iRONic
Diamond Member
- Jan 28, 2006
- 6,784
- 2,061
- 136
Misguided majority?! Fucking oxymoron if there ever was one
Misguided majority?! Fucking oxymoron if there ever was one
You can bet that he would never be among the misguided.Misguided majority?! Fucking oxymoron if there ever was one
First I've really paid attention. So a pattern... consider me alerted.Lol, you've just been Starbucked
ACB is going to require more justices, no doubt. Her choice of words wrt LGBTQ rights, even if she apologized, spoke volumes. Her history regarding precedent is worrisome indeed. Her non-answer on recusal was as much a waste as it was the expected nope. She could have given America a much needed sigh of relief, used it to prop up her claim of independence from the powerful men on the wrong side of history who helped get her here. I still say any judge willing to go to the bench under these circumstances isn't fit to be confirmed, but then we're dealing with the Boof Kavanaugh crowd here.
It's funny how deeply held religious beliefs and related writings involving law don't mean a person's choices will reflect that religion, but it's been decided that religious people deserve extra accommodation in their treatment of others precisely because they say their faith requires it. Not tolerating their intolerance is religious persecution. Harm caused by religion influencing policy isn't bad, what's bad is religious people having their feels hurt.
I guess part of me is still a little amused, not pleasantly, by an "originalist" who happens to be a woman. Lady, in the original system you couldn't even vote, let alone hold this kind of office. That you sometimes appear more RWNJ than Scalia is something you need to explain a little. Oh if only republicans had a shred of integrity, instead of being fucking hypocrites with their "Biden rule" or acting like they didn't think of changing the number of justices themselves. I suppose I should be happy this one is at least qualified, given who these clowns are prone to put in long or lifetime positions. It's a shame we're here.
I really hope I see Lady G get washed away by the coming blue tsunami, what a spineless sack of excrement. The whining about the ACA was a nice touch I thought. Can something heavy please land on Tillis?
Can something heavy please land on Tillis?
Does Biden's outspoken scripture and Catholic views worry you also?
Does Biden's outspoken scripture and Catholic views worry you also?
If Republicans are so interesting in improving healthcare why have they failed for almost 8 years coming up with a plan to replace the ACA and why would anyone trust they would after killing off the ACA??Its an interesting view, although it doesnt make sense. Many (here at least) say the Republicans want nothing more than to cater to wealthy CEO's and such. And yet, who did Obamacare benefit the most? Thats right. Drug companies and their wealthy cronies.
Still takes 2/3 of the senate to convict, so never going to happen.ACB appears to have perjured herself. Could this be used to impeach her after getting on the court assuming Democrats take over the Senate?
If that is a Senate rule, like Mitch just change it to 50% + 1Still takes 2/3 of the senate to convict, so never going to happen.
If it takes a village I doubt it.Still takes 2/3 of the senate to convict, so never going to happen.
ACB appears to have perjured herself. Could this be used to impeach her after getting on the court assuming Democrats take over the Senate?
Those checks and balances exist for a reason, but it also assumes that all actors approach the negotiating table with the intent of finding a resolution. The House has always been rancorous, but it is the fault of both Republicans and Democrats that the Senate has become dysfunctional. I don’t expect Democrats to acknowledge this, they seem incapable of doing so.
Boom!
Yet another republican caught, on tape, lying to Congress. Perjury def sounds appropriate here.
If Republicans had ANY interest in healing after getting back at Dems for starting this with Bork, once they stole Obamas pick they could have put Garland back up to replace Ginsburg. That would have been smart long term and stifled Dems attempt at payback. Too late now fuckfacesEven if we accept your argument, someone has to be the first to bring back the norms. Lets pretend, just for a moment, that you are right (narrator voice: He is not) and that Democrats started all this. The Republicans then got their chance to set things right, and so the Garland fiasco. But, then instead of saying 'Okay, we got our revenge, can everyone agree that this is no way to run a government? lets return to normalcy' they spent 5 years kicking the Democrats while they were down. Even now as they are facing the possibility of losing the majority they are not relenting. Instead of saying 'lets return to normalcy and all agree to be civil once again' they are just complaining that the Democrats are going to punch them back when they get to their feet, all the while they go about kicking them.
