Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

[hobbes2702 13351]

4 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Democrats should just move on. They have nothing they can do but make this worse with whatever stupid approach they select. Fonda on Maher saying fight this and grow some balls. Fight what? The Republicans have the votes, they will play it however they want and the more you come up with stupid shit like defund  the police the better chance you have of losing again. Hypocrisy as an argument? Give me a break we have seen it done on both sides. The only difference is that Democrats do it by trying to explain why they have changed their minds while the Republicans do it with a flick of the middle finger.

No thanks.

[Brisketexan 106625]

6 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Democrats should just move on. They have nothing they can do but make this worse with whatever stupid approach they select. Fonda on Maher saying fight this and grow some balls. Fight what? The Republicans have the votes, they will play it however they want and the more you come up with stupid shit like defund  the police the better chance you have of losing again. Hypocrisy as an argument? Give me a break we have seen it done on both sides. The only difference is that Democrats do it by trying to explain why they have changed their minds while the Republicans do it with a flick of the middle finger.

This.  Here's the only answer: "So, if you lying motherfuckers want to have your Pearl Harbor win, take it.  Enjoy it.  Dance on the decks in celebration.  Just know this ends with your Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  You set this shit in motion, you can't stop what's coming."

[Celery Man 21076]

6 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Democrats should just move on. They have nothing they can do but make this worse with whatever stupid approach they select. Fonda on Maher saying fight this and grow some balls. Fight what? The Republicans have the votes, they will play it however they want and the more you come up with stupid shit like defund  the police the better chance you have of losing again. Hypocrisy as an argument? Give me a break we have seen it done on both sides. The only difference is that Democrats do it by trying to explain why they have changed their minds while the Republicans do it with a flick of the middle finger.

there is no both sides here, and also just any of you Trump GOP rubes who buy the "silent majority" thing, that is hypocritical bullshit of the highest magnitude. Here the tyranny of the minority is again maliciously yanking the levers of government out of the hands of the people.

[Horn Dog 10156]

If someone told you one month ago that you could trade losing SC cases 5-4 to losing them 6-3 for a year or two, in exchange you get a fantastic chance to pack the court, and shift ALL 3 branches of government away from the dipshit party for decades, would you take it?   Do it Mitch!

 

[Surly Bevo 25655]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  Here's the only answer: "So, if you lying motherfuckers want to have your Pearl Harbor win, take it.  Enjoy it.  Dance on the decks in celebration.  Just know this ends with your Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  You set this shit in motion, you can't stop what's coming."

Seems dangerous to assume future victory based on the American people having a long term memory of pretty much anything.  They're terrible we should win convincingly.

[DanTheHorn 5061]

4 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

there is no both sides here, and also just any of you Trump GOP rubes who buy the "silent majority" thing, that is hypocritical bullshit of the highest magnitude. Here the tyranny of the minority is again maliciously yanking the levers of government out of the hands of the people.

Maybe you should go look at some of my post if you think I am a Trump GOPer. I was a Bush GOPer but a I am a Never Trumper and now a won't go back to the Republican party till this version of the party dies. Yet I still have disdain for those Democrats I did not like in the 2000's because of the stupid crap they come up with that is just well stupid. Even Bill Maher called the Academy stupid for their quotas. That is the kind of stuff I am talking about.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

3 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

If someone told you one month ago that you could trade losing SC cases 5-4 to losing them 6-3 for a year or two, in exchange you get a fantastic chance to pack the court, and shift ALL 3 branches of government away from the dipshit party for decades, would you take it?   Do it Mitch!

 

i agree with this, but i also think that if you moved that timeline back and someone told me 4 years ago i could trade for all this for 2017-2020, i'd say hard pass.

[Celery Man 21076]

Just now, DanTheHorn said:

Maybe you should go look at some of my post if you think I am a Trump GOPer. I was a Bush GOPer but a I am a Never Trumper and now a won't go back to the Republican party till this version of the party dies. Yet I still have disdain for those Democrats I did not like in the 2000's because of the stupid crap they come up with that is just well stupid. Even Bill Maher called the Academy stupid for their quotas. That is the kind of stuff I am talking about.

I disagree with the "both sides" part of your post, the second part of my post was not directed at you specifically.

[Horn Dog 10156]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

 

They are going to try to pack it either way. 

Agree that this was being talked about by the left fringe, but if the pubs show restraint, there is NO WAY the majority of the population will support it, which of course means the dems will not proceed.  The only way this happens is if the pubs force this through without Trump winning reelection.  The American people are dumb asses, but they have a sense of justice.

