Politics 2016 (election edition)

[jff]

I encourage you to vote for the next president based on the judges they will nominate.  This is extremely important in today's' divisive world, more than anything else I can think of.

 

Absolutely.  People too often focus just on the US Supreme Court, and ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that in a single term, a president appoints 150 or more judges to the various federal courts. Since the vast majority of federal court cases never make ti to the Supreme Court, these lower courts have a massive influence on our legal system.  This should be something every voter thinks seriously about. 

[Winston Legthigh]

If one of you guys could point me to the list of the judges that each candidate is going to nominate, that would be great. 

[jff]

If one of you guys could point me to the list of the judges that each candidate is going to nominate, that would be great. 

I don't know if there's a list, but...

 

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-says-he-will-delegate-supreme-court-appointments-to-the-heritage-foundation-f0a51790683c#.lnhghvkhr

[Winston Legthigh]

If the criteria is judge selection, then shouldn't we be putting priority on who we're electing to the Senate?

[ditty]

If the criteria is judge selection, then shouldn't we be putting priority on who we're electing to the Senate?

Absolutely, but good luck with that.  It's hard enough to get people to pay attention every 4 years to the presidential election.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators

[jff]

If the criteria is judge selection, then shouldn't we be putting priority on who we're electing to the Senate?

 

Is there some reason why we can't make both a priority, or are you being thick?

If one of you guys could point me to the list of the judges that each candidate is going to nominate, that would be great. 

 

Here's Hilary's short list:

 

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/08/hillary-clintons-supreme-court-shortlist-11-scotus-possibilities/

[Winston Legthigh]

Is there some reason why we can't make both a priority, or are you being thick?

 

Here's Hilary's short list:

 

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/08/hillary-clintons-supreme-court-shortlist-11-scotus-possibilities/

We can make both a priority, but making judge selection as the ONLY consideration for voting for a president, rather than policy platforms, seems a little, as you put it, THICK. 

 

If a person can't be bothered to research a candidate's policy (and actually, if someone can't decide between Hillary or Donald at this point, then obviously they don't give a shit about policy and are more about the CULT OF PERSONALITY) what makes you think they'll care about the judges they're going to nominate? 

[jff]

We can make both a priority, but making judge selection as the ONLY consideration for voting for a president, rather than policy platforms, seems a little, as you put it, THICK. 

 

If a person can't be bothered to research a candidate's policy (and actually, if someone can't decide between Hillary or Donald at this point, then obviously they don't give a shit about policy and are more about the CULT OF PERSONALITY) what makes you think they'll care about the judges they're going to nominate? 

 

I did not say, nor do I believe, that should be the only consideration.

[ditty]

 

If a person can't be bothered to research a candidate's policy (and actually, if someone can't decide between Hillary or Donald at this point, then obviously they don't give a shit about policy and are more about the CULT OF PERSONALITY) what makes you think they'll care about the judges they're going to nominate? 

I mentioned this, to passenger side, based off the message posted,since the Drumpf consideration was the " condescending tone of Mrs. Clinton...as well as most Democrat/liberal voters"

[Winston Legthigh]

I mentioned this, to passenger side, based off the message posted,since the Drumpf consideration was the " condescending tone of Mrs. Clinton...as well as most Democrat/liberal voters"

I get the notion of "the person who is president has significant sway over the tenor of the nation via judicial appointments" but I also think it's nigh impossible to predict or analyze how a president's nominations are going to play out. It's a guessing game. That's especially true for Federal judges, where appointments are generally given by a state's senator anyway. If you think the president personally vets the judges for open Federal seats, then you're deluding yourself. There's a lot of give and take to judicial appointments. A President merely nominates them. The Senate either blocks it or moves forward with it. 

 

Even the lists that JFF provided for Supreme Court nominations. OK - what am I supposed to do with that? Research the career of every possible nomination candidate, and then take a guess at how they'll do once they're on the Supreme Court? Let me introduce you to Justice Souter, nominated by Bush the Elder. Ted Kennedy blocked his nomination because he guessed that he was a Robert Bork style conservative. Souter ended up being a liberal/moderate, to the consternation to the GOP folk who backed him.

 

So, instead of playing the guessing game of what type of person is this President going to put into judges' seats (and really, that question is really asking: what policies do you agree with), why not just cut to the meat of the matter and look at a candidates policies? Do you agree with them? Good! Because we can probably assume that the President will nominate the kind of judges that agree with that policy more often than not. Do you not agree with the candidate's policies? Then why would you vote for that person? Does policy not matter? Then judicial appointments certainly will not matter to you either. 

