Ruth Bader Ginsberg died

Crazyhole

Senior
Jun 4, 2004
2,204
3,225
113
There's a lot of truth to that argument, but there are plenty of loopholes too. Gerrymandering congressional districts so that one party has a perpetual advantage, for one, and stacking the courts ideologically, for another. Both parties are guilty of exploiting those loopholes.
Gerrymandering isn't always a bad thing. Yes, there have been a few instances of it being used egregiously but for the most part redrawing congressional lines is a necessity in a representive Republic as populations grow. If you want to make the argument that as population increases we should have more elected representatives that are closer to their constituency I can get on board with that possibility and it would be a better solution than changing how we vote for the president.
 

Capdanjou

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 14, 2020
733
578
93
Yup. They are all snakes in the grass who will stop at nothing to steal this election and the seat. They are like spoiled children throwing tantrums when they lose fair and square. Let's impeach again for the Pres doing his damn job?? Lol. Pelosi, Schumer, AOC embody what is wrong with politicians and why Americans don't trust them or the liberal media. Trump is draining the swamp. 4 more years and watch the left implode!!
So here is my attempt at balance. I'll agree, Trump is doing his job and what he has every right as the POTUS to do. I'll concede that several Democrats in congress are divisive and the suggestion of using impeachment to stop Trump is pretty outrageous. But that's as far as I'll go. There are similarly divisive congressmen on the right. Americans don't trust the left? Hillary, as hated as she is, still won the popular vote, so your math is off. Drain the swamp? Trump has done nothing of the sort. He's allowed family members with zero qualifications to oversee important aspects of government. That's called nepotism, and it's kinda swampish. Appointing lobbyists and industry executives to key positions in government is kinda swampish. Claiming that you are putting America first while continuing to manufacture the products you make for your brand in a foreign country, and employing visa workers for your businesses, that's pretty swampish.
 

litespeedhuskerfan

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Aug 27, 2006
18,451
10,077
113
I cannot tell you how delicious all this is right now...Dem after Dem trying to guilt Trump and the Senate into doing what Dems want instead of what the GOP wants...like they'd give a flying rats ass if the shoe was on the other foot. This is just one area where Dems are short sighted...Trump likes to make deals and negotiate....if the left had worked with him at all for the last 4 years, and not tried to un-lose the election 9 ways to Sunday, they could have made a deal on this issue. Work with him, have some foresight to ask for things like "No more SC nominee's if a vacancy opens up if we go along with (insert one of many things they fought him on)" etc etc. Trump would have done it. But noooooo. Now they look like that cartoon character that stepped on the rake and smashed themselves in the head, again and again.
 

Crazyhole

Senior
Jun 4, 2004
2,204
3,225
113
I cannot tell you how delicious all this is right now...Dem after Dem trying to guilt Trump and the Senate into doing what Dems want instead of what the GOP wants...like they'd give a flying rats ass if the shoe was on the other foot. This is just one area where Dems are short sighted...Trump likes to make deals and negotiate....if the left had worked with him at all for the last 4 years, and not tried to un-lose the election 9 ways to Sunday, they could have made a deal on this issue. Work with him, have some foresight to ask for things like "No more SC nominee's if a vacancy opens up if we go along with (insert one of many things they fought him on)" etc etc. Trump would have done it. But noooooo. Now they look like that cartoon character that stepped on the rake and smashed themselves in the head, again and again.
This is easily the most partisan congress we have had in at least 100 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GammaxuvirHusker

GammaxuvirHusker

Redshirt Freshman
Dec 8, 2014
561
753
93
So here is my attempt at balance. I'll agree, Trump is doing his job and what he has every right as the POTUS to do. I'll concede that several Democrats in congress are divisive and the suggestion of using impeachment to stop Trump is pretty outrageous. But that's as far as I'll go. There are similarly divisive congressmen on the right. Americans don't trust the left? Hillary, as hated as she is, still won the popular vote, so your math is off. Drain the swamp? Trump has done nothing of the sort. He's allowed family members with zero qualifications to oversee important aspects of government. That's called nepotism, and it's kinda swampish. Appointing lobbyists and industry executives to key positions in government is kinda swampish. Claiming that you are putting America first while continuing to manufacture the products you make for your brand in a foreign country, and employing visa workers for your businesses, that's pretty swampish.
"similarly divisive congressmen on the right"? How so? From what I've seen, the divisive Dims are the ones who're saying the country and everything it stands for is evil and it should all be torn down. The congressmen on the right who're called "divisive" are the ones who dare to push back against these Dims and call them out for the BS they spout.

