Obama will announce Supreme Court pick @ 11am

[Jhhnn]

Unfortunately the Democrats voters are getting low turnout numbers so far.

Democrats Fret Over Low Voter Turnout In Early Primaries

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/04/469233702/democrats-fret-over-low-voter-turnout-in-early-primaries

Yawn.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/

 

[hal2kilo]

I see you still have no idea.

What you are going on about, yes we have no clue.

 

[Ns1]

Unfortunately the Democrats voters are getting low turnout numbers so far.

Democrats Fret Over Low Voter Turnout In Early Primaries

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/04/469233702/democrats-fret-over-low-voter-turnout-in-early-primaries

no need to vote until it's time to vote against trump.

because...

 

[mysticjbyrd]

no need to vote until it's time to vote against trump.

because...

You just illustrated why we don't have a democracy anymore.

Everyone votes against a candidate, rather than for one. When you vote the lesser of two evils, you perpetuate evil.

 

[Blackjack200]

You just illustrated why we don't have a democracy anymore.

Everyone votes against a candidate, rather than for one. When you vote the lesser of two evils, you perpetuate evil.

That's awfully presumptuous. I can find faults with all of the candidates, but just because I don't agree 100% with any of them does not mean that I'm only voting to oppose the other party.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's awfully presumptuous. I can find faults with all of the candidates, but just because I don't agree 100% with any of them does not mean that I'm only voting to oppose the other party.

That wouldn't be true if you were Mitch McConnell.

 

[Darwin333]

You just illustrated why we don't have a democracy anymore.

Everyone votes against a candidate, rather than for one. When you vote the lesser of two evils, you perpetuate evil.

That's why in the last 4 presidential elections I have written in Beelzebub. If I'm going to vote for evil I'm voting for the best damn evil I can.

 

[piasabird]

Darth Vader.

 

[piasabird]

Bill Clinton

 

[piasabird]

Levine talk show host.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

That's awfully presumptuous. I can find faults with all of the candidates, but just because I don't agree 100% with any of them does not mean that I'm only voting to oppose the other party.

I don't agree with anyone 100% either. The issue is instead of voting for the guy they agree on with 80%, people pick the candidate they agree with on 10%, so the guy they agree with on 1% doesn't win.

Of course, that's just human nature, and the inevitable outcome of our terrible political system. The system needs to be overhauled so we can vote for multiple candidates.

If you like Bernie, but you are worried Trump will win, you should be able to vote for Bernie, and if he doesn't win, your vote can go to Hillary.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't agree with anyone 100% either. The issue is instead of voting for the guy they agree on with 80%, people pick the candidate they agree with on 10%, so the guy they agree with on 1% doesn't win.

Of course, that's just human nature, and the inevitable outcome of our terrible political system. The system needs to be overhauled so we can vote for multiple candidates.

If you like Bernie, but you are worried Trump will win, you should be able to vote for Bernie, and if he doesn't win, your vote can go to Hillary.

And everybody gets a pony, right?

 

[chucky2]

Well, if you're a lower wage US Citizen, would you rather a pony or rather get F'd by Billary while she smiles at you and whispers sweet soundbites in your ear?

(Don't answer Jhnnn, we know which one you'd prefer)

 

[sportage]

I think Obama knew his nominee would go nowhere, and I almost believe Obama really doesn't care.

Obama only wanted to make a point and prove how mean republicans are to him and his presidency.
I doubt Obama really wants this guy on the court. Obama rather make a point, heat the issue, then assume president Hillary or president Sanders will chose the more liberal nominee. Something Obama wanted to do this time, but he knew that would go nowhere.
So at least with this nominee, Obama can set the stage for a president Hillary and taking back the senate, and prove the republicans simply refuse to cooperate and republicans are completely unreasonable.

Enter president Hillary stage left.

 

[theeedude]

Funny how all of Obama's evil genius plans rely on Republican stupidity.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think Obama knew his nominee would go nowhere, and I almost believe Obama really doesn't care.

