Null



TitanTiger

ADMIN
  • Content Count

    46,888
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    43

Everything posted by TitanTiger

  1. This is an interesting discussion on Roberts' decision to side with the liberals on the court in this case and some things that distinguished LA's law from the TX law that Roberts pointed to in his stare decisis argument. Some excerpts: Read the rest here
  2. Not even five years later and the first shot across the bow is here: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/massachusetts-city-recognizes-polyamorous-civil-partnerships-38000
  3. Lest ye think it's fake news, you can order the t-shirt directly from his site: https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/products/america-first-tee-1
  4. Nah. Let 'em say whatever they want. The crazies won't be protected by a closed primary that caters to each party's extreme wings.
  5. Honestly, I'd be down with this. Ditch the primary system and the party set up. Dump all the candidates into one big heap and let them go at it. Do an initial voting round and narrow the field using some threshold of minimum support to move on. If you have more than 2 left after that, do a runoff to decide the top two. Those two proceed to the general election in November.
  6. Maybe. But people are complicated and will surprise you.
  7. I couldn't say for sure, but it sure seems like an awful lot of those I've gone to church with over the years are involved in some way. A lot of those who don't help directly, give money to the organizations and people who do the actual front-line giving and taking care of the women. I mean, I'm one of them. I personally have some charitable efforts I'm involved in directly not pertaining to pregnant women or new mothers where I'm the one doing, giving of my time and talent, interacting with the recipients. But I also give money to some local organizations on the frontlines of crisis pregnancies that do all of the things I mention above and more. I have to choose where I think my direct efforts will do the most good and where my financial or other types of support might be the better course.
  8. To be fair, many of them do. Despite their misguided devotion to tribal politics, they do minister to women before and after pregnancies - giving food, baby clothes, parenting classes, diapers and other baby supplies and sometimes even shelter to pregnant women and new mothers. It's not perfect. They sometimes make the perfect the enemy of the good by opposing government programs that would help in lieu of private charitable efforts. But yeah, they've also entangled American political categories with their faith in a way that's unhealthy and unhelpful. And they've put far too much faith in winning political battles, often teaming up with the wrong people or tolerating other parts of the Republican agenda that are just plain bad, to get what they believe is right.
  9. I will once again note that for all the emphasis and faith conservatives put in voting Republican so they can get conservative SCOTUS justices put in place - especially as it pertains to hot button social issues like abortion - once again they are Charlie Brown flying through the air to land square on their backs as Lucy yanks the football out of the way at the last second. Second time in the span of two weeks that one of the Republican appointees has been the swing vote for the liberals and the third time in Trump's presidency (2 of the 3, his own appointees were the culprits). At some point, the penny has to drop.
  10. Justice Roberts appears to be waffling or inconsistent on his use of stare decisis as a justification for sticking with prior rulings. Just four years ago, in the very Texas case he cites, he joined the dissent that said, in part, that the majority decision "exemplifies the court’s troubling tendency 'to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.'" If he thought the court was wrong just four years ago, the Louisiana case would have been a perfect opportunity to fix it. And he didn't think stare decisis was very strong in Citizens United or Janus for instance. And those cases had much older and entrenched precedent going for them. So I'm rather baffled at his use of it in this case.
  11. You can be as unserious and dismissive as you want (to a point - this isn't the Smack forum after all). But reading through several pages of Google searches on this quote, not one supports this interpretation of yours. No one reads it as some prediction on how black people will vote. It's a statement indicting the white moderates of his era (especially clergy) for their inaction and a belief that they are a worse problem going forward than overt racists. It's to express dismay and disappointment in their prioritizing of keeping the peace over taking action on long-delayed justice for black people. Perhaps the larger passage from which it came will help: First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. The only discussion here of future events is simply a discussion of the types of conversations and struggles black people will have with various groups/types of white people in the journey toward freedom. There will be issues with the White Citizen's Council or the KKK, but the bigger problem is white moderates. But that's simply as a statement of how effective or ineffective interactions with various groups/types will be. At best you could read that statement then as a call for black people not to put their hopes in that kind of politician or clergyman. But there's nothing in there that's a prediction about who blacks will support at the ballot box. This isn't some arcane exercise to get to a meaning I prefer. It's just Grammatical Structure 101.
