For the "silence as consent" issue, I believe instead they will frame it as "The constitution requires the advice and consent of the congress with an implicit 'reasonable time' caveat." There are a number of areas of law where reasonable terms and conditions can be imposed or implied.
And over a year waiting for a SCOTUS hearing is pretty damn unreasonable! So I think it is a case that would at least get SCOTUS's attention without the consent BS talking points.
the problem is there's no way in hell the SCOTUS would rule that time was up and Garland is a Justice now
they'd rule that the Senate has X days to vote on him or he automatically gets the chair
and then the Senate votes no on him
(or they'd rule that the Senate taking no action is the same as a no vote)
there's no point in pushing that angle really
The entire point is to get the senate to act. If they vote no on him, they have to tell you, and everyone else, why. That gets the wheels moving. The entire reason they haven't voted on him yet (when they could just vote no) is that voting no with the reason being "Obama appointed him and he's a dirty liberal" looks even worse than not voting at all. Force them to act and keep throwing reasonable candidates at them and having them vote no repeatedly would be a wonderful gift to Democrats in 2018's midterm.
The reason they haven't voted no on Garland is because they literally said "why doesn't Obama nominate someone like Garland, he's a perfect choice" and Obama called their bluff.
Except it turns out that calling somebody's bluff doesn't work so well when they can just refuse to match, raise, or fold indefinitely.
So is the new Republican narrative seriously that we are fine with just 8 justices? How do you shame somebody that's not even playing the same game?
Because they have done the math and know they suffer nothing for it. Just like the shut down, they came out ahead in the shut down! Why wouldn't they want another one? Worked out great last time.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I'm not gonna tell you Johnson is a great candidate by any measure but he could be 100x better as a candidate and he'd still have no chance. the system does make it pretty fucking hard for a third party candidate.
if Johnson was 100x better of a candidate he'd have well above 5% polling support
#HotTake
Nah
Third parties can't get funding because anybody who knows anything knows what a waste that is due to FPTP
Quality has little to do with a third party candidate's chances
There are some states where the general elections feature the top two candidates, regardless of what party they're from. Essentially, the "two party system" doesn't apply here. You can have two democrats running, two republicans, and in theory... two third parties. And since these are local elections, you don't need a massive war chest to compete. You don't need to plan out your run 10 years in advance. And your competition will be a lot weaker compared to the presidential race.
And yet, not only are third party candidates not winning in these states, but they're not even making a serious effort to compete.
If you're a third party candidate, your best chance of success would be in a lopsided area with no threat of being a spoiler. Think Bernie Sanders running as a a socialist in Vermont. Suppose you live in a city, where democrats beat republicans 80% to 20%. That's very bad news if you're a republican, but good news if you're a third party. If you're a green party candidate, you can attempt to split the liberal vote and make democrats and greens the dominate two parties. If you're a libertarian candidate, you can try to replacing the republican party entirely by offering a friendlier face to conservatism.
But most third party candidates take the opposite approach: They tend to focus on very close races, where the democrats and republicans are fully polarized and unlikely to budge. And there's a reason for that: Because it gives you the most possible influence with the least possible votes. i.e., Ralph Nader could never actually become president with only 2% of the votes. His best bet at forcing concessions is by threatening to spoil the election.
In short, the main problem with third party candidates is that they're disingenuous. They insist that they want to be taken seriously as a party, but their actual efforts and priorities say otherwise.
speaking as someone who lives in one of those poor, benighted ignorant states who do this: it just makes the FTTP effect stronger
What it does is reward party discipline over all else. We have one office here where the "top two" are both republicans despite the overwhelming majority voting democrat in the primary because the democrats let a bunch of idiots all run and split their vote.
Your Vermont example is the tiny minority of cases. Far more likely is you have a split that is in the more usual ~55-45 range (and that is a pretty heavily leaning district).
In that case a third party candidate either has to completely supplant one of the major parties or they are just another fucking spoiler. If the electorate is generally 55 to 45 and a Socialist or Green is moderately successful (which is the best they can hope for) then you end up with the "top two" being two Republicans because the left is split.
So is the new Republican narrative seriously that we are fine with just 8 justices? How do you shame somebody that's not even playing the same game?
By first overturning Citizens United and then viciously prosecuting Koch Industries for all of their environmental crimes. That's where a lot of this shift comes from
I may be reading Dark Money right now.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
For the "silence as consent" issue, I believe instead they will frame it as "The constitution requires the advice and consent of the congress with an implicit 'reasonable time' caveat." There are a number of areas of law where reasonable terms and conditions can be imposed or implied.
