DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire

You always want to use the world as the standard for "left-right" in this country, but that's a false argument.

What happens in Sweden is not the same as what happens in the US. We are a more right country than many, but that does not mean that Obama, or Garland for that matter, are "center right" on the US political scale.

I also said, in no uncertain terms, that in this one, specific, situation, that I am glad he is President, as opposed to the only other choice we had, Hillary.

Also, if you don't think that Hillary is also a "weird, immoral creep", then I don't know how you get around without bumping into everything.

She absolutely is.

100%.

OK, let's use the American scale. Name 5 positions Obama is left on.

1. 2nd amendment issues...the words shall not be infringed are not in his vocabulary
2. Abortion...do I really need to provide evidence
3. Voter ID laws...says illegals should vote
4. Healthcare/Insurance...made the ACA as a stepping stone to Universal care knowing that Universal government run care would not fly out of the gate
5. Views on military...the whole transgender in the military says enough
6. Views on LEO...considers most cops to be ignorant racists
7. Transgender bathroom laws...threatened to withhold money from NCar over bathroom bill
8. Affirmative action...plenty of quotes on google.
9. SNAP...largest increase in users during his administration
10. SCOTUS... appointed what many consider the two furthest left judges on today's bench.

I could list more but you only asked for 5....

Abortion
Universal health care
Taxes
Welfare
Gay marriage
Supreme Court nominees
Regulatory policy
Government took over businesses (GM, Chrysler, etc ... losing taxpayer money in the process)

Do I need to go on?

There are so many packets to unwrap here.

Just because there's an ocean between us doesn't change philosophical stances. It'd be like calling someone a Croatian Catholic or an Argentinian catholic. It's nonsensical. Just because you shift continents doesn't mean that you shift your language.

The shifting of language is this false flag that so many people have been caught up in. Jordan Peterson argues against cultural marxism and postmodernism, but the concepts he labels this language as is neither marxists or postmodern. You can clearly see this when he starts switching the terms interchangeably. All it does is confuse people. Democrats are not socialists and only once has a "socialist" (the real term for Bernie is social democrat) been a democrat. And it took him 50 years in politics to become a Democrat, if that tells you about how right winged our government has been. And if we are defining who is left and who is right, by individuals then what happens to the American left who do not directly work in the political machine, but work around it, like Chomsky, Angela Davis, Malcolm X and how far in the past can we travel to mark people left and right? Would radical communist Emma Cline count towards the left? You see how arbitrary this label becomes, when we only reference American people or practices. How is the scale calibrated?

What was the left law or legislation he put in effect?



He didn't implement universal health care.

He pushed through the right-wing "individual mandate", which was written by the right-wing Heritage Foundation as an alternative to universal health care.



His tax code raised taxes to less than the end of the Reagan era.



He was against gay marriage for 6.5 years of his term.



Merrick Garland was a wishy-washy right-of-center Anthony Kennedy.



Did you put any thought into this whatsoever, or did you literally just type the word "Welfare"?





This is the funniest and most insane point.

He didn't take over any of those things through government. Doing that is called "nationalizing". He literally gave them money with no stipulations.

This specific point is spectacularly dumb. It was quite literally the most right-wing part of Obama's era.



If you want to keep embarrassing yourself, by all means, please do.

Political debate was never your forum, Y. You don't have it in you.

Socialist group The Black Panther Party strongly supported the rights for an armed populace. Reagan created laws to infringe on this in California. Who is Obama more like in this situation?

Uh? Maybe? I think even the most basic libertarian would believe that the government shouldn't ban a woman from a medical procedure. It's kinda hard to say this is a left or right issue when it's not about economics, but personal autonomy.


lol I don't think that's true or that is a singular case. But again, this is just the politicization of a policy. Cons have no problem with absentee ballots not getting ID checked.


Ok, but forcing people to partake in a privatized institution is, within itself, a right winged thing. Creating a consumer to feed a for profit industry is right winged. Certainly it has it's history in car insurance.


As an American leftist, his views on the military is exactly why I wouldn't vote for him.


Aren't the Republicans hating on the FBI right now?


Fair enough. I guess ID politics is a leftist position, because no Con will defend them.


Republican President Abraham Lincoln wanted every former slave to get 40 acres and a mule. I can't believe affirmative action can get any more left than that.



Is this him being a leftist or just being the President during a recession?


Well, that was PDR's point... That if Obama was such a strong lefty, then surely he would appoint the two furthest leftists, but instead he didn't, as YTown pointed out earlier. Also, there's only 4 "left" judges.




Please don't.

[spoiler][/spoiler]

What were the laws he enacted or initiated in regards to the Sexond Amendment?



You absolutely do, yes.

Please provide details.



1) This is a weird crank Breitbart position.

2) Can you show me where Obama said he wants illegals to vote?



