Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 292325 times)

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1360
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3200 on: May 14, 2020, 09:43:37 AM »
https://twitter.com/elongreen/status/1260654122048487425?s=19

I don't think Justin Amash is very smart lmao.

Because he's engaging with a smartass troll, or because you think he's wrong?

Amash is right that not every community should be given blanket recommendations from the federal and often even state gov.

To me it reads like the troll is just trying to dunk on him, zeroing on details outside of the core argument that he can use to earn himself a badge for a Twitter Takedown(R)


Maybe because he's saying that we should trust small business owners to make and enforce their own healthcare policy? That's just insane and anyone that has done any work in public policy like Justin Amash should clearly know better.

Or perhaps he believes mayors are better suited to come up with social distancing policies for their cities. I'm not sure.

What evidence backs up your claim that that's just insane? I think the best possibility you have for evidence would be to compare the covid stats of states that haven't done issued any lockdown orders vs the national average or vs similar states (which is a tricky thing to figure).

But there's nothing there to support your thesis that states that have issued lockdowns are faring better than those that haven't.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/16/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s

ND, SD, NE, IA, and AR are the insane states with remarkably average covid stats. Nothing seems to support a thesis that these governors should be regarded as negligent or insane and when there is some SBA data available, we might find that they were more successful at preserving the livelihoods of business owners and employees. We don't know, and it's not helpful to assume we do know that this decision was "insane".

Compare urban centers Seattle and San Francisco to New York and surrounding New Jersey. The west coast was faster as moving towards SD protocols. Compare WA, which had less lead time, to Florida and their recent explosion in cases. The virus does not care about your mayor, it cares about contact rates.

67% of NYC residents commute by public transit. Bay area is about 7.6% and Seattle is about 10%. Apples and oranges.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2020/04/coronavirus-spread-map-city-urban-density-suburbs-rural-data/609394/

We may find that some things we want to encourage in cities, like tight social bonds and civic capital, make them more vulnerable.  “When it’s all said and done, we’re going to find that COVID was uniquely lethal to people with high social capital,” demographer Lyman Stone suggested on Twitter.

It's no secret that residents of rural areas across the world are falling very far behind their urban counterparts economically - for many of them, their economies are already on life support. There is a good argument to be made that some statewide rules should apply very differently to rural areas who have low risk of contagion and incredibly high risk of economic failure.


FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3201 on: May 14, 2020, 10:12:53 AM »
https://twitter.com/elongreen/status/1260654122048487425?s=19

I don't think Justin Amash is very smart lmao.

Because he's engaging with a smartass troll, or because you think he's wrong?

Amash is right that not every community should be given blanket recommendations from the federal and often even state gov.

To me it reads like the troll is just trying to dunk on him, zeroing on details outside of the core argument that he can use to earn himself a badge for a Twitter Takedown(R)


Maybe because he's saying that we should trust small business owners to make and enforce their own healthcare policy? That's just insane and anyone that has done any work in public policy like Justin Amash should clearly know better.

Or perhaps he believes mayors are better suited to come up with social distancing policies for their cities. I'm not sure.

What evidence backs up your claim that that's just insane? I think the best possibility you have for evidence would be to compare the covid stats of states that haven't done issued any lockdown orders vs the national average or vs similar states (which is a tricky thing to figure).

But there's nothing there to support your thesis that states that have issued lockdowns are faring better than those that haven't.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/16/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s

ND, SD, NE, IA, and AR are the insane states with remarkably average covid stats. Nothing seems to support a thesis that these governors should be regarded as negligent or insane and when there is some SBA data available, we might find that they were more successful at preserving the livelihoods of business owners and employees. We don't know, and it's not helpful to assume we do know that this decision was "insane".

Compare urban centers Seattle and San Francisco to New York and surrounding New Jersey. The west coast was faster as moving towards SD protocols. Compare WA, which had less lead time, to Florida and their recent explosion in cases. The virus does not care about your mayor, it cares about contact rates.

67% of NYC residents commute by public transit. Bay area is about 7.6% and Seattle is about 10%. Apples and oranges.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2020/04/coronavirus-spread-map-city-urban-density-suburbs-rural-data/609394/

We may find that some things we want to encourage in cities, like tight social bonds and civic capital, make them more vulnerable.  “When it’s all said and done, we’re going to find that COVID was uniquely lethal to people with high social capital,” demographer Lyman Stone suggested on Twitter.