Hillary won the national popular because of California. Remove California from the equation and President Trump wins the national popular vote by ~1.4 million. There is no better example of the importance of the electoral college than this.

No one man can drain the swamp, and truth be told this is the one area where I think President Trump has made some bad mistakes (Wray with the FBI, etc.). That said, I think it's a bit curious why you'd use his hiring of family members when just days ago a few historical peace deals were signed largely thanks to his son-in-law; something that the DC swamp dwellers had been unable (or unwilling) to do. I'd also argue that appointing business leaders to government positions is much less 'swampish' than appointing college professors who've never actually accomplished anything in their careers (as is the norm, it seems).

If President Trump's personal businesses use foreign labor to build his products, then I can see the hypocrisy there.
 
Last edited:

JoelBittner

Redshirt Freshman
Jun 14, 2010
570
718
93
I keep reading over and over how the 2 sides are mirror images of corruption and an equal threat to our democratic republic. I've never bought that. Primarily because one side accepts the peaceful transition of power and BHO's administration gave the game away. They refused to accept the outcome in 2016 and have said openly the violence will only stop if they get the outcome they desire. Same can be said for 2000 with the Bush victory (watch the 2002 Wellstone memorial and compare it to the upcoming Ginsburg memorial). This behavior is a recent change. They hated Reagan, but accepted the loss begrudgingly. They hate Newt, but accepted his 1994 sweeping victory, if only bitterly. They didn't accept the Abe Lincoln victory, and if they are returning to that mode I have grave concerns.

Below you'll see a near-perfect illustration of the 2 sides. Do you think these 2 people have the same definition of the word "compromise" ?




 
Last edited:

Capdanjou

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 14, 2020
733
578
93
"similarly divisive congressmen on the right"? How so? From what I've seen, the divisive Dims are the ones who're saying the country and everything it stands for is evil and it should all be torn down. The congressmen on the right who're called "divisive" are the ones who dare to push back against these Dims and call them out for the BS they spout.

Hillary won the national popular because of California. Remove California from the equation and President Trump wins the national popular vote by ~1.4 million. There is no better example of the importance of the electoral college than this.

No one man can drain the swamp, and truth be told this is the one area where I think President Trump has made some bad mistakes (Wray with the FBI, etc.). That said, I think it's a bit curious why you'd use his hiring of family members when just days ago a few historical peace deals were signed largely thanks to his son-in-law. I'd also argue that appointing business leaders to government positions is much less 'swampish' than appointing college professors who've never actually accomplished anything in their careers (as is the norm, it seems).

If President Trump's personal businesses use foreign labor to build his products, then I can see the hypocrisy there.
It's all about framing. When you frame the conversation like "the left doesn't like America," obviously the conversation is starting out on a negative footing. I could take a similar approach and say "the right hates Americans," because Democrats are Americans too, after all. So I see just how divisive Schumer, Pelosi and AOC are. But if you're telling me that Cruz, McConnell, Jordan, Crenshaw, and Scalise aren't equally divisive, well then we disagree. To a great many Americans they are every bit as divisive as the Democrats mentioned. Secondly, you can't remove California, that'd be like me saying Trump wouldn't have won if we remove Texas, besides if you remove California you also remove all of the votes that went for Trump. I'll admit that Kushner was central to a historic peace deal, hugely important. But in general putting family members in key positions is not a good move. His daughter touting Goya, for example, is not a good look. I'm on the fence about your last point. I agree that college professors are often eggheads who think the world is a classroom, and it's not. Life doesn't play out like some perfect equation imagined in a laboratory. On the other hand, I do have a problem with industry leading government decisions. You might argue that they are better positioned to understand how to wed policy and industry, but you can just as easily question whether their loyalty is in the bests interest of the public or industry.
 

