Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread


88Comrade2000
Message added by TK,

 

Recommended Posts

CNN: Pete Buttigieg is the hottest candidate in the 2020 race right now

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/politics/pete-buttigieg-2020-campaign/index.html

Quote

But Scarborough is far from the only person raving about Buttigieg. Beginning with a star turn at a CNN-sponsored town hall at South by Southwest in Austin, Texas, earlier this month, praise for Mayor Pete has been bubbling up from every corner of the party. And all of that positive attention seems to be feeding on itself and producing tangible results for his campaign.

 

Buttigieg announced last week that he has already crossed the 65,000-donor threshold that qualifies him for the upcoming Democratic presidential debates. A story about him speaking conversational Norwegian went viral. He'll be on "The View" -- for a second time! -- on Friday.

 

I'm pretty biased right now, but that Buttigieg interview with the esquire (in the tweet above) looks pretty good to me.  Pretty excited to see him on the debate stage and look forward to seeing how he does with the big names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

So all these candidates not going to AIPAC conference is fine (I agree it is fine) but did Omar Ilhan get trashed across the board for criticizing AIPAC and their influence?

 

If she had criticized AIPAC without resorting to a stereotypical anti-semitic trope, I don't think she would have anything to apologize for.  But she rolled out the rich subversive jew stereotype and she apologized for that.  Rightfully so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not coming down on either side with respect to Rep. Omar's comments, but when you are talking about any PAC, you should be able to refer to them as rich and subversive without getting railroaded.  The entire point of a PAC is to raise money from rich people, and use it to subvert the democratic process to advance your own agenda.  That's what a PAC, a Political Action Committee, does.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

If she had criticized AIPAC without resorting to a stereotypical anti-semitic trope, I don't think she would have anything to apologize for.  But she rolled out the rich subversive jew stereotype and she apologized for that.  Rightfully so.

she said all about the benjamins... a Biggie song. And that line is true for any PAC.

 

I dont want to re-litigate this, but its ridiculous to say that AIPAC cannot be questioned over their influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I'm not coming down on either side with respect to Rep. Omar's comments, but when you are talking about any PAC, you should be able to refer to them as rich and subversive without getting railroaded.  The entire point of a PAC is to raise money from rich people, and use it to subvert the democratic process to advance your own agenda.  That's what a PAC, a Political Action Committee, does.  

 

10 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

she said all about the benjamins... a Biggie song. And that line is true for any PAC.

 

I dont want to re-litigate this, but its ridiculous to say that AIPAC cannot be questioned over their influence.

 

I share no love for PACs in general and I don't think anyone is wrong to criticize AIPAC.  But even Rep. Omar recognized that her tweet ignored the history of anti-semitic tropes it invoked.  She can criticize AIPAC to her heart's content.  But just because her criticism is warranted, doesn't mean the manner of her criticism gets a pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I think Rep. Omar recognized that defending her tweet wasn't a hill worth dying on.  I stand by my initial post on this topic. 

 

Right.  If she saw something in her tweet that was being misconstrued and decided it best to apologize/clarify, then so be it, more power to her. She did what she felt was right.  My comment was more about what her actual criticism was, it was about *money* which was an accurate statement.  I don't think it is a stretch to say the right-wing media took it as an opportunity to call the "funny looking money muslim woman" an anti-semite, and the Democrats per usual panicked and went along with it to a certain extent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Right.  If she saw something in her tweet that was being misconstrued and decided it best to apologize/clarify, then so be it, more power to her. She did what she felt was right.  My comment was more about what her actual criticism was, it was about *money* which was an accurate statement.  I don't think it is a stretch to say the right-wing media took it as an opportunity to call the "funny looking money muslim woman" an anti-semite, and the Democrats per usual panicked and went along with it to a certain extent. 

 

Yes, precisely.  There is a woman wearing a hijab in the Congress.  That cannot go unchallenged by the GOP.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Is there a good argument behind expanding the Supreme Court other than wanting to offset the number of Republican appointees?  

 

Yes, this current court has consistently and demonstrably undermined the power of voters and undermined our democratic process heavily in favor of corporate and dark money interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Yes, this current court has consistently and demonstrably undermined the power of voters and undermined our democratic process heavily in favor of corporate and dark money interests.