It's no secret that residents of rural areas across the world are falling very far behind their urban counterparts economically - for many of them, their economies are already on life support. There is a good argument to be made that some statewide rules should apply very differently to rural areas who have low risk of contagion and incredibly high risk of economic failure.

"B cannot be the explanation because Cities X and Y have difference A. So that must explain the difference because it matches my conclusion better."

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1360
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3202 on: May 14, 2020, 10:24:28 AM »
"B cannot be the explanation because Cities X and Y have difference A. So that must explain the difference because it matches my conclusion better."

So if you can't dismiss a rebuttal, parody it?

You are insisting B is the explanation because it matches your conclusion better. Your parody applies to you as well.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3203 on: May 14, 2020, 01:34:13 PM »
"B cannot be the explanation because Cities X and Y have difference A. So that must explain the difference because it matches my conclusion better."

So if you can't dismiss a rebuttal, parody it?

You are insisting B is the explanation because it matches your conclusion better. Your parody applies to you as well.

Dismissing would be saying that your explanation is dumb or ridiculous. My rather snarky reply is closer to reducing your statement down to its logical construction. So, no, I didn't dismiss. Parody maybe.

Medical experts who do research in this field have studied that social distancing reduces the spread of the disease. Cities that implemented social distancing earlier and harder have seen better results overall. You claim that it's not due to social distancing but due to the NYC metro. If that were true, then we would see that people who ride public transit even in cities such as Seattle or San Fran would have higher rates of covid. But they don't.

No my statement is more in line with:

"Medical experts and researchers have concluded that implementing B reduces the R0 thus by reducing the number of people who get infected. They have already modeled this even in rural areas and have suggested that social distancing will be necessary even for them. This is further evidenced by comparing the social distancing policies of Seattle and NYC. 'A' may be a small factor, but is not a primary cause."

Michael in ABQ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
    • Military Saints
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3204 on: May 14, 2020, 03:02:10 PM »
"B cannot be the explanation because Cities X and Y have difference A. So that must explain the difference because it matches my conclusion better."

So if you can't dismiss a rebuttal, parody it?

You are insisting B is the explanation because it matches your conclusion better. Your parody applies to you as well.

Dismissing would be saying that your explanation is dumb or ridiculous. My rather snarky reply is closer to reducing your statement down to its logical construction. So, no, I didn't dismiss. Parody maybe.

Medical experts who do research in this field have studied that social distancing reduces the spread of the disease. Cities that implemented social distancing earlier and harder have seen better results overall. You claim that it's not due to social distancing but due to the NYC metro. If that were true, then we would see that people who ride public transit even in cities such as Seattle or San Fran would have higher rates of covid. But they don't.

No my statement is more in line with:

"Medical experts and researchers have concluded that implementing B reduces the R0 thus by reducing the number of people who get infected. They have already modeled this even in rural areas and have suggested that social distancing will be necessary even for them. This is further evidenced by comparing the social distancing policies of Seattle and NYC. 'A' may be a small factor, but is not a primary cause."

Is the same policy applicable in rural upstate New York as in New York City? Should local conditions be taken into account or should the government enact blanket policies at the state or national level?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3205 on: May 14, 2020, 03:52:38 PM »
"B cannot be the explanation because Cities X and Y have difference A. So that must explain the difference because it matches my conclusion better."

So if you can't dismiss a rebuttal, parody it?

You are insisting B is the explanation because it matches your conclusion better. Your parody applies to you as well.

Dismissing would be saying that your explanation is dumb or ridiculous. My rather snarky reply is closer to reducing your statement down to its logical construction. So, no, I didn't dismiss. Parody maybe.

Medical experts who do research in this field have studied that social distancing reduces the spread of the disease. Cities that implemented social distancing earlier and harder have seen better results overall. You claim that it's not due to social distancing but due to the NYC metro. If that were true, then we would see that people who ride public transit even in cities such as Seattle or San Fran would have higher rates of covid. But they don't.

No my statement is more in line with:

"Medical experts and researchers have concluded that implementing B reduces the R0 thus by reducing the number of people who get infected. They have already modeled this even in rural areas and have suggested that social distancing will be necessary even for them. This is further evidenced by comparing the social distancing policies of Seattle and NYC. 'A' may be a small factor, but is not a primary cause."

