The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[Breckey]

The Republicans also blocked Merrick Garlands nomination for 10 months prior to an election. I do not believe for a second that the Senate would block the nomination of a new SCOTUS justice if RBG kicks the bucket prior to Jan 2021.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Breckey said:

The Republicans also blocked Merrick Garlands nomination for 10 months prior to an election. I do not believe for a second that the Senate would block the nomination of a new SCOTUS justice if RBG kicks the bucket prior to Jan 2021.

Pay back for Bork and what they did to Thomas. 

The hypocritical Democratic party can eat a bag of flaming dog shit for what they've done to decent and honorable men all while protecting gigantic POS's like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

if a vacancy comes up, they should return the favor for what they did to Kavanaugh and not have even have hearings which are not constitutionally required, just a vote in the Senate.  

[HU&W]

5 hours ago, brawnie said:

So go ahead, convince me as to your issues and why the republican party will deliver better results.

As said above, odds are RBG will retire her gavel in the next 4 years, perhaps others too.  My views are more aligned with Kavanaugh/Gorsuch than with so many appointments before them.  I prefer legislation that originates in the legislature, not the courtroom.  I appreciate that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch anger both sides by ruling according to the law instead of predictably aligning with the party that had them appointed. As much as the media likes to point out Trump’s flaws, those two appointments were outstanding.  

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Pay back for Bork and what they did to Thomas. 

The hypocritical Democratic party can eat a bag of flaming dog shit for what they've done to decent and honorable men all while protecting gigantic POS's like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

if a vacancy comes up, they should return the favor for what they did to Kavanaugh and not have even have hearings which are not constitutionally required, just a vote in the Senate.  

So Kennedy and Clinton are POS's, but yet you leave out Newt Gingrich. Interesting. It's almost like he wouldn't help your narrative. Read up on the "Biden Rule" and what they did with Garland's nomination. Where does the Constitution say the Senate has to have a vote for a nominee? While that my have been customary, there is no requirement per the Constitution that they have too. 

[Breckey]

Can we actually have Congress do their job and pass legislation instead of relying on rule making by executive agencies? This has been going for decades and IMO is one of the reasons the SCOTUS has been "legislating". Poorly thought out or arbitrary EOs are prime territory for lawsuits that eventually make it to SCOTUS.

 

Hell can we just get a new AUMF for our many overseas adventures? I don't think Congress ever intended on us fighting a SMG 20 years after 9/11 using the same justification as that against AQ.

 

 

[Sua Sponte]

1 minute ago, Breckey said:

Can we actually have Congress do their job and pass legislation instead of relying on rule making by executive agencies? This has been going for decades and IMO is one of the reasons the SCOTUS has been "legislating". Poorly thought out or arbitrary EOs are prime territory for lawsuits that eventually make it to SCOTUS.

 

Hell can we just get a new AUMF for our many overseas adventures. I don't think Congress ever intended on us fighting a SMG 20 years after 9/11 using the same justification as that against AQ.

Congress, just like the rest of federal/state/local politics, is too busy with protecting their partisan tribalism than to do what's best for Americans.

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

So Kennedy and Clinton are POS's, but yet you leave out Newt Gingrich. Interesting. It's almost like he wouldn't help your narrative. Read up on the "Biden Rule" and what they did with Garland's nomination. Where does the Constitution say the Senate has to have a vote for a nominee? While that my have been customary, there is no requirement per the Constitution that they have too. 

Yes Kennedy was especially awful human being, I never said the Republicans didn't have some questionable fellows on the team but let me know when they cover up something like this for a hypocritical pontificating bloated awful piece of shit

Even after this he never cleaned up his act, reference this annectodote from a 16 year old page in the 80s

It was evening and she and her 16-year-old page, an attractive blonde, were walking down the Capitol steps on their way home from work when Kennedy's limo pulled up and the senator opened the door. In the backseat stood a bottle of wine on ice. Leaning his graying head out the door, the senator popped the question: Would one of the girls care to join him for dinner? No. How about the other? The girls said no thanks and the senator zoomed off. Kennedy, the formal page said, made no overt sexual overtures and was "very careful to make it seem like nothing out of the ordinary." It is possible that Kennedy did not know that the girls were underage or that they were pages and, as such, were under the protection of Congress, which serves in loco parentis. Nevertheless, the former page said she did find Kennedy's invitation surprising. "He didn't even know me," she says. "I knew this kind of stuff happened, but I didn't expect it to happen to me."

https://www.gq.com/story/kennedy-ted-senator-profile

Gingrich has an interesting personal life and a few other problems/issues (draft deferrals when he espoused hawkish military policy in his adult professional life) but pretty much light years away from anything even like that....