TampaBaySkers

Senior
Oct 30, 2010
2,097
2,932
113
It's all about framing. When you frame the conversation like "the left doesn't like America," obviously the conversation is starting out on a negative footing. I could take a similar approach and say "the right hates Americans," because Democrats are Americans too, after all. So I see just how divisive Schumer, Pelosi and AOC are. But if you're telling me that Cruz, McConnell, Jordan, Crenshaw, and Scalise aren't equally divisive, well then we disagree. To a great many Americans they are every bit as divisive as the Democrats mentioned. Secondly, you can't remove California, that'd be like me saying Trump wouldn't have won if we remove Texas, besides if you remove California you also remove all of the votes that went for Trump. I'll admit that Kushner was central to a historic peace deal, hugely important. But in general putting family members in key positions is not a good move. His daughter touting Goya, for example, is not a good look. I'm on the fence about your last point. I agree that college professors are often eggheads who think the world is a classroom, and it's not. Life doesn't play out like some perfect equation imagined in a laboratory. On the other hand, I do have a problem with industry leading government decisions. You might argue that they are better positioned to understand how to wed policy and industry, but you can just as easily question whether their loyalty is in the bests interest of the public or industry.
I thought we had this conversation... paragraphs are your friends.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: GammaxuvirHusker

Crazyhole

Senior
Jun 4, 2004
2,204
3,225
113
It's all about framing. When you frame the conversation like "the left doesn't like America," obviously the conversation is starting out on a negative footing. I could take a similar approach and say "the right hates Americans," because Democrats are Americans too, after all. So I see just how divisive Schumer, Pelosi and AOC are. But if you're telling me that Cruz, McConnell, Jordan, Crenshaw, and Scalise aren't equally divisive, well then we disagree. To a great many Americans they are every bit as divisive as the Democrats mentioned. Secondly, you can't remove California, that'd be like me saying Trump wouldn't have won if we remove Texas, besides if you remove California you also remove all of the votes that went for Trump. I'll admit that Kushner was central to a historic peace deal, hugely important. But in general putting family members in key positions is not a good move. His daughter touting Goya, for example, is not a good look. I'm on the fence about your last point. I agree that college professors are often eggheads who think the world is a classroom, and it's not. Life doesn't play out like some perfect equation imagined in a laboratory. On the other hand, I do have a problem with industry leading government decisions. You might argue that they are better positioned to understand how to wed policy and industry, but you can just as easily question whether their loyalty is in the bests interest of the public or industry.
The whole California vs Texas thing doesn't really work here. Of course Trump would have lost without Texas because of the EC. The issue for the last 4 years has been about the popular vote and the point is that 1 state makes the entire difference in who would have won under that scenario due to population. Remove California out of the equation and the population is pretty equally divided or leans right, generally speaking. Its a legitimate, but irrelevant argument because the country is what it is.
 

Sinomatic

Junior
Nov 15, 2017
1,541
1,470
113
Anybody advocating for a popular vote system to elect a president should know that the founders considered that very briefly because a Democracy was not what they wanted. In fact they rejected that with a passion. Mob rule OR any one position with too much power were the situations they were constructing our form of government to avoid, resist, and reject.
 

GBRforLife1

Senior
Feb 18, 2020
2,260
3,460
113
Is it possible for you to have a normal conversation? Like are you like this in person? I voted for Bush 3 times. Great family. Grow up
Do you think it would go differently if you didn't start off with all this disingenuous garbage and idiotic lib talking points? You know full well we have the electoral college. You probably cried about it for a good 2 years after Novermber 2016. Does that stop you from posting some inane irrelevant comment? Apparently not not.

