Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

by **slugsrbad** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 20:10:25

The US Attorney is a career DoJ Attorney, there's no need to throw ad hominen at him, he's just doing his job.

by **td11** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 20:12:00

slugsrbad wrote:The US Attorney is a career DoJ Attorney, there's no need to throw ad hominen at him, he's just doing his job.

He's defending a slug, and you of all should know that slugs... r bad

by **td11** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 20:12:09

I'm sorry

by **drsmooth** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 20:15:24

did I miss the states guy bringing up the ban(or delay or whatever)'s religious prioritization of claims once the ban is lifted? Or is that presently irrelevant since it obviously hasn't happened yet

by **drsmooth** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 20:18:11

slugsrbad wrote:The US Attorney is a career DoJ Attorney, there's no need to throw ad hominen at him, he's just doing his job.

in my idiosyncratic lingo, "shyster" is like "cop" - not intended as a slur

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 20:30:06

td11 wrote:DeVos nomination brough about record activism in american history, yet only 2 GOP senators were swayed. pat toomey's office was flooded with calls and he basically said "fuck you" to his constituents

Leaving aside this issue in particular, do you think senators should base their votes on which side they get more phone calls from?

by **slugsrbad** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 20:37:09

jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:DeVos nomination brough about record activism in american history, yet only 2 GOP senators were swayed. pat toomey's office was flooded with calls and he basically said "fuck you" to his constituents

Leaving aside this issue in particular, do you think senators should base their votes on which side they get more phone calls from?

If they're from constituents, it should definitely be a heavy considerations.

by **td11** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 21:03:13

slugsrbad wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:DeVos nomination brough about record activism in american history, yet only 2 GOP senators were swayed. pat toomey's office was flooded with calls and he basically said "fuck you" to his constituents

Leaving aside this issue in particular, do you think senators should base their votes on which side they get more phone calls from?

If they're from constituents, it should definitely be a heavy considerations.

Yeah

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 21:09:02

td11 wrote:
slugsrbad wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:DeVos nomination brough about record activism in american history, yet only 2 GOP senators were swayed. pat toomey's office was flooded with calls and he basically said "#$!&@ you" to his constituents

Leaving aside this issue in particular, do you think senators should base their votes on which side they get more phone calls from?

If they're from constituents, it should definitely be a heavy considerations.

Yeah

Unless you just won the election and have 6 years until the next one. Six years is a pretty fucking long time.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 21:34:29

Although the odds are against the Dems I really think there are enough pissed off people right now for a massive wave election in 2018

by **Gimpy** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 21:52:30

This ad from Royal Jordanian Airlines is pretty excellent

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 22:34:00

slugsrbad wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:DeVos nomination brough about record activism in american history, yet only 2 GOP senators were swayed. pat toomey's office was flooded with calls and he basically said "fuck you" to his constituents

Leaving aside this issue in particular, do you think senators should base their votes on which side they get more phone calls from?

If they're from constituents, it should definitely be a heavy considerations.

I think they should weigh constituent concerns like considering any side of an issue before voting, but don't think it matters really whether it's 51-49 or 99-1, if it's 10 people or 100,000 people calling on it. The representative is elected to vote for what s/he thinks is correct thing, not hold constituent referenda on each issue.

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 22:34:53

jerseyhoya wrote:
slugsrbad wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:DeVos nomination brough about record activism in american history, yet only 2 GOP senators were swayed. pat toomey's office was flooded with calls and he basically said "fuck you" to his constituents

Leaving aside this issue in particular, do you think senators should base their votes on which side they get more phone calls from?

If they're from constituents, it should definitely be a heavy considerations.

I think they should weigh constituent concerns like considering any side of an issue before voting, but don't think it matters really whether it's 51-49 or 99-1, if it's 10 people or 100,000 people calling on it. The representative is elected to vote for what s/he thinks is correct thing, not hold constituent referenda on each issue.

Edmund Burke here.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 22:44:16

TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
slugsrbad wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:DeVos nomination brough about record activism in american history, yet only 2 GOP senators were swayed. pat toomey's office was flooded with calls and he basically said "fuck you" to his constituents

Leaving aside this issue in particular, do you think senators should base their votes on which side they get more phone calls from?

If they're from constituents, it should definitely be a heavy considerations.

I think they should weigh constituent concerns like considering any side of an issue before voting, but don't think it matters really whether it's 51-49 or 99-1, if it's 10 people or 100,000 people calling on it. The representative is elected to vote for what s/he thinks is correct thing, not hold constituent referenda on each issue.

Edmund Burke here.

viewtopic.php_f=8&t=9979&p=871238&hilit=burke#p871238

by **Bucky** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 22:48:29

I believe that's because were a Republic and not a Democracy, correct? I struggled with that question for many years until I learned the difference.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 22:53:18

jerseyhoya wrote:I think they should weigh constituent concerns like considering any side of an issue before voting, but don't think it matters really whether it's 51-49 or 99-1, if it's 10 people or 100,000 people calling on it. The representative is elected to vote for what s/he thinks is correct thing, not hold constituent referenda on each issue.

Leaving aside that it's pretty hard to imagine that a vote for deVos is the 'correct' thing, sure, he was elected, let him collect his Amway contributions & take his chances

by **drsmooth** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 22:55:16

Can we talk about how much of a raging asshole Mitch McConnell is?

Actually I don't really want to talk about it, just remind everyone of the fact

by **BigEd76** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 22:56:09

Anyone watching the Bernie/Cruz debate?

by **wwry** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 23:03:54

me. i thought they only put it on for bernie bros and lyin ted heads. love ya bernie!

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 23:08:46

Bucky wrote:I believe that's because were a Republic and not a Democracy, correct? I struggled with that question for many years until I learned the difference.

Not really. Republicanism is a kind of democracy. Its a contested term, with a long and complex history. The us is more properly considered a constitutional or representative democracy. I would say for instance that unregulated campaign finance or the us equivalent of rotten boroughs (think the state of Delaware with as many senators as Texas) are in fact incompatible with republicanism.

Archived

Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat

Re: Gorsuch a Fascist, Mr. Trump - Politics Threat