Supreme court nomination

[brenthutch 383]

16 minutes ago, jakee said:

Regardless, I hope we can assume you would have zero complaints and see nothing at all wrong with Biden and a Dem Senate expanding the Supreme Court until it has a liberal majority again, if such a thing came to pass?

Actually I would LOVE to see that.  With self-identifying conservatives outnumbering self-identifying progressives/liberals by a greater than two to one margin, I would just make some popcorn and wait for the next election.  Can you say “shellacking”?

Edited October 20, 2020 by brenthutch

[wmw999 2,114]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Actually I would LOVE to see that.  With self-identifying conservatives outnumbering self-identifying progressives/liberals by a greater than two to one margin, I would just make some popcorn and wait for the next election.

Do you have a source for that data? What I see (Gallup article from 2019) shows that self-identifying conservatives outnumber self-identifying liberals, but not by anything remotely resembling a two-to-one margin.

And how many self-identifying conservatives are happy with the kind of evangelical-dog-whistle social conservatism that's been showing up lately, that ACB seems to be willing to embrace, based on what she's actually written in the past?

Wendy P.

[SkyDekker 1,119]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Actually I would LOVE to see that.  With self-identifying conservatives outnumbering self-identifying progressives/liberals by a greater than two to one margin, I would just make some popcorn and wait for the next election.

I think the better approach is for liberals to win the election, gerrymander the entire country. Abolish the Electoral College. Stop all funding to red states until this is done.

Direct the DOJ to fully investigate and where required prosecute Trump, Barr, McConnell, Graham and follow every dollar donated and spent.

Propose and enact well drafted legislation that establish health care, social safety nets and free education. Fund it with tax increases in anybody who makes more than $400,000 or has a net-worth north of $50 million.

Televise Trump's daily yard time.

Edited October 20, 2020 by SkyDekker

[wmw999 2,114]

(Skydekker wrote...)

Not that you're pissed or anything...

Wendy P.

[Phil1111 901]

21 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Actually I would LOVE to see that.  With self-identifying conservatives outnumbering self-identifying progressives/liberals by a greater than two to one margin, I would just make some popcorn and wait for the next election.  Can you say “shellacking”?

 Sorry wrong again!.

From Gallup Poll, 07/27/20,  "The number of Americans who identify themselves as conservatives has decreased over the first half of the year,...The number of Americans who described themselves as liberal, however, has increased fairly steadily in the same time period, according to the survey firm. The new poll found 26 percent of respondents said they identify as liberal, which is a 4-point increase since 22 percent

The number of Americans who identify as moderate has remained fairly steady, with 36 percent of respondents identifying as moderate in May and June as well as March and April, a 2-point increase since January and February, based on Gallup’s polling. ...

The decline in self-identified conservatism in the first half of the year was more pronounced among adults in upper-income households. The survey found an 11-point decline among Americans in households with an income of $100,000 or higher, dropping from 40 percent identifying as conservative to just 29 percent. "

Once again trumpaconomics driving conservatives away from the GOP like clap in a whorehouse.

[Phil1111 901]

18 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I think the better approach is for liberals to win the election, gerrymander the entire country. Abolish the Electoral College. Stop all funding to red states until this is done.

Direct the DOJ to fully investigate and where required prosecute Trump, Barr, McConnell, Graham and follow every dollar donated and spent.

Propose and enact well drafted legislation that establish health care, social safety nets and free education. Fund it with tax increases in anybody who makes more than $400,000 or has a net-worth north of $50 million.

Televise Trump's daily yard time.

Its difficult to say which of these ideas is the best.

Outstanding.

You did omit the balance of the trump crime family. Never forget Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric.

[brenthutch 383]

19 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Do you have a source for that data? What I see (Gallup article from 2019) shows that self-identifying conservatives outnumber self-identifying liberals, but not by anything remotely resembling a two-to-one margin.

Sorry, I included moderates in my math and not in my text.  Still a > two to one margin of those who would be opposed to the type of shenanigans espoused by SkyDekker.

[brenthutch 383]

4 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Its difficult to say which of these ideas is the best.

Outstanding.

You did omit the balance of the trump crime family. Never forget Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric.