"He implemented a a right-wing health care policy, but he wanted a left-wing one."



obama was more right wing on the military than any president in US history. Are you out of our mind?



"The guy who gave law enforcement more powers than they ever had before hated them"



Only weird freaks ever cared about this issue. It was a wedge issue for weird morons who read Breitbart.

Also, it was a state issue, not a federal one. Obama enacted no legislation on the issue, and never tried.



Took your advice and Googled it.

First result:

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/606230



Who was #2, 3, 4, & 5, and explain their leftist tendencies to me.




"what many consider"



I would love for you to keep going.

"What were the laws he enacted or initiated in regards to the Sexond Amendemwnt?"

Hey now, while I think that would make a catchy title for an adult film, let's keep the conversation on topic...


#SpellingErrorsHoldGeniusSurprises!

The odd thing is President Trumps last appointment sided with Kennedy more than any other justice since his appointment.


Sounds like a moderate conservative to me.


I'd like to see some moderate liberals and see more 7-2 or 6-3 decisions.



I mean 5-4 after 5-4 decisions with one actual swing vote isn't healthy.

I still can't get over that 4 justices didn't think the President can't shut down the borders in the name of national security.



I mean think about it, had it gone the other way and carried on in to the future.


Forget your disdain for the current President. Think 15 years down the road. The President has always had that power, and should.


Scary times.

Yep, tell that to thieving Mitch McConnell who delayed for a year to steal Obama's appointment!

The fact of the matter is politicians have always used the appointments in a political manner. But the process is plainly stated. A judge is supposed to be confirmed or denied based on their qualifications, not whether their opinions will be conservative or liberal. It's up to whoever the POTUS happens to be at the time to nominate the appointee and up to congress to decide "the qualifications" of the judge nominated.

The GOP circumvented the process with Garland. They didn't do their job. It was shameful the way they acted. However, the left didn't grasp the impact of just why the GOP did this. That alone should have worked as a catalyst to create a huge voter turn out for them. But it didn't. But the fact remains that Trump has quite a bit of time in his current term. He has the right to appoint who he pleases and whether that person is approved or denied should be based on their qualifications, not their politics.

Let me explain one difference between the voters of the two parties. There are a lot of differences, but let me expound on one very critical one.

An educated voter understands just how critical the SCOTUS is to their everyday life. They understand just how powerful the SCOTUS is. They know their decisions impact labor, abortion, foreign policy decisions and virtually every aspect that impacts our surroundings. It wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to see that with the age of the current SCOTUS that this president and whomever serves the next term would in all likelihood sway the SCOTUS heavily enough to decide policy for decades to come.

On the right their voters were informed enough to bring out their voters. Even for a scum bag like Trump. Yet the left it was a combination of the party not getting the message out and their voters on the average not informing themselves well enough to be aware of that. As such, they weren't motivated enough to vote for their scum bag.

They were so short sighted that they were too concerned about living in the moment and throwing a tantrum because they felt Bernie was cheated.

Maybe they should have thought a little more and whined a little less. Well, you get what you deserve now.

No, Garland's nomination was a violation of the Biden Rule.

There is no such thing as "the Biden rule". It was an opinion Biden made that was never honored. Until the GOP called it a rule and used it as an excuse not to do their job.

The reason that the Democrats lost, and continue to lose, is that their message sucks.

People just want to be able to find a job or start a business, keep most of their paycheck, provide for themselves and their families, practice their religion, and have a nice life. Trump ran on these ideas, plus putting America 1st. He won.

The Democrats run contrary to these ideas. They ran on higher taxes, free stuff, (health insurance, college, and somehow "providing relief from the rising costs of necessities like child care and housing", bathrooms for everyone, and so forth. It didn't help Hillary that Bernie pulled her to the left in order to win the primaries.

Until they manage to figure out how to reach the middle class, and communicating things the middle class cares about, they will continue to lose.

The Democrats better pray that the "3 California" initiative never passes, because without every one of California's reliable 55 electoral votes, Democrats would find it really hard to win the Presidency.

Pit you have never been more correct. I can't speak to how it once was... but the way it is now, that a SCOTUS nominee goes before the Senate committee and the senate basically grills them about their politics and demands to know how they will rule on gun issues or gay rights issues or abortion issues before they can be confirmed.. is completely contrary to the way the process is supposed to work...

You look back at their body of work, if they made a ruling or offered an opinion on gun laws or abortion.. was that ruling in accordance with the rule of law at the time? If yes, move on. I don't care if you didn't like the ruling...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think Garland Merrick (sp?) was a bad nominee.. from what I've seen the dude seemed pretty fair and reasonable (to me, the lay-person who isn't qualified to study such things).. and I disagreed at the time with what the GOP was doing..

