EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 655
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On November 24 2013 15:59 zlefin wrote: the democrats have shown substantially more concern with the governance of the nation than republicans (at the federal level); sadly they've also shown a lot more incompetence and ineffectiveness. Not on the issue we are talking about! They blocked more of Bush's stuff than the Repubs have for Obama so far! Point is, the rules work the majority of the time, it's just that the dems, who really are "ends justify the means" type of people, have grown impatient. And if I may speculate a little more: they are scared for 2014. Better get the judges in now, before we lose even more seats! Edit: but this is off topic. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On November 24 2013 15:57 Introvert wrote: It's a shame the democrats broke, for all their whining in the last administration. if you actually think the democrats are concerned with the effective governing of the nation...well their past actions don't speak to that. But their blockages were within their rights in the senate. The difference is the Republicans didn't change the rules, they accepted the rules. The republicans were going to change the rules if democrats had not backed down on there opposition at the time whereas republicans did not so the same thing did not happen. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I'm talking about in general, not on just this issue. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On November 24 2013 16:03 Adreme wrote: The republicans were going to change the rules if democrats had not backed down on there opposition at the time whereas republicans did not so the same thing did not happen. They came to a strange agreement. I don't recall seeing Harry Reid try and come to any agreement. I don't want to play party politics, I am opposed to changing the filibuster, no matter the party. My point (while we are on this little rabbit trail) is that the dems are just really big hypocrites. Edit: I don't support the Filibuster "cause it's the rules" so I'm not sure what your particular comment about ethics has to do with this. It's not a "moral" issue to affirm certain judges. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On November 24 2013 16:02 Introvert wrote: Not on the issue we are talking about! They blocked more of Bush's stuff than the Repubs have for Obama so far! Point is, the rules work the majority of the time, it's just that the dems, who really are "ends justify the means" type of people, have grown impatient. And if I may speculate a little more: they are scared for 2014. Better get the judges in now, before we lose even more seats! Edit: but this is off topic. I find that number a little odd considering I looked up the total nominations for Bush and Obama to the court and considering Obama has only been in office 5 years the numbers are fairly close. Also when you add in that over half of nominees who have ever been filibustered were nominated by Obama then you wind up with a difficult to believe scenario. I do of course believe that a big chunk of the remaining 40 odd % of filibustered nominees were under Bush but I could not find the exact number anywhere. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On November 24 2013 16:08 Adreme wrote: I find that number a little odd considering I looked up the total nominations for Bush and Obama to the court and considering Obama has only been in office 5 years the numbers are fairly close. Also when you add in that over half of nominees who have ever been filibustered were nominated by Obama then you wind up with a difficult to believe scenario. I do of course believe that a big chunk of the remaining 40 odd % of filibustered nominees were under Bush but I could not find the exact number anywhere. Your comment is unclear. nominations are not appointments, or even filibusters. Then you talk about filibusters... so what numbers are fairly close? btw, when I said confirmations, I was referring to all positions, not just those on the bench. I believe the numbers overall are like 192 approved for Bush and 220 for Obama, or something like that. Also, it should be added that Bush generally made candidates more moderate when they failed. Obama's done that a few times, but some of these judges are just sitting around waiting. Just like Harriet was. | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On November 24 2013 16:05 Introvert wrote: I don't want to play party politics, I am opposed to changing the filibuster, no matter the party. My point (while we are on this little rabbit trail) is that the dems are just really big hypocrites. these two things are mutually exclusive | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On November 24 2013 16:05 Introvert wrote: They came to a strange agreement. I don't recall seeing Harry Reid try and come to any agreement. I don't want to play party politics, I am opposed to changing the filibuster, no matter the party. My point (while we are on this little rabbit trail) is that the dems are just really big hypocrites. Edit: I don't support the Filibuster "cause it's the rules" so I'm not sure what your particular comment about ethics has to do with this. It's not a "moral" issue to affirm certain judges. I think I remember there being some sort of tepid agreement to prevent the nuclear option I believe earlier this year but I would have to assume republicans were not living up to the agreement otherwise I do not know why it would have fallen thru. The filibusters transformation over past 50 years from a rarely used rule to the standard sort of forced a need to change how it works if the Senate is ever to accomplish anything. Edit: Its also weird how you didn't want to play party politics but ignored republican hypocrisy to focus on the democratic hypocrisy | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On November 24 2013 16:13 itsjustatank wrote: these two things are mutually exclusive I said I didn't want to get into it, but since we were there.... I think I remember there being some sort of tepid agreement to prevent the nuclear option I believe earlier this year but I would have to assume republicans were not living up to the agreement otherwise I do not know why it would have fallen thru. The filibusters transformation over past 50 years from a rarely used rule to the standard sort of forced a need to change how it works if the Senate is ever to accomplish anything. Edit: Its also weird how you didn't want to play party politics but ignored republican hypocrisy to focus on the democratic hypocrisy The agreement earlier this year was "pass this or we go nuclear." My memory is foggy though. Obviously there is hypocrisy on both sides, but right now it's the democrats who have actually taken action. That's much more than just whiny words from a senator. I was referring to your comments about dems being ends justify the means types; hence consequentialism. This very much seems to be the mode of operation for politicians. Edit: my point is the filibuster is a legitimate and needed part of the Senate. I don't really care who blocks who. You don't change the rules when you don't like the situation. So, if we are done debating the actual filibuster, then I am going to go do something else. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On November 24 2013 16:13 Introvert wrote: Your comment is unclear. nominations are not appointments, or even filibusters. Then you talk about filibusters... so what numbers are fairly close? btw, when I said confirmations, I was referring to all positions, not just those on the bench. I believe the numbers overall are like 192 approved for Bush and 220 for Obama, or something like that. Also, it should be added that Bush generally made candidates more moderate when they failed. Obama's done that a few times, but some of these judges are just sitting around waiting. Just like Harriet was. I cant really judge non judicial appointments since doing so would be sort of silly since I assume Bush had more people approved then Clinton because he added an entire department in his first year. As for judicial appointments though I am saying that in the history of the US 147 judicial appointments have been filibustered. Of those 147 79 were appointed by Obama and 68 by every other president. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On November 24 2013 16:20 Adreme wrote: I cant really judge non judicial appointments since doing so would be sort of silly since I assume Bush had more people approved then Clinton because he added an entire department in his first year. As for judicial appointments though I am saying that in the history of the US 147 judicial appointments have been filibustered. Of those 147 79 were appointed by Obama and 68 by every other president. That may very well be true (cite?). Like I said, I was talking about other appointments. I don't particularly care who did what when. I was angry when they blocked Bush, but I wasn't advocating for a rule change. I'm not in this for "Dems bad, Republicans good!" I'm supporting the rule itself. The democrats changed the rules, thus I attack them for it. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
![[image loading]](http://judicialnominations.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Total-Federal-Judicial-Nominations-11.12.2013.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://judicialnominations.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Total-Federal-Judicial-Confirmations-11.12.2013.png) http://judicialnominations.org/statistics | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On November 24 2013 16:23 Introvert wrote: That may very well be true (cite?). Like I said, I was talking about other appointments. I don't particularly care who did what when. I was angry when they blocked Bush, but I wasn't advocating for a rule change. I'm not in this for "Dems bad, Republican's good!" I'm supporting the rule itself. I believe the amounted of positions that require congressional approval has gone up over the years (even if total federal jobs have decreased under Obama) As for the total nomination numbers Bush appointed 2 supreme court justice, 62 US court of appeals justices and 261 federal judges to the US district court. Obama has appointed 2 supreme court justices 39 US court of appeals justices and 168 US district court justices with 53 nominations not yet confirmed. As for openings there are apparently 18 vacancies on the US court of appeals and 75 on US district courts. Edit: I used the wrong word it is fixed now. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