So I put my best foot forward when making an argument and conveniently don't bring up points that would undercut my argument?  On check rides do you tell the evaluator what your weak on and advise him/her to pick at that scab?  Tell me what school of argument and debate you went to so I won't send my kids there.

As to the Constitution requiring Senate approval:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. This clause is one example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Constitution doesn't specify the method of Senate approval just that POTUS must have it to fulfill an appointment.

[Breckey]

Yes Kennedy was especially awful human being, I never said the Republicans didn't have some questionable fellows on the team but let me know when they cover up something like this for a hypocritical pontificating bloated awful piece of shit

Even after this he never cleaned up his act, reference this annectodote from a 16 year old page in the 80s
It was evening and she and her 16-year-old page, an attractive blonde, were walking down the Capitol steps on their way home from work when Kennedy's limo pulled up and the senator opened the door. In the backseat stood a bottle of wine on ice. Leaning his graying head out the door, the senator popped the question: Would one of the girls care to join him for dinner? No. How about the other? The girls said no thanks and the senator zoomed off. Kennedy, the formal page said, made no overt sexual overtures and was "very careful to make it seem like nothing out of the ordinary." It is possible that Kennedy did not know that the girls were underage or that they were pages and, as such, were under the protection of Congress, which serves in loco parentis. Nevertheless, the former page said she did find Kennedy's invitation surprising. "He didn't even know me," she says. "I knew this kind of stuff happened, but I didn't expect it to happen to me."
https://www.gq.com/story/kennedy-ted-senator-profile
Gingrich has an interesting personal life and a few other problems/issues (draft deferrals when he espoused hawkish military policy in his adult professional life) but pretty much light years away from anything even like that....
So I put my best foot forward when making an argument and conveniently don't bring up points that would undercut my argument?  On check rides do you tell the evaluator what your weak on and advise him/her to pick at that scab?  Tell me what school of argument and debate you went to so I won't send my kids there.
As to the Constitution requiring Senate approval:
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. This clause is one example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Constitution doesn't specify the method of Senate approval just that POTUS must have it to fulfill an appointment.

Advise and consent does not mean refusing to bring it to a vote for 10 months.

[Clark Griswold]

Advise and consent does not mean refusing to bring it to a vote for 10 months.

Agreed it was a political WMD with a lot of collateral damage, lingering effects and may have been overkill but it kept him from getting a Supreme, in that point I’m not upset

I know this is a bad loop for us to be in but I don’t think making the first move to exit will be interpreted as anything but weakness to taken advantage of, I do t know how it ends or if can end well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sua Sponte]

49 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Yes Kennedy was especially awful human being, I never said the Republicans didn't have some questionable fellows on the team but let me know when they cover up something like this for a hypocritical pontificating bloated awful piece of shit

Even after this he never cleaned up his act, reference this annectodote from a 16 year old page in the 80s

It was evening and she and her 16-year-old page, an attractive blonde, were walking down the Capitol steps on their way home from work when Kennedy's limo pulled up and the senator opened the door. In the backseat stood a bottle of wine on ice. Leaning his graying head out the door, the senator popped the question: Would one of the girls care to join him for dinner? No. How about the other? The girls said no thanks and the senator zoomed off. Kennedy, the formal page said, made no overt sexual overtures and was "very careful to make it seem like nothing out of the ordinary." It is possible that Kennedy did not know that the girls were underage or that they were pages and, as such, were under the protection of Congress, which serves in loco parentis. Nevertheless, the former page said she did find Kennedy's invitation surprising. "He didn't even know me," she says. "I knew this kind of stuff happened, but I didn't expect it to happen to me."

https://www.gq.com/story/kennedy-ted-senator-profile

Gingrich has an interesting personal life and a few other problems/issues (draft deferrals when he espoused hawkish military policy in his adult professional life) but pretty much light years away from anything even like that....

So I put my best foot forward when making an argument and conveniently don't bring up points that would undercut my argument?  On check rides do you tell the evaluator what your weak on and advise him/her to pick at that scab?  Tell me what school of argument and debate you went to so I won't send my kids there.

As to the Constitution requiring Senate approval:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. This clause is one example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Constitution doesn't specify the method of Senate approval just that POTUS must have it to fulfill an appointment.

