Jump to content
270soft Forum

Herbert Hoover

Members
  • Posts

    3,982
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Herbert Hoover

  1. You can use Vortex which does more or less the same thing.
  2. An interesting drink that is made at a restaurant in downtown Knoxville is called a lunchbox. It's Skrewball peanut butter whiskey, blackberry liquor, and I believe grape simple syrup garnished with sweet cherries and it tastes just like a peanut butter and jelly.
  3. Just to chime in with something I'm sure that is in the back of everyone's mind: This is very similar to what the forum looked like a few weeks out from the 2016 election. As we get closer to the vote, tensions get higher and people get crazier than the normally are. It'll go back to normal soon, I imagine
  4. RFK rallies in California. RFK rallies in California. RFK influences blacks.
  5. Agreed. I happen to disagree with @PoliticalPundit's analysis, but he's been much more civil than @Patine has been lately. You've got to calm down, man. The personal attacks left and right have got to stop. Look at how @vcczar responded - pointed out a perceived flaw in reasoning and politely explained why he finds that to be an important part of the argument. It's very civil, even though you can tell that @vcczar and @PoliticalPundit are disagreeing. V clearly states he disagrees with the assessment, in fact. Likewise, just the other day I was a clown and thought something was unconstitutional and threw it around like the buzzword of the day when I was completely mistaken, and @pilight corrected me politely. I wasn't offended, and she/he didn't push it further. Civility. There's no need for calling people belligerent fools, quoting him over and over again when he clearly wants nothing to do with the conversation, and constantly attacking @Actinguy and others on the forum. You've got a unique mindset about international politics, and it's alright that no everyone shares your opinions.
  6. It's difficult to answer the second question. I condemn him for not taking it seriously, but didn't see evidence that his condition was as bad as you stated. However, I also don't see it taking his poll numbers down either, so there's not really an answer there. I think that there is some definite bias to that particular question.
  7. RFK influences labor unions. RFK rallies in California. RFK influences liberals.
  8. Taking a quick look at the amount of people running of different ideologies, it would probably be difficult for any progressive to win outside a few states just due to the heavy vote splitting. It would definitely be a moderate or standard Democrat winning almost every single primary. On the Republican side, I'd say it as a cakewalk for @Conservative Elector 2 because every other Republican is courting the exact same base.
  9. RFK influences moderates. RFK influences liberals. RFK influences blacks.
  10. It may be on the surface more benevolent, but the countries that China invests in are greatly indebted to China. When China invests, they typically include clauses about the repercussions for non-payment, and they are very serious. It's been some time since I've wrote about it for school, but I remember specifically that for one of their contracts they are able to repossess the most important port in... Kenya? And in another case, they are able to repossess the most important port in I believe Indonesia. The Chinese government lures these governments in with promises of great development should they accept the Chinese offers to develop their infrastructure. The numbers look great on the surface and the ideas seem very risky, but potentially worth the rewards, especially since the US and other countries are not particularly interested in funding when it has historically gone very badly. However, the estimates are typically based on numbers that are developed by the Chinese and made to look better than they really are. In Kenya again, they built one freight system that is barely used, and now they hold them by the balls diplomatically over what they could do to them. The Chinese also have the ability to ruin these countries economies and completely pull out their support if their allegiance is not had. While the US coerced with their military, the Chinese have pursued the strategy of coercing with economic pressures, and those can be just as devastating and cost just as many lives as that of war. It most definitely tarnishes the reputation of China for those who are aware of it. It is no secret in the international political economy field that China is incredibly predatory and worse than just about any other country in the post Cold War era when it comes to political pressure and dissolving, in parts, the sovereignty of foreign nations. China, the United States, Portugal, Britain, just different tactics to accomplish the same end goals of control. I don't understand your obsession with the West's imposition of their political will over that of countries such as China. The reputation of every major nation is stained, including all of those mentioned above as well as other powers such as Japan and the former Ottoman Empire.