Is the same policy applicable in rural upstate New York as in New York City? Should local conditions be taken into account or should the government enact blanket policies at the state or national level?

There should be both. There should be a national policy, state level policy, and local level policy. And it is up to your leaders to effectively communicate and enforce those measures. New York City cannot run an effective quarantine without the support of surrounding municipalities having a unified strategy through the state government. And States cannot all afford to run individual tests, trials, and research without the federal government purchasing that research for the benefit of all states.

There is already a policy difference between NY and NYC, so I'm not sure why you seem to think the NYC lockdown is being applied to the entire state. There are state-level policies, and then there are city specific policies layered on top of that. And the professionals that determine the effectiveness of certain policies are in the CDC, so the only alternative to science being suggested here is to shrug and say "maybe this won't kill as many people as they say it will". If you don't trust professionals to actually give us good data and information, then the only alternative people like Amash are saying is to let any old mayor or business owner throw their hands up in the air and say "I don't know... Let's just open and see what happens."

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5668
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3206 on: May 16, 2020, 12:10:24 PM »
Amash just dropped out.

That didn’t last long.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3207 on: May 16, 2020, 11:09:47 PM »
Amash just dropped out.

That didn’t last long.
Think Nader or Perot called him?

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3208 on: May 16, 2020, 11:13:44 PM »
Amash just dropped out.

That didn’t last long.
Think Nader or Perot called him?
Probably not Ross Perot...

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13562
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3209 on: May 17, 2020, 05:03:29 AM »
Amash just dropped out.

That didn’t last long.
Think Nader or Perot called him?
Probably not Ross Perot...
Why not? You don’t think Amash would listen to the ghost of third-parties past?:-P

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3210 on: May 17, 2020, 06:12:19 AM »
Amash just dropped out.

That didn’t last long.
I guess that puts Vermin Supreme in the lead for LP Pres.  LOL

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3914
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3211 on: May 27, 2020, 06:45:11 AM »
I find myself very alone when I start to argue this, but I don't think Perot caused Clinton's 1992 win. He was a sign of a weak incumbent.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13562
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3212 on: May 27, 2020, 06:56:15 AM »
I find myself very alone when I start to argue this, but I don't think Perot caused Clinton's 1992 win. He was a sign of a weak incumbent.

I agree.  Perot may have allowed for an even bigger Clinton landslide, but George H W Bush had truly awful approval numbers going into his re-election.  According to fivethirtyeight in September 1992, Bush had 32.6% approval rating and a 55.5% disapproval rating.

No amount of favorable electoral college breakdown can overcome an approval rating in the low 30s.

Put another way, Clinton's victory looks much less impressive in hindsight.  Almost anyone could have beaten a sitting president that unpopular, with or without a 3rd party "spoiler".  Only Jimmy Carter was as unpopular going into re-election, and he also got creamed.

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1360
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3213 on: May 27, 2020, 08:58:26 AM »
Same.

I get that realistically, for now, the president will be either the R or the D, but the notion that any other potential options are "stealing" votes from either candidate or that they play "spoiler"  is the language that normalizes and entrenches what George Washington warned us about - the alternate domination of one party over another, eventually causing folks to seek security in the absolute power of an individual.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3214 on: May 27, 2020, 09:44:22 AM »
Same.

I get that realistically, for now, the president will be either the R or the D, but the notion that any other potential options are "stealing" votes from either candidate or that they play "spoiler"  is the language that normalizes and entrenches what George Washington warned us about - the alternate domination of one party over another, eventually causing folks to seek security in the absolute power of an individual.

Except in a way, GW was wrong. There is a struggle between 2 parties, but eventually the Whigs died out. And American democracy continued by another party taking its place. And even then you've had factions of parties that then struggle for the soul of the party.

The radical republicans of the Reconstruction Era. The Stalwarts that more or less caused the assassination of Garfield. The Bull-Moose/ Populist parties of the early 1900's. The socialist/communist movements of the 50's, the party realignments during the Civil Rights era. And I believe today we will see the old guard die off in the next 15 years and the politics of both parties will shift quite dramatically.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16649
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3215 on: May 27, 2020, 11:45:17 AM »
Same.

