Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:50 PM
Stuart G (29,888 posts)
This is the reason to support the democratic candidate, whoever it is
The next President could appoint members to the Supreme Court.
|
27 replies, 1189 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Stuart G | Mar 2015 | OP |
Maedhros | Mar 2015 | #1 | |
Stuart G | Mar 2015 | #2 | |
Orsino | Mar 2015 | #3 | |
BubbaFett | Mar 2015 | #7 | |
Romeo.lima333 | Mar 2015 | #16 | |
Maedhros | Mar 2015 | #19 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Mar 2015 | #20 | |
TheKentuckian | Mar 2015 | #21 | |
dissentient | Mar 2015 | #4 | |
Stuart G | Mar 2015 | #6 | |
ScreamingMeemie | Mar 2015 | #11 | |
bigwillq | Mar 2015 | #12 | |
ScreamingMeemie | Mar 2015 | #18 | |
DanTex | Mar 2015 | #5 | |
greatlaurel | Mar 2015 | #8 | |
hobbit709 | Mar 2015 | #9 | |
KamaAina | Mar 2015 | #13 | |
Sheepshank | Mar 2015 | #14 | |
ScreamingMeemie | Mar 2015 | #10 | |
daredtowork | Mar 2015 | #15 | |
Romeo.lima333 | Mar 2015 | #17 | |
daredtowork | Mar 2015 | #23 | |
Romeo.lima333 | Mar 2015 | #24 | |
daredtowork | Mar 2015 | #25 | |
Doctor_J | Mar 2015 | #22 | |
PoliticAverse | Mar 2015 | #26 | |
Savannahmann | Mar 2015 | #27 |
Response to Stuart G (Original post)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:09 PM
Maedhros (10,007 posts)
1. And what guarantee do we have that Hillary won't appoint a pro-Wall Street justice?
None.
|
Response to Maedhros (Reply #1)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:13 PM
Stuart G (29,888 posts)
2. If the nominee is Hillary, she will do better than what the Republicans nominate.
Her appointees, in my opinion, would be far better, than any put up by any Republican. There are no guarantees. That is what I believe. Bush/Rand Paul/ asshole Walker...or whoever..
|
Response to Stuart G (Reply #2)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:16 PM
Orsino (37,416 posts)
3. Yes. The difference may not be a great as I'd prefer, but it exists.
Vote against Republicans every chance you get. While you still can.
|
Response to Maedhros (Reply #1)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:28 PM
BubbaFett (361 posts)
7. Why would she bite the hand that feeds her and her family, their assigns, their progeny
and their children's children's grandchildren in the future to come?
What incentive would she have to side with we commoners in anything? |
Response to Maedhros (Reply #1)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:05 PM
Romeo.lima333 (1,127 posts)
16. oh ffs yeah president walker will pick a better one
we are our own enemy
|
Response to Romeo.lima333 (Reply #16)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:57 PM
Maedhros (10,007 posts)
19. The point is:
if you want me to vote for a candidate, give me positive reasons to do so rather than try and scare me with the opposition.
I will be ignoring you now. |
Response to Maedhros (Reply #1)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:58 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (96,410 posts)
20. Are Breyer and Ginsburg "Wall Street" justices?/NT
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #20)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:33 PM
TheKentuckian (23,947 posts)
21. Ginsburg? No. Breyer? medium leaning no Sotomayor? Medium leaning yes. Kagan? Yes.
It isn't most accurately a yes or no but rather a continuum between fiercely opposed (a universe of 0) and absolutely favors, which I think actually is represented best by Roberts who favors even when doing so conflicts with being a Birch Society level, rockribbed rightist.
There is no "swing" vote here, I think the court is at best solidly 2-7 with the Citizens United split divided more on authority of government lines than anything. Keep in mind that CU doesn't actually that broadly benefit business but rather the biggest over dogs or what is more feared someone who has the right connections at the right time. Yes, every company wants market share and competitive advantage but many get it might not be them with the last chair when the music stops. Hell, CU has nuance for me even though I absolutely oppose it and that is that I actually believe it is the right decision in a letter of the law kind of way it just is obscenely bad governance that strikes right at the heart of the spirit of the law of one person, one vote. Supporting the letter like this negates the whole purpose of having a human judge in the first place in my opinion. |
Response to Stuart G (Original post)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:18 PM
dissentient (861 posts)
4. If a Democratic candidate won, who was Leiberman on steroids, and campaigned
on a platform of invading Iran as the first order of business to stop the Iranian "threat" once and for all, would you still vote for them?
