Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's probably already been covered, but I awake to headlines of Trump calling for Clinton to be assassinated...

The truth is, when he said "he meant for them to mobilize and vote", I believe him. I think he meant the people to whom the second amendment is important are generally republican, consistently get out and vote, and can mobilize strongly around a cause. I don't think it was the dog whistle it's getting described as. Just my 2 cents.

But, he does deserve the reaction... no? He is the Mr. "I can shoot someone and not lose voters" donkey-cave.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Everyone that's not a neocon is a leftie, I guess.

This is a thing. Conservatives have moved so far right, anything approaching the middle is Socialism and maybe Communism. Probably Communism. Any criticism is a sure sign of liberal bias. Even if you try to point out that such demand for ideological "purity" is ultimately self-defeating and isolating conservatives as extremists. It is hugely frustrating.
Things that will get you labeled as a liberal:
-Advocating religious tolerance for anything other than Christianity
-Pointing out that Christianity is not a persecuted group in the US
-Advocating any kind of government benefits (including VA)
-Advocating any kind of progressive tax that might require the upper echelons to pay more
-Stating that labor unions are not inherently evil
-Stating that corporations are not inherently good
-Having reservations about military expansionism
-Any kind of support for LGBT equality
-Any kind of concern over racism other than "reverse racism"

Or say anything other than "hoax" when talking about climate change.

Can't believe I forgot that one. Yup, any concerns over environmental issues= definitely a liberal.
Indeed, a reliance on "studies" and "facts" often indicates a strong possibility of liberal corruption.

Also any belief that "the media" is a corporate shill instead of a liberal propaganda arm.

Putting on my neutral hat and playing Devil's advocate, Trump could have won this election. I think he's way to damaged now to win, but he had a genuine chance of victory if he had done things differently.

BREXIT is conclusive evidence that in the Western world, ordinary people are fed up with the current power structures.

Trump, playing the maverick card, could have defeated Clinton, the establishment figure.

But only if he had played it straight, acted like a statesman from time to time.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to wrestle Clinton to the floor during the debates...

 whembly wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Everyone that's not a neocon is a leftie, I guess.

This is a thing. Conservatives have moved so far right, anything approaching the middle is Socialism and maybe Communism. Probably Communism. Any criticism is a sure sign of liberal bias. Even if you try to point out that such demand for ideological "purity" is ultimately self-defeating and isolating conservatives as extremists. It is hugely frustrating.
Things that will get you labeled as a liberal:
-Advocating religious tolerance for anything other than Christianity
-Pointing out that Christianity is not a persecuted group in the US
-Advocating any kind of government benefits (including VA)
-Advocating any kind of progressive tax that might require the upper echelons to pay more
-Stating that labor unions are not inherently evil
-Stating that corporations are not inherently good
-Having reservations about military expansionism
-Any kind of support for LGBT equality
-Any kind of concern over racism other than "reverse racism"

That's baloney yo.

Yeah the Republicans would never do something like block funding for a mosquito born disease because they added riders that cut health programs, restricted funding for birth control services from Planned Parenthood, weakened clean water laws and blocked a ban on displaying the Confederate flag at U.S. military cemeteries. They would never go that far right

 jasper76 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I fully expect Trump to win the old Confederate states

Not so fast. Iirc, Obama flipped Virginia and North Carolina from red to blue, and these states are very much in play for Clinton. And some polls have her close or leading in Georgia, which is very much in play for the Democrats this cycle.

And I believe Clinton is leading Florida as well, but that state of confusion is always anyone's guess.

I can't be the only person who thinks that it would be in everybody's best interests if Florida was banned from voting in Presidential elections


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's probably already been covered, but I awake to headlines of Trump calling for Clinton to be assassinated...

The truth is, when he said "he meant for them to mobilize and vote", I believe him. I think he meant the people to whom the second amendment is important are generally republican, consistently get out and vote, and can mobilize strongly around a cause. I don't think it was the dog whistle it's getting described as. Just my 2 cents.

I could be horribly wrong on this, but SCOTUS can't repeal the 2nd or any other amendment, can it?

Only a 2/3rds majority in Congress and the senate can do this?

So why all the fuss over Clinton's SCOTUS picks if she is President?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


BREXIT is conclusive evidence that in the Western world, ordinary people are fed up with the current power structures.

