-in-the-pan emotional cases to change hundreds of years of constitution.   It should take a long time to change constitution since it’s pretty perfect. 

 

If we had a liberal-leaning court then Skynet would have already rewritten the constitution to give equal rights to the robots with guns trying to kill you. 

Irony in that skynet comment as it was conservative judges who gave corporations the rights regularly reserved to people (Citizens United.) 

And the constitution has some good ideas, but 1789 society is nothing like today. In many states 3-5% of the people voted. Most states had rules that made it so only land holding white males could vote. 

Hopefully we can tweak some things. Reps in house need to be increased again so that its more proportional to population. I think Supreme Court should be opened up to voters.

There are plenty of improvements to be made. 

Well technically Citizens United gave all the people at Skynet the right to collectively have a voice.  It actually did the opposite of what you’re claiming; it ensured the people have free speech.

It didn’t give robots equipped with lasers, advanced AI and super strength equal rights under US Law.  I think your irony comment fails because there is definitely a difference between a corporation composed of humans and a killer robot.  I suppose there are similarities in that they are both non human entities created by humans, but I think the similarities end there.  Right at the point where the robot kills you on its quest to find John Connor. ?

And the Founders would have agreed on that amount of corporate and Top 1%er money flooding into the election process?

That you could basically buy seats for yourself, and, when you got tired of government service, could make a lifetime lucrative career out of it as a lobbyist?

 

15 hours ago, Jerksticks said:

I think the court is the one place everyone should agree a conservative leaning is a good thing.  That way it’s a little tougher for flash-in-the-pan emotional cases to change hundreds of years of constitution.   It should take a long time to change constitution since it’s pretty perfect. 

 

If we had a liberal-leaning court then Skynet would have already rewritten the constitution to give equal rights to the robots with guns trying to kill you. 

No I don't agree that a conservative tilt in the judicial system is a good thing.

Don't want "flash in the pan" emotional cases like...equal rights for women, racial minorities, gay people, or anyone besides white men, really. Those silly, emotional people should be fine with waiting decades or centuries for the same rights, since the Constitution is pretty perfect after all!

Edited August 31, 20187 yr by StrangeSox

If not for the conservative tilt, we wouldn’t have had Bush as president and the waste of a trillion dollars and the lives of numerous American soldiers in Iraq...a destabilization which also contributed to the rise of ISIS.

 

15 hours ago, Jerksticks said:

I think the court is the one place everyone should agree a conservative leaning is a good thing.  That way it’s a little tougher for flash-in-the-pan emotional cases to change hundreds of years of constitution.   It should take a long time to change constitution since it’s pretty perfect. 

 

If we had a liberal-leaning court then Skynet would have already rewritten the constitution to give equal rights to the robots with guns trying to kill you. 

Not even the people who wrote it thought that.  They knew things would come up over time and that it would need to be changed. 

Cult of the constitution and the founders of this country have turned into a religion. 

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/trouble-trump-disapproval-high-63-back-mueller-half-112416277--abc-news-topstories.html

7 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

And the Founders would have agreed on that amount of corporate and Top 1%er money flooding into the election process?

That you could basically buy seats for yourself, and, when you got tired of government service, could make a lifetime lucrative career out of it as a lobbyist?

 

I agree that lobbying is right there at the core of everything terrible.  Your post has absolutely nothing to do with CU if you were responding to me.  

 

 

9 hours ago, Jerksticks said:

Well technically Citizens United gave all the people at Skynet the right to collectively have a voice.  It actually did the opposite of what you’re claiming; it ensured the people have free speech.

It didn’t give robots equipped with lasers, advanced AI and super strength equal rights under US Law.  I think your irony comment fails because there is definitely a difference between a corporation composed of humans and a killer robot.  I suppose there are similarities in that they are both non human entities created by humans, but I think the similarities end there.  Right at the point where the robot kills you on its quest to find John Connor. ?

People at Skynet already had the right to speak individually or collectively. Its no different than saying the Robot had the right to vote because it was created by humans.

How does it make sense that individuals who are not part of a corporation can have their contributions capped? That seems to be giving more rights to the corporation than to regular individuals. 

/shrugs

A corporation is a thing like a robot. Citizens United granted rights to a thing. The next step would be granting rights to a robot, because as you said, both are non human entities created by humans. I

The people of corporations, should have the same rights as people not in corporations. If I can only donate X amount of dollars, why should the corporation be able to donate more than X?