The only way the pubs could force a nominee through and NOT cause a severe backlash would be if they nominated Merrick.   That would be a 4-D chess move and would make heads explode , so of course will never happen.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

It makes a lot of sense, but I can't see Trump agreeing to that strategy because it requires taking a loss to obtain a win. Plus it's not like he gives a shit who McConnell would prefer, he cares who will protect him from subpoenas.  

Your assumption being that the president and not McConnell and team (Cornyn, Graham, et al) are orchestrating the action. I do not share that assumption. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[DanTheHorn 5061]

2 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I disagree with the "both sides" part of your post, the second part of my post was not directed at you specifically.

Lets see Bill Clinton puts Hillary a completely unqualified person in charge of changing the Health Care system because he owes her for screwing with other women and her putting up with it. Trump put a completely unqualified Jarred so that he gets loyalty. Both those choices had irrevocable damage on this country if one is being objective. Yet democrats exist that will still try to sell the Hillary choice as a good choice that completely wasted away Clinton's political capital on the subject.

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

All this convinced me that Obama should have sworn in Garland. If the Senate abdicated it’s “advice and consent” role, then the Presidential appointment should’ve gone forward. Then let them try and challenge the legitimacy of it all. 
 

Obama gambled that GOP would hold a vote based on norms and shame. Then he gambled Clinton would win. Now, we’re likely faced with a conservative 6-3 majority for the next generation, barring massive changes *if* Dems can re take the Senate

[fattyflattie 4640]

I think there is still a large swath of people in the country who ride somewhere in the "middle, on (oh no) both sides.  I don't believe the court will get packed.  I think it if ever did, it would just pack the other way in the next 4-6 years.  The "middle" is sick and tired of the bullshit on (fuck, again) both sides.    We'd already be a failed democracy by then anyhow.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I think there is still a large swath of people in the country who ride somewhere in the "middle, on (oh no) both sides.  I don't believe the court will get packed.  I think it if ever did, it would just pack the other way in the next 4-6 years.  The "middle" is sick and tired of the bullshit on (fuck, again) both sides.    We'd already be a failed democracy by then anyhow.  

Nope. The republicans will not control the house for another 50-60 years. Their only hope is the senate and the presidency. 

[wildcat09 29557]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Nope. The republicans will not control the house for another 50-60 years. Their only hope is the senate and the presidency. 

This is stupid. They’ve got an enormous built in gerrymandering advantage that they’ll mostly retain after this census and the country is full of morons who will vote Dem this year and happily vote Republican in 2022. 
 

2008-2010 wasn’t that long ago. Let’s not fucking pretend the GOP can’t pull the same shit off again.

[hobbes2702 13351]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I think there is still a large swath of people in the country who ride somewhere in the "middle, on (oh no) both sides.  I don't believe the court will get packed.  I think it if ever did, it would just pack the other way in the next 4-6 years.  The "middle" is sick and tired of the bullshit on (fuck, again) both sides.    We'd already be a failed democracy by then anyhow.  

You realize that if the Dems get to pack the court it’s over for the GOP for quite some time right?

[Planet Houston 4949]

29 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

i agree with this, but i also think that if you moved that timeline back and someone told me 4 years ago i could trade for all this for 2017-2020, i'd say hard pass.

I’m not so sure. Assuming that the Dems actually sweep the elections in November, one could argue that it took Trump to rip off the band aid and show the country (i.e., the average voter that doesn’t tune into politics) how corrupt and deplorable the Republican Party is at its core. Trump is not the root of the issue with the Republican Party - he is the weed that sprouted from seeds that were planted decades ago. If the Republicans had managed to hide the roots with another dressed up candidate that says yes ma’am and yes sir, then we would all be subject to this shit for a lot longer. Just not so out in the open. 

This hopefully ensures that shitstains like our two senators, and those that follow in their footsteps, never get real power again.

Now, the Democrats aren’t perfect, but that’s a discussion for another day. But at least we have a chance with them. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Planet Houston

[hobbes2702 13351]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is stupid. They’ve got an enormous built in gerrymandering advantage that they’ll mostly retain after this census and the country is full of morons who will vote Dem this year and happily vote Republican in 2022. 
 

2008-2010 wasn’t that long ago. Let’s not fucking pretend the GOP can’t pull the same shit off again.

The problem is the electoral college will be insurmountable. PR and DC become states and it’s over for the GOP

[wildcat09 29557]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

The problem is the electoral college will be insurmountable. PR and DC become states and it’s over for the GOP

The electoral college has nothing to do with the House of Representatives.

