• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump's US Supreme Court Nominee Thread

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
blackangst1 said:
But you cant name the party? Ill do it for you. Democrats.
Click to expand...
Hilarious.

I'll go ahead and quote myself to shit all over your dumbfucking attempt to move the goalposts.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity, clown.

nickqt said:
Just controlling for region, there were 115 Southern Democrats (House and Senate), and a whopping 11 Southern Republicans (House and Senate).

8/115 = 0.695 = 6.95% of Southern Democrats voted for the CRA.

1/11 = 0.090 = 9% of Southern Republicans voted for the CRA...which while higher than the Southern Democrats, was still just 1 Southern Republican who voted against Jim Crow, out of 11 total.

Just controlling for region, there were 200 Northern Democrats (House and Senate), and 194 Northern Republicans (House and Senate).

190/200 = 0.95 = 95% of Northern Democrats voted for the CRA.

165/194 = 0.8505 = 85% of Northern Republicans voted for the CRA.

So, Democrats provided literally more votes total in passing the CRA, voted for the CRA at a higher percentage based on region and chamber, and only voted for the CRA at a slightly less percentage if they were from the South, although there were only 11 Southern Republicans compared to 115 Southern Democrats.
Click to expand...

That's the math, clown.

Run away now, clown.
 
blackangst1 said:
So when did Democrats go from conservative to liberal, and vice versa for Republicans?
Click to expand...
Follow the links man, it's not hard.
Have you ever heard of a Southern Democrat opposed to ending slavery in YOUR lifetime? What happened to the Whig party, what Federalists, or the Free soil wing of the Democratic Party?
Remember we are talking about pre civil war here.

I suggest to actually read my post that I so kindly put a quote in for you.
 
DaaQ said:
Follow the links man, it's not hard.
Have you ever heard of a Southern Democrat opposed to ending slavery in YOUR lifetime? What happened to the Whig party, what Federalists, or the Free soil wing of the Democratic Party?
Remember we are talking about pre civil war here.

I suggest to actually read my post that I so kindly put a quote in for you.
Click to expand...

I asked a simple question. Democrats opposed freeing blacks. Democrats threw Japanese citizens into camps. Democrats have done alot of things that warrant the "yeah but Democrats arent like that anymore".

So when did this happen?
 
blackangst1 said:
I asked a simple question. Democrats opposed freeing blacks. Democrats threw Japanese citizens into camps. Democrats have done alot of things that warrant the "yeah but Democrats arent like that anymore".

So when did this happen?
Click to expand...

Around the same time your lot switched sides and started railing against “Social Justice Warriors”.
 
Jhhnn said:
So what does that have to do with the topic at hand? If you don't want to talk about it you don't have to participate.
Click to expand...
The clown wants a specific minute that some generational event happened, because he's a dishonest clown who can only parrot what much smarter fascists have thought up in the past.

If you wanted to entertain the clown, you could point to Truman's Desegreation of the Army in 1947, and Strom Thurmond, DEMOCRAT, starting the DIXIECRAT Party and running against Truman in '48. And you could point to the CRA of 1964, which caused hundreds of ELECTED DEMOCRATS TO SWITCH TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY from '64-'94.

But the clown only knows one thing, and that one thing is whatever he's been told to think by people much more intelligent than he is. So, once he runs out of talking points, it's just hysterical screaming and occasional gnashing of teeth.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
What Mitch did broke tradition but was unfortunately Constitutionally legal and also an unnecessary escalation of the increasingly partisan fighting and maneuvering over judicial appointments. Packing the courts would simply be another legal but partisan self serving escalation.
Click to expand...