I get that realistically, for now, the president will be either the R or the D, but the notion that any other potential options are "stealing" votes from either candidate or that they play "spoiler"  is the language that normalizes and entrenches what George Washington warned us about - the alternate domination of one party over another, eventually causing folks to seek security in the absolute power of an individual.

Except in a way, GW was wrong. There is a struggle between 2 parties, but eventually the Whigs died out. And American democracy continued by another party taking its place. And even then you've had factions of parties that then struggle for the soul of the party.

The radical republicans of the Reconstruction Era. The Stalwarts that more or less caused the assassination of Garfield. The Bull-Moose/ Populist parties of the early 1900's. The socialist/communist movements of the 50's, the party realignments during the Civil Rights era. And I believe today we will see the old guard die off in the next 15 years and the politics of both parties will shift quite dramatically.

Republican party politics have shifted dramatically since even just the Reagan administration.  They're almost a completely different party right now.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5668
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3216 on: May 27, 2020, 11:56:02 AM »
Same.

I get that realistically, for now, the president will be either the R or the D, but the notion that any other potential options are "stealing" votes from either candidate or that they play "spoiler"  is the language that normalizes and entrenches what George Washington warned us about - the alternate domination of one party over another, eventually causing folks to seek security in the absolute power of an individual.

Except in a way, GW was wrong. There is a struggle between 2 parties, but eventually the Whigs died out. And American democracy continued by another party taking its place. And even then you've had factions of parties that then struggle for the soul of the party.

The radical republicans of the Reconstruction Era. The Stalwarts that more or less caused the assassination of Garfield. The Bull-Moose/ Populist parties of the early 1900's. The socialist/communist movements of the 50's, the party realignments during the Civil Rights era. And I believe today we will see the old guard die off in the next 15 years and the politics of both parties will shift quite dramatically.

Republican party politics have shifted dramatically since even just the Reagan administration.  They're almost a completely different party right now.

Well, except for using dog-whistle racism.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3217 on: May 27, 2020, 12:44:53 PM »
Same.

I get that realistically, for now, the president will be either the R or the D, but the notion that any other potential options are "stealing" votes from either candidate or that they play "spoiler"  is the language that normalizes and entrenches what George Washington warned us about - the alternate domination of one party over another, eventually causing folks to seek security in the absolute power of an individual.

Except in a way, GW was wrong. There is a struggle between 2 parties, but eventually the Whigs died out. And American democracy continued by another party taking its place. And even then you've had factions of parties that then struggle for the soul of the party.

The radical republicans of the Reconstruction Era. The Stalwarts that more or less caused the assassination of Garfield. The Bull-Moose/ Populist parties of the early 1900's. The socialist/communist movements of the 50's, the party realignments during the Civil Rights era. And I believe today we will see the old guard die off in the next 15 years and the politics of both parties will shift quite dramatically.

Republican party politics have shifted dramatically since even just the Reagan administration.  They're almost a completely different party right now.

Well, except for using dog-whistle racism.

Yeah, I'd say they're more or less the same today as Nixon-era GOP. They just got worse at economics when Reagan decided that "trickle-down" was a thing. Most populist/younger GOP don't seem to believe in this like Reagan through Trump did. The GOP's autopsy report from 2008/2012 did mention trying to appeal more to Latinos that would have been more in line with a Reagan/Bush strategy, but Trump found a small hole of disaffected northern whites to win him the presidency. I imagine that after Trump, the older GOP will try to realign around a Reagan/Bush type strategy.

The younger left is starting to rally around FDR style politics, so I could imagine the younger GOP looking more like an Eisenhower style party.

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1360
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3218 on: May 27, 2020, 04:08:19 PM »
Same.

I get that realistically, for now, the president will be either the R or the D, but the notion that any other potential options are "stealing" votes from either candidate or that they play "spoiler"  is the language that normalizes and entrenches what George Washington warned us about - the alternate domination of one party over another, eventually causing folks to seek security in the absolute power of an individual.

Except in a way, GW was wrong. There is a struggle between 2 parties, but eventually the Whigs died out. And American democracy continued by another party taking its place. And even then you've had factions of parties that then struggle for the soul of the party.