Or, BREXIT is evidence that voters are susceptible to demagoguery by dudes with stupid haircuts, voters are willing to play chicken on issues they don't really understand and assume someone on the other side is behind the wheel, and voters don't understand that there are no guaranteed do-overs on matters of high consequence.

You guys showed us what happens when the demagogues get what they want. They then proceed to flee from the problem they create and leave smarter people to deal with the mess..that is if the citizens are lucky.

Boris Johnson was a pretty good warning for American voters since we have one of our own so close to the Presidency.

 whembly wrote:
This isn't about nepotism.

This is far more brazen... The NYPOST has a story on "one email" in this regard (drip,drip,drip):
http://nypost.com/2016/08/09/emails-reveal-hillarys-shocking-pay-for-play-scheme/

It's just one email, FIOA'ed....

There is absolutely nothing interesting about this story.

It's sort of implying that a donor wanted a guy to get a job? That guy was an ambassador to Lebanon the Bush administration for years, then he was acting assistant secstate for near east affairs, then during the Obama administration under Hillary, he became assistant secstate for near east affairs. He's a career diplomat who's worked for the state department in one role or another since he pretty much got out of college (1986) - he's worked for every president since George H.W. Bush, ffs.

the sauce, it's weak

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I could be horribly wrong on this, but SCOTUS can't repeal the 2nd or any other amendment, can it?

Only a 2/3rds majority in Congress and the senate can do this?

So why all the fuss over Clinton's SCOTUS picks if she is President?

Primarily because the Court can essentially chose to pass on challenges to, or uphold, legislation that many view as violating the 2nd amendment, or event potentially reverse the determination that the 2nd amendment is an individual as opposed to a collective right and disincorporate it.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


BREXIT is conclusive evidence that in the Western world, ordinary people are fed up with the current power structures.

Or, BREXIT is evidence that voters are susceptible to demagoguery by dudes with stupid haircuts, voters are willing to play chicken on issues they don't really understand and assume someone on the other side is behind the wheel, and voters don't understand that there are no guaranteed do-overs on matters of high consequence.

You guys showed us what happens when the demagogues get what they want. They then proceed to flee from the problem they create and leave smarter people to deal with.the mess.

Boris Johnson was a pretty good warning for American voters since we have one of our own so close to the Presidency.

Hey! I voted to leave. You saying I'm a toothless simpleton or something that's easily influenced by slogans?

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's probably already been covered, but I awake to headlines of Trump calling for Clinton to be assassinated...

The truth is, when he said "he meant for them to mobilize and vote", I believe him. I think he meant the people to whom the second amendment is important are generally republican, consistently get out and vote, and can mobilize strongly around a cause. I don't think it was the dog whistle it's getting described as. Just my 2 cents.

No, he definitely meant it in a "second amendment solution" sort of way. "If she gets to pick her Judges", in other words, if Clinton wins the Presidency, and after everyone has voted. You don't mobilise the vote after you've lost the vote. Still, nothing will come of it, besides a few Secret Service agents asking him not to do that again behind the scenes. He's disgusting, but those who support him do not care exactly how far from the norm Trump is, because they've lost all frame of reference.

But they like Trump, because he's "telling it like it is".

Then clarifying what he said it like it is.

Then denying he said that like it is.

Then the cycle starts again.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I could be horribly wrong on this, but SCOTUS can't repeal the 2nd or any other amendment, can it?

Only a 2/3rds majority in Congress and the senate can do this?

So why all the fuss over Clinton's SCOTUS picks if she is President?

Only a constitutional amendment can alter or repeal an amendment, yes.

The thought is that Hillary Clinton is likely to appoint up to 3 supreme court justices, and a liberal court will be more likely to take a stricter view of the second amendment. This discussion rapidly goes nowhere good so I will leave it there.

 jmurph wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Everyone that's not a neocon is a leftie, I guess.

This is a thing. Conservatives have moved so far right, anything approaching the middle is Socialism and maybe Communism. Probably Communism. Any criticism is a sure sign of liberal bias. Even if you try to point out that such demand for ideological "purity" is ultimately self-defeating and isolating conservatives as extremists. It is hugely frustrating.
Things that will get you labeled as a liberal:
-Advocating religious tolerance for anything other than Christianity
-Pointing out that Christianity is not a persecuted group in the US
-Advocating any kind of government benefits (including VA)
-Advocating any kind of progressive tax that might require the upper echelons to pay more
-Stating that labor unions are not inherently evil
-Stating that corporations are not inherently good
-Having reservations about military expansionism
-Any kind of support for LGBT equality
-Any kind of concern over racism other than "reverse racism"

Or say anything other than "hoax" when talking about climate change.

