-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious Political and economic discussion thread
- Thread starter Diophantine
- Start date
A nation doesn't have rights
It only has power
And this is a pretty poor way to exercise its power, as has been stated
I agree with all the above reasons, but there’s also the whole, “Mexico will pay for it,” bs that was repeated ad naseum. Meanwhile Mexico repeatedly said (and continues to say) it won’t, making Trump a (bad) liar, and anyone that believed him gullible. Then he insists he’ll negotiate for it, but his entire presidency thus far has shown that he couldn’t politically negotiate his way out of a paper bag. See: the North Korea meeting which resulted in NK making 0 changes but netting some dope footage for North Korea’s propoganda machine. And now he’s doing the same shit with Iran and trade deals which has succeeded in doing nothing except making China and Russia bigger geopolitical powers and alienating our actual allies like the EU, Canada, and Idk, Mexico. But hey since the North Korea thing didn’t work out maybe he can waste billions of tax payer dollars for a relatively inefficient border control measure and he can get that nobel peace prize he deserves 
Last edited:
EV
Banned deucer.
Emphasis on gullible voters, emphasis on he's a literal con artist, emphasis on cheating on his taxes, emphasis on running an illegal gambling racket out of one of his towers, emphasis on foreign delegates staying at Trump brand hotels, emphasis on Make America Great Again being a thinly veiled racist vehicle to propel the con artist into the White House, emphasis on the Wall being a perfect marriage of nationalism and con artistry, emphasis on
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Since you're so curious.
Also, far left would be far left and up (much like Stalin), far right would be far right and towards the middle normally, but that can vary.
Last edited:
Umm, 1, no good grief man lmfao, 2, he defended obamacare as a tax, and 3, he's originalist and textualist who defends precedents and precedents of precedents. Not that all of these are terrible, but he's not as Conservative as Neil Gorsuch or the other popular nomination, Amy Barrett.
Last edited:
http://time.com/5389449/brett-kavanaugh-contraception-abortion-inducing-drugs/
seems pretty clear here when he refers to contraceptive practices as “abortion inducing.”
seems pretty clear here when he refers to contraceptive practices as “abortion inducing.”
you assume that being "moderate" is just being a melting pot of both right wing and left wing ideologies, like its a toppings bar at your local frozen yogurt place. Being "moderate" simply means not subscribing to the extreme ideologies of the spectrum, and I would definitely say that "contraceptive practices are equivalent to abortion" is a pretty extreme right wing view.
Not to mention that he most certainly does NOT support left wing policies in the slightest. Dude is on record saying that United States vs Nixon was "wrongfully decided" and has stated that sitting presidents should not be subpoenaed and cannot be indicted. His entire nomination is a farce that is simply Donald Trump's way of escaping the Russia Probe, by having a United States v Nixon- esque SC case, only this time with 3 stacked supreme court judges. Somehow presidents should not nominate supreme court judges in their final year of office (rip Merrick Garland) but its perfectly OK for a president who is currently being investigated in possibly the biggest political trial in United States to appoint his own judge to hear his own future supreme court case. FiveThirtyEight lists Kavanaugh as just barely less conservative than the most conservative judge on the supreme court. How is that moderate again?
Not to mention that he most certainly does NOT support left wing policies in the slightest. Dude is on record saying that United States vs Nixon was "wrongfully decided" and has stated that sitting presidents should not be subpoenaed and cannot be indicted. His entire nomination is a farce that is simply Donald Trump's way of escaping the Russia Probe, by having a United States v Nixon- esque SC case, only this time with 3 stacked supreme court judges. Somehow presidents should not nominate supreme court judges in their final year of office (rip Merrick Garland) but its perfectly OK for a president who is currently being investigated in possibly the biggest political trial in United States to appoint his own judge to hear his own future supreme court case. FiveThirtyEight lists Kavanaugh as just barely less conservative than the most conservative judge on the supreme court. How is that moderate again?
I don't know much about the guy, but I wouldn't want a liberal supreme court at the same time as a liberal president and liberal majority in house and senate. People shouldn't want that with conservatives either. And it seems pretty infuriating that the system is seemingly designed to snowball like this. Checks and balances indeed.