[jff]

I get the notion of "the person who is president has significant sway over the tenor of the nation via judicial appointments" but I also think it's nigh impossible to predict or analyze how a president's nominations are going to play out. It's a guessing game. That's especially true for Federal judges, where appointments are generally given by a state's senator anyway. If you think the president personally vets the judges for open Federal seats, then you're deluding yourself. There's a lot of give and take to judicial appointments. A President merely nominates them. The Senate either blocks it or moves forward with it. 

 

Even the lists that JFF provided for Supreme Court nominations. OK - what am I supposed to do with that? Research the career of every possible nomination candidate, and then take a guess at how they'll do once they're on the Supreme Court? Let me introduce you to Justice Souter, nominated by Bush the Elder. Ted Kennedy blocked his nomination because he guessed that he was a Robert Bork style conservative. Souter ended up being a liberal/moderate, to the consternation to the GOP folk who backed him.

 

So, instead of playing the guessing game of what type of person is this President going to put into judges' seats (and really, that question is really asking: what policies do you agree with), why not just cut to the meat of the matter and look at a candidates policies? Do you agree with them? Good! Because we can probably assume that the President will nominate the kind of judges that agree with that policy more often than not. Do you not agree with the candidate's policies? Then why would you vote for that person? Does policy not matter? Then judicial appointments certainly will not matter to you either. 

 

Why do you think any of us are unconcerned with policy?

[Winston Legthigh]

Why do you think any of us are unconcerned with policy?

I think that anyone that's UNDECIDED is unconcerned with policy. Or, if an UNDECIDED voter is concerned about policy, they must have not taken the time to figure it out. Then again, if someone hasn't taken the time to figure out a candidate's policy, it's probably because it's not an overriding issue to them. 

 

Here's a paraphrased recap:

 

Passenger Sid: I'm undecided because Hillary sure seems to be a condescending asshole.

Ditty: You should vote based on judicial appointments. There's not a single thing in this election more important.

JFF: Absolutely. 

Me: Why would a person who is undecided, based on Hillary's personality, be interested in judicial appointments?

 

Basically: I'm advocating voting for policy (which should be directly related to judicial appointments, but you can't pretend to assume what a candidate's judicial appointments are going to be without understanding their policy). If you like Trump's policies, vote for him. If you like Hillary's policies, but think she's an asshole, and you're not going to vote for her because you think she's an asshole, then you're just cutting off your nose to spite your face. The judicial appointments will take care of themselves. 

[ditty]

I think that anyone that's UNDECIDED is unconcerned with policy. Or, if an UNDECIDED voter is concerned about policy, they must have not taken the time to figure it out. Then again, if someone hasn't taken the time to figure out a candidate's policy, it's probably because it's not an overriding issue to them. 

 

Here's a paraphrased recap:

 

Passenger Sid: I'm undecided because Hillary sure seems to be a condescending asshole.

Ditty: You should vote based on judicial appointments. There's not a single thing in this election more important.

JFF: Absolutely. 

Me: Why would a person who is undecided, based on Hillary's personality, be interested in judicial appointments?

 

Basically: I'm advocating voting for policy (which should be directly related to judicial appointments, but you can't pretend to assume what a candidate's judicial appointments are going to be without understanding their policy). If you like Trump's policies, vote for him. If you like Hillary's policies, but think she's an asshole, and you're not going to vote for her because you think she's an asshole, then you're just cutting off your nose to spite your face. The judicial appointments will take care of themselves. 

OK, so all the Drumpf supporters, that listen to his blatant policy lies, don't need to obvious pointed out to them?  I think they do.  

[KevinG]

I think that anyone that's UNDECIDED is unconcerned with policy. Or, if an UNDECIDED voter is concerned about policy, they must have not taken the time to figure it out. Then again, if someone hasn't taken the time to figure out a candidate's policy, it's probably because it's not an overriding issue to them. 

 

Here's a paraphrased recap:

 

Passenger Sid: I'm undecided because Hillary sure seems to be a condescending asshole.

Ditty: You should vote based on judicial appointments. There's not a single thing in this election more important.

JFF: Absolutely. 

Me: Why would a person who is undecided, based on Hillary's personality, be interested in judicial appointments?

 

Basically: I'm advocating voting for policy (which should be directly related to judicial appointments, but you can't pretend to assume what a candidate's judicial appointments are going to be without understanding their policy). If you like Trump's policies, vote for him. If you like Hillary's policies, but think she's an asshole, and you're not going to vote for her because you think she's an asshole, then you're just cutting off your nose to spite your face. The judicial appointments will take care of themselves. 

 

Another thing, I pointed out before, Passenger Sid's rationality for not voting for Clinton (her condescension) doesn't seem to make sense.  Trump has shown his condescension many times over and he is seemingly fine with it.  I am not sure if a plea to the judicial appointments would sway one or another.   

[Winston Legthigh]

OK, so all the Drumpf supporters, that listen to his blatant policy lies, don't need to obvious pointed out to them?  I think they do.  