And over a year waiting for a SCOTUS hearing is pretty damn unreasonable! So I think it is a case that would at least get SCOTUS's attention without the consent BS talking points.
the problem is there's no way in hell the SCOTUS would rule that time was up and Garland is a Justice now
they'd rule that the Senate has X days to vote on him or he automatically gets the chair
and then the Senate votes no on him
(or they'd rule that the Senate taking no action is the same as a no vote)
there's no point in pushing that angle really
The entire point is to get the senate to act. If they vote no on him, they have to tell you, and everyone else, why. That gets the wheels moving. The entire reason they haven't voted on him yet (when they could just vote no) is that voting no with the reason being "Obama appointed him and he's a dirty liberal" looks even worse than not voting at all. Force them to act and keep throwing reasonable candidates at them and having them vote no repeatedly would be a wonderful gift to Democrats in 2018's midterm.
The reason they haven't voted no on Garland is because they literally said "why doesn't Obama nominate someone like Garland, he's a perfect choice" and Obama called their bluff.
Except it turns out that calling somebody's bluff doesn't work so well when they can just refuse to match, raise, or fold indefinitely.
To go back to the earlier point about possibly filing suit, the Judiciary Act of 1869 specifies that the Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and 8 associate justices. By refusing to confirm anyone at all and leaving the court one short, they are in violation of that law. Of course refusing to give advice and consent in my mind is unconstitutional as well, so who knows how it's going to shake out should this continue. Hopefully the Dems retake the Senate and make it a moot point.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
So is the new Republican narrative seriously that we are fine with just 8 justices? How do you shame somebody that's not even playing the same game?
By first overturning Citizens United and then viciously prosecuting Koch Industries for all of their environmental crimes. That's where a lot of this shift comes from
I may be reading Dark Money right now.
No no no.
First, wait for someone to die as a result of one of these companies' business. Employee, customer, don't matter. Then, prosecute them for murder in a capital punishment state. Then, execute the company. When company protests, politely remind them that as a result of Citizens United, corporations are people.
I'm not gonna tell you Johnson is a great candidate by any measure but he could be 100x better as a candidate and he'd still have no chance. the system does make it pretty fucking hard for a third party candidate.
if Johnson was 100x better of a candidate he'd have well above 5% polling support
#HotTake
Nah
Third parties can't get funding because anybody who knows anything knows what a waste that is due to FPTP
Quality has little to do with a third party candidate's chances
There are some states where the general elections feature the top two candidates, regardless of what party they're from. Essentially, the "two party system" doesn't apply here. You can have two democrats running, two republicans, and in theory... two third parties. And since these are local elections, you don't need a massive war chest to compete. You don't need to plan out your run 10 years in advance. And your competition will be a lot weaker compared to the presidential race.
And yet, not only are third party candidates not winning in these states, but they're not even making a serious effort to compete.
If you're a third party candidate, your best chance of success would be in a lopsided area with no threat of being a spoiler. Think Bernie Sanders running as a a socialist in Vermont. Suppose you live in a city, where democrats beat republicans 80% to 20%. That's very bad news if you're a republican, but good news if you're a third party. If you're a green party candidate, you can attempt to split the liberal vote and make democrats and greens the dominate two parties. If you're a libertarian candidate, you can try to replacing the republican party entirely by offering a friendlier face to conservatism.
But most third party candidates take the opposite approach: They tend to focus on very close races, where the democrats and republicans are fully polarized and unlikely to budge. And there's a reason for that: Because it gives you the most possible influence with the least possible votes. i.e., Ralph Nader could never actually become president with only 2% of the votes. His best bet at forcing concessions is by threatening to spoil the election.
In short, the main problem with third party candidates is that they're disingenuous. They insist that they want to be taken seriously as a party, but their actual efforts and priorities say otherwise.
speaking as someone who lives in one of those poor, benighted ignorant states who do this: it just makes the FTTP effect stronger
What it does is reward party discipline over all else. We have one office here where the "top two" are both republicans despite the overwhelming majority voting democrat in the primary because the democrats let a bunch of idiots all run and split their vote.
Your Vermont example is the tiny minority of cases. Far more likely is you have a split that is in the more usual ~55-45 range (and that is a pretty heavily leaning district).
