Potential SCOTUS Nomimee

[Deleted member 28227]

like Clinton was , but neither were convicted. God forbid, If I am ever arrested for something and during the trial for whatever I was arrested for, I am found to be not guilty. Then I m not guilty and we all move on----

However, this was brought up in our meeting and someone said, Clinton got something, for his Impeachment

He wasn't removed from office, in the context of your comparison he was found guilty but given a suspend sentence... indeed just like Clinton.

 

[SAJ-99]

Just last night approx 25 of us "young voters" attempted to look at the issues and decide what we thought would be best for the country, obviously in our opinion, before we vote, but if everything we discussed doesn't go our way, we did not say, we would burn it all down, or that we would go to someones house and chant obscenities or take money away from those who are paid to protect us ---

I like the idea. Did you find the conversation useful? Were there diverse opinions?

Just so it is clear. "Defund" doesn't mean take away all the money and abolish. That is ridiculous. In fact, I have said that every one of those majors of those cities should call a special election on their jobs and make "defunding" the police the major point. Let the people decide. I guarantee what the result would be. For example Billings, MT just passed the first public safety levy in 16yrs (https://www.ktvq.com/news/local-new...t-public-safety-mill-levy-in-16-years-tuesday). This isn't the first time it went to a vote, but ALL the others failed. Maybe there is a positive side to "defund the police" movement. People don't want to get rid of the police, we want the police to apply laws without bias or prejudice. Its a tough, dangerous job, but we should always seek improvement. For you, I suggest trying to understand the perspective of others that have a different experience (and hence see things through a different lens) than you. It is harder than it seems, especially with the direction society is heading.

 

[Randi]

I did, thank you for asking

It is where I got my 80-10-10. There were a couple there who thought Trump was perfect and Biiden was Satan and a couple the other way around. But the majority were interested in the issues and how it would affect them and the country,

i.e.: economy, before the virus it was humming right along and most thought this is Trumps strong point. Also bringing jobs back to America, and the Isreal/Arab agreement was a good step. Biden got climate control mainly because of what he and Obama had done in Pa. Trump reversed that so --Trump-jobs Biden -Climate Control . Abortion was discussed a bit and most of us are in agreement with first trimester abortions and/or rape-incest- health issues. But we almost to a person felt they had pushed the envelope to far on abortions. Everybody agreed that we ( the country ) needed to change Speakers ( House ) whether Trump lost or won. She lost us with her speech ripping antic. But yes, it was an enjoyable meeting . Not that 25 young voters have any real influence one way or the other, but we all, even those who like Biden, felt to was important to like Harris, as we are not so sure she will not be running the show , if they are elected, We all promised to do more research on her before our next meeting

Are you sorry you asked ?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I did, thank you for asking

It is where I got my 80-10-10. There were a couple there who thought Trump was perfect and Biiden was Satan and a couple the other way around. But the majority were interested in the issues and how it would affect them and the country,

i.e.: economy, before the virus it was humming right along and most thought this is Trumps strong point. Also bringing jobs back to America, and the Isreal/Arab agreement was a good step. Biden got climate control mainly because of what he and Obama had done in Pa. Trump reversed that so --Trump-jobs Biden -Climate Control . Abortion was discussed a bit and most of us are in agreement with first trimester abortions and/or rape-incest- health issues. But we almost to a person felt they had pushed the envelope to far on abortions. Everybody agreed that we ( the country ) needed to change Speakers ( House ) whether Trump lost or won. She lost us with her speech ripping antic. But yes, it was an enjoyable meeting . Not that 25 young voters have any real influence one way or the other, but we all, even those who like Biden, felt to was important to like Harris, as we are not so sure she will not be running the show , if they are elected, We all promised to do more research on her before our next meeting

Are you sorry you asked ?

Groups of people getting together to talk through the issues is awesome, I don't care which way you vote or who you are, the more engaged we all are the better.

 

[beginnerhunter]

It's currently on the ballot in Alaska

Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Maine uses it state wide.

General idea being you rank your choices.
Person 1.
1. Trump
2. Johnson
3. McMullin
4. Clinton

Person 2.
1. Clinton
2. Johnson
3. McMullin
4. Clinton

Winner - Johnson

Essentially the highly polarizing candidates get kicked out. It would force candidates to appeal to moderates not party fringes.

The major parties don't like it because it could dramatically open the door to third party candidates.

