Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Who will run against Trump in 2020? Who will run against Trump in 2020?

03-17-2019 , 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by synth_floyd
If the new justices have to be unanimously chosen, what happens if they can't choose one, or 1 judge wants to be a dick and refuse to seat anyone else?

I think the 18 year term limit where one new judge gets appointed every 2 years is probably the more fair way to go. But what happens if you get a Merrick Garland situation where the senate won't appoint anyone? Maybe the president gets to appoint a temporary judge until a new one is confirmed by the senate, like with cabinet positions.
Maybe you could limit each justice to one "veto". Veto being defined for this purpose as an instance where only one justice disagrees. They could still vote no on a given justice after that, but only if at least one other justice agrees with them. I think I give the court more credit than most for policing themselves. So some form of this idea makes sense and should be discussed.
03-17-2019 , 11:08 PM
Abolish the supreme court, install AOC as queen
03-18-2019 , 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alazo1985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatal Checkraise


Odds being able to speak Arabic will be the major FOX talking point if he ever makes it far in the primary?

He's essentially a gay socialist islamist
It'll be:

- Seven languages??? This is not a man who loves America! This is a globalist!

- He even speaks Arabic... This is a radical gay Islamist who wants to impose his religion and sexually deviant values on America.

- If he wins, pretty soon all of the streets signs in America will be in Arabic too! We'll have Sharia law within four years.

- If we let this (insert anti-gay slur here) win, it'll be like the Obama apology tour all over again, but this time he'll be such a cuck he'll apologize in their languages instead of English. We can't have this!!! America First!
03-18-2019 , 02:00 AM
lolbeto

03-18-2019 , 02:03 AM
President being able to nominate 10 judges seems like it gives the executive branch too much power. They basically control 2/3 minimum of the judicial branch at that point. Or even the full judicial branch at that point. Like Trump could hand pick whatever 10 people he wanted and then they would pick the 5 people he told them to pick.

I like the idea of 9 justices serving 18-year terms, staggered every 2 years, so that there is a new seat up for reelection every 2 years. Serving for life is silly.
03-18-2019 , 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by imjosh
President being able to nominate 10 judges seems like it gives the executive branch too much power. They basically control 2/3 minimum of the judicial branch at that point. Or even the full judicial branch at that point. Like Trump could hand pick whatever 10 people he wanted and then they would pick the 5 people he told them to pick.

I like the idea of 9 justices serving 18-year terms, staggered every 2 years, so that there is a new seat up for reelection every 2 years. Serving for life is silly.
The president wouldn't start with a clean state and pick 10 judges. There are nine now, so say Pete wins, he picks one additional and then the other 5 are chosen by the current justices.
03-18-2019 , 06:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
The terms are squishy. Which is why i would say since there are no definitive lines except towards the extreme most people are both on a sliding scale.
I thought capitalism mainly meant the ability of non working investors to get a big piece of a company's profit by providing money rather than labor
03-18-2019 , 06:28 AM
Ive never even taken a business or econ class so you would know best. But wouldn't that leave all small business without investors outside of capitalism? And wouldn't it mean when we as a society invest our tax dollars into the postal services we and it would be part of the capitalist system?

I guess the seconded one is pushing it because we are not getting profit...social security might work if you paid less then you get.

Last edited by batair; 03-18-2019 at 06:45 AM.
03-18-2019 , 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by imjosh
i bet bernie outraised him yesterday. there is a big grassroots effort to donate to bernie on the day beto and biden announce
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kafja


bartleby o'rourke
Quote:
Originally Posted by imjosh
lol the beto thing is even worse when you see the email he sent out

Quote:
Originally Posted by imjosh
lolbeto



beto haters are SICK rn
03-18-2019 , 09:08 AM
Oh ****
03-18-2019 , 09:11 AM
I'm in denial mode now hoping the average donation was something like $200
03-18-2019 , 09:13 AM
Isn’t his wife a billionaire? That helps
03-18-2019 , 09:18 AM
haha if it's bernie vs beto it really will just be a 2016 rerun. Ultimately the fight for the soul of the democratic party has to take place eventually so why not now. If bernie can't beat tribute act obama just 4 years after a sizeable rejection of centrism then the left isn't powerful to govern yet.
03-18-2019 , 09:28 AM
I’m not following closely but why hasn’t Bernie released tax returns? Just ****ing release them dude.
03-18-2019 , 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dth123451
I’m not following closely but why hasn’t Bernie released tax returns?
Because he hasn’t won the nomination?
03-18-2019 , 09:36 AM
He's likely not going to be on the ballot in Washington for the primary if he doesn't so he better do it
03-18-2019 , 10:26 AM
Beto isn’t even looking at Bernie. He’s worried about Biden, who will almost certainly crush 6 million on the first day and probably race to 50 in 2 or 3 months.

If he can’t get close to that, he’s dead in the water and he’s going to be running for VP.
03-18-2019 , 10:29 AM
Biden = jeb!