Yeah, Gingrich just led the charge for Clinton to be impeached for lying about an affair with an intern while he was having an affair of his own. Oh, and had ethics violations as Speaker of the House, which was a first. He resigned before the House Republicans had a mutiny due to having one of the worst midterm elections of all time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/us/politics/09brfs-GINGRICHSAYS_BRF.html

If you’re going to talk shit of a pretty well known fact, then at least acknowledge the other side with the same problem. You look like a hypocrite when you don’t. As someone who’s given years of checkrides, your analogy is flawed, but that probably explains your ad hominem attacks.

[SurelySerious]

49 minutes ago, Breckey said:

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Yes Kennedy was especially awful human being, I never said the Republicans didn't have some questionable fellows on the team but let me know when they cover up something like this for a hypocritical pontificating bloated awful piece of shit

Even after this he never cleaned up his act, reference this annectodote from a 16 year old page in the 80s
It was evening and she and her 16-year-old page, an attractive blonde, were walking down the Capitol steps on their way home from work when Kennedy's limo pulled up and the senator opened the door. In the backseat stood a bottle of wine on ice. Leaning his graying head out the door, the senator popped the question: Would one of the girls care to join him for dinner? No. How about the other? The girls said no thanks and the senator zoomed off. Kennedy, the formal page said, made no overt sexual overtures and was "very careful to make it seem like nothing out of the ordinary." It is possible that Kennedy did not know that the girls were underage or that they were pages and, as such, were under the protection of Congress, which serves in loco parentis. Nevertheless, the former page said she did find Kennedy's invitation surprising. "He didn't even know me," she says. "I knew this kind of stuff happened, but I didn't expect it to happen to me."
https://www.gq.com/story/kennedy-ted-senator-profile
Gingrich has an interesting personal life and a few other problems/issues (draft deferrals when he espoused hawkish military policy in his adult professional life) but pretty much light years away from anything even like that....
So I put my best foot forward when making an argument and conveniently don't bring up points that would undercut my argument?  On check rides do you tell the evaluator what your weak on and advise him/her to pick at that scab?  Tell me what school of argument and debate you went to so I won't send my kids there.
As to the Constitution requiring Senate approval:
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. This clause is one example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Constitution doesn't specify the method of Senate approval just that POTUS must have it to fulfill an appointment.

Advise and consent does not mean refusing to bring it to a vote for 10 months.

Probably not. To play devil’s advocate: it is a form of not giving consent. 

[Clark Griswold]

10 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Yeah, Gingrich just led the charge for Clinton to be impeached for lying about an affair with an intern while he was having an affair of his own. Oh, and had ethics violations as Speaker of the House, which was a first. He resigned before the House Republicans had a mutiny due to having one of the worst midterm elections of all time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/us/politics/09brfs-GINGRICHSAYS_BRF.html

If you’re going to talk shit of a pretty well known fact, then at least acknowledge the other side with the same problem. You look like a hypocrite when you don’t. As someone who’s given years of checkrides, your analogy is flawed, but that probably explains your ad hominem attacks.

Fair enough but I disagree on your hypocrisy charge, do you expect the other side to give you their flaws and acknowledge them openly?  I'm not talking shit, I'm making a legitimate point about the Democratic party.  You can make yours about the Republican party if you want, I don't have to make it for you.

As for checkrides and evaluator and evaluatee experience, I'll stand by statement to hide weak areas if possible from evaluators.  Given years of checkrides myself, evaluator in 3 different platforms, if you don't know it and don't have to let anyone else know you don't know, don't.  Don't lie, don't embellish but don't show your ass for sure if you don't have to.

[Clark Griswold]

12 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Probably not. To play devil’s advocate: it is a form of not giving consent. 

True - but they (Senate Republicans) should have manned up and just had a vote, go straight line party vote and be honest about it.  We will reject any nominee of the sitting Democratic President because we think there will be a Republican President who will nominate a conservative justice.

That sets up the precedent for extreme dysfunctionality as an opposing Senate could block appointments for everything and I'm not saying that they should do that but in reference to Garland they should have just had an up or down vote and get it over with.

[Breckey]

True - but they (Senate Republicans) should have manned up and just had a vote, go straight line party vote and be honest about it.  We will reject any nominee of the sitting Democratic President because we think there will be a Republican President who will nominate a conservative justice.
That sets up the precedent for extreme dysfunctionality as an opposing Senate could block appointments for everything and I'm not saying that they should do that but in reference to Garland they should have just had an up or down vote and get it over with.

