s0crates Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/flea-why-i-support-bernie-sanders-20160205 Flea: Why I Support Bernie Sanders "The concept of a president in this country who is not beholden to corporate lobbyists is such a beautiful idea," Red Hot Chili Peppers bassist says . . . The Chili Peppers are doing a show for Bernie this weekend and it's something like $30,000 to rent the venue. We said, "Oh, we'll pay for the cost of the venue rental." And he wouldn't accept it! He said, "We can't accept you guys; you're a group — you're incorporated — so I can't accept that money." He can accept the ticket cost because each one is a small donation, but the 30 grand? "No, I don't accept money like that." . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Ah, the coveted Flea endorsement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Ah, the coveted Flea endorsement. Locking up the 'naked base-player' demographic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Ah, the coveted Flea endorsement. I thought that too, then I read what he wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I'll point out that you quoted him saying "reinstate death penalty cases" and "protect corporate speech rights". Granted, those are not specific case references. But I suspect that he had specific cases in mind, when he wrote that. Citizen United was pretty much a 5/4 Con/Lib split (and I don't like Citizens United). Hobby Lobby 5/4 Con/Lib split McCutcheon v. FEC 5/4 Con/Lib split (eliminates amounts on campaign contributions). She's the loan dissenter in a 8-1 capital punishment case. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/20/supreme-court-murder-kansas-death-penalty/76575196/ I assumed he had some specific cases, but I'd generally agree with Kilmer. The Democratic nominees have been more reliably liberal than Republicans. Now, I think the court has gotten more conservative because the Republican nominees are becoming more reliable. I also think that the right knows that and is bringing cases up that they wouldn't have even bothered to bring before, which has pushed things further to the right. I also have more of an issue the conservative justices because of what I at least perceive as a being a hypocritical stance. With "liberal" justices you know what you are going to get in terms of "interpretation". The current conservative Supreme Court Justices seem to have an issue with the meaning of "speech" and include all sorts of things, including money as "speech". (And I'll point out that some state Constitutions go much further than the US Constitution. For example, the 1790 PA Constitution states: "The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man; and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty." ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Where is all of this madness coming from? O'Connor didn't go rogue left. She was a steadfast reasonable but conservative vote for her entire career on the court. Her ONLY issue where she was even close to liberal was gender equality. Scalia and Thomas have so warped the playing field that everyone thinks that disagreeing with them means you are a leftist or a liberal. Disagreeing with them means you are a jurist, because leftists, liberals, moderates, and even non-ideological conservatives should disagree with them almost all the time. To quote the great Mugutu: "Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" You know, you're right. She didn't really move left, but, like you say, the playing field has moved right. I forgot to tie in the rightward push we've experienced in our politics, and attributed the full measure of her disagreement with the far right wing of the court to her, when indeed, a significant amount of that was ground shifting under her feet. I think she ultimately was more liberal than the average conservative individual, but she was certainly not a hard and fast liberal. The combination of her somewhat socially liberal viewpoint combined with the push to the right the GOP has experienced has indeed pushed her from somewhere between moderate conservative and moderate liberal to between moderate and liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Q poll today. National Hillary 44 Bernie 42 A 29 point swing from last month. Big news! Bernie is proving the doubters wrong. The more people know him, the more they love him. Who saw this coming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Now, I think the court has gotten more conservative because the Republican nominees are becoming more reliable. I also think that the right knows that and is bringing cases up that they wouldn't have even bothered to bring before, which has pushed things further to the right. Kind of a spinoff of your point. But I also remember a piece, I think also by Predicto, which argued that this notion that the 2nd amendment grants individuals the right to walk around armed without restriction, was the result if a decades-long manipulation by the NRA. Supposedly , it was simply one of those things that everybody knew, that the 2nd didn't apply to individuals, for over 150 years. Anybody who even suggested otherwise was considered an idiot or some such. And then, the NRA started paying legal scholars to write papers arguing that the 2nd applied to individuals. Then paid to have that view written into law books. And then was very careful to make sure that no gun control cases made it to the SC, until the court had a majority of justices who had been reading those arguments and papers since law school. Sounds rather like some grand conspiracy story. )and, I have to say, differs from both the way I read the 2nd, and the interpretation that I think is best for society. I want people to have many gun rights). But I certainly assume he knows a lot more about both the law, and the history, than I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 So corporations had second amendment rights????