Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VII

[Tony Stark]

I give up. Who?

The President.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I give up. Who?

I think you mis-spelled "Yeah, you're right I totally forgot about one of the most obvious effects a President can have on racism."

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Hillary is not like every politician. She is the one candidate who has every wrong policy.

I have yet to encounter a Clinton policy I agree with even to a minor degree.

I propose that your world view is not as perfect as you believe it to be, and that your personal disagreement with one's position on any topic does not make that position objectively wrong.

 

[marplots]

The President.

I think you mis-spelled "Yeah, you're right I totally forgot about one of the most obvious effects a President can have on racism."

I looked it up. Apparently the President only nominates them. They are confirmed by the Senate and appointed for a life term.

Didn't find anything about racism though. Seems like a stretch. You guys are aware that the decisions made by those courts are public, right?

But forgive me if I've inadvertently touched some conspiracy third rail here. I expect I have. This is one of those, "but it's for the children" deals, right? Drop the code word "racist" in the mix and no more needs to be said...

 

[Tony Stark]

I looked it up. Apparently the President only nominates them. They are confirmed by the Senate and appointed for a life term.

Didn't find anything about racism though. Seems like a stretch. You guys are aware that the decisions made by those courts are public, right?

But forgive me if I've inadvertently touched some conspiracy third rail here. I expect I have. This is one of those, "but it's for the children" deals, right? Drop the code word "racist" in the mix and no more needs to be said...

Are you denying that federal courts have thrown our racist laws? Because they definitely have.

 

[marplots]

Are you denying that federal courts have thrown our racist laws? Because they definitely have.

Didn't they rule based on the constitutionality of such laws? How does that change when the president changes?

The point of application of the racist charge ought to be at the confirmation hearing, not the nomination. That's one of the purposes - to look at a particular judges record and try to figure out how good or bad a judge they are likely to be. In civics class, we referred to this as "checks and balances."

 

[Tony Stark]

Didn't they rule based on the constitutionality of such laws? How does that change when the president changes?

The point of application of the racist charge ought to be at the confirmation hearing, not the nomination. That's one of the purposes - to look at a particular judges record and try to figure out how good or bad a judge they are likely to be. In civics class, we referred to this as "checks and balances."

Are you trying to deny that Presidents tend to appoint people that agree with them to the federal courts? Or perhaps you're under the delusion that Senate Republicans would vote against nominations made by a Republican President?

 

[Minoosh]

No, not everyone is a racist.

I think we're working with different definitions.

 

[marplots]

Are you trying to deny that Presidents tend to appoint people that agree with them to the federal courts?

They have the same problem we have when choosing who to vote for - no perfect candidate and compromises.

Here's a look at the ethnic and gender breakdown for federal judgeship appointments under a few different presidents. (Remember, these are life terms.) Is it your contention that some/many of these people are racist because of who appointed them? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ing-federal-judges-has-plummeted-under-obama/

It seems to me we could evaluate the judges based on the decisions they made and the arguments they put forth to make them, rather than secondhand by which president nominated them.

The meta point is this conversation very much illustrates what it means to be a single-issue voter. If I am (for instance) pro second amendment rights, then every damn thing is somehow connected to my issue. If my thing is pro-choice, then I view everything though that lens.

When I wrote for a cannabis newspaper, everyone I met framed candidates and issues as pro or anti legalization. When they couldn't manage it convincingly, they lost interest in any part of the political spectrum that didn't relate. My only surprise is I didn't know racism was such an issue. Live and learn.

 

[marplots]

Are you trying to deny that Presidents tend to appoint people that agree with them to the federal courts? Or perhaps you're under the delusion that Senate Republicans would vote against nominations made by a Republican President?

I don't know. Is the Senate racist too? How deep does the rabbit hole go?

 

[Tony Stark]

They have the same problem we have when choosing who to vote for - no perfect candidate and compromises.

Here's a look at the ethnic and gender breakdown for federal judgeship appointments under a few different presidents. (Remember, these are life terms.) Is it your contention that some/many of these people are racist because of who appointed them? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ing-federal-judges-has-plummeted-under-obama/

It seems to me we could evaluate the judges based on the decisions they made and the arguments they put forth to make them, rather than secondhand by which president nominated them.

The meta point is this conversation very much illustrates what it means to be a single-issue voter. If I am (for instance) pro second amendment rights, then every damn thing is somehow connected to my issue. If my thing is pro-choice, then I view everything though that lens.

When I wrote for a cannabis newspaper, everyone I met framed candidates and issues as pro or anti legalization. When they couldn't manage it convincingly, they lost interest in any part of the political spectrum that didn't relate. My only surprise is I didn't know racism was such an issue. Live and learn.

Yes. Judges appointed by Republicans are more likely to be racists. And certainly, ones appointed by a racist are even more likely to be racists.

 

[Tony Stark]

I don't know. Is the Senate racist too? How deep does the rabbit hole go?

I can tell you right now that the notion that Republicans in the Senate would reject a Republican President's nominees is absurd. Even if the nominees are racist or OK with racism.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Or maybe they are just against abortion.

That's just another idiotic stance.

 

[marplots]

Yes. Judges appointed by Republicans are more likely to be racists. And certainly, ones appointed by a racist are even more likely to be racists.

I suppose, so long as the nominating racist allows racism to be their hot-button, go-to issue. Maybe we could distinguish these activist racists from the regular, go-along-to-get-along everyday racist. I know, we could call them "radical racists" or something.

 

[marplots]

That's just another idiotic stance.

But it's not racist... or is it??!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

With government money. Bad idea.

You realize that all drug research in the US is either directly or indirectly funded by the NIH, including that done by Big Pharma?
Drug companies take the (state funded) basic research, create therapies with in and run the medical testing stages.
But there is almost no drug or therapy on offer today that is not partially the result of state-funded research.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not at all. But if they don't have another, better choice, what should they do, move to Canada?

I don't think you are getting the nuances here. It isn't as black and white as your analysis requires. There are reluctant voters in both camps.

They need to stop thinking there is only one way to address the abortion issue. Passing a law against abortion did not work in the past and it won't work in the future.

If your goal is solely to have a law on the books, regardless if it is effective and and if an ineffective law is worth the tradeoff of having a mentally ill narcissist in the White House, ... hopefully that doesn't apply to very many people.

Use your head. If opposing abortion is the most important thing to you why not look for ways to actually decrease or end abortion besides an ineffective law against it.

In the meantime, voting for Trump is a very foolish thing to do.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If it isn't black and white, those people need their head checked.

Hillary is like every other politician. Who cares?
Trump is a *********** sexual predator, a clueless alpha male wannabe who has zero regard for anyone and a pathological need to viciously attack anyone who may have slighted him, regardless of facts. He is the worst that humanity has to offer.

This election IS black and white. It's sanity vs insanity. People supporting Trump should be either tried for treason, if they should know better, or culled if they're too stupid to see what's in front of their face

This ^

 

[Tony Stark]

They need to stop thinking there is only one way to address the abortion issue. Passing a law against abortion did not work in the past and it won't work in the future.

If your goal is solely to have a law on the books, regardless if it is effective and and if an ineffective law is worth the tradeoff of having a mentally ill narcissist in the White House, ... hopefully that doesn't apply to very many people.

Use your head. If opposing abortion is the most important thing to you why not look for ways to actually decrease or end abortion besides an ineffective law against it.

In the meantime, voting for Trump is a very foolish thing to do.

Funny the same people who hate abortion so much tend to be the same ones that are against things that prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I propose that your world view is not as perfect as you believe it to be, and that your personal disagreement with one's position on any topic does not make that position objectively wrong.

Can a policy be objectively wrong? I take it as a given we are all subjective.