Can't believe I forgot that one. Yup, any concerns over environmental issues= definitely a liberal.
Indeed, a reliance on "studies" and "facts" often indicates a strong possibility of liberal corruption.

Also any belief that "the media" is a corporate shill instead of a liberal propaganda arm.

Most of this problem is a result of redistricting. Current districts tend to be very safe districts for one party or the other. Republican districts are safely Republican and Democrat districts are safely Democrat. This helps the Parties retain their seats and win elections but it's bad for the voters and the states/country. Safe districts depress primary turnout because there's no competition from the other party and more importantly the incumbents are only pressured from the fringes of the Party base. Republican incumbents in safely Republican districts are only going to challenged by other Republicans who have to try to out Republican the incumbent and move even further right. This leads to increasing amounts of polarization as the Republican incumbents and any successful challengers have to move their positions further right to avoid challengers. Sometimes incumbents can move so far to the right that they lose to more moderate challengers, like what happened in Kansas recently. We'd all be better off with competitive districts that have viable candidates from both Parties (even better if we had more parties) so there is a moderating influence as candidates have to stay in the middle to win a majority of votes.

Here's a good 538 article that explains the problem:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-political-process-isnt-rigged-it-has-much-bigger-problems/

And something from Real Clear Politics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/08/bret_stephens_echo_chamber_republican_party_increasingly_divorced_from_reality.html

In an appearance on Morning Joe Monday Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor Bret Stephens accused the Republican Party of being "increasingly divorced from reality. Stephens said redistricting has caused Republican districts to become "too red."

He also repeated his line that a Trump defeat will be good for the party, and the larger the loss the "healthier" it will be. The scribe said it will be a wake-up call to Republicans living in a "thought bubble."

BRET STEPHENS: Well, I think the point you're making is an important one, in that too much of the Republican Party became an echo chamber of itself. And so, if you spend your time listening to certain cable shows all the time, listening to nobody else, if you're prone to the kind of conspiracy theories that whiz around on Twitter or certain fringes of the internet, you end up having this kind of conversation that's just increasingly divorced from reality. The people coming over the border, from south of the border, is not a horde of Libyan jihadists, but you would think, talking to some large segment of the GOP base, that that's the kind of challenge that we face. Trade is not hurting working class Americans. Trade is helping working class Americans. But, again, because of the echo chamber that we created -- and by the way, one large problem I would add, and a wise Republican friend of mine made this point, because of redistricting, because red districts are so red, and the only challenges that incumbents face are primary challenges, we are moving in a kind of a self-polarizing direction. That doesn't help the country, doesn't help the Republican Party.

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Everyone that's not a neocon is a leftie, I guess.

This is a thing. Conservatives have moved so far right, anything approaching the middle is Socialism and maybe Communism. Probably Communism. Any criticism is a sure sign of liberal bias. Even if you try to point out that such demand for ideological "purity" is ultimately self-defeating and isolating conservatives as extremists. It is hugely frustrating.
Things that will get you labeled as a liberal:
-Advocating religious tolerance for anything other than Christianity
-Pointing out that Christianity is not a persecuted group in the US
-Advocating any kind of government benefits (including VA)
-Advocating any kind of progressive tax that might require the upper echelons to pay more
-Stating that labor unions are not inherently evil
-Stating that corporations are not inherently good
-Having reservations about military expansionism
-Any kind of support for LGBT equality
-Any kind of concern over racism other than "reverse racism"

That's baloney yo.

Yeah the Republicans would never do something like block funding for a mosquito born disease because they added riders that cut health programs, restricted funding for birth control services from Planned Parenthood, weakened clean water laws and blocked a ban on displaying the Confederate flag at U.S. military cemeteries. They would never go that far right

Right... because Republicans are the "other" and by default they're wrong in your eyes.

Furthermore, it was the DEMOCRATS who blocked the funding for Zika... not Republicans.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


BREXIT is conclusive evidence that in the Western world, ordinary people are fed up with the current power structures.