[Celery Man 21076]

22 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Lets see Bill Clinton puts Hillary a completely unqualified person in charge of changing the Health Care system because he owes her for screwing with other women and her putting up with it. Trump put a completely unqualified Jarred so that he gets loyalty. Both those choices had irrevocable damage on this country if one is being objective. Yet democrats exist that will still try to sell the Hillary choice as a good choice that completely wasted away Clinton's political capital on the subject.

I don't care about Hillary and am not interested in Hillary on the Supreme Court. Those examples don't amount to a "both sides!" about robbing/installing supreme court justices

[Dahobbs 18190]

23 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Lets see Bill Clinton puts Hillary a completely unqualified person in charge of changing the Health Care system because he owes her for screwing with other women and her putting up with it. Trump put a completely unqualified Jarred so that he gets loyalty. Both those choices had irrevocable damage on this country if one is being objective. Yet democrats exist that will still try to sell the Hillary choice as a good choice that completely wasted away Clinton's political capital on the subject.

There are a lot of things you can complain about with Hillary Clinton. Her being unqualified is simply not one of them. 

[Horn Dog 10156]

14 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I think there is still a large swath of people in the country who ride somewhere in the "middle, on (oh no) both sides.  I don't believe the court will get packed.  I think it if ever did, it would just pack the other way in the next 4-6 years.  The "middle" is sick and tired of the bullshit on (fuck, again) both sides.    We'd already be a failed democracy by then anyhow.  

The problem is the large swath of people who are sick of the bullshit (from both sides) do not punish the pubs for it.  Its like playing a basketball game where the ref is sick of all the fouls but doesn't blow his whistle.  What do you do?   Let the other side foul while you play clean, or foul like shit to force the whistle?  

3 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

You realize that if the Dems get to pack the court it’s over for the GOP for quite some time right?

Exactly.  And the pack the courts is the first step.  Add the senators and expand the house and the pubs will be walking the desert for the remainder of our lifetimes.

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

Everything goes in cycles.   No party is going to have hegemony over the government in the United States over an extended period of time unless it’s through unlawful, authoritarian means.   Everything rebalances to pretty much equilibrium because neither party can actually make everyone happy.

Exactly.  Yall act like a one time win and you pack AOC across the courts wouldnt piss off a large portion of the country. It'd be cool for a few years, then the pendulum would swing right back.  People want power, they dont give af what letter is behind their name. 

[hobbes2702 13351]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Exactly.  Yall act like a one time win and you pack AOC across the courts wouldnt piss off a large portion of the country. It'd be cool for a few years, then the pendulum would swing right back.  People want power, they dont give af what letter is behind their name. 

Except if you pack the courts it’s over for the GOP.

[Horn Dog 10156]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Exactly.  Yall act like a one time win and you pack AOC across the courts wouldnt piss off a large portion of the country. It'd be cool for a few years, then the pendulum would swing right back.  People want power, they dont give af what letter is behind their name. 

Pissing off large portions of the country with regards to the courts has worked out pretty well for the R's for decades. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

14 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is stupid. They’ve got an enormous built in gerrymandering advantage that they’ll mostly retain after this census and the country is full of morons who will vote Dem this year and happily vote Republican in 2022. 
 

2008-2010 wasn’t that long ago. Let’s not fucking pretend the GOP can’t pull the same shit off again.

Republican candidates across the country bore the blame for the economic collapse, and Democrats gained a total of 52 seats in the 1930 midterm elections. Even so, Republicans retained a narrow 2-seat majority after the polls closed. However, during the 3 months between Election Day and the start of the 72nd Congress, 14 members-elect died, and Republicans lost a number of the special elections called to fill those vacancies. Consequently, the Democrats held a 219-212 advantage over the Republicans when the new Congress convened.^[4][5] This was the first of four consecutive depression-era House elections in which Democrats made enormous gains, achieving a cumulative gain of 170 seats. Over the ensuing 64 years (until the 1994 midterm elections), House Republicans would be in the minority for all but four years, winning majorities only in 1946 and 1952.

[fattyflattie 4640]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

Except if you pack the courts it’s over for the GOP.

Except it's not.  You dont think when the Dems act like shitheels, to counteracts the Pubs shitheelness, a large portion of the country wouldnt say fuck that?  Believe it or not, theres a HUGE group of people out there that dont like Trump, OR the fringe left.  You are focused on the hate for Trump.  Wait until you've pissed off the entire right (45%) plus those in the middle. Its the same exact shit, different letter behind the name.  DC and PR will not become states.  This shit is academic and fucking moronic. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

This time, the republicans are in an even worse position than they were in 1930. After all, they are now the trump party of white supremacy in a rapidly changing country. 