If you don't want people to call you out when you post garbage, stop posting garbage.
 

jmliehr

All-American
Nov 1, 2009
4,333
2,860
113
Anybody advocating for a popular vote system to elect a president should know that the founders considered that very briefly because a Democracy was not what they wanted. In fact they rejected that with a passion. Mob rule OR any one position with too much power were the situations they were constructing our form of government to avoid, resist, and reject.
But the founders didn’t dictate winner take all state electors, did they? That came over time and is the real issue many are arguing against. It is possible to win just 11 states and become President and the voters in many states are wasting their time to go out and vote because their vote won’t matter.

We are basically down to 4-8 states that are being actively campaigned in because the others are already basically decided. Over 10% of the electorate is one state, and it has gone red there are probably 10 million people in California who have 0 say in who is president. But that isn’t a federal issue, it’s a state and partisan two party issue. The original practice didn’t have tickets, #1 became President and #2 became VP. Should we do that.
 

huskerfan1414

Graduate Assistant
Oct 25, 2014
5,628
6,472
113
FFS...compromise to dems simply means we get what we want and you dont.

Fill the seat immediately. It should be done tomorrow. 2016 was an election and trump won, partly for this reason. Senate is republican, partly for this reason. SCOTUS candidates and backing the prez on SCOTUS is part of the reason things are the way they are.

F the democrats, they are threaten ing to burn down America. Why would anyone in their right mind listen to these people?
Plus they are scared of constitutional judges and judges that might be...ooooo...christian! Gasp! In America!??!

Fill the seat NOW.
 
Jul 3, 2010
3
7
3
The electoral college is a vestige of slavery, I assume you know that, right? People in rural states cling to the notion that it prevents states like California, NY and Texas from deciding the outcome of presidential elections, but they ignore the fact that it gives undue weight to some rural states over more populated states. In other words, one vote from a Nebraskan is the equivalent of several dozen votes of a Texan. If that still seems like a reasonable system, then consider that it wasn't always the Democrats winning the popular vote. There was a time not so long ago that the situation was reversed. The point is, you can't argue out of one side of your mouth that we live in a democracy, while celebrating the manipulation of that system to benefit a minority of voters. Why, because it won't always be as it is now. Roles reverse. Furthermore, your point that family and friends of yours have stopped voting because they're convinced that California is blue and will remain that way. For what its worth, the same is true in Texas for Democrats. I would argue this is yet another failing of the electoral college. People who live in states that reliably vote red or blue rightly understand that if they are in the minority their vote is for naught. How can you argue that this is a functioning system? And lastly, Roberts has been consistently conservative in his opinions with very few exceptions. Why are you focusing on just the handful of opinions you don't like? A court that leans too far one direction or the other will eventually lose credibility with the public. I realize you are a very conservative person, but not everyone in this country shares your views. Compromise is the genius of the American system. The one time compromise failed we had a civil war. You can scream at the top of your lungs all day long that this country has veered hard left, but the fact of the matter is power has shifted between the two parties for decades. Social issues have shifted to the left, then again what is your basis for comparison? What period of time in American history was better socially, according to you? Of course politically, conservatives have dominated the state and local landscape and largely redrawn the maps to ensure their dominance. You engage in nonstop whataboutisms. What about the dems? What about Hillary? You condone extremism on the right because you've made up your mind that liberals either have or would do the same given the chance. You claim to be a religious person, and yet in life you argue in favor of doing as much damage as possible to others just in case they might do it to you first. That's a paranoid way to live your life, man.
We don't live in a democracy though. The United States of America is a republic. Big difference between them, read up sometime you might understand why we have the electoral college.
 

Capdanjou

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 14, 2020
733
578
93
We don't live in a democracy though. The United States of America is a republic. Big difference between them, read up sometime you might understand why we have the electoral college.
Oh, but we do. The U.S. was indeed founded as republic, as you rightly point out, but if you had taken the same advice that you've given me, you might have learned that this nation of ours is probably better described as a democratic republic. Even as the founders wanted to keep the rabble out of government, constitutional reforms, including the Seventeenth Amendment, which specified that senators must be elected by the people; the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, and the Voting Rights Act, which protects the vote for persons of color, mean that government is accountable to the people. Unless you're suggesting those constitutional amendments betray the ideals of the founders, and should be repealed, then I'm afraid your claim is not entirely accurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmliehr
Jul 3, 2010
3
7
3
Oh, but we do. The U.S. was indeed founded as republic, as you rightly point out, but if you had taken the same advice that you've given me, you might have learned that this nation of ours is probably better described as a democratic republic. Even as the founders wanted to keep the rabble out of government, constitutional reforms, including the Seventeenth Amendment, which specified that senators must be elected by the people; the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, and the Voting Rights Act, which protects the vote for persons of color, mean that government is accountable to the people. Unless you're suggesting those constitutional amendments betray the ideals of the founders, and should be repealed, then I'm afraid your claim is not entirely accurate.
I do know the difference. I was just pointing out thatou were wrong thats all. The electoral college
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyLvr

Sinomatic

Junior
Nov 15, 2017
1,541
1,470
113
But the founders didn’t dictate winner take all state electors, did they? That came over time and is the real issue many are arguing against. It is possible to win just 11 states and become President and the voters in many states are wasting their time to go out and vote because their vote won’t matter.

We are basically down to 4-8 states that are being actively campaigned in because the others are already basically decided. Over 10% of the electorate is one state, and it has gone red there are probably 10 million people in California who have 0 say in who is president. But that isn’t a federal issue, it’s a state and partisan two party issue. The original practice didn’t have tickets, #1 became President and #2 became VP. Should we do that.
That is still no excuse to go trying to change elections of extremely powerful positions to a mob rule process
 

GammaxuvirHusker

Redshirt Freshman
Dec 8, 2014
561
753
93
Oh, but we do. The U.S. was indeed founded as republic, as you rightly point out, but if you had taken the same advice that you've given me, you might have learned that this nation of ours is probably better described as a democratic republic. Even as the founders wanted to keep the rabble out of government, constitutional reforms, including the Seventeenth Amendment, which specified that senators must be elected by the people; the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, and the Voting Rights Act, which protects the vote for persons of color, mean that government is accountable to the people. Unless you're suggesting those constitutional amendments betray the ideals of the founders, and should be repealed, then I'm afraid your claim is not entirely accurate.
If we're going to get super technical, out country is best described as a Democratic Constitutional Republic.

A quick, but informative video.
 

chipotlehusker

Junior
Gold Member
Dec 8, 2001
1,897
328
83
Austin Texas
I believe that Cruz has his sights set on being POTUS one day, so I don't think he's a legit candidate (though I think he'd be a great justice).

Gowdy is smart and seems like a by-the-book type of person, but he's made comments in the past that sounded too pro-DC for my liking. I wouldn't select him for anything.

For SCOTUS, I hope President Trump selects Amy Coney Barrett.

For FBI Director, I hope he selects Sidney Powell.
Cruz, a great candidate ! I live in Texas. Many Texans have a totally different opinion. Ted is slimy.
 

chipotlehusker

Junior
Gold Member
Dec 8, 2001
1,897
328
83
Austin Texas
I'll help. Please point out where it states that the POTUS cannot nominate a SCOTUS justice during an election year?

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
It doesn't. But that isn't the point. Moscow Mitch said that Obama couldn't appoint because it was too close to an election. Ha. It was 8 months then; now, with the RBG opening and less than 2 months, it's okay. Excuse me. I think it is totally hypocritical of the GOP. Neither a Dem nor a Republican, this is blatantly hypocritical ....
 

chipotlehusker

Junior
Gold Member
Dec 8, 2001
1,897
328
83
Austin Texas
the same obama who said we could keep out doctor, premiums would be reduced by 2500, deductibles would not change, all the while garnering control of 20% of the economy. Time to play by their rules, especially with the way Trump has been treated his first term.
Trump brought it all on himself and then enabled by the cult followers of the Senate . Koolaid anyone..
 

chipotlehusker

Junior
Gold Member
Dec 8, 2001
1,897
328
83
Austin Texas
Let’s not pretend the Dems wouldn’t do the exact same thing if the shoe were on the other foot. If they had controlled the Senate in 2016, they would definitely have seated a Justice in an election year - and they would have had every right to do so. As Obama told us: “Elections have consequences “.
Absolutely correct. Another reason for term limits, nearly impossible because both the Dem & GOP swamp creatures would never vote for term limits. See what that would do to them? They wouldn't give up their prestige (in their own eyes) and perks. Need term limits but never gonna happen.....reflects the malaise..
 

