KaibaCorp
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2020
- Messages
- 121
Short-sighted “payback” and an escalation. TLDR: stupid.
2020 US Election (Part Two)
- Thread starter Lexicus
- Start date
- Status
Short-sighted “payback” and an escalation. TLDR: stupid.
The initial cheating* should instead be rewarded by not countering it, then.
In the game theory sense.
In the game theory sense.
The only solution which you appear to propose is for the Republicans to be allowed to do whatever they do.
As the Republicans have taught us, it doesn't matter what the charges are; all that matters is whether or not you have the votes. If a vote to impeach passes the House and is confirmed by the Senate, the judge goes.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
I mean this has been the democrat play for the last 20 years. Look where it has gotten us. Now the mere mention of fighting with similar tactics has the right ready to shoot even more people in the streets. Mind you they have done an admirable job shooting "enemies" to their causes for quite some time at an almost monthly clip. Nothing excuses this clear disregard for the law or the people whom are supposed to consent to this government.
Pack the courts, admit DC and PR as states and give them senators, abolish the EC, and ffs fix the gerrymandering in each and every state across the union especially in the South. Then maybe this government will start representing the actual people of this nation instead of the manipulators that trick poor rural whites into an identity political war that is not actually coming to their counties. Maybe those same poor rural families will start to realize that the side that advocates for children and mothers is the side that is actually for family values. Not the one who claims gays are an abomination while they themselves get caught in bathrooms at airports before getting on their chartered flights. Along this line of thinking I give you Congressman Duffy and Congresswoman Cortez debating the GND. . .
One side seems to be about building a future for our children and their children that has a chance to be sustainable and the other would just like their backs scratched a little longer before riding of into the sunset.
Admitting DC and PR as states seems to be low hanging fruit that would have long term benefits that cannot be undone easily. I'd also like to see term limits on all Federal judges, 20-25 years is long enough.
I want to point out how many opportunities there have been for bipartisanship since Garland. For one, Trump could have nominated Garland immediately. Trump could have nominated Garland to replace Ginsburg. And I guess we'll find out in 2021, but both Gorsuch and Kavanagh could step down as a huge gesture of bipartisanship.
But Trump and McConnell had to collude in order to ruin the Supreme Court nomination process. And as we learn, the actual seizure of power was more important than generating a representative bipartisan government
But Trump and McConnell had to collude in order to ruin the Supreme Court nomination process. And as we learn, the actual seizure of power was more important than generating a representative bipartisan government
Since they are mutually exclusive, they of course picked the one that'd result in their favour.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I see the court-packing idea as something that is a step too far. Generally, justices have been good at self-realigning in the court so as to prevent too much radicalism in decisions handed down. Upend that and then what?
Maybe Senate shenanigans could be curtailed with a repeal of the 17th Amendment, but I don’t think people would want to turn over their right to direct senatorial elections.
Maybe Senate shenanigans could be curtailed with a repeal of the 17th Amendment, but I don’t think people would want to turn over their right to direct senatorial elections.
Zardnaar
Deity
https://i.stuff.co.nz/world/america...-turning-the-channel-on-the-donald-trump-show
Bidens won on ratings
Bidens won on ratings
As the avatars of the ethnic majority, that's the secret way it's supposed to work. Everything else is window dressing.
Berzerker
Deity
If the Democrats had the WH and Senate Chuck Schumer would be confirming a nominee before the election
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Unless I got caught in a wormhole and changed dimensions, Chuck Schumer didn't make up a bullcrap "precedent" to refuse to even hold hearings on the nominee in 2016.
And you know this because? Like most Trumpers, you are projecting as a way to justify your position. It is the president that sends names for confirmation. If trump sent him names, I'm not so sure Schumer would be rushing things. If a Democrat was president, then RBG would have retired long ago and the confirmation would have been pretty normal.
https://twitter.com/KLoeffler/status/1316749393664638978
Openly embracing a Qanon candidate for an endorsement, in a purple state. When you were literally picked to appease moderate suburban women, and instead lunge far-right to appease the insane base. Loeffler isn't like this normally, she is a normal insanely rich looter type Republican, who has now spent millions manufacturing a far-right identity to win this race, and distract from her insider trading.
If it wasn't for the runoff, I'd say that Warnock would be favoured to win. Both Loeffler and Collins are trying to outright each other, all the while Georgia has been steadily shifting leftwards.
