Insulting another member
That's incredibly fecking rich coming from a smug. self righteous cnut like you.
Amy Coney-Barrett | Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
- Thread starter Ubik
- Start date
Sweet Square
Full Member
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
calodo2003
Flaming Full Member
Good point.Why should that stop Trump. Betsy Devos, Ben Carson, know nothing about their positions, but if they can cause chaos and destroy these departments, they would have done their job.
altodevil
Odds winner of 'Odds or Evens 2023/2024'
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2013
- Messages
- 17,491
You'll be voting down ballot though right? Or is it just establishmentarians on offer for you?Blah blah blah, the same old shit. You're not convincing anyone, which was the original point.
Imagine looking at 2016 where 100 million people didn't vote and thinking the best way to win in 2020 was to target the 1 million people who voted Jill Stein. And then once you've decided that Stein voters are the ones you need to win over, deciding that the best way to do it is not to adopt policies those voters want or give positions of power to people supported by those voters but instead to have The Screencap Dipshit make snidey comments about them. Truly that's the way to win over these voters.
The truth is that its not about increasing voter share or converting undecideds or harm mitigation or even about winning the election. Its simply about feeling smug and superior. You never reckon with the damage democrats have wrought. You never care about the lives Biden has destroyed. Its all about you feeling smug online.
Not voting 2020, eat my shorts
Rado_N
Yaaas Broncos!
Translation; you have no reasonable counter argument.That's incredibly fecking rich coming from a smug. self righteous cnut like you.
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
He literally said he would veto Medicare for all if it passed congress.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 21,634
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Marcosdeto
Guess who's back?
she has the same amount of biological kids as nancy pelosi and one more than joe biden, both catholics too
DOTA
wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 24,504
President and then the Senate chooses these things right? Perhaps there's theoretical things that the Democrats can do to stop it but we know they won't, so not very relevant.
It's a deeply silly institution. 'So, we're gonna make this thing where a tiny number of 'judges' can rule over everything, and we're gonna let the President pick the judges, and they can literally just choose their 5 year old son if they want'.
It's a deeply silly institution. 'So, we're gonna make this thing where a tiny number of 'judges' can rule over everything, and we're gonna let the President pick the judges, and they can literally just choose their 5 year old son if they want'.
The Firestarter
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,213
They literally can't choose their 5 year old son.President and then the Senate chooses these things right? Perhaps there's theoretical things that the Democrats can do to stop it but we know they won't, so not very relevant.
It's a deeply silly institution. 'So, we're gonna make this thing where a tiny number of 'judges' can rule over everything, and we're gonna let the President pick the judges, and they can literally just choose their 5 year old son if they want'.
DOTA
wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 24,504
Educate me. I wasn't entirely sure on that point. Where can I find the rules that stop that?They literally can't choose their 5 year old son.
matherto
ask me about our 50% off sale!
I was accused of being smug, I wasn't the one being smug. I was being realistic about the point of not voting for one of the two candidates that have any chance of being elected due to a sense of 'principle'. Principle doesn't help if one of the options is likely to be deciding laws for 40 years+ and they're horrible in all of their viewpoints yet you won't vote for the one that might not want to nominate that person for such an important position.Translation; you have no reasonable counter argument.
There is on 'not voting for the lesser of two evils just because' and not seeing the bigger picture.
It's the 'don't blame me, I voted for ______' so my nose is clean when it does jack shit other than self serve.
A comedian here makes a better fist of it than me talking about third party/not voting out of principle
And yes, I let it get to me but it is rich when the accuser is being smug themselves.
America has two choices, both horrible, just like 2016. Either you vote for the lesser of two evils or you shut the feck up whilst the country burns down around you.
DOTA
wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 24,504
They literally can't choose their 5 year old son.
Starting to worry here!Educate me. I wasn't entirely sure on that point. Where can I find the rules that stop that?
And, I'm sure Eboue would say, just like 2012, and 2008, and 2004, and 2000, and 1996, and so on. Maybe he would say it goes back as far as FDR, or maybe even further, I don't know. The point is that if someone's utterly convinced that "lesser of two evils" is the reason why voters get to pick between two evils, then you're not going to be able to convince them that this time it's actually important to vote for one of them.America has two choices, both horrible, just like 2016.
barros
Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Affordable care act to who? After Obamacare my insurance went up $6000 a year, worse insurance and medication went up. The only positive thing was raising the age of the kids to 26 to be under the parents insurance.
According to Wikipedia (and you know Wikipedia wouldn't just lie like that), it seems like they can.They literally can't choose their 5 year old son.
The Constitution doesn’t actually provide any age, citizenship, or legal knowledge specifications. It relies wholly on the Senate not confirming a poor appointment.Starting to worry here!