The radical republicans of the Reconstruction Era. The Stalwarts that more or less caused the assassination of Garfield. The Bull-Moose/ Populist parties of the early 1900's. The socialist/communist movements of the 50's, the party realignments during the Civil Rights era. And I believe today we will see the old guard die off in the next 15 years and the politics of both parties will shift quite dramatically.

Well, he was ultimately right in that the alternate domination causes us to elect presidents that we demand act as emperors. We've all but dismissed the idea that our laws should come from congress and instead we focus our limited attention/aggression on the presidential candidate to see what laws they will enact via executive order - which is a tacit admission that we don't really want a congress.  We want a president who will deliver on their multitude of promises no matter what.


pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1696
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3219 on: May 27, 2020, 05:37:50 PM »

- BIG SNIP -

The younger left is starting to rally around FDR style politics, so I could imagine the younger GOP looking more like an Eisenhower style party.

I think either is a huge improvement. 

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3220 on: May 27, 2020, 10:17:47 PM »
Can I bleach my brain now:

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3221 on: May 30, 2020, 03:08:22 PM »
^That is a good look, but (and I'm surprised I can say this about a VP nominee) what is the deal with his left nipple?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13562
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3222 on: May 30, 2020, 06:10:35 PM »
Heard the Libertarian candidate - Jo Jorgensen - give an interview on NPR.  In under a minute she eliminated any notion I might have had of voting for the Libertarians this cycle (and perhaps any cycle).

She claimed that government “house arrest” orders were solely responsible for the crash in the economy, not the pandemic.  In her view, individuals should be the only ones to decide whether they were a risk to society, and if allowed to make their own decisions all people would do what was best in a global pandemic.  She said testing would have allowed everyone to make an informed decision, but no one should be compelled to take a test or have their temperature taken.

In what was an obvious question, she was asked about her VP - Spike Cohen  - a self described anarchist who once ran for office promising everyone a free pony.  Curiously Jorgensen said she and Spike had more experience holding office than Joe Biden.  Even more strange, she said that Cohen now was a libertarian, and was following her platform.  Twice she said the platform and views came from her, rather than her subscribing to the libertarian ideology.  “We have a platform that is mine.”

Read the transcript or listen to the interview here:
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/30/866059206/libertarians-name-2020-candidate-meet-jo-jorgensen


Michael in ABQ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
    • Military Saints
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3223 on: May 31, 2020, 06:56:18 AM »
Same.

I get that realistically, for now, the president will be either the R or the D, but the notion that any other potential options are "stealing" votes from either candidate or that they play "spoiler"  is the language that normalizes and entrenches what George Washington warned us about - the alternate domination of one party over another, eventually causing folks to seek security in the absolute power of an individual.

Except in a way, GW was wrong. There is a struggle between 2 parties, but eventually the Whigs died out. And American democracy continued by another party taking its place. And even then you've had factions of parties that then struggle for the soul of the party.

The radical republicans of the Reconstruction Era. The Stalwarts that more or less caused the assassination of Garfield. The Bull-Moose/ Populist parties of the early 1900's. The socialist/communist movements of the 50's, the party realignments during the Civil Rights era. And I believe today we will see the old guard die off in the next 15 years and the politics of both parties will shift quite dramatically.

Well, he was ultimately right in that the alternate domination causes us to elect presidents that we demand act as emperors. We've all but dismissed the idea that our laws should come from congress and instead we focus our limited attention/aggression on the presidential candidate to see what laws they will enact via executive order - which is a tacit admission that we don't really want a congress.  We want a president who will deliver on their multitude of promises no matter what.

This also goes into the politicization of the Supreme Court. Congress doesn't write laws we want so legislation is now abdicated to the Legislative and Executive branches. If they didn't write 1,000 pages bills that are full of places for regulations to fill in the details we wouldn't need the Supreme Court to intervene in every major (and many minor) pieces of legislation.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13562
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3224 on: May 31, 2020, 09:22:09 AM »
Same.

I get that realistically, for now, the president will be either the R or the D, but the notion that any other potential options are "stealing" votes from either candidate or that they play "spoiler"  is the language that normalizes and entrenches what George Washington warned us about - the alternate domination of one party over another, eventually causing folks to seek security in the absolute power of an individual.

