|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 21 2020 04:05 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 02:38 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2020 00:52 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 00:49 Danglars wrote:
Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Could you explain the Republican Party's explanation for why Merrick Garland was not allowed to go to vote? What was the principle, and how did the date of the nomination factor into it? I ask this independent of what is going on with RBG's seat. That’s the current evolution of no votes, and the bipartisan method. See: Miguel Estrada & the Democrats in ‘01. With all due respect, you did not answer my question. For perspective, I did read up on Miguel Estrada at your suggestion which does help provide some additional background on the general topic.
He didn't answer mine either. No surprise though, I don't expect such blatant hypocrisy to be held accountable.
|
On September 21 2020 05:37 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 05:03 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:38 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 Danglars wrote:
I want to call you principled, Nouar, since you're spending the time to post relevant information for anyone that thinks the precedent extends to all nominees (it doesn't). I think you can find and conclude that there's decades of precedent from BOTH PARTIES going back DECADES by finding out the last time the Senate confirmed a nomination chosen in an election year by the President of the opposite party. I await this revisement of "since 2016" in the interest of establishing a foundation we can both agree on, should you be interested in my opinions of all nominees or whatever. This should really be a nonpartisan agreement on historical precedent.
Trump has been accused of destroying norms and destroying Democracy itself, so it's helpful for me to know which people can honestly debate precedent and history without letting partisan anti-Trump sentiment cloud their analytical faculties. I went and found actual data, now it's your turn : can you show me ONE example throughout history of a supreme court vacancy having been nominated and filled while early voting had already begun ? In fact you don't have to, it was already posted, it never happened. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Zxs0h4M.jpg) The latest a vacancy has ever been filled was a full 5 months before the election. So I'll switch my question : what was the shortest time between a vacancy being declared and the confirmation of a SC judge, and what would be your reaction if the confirmation happens during a lame-duck session with the President having changed ? Is there a precedent for that, dear sir ? On September 21 2020 04:36 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:24 Nouar wrote:Fuck are you serious ? The discussion was about the history of the filibuster, and the nuclear option used by Harry Reid due to unprecedented obstruction by the republican minority (where I posted the table in response to Wegandi). Then it switched to overall split-party judicial appointments post with your flat assertion that Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Your post is about judicial nominees. The previous pages did NOT talk about the supreme court only, but overall. I'll assume you know how you to speak english and convey a message better than me in your native language. Then you move the goalpost to election year only, THEN you both say that all along it was only about supreme court appointments. You should apply as senators, seriously. You were not part of that discussion in the last 3/4 pages on that topic, suddenly intervene talking about "judicial nominees are refused by opposite party" and I should assume that you strayed enough from the conversation to only talk about supreme court in the last year ? Man I'm not Nostradamus. And I still see no comment from either of you about all the grandstanding comments from republican senators between 2016-now. (Which was the other topic of discussion) To be quite frank, the discussion since the news of RBG's death has been about the supreme court almost entirely. So perhaps yes, maybe you should assume we know English. On hypocrisy, as I mentioned a post of a few hundred words the other day A) there's a lot of the Democrat side B) It is true that not every senator, every single time they were asked, made the caveat of "a presidential election year when the Senate and WH are controlled by opposite parties." But given your posts so far, would you have even noticed if they did? Wegandi did mention how if the Democrats hadn't killed the judicial filibuster in 2013 they would be in a much stronger position now, which, regardless of why Democrats did it, is undeniably true. But the background context for the "replacing RGB " discussion has been about the supreme court and honestly I feel silly for having to point that out. The whole filibuster and appointment history that lead to Reid removing the filibuster was definitely not about the supreme court. It would be out of place for senators to talk about senate and WH controlled by opposite party when they talked specifically about a republican president being in power, and that we should wait for the will of the people in an election year (it's pretty self-explanatory, that one, there are no caveats. Election year = wait the will of the people) About the filibuster, it may be true, but you are, as Wegandi was, conveniently forgetting that the removal of the filibuster was due to unprecedented filibustering by... whom ? Who abused the filibuster ? Who lied about "but he used recess appointments" to justify said *judicial* filibusters while Obama only used it a couple times for *executive* appointments, that were also being unprecedentedly (? is that correct?) blockaded ? Who ignored the blue slip more recently to appoint judges ? Remember the Tea Party ? The multiple government shutdowns these past administrations ? Both sides are pretty much shit in my view. But on this topic, there is a clear discrepancy in behaviour between both. This usually have to do with the democratic electorate tending to boot scummy behaviour much more easily than the republican one, who often celebrate it. edit so I'm clear : you don't see me complaining about Garland. You haven't seen me do so, except to point out some hypocrisy. I'm not actually contesting that it was scummy to refuse a hearing though it was (they could have kept up appearances, held hearings and just not vote for him). It's the game. What's unacceptable in my view is changing your rethoric at the last second not even 24h after her death, and trampling over all the grandstanding comments a couple dozens from your side used to justify their scummy behaviour of 2016. The argument that "the court can't be left at 8 for a presidential election" is also moot, it didn't bother them in 2016. There is NO precedent of a Supreme Court appointment this close to an presidential election, or even TWICE as close. Find me one, and I'll grant you the win. You appear to not be reading most of the posts in this thread and are now changing the criteria. Although I admit that "voting has already started!" has more salience than "it's close," at least superficially. Since you apparently missed it, I will, with apologies to the other posters in this thread who have seen the link already, send you here. and btw this is just another reason I oppose voting that starts this early. one month, three weeks TOPS. sixtyish days is insane. btw one reason either Lagoa or ACB may have a quick confirmation is because they were so recently vetted for their current posts. Most of the work has already been done. Thank you it's an informative read, yes I probably missed that post or at least the link itself (that's why I directly quote and post pictures instead of sending links, it's less complete but easier to digest when you don't have an hour to digest a page of answers, I'm rather short on time usually, less than optimal I know). What criteria am I changing btw ? I'll thus concede a loss as there are clear precedent of lame-duck nominations/confirmations as well as from presidents having lost the election, which I find gross but hey... who am I to judge (and several with a lot less than 45 days between opening and confirmation). I don't know the history of the importance of the SC across the ages so I won't comment on that, though there was no occurence since the 60's, well before my time. I am still undeterred on what I said : it's really rich from the republican senators to have said so many definite statements and promises about "next time if it's a republican president", or "let the people vote !! Same in 2020 if it happens, let the people decide after the vote !" and then suddenly completely reneging on their assertions, and this is mostly what I'm despising (from both sides when it happens). I am also not moving from my opinion that things really turned sour under the Tea Party and Obama. Before that, there were bipartisan concessions, then a fringe of republicans went ape-shit.
The Republicans were unclear many times and people like Graham really did say no confirmation in a presidential election year no matter what. Of course the flip-side is Joe Biden saying in both the 90s and 2016 to fill any seats.
But politically remember that both sides would absolutely fill in this scenario and the GOP has to at least try. With the possible exception of Susan Collins, any GOP senator running for re-election this year would lose in a landslide because their own base of voters would refuse to vote for them. They all know this, it's why Tillis, McSally, Loeffler, hav, and probably John James and Cory Gardner will, some way or another, allow the process to proceed and most likely even vote yes. This is probably the death of Gardner chances (just when the GOP was becoming slightly more optimistic), but they have no choice. Just the Democrat candidates must oppose it. Their voters won't allow anything else, previous statements be damned.
edit: i said in my very first post on this topic that McConnell's original statement was wrong. And that he corrected it. Some of these politicians rushed out a response way too soon, and for that there may be a political price. That's up to voters. But there would absolutely be a price for almost any GOP senator who willingly constrains themselves on what is almost the only unifying issue to the whole party, and does so against precedent.
|
On September 21 2020 05:20 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm just noticing an extremely convenient ignorance of all of the posturing and grandstanding made by Republican senators made just 4 years ago on this exact issue. That the conversation so quickly veered away from everything they were saying about the principal of late nominations, to suddenly talking about all the extenuating circumstances that nobody cares about, that, in the minds of Republicans, suddenly makes this ok. It gives me whiplash.
What happened to the basic principle of waiting until the voters have made their voices heard when you're this close to the election? It was your boys in Congress making all the fuss. All of it. Now you don't give a shit. This is the raping of good faith I'm talking about. Everything is an abuse of other's good faith, and making convenient temporary claims to virtues that nobody has, all to get whatever power grab you're after in the moment. Makes me sick.
