Gyroscopic Investing

vnatale wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:09 pmCapture.JPG

Yes, we know she's a RINO.

Let's see what she does when the vote comes up.

I am sure a lot of you know specific reasons why you'd like a liberal vs conservative court and vice versa. Seems reasonably immaterial to me.

The one that is always brought up is Roe v Wade.

I really don't know much about that. If I understand correctly that legalized abortion, would overturning that then make it a crime to have an abortion, or leave to states? Where do other western countries stand on this?

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:05 pm I am sure a lot of you know specific reasons why you'd like a liberal vs conservative court and vice versa. Seems reasonably immaterial to me.

The one that is always brought up is Roe v Wade.

I really don't know much about that. If I understand correctly that legalized abortion, would overturning that then make it a crime to have an abortion, or leave to states? Where do other western countries stand on this?

If it were overturned, as it should be because it is not a federal issue, then the states would make their own rules.
Just as they do in virtually every other criminal prosecution or lack thereof.
I don't know the answer about abortion in other western countries, but I do know that most countries don't have a federal structure like the US, where most issues are handled at the state and local levels.

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:05 pm I am sure a lot of you know specific reasons why you'd like a liberal vs conservative court and vice versa. Seems reasonably immaterial to me.

The one that is always brought up is Roe v Wade.

I really don't know much about that. If I understand correctly that legalized abortion, would overturning that then make it a crime to have an abortion, or leave to states? Where do other western countries stand on this?

My understanding is that Roe struck down 50 separate state laws on the subject, on the grounds that the Constitution (in some kind of "penumbra" of privacy) prohibits states from regulating the matter.

It's a hallmark of judges legislating from the bench, making the law they think should be made rather than applying what exists. And unlike other such rulings which can be overridden by changing the law, this one can't, because there isn't a law to be changed.

I enjoyed reading this reminiscense by The Volokh Conspiracy at Reason Magazine.

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:05 pm I am sure a lot of you know specific reasons why you'd like a liberal vs conservative court and vice versa. Seems reasonably immaterial to me.

The one that is always brought up is Roe v Wade.

I really don't know much about that. If I understand correctly that legalized abortion, would overturning that then make it a crime to have an abortion, or leave to states? Where do other western countries stand on this?

In answer to your question, here is a link to a table that summarizes abortion legality in 193 countries (as of 2017). https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/defaul ... able_1.pdf

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:25 pm

vnatale wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:09 pmCapture.JPG

Yes, we know she's a RINO.

Let's see what she does when the vote comes up.

Well, this certainly will be a monumental moment. Techno's cure is like huffing Lysol to kill covid...it might kill the 'virus', but it will also terminate the patient. I'm becoming pretty convinced that we are headed towards massive civil breakdown in this country. Ram your justice through. Let's remove any modicum of civility from congress....what goes around comes around. This will get so nasty that we will soon resemble Yugoslavia in the 90s. Republicans set a precedent with Merrick Garland that they are now chosing not to follow. Fine. You are right, this will end the republic. This is a green light for the Democrats to do whatever they want when the majority swings back their way, and it will sooner or later.

doodle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:50 pm Republicans set a precedent with Merrick Garland that they are now chosing not to follow.

False.

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:12 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:50 pm Republicans set a precedent with Merrick Garland that they are now chosing not to follow.

False.

Scott Adams explains the "McConnell Rule" to his imaginary liberal friend "Dale": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgyny2ktF7Q

doodle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:50 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:25 pm

vnatale wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:09 pmCapture.JPG

Yes, we know she's a RINO.

Let's see what she does when the vote comes up.

Well, this certainly will be a monumental moment. Techno's cure is like huffing Lysol to kill covid...it might kill the 'virus', but it will also terminate the patient. I'm becoming pretty convinced that we are headed towards massive civil breakdown in this country. Ram your justice through. Let's remove any modicum of civility from congress....what goes around comes around. This will get so nasty that we will soon resemble Yugoslavia in the 90s. Republicans set a precedent with Merrick Garland that they are now chosing not to follow. Fine. You are right, this will end the republic. This is a green light for the Democrats to do whatever they want when the majority swings back their way, and it will sooner or later.

The Democrats have already announced that they plan to pack the Court if they get in.

In other words, they have declared war on the Republic. I certainly hope that the Republicans fight back with every legal tool at their disposal.

If the Democrats did the same to Republican president and then turned on word if be supporting the republican side. If one fighter hits below the belt then I support the other fighting dirty as well. Keep pushing the envelope techno, as a computer person you'd think you'd have a basic understanding of game theory. Your approach ends in civil war.

doodle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:41 pm If the Democrats did the same to Republican president and then turned on word if be supporting their side. If one fighter hits below the belt then I support the other fighting dirty as well. Keep pushing the envelope techno, as a computer person you'd think you'd have a basic understanding of game theory. Your approach ends in civil war.

The Democrats in Congress have reversed their arguments many times when faced with a situation with the parties reversed from the original situations. They never seem to pay a price for doing so.

I support honesty over party. We can have legitimate disagreements on policy and philosophy but I don't believe the ends justifies the means when it comes to dishonesty....that is corrosive. Democrats lie and that is despicable. Their hypocrisy is inexcusable. However, no politician has ever been as big of a bullshitter as Trump. He is a con man and a demagogue. That is a fact. You may take the approach that his end goals justify whatever means are necessary...Mao and Stalin took that perspective as well. Those here that radically support the tribalism happening in our country now over the honesty to call a bullshitter out on his lies will gut this countries institutions. In the same way, Democrats need to have honest discussion on race and police violence in this country. Just because I am vehemently anti Trump doest make me pro Democrat. If they get into power and start spewing misinformation and lies and pushing dishonest policies I will criticize them just as harshly.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:25 pm

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:12 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:50 pm Republicans set a precedent with Merrick Garland that they are now chosing not to follow.

False.

Scott Adams explains the "McConnell Rule" to his imaginary liberal friend "Dale": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgyny2ktF7Q

Good one. Condition 2 of the McConnell rule as he explains it is that the President and Senate majority have to be opposite parties for the appointment to be delayed. I cannot find anything from back in 2016 that includes this condition. Everything I am finding only speaks to Condition 1, namely that it is an election year and the next president ought to make the pick. Can you point me to something that spells out Condition 2 when McConnell made the arguments to block the hearings on Garland?

I'm trying to determine whether it was something he specifically articulated at the time, or whether he is only now clarifying, or maybe re-interpreting what he really meant.
Thanks

Everyone knows that all of these rules are imaginary, right?

The president can nominate and the senate can decide to confirm or not.
Anything else is pablum.

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:07 pm I enjoyed reading this reminiscense by The Volokh Conspiracy at Reason Magazine.

That was indeed a good read. Thanks for sharing.

doodle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:50 pm This is a green light for the Democrats to do whatever they want. . .

Oh my goodness, we passed that landmark a very, very long time ago.

The dems are literally burning down cities and they want republicans to adhere to standards of decorum? Their credibility is so completely shot at this point that it's flatly impossible for them to take any sort of principled position with a straight face. Commupance is a bitch.

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:07 pm Everyone knows that all of these rules are imaginary, right?

The president can nominate and the senate can decide to confirm or not.
Anything else is pablum.

+100. Why should anyone give a fuck what a Senator wanted to do that one time if it's all part of the Constitutional playbook? Follow the process.

Maddy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:47 am The dems are literally burning down cities and they want republicans to adhere to standards of decorum? Their credibility is so completely shot at this point that it's flatly impossible for them to take any sort of principled position with a straight face. Commupance is a bitch.

Of course politicians in general act however they think will be best for them at the moment; it's not just the Democrats.
But I will say I've never seen such viciousness and lack of concern for harming innocent third parties in a US political party as the current Democrat party is displaying.

REALLY...
RBG’s Dying Words: “My Most Fervent Wish Is That I Not Be Replaced Until a New President Is Installed”
Who believes this garbage..
Did RBG write this statement down somewhere or is this just hearsay?
I would think she was not of sound mind if RBG said this, while Dying.

Does anybody here believe for one minute that if the Dems were in control they wouldn't be doing exactly what the Republicans are?

Of course they would. They're all politicians and hypocrisy is the name of the game.

pp4me wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:49 am Does anybody here believe for one minute that if the Dems were in control they wouldn't be doing exactly what the Republicans are?

Of course they would. They're all politicians and hypocrisy is the name of the game.

Yep

pp4me wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:49 am Does anybody here believe for one minute that if the Dems were in control they wouldn't be doing exactly what the Republicans are?

Of course they would. They're all politicians and hypocrisy is the name of the game.

Exactly. Shame on them for what they would probably do.