2017 Democratic Thread

[Balta1701]

I didn't know the Donald Trump thread was a catch all. At least I wouldn't look there for news on the Berkeley thugs.

HE personally commented on it. In support of an equal, law breaking thug.

[GoSox05]

Anyone see those protesters from Berkeley? Surprised it hasn't been brought up. Pretty vicious stuff from the extremists at that school. Jumping people they don't agree with, fires, destruction of property, etc.

 

 

One of Milo's cult fans shot someone at one of these protests.

 

Shooter sent Facebook message to Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos before gunfire at UW protest, police say

 

 

Not as vicious as those Berkley "thugs" setting a garbage can on fire or breaking a window....

Edited February 6, 2017 by GoSox05

[caulfield12]

One of Milo's cult fans shot someone at one of these protests.

 

Shooter sent Facebook message to Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos before gunfire at UW protest, police say

 

 

Not as vicious as those Berkley "thugs" setting a garbage can on fire or breaking a window....

 

 

Berkeley thugs hired by Bannon to sabotage peaceful image of Women's March and turn independent voters against Dems/Millennials/Starbucks...alternate facts?

[Balta1701]

Your link is from days before the Berkely shooting...

There was no shooting at Berkeley.

[Soxy]

There was no shooting at Berkeley.

Pretty sure it happened on the anniversary of the Bowling Green Massacre. . .

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-democ...-221940499.html

 

First UC Berkeley, now he's threatening to defund the entire state of California.

 

 

God knows what will happen to the Iowa AG (Trump won state by about 10%) who is joining the legal battle against him.

 

 

[Steve9347]

Your link is from days before the Berkely shooting...

 

 

There was no shooting at Berkeley.

 

 

Pretty sure it happened on the anniversary of the Bowling Green Massacre. . .

 

[StrangeSox]

holy cow blast from the past

 

welcome back, Soxy!

[GoSox05]

Your link is from days before the Berkely shooting...

 

I know. It was from a protest when he visited a different university.

[NorthSideSox72]

I went to New Trier. Doesn't surprise me there's some of these idiots in the district.

 

That said, the school itself is pretty inclusive, at least in a traditional sense. That one guy quoted mentioned that he didn't think the area was racist. He's not necessarily wrong -- the North Shore is much more classist than it is out and out racist.

I also went to New Trier.

 

Classism is rampant, not surprising given the generally high income levels. Racism is there too, or at least was, no doubt. But it's an odd thing - NTHS has lots of representation from certain minorities (religious ones like Jewish families, racial/national ones like south asians, far east asians), but there are virtually no African Americans and only slightly more than that of Hispanics. More than anything what I saw was a lot of ignorance - people who just had spent their life in such a wealthy, lilly white bubble, that they were scared of the unknown.

 

The fact that parents are saying there is no racism in the district is laughable, these are the bubble people that are common there. The idea that civil rights discussions is some sort of left versus right thing is scary, in that what they're doing is making it seem that the pursuit of equal rights is somehow the world of the left. Which calls themselves out as being not fans of those rights - what does that tell you?

 

[Chisoxfn]

Welcome back Soxy...how have you been?

[StrangeSox]

Pointing out that Milo advocates for harassment and violence against some minority groups, doxxes specific people at his events, and that one of his followers recently murdered a protester at another event seems pretty relevant to talking about the protests against Milo at Berkeley. It wasn't some random "conservatives are bad too!" event but something that involved the same man at the center of it.

[StrangeSox]

You asked a question and I gave an answer. If you don't want anyone else to comment, send him a PM instead.

[StrangeSox]

Okay? And you don't need to whine if I happen to make an on-topic comment, either. If you don't like it, just ignore it and move on.

[StrangeSox]

I will do that if I ever have the impulse to respond to your posts by whining that you're posting at all rather than making an on-topic comment.

[GoSox05]

Pointing out that Milo advocates for harassment and violence against some minority groups, doxxes specific people at his events, and that one of his followers recently murdered a protester at another event seems pretty relevant to talking about the protests against Milo at Berkeley. It wasn't some random "conservatives are bad too!" event but something that involved the same man at the center of it.

 

This is what I was trying to say with that post.

 

 

[brett05]

It's reprehensible that the last one was blocked in a way never before seen by scumbag republicans, so it makes any nominee here annoying as f***.

except it was former VP Joe Biden that said this is what should be done. So yeah, it was a liberal idea that has bi-partisan support.