Isn't that the condorcet method (where winner is chosen by winning the most matchups)? I thought RCV is a misnomer for instant runoff where the candidates with least first place votes are eliminated and the second choices are then distributed. Although lots of ways to skin the cat I guess. Many ranking methods too convoluted for a nationwide election but would be perfect for the primaries. Condorcet in particular seems best for eliminating polarizing candidates.

 

[SAJ-99]

I did, thank you for asking

It is where I got my 80-10-10. There were a couple there who thought Trump was perfect and Biiden was Satan and a couple the other way around. But the majority were interested in the issues and how it would affect them and the country,

i.e.: economy, before the virus it was humming right along and most thought this is Trumps strong point. Also bringing jobs back to America, and the Isreal/Arab agreement was a good step. Biden got climate control mainly because of what he and Obama had done in Pa. Trump reversed that so --Trump-jobs Biden -Climate Control . Abortion was discussed a bit and most of us are in agreement with first trimester abortions and/or rape-incest- health issues. But we almost to a person felt they had pushed the envelope to far on abortions. Everybody agreed that we ( the country ) needed to change Speakers ( House ) whether Trump lost or won. She lost us with her speech ripping antic. But yes, it was an enjoyable meeting . Not that 25 young voters have any real influence one way or the other, but we all, even those who like Biden, felt to was important to like Harris, as we are not so sure she will not be running the show , if they are elected, We all promised to do more research on her before our next meeting

Are you sorry you asked ?

Not at all sorry. Sounds like a great discussion. Even better if no punches were thrown.
The only thing I see that is worrisome is that clearly the group believes what they have heard. If you repeat a message enough times it becomes the truth. Politicians have long claimed credit for the positive and blamed others for the negative, especially regarding the economy. The "bringing jobs back to America" simply isn't true. You can find specific instances that would support that, but broadly it is not the case (and super hard to actually do). The US economy ($24T or so) is so large it is literally like turning a cruise ship in a bathtub. Here is an example- I saw a politician say that tax revenues went up after the tax cuts, claiming it proved that lower taxes are a benefit to economic growth. This is easily believed because EVERYONE hates paying taxes. But it is mostly BS. It is technically true that tax revenue collections went up after the tax cuts. The reason is mostly because the economy grew. The tax revenue collections were less than would have been collected if tax rates had not changed, increase were less than the actual amount of the tax cuts themselves (i.e., the NET difference between collections and expenses got worse), and economic growth got a slight blip up but returned to the same average level of the last decade. In summary, it put reallocated money from the government to certain groups in private sector, but didn't accomplish anything sustainable, other than increases the national debt which seems sustainable in a bad way. So be wary of claims that "tax cuts pay for themselves". It aint so, and has never been. Economist have been fighting this crazy logic for 40 years. It is all spin, but people believe what they want to believe, because who likes taxes?

 

[Randi]

We are a bit more knowledgeable, but compared to many who post here we are babies---literally and figuratively

"bringing jobs back" should be stated as "keeping jobs here". Trans Lux, Carrier, Dow even G.M. to some degree. Maybe it should say "keeping jobs here" instead of "bringing jobs back"-- just remembered Ford.

As for tax incentives I wonder if New York would like a second crack at Amazon ?

Just like late term abortions are a very small percentage of abortions, but those who are against abortion, use it to illuminate their argument.

Climate control is a bit more than the coal mines in Pa.

we had a healthy discussion on many topics and as previously stated we are not as educated or as intelligent as some, but we do dig a bit deeper than what the nightly news tells us to believe

I think the only thing all 25 in attendance agreed on was that we need a different speaker in the house. Not different like a Republican or Democrat --just a different individual than the one who occupies that position at the moment.

SAJ-99 No punches were thrown and no music by Coe or Croce ( see racism thread )

 

[noharleyyet]

Pelosi is toxic and doddering but she represents her constituents well, who in turn keep her in office (or makes them think she does, no matter), Notwithstanding any 1 percenters posting here, we are all under the illusiion our particular reps give a bowel movement about what we think.

I'll reiterate what I think about her...I want my representatives to work as hard at kicking her ass as she does kicking theirs.

 

[SAJ-99]

We are a bit more knowledgeable, but compared to many who post here we are babies---literally and figuratively

"bringing jobs back" should be stated as "keeping jobs here". Trans Lux, Carrier, Dow even G.M. to some degree. Maybe it should say "keeping jobs here" instead of "bringing jobs back"-- just remembered Ford.

As for tax incentives I wonder if New York would like a second crack at Amazon ?

Just like late term abortions are a very small percentage of abortions, but those who are against abortion, use it to illuminate their argument.

