I was going to make this huge long post, but then my computer died.
Even though it was plugged in and charging : ((
A shorter version is that the Republicans have held the court for more than 30 years now, and this is the first time we can turn it around. Conservatives got that advantage because of two back to back presidents, which is a similar situation to what democrats can have this year.
Below is an image of the leanings of the Supreme Court, as you can see, the court has been changing ideology for quite a while, and there are long stretches of years where the court stays with one leaning.
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/01...me-Court-final2_5000w.jpg?4402124340634297419
As of right now, Breyer is 77, Kennedy is 80, and RBG is 83, and has had cancer for 16 years. Scalia is dead. Right now, Republicans have the advantage of a younger court than the Democrats. But that can change. Ginsberg can retire after Hillary is elected, as can Breyer. Kennedy can hold out, but it is likely he will die or will have to leave, especially if Hillary is reelected. What were talking about here is two different roads.
The first is that Trump (or any republican really) wins:
Scalia will be replaced by a republican, that is fairly conservative, if not as conservative as Antonin. Kennedy retires, and gets replaced by a younger justice. The Republicans now have a Supreme Court that is 5-4, and young: their oldest member will be 66.
The second is that Hillary wins:
Scalia will be replaced by a democrat, who may or may not be as liberal as some want, but will undoubtedly be more liberal than Kennedy, which is what matters. RBG will be replaced, which will go easier than Scalia's seat, as it will not flip the court. Breyer will also likely choose to be replaced. It is possible Kennedy leaves for whatever reason. The democrats now have a young (oldest member is now probably less than 70 years old), democratic supreme court at least 5-4, and possibly 6-3, which is an advantage they can keep for at least ten years, no matter if Hillary has a second term or not.
Why is this important? The supreme court is far and away the most powerful branch of government. They have the ability to strike down any order,law, treaty, or statute they find to be unconstitutional. The justices will not be held whim to their constituents, as they have none, and will be free to vote their conscience on any cases.
Were talking overruling citizens united, which is a number one priority according to Hillary. We're talking striking down voter id laws, finding gun control measures constitutional, not having Roe v Wade overturned, possibly ending the death penalty (they did in the past, and there is a clear case for this under the 8th amendment).
This is the power of the supreme court, which has the ability to shape the future of america in ways the president or legislature simply can not.
I don't see anything in this post that refutes anything that I've stated. You've made the case that the supreme court is powerful and I would agree with that assessment. Their power isn't the problem. Their lack of potential to consistently and consecutively use their power for good over decades and even centuries is the problem. We cannot solely rely on the supreme court to rule in favor of progressive values until the end of our days.
What I'm advocating for isn't something that precludes the supreme court from doing its job. I'm talking about factors and variables that potentially help to shape the values of our society over a very long period of time. The supreme court can play a powerful hand in that, but every president plays a significant part in it too. It's not one or the other.
So as long as Hillary Clinton supports the death penalty, I will continue to criticize her for it even though I'm still going to vote for her. The supreme court cannot wash her hands of the negative impact she will leave on society if she publicly supports the death penalty as President of the United States.
And make no mistake, Hillary won't be even remotely apologetic about a convict receiving the death penalty if she truly feels like they're deserving of it. That kind of rhetoric should not be allowed to come from the leadership of this country.
Dude, I don't even know what the fuck you want anymore.
You cite calculation at one of her faults and that it makes her inauthentic while suggesting the solution to this is a marginally riskier but more convincing calculation. You're not suggesting that she change how she operates, just that she should do it better. Lie more convincingly, since she's lying poorly now.
Before this, you laid out an ideal candidate would not budge on issues out of principle, and when I suggested that you name politicians that have done so and succeeded in legislating those ideals, you failed to do so. Because there aren't any, because that's not how democracy works. Then you tried to shift the discussion about how this is actually about the corruption of the political system itself, even though that's not the topic and you're still talking about Hillary Clinton in particular.
And it's not like you provided the 'ideal' year for her to switch her position either, you just say that it's the wrong one while arguing that a few years earlier also wouldn't have hurt her. So how is that any better then? It doesn't remove the fact that the crux of your argument lies is basically "only way to be authentic is to commit political suicide or atleast mutilation", which when it was pointed out to you why taking a moral stance with no benefit produces no actual benefit, you just shrugged off as if it was not a legitimate counter to your argument.