Or, BREXIT is evidence that voters are susceptible to demagoguery by dudes with stupid haircuts, voters are willing to play chicken on issues they don't really understand and assume someone on the other side is behind the wheel, and voters don't understand that there are no guaranteed do-overs on matters of high consequence.

You guys showed us what happens when the demagogues get what they want. They then proceed to flee from the problem they create and leave smarter people to deal with.the mess.

Boris Johnson was a pretty good warning for American voters since we have one of our own so close to the Presidency.

Hey! I voted to leave. You saying I'm a toothless simpleton or something that's easily influenced by slogans?

No, I'm just saying that your country has it's share of simpletons, whether toothless or toothfull, who are easily influenced by slogans. The US is no better in this regard, and is probably even worse.

 Maddermax wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's probably already been covered, but I awake to headlines of Trump calling for Clinton to be assassinated...

The truth is, when he said "he meant for them to mobilize and vote", I believe him. I think he meant the people to whom the second amendment is important are generally republican, consistently get out and vote, and can mobilize strongly around a cause. I don't think it was the dog whistle it's getting described as. Just my 2 cents.

No, he definitely meant it in a "second amendment solution" sort of way. "If she gets to pick her Judges", in other words, if Clinton wins the Presidency, and after everyone has voted. You don't mobilise the vote after you've lost the vote. Still, nothing will come of it, besides a few Secret Service agents asking him not to do that again behind the scenes.

But that's Trump, "telling it like it is".

Then clarifying what he said it like it is.

Then denying he said that, like it is.

I'm sorry, I simply do not agree. I think I'm very clear that I think Trump is a human dumpster fire, but it struck me as a poorly phrased sentence. I know what those kinds of dog whistles sound like and I just don't think it was one. I think he's much more clear with the lousy, awful ideas he has.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I could be horribly wrong on this, but SCOTUS can't repeal the 2nd or any other amendment, can it?

Only a 2/3rds majority in Congress and the senate can do this?

So why all the fuss over Clinton's SCOTUS picks if she is President?

Primarily because the Court can essentially chose to pass on challenges to, or uphold, legislation that many view as violating the 2nd amendment, or event potentially reverse the determination that the 2nd amendment is an individual as opposed to a collective right and disincorporate it.

Don't want to start a gun debate thread here

But I've been reading a lot about the history of the 2nd amendment, and 4 times before Heller, SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd wasn't an individual right, the previous time being in 1939 of all years.

To cut a long story short and to avoid a gun debate, this is my point: American society changes, people change, the mood changes.

SCOTUS has ruled both ways on the 2nd. In this day and age, the Heller case said it was an individual right, before that it wasn't, in 50 years time, who knows?

So, I don't see why HRC's SCOTUS pciks should be a problem. Society is the driver of change, courts and politicians reflect this....

PM me if you or anybody else wnats to continue this debate. Will save the Mods some work

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Putting on my neutral hat and playing Devil's advocate, Trump could have won this election. I think he's way to damaged now to win, but he had a genuine chance of victory if he had done things differently.

No. Hillary Clinton secured the Presidency when Trump was nominated in the Primary.

It's as simple as that.

BREXIT is conclusive evidence that in the Western world, ordinary people are fed up with the current power structures.

Sure... I'd go with that interpretation.

Trump, playing the maverick card, could have defeated Clinton, the establishment figure.

But only if he had played it straight, acted like a statesman from time to time.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to wrestle Clinton to the floor during the debates...

I'm not a hardcore Clinton supporter, but I think she does just fine in debates. She probably bettered Bernie Sanders in each debate they had, and I was a Sanders supporter so it's not like I wanted her to do well.

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Putting on my neutral hat and playing Devil's advocate, Trump could have won this election. I think he's way to damaged now to win, but he had a genuine chance of victory if he had done things differently.

No. Hillary Clinton secured the Presidency when Trump was nominated in the Primary.

It's as simple as that.

BREXIT is conclusive evidence that in the Western world, ordinary people are fed up with the current power structures.

Sure... I'd go with that interpretation.

Trump, playing the maverick card, could have defeated Clinton, the establishment figure.

But only if he had played it straight, acted like a statesman from time to time.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to wrestle Clinton to the floor during the debates...

I doubt it.

