6 ms·

> I think tech culture's misguided desire to treat everyone "equally" creates a huge imbalance. You can't put the NYTimes in the same category as Breitbart. Jus

> I think tech culture's misguided desire to treat everyone "equally" creates a huge imbalance. You can't put the NYTimes in the same category as Breitbart. Just as you wouldn't compare it to "National Enquirer". I agree. I think we're seeing a sharp rise in foreign "soft power" online in America this election. It's being supported by the evangelicals who will not remove their vote from Trump on the grounds that they really want that supreme court seat. After the election, foreign influence will dwindle. The credibility of such websites cannot be maintained while pushing so much unverified or simply false information. This is the strength of our first amendment.

paulddraper 10y ago
> It's being supported by the evangelicals who will not remove their vote from Trump on the grounds that they really want that supreme court seat. You make it sound illogical. As a religious conservative, I do really want that supreme court seat. The President has to really ask for permission for everything else (laws, budgets, wars, etc.), but justice nomination is very largely his choice. Don't be surprised if that factors heavily in my decision.
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  > You make it sound illogical. > As a religious conservative, I do really want that supreme court seat. That factors heavily in the decision. Sorry, that's my bias seeping in. I respect your choice. > The President has to really ask for permission for everything else (laws, budgets, wars, etc.), but justice nomination is very largely his choice. Don't be surprised if that factors heavily in my decision. Not nuclear. He could launch with approval of his self-chosen cabinet, or choose not to defend our allies, resulting in more tensions in areas prone to nuclear war. Personally I think the risks posed by Trump with his thumb on the nuclear button are greater than the lives saved by repealing abortion rights. May God bless you and all of us through these tough times.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    > Personally I think the risks posed by Trump with his thumb on the nuclear button are greater than the lives saved by repealing abortion rights. 10 to 1 you're wrong. https://xkcd.com/1132/ https://xkcd.com/1132/
    - unityByFreedom 10y ago
      > 10 to 1 one you're wrong. https://xkcd.com/1132/ https://xkcd.com/1132/ What are the two scenarios you're referring to? That Trump does or does not contribute to a nuclear war? Trump trashes everyone who disagrees with him. He will likely increase tensions on the world stage.
      - colemickens 10y ago
        By every account, he already has. Numerous world leaders and multinational organizations have denounced him, specifically because of his dangerous rhetoric.
      - jeremyjh 10y ago
        Yes but if you are right and the world ends and he doesn't have to pay up. That's the joke.
        kabouseng 10y ago
        Just as a discussion point (and going off topic and being maybe too pedantic) that is not how I understood the XKCD. The difference is that the one interpretation only takes into account the odds of the machine lying, the bayesian approach also takes into account the odds of the sun actually going nova, which is still neglible. Yes as a second consideration you can also take the view of the world will end, but that is not the point of the XKCD. And then drawing it to this discussion, yes the odds that Trump would be willing to start a nuclear war might be high, but combined with the odds of an actual nuclear war occurring the odds of it happening is still neglible.
      - 10y ago
- jmspring 10y ago
  "Very largely his choice" ... then why hasn't the current nominee see a vote in congress?
