SCOTUS under Trump


Yeah no, trying to rape someone is not the equivalent of a bar fight. They’re not even in the same ballpark.


I just got news of this on my Android OS phone, and it’s freaking brilliant:


That’s not comparing apples to apples though - it’s a good thing if immigrants have to fear false accusations for even being alone in a room with a valuable object, but it’s a bad thing if white men have to fear that. See? Totally different.


So awful. You get arrested and convicted and serve the sentence, it should be over. They shouldn’t be able to deport you 16 years later.

Really, if I was a legal immigrant but not a citizen, I’d really think about leaving.


Hmm, then it sounds like the policy is working as designed.


I’m sure. The U.S. is becoming hostile to immigrants and minorities. Openly so. It’s sad to see.


Sure, Tom. I’m not gifted in debate, anything I say will be unoriginal because I am exposed to a lot of information and and that impacts how I express myself. My critical thinking skills are nowhere near as sharp as they should be. Remember when your teacher would assign a report on the Great Depression; you would have to read from several sources to learn about it, and then take time to add your own analysis and formulate a report. Why do I dislike Hillary Clinton, why do I think she is unfit to be the President. Some of the reasons are due to hearing others’ thoughts and opinions and I find I share them, some reasons are my own but I fail to articulate them well.

0r, even if I utter an original thought here, I won’t get any credit because the audience here is opposed to those points of view. And, decorum was what I was commenting on when I first waded into this bubble. many of the posters here remind me of Trumpo; they use the same flavor he uses except in opposition.

All I know about climate change is what I read or hear, from scientists’ articles, research and advocates for and against the belief what manmade factors are causing it. I have to form an opinion from that–like most people, I’m not a researcher. But long before Al Gore showed up, I had concerns about the impact we have on the environment. The US Navy is forming new strategies to operate in the formerly icebound Arctic, that tells me something. Alas, I think we’re doomed in the long run. People won’t go back to pre-electric technology or take steps to cut population without a lot of force.

Meanwhile, in Paris: Gilets Jaunes

Boink, meant to include that in my reply. Ok, got me there.


That’s not required. Reducing fossil fuel consumption (and changing eating habits, i.e. consuming less meat and dairy) will go a long way toward mitigating temperature rise. In the short to medium term, energy costs will rise, but all that really does is price in externalities (which currently are not.) Most economist agree a carbon tax is probably the best solution to achieve that goal. There are even a few Republicans who agree with that, but sadly they are few and far between.

Upthread I linked a PBS show called POV: Dark Money. If you have the time you should watch it. This largely explains our current political situation (the show focuses on Montana’s efforts to fight political corruption. Keep in mind, the actions depicted in that show are being done against Republicans because they are not sufficiently pliant to corporate interests.)

Sadly, probably true but if you’ve ever played poker - or XCOM - the improbable can happen. (A happy note for the day.)


Seems like this is an exercise in going through the motions to no actual purpose. Roberts held onto the complaints until Kavanaugh was confirmed and became immune to the judicial complaint process.


Given that you’ve now commented on this particular question multiple times without ever offering any reasons other than personal animus and ad hominem, I’m inclined to think you have no objective reasons at all, and that that the reasons you do have are the obvious ones. That’s a guess on my part, of course. In the absence of any answer, all I can do is guess. But I’m happy to take it back if and when you offer some actual rationale.

Maybe you ought to try the experiment?


I don’t think he actually needs reasons beyond “I don’t like her and don’t want her running the country.” A more interesting line of questioning, given that he seems to think Trump is doing a fine job, is why he supports policies like “do everything you can to scare away brown immigrants” and “Europe is a bunch of grifters, Russia would be a better ally” and “Let’s destroy tons of US jobs to spite China” and “Let’s do what Kim Jong Un wants so he maybe feel like doing something for us” and “soft power is for pussies” and “fuck the climate, let’s make that money”.