Well said sir, this is exactly why this entire situation is so ridiculous. If the right leaning posters here are so adamant that the basis of the political system is broken (SCOTUS is too powerful and important in this case), then why is it okay to argue that the Republicans are just doing what they can via the avenues available to them EVEN IF it means they become bad faith actors and literally contradict what they said about the process just 2-4 years ago?
Have any of you considered that maybe if they acted with good faith, stayed true to their word, and behaved like adults who are entrusted to run the country instead of constantly making excuses like "but the precedent says", we'd be in a much better position as a country? "That's just the way things have always been" is a fine way to conduct your Thanksgiving dinner or your birthdays, but not a way to run a country.
|
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws.
|
You are all once again tripping into the trap of assuming that the things our dear conservatives say are the things they actually care about.
I am absolutely certain the both Danglars and Introvert couldn't care less about historical precedent, or hypocrisy, or anything else. What they care about is that they can get another one of their guys onto the supreme court to keep the country more republican for the next decades. All of the other stuff is utterly irrelevant to them.
It really isn't worth it talking about all that stuff, because it is just smokes and mirrors. People need to realize that republicans care about none of the things they claim to care about, they just use these things because if they provide nice cover so they do not have to actually admit what the things they care about are.
They don't care about decorum, states rights, constitutionality, historical precedent, religious freedom, or any of the other distractions they conveniently hide behind. They have proven that time and time again. They do care about reducing taxes for rich people and being able to discriminate against anyone who isn't a straight old rich christian conservative white man. And maybe guns. As far as i can tell, those are the single values they actually care about.
|
|
|
On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws.
This is basically how I see things. No use in doing otherwise.
|
On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws.
This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think.
|
On September 21 2020 05:20 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm just noticing an extremely convenient ignorance of all of the posturing and grandstanding made by Republican senators made just 4 years ago on this exact issue. That the conversation so quickly veered away from everything they were saying about the principal of late nominations, to suddenly talking about all the extenuating circumstances that nobody cares about, that, in the minds of Republicans, suddenly makes this ok. It gives me whiplash.
What happened to the basic principle of waiting until the voters have made their voices heard when you're this close to the election? It was your boys in Congress making all the fuss. All of it. Now you don't give a shit. This is the raping of good faith I'm talking about. Everything is an abuse of other's good faith, and making convenient temporary claims to virtues that nobody has, all to get whatever power grab you're after in the moment. Makes me sick.
This is why I don't bother discussing anything Danglar's gets involved in. He'll either push the eject button out of a topic and vanish or find some wild tangent to throw it on and people eat it up. He isn't interested in actual discussion on the topic and uses the thread to workshop talking with liberals irl.
|
On September 21 2020 05:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 05:37 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:03 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:38 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 Danglars wrote:
I want to call you principled, Nouar, since you're spending the time to post relevant information for anyone that thinks the precedent extends to all nominees (it doesn't). I think you can find and conclude that there's decades of precedent from BOTH PARTIES going back DECADES by finding out the last time the Senate confirmed a nomination chosen in an election year by the President of the opposite party. I await this revisement of "since 2016" in the interest of establishing a foundation we can both agree on, should you be interested in my opinions of all nominees or whatever. This should really be a nonpartisan agreement on historical precedent.
Trump has been accused of destroying norms and destroying Democracy itself, so it's helpful for me to know which people can honestly debate precedent and history without letting partisan anti-Trump sentiment cloud their analytical faculties. I went and found actual data, now it's your turn : can you show me ONE example throughout history of a supreme court vacancy having been nominated and filled while early voting had already begun ? In fact you don't have to, it was already posted, it never happened. The latest a vacancy has ever been filled was a full 5 months before the election. So I'll switch my question : what was the shortest time between a vacancy being declared and the confirmation of a SC judge, and what would be your reaction if the confirmation happens during a lame-duck session with the President having changed ? Is there a precedent for that, dear sir ? On September 21 2020 04:36 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:24 Nouar wrote:Fuck are you serious ? The discussion was about the history of the filibuster, and the nuclear option used by Harry Reid due to unprecedented obstruction by the republican minority (where I posted the table in response to Wegandi). Then it switched to overall split-party judicial appointments post with your flat assertion that Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Your post is about judicial nominees. The previous pages did NOT talk about the supreme court only, but overall. I'll assume you know how you to speak english and convey a message better than me in your native language. Then you move the goalpost to election year only, THEN you both say that all along it was only about supreme court appointments. You should apply as senators, seriously. You were not part of that discussion in the last 3/4 pages on that topic, suddenly intervene talking about "judicial nominees are refused by opposite party" and I should assume that you strayed enough from the conversation to only talk about supreme court in the last year ? Man I'm not Nostradamus. And I still see no comment from either of you about all the grandstanding comments from republican senators between 2016-now. (Which was the other topic of discussion) To be quite frank, the discussion since the news of RBG's death has been about the supreme court almost entirely. So perhaps yes, maybe you should assume we know English. On hypocrisy, as I mentioned a post of a few hundred words the other day A) there's a lot of the Democrat side B) It is true that not every senator, every single time they were asked, made the caveat of "a presidential election year when the Senate and WH are controlled by opposite parties." But given your posts so far, would you have even noticed if they did? Wegandi did mention how if the Democrats hadn't killed the judicial filibuster in 2013 they would be in a much stronger position now, which, regardless of why Democrats did it, is undeniably true. But the background context for the "replacing RGB " discussion has been about the supreme court and honestly I feel silly for having to point that out. The whole filibuster and appointment history that lead to Reid removing the filibuster was definitely not about the supreme court. It would be out of place for senators to talk about senate and WH controlled by opposite party when they talked specifically about a republican president being in power, and that we should wait for the will of the people in an election year (it's pretty self-explanatory, that one, there are no caveats. Election year = wait the will of the people) About the filibuster, it may be true, but you are, as Wegandi was, conveniently forgetting that the removal of the filibuster was due to unprecedented filibustering by... whom ? Who abused the filibuster ? Who lied about "but he used recess appointments" to justify said *judicial* filibusters while Obama only used it a couple times for *executive* appointments, that were also being unprecedentedly (? is that correct?) blockaded ? Who ignored the blue slip more recently to appoint judges ? Remember the Tea Party ? The multiple government shutdowns these past administrations ? Both sides are pretty much shit in my view. But on this topic, there is a clear discrepancy in behaviour between both. This usually have to do with the democratic electorate tending to boot scummy behaviour much more easily than the republican one, who often celebrate it. edit so I'm clear : you don't see me complaining about Garland. You haven't seen me do so, except to point out some hypocrisy. I'm not actually contesting that it was scummy to refuse a hearing though it was (they could have kept up appearances, held hearings and just not vote for him). It's the game. What's unacceptable in my view is changing your rethoric at the last second not even 24h after her death, and trampling over all the grandstanding comments a couple dozens from your side used to justify their scummy behaviour of 2016. The argument that "the court can't be left at 8 for a presidential election" is also moot, it didn't bother them in 2016. There is NO precedent of a Supreme Court appointment this close to an presidential election, or even TWICE as close. Find me one, and I'll grant you the win. You appear to not be reading most of the posts in this thread and are now changing the criteria. Although I admit that "voting has already started!" has more salience than "it's close," at least superficially. Since you apparently missed it, I will, with apologies to the other posters in this thread who have seen the link already, send you here. and btw this is just another reason I oppose voting that starts this early. one month, three weeks TOPS. sixtyish days is insane. btw one reason either Lagoa or ACB may have a quick confirmation is because they were so recently vetted for their current posts. Most of the work has already been done. Thank you it's an informative read, yes I probably missed that post or at least the link itself (that's why I directly quote and post pictures instead of sending links, it's less complete but easier to digest when you don't have an hour to digest a page of answers, I'm rather short on time usually, less than optimal I know). What criteria am I changing btw ? I'll thus concede a loss as there are clear precedent of lame-duck nominations/confirmations as well as from presidents having lost the election, which I find gross but hey... who am I to judge (and several with a lot less than 45 days between opening and confirmation). I don't know the history of the importance of the SC across the ages so I won't comment on that, though there was no occurence since the 60's, well before my time. I am still undeterred on what I said : it's really rich from the republican senators to have said so many definite statements and promises about "next time if it's a republican president", or "let the people vote !! Same in 2020 if it happens, let the people decide after the vote !" and then suddenly completely reneging on their assertions, and this is mostly what I'm despising (from both sides when it happens). I am also not moving from my opinion that things really turned sour under the Tea Party and Obama. Before that, there were bipartisan concessions, then a fringe of republicans went ape-shit. The Republicans were unclear many times and people like Graham really did say no confirmation in a presidential election year no matter what. Of course the flip-side is Joe Biden saying in both the 90s and 2016 to fill any seats. But politically remember that both sides would absolutely fill in this scenario and the GOP has to at least try. With the possible exception of Susan Collins, any GOP senator running for re-election this year would lose in a landslide because their own base of voters would refuse to vote for them. They all know this, it's why Tillis, McSally, Loeffler, hav, and probably John James and Cory Gardner will, some way or another, allow the process to proceed and most likely even vote yes. This is probably the death of Gardner chances (just when the GOP was becoming slightly more optimistic), but they have no choice. Just the Democrat candidates must oppose it. Their voters won't allow anything else, previous statements be damned. edit: i said in my very first post on this topic that McConnell's original statement was wrong. And that he corrected it. Some of these politicians rushed out a response way too soon, and for that there may be a political price. That's up to voters. But there would absolutely be a price for almost any GOP senator who willingly constrains themselves on what is almost the only unifying issue to the whole party, and does so against precedent.