In that case a third party candidate either has to completely supplant one of the major parties or they are just another fucking spoiler. If the electorate is generally 55 to 45 and a Socialist or Green is moderately successful (which is the best they can hope for) then you end up with the "top two" being two Republicans because the left is split.
note, too, it's not even that the state democratic party let three people on the ballot
it's more that they had no mechanism for stopping them
the parties don't control who goes on the ballots they're 'nonpartisan'
so not only does it reward party loyalty above all else, it rewards the party with enough backroom influence to prevent people from exercising their right to run for office
the whole point of a primary system open to the general public is to avoid having party candidates chosen by backroom dealing, yet this system encourages it
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I'm not gonna tell you Johnson is a great candidate by any measure but he could be 100x better as a candidate and he'd still have no chance. the system does make it pretty fucking hard for a third party candidate.
if Johnson was 100x better of a candidate he'd have well above 5% polling support
#HotTake
Nah
Third parties can't get funding because anybody who knows anything knows what a waste that is due to FPTP
Quality has little to do with a third party candidate's chances
There are some states where the general elections feature the top two candidates, regardless of what party they're from. Essentially, the "two party system" doesn't apply here. You can have two democrats running, two republicans, and in theory... two third parties. And since these are local elections, you don't need a massive war chest to compete. You don't need to plan out your run 10 years in advance. And your competition will be a lot weaker compared to the presidential race.
And yet, not only are third party candidates not winning in these states, but they're not even making a serious effort to compete.
If you're a third party candidate, your best chance of success would be in a lopsided area with no threat of being a spoiler. Think Bernie Sanders running as a a socialist in Vermont. Suppose you live in a city, where democrats beat republicans 80% to 20%. That's very bad news if you're a republican, but good news if you're a third party. If you're a green party candidate, you can attempt to split the liberal vote and make democrats and greens the dominate two parties. If you're a libertarian candidate, you can try to replacing the republican party entirely by offering a friendlier face to conservatism.
But most third party candidates take the opposite approach: They tend to focus on very close races, where the democrats and republicans are fully polarized and unlikely to budge. And there's a reason for that: Because it gives you the most possible influence with the least possible votes. i.e., Ralph Nader could never actually become president with only 2% of the votes. His best bet at forcing concessions is by threatening to spoil the election.
In short, the main problem with third party candidates is that they're disingenuous. They insist that they want to be taken seriously as a party, but their actual efforts and priorities say otherwise.
speaking as someone who lives in one of those poor, benighted ignorant states who do this: it just makes the FTTP effect stronger
What it does is reward party discipline over all else. We have one office here where the "top two" are both republicans despite the overwhelming majority voting democrat in the primary because the democrats let a bunch of idiots all run and split their vote.
Your Vermont example is the tiny minority of cases. Far more likely is you have a split that is in the more usual ~55-45 range (and that is a pretty heavily leaning district).
In that case a third party candidate either has to completely supplant one of the major parties or they are just another fucking spoiler. If the electorate is generally 55 to 45 and a Socialist or Green is moderately successful (which is the best they can hope for) then you end up with the "top two" being two Republicans because the left is split.
note, too, it's not even that the state democratic party let three people on the ballot
it's more that they had no mechanism for stopping them
the parties don't control who goes on the ballots they're 'nonpartisan'
so not only does it reward party loyalty above all else, it rewards the party with enough backroom influence to prevent people from exercising their right to run for office
the whole point of a primary system open to the general public is to avoid having party candidates chosen by backroom dealing, yet this system encourages it
par·ti·san
ˈpärdəzən/
noun
1. a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.
synonyms: supporter, follower, adherent, devotee, champion;
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I'm not gonna tell you Johnson is a great candidate by any measure but he could be 100x better as a candidate and he'd still have no chance. the system does make it pretty fucking hard for a third party candidate.
if Johnson was 100x better of a candidate he'd have well above 5% polling support
#HotTake
Nah
Third parties can't get funding because anybody who knows anything knows what a waste that is due to FPTP
Quality has little to do with a third party candidate's chances
There are some states where the general elections feature the top two candidates, regardless of what party they're from. Essentially, the "two party system" doesn't apply here. You can have two democrats running, two republicans, and in theory... two third parties. And since these are local elections, you don't need a massive war chest to compete. You don't need to plan out your run 10 years in advance. And your competition will be a lot weaker compared to the presidential race.
And yet, not only are third party candidates not winning in these states, but they're not even making a serious effort to compete.