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    Okay, that's a pretty fair point. Obama's nominees have had astronomically high wait times. His average is 35 days, compared to 10-20 days for recent presidents. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-has-waited-longer-for-cabinet-confirmations-than-any-other-recent-president/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-has-waited-longer-f...
    - aggie 10y ago
      The dataset you present conveniently does not include the 211 days and counting for Merrick Garland, the longest period of Senate inaction on a Supreme Court nomination in American history, and approaching twice as long as the next longest (Brandeis at 125 days).
    - colemickens 10y ago
      I can't tell if you're ignorant of the fact that his current nominee has been blocked for months and will continue to be blocked for months, or if you conveniently want to avoid talking about it. I just don't understand how someone invests themselves into a conversation like this without having the first clue about the territory.
  - hueving 10y ago
    Still his choice. Show me which supreme court justice wasn't selected by a president.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      Show me one that wasn't approved by congress.
    - drewrv 10y ago
      Bork was selected by a president.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago
  but justice nomination is very largely their choice FTFY Does your religious conservatism mean that you support the Citizens United decision? Or does it mean that you're opposed to Loving v. Virginia? How about Shelby County v. Holder?
- colemickens 10y ago
  >Don't be surprised if that factors heavily in my decision. 1. How is that going to affect your decision? Who can you vote for that will ensure the SC seat goes to a conservative? 2. How do you feel about the unprecedented blocking of the President from doing this Constitutional duty of appoint SC justices for 9+ months? Or is that just a small price to pay to get your religious beliefs installed in the highest court in the land?
  - unityByFreedom 10y ago
    > Or is that just a small price to pay to get your religious beliefs installed in the highest court in the land? I don't know why you were downvoted, but I would like to point out that many laws are based on religion, like marrying only one person, or not stealing and killing. We take these for granted because we grew up with them. So, I'm not sure the argument that they are "installing religious beliefs" does much to convince religious people that they are overreaching. Their feeling is that they are saving people, and they feel this can be done through politics as well as it can be done in person. I'm not sure I agree with those who vote this way. I just wanted to throw it out there since I doubt you'll get a reply from a religious person.
    - colemickens 10y ago
      Nah, they just don't like me pointing out facts. Like the fact that this is Constitutional obstruction and is completely unprecented. Too much cognitive dissonance for people who are probably already completely overwhelmed at this point in the cycle, given the turmoil on that side of the aisle. That's why I won't get a reply from any of the small downvoters.
      - paulddraper 10y ago
        I agree that blocking a nominee steps way beyond the roles outline in the U.S. Constitution. Hopefully, it gets taken to the courts and they agree. Like gerrymandering and fillbustering, it's one of these stupid games that the sides play.
- matwood 10y ago
  > The President has to really ask for permission for everything else (laws, budgets, wars, etc.), but justice nomination is very largely his choice. Reason magazine editorial made the same argument that Bernie was the best choice for libertarians. Basically he aligns with libertarians on social issues, and everything else he could not get done anyway.
- wcummings 10y ago
  >The President has to really ask for permission for everything else (laws, budgets, wars, etc.), but justice nomination is very largely his choice. Apparently not, since Obama hasn't been able to make the nomination...