The Constitution predates formal political parties in the United States, so it has a blind spot towards people fecking over the country for the benefit of their chosen political club.
The Firestarter
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,213
Apoligies mate, it appears that you were literally correct.Starting to worry here!
DOTA
wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 24,504
That was my suspicion. As I say, I think it's a deeply silly system. I don't really think there is an issue around 5 year olds being appointed mainly as it's not realistic that they would worsen things. I was just trying to highlight how ill-designed it is.The Constitution doesn’t actually provide any age, citizenship, or legal knowledge specifications. It relies wholly on the Senate not confirming a poor appointment.
The Constitution predates formal political parties in the United States, so it has a blind spot towards people fecking over the country for the benefit of their chosen political club.
I'll never understand the American worship of the Constitution. We have our own Constitution in Norway which is nearly as old as yours, and we're quite fond of it (our "4th of July" is May 17th, the day the Constitution was signed). But we couldn't care less about what the authors of it thought about it, or what the original intent was, or anything like that.The Constitution doesn’t actually provide any age, citizenship, or legal knowledge specifications. It relies wholly on the Senate not confirming a poor appointment.
The Constitution predates formal political parties in the United States, so it has a blind spot towards people fecking over the country for the benefit of their chosen political club.
We also have our own Supreme Court, but I'd be extremely surprised to find them considering what the Founding Fathers said about this or that issue. It just isn't relevant. Those guys lived in the 18th and 19th centuries, what the hell did they know about modern Norway?
Ya it's odd how the Constitution is seen as this religious document by some people, wouldn't be surprised if the founders in the US would also feel the same way considering many of them disliked religion.I'll never understand the American worship of the Constitution. We have our own Constitution in Norway which is nearly as old as yours, and we're quite fond of it (our "4th of July" is May 17th, the day the Constitution was signed). But we couldn't care less about what the authors of it thought about it, or what the original intent was, or anything like that.
Yeah, I don’t think we have to worry about a literal 5 year old either and all, but I understand your point.That was my suspicion. As I say, I think it's a deeply silly system. I don't really think there is an issue around 5 year olds being appointed mainly as it's not realistic that they would worsen things. I was just trying to highlight how ill-designed it is.
In a time of hyper-polarized politics, there’s not much to stop an absolutely unqualified person from being appointed and confirmed.
I think it has become so ingrained in our system because it is the origin of our first two political parties.I'll never understand the American worship of the Constitution. We have our own Constitution in Norway which is nearly as old as yours, and we're quite fond of it (our "4th of July" is May 17th, the day the Constitution was signed). But we couldn't care less about what the authors of it thought about it, or what the original intent was, or anything like that.
We also have our own Supreme Court, but I'd be extremely surprised to find them considering what the Founding Fathers said about this or that issue. It just isn't relevant. Those guys lived in the 18th and 19th centuries, what the hell did they know about modern Norway?
Hamilton’s Federalists and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans drew battle lines over the loose constructional vs. strict constructional view of the establishment of the national bank. So from the very foundation of American party politics, it has been an argument over the Constitution being a living or rigid document.
I guess it was sort of inevitable that the Constitution and the interpretation of it would be such a major issue, considering the federal nature of the US. Particularly in the early years. We were more or less a unitary state from the beginning*, so we didn't have different states trying to assert their rights in that manner.I think it has become so ingrained in our system because it is the origin of our first two political parties.
Hamilton’s Federalists and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans drew battle lines over the loose constructional vs. strict constructional view of the establishment of the national bank. So from the very foundation of American party politics, it has been an argument over the Constitution being a living or rigid document.
I wonder if it's ever going to change, this Constitution/Founding Fathers worship. You'd think it would decline the further the US got away from it in time, but it's over two hundreds years now and you've still got massive issues being decided on the basis of what those men may or may not have meant.
Edit:* as a side note, the legislative is by far the most powerful of the institutions in Norway, in part since it was the direct method used to gain independence from Sweden. We obviously still have an independent judiciary (with a Supreme Court), but precedence is much less of a thing here than in the US. The courts don't make law.
Last edited:
matherto
ask me about our 50% off sale!
It's always important to vote for the lesser of two evils because that's all you ever get to do.And, I'm sure Eboue would say, just like 2012, and 2008, and 2004, and 2000, and 1996, and so on. Maybe he would say it goes back as far as FDR, or maybe even further, I don't know. The point is that if someone's utterly convinced that "lesser of two evils" is the reason why voters get to pick between two evils, then you're not going to be able to convince them that this time it's actually important to vote for one of them.
Politicians only come in two flavours. Evil and slightly less evil. We only get to pick one of them. Or you can be a smug arse who's serving your own self importance by conscienciously objecting to playing the game and thinking it makes any difference whatsoever and that you have 'principles'.