  11. One thing that China has done exceptionally well on is building strong relationships with foreign countries abroad. One benefit of an authoritarian system is that leadership and vision is relatively consistent compared to the United States. The Belt and Road Initiative is incredibly ambitious and has definitely secured international support from many fellow Asian and African countries. The United States needs to step it up and prove that it can work with and lead the world rather than simply bounce back and forth between isolationism and military dick measuring contests. China's growth must be combatted in ways outside of tariffs and rhetoric. Perhaps Biden will see that, but Trump does not. I'm not in favor of rapid militarization nor needless wars, but I'd rather that the United States be superpower of the world than China or Russia. We need to invest in the infrastructure and ideologies of these developing countries that may well be a focal point of diplomatic tension with China in the near future. The longer that we allow China to go unmatched in these areas the more difficult that it will be to assert ourselves over them in the future.
  12. Yeah, I'm honestly surprised to see him 7th on your list, I was scared that we'd see appointments like Alito going into Trump's presidency. No offense to @Conservative Elector 2 but I see Alito as the most harmful justice on the court and its not even close, if we had more justices like Gorsuch and Roberts then I'd be much more comfortable with Republicans picking SC Justices. Unfortunately for every good pick, there is someone like Alito or Thomas. Granted, Sotomayor isn't amazing either, but I quite like Breyer and would have loved Garland on the court. RBG was good in some aspects but also seemed to misunderstand the traditional role of the court in some others, even if I generally agree with what she wanted to accomplish as a fellow social liberal. She was far more an inspiration to women and I know a few women who have told me that RBG is one of the reasons that they ended up pursuing law, and I think that she was a great figurehead for the institution. There really hasn't been any justice known quite as well as her in quite some time, save Kavanaugh for entirely different reasons.
  13. I believe that there will be protests, but nothing violent. It will be similar to the reaction of Trump winning in 2016.
  14. I like the list. Gorsuch has proven to be a much better justice than most expected him to be, and I think that liberals should be happy that Trump put through two pretty great justices despite the hyper-partisanship of the court now. Imagine if we had two more Alitos... 1. Kagan 2. Roberts 3 and 4 tied: Gorsuch and Breyer 5. Kavanaugh 6. Barrett? (Could move up to potentially 3 or 4 depending on what she's actually like on the court, will definitely not move down) 7. Sotomayor (far too activist for my liking) 8. Thomas 9999999999999999999999999999999: Alito
  15. This being a platform it I was a nominee means significantly moderating. Many of the options I would want to pick could realistically hurt in a general election.
  16. Yeah, Kavanaugh gives a lot of emphasis on precedent. I think he’d be the deciding vote in another 5-4 decision, but I’m not completely certain on that. I’m 99% certain that this court won’t overturn Roe V. Wade. Again, Roberts and Kavanaugh would not vote to do so, and Barrett’s comments on abortion tend to deal more with who pays for it rather than the legal status of it. I think that there’s virtually no chance.
  17. Kennedy influences moderates. Kennedy influences liberals. Kennedy influences blacks.
  18. I'd recommend that for the sake of having a split ideology of the court, that we have @SilentLiberty or @Kingthero on the court as well. As of now, Conservative Elector, and Reagan are reliably conservative, Hestia, Vcczar, and Actinguy are reliably liberal, and myself and Potato are likely to be swing votes, though I believe Potato is a bit more conservative.
  19. With something like this, it could absolutely be done on a week to week basis. After all, I'm sure that myself, Reagan, and you would love to add a lot of flavor to our posts with it. I wouldn't mind it being a case a week at all. I like @Zenobiyl's idea that those who aren't on the court can argue cases before the court. Maybe what we could do is that a non-court member proposes a certain case to the court and yourself as ChJ chooses whether or not we take it just for simplicity. We could also use the Rule of 4, but that would likely be a bit time consuming.Then, two posters can argue each side of the case throughout the week or whatever the time limit is and then justices cast votes and write opinions at the end. I'm not sure of how effective it might be, but it would be fun if it worked in practice. Of course, the first thing that would have to happen is that everyone on the court actually agree to be on the court lol.