What will be the end result of having Donald's hypocrisy pointed out to his supporters?

 

My thesis is that it will have no effect.

 

The other day a couple Jehovah's Witnesses were standing by the bike-rack at my Metra station. They asked if I wanted to talk about Jesus. I put up my hand and said "sorry, former Catholic, current Atheist", and they backed off with a laugh. They knew they didn't stand a chance. Some people are not convert-able. I think Drumpf supporters are not convert-able.

Another thing, I pointed out before, Passenger Sid's rationality for not voting for Clinton (her condescension) doesn't seem to make sense.  Trump has shown his condescension many times over and he is seemingly fine with it.  I am not sure if a plea to the judicial appointments would sway one or another.   

Depends on whom he's being condescending to. White men? nah.

[KevinG]

 

Depends on whom he's being condescending to. White men? nah.

 

It was Clinton who was being condescending to White men, that is why it is a big deal.

 

There is just a different set of rules we have for Trump that we have for Clinton.  

[Winston Legthigh]

There is just a different set of rules we have for men than we have for women.  

 

fixed it for you.

[ditty]

What will be the end result of having Donald's hypocrisy pointed out to his supporters?

 

My thesis is that it will have no effect.

 

The other day a couple Jehovah's Witnesses were standing by the bike-rack at my Metra station. They asked if I wanted to talk about Jesus. I put up my hand and said "sorry, former Catholic, current Atheist", and they backed off with a laugh. They knew they didn't stand a chance. Some people are not convert-able. I think Drumpf supporters are not convert-able.

Depends on whom he's being condescending to. White men? nah.

I guess the end result to me is educating them on other things to consider and an unwillingness to give up. 

[Winston Legthigh]

I guess the end result to me is educating them on other things to consider and an unwillingness to give up. 

Very noble of you.

[uncool2pillow]

I think Drumpf supporters are not convert-able.

 

And yet the polls fluctuate. The vast majority of us won't be swayed, but those who will make the difference will be.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lost highway]

So this brings the conversation to what's unique about this election. I think SO many people are thinking about voting Trump who don't love him. In fact he's tested their resolve to vote Republican or bust.

[ditty]

So this brings the conversation to what's unique about this election. I think SO many people are thinking about voting Trump who don't love him. In fact he's tested their resolve to vote Republican or bust.

It's the reality TV effect.

[Winston Legthigh]

It was Clinton who was being condescending to White men, that is why it is a big deal.

 

There is just a different set of rules we have for Trump that we have for Clinton.  

Speaking of different rules, it's this kind of shit that would sink any other candidate, but for reasons I can't explain, Trumps poll numbers only get higher.

 

Could some debate moderator PLEASE HOLD HIS FEET TO THE FIRE on this shit? Hillary already went to "trial" over her e-mails and Benghazi, and they didn't come away with shit. I'm still waiting for ANYONE to get answers from The Donald. 

 

As an aside: It makes me laugh that some people are pissed that Jimmy Fallon cozied up to Trump. That's like reading a headline that we're pissed that Kermit the Frog didn't ask Trump tougher questions. 

[Lammycat]

 

 

As an aside: It makes me laugh that some people are pissed that Jimmy Fallon cozied up to Trump. That's like reading a headline that we're pissed that Kermit the Frog didn't ask Trump tougher questions. 

Or like Dan Rather tickling Kim Jong-un and saying "cootchie cootchie coo"....

[KevinG]

Speaking of different rules, it's this kind of shit that would sink any other candidate, but for reasons I can't explain, Trumps poll numbers only get higher.

 

Could some debate moderator PLEASE HOLD HIS FEET TO THE FIRE on this shit? Hillary already went to "trial" over her e-mails and Benghazi, and they didn't come away with shit. I'm still waiting for ANYONE to get answers from The Donald. 

 

As an aside: It makes me laugh that some people are pissed that Jimmy Fallon cozied up to Trump. That's like reading a headline that we're pissed that Kermit the Frog didn't ask Trump tougher questions. 

 

Could the press hold his feet to the fire?  Sure it is reported on, but then quickly forgotten about.  Has Trump answered any questions about anything?

 

Here is an interesting article form the Atlantic that lists the many, many scandals of Donald J Trump.  

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

 

It doesn't even mention the use of racially charged language (memes, retweets) that Trump and his surrogates have used (looking at you, bowl of skittles, pepe the frog posting Junior).  He is given a pass on those, but when Rick Perry's political career was reduced to an appearance on Dancing with the Stars because of the name of his family ranch (though the downfall was slow, but it was the beginning of the end).

 

How is Trump defensible?  Passenger Sid, is consider voting for him because of Clinton's tone? (I know I come back to this all the time, but, I cannot fathom the rationality here.)