What makes Obama, Kerry, McCain, GWB (I mean, come the feck on), etc not evil so that you could argue you weren't doing exactly that in 2012, 2008, 2004, 1996, etc?
Well, part of the issue is the nigh on deification that some of them underwent after their deaths, along with the deeply ingrained religiosity of the American population. For folks who have no issues at all with taking a literal interpretation of texts multiple thousands of years old that were ghost written by a deity, they don’t see much of an issue with taking the 230ish year old words of near-deities as near-gospel.I guess it was sort of inevitable that the Constitution and the interpretation of it would be such a major issue, considering the federal nature of the US. Particularly in the early years. We were more or less a unitary state from the beginning, so we didn't have different states trying to assert their rights in that manner.
I wonder if it's ever going to change, this Constitution/Founding Fathers worship. You'd think it would decline the further the US got away from it in time, but it's over two hundreds years now and you've still got massive issues being decided on the basis of what those men may or may not have meant.
And to speak to a specific Framer of the Constitution that really screwed up the interpretation of the document... James Madison... Madison was one of the most prominent Framers, he pushed hard for the ratification of the document via the Federalist Papers with Hamilton and John Jay, had a major role in the Bill of Rights, and was known to view the Constitution in a more loose constructionalist way. Well, when conflict broke out between Jefferson and Hamilton over the bank, due to his personal dislike of Hamilton, he changed his whole public view of the Constitution and threw his hat in with Jefferson’s strict constructionists.
You're clearly broken by the system, if that's how you feel. If anything, you're more cynical than Eboue, and yet you're the one berating people for not voting for your option.It's always important to vote for the lesser of two evils because that's all you ever get to do.
Politicians only come in two flavours. Evil and slightly less evil. We only get to pick one of them. Or you can be a smug arse who's serving your own self importance by conscienciously objecting to playing the game and thinking it makes any difference whatsoever and that you have 'principles'.
That was quite literally the point.What makes Obama, Kerry, McCain, GWB (I mean, come the feck on), etc not evil so that you could argue you weren't doing exactly that in 2012, 2008, 2004, 1996, etc?
DOTA
wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 24,504
Apart from the two they adopted, all the girls look exactly like their mum and the two boys like their dad.
They are clearly cloning rather than breeding.
Edgar Allan Pillow
Ero-Sennin
If people had voted for lesser of two evils, would we be in a better position than we are now?You're clearly broken by the system, if that's how you feel. If anything, you're more cynical than Eboue, and yet you're the one berating people for not voting for your option.
Dr. StrangeHate
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2013
- Messages
- 5,498
That is actually a pretty logical reason. Would you have voted if Bernie won the nomination?Blah blah blah, the same old shit. You're not convincing anyone, which was the original point.
Imagine looking at 2016 where 100 million people didn't vote and thinking the best way to win in 2020 was to target the 1 million people who voted Jill Stein. And then once you've decided that Stein voters are the ones you need to win over, deciding that the best way to do it is not to adopt policies those voters want or give positions of power to people supported by those voters but instead to have The Screencap Dipshit make snidey comments about them. Truly that's the way to win over these voters.
The truth is that its not about increasing voter share or converting undecideds or harm mitigation or even about winning the election. Its simply about feeling smug and superior. You never reckon with the damage democrats have wrought. You never care about the lives Biden has destroyed. Its all about you feeling smug online.
Not voting 2020, eat my shorts
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
yes
calodo2003
Flaming Full Member
Is that Dinesh’s daughter? If so, I am truly upset that the fecker actually procreated.
GiddyUp
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2015
- Messages
- 4,913
Wasn't there a few religious nuts kidnapping kids after the Haiti earthquake? Someone should inform ICE.
Drainy
Full Member
Bit of an odd question. Why can't we just do what we want..Soooo, what's wrong with giving these judged term limits? Apart from it not being written on that 232 year old rag written by a bunch of rich white dudes?
Also the 'rag' is a living document that has had many many amendments to it so if there was enough support it could be amended
Yes, my sarcastic comment was meant to pose the question, why are there no termlimits. What is the upside of no term limits? Conversely, what would be the downside of term limits.Bit of an odd question. Why can't we just do what we want..
Also the 'rag' is a living document that has had many many amendments to it so if there was enough support it could be amended
Also, I don't think part of American society is aware amendments can actually be amended as they seem to view the constitution as some sort of holy text. There's nothing special about it, not anymore.
Drainy
Full Member
Presumably its to promote independence from the other arms of government. If you need renominating every few years there is leverage to influence.Yes, my sarcastic comment was meant to pose the question, why are there no termlimits. What is the upside of no term limits? Conversely, what would be the downside of term limits.