80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2016 09:29 pm
Quote:
At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years
Updated by Timothy B. Lee on February 13, 2016, 10:20 p.m. ET
http://bit.ly/1oeVPkz
snood
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2016 09:40 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years
Updated by Timothy B. Lee on February 13, 2016, 10:20 p.m. ET
http://bit.ly/1oeVPkz

So, the Congress COULD confirm an Obama selection, but we all know they won't. They'd sooner die.
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2016 09:44 pm
@snood,
Quote:
Yeah, like the "caliber" of Obama's appointees is a consideration of this Republican party. It is to laugh.

I'm afraid so. If we hadn't know it before, the Roberts' court has revealed how important - politically - the makeup of the SC actually is.

The right has understood this for a long while. The main strategic/organizational entity on the right to craft a judiciary sympathetic to rightwing notions has been the Federalist Society. And I quote from their site...
Quote:
Our Purpose

Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law.

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.

This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors. In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2016 09:51 pm
Edging toward a denouement...
Subpoena.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/politics/hillary-clinton-foundation-subpoena/
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2016 09:54 pm
@snood,
Quote:
So, the Congress COULD confirm an Obama selection, but we all know they won't. They'd sooner die.

Yes. This is about power. The bald and obvious grasping for power. A similar example was after Obama's first election where the GOP lost the WH and Congress and the Senate and yet demanded their policies be implemented because that was what citizens wanted.

But I think we need to understand how important the SC is politically.

During a lull at work today, I checked into TPM and saw the early announcement that Scalia had passed. That was all the news there was then. But within two hours, news was raging everywhere that McConnell, Cruz and many others on the right were demanding that Obama not make an appointment. This before any expressions of grief (I may have missed some) or analyses of Scalia's history on the court and in American jurisprudence.

In other words, it became a political event immediately.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2016 09:58 pm
@blatham,
Here's a bombshell: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/politics/hillary-clinton-michael-flynn-email-fbi-investigation/?iid=ob_lockedrail_bottomlist&iref=obinsite
ehBeth
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2016 10:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
did you read that?

not such a bombshell that someone advising Trump is making these comments
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2016 10:11 pm
This seems like a wonderful idea...
Quote:
Michigan would privatize mental health funding, services under Snyder's proposed budget
http://bit.ly/1oeZP4E
Husband: Darling, I'm getting really concerned with David's behavior. He never comes out of his room anymore. It's like he's lost all interest in living. I've never seen him so depressed. I'm really worried.

Wife: Me too. Do you think we can afford to get him into the Monsanto/Northrop Psychic Normalization Clinic?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2016 10:15 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
bombshell

Nope. Bethie has it right.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2016 10:23 pm
Quote:
Talking Points Memo ‏@TPM 6m6 minutes ago
Ben Carson peddles Stalin quote that http://bit.ly/20T7oz6 rated false http://bit.ly/20T7pDc

Jesus christ in heaven. This poor bastard is such a frightening example of someone trapped within an epistemologically closed-off universe.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2016 10:33 pm
Quote:
A big lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
wikipedia "the big lie"

Quote:
Peter Beinart ‏@PeterBeinart 17m17 minutes ago
except for that biggest terrorist attack in American history thing, George W Bush really did "keep us safe" #GOPDebate


This has been a staple from Cheney, Limbaugh, Fox and god knows who else on the right. And it is such an obvious lie. But that's the mechanism.
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2016 10:41 pm
@blatham,
Here's Conor Friedersdorf on "The Ahistorial Weirdness of 'Bush Kept Us Safe'
Quote:
I've heard that before about President Bush. It's something some conservatives tell themselves. But it's got to stop. Personally, I don't blame Bush or his administration for failing to prevent the September 11 terrorist attacks. I'd never say that it's their fault all those people died. Still, it happened on their watch. And there are things they could have done better to prevent it. So while their failures don't, in my judgment, justify anger at that aspect of their leadership, it's just bizarre to affirmatively argue that Bush's defining legacy was that he kept us safe.

Is there any bigger caveat to that statement than 9/11?

What people mean when they say he kept is safe seems to be that there wasn't another terrorist attack like 9/11. By that standard, he kept us no safer than Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama. And even leaving out 9/11, for reasons that are never explained, Bush was president during the anthrax attacks, the Beltway sniper incident, the Los Angeles airport shooting, the Mohammed Reza SUV incident, the Seattle Jewish Federation shooting, and the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina. Again, I don't blame Bush for the victims of those incidents, but to harken back to his tenure as a time when the president kept America safe is ahistorical.
http://theatln.tc/1of3mjs
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2016 10:44 pm
Republican pollster and consultant gives his take on tonight's GOP debate
Quote:
Frank Luntz ‏@FrankLuntz 53m53 minutes ago
For the first time ever, a #GOPDebate audience booed more than they cheered.

This isn't just insane, this is suicidal. This is pathetic.

But, yeah. It is insane.
glitterbag
 
  2  
Sat 13 Feb, 2016 11:08 pm
@blatham,
Poor Frank Luntz, he's a glutton for punishment. He must be feeling very left out.
blatham
 
  1  
Sun 14 Feb, 2016 03:29 am
@glitterbag,
Quote:
Poor Frank Luntz, he's a glutton for punishment. He must be feeling very left out.