If you're a third party candidate, your best chance of success would be in a lopsided area with no threat of being a spoiler. Think Bernie Sanders running as a a socialist in Vermont. Suppose you live in a city, where democrats beat republicans 80% to 20%. That's very bad news if you're a republican, but good news if you're a third party. If you're a green party candidate, you can attempt to split the liberal vote and make democrats and greens the dominate two parties. If you're a libertarian candidate, you can try to replacing the republican party entirely by offering a friendlier face to conservatism.
But most third party candidates take the opposite approach: They tend to focus on very close races, where the democrats and republicans are fully polarized and unlikely to budge. And there's a reason for that: Because it gives you the most possible influence with the least possible votes. i.e., Ralph Nader could never actually become president with only 2% of the votes. His best bet at forcing concessions is by threatening to spoil the election.
In short, the main problem with third party candidates is that they're disingenuous. They insist that they want to be taken seriously as a party, but their actual efforts and priorities say otherwise.
speaking as someone who lives in one of those poor, benighted ignorant states who do this: it just makes the FTTP effect stronger
What it does is reward party discipline over all else. We have one office here where the "top two" are both republicans despite the overwhelming majority voting democrat in the primary because the democrats let a bunch of idiots all run and split their vote.
Your Vermont example is the tiny minority of cases. Far more likely is you have a split that is in the more usual ~55-45 range (and that is a pretty heavily leaning district).
In that case a third party candidate either has to completely supplant one of the major parties or they are just another fucking spoiler. If the electorate is generally 55 to 45 and a Socialist or Green is moderately successful (which is the best they can hope for) then you end up with the "top two" being two Republicans because the left is split.
note, too, it's not even that the state democratic party let three people on the ballot
it's more that they had no mechanism for stopping them
the parties don't control who goes on the ballots they're 'nonpartisan'
so not only does it reward party loyalty above all else, it rewards the party with enough backroom influence to prevent people from exercising their right to run for office
the whole point of a primary system open to the general public is to avoid having party candidates chosen by backroom dealing, yet this system encourages it
par·ti·san
ˈpärdəzən/
noun
1. a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.
synonyms: supporter, follower, adherent, devotee, champion;
"nonpartisan" is Republican doublespeak. In states where the disgusting views of the Republican party (and that was the case long before Trump) are unpopular, they try to get laws passed making it so candidates are forbidden from stating party affiliation on ballots. In the interest of making things more "bipartisan" (another word that has been cooped and now means "utter capitulation to Republicans")
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
+10
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
So, expect similar incidents in the future. Like when Trump loses.
(Outside, Turn, Spit)
Yeah, this is the rankest bullshit. I'm not sure if we should spin it off into another thread or not, but the subject matter is going to be really relevant to the current election and what happens afterwards if Trump loses.
So, expect similar incidents in the future. Like when Trump loses.
(Outside, Turn, Spit)
Yeah, this is the rankest bullshit. I'm not sure if we should spin it off into another thread or not, but the subject matter is going to be really relevant to the current election and what happens afterwards if Trump loses.
We need another thread. I'll look for the old one but I think it got locked.
So, expect similar incidents in the future. Like when Trump loses.
(Outside, Turn, Spit)
Yeah, this is the rankest bullshit. I'm not sure if we should spin it off into another thread or not, but the subject matter is going to be really relevant to the current election and what happens afterwards if Trump loses.
We need another thread. I'll look for the old one but I think it got locked.
So, expect similar incidents in the future. Like when Trump loses.
(Outside, Turn, Spit)
Please note, from the article:
The second — and far higher-stakes federal prosecution — is scheduled to get under way in February in Nevada, when Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, their father Cliven Bundy and 15 defendants face conspiracy, assault, weapons and other charges that could result in decades of prison time.
It's not over.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
So, expect similar incidents in the future. Like when Trump loses.
(Outside, Turn, Spit)
Please note, from the article:
The second — and far higher-stakes federal prosecution — is scheduled to get under way in February in Nevada, when Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, their father Cliven Bundy and 15 defendants face conspiracy, assault, weapons and other charges that could result in decades of prison time.
It's not over.
+++++
Primary charge faced by all seven: Conspiracy to prevent by “force, intimidation, and threats” employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM from carrying out their duties.
Other charges faced by some defendants: Theft of government property, use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.
so the carrying guns was dependent on the preventing people from working thing?
CNN is covering it. The basics are that it's been cold in New York and it's raining there. La Guardia has a short runway and the plane probably hydroplaned on landing and braking.
Thomas told the Heritage Foundation that the obstruction of Garland’s appointment to the court is undermining confidence in the United States judicial system.