[wildcat09 29557]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

This time, the republicans are in an even worse position than they were in 1930. After all, they are now the trump party of white supremacy in a rapidly changing country. 

And fattyflattie and his ilk will ignore that in 2022 when they see the Dems restore the VRA without bipartisan support, because we have a bunch of fucking morons in this country that think “black people should be allowed to vote” and “black people should be killed” are equally extreme positions.

[JimmyJames 12271]

You think the millennials are gonna start voting for the trump party? 

[wildcat09 29557]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

This time, the republicans are in an even worse position than they were in 1930. After all, they are now the trump party of white supremacy in a rapidly changing country. 

Edit: double posted

Edited September 21, 2020 by wildcat09

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

And fattyflattie and his ilk will ignore that in 2022 when they see the Dems restore the VRA without bipartisan support, because we have a bunch of fucking morons in this country that think “black people should be allowed to vote” and “black people should be killed” are equally extreme positions.

The morons are still a minority and they have all congregated in the trump party. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

However, during the 3 months between Election Day and the start of the 72nd Congress, 14 members-elect died,

Jesus Christ.

[BradInATX 9208]

You think the millennials are gonna start voting for the trump party? 

Well, the generation of free love and Woodstock turned into the most selfish fuck you I got mine generation in American history. So it's possible.

[DanTheHorn 5061]

20 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I don't care about Hillary and am not interested in Hillary on the Supreme Court. Those examples don't amount to a "both sides!" about robbing/installing supreme court justices

OK let me give another example. Democrats insisted that a President has a right to nominate a candidate and that candidate has a right to an up or down vote even in an election year. They argued it to the bitter end in 2016. Now precedent is OK? Like I said the only difference is Democrats will try to explain why they changed their mind while Republicans say fuck off.

Edited September 21, 2020 by DanTheHorn

[atomheartbevo 90548]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

It makes a lot of sense, but I can't see Trump agreeing to that strategy because it requires taking a loss to obtain a win. Plus it's not like he gives a shit who McConnell would prefer, he cares who will protect him from subpoenas.  

22 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Your assumption being that the president and not McConnell and team (Cornyn, Graham, et al) are orchestrating the action. I do not share that assumption. 

Trump is 100% focused on Trump and Trump's personal and financial well being.  I think Trump would gladly give up the loss in November, regardless of how bad it hurt Republican races, if he felt he needed another SC justice on his side for when he is out of office, whether that's 2021 or 2025.

Trump is the wildcard here.  We discuss strategies for Mitch, whether he wants that SC slot filled under an R Prez and Senate and whether he's willing to risk letting the SC seat go until after the election in order to keep Rs in battleground states from losing, and he's listening to what his data people are saying as far as whether that SC seat will get more Dems out, or more Rs.

But ultimately, Trump is going to do whatever is in his best interest.  If he feels he needs another SC Justice, even if it means sacrificing the Republican Senate, then he will absolutely push Mitch and the Senate Republicans hard, and he will trash the shit out of them publicly if they don't help him.  He gives no fucks about the Republican party after he leaves office.  It's all about what they can do for him.

 

[Celery Man 21076]

Just now, DanTheHorn said:

OK let me give another example. Democrats insisted that a President has a right to nominate a candidate and that candidate has a right to an up or down vote even in an election year. They argued it to the bitter end in 2016. Now precedent is OK? Like I said the only difference is Democrats will try to explain why the changed their mind while Republicans say fuck off.

Democrats argued for the existing precedent in 2016 and are now arguing again for the existing precedent. I wasn't trying to antagonize you with my initial comment and I'm not really trying to do that now, but that in particular is an incredibly stupid argument.

[atomheartbevo 90548]

2 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Jesus Christ.

couldn't save them.

[wildcat09 29557]

9 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The morons are still a minority and they have all congregated in the trump party. 

Jesus Jimmy, why do you keep pretending that the past 15 years didn't happen?

The marginal American voters are not particularly politically engaged and do not have strong ideological beliefs so tend to fall back on centrism for centrism's sake. Because of this, they're susceptible to GOP messaging that portray the Republican and Democratic parties as equally extreme and lack the ability to evaluate those claims on any objective basis. So you get morons who don't even realize that the GOP has already been illegitimately packing the courts for years, mostly because the Democrats have been too fucking timid to repeat that message constantly to them, who will respond angrily (as fattyflattie indicates) to Democratic attempts to restore actual democracy.