Both Hillary and Trump are horribad at debates... they only do well in front of their hardcore supporters.

 whembly wrote:
Furthermore, it was the DEMOCRATS who blocked the funding for Zika... not Republicans.

Well gee, that seems like sort of a lie of omission, doesn't it?

1.) Democrats asked for 1.1 billion to prevent the spread of Zika.
2.) Republicans larded the bill up with riders such as: stripping $540 million from ACA funding, $107 from Ebola, a provision preventing the confederate flag from flying over federal cemeteries, restrictions on Planned Parenthood birth control and discussing Zika (which can be spread sexually!), exempts pesticide from clean-water rules for open water
3.) Democrats wound up spiking the bill
4.) Republicans asked why Democrats don't care about Zika
5.) Democrats introduced a clean Zika funding bill
6.) Republicans blocked it

But yeah, you only remember 3, because "they're both bad"

“The first TV picture of an American woman bearing a child with a birth defect caused by this virus will be on [Democrats],” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). “I wouldn’t want to be in their position.”

they're both bad

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Everyone that's not a neocon is a leftie, I guess.

This is a thing. Conservatives have moved so far right, anything approaching the middle is Socialism and maybe Communism. Probably Communism. Any criticism is a sure sign of liberal bias. Even if you try to point out that such demand for ideological "purity" is ultimately self-defeating and isolating conservatives as extremists. It is hugely frustrating.
Things that will get you labeled as a liberal:
-Advocating religious tolerance for anything other than Christianity
-Pointing out that Christianity is not a persecuted group in the US
-Advocating any kind of government benefits (including VA)
-Advocating any kind of progressive tax that might require the upper echelons to pay more
-Stating that labor unions are not inherently evil
-Stating that corporations are not inherently good
-Having reservations about military expansionism
-Any kind of support for LGBT equality
-Any kind of concern over racism other than "reverse racism"

That's baloney yo.

Yeah the Republicans would never do something like block funding for a mosquito born disease because they added riders that cut health programs, restricted funding for birth control services from Planned Parenthood, weakened clean water laws and blocked a ban on displaying the Confederate flag at U.S. military cemeteries. They would never go that far right

Right... because Republicans are the "other" and by default they're wrong in your eyes.

Furthermore, it was the DEMOCRATS who blocked the funding for Zika... not Republicans.

I wonder why it was blocked? It couldn't have anything to do with the riders thay I listed above, weird right?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I could be horribly wrong on this, but SCOTUS can't repeal the 2nd or any other amendment, can it?

Only a 2/3rds majority in Congress and the senate can do this?

So why all the fuss over Clinton's SCOTUS picks if she is President?

Primarily because the Court can essentially chose to pass on challenges to, or uphold, legislation that many view as violating the 2nd amendment, or event potentially reverse the determination that the 2nd amendment is an individual as opposed to a collective right and disincorporate it.

Don't want to start a gun debate thread here

But I've been reading a lot about the history of the 2nd amendment, and 4 times before Heller, SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd wasn't an individual right, the previous time being in 1939 of all years.

To cut a long story short and to avoid a gun debate, this is my point: American society changes, people change, the mood changes.

SCOTUS has ruled both ways on the 2nd. In this day and age, the Heller case said it was an individual right, before that it wasn't, in 50 years time, who knows?

So, I don't see why HRC's SCOTUS pciks should be a problem. Society is the driver of change, courts and politicians reflect this....

PM me if you or anybody else wnats to continue this debate. Will save the Mods some work

You're overlooking the fact that a majority of states have state constitutions that have stronger more clearly worded protections for the right of residents to privately own firearms. The federal supreme court can't change that.

The issue of Hillary or Trump appointing Supreme Court justices is just something to try to ramp up enthusiasm in the base to increase turnout. In either case, Trump or Clinton winning, they won't be able to successfully nominate SCotUS judges without getting confirmation votes from the opposing party. If Hillary wins she won't successfully appoint a single SCotUS judge without getting Republicans to vote yes. If the Republicans refused to vote yes for any Clinton nominee she wouldn't be able to fill any vacancies. Depending on what happens in the 2018 midterms that could hold true for the entire term of whomever wins this election. We could very easily only have 8 justices or even 7 for the next four years.

Prestor Jon wrote:
We could very easily only have 8 justices or even 7 for the next four years.

Sure. Why not just refuse to give a vote for 4 years? We're already doing some outer-space level stuff now. Why stop at the rest of the Obama administration?