14 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

Not even the people who wrote it thought that.  They knew things would come up over time and that it would need to be changed. 

Cult of the constitution and the founders of this country have turned into a religion. 

I agree.  But my point is what is left to change now that everyone has equal rights?  Do the non-binaries need “non-binary” listed on every questionnaire?  I suppose that needs to happen.  

 

But what’s left to really fight for constitution-wise besides rights for robots in the future like I joked about?

Your right everything is going great in America.  Let's just keep the status quo.

Right to vote amendment to shift onus from individuals to government to accommodate voting

Political spending limitations

SCOTUS term limits

All good extensions

 

23 hours ago, Jerksticks said:

I think the court is the one place everyone should agree a conservative leaning is a good thing.  That way it’s a little tougher for flash-in-the-pan emotional cases to change hundreds of years of constitution.   It should take a long time to change constitution since it’s pretty perfect. 

 

If we had a liberal-leaning court then Skynet would have already rewritten the constitution to give equal rights to the robots with guns trying to kill you. 

Um. Marginalized groups like minorities, women and LGBTQ people maaaaaay have a bone to pick with you on that. 

2 hours ago, Reddy said:

Um. Marginalized groups like minorities, women and LGBTQ people maaaaaay have a bone to pick with you on that. 

You already lost, getting into an identity politics argument.

If you’re making a compelling argument that will resonate with suburban housewives, then you’re actually onto something.

On 8/31/2018 at 6:43 PM, caulfield12 said:

You already lost, getting into an identity politics argument.

If you’re making a compelling argument that will resonate with suburban housewives, then you’re actually onto something.

Jerksticks isn't a suburban housewife, and actually the majority of Republican women support all the things and people I mentioned - including abortion. So you can sit down. I know you've got an anti-me hard-on at the moment, but criticizing "identity politics" as somehow ineffective is ridiculous. They're only ineffective when people like you CALL them identity politics.

On 9/2/2018 at 9:46 AM, Reddy said:

Jerksticks isn't a suburban housewife, and actually the majority of Republican women support all the things and people I mentioned - including abortion. So you can sit down. I know you've got an anti-me hard-on at the moment, but criticizing "identity politics" as somehow ineffective is ridiculous. They're only ineffective when people like you CALL them identity politics.

If the party can't successfully "sell" an argument because they're NOT winning the "framing" argument, then the argument needs to be reframed...as it stands, the Dems SHOULD have a 1 seat advantage (two months out, 203-202) and they've simply got to win 16 of the 30 "up for grabs" seats, 28 of the 30 of which are currently held by Republicans.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/orourke-bets-national-attention-lifts-him-texas-race-151300471--election.html

Beto O'Rourke...could he still become a legit 2020 presidential candidate without winning his Texas Senate race with Ted Cruz?  Can he survive the Obama/rock star/Kennedy comparisons?

 

Edited September 3, 20187 yr by caulfield12

Rahm will not seek re-election. Good, he sucks.

On 8/10/2018 at 9:20 AM, GoSox05 said:

Private insurance works so well, we have to keep coming up with new government programs to supplement it, because otherwise it would be an absolute disaster. 

 

As opposed to government health care which works so well, people are literally begging the government to let them to to private care instead.

4 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

As opposed to government health care which works so well, people are literally begging the government to let them to to private care instead.

this is false.
 

Just now, Reddy said:

this is false.
 

You don't know any Vets then.

The VA is pretty popular and the recent privatization attempts have all sputtered out.

Also, the structure of the VA and the unique needs of the population it serves are not really directly comparable to a single-payer health insurance system. There aren't many people clamoring for an NHS-style fully nationalized healthcare system in the US. If you keep comparing something like Medicare4All to the VA, you keep showing that you don't even understanding what M4A is.

47 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

The VA is pretty popular and the recent privatization attempts have all sputtered out.

Also, the structure of the VA and the unique needs of the population it serves are not really directly comparable to a single-payer health insurance system. There aren't many people clamoring for an NHS-style fully nationalized healthcare system in the US. If you keep comparing something like Medicare4All to the VA, you keep showing that you don't even understanding what M4A is.

Again, I don't think you know many vets then.