Thread for LIBERALS ONLY to talk about RBG and the Supreme Court (1 Viewer)

[shadrap]

So, it's some guys opinion about his own summations of her statements and written legal opinions?

yep.  At least it's not four anonymous sources!

 

[GROOT]

For people who like number six, I guess they'll be fully on board when the Democratic Senate confirms six of Biden's new nominees in January?

Are you saying when Trump wins he should confirm 6 more?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's my very short version of why I think Democrats should be unilaterally reasonable.

First, it's the right thing to do. But that doesn't matter anymore because party over country, so I'll say why I think it's in their own interest.

Why did homo sapiens outcompete other species of humans such the Neanderthals, the Denisovans, and other various homos? It's a bit of a mystery. Other archaic humans, based on fossil evidence, seem to have been stronger and faster than our own ancestors, probably smarter, and for a while were better at tool-making (though we eventually caught up and passed them at making tools). We don't know exactly why, but the leading theory seems to be that we became friendlier than the others. This allowed us to cooperate with each other better, to share our latest technological advances more effectively, and to live in much larger groups while still getting along.

Even if, man for man, the Neandethals were bigger, faster, strong, and smarter than homo sapiens, a group of 120 homo sapiens with cooperatively shared weapons-making technology had a significant advantage over a group of 20 Neanderthals less good at cooperating with each other.

Homo sapiens outnumbered Neanderthals by being nicer, and Democrats can defeat Republicans the same way.

Extreme partisans on each side will cheer each escalating norm-violation by their own side until democracy is completely ruined. But there are plenty of moderates who will flock to whichever side unilaterally acts more reasonably. By refusing to stack the court in response to Republican shenanigans, Democrats might lose some short-term battles on the legality of abortion. But they will win most of the important long-term battles by outnumbering the other side. Outnumbering the other side is pretty much the whole ballgame in a democracy.

I am a Democrat right now specifically because Democrats don't pull the same nonsense that Republicans are currently trying to pull. My affiliation is contingent on that continuing to be the case. I don't think I'm alone.

 

[Trey]

Here's my very short version of why I think Democrats should be unilaterally reasonable.

First, it's the right thing to do. But that doesn't matter anymore because party over country, so I'll say why I think it's in their own interest.

Why did homo sapiens outcompete other species of humans such the Neanderthals, the Denisovans, and other various homos? It's a bit of a mystery. Other archaic humans, based on fossil evidence, seem to have been stronger and faster than our own ancestors, probably smarter, and for a while were better at tool-making (though we eventually caught up and passed them at making tools). We don't know exactly why, but the leading theory seems to be that we became friendlier than the others. This allowed us to cooperate with each other better, to share our latest technological advances more effectively, and to live in much larger groups while still getting along.

Even if, man for man, the Neandethals were bigger, faster, strong, and smarter than homo sapiens, a group of 120 homo sapiens with cooperatively shared weapons-making technology had a significant advantage over a group of 20 Neanderthals less good at cooperating with each other.

Homo sapiens outnumbered Neanderthals by being nicer, and Democrats can defeat Republicans the same way.

Extreme partisans on each side will cheer each escalating norm-violation by their own side until democracy is completely ruined. But there are plenty of moderates who will flock to whichever side unilaterally acts more reasonably. By refusing to stack the court in response to Republican shenanigans, Democrats might lose some short-term battles on the legality of abortion. But they will win most of the important long-term battles by outnumbering the other side. Outnumbering the other side is pretty much the whole ballgame in a democracy.

I am a Democrat right now specifically because Democrats don't pull the same nonsense that Republicans are currently trying to pull. My affiliation is contingent on that continuing to be the case. I don't think I'm alone.

I think the issue is that it gets very difficult to continue to play by the rules when you already do outnumber the other side but keep “losing”.

And the shenanigans that they utilize compounds their ability to stay in power as a minority party. 

I’m a pretty moderate Dem and I’m about fed up and ready to escalate to oblivion.

 

[rcam]

Here's my very short version of why I think Democrats should be unilaterally reasonable.

First, it's the right thing to do. But that doesn't matter anymore because party over country, so I'll say why I think it's in their own interest.

Why did homo sapiens outcompete other species of humans such the Neanderthals, the Denisovans, and other various homos? It's a bit of a mystery. Other archaic humans, based on fossil evidence, seem to have been stronger and faster than our own ancestors, probably smarter, and for a while were better at tool-making (though we eventually caught up and passed them at making tools). We don't know exactly why, but the leading theory seems to be that we became friendlier than the others. This allowed us to cooperate with each other better, to share our latest technological advances more effectively, and to live in much larger groups while still getting along.