Don’t forget Crackhead Hunter 

[wmw999 2,114]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Sorry, I included moderates in my math and not in my text.  Still a > two to one margin of those who would be opposed to the type of shenanigans espoused by SkyDekker.

It's just as honest to include the moderates with the liberals, isn't it? After all, I self-identify as a moderate.

Wendy P.

[brenthutch 383]

2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

It's just as honest to include the moderates with the liberals, isn't it? After all, I self-identify as a moderate.

Wendy P.

If you agree w SkyDekker’s approach you are no moderate.  I think most moderates would consider court packing and confiscatory tax rates to be overreaching.

[SkyDekker 1,119]

34 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Sorry, I included moderates in my math and not in my text.  Still a > two to one margin of those who would be opposed to the type of shenanigans espoused by SkyDekker.

Which shenanigans? Because other than providing health care, social safety and education, the remaining items listed are in principal supported by and already done by Republicans.

[SkyDekker 1,119]

17 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

confiscatory tax rates to be overreaching

confiscatory? Just back to where things used to be. The Republcans have systematically shifted the tax burden onto middle a lower class. This has demolished the middle class and made the lower class poorer. It has allowed for the upper class to gain more wealth and with it power. It is confiscatory, it is reblancing.

These massive defecits and subsequent debt loads you are so in favour of have to get paid somehow.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Actually I would LOVE to see that.  With self-identifying conservatives outnumbering self-identifying progressives/liberals by a greater than two to one margin...

Is that why you’ve won the popular vote twice in the last 30 years?

[jakee 1,254]

43 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Sorry, I included moderates in my math and not in my text.  Still a > two to one margin of those who would be opposed to the type of shenanigans espoused by SkyDekker.

Why? The self identified conservatives will be against the Dems no matter what. The moderates would not necessarily be swayed by any shenanigans, since you have just so eloquently explained why there is nothing at all wrong with a ruling party doing anything that is constitutionally allowed.

[riggerrob 558]

On 10/1/2020 at 6:18 PM, headoverheels said:

And then, we have the Governor of Alabama signing a bill which prohibits abortion when there is a detectable heartbeat, which would typically be at ~6 weeks.  

Replying to the general thread about abortions ....

One of my (Canadian-born) supervisors is severely anti-abortion, so I did a little research.

If you start at the bottom of the list of abortion-rates-per-country (per year), Russia is the worst with more than 30 abortions per 100,000 women. Then a series of former-communist countries, then Communist China, then the USA at 20 abortions per 100,000 women. Then some second and third world countries. Only 15 Canadian women ... with the European Union, Five Eyes and First World withprogressively  lower abortion rates.

The Russian problem is poor access to: health education, birth control (pills, IUDs, condoms, etc.) and pre-natal care, but free abortions.

Most of the people on this thread agree that using abortion as you primary method of birth control is a bad idea.

Abortion is essentially free in Canada, but so are health education, birth control, pre-natal care, etc. A skydiving friend used to work as a body-guard for the busiest abortionist in Vancouver. Most of those women were married and already had two or three children, but the last wias likely to be born de-formed.

[wmw999 2,114]

32 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

If you agree w SkyDekker’s approach you are no moderate.  I think most moderates would consider court packing and confiscatory tax rates to be overreaching.

Well, I don't recall saying I agreed with his approach. And, in fact, I don't (not all of it, at least).

Wendy P.

[Coreece 189]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

I think the better approach is for liberals to win the election, gerrymander the entire country. Abolish the Electoral College. Stop all funding to red states until this is done.

After it's all said and done, you may have to re-gerrymander around all the pissed off liberals living in red states, lol.

[Coreece 189]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Actually I would LOVE to see that.  With self-identifying conservatives outnumbering self-identifying progressives/liberals by a greater than two to one margin...

Is that why you’ve won the popular vote twice in the last 30 years?

Wouldn't you want an accurate count before pushing a popular vote?  If every vote counts, then it should encourage more voting among those that previously felt it didn't really matter.  Would the number of new democrat voters offset the number of new republican voters? 

I guess there's only one way to find out. . .

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Coreece

[wmw999 2,114]

8 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Wouldn't you want an accurate count before pushing a popular vote?  If every vote counts, then it should encourage more voting among those that previously felt it didn't really matter.  Would the number of new democrat voters offset the number of new republican voters? 