Believe it or not, we agree on something lol. The courts shouldn't be partisan imo, because it's the last defense to check unconstitutional laws. The Supreme court was shoved as a lawmaker around the time of Roe v. Wade by Democrats wayback when. Since, Republicans have punched back here and there, which I'm not terribly fond of from either side in general.
Which means a religious institution doesn't want to promote sex LMAO, I see no issue there. Also, that does not prove he thinks condoms are abortion inducing, which is equally as dumb. Look into his opinion on Roe v. Wade, that's where it matters. He's stated repeatedly that that's court precedent, especially during the hearings. Look at his judging philosophy as well. He's stated that his opinions as a judge should not influence or affect his rulings, he goes by the textualist approach and applies precedent. That all is pretty moderate and a good mesh for a judge.
Last edited:
Tory
Banned deucer.
Moderate centrists share left and right ideologies without being too extreme (usually modern liberal, traditional conservative, progressive, and/or reactionary ideas together). Examples are
Reform Party of the United States of America, New Democrat Coalition & Republican Main Street Partnership (United States). Liberal Party of Australia (Australia).
Radical centrists on the other hand also intend to share left and right ideologies as well. However they add economic systems and social philosophies into the mix. Examples are Blue Dog Coalition (United States). New Democratic Party & Liberal Party of Canada (Canada). Labour Party & Blue Labour (United Kingdom) Australian Labor Party (Australia).
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Ahh I see the practice of judicial review started around Roe V Wade!! I understand now.
I think you understand what I meant, I don't think I need to make a long winded reply differentiating judicial review and the court going further than that. If you'd like though, why don't you say where in the constitution Roe v. Wade is considered judicial review, go right ahead mate!
calling kavanaugh a 'moderate' is just semantic drivel, like calling scalia a moderate, that dude also loved to play the 'textual originalist interpretation' card, while maintaining an outstanding record of conservative judicial activism and disregard for the original intent of the constitution. The key thing with kavanaugh is he doesn't believe sitting presidents can be indicted regardless of circumstances, so it's not clear why anyone would say he respects precedent or the constitution, which literally provides a system of checks and balances that includes a path to removing sitting presidents.
Like lol, if you'll flip on whether the president is constrained by the laws of the land, then what won't you flip on? The president has been named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in an investigation into the defrauding of the US government by a hostile foreign power and Kavanaugh is out here being like 'presidential privilege overrides the restraints of any legal process' like some type of disingenuous poster in this thread or maybe a gf who can't see her bay is making moves on the side, I don't want to use the word cuck, but it seems like the most applicable.
It is true however, that there is nowhere in the constitution that mentions judicial review explicitly. I guess we should just do away with judicial review then, it's not in the constitution after all.
Like lol, if you'll flip on whether the president is constrained by the laws of the land, then what won't you flip on? The president has been named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in an investigation into the defrauding of the US government by a hostile foreign power and Kavanaugh is out here being like 'presidential privilege overrides the restraints of any legal process' like some type of disingenuous poster in this thread or maybe a gf who can't see her bay is making moves on the side, I don't want to use the word cuck, but it seems like the most applicable.
judicial review is literally just saying what the law is, so every time the supreme court makes a ruling on anything theyre following that principle. judicial review in roe v wade can further be seen as an example of judicial review in the context of a federalist separation of powers (a federal court restraining state legislatures in the same way the federal legislature could). You're up on your textual originalism though, right?
It is true however, that there is nowhere in the constitution that mentions judicial review explicitly. I guess we should just do away with judicial review then, it's not in the constitution after all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well you just did, and I saw a mod edited out whatever other garbage you called me. I'm not gonna go below the belt with you, as much as you feel the need to just because we disagree. You can grow up, not talk to me like an ignoramus, man up and be civil, first off.
Ok, this is why we have something called the Impeachment Process so the Legislative Branch can check the Executive. That's a bit different from indicting the President. Anyways, at this point it is more than safe to say Trump has not conspired, there has been absolutely no evidence brought up by the Mueller investigation in the two years it's been going. They need to come up with some sort of report soon because of how much money has been put into the investigation, and as of right now, if you haven't noticed, they're struggling to find many scraps. If you think I'm wrong, tell me what they found that I might have missed. If you want to look at who may have actually conspired, look up Hillary Clinton's rig on the DNC; not illegal, but it's still pretty garbage. Her private email server, which is actually illegal (and hacked by the Chinese uncovered recently btw, not the Russians like most believe) brings a lot of light into that situation, and so do the uppers at the DNC who eventually admitted to it.