JoelBittner

Redshirt Freshman
Jun 14, 2010
570
718
93
JMO, but this is the fault of the voters. The voters have the power to remove bad officials. The voters could've removed all the people anyone here dislikes. But the voters would rather get high and watch TV than learn about their rulers. Very few people in this country know the name of their City council members, Mayor, Governor, Congressional reps, state legislature reps, PTA chairperson, etc.
Term limits just means we term out a Barbara Boxer and replace her with a Kamala Harris. Or we get rid of John Boehner and replace him with Paul Ryan. I realize no one is going to agree with me, but the only solution is an informed and participatory electorate. And what we have is a nation that is fat because we don't exercise our muscles, and stupid because we don't exercise our brain.
HG Wells did a good job of foreseeing this in his work: The Time Machine ........
The Time Traveller stops in A.D. 802,701, where he meets the Eloi, a society of small, elegant, childlike adults. They live in small communities within large and futuristic yet slowly deteriorating buildings, and adhere to a fruit-based diet. His efforts to communicate with them are hampered by their lack of curiosity or discipline (from wikipedia)
Wells thought it would take 800,000 years to get here. He has to be spinning in his grave knowing it took just a little over a century.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PvilleHuskerTim

leodisflowers

Graduate Assistant
Feb 25, 2011
5,840
3,650
113
North Carolina
It doesn't. But that isn't the point. Moscow Mitch said that Obama couldn't appoint because it was too close to an election. Ha. It was 8 months then; now, with the RBG opening and less than 2 months, it's okay. Excuse me. I think it is totally hypocritical of the GOP. Neither a Dem nor a Republican, this is blatantly hypocritical ....
Funny you use the word Moscow... Going to get interesting on that front.
 

leodisflowers

Graduate Assistant
Feb 25, 2011
5,840
3,650
113
North Carolina
Absolutely correct. Another reason for term limits, nearly impossible because both the Dem & GOP swamp creatures would never vote for term limits. See what that would do to them? They wouldn't give up their prestige (in their own eyes) and perks. Need term limits but never gonna happen.....reflects the malaise..
Term limits are a must.
 

GammaxuvirHusker

Redshirt Freshman
Dec 8, 2014
561
753
93
It doesn't. But that isn't the point. Moscow Mitch said that Obama couldn't appoint because it was too close to an election. Ha. It was 8 months then; now, with the RBG opening and less than 2 months, it's okay. Excuse me. I think it is totally hypocritical of the GOP. Neither a Dem nor a Republican, this is blatantly hypocritical ....
Mitch said that the Senate would not confirm a new justice when we were nearing the end of Obama's final term. That's the Senate's prerogative. The Constitution is clear on this. They didn't (nor could they) stop Obama from nominating someone.

You should educate yourself on the history of judicial nominees in election years and what the outcome was when the President and Senate are from opposing Parties. History repeats itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baseball31ne

huskernaut

First Team All-Big Ten
Nov 19, 2002
3,589
641
113
Trump brought it all on himself and then enabled by the cult followers of the Senate . Koolaid anyone..
Yes, this is completely on Trump. Everything. covid, BLM, violence, liberal stupidity....everything. Keep burning places down champ, pretty soon, people are going to start shooting back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baseball31ne

chicolby

All-American
May 3, 2012
4,119
3,592
113
Many people on here say that sports are becoming so politicized they want to tune it off. Interesting, many of those same people can't resist talking about politics on a sports site.

Maybe it's not that sports are politicized. Maybe it's that they have a different political view.
 

PvilleHuskerTim

Redshirt Freshman
Jun 21, 2001
512
434
63
That Noem lady may also have a shot on the national stage.
She is getting there, but not enough to have a strong national presence yet. Maybe in 4 years, with her current trajectory, she could be a presidential candidate. At the very least, I think she would be a top pick for VP by then.
 

Latest posts