  20. Here is what I would say about the composition of the court... 1. Chief Justice @Conservative Elector 2: Solidly a member of the conservative bloc on the court, and a rigid textualist. Most economically libertarian on the court. Justice C was appointed by Bush in 2005 to replace William Rehnquist. 2. Justice @Reagan04: Another member of the conservative bloc on the court, and a huge proponent of civil liberties versus government intrusion. Very opposed to the regulation of intrastate commerce and skeptical of the vague claims of programs such as the Affordable Care Act. The most senior member on the Supreme Court, Justice R having been appointed by HW Bush in 1991. 3. Justice @jvikings1: The third of four reliably conservative votes. Justice J is a proponent of economic and social liberties, and was appointed by President Trump in 2017 following the controversial refusal to hear the nomination of Obama pick Merrick Garland. 4. Justice @vcczar: An unabashed progressive activist on the court. Justice V regularly votes in favor of government regulation and power that may not be explicitly found in the Constitution, but that he believes is necessary to enact the duties of the government in the modern era. The second most senior member of the court, having been Clinton's first appointment to the highest court in 1994. 5. Justice @Actinguy: A moderately liberal on the court. While fairly consistently liberal, Justice A has cast some votes viewed by liberals as questionable in regards to voter IDs. However, his judicial activism on social issues is relatively unmatched on the court outside of Justice V. 6. Justice @Hestia11: A reliably liberal justice. Justice HH was appointed by President Obama as his first justice in 2009. 7. Justice @Herbert Hoover. A moderate justice who has voted with the liberals on the court roughly 60% of the time. Appointed by President Obama in 2010, and notably authored a dissenting opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, in which he argued that while he agreed that the Affordable Care Act was likely unconstitutional, he believed that it was a political affair that would only damage the court to involve itself with. 8. Justice @SilentLiberty: The final member of the conservative bloc on the court. Notably, Justice S is the only conservative on the court to believe that the Constitution is a living and dynamic document, and he has so far rarely broken with the conservative bloc but could be expected to do so. Justice S was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2018 with a relatively tame confirmation battle. 9. VACANT. The final seat on the court is currently vacant due to the unexpected death of Justice @WVProgressive. A confirmation battle in an election year is going to be controversial for President Trump, but he has announced as of today that his pick will be 31 year old @ThePotatoWalrus. The relative youth and inexperience of this pick is unprecedented, and he would likely become the longest serving member in the court's history if confirmed. Senators Murkowski and Collins have vowed not to confirm in the election season, so if two more Republicans break ranks, Democrats will have a chance to appoint their own if they win the White House. One rumored pick is @The Blood, who would be one of the most liberal members on the court. The court's composition as it is currently lends itself to often close votes, with the Conservative Bloc often voting together in the minority against the liberals and the moderates. However, Obergefell v. Hodges was a landmark case in which the court's 7-2 decision effectively legalized same-sex marriage across the United States. Justice A authored the opinion, stating that LBGTQ+ members constituted a protected class that would receive federal protections similar to gender, age, and racial classes. With this court's composition, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius was a 5-4 decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional, with Justices A, H, HH, and V in the minority.
  21. Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of the Republicans actions for preventing the nomination of Garland. He was an incredibly talented pick with what should have been bipartisan support. However, what Democrats are proposing is blatantly unconstitutional. Would I support a bill in Congress that limited the presidents term to 4, two year terms? No! Because it's in the constitution what their terms are. I just don't see the logic in proposing something so blatantly unconstitutional that has no chance of passing, will likely turn public support against you, and ultimately have a negative net effect.
×
×
  • Create New...