MOBAFire's first Mini Guide Contest of Season 14 is here! Create or update guides for the 30 featured champions and compete for up to $200 in prizes! š
Despite all the rhetoric, Supreme Court justices are actually pretty unbiased. A guy in my PPR class did an extensive research paper over this exact issue which was polarization of the courts. I'll try and find his paper and model, but I don't think he published it.
Well the idea behind voting for Trump over Hillary is that, like Bernie, Trump is an anti-estabishment candidate and has attempted to expose the corruption. Basically the main reason Bernie voters won't vote for Hillary is because they (correctly) think the system is rigged.
Or maybe it's not about this arbitrary "privilege" that you speak of and they actually have issue with Hillary's candidacy or her policies. It's incredibly condescending and patronizing (and quite frankly completely baseless) to claim that the only reason people would vote for Donald Trump is because they are privileged, whatever the **** that even means.
I looked up your claims because quite frankly they seemed ridiculous;
Donald Trump did not say he would repeal Roe v. Wade, he said he may nominate a justice who would be in favor of repealing it.
Trump has been pretty wishy-washy on the issue of gay rights, but with that said he has a huge amount of support amongst the LGBTQ community. Gays for Trump is actually a pretty huge political movement, in addition to that Trump was even critized by an Liberal gay rights group for "pandering to gays" or in otherwords being an attractive candidate to them. Donald Trump has actually been praised for his pretty open attitude towards the gay community.
Even if he were to claim to do these things, the presidency wouldn't actually give him the power to do so. You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding about how our entire government works. Donald Trump cannot repeal laws or supreme court decisions just because he doesn't like them. Even if he were to appoint a Supreme Court justice that would look poorly upon the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court justice couldn't just rule on the case because it wanted to. Roe v. Wade cant even be challenged in the supreme court again unless the constitution is amended to make abortions illegal. The repealing of Roe v. Wade will take numerous generations to be repealed piece by piece, if it ever is.
you make a pretty ad hominem appeal by essentially claiming that everyone voting for Trump is a selfish prick, criticize trump supporters for their policies not their character. If you want to make sweeping generalizations then I guess it's fair for me to say that every hillary supporter looks like this?
In any case, I should probably say this before I get called a Trump shill, I'm actually not voting for any candidate this election; neither Trump or Hillary deserve to be in the white house and I'm not going to be responsible for electing either one of them. I think trump is an idiot and he's not a conservative and Hillary Clinton should be in prison.
The_Nameless_Bard wrote:
I'm just really disappointed in the people who think voting for Trump will continue the movement Bernie started. *eyeroll*
The majority of people who are refusing to vote because Bernie didn't get the nomination or willing to vote for Trump seem to generally have privilege that allows them to ignore the effect electing Trump could have on a lot of people.
Making gay marriage illegal again may not have a direct effect on them.
Repealing Roe v. Wade may not have a direct effect on them.
These are just a few examples of the many things Trump says he will do.
I can only hope to god these people realize it will likely affect people they know, maybe even people they are close to, and think about more than just themselves when they cast (or don't cast) their votes.
The majority of people who are refusing to vote because Bernie didn't get the nomination or willing to vote for Trump seem to generally have privilege that allows them to ignore the effect electing Trump could have on a lot of people.
Making gay marriage illegal again may not have a direct effect on them.
Repealing Roe v. Wade may not have a direct effect on them.
These are just a few examples of the many things Trump says he will do.
I can only hope to god these people realize it will likely affect people they know, maybe even people they are close to, and think about more than just themselves when they cast (or don't cast) their votes.
Well the idea behind voting for Trump over Hillary is that, like Bernie, Trump is an anti-estabishment candidate and has attempted to expose the corruption. Basically the main reason Bernie voters won't vote for Hillary is because they (correctly) think the system is rigged.
Or maybe it's not about this arbitrary "privilege" that you speak of and they actually have issue with Hillary's candidacy or her policies. It's incredibly condescending and patronizing (and quite frankly completely baseless) to claim that the only reason people would vote for Donald Trump is because they are privileged, whatever the **** that even means.
I looked up your claims because quite frankly they seemed ridiculous;
Donald Trump did not say he would repeal Roe v. Wade, he said he may nominate a justice who would be in favor of repealing it.
Trump has been pretty wishy-washy on the issue of gay rights, but with that said he has a huge amount of support amongst the LGBTQ community. Gays for Trump is actually a pretty huge political movement, in addition to that Trump was even critized by an Liberal gay rights group for "pandering to gays" or in otherwords being an attractive candidate to them. Donald Trump has actually been praised for his pretty open attitude towards the gay community.