Even if, man for man, the Neandethals were bigger, faster, strong, and smarter than homo sapiens, a group of 120 homo sapiens with cooperatively shared weapons-making technology had a significant advantage over a group of 20 Neanderthals less good at cooperating with each other.

Homo sapiens outnumbered Neanderthals by being nicer, and Democrats can defeat Republicans the same way.

Extreme partisans on each side will cheer each escalating norm-violation by their own side until democracy is completely ruined. But there are plenty of moderates who will flock to whichever side unilaterally acts more reasonably. By refusing to stack the court in response to Republican shenanigans, Democrats might lose some short-term battles on the legality of abortion. But they will win most of the important long-term battles by outnumbering the other side. Outnumbering the other side is pretty much the whole ballgame in a democracy.

I am a Democrat right now specifically because Democrats don't pull the same nonsense that Republicans are currently trying to pull. My affiliation is contingent on that continuing to be the case. I don't think I'm alone.

Not really following unless you are suggesting there is evidence of some sort of non-aggression treaty by homo sapiens vs. other human species. The moral of the story is the Democrats need to band together more efficiently so they can kill the opposition when it suits their desires? Homo sapiens won because they likely put species over civility. Us vs. them with the homo sapiens having a better idea of "us". I would hazard to guess the "norm" of ancient homo sapiens was violent take over of resources.

Regarding the bolded, I didn't see moderates flocking to Clinton. Either there aren't a lot of "moderates" or you are severely overestimating the appeal of the side that acts more reasonably. I mean, there is one side that seems to be more or less an extension of Obama's presidency and political norms... while the other brags about sexual assault, race baits, won't release tax returns, lies about contact with foreign players, and, once in power spouts lie after lie and (I really don't have the patience to write all the "norms" that have been upended and institutions subverted) tears down hundreds of years of historical precedence. You would think, according to your viewpoint, that Biden winning is a done deal when, in fact, it is anything but. Also, as pointed out, the other side is outnumbered and the majority is still losing - and not in an insignificant manner.

I am all for statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico. As for court stacking, IMO, that is a nuclear option... but one that may be necessary. I guess we will see how long the ACA and Roe v. Wade stand - that will give me a little more clarity regarding the composition of the SC and what I would advocate. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I am a Democrat right now specifically because Democrats don't pull the same nonsense that Republicans are currently trying to pull. My affiliation is contingent on that continuing to be the case. I don't think I'm alone.

I'm not a Democrat, but I'm voting Democrat for the first time ever in a few weeks specifically for this reason and this reason alone.  I'm willing to take whatever policy losses come from a Biden victory if it means taking some positive steps toward normalcy.  (I realize that Biden can't fix this all on his own, and I don't expect him to do so).

 

[The Z Machine]

The issue with the "play nice to attract more voters" ignores the flip side where some people are attracted to power and gravitate toward strongman authoritarians over civil minded peacemakers. It's possible that these are first time voters and thus don't need to be flipped as much as "turned on".

There might be more of these types than people who will change allegiance due to a difference in civility between the parties. 

 

[The Z Machine]

BTW, this is also why one of the biggest divides in supporters of Trumpismo is education level. Oh, and being a man. 

I would posit that males with lower levels of education don't value civility, acting reasonably, or abiding by norms as much as other demos. Hence, they are breaking toward the chaos enabler. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

BTW, this is also why one of the biggest divides in supporters of Trumpismo is education level. Oh, and being a man. 

I would posit that males with lower levels of education don't value civility, acting reasonably, or abiding by norms as much as other demos. Hence, they are breaking toward the chaos enabler. 

Like all the rioters errrrrr peaceful protesters

 

[Shutout]

BTW, this is also why one of the biggest divides in supporters of Trumpismo is education level. Oh, and being a man. 

I would posit that males with lower levels of education don't value civility, acting reasonably, or abiding by norms as much as other demos. Hence, they are breaking toward the chaos enabler. 

Did you just say that men without formal education are somehow less civilized/less humane, don't act reasonable, etc? 

I guess that explains why Ted Turner (college dropout/expelled) started CNN in his own image

 

[The Z Machine]

Did you just say that men without formal education are somehow less civilized/less humane, don't act reasonable, etc? 

I guess that explains why Ted Turner (college dropout/expelled) started CNN in his own image

Wut? No, I didn't say that at all. 

 

[Biff84]

There are too many arguments from the right on this thing. It is hard to keep track of what is where.