| ||
|
Mysticesper
United States1183 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ax0bjuV.png) http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/GAO/judicialsnapshot.authcheckdam.pdf Here's something else I found that broke it up per congress term. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 24 2013 15:42 Sub40APM wrote: I know you live in an alternative reality but of the wars fought between Israel and the Arab states: 1948 was an invasion of Israel by the Arab states 1956 was an invasion of Egypt by Israel and UK-France 1967 was an Israeli invasion of Egypt and later Jordan and Syria 1973 was a Egyptian-Syrian invasion of Israel 1978 was an Israeli invasion of Lebanon 1982 was an Israeli invasion of Lebanon War of Independence (1948). Attack by the Arab states on Israel. Suez Crisis (1956) started with Egypt nationalizing the Suez Canal, calling it an invasion by Israel neglects everything that made it unique in Nasser's governing of Egypt and indeed leadership of the nationalization movement. Six Day War (1967) followed an Egyptian naval blockade and military buildup in the suez zone. Provoke a war and sometimes you get a war. September 1967: The Arab states formulate the Three No's policy. No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it. The Khartoum Resolution made it very clear what the goals of the Arab world were. Yom Kippur War (1973) another Arab invasion. Very cute to put it on an Israeli holiday. Lebanon Conflict (1978) followup to the Coastal Road massacre, as Time would call it the worst terrorist attack in Israel's history. Lebanon War aka First Lebanon War (1982) pretty much right on. Second Labanon War (2006) was preceded by Hezbollah heavy rocket attacks and fueled by Iranian military support. It is a fabrication by intellectuals that Israel is some bully in the region. They have the unmistakable right to defend themselves against enemies perfectly content to lob rockets and engage in sabotage and terrorist attacks in "peacetime." Attainment of political objectives, particularly involving land, through outright war and terrorism reaps the kind of responses they merited. They must protect their own citizens if they even hope to represent their interests in government. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 24 2013 17:55 Danglars wrote: War of Independence (1948). Attack by the Arab states on Israel. Suez Crisis (1956) started with Egypt nationalizing the Suez Canal, calling it an invasion by Israel neglects everything that made it unique in Nasser's governing of Egypt and indeed leadership of the nationalization movement. Six Day War (1967) followed an Egyptian naval blockade and military buildup in the suez zone. Provoke a war and sometimes you get a war. September 1967: The Arab states formulate the Three No's policy. No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it. The Khartoum Resolution made it very clear what the goals of the Arab world were. Yom Kippur War (1973) another Arab invasion. Very cute to put it on an Israeli holiday. Lebanon Conflict (1978) followup to the Coastal Road massacre, as Time would call it the worst terrorist attack in Israel's history. Lebanon War aka First Lebanon War (1982) pretty much right on. Second Labanon War (2006) was preceded by Hezbollah heavy rocket attacks and fueled by Iranian military support. It is a fabrication by intellectuals that Israel is some bully in the region. They have the unmistakable right to defend themselves against enemies perfectly content to lob rockets and engage in sabotage and terrorist attacks in "peacetime." Attainment of political objectives, particularly involving land, through outright war and terrorism reaps the kind of responses they merited. They must protect their own citizens if they even hope to represent their interests in government. It is a fabrication by people like you that Israel is being bullied by all Arabs countries. If you look at the history of each conflict, the Israelis have their own share of guilt (for exemple, look at all the event that lead to the invasion of Israel by the Arab countries back in 1948, with the massacre and the enormous exile of palestinians that almost forced neighbour countries to intervene). Plus it was Israel at his creation that crushed all its neighbour, with the help of developped countries. Today, this country is undoubtedly the super power of the region : not the little village who need to "defend" itself from its barbaric neighbour. Whatever, people like you always refute the facts they want just to reassure themselves in their twisted view of reality. At least be fair and present yourself as a believer head on and not some kind of enlightened historian, we would know what to expect. | ||
| ||