This war for the Senate is exactly why I thought Trump, who holds no real love for any party, since he's an opportunist, could maybe gain to keep the seat open and try to force republicans to come en masse to reelect him and keep a senate majority.
It looks like that was wrong as he promptly vowed to fill it asap.
On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think.
This is a bit reducting. Are you arguing that Bush and Trump were NOT the electoral college, and that there was no Russian involvement in 2016 against all the bipartisan reports that came out ?
No one argued about any of this when the popular vote was lost by a democrat, or talked about Russia or another country interfering in the previous ones, to my (limited) knowledge ?
Does it not bother you one bit to have a president getting money from renting (sometimes) empty offices to foreign governments ? (The Qatari office comes to mind. Empty since its construction in 2017, with more than a million in rent since, directly in Trump's pocket). Or all the other dealings with foreign powers in which he has personal financial interest ?
These are just facts, not "when democrats lose, it's..."
|
United States43989 Posts
On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think.
These things are literally true. The Russians did interfere in the 2016 election, the electoral college did cause the candidate with fewer votes to win, the Senate is undemocratic (Senate representatives per voter is far greater in some states than others).
As for the Republicans coming up with ways to win these institutions under the rules, voter suppression isn't within the rules.
You're framing it as "Democrats are always making excuses about the game being rigged whereas Republicans just play smart' but the game is rigged and the Republicans are the ones rigging it. The excuse is perfectly valid.
|
On September 21 2020 04:38 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 04:05 Danglars wrote:
I want to call you principled, Nouar, since you're spending the time to post relevant information for anyone that thinks the precedent extends to all nominees (it doesn't). I think you can find and conclude that there's decades of precedent from BOTH PARTIES going back DECADES by finding out the last time the Senate confirmed a nomination chosen in an election year by the President of the opposite party. I await this revisement of "since 2016" in the interest of establishing a foundation we can both agree on, should you be interested in my opinions of all nominees or whatever. This should really be a nonpartisan agreement on historical precedent.
Trump has been accused of destroying norms and destroying Democracy itself, so it's helpful for me to know which people can honestly debate precedent and history without letting partisan anti-Trump sentiment cloud their analytical faculties. I went and found actual data, now it's your turn : can you show me ONE example throughout history of a supreme court vacancy having been nominated and filled while early voting had already begun ? In fact you don't have to, it was already posted, it never happened. The latest a vacancy has ever been filled was a full 5 months before the election. So I'll switch my question : what was the shortest time between a vacancy being declared and the confirmation of a SC judge, and what would be your reaction if the confirmation happens during a lame-duck session with the President having changed ? Is there a precedent for that, dear sir ?
I'm sorry for neglecting to make explicit context for my post, as I said before. I sometimes wander in assuming the discussion was framed around Merrick Garland (hypocrisy allegations usually are in this case), so I didn't restate the Supreme Court nominations and whether or not it was unified Senate/Presidency or divided. With all that provided, you have not answered my question. My apologies for your past data not addressing the precedent I wanted you to acknowledge in my question.
If the constitutional responsible parties are united, fill the seat. This would be one of the soonest to election filled. Yet, should they confirm before the election, it would not be the fastest confirmation process. Ginsburg herself and two others were confirmed in less time. Dare I say, the constitutional process is obeyed.
Which side is more "shit" about abusing the filibuster, and lying, is a huge can of worms and my time is limited. I do find the Republican behavior much more palatable, but going down each and every case will stretch back to at least Bork. The car got started on Bork, hit 60 mph on Thomas, and flew off the freeway on Kavanaugh.
On September 21 2020 04:26 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 04:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 02:38 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2020 00:52 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 00:49 Danglars wrote:
Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Could you explain the Republican Party's explanation for why Merrick Garland was not allowed to go to vote? What was the principle, and how did the date of the nomination factor into it? I ask this independent of what is going on with RBG's seat. That’s the current evolution of no votes, and the bipartisan method. See: Miguel Estrada & the Democrats in ‘01. With all due respect, you did not answer my question. For perspective, I did read up on Miguel Estrada at your suggestion which does help provide some additional background on the general topic. The method of the Senate withholding its consent for Presidential nominees is decided upon by the rules of the Senate. If the Senate Majority Leader wishes to do that via filibuster, withholding a vote, or holding a vote that decides on no, it matters very little to me. The Senate has withheld consent for the nominee. The constitutional process is Presidential nominations with advice and consent. I don't really see much difference about an actual vote being called versus not considering past Democratic filibusters of nominees. It's advice and consent and the Senate sets its own rules. If the filibuster is removed for legislation, legislation will pass on 50+1 votes in the Senate. Until then, legislation must gain 60 votes for cloture should a Senator filibuster. Either way, it's the rules of the Senate. The Senate could decide on a mechanism for forcing a vote on something that the Senate Majority Leader decides to not hold a vote on. That's the decision of Senators. Regardless, the Senate withholds consent by the rules of the Senate. If it's denying the Republicans a Latino appeals court judge, for political considerations of painting Republicans to be against minorities, it's denied consent. If it's McConnell trying to shield vulnerable Senators from a tough vote, or political optics of a filibuster, it's denied consent. The mechanism of the withdrawing of consent is in the Senate rules, and isn't detailed otherwise. I refer you to the text of the constitution, should you have questions regarding the different wording for treaties and appointments. That's the mechanism, which is part of the Why (The Constitutional Process IS the why in some aspects). The other why is Democratic governance. In a split government, the argument goes that the voters should have a vote on the nominating person should it happen in the same year of nomination, since the voters have split their decision several years ago in who rules the Senate and who rules the Executive Branch. In the "Why Then and not Now," it's because the voters have given the Republicans both the presidency and the Senate, so there is no ambiguity between the two branches involved in nominating justices. Perhaps I need more explanation as to your mindset if you still have lingering questions after this post. I'm happy to hear it. Thank you, this is much more detailed and on point. Regarding the bolded text above, from where/when does that argument originate? More specifically, where/when does "same year" (presumably after January 1st of the election year) come from as opposed to 6 month period prior, or 18 month period prior?
Thank you for your interest. I answered once and clarified again, and am rewarded with two more questions. Maybe give it a week and see if you are still comparably interested in the further follow-ups. I try to ration my time among users, so maybe I'll put one to you as more of an aside. Is the sentiment contained in this post still above your standards for engaging in debate? If we're going multiple questions for every one answered, I'd like to know if these have shifted for you over time. For contrast, see Simberto's "I am absolutely certain that both Danglars and Introvert couldn't care less about..." and Gahlo's "[Danglars] will either push the eject button out of a topic and vanish, or find some wild tangent to throw it on and people eat it up." Or maybe Gorsameth's head cannon that McConnell's hypothetical actions rate equal to (D) Reid's actual actions, so there's no point drawing a difference.
