2k17 /pol/

Super Aggro Crag · Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:51 am

Bottom post of the previous page:

Dont triplepost

DemonFiren · Post by **DemonFiren** » Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:14 am #279752

A post must be noticed, read, and understood.
The chances of this are low. Three posts in succession improve the chances.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:51 am #279758

Drynwyn wrote:
ShadowDimentio wrote:I never said the GOP were totally innocent, but at that moment their options were to either leave the seat open for four+ years making nobody happy or change the rules and piss some people off.
Or, you know, nominate someone without the extremely partisan record and ideology of Neil Gorsuch who would stand a chance of obtaining support from some Democrats.

It's a Republican administration, there's going to be a conservative justice whether they like it or not. That's what happens when you lose an election.

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:18 am #279777

Wasnt the whole idea of the supreme court to prevent politically active judges in there?

With the whole life-long justices thing to make sure they don't have to worry about re-elections and needing a decent majority to get in?
Not that this is the first time there's clearly politically motivated things going on with places that are supposed to not be political

Drynwyn · Post by **Drynwyn** » Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:04 pm #279876

Luke Cox wrote:
Drynwyn wrote:
ShadowDimentio wrote:I never said the GOP were totally innocent, but at that moment their options were to either leave the seat open for four+ years making nobody happy or change the rules and piss some people off.
Or, you know, nominate someone without the extremely partisan record and ideology of Neil Gorsuch who would stand a chance of obtaining support from some Democrats.
It's a Republican administration, there's going to be a conservative justice whether they like it or not. That's what happens when you lose an election.

Yeah, but there's a spectrum of conservative justices. For example, I have a great deal of respect for Chief Justice John Roberts. I think the republicans should have nominated a justice closer to the center of the political spectrum, rather than changing the rules to get the ultra-far-right Gorsuch onto the bench.

ShadowDimentio · Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:28 pm

Is he really that far right? I don't know that much about him besides him being an adherent constitutionalist, but he really didn't seem like a bad choice, especially if you really want a conservative justice like the GOP wanted to replace the one that died that was rather conservative.

Drynwyn · Post by **Drynwyn** » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:57 am #280116

ShadowDimentio wrote:Is he really that far right? I don't know that much about him besides him being an adherent constitutionalist, but he really didn't seem like a bad choice, especially if you really want a conservative justice like the GOP wanted to replace the one that died that was rather conservative.

I've looked through some of the official opinions he's written.

He's strongly in favor of granting corporations extremely broad legal rights, and, critically, supports the Citizens United ruling (which ruled that political donations are a form of free speech and may not be regulated). I disagree with this broadly. (Case: Riddle v. Hickenlooper, 742 F. 3d 922 for the specific citizens united ruling, NLRB v. Community Health Services 812 F.3d 768 for a representative sample of his too-strong support for corporations).

He also wrote in favor of displaying of (christian) religious symbols by government offices in certain cases, a good example being his dissenting opinion in American Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, 637 F. 3d 1095. He is of the opinion that government-established cross memorials for KIA police troopers don't violate the establishment clause. I think they do, and that he is in general likely to rule in favor of the religious right (I can cite some more of his opinions on this if you'd like).

In summary, he's rather far to the right.

Drynwyn · Post by **Drynwyn** » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:57 am #280117

ShadowDimentio wrote:Is he really that far right? I don't know that much about him besides him being an adherent constitutionalist, but he really didn't seem like a bad choice, especially if you really want a conservative justice like the GOP wanted to replace the one that died that was rather conservative.

I've looked through some of the official opinions he's written.

He's strongly in favor of granting corporations extremely broad legal rights, and, critically, supports the Citizens United ruling (which ruled that political donations are a form of free speech and may not be regulated). I disagree with this broadly. (Case: Riddle v. Hickenlooper, 742 F. 3d 922 for the specific citizens united ruling, NLRB v. Community Health Services 812 F.3d 768 for a representative sample of his too-strong support for corporations).

He also wrote in favor of displaying of (christian) religious symbols by government offices in certain cases, a good example being his dissenting opinion in American Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, 637 F. 3d 1095. He is of the opinion that government-established cross memorials for KIA police troopers don't violate the establishment clause. I think they do, and that he is in general likely to rule in favor of the religious right (I can cite some more of his opinions on this if you'd like).

In summary, he's rather far to the right.

ShadowDimentio · Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:14 am

Drynwyn wrote:He also wrote in favor of displaying of (christian) religious symbols by government offices in certain cases, a good example being his dissenting opinion in American Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, 637 F. 3d 1095. He is of the opinion that government-established cross memorials for KIA police troopers don't violate the establishment clause. I think they do, and that he is in general likely to rule in favor of the religious right (I can cite some more of his opinions on this if you'd like).

I agree with him on that. A cross is certainly a very christian symbol. but it's rather harmless in this case as it's not really being invoked in a religious context. Unless the American Atheists presented an extremely good case I'd say the judge would be well within his right to tell them tough shit the memorials are already built and we're not spending a fortune tearing them down and rebuilding them just especially for you.