I believe they focus too much on the fringe issues and don't focus on the issues that matter most to the average American. So to that extent we do agree.



Yet the economy was doing very well under Obama and the last time we had a balanced budget was under Bill Clinton. So once again I just believe they need to focus more on the issues we seem to both agree seem most important to the average American.



It seems maybe you are missing some of the things that matter to many Americans. Education and housing being among those. Free stuff? You do realize that the GOP favors cutting many programs they "call free stuff" that you too depend heavily on, right? You do realize that many consider education an "investment in the future" and not "free stuff", right?

Right here in Tennessee our Republican governor supported and got passed into law two years of free college for the people of Tennessee. He sees the value in having an educated citizenry as key to attracting jobs to the state.



Yet the majority of voters didn't vote for Trump. I know that doesn't matter in the win/loss column but it does show that the majority of voters seem to disagree with you.



Well since we all know that the vast majority of California voters aren't going to buy into that BS., that's really more of a headline than a real issue. 77,000 votes decided the past election and it was in three swing states. Not some huge mandate some make it out to be.

Notice I said Middle Class, not majority.

The majority means nothing. Winning states is what matters. The Middle Class is the key to most states.

Every vote counts the same. I notice you didn't comment on the vast majority of my post.

Neither side has done a decent job lately of conveying their message to me (or maybe they have and it's just not a message I want to hear)... both sides are very much about telling me who I should blame for my problems.

Should I blame the wealthy, the Christians, the southerners, and the poor white country folk... or should I blame the immigrants, the gays, the "socialists", and the poor blacks..

Fact is, I don't have a single thing against any of those groups.. whatever problems I might have, none of those groups caused...

Some day... somebody is going to succeed in convincing those poor white southern and country folk... and those poor black folk.. that their differences are really very few and that if they could just stop hating each other long enough, they would realize they are fighting the same fight, only they are fighting it against each other.. There's a lot of very wealthy and powerful people in this great land that have a lot to lose if that ever happens... probably keeps them up and night making sure the plan to keep them divided is still working.

This is a great piece of wisdom my dad taught me at an early age.

I hate the idea of "free college". It will be of no value whatsoever for a large part of the population.

There are a huge amount of free apprenticeships available right now in a variety of trades, but kids today look down on working in the trades. Plumbers, electricians, and builders/carpenters can find work in every economy. Things break, or people want or need to make the space in their homes more useful. My former neighbor is in the trades, and he was never busier than in the downturn in the economy from 2007 or 8, to 2014 or so. (and he has been in the building trades for decades)

However, the idea of free college, or college for everyone, gives kids an unrealistic view of just what a degree will get them. I know a girl who went for her education degree because "she likes kids". Today she is managing a grocery store. She found out that there is a lot more to education than just liking kids.

Now, on to cost. You can't just count costs going forward, because it "wouldn't be fair" to keep charging former student for their tuition payments. What is the cost, both looking back, and looking forward? how much of that cost will be wasted spending, because we'll have an overflow in certain fields, where degrees will become useless? How many will want to do jobs that we currently have to import people to do, because people don't want to do "those jobs"?

Free college sounds all well and good, and I can almost see 2 years of community college so kids can see if they're cut out for college or not. But to just pay for degrees for everyone ..... well, in many ways you'll make them about as worthless to am employer as a high school diploma is today.

We need to find ways for people to find good paying, career type jobs. Making entry level jobs expensive is not the way to go. California's increasing the cost of entry level labor caused McDonald's to look into ordering kiosks and mobile ordering, instead of a cashier. They are planning on rolling it out nationwide, because the value of having that employee at the front counter is not worth the expense. Watch for other large fast food companies to follow suit, and also to possible add this into their drive-thrus. Voice recognition software could make that friendly voice at the drive thru speaker a computer. Grill could easily become automated. All of a sudden, all of those entry level positions that were going to become jobs capable of supporting a family will be gone. Now maybe they will anyway, but I know that cost drives most things in business, and increased labor cost either results in further labor cuts, or more automation. My local Wal-Mart often has 3 or 4 registers open that have human cashiers, and 10 or more of the self check-outs. Why? labor costs. By insisting that these jobs pay career wages, they have driven away many of these entry level jobs.

Anyway, on to free housing ....

Housing is essential, but that doesn't mean that everyone has a right free housing.

Man, I remember when I was 10 years old, and my dad took off. He left my mom with 3 sons, a 10 year old, and 6 year old twins. We struggled and scraped. I cut lawns to help out. My extended family helped in a variety of ways. My great uncle would have us over every Saturday, and my mom would do his housework for him. He also paid me to cut his lawn. We didn't have a lot, and 4 people in a 2 bedroom apartment wasn't ideal, but we made it work. My mom deserves a ton of credit. She didn't go out ..... she didn't drink $10 coffees ..... we didn't even have cable until I started working a 40 hour/week job, and got it for the family. Was it easy? No. However, we learned a ton of lessons through those difficult times. We learned to be wise with our money. We learned to make tough decisions.