All of these things seems like terrible policies that both sides should really agree are terrible and Trump supporters support them purely to spite the libruls for thinking Trump is an incompetent, misogynistic racist.


“pre electric technology”? Is this what people on the right actually believe?


Whale oil is coming back big time in 2040.


Tribalism is an entirely expected result of our current social structure, and those who have succumbed to it shouldn’t be said to not have valid reasons. I mean, I hate John Elway. I’ve never met the man and he could be objectively the most fantastic person in the world, but he helped bring misery to my home town and those who I knew and cared for and whose opinions I respected booed him passionately. Those are all good, valid reasons as long as one can separate this is about football; I don’t actually hate the man, but rather what he represented in my life.

So if someone hates Hillary Clinton, maybe their parents, spouse, boss, coworkers, friends, etc. all expressed similar things. These are people they’ve known for ages (some since birth), and successfully challenging this passed down perspective typically requires a lot more cognitive dissonance than can be generated on an Internet forum. If trying to pin down what it is about her they dislike, as with Elway it often won’t be anything to do with her specifically but rather what she represents in their lives. In a way, politicians are a lot like quarterbacks; figureheads who are important but also require a massive team of talented people to get anything done. So the figurehead gets the blame or credit, when it’s a team effort.

And thus, we get tribalism. So dislike of Clinton could really be about anything her “team” (Democrats/liberals) puts forward. Listing off her accomplishments, qualifications, and how much better than Trump she is would be like telling this Browns fan how amazing Elway was, that he had the strongest arm of his generation, an undeniable will to win, etc… It just rankles instead of convinces.

So when someone brings up a dislike of Clinton or even Trump, I tend to avoid talking about the person and focus more on the specific issues. Anecdotally, I find it’s a lot more likely to lead to useful, rational discussion.

/my 2¢


So, to paraphrase, you believe in human-caused climate change, but think it’s too late now, so we shouldn’t even bother trying to stop it?

That is the worst possible bullshit answer. You might as well just say you don’t give a shit about the environment or the world that people will have to live in in the future, because that’s what I think you really believe.

A wall on the border won’t stop illegal immigration. Separating families won’t stop it. But you seem fine with those efforts.

Awfully handy to be able to throw up your hands and claim that we’re all powerless on issues that are core to the right wing, no?

PS - I think it’s hilarious that you think the only two possible ways to stop climate change are: 1) stop using electricity, or 2) forcefully cull the world’s population. I mean, really, are you gaslighting us at this point? Do you ignore every single story about how we can slow or stop climate change without resorting to draconian measures?

PPS - The time will come when we have to give up on oil. It will happen. I’m sure you have your head in the sand and assume oil will last forever, but the rest of the world knows that’s not true.


Without disagreeing with a single thing you say, I’m not asking him why he hates Hillary Clinton. I’m asking him why he judges Clinton as unsuitable for the Presidency.

As for John Elway, I think you would hate him even more if you were to meet him.


Trump doesn’t like/ barely even tolerates brown people and immigrants, as in he brings this up almost on a daily basis, and therefore a lot of them don’t like him. This approach would write off many of the not white people which is really not okay.


To be clear, it’s not an exclusive/blanket approach, but even using that it’s perfectly fine to address his policies of bigotry and xenophobia. It just gets pretty difficult to discuss them with a political opponent when they’re personalized. So avoiding “Trump is evil because he’s and bigot so we shouldn’t follow him” (all of which which I think is likely true) and replacing it with “Bigotry is evil and so we shouldn’t follow it, and if Trump is leading us down that path then we need to evaluate his merits as a leader” (all of which is also true) might be one way to go.


This kind of sounds like if someone is a bigot you can’t call them a bigot. This also falls into the I’m not racist camp as I say horrifically racist things camp. It doesn’t fly. If someone is a bigot, you could be able to call them a bigot. If you want to talk policies, then talk policies, but there’s no reason to gloss over that. That’s just a means to try enforce the target of this hate into tolerating the intolerable and then blaming them for it if a conversation can’t be had.