Openly embracing a Qanon candidate for an endorsement, in a purple state. When you were literally picked to appease moderate suburban women, and instead lunge far-right to appease the insane base. Loeffler isn't like this normally, she is a normal insanely rich looter type Republican, who has now spent millions manufacturing a far-right identity to win this race, and distract from her insider trading.
If it wasn't for the runoff, I'd say that Warnock would be favoured to win. Both Loeffler and Collins are trying to outright each other, all the while Georgia has been steadily shifting leftwards.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
“You know what? Running against the worst candidate in the history of American politics puts pressure on me,” Trump told the crowd. “Could you imagine if I lose? My whole life—what am I going to do? I’m going to say, I lost to the worst candidate in the history of politics! I’m not going to feel so good. Maybe I’ll have to leave the country, I don’t know.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-threatens-to-leave-the-country-if-he-loses-to-biden
lawls I wonder where. . .
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-threatens-to-leave-the-country-if-he-loses-to-biden
lawls I wonder where. . .
He will probably leave the country if he loses, that much is true. He will flee to some of his dictatorship buddies, eg Turkey.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/15/democrats-supreme-court-retaliation-429655
“Don’t think when you have established the rule of ‘because we can,’ that should the shoe be on the other foot, you will have any credibility to come to us and say: ‘yeah, I know you can do that, but you shouldn’t,’” Whitehouse said. “Your credibility to make that argument at any time in the future will die in this room and on that Senate floor if you continue.”
The Rhode Island Democrat succinctly stated what’s on everyone’s mind: Once Barrett is confirmed, all bets are off about how the Senate — and the Supreme Court — might look a few months from now if Democrats sweep in November.
Whitehouse’s remarks were pointed enough to serve as a warning for Republicans but vague enough to avoid creating the “court-packing” headline that the GOP would want coming out of Barrett’s hearing. In an interview afterward, Whitehouse called his statement “more or less a preview of coming attractions and work to be done, than it was a threat.”
“What the Republicans have done to the reputation and integrity of the court through these last three nominations leaves a tarnish on the court that I don’t think the court can bear,” Whitehouse said. “That means it’s going to be on us to figure out how to clean up that mess and restore a court that is demonstrably not the organ of big special interests.”
Not many democrats right now have the gumption to even play ball much less anything that looks like hardball. I mean this is softball talk but still at least its something. . .
“Don’t think when you have established the rule of ‘because we can,’ that should the shoe be on the other foot, you will have any credibility to come to us and say: ‘yeah, I know you can do that, but you shouldn’t,’” Whitehouse said. “Your credibility to make that argument at any time in the future will die in this room and on that Senate floor if you continue.”
The Rhode Island Democrat succinctly stated what’s on everyone’s mind: Once Barrett is confirmed, all bets are off about how the Senate — and the Supreme Court — might look a few months from now if Democrats sweep in November.
Whitehouse’s remarks were pointed enough to serve as a warning for Republicans but vague enough to avoid creating the “court-packing” headline that the GOP would want coming out of Barrett’s hearing. In an interview afterward, Whitehouse called his statement “more or less a preview of coming attractions and work to be done, than it was a threat.”
“What the Republicans have done to the reputation and integrity of the court through these last three nominations leaves a tarnish on the court that I don’t think the court can bear,” Whitehouse said. “That means it’s going to be on us to figure out how to clean up that mess and restore a court that is demonstrably not the organ of big special interests.”
Not many democrats right now have the gumption to even play ball much less anything that looks like hardball. I mean this is softball talk but still at least its something. . .
I think you missed the dirty pool of 2016.
In 2012 Obama had an EC victory of 332 seats and a 51% popular vote: he nominated someone that the Senate was supposed to debate (they refused, I guess Drugwar Mitch is rich enough he doesn't need to do his job). Trump won 304 seats, with a popular vote of 46%. Mitch McConnell then changed the rules of confirmation to force through the Trump nominee. A lot of it was done under the premise of "Judges shouldn't be appointed in an election year".
Again, this could have been bipartisan very easily. RGB was confirmed 96-3. Gingrich became speaker in 95.
By every metric, Obama had 10% more mandate to at least have his nominee debated, and the Republicans stole it by violating many precedents. But you're right, Clinton would have nominated someone in 2016, with a larger popular vote backing her nomination and an historical injustice of the (R) screwing the 2016 nomination process.
- Status