FantasticFwoosh · Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:55 am

You'd expressively have to argue about how its offensive or oppressive to certain groups, in which in a largely secular and non-crazy Christian western world discounting crazy Americans who like roanoke island (Ehh, you know what i mean the islander folk) talking in ye'olde english, still hold religious observance like 19th century folk with 21st century gadgets, is a non-issue unless religious leaders or social taboos want it to be.

Super Aggro Crag · Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:38 am

American atheists is an antichristian hate group.

Screemonster · Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:58 pm

CosmicScientist wrote: >Should Scotland join Canada? Your responses

does "ahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahaahahhahahaahahahhahahahhahahahahaa" count as a response

FantasticFwoosh · Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:00 pm

Hey remember the fact that President Mugabe won't step down from office? You forgot already he's still standing in office? Okey dokey.

Drynwyn · Post by **Drynwyn** » Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:39 pm #280276

ShadowDimentio wrote:
Drynwyn wrote:He also wrote in favor of displaying of (christian) religious symbols by government offices in certain cases, a good example being his dissenting opinion in American Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, 637 F. 3d 1095. He is of the opinion that government-established cross memorials for KIA police troopers don't violate the establishment clause. I think they do, and that he is in general likely to rule in favor of the religious right (I can cite some more of his opinions on this if you'd like).
I agree with him on that. A cross is certainly a very christian symbol. but it's rather harmless in this case as it's not really being invoked in a religious context. Unless the American Atheists presented an extremely good case I'd say the judge would be well within his right to tell them tough shit the memorials are already built and we're not spending a fortune tearing them down and rebuilding them just especially for you.

You'd be wrong in the eyes of the legal system. American Atheists won the case in question, Gorsuch's opinion in the case was a dissenting opinion, not the majority opinion.

The "reasonable observer" test holds that to violate the establishment clause, a given display doesn't in fact have to be an endorsement of religion- it merely needs to potentially appear to be an endorsement of religion to a reasonable observer.

Also Crag is correct that American Atheists is a far from bright and noble organization, they are in fact gigantic assholes much of the time, but "one side is an asshole" is not a determining factor in our legal system with good reason. I'm more concerned about what the case shows about Gorsuch's priorities and beliefs than who actually won it.

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:41 pm #280277

Not surprised. I've yet to see a single good(For the common people) political move from subsaharan africa

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:20 am #280498

The absolute madman he actually bombed the shit out of ISIS

FantasticFwoosh · Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:51 am

25 killstreak dropped a MOAB to avenge a green beret, its actually a smart use of force because

1) fuck off enemies of the free west, another show of force like those tomahawks, Jimmy Kimmel Jong must be shitting himself now his bombproof bunker will be worthless protection.

2) It destroys the tunnel systems or whatever bunkers/dug in defensive positions they might have in that area rather than lightly shelling them with drones, which are IS's big thing since they basically tunnel rats.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:36 am #280860

As long as we don't kill civilians or enter any long-term engagements, I'm cool with it

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:45 pm #281046

100+ ISIS killed
0 civilians killed

As far as I've heard
Turns out that bomb works pretty well

lntigracy · Post by **lntigracy** » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:42 pm #281060

It was used for the thing it was specifically designed to do, collapse tunnels.

FantasticFwoosh · Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:00 am

Hahahahaha, Jimmy Kong's big ol missile they were parading around today exploded immediately in its test, its a pity it didn't take the entire of Pyongyang with it

Also apparently to rumour those 20 MOAB's (19 now) have a shelf life until 2018 though there is no public confirmation that they have a shelf life at all, 98 insurgents vapourised by the blast of the MOAB.

Malkevin · Post by **Malkevin** » Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:50 am #281232

Well its like the shelf life of a tin of beans.
It says you can only store them a few years but they'll be good for decades.

They just have them because they have to have them, and its to cover the maker's arse if they do go faulty with age.

Also, next big bomb dropped with probably being a MOP

lntigracy · Post by **lntigracy** » Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:01 am #281236

Peanut butter has an expiry date too but it's good waaaaay past it.

ColonicAcid · Post by **ColonicAcid** » Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:22 am #281249

There's a difference between use by dates and best by dates. You eat something past its use by date and you may die. You use something past its best by date and you'll be fine.

Use by dates are regulated by your national food safety agency whilst best by dates are done by the company selling the product so as to continually move stock.

DrPillzRedux · Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:26 am

lntigracy · Post by **lntigracy** » Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:58 am #281286

They're probably best by dates.

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:34 am #281314

Since we're still occasionally digging up WW2 bombs with real explosion risks, I'm pretty sure they'll still be functional in a few decades

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:49 am #281323

Antifa is a religion of peace. They're also undermining anyone with legitimate criticism of Trump.

ColonicAcid · Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:52 am

y'all make it seem like the United States Armed Forces actually cares about wasting money lmao.

Incomptinence · Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:08 am

Haven't there been cases of the pentagon saying they don't need more money on a particular project and the politicians just DESPERATELY nudge the pile of cash closer?

ColonicAcid · Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:14 am

I know for a fact that a shit ton of departments at the end of the fiscal year try and waste all the budget they have on stupid shit because if they don't the suits up top see that they don't need the money so they take it away.