Whenever I see posts like that, it makes me think of a scenario, however unlikely, and then wonder if there any limits. Surely there are some limits to these blind loyalty oaths. I hope. |
Response to dissentient (Reply #4)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:26 PM
Stuart G (29,888 posts)
6. For me, this is not a "blind loyalty oath"
Right now, that is how I feel and believe. the republicans could put up someone who is totally absurd. My loyalty is to a sane leader, rather than an idiot. All of the current crowd of democratic possibilities are sane. Not all of the pukes are sane.
|
Response to Stuart G (Reply #6)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:51 PM
ScreamingMeemie (68,918 posts)
11. My loyalty is to myself and my family.
God, I hate how "loyalty" is used around here.
|
Response to ScreamingMeemie (Reply #11)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:53 PM
bigwillq (72,790 posts)
12. Shocker.
You and I agree on something. Again.
![]() ![]() |
Response to bigwillq (Reply #12)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:29 PM
ScreamingMeemie (68,918 posts)
18. .
![]() |
Response to Stuart G (Original post)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:22 PM
DanTex (20,706 posts)
5. That's just one of them. There are tons of reasons.
Economic policy, social policy, foreign policy, everything.
|
Response to Stuart G (Original post)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:47 PM
greatlaurel (1,998 posts)
8. Just one of many important reasons to vote for the Democratic Party candidate in every election.
Good point, thanks, it cannot be said often enough.
|
Response to Stuart G (Original post)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:50 PM
hobbit709 (41,694 posts)
9. Who a D president wants will mean diddly squat as long as the Senate is run by Rs.
Response to hobbit709 (Reply #9)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:55 PM
KamaAina (78,249 posts)
13. Who an R president wants, however, would sail through.
![]() |
Response to hobbit709 (Reply #9)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:56 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
14. How's that been working out for the R Senate lately?
...it's not a given
|
Response to Stuart G (Original post)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:50 PM
ScreamingMeemie (68,918 posts)
10. I support local/state candidates. I "vote" for whomever is nominated for the big D
but otherwise, I'm over it.
|
Response to Stuart G (Original post)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:59 PM
daredtowork (3,732 posts)
15. This Straw Man is getting so old
Protesting against or campaigning against Hillary, who has not even declared she will run in the PRIMARY yet, is not a declaration one will not vote in the general election or that one is not a Democrat.
DOWN WITH LOYALTY OATHS!!! |
Response to daredtowork (Reply #15)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:08 PM
Romeo.lima333 (1,127 posts)
17. the op said nothing about hillary
Response to Romeo.lima333 (Reply #17)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:54 PM
daredtowork (3,732 posts)
23. The "Hillary" is implied. nt
Response to daredtowork (Reply #23)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:07 PM
Romeo.lima333 (1,127 posts)
24. that's what you inferred but "whoever it is" implies no one
hill isnt running yet
|
Response to Romeo.lima333 (Reply #24)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:08 PM
daredtowork (3,732 posts)
25. Smoke and mirrors~ ;) nt
Response to daredtowork (Reply #15)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:53 PM
Doctor_J (36,392 posts)
22. Yeah, that's probably the 10,000th time its been posted in DU history
Seems to be the last Refuge Of The Turd Way. Always gets plenty of recs though
|
Response to Stuart G (Original post)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:31 PM
PoliticAverse (22,626 posts)
26. And the FCC, also very important now. n/t
Response to Stuart G (Original post)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:33 PM
Savannahmann (3,891 posts)
27. Yeah, that will get out the vote.
The idea that we can have a Democratic President appoint a massive conservative to the court so the nomination will get past the Republican majority in the Senate.
Yeah, that's a victory to strive for. |