Why has he played that 'card?' Because that's how he is as a judge if you look at the hundreds of thousands of pages declassified from his record, and honestly, that's how you should apply the constitution. The founding fathers intended a vast majority of the constitution, and these guys have done just that upholding it when needed. It's not the court's job to change law, thats the job of the legislative, but they do have the right to declare what is and isn't constitutional. I find it hilariously ironic that you say they disregard the constitution by being 'textualist' or 'originalist,' do you understand what either of those words mean?
I never argued against judicial review. If you couldn't tell, that's why cases like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Fergusson haven't stood, thankfully, and same for laws like the 3/5s Compromise (interesting story for another day). Ironically, it's also the same reason why they declared many of FDR's policies unconstitutional, even under threat. What I was arguing against was claiming cases as judicial review where the court was actually overstepping its bounds by making law. Roe v. Wade, in my opinion, is one of those cases, because it has extremely minimal backing in the constitution itself (only backed by the Due Process Clause under the 14th Amendment, which in itself was interpreted extremely broadly and really only under the guarantee of personal privacy). If you want to prove me wrong on that unlike how you've been countering so far, go right ahead. If you can stop it with the strawman arguments now, I'd really really appreciate it.
Last edited:
Ahh abortion. What a controversial topic and the debate never seems to end (and likely never will). But i'm here to give my view - I am pro-life.
Let's be honest here. A fetus is so much more than just a group of cells bunched together in the womb. It's DNA is independent from the mother. It develops its own individual separate organs. During an abortion it is the fetus that is feeling the pain not the mother. It has it's own individual stimulus. In other words a fetus is its own separate individual life. When left to it's natural state, it will develop into an independent human being like you and I. An abortion is sooo much more than just trimming your hair or pulling a tooth. It's literally the ending of a life, period. You can convince yourself a fetus is not an independent life but unless he/she is politically correct, no sincere geneticist, scientist or biologist will tell you a fetus developing in the mother's body isn't an independent life. It just have too many things that are independent from the mother. From body systems, from DNA, from genetics, stimulus, organs etc. to the point that depending on the state laws, there indeed are laws that will charge you for double murder if you murder an pregnant woman.
So in other words this is the pro-choice advocacy in a nutshell - an unborn fetus is not a life and has no intrinsic value if the mother doesn't want it/not ready to be a mother so a woman having an abortion is no different from pullying a tooth or trimming a nail yet if the mother wants the child and is ready to start a family of next generation an unborn fetus immediately becomes a life and has infinite intrinsic value. Clearly the standards here aren't so consistent from abortion-advocates.
And here's my second view on the case:
If you are gonna engage in sexual activity, do it at your own risk and take responsibility of your actions by either raising the child yourself or give it to adoption/foster care if you are unable to raise it. Pretty much since the dawn of mankind and all of animal history and for obvious reasons, if you engage in sexual activity particularly heterosexuals, there is a chance that you will get pregnant if you are a woman.
I actually find it surprising that why out of wedlock births are increasing in America despite it is much easier to access to contraceptives than ever before AND there's more emphasis on how to practice safe sex. They're literally teaching it at a very young age to kids. So despite such conditions, why are out of wedlock births INCREASING on the other hand? Is sex-ed backfiring it's intended purpose? Are contraceptives not doing it's job nearly as effectively as it needs to? Modern 21st century contraceptive certainly seem worse than those in the past. At least from the out of wedlock births if we compare it from today to the 20th century.
Lastly what about rape and incest cases? What about the health/life of the mother?
As for rape and incest cases, I'm still thinking which side should I stand from because part of me really wants to pity women who have been victims of rape and at least an abortion could help her recover from the trauma she experienced. However a second part of me says if rapists don't even deserve the death penalty, why should the child face the death penalty for the crimes of the father? I'm still thinking which side to take on this case. Remember less than 1% of pregnancies are caused by rape and incest so do not use this minor case to justify over 99% of pregnancy cases which are consented. I'm not taking a side for this scenario.
The only situation when a women should have the right to access abortion is when her life is at serious risk for carrying the child or when she needs to perform a life-saving operation to save her life but might also kill the baby during the process. E.g pregnant women utilizing chemotherapy. Ideally a doctor should try to save both but if he has to pick either the life of the unborn child or the life of the mother then he should save the life of the mother.