On September 21 2020 01:06 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 00:49 Danglars wrote:
Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. 2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.” 2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.” 2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.” 2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.” 2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.” 2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.” 2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.” 2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.” 2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” 2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.” 2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.” March 2016, Mitch McConnell, (R-KY) “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Yup. I'm sure ignorance is the reason I used the word hypocrite.
Nouar already took me to task for forgetting to include the important qualifiers of "Supreme Court Justice" in judicial nominees. Did you think I said "No politicians of the Republican party have made bad statements ignoring precedent?" And same as to Nouar, you've brought up a lot of politicians making dumb statements they would obviously go back on, but you've failed to provide me an example of actual hypocrisy. You'll note that I'm talking about supreme court confirmations, not political statements. I do consider Republican politicians to be hypocritical in the statements they make to the press on standards they're badly citing.
|
On September 21 2020 06:16 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 05:51 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:37 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:03 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:38 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 Danglars wrote:
I want to call you principled, Nouar, since you're spending the time to post relevant information for anyone that thinks the precedent extends to all nominees (it doesn't). I think you can find and conclude that there's decades of precedent from BOTH PARTIES going back DECADES by finding out the last time the Senate confirmed a nomination chosen in an election year by the President of the opposite party. I await this revisement of "since 2016" in the interest of establishing a foundation we can both agree on, should you be interested in my opinions of all nominees or whatever. This should really be a nonpartisan agreement on historical precedent.
Trump has been accused of destroying norms and destroying Democracy itself, so it's helpful for me to know which people can honestly debate precedent and history without letting partisan anti-Trump sentiment cloud their analytical faculties. I went and found actual data, now it's your turn : can you show me ONE example throughout history of a supreme court vacancy having been nominated and filled while early voting had already begun ? In fact you don't have to, it was already posted, it never happened. The latest a vacancy has ever been filled was a full 5 months before the election. So I'll switch my question : what was the shortest time between a vacancy being declared and the confirmation of a SC judge, and what would be your reaction if the confirmation happens during a lame-duck session with the President having changed ? Is there a precedent for that, dear sir ? On September 21 2020 04:36 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:24 Nouar wrote:Fuck are you serious ? The discussion was about the history of the filibuster, and the nuclear option used by Harry Reid due to unprecedented obstruction by the republican minority (where I posted the table in response to Wegandi). Then it switched to overall split-party judicial appointments post with your flat assertion that Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Your post is about judicial nominees. The previous pages did NOT talk about the supreme court only, but overall. I'll assume you know how you to speak english and convey a message better than me in your native language. Then you move the goalpost to election year only, THEN you both say that all along it was only about supreme court appointments. You should apply as senators, seriously. You were not part of that discussion in the last 3/4 pages on that topic, suddenly intervene talking about "judicial nominees are refused by opposite party" and I should assume that you strayed enough from the conversation to only talk about supreme court in the last year ? Man I'm not Nostradamus. And I still see no comment from either of you about all the grandstanding comments from republican senators between 2016-now. (Which was the other topic of discussion) To be quite frank, the discussion since the news of RBG's death has been about the supreme court almost entirely. So perhaps yes, maybe you should assume we know English. On hypocrisy, as I mentioned a post of a few hundred words the other day A) there's a lot of the Democrat side B) It is true that not every senator, every single time they were asked, made the caveat of "a presidential election year when the Senate and WH are controlled by opposite parties." But given your posts so far, would you have even noticed if they did? Wegandi did mention how if the Democrats hadn't killed the judicial filibuster in 2013 they would be in a much stronger position now, which, regardless of why Democrats did it, is undeniably true. But the background context for the "replacing RGB " discussion has been about the supreme court and honestly I feel silly for having to point that out. The whole filibuster and appointment history that lead to Reid removing the filibuster was definitely not about the supreme court. It would be out of place for senators to talk about senate and WH controlled by opposite party when they talked specifically about a republican president being in power, and that we should wait for the will of the people in an election year (it's pretty self-explanatory, that one, there are no caveats. Election year = wait the will of the people) About the filibuster, it may be true, but you are, as Wegandi was, conveniently forgetting that the removal of the filibuster was due to unprecedented filibustering by... whom ? Who abused the filibuster ? Who lied about "but he used recess appointments" to justify said *judicial* filibusters while Obama only used it a couple times for *executive* appointments, that were also being unprecedentedly (? is that correct?) blockaded ? Who ignored the blue slip more recently to appoint judges ? Remember the Tea Party ? The multiple government shutdowns these past administrations ? Both sides are pretty much shit in my view. But on this topic, there is a clear discrepancy in behaviour between both. This usually have to do with the democratic electorate tending to boot scummy behaviour much more easily than the republican one, who often celebrate it. edit so I'm clear : you don't see me complaining about Garland. You haven't seen me do so, except to point out some hypocrisy. I'm not actually contesting that it was scummy to refuse a hearing though it was (they could have kept up appearances, held hearings and just not vote for him). It's the game. What's unacceptable in my view is changing your rethoric at the last second not even 24h after her death, and trampling over all the grandstanding comments a couple dozens from your side used to justify their scummy behaviour of 2016. The argument that "the court can't be left at 8 for a presidential election" is also moot, it didn't bother them in 2016. There is NO precedent of a Supreme Court appointment this close to an presidential election, or even TWICE as close. Find me one, and I'll grant you the win. You appear to not be reading most of the posts in this thread and are now changing the criteria. Although I admit that "voting has already started!" has more salience than "it's close," at least superficially. Since you apparently missed it, I will, with apologies to the other posters in this thread who have seen the link already, send you here. and btw this is just another reason I oppose voting that starts this early. one month, three weeks TOPS. sixtyish days is insane. btw one reason either Lagoa or ACB may have a quick confirmation is because they were so recently vetted for their current posts. Most of the work has already been done. Thank you it's an informative read, yes I probably missed that post or at least the link itself (that's why I directly quote and post pictures instead of sending links, it's less complete but easier to digest when you don't have an hour to digest a page of answers, I'm rather short on time usually, less than optimal I know). What criteria am I changing btw ? I'll thus concede a loss as there are clear precedent of lame-duck nominations/confirmations as well as from presidents having lost the election, which I find gross but hey... who am I to judge (and several with a lot less than 45 days between opening and confirmation). I don't know the history of the importance of the SC across the ages so I won't comment on that, though there was no occurence since the 60's, well before my time. I am still undeterred on what I said : it's really rich from the republican senators to have said so many definite statements and promises about "next time if it's a republican president", or "let the people vote !! Same in 2020 if it happens, let the people decide after the vote !" and then suddenly completely reneging on their assertions, and this is mostly what I'm despising (from both sides when it happens). I am also not moving from my opinion that things really turned sour under the Tea Party and Obama. Before that, there were bipartisan concessions, then a fringe of republicans went ape-shit. The Republicans were unclear many times and people like Graham really did say no confirmation in a presidential election year no matter what. Of course the flip-side is Joe Biden saying in both the 90s and 2016 to fill any seats. But politically remember that both sides would absolutely fill in this scenario and the GOP has to at least try. With the possible exception of Susan Collins, any GOP senator running for re-election this year would lose in a landslide because their own base of voters would refuse to vote for them. They all know this, it's why Tillis, McSally, Loeffler, hav, and probably John James and Cory Gardner will, some way or another, allow the process to proceed and most likely even vote yes. This is probably the death of Gardner chances (just when the GOP was becoming slightly more optimistic), but they have no choice. Just the Democrat candidates must oppose it. Their voters won't allow anything else, previous statements be damned. edit: i said in my very first post on this topic that McConnell's original statement was wrong. And that he corrected it. Some of these politicians rushed out a response way too soon, and for that there may be a political price. That's up to voters. But there would absolutely be a price for almost any GOP senator who willingly constrains themselves on what is almost the only unifying issue to the whole party, and does so against precedent. This war for the Senate is exactly why I thought Trump, who holds no real love for any party, since he's an opportunist, could maybe gain to keep the seat open and try to force republicans to come en masse to reelect him and keep a senate majority. It looks like that was wrong as he promptly vowed to fill it asap. Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think. This is a bit reducting. Are you arguing that Bush and Trump were NOT the electoral college, and that there was no Russian involvement in 2016 against all the bipartisan reports that came out ? No one argued about any of this when the popular vote was lost by a democrat, or talked about Russia or another country interfering in the previous ones, to my (limited) knowledge ? Does it not bother you one bit to have a president getting money from renting (sometimes) empty offices to foreign governments ? ( The Qatari office comes to mind. Empty since its construction in 2017, with more than a million in rent since, directly in Trump's pocket). Or all the other dealings with foreign powers in which he has personal financial interest ? These are just facts, not "when democrats lose, it's..."