Agree.

[pawnman]

20 hours ago, brawnie said:

Since this is an anonymous forum where people share anonymous thoughts, I'd like to hear why you all are planning on voting red this year? Specifically, what policies are actually making you interested in the republican platform? Because I can't find many convincing ones? I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and McCain in 2008, but since ~2009, I feel republican views have shifted out of line with my own.

Most likely voting libertarian based on:

1.  Ending the war on drugs.  It has cost us so much time, money, resources, and destroyed so many lives.  Just make marijuana legal everywhere and tax it.  It's a policy that actually generates revenue while allowing us to slash costs.  I'm more extreme than many...I'd go so far as to legalize every drug.  Then the FDA can regulate the quality, doseage, make sure it isn't cut with drain cleaner or scouring powder, it deprives gangs and cartels of their largest revenue sources, and it frees up the Coast Guard and DHS to handle things that are actual threats to national security.

2. Ending the war in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq.  Places are shitholes.  They were shitholes before we got there.  They will be shitholes when we leave.  So let's stop investing time, people, and money into trying to make them less shithole and focus on the high-end fight, the way the CJCS and SecDef are telling us we need to.

3. Immigration reform.  I'm a fan of border security, but I'm also a believer in the idea that America was created by immigrants.  I would remove all limits on legal immigration and put the full force of modern technology behind the necessary background and safety checks.  It should not take months or years to immigrate to the country legally.  It should take a day, maybe a week if you have a complex case.  Welcome anyone who wants to come here and make a better life for themselves.  And yeah...that includes amnesty for people who are here illegally but haven't committed any other crimes.  However, I fully support getting rid of anyone who has committed a violent crime while here illegally.  Make the legal immigration process easy and fast enough, and you can really focus border enforcement on criminals...because they will be the only ones with an incentive to cross the border illegally.

 

[Magnum]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Most likely voting libertarian based on:

1.  Ending the war on drugs.  It has cost us so much time, money, resources, and destroyed so many lives.  Just make marijuana legal everywhere and tax it.  It's a policy that actually generates revenue while allowing us to slash costs.  I'm more extreme than many...I'd go so far as to legalize every drug.  Then the FDA can regulate the quality, doseage, make sure it isn't cut with drain cleaner or scouring powder, it deprives gangs and cartels of their largest revenue sources, and it frees up the Coast Guard and DHS to handle things that are actual threats to national security.

2. Ending the war in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq.  Places are shitholes.  They were shitholes before we got there.  They will be shitholes when we leave.  So let's stop investing time, people, and money into trying to make them less shithole and focus on the high-end fight, the way the CJCS and SecDef are telling us we need to.

3. Immigration reform.  I'm a fan of border security, but I'm also a believer in the idea that America was created by immigrants.  I would remove all limits on legal immigration and put the full force of modern technology behind the necessary background and safety checks.  It should not take months or years to immigrate to the country legally.  It should take a day, maybe a week if you have a complex case.  Welcome anyone who wants to come here and make a better life for themselves.  And yeah...that includes amnesty for people who are here illegally but haven't committed any other crimes.  However, I fully support getting rid of anyone who has committed a violent crime while here illegally.  Make the legal immigration process easy and fast enough, and you can really focus border enforcement on criminals...because they will be the only ones with an incentive to cross the border illegally.

 

1. Legalize every drug? Most drugs are not safe. The FDA regulates them and they become less potent and sold in restrictive quantities and now those who have become dependant on them find other ways to get them. The cartels still exist to meet the "needs" of these people. Drugs are not illegal because they are some innocent taboo thing. They are illegal because they are dangerous and destroy lives.

2. Yep, agree with you there.

3. I'm sure there are ways to speed up the immigration process as it is currently ridiculously slow. Amnesty will only serve to encourage illegal immigration in the future. One of the biggest things that pisses me off is when I see immigrants complaining about America or their "rights" when they are here illegally while waving another country's flag. We need to get back to assimilation and not making our country into 100 other countries. If people want to come here, they need to understand the "why"  behind their desire, and understand that America is awesome because it is the opposite of most places people come from, not the same.

[Sua Sponte]

13 hours ago, Magnum said:

1. Legalize every drug? Most drugs are not safe. The FDA regulates them and they become less potent and sold in restrictive quantities and now those who have become dependant on them find other ways to get them. The cartels still exist to meet the "needs" of these people. Drugs are not illegal because they are some innocent taboo thing. They are illegal because they are dangerous and destroy lives.