You stop the fight by stopping throwing punches. As long as the Republicans insist on throwing punches the Democrats have to respond in kind.
Norms only work when tribes adhere to them even when not politically convenient. I can’t recall a time when either party has truly taken an admirable and principled stance when there was risk of an adverse political outcome.Even if we accept your argument, someone has to be the first to bring back the norms. Lets pretend, just for a moment, that you are right (narrator voice: He is not) and that Democrats started all this. The Republicans then got their chance to set things right, and so the Garland fiasco. But, then instead of saying 'Okay, we got our revenge, can everyone agree that this is no way to run a government? lets return to normalcy' they spent 5 years kicking the Democrats while they were down. Even now as they are facing the possibility of losing the majority they are not relenting. Instead of saying 'lets return to normalcy and all agree to be civil once again' they are just complaining that the Democrats are going to punch them back when they get to their feet, all the while they go about kicking them.
You stop the fight by stopping throwing punches. As long as the Republicans insist on throwing punches the Democrats have to respond in kind.
I can. When Obama discovered the Russian meddling in the summer of 2016 he wanted to make a joint announcement with Republicans so to avoid the impression of influencing the election. Asshole Mitch McConnel refused so he never told the public before the election.Norms only work when tribes adhere to them even when not politically convenient. I can’t recall a time when either party has truly taken an admirable and principled stance when there was risk of an adverse political outcome.
As for your fight analogy, it only works if you can agree who threw the first punch, and from where I am sitting, both parties like to throw sucker punches and then draw lines in the sand.
That is just flat out wrong, and you have to know that. They would not have existed at all if what you say is true, yet we have had many of these norms for a hundred years. It is just in the last decade or so that our politics has become so uncivil.Norms only work when tribes adhere to them even when not politically convenient. I can’t recall a time when either party has truly taken an admirable and principled stance when there was risk of an adverse political outcome.
Now that is just flat out silly. You don't have to figure out who threw the first punch to stop a fight. All you have to do is stop punching.As for your fight analogy, it only works if you can agree who threw the first punch, and from where I am sitting, both parties like to throw sucker punches and then draw lines in the sand.
Things were pretty uncivil at the nation’s inception, we literally had a Founding Father killed in a duel. We fought a civil war. WW2 had a unifying effect on a nation that was starting to diverge, and things got pretty uncivil in the 60s and 90s. If we actually governed by the norms we claim, most of these issues would go away.That is just flat out wrong, and you have to know that. They would not have existed at all if what you say is true, yet we have had many of these norms for a hundred years. It is just in the last decade or so that our politics has become so uncivil.
That assumes both parties are willing to stop, yet from where I’m standing, both sides would love to stop the fight so long as they get in the last punch. Biden has an opportunity to stop the fight by not stacking the courts. Doing so would just be one more escalation in a long string of them.Now that is just flat out silly. You don't have to figure out who threw the first punch to stop a fight. All you have to do is stop punching.
What was the political risk to Obama in that scenario?I can. When Obama discovered the Russian meddling in the summer of 2016 he wanted to make a joint announcement with Republicans so to avoid the impression of influencing the election. Asshole Mitch McConnel refused so he never told the public before the election.
One side does have better motives.
Obama could have sealed the election for Hillary by announcing it himself and rat out Mitch. The results clearly show the risk.What was the political risk to Obama in that scenario?
BS...as if Repubs wouldn't backtrack on any agreement in order to "win". The fact that only ONE GOP senator had the integrity to hold Trump accountable in his impeachment shows what the "law and order" party are all about. Biden should definitely do it. SCOTUS shouldn't be politicized but it's too late for that...the constant 5-4 partisan judgments lays that bare for everyone to see. And the more partisan in favour of Repubs it gets, the less and less it reflects the will of the people (ie. the most universally popular policies are the Democrat ones). So Biden should ABSOLUTELY stack the courts (this is assuming Dems also have the Senate at some point).Biden has an opportunity to stop the fight by not stacking the courts.