Except in a way, GW was wrong. There is a struggle between 2 parties, but eventually the Whigs died out. And American democracy continued by another party taking its place. And even then you've had factions of parties that then struggle for the soul of the party.

The radical republicans of the Reconstruction Era. The Stalwarts that more or less caused the assassination of Garfield. The Bull-Moose/ Populist parties of the early 1900's. The socialist/communist movements of the 50's, the party realignments during the Civil Rights era. And I believe today we will see the old guard die off in the next 15 years and the politics of both parties will shift quite dramatically.

Well, he was ultimately right in that the alternate domination causes us to elect presidents that we demand act as emperors. We've all but dismissed the idea that our laws should come from congress and instead we focus our limited attention/aggression on the presidential candidate to see what laws they will enact via executive order - which is a tacit admission that we don't really want a congress.  We want a president who will deliver on their multitude of promises no matter what.

This also goes into the politicization of the Supreme Court. Congress doesn't write laws we want so legislation is now abdicated to the Legislative and Executive branches. If they didn't write 1,000 pages bills that are full of places for regulations to fill in the details we wouldn't need the Supreme Court to intervene in every major (and many minor) pieces of legislation.

Are you insinuating that SCOTUS is more ‘active’ today than in previous generations?  If so, what evidence do you have to support such a notion?

From an historical perspective, I don’t see the courts weighing in any more (or less) frequently or with any more (or less) ideological bias than they did in the eighteenth, nineteenth or twentieth centuries.  Further, one could argue that the founders recognized these inherent tendencies and designed the courts with this in mind (i.e. nine justices with lifetime appointments and numerous other safeguards to prevent overt influence by the other branches of government).

THe one area where there does seem to be evidence of polarization is with the nomination process, with most of the most recent justices being confirmed with scant majorities and largely along party lines - though there is certainly a few historical nominations which went along similar routes.  Though I haven’t seen much evidence that even a cantankerous nomination results in more or less polarization one seated either among justices or with individual rulings.

‘Legislating from the bench’ is an oft-heard phrase whenever one side doesn’t agree with a court’s ruling, whereas rulings they do agree with are typically described as “originalist’ or ‘sound legal ____’. In other words, the ‘abdication’ of legislation to the courts is largely in the eye of the beholder.

Michael in ABQ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
    • Military Saints
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3225 on: May 31, 2020, 10:03:33 AM »
Same.

I get that realistically, for now, the president will be either the R or the D, but the notion that any other potential options are "stealing" votes from either candidate or that they play "spoiler"  is the language that normalizes and entrenches what George Washington warned us about - the alternate domination of one party over another, eventually causing folks to seek security in the absolute power of an individual.

Except in a way, GW was wrong. There is a struggle between 2 parties, but eventually the Whigs died out. And American democracy continued by another party taking its place. And even then you've had factions of parties that then struggle for the soul of the party.

The radical republicans of the Reconstruction Era. The Stalwarts that more or less caused the assassination of Garfield. The Bull-Moose/ Populist parties of the early 1900's. The socialist/communist movements of the 50's, the party realignments during the Civil Rights era. And I believe today we will see the old guard die off in the next 15 years and the politics of both parties will shift quite dramatically.

Well, he was ultimately right in that the alternate domination causes us to elect presidents that we demand act as emperors. We've all but dismissed the idea that our laws should come from congress and instead we focus our limited attention/aggression on the presidential candidate to see what laws they will enact via executive order - which is a tacit admission that we don't really want a congress.  We want a president who will deliver on their multitude of promises no matter what.

This also goes into the politicization of the Supreme Court. Congress doesn't write laws we want so legislation is now abdicated to the Legislative and Executive branches. If they didn't write 1,000 pages bills that are full of places for regulations to fill in the details we wouldn't need the Supreme Court to intervene in every major (and many minor) pieces of legislation.

Are you insinuating that SCOTUS is more ‘active’ today than in previous generations?  If so, what evidence do you have to support such a notion?

From an historical perspective, I don’t see the courts weighing in any more (or less) frequently or with any more (or less) ideological bias than they did in the eighteenth, nineteenth or twentieth centuries.  Further, one could argue that the founders recognized these inherent tendencies and designed the courts with this in mind (i.e. nine justices with lifetime appointments and numerous other safeguards to prevent overt influence by the other branches of government).