 

I grew up with my parents smoking weed, they are great parents. I've seen alcohol ruin more lives than people that smoked weed, yet alcohol is legal minus all the "blue laws" Southern states have. If weed was so dangerous, then why is it legal in multiple states? 

[Magnum]

8 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

I grew up with my parents smoking weed, they are great parents. I've seen alcohol ruin more lives than people that smoked weed, yet alcohol is legal minus all the "blue laws" Southern states have. If weed was so dangerous, then why is it legal in multiple states? 

Did you miss the point pawnman said "I'd go so  far as to legalize every drug." Wasn't talking about just weed.

[CDAWG]

I’m of the mindset that it is ridiculous to make anything that grows from the Earth naturally illegal. Refining that product into something harmful is another thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[busdriver]

We've attempted to attack the supply side of the drug problem for decades.  It has had zero effect.  Heroine used to be the drug of trainspotting and 90's bands, now it's suburban.

Pfizer doesn't murder it's competitors for trade violations, they go to court. 

If we took a fraction of the money spent on the "war on drugs" and put it towards treatment, the country would be far better off.

 

[Clark Griswold]

Quit seeking Utopia

1 - The War on Drugs is really the Battle with Dangerous Drugs as Part of the War on Crime.  It will never be over because you can never stop fighting a mortal enemy that you can never kill.  Crime, criminals, dangerous and illegal behavior and substances will always be with us.  Because they come from the inherent flaws in every person and the people yet to be.  It's tiring and draining but it must always be fought.  Can we pick our battles and fight better?  Sure, but ending the Battle/War is not an option, it's just a fact of life.

You never get a break from history.

2 - Wars in Shitholes.  Sometimes necessary (not often though), should be fought mercilessly (ends faster, achieves feasible end state usually and deters other a-holes thus preventing other wars) against our actual foes in said shithole.  Due care should be taken to spare the innocent and deliver aid to those we can help but they are secondary to killing our foes and are often a distraction and enticement to other goals that do not further the interests of the United States.  Get in, get done with your mission(s) and get the Hell out.  We can't save the world, make people become like us or think that they will see things our way if we just try harder  We can win fights, defend/assert our interests and constructively use our other instruments. 

Be cautious but not too cautious.

3 - Immigration.  It's like salt, just a little bit makes the food better too much ruins it.  Greater numbers?  No, we have been taking in enormous amounts of immigrants the last 30+ years and we need to take a break, assimilate, tighten our labor market and not believe the delusion that we have magic soil and a values system that overpowers the negative parts of other cultures of people who have been migrating to the US of late and encouraged to retain said cultures and that assimilating is wrong.  With the devastation that the COVID virus and subsequent economic shutdowns have caused, adding more workers to the labor market here will not improve the situation for the working, middle or professional classes but it will MASSIVELY help the Investor/Corporate class who will only have more workers competing for a pool of jobs that does not expand proportionately to growth in workers. 

Open borders?  Nope.  The cost of open borders is the dignity and living standards of your working, middle and now professional classes.  I don't care what bullshit some pie in the sky academic like Bryan Caplan says will happen and how wonderful it will be.  "They" fucked up before, they told us how wonderful NAFTA would be and would not hollow out the core of manufacturing in the US, "they" told us that admitting China to the WTO and giving MFN trading status would eventually cause political and cultural change as they economically grew, still waiting for that, etc.... just two examples of how "they" either don't have a fucking clue about how the world works (people lie, cheat and steal and you must interact with them based on those facts) or they don't care what happens to the masses and are just willing to sell them down the river.  Emotional I know, but seeing people push an idea that they themselves will never experience the negative ramifications of while then chiding people without money or privilege about how they just need to get over it makes my blood boil.

People lie, cheat and steal; they always will act accordingly.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Clark Griswold

[HossHarris]

8 hours ago, CDAWG said:

I’m of the mindset that it is ridiculous to make anything that grows from the Earth naturally illegal. Refining that product into something harmful is another thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Drink a lot of hemlock, do ya?

[brwwg&b]

26 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

Drink a lot of hemlock, do ya?

Well, CDAWG didn't say go fill your gullet with anything you can find sprouting from the Earth. BTW, it is legal to grow hemlock.

[Breckey]

Anybody want to discuss the fully kitted out Federal officers in Portland? Why do Federal officers need to wear head to toe multicam and look like they're going to raid a compound? I know that companies make black and blue tactical gear.

 

 

[Sim]