I've made my opinions known already on "collusion" and the like.
I'm saying when Democrats lose they spend more time whining about the system then winning under it, and they only whine when they lose. I kid you not, in the 2000s through Obama's first term, Democrats thought the electoral college favored them. They used to be the party of more rural areas and the south. They have controlled the senate and house the vast majority of the time since FDR. Even since Reagan it's close. Contrast that with the GOP that doesn't and didn't call for the abolition of the Senate, for instance. Only one party, upon losing a single election, complains about the fundamental, small-r republican nature of our constitutional system.
Even if you say it should be changed, the bar is far too high and such whining comes across as mere sour grapes.
|
On September 21 2020 06:35 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 06:16 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:51 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:37 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:03 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:38 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 Danglars wrote:
I want to call you principled, Nouar, since you're spending the time to post relevant information for anyone that thinks the precedent extends to all nominees (it doesn't). I think you can find and conclude that there's decades of precedent from BOTH PARTIES going back DECADES by finding out the last time the Senate confirmed a nomination chosen in an election year by the President of the opposite party. I await this revisement of "since 2016" in the interest of establishing a foundation we can both agree on, should you be interested in my opinions of all nominees or whatever. This should really be a nonpartisan agreement on historical precedent.
Trump has been accused of destroying norms and destroying Democracy itself, so it's helpful for me to know which people can honestly debate precedent and history without letting partisan anti-Trump sentiment cloud their analytical faculties. I went and found actual data, now it's your turn : can you show me ONE example throughout history of a supreme court vacancy having been nominated and filled while early voting had already begun ? In fact you don't have to, it was already posted, it never happened. The latest a vacancy has ever been filled was a full 5 months before the election. So I'll switch my question : what was the shortest time between a vacancy being declared and the confirmation of a SC judge, and what would be your reaction if the confirmation happens during a lame-duck session with the President having changed ? Is there a precedent for that, dear sir ? On September 21 2020 04:36 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:24 Nouar wrote:Fuck are you serious ? The discussion was about the history of the filibuster, and the nuclear option used by Harry Reid due to unprecedented obstruction by the republican minority (where I posted the table in response to Wegandi). Then it switched to overall split-party judicial appointments post with your flat assertion that Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Your post is about judicial nominees. The previous pages did NOT talk about the supreme court only, but overall. I'll assume you know how you to speak english and convey a message better than me in your native language. Then you move the goalpost to election year only, THEN you both say that all along it was only about supreme court appointments. You should apply as senators, seriously. You were not part of that discussion in the last 3/4 pages on that topic, suddenly intervene talking about "judicial nominees are refused by opposite party" and I should assume that you strayed enough from the conversation to only talk about supreme court in the last year ? Man I'm not Nostradamus. And I still see no comment from either of you about all the grandstanding comments from republican senators between 2016-now. (Which was the other topic of discussion) To be quite frank, the discussion since the news of RBG's death has been about the supreme court almost entirely. So perhaps yes, maybe you should assume we know English. On hypocrisy, as I mentioned a post of a few hundred words the other day A) there's a lot of the Democrat side B) It is true that not every senator, every single time they were asked, made the caveat of "a presidential election year when the Senate and WH are controlled by opposite parties." But given your posts so far, would you have even noticed if they did? Wegandi did mention how if the Democrats hadn't killed the judicial filibuster in 2013 they would be in a much stronger position now, which, regardless of why Democrats did it, is undeniably true. But the background context for the "replacing RGB " discussion has been about the supreme court and honestly I feel silly for having to point that out. The whole filibuster and appointment history that lead to Reid removing the filibuster was definitely not about the supreme court. It would be out of place for senators to talk about senate and WH controlled by opposite party when they talked specifically about a republican president being in power, and that we should wait for the will of the people in an election year (it's pretty self-explanatory, that one, there are no caveats. Election year = wait the will of the people) About the filibuster, it may be true, but you are, as Wegandi was, conveniently forgetting that the removal of the filibuster was due to unprecedented filibustering by... whom ? Who abused the filibuster ? Who lied about "but he used recess appointments" to justify said *judicial* filibusters while Obama only used it a couple times for *executive* appointments, that were also being unprecedentedly (? is that correct?) blockaded ? Who ignored the blue slip more recently to appoint judges ? Remember the Tea Party ? The multiple government shutdowns these past administrations ? Both sides are pretty much shit in my view. But on this topic, there is a clear discrepancy in behaviour between both. This usually have to do with the democratic electorate tending to boot scummy behaviour much more easily than the republican one, who often celebrate it. edit so I'm clear : you don't see me complaining about Garland. You haven't seen me do so, except to point out some hypocrisy. I'm not actually contesting that it was scummy to refuse a hearing though it was (they could have kept up appearances, held hearings and just not vote for him). It's the game. What's unacceptable in my view is changing your rethoric at the last second not even 24h after her death, and trampling over all the grandstanding comments a couple dozens from your side used to justify their scummy behaviour of 2016. The argument that "the court can't be left at 8 for a presidential election" is also moot, it didn't bother them in 2016. There is NO precedent of a Supreme Court appointment this close to an presidential election, or even TWICE as close. Find me one, and I'll grant you the win. You appear to not be reading most of the posts in this thread and are now changing the criteria. Although I admit that "voting has already started!" has more salience than "it's close," at least superficially. Since you apparently missed it, I will, with apologies to the other posters in this thread who have seen the link already, send you here. and btw this is just another reason I oppose voting that starts this early. one month, three weeks TOPS. sixtyish days is insane. btw one reason either Lagoa or ACB may have a quick confirmation is because they were so recently vetted for their current posts. Most of the work has already been done. Thank you it's an informative read, yes I probably missed that post or at least the link itself (that's why I directly quote and post pictures instead of sending links, it's less complete but easier to digest when you don't have an hour to digest a page of answers, I'm rather short on time usually, less than optimal I know). What criteria am I changing btw ? I'll thus concede a loss as there are clear precedent of lame-duck nominations/confirmations as well as from presidents having lost the election, which I find gross but hey... who am I to judge (and several with a lot less than 45 days between opening and confirmation). I don't know the history of the importance of the SC across the ages so I won't comment on that, though there was no occurence since the 60's, well before my time. I am still undeterred on what I said : it's really rich from the republican senators to have said so many definite statements and promises about "next time if it's a republican president", or "let the people vote !! Same in 2020 if it happens, let the people decide after the vote !" and then suddenly completely reneging on their assertions, and this is mostly what I'm despising (from both sides when it happens). I am also not moving from my opinion that things really turned sour under the Tea Party and Obama. Before that, there were bipartisan concessions, then a fringe of republicans went ape-shit. The Republicans were unclear many times and people like Graham really did say no confirmation in a presidential election year no matter what. Of course the flip-side is Joe Biden saying in both the 90s and 2016 to fill any seats. But politically remember that both sides would absolutely fill in this scenario and the GOP has to at least try. With the possible exception of Susan Collins, any GOP senator running for re-election this year would lose in a landslide because their own base of voters would refuse to vote for them. They all know this, it's why Tillis, McSally, Loeffler, hav, and probably John James and Cory Gardner will, some way or another, allow the process to proceed and most likely even vote yes. This is probably the death of Gardner chances (just when the GOP was becoming slightly more optimistic), but they have no choice. Just the Democrat candidates must oppose it. Their voters won't allow anything else, previous statements be damned. edit: i said in my very first post on this topic that McConnell's original statement was wrong. And that he corrected it. Some of these politicians rushed out a response way too soon, and for that there may be a political price. That's up to voters. But there would absolutely be a price for almost any GOP senator who willingly constrains themselves on what is almost the only unifying issue to the whole party, and does so against precedent. This war for the Senate is exactly why I thought Trump, who holds no real love for any party, since he's an opportunist, could maybe gain to keep the seat open and try to force republicans to come en masse to reelect him and keep a senate majority. It looks like that was wrong as he promptly vowed to fill it asap. On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think. This is a bit reducting. Are you arguing that Bush and Trump were NOT the electoral college, and that there was no Russian involvement in 2016 against all the bipartisan reports that came out ? No one argued about any of this when the popular vote was lost by a democrat, or talked about Russia or another country interfering in the previous ones, to my (limited) knowledge ? Does it not bother you one bit to have a president getting money from renting (sometimes) empty offices to foreign governments ? ( The Qatari office comes to mind. Empty since its construction in 2017, with more than a million in rent since, directly in Trump's pocket). Or all the other dealings with foreign powers in which he has personal financial interest ? These are just facts, not "when democrats lose, it's..." I've made my opinions known already on "collusion" and the like. I'm saying when Democrats lose they spend more time whining about the system then winning under it, and they only whine when they lose. I kid you not, in the 2000s through Obama's first term, Democrats thought the electoral college favored them. They used to be the party of more rural areas and the south. They have controlled the senate and house the vast majority of the time since FDR. Even since Reagan it's close. Contrast that with the GOP that doesn't and didn't call for the abolition of the Senate, for instance. Only one party, upon losing a single election, complains about the fundamental, small-r republican nature of our constitutional system. Even if you say it should be changed, the bar is far too high to and such whining comes across as mere sour grapes.
Russian influence is not collusion. I accept the result of the investigation even if I still hold doubts. I also accept the unanimous reports about russian influence itself. I didn't assert it changed the result, just that it happened, and the russian have a whole bag of fun looking at america self-imploding internationally due to the clown in chief. They just need a few pokes here and there both ways to create chaos, and they can't get enough of it (Can't tell *exactly* where I work or what I do but...)
About the electoral college, of course no one complained before 2000 as the previous time it happened was in 1888... And in 2000 it was only a small amount of votes. In 2016 it's more than 3 million. I don't really accept that kind of result as representative of the population. Not do I for the senate, and I'd think the same if it happened the other way.
|
On September 21 2020 00:52 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 00:49 Danglars wrote:
Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Could you explain the Republican Party's explanation for why Merrick Garland was not allowed to go to vote? What was the principle, and how did the date of the nomination factor into it? I ask this independent of what is going on with RBG's seat.
The explanation at the time centered on the proximity to the election. It was alleged that the Republicans were following "the Biden rule". I do remember that some amount of discussion was made about the split-control of Senate and Presidency, but the vast majority of it was justified on the "not in an election year, no matter what!" principle.
This is the unfortunate result of playing political rhetoric games instead of just being honest. We all know the real reason Republicans didn't hold a vote on Garland was because they were hoping for a Hail Mary victory by Trump. All the Biden rule stuff and the "let the American people decide" talk was just rhetoric. They thought there would be a political cost to refusing to vote, and they tried to downplay that cost, but now they will have to pay the cost anyway. If they had been honest then and said: "There's no way we're going to confirm an Obama appointee if there's even a small chance of avoiding it" then there could be no accusation of hypocrisy.
I don't think anyone really believes that they aren't engaging in a bit of hypocrisy. I think people can and will offer some mitigating context (split partisan control, etc.) but this is mostly just more rhetoric. For some reason politics seems to blind people to consequences. They were clever before and it's biting them now. They're trying to be clever now, not understanding that even if they succeed, it'll eventually come back around to bite them later.
Being honest and straightforward is usually the best policy. That way you never get caught eating your own words. But the problem is that politics encourages people to try to score rhetorical points.
Republicans, in particular, have been getting burned by their own rhetoric lately.
|
On September 21 2020 06:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think. These things are literally true. The Russians did interfere in the 2016 election, the electoral college did cause the candidate with fewer votes to win, the Senate is undemocratic (Senate representatives per voter is far greater in some states than others). As for the Republicans coming up with ways to win these institutions under the rules, voter suppression isn't within the rules. You're framing it as "Democrats are always making excuses about the game being rigged whereas Republicans just play smart' but the game is rigged and the Republicans are the ones rigging it. The excuse is perfectly valid.
How exactly did the Republicans "rig" the EC and the makeup of the Senate, things that pre-date the formation of the Republican party? It is clear though that Democrats loathe the forming of our country as a *little r* republican form of Government. They can't stand it, and if given the opportunity would tear it down. That's what I said earlier about the Democrats not caring one bit about the rules and institutions that limit their Government ambitions. They'll destroy whatever suits their purposes, at least Republicans tend to believe in our republican institutions and abide by them (you can say because they benefit more or what not, but my statement nonetheless is still factual).
Plus, Democrats do blame the Russians instead of nominating a complete dud. They refuse any responsibility in their loss, shifting it to a foreign power. Something they consistently claim Trump does with "othering". You really think Clinton lost because of the Russians?
|
On September 21 2020 06:35 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 06:16 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:51 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:37 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:03 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:38 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 Danglars wrote:
I want to call you principled, Nouar, since you're spending the time to post relevant information for anyone that thinks the precedent extends to all nominees (it doesn't). I think you can find and conclude that there's decades of precedent from BOTH PARTIES going back DECADES by finding out the last time the Senate confirmed a nomination chosen in an election year by the President of the opposite party. I await this revisement of "since 2016" in the interest of establishing a foundation we can both agree on, should you be interested in my opinions of all nominees or whatever. This should really be a nonpartisan agreement on historical precedent.
Trump has been accused of destroying norms and destroying Democracy itself, so it's helpful for me to know which people can honestly debate precedent and history without letting partisan anti-Trump sentiment cloud their analytical faculties. I went and found actual data, now it's your turn : can you show me ONE example throughout history of a supreme court vacancy having been nominated and filled while early voting had already begun ? In fact you don't have to, it was already posted, it never happened. The latest a vacancy has ever been filled was a full 5 months before the election. So I'll switch my question : what was the shortest time between a vacancy being declared and the confirmation of a SC judge, and what would be your reaction if the confirmation happens during a lame-duck session with the President having changed ? Is there a precedent for that, dear sir ? On September 21 2020 04:36 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:24 Nouar wrote:Fuck are you serious ? The discussion was about the history of the filibuster, and the nuclear option used by Harry Reid due to unprecedented obstruction by the republican minority (where I posted the table in response to Wegandi). Then it switched to overall split-party judicial appointments post with your flat assertion that Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Your post is about judicial nominees. The previous pages did NOT talk about the supreme court only, but overall. I'll assume you know how you to speak english and convey a message better than me in your native language. Then you move the goalpost to election year only, THEN you both say that all along it was only about supreme court appointments. You should apply as senators, seriously. You were not part of that discussion in the last 3/4 pages on that topic, suddenly intervene talking about "judicial nominees are refused by opposite party" and I should assume that you strayed enough from the conversation to only talk about supreme court in the last year ? Man I'm not Nostradamus. And I still see no comment from either of you about all the grandstanding comments from republican senators between 2016-now. (Which was the other topic of discussion) To be quite frank, the discussion since the news of RBG's death has been about the supreme court almost entirely. So perhaps yes, maybe you should assume we know English. On hypocrisy, as I mentioned a post of a few hundred words the other day A) there's a lot of the Democrat side B) It is true that not every senator, every single time they were asked, made the caveat of "a presidential election year when the Senate and WH are controlled by opposite parties." But given your posts so far, would you have even noticed if they did? Wegandi did mention how if the Democrats hadn't killed the judicial filibuster in 2013 they would be in a much stronger position now, which, regardless of why Democrats did it, is undeniably true. But the background context for the "replacing RGB " discussion has been about the supreme court and honestly I feel silly for having to point that out. The whole filibuster and appointment history that lead to Reid removing the filibuster was definitely not about the supreme court. It would be out of place for senators to talk about senate and WH controlled by opposite party when they talked specifically about a republican president being in power, and that we should wait for the will of the people in an election year (it's pretty self-explanatory, that one, there are no caveats. Election year = wait the will of the people) About the filibuster, it may be true, but you are, as Wegandi was, conveniently forgetting that the removal of the filibuster was due to unprecedented filibustering by... whom ? Who abused the filibuster ? Who lied about "but he used recess appointments" to justify said *judicial* filibusters while Obama only used it a couple times for *executive* appointments, that were also being unprecedentedly (? is that correct?) blockaded ? Who ignored the blue slip more recently to appoint judges ? Remember the Tea Party ? The multiple government shutdowns these past