[illinilaw08]

except it was former VP Joe Biden that said this is what should be done. So yeah, it was a liberal idea that has bi-partisan support.

 

I've explained this before, but Biden never created a rule to not give a vote to a SCOTUS nominee in an election year. Nor did he ever refuse to vote on a SCOTUS nominee in an election year because there was no vacancy on the Court when he gave that speech. Furthermore, even if Biden would have pushed for no vote until after the election if there had been an opening (which is speculative at best), there is no evidence to suggest that Biden would have had sufficient support to prevent that vote from happening

 

So yeah, it's not a liberal idea, and it clearly did not have bi-partisan support when Garland was nominated.

 

ETA: Would you say that Obamacare is a Republican idea since the idea originated in a Conservative thinktank in the 90s and was first implemented by Romney in Massachusetts? Because there is better evidence to support that argument than there is to support the idea that Biden wanted to establish the precedent in 1992 that Congress never consider a SCOTUS nominee in an election year.

Edited February 7, 2017 by illinilaw08

[brett05]

I've explained this before, but Biden never created a rule to not give a vote to a SCOTUS nominee in an election year. Nor did he ever refuse to vote on a SCOTUS nominee in an election year because there was no vacancy on the Court when he gave that speech. Furthermore, even if Biden would have pushed for no vote until after the election if there had been an opening (which is speculative at best), there is no evidence to suggest that Biden would have had sufficient support to prevent that vote from happening

 

So yeah, it's not a liberal idea, and it clearly did not have bi-partisan support when Garland was nominated.

Let's correct this.

No one said there was an official rule, but it is called the Biden Rule.

No outrage over his statement was made by the liberals when it was said.

So yes, the fact is the idea is a liberal idea and it came thru this past election cycle.

You'd get smashed in even a liberal court with this silliness.

[illinilaw08]

Let's correct this.

No one said there was an official rule, but it is called the Biden Rule.

No outrage over his statement was made by the liberals when it was said.

So yes, the fact is the idea is a liberal idea and it came thru this past election cycle.

You'd get smashed in even a liberal court with this silliness.

 

Ha! It's called the Biden Rule by Conservatives who are attempting to grasping to find some historical evidence to obstructing Garland.

 

To the extent that we were in Court, the evidence of the Biden rule would, at best, be circumstantial evidence that Biden might have tried to prevent a SCOTUS appointment in 1992 had one been available. But the weight of that evidence would be lessened because what Biden would have actually done is, at best, speculative. One more time. Biden did not prevent a SCOTUS appointment in an election year because there was no vacancy in 1992.

 

Also, you didn't respond to the comparison of the "Biden Rule" to the ACA's origins as a Republican idea in the early 90s.

[RockRaines]

Woo, aborted the s*** out of that argument.

[StrangeSox]

I'm still confused why it's okay and good to deny a President the powers of their office for at least 25% of their elected term regardless of what Joe Biden thought about it in 1992.

[illinilaw08]

I'm still confused why it's okay and good to deny a President the powers of their office for at least 25% of their elected term regardless of what Joe Biden thought about it in 1992.

 

The argument goes that, if Joe Biden thought that in 1992, the Republicans denying that power to the President in 2016 is not unprecedented, but in fact is ordinary course. That's a silly argument, of course, for all the reasons I laid out above and does not alter the fact that the Republicans engaged in unprecedented obstructionism.

[StrangeSox]

I guess I'm trying to understand what the basis is beyond "they started it!" regardless if that claim is true. Even if Biden and the Democrats had successfully blocked H.W. Bush from filling a hypothetical vacancy back in 1992, I'd still think it was wrong then and wrong in 2016.

 

brett's said before that it was because we were in "election season." I'm not sure when the earliest campaigns started, but Ted Cruz announced in March of 2015. That means that at a minimum, we were in "election season" for nearly 50% of Obama's second term. Do we really want a standard where Presidents lose their power of appointment for that long? Do we think that should only apply when the opposition holds Congress, or do the people making the "Biden rule" argument also think that Trump should be blocked from making any appointments once the 2020 campaign starts? Where are these lines where we say that a sitting President now loses their appointment powers?

 

If this is a legitimate ideological stance rather than just grasping at whatever paper-thin justification they can for taking unprecedented actions, they should be able to answer these sorts of questions.

[StrangeSox]

re: DeVos, Jill Stein remains a colossal moron

 

Dr. Jill SteinVerified account

‏@DrJillStein

Why would we have a tie on such an egregious nominee? Because Democrats serve corporate interests.