So I can tell you're not happy with Clinton, but you're not putting those grievances in any coherent form. I'm guessing it's because as soon as you would, you'd realize the circumstances of her situation mean that her options were limited and taking the stances you expect her to is unreasonable. Because that's how I see it. Ideological purity is all great and exciting, but it does not work when you have to work with guys who disagree over it to make it a law.
I'm sure others will argue this point with you further, but for me, this is just moving in circles.
I feel like it's fine but might as well wait until after the election if she's the president. There's no point now when it's clear that this country needs Trump to lose.
So you want people who are hesitant to vote for Clinton but do nothing about the assholes who support her but make her less appealing to vote for.
How is she going to appeal to these edges if there isn't a discussion about her flaws and calmly breaking down why they aren't as big of deal in the first place? Right now there are too many people that want to sweep it up under the rug and command others to fall in line. That's not how you convince people in order to get their vote unless they are dependent on you for some reason.
Dude, I don't even know what the fuck you want anymore.
You cite calculation at one of her faults and that it makes her inauthentic while suggesting the solution to this is a marginally riskier but more convincing calculation. You're not suggesting that she change how she operates, just that she should do it better. Lie more convincingly, since she's lying poorly now.
People getting shot down for smack talking Hillary is certainly something you see frequently around here. I'd say it's up there, perhaps just below people having persecution complexes.
I'm saying I don't like her and prefer other politicians... So obviously?
You're not exactly the objective Hillary supporter on the board.
Years after George Washington died, someone came up with that dumb cherry tree story. Hillary, to me, would tell people that she chopped down the cherry tree if she thought it would help her.
People getting shot down for smack talking Hillary is certainly something you see frequently around here. I'd say it's up there, perhaps just below people having persecution complexes.
I think it's because the smack talk they get shot down for is false and talking points that keep coming up constantly. if someone makes a good point than they won't be shot down. It seems like that's few and far between though.
I think it's because the smack talk they get shot down for is false and talking points that keep coming up constantly. if someone makes a good point than they won't be shot down. It seems like that's few and far between though.
It's not even like it's difficult to think up legitimate criticisms of HRC, she's running a few bad policies and she's made dozens of mistakes, it comes from being in politics for decades. There's just so much hysteria surrounding here that legitimate criticisms seem to disappear in a well of nonsense.
It's not even like it's difficult to think up legitimate criticisms of HRC, she's running a few bad policies and she's made dozens of mistakes, it comes from being in politics for decades. There's just so much hysteria surrounding here that legitimate criticisms seem to disappear in a well of nonsense.
IMO, where I stand: I see what she has fought for, what she really wanted to accomplish and in the end her intentions
Hillary Clinton will be a great President.
She is more progressive than Obama on domestic issues, which is a very good thing.
She is more hawkish than Obama on foreign policy which is also a good thing.
Hillary will be one of the best Presidents in US history
who cares if she is not a great speaker,
who cares if she has a weird laugh,
people harp on the weird shit to not vote for somebody
She will do lots of good and will be one of the biggest Change Makers who will make lefty-lefts eat their lunch when she actually accomplishes at pushing more progressive policies than any other prez
IMO, where I stand: I see what she has fought for, what she really wanted to accomplish and in the end her intentions
Hillary Clinton will be a great President.
She is more progressive than Obama on domestic issues, which is a very good thing. She is more hawkish than Obama on foreign policy which is also a good thing.
Hillary will be one of the best Presidents in US history
who cares if she is not a great speaker,
who cares if she has a weird laugh,
people harp on the weird shit to not vote for somebody
She will do lots of good and will be one of the biggest Change Makers who will make lefty-lefts eat their lunch when she actually accomplishes at pushing more progressive policies than any other prez
The primary season political news threads on this board were probably the most disheartening and disappointing I've ever seen.
I just saw so much blatant disrespect for anyone who wasn't a Hillary supporter, and I felt legitimately bad for Bernie fans on this board around that time. It started out slow but in the mid-to-late primaries it was just totally gross.
Any attempts at conversation were drowned out, and there are many posters I now see who I saw during those threads who I have a blatant distaste for. Not that any of this matters in the long run, and I personally can't wait for Hillary to take office, but man, what an ugly look that for this forum in those threads.
That said, Neogaf still remains one of the most open minded forums on the web in my opinion. There are clearly many individuals who do well/are popular that do not share the broad majorities opinions, and as long as its not blatantly disrespectful, almost any topic can be broached (if gone about the correct way).
Pretty much. It's a bit strange to see this thread now since, now that the favored candidate has the nomination, a lot of the mindless vitriol has ratcheted down and it's a little closer to normalcy around here (barring the 8000 daily threads that liveblogs Trump's every waking thought).
See, thing is, I almost never see any legitimate criticism of Hillary. Everyone just has these broad, nonspecific issues. She's either "not inspiring" or "generally dishonest" or "not progressive enough".
I'm sure there are legitimate criticisms to be hadshe did vote for the Iraq war, for instance, which was completely stupid in hindsight. But I never see this kind of thing mentioned.
I hate to play this card (so to speak), but I actually think people's dislike of her is largely gender related. Kind of in the same way that a female leader will be seen as "bossy" in a situation where a man would be seen as "taking control"
I'm exhausted by this constant victim angle everybody wants to play. Just don't be a dick when you talk about things and you'll be fine. And if you are indeed treated unfairly for your opinions, well... you're probably still being a dick and don't realize it. But if you're among the very few who is being polite, genuine, and willing to process new information, and still getting mistreated, contact a mod.
See, thing is, I almost never see any legitimate criticism of Hillary. Everyone just has these broad, nonspecific issues. She's either "not inspiring" or "generally dishonest" or "not progressive enough".
I'm sure there are legitimate criticisms to be had—she did vote for the Iraq war, for instance, which was completely stupid in hindsight. But I never see this kind of thing mentioned.
Something it should be noted that DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT James K. Polk CAVED ON DESPITE CAMPAIGN PROMISES and HILLARY REFUSES TO MAKE ANY STATEMENT REGARDING FIFTY-FOUR FORTY OR FIGHT
She probably supported the 49th parallel in those speeches to the big banks she refuses to release transcripts of.
See, thing is, I almost never see any legitimate criticism of Hillary. Everyone just has these broad, nonspecific issues. She's either "not inspiring" or "generally dishonest" or "not progressive enough".
I'm sure there are legitimate criticisms to be had—she did vote for the Iraq war, for instance, which was completely stupid in hindsight. But I never see this kind of thing mentioned.
I hate to play this card (so to speak), but I actually think people's dislike of her is largely gender related. Kind of in the same way that a female leader will be seen as "bossy" in a situation where a man would be seen as "taking control"
I think "not progressive enough" would be a valid criticism considering the state of the US of A, as long as specifics are given. I have long used the Iraq War as a valid criticism, the reply is usually "it was bad in hindsight but everyone wanted it!". Wouldn't you want a president that y'know, has the foresight to see the consequences of such an action? And downplaying it only makes it worse, it dehumanizes the nearly 200,000 Iraqi civilians who paid the ultimate price, no to mention the brave soldiers who literally died for nothing. If some Iraqi politician who voted for an invasion of America that took a toll of a similar amount of lives, we would rightfully crucify him and be disgusted at any notion of him becoming the leader of an entire country.
There's also the Israel issue. Obama at least had a tense relationship with Bibi... whereas a Hillary presidency I think will put the nail in the coffin of the idea of a Palestinian state. To be fair I thought the current political climate wouldn't allow for one anyways, but the dream might have at least lasted for another 8 years under Bernie.
There's also the status-quo stance on economics which if continued will only continue to siphon money from the middle and lower classes whereas the rich will only get richer. Doesn't help she is clearly very buddy-buddy with wall street.
Still, despite what I have written above, I totally see what you mean. There is nonsense both from the right and the left aimed at Hillary, but I think only some right-wingers are concerned with gender. Like I said before, Sanders is even worse off in this case because Hillary is still a white, god-loving Christian whereas Sanders is a Jewish Socialist who doesn't seem all too concerned with religion, which furthers the "godless communist" narrative.
There's also the status-quo stance on economics which if continued will only continue to siphon money from the middle and lower classes whereas the rich will only get richer. Doesn't help she is clearly very buddy-buddy with wall street.