One of the huge reasons we need to restore our democracy (other than it being morally right) is that these marginal voters are absolute fucking morons and we should never be forced to court their votes.

Edited September 21, 2020 by wildcat09

[wildcat09 29557]

3 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

OK let me give another example. Democrats insisted that a President has a right to nominate a candidate and that candidate has a right to an up or down vote even in an election year. They argued it to the bitter end in 2016. Now precedent is OK? Like I said the only difference is Democrats will try to explain why they changed their mind while Republicans say fuck off.

Ok, cool. Fuck off then.

[Celery Man 21076]

NL fans argue against a DH but then use a DH when playing at an AL stadium. The hypocrisy.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

Look, there will be an affirmative vote to confirm a nominee before the next inauguration. The question whether that nominee is the same one as the initial one offered is a strategic issue that the president cannot fully control whether he knows it or not. McConnell wants to keep the Senate and to confirm a judge that will be friendly to GOP economic interests. What happens with this appointment over the next 3-4 months will be determined by his McConnell's ability to drive those objectives. 

[DanTheHorn 5061]

27 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Democrats argued for the existing precedent in 2016 and are now arguing again for the existing precedent. I wasn't trying to antagonize you with my initial comment and I'm not really trying to do that now, but that in particular is an incredibly stupid argument.

Separating children from their parents, giving big business tax cuts at the expense of ballooning the deficit, applauding openly racist candidates plus making excuses for a screwed up response to COVID has no moral equivalent to the Democratic agenda  other than for late term abortion regardless of reason which I still don't understand why that stand is OK. So I am not saying "both sides" are morally equivalent. I am saying both sides have no problem being hypocrites out in the open so it is a bad argument to make by the Democrats.

Edited September 21, 2020 by DanTheHorn

[Celery Man 21076]

Right, and the thing that I am disputing is that "politicians on both sides are hypocrites" is not a "get out of integrity free" card for people to think it is OK that the GOP is blatantly stealing the supreme court from the people of the United States

[UpperWestside 6263]

7 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Right, and the thing that I am disputing is that "politicians on both sides are hypocrites" is not a "get out of integrity free" card for people to think it is OK that the GOP is blatantly stealing the supreme court from the people of the United States

We need not just repercussions for the senators who are trying to push this through, but the voters who back these people as well. They enabled these cowards to do what they are attempting to do. It really is as simple as enough of the voting minority doing stuff like this. It is time they all see there are consequences to subverting our democracy into a banana republic. 

[hobbes2702 13351]

46 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

No, its only over until the GOP regains control of government.  Which they have been able to do under such amazing leaders as George W Bush and Donald Trump.   The country gets pissed off at one party a lot, and then they get pissed off at the next party a lot, too.

Which they can’t do if they lose the senate. If they lose the senate they will not be able to control all three branches of government for decades. PR and DC make the electoral college untenable for them. 

[hobbes2702 13351]

48 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Except it's not.  You dont think when the Dems act like shitheels, to counteracts the Pubs shitheelness, a large portion of the country wouldnt say fuck that?  Believe it or not, theres a HUGE group of people out there that dont like Trump, OR the fringe left.  You are focused on the hate for Trump.  Wait until you've pissed off the entire right (45%) plus those in the middle. Its the same exact shit, different letter behind the name.  DC and PR will not become states.  This shit is academic and fucking moronic. 

If the Dems control all three branches of government then PR and DC will 100% become states lol. Why would you even think otherwise?

[TwiceHorn 31987]

55 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

There are a lot of things you can complain about with Hillary Clinton. Her being unqualified is simply not one of them. 

She wasn't particularly qualified to do anything with healthcare in the mid-90s.

You can argue that she was qualified to be President 25 years later.

[hobbes2702 13351]

38 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

They will realign eventually.  It might take 8 years, but if the Trump party gets wiped out a couple of times, they won’t continue to be the Trump party.   The people who actually care about the goals of the Trump party (to the extent there even are any) aren’t in charge, and even they don’t care about those goals more than power.   They’ll pivot to something else that works.

This is like arguing OU will never beat Texas again for a generation after John Blake tanked their program.   They’re not just going to give up and accept losing.  They will adapt.  Life finds a way.  

It’s much more like arguing SMU will never beat Texas again after the death penalty

[washparkhorn 9967]

30 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Look, there will be an affirmative vote to confirm a nominee before the next inauguration.