Ruth Bader Ginsberg died

Tuco Salamanca

Offensive Coordinator
Aug 18, 2016
9,383
12,187
113
Albuquerque
Not joking about Sasse at all. We would be coming out of 8 straight years of a cult-of-personality president and people will be worn out from that. Sasse is the steady likeable type that comes across as knowing his stuff and that works in his favor. Haley is in that same mold. Paul will always be popular among the libertarian wing of the party so he's a player as long as he wants to be. Probably will never win, but still influential in a smaller field.
I agree in that Haley and Scott will be two of the front runners in 2024 especially if Biden wins. There will be a push for a non white male as the candidate.
 

wkato

Sophomore
Dec 23, 2006
1,260
799
113
First of all, you're assuming I support Biden. Secondly, it seems you're supporting a guy accused by multiple women of rape. A guy who has spent the entirety of his adult life being sued by friends and foes. But honestly, I don't want to engage in this tit for tat about the relative grotesqueries of Trump and Biden. I do not defend Biden. Why are you defending Trump?
You are assuming now. Your beef was one sided against Trump, nothing said about Biden. That leads me to believe you're a Biden fan. The difference between they're individual allegation, Biden's are all on video, all of them. Trumps are just that, allegations, none have been proven. In America, innocent till proven guilty. At least that's the way it's suppose to be. Everything they've thrown at Trump have failed, but yet they ignore the provable when it comes to Biden. Sniffing, touching of adults and children, using his position to save his son in Ukraine, the list goes on! Big bad Trump though, the one President that made promises and is actually trying to follow through.
I defend Trump because he made a promise and even though the Democrats tried to block, belittle, slander and impeach him to shut him down he still pressed forward with getting it done. Is he arrogant? Hell yes, but I don't give a rats ass if he's making this once great nation great again.
 

NikkiSixx

Graduate Assistant
Sep 14, 2013
5,524
3,670
113
Ben Sasse is the zipperhead moron you smoked a blunt with in college. That guy actually has no skills at all. Zero chance he is even considered for President. Pete Ricketts, who I can't stand, has a better shot than Ben.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GammaxuvirHusker

red scowl

Senior
May 19, 2018
2,260
1,612
113
But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent." https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/6244...errick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
Do as I say not as I do. Push the next Justice thru. A young extremely conservative constitutionalist judge.
 

Tuco Salamanca

Offensive Coordinator
Aug 18, 2016
9,383
12,187
113
Albuquerque
Do as I say not as I do. Push the next Justice thru. A young extremely conservative constitutionalist judge.
And if Obama had the senate numbers, he would have pushed through and won. But he didn't so he lost.

edit - we are all guilty, but it is funny how we can change on a dime. If we have the numbers to stop it, then the next President should do the nominating, if we don't have the numbers to stop it, then the other side is taking advantage. If we have the numbers to push it through, then it's a constitutional responsibility of the president to nominate and the senate to confirm.
 
Last edited:

litespeedhuskerfan

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Aug 27, 2006
17,977
9,143
113
The faces on the anchors for CNN this morning are priceless as they are coming to grasp with the fact they are powerless to stop what's about to happen.

Reminds me a little of the warden's face when he opened the shoe box only to find Andy's shoes instead of his and he hears the sirens coming down the road.... Shell shocked.
 

RaisingArizona

Walk On
Mar 30, 2009
355
336
63
Right. The establishment left rarely talks about workers rights or wages anymore. Everything is about race/gender/sexuality etc.
Bernie talked about increasing worker’s wage’s constantly. Not a fan of all things Bernie but there is certainly a portion of the left that talks a lot about working class wages.
 

JoelBittner

Walk On
Jun 14, 2010
292
428
63
Regarding the vote count, that's no longer a cudgel in light of what we know about nation-wide fraud thanks to the Daley model pioneered in Chicago. We live in a Republic, not a pure democracy. In a pure democracy 51% of the population can strip the other 49% of their rights. The founders understood this and wanted to protect the rights of 100% (and their creation worked, we started with rights for a few and expanded it to rights for all, and now we have millions of non-citizens with rights. That last part happened because we stopped following the constitution several decades ago which is why the SCOTUS selections have become increasingly important ).
So the founders created a system from their knowledge of the past. They looked at pure democracies and saw they collapsed quicker than a republic does. They borrowed ideas from several previous civilizations and added a dollop of mathematical architecture. 3 equal branches were needed to keep the tensile strength such that the nation could rebound from internal strife.
It's a commentary on our education system how many people don't know we live in a republic. It's like they don't know history, both ours and the worlds.
Lastly, the talk of hypocrisy is amusing. I'm sure the people fixated on that have never been hypocritical. Remember, a hypocrite who doesn't break the law is different from a hypocrite who does.