1) Garland can't be voted on because it will upset the balance of the court

2) Garland can't be voted on because there is a presidential election this year and the people need to be heard

3) Garland can't be voted on because there is an election this year and the senate and presidency are controlled by different parties

4) Trump nominee can be voted on regardless of any balancing of the court ideals

5) Trump nominee can be voted on in spite of this being an election year for 2 years ago the American public kept the republicans in control of the senate

6) Trump nominee can be voted on because we control both branches and too ####### bad libs

Just keep it simple. The reason why Garland was blocked and Trump will get his nominee is the same for both - because they can. The Trump era has destroyed any concern about looking like hypocrite and that was perhaps the last thing standing in their way. There’s no bonus points for playing nicely and Republicans know it and the consequences are mainly gone now.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I would posit that males with lower levels of education don't value civility, acting reasonably, or abiding by norms as much as other demos. 

Strongly disagree. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

I would posit that males with lower levels of education don't value civility, acting reasonably, or abiding by norms as much as other demos. 

Strongly disagree. 

Neither position here is surprising - but it misses the mark in that nobody is defining "civil" "reasonable" or "norms" here.

Its likely that you both are correct from your own view points, but differ on how to define those terms.  

Its easy to disagree with someone (might as well just respond with an emoji), its hard to examine why you disagree.

But, if we define "norms" as "law-abiding" I think you will find that males with lower levels of education are more likely to be involved with criminal activity, than, say, college educated women.

That does not mean all males with lower levels of education are bad - just that statistically, they are more likely to act outside of  "the norms" (which are usually defined the more educated males).

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Neither position here is surprising - but it misses the mark in that nobody is defining "civil" "reasonable" or "norms" here.

Its likely that you both are correct from your own view points, but differ on how to define those terms.  

Its easy to disagree with someone (might as well just respond with an emoji), its hard to examine why you disagree.

But, if we define "norms" as "law-abiding" I think you will find that males with lower levels of education are more likely to be involved with criminal activity, than, say, college educated women.

That does not mean all males with lower levels of education are bad - just that statistically, they are more likely to act outside of  "the norms" (which are usually defined the more educated males).

Look at the OP's entire post.  He's tying it to "Trumpiso", which makes the entire post silly.  There are plenty of uneducated males (and females too) that don't value civility, act reasonably, or abide by norms.   You think it's Trumpers shooting up Chicago every weekend, for example?

 

[shadrap]

BTW, this is also why one of the biggest divides in supporters of Trumpismo is education level. Oh, and being a man. 

I would posit that males with lower levels of education don't value civility, acting reasonably, or abiding by norms as much as other demos. Hence, they are breaking toward the chaos enabler. 

pretty good gutter slam there.  Uncalled for but not unexpected.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Look at the OP's entire post.  He's tying it to "Trumpiso", which makes the entire post silly.  There are plenty of uneducated males (and females too) that don't value civility, act reasonably, or abide by norms.   You think it's Trumpers shooting up Chicago every weekend, for example?

I agree - this is not a "Trump" specific issue - I only caught the brief exchange that I quoted.

And, to follow up a little - this is not really an "pro-education" argument.  If I were to stand in the shoes of a high school dropout, I would probably look at most of the ivory tower types as the ones who are uncivilized, and incapable of seeing my humanity.

But, if you are going to have an argument - its best to settle on the terms you are arguing about, rather than simply disagree, but be talking about different things.

 

[Sinn Fein]

pretty good gutter slam there.  Uncalled for but not unexpected.

Why?

I think, intellectually, its the right argument.

If I were serious about this - I would want to know why Trump outperforms in the White Male, Less Education demographic.  And, he outperforms by a substantial margin, so ti not a flukey thing.  But if I were studying this, I would want to understand what that demographic sees in Trump, and try to find alternative ways to meet those needs.

As a cursory observation, I think Trump plays to the chaos theory by pretending to be anti-intellectual.  He hasn't actually done anything for that group, but listen to their fears, and validate them - and that last part may be key.  Nobody else is reaching out, and saying "Yes, I hear you, your fears are real, and we need to address them."

 

[Joe Bryant]

Neither position here is surprising - but it misses the mark in that nobody is defining "civil" "reasonable" or "norms" here.

Its likely that you both are correct from your own view points, but differ on how to define those terms.  

Its easy to disagree with someone (might as well just respond with an emoji), its hard to examine why you disagree.

But, if we define "norms" as "law-abiding" I think you will find that males with lower levels of education are more likely to be involved with criminal activity, than, say, college educated women.

That does not mean all males with lower levels of education are bad - just that statistically, they are more likely to act outside of  "the norms" (which are usually defined the more educated males).

This wasn't vague. The person wrote "I would posit that males with lower levels of education don't value civility, acting reasonably, or abiding by norms as much as other demos."

