Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
I've sent in my votes too!
I mean, El Paso will just have people dying in hospital hallways instead.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yeah, but that'll take weeks! All those brown-skinned democrat voters will surely cause trouble for the law-abiding suburbs dwellers up in Vinton! I can see it now, the Sunland Park Mall, in flames! The next battle of Thermopylae will be on Trans Mountain Road!
Man, and you thought my references were obscure before... I don't know that anybody else here ever lived in El Paso or is familiar with its landmarks...
Dave
Staff member
You know what? I think we need to stop PACs from being able to have anything to do with political advertising. I listen to terrestrial radio during the day and the difference between candidate ads and PAC ads is startling. Candidate ads are - for the most part - fairly positive while PAC ads are almost amusingly over the top and SCARY!
If an ad can't have "I'm X and I approve this message" it should not only be ignored, but it should not be able to be aired.
If an ad can't have "I'm X and I approve this message" it should not only be ignored, but it should not be able to be aired.
I absolutely agree, but one of the many problems with that is that, well, how do you define a PAC?
If, say, Bloomberg wanted to spend 200 million of his own money on radio or tv ads proclaiming TRUMP IS ABIG FAT LIAR, that's his right. Companies can do the same, and it seems unlikely this SC will change that.
If, say, Bloomberg wanted to spend 200 million of his own money on radio or tv ads proclaiming TRUMP IS ABIG FAT LIAR, that's his right. Companies can do the same, and it seems unlikely this SC will change that.
You can get rid of dark money pacs at least. The money in them needs to be traceable so you can see why is funding them, and then make that a mandatory disclosure. So Bloomberg can do that all he wants, and people watching the ad will know he paid for it, and not "the people for American freedom" anonymous funding group
Dave
Staff member
If not endorsed by an actual candidate, fuck the ad. Don't care who is funding it. Not allowed.
MAGAt "Wow the Boston Globe endorsed Donald Trump! MAGA!"
Me "You mean the Boston Herald?"
MAGAt "What? Who cares. What's the difference?"
It's a conservative tabloid, bonehead.
Me "You mean the Boston Herald?"
MAGAt "What? Who cares. What's the difference?"
It's a conservative tabloid, bonehead.
How would she even qualify to be a judge much less a SC judge? Isn’t some criminal trial experience required?
I couldn’t become a CPA without extensive experience in all of its disciplines, even tax which I hate. Why wouldn’t judges require the same?
Fun fact, she was appointed as a judge initially from a stolen seat from 2016, where Obama's appointee wasn't afforded a vote by the Republican controlled senate, thanks to Mitch McConnell ignoring norms.
Here is a question: is this lack of experience typical?
GasBandit
Staff member
We're in a post-rules society now.
There's no experience requirement in the Constitution. It's just yet another gentlemen's agreement/social norm that has been trod upon.
The last two they picked were experienced judges, and those guys are not ruling with the party in absolutely every way because they are too tied up on things like "laws" and "precedent". It makes sense they would just ram in someone green and easy to mold to just pick the Republican option at every vote.
Before this, the least "experienced" judge was probably Kagan, but she was also a legal expert with many years of teaching law under her belt, as well as time as the Dean of Harvard Law School. The Republican excuse then was that she "didn't have enough experience on the bench", but it looks like they are just a bunch of lying liars lying.
This is beyond a shadow of a doubt this year.
I seriously think they see the writing on the wall. They have always focused mostly on older people and rural voters. Old voters are a problem because they won't be around forever, as newer voters often lead Democratic, and then you have the issue that rural voters are not fluid, while urban and suburban voters are. Texas is going purple because we attract a lot of younger people and tech companies. Trump may still sneak by this year with a Texas win, but honestly he is lucky for it, because for some reason he gets more support from Hispanic voters around here over Biden, for reasons I don't really understand. Republican's will likely lose the hold entirely by 2024 or 2028.
The entire plan started with Obama. Basically, once he took office the plan was to do everything they could to obstruct him. The hope being to get someone into office after him, and then use that time to basically ram through as much as possible, focusing on the courts. Lifetime appointments mean that by filling the courts they basically give themselves veto powers after the fact, even if they lose the house, senate, and presidency for the foreseeable future they can always try to get the final say on whether a law can be valid through the court. This is their last grasp.
This is why I hope very hard that Biden goes through with expanding the SC. I know it's considered taboo for some reason, but to me the SC being split rather evenly overall was one of the only reasons I had faith in it. Now that it's stacked with conservatives, there is no way the court can push forward with any semblance of balance. We need to add some more liberal judges for balance.
We also need to push hard on bringing in DC, and should they want it, PR as States. There should never be a place in this country that is under our blanket but gets no representation in our legislature. Arguing that it will throw off the senate power dynamic and make it so Republicans can no longer take majority control is not an excuse to leave these people with no voice.
These are two things I feel need to happen. Whether they will is of course another story.
This is one thing I never really understood. Democrats are not exactly a party of Atheists.
Biden is even Catholic, and most Hispanics often follow the Roman Catholic faith. I can understand Trump winning over Evangelicals, mostly because they hate all other denominations and would vote Satan for President as long as they thought it would help the Rapture happen sooner (that's a whole other argument I won't have here), but I never understood how Republicans got so much support with other religions.
Because Dems don't typically want to make religious tenants into law is my guess.
Democrats tend to think "In God We trust" on money is enough. Some Republicans would use the Ten Commandments and Leviticus as the basis for criminal law. Obviously not all Republicans, but there's definitely a part of the party - and it's very much used insignaling to the deeply religious - that would turn the USA into a theocracy given the chance. Already, some of the things you regularly hear from certain politicians are, frankly, pretty similar to what Erdogan or Khamenei say.
Anyway, my main problem with packing the SC with 4 new Justices is that, much like what the Republicans are ding now, it opens up floodgates.
Let's say Melania gets elected in 2028. What's to stop her from adding another 12 Justices to the SC? And when Chelsea gets elected in 2036, she can add another 24 on the other side! It's a very dangerous move - I admit the Republicans these days don't seem to care about precedent at all anymore, but still.
Anyway, my main problem with packing the SC with 4 new Justices is that, much like what the Republicans are ding now, it opens up floodgates.
Let's say Melania gets elected in 2028. What's to stop her from adding another 12 Justices to the SC? And when Chelsea gets elected in 2036, she can add another 24 on the other side! It's a very dangerous move - I admit the Republicans these days don't seem to care about precedent at all anymore, but still.
That's why once you pack the courts you rig elections so the other party has a really hard time beating you. For democrats that just means protecting voting rights.
Democrats are okay with acknowledging the idea that God outranks us and gets to do what He wants.
Republicans* are like, "Oh no, that's not enough. We must also preemptively glorify and placate Him." And then they gotta do a bunch of crazy things because they somehow believe doing so can influence the behavior of an omnipotent being.
--Patrick
*well, not all Republicans. But too many of them.
Republicans* are like, "Oh no, that's not enough. We must also preemptively glorify and placate Him." And then they gotta do a bunch of crazy things because they somehow believe doing so can influence the behavior of an omnipotent being.
--Patrick
*well, not all Republicans. But too many of them.