Obama only wanted to make a point and prove how mean republicans are to him and his presidency.
I doubt Obama really wants this guy on the court. Obama rather make a point, heat the issue, then assume president Hillary or president Sanders will chose the more liberal nominee. Something Obama wanted to do this time, but he knew that would go nowhere.
So at least with this nominee, Obama can set the stage for a president Hillary and taking back the senate, and prove the republicans simply refuse to cooperate and republicans are completely unreasonable.

Enter president Hillary stage left.

Nice conspiracy theory, bro.

It's Obama's Constitutional duty to make a nomination in a timely fashion. He has done so. There's no reason to believe that he's insincere. I doubt he'd have named Garland if he wasn't comfortable with the idea of him on the Court.

It's unreasonable to attribute motivations akin to the Mayberry Machiavellians to Obama.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Funny how all of Obama's evil genius plans rely on Republican stupidity.

Yah, isn't that fucking miraculous? One side is always too 'dumb' to figure out what the other is doing. Millions is resources, some of the brightest minds in the country, but they just cannot figure it out!

/s

 

[werepossum]

these strict Constitutionist Republicans are sticking to their principles! Obama should only be allowed to serve 3/5 of his term.

LMAO!

Reasonable analysis of Garland's supposed anti-gun bias.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/17/legal-scholars-reading-anti-gun-bias-into-merri/209369

404 error - Reasonable analysis not found. Reasonable analysis call actually directed to MediaMatters. Fix bias error and recompile.

They are two sides of the very same coin. Given that if the roles were reversed it would be the same, the Repubs bitching about the Dems not cooperating...

Yup. But sometimes when playing musical chairs, you end up being the odd man out when the music stops. Even though they said the same things, it did not come up for the Dems and it did for the Pubbies. Thus the Pubbies need to nut up and do their damned jobs. Vet, debate, vote. Hell, Obama made it easy for them; the man's early years have already been vetted, leaving only his appellate judicial record to vet. (Assuming he's not joined the Klan or the American Communists since then.)

 

[werepossum]

Except this has nothing to do with filibustering. The minority can only filibuster. The majority can vote down the nominee. Why don't they just do that?

Actually, most of us recognize that Senators are individuals, not part of two great faceless blobs. Senators in the majority can certain filibuster Garland if they wish.

He is absolutely right.... If a republican was potus, Garland would be their pick, and the democrats would obstruct it, until people forget, or there is no more political capital to extract.

You are obsessed with the obstruction, but that's just an act. They are different sides of the same coin.

In the end, they both get what they want, Garland in the scotus, and the people get screwed.

Maybe. We'll have to see if the Pubbies have the courage of their convictions. In my opinion, if they refuse to hold hearings and a vote on the very fellow they said Obama should send them, then they probably lose the Senate and the White House, in which case the next pick won't be nearly so reasonable.

That's awfully presumptuous. I can find faults with all of the candidates, but just because I don't agree 100% with any of them does not mean that I'm only voting to oppose the other party.

In the primary, maybe. In the general, most people are either party line voters or voting against the other guy/gal. It's the American way; we've forgotten that the lesser evil is still evil.

 

[Fern]

I'm not convinced this SCOTUS thing will end up being the big deal many here think. Sure, it's a big deal for the rabid partisan types but most people have only so many fvcks to give. Heck, if you started out this year with a barrel full it might be empty by now.

San Bernardino shootings, Brussels bombings, BLM, to idea of Mexico forced to build a wall, GOP leaders losing their minds, the rise of the Sander's campaign with free college and medical care, giant political rallies complete with fights and dumbasses with Klan hoods, FBI and DoJ investigations into a candidate, presidential debates about the size of candidates body parts, nude photos of a potential first lady. The list is almost endless. Republican obstructionism? Man, that shiz is so played out, so SSDD I must wonder how many care.

Reality TV isn't this weird.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually, most of us recognize that Senators are individuals, not part of two great faceless blobs. Senators in the majority can certain filibuster Garland if they wish.

A filibuster is a long held Senate tradition to prevent a floor vote that only the minority can exercise.