Incomptinence · Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:19 am

I know that too my point was us gov starts funding for literally unwanted programs purely for pork.

They put in more money than faggots who blow their budget on purpose would want, it's surreal.

Cy294 · Post by **Cy294** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:34 pm #282012

[youtube]7u3uhKxNPNg[/youtube]

5:47 I guess that pepsi can was a nazi....

InsaneHyena · Post by **InsaneHyena** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:11 pm #282246

You need Boris Johnson, he's the only one who can measure up to Trump's glorious hair.

DemonFiren · Post by **DemonFiren** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:21 pm #282249

InsaneHyena wrote:You need Boris Johnson, he's the only one who can measure up to Trump's glorious hair.

Never in my life have I known a single reasonable person by the name of Boris.

Grazyn · Post by **Grazyn** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:05 pm #282264

Ah! That's nothing to Italy. Not a single government managed to reach the end of its term (5 years) since we became a Republic. And I bet way more than half of our past PMs got the job without a general election.

Malkevin · Post by **Malkevin** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:27 pm #282348

There's an election this year?

Seems everyone has focused on Brexit and forgot all about the general election.

Screemonster · Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:35 pm

There wasn't going to be one until 2020, but apparently that's changing because of reasons.

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 9:14 pm #282375

Doesnt France have one this year?

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 9:32 pm #282383

Conservatives are going to curb stomp Labour. The opposition is in complete disarray. Lib Dems aren't going to fare much better

ShadowDimentio · Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:45 pm

The only reason the Republicans have near complete control over the government was because the Dems did such a shit job that the pendulum swung completely in the opposite direction.

Britain seems to be having a very similar situation.

InsaneHyena · Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:46 pm

May 2016 - London Mayor election.

I still can't help but chuckle at what you've done

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:46 pm #282428

ShadowDimentio wrote:The only reason the Republicans have near complete control over the government was because the Dems did such a shit job that the pendulum swung completely in the opposite direction.

Britain seems to be having a very similar situation.

Been that way since 2010 and Blair's "New Labour" dogshit.

ShadowDimentio · Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:51 pm

Yeah Labor was (from what I've heard from Sargon) the only decent party in Britain until Tony Blair took control and turned it into a liberal cult, constantly stripping away any of it's redeeming qualities and pandering to all the worst people.

Malkevin · Post by **Malkevin** » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:16 am #282471

Who's even leading the labour part now, is it still "Fuck off I ain't going" Corbin?

Screemonster · Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:18 am

ShadowDimentio wrote:Yeah Labor was (from what I've heard from Sargon) the only decent party in Britain until Tony Blair took control and turned it into a liberal cult, constantly stripping away any of it's redeeming qualities and pandering to all the worst people.

nah, lab was unelectable pre-blair. When thatcher got in they took a hard-left turn in response, far to the left of what the electorate would swallow - and they were kinda left-wing already and presided over a complete economic fuckup when they were in.
Labour's reaction when something doesn't work has historically been "we can't possibly have been wrong, so when our plans don't work then it's clearly because we weren't doing them hard enough"

Corbyn's one of the old-school "the revolution is a historical inevitability so we don't have to worry about things like actually being electable because it'll just happen" crowd that were popular in the 70s.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:52 am #282480

Screemonster wrote:
ShadowDimentio wrote:Yeah Labor was (from what I've heard from Sargon) the only decent party in Britain until Tony Blair took control and turned it into a liberal cult, constantly stripping away any of it's redeeming qualities and pandering to all the worst people.
nah, lab was unelectable pre-blair. When thatcher got in they took a hard-left turn in response, far to the left of what the electorate would swallow - and they were kinda left-wing already and presided over a complete economic fuckup when they were in.
Labour's reaction when something doesn't work has historically been "we can't possibly have been wrong, so when our plans don't work then it's clearly because we weren't doing them hard enough"

Corbyn's one of the old-school "the revolution is a historical inevitability so we don't have to worry about things like actually being electable because it'll just happen" crowd that were popular in the 70s.

I understand labour swinging too far to the left, but Blair's "new labour" was the party going full retard. It's funny, it's actually very reminiscent of the DNC post-Carter

Screemonster · Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:16 am

The best way I've heard the DNC's problems summed up is that they don't exist to win seats for the democrats, they exist to decide who gets to sit in whatever seats the democrats will win.

See that recent election where a dem stood a chance of flipping a historically red district but he was a bernie supporter and got pretty much zero support, it's almost like they'd rather throw the election to the other party entirely than run the risk of an unfavoured internal faction getting in.

DrPillzRedux · Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:37 am

Honestly, I'm really tempted to drive to Berkley for the next showdown. I could use a good rumble.

ShadowDimentio · Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:46 am

Are you antifa or alt-right?

DrPillzRedux · Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:59 am

Not really alt-right, but attacking people to silence them crosses the line. Antifa is talking about bringing guns, and are actively selling concealed knives to their supporters. Next time it goes down it's gonna be bad.

Even if I don't fight they could use my medical experience. Last one had plenty of people get their skulls broken.

Antifa-knife that's being sold. The length is plenty to reach vital organs on average-size people.

Spoiler: