or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's New Logo - He's Already President
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama's New Logo - He's Already President - Page 3

post #81 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Perhaps you should consider learning how to read. He didn't say that at all.

My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks.

Trumpt wrote:

Quote:
While Obama does have advantages and McCain clearly does have a headwind to contend with, this thing is not over by a long shot.

and

Quote:
No one has claimed that it will be easy for McCain to win or that the race does not favor Obama. Rather most of us are not writing it off in... June.


I then agreed with Trumpt, saying

Quote:
It's certainly silly to write anyone off in June. I definitely agree with that.

However, I'm quite certain that SDW has claimed many times, in many threads, that there's no way for Obama to win.

To which you replied:

Quote:
I really don't think there is.

So you have just stated that you really don't think there is any way for Obama to win. Ergo, you think McCain has the election guaranteed.

Trumpt also commented:

Quote:
The point should be that no one has it guaranteed in June.

Ergo, Trumpt thinks you're full of it.


Yup, I'm quite content with my reading comprehension.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #82 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

The Democrats control the Supreme Court now?

They don't in at least three important ways:

1. Roberts, a conservative, obviously leads the court as Chief Justice. Check out some of the duties of the Chief Justice to get an idea of the power and influence of the position.

2. The ideological composition isn't more liberal than conservative. Kennedy is the lone swing vote between the conservatives and the liberals on the court, but he votes with the conservatives more often than not.

3. Obama is *not* in the position to tilt the balance of court much differently than its current composition. If the court has any certain vacancies during an Obama presidency, it will be Stevens, a liberal. So it's not like Obama has a very good chance of replacing a conservative with a liberal and thus changing the composition of the court very much.

I think you presume every justice there will serve until death. Stevens is 88, but Scalia is 72 and Ginsburg is 75. Even Kennedy is 71. I know some of us don't want to believe anything can happen age-wise if someone has good medical care and lives relatively cleanly but the point is that by any standard these justices are at ages they could choose to retire, pass on unexpectedly (though it would still be expectedly in my view) or become incapable of doing the job due to health issues (stroke, cancer, etc.)

If Obama wins and the Democrats extend their majority in the Congress I would expect Stevens to almost immediately retire. I wouldn't put it past Ginsburg either. I mean serving is nice but if a President Obama could but two 55 year old judges on the court that would make quite an impact. If we presume Obama could be president for 8 years, that would mean that Scalia and Kennedy would have to serve health free until the ages of 80 and 79. It isn't impossible, but you don't want to assume that it will happen.

So while it might not be a foregone conclusion that Obama can tilt the court, it is also a possibility that he could end up appointing almost half of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Will all that work this year? I don't know. My wife believes Obama will win by a landslide. He won't. Why? Because he's black and Republicans are ringing their hands to remind whitey that he's "different."

I don't think you win against a man running on CHANGE by noting that he is indeed different. I've said it before and will say it again. Republicans are going to paint Obama as a non-change. The more they can make him a typical politician, the more they can show him to be old wine in a new bottle, the better off they will be.

Obama will be Stevenson, Carter, pre-9/11, an elite who drinks at the country club, believes we are bitter, and who deals with high ideas in the abstract while real people need real solutions today. They are going to note that he mouths the platitude, but then grabs the power for himself. I think they are going to hammer heavily on his campaign finance pledge, on his present votes, on his unwillingness to be pinned down on issues when speaking.

No one will need race.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

On the other hand, Rove had that "you already know him, he's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, leaning against the wall smoking a cigarette and making snide remarks about people" Obama characterization, which is tin-eared and wrong headed in so many ways it's hard to know where to start.

Most Americans know country club "types"? Black dudes are one of those types? Obama seems like the kind of guy to be making snide remarks about people behind their back? Having a beautiful date is sign of some kind of character flaw?

It's like Rove is confusing Obama with a Bond villain, and more hilariously, thinks that will resonate with the voters. Rove has lost it, he's so personally jealous of a guy like Obama he can't keep his bile in check long enough to make sense, or he's utterly misunderstood the plot.

You know it's slim pickings when the best he can do to indicate sinister or sleazy is "smoking a cigarette."

If this is an example of the Rove machine taking down Obama, it's not really going to be a factor.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say this: we don't really know how effective the Republican smear machine is against a reasonably adroit candidate. We have this impression that it's this unstoppable monster, but that's from watching Gore and Kerry just sort of sit there and take it. Clearly, Obama is a more nimble, aggressive, politically adept guy, and his campaign has the organizational chops to respond in ways that Gore and Kerry never did.

For all we know the whole thing is a paper tiger, a blustering bully that falls apart when you give it a good hard jab to the nose.

First most Americans haven't been to a country club either way but it is an elitism dig. Rove is smart because most Americans have encountered someone who makes decisions without ever getting their hands dirty and how it makes them misguided. I clearly believe they will go after Obama's lack of substance. Present votes, his "real jobs" consist of community organizer are an examples. If anything I believe they will paint Obama as "white" as possible in an attempt to lessen black voter enthusiasm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Your comparing Ike to John McCain? Sorry but I don't see it, a 5-star compared to a captain?

And what generation are you talking about Carter (1924), Bush (41, 1924), Clinton (1946), Bush (43, 1946), McCain (1936). That's a span of 12 and then 10 years, most people define generation as ~20 years.

I think you note that the 30's have been skipped in there. From 24 to 46 is a span of 22 years. I'm not exactly sure why you care to harp on it. I didn't note it as a plus but rather as a negative. If you don't want McCain to have a negative then enjoy.

As for the Ike comparisons, I'm not really sure the rank is relevant. If you believe it is you can cite something for support. McCain fits that warrior mentality that Jacksonian Democrats like. Every party has splits in it. No one from that particular Democratic split has claimed the presidency. I'm of the view that it is because when those candidates try to pin down their abstractions and platitudes, they sink themselves.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #83 of 105
BTW, everyone arguing about what I said in the abstract. I'm right here!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #84 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

BTW, everyone arguing about what I said in the abstract. I'm right here!

Hey, your statements and SDWs on the topic are clearly at odds. If SDW doesn't have the reading comprehension skills to grasp that, it's not my fault.

Thinking that either McCain or Obama have the election wrapped up is obviously foolhardy (no matter who among those that are so sure turn out to be correct).
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #85 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I think you presume every justice there will serve until death. Stevens is 88, but Scalia is 72 and Ginsburg is 75. Even Kennedy is 71. I know some of us don't want to believe anything can happen age-wise if someone has good medical care and lives relatively cleanly but the point is that by any standard these justices are at ages they could choose to retire, pass on unexpectedly (though it would still be expectedly in my view) or become incapable of doing the job due to health issues (stroke, cancer, etc.)

If Obama wins and the Democrats extend their majority in the Congress I would expect Stevens to almost immediately retire. I wouldn't put it past Ginsburg either. I mean serving is nice but if a President Obama could but two 55 year old judges on the court that would make quite an impact. If we presume Obama could be president for 8 years, that would mean that Scalia and Kennedy would have to serve health free until the ages of 80 and 79. It isn't impossible, but you don't want to assume that it will happen.

So while it might not be a foregone conclusion that Obama can tilt the court, it is also a possibility that he could end up appointing almost half of it.

Okay, but remember what I was responding to:

You were saying that McCain could argue that electing Obama would mean Democrats would control all (3) branches. Well, I showed you three ways how that's not true. Based on what you're arguing now, wouldn't it make sense that McCain could argue that electing Obama would mean Democrats would control (2) branches and *might* have an opportunity to tilt the balance in the third? I mean, you agree at least that Democrats don't control the Supreme Court in its current configuration, right?
post #86 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I think you note that the 30's have been skipped in there. From 24 to 46 is a span of 22 years. I'm not exactly sure why you care to harp on it. I didn't note it as a plus but rather as a negative. If you don't want McCain to have a negative then enjoy.

As for the Ike comparisons, I'm not really sure the rank is relevant. If you believe it is you can cite something for support. McCain fits that warrior mentality that Jacksonian Democrats like. Every party has splits in it. No one from that particular Democratic split has claimed the presidency. I'm of the view that it is because when those candidates try to pin down their abstractions and platitudes, they sink themselves.

I'll agree with your 1st point and disagree with your 2nd point. There's much more involved than simply rank, a 5-star commander of the European theater during WWII, who led the D-Day Invasion, ~8 years prior.

I can say two things with near certainty, having worked for the USACE my entire adult life, and voting as a lifelong Democrat, and that is, if I were 20 years older, even I would have voted for Ike.

So the comparison between Ike and Adlai versus McCain and Obama, is like comparing apples to oranges. IMHO, Ike was head and soldiers (sic) above all three as a candidate.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #87 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Okay, but remember what I was responding to:

You were saying that McCain could argue that electing Obama would mean Democrats would control all (3) branches. Well, I showed you three ways how that's not true. Based on what you're arguing now, wouldn't it make sense that McCain could argue that electing Obama would mean Democrats would control (2) branches and *might* have an opportunity to tilt the balance in the third? I mean, you agree at least that Democrats don't control the Supreme Court in its current configuration, right?

I'd like to add that Stevens and Ginsburg are zero sum gains, replace a lefty with a lefty. while Kennedy is right leaning but only 71, so he'll continue to play the part of the occasional switch hitter just like O'connor's did. As to Scalia, he'll be there for as long as it takes for the next Republican POTUS, even if it takes another 16 years!

So, in probabilistic terms, an Obama two term presidency, changing the composition of the current SCOTUS sufficiently, has about a p = 0.0001 (or 0.01%) chance of happening!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #88 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I'd like to add that Stevens and Ginsburg are zero sum gains, replace a lefty with a lefty. while Kennedy is right leaning but only 71, so he'll continue to play the part of the occasional switch hitter just like O'connor's did. As to Scalia, he'll be there for as long as it takes for the next Republican POTUS, even if it takes another 16 years!

Yep, I made that point as well.

Quote:
If the court has any certain vacancies during an Obama presidency, it will be Stevens, a liberal. So it's not like Obama has a very good chance of replacing a conservative with a liberal and thus changing the composition of the court very much.
post #89 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Yep, I made that point as well.

OK. But someone is getting desperate if they have to raise the specter of Democrats controlling all three branches of our government.

Boogity Boogity Boogity Boo!

You think?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #90 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

OK. But someone is getting desperate if they have to raise the specter of Democrats controlling all three branches of our government.

Boogity Boogity Boogity Boo!

You think?

Definitely.

Rove is doing his part by raising another specter: the black man going after your white daughter!
post #91 of 105
On the SC point:, if you're 75, your life expectancy is 86.8 years (85.5 if you're a man, 87.6 if you're a woman). Plus, obviously supreme court justices have access to the best medical care.

http://longevity.about.com/od/longev...ife_expect.htm

While a liberal justice like Ginsburg may have an incentive to retire to make way for younger justice, the conservative justices would obviously have an incentive to stick around under an Obama presidency, and chances are pretty good none of them would shuffle off this mortal coil.

I'd estimate the chances of both Scalia and Kennedy exiting the SC due to death or disability over a hypothetical 8 year Obama presidency is pretty small.

Reasons like this is why I think bringing up McCain's age is a pretty silly point.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #92 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Reasons like this is why I think bringing up McCain's age is a pretty silly point.

Maybe, but then again, the life expectancy for cancer survivors might be different.

Franksargent: something to research! Go!
post #93 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Obama will be Stevenson, Carter, pre-9/11, an elite who drinks at the country club...

Jesus dude. You're not even f*cking trying anymore, are you? I see that you're still licking the sweat off of Rove's taint.

I just want to make sure I've got this straight...

The WHITE MAN married to a MILLIONAIRE HEIRESS who owns multiple homes and is worth millions of dollars and has been in Washington for DECADES is not an elitist. Right. But the black man from Chicago with a Kenyan father and funny last name IS the elitist.

Wow!

And now you're making fun of people who are members of country clubs. Do you guys normally form in a circle before firing at each other? Jesus, this is the most daft criticism of Obama EVER and yet you guys spew with glee. Unbelievable.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #94 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Maybe, but then again, the life expectancy for cancer survivors might be different.

Franksargent: something to research! Go!

Maybe I should just get a medical degree, that would be much easier, even at my age, and with my total fear of blood and all things internal to the body.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #95 of 105
Things I've learned during the campaign...

In a race that includes a former First Lady of the United States and a multimillionaire Republican senator rumored to share up to eight residences with his wife, the black guy from Chicago is unforgivably elitist.

Racism in America is caused primarily by black Chicago preachers.

The guy who keeps getting confused over the relationship between Iraq, Iran, and al Qaeda is the foreign policy expert.

The guy who goes to campaign stops on his wife's private jet aircraft is the most down-to-earth.

The guy who changed his stance on tax cuts, Roe v. Wade, immigration, gun control, the confederate flag, torture, public financing, and his own anti-earmark rhetoric is the "straight talker".

People in the heartland don't like it when you call them bitter, but they do like it when you explain to them that they're too dumb to understand issues more important than whether or not they like to be called bitter.

Arugula is the measure of a man.

Bowling is the measure of a man.

Orange juice is the measure of a man.

Flag pins are the measure of a man.

Success in Iraq consists of any reduction in violence, except when violence increases that's good too.

A recession is only a recession if you call it one.

Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove, Maureen Dowd, David Brooks, David Broder, Charles Krauthammer and Bob Novak are all intensely interested in giving advice to the Democratic candidates because they just want to be helpful.

There are people in this world dumb enough to believe every one of these things.

Borrowed from here.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #96 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Definitely.

Rove is doing his part by raising another specter: the black man going after your white daughter!

Methinks Rove ought not to disgust his bad ass taste in pr0n in public, at least not on the Circle Jerk Channel (sic Faux Noise).
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #97 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Okay, but remember what I was responding to:

You were saying that McCain could argue that electing Obama would mean Democrats would control all (3) branches. Well, I showed you three ways how that's not true. Based on what you're arguing now, wouldn't it make sense that McCain could argue that electing Obama would mean Democrats would control (2) branches and *might* have an opportunity to tilt the balance in the third? I mean, you agree at least that Democrats don't control the Supreme Court in its current configuration, right?

They don't currently control the presidency either. Clearly I am talking about the ramifications of an Obama presidency and not the present. The ramifications include control of all three branches. It isn't any sort of stretch to argue that when half the court is 70+ that you have to think about health concerns.

Come on Shawn, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The Democrats are going to argue McCain is too old to be president. 71 years old cannot be too old to be president, but then not be a concern when that is the age of half the court.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #98 of 105
I'll say it. 71 years old is too old for the Supreme Court.

These people should be retired. They should be sipping Mai Tai's on their yahts.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #99 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Maybe, but then again, the life expectancy for cancer survivors might be different.

Franksargent: something to research! Go!

Well, he's had four skin cancers removed. Two were the melanoma back in 2000, and I don't really know what the other ones were.

To my knowledge (and it may not be correct as I'm going off a bit of a distant memory) while a melanoma indicates a higher risk for melanoma in the future, it doesn't increase one's risk for other cancers.

Non-melanmoa skin cancers are associated (although I don't know to what degree) with increased risk for things like bladder and prostate cancer.

At any rate, McCain I'm sure goes through rigorous screenings now, and certainly would as president. Any melanoma would almost certainly be found very early. He's currently in good health. I just don't see it as much of an issue.

Edit: Just a couple links to throw in after a quick google search.

Tumor thickness is the most important factor in assessing the risk of recurrence

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/co..._Treatment.asp

McCain's 2000 melanomas were stage 2a.

The stages of melanoma

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/co..._Treatment.asp
http://ezinearticles.com/?Skin-Cance...noma&id=404842
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #100 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

They don't currently control the presidency either. Clearly I am talking about the ramifications of an Obama presidency and not the present. The ramifications include control of all three branches. It isn't any sort of stretch to argue that when half the court is 70+ that you have to think about health concerns.

Well, just to clarify your earlier argument, you said if Obama were elected "[Democrats] will have all three branches." That's not true. They will have just two and only the chance, however likely, to control the third. Right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Come on Shawn, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The Democrats are going to argue McCain is too old to be president. 71 years old cannot be too old to be president, but then not be a concern when that is the age of half the court.

McCain's age doesn't have any bearing on which party controls one of the branches.
post #101 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I'll agree with your 1st point and disagree with your 2nd point. There's much more involved than simply rank, a 5-star commander of the European theater during WWII, who led the D-Day Invasion, ~8 years prior.

I can say two things with near certainty, having worked for the USACE my entire adult life, and voting as a lifelong Democrat, and that is, if I were 20 years older, even I would have voted for Ike.

So the comparison between Ike and Adlai versus McCain and Obama, is like comparing apples to oranges. IMHO, Ike was head and soldiers (sic) above all three as a candidate.

Perhaps to you but to those of us born say... closer to Obama than to McCain the difference is less stark. You are welcome to your opinion and it clearly won't sway you. If it becomes a campaign issue though it will sway others and has shown that it has in the past as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I'd like to add that Stevens and Ginsburg are zero sum gains, replace a lefty with a lefty. while Kennedy is right leaning but only 71, so he'll continue to play the part of the occasional switch hitter just like O'connor's did. As to Scalia, he'll be there for as long as it takes for the next Republican POTUS, even if it takes another 16 years!

So, in probabilistic terms, an Obama two term presidency, changing the composition of the current SCOTUS sufficiently, has about a p = 0.0001 (or 0.01%) chance of happening!

I think you presume a bit too much. May I remind you that O'Conner didn't quite because of health issues with herself but with her spouse. While there is no factual basis for my one belief, I do note that these things to happen in bunches as events and appear not happen in isolation. There are friendships, partnerships, etc. on the court and when you change the makeup others ponder their role and whether to continue it as well.

I remember in 1994 when the Republicans took both houses, there was a rash or retirements on the Democratic side and there is this cycle for Republicans as well. I can't prove that but the reality is that there are interpersonal matters at stake and those things can cascade. I wouldn't put it at hundredths of a percent at all. Clinton appointed both of his justices a year apart and W. Bush had two come right on top of each other. His father had two appointments a year apart as well.

The court might be static for quite a while, but when things happen, they happen quickly. Clearly that can't be proven scientifically, but historically in modern times that is the way it appears to roll. Six out of the nine judges were appointed within a 9 year span. Then the court didn't change for 11 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Jesus dude. You're not even f*cking trying anymore, are you? I see that you're still licking the sweat off of Rove's taint.

I just want to make sure I've got this straight...

The WHITE MAN married to a MILLIONAIRE HEIRESS who owns multiple homes and is worth millions of dollars and has been in Washington for DECADES is not an elitist. Right. But the black man from Chicago with a Kenyan father and funny last name IS the elitist.

Wow!

And now you're making fun of people who are members of country clubs. Do you guys normally form in a circle before firing at each other? Jesus, this is the most daft criticism of Obama EVER and yet you guys spew with glee. Unbelievable.

North just chill man. I'm simply noting strategy. I'm not saying I believe, it endorse it, or that it is valid. People keep noting that they think Republicans will take the race angle. I've noted the angle I think they will take. It is all politics in the end and if you think Obama is a clean patron saint then enjoy the rose colored view through your glasses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Methinks Rove ought not to disgust his bad ass taste in pr0n in public, at least not on the Circle Jerk Channel (sic Faux Noise).

Go circle jerks!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #102 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Well, just to clarify your earlier argument, you said if Obama were elected "[Democrats] will have all three branches." That's not true. They will have just two and only the chance, however likely, to control the third. Right?

Sure my left-brain word fetishist, wannabe editor friend.

Quote:
McCain's age doesn't have any bearing on which party controls one of the branches.

I understand but you can't bring up 71 as an age at which health concerns should make one give second thought about ability to perform duties and then dismiss it for the court.

/liberal rant on

McCain is 71 years old. He is no longer able to process information as well. He is starting to suffer form dementia and angers so easily. He'll probably nuke Iran because someone forgot the cream cheese on his morning bagel!

/counterpoint.... um... half the Supreme Court is older than McCain...

/liberal rant... oh that... um... that is nothing to concern yourself about. Nothing change there. They will all live forever and Obama will likely not get to change anything.

/counterpoint Even though the lastl four presidents have gotten to appoint at least two justices a piece and half the court and their respective spouses are all 70+...

/liberal rant off.... look... just drop it and leave me alone. Sure every president running in the last 40 years has had their ability to influence the court considered as a campaign point but Obama is the MESSIAH!

Hahahahaha

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #103 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I think you presume a bit too much. May I remind you that O'Conner didn't quite because of health issues with herself but with her spouse. While there is no factual basis for my one belief, I do note that these things to happen in bunches as events and appear not happen in isolation. There are friendships, partnerships, etc. on the court and when you change the makeup others ponder their role and whether to continue it as well.

I remember in 1994 when the Republicans took both houses, there was a rash or retirements on the Democratic side and there is this cycle for Republicans as well. I can't prove that but the reality is that there are interpersonal matters at stake and those things can cascade. I wouldn't put it at hundredths of a percent at all. Clinton appointed both of his justices a year apart and W. Bush had two come right on top of each other. His father had two appointments a year apart as well.

The court might be static for quite a while, but when things happen, they happen quickly. Clearly that can't be proven scientifically, but historically in modern times that is the way it appears to roll. Six out of the nine judges were appointed within a 9 year span. Then the court didn't change for 11 years

... nah. I'm too busy right now, so I'll just cite SCOTUS age demographics

[CENTER]
Quote:
The group of justices that served together between 1994 and 2005 did so for a longer period than any other group of nine justices in American history. From 1789 until 1970, justices served an average of 14.9 years. Those who have stepped down since 1970 have served an average of 25.6 years. The retirement age had jumped from an average of 68 pre-1970 to 79 for justices retiring post-1970. Between 1789 and 1970 there was a vacancy on the Court once every 1.91 years. In the next 34 years since the two appointments in 1971, there was a vacancy on average only once every 3.75 years. The typical one-term president has had one appointment opportunity instead of two.

[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #104 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Sure my left-brain word fetishist, wannabe editor friend.

Glad to help.

I'm your man anytime you need cleared up that difference between "2" and "3."

post #105 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

/liberal rant... oh that... um... that is nothing to concern yourself about. Nothing change there. They will all live forever and Obama will likely not get to change anything.

And the spectre of the court swinging hard left under Obama appointments might actually push some of the stay-at-home conservatives toward getting out for McCain. The Supreme Court at stake? Nothing to see here... move along, move along.

Just another example of what we've been reduced to in this country. We're going to have a referendum on an inexperienced, catchphrase dependent, and socialist leaning Barack Hussein Obama. Do you like him or don't you. That's what will decide the 44th POTUS. Not This Administration. Not Mc(Whatever). Not even policy. Just the level of the collective Obamagasm in November.

When it comes down to sound policy judgment, McCain only has a slight edge on BHO. Neither of them will take the country in a better direction. At all.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's New Logo - He's Already President