And now Mitch is breaking his new tradition. Which means there is no tradition at all.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
What Mitch did broke tradition but was unfortunately Constitutionally legal and also an unnecessary escalation of the increasingly partisan fighting and maneuvering over judicial appointments. Packing the courts would simply be another legal but partisan self serving escalation.
Click to expand...
I think it's more than that. Sometimes you do something because it feels really good and gets you want you immediately want, though you know it's terrible for the country. What they're doing right now is one of those things. For having a couple of supreme court seats, they have basically destroyed the senate. I find it quite funny actually because this is actually probably the fastest way for america to get where it needs to go. The ACA was hamstrung due to the perceived need to collaborate with the other side (in fact the other side demanded changes and when those changes were actually given still didn't vote for it). It's generally much easier to expand social services and rights than it is to take rights away. With the death of senate as we know it, this basically greenlight's democrats to expand their agenda and put the onus on the GOP to try and take back things people have gotten used to. Essentially it's the fastest way for us to get to universal healthcare, paid child care and child care leave, rapid naturalization of immigrants, expansion of voting rights, etc etc. Honestly I would gladly trade these things for a few lost court cases because let's be honest most of the things the courts rule on can either be directly changed by law (for example the recent gay rights ruling by the court was on title 9 I think. A congress could just change the language of title 9 and completely obviate the need to have that ruling at all) or at best hem and pull at the margins of what rights and abilities people have.
 
blackangst1 said:
Again, having trouble following a conversation.

Dementia?
Click to expand...

I followed your dishonest duh-version just fine. It's foolish of you to pretend that there hasn't been a radical realignment of Party loyalty since the 60's. None of it applies today and hasn't since Reagan's victory 40 years ago.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Should we believe what the Democrats said in 2016 about filling a seat ? In that case we can all agree with what the Republicans are saying in 2020.
Click to expand...

Except that didn't happen because McConnell said otherwise, cuz principles & stuff. Because let the people decide, right? What he really said was "Fuck you, Libtards" & it's what he's saying today.
 
Greenman said:
Rather than a personal attack, why not try pointing out where the law or constitutional mandate was broken? It's easy to spit out worthless hyperbole, and it's value to the discussion is exactly zero.
Click to expand...
Dumbass, that wasn't a personal attack (that was, I think). It's the reversal of the stance that is so commonly seen in our Republican politicians that I was referring to. Not your dumbass (personal attack?) remarks where you are constantly finding a way to justify the inconsistencies that your political team seems to be afflicted with. Try to be impartial for once. You relish in quibbling over some detail to deflect from the fact that Republicans constantly take a contrary position to support their agenda. You are either delusional or simply dishonest. Perhaps you should delve into what makes you this way.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Should we believe what the Democrats said in 2016 about filling a seat ? In that case we can all agree with what the Republicans are saying in 2020.
Click to expand...

Can you understand that, at that time, the Democrats wanted to keep the normal procedure in place. If that approach was taken then, you are right, but no they changed it. No one would be saying anything now, as it is the “normal” procedure. See normal is not law, it is not codified statute, it is procedure. When you break it and do something else, what you do there is the “new normal” procedure. Since you broke it, one would think you own it and will keep with it. Now they want to go back to the “normal” that was before they instituted the “new normal” and therefore you take that the words someone says while they want to keep the “normal” before the “new normal” and use against them because you then decided that the “new normal” did not suit your current situation and the old “normal” worked so therefore no one should say a thing. That is some great logic. Use that in your company either to your boss or to your staff and update us on how that works out. We anxiously await your results.
 
Grey_Beard said:
Can you understand that, at that time, the Democrats wanted to keep the normal procedure in place. If that approach was taken then, you are right, but no they changed it. No one would be saying anything now, as it is the “normal” procedure. See normal is not law, it is not codified statute, it is procedure. When you break it and do something else, what you do there is the “new normal” procedure. Since you broke it, one would think you own it and will keep with it. Now they want to go back to the “normal” that was before they instituted the “new normal” and therefore you take that the words someone says while they want to keep the “normal” before the “new normal” and use against them because you then decided that the “new normal” did not suit your current situation and the old “normal” worked so therefore no one should say a thing. That is some great logic. Use that in your company either to your boss or to your staff and update us on how that works out. We anxiously await your results.
Click to expand...
You're explaining how something works to someone who wants to smash that thing into fucking pieces and then stomp on your throat.
 
nickqt said:
You're explaining how something works to someone who wants to smash that thing into fucking pieces and then stomp on your throat.
Click to expand...