Maybe. We'll have to see if the Pubbies have the courage of their convictions. In my opinion, if they refuse to hold hearings and a vote on the very fellow they said Obama should send them, then they probably lose the Senate and the White House, in which case the next pick won't be nearly so reasonable.

I hope it turns out to be some last great act of defiance. McConnell has certainly done his best to deny Obama any victories regardless of the consequences to the Nation.

In the primary, maybe. In the general, most people are either party line voters or voting against the other guy/gal. It's the American way; we've forgotten that the lesser evil is still evil.

And we return to the irrefutability of negative attitude. It's part of the self fulfilling prophesy of the burn it down faction.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not convinced this SCOTUS thing will end up being the big deal many here think. Sure, it's a big deal for the rabid partisan types but most people have only so many fvcks to give. Heck, if you started out this year with a barrel full it might be empty by now.

San Bernardino shootings, Brussels bombings, BLM, to idea of Mexico forced to build a wall, GOP leaders losing their minds, the rise of the Sander's campaign with free college and medical care, giant political rallies complete with fights and dumbasses with Klan hoods, FBI and DoJ investigations into a candidate, presidential debates about the size of candidates body parts, nude photos of a potential first lady. The list is almost endless. Republican obstructionism? Man, that shiz is so played out, so SSDD I must wonder how many care.

Reality TV isn't this weird.

Fern

Maybe not, but surely there is some minimum standard at which we draw the line. For me, it's doing the job they are paid to do, and budget/spending bills and nominees are the absolute minimum. Anything else, I don't care if they filibuster the hell out of it; hell, I'll probably prefer it. But if the President does his part, the Senate needs to do their part.

I have no fundamental problem issue with the concept of cutting off a President's nominations at some point. But if they wish to do that, they should write a Constitutional Amendment and argue its merits. Until such time as such is passed, they need to do their damned job. Vote him up, vote him down, I don't care, but vet him, hear him, and vote on him, in a timely fashion. Advice and consent.

I'll go further and say that if they refuse to vote on the very man their leadership asked that they be sent, then they should lose the Senate and the House too.

 

[werepossum]

A filibuster is a long held Senate tradition to prevent a floor vote that only the minority can exercise.

I hope it turns out to be some last great act of defiance. McConnell has certainly done his best to deny Obama any victories regardless of the consequences to the Nation.

And we return to the irrefutability of negative attitude. It's part of the self fulfilling prophesy of the burn it down faction.

So what third party was in charge when one or two Republicans joined with the Democrats to filibuster the various Civil Rights Acts? When Strom Thurmond filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and Robert Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, both were Democrats in a Democrat-dominated Senate. Hell, Robert Byrd used to filibuster Democrat bills regularly, whenever he thought West Virginia needed another Robert Byrd Federal Building project.

Only the majority can invoke cloture (a relatively new rule dating only to 1917), having control of the Senate. However, any Senator of any party can filibuster. Before government became so powerful and the two parties each became so homogeneous, bipartisan filibusters weren't even uncommon. Coalitions of Senators were much more fluid, especially given that Senators used to represent the State's interests rather than the party's. Principled stands by individual Senators were also much more common.

Nothing in here limits the filibuster to the minority.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

 

[MongGrel]

I'm not convinced this SCOTUS thing will end up being the big deal many here think. Sure, it's a big deal for the rabid partisan types but most people have only so many fvcks to give. Heck, if you started out this year with a barrel full it might be empty by now.

San Bernardino shootings, Brussels bombings, BLM, to idea of Mexico forced to build a wall, GOP leaders losing their minds, the rise of the Sander's campaign with free college and medical care, giant political rallies complete with fights and dumbasses with Klan hoods, FBI and DoJ investigations into a candidate, presidential debates about the size of candidates body parts, nude photos of a potential first lady. The list is almost endless. Republican obstructionism? Man, that shiz is so played out, so SSDD I must wonder how many care.

Reality TV isn't this weird.

Fern

+1

But of course the Reality TV mindset appears to have come to the polls.