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This isn't about nepotism.

This is far more brazen... The NYPOST has a story on "one email" in this regard (drip,drip,drip):
http://nypost.com/2016/08/09/emails-reveal-hillarys-shocking-pay-for-play-scheme/

It's just one email, FIOA'ed....

There is absolutely nothing interesting about this story.

It's sort of implying that a donor wanted a guy to get a job? That guy was an ambassador to Lebanon the Bush administration for years, then he was acting assistant secstate for near east affairs, then during the Obama administration under Hillary, he became assistant secstate for near east affairs. He's a career diplomat who's worked for the state department in one role or another since he pretty much got out of college (1986) - he's worked for every president since George H.W. Bush, ffs.

the sauce, it's weak

Absolutely nothing? You don't see a conflict of interest here?

Furthermore... did she and her cronies NOT hold up to their obligation to Obama?

In practical matters, we couldn't demand the Clinton Foundation to be shut down while Clinton was SoS... but, it was reasonable to encourage disclosure... and even then, they were unable to keep their promise.

 whembly wrote:
Absolutely nothing? You don't see a conflict of interest here?

I'm sorry that I couldn't see the big scandal in the acting assistant secretary of state under the W. Bush administration getting the job for the next 4 years under Obama.


Perhaps you can explain this scandal to me a little more clearly. What specifically was the smoking gun here? Maybe I'm just not getting it.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
We could very easily only have 8 justices or even 7 for the next four years.

Sure. Why not just refuse to give a vote for 4 years? We're already doing some outer-space level stuff now. Why stop at the rest of the Obama administration?

Can you honestly envision President Trump nominating anyone for SCotUS that doesn't get "Bork'd" by the Democrats?

After the amount of rhetoric spewed by the Republicans about how Clinton's SCotUS nominees would destroy America as we know it can you see any Republican voting for any of her nominees?

Both sides have painted themselves into a corner when it comes to SCotUS nominees from the other Party.

Bloody hell! I really am confused...

I need to read up on how American political structures work...

For years, I believed the following:

Because of checks and balances, I thought that there was 9 SCOTUS judges.

and that the President got to pick 3, Congress chose 3, and the Senate chose 3

but that's all wrong.... It made sense to me at the time...

I'm familiar with FDR and his SCOTUS problems, but I thought that was becuase of a congress backlash, rather than a constitutional problem...

Back to the books I think and this is why I'm moving to Chinese history - they don't bother with checks and balances, and it's less confusing

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For years, I believed the following:

Because of checks and balances, I thought that there was 9 SCOTUS judges.

and that the President got to pick 3, Congress chose 3, and the Senate chose 3

but that's all wrong.... It made sense to me at the time...

Hah. No, that's interesting, but wrong, and it would tip the balance significantly to the legislature.

Prestor Jon wrote:

You're overlooking the fact that a majority of states have state constitutions that have stronger more clearly worded protections for the right of residents to privately own firearms. The federal supreme court can't change that.

Ferderal law trumps state law. Come on, this is basic stuff. Now I doubt that will happen, but state constitutions don't overule federal law. If they did slavery would still exist.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Furthermore, it was the DEMOCRATS who blocked the funding for Zika... not Republicans.

Well gee, that seems like sort of a lie of omission, doesn't it?

1.) Democrats asked for 1.1 billion to prevent the spread of Zika.
2.) Republicans larded the bill up with riders such as: stripping $540 million from ACA funding, $107 from Ebola, a provision preventing the confederate flag from flying over federal cemeteries, restrictions on Planned Parenthood birth control and discussing Zika (which can be spread sexually!), exempts pesticide from clean-water rules for open water
3.) Democrats wound up spiking the bill
4.) Republicans asked why Democrats don't care about Zika
5.) Democrats introduced a clean Zika funding bill
6.) Republicans blocked it

But yeah, you only remember 3, because "they're both bad"

No.

The Democrat prioritized Planned Parenthood fundings over anti-Zika measures.

Simple as that.

“The first TV picture of an American woman bearing a child with a birth defect caused by this virus will be on [Democrats],” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). “I wouldn’t want to be in their position.”

they're both bad

yes, they're both bad.

Democrats bad for blocking funding...

Republicans bad for telegraphing to hang the "child w/ a birth defect" around Democrat's neck.