Even if he were to claim to do these things, the presidency wouldn't actually give him the power to do so. You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding about how our entire government works. Donald Trump cannot repeal laws or supreme court decisions just because he doesn't like them. Even if he were to appoint a Supreme Court justice that would look poorly upon the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court justice couldn't just rule on the case because it wanted to. Roe v. Wade cant even be challenged in the supreme court again unless the constitution is amended to make abortions illegal. The repealing of Roe v. Wade will take numerous generations to be repealed piece by piece, if it ever is.
you make a pretty ad hominem appeal by essentially claiming that everyone voting for Trump is a selfish prick, criticize trump supporters for their policies not their character. If you want to make sweeping generalizations then I guess it's fair for me to say that every hillary supporter looks like this?
In any case, I should probably say this before I get called a Trump shill, I'm actually not voting for any candidate this election; neither Trump or Hillary deserve to be in the white house and I'm not going to be responsible for electing either one of them. I think trump is an idiot and he's not a conservative and Hillary Clinton should be in prison.
Thanks for the Signature MissMaw!
I'm not saying they're all like that. I said "a lot" and "seem", neither of which imply "everyone". I'm saying a lot of people SEEM to be willing to ignore the more bigoted parts of Trump's platform since he's "not Hillary" because those suggested policies likely will have no direct effect on them (which is what I meant by they have the privilege to ignore it). Then you have the people who seemingly only show up every four years and complain that voting for [third party candidate] feels pointless and accomplish absolutely nothing. Despite this, people repeatedly do just that and expect something to magically change. If they want third parties to be a viable choice they have to do more than that.
I never said anything about supporting anyone specific either, btw. I'll give you the BotD and assume you weren't implying I must be supporting her because we both have vaginas. I just said that I think the people who are willing to vote for Trump when they supported Bernie until now missed the point. The Democratic Party pulled some ******** they didn't need to, which might just screw things up for them entirely.
The presidency does not give that power, I know that. I was referring to the fact that a bunch of people not voting at all can result in a Congress that will back what Trump wants. I don't really see why he would back someone in favor of repealing Roe v. Wade if he had no intent to attempt to repeal it, but he's been wishy-washy on that issue too. He's claimed to be both pro life and pro choice depending on who he was talking to, so it could mean everything or nothing.
Sorry about the tone. Not trying to be condescending, just really frustrated.
I never said anything about supporting anyone specific either, btw. I'll give you the BotD and assume you weren't implying I must be supporting her because we both have vaginas. I just said that I think the people who are willing to vote for Trump when they supported Bernie until now missed the point. The Democratic Party pulled some ******** they didn't need to, which might just screw things up for them entirely.
The presidency does not give that power, I know that. I was referring to the fact that a bunch of people not voting at all can result in a Congress that will back what Trump wants. I don't really see why he would back someone in favor of repealing Roe v. Wade if he had no intent to attempt to repeal it, but he's been wishy-washy on that issue too. He's claimed to be both pro life and pro choice depending on who he was talking to, so it could mean everything or nothing.
Sorry about the tone. Not trying to be condescending, just really frustrated.
The American elections are a joke.
First, there is Trump. And then, there is Hillary ****ing CLINTON, who's linked so strongly linked with the old corrupted political system(and rightfully so), that Trump's extremism and his almost non-existent arguments are perceived by many as a revolution and a reaction to political correctness. How can you vote for someone who claims "Belgium is a wonderful city", twice?
The funniest part, though, is celebrities endorsing the candidates and making motivational speeches as if someone cares about NFL stars' or Hollywood actors' opinion. Like, really, I just hope they don't influence people that much.
First, there is Trump. And then, there is Hillary ****ing CLINTON, who's linked so strongly linked with the old corrupted political system(and rightfully so), that Trump's extremism and his almost non-existent arguments are perceived by many as a revolution and a reaction to political correctness. How can you vote for someone who claims "Belgium is a wonderful city", twice?
The funniest part, though, is celebrities endorsing the candidates and making motivational speeches as if someone cares about NFL stars' or Hollywood actors' opinion. Like, really, I just hope they don't influence people that much.
TROLLing1999 wrote:
The American elections are a joke.
First, there is Trump. And then, there is Hillary ****ing CLINTON, who's linked so strongly linked with the old corrupted political system(and rightfully so), that Trump's extremism and his almost non-existent arguments are perceived by many as a revolution and a reaction to political correctness. How can you vote for someone who claims "Belgium is a wonderful city", twice?
The funniest part, though, is celebrities endorsing the candidates and making motivational speeches as if someone cares about NFL stars' or Hollywood actors' opinion. Like, really, I just hope they don't influence people that much.
