2016 US Presidential Election Thread

[shaft.ed]

if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS

[CooLDoG]

I can't make myself vote for Hilary because I know she will basically be the same as a generic republican, thus when she gets the now I will not vote in this election, probably. It really depends on what local shit is going down.

???????

??????????????????

??

?????????????

?????????

She is literally performing fellatio for money right now. I am not joking, it is happening. If you think there will be any economic difference between her and fucking rand paul you are wrong. Her stances on social issues are also so safe a mediocre that I can't be bothered to vote for her.

[SleepyKrew]

There are no errors in the above post yup yup none at all

[Vi]

if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS

this this this this this

this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose

[MonkeyMan576]

if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS

this this this this this

this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose

This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.

[shaft.ed]

if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS

this this this this this

this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose

This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.

its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants

Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court

[MonkeyMan576]

if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS

this this this this this

this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose

This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.

its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants

Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court

True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.

And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.

For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)

Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama

Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II

John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II

Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton

Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton

Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton

Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan

William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I

John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon

So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.

Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.

[AniX]

if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS

this this this this this

this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose

This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.

its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants

Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court

True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.

And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.

For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)

Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama

Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II

John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II

Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton

Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton

Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton

Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan

William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I

John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon

So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.

Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.

Are you really of the opinion Stevens and Brennan were rubbing their hands going "I better resign now or a LIBERAL might take my seat"?

[zoraster]

Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.

This is kind of a nonsense stat for predictive purposes. Is it REALLY less likey? If I flip a coin 4 times, it is unlikely to end up heads every single time. But if I've flipped 3 heads it's still 50/50 i'll get a heads next time.

Unless you can come up with a cogent theory on WHY this is a phenomenon, given the small sample size (43 presidents [not counting Cleveland twice]) this isn't very convincing.

[AniX]

Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.

This is kind of a nonsense stat for predictive purposes. Is it REALLY less likey? If I flip a coin 4 times, it is unlikely to end up heads every single time. But if I've flipped 3 heads it's still 50/50 i'll get a heads next time.

Unless you can come up with a cogent theory on WHY this is a phenomenon, given the small sample size (43 presidents [not counting Cleveland twice]) this isn't very convincing.

To say nothing of the fact that people in the past got sick more and died earlier, it isn't all that surprising that historically we haven't seen a sequence of four old men going a full eight years at a hyper-stressful job.

[Aeronaut]

I can't make myself vote for Hilary because I know she will basically be the same as a generic republican, thus when she gets the now I will not vote in this election, probably. It really depends on what local shit is going down.

???????

??????????????????

??

?????????????

?????????

She is literally performing fellatio for money right now. I am not joking, it is happening. If you think there will be any economic difference between her and fucking rand paul you are wrong. Her stances on social issues are also so safe a mediocre that I can't be bothered to vote for her.

Eh, yea, I really don't know who I'm voting. It's the first time I've been able to, so that's kind of new.

I really kind of just wanted Chris Christie, but that's kind of down the shitter at this point

Hillary is OK, but also hasn't really wowed me or done much to make me see her as a president who's going to be any different (besides being female, o/c)

[MonkeyMan576]

if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS

this this this this this

this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose

This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.

its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants

Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court

True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.

And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.

For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)

Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama

Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II

John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II

Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton

Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton

Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton

Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan

William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I

John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon

So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.

Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.

Are you really of the opinion Stevens and Brennan were rubbing their hands going "I better resign now or a LIBERAL might take my seat"?

I am of the opinion that justices don't want their retirement to cause a major shift of ideology on the court.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/24/s ... retirement

YOUNG: But what about this idea that justices consider who their replacement might be? Ruth Marcus(ph) writes about the Washington Post, and she says of course justices can't be insensitive to the identity of their successors because they care about their work, and they want to care about who will pick up or, as she writes, dismantle it. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist has said in the past that it's not 100 percent true that they calculate, but sometimes they do.

What about that calculation, thinking about who the president will be when they retire?

TOTENBERG: Well, I think that they must think about it, but they also think about themselves and their contributions and whether they want to stay and think they have something yet to contribute, perhaps even more to contribute.

Here is another article supporting my argument:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/poli ... reme-court

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer should soon retire. That would be the responsible thing for them to do. Both have served with distinction on the Supreme Court for a substantial period of time; Ginsburg for almost 18 years, Breyer for 17. Both are unlikely to be able to outlast a two-term Republican presidential administration, should one supersede the Obama administration following the 2012 election. What’s more, both are, well, old: Ginsburg is now 78, the senior sitting justice. Breyer is 72.

Is such a suggestion an illicit politicization of the Court? No. It is simply a plea for realism, which is often difficult to muster in the face of the idolatry that suffuses popular thinking about the justices and their role in American democracy. There is no question that the justices are often strategic in deciding when to depart the bench, even if they are quiet about their aims.

This is kind of a nonsense stat for predictive purposes. Is it REALLY less likey? If I flip a coin 4 times, it is unlikely to end up heads every single time. But if I've flipped 3 heads it's still 50/50 i'll get a heads next time.



Unless you can come up with a cogent theory on WHY this is a phenomenon, given the small sample size (43 presidents [not counting Cleveland twice]) this isn't very convincing.