  12. Actually, I think you're misinterpreting King's words. He's not predicting who black folks will support. He's simply making the statement that white moderates are actually doing more harm than good in the quest for civil rights. At best it can be read as a admonition for blacks not to throw their support behind such politicians in the future. But there's nothing in that quote or the broader context of the letter it's lifted from that I can see that is 'predictive' of who black voters would support.
  13. I think you're right in the sense that that's what the article is about. But I don't think the article is correct in their summation of Biden - not the Biden of 2020. And as Dub points out, it doesn't appear that most black voters feel that way either. Because they are quite literally the reason he's the nominee.
  14. You're tap dancing around this to try and mitigate the damage. Of course they wanted to keep liberal justices off the court and rule in favor of the constitution. But the whole point is, they believe their positions on issues such as abortion and the fights surrounding LBGT issues mentioned above ARE the correct constitutional ones. And they want to put justices on the courts who see things similarly. But time and again, they aren't getting that payoff. There's that old philosophical question of "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" I'll give you the political version: "If a conservative justice is added to the Supreme Court, but he never rules on the biggest issues based on a conservative constitutional paradigm, did you really put a conservative justice on the court?"
  15. The entire point of getting conservatives on the court are to get reliably conservative rulings on things that matter to conservatives. Trump or what he personally wants isn't relevant to this except to be the vehicle by which to get them on the court. And if you asked most conservatives what the biggest issues that they want to see conservative justices rule their way on, you couldn't get much higher up the list that abortion and stuff surrounding LBGT issues and to what extent businesses, religious organizations and such have to accommodate them. And they're already 0 for 2 with Trump's nominees being the swing vote both times.
  16. Fat lot of good it does to get conservatives on the court when they vote against the desires of the conservatives who enabled their appointment on abortion (Kavanaugh) and issues surrounding transgenderism (Gorsuch). I mean, is this the kind of 'winning' you were envisioning?
  17. This guy... ...is the same person as this guy... ...and if that isn't just the state of Alabama and Alabama football in a nutshell, I don't know what is. 😂 They couldn't get him to resign last year for suggesting that killing off LGBT folks is the only solution to the problem they present, but criticize Lord Saban and his video about racism? You're done, son.
  18. He'd have had much better chance without the virus. He would not have "won easily." But even with the virus, it's not the virus itself that's torpedoing his prospects, it's his (mis)handling of it. Biden isn't a dufus. He's a gaffe machine in the same way GW Bush mangled words. Neither are stupid. I do agree that if the economy makes a big comeback it will improve Trump's chances greatly. But you're dreaming if you think he's going to mop the floor with Biden in the debates. If Paul Ryan couldn't do it, Mr. Can't Complete A Thought Out Loud won't do it either.
  19. I don't think anyone could nail it better than "Good news or bad, he rarely makes any situation better. And everyone kind of knows."
  20. He said "be." The other response doesn't even makes sense in the context of what he's asked and how he continues with his answer after that.
  21. Only if they are ignorant of what the term means. White privilege doesn't mean that you haven't had a hard life, it just means that your skin color did not add to your difficulties. If you're reading more into it than that, that's not a problem of the term, it's a problem of education.
  22. Here's one. There are more: https://www.newsmax.com/politics/golfing-vacation-presidential-secretservice/2019/12/29/id/947633/ But to make matters worse, he's using his own resorts and thus lining his pockets with taxpayer money for them. It's a total conflict of interest.
  23. It was a combination of things. There was a definite "anti-experience" vibe in the GOP primaries - people who wanted a perceived outsider no matter who it was (as well as a certain blindness to the fact that a Wall Street crony isn't any better than a DC insider). But by the time the general election rolled around I think a combination of Hillary being a terrible person and running a terrible campaign created an opening for him to squeak it out. Her presence energized some Republicans to turnout to vote against her, but probably more important, she failed to energize her own side. There was a large drop-off in turn out from Obama's elections in '08 and '12, especially among black voters.