It’s like a child who does like something so they cry, kick, scream and yell so they can get their way. Understood.
 
mect said:
If this happens, I think there will be significant support for Dems to expand the number of seats on the supreme court.
Click to expand...
Of course it would. If things don't go the way that Progressheviks want, it's time to burn everything down. Nancy Pelosi threatening impeachment for Trump trying to exercise his Constitutionally granted power and it is another backdoor attempt at controlling the Senate. Plus, the Democrats are the party of the rich and elitists and only have contempt for the average American regardless of race and fancy themselves as superior all the while Nancy is getting duped by a hair stylist.
 
brandonbull said:
Of course it would. If things don't go the way that Progressheviks want, it's time to burn everything down. Nancy Pelosi threatening impeachment for Trump trying to exercise his Constitutionally granted power and it is another backdoor attempt at controlling the Senate. Plus, the Democrats are the party of the rich and elitists and only have contempt for the average American regardless of race and fancy themselves as superior all the while Nancy is getting duped by a hair stylist.
Click to expand...
Run out of coloring books and get bored, clown?
 
brandonbull said:
Of course it would. If things don't go the way that Progressheviks want, it's time to burn everything down. Nancy Pelosi threatening impeachment for Trump trying to exercise his Constitutionally granted power and it is another backdoor attempt at controlling the Senate. Plus, the Democrats are the party of the rich and elitists and only have contempt for the average American regardless of race and fancy themselves as superior all the while Nancy is getting duped by a hair stylist.
Click to expand...

Lol

I like how you think trump violating actual law is him doing his constitutional duty while the house doing its constitutional duty is a backdoor attempt at controlling the senate.

I thought it was also really funny that you claim that the Democrats are for the rich and elite as if you are some how unaware of the fact that the Trump admin had the highest net worth in the history of presidential administrations. Its like you completely ignore the fact that the only meaningful legislation the Republicans passed when they had total control of the federal government was massive tax cuts for the rich. I mean to make such a statement while trump and Republican policies are put in place to benefit the rich and large corporations is just laughably insane.

And that appears to be what the issue is here, you are laughably insane. Enjoy the bizzaro world you live in, luckily for us I doubt you have much longer to live as your cult leader is actively trying to kill you.
 
Zorba said:
And the people voted for Obama, Hillary, and a democratic senate. Unfortunately, the states over ruled them and we got a republican senate and Trump.
Click to expand...

There really is no reason to get upset over this (that's directed to everyone), it is what it is and the senate has the power to do whatever it wants with this matter. The fact that Republicans are hypocrites is news to no one.

The good news is that this should really clear the way for any of the moral high ground and respect for traditions that Democrats normally have and allow them to utilize the power they have to its fullest effect.

This should allow us to actually get legislation and policies passed that America desperately needs without the normal halfassed, compromised, and slow moving process it would normally take.

In effect Republicans will be the reason their democrat prophecies are realized.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
What Mitch did broke tradition but was unfortunately Constitutionally legal and also an unnecessary escalation of the increasingly partisan fighting and maneuvering over judicial appointments. Packing the courts would simply be another legal but partisan self serving escalation.
Click to expand...
When one side decides to govern in bad faith and throw out all norms, you can't expect the other side to not retaliate. Mitch has thrown out all norms with regards to judge appointments at all levels going all the way back to 2008, its time for democrats to correct the results of his bad faith governing by expanding the courts at all levels. And while they are at it, they need to double the size of the HOR.
 
ivwshane said:
There really is no reason to get upset over this (that's directed to everyone), it is what it is and the senate has the power to do whatever it wants with this matter. The fact that Republicans are hypocrites is news to no one.

The good news is that this should really clear the way for any of the moral high ground and respect for traditions that Democrats normally have and allow them to utilize the power they have to its fullest effect.

This should allow us to actually get legislation and policies passed that America desperately needs without the normal halfassed, compromised, and slow moving process it would normally take.

In effect Republicans will be the reason their democrat prophecies are realized.
Click to expand...
You no longer have to have the farce of trying to get buy in from republicans. Just do what the country needs and screw what those guys think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top