• 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.

What? Another USSC win?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
fskimospy said:
It’s too late for that. The norm for this has been broken so now it has become just another partisan fight. If the Democrats take the senate they should refuse to confirm any judicial appointment except for those they submit, until they either retake the presidency or lose the Senate again.

Once your counterparty has shown they no longer wish to play by the rules of cooperation, continuing to cooperate no longer serves a purpose. It’s basic game theory - credible retaliation until their behavior improves.
Click to expand...

Since we're going totally bare knuckle partisanship I'll be looking forward to supporting the Reapportionment Act of 2021 or 2025 removing the cap on the HOR and resetting representation to a 200K per Rep level. Also the act admitting DC as a state that same year.
 
K1052 said:
Since we're going totally bare knuckle partisanship I'll be looking forward to supporting the Reapportionment Act of 2021 or 2025 removing the cap on the HOR and resetting representation to a 200K per Rep level. Also the act admitting DC as a state that same year.
Click to expand...

Sadly yes, that's probably something we should be looking at. You can't have a system where one side plays by the rules and the other does not. If Republicans are going to try and game the system to give themselves an electoral advantage then Democrats should respond in kind.

It's incredibly destructive to our system of government but that's an argument for why Republicans shouldn't have done it to begin with, not a reason to not retaliate.
 
fskimospy said:
By that logic if the Democrats control the senate they should go by the McCain rule and refuse to confirm any nominee by a Republican president, ever.

I mean if our standard for making rules is ‘someone in the opposing party said it sometime’ then I presume you are totally okay with this. Can you confirm?
Click to expand...
It's become quite clear that Democrats will vote against any Trump nominee (no matter how qualified) and that their "standard" for applying the Biden Rule (or demanding immediate confirmation votes in an election year) resides solely on which shoe happens to be on which foot.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
It's become quite clear that Democrats will vote against any Trump nominee (no matter how qualified) and that their "standard" for applying the Biden Rule (or demanding immediate confirmation votes in an election year) resides solely on which shoe happens to be on which foot.
Click to expand...

So you agree with Democrats applying the McCain Rule?
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
First of all, do you agree with my statement?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think the Democrats will vote against any Trump nominee regardless. They should also vote against any nominee by any future Republican president as this is the precedent Republicans have set up. In keeping with how Republicans have used their senate majority from now on Democrats should only approve nominees from Democratic presidents, in line with the McCain and McConnell rules.

Do you agree? If not, why should Republicans blockade nominations but not Democrats?
 
fskimospy said:
Yes, I think the Democrats will vote against any Trump nominee regardless. They should also vote against any nominee by any future Republican president as this is the precedent Republicans have set up. In keeping with how Republicans have used their senate majority from now on Democrats should only approve nominees from Democratic presidents, in line with the McCain and McConnell rules.

Do you agree? If not, why should Republicans blockade nominations but not Democrats?
Click to expand...
That boat has already sailed...all future nominations will be highly politicized.
 
The good faith of the legislature must be assumed? Are you fucking kidding Alito? Sotomayor gets it, Hispanic population is becoming the majority in Texas, especially in the San Antonio area where one of the Districts in this case are. Yet they are still grossly under represented politically in this state as Republicans cling desperately to the one state giving them relevance in presidential elections.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
I thought my answer sufficiently answered his question. Personally, I'm disgusted at the entire state of affairs. Political extremism and tribalism will be the ruin of this nation. That said, I highly doubt you or he actually cares about what I think. I suggest that you take a good look at what you do actually care about here. You may learn something about yourself.
Click to expand...
Any form of meaningful dialog starts with being truthful. You entered a quid pro quo deal to exchange a set of truths. You dishonered your end of the deal. Thats the real problem here, some people here are coming about with honesty while select few others deals in deceit. You deal in deceit.
 
cytg111 said:
Any form of meaningful dialog starts with being truthful. You entered a quid pro quo deal to exchange a set of truths. You dishonered your end of the deal. Thats the real problem here, some people here are coming about with honesty while select few others deals in deceit. You deal in deceit.
Click to expand...
Look Einstein, if he didn't feel my answer was adequate, he's free to ask me to elaborate further. But the real problem here is that you're an asshole, one who's apparently obsessed with finding fault with everything I say. Just saying.

Now what was it you were saying about truthful and honest dialog?
 
Last edited:
Doc Savage Fan said:
Look Einstein, if he didn't feel my answer was adequate, he's free to ask me to elaborate further. But the real problem here is that you're an asshole, one who's apparently obsessed with finding fault with everything I say. Just saying.

Now what was it you were saying about truthful and honest dialog?
Click to expand...

Then you should have kept it in a PM and I am pointing it out cause its your MO.

IJTSSG said:
Stalker alert!
Click to expand...
Oh look another reacharound, you guys are so cute.
 
Gawd. The GOP revealed their contempt for the Constitution & the idea of an independent judiciary in the way they treated Garland and then changed the rules to install Gorsuch.

There's no honesty or decency in that. It's really quite shameful.
 
Jhhnn said:
Gawd. The GOP revealed their contempt for the Constitution & the idea of an independent judiciary in the way they treated Garland and then changed the rules to install Gorsuch.

There's no honesty or decency in that. It's really quite shameful.
Click to expand...
Well within Constitutional powers and only after Sen. majority leader Schumer changed the rules and went nuke. So .........fsk you, your side started it with Bork, my side is just improving on it.
 
It's really sad how much the OP and those like him love fascism. We fought wars to stop fascism, and here they are cheering it on. We'll fight a war on it again I'm sure, maybe even soon. The fascists will lose again. I won't shed tears as they hang from the nooses they tied for themselves.
 
thraashman said:
It's really sad how much the OP and those like him love fascism. We fought wars to stop fascism, and here they are cheering it on. We'll fight a war on it again I'm sure, maybe even soon. The fascists will lose again. I won't shed tears as they hang from the nooses they tied for themselves.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. Fskholes like you love to label anyone you disagree with as nazis or fascists or racists. We're not, but you're an asshole.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Well within Constitutional powers and only after Sen. majority leader Schumer changed the rules and went nuke. So .........fsk you, your side started it with Bork, my side is just improving on it.
Click to expand...

It was Harry Reid who changed the rules for judicial appointees. It did not apply to the SCOTUS. Robert Bork was rejected by an honest vote, an act of common decency & respect withheld from Merrick Garland.

You're just spewing at this point.
 
cytg111 said:
Then you should have kept it in a PM and I am pointing it out cause its your MO.
Click to expand...
You're a complete asshole and moronic troll to boot...and I'm pointing it out cause it's your MO. I've read your posts for some time now and haven't seen anything that would have me believe otherwise. If you actually value truthful, honest dialog as you previously implied...you certainly aren't acting like it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top