THe one area where there does seem to be evidence of polarization is with the nomination process, with most of the most recent justices being confirmed with scant majorities and largely along party lines - though there is certainly a few historical nominations which went along similar routes.  Though I haven’t seen much evidence that even a cantankerous nomination results in more or less polarization one seated either among justices or with individual rulings.

‘Legislating from the bench’ is an oft-heard phrase whenever one side doesn’t agree with a court’s ruling, whereas rulings they do agree with are typically described as “originalist’ or ‘sound legal ____’. In other words, the ‘abdication’ of legislation to the courts is largely in the eye of the beholder.

I would argue that the amount of emphasis the public places on the Supreme Court to decide things their way is what has changed. I can't say what things were like 50-100 years ago but I don't think people placed as much emphasis on having the Supreme Court make policy as they have in the last few decades.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3226 on: May 31, 2020, 03:16:39 PM »
I would argue that the amount of emphasis the public places on the Supreme Court to decide things their way is what has changed. I can't say what things were like 50-100 years ago but I don't think people placed as much emphasis on having the Supreme Court make policy as they have in the last few decades.

Dredd Scott - 1857 - Blacks who's ancestors were brought to the US as slaves are not citizens themselves, and have no standing to sue anyone. Also slaves are property, and no law can be made depriving someone of their property.

Homer Plessy - 1896 - Finding that "separate but equal" does not violate the constitution so segregated accommodations were perfectly fine.

Abrams v US - 1919 - Finding that "disloyal language" was not protected free speech and therefore anti-war activists can in fact be jailed under the Espionage Act.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon - 1923 - Finding that taxpayers don't have standing to sue over what their taxes go for (someone sued because the feds started funding health services for mothers and infants).

Buck v. Bell - 1927 - Finding that forced sterilization of mentally incompetent people was perfectly fine and legal.

Near v. Minnesota - 1931 - Finding that the press is in fact free and can say what it wants, regardless of whether politicians like it or not.

Brown v. Board of Education - 1954 - Finally finding that "separate but equal" was not in fact constitutional and desegregating schools.

Engel v. Vitale - 1962 - Finding that forced prayer in public schools is in fact unconstitutional, since it's a branch of the government "establishing a religion".

Gideon v. Wainwright - 1963 - Establishing a public defender as a basic right.

Reynold v. Sims - 1964 - Requiring legislative districts to be of equal population.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US - 1964 - Establishing that the Civil Rights Act was in fact constitutional.

Miranda v. Arizona - 1966 - Where the "Miranda Rights" come from.

Loving v. Virginia - 1967 - Striking down bans on interracial marriage.

Terry v. Ohio - 1968 - Establishing the "probable cause" metric for police searches.

Brandenburg v. Ohio - 1969 - Establishing that speech is free even when it comes from Nazis' and the KKK and that you can only prosecute people for directly inciting "imminent lawless action".

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. - 1971 - Finding that family status (like whether you have kids) is part of the Civil Rights Act and therefore you can't discriminate by that criterion.

Wisconsin v. Yoder  - 1972- Finding that the state can't force your kids to go to school if it's against the parent's religion.

Roe v. Wade - 1973


These are all 47-163 year old cases, and they're just ones I picked from a list after a quick google. I think it's a completely baseless assumption that the court "didn't used to be politicized as much", do you have any evidence of that?

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3227 on: May 31, 2020, 07:09:51 PM »


‘Legislating from the bench’ is an oft-heard phrase whenever one side doesn’t agree with a court’s ruling, whereas rulings they do agree with are typically described as “originalist’ or ‘sound legal ____’. In other words, the ‘abdication’ of legislation to the courts is largely in the eye of the beholder.

 "An activist court is a court that makes a decision you don't like." Justice Kennedy

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3228 on: May 31, 2020, 07:23:53 PM »



I would argue that the amount of emphasis the public places on the Supreme Court to decide things their way is what has changed. I can't say what things were like 50-100 years ago but I don't think people placed as much emphasis on having the Supreme Court make policy as they have in the last few decades.


 The Supreme Court of the United States is the guardian of the Constitution.

The precedents the Court has handed down since the 1920s have been a remarkable boon to the liberty of civil society.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 09:24:01 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3914
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3229 on: June 09, 2020, 06:56:25 AM »
What about Lochner?