But hey these are my views on abortion. The ethics there is something called the precautionary principle meaning you take the side that is safer if you are unsure if something is alive or not. So unless you certain when life begins (I guarantee you will never find 100% evidence to claim a fetus is not an independent life form after conception) it is the safe move to not kill it. Remember a lot of things are reversible. Damaged properties can be replaced or repaired, if relationships between people are broken it can be reconciled (if there's effort put in by both sides), pregnancy itself is also very tempermental but if you take a human life it is gone forever and no technology or medicine ever can resurrect a dead human being. Think before you have an abortion guys, especially against innocent little babies.
Let's be honest here. A fetus is so much more than just a group of cells bunched together in the womb. It's DNA is independent from the mother. It develops its own individual separate organs. During an abortion it is the fetus that is feeling the pain not the mother. It has it's own individual stimulus. In other words a fetus is its own separate individual life. When left to it's natural state, it will develop into an independent human being like you and I. An abortion is sooo much more than just trimming your hair or pulling a tooth. It's literally the ending of a life, period. You can convince yourself a fetus is not an independent life but unless he/she is politically correct, no sincere geneticist, scientist or biologist will tell you a fetus developing in the mother's body isn't an independent life. It just have too many things that are independent from the mother. From body systems, from DNA, from genetics, stimulus, organs etc. to the point that depending on the state laws, there indeed are laws that will charge you for double murder if you murder an pregnant woman.
So in other words this is the pro-choice advocacy in a nutshell - an unborn fetus is not a life and has no intrinsic value if the mother doesn't want it/not ready to be a mother so a woman having an abortion is no different from pullying a tooth or trimming a nail yet if the mother wants the child and is ready to start a family of next generation an unborn fetus immediately becomes a life and has infinite intrinsic value. Clearly the standards here aren't so consistent from abortion-advocates.
And here's my second view on the case:
If you are gonna engage in sexual activity, do it at your own risk and take responsibility of your actions by either raising the child yourself or give it to adoption/foster care if you are unable to raise it. Pretty much since the dawn of mankind and all of animal history and for obvious reasons, if you engage in sexual activity particularly heterosexuals, there is a chance that you will get pregnant if you are a woman.
I actually find it surprising that why out of wedlock births are increasing in America despite it is much easier to access to contraceptives than ever before AND there's more emphasis on how to practice safe sex. They're literally teaching it at a very young age to kids. So despite such conditions, why are out of wedlock births INCREASING on the other hand? Is sex-ed backfiring it's intended purpose? Are contraceptives not doing it's job nearly as effectively as it needs to? Modern 21st century contraceptive certainly seem worse than those in the past. At least from the out of wedlock births if we compare it from today to the 20th century.
Lastly what about rape and incest cases? What about the health/life of the mother?
As for rape and incest cases, I'm still thinking which side should I stand from because part of me really wants to pity women who have been victims of rape and at least an abortion could help her recover from the trauma she experienced. However a second part of me says if rapists don't even deserve the death penalty, why should the child face the death penalty for the crimes of the father? I'm still thinking which side to take on this case. Remember less than 1% of pregnancies are caused by rape and incest so do not use this minor case to justify over 99% of pregnancy cases which are consented. I'm not taking a side for this scenario.
The only situation when a women should have the right to access abortion is when her life is at serious risk for carrying the child or when she needs to perform a life-saving operation to save her life but might also kill the baby during the process. E.g pregnant women utilizing chemotherapy. Ideally a doctor should try to save both but if he has to pick either the life of the unborn child or the life of the mother then he should save the life of the mother.
But hey these are my views on abortion. The ethics there is something called the precautionary principle meaning you take the side that is safer if you are unsure if something is alive or not. So unless you certain when life begins (I guarantee you will never find 100% evidence to claim a fetus is not an independent life form after conception) it is the safe move to not kill it. Remember a lot of things are reversible. Damaged properties can be replaced or repaired, if relationships between people are broken it can be reconciled (if there's effort put in by both sides), pregnancy itself is also very tempermental but if you take a human life it is gone forever and no technology or medicine ever can resurrect a dead human being. Think before you have an abortion guys, especially against innocent little babies.