“I don’t think [obstruction]’s going to work in a republic or a civil society. At some point, we have got to recognize that we’re destroying our institutions and undermining our institutions,” Thomas said.
Posts
I mean, this has been his campaign in a nutshell, so kudos to him for being consistent.
The reason they haven't voted no on Garland is because they literally said "why doesn't Obama nominate someone like Garland, he's a perfect choice" and Obama called their bluff.
Except it turns out that calling somebody's bluff doesn't work so well when they can just refuse to match, raise, or fold indefinitely.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Because they have done the math and know they suffer nothing for it. Just like the shut down, they came out ahead in the shut down! Why wouldn't they want another one? Worked out great last time.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The fact that this was made 4 years in advance of current buffoonery is only slightly more terrifying.
I'm more upset by him referring to himself in the third person than the anti-democracy thing
This year has broken me.
I think he was talking as a hypothetical election official of some sort, rather than directly referring to himself in the third person.
He can't help himself. Democracy does not Trumpute.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
@elki yeah I've been listening to them. I caught that while walking to the bus after work yesterday and my mouth dropped
speaking as someone who lives in one of those poor, benighted ignorant states who do this: it just makes the FTTP effect stronger
What it does is reward party discipline over all else. We have one office here where the "top two" are both republicans despite the overwhelming majority voting democrat in the primary because the democrats let a bunch of idiots all run and split their vote.
Your Vermont example is the tiny minority of cases. Far more likely is you have a split that is in the more usual ~55-45 range (and that is a pretty heavily leaning district).
In that case a third party candidate either has to completely supplant one of the major parties or they are just another fucking spoiler. If the electorate is generally 55 to 45 and a Socialist or Green is moderately successful (which is the best they can hope for) then you end up with the "top two" being two Republicans because the left is split.
By first overturning Citizens United and then viciously prosecuting Koch Industries for all of their environmental crimes. That's where a lot of this shift comes from
I may be reading Dark Money right now.
To go back to the earlier point about possibly filing suit, the Judiciary Act of 1869 specifies that the Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and 8 associate justices. By refusing to confirm anyone at all and leaving the court one short, they are in violation of that law. Of course refusing to give advice and consent in my mind is unconstitutional as well, so who knows how it's going to shake out should this continue. Hopefully the Dems retake the Senate and make it a moot point.
No no no.
First, wait for someone to die as a result of one of these companies' business. Employee, customer, don't matter. Then, prosecute them for murder in a capital punishment state. Then, execute the company. When company protests, politely remind them that as a result of Citizens United, corporations are people.
Then repeal Citizens United.
In order to change that, the legislature and executive branches need to also work on it, not just the judiciary.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
note, too, it's not even that the state democratic party let three people on the ballot
it's more that they had no mechanism for stopping them
the parties don't control who goes on the ballots they're 'nonpartisan'
so not only does it reward party loyalty above all else, it rewards the party with enough backroom influence to prevent people from exercising their right to run for office
the whole point of a primary system open to the general public is to avoid having party candidates chosen by backroom dealing, yet this system encourages it
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
par·ti·san
ˈpärdəzən/
noun
1.
a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.
synonyms: supporter, follower, adherent, devotee, champion;
not the parties
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
"nonpartisan" is Republican doublespeak. In states where the disgusting views of the Republican party (and that was the case long before Trump) are unpopular, they try to get laws passed making it so candidates are forbidden from stating party affiliation on ballots. In the interest of making things more "bipartisan" (another word that has been cooped and now means "utter capitulation to Republicans")
Someone please tell me what FTTP stands for. I work for a telecom and all I can see when people post that acronym is "Fiber to the premise."
that was me misspelling FPTP (First Past The Post)
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/verdict-near-in-malheur-wildlife-refuge-standoff-trial/
So, expect similar incidents in the future. Like when Trump loses.
(Outside, Turn, Spit)
Yeah, this is the rankest bullshit. I'm not sure if we should spin it off into another thread or not, but the subject matter is going to be really relevant to the current election and what happens afterwards if Trump loses.
We need another thread. I'll look for the old one but I think it got locked.
It did. I'll start another one.
Please note, from the article:
It's not over.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/207682/oregon-militia-not-guilty-of-firearms-on-federal-property-despite-video-evidence
+++++
so the carrying guns was dependent on the preventing people from working thing?
This is the guy who's going to start investigating Clinton on 'day one'. Christ, what an asshole.
EDIT:
Everybody is okay.
It's bigger news due to the passenger.
Which is odd because normally the gays get blamed for bad weather.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.