This video is great. You'll be glad you watched it.
 
Last edited:

Capdanjou

Walk On
Sep 14, 2020
427
219
43
The faces on the anchors for CNN this morning are priceless as they are coming to grasp with the fact they are powerless to stop what's about to happen.

Reminds me a little of the warden's face when he opened the shoe box only to find Andy's shoes instead of his and he hears the sirens coming down the road.... Shell shocked.
Trump will almost certainly seat a third judge, which is his right as POTUS. Absolutely no disputing that fact. Suffice it to say, the one time in American history when the court was stacked ideologically to one side, some political leaders, believing there was no justice to be found in the courts, simply advised others to ignore the court's rulings. That is a very dangerous precedent. Bottom line, without balance the court loses credibility. And before anyone says the left is to blame for original sin, remember that Trump stated publicly when rulings did not go his way that he might ignore SCOTUS opinions. The point is, the sentiment spans the divide. It's not unique to the right or left. Balance and compromise make the system work. Without reliable mechanisms for everyone to address societal disputes, especially for those not in power, people will take matters into their own hands. In no way, shape or form do I advocate for people taking matters into their own hands. What I am saying is that when people feel powerless, and they have no faith in the system, historically that has precipitated violence. Also, since I anticipate being attacked and insulted for this post, I would state, for the record, that I would not advocate for a left-leaning SCOTUS either. I take no pleasure in cramming my views down the throat of others, but I'm human, after all, and I do shift my stance when someone screams in my face just because our views diverge. In general, it's all about compromise.
 

egaRdeR

Walk On
Oct 17, 2019
208
299
63
Democrat party has gone all in on a guy who doesn't even know himself and likes to sniff people! Imagine your stance if Trump was filmed doing that over and over like Biden. Crazy isn't it?
Unfortunately you are both right. How can we not do better as a country, than one bat $hit crazy candidate vs one that has lost his mind?

The sooner more people realize BOTH parties are a mess the sooner we can move forward as a country.
 
Nov 23, 2003
1,503
297
83
Trump will almost certainly seat a third judge, which is his right as POTUS. Absolutely no disputing that fact. Suffice it to say, the one time in American history when the court was stacked ideologically to one side, some political leaders, believing there was no justice to be found in the courts, simply advised others to ignore the court's rulings. That is a very dangerous precedent. Bottom line, without balance the court loses credibility. And before anyone says the left is to blame for original sin, remember that Trump stated publicly when rulings did not go his way that he might ignore SCOTUS opinions. The point is, the sentiment spans the divide. It's not unique to the right or left. Balance and compromise make the system work. Without reliable mechanisms for everyone to address societal disputes, especially for those not in power, people will take matters into their own hands. In no way, shape or form do I advocate for people taking matters into their own hands. What I am saying is that when people feel powerless, and they have no faith in the system, historically that has precipitated violence. Also, since I anticipate being attacked and insulted for this post, I would state, for the record, that I would not advocate for a left-leaning SCOTUS either. I take no pleasure in cramming my views down the throat of others, but I'm human, after all, and I do shift my stance when someone screams in my face just because our views diverge. In general, it's all about compromise.

So you want "balance and compromise" when it comes to the SCOTUS, but not with elections. Got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wkato

Capdanjou

Walk On
Sep 14, 2020
427
219
43
So you want "balance and compromise" when it comes to the SCOTUS, but not with elections. Got it.
Thanks for proving my point. And no, I never said my desire to see balance and compromise government is limited SCOTUS. I'd like to see it across government. You seem to forget there was a time when compromise actually existed in our government. I understand full well that means you win some and you lose some.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baseball31ne
Nov 23, 2003
1,503
297
83
Thanks for proving my point. And no, I never said my desire to see balance and compromise government is limited SCOTUS. I'd like to see it across government. You seem to forget there was a time when compromise actually existed in our government. I understand full well that means you win some and you lose some.
So then i assume you've changed your position from yesterday on the electoral college then?
 

