Jump to content

SCOTUS and whatnot


pfife

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Quit acting like a fucking 2 year old.

When is my meeting for you to approve or reject my reasons for how I vote?  It's my your vote according to you 

Edited by pfife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how you'v been reduced to the point of being a grown ass man calling another grown ass man a fucking 2 year old because they don't buy your garbage argument on the internet.   You could just be a better salesman but whatever I'm not the one trying to get someone to vote in accordance with my wishes by insulting them repeatedly

Edited by pfife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually old enough to remember the self-appointed vote-approval council of 1 here, @1984Echoes, saying on the old board that he's voted for Republicans before.  Yeah, no offense but I'll take my lectures about consequences for people who didn't vote FOR THE CONSEQUENCES DIRECTLY.

I'm undefeated in voting not for republicans, don't need you bringing down my record

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

A younger Biden did run in 2008 but was canceled because he wasn't black or a woman. 

An even younger Biden ran in 1988 but was canceled because of a plagiarized speech. 

The irony here is that Obama was the inspiring choice. 

That is why he won.  I don't know if Biden could have won.  The ordering just makes more sense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 1776 said:

I voted for Johnson/Weld in 2016. I guess some would consider these guys odd balls as well. However, that vote has aged well.

Weld was a pretty popular governor in Massachusetts.  I had no problem with him.  I was surprised to see him later running as a Libertarian.  

Edited by Tiger337
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Yup. You need to vote to prevent what you don't want as much as to get what you do want.

The repubs have internalized that much better than the dems.

That’s because Republicans lead with fear, which almost by definition spurs reaction and action, while the Democrats have traditionally led with hope, which is basically the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

That’s because Republicans lead with fear, which almost by definition spurs reaction and action, while the Democrats have traditionally led with hope, which is basically the opposite.

Running on fear helped in 2020.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1776 said:

I voted for Johnson/Weld in 2016. I guess some would consider these guys odd balls as well. However, that vote has aged well.

Ironic... I voted for them and convinced others to as well. I wish I would have voted for Clinton/Kaine if I knew how dangerous the Trump tidal wave was gonna be.

 

Having said that, not auto-voting Republican was a big step for me at the time.

Edited by Edman85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 1776 said:

I’m anxious to see if Justin Amash will be on the ballot anywhere in 2024. 

I think the bigger problem is that third party votes don't really have a lot of value in a first past the post system, particularly when votes are allocated by the Electoral College. I doubt Amash changes that.

I would love to have a voting system similar to France where it's based on popular vote and subject to a runoff when the top vote getter is below 50%... it would ensure more options for the public and that whoever wins would be the consensus choice.

But that will not happen here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I think the bigger problem is that third party votes don't really have a lot of value in a first past the post system, particularly when votes are allocated by the Electoral College. I doubt Amash changes that.

I would love to have a voting system similar to France where it's based on popular vote and subject to a runoff when the top vote getter is below 50%... it would ensure more options for the public and that whoever wins would be the consensus choice.

But that will not happen here.

third parties only function legislatively and only then if the they can swing the balance of power. They make no sense at all in presidential election, it's just a wasted vote unless your guy actually has a practical chance to win, and no 3rd party presidential candidate in my lifetime has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

third parties only function legislatively and only then if the they can swing the balance of power. They make no sense at all in presidential election, it's just a wasted vote unless your guy actually has a practical chance to win, and no 3rd party presidential candidate in my lifetime has.

Even pretending a third party candidate could win, good luck establishing a relationship with a Congress none of whom are in the same party as you.

A far more likely outcome is a third party candidate securing enough electoral votes (probably in the south and southwest through a, I don’t know, overturn-the-13th-amendment platform or something) to deny any candidate getting a majority, at which point the president gets chosen by the House using that completely asinine one-state/one-vote arrangement that Eastman wanted to unlock a couple years ago.

Edited by chasfh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

third parties only function legislatively and only then if the they can swing the balance of power. They make no sense at all in presidential election, it's just a wasted vote unless your guy actually has a practical chance to win, and no 3rd party presidential candidate in my lifetime has.

If Perot hadn’t decided to go over the edge with his  campaign back in the day, (over the top accusations about Bush and quitting/reentering race)  it would have been interesting to see how that would have finished up. I almost wondered at the time if he had regretted getting into the race and wanted out, without admitting it of course. 
Ross was all about, “looking under the hood.” Another chapter in American history.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Maine is not giving in to Scotus without a fight. They are demanding any school in the program adhere to the state's LGBTQ non-disecriminaiton policy. The schools that filed the original suit probably will not participate on those grounds. More courts cases will be pending. 

This is a very clarifying situation though. It shows that these schools really want the money not to educate, but to do their religious indoctrination with public money.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

So Maine is not giving in to Scotus without a fight. They are demanding any school in the program adhere to the state's LGBTQ non-disecriminaiton policy. The schools that filed the original suit probably will not participate on those grounds. More courts cases will be pending. 

This is a very clarifying situation though. It shows that these schools really want the money not to educate, but to do their religious indoctrination with public money.

So yank their permits and licenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...