If you're voting either (R) or (D) for president...

[Charles Kozierok]

Republicans and Democrats tend to fracture when they have too much power in government. When the Democrats had the White House, the House, and the Senate they ran amok... and same with the Republicans. The more they fracture themselves the weaker they'll be when the voters kick their power down a notch or two. No big changes.

Thank you for addressing my point. However, you don't really seem to be disagreeing with me here.

As for the SCOTUS, well, appointments must be confirmed. It matters much more who is in the Senate than it does who is in the Oval Office.

That's really not true. The president makes the choices, and they get confirmed unless the Senate can find a really good reason not to do so. If the GOP could have blocked Obama's appointments, they would have. They won't be able to block his next one either. Just as the Democratic-controlled Senate won't be able to do anything about Romney's choices unless they are really over-the-top.

I'll ask another specific question: do you think President McCain would have ended DADT?

 

[dank69]

I got your density right here, pal...

What part of Senate confirmation is so difficult for you to understand? It matters a hell of a lot more who is in the Senate than who is in the Oval with regard to SCOTUS appointments.

The part I don't understand is how you can make up lies like the bolded statement above to support your absurd position rather than admit you are full of shit.

 

[zsdersw]

Thank you for addressing my point. However, you don't really seem to be disagreeing with me here.

Yes I am... you seem to think that it really matters if Romney wins and the House remains under Republican control. It doesn't. Whether or not the Senate remains under Democratic control, the damage is temporary at most.

That's really not true. The president makes the choices, and they get confirmed unless the Senate can find a really good reason not to do so. If the GOP could have blocked Obama's appointments, they would have. They won't be able to block his next one either. Just as the Democratic-controlled Senate won't be able to do anything about Romney's choices unless they are really over-the-top.

If they're not over-the-top no one has anything to worry about.

I'll ask another specific question: do you think President McCain would have ended DADT?

No, but Gary Johnson would have... and he wouldn't have added trillions of debt or given us "healthcare reform" that looks like this, either:

 

[zsdersw]

The part I don't understand is how you can make up lies like the bolded statement above to support your absurd position rather than admit you are full of shit.

Just because you're so full of shit your eyes can see nothing but shit doesn't mean anyone else is full of shit.

 

[jackstar7]

GJ also would not have given us single-payer, either.

 

[zsdersw]

GJ also would not have given us single-payer, either.

Correct.. and that's a good thing.

 

[bfdd]

What CK is trying to explain to you, and what you are both too dense to understand, is that even if you think both D and R are the same on all things, they are not the same on SCOTUS picks. You cannot deny this.

That's true for certain "social" issues.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yes I am... you seem to think that it really matters if Romney wins and the House remains under Republican control. It doesn't. Whether or not the Senate remains under Democratic control, the damage is temporary at most.

That's still not a very good argument. In fact, it isn't an argument at all. The differences may not be large, but they are still differences.

If they're not over-the-top no one has anything to worry about.

So you're okay with another Justice Scalia? I am not.

No, but Gary Johnson would have...

You're back to wishing for ponies.

Gary Johnson is not going to be the next president. Obama or Romney will be. Are you seriously going to sit here and say that, as just one of many examples, they will both behave the same way on gay rights?

I get it: you're upset at the two-party system. A lot of us are. But it is what it is and it's not going anywhere soon. If you want to make an argument for voting third party, that's one thing. But insulting anyone who sees differences between the parties is not going to get you anywhere, and it makes you look uninformed.

 

[jackstar7]

Correct.. and that's a good thing.

Disagree. I'd rather there wasn't an industry that profited solely on being a middle-man for the grim reaper.

 

[SheHateMe]

Lol AQ was already on the run and he also killed one of our allies in the battle against them, Ghaddaffi who was trying to curb their recruiting efforts in his nation. You know where many if not most of the fanatics come from. Also universal health care? Have you any clue about the ACA? My candidate has REAL plans for attacking our issues and wants to do it NOW not twenty years. Just because your ignorant ass doesn't do any research into all of the available candidates and just gobbles up the bullshit you're fed doesn't mean some of us choose to be as ignorant as you and your ilk. A vote for Obama or Romney is a wasted vote.

A vote for a 3rd party candidate is a wasted vote also. Take your voter superiority and stuff it.