We also didn't trash the p[laces we lived, because we knew that we needed at least some of the security deposit back.

I have seen a lot of section 8 and other rental houses in Youngstown, and it is horrific the condition some are left in. Free stuff never means as much to someone as something they had to invest in out of their own hard work.

We should help people, but that help should come at a cost. Able bodied people who get any kind of check, and who are not working a full time job, should be in life skill classes, and should be working to maintain the cities and communities that support them."Free" should end. "Earned" should replace it.

We're going to have to disagree on many issues. Most trade jobs these days actually require an associate degree based on the advancement of technology. To prepare most people for the jobs of today, but especially the future, you need that two years of college as a baseline.

That's why Bill Haslam, a Republican gov. can see that the investment of a well educated and prepared citizen base is an investment, not a giveaway. It attracts jobs and helps your tax base as a state.

I think you're stuck in the past and have very little understanding what todays overall job market requires at an entry level. I think people need to look ahead at the technology jobs of the future and even the here and now. It's not like it was when we were young.

Trump assembles war council to push Supreme Court pick through Senate

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/...-over-pick.html

Git er done Mr.President

Apprenticeship Program - Ohio State Association Union of Plumbers and Pipefitters
http://www.ohiopipetrades.com/apprenticeship-program


The Youngstown Area Electrical Association has a requirement of being at least 17 years old, and a high school graduate or GED.

More:

Qualifications for Application: Youngstown JATC
http://www.yjatc.org/Apply/qualifications.aspx

I generally do try to have a clue when I discuss these things. My nephew, who didn't graduate, but somehow managed to get his GED, is in an apprenticeship. They are trying, desperately, to find, and develop, tradespeople.

Here's another item, from the Cleveland area building and construction trade council:

JATC Apprenticeships - Cleveland Building & Construction Trades Council
http://www.cbctc.org/jatc-apprenticeships/

JATC Apprenticeships
An apprenticeship is the pathway to an excellent career in the construction industry. Apprentices learn the skills of a specific trade through a combination of on-the-job training and classroom instruction, which can range from three to five years, based on the requirements of the trade.

Numerous studies have shown individuals educated through apprenticeships, vocational degrees and technical schools are in great demand. A report from Georgetown University predicts that nearly two-thirds of available jobs in 2020 will not require a bachelor’s degree. Instead, roughly half of those jobs will require vocational training such as an apprenticeship, making the construction trades an in-demand field.

It's what got MLK killed.
He was pivoting away from his focus on Black America.

Did you know that this is the 50th anny of the Poor Peoples' Campaign?

Oh, and I hear that Trump is going to announce his pick next Monday.

I'll just state for the record that you are both right..

Pit is speaking from the perspective of Tennessee, which is very much like North Carolina.. trade unions are very weak if you can find them at all.. they have very little influence and limited resources.. their apprenticeship programs leave a lot to be desired.

That's why most community colleges have taken up offering training in the trades as a 2 year degree.

In areas of the country where unions are much stronger (like Ohio and PA) and have more resources, the union apprenticeship is more well established... and can serve just as well to get somebody started into the trades..

The only real benefit to the 2 year degree track is that if, at a later date, you decide to go get the 4 year degree, a lot of the credits would apply... I don't think there is any reciprocity to a college accepting union apprenticeship as credit.. though I can't state that as fact.

Actually he is going to announce Pits and CHS's pick on Monday.
Whether they like it or not.

That's the PP way of answering a question, beats "yes" any day.

That make sense.

"The mincing pervert is going to read The Federalist Society's choice from a piece of paper on Monday. He told me so on FOX and it's definitely not going to take longer than that and it's definitely not going to be weird when I post creepy YouTube tribute videos to him".

This shows the ignorance in your posting.

I made a post just the other day that SCOTUS nominees should only be judged by their qualifications. Not by the politics.

But you carry on with your stupidity now.......

Announcing is one thing, confirmation is another. We'll see. The deck is stacked in his favor, but somehow I don't think it happens before the election.

It absolutely will.

Trump completes interviews of Supreme Court candidates, as shortlist shrinks

Fox News is told that Trump has interviewed six candidates: Appeals court judges Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, Amy Coney Barrett, Amul Thapar, Joan Larsen and Thomas Hardiman. The interviews comprised seven conversations – Trump talked to one candidate twice.

Multiple sources indicated Kavanaugh, Kethledge and Barrett are currently the focus of attention.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/05/trump-completes-interviews-supreme-court-candidates.html

Trump will soon be letting you know who the next Judge is.

GOP hypocrisy one again. Pfft moving on.