One might try to backpedal out of it or even defend those types of accusations saying it's really just a misunderstanding of definitions. Except  "education" or "civility" or "acting reasonably" or "norms" are all pretty clear. 

It's an ugly accusation that I honestly was surprised to see.

Usually these types of things are done more with a more subtle "Prisons are made up of _____ % of the  ________________ demographic. Which make up ______ % of the population at large (You do the math wink wink)". They're slightly more subtle accusation type statements that can at least be backed up with some data. 

It's much uglier to see someone just go straight to it like the poster did here and attack the character or desires of a demographic like this. 

Not sure what you mean with the "might as well respond with an emoji". It's not hard to examine why I disagree. It's personal experience from living a relatively long life already coupled with observing the larger world around me. It's not something I"m going to argue and honestly, it's discouraging to see people try to explain/justify/defend it.

I'll drop out of this one and hope it gets better. 

 

[shadrap]

Why?

I think, intellectually, its the right argument.

If I were serious about this - I would want to know why Trump outperforms in the White Male, Less Education demographic.  And, he outperforms by a substantial margin, so ti not a flukey thing.  But if I were studying this, I would want to understand what that demographic sees in Trump, and try to find alternative ways to meet those needs.

As a cursory observation, I think Trump plays to the chaos theory by pretending to be anti-intellectual.  He hasn't actually done anything for that group, but listen to their fears, and validate them - and that last part may be key.  Nobody else is reaching out, and saying "Yes, I hear you, your fears are real, and we need to address them."

IMO most dems think of Trump voters a stupid, dumb, deplorable(Hillary) hayseed hicks , clinging to their bibles & guns(Obama).   His comment mirrors that.

 

[sho nuff]

IMO most dems think of Trump voters a stupid, dumb, deplorable(Hillary) hayseed hicks , clinging to their bibles & guns(Obama).   His comment mirrors that.

I think most feel there are some like that...and his comment was about that....about those who are supporters of Trumpismo...education level and being a man.  I read it as believing in that Trump is some macho alpha male tough guy.  I think stating that those who would buy fully into that are likely lesser educated males is pretty spot on.

I don't think he was stating that on any grand scale of all Trump supporters at all.

Also...Hillary thought of very specific voters as deplorables...we have been over this...her mistake (among others) was putting it as "half" of the supporters...but she very clearly defined what would make someone deplorable.

 

[shadrap]

this is supposed to be a thread for liberals.  I respect that.

see ya!

 

[Juxtatarot]

I’ve noticed that the negative correlation between education level and Trump support is an extremely hot button issue.  It’s unfortunate that we seem not to be able to discuss it without posters getting upset.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I’ve noticed that the negative correlation between education level and Trump support is an extremely hot button issue.  It’s unfortunate that we seem not to be able to discuss it without posters getting upset.

What's the point of this troll bait?  Every single thread in the PSF gets someone upset.

 

[Sinn Fein]

IMO most dems think of Trump voters a stupid, dumb, deplorable(Hillary) hayseed hicks , clinging to their bibles & guns(Obama).   His comment mirrors that.

I agree.  

But, I think the "smart" politician tries to explore the needs of that group.  It might be, that the needs are incompatible with the larger democratic platform. But, as with everything, there are nuances and common ground on a lot of issues.

You are not going to convert a single issue-abortion voter.  But, I think there are a lot of voters who are simply looking to be heard, and to be acknowledged that their views matter as much as the "Harvard Guy".  Honestly, I think that is what Trump has done best - he validates the concerns of people that most politicians ignored.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Why?

I think, intellectually, its the right argument.

If I were serious about this - I would want to know why Trump outperforms in the White Male, Less Education demographic.  And, he outperforms by a substantial margin, so ti not a flukey thing.  But if I were studying this, I would want to understand what that demographic sees in Trump, and try to find alternative ways to meet those needs.

As a cursory observation, I think Trump plays to the chaos theory by pretending to be anti-intellectual.  He hasn't actually done anything for that group, but listen to their fears, and validate them - and that last part may be key.  Nobody else is reaching out, and saying "Yes, I hear you, your fears are real, and we need to address them."

If you were really serious about this you would also examine why less educated, poor, black demographic clings to the democrat party who does nothing for them beyond convincing them they need to live off tiny government handouts.  The demographic you're speaking of clings to the other side because (right or wrong) they don't want to be taxed to death and generally believe in working hard and wanting the government out of their life.

 

[Sinn Fein]

If you were really serious about this you would also examine why less educated, poor, black demographic clings to the democrat party who does nothing for them beyond convincing them they need to live off tiny government handouts.  The demographic you're speaking of clings to the other side because (right or wrong) they don't want to be taxed to death and generally believe in working hard and wanting the government out of their life.