 

[Blackjack200]

If they're not over-the-top no one has anything to worry about.

Right, as long as we keep getting justices like Thomas, Alito, and Scalia in there we'll be fine, right?

Don't you just love it when a member of one oppressed group doesn't give a shit about the interests of another opressed group?

 

[zsdersw]

That's still not a very good argument. In fact, it isn't an argument at all. The differences may not be large, but they are still differences.

Fuji apples are different from Gala apples, too, but that doesn't mean the differences are significant.

So you're okay with another Justice Scalia? I am not.

Yes I am. Some judicial appointments drift right while on the bench, others drift left.

You're back to wishing for ponies.

Gary Johnson is not going to be the next president. Obama or Romney will be. Are you seriously going to sit here and say that, as just one of many examples, they will both behave the same way on gay rights?

Yes. I believe Obama and Romney are exactly alike on gay rights.

But insulting anyone who sees differences between the parties is not going to get you anywhere, and it makes you look uninformed.

I don't care if I insult anyone and their idiotic belief that there are serious differences between the Rs and the Ds.

 

[dank69]

Just because you're so full of shit your eyes can see nothing but shit doesn't mean anyone else is full of shit.

I'm not the one claiming laughably absurd things like "the Senate is more important than the Oval Office when it comes to SCOTUS picks."

 

[zsdersw]

Take your voter superiority and stuff it.

I sure will... right up your ass. And you'll like it, too... because when I fuck someone, they always beg for more.

 

[dank69]

Right, as long as we keep getting justices like Thomas, Alito, and Scalia in there we'll be fine, right?

Don't you just love it when a member of one oppressed group doesn't give a shit about the interests of another opressed group?

He is so blinded by stupidity that he is cutting off his own nose to spite his face and has the audacity to claim we are all sheep for not doing the same. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

 

[zsdersw]

I'm not the one claiming laughably absurd things like "the Senate is more important than the Oval Office when it comes to SCOTUS picks."

It's not absurd at all. Extreme appointments are not confirmed.

 

[zsdersw]

He is so blinded by stupidity that he is cutting off his own nose to spite his face and has the audacity to claim we are all sheep for not doing the same. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

You're so blinded by partisan loyalty that you'll suck Obama's cock until you've drained it dry.

 

[dank69]

It's not absurd at all. Extreme appointments are not confirmed.

Scalia is extreme. Thomas is extreme. Both appointed. Keep flailing.

 

[jackstar7]

I sure will... right up your ass. And you'll like it, too... because when I fuck someone, they always beg for more.

You're going to stuff it with your dick? Why not just use your finger or something?

Do you know where his ass has been?

 

[zsdersw]

Scalia is extreme. Thomas is extreme. Both appointed. Keep flailing.

Sure, and how many justices started out conservative but became more liberal.. or vice-versa? A lot.

Keep failing.

 

[zsdersw]

You're going to stuff it with your dick? Why not just use your finger or something?

Do you know where his ass has been?

It's not as if it would be unprotected... I've got voter superiority as the condom.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yes. I believe Obama and Romney are exactly alike on gay rights.

Okay then. I guess I'm done here.

 

[werepossum]

Claiming that there is no difference at all between the major party candidates is as simplistic and incorrect as claiming that there is a world of difference between them.

They are similar in many ways. They are different in many ways.

The potential for two SCOTUS justices being appointed in the next four years is alone enough reason to care which of the two will be in office.

This is true. If you feel that SCOTUS' proper role is to look at who SHOULD win a case, protecting the little guy from the big boys - the wise Latina model of jurisprudence - then Obama is your man. If you think SCOTUS' proper role is to impartially interpret the law and Constitution, regardless of the relative power or need or moral qualities of the parties - the strict interpretationalist model of jurisprudence - then Romney is your man. If you think that SCOTUS is irrelevant compared to the damage the two parties are inflicting on the nation, then Johnson is your man. If you believe that SCOTUS' proper role is to dismantle American, rob from the rich to give to the poor, disarm America and support suicide bombers over Israel, thereby ushering in a worker's paradise, then Jill Stein is your man (and hopefully can drive you to therapy after the election.)

 

[jackstar7]

It's not as if it would be unprotected... I've got voter superiority as the condom.

Seems super-permeable.

 

[dank69]

Seems super-permeable.