administrations ? Both sides are pretty much shit in my view. But on this topic, there is a clear discrepancy in behaviour between both. This usually have to do with the democratic electorate tending to boot scummy behaviour much more easily than the republican one, who often celebrate it. edit so I'm clear : you don't see me complaining about Garland. You haven't seen me do so, except to point out some hypocrisy. I'm not actually contesting that it was scummy to refuse a hearing though it was (they could have kept up appearances, held hearings and just not vote for him). It's the game. What's unacceptable in my view is changing your rethoric at the last second not even 24h after her death, and trampling over all the grandstanding comments a couple dozens from your side used to justify their scummy behaviour of 2016. The argument that "the court can't be left at 8 for a presidential election" is also moot, it didn't bother them in 2016. There is NO precedent of a Supreme Court appointment this close to an presidential election, or even TWICE as close. Find me one, and I'll grant you the win. You appear to not be reading most of the posts in this thread and are now changing the criteria. Although I admit that "voting has already started!" has more salience than "it's close," at least superficially. Since you apparently missed it, I will, with apologies to the other posters in this thread who have seen the link already, send you here. and btw this is just another reason I oppose voting that starts this early. one month, three weeks TOPS. sixtyish days is insane. btw one reason either Lagoa or ACB may have a quick confirmation is because they were so recently vetted for their current posts. Most of the work has already been done. Thank you it's an informative read, yes I probably missed that post or at least the link itself (that's why I directly quote and post pictures instead of sending links, it's less complete but easier to digest when you don't have an hour to digest a page of answers, I'm rather short on time usually, less than optimal I know). What criteria am I changing btw ? I'll thus concede a loss as there are clear precedent of lame-duck nominations/confirmations as well as from presidents having lost the election, which I find gross but hey... who am I to judge (and several with a lot less than 45 days between opening and confirmation). I don't know the history of the importance of the SC across the ages so I won't comment on that, though there was no occurence since the 60's, well before my time. I am still undeterred on what I said : it's really rich from the republican senators to have said so many definite statements and promises about "next time if it's a republican president", or "let the people vote !! Same in 2020 if it happens, let the people decide after the vote !" and then suddenly completely reneging on their assertions, and this is mostly what I'm despising (from both sides when it happens). I am also not moving from my opinion that things really turned sour under the Tea Party and Obama. Before that, there were bipartisan concessions, then a fringe of republicans went ape-shit. The Republicans were unclear many times and people like Graham really did say no confirmation in a presidential election year no matter what. Of course the flip-side is Joe Biden saying in both the 90s and 2016 to fill any seats. But politically remember that both sides would absolutely fill in this scenario and the GOP has to at least try. With the possible exception of Susan Collins, any GOP senator running for re-election this year would lose in a landslide because their own base of voters would refuse to vote for them. They all know this, it's why Tillis, McSally, Loeffler, hav, and probably John James and Cory Gardner will, some way or another, allow the process to proceed and most likely even vote yes. This is probably the death of Gardner chances (just when the GOP was becoming slightly more optimistic), but they have no choice. Just the Democrat candidates must oppose it. Their voters won't allow anything else, previous statements be damned. edit: i said in my very first post on this topic that McConnell's original statement was wrong. And that he corrected it. Some of these politicians rushed out a response way too soon, and for that there may be a political price. That's up to voters. But there would absolutely be a price for almost any GOP senator who willingly constrains themselves on what is almost the only unifying issue to the whole party, and does so against precedent. This war for the Senate is exactly why I thought Trump, who holds no real love for any party, since he's an opportunist, could maybe gain to keep the seat open and try to force republicans to come en masse to reelect him and keep a senate majority. It looks like that was wrong as he promptly vowed to fill it asap. On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think. This is a bit reducting. Are you arguing that Bush and Trump were NOT the electoral college, and that there was no Russian involvement in 2016 against all the bipartisan reports that came out ? No one argued about any of this when the popular vote was lost by a democrat, or talked about Russia or another country interfering in the previous ones, to my (limited) knowledge ? Does it not bother you one bit to have a president getting money from renting (sometimes) empty offices to foreign governments ? ( The Qatari office comes to mind. Empty since its construction in 2017, with more than a million in rent since, directly in Trump's pocket). Or all the other dealings with foreign powers in which he has personal financial interest ? These are just facts, not "when democrats lose, it's..." I've made my opinions known already on "collusion" and the like. I'm saying when Democrats lose they spend more time whining about the system then winning under it, and they only whine when they lose. I kid you not, in the 2000s through Obama's first term, Democrats thought the electoral college favored them. They used to be the party of more rural areas and the south. They have controlled the senate and house the vast majority of the time since FDR. Even since Reagan it's close. Contrast that with the GOP that doesn't and didn't call for the abolition of the Senate, for instance. Only one party, upon losing a single election, complains about the fundamental, small-r republican nature of our constitutional system. Even if you say it should be changed, the bar is far too high and such whining comes across as mere sour grapes.
Don't the Republicans very regularly complain about voter fraud from the Democrats irrespective of whether they win or lose?
Not sure if that counts as 'whining about the system' but it sure is whining. You think they wouldn't be banging on about that to this day if Trump had actually lost?
|
On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think.
This is just lazy and I would expect you to be more intelligent, Introvert.
Criticisms of the Electoral College and the Senate are completely valid and worth discussing.
The reason that Democrats have won in the past is because the demographics that support each party have realigned. Just because they've won it in the past doesn't mean that the system is a good one.
It takes maybe a 10th grade level of analytical thinking to understand this.
How exactly did the Republicans "rig" the EC and the makeup of the Senate, things that pre-date the formation of the Republican party? It is clear though that Democrats loathe the forming of our country as a *little r* republican form of Government. They can't stand it, and if given the opportunity would tear it down. That's what I said earlier about the Democrats not caring one bit about the rules and institutions that limit their Government ambitions. They'll destroy whatever suits their purposes, at least Republicans tend to believe in our republican institutions and abide by them (you can say because they benefit more or what not, but my statement nonetheless is still factual).
Plus, Democrats do blame the Russians instead of nominating a complete dud. They refuse any responsibility in their loss, shifting it to a foreign power. Something they consistently claim Trump does with "othering". You really think Clinton lost because of the Russians?
You are so full of shit that it completely blows my mind.
The post you quoted didn't say that Republicans rigged the EC or the Senate. It didn't say that. At all. Good God, reading comprehension.
Also, the Democrats don't take any responsibility for losing in 2016? You only read crap like Fox News and Breitbart, don't you?
This level of ignorance of your political opponents explains a lot.
User was warned for this post.
|
On September 21 2020 07:23 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 06:35 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 06:16 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:51 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:37 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:03 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:38 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 Danglars wrote:
I want to call you principled, Nouar, since you're spending the time to post relevant information for anyone that thinks the precedent extends to all nominees (it doesn't). I think you can find and conclude that there's decades of precedent from BOTH PARTIES going back DECADES by finding out the last time the Senate confirmed a nomination chosen in an election year by the President of the opposite party. I await this revisement of "since 2016" in the interest of establishing a foundation we can both agree on, should you be interested in my opinions of all nominees or whatever. This should really be a nonpartisan agreement on historical precedent.
