Trump announces Amy Coney Barrett as SCOTUS nomination to replace Ginsburg

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Live now:

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

They announced who he's with right off the bat, so.. thread edited. Wasn't a surprise really.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Let the attacks begin...

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

Let the attacks begin...

And begin they have... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----

 

On another note:

 

 

 

Feel the heat? 

 

 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

3 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

Let the attacks begin...

Oh they have.... Just look at the tweets below

 

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by Cyberfx1024

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Sounds like Vanessa longs for the years women stayed at home and the men ran everything. So progressive!

 

Can stick that next to the wonderful progressive ideas of racial segregation in schools. 😃

Edited September 27, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,594]

I thought bullying was bad?

[Boiler 45,665]

This is from the BBC and whilst it relates to the UK seems a rather appropriate discussion point.

 

Misogyny: Women 'should be protected' under hate crime laws

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54254541

 

Campaign and policy manager at Women's Aid, Lucy Hadley, welcomed the proposals.

She said: "Sexism and women's inequality are the root causes of violence against women - including domestic abuse, sexual violence, street harassment including 'upskirting', and online forms of crime - and these often intersect with other identities, including race and ethnicity, sexuality and disability.

"Making clear that crimes happen to women 'because they are women' could help to send a clear message that women will be believed, protected and supported if they experience sexist violence and abuse."

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

The problem being those that use the term hate crime or misogyny in serious context don't believe their own "hate" or misogyny are either. So naturally it winds up weaponized for specific people against other specific people and just results in a mess that is neither fair nor sensible. That's why SCOTUS rejected the idea of hate speech, best example of this usage. 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

13 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

And begin they have... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----

 

On another note:

 

 

 

Feel the heat? 

 

 

Didn't the Republican elites primary Murkowski 2010? Yes, she did not toe the kstreet line and they punished her. The outcome? 40% of the vote in a six way race, AS A Write-in!  The people of alaska are independent. I cannot predict the outcome of this race 4 years from now, but I would never bet against the Alaskan people if they see/smell money and influence pouring in from the East coast power structure.

 

Part of the political calculus that  elements inside the conservative movements forget time and time again ( as do progressives) is that without Centrist and independents as part of a parties coalition, no party will have a clear majority in the center. Murkowski, Manchin, Collins, they have constituents who will not be ignored and have little regard for what party elites have on their agenda.

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Didn't the Republican elites primary Murkowski 2010? Yes, she did not toe the kstreet line and they punished her. The outcome? 40% of the vote in a six way race, AS A Write-in!  The people of alaska are independent. I cannot predict the outcome of this race 4 years from now, but I would never bet against the Alaskan people if they see/smell money and influence pouring in from the East coast power structure.

 

Part of the political calculus that  elements inside the conservative movements forget time and time again ( as do progressives) is that without Centrist and independents as part of a parties coalition, no party will have a clear majority in the center. Murkowski, Manchin, Collins, they have constituents who will not be ignored and have little regard for what party elites have on their agenda.

 

If by "independent" you mean unaffiliated, then yes (over 299,000 of the 551,000 people over 18 are unaffiliated). The Alaskan independent party is no more due to decreased registered voters as of 2018.  The majority of Alaskans don't care much about politics, except in Anchorage.  Alaska votes republican for the president typically.

 

Murkowski is done in 2022.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

21 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

If by "independent" you mean unaffiliated, then yes (over 299,000 of the 551,000 people over 18 are unaffiliated). The Alaskan independent party is no more due to decreased registered voters as of 2018.  The majority of Alaskans don't care much about politics, except in Anchorage.  Alaska votes republican for the president typically.

 

Murkowski is done in 2022.

Yes independent = not aligned to a party. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, CanAm1980 said:

Didn't the Republican elites primary Murkowski 2010? Yes, she did not toe the kstreet line and they punished her. The outcome? 40% of the vote in a six way race, AS A Write-in!  The people of alaska are independent. I cannot predict the outcome of this race 4 years from now, but I would never bet against the Alaskan people if they see/smell money and influence pouring in from the East coast power structure.

 

Part of the political calculus that  elements inside the conservative movements forget time and time again ( as do progressives) is that without Centrist and independents as part of a parties coalition, no party will have a clear majority in the center. Murkowski, Manchin, Collins, they have constituents who will not be ignored and have little regard for what party elites have on their agenda.

 

Take time to understand the populist movements going on throughout the left and right, it really explains the growing popularity of Trump, Bernie, etc. Also understand how Republicans vote and the demographics of Alaska.

 

Murkowski's "independent" streak can't overcome going against two "conservative" justices. If she were to vote against Barrett, after the Kavanaugh vote, she's toast in 2022. Manchin and Collins are something else entirely.. they're moderates who effectively do their jobs based on polls. Neither can survive miscalculations given populist swings in either direction.

 

Edit:  And I have to affirm CA80's interpretation of independent. There can be confusion on independents, because occasionally there's people running for an "Independent Party".. I think this should be banned because it confuses people for independent as in "no party". In California they have a term called "Decline to State" which is "independent" (no party) in many other states. This is how I registered when I turned 18 and how it's stayed (and will stay). One of the biggest difficulties I had when becoming a Canadian citizen was dealing with the fact that you're stuck effectively voting for parties and not individuals. Our local people were virtually unknown to us, only one person went around (the challenger polling the best to the incumbent), whereas for me I simply would've liked to vote Max Bernier for PM. I called the PPC number to inquire, and they wanted me to register with the party, and seemingly got offended when I told them I'm not interested in parties. 😂 I eventually talked to the local PPC guy (at a community event) and got to learn of his positions on things, which led to wife and I voting for him. 

Edited September 27, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Yeah, I get that in most states that is what independent means, but until recently, Alaska seemed to view it a tad differently.  Now that their AIP is no more, I think they make the more traditional definition of the word. But in AK, I think the unaffiliated stems more from a lack of desire to get into politics rather than a desire to avoid the two parties or to establish a third party.  People up there just want to be left alone for the most part.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

16 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Yeah, I get that in most states that is what independent means, but until recently, Alaska seemed to view it a tad differently.  Now that their AIP is no more, I think they make the more traditional definition of the word. But in AK, I think the unaffiliated stems more from a lack of desire to get into politics rather than a desire to avoid the two parties or to establish a third party.  People up there just want to be left alone for the most part.

Yep, and that's why the vast majority are conservatives, because many of those values they want left alone, along with themselves, aren't. A part of me wishes the parties would die, but just like my thoughts on religion, removing the parties wouldn't remove the underlying irrationality (of the voter and why their affinity for party mentality and ingroup/outgroup bias), merely would shift it. 

Edited September 27, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds