781–790 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many people from this administration ended up in jail? And how many from the last? You can feel whatever you want, but the math isn’t in your favor.
How many people were killed by wars started in the previous administration? I'll let you ponder on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m guessing they both read a Vox article that used that word and thought it sounded smart?
Googling "ossification of American policy for a generation" returns one result, this thread.
Kind of like “post-truth”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He ideally should be able to, as long as the correct procedures are followed. Republicans, however, set the precedent by not allowing Obama to appoint one in his last year in office. My money, however, is on them ramming someone through anyways.
What’s it worth? Ishtar lose the majority and possibly a couple seats? I think they take that, they have no ground to stand on the social issues alone. It’s sad how many justices will be on the court, appointed by men that didn’t win the popular vote
or even the Electoral Vote. Remember that Bush v Gore was decided by the (Republican leaning) Supreme Court, not the electoral college.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is revisionist history at best Harry Reid (D) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid changed the rules and Congress have been fucked ever since.
Why is this downvoted? Harry Reid literally eliminated the ability of the minority party to filibuster a presidential nominee.[1] So the Democrats are basically complaining that they can't stop a Trump nomination, but only because they changed the rules themselves. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/harry-reid-sen...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There would seem to be precedent for this now. Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, a replacement was nominated in March of 2016, and because Scalia's seat had become vacant during an election year, the Senate would not even consider a nomination from the president [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...
McConnell is on the record saying he would seat a justice during Trump's reelection. There are no principles, just power struggles. If HRC was president, McConnell would follow his 2016 policy. With Trump president he'll make a new policy. There are no repercussions for bringing home the bacon to your constituents at any cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's funny, because I feel that the DNC is the most soulless, vicious, corrupt and generally awful human beings there are.
How many people from this administration ended up in jail? And how many from the last? You can feel whatever you want, but the math isn’t in your favor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very western philosophical way of viewing it. Many eastern philosophies believe the best answer lies between the opposing positions.
So half dead babies? Right to your own body every other week? Last name starts A-H get abortions, rest don’t? Or maybe by race, undesirable races get genocide? Or maybe the rich ones? It’s not a topic with much “in between”
1. What defines a human life?
2. When is it acceptable to take a human life?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was so lovely after reading the article, that the point that stuck with me, aligned with your comment right at the top. Maybe there's some sort of new "non-denominational creed" we could all sign up for. ~" We may not agree but I will always listen to you. I will always consider your opinion with respect and will endeavour to understand your reasoning. My views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come…
I think this might collapse at the edge cases: If I'm a black man and the opinion is that I'm an animal, and the person with the opinion uses this reasoning to abuse me, then I may be ethically correct to not listen or keep myself in their presence. Or, say, I'm a disabled person and someone tells me they think social services should be cut so people like me can die off for the good of humanity. It may be actively em…
Over time I've come to realize that usually there's a legitimate reason why someone believes what they do. Often they are either optimizing for different things, or view the matter differently.
If listening to someone's opinion is actively causing emotional harm, then sure, don't listen to them. But I worry very much about the rise in offense-taking. Perhaps it's an illusion but I've felt it's become incredibly difficult to talk to people with different [political, etc] opinions than my own: not because of me, but because of their attitude towards dissent.
I think reading about Ruth and Antonin Scalia's friendship was the most wholesome political reading I've ever done. Hearing people divided in opinion, but not bitterly so, working together to figure out the best framework to construct American society from was inspirational. I hope the two halves of the political world can become friends in the way they were. Rest in peace Ruth. I hope if there's an after you and Ant…
There is nothing good left in this world. I don’t plan to kill myself, but I don’t see much value in living.