Capdanjou

Walk On
Sep 14, 2020
427
219
43
So then i assume you've changed your position from yesterday on the electoral college then?
No, I haven't. I still favor one man, one vote. I disagree that the vote of a Nebraskan should be valued dozens of times greater when compared to that of a New Yorker or a Texan. You don't agree. I think you are wrong. I believe that most political scientists, historians and political leaders from around the world would tell you that our system is antiquated, and they'd probably lay out their arguments in a more elegant fashion than I have on the board. I think the people who defend the EC are doing so largely out of familiarity or because they think it's fairer to rural states. But I think it takes serious mental gymnastics to make a logical argument that some votes should be given greater weight than others. You're viewing this as a New Yorker vs. Nebraskan, for example. Someone posted a map of the 2016 election, showing all of the areas that went for Trump, which dominate the map when compared to the blue sections that went for Hillary. What that map ignores is that not ever voter in the red sections voted red, and not all the voters in the blue sections voted blue. A more accurate picture of how the electorate voted would be shades of red, blue and purple. But I've made this point, and you disagree. That's fine with me. We have the system that we have. That's the way it is. Moving along.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chicolby
Nov 23, 2003
1,503
297
83
No, I haven't. I still favor one man, one vote. I disagree that the vote of a Nebraskan should be valued dozens of times greater when compared to that of a New Yorker or a Texan. You don't agree. I think you are wrong. I believe that most political scientists, historians and political leaders from around the world would tell you that our system is antiquated, and they'd probably lay out their arguments in a more elegant fashion than I have on the board. I think the people who defend the EC are doing so largely out of familiarity or because they think it's fairer to rural states. But I think it takes serious mental gymnastics to make a logical argument that some votes should be given greater weight than others. You're viewing this as a New Yorker vs. Nebraskan, for example. Someone posted a map of the 2016 election, showing all of the areas that went for Trump, which dominate the map when compared to the blue sections that went for Hillary. What that map ignores is that not ever voter in the red sections voted red, and not all the voters in the blue sections voted blue. A more accurate picture of how the electorate voted would be shades of red, blue and purple. But I've made this point, and you disagree. That's fine with me. We have the system that we have. That's the way it is. Moving along.

But you're perfectly fine having 24 states/territories not get to vote in the Democratic Primaries because the delegate count was perceived as too great to overcome. Not an accurate picture either.

Question. Do you believe that all of Bernie's supporters are voting for Biden or against Trump?
 

PvilleHuskerTim

Walk On
Jun 21, 2001
466
374
63
No, I haven't. I still favor one man, one vote. I disagree that the vote of a Nebraskan should be valued dozens of times greater when compared to that of a New Yorker or a Texan. You don't agree. I think you are wrong. I believe that most political scientists, historians and political leaders from around the world would tell you that our system is antiquated, and they'd probably lay out their arguments in a more elegant fashion than I have on the board. I think the people who defend the EC are doing so largely out of familiarity or because they think it's fairer to rural states. But I think it takes serious mental gymnastics to make a logical argument that some votes should be given greater weight than others. You're viewing this as a New Yorker vs. Nebraskan, for example. Someone posted a map of the 2016 election, showing all of the areas that went for Trump, which dominate the map when compared to the blue sections that went for Hillary. What that map ignores is that not ever voter in the red sections voted red, and not all the voters in the blue sections voted blue. A more accurate picture of how the electorate voted would be shades of red, blue and purple. But I've made this point, and you disagree. That's fine with me. We have the system that we have. That's the way it is. Moving along.
"Antiquated is code word (dog whistle) for "my political party and globalist ideology aren't able to get 100% of the power we so richly deserve." It is only an antiquated system because it actually works the way it was intended most of the time. There is a reason only one ideological group is pushing this narrative - and it isn't to ensure a fair and reasonable representation of all the people.
 

kidofSN

Redshirt Freshman
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
935
998
93
However it is okay for less than the majority to tell the majority how they should be living? Interesting way of looking at things. People vote not states. States get their say in the Senate and House. As stated one person one vote. Not one state one vote. In today's world with 24 news etc it should be one person one vote. Everyone has access to the candidates. Was not true when the electoral college was enacted.
 

Capdanjou

Walk On
Sep 14, 2020
427
219
43
"Antiquated is code word (dog whistle) for "my political party and globalist ideology aren't able to get 100% of the power we so richly deserve." It is only an antiquated system because it actually works the way it was intended most of the time. There is a reason only one ideological group is pushing this narrative - and it isn't to ensure a fair and reasonable representation of all the people.
You might be right at this moment, but as I stated before, it wasn't always Democrats advocating for a change. There was a time, not so long ago, that Republicans wanted the system changed. You're being myopic about the issue because it's working for you now, so you'll cling to any argument that props up its continued existence. The glaring blindspot in your argument, however, is your omission of the cyclical nature of politics. What goes around, comes around. There is no reason to believe that at some point in the future this dynamic won't flip, and when it does both parties will flip their arguments, and their respective bases will offer up justifications for why this time its different. Hell, did you see the recent comments of Chuck Schumer? He's basically saying that when/if power shifts that all bets are off. I don't want to hear how that's somehow unique to Democrats. It goes cuts both ways, and I do not celebrate the gridlock it causes as a result.
 

litespeedhuskerfan

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Aug 27, 2006
17,977
9,143
113
I got twenty bucks that says that dying wish bullshit is just that, bullshit. If she was so passionate about it as the left is now claiming she shoulda retired years ago when Obozo was in charge....now i'm being told it was so important to her that it was a dying wish? But apparently it wasn't her living wish? Allllrigjty then.
 

