ancapailldorcha wrote: » As time passes and the more I familiarise myself with it, American Conservatism seems to be heavily rooted in ethnic nationalism. They view the US primarily as an ethno-state with their specific demographic, ie wealthy, white, ethnic northern Europeans at the top of the hierarchy.
Tell me how wrote: » Conservatives are a laughing stock right now.
Igotadose wrote: » Vapid, deer-in-the-headlights responses
Igotadose wrote: » The thing is a farce. She's not even taking notes ffs. Vapid, deer-in-the-headlights responses to straightforward questions from Harris. Pathetic choice, better than Harriet Myers at least but that's a very low bar.
StringerBell wrote: » It doesn't need to enter her statements though tbh. Nobody is going to have their mind changed here, the GOP will be voting to confirm, the Democrats don't even need to be there. They didn't need to take part in the charade at all in fact and there is an argument to made for them to have made a protest of sorts by not taking part at all but its very rare you will see a politician give up some TV time.
StringerBell wrote: » Barrett? She is a fundamentalist, I'm sorry but fundamentalist anythings should never be arbitrators. She has also refused to answer very simple black and white legal questions, is it illegal to intimidate people while they vote is pretty straight forward, can the president unilaterally delay the election is pretty straight forward, she has written many opinion pieces and her thoughts on certain laws are well known yet we now have the charade from herself and the republicans that we cannot prejudge or assume how she will rule on X or y? The whole thing is a sham yes, and the sooner it's over the better. It's the ball game for the GOP. If the democrats can't bring in term limits once they take back legislative control then the GOP in or out of power, the minority opinion of the country will hold sway over the majority for the medium to long term. Gorsuch I don't dislike, my biggest issue with him is that it's Garlands seat, kavanaugh should not have been near the bench given his character issues and Barrett falls into that category, just without the whole sexual predator angle. Extremists should not be put in a position to adjudicate matters in the highest court of the land. Not only that but all the signs point to her being nothing more than a shill for Trump. This was not the impression from the other two, particularly gorsuch but kavanaugh is no Trump stooge whatever else can (and should) be said about him.
VinLieger wrote: » Ive read a synopsis and the owner seems to switch his story about 5 or 6 times about what actually happened regarding the FBI involvement and somehow he didnt actually see Hunter Biden drop off the laptop but assumed it due to a biden charity sticker on said laptop?
Itssoeasy wrote: » This NY post story about a laptop and Hunter Biden smells to high heaven. The owner of the shop can’t say if it was Hunter Biden who owned the laptop which knowing who owns stuff would seem like a basic thing. And it seems like a copy of it’s hard drive was made.
froog wrote: » the confirmation hearings are a farce. what purpose do they serve other than various butthead senators trying to get a soundbite? as for barrett, she seems impressive enough to be honest. certainly not like that kavanaugh ghoul who has no business at that level of law. all the anger from various people should be directed at the lifetime status of these appointments by the way, no job as important as that should be for life, for obvious reasons.
Quin_Dub wrote: » It's the whole "Originalist" vs. "Living Document" issue. The GOP take the belief that the original creators of the Constitution were these omniscient beings that knew everything and planned for centuries into the future and as such the Constitution is not open to interpretation. If it's not there verbatim , you can't have it. Which in and of itself isn't necessarily such a terrible thing - At a simple level , if you want change the meaning of the Constitution then update it via an amendment and move forward. However , if someone wrote an amendment to the Constitution for something like Same Sex Marriage , Abortion or Gun Control, the GOP would literally burn the place down before they'd put to a National vote - Because they know they'd definitely lose the first two and the Gun control one could go either way depending on the scope of the amendment. Equally they were perfectly fine with updated "interpretations" of the Constitution that favored their positions like DC vs. Heller or Citizens United.
Nody wrote: » It basically comes down to if they are going to be a stickler for the letter of the law (what GOP wants because it means they can get away with more as the court will simply state it's not written in the constitution/law it's a Senate/House problem to deal with) or in the spirit of the law (what Dems want because they believe in progressive improvements such as Roe vs. Wade, LGBTQ rights etc.). Even then in some cases the appointments made have changed their style on the court so there's no guarantee either way.
check_six wrote: » How is it that a court appointment can be categorised as thoroughly political? How can either party be so assured that "their guy" on the Supreme Court will simply side with them and not side with the law? I just don't get it.
Igotadose wrote: » Obviously they can't, though at least 1 Senator has said he'd ask Barrett if she'd vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Wailing about Roe *is* where the bulk of GOP politicians get their money from.
listermint wrote: » It is quite literally in the opening line i quoted. They have not left it to the reader to infer.
Quin_Dub wrote: » They could and then the GOP could raise that bar again. I just think that Term limits would be an easier sell politically and equally a harder one to undo for the same reasons. It's also fundamentally less partisan.
Quin_Dub wrote: » For example , could the Federal Government define a set of guidelines or metrics for Voting , whilst still allowing the voting to be managed at the local level? e.g. "No voter should typically have to travel more than X miles to vote or typically have wait more than X time to submit their vote" How that's achieved at the State/County level is up to them - They could chose early/mail-in voting or open more/bigger voting centres etc.
o voter apathy, puts texas as the 50th state. Does that not two things.. 1) seem a bit odd. 2) appear to be a problem since you know democracy should be cherished.
Manic Moran wrote: » Interestingly, if you go to your article, and follow links, you get here.https://www.keranews.org/education/2018-10-05/texas-has-the-nations-worst-voter-turnout-and-young-texans-lead-the-way It focuses on voter apathy.But since then, turnout among young voters has been sliding. The Pew study reports that when Baby Boomers were between 18 and 24 years old, their turnout was 26 percent. Millennials at that age only turned out at 20 percent. Hunter Whitaker, a 19-year-old student at Eastfield, has no plans to vote this November. “I'm not really interested in the ballots of people, I don't know,” he said. No candidates grab Hunter, though younger ones might have a better chance, especially if they shared his interests, which includes education and marijuana legalization, he said. Hunter is about the only confessed non-voter in Castaneda’s class. Anesa Koldzic, 18, is looking forward to voting for the first time. But she hasn’t found a candidate who talks about her concerns, either, which include "education rights" and health care reform. "Just ways it make it easier on us, I guess.” Koldzic has heard the excuses from non-voters who say they don’t know the issues, don’t feel represented and that their vote doesn’t matter. She dismisses them. Voting for the first time is a big deal. “It does make a change, even if your outcome wasn’t what you wanted,” she said. Karen Bassett wants to reach more young voters like Koldzic, but she’s worried. “I think that we are losing a generation. This generation has not been educated about civics and that’s not acceptable to me," Bassett said. "I’m the mother to two Millennials, and I want them to be able to participate so that they can be part of what’s coming next.”
listermint wrote: » Some additional quite odd stats for a state as wealthy as texas.https://theintercept.com/2020/10/13/texas-republicans-democratic-voters/ The very bottom of the rung for turnout. despite wealth in the state and demographic.
“Texas is arguably the most voter-suppressed state in the union,” O’Rourke said, during a break from a 12-hour phone bank with his voter outreach group, Powered by People, on Monday, when they registered 18,000 volunteers to help call 1 million people. “No state tries harder to keep its own people from voting — and specifically Black Texans, Latino Texans, Texans from communities of color. Prior to 2018, we were 50th, dead last, in voter turnout,” O’Rourke said