All the money in the world can't help him.
03-18-2019 , 10:36 AM
the stuff about him being super creepy/handsy with children who are always uncomfortable AF around him is def going to quell any momentum that he gets off some initial fundraising numbers

his revisionist history about integration and school bussing will be a problem, as will be his assertion that trump voters aren't racists. guaranteed he wont walk that one back and he'll hem and haw to appeal to the approximately 0 moderate republicans who plan on voting for him. i dont see how he wins the nom.
03-18-2019 , 10:37 AM
Meh, I think Biden is substantially more popular than Jeb!. Just tried to listen to an Axe files interview with Jeb! yesterday - the dude is as bland as oatmeal and seemingly moronic. I have no idea how he got as much support in 2016 as he did.

Also had my first exposure to Inslee on the Ezra Klein podcast. Seems good.
03-18-2019 , 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by locknopair
i meant that trump's just a guy in relation to the system- and simply removing him from that system isn't going to address what created him in the first place nor solve why a reality tv game show host with no political experience was able to become the most powerful politician in the world.
Well it does, I think, because fame is more powerful than anything when running for office. You think Arnold Schwarzenegger, Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono, Jesse Ventura, or even Ronald Reagan were more qualified than the people they ran against? Puh-leeze.

That said the system is clearly ****ed, but my point would just be not that much more than any other system.

Quote:
this of course differs from his growing status as a cult leader, where his followers increasingly ignore his crimes and lies in the ultimate hope that he'll empower or save them, without realizing or perhaps even caring that they're being manipulated by a narcissist.
In this we're in total agreement. I really think that if Trump wanted to go a step further and create an actual cult he could do it without any question. But I really have no idea what the people all see in the man -- I think he's tacky and transparent as hell. But then I never knew what people saw in Jim Jones or David Koresh or L. Ron Hubbard either. It's mystifying.

Quote:
how come with democrats there's always a 'but'? they could have passed single payer, but... they could have repealed the tax cuts, but... and then there's always some intricate story as to why they had to settle for some right-wing compromise.

when he took office president obama was the most powerful and popular person in the entire world who later gained a (albeit short) supermajority in congress, and i should believe that he couldn't use all his newfound political juice to publicly pressure some blue dog dems? what dem politician in their right mind would have wanted to take on obama at that moment in time?

incrementalism is just capitulation to the right. obama stood down when it mattered most which is why the left and liberals only end up getting compromised half-measures that republicans then dismantle. if this is the best to expect, how is that winning?
Well I don't know what to tell you except we were all here when all of this took place and that's what happened. Maybe the blue dogs were DINO's or closet racists or whatever, or maybe they were just afraid to lose their jobs in conservative districts to Republicans -- which to make it worse is what ultimately happened anyways -- but whatever the reasoning that's what happened.

Of course, at the end of the day passing Obamacare was politically one of the more brilliant things the Obama admin ever did, even if it wasn't intentional. By co-opting a Republican plan they basically stole the right wing's counter to full single payer health care and left them with nowhere to land in the health care debate. And we saw this play out last year with the shambles they were in trying to repeal the ACA when it became obvious to everyone that the GOP had nothing to offer on health care at all.


Quote:
this has been echoed by around four or five different posters, but anyway: even if the dem nominee was hickenlooper he'd still be labeled a socialist despite being the most conservative candidate in the field. the guy literally publicly drank fracking water and is best friends with john kasich yet to the right he'll just be a communist who wants to turn their beloved usa#1 into venezuela.
Again agreed, but it isn't always the issue of what they say so much as how it will resonate. I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one. So far it seems like the RWSM is having trouble finding something on Beto that will stick, except for for some reason calling him by his actual names, and the best they could do this past weekend was a Twitter post that managed to piss off a bunch of Irish Catholics. And I know that hardly makes him bulletproof but it was kind of funny to watch.
03-18-2019 , 12:06 PM
Maybe the best solution for the SCOTUS is that every case is heard by a different randomly selected panel, even of only three or five judges.
03-18-2019 , 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
Hi Yang Gang-ers:


https://twitter.com/AndrewYangVFA/st...46979611463680
Lol I like this guy a lot. Be interesting to see if he gains some traction.

Not sure what exactly is wrong with a politician campaigning where the people actually live though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by +rep_lol
the stuff about him being super creepy/handsy with children who are always uncomfortable AF around him is def going to quell any momentum that he gets off some initial fundraising numbers

his revisionist history about integration and school bussing will be a problem, as will be his assertion that trump voters aren't racists. guaranteed he wont walk that one back and he'll hem and haw to appeal to the approximately 0 moderate republicans who plan on voting for him. i dont see how he wins the nom.
yes to all of this. Plus Biden ran twice I think and never even came close.
03-18-2019 , 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by imjosh
lolbeto

Hot damn,

remember a decade ago when people were talking about how prediction markets will literally allow us to know the future? When does that start?
03-18-2019 , 12:56 PM
We live in a world where a bitcoin is worth $4k so we're not getting there any time soon.

      
m