First, there is Trump. And then, there is Hillary ****ing CLINTON, who's linked so strongly linked with the old corrupted political system(and rightfully so), that Trump's extremism and his almost non-existent arguments are perceived by many as a revolution and a reaction to political correctness. How can you vote for someone who claims "Belgium is a wonderful city", twice?
The funniest part, though, is celebrities endorsing the candidates and making motivational speeches as if someone cares about NFL stars' or Hollywood actors' opinion. Like, really, I just hope they don't influence people that much.
Well unlike the EU, the populous actually elects our president. But I agree with you, both candidates suck and I couldn't give a **** who people like Shainia Twain endorse
Thanks for the Signature MissMaw!
Just want to make this note:
The glorious justice Antonin Scalia is the one who protected the right of video game developers to make games with violence in them.
The video games industry as it exists today owes a massive dept to Scalia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_***%27n
The glorious justice Antonin Scalia is the one who protected the right of video game developers to make games with violence in them.
The video games industry as it exists today owes a massive dept to Scalia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_***%27n
Mooninites wrote:
Well unlike the EU, the populous actually elects our president. But I agree with you, both candidates suck and I couldn't give a **** who people like Shainia Twain endorse
********'s a pretty good fertilizer
Latest Legend wrote:
I'm not really sure whether you should compare the European Union and the United States like that.
One definitely shouldn't . But I'm not sure if he/she meant the EU itself or the country-members of the union, in which case it's a whole different story, since in many of these countries presidents have very little authority compared to the USA.
There are a LOT of differences between the US's and EU's / EU member states' political systems. For starters, there's a fundamental difference in power allocation between a parliamentary system (EU, EU member states) and a presidential system (US) where the legislative and executive branches work against each other to pass policies, whereas in parliamentary systems the coalition or ruling party has full control over what they want to pass.
I do think that Hillary and Trump are **** candidates like most of you do, but the U.S's political system and voting culture is completely different from the EU as a whole or its member states in the world. Knowing the differences it'd be best for an educated discussion if people spoke with more understanding of how the US functioned before looking at the US elections similarly as they do their own.
One definitely shouldn't . But I'm not sure if he/she meant the EU itself or the country-members of the union, in which case it's a whole different story, since in many of these countries presidents have very little authority compared to the USA.
uhhh? theres only like 3 member-states of the EU that have presidential or semi-presidential systems - the rest are parliamentary systems (including monarchies), not to mention that US presidents definitely do have less control over their own country compared to EU member-states's respective leaders, unless you're referring to global authority in which case I have no clue what you're trying to get at.
I do think that Hillary and Trump are **** candidates like most of you do, but the U.S's political system and voting culture is completely different from the EU as a whole or its member states in the world. Knowing the differences it'd be best for an educated discussion if people spoke with more understanding of how the US functioned before looking at the US elections similarly as they do their own.
TROLLing1999 wrote:
One definitely shouldn't . But I'm not sure if he/she meant the EU itself or the country-members of the union, in which case it's a whole different story, since in many of these countries presidents have very little authority compared to the USA.
uhhh? theres only like 3 member-states of the EU that have presidential or semi-presidential systems - the rest are parliamentary systems (including monarchies), not to mention that US presidents definitely do have less control over their own country compared to EU member-states's respective leaders, unless you're referring to global authority in which case I have no clue what you're trying to get at.
You need to log in before commenting.
Aside from that, I really don't understand the idea of supreme court judges in general. Like, politicians elect people that are supposed to say whether laws they propose are lawful (do I understand this correctly?) but instead they just end up being puppets of politicians.
I may've misunderstood this, so do correct me if I'm wrong.
The supreme court justices have life time tenure. This in theory allows them the security to make decisions in around the law without consideration for the politics of the day.
However, nominees are picked by the Executive Branch and approved by the Senate. So the Executive branch tends to pick people who lean in the direction of the Executive branches desired policies. The party that controls the Senate or even the minority in many cases (the Senate is the least Democratic branch of the government by intention, but that is another story) will oppose a nomination that they feel is too far in the direction of opposing their politics. Or as we have now, where the Republicans are taking the scorched earth approach, they will oppose anyone that the Democrats propose. (they've done this Obama's entire tenure...Obama has gotten very few federal judges through the nomination process). The Repubs don't really want the government to work properly or smoothly. The Dems ostensibly do, and since many of the Repubs districts have been gerrymandered to their liking they can happily cause as much chaos as they would like without much fear of losing an election.
;tldr - Supreme Court Justices have life time tenure, but quite often the body of their work in the law will point to them leaning philosophically to the left or to the right. Whoever is Pres is going to pick one in the direction that they prefer. The Senate confirms or doesn't confirm them and it is pretty darn easy for them to block nominations that any one Senator doesn't care for.