PvilleHuskerTim

Walk On
Jun 21, 2001
466
374
63
You might be right at this moment, but as I stated before, it wasn't always Democrats advocating for a change. There was a time, not so long ago, that Republicans wanted the system changed. You're being myopic about the issue because it's working for you now, so you'll cling to any argument that props up its continued existence. The glaring blindspot in your argument, however, is your omission of the cyclical nature of politics. What goes around, comes around. There is no reason to believe that at some point in the future this dynamic won't flip, and when it does both parties will flip their arguments, and their respective bases will offer up justifications for why this time its different. Hell, did you see the recent comments of Chuck Schumer? He's basically saying that when/if power shifts that all bets are off. I don't want to hear how that's somehow unique to Democrats. It goes cuts both ways, and I do not celebrate the gridlock it causes as a result.
If it is the elimination / reduction of gridlock that you seek, the answer lies with advocating for term limits - not a change to the electoral college process. There is no reason any federal politician (or state politician for that matter) should serve for the length of time that they currently do for both political parties. I think a valid argument can be made for term limits on the supreme court as well.
 

Capdanjou

Walk On
Sep 14, 2020
427
219
43
If it is the elimination / reduction of gridlock that you seek, the answer lies with advocating for term limits - not a change to the electoral college process. There is no reason any federal politician (or state politician for that matter) should serve for the length of time that they currently do for both political parties. I think a valid argument can be made for term limits on the supreme court as well.
I maintain my view on the EC, but I think you have a good point on term limits.
 

Capdanjou

Walk On
Sep 14, 2020
427
219
43
I got twenty bucks that says that dying wish bullshit is just that, bullshit. If she was so passionate about it as the left is now claiming she shoulda retired years ago when Obozo was in charge....now i'm being told it was so important to her that it was a dying wish? But apparently it wasn't her living wish? Allllrigjty then.
I agree, she should have retired.
 

Crazyhole

Junior
Jun 4, 2004
1,778
2,496
113
However it is okay for less than the majority to tell the majority how they should be living? Interesting way of looking at things. People vote not states. States get their say in the Senate and House. As stated one person one vote. Not one state one vote. In today's world with 24 news etc it should be one person one vote. Everyone has access to the candidates. Was not true when the electoral college was enacted.
Information accessibility was never a factor in how they set up our system. Thats a canard. The reason our political system was built the way it was is that it creates a hedge against tyranny of the majority OR the minority.
 

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,863
17,485
113
The faces on the anchors for CNN this morning are priceless as they are coming to grasp with the fact they are powerless to stop what's about to happen.

Reminds me a little of the warden's face when he opened the shoe box only to find Andy's shoes instead of his and he hears the sirens coming down the road.... Shell shocked.
Even their new darling MItt Romney has publicly stated there should be a nomination and a vote before the election.
 

Capdanjou

Walk On
Sep 14, 2020
427
219
43
Information accessibility was never a factor in how they set up our system. Thats a canard. The reason our political system was built the way it was is that it creates a hedge against tyranny of the majority OR the minority.
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.
 

nwualum

Sophomore
Feb 16, 2011
1,446
1,577
113
Lincoln, NE
Any libs complaining should be blaming Harry Reid, or you wouldn't be in this mess. And I'm ok with a 1 person 1 vote scenario if it was only citizens and they all were given voter ID cards (like almost every other country on earth). But when several million non-citizens are voting, I don't agree with that at all. Lets just bring in several million people from (choose your own country) for a few days and let them vote as well. Sure, that will work out just fine.
 

HBK4life

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Jan 24, 2004
18,160
16,880
113
North of Lincoln South of Heaven
I got twenty bucks that says that dying wish bullshit is just that, bullshit. If she was so passionate about it as the left is now claiming she shoulda retired years ago when Obozo was in charge....now i'm being told it was so important to her that it was a dying wish? But apparently it wasn't her living wish? Allllrigjty then.
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!!
 

RedMyMind

Blackshirt
Aug 22, 2017
3,140
3,092
113
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!!
they reflect their base
 

Latest posts