Actually, after the last election, Luntz admitted he had fallen into a depression and quit political consulting for a couple of years. It's only been fairly recently that he's re-emerged, quite a bit less full of himself. Perhaps he needed the ready money made available in the election industry. But there's no question he's a very smart guy and he has been effective, perhaps particularly in crafting language to suit the purposes of those who hire him. Famously, the shift in right wing usage away from "global warming" and to "climate change" was on his advice.

But I've never seen him make such a statement as the one I quoted above. Though it is necessary here to add that the audience for last night's GOP debate was not as in prior debates. These were GOP invitees rather than primary voters walking in randomly. And the boos were directed mostly at Trump. http://bit.ly/1U0t5Ik
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Sun 14 Feb, 2016 10:19 am
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/12/1484385/-Bernie-Surges-12-Clinton-Falls-11-in-Reuters-LV-Tracking-Poll-Sanders-Gains-13-With-Af-Ams

Bernie pulling up to Clinton.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Sun 14 Feb, 2016 11:06 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Fine with me if you're offended by my use of "Christianist", george. By that term, I mean something different from "Christian". To specify, I mean to refer to those who regard other faiths as improper and illegitimate expressions of faith - particularly where there is a political component to this stance. Let's add Muslimists and Hinduists, etc, to this category. Christian dominionism is a blatant manifestation of such a mindset.


Apparently then you would find them less offensive if there were no distinct denominations .... if there was only one variant. Unfortumately religious freedom is a founding and fundamental element of our culture and our basic law. People have different tastes and preferences in many things ..... religion is not the only such preference. Would you apply this to politics as well? (or music ??) Democrats & Republicans both generally believe their political preferences are better than the alternatives. The 20th century provided us with some vivid examples of the tyranny that can result from the suppression of such differences.

I'm a Christian, but about as far as one can get from Evangelical. Still, I don't see them as attempting to force their views and beliefs on others - rather they seek to limit the enforcement of Secularist (I couldn't resist that) views and practices on themselves. What's wrong with that?

blatham wrote:

The often repeated claim that "America is a Christian nation" is another (where exclusion of other faith communities or relegation of them to some junior status is implied/entailed).
It is simply a fact that America was indeed founded as a largely Christian nation, but one that took firm steps to ensure religious freedom for all. (Though the he practice of religion has declined substantially over the past two generations here and in Europe.) Perhaps you don't like the facts of our origins and history and wish to suppress any recitation of them. Why does it disturb you? You have your own beliefs (or lack of them) about such matters. Do you wish everyone to believe as you do? History has demonstrated that is a very dangerous mindset. It seems to me that you are very generous with yourself in affirming your own exclusionist beliefs while expressing strong intolerance for those of others. Do you believe that is rational or even reasonable?

blatham wrote:

I have no use at all for members of any sect of any faith who speak/think this way and I do think they are quite mad to presume they have some magical insider knowledge of the mind of god
But you yourself presume to have some magical insider knowledge of their minds ! I find it remarkable you are so unaware of your own rather stark hypocrisy here. Moreover I detect a very strong streak of intolerance in your expressed views. Not very civil at all. What exactly do you mean by "have no use at all for..."? Do you believe they should be forced to adopt views and behavior more like your own? Do you believe they should be restrained in exercising their political rights to influence the behavior of our government?

I think you indulge far too much in vague abstractions and the futile effort to explain the necessary folly of anyone who disagrees with you.

It's a very big and complex world out there, one that has defied the attempts of many to codify its workings. Moreover, it has been changing continuously over recorded history. Loosen up and enjoy the variety.
Blickers
 
  1  
Sun 14 Feb, 2016 11:53 am
@georgeob1,
Quote georgeob1:
Quote:
It is simply a fact that America was indeed founded as a largely Christian nation, but one that took firm steps to ensure religious freedom for all.... Perhaps you don't like the facts of our origins and history and wish to suppress any recitation of them.


Depends on what you mean by "a Christian nation". If you mean that the vast majority of people in America have always considered themselves Christian of one form or another, you are correct. If you mean America is officially dedicated to Christian values and justifies its actions by references to the Bible and Christian teachings, then you are wrong.

People who favor a superior status for one religion or one group of religious sects are always trying to get these two concepts mixed up. The radio interview with Mrs. Cruz did exactly that, giving small lip service to the fact that we have freedom of religion in America while strongly emphasizing the notion that her husband represents Christianity in this election and should be voted for on that basis.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 14 Feb, 2016 12:00 pm
@Blickers,
The "In God We Trust" on our currency is based on Christianity.

https://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx
georgeob1
 
  0  
Sun 14 Feb, 2016 12:09 pm
@Blickers,
I explained my self very clearly on that point. You simply chose not to see it.

Indeed you appear to have missed entirely that secularism is merely an alternative to religion and that we are frankly beset by more demands that our behavior coform to externally determined principles and rules coming from secularists that from Christian religions in this country. I believe that persuasion is better than force in guiding human behavior and that freedom is better than even the best conceived "model system" for governing our behavior.

Indeed as most architercts of such systems discover, the unseen side effects of their plans, however complex and well crafted they are tend to doiminate the results and the perversities of human nature corrupts them. The unravelling of Obamacare is a good example. It turns out that Prof. Jonathan Gruber wasn't really smarter than everyone else ... he just thought he was.
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 01:57:02