Trump has been accused of destroying norms and destroying Democracy itself, so it's helpful for me to know which people can honestly debate precedent and history without letting partisan anti-Trump sentiment cloud their analytical faculties. I went and found actual data, now it's your turn : can you show me ONE example throughout history of a supreme court vacancy having been nominated and filled while early voting had already begun ? In fact you don't have to, it was already posted, it never happened. The latest a vacancy has ever been filled was a full 5 months before the election. So I'll switch my question : what was the shortest time between a vacancy being declared and the confirmation of a SC judge, and what would be your reaction if the confirmation happens during a lame-duck session with the President having changed ? Is there a precedent for that, dear sir ? On September 21 2020 04:36 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:24 Nouar wrote:Fuck are you serious ? The discussion was about the history of the filibuster, and the nuclear option used by Harry Reid due to unprecedented obstruction by the republican minority (where I posted the table in response to Wegandi). Then it switched to overall split-party judicial appointments post with your flat assertion that Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Your post is about judicial nominees. The previous pages did NOT talk about the supreme court only, but overall. I'll assume you know how you to speak english and convey a message better than me in your native language. Then you move the goalpost to election year only, THEN you both say that all along it was only about supreme court appointments. You should apply as senators, seriously. You were not part of that discussion in the last 3/4 pages on that topic, suddenly intervene talking about "judicial nominees are refused by opposite party" and I should assume that you strayed enough from the conversation to only talk about supreme court in the last year ? Man I'm not Nostradamus. And I still see no comment from either of you about all the grandstanding comments from republican senators between 2016-now. (Which was the other topic of discussion) To be quite frank, the discussion since the news of RBG's death has been about the supreme court almost entirely. So perhaps yes, maybe you should assume we know English. On hypocrisy, as I mentioned a post of a few hundred words the other day A) there's a lot of the Democrat side B) It is true that not every senator, every single time they were asked, made the caveat of "a presidential election year when the Senate and WH are controlled by opposite parties." But given your posts so far, would you have even noticed if they did? Wegandi did mention how if the Democrats hadn't killed the judicial filibuster in 2013 they would be in a much stronger position now, which, regardless of why Democrats did it, is undeniably true. But the background context for the "replacing RGB " discussion has been about the supreme court and honestly I feel silly for having to point that out. The whole filibuster and appointment history that lead to Reid removing the filibuster was definitely not about the supreme court. It would be out of place for senators to talk about senate and WH controlled by opposite party when they talked specifically about a republican president being in power, and that we should wait for the will of the people in an election year (it's pretty self-explanatory, that one, there are no caveats. Election year = wait the will of the people) About the filibuster, it may be true, but you are, as Wegandi was, conveniently forgetting that the removal of the filibuster was due to unprecedented filibustering by... whom ? Who abused the filibuster ? Who lied about "but he used recess appointments" to justify said *judicial* filibusters while Obama only used it a couple times for *executive* appointments, that were also being unprecedentedly (? is that correct?) blockaded ? Who ignored the blue slip more recently to appoint judges ? Remember the Tea Party ? The multiple government shutdowns these past administrations ? Both sides are pretty much shit in my view. But on this topic, there is a clear discrepancy in behaviour between both. This usually have to do with the democratic electorate tending to boot scummy behaviour much more easily than the republican one, who often celebrate it. edit so I'm clear : you don't see me complaining about Garland. You haven't seen me do so, except to point out some hypocrisy. I'm not actually contesting that it was scummy to refuse a hearing though it was (they could have kept up appearances, held hearings and just not vote for him). It's the game. What's unacceptable in my view is changing your rethoric at the last second not even 24h after her death, and trampling over all the grandstanding comments a couple dozens from your side used to justify their scummy behaviour of 2016. The argument that "the court can't be left at 8 for a presidential election" is also moot, it didn't bother them in 2016. There is NO precedent of a Supreme Court appointment this close to an presidential election, or even TWICE as close. Find me one, and I'll grant you the win. You appear to not be reading most of the posts in this thread and are now changing the criteria. Although I admit that "voting has already started!" has more salience than "it's close," at least superficially. Since you apparently missed it, I will, with apologies to the other posters in this thread who have seen the link already, send you here. and btw this is just another reason I oppose voting that starts this early. one month, three weeks TOPS. sixtyish days is insane. btw one reason either Lagoa or ACB may have a quick confirmation is because they were so recently vetted for their current posts. Most of the work has already been done. Thank you it's an informative read, yes I probably missed that post or at least the link itself (that's why I directly quote and post pictures instead of sending links, it's less complete but easier to digest when you don't have an hour to digest a page of answers, I'm rather short on time usually, less than optimal I know). What criteria am I changing btw ? I'll thus concede a loss as there are clear precedent of lame-duck nominations/confirmations as well as from presidents having lost the election, which I find gross but hey... who am I to judge (and several with a lot less than 45 days between opening and confirmation). I don't know the history of the importance of the SC across the ages so I won't comment on that, though there was no occurence since the 60's, well before my time. I am still undeterred on what I said : it's really rich from the republican senators to have said so many definite statements and promises about "next time if it's a republican president", or "let the people vote !! Same in 2020 if it happens, let the people decide after the vote !" and then suddenly completely reneging on their assertions, and this is mostly what I'm despising (from both sides when it happens). I am also not moving from my opinion that things really turned sour under the Tea Party and Obama. Before that, there were bipartisan concessions, then a fringe of republicans went ape-shit. The Republicans were unclear many times and people like Graham really did say no confirmation in a presidential election year no matter what. Of course the flip-side is Joe Biden saying in both the 90s and 2016 to fill any seats. But politically remember that both sides would absolutely fill in this scenario and the GOP has to at least try. With the possible exception of Susan Collins, any GOP senator running for re-election this year would lose in a landslide because their own base of voters would refuse to vote for them. They all know this, it's why Tillis, McSally, Loeffler, hav, and probably John James and Cory Gardner will, some way or another, allow the process to proceed and most likely even vote yes. This is probably the death of Gardner chances (just when the GOP was becoming slightly more optimistic), but they have no choice. Just the Democrat candidates must oppose it. Their voters won't allow anything else, previous statements be damned. edit: i said in my very first post on this topic that McConnell's original statement was wrong. And that he corrected it. Some of these politicians rushed out a response way too soon, and for that there may be a political price. That's up to voters. But there would absolutely be a price for almost any GOP senator who willingly constrains themselves on what is almost the only unifying issue to the whole party, and does so against precedent. This war for the Senate is exactly why I thought Trump, who holds no real love for any party, since he's an opportunist, could maybe gain to keep the seat open and try to force republicans to come en masse to reelect him and keep a senate majority. It looks like that was wrong as he promptly vowed to fill it asap. On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think. This is a bit reducting. Are you arguing that Bush and Trump were NOT the electoral college, and that there was no Russian involvement in 2016 against all the bipartisan reports that came out ? No one argued about any of this when the popular vote was lost by a democrat, or talked about Russia or another country interfering in the previous ones, to my (limited) knowledge ? Does it not bother you one bit to have a president getting money from renting (sometimes) empty offices to foreign governments ? ( The Qatari office comes to mind. Empty since its construction in 2017, with more than a million in rent since, directly in Trump's pocket). Or all the other dealings with foreign powers in which he has personal financial interest ? These are just facts, not "when democrats lose, it's..." I've made my opinions known already on "collusion" and the like. I'm saying when Democrats lose they spend more time whining about the system then winning under it, and they only whine when they lose. I kid you not, in the 2000s through Obama's first term, Democrats thought the electoral college favored them. They used to be the party of more rural areas and the south. They have controlled the senate and house the vast majority of the time since FDR. Even since Reagan it's close. Contrast that with the GOP that doesn't and didn't call for the abolition of the Senate, for instance. Only one party, upon losing a single election, complains about the fundamental, small-r republican nature of our constitutional system. Even if you say it should be changed, the bar is far too high and such whining comes across as mere sour grapes. Don't the Republicans very regularly complain about voter fraud from the Democrats irrespective of whether they win or lose? Not sure if that counts as 'whining about the system' but it sure is whining. You think they wouldn't be banging on about that to this day if Trump had actually lost?
if Trump lost? not at all, most people in the party thought he was a loser anyways. That might fit more into Russian interference type stuff than complaints about the system though, however I have my own concerns about vote by mail this time around. If it's razor close both sides are going to shout fraud this time. I pray it's not justified.
On September 21 2020 07:28 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think. This is just lazy and I would expect you to be more intelligent, Introvert. Criticisms of the Electoral College and the Senate are completely valid and worth discussing. The reason that Democrats have won in the past is because the demographics that support each party have realigned. Just because they've won it in the past doesn't mean that the system is a good one. It takes maybe a 10th grade level of analytical thinking to understand this.
I agree that doesn't make it good but I also know that a constitutional amendment is impossible, and in the case of the Senate it may not even be changeable by amendment. I'm saying that these institutions are not favored towards one party or another as a matter of design. it's not Republicans trying to use a state compact to get around the electoral college, for instance. perhaps we differ in our interpretation, i.e. "whining" vs "discussing."
Honestly the history on the topic of SCOTUS is more clear, I don't really expect anyone to agree with me when it comes to these last few posts.
|
In the grand scheme of karma in the universe, I'm tempted to think now that because of Dems smears on kavanaugh, it would be just if trump gets a 3rd SC pick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