I guess there's only one way to find out. . .

What would that one way to find out be?

I don't see any way to have a perfect vote count, any more than there is a way to have a perfect anything on such a large scale. I would include people who are put under pressure in a way to discourage voting in an "accurate vote count;" a suppressed vote is just as stolen as one cast by someone who shouldn't be voting. It's far easier to suppess whole classes of voters than it is to generate a similar number of bad votes.

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,254]

43 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Wouldn't you want an accurate count before pushing a popular vote?  If every vote counts, then it should encourage more voting among those that previously felt it didn't really matter.  Would the number of new democrat voters offset the number of new republican voters? 

Doesn't matter either way, I'd still think the popular vote is better. To be honest, since you seem to be saying the EC discourages people from voting simply because it exists, that would be another good reason for it not to exist, right?

[brenthutch 383]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

confiscatory? Just back to where things used to be. The Republcans have systematically shifted the tax burden onto middle a lower class. This has demolished the middle class and made the lower class poorer. It has allowed for the upper class to gain more wealth and with it power. It is confiscatory, it is reblancing.

The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of income tax the bottom 50% pay the remaining 3%. The lower 17% did not only pay zero income tax, they got $65 billion in earned income tax credit handouts.  Please explain just how this “shift” occurred.  It was globalization and open boarders that demolished the lower and middle class not tax policy.  In fact it was only through deregulation and tax cuts that the lower and middle class realized their first real income growth in decades. (Pre-pandemic panic of course)

Edited October 20, 2020 by brenthutch

[Coreece 189]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

Wouldn't you want an accurate count before pushing a popular vote?  If every vote counts, then it should encourage more voting among those that previously felt it didn't really matter.  Would the number of new democrat voters offset the number of new republican voters? 

I guess there's only one way to find out. . .

What would that one way to find out be?

I don't see any way to have a perfect vote count

I think my wording may've been a bit unclear.  I wasn't referring to an accurate vote count, just an accurate estimate of conservative vs progressives/liberals.

A popular vote would obviously change the dynamics of the election, so I just think it would be a bit misguided to use 2016 as a reliable indicator of what it would look like were the EC eliminated.

[Coreece 189]

 3 hours ago, jakee said:

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

Wouldn't you want an accurate count before pushing a popular vote?  If every vote counts, then it should encourage more voting among those that previously felt it didn't really matter.  Would the number of new democrat voters offset the number of new republican voters? 

Doesn't matter either way, I'd still think the popular vote is better.

Fine, but if Clinton didn't win the popular vote I doubt we'd even be talking about this right now.  If the dems think it's better, it's only because they think it'll be easier to win - it's "fairness" is only a selling point.

3 hours ago, jakee said:

To be honest, since you seem to be saying the EC discourages people from voting simply because it exists, that would be another good reason for it not to exist, right?

Given that we're so sharply divided, an initial concern would be the possibility of one side being in bitter submission to the other for decades, maybe even longer.  At least now it goes back n' forth. 

On the other hand, I can see how a popular vote would not only encourage a better turnout, but also encourage candidates to appeal to a broader base.  A popular vote would make it worth while to grind out votes in every state if needed, rather than just a few select regions.

[SkyDekker 1,119]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of income tax the bottom 50% pay the remaining 3%. The lower 17% did not only pay zero income tax, they got $65 billion in earned income tax credit handouts.  Please explain just how this “shift” occurred.  It was globalization and open boarders that demolished the lower and middle class not tax policy.  In fact it was only through deregulation and tax cuts that the lower and middle class realized their first real income growth in decades. (Pre-pandemic panic of course)

Why don't you start by explaining how you think income tax is the only relevant taxation here? Did I only talk about income tax? Do you not know there is taxation other than income tax? Is this the only way your reasoning holds up?

[SkyDekker 1,119]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

I think my wording may've been a bit unclear.  I wasn't referring to an accurate vote count, just an accurate estimate of conservative vs progressives/liberals.

A popular vote would obviously change the dynamics of the election, so I just think it would be a bit misguided to use 2016 as a reliable indicator of what it would look like were the EC eliminated.

Why do you think it would change how people vote? And why do you think it would change it at such a rate that it would actually make a measurable impact?