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 So corporations had second amendment rights????? I don't think we've had that ruling, yet. (But I'm not sure it would shock me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion Swing and a miss. You're terrible at this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Paul Lander@paul_lander Why did the chicken cross the road? To not have to be interviewed by Megyn Kelly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268362-sanders-tied-with-clinton-nationwide-poll Shocker!! Regarding this poll, I think there is a more important story than Sanders bringing himself within 2 points (and within the margin of error) of Hillary nationally: . . . The poll also finds that Sanders matches up better with top Republican primary candidates than Clinton. In head-to-head matchups, the Vermont senator leads GOP front-runner Donald Trump by 10 points, edges Ted Cruz by 4 points and ties Marco Rubio. While Clinton still tops Trump by 5 points, she ties Cruz and trails Rubio by 7 points. . . . Does this mean we can finally put the nonsense "electability" argument to bed? Because it looks to me like this says the best option for those wanting to keep Trump and Cruz out of the White House is Bernie. (But don't tell the GOP, their anti-Hillary crusade is actually helping). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I like Kilmer, but I have no idea what he is talking about with that 2 Americas thing anymore. I thought I understood it to be a simple comment on the every growing ideological divide in out country, but he uses it it a lot of contexts where that doesn't seem to apply. Can you explain it to me, because he doesn't seem to want to. I see he responded. I'm not sure if his response clears it up anymore. The two sides see things in completely different ways, yet both sides are able to justify it. It's created a situation where each side thinks it's the other side that's the idiot. It has nothing to do with which side is right, on any given issue. Or that both sides are right, for some absurd reason. Or any of the other nonsense people were saying. He started the entire SCOTUS conversation with: Its impossible to have this debate with you guys because you come from a position that there is a right and a wrong when it's really just about political philosophy. The fact that you can call Scalia a moron instead of an ideologue is telling. I don't think Any of them are morons. But I do know the kind of Justices I want to see replace those that retire. Like it or not, majority of the posters in ES political threads are to the left of center in varying degrees. I think most of you consider me right of center, and I know a lot of people on the right that think I'm some liberal; that is to say - i'm not very far right, but I find few I agree with here. In fact, I seem to find myself agreeing with someone on an issue when I was arguing with them on a different one the day before... Here's Kilmer, an unapologetic conservative (who's not afraid to criticize the GOP when he feels the need, especially looking at this nomination process as it currently stands), saying flat out - we cannot come to an agreement on this conversation. The next 3 pages are you guys on the left telling him his opinions on how the SCOTUS behaves are completely wrong. Then you mock his 2 americas. TryTheBeal! tried to make it about one being better than the other. Steve tried to turn it into some sort of "the two sides must be equal" nonsense. PF Chang just mocked it. And every single one of you seemed to completely miss the point - because of your political bias, and because of his, you all see things completely different and are never going to come to agreement on whether SCOTUS leans left, right, or which Justices bucked the party that nominated them and which one didn't. None of that is to discredit the articles you posted, or you sharing your experience; personally I enjoy reading it and you have more credibility than anyone here on the subject as far as I'm concerned. The other part that kicked this off? Kilmer saying Clinton nominating 3 justices scares him; and then a bunch of you (who lean left, some way more than others) telling him it shouldn't. I know you all love to proclaim Clinton is this moderate of all moderates and such, but come on. Take a step back here. You're missing the obvious and trying to turn this into something it's not, and never was. The two sides **** about the the other doing certain things, and then are completely oblivious when their side does it as well. I know you all like to mock the pox on both houses stuff, but for most political issues I'm not seriously attached to either party (and the ones I am, don't often overwhelming control who I'll vote for) and this thing you claim doesn't exist is right there to see and it's amusing to watch. Does that mean they're both equal all the time? No. They're not. But to sit back and say no one should be concerned about Clinton appointing 3 justices to SCOTUS, while simultaneously outlining the history of conservative appointments that have ruined the court in their opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Swing and a miss. You're terrible at this. You're saying that he had his own opinion was irrelevant to the assessment of truth in his claim. This is a waste of time. You're not even making an argument, and it's because you're