Climate control is a bit more than the coal mines in Pa.

we had a healthy discussion on many topics and as previously stated we are not as educated or as intelligent as some, but we do dig a bit deeper than what the nightly news tells us to believe

I think the only thing all 25 in attendance agreed on was that we need a different speaker in the house. Not different like a Republican or Democrat --just a different individual than the one who occupies that position at the moment.

SAJ-99 No punches were thrown and no music by Coe or Croce ( see racism thread )

I like your approach. We need more people of all ages to do the same. If I leave you with anything, it is these things
1) Cooperations leads to more progress than competition. Politicians like to make things "black" and "white" when it benefits them. Ignore it. It's mostly BS.
2) Value facts above opinions. Good debate about facts leads to better results. Opinions...not so much.
3) The answers are never simple and easy. Previous generations already solved the easy stuff. We left the hard stuff for you, sorry.
4) Question your own assumptions and conclusions. It's an iterative process.

Good luck. The future is in your hands.

 

[stevejfarms]

He wasn't removed from office, in the context of your comparison he was found guilty but given a suspend sentence... indeed just like Clinton.

Not found guilty, impeached by the House, acquitted by the Senate.

 

[Randi]

.Good luck. The future is in your hands.

Thank you AND that is a bit scary

The Greatest Generation is gone and even Aprils generation, The silent generation is or will soon be gone as well. The Baby Boomer generation has been our role models for the most part. We spoke of this as well, or who and/or how we came to believe what we believe at this point in our lives. Most of us, but not all, were influenced in one way or the other by our parents and grandparents.

i.e.: in my case I was and am very vocal about those who are "looting", while under the guise of protesting . I broke this down both in my mind and with others. First and foremost it is stealing, plain and simple . You are taking something that does not belong to you without paying for it or receiving someones approval to take it. But, it is also possible that my experience with doing just that is forever part of my psyche . At six I took a candy bar from a convince store without paying for it. When my father discovered that I had done so, he made me give the store owner one of my favorite Barbies and apologize.

We also believe that the no one "talks" anymore. We have to find a way to "re-connect" with each other. Which was why we decided to meet instead of just put out an opinion paper or questionnaire via one of the many social media sites and each of us like or dislike each item on the list --even with comments, it is not the same as meeting face to face. Granted it is easier , and even more comfortable to disagree with someone on a social media platform than is in person, but that is the point of us deciding to get together and if all goes well the 25 will be 35 to 50 next meeting. We hear the saying "liquid courage" from our parents. We say "internet courage" Would some say some of the things they say to each other, in person, that they say on the internet ??

I will bow out, as some have been a bit rough via pm, but they are also not all wrong. I/we have not lived long enough to have all the answers. On the flip side , I want to thank those who have responded on this thread i.e.: SAJ-99 --- noharleyyet, you make an excellent point about Pelosi and wilm1313. You made me look up and study impeachment and I have a more knowledge of that procedure now. But do you agree that at the very least Clinton received something for his Impeachment and Trump didn't A bit off color, my apologizes. Ajricketts, Shangobango, thank you gentlemen as well

We have decided to delve into abortion and specifically "a woman's right to choose"--BUT what about the father, it is his baby too and the religious aspect of abortion. Plus can someone who is a Christian and specifically a Roman Catholic put her personal beliefs aside when making a ruling form the bench ? Other topics as well, some firearm and land usage related discussions as well. Although marijuana is now legal we have decided it should not be used during the meeting

Mr and Mrs Fin and thank you for allowing this thread to proceed to this point.

Thanks all

 

[Dougfirtree]

I believe that Maine will be the first state ever to have ranked choice voting in a presidential election this Fall. I've always thought it made a tremendous amount of sense. Applied on a national level, it would be a complete game-changer. I mean, no matter what your political leaning, ranked choice protects you from vote-splitting and having to make these "lesser of two evils" choices. Unfortunately, both parties have a vested interest in seeing that never happen...

 

[Europe]

Randi, you will be just fine young lady.

But thought you, Ken and Don would like this

My husband from time to time would say to me when I got a bit wound up about something.

" you do know we are suppose to be the SILENT generation, dont you ? "

 

[Trial153]

Looking how both sides are gearing up for the situation it should be apparent to almost everyone that neither of these parties are befitting of leading us.

 

[noharleyyet]

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@Randi yeah... though what he should have received was a sexual harassment lawsuit, and being removed from office.