I think its similar to Trump - the Democratic Party "listens" and validates those concerns.

I agree, nobody is doing anything to help either group - the rich get richer, and the poor get the shaft.

 

[Juxtatarot]

What's the point of this troll bait?  Every single thread in the PSF gets someone upset.

I don’t think I understand. Do you think the topic can be discussed without it being trolling? 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I think its similar to Trump - the Democratic Party "listens" and validates those concerns.

I agree, nobody is doing anything to help either group - the rich get richer, and the poor get the shaft.

Yeah I think a lot of these political race discussions are actually off the mark and should be economical class discussions.  And agree neither party helps anyone in that regard.

 

[Jobber]

Is there a place where I can look up liberal judges to vote for locally?

 

[The Z Machine]

This wasn't vague. The person wrote "I would posit that males with lower levels of education don't value civility, acting reasonably, or abiding by norms as much as other demos."

One might try to backpedal out of it or even defend those types of accusations saying it's really just a misunderstanding of definitions. Except  "education" or "civility" or "acting reasonably" or "norms" are all pretty clear. 

It's an ugly accusation that I honestly was surprised to see.

Usually these types of things are done more with a more subtle "Prisons are made up of _____ % of the  ________________ demographic. Which make up ______ % of the population at large (You do the math wink wink)". They're slightly more subtle accusation type statements that can at least be backed up with some data. 

It's much uglier to see someone just go straight to it like the poster did here and attack the character or desires of a demographic like this. 

Not sure what you mean with the "might as well respond with an emoji". It's not hard to examine why I disagree. It's personal experience from living a relatively long life already coupled with observing the larger world around me. It's not something I"m going to argue and honestly, it's discouraging to see people try to explain/justify/defend it.

I'll drop out of this one and hope it gets better. 

I stand by the statement.  First off, I was talking about values and not actions.  Just because someone wants to "blow up" or "tear down" the economic or government systems we have doesn't mean that they literally are blowing things up, hurting people, etc.    It does not mean that they are not civil and reasonable to the people in their community.  It means that they hold values that do not align to "reasonableness", "civility", and "abiding by norms".   I think that's "abiding by norms" is the opposite of wanting to "tear it down".  I also think that "reasonableness" is essentially a willingness to find common ground and express empathy for others not in one's own group.  Certainly, these items align well to people on all portions of extremes of the political spectrum, so that's a valid criticism.

I'm no expert on such things, but from my cursory reading on the topic, males with low education levels correlate well with right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation.  I believe that this could describe the psychology of people that align strongly with Trumpismo.   It is clear that Trump outperforms on this demographic of males with low education levels.  He did much better with this demographic than other GOP presidential candidates in the past.  I don't think that's in question.

I don't see this as an ugly accusation at all, but I can understand why some would take it that way.  That wasn't my intention.  It certainly doesn't mean that ALL Trump supporters are men with low education levels.

 

[caustic]

I'm no expert on such things, but from my cursory reading on the topic, males with low education levels correlate well with right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation.  I believe that this could describe the psychology of people that align strongly with Trumpismo.   It is clear that Trump outperforms on this demographic of males with low education levels.  He did much better with this demographic than other GOP presidential candidates in the past.  I don't think that's in question.

Another consistent finding in political psychology is that higher educational attainment makes you more open to new things/experiences. This really shows up in public opinion on immigration, where there's very strong positive correlation between education and pro-immigrant attitudes. (And before anyone thinks this is a product of higher ed indoctrination, the data shows this effect at *all* levels of education. In Europe, when countries changed the mandatory schooling age from 16 to 18, the first cohort to stay in school longer had significantly more liberal views on immigration. It's a very consistent finding.) So I don't think it's a surprise that the guy who proudly ran on the most anti-immigration platform in recent memory drastically accelerated education polarization. 

 

[Captain Cranks]

IMO most dems think of Trump voters a stupid, dumb, deplorable(Hillary) hayseed hicks , clinging to their bibles & guns(Obama).   His comment mirrors that.

When Florida was getting ravaged by hurricanes a few years back, my out of state family would ask if all Floridians were hicks that lived in trailer parks.  That's because the tv coverage focused on this type of person.  Similarly, when media covers Trump rallies, we're getting this. 

Do all Floridians live in trailer parks?  Of course not.  Are all Trump voters dumb hicks clinging to Bibles and guns?  Of course not.  But a stereotype is formed based on media coverage and personal experience with the loudest, most obnoxious among them.