just full of ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 You're saying that he had his own opinion was irrelevant to the assessment of truth in his claim. This is a waste of time. You're not even making an argument, and it's because you're just full of ****. No i'm saying that when you first commented, you had the right idea. Then you went on this nonsense about both sides being equal or some crap. I'm not making an argument because you're hardly one that is ever worth arguing with. Your hot takes just suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Does this mean we can finally put the nonsense "electability" argument to bed? Because it looks to me like this says the best option for those wanting to keep Trump and Cruz out of the White House is Bernie. (But don't tell the GOP, their anti-Hillary crusade is actually helping). I'm not sure. There may be some truth that Democrats really liked McCain until he was nominated. Republicans will probably turn on him hard if he gets the nod, but that's true of any Dem really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Republicans will probably turn on him hard if he gets the nod, but that's true of any Dem really. I will tell you a secret. It's also what Kilmer was talking about earlier. It's a red and blue world. Blue turns on red, red turns on blue. It's not 1 way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I'm not sure. There may be some truth that Democrats really liked McCain until he was nominated. Republicans will probably turn on him hard if he gets the nod, but that's true of any Dem really. Il vote for Bernie or a 3rd party before I'll vote for Cruz. But I'll vote for anyone with an R if Hillary is the D. It's anectodal. And not prove able. But I suspect there are a lot of folks like me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 So corporations had second amendment rights????? Of course, but Larry is overstating the no restrictions even the press have restrictions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I will tell you a secret. It's also what Kilmer was talking about earlier. It's a red and blue world. Blue turns on red, red turns on blue. It's not 1 way. Sure, that's why I pointed the parallel with McCain and the Dems. Although part of that was that McCain changed who he and what he stood for was pretty significantly in 2008 to get the Republican nod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I see he responded. I'm not sure if his response clears it up anymore. The two sides see things in completely different ways, yet both sides are able to justify it. It's created a situation where each side thinks it's the other side that's the idiot. It has nothing to do with which side is right, on any given issue. Or that both sides are right, for some absurd reason. Or any of the other nonsense people were saying... Pretty much everything but the second to last paragraph in this post involved the subjectivism fallacy I mentioned earlier. - Positions are founded upon facts. - Some positions can be supported more by facts than others. - The most valid positions are the ones most supported by the facts. - Positions can contradict each other without being equally supported by facts. Therefore it does not follow that, because two positions contradict, they are equally valid. Kilmer's 2 America's argument appeals to the implicit fallacy that both "Americas" are equally validated in their positions by facts, simply by virtue of their contradiction. This is the fallacy. And in this specific instance, his position was that the court is liberal, that liberals have packed the court more than conservatives, and that the jurisprudence of one of the court's conservatives justices was as valid as that of one of the court's liberals. These are claims verifiable with facts. No doubt their complex and esoteric nature makes this very difficult to do. That's why I asked for Predicto to give a position: I appealed to an expert who is, by far, the most versed in the facts of the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Il vote for Bernie or a 3rd party before I'll vote for Cruz. But I'll vote for anyone with an R if Hillary is the D. It's anectodal. And not prove able. But I suspect there are a lot of folks like me. I'd vote Bernie before cruz or trump. Not sure what I'd do if the choice was between Hillary and one of those 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Il vote for Bernie or a 3rd party before I'll vote for Cruz. But I'll vote for anyone with an R if Hillary is the D. It's anectodal. And not prove able. But I suspect there are a lot of folks like me. What about the other Republicans? (You know I'm a Rubio fan and have been pointing out the weakness of Trump and Cruz in the general). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Therefore it does not follow that, because two positions contradict, they are equally valid. Kilmer's 2 America's argument appeals to the implicit fallacy that both "Americas" are equally validated in their positions by facts, simply by virtue of their contradiction. This is the fallacy. Let me put it a different way: I'm not aware of Kilmer ever discussing validity in the 2 americas thing. Nor do I ever remember him discussing 'right' or 'wrong'. He's only brought it up to explain how so many people can look at the same situations and divide on them in predictable ways. A bunch of you came in and started criticizing him for trying to claim that they're equally valid, objective, or that it's just because people are entitled to their own opinion (which I think is bs too). I'm not aware of him ever doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.