 

[Cogreeny]

 

[Little Canyon Creek]

I believe that Biden, Pelosi, Pence and McConnel would happily return to the cozy and collegial congressional "norms" of the '50s. It is their constituents, egged on by pundits, that demand the gloves be removed at every turn - most political leadership in their 60's and 70's are just in survival mode. Americans are getting exactly the government they are asking for (sadly).

Lately I have resisted commenting on stuff, but your posts are more constructive so I will give it a whirl.

I believe that Biden would really prefer the more collegial Senate that he left in 2009. I don't know about Pelosi or Pence. But I can say that I think this is mostly an incorrect reading of McConnell. McConnell doesn't care about the perceived hypocrisy of the positions he takes. He doesn't care about collegiality. He is not an institutionalist. He cares about accumulating power and using it to achieve his goals, which are generally unpopular. He is a high stakes gambler, a position readily afforded to him due to the heavy Republican bias of the Senate. If McConnell favored more popular policies and a more moderate approach, Democrats would rarely control the chamber. Instead he takes more unpopular positions that lose him some Senate races in reddish-purple states in Dem leaning years, but in return he attempts to achieve more ambitious goals than he otherwise would be able to. McConnell appears to regard bipartisan compromise as an illogical endeavor of a bygone era. It also appears that a lot of Democrats, even moderates, in the Senate are figuring out this is how McConnell will always operate and are adjusting their strategy accordingly.

Here is a deep dive into McConnell that was published this spring by Jane Mayer (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/20/how-mitch-mcconnell-became-trumps-enabler-in-chief). It is a fascinating article, and I think the most memorable quote for me was when Mayer writes "For months, I searched for the larger principles or sense of purpose that animates McConnell. I travelled twice to Kentucky, observed him at a Trump rally in Lexington, and watched him preside over the impeachment trial in Washington. I interviewed dozens of people, some of whom love him and some of whom despise him. I read his autobiography, his speeches, and what others have written about him. Finally, someone who knows him very well told me, 'Give up. You can look and look for something more in him, but it isn’t there. I wish I could tell you that there is some secret thing that he really believes in, but he doesn’t.'"

Another relevant article is a recent piece written by Ezra Klein focused on the downstream effects of McConnell's approach (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...gress-democrats-2020-supreme-court-filibuster). Klein writes "Despite his theatrical embrace of sobriquets like “Darth Vader” and “the Grim Reaper,” McConnell isn’t an evil genius. He is a vessel for the currents and forces of his time. What sets him apart is his fulsome embrace of those forces, his willingness to cut through the cant and pretense of American politics, to stand athwart polarization yelling, "Faster!”

And here is a statistical analysis from Nate Silver at 538 showing the high rural bias of the Senate (https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-hard-for-democrats-to-win-the-supreme-court/). Since politics is highly polarized right now along rural and urban lines, this is a source of strength for McConnell that allows him to pursue more aggressive strategies than when the Democrats control the Senate.

I do think it is accurate to say that McConnell is a disruptive force who will have forever changed how politics are conducted in this country long after he leaves the Senate. Whether what McConnell is accomplishing is good or bad is a value judgement in the eye of the beholder, and people will have to decide for themselves how they feel about this when they go to vote.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Ranked choice voting... discuss

In Minneapolis it played a real role in wiping out any moderation in candidates. Multiple candidates each more extreme than the next “pooled votes”. I am not aware of any large test of this voting style that resulted in higher quality candidates or move to more moderate and compromising approach to governance. In fact, until 2000 or so, the two party winner take all system demanded a move to the middle to be viable. Ezra Klein has an interesting take that loosely goes - as long as we keep having very tight elections each side is going to pander to the extremes to eke out small improvements in core party voter turn out as a way tip the scales, but if one party would win handily a couple of elections in a row the losing party would have to move that direction to start attracting middle ground voters and that would then cause the other party to respond similarly.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I get what you are saying and I think that you are correct.

My point is, would we be to the point where good people do not want to serve if the general population would stop consuming the agenda driven media of the day? If the media didn't get the views and clicks that it does it would not hold so much sway. It would either change into something people wanted to see or cease to exist.

The fact that the media and the politicians are what they are says to me that the American people as a whole, or at least those willing to participate, are getting exactly what they are asking for.

So how do those of us who are fed up with the current state of things break through and bring about change?

Until we are in the majority and willing to speak out, I don't think we can.

The path is to do what the extremes did - get very involved in party governance and the primary process, and to engage the hundreds of other non-POTUS positions. Too many in the middle only pay attention for 60 days once every 4 years. By then it is fate accompli.