I'm not saying that it's less likely statistics wise, I'm saying that it's unlikely for it to have happened to 3 consecutive presidents, and I wouldn't be surprised for something to happen to the next sitting president from a historical perspective to cause them not to be reelected, especially considering Bush and Obama have had issues towards the end of their presidency.

The Republican party is stronger than the mainstream media makes them out to be, so, for example, if Hillary is elected, it all depends on the viability of the 2020 GOP candidate.

[AniX]

if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS

this this this this this

this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose

This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.

its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants

Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court

True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.

And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.

For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)

Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama

Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II

John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II

Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton

Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton

Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton

Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan

William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I

John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon

So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.

Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.

Are you really of the opinion Stevens and Brennan were rubbing their hands going "I better resign now or a LIBERAL might take my seat"?

I am of the opinion that justices don't want their retirement to cause a major shift of ideology on the court.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/24/s ... retirement

YOUNG: But what about this idea that justices consider who their replacement might be? Ruth Marcus(ph) writes about the Washington Post, and she says of course justices can't be insensitive to the identity of their successors because they care about their work, and they want to care about who will pick up or, as she writes, dismantle it. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist has said in the past that it's not 100 percent true that they calculate, but sometimes they do.

What about that calculation, thinking about who the president will be when they retire?

TOTENBERG: Well, I think that they must think about it, but they also think about themselves and their contributions and whether they want to stay and think they have something yet to contribute, perhaps even more to contribute.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying the justices don't care about who replaces them, I'm saying that if those justices were basing their retirements off getting a President who agreed with them, those two were so exceedingly liberal they certainly wouldn't have done so during Bush II. Sometimes elderly people need to retire. Let's not mistake correlation with causation, especially given there are only two choices.

[MonkeyMan576]

if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS

this this this this this

this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose

This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.

its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants

Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court

True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.

And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.

For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)

Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama

Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II

John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II

Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton

Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton

Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton

Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan

William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I

John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon

So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.

Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.

Are you really of the opinion Stevens and Brennan were rubbing their hands going "I better resign now or a LIBERAL might take my seat"?

I am of the opinion that justices don't want their retirement to cause a major shift of ideology on the court.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/24/s ... retirement

YOUNG: But what about this idea that justices consider who their replacement might be? Ruth Marcus(ph) writes about the Washington Post, and she says of course justices can't be insensitive to the identity of their successors because they care about their work, and they want to care about who will pick up or, as she writes, dismantle it. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist has said in the past that it's not 100 percent true that they calculate, but sometimes they do.

What about that calculation, thinking about who the president will be when they retire?

TOTENBERG: Well, I think that they must think about it, but they also think about themselves and their contributions and whether they want to stay and think they have something yet to contribute, perhaps even more to contribute.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying the justices don't care about who replaces them, I'm saying that if those justices were basing their retirements off getting a President who agreed with them, those two were so exceedingly liberal they certainly wouldn't have done so during Bush II. Sometimes elderly people need to retire. Let's not mistake correlation with causation, especially given there are only two choices.

I was making a general statement, not saying it qualifies for every justice. Some obviously more so than others.

[Drench]

I can't make myself vote for Hilary because I know she will basically be the same as a generic republican, thus when she gets the now I will not vote in this election, probably. It really depends on what local shit is going down.

???????

??????????????????

??

?????????????

?????????

She is literally performing fellatio for money right now. I am not joking, it is happening. If you think there will be any economic difference between her and fucking rand paul you are wrong. Her stances on social issues are also so safe a mediocre that I can't be bothered to vote for her.

talking to you is like travelling to a parallel universe honestly

[AniX]

I was making a general statement, not saying it qualifies for every justice. Some obviously more so than others.

But as many Justices on your list who were appointed and retired under the same party DISAGREE with the party they retired under as agree with the party. I don't think even your general statement stands up.

[Sudo_Nym]

I can't make myself vote for Hilary because I know she will basically be the same as a generic republican, thus when she gets the now I will not vote in this election, probably. It really depends on what local shit is going down.

???????

??????????????????

??

?????????????

?????????

She is literally performing fellatio for money right now. I am not joking, it is happening. If you think there will be any economic difference between her and fucking rand paul you are wrong. Her stances on social issues are also so safe a mediocre that I can't be bothered to vote for her.

talking to you is like travelling to a parallel universe honestly

And then playing chess with your clone.

[shaft.ed]

I really kind of just wanted Chris Christie,

why on earth?

[Aeronaut]

Before he became bridge-mafia don, I mean. I feel like he'd be a stronger leader foreign relations wise, mostly.

I'm also an independant and don't really lean either direction, because I honestly think going into an election with the ideal of "I will only vote this party" is sort of silly; if you like some of what the candidate on the other side is saying, then keeping an open mind is really the best thing to do.

[shaft.ed]

Before he became bridge-mafia don, I mean

he's always been that guy
he has decades long track record of this behavior

I also dont know what "stronger on foreign relations" you would expect from a guy like Christie. Maybe more of an asshole, but I wouldnt call that a strength

[OhGodMyLife]

Bernie is my guy

[OhGodMyLife]

But LOL to my home state and currently adopted state running the two biggest train wreck Republican Govs, Christie and Jindal

[zoraster]

Perry and Cruz.

[Sudo_Nym]

I'm hoping this is Nader's year.

[MonkeyMan576]

Which happens first, the confederate flag is removed from all state flags or a third party candidate wins the presidency?