I'm not really sure what people want when you call Hillary's economic plan 'status quo'. She's markedly raising CGT, top income tax rates, estate taxes, and slightly raising corporate taxes. She's planning on pulling somewhere in the vicinity of 95% of her funding from the top 20%. She's planning to spend big on education, infrastructure and government-mandated leave with the increase in revenue, specifically targeting low-income households.
I strongly disagree with her tax plan, but I can still see how far left it is. What exactly do you want from her here? What would an actual progressive economic plan look like if the furthest left the US has seen in 48 years doesn't qualify?
I'm not really sure what people want when you call Hillary's economic plan 'status quo'. She's markedly raising CGT, top income tax rates, estate taxes, and slightly raising corporate taxes. She's planning on pulling somewhere in the vicinity of 95% of her funding from the top 20%. She's planning to spend big on education, infrastructure and government-mandated leave with the increase in revenue, specifically targeting low-income households.
I strongly disagree with her tax plan, but I can still see how far left it is. What exactly do you want from her here? What would an actual progressive economic plan look like if the furthest left the US has seen in 48 years doesn't qualify?
Her tax plan is my main concern, she seems to be just changing the numbers on the current ones- whereas Sanders plan seems to be a restructuring of the brackets themselves. Also, singer payer health care is the big one she is missing out on. I do hope she gets the college plan passed though, I have to commend her for adopting that into her platform.
Also, hate to sound like a broken record but the wall street involvement is off-putting. I would like to see more regulations and restrictions, which I think would actually be easier to pass than some of the other things Sanders proposed considering the new Republicans seem to be in favor of the same thing.
criticism of Hillary is fine, it's just these drive-by post of people saying "Hillary is just as bad as Trump" that get people to write you off with no politcial engagement/debatw. I mean sure you might not like Hillary but jeezus, that's just some pure political ignorance right there!
Her tax plan is my main concern, she seems to be just changing the numbers on the current ones- whereas Sanders plan seems to be a restructuring of the brackets themselves. Also, singer payer health care is the big one she is missing out on. I do hope she gets the college plan passed though, I have to commend her for adopting that into her platform.
Also, hate to sound like a broken record but the wall street involvement is off-putting. I would like to see more regulations and restrictions, which I think would actually be easier to pass than some of the other things Sanders proposed considering the new Republicans seem to be in favor of the same thing.
You do realize single-payer isn't the end-all be-all of healthcare systems right? Why don't you look up what country has the best system in the world, then look at what the system is? I'll give you a hint: it's France and they don't use single-payer.
See, thing is, I almost never see any legitimate criticism of Hillary. Everyone just has these broad, nonspecific issues. She's either "not inspiring" or "generally dishonest" or "not progressive enough".
I'm sure there are legitimate criticisms to be hadshe did vote for the Iraq war, for instance, which was completely stupid in hindsight. But I never see this kind of thing mentioned.
I hate to play this card (so to speak), but I actually think people's dislike of her is largely gender related. Kind of in the same way that a female leader will be seen as "bossy" in a situation where a man would be seen as "taking control"
The emails are a valid criticism, even if not a crime. Having a private server in your basement is poor judgment and seems to have been done in part to sort of legalese her way around federal record requests and documentation requirements.
Taking donations to her charity from the Saudi government and then selling the same government weapons while secretary of state is a valid criticism.
Being uninspiring on its own is not really a valid criticism as it's just her personality, but saying that shes uninspiring and that might make it harder for her to win is valid, I think.
The Israel stuff and whistleblower stuff is definitely valid, but it's so standard amongst politicians that it's just hard to get worked up over. I mean, who's the Pro-Snowden/Manning candidate? Interesting to shout into the ether on that one, but she basically just has the standard position on it.
I think the thing is that none of those things are really a smoking gun of corruption or illegality, but taken in total they paint a bad picture for many. Shes sort of a Rorschach test upon which to place your political beliefs and allegiances. There's enough meat there for some to not like her for it without resorting to Vince Foster like conspiracies, but it's also all circumstantial enough that her supporters just dismiss it all as CT.
You do realize single-payer isn't the end-all be-all of healthcare systems right? Why don't you look up what country has the best system in the world, then look at what the system is? I'll give you a hint: it's France and they don't use single-payer.