paulddraper 10y ago

> It's being supported by the evangelicals who will not remove their vote from Trump on the grounds that they really want that supreme court seat. You make it sound illogical. As a religious conservative, I do really want that supreme court seat. The President has to really ask for permission for everything else (laws, budgets, wars, etc.), but justice nomination is very largely his choice. Don't be surprised if that factors heavily in my decision.

unityByFreedom 10y ago
> You make it sound illogical. > As a religious conservative, I do really want that supreme court seat. That factors heavily in the decision. Sorry, that's my bias seeping in. I respect your choice. > The President has to really ask for permission for everything else (laws, budgets, wars, etc.), but justice nomination is very largely his choice. Don't be surprised if that factors heavily in my decision. Not nuclear. He could launch with approval of his self-chosen cabinet, or choose not to defend our allies, resulting in more tensions in areas prone to nuclear war. Personally I think the risks posed by Trump with his thumb on the nuclear button are greater than the lives saved by repealing abortion rights. May God bless you and all of us through these tough times.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  > Personally I think the risks posed by Trump with his thumb on the nuclear button are greater than the lives saved by repealing abortion rights. 10 to 1 you're wrong. https://xkcd.com/1132/ https://xkcd.com/1132/
  - unityByFreedom 10y ago
    > 10 to 1 one you're wrong. https://xkcd.com/1132/ https://xkcd.com/1132/ What are the two scenarios you're referring to? That Trump does or does not contribute to a nuclear war? Trump trashes everyone who disagrees with him. He will likely increase tensions on the world stage.
    - colemickens 10y ago
      By every account, he already has. Numerous world leaders and multinational organizations have denounced him, specifically because of his dangerous rhetoric.
    - jeremyjh 10y ago
      Yes but if you are right and the world ends and he doesn't have to pay up. That's the joke.
      - kabouseng 10y ago
        Just as a discussion point (and going off topic and being maybe too pedantic) that is not how I understood the XKCD. The difference is that the one interpretation only takes into account the odds of the machine lying, the bayesian approach also takes into account the odds of the sun actually going nova, which is still neglible. Yes as a second consideration you can also take the view of the world will end, but that is not the point of the XKCD. And then drawing it to this discussion, yes the odds that Trump would be willing to start a nuclear war might be high, but combined with the odds of an actual nuclear war occurring the odds of it happening is still neglible.
    - 10y ago
jmspring 10y ago
"Very largely his choice" ... then why hasn't the current nominee see a vote in congress?
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Okay, that's a pretty fair point. Obama's nominees have had astronomically high wait times. His average is 35 days, compared to 10-20 days for recent presidents. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-has-waited-longer-for-cabinet-confirmations-than-any-other-recent-president/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-has-waited-longer-f...
  - aggie 10y ago
    The dataset you present conveniently does not include the 211 days and counting for Merrick Garland, the longest period of Senate inaction on a Supreme Court nomination in American history, and approaching twice as long as the next longest (Brandeis at 125 days).
  - colemickens 10y ago
    I can't tell if you're ignorant of the fact that his current nominee has been blocked for months and will continue to be blocked for months, or if you conveniently want to avoid talking about it. I just don't understand how someone invests themselves into a conversation like this without having the first clue about the territory.
- hueving 10y ago
  Still his choice. Show me which supreme court justice wasn't selected by a president.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Show me one that wasn't approved by congress.
  - drewrv 10y ago
    Bork was selected by a president.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
aaronbrethorst 10y ago
but justice nomination is very largely their choice FTFY Does your religious conservatism mean that you support the Citizens United decision? Or does it mean that you're opposed to Loving v. Virginia? How about Shelby County v. Holder?
colemickens 10y ago
>Don't be surprised if that factors heavily in my decision. 1. How is that going to affect your decision? Who can you vote for that will ensure the SC seat goes to a conservative? 2. How do you feel about the unprecedented blocking of the President from doing this Constitutional duty of appoint SC justices for 9+ months? Or is that just a small price to pay to get your religious beliefs installed in the highest court in the land?
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  > Or is that just a small price to pay to get your religious beliefs installed in the highest court in the land? I don't know why you were downvoted, but I would like to point out that many laws are based on religion, like marrying only one person, or not stealing and killing. We take these for granted because we grew up with them. So, I'm not sure the argument that they are "installing religious beliefs" does much to convince religious people that they are overreaching. Their feeling is that they are saving people, and they feel this can be done through politics as well as it can be done in person. I'm not sure I agree with those who vote this way. I just wanted to throw it out there since I doubt you'll get a reply from a religious person.
  - colemickens 10y ago
    Nah, they just don't like me pointing out facts. Like the fact that this is Constitutional obstruction and is completely unprecented. Too much cognitive dissonance for people who are probably already completely overwhelmed at this point in the cycle, given the turmoil on that side of the aisle. That's why I won't get a reply from any of the small downvoters.
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      I agree that blocking a nominee steps way beyond the roles outline in the U.S. Constitution. Hopefully, it gets taken to the courts and they agree. Like gerrymandering and fillbustering, it's one of these stupid games that the sides play.
matwood 10y ago
> The President has to really ask for permission for everything else (laws, budgets, wars, etc.), but justice nomination is very largely his choice. Reason magazine editorial made the same argument that Bernie was the best choice for libertarians. Basically he aligns with libertarians on social issues, and everything else he could not get done anyway.
wcummings 10y ago
>The President has to really ask for permission for everything else (laws, budgets, wars, etc.), but justice nomination is very largely his choice. Apparently not, since Obama hasn't been able to make the nomination...