So doesn't that show there is an issue with the people on the court, not the number of them on the court?

 

17 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

And one of the seats was straight up stolen, so turnabout is fair play. 

I hate sink to their level games.

 

My concern is that expanding the court because you don't like its current make up (or how it got that way) just sets a precedent for the GOP to do it when they get back in power.  Or hell, to try to do it before the new POTUS takes office.  Dems would look like hypocrites if they didn't support it while supporting candidates who are running on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I hate sink to their level games.

 

My concern is that expanding the court because you don't like its current make up (or how it got that way) just sets a precedent for the GOP to do it when they get back in power.  Or hell, to try to do it before the new POTUS takes office.  Dems would look like hypocrites if they didn't support it while supporting candidates who are running on it.

 

I hate to lose an entire branch of government for a generation because Republicans cheat and Democrats just take it.  

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So doesn't that show there is an issue with the people on the court, not the number of them on the court?

 

 

They are lifetime appointments, so you can't subtract, you can only add. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

 

 

They are lifetime appointments, so you can't subtract, you can only add. 

 

They can be removed, of course that requires effort and more than talking points :pint:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Is there a good argument behind expanding the Supreme Court other than wanting to offset the number of Republican appointees?  

 

I don't know that expanding the Supreme Court would be the end in of it self as much as some candidates expressing the desire to dial down the politicization of the judiciary.  But one could argue that 9th vote splitting 5-4 isn't all that different from 15th or 21st vote giving one side the narrow majority.  Buttigieg wants to see each party pick 5 and the remaining 5 only be accepted with unanimous consent of the other justices, but this would require a constitutional amendment that probably has a snow ball's chance in hell.  

 

But for better or for worse, SCOTUS has become the de facto final arbiter of close calls in this country.  I would prefer some type of referendum/direct vote system over 9 people being asked to decide.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So doesn't that show there is an issue with the people on the court, not the number of them on the court?

 

Like PB said, the only way to reign this courts power is to expand its numbers with less crappy judges. 

 

It’s a fairly convincing argument to make to voters, who’ve seen the power of their vote shrink directly because of the Roberts court. 

 

Our fundamental democratic system was transformed into an oligarchic dumpster fire because of this court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Is there a good argument behind expanding the Supreme Court other than wanting to offset the number of Republican appointees?  

 

45 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Yes, this current court has consistently and demonstrably undermined the power of voters and undermined our democratic process heavily in favor of corporate and dark money interests.

 

42 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

And one of the seats was straight up stolen, so turnabout is fair play. 

 

Looks like the answer is "no". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

 

Looks like the answer is "no". 

 

LOL.  When a seat comes open and all historical precedent and the Constitutionally prescribed method for selecting a new justice states that the the President should select a new one, and then does select an eminently qualified person to fill the seat, and then the long-standing process is hijacked so that the Senate refuses to confirm that person for purely political reasons and the seat is held open for 422 days .... that should be viewed as just fine and everyone can just move along.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

 

Looks like the answer is "no". 

Yea I caught that also.

14 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

You’re right. A court that demonstrably undermines our electoral process shouldn’t have its power checked. :rolleyes:

I happen to agree with your opinion.  But it's just that, an opinion.  

 

Go ahead and expand it.  Just don't cry when the GOP does the exact same thing when they are in power.  We can pingpong back and forth until there are 51 justices and they are as dysfunctional as congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

You’re right. A court that demonstrably undermines our electoral process shouldn’t have its power checked. :rolleyes:

 

8 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

LOL.  When a seat comes open and all historical precedent and the Constitutionally prescribed method for selecting a new justice states that the the President should select a new one, and then does select an eminently qualified person to fill the seat, and then the long-standing process is hijacked so that the Senate refuses to confirm that person for purely political reasons and the seat is held open for 422 days .... that should be viewed as just fine and everyone can just move along.    

 

You're right. Two wrongs make a right. 

 

But, let's get this thread back on topic.

 

You want to know how to get me to NOT vote straight Dem in 2020?  Announce plans to pack the court. The idea is that bad.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...