Jump to content

US Politics: Ask Fox News


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, aceluby said:

They are a bunch of cowards if this is how it goes down.  To be politically rewarded for denying a sitting president his constitutional bound duty is all kinds of messed up.

Fuck them.

What realistic thing would you like them to do, because it sounds like you're advocating for them to break the Senate as we know it. Maybe they'll have to do it at some point, but I don't think you want to do it this early and not over this nomination. If you're going to force the Republicans to go nuclear then do it on an issue that will be political suicide for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What realistic thing would you like them to do, because it sounds like you're advocating for them to break the Senate as we know it. Maybe they'll have to do it at some point, but I don't think you want to do it this early and not over this nomination. If you're going to force the Republicans to go nuclear then do it on an issue that will be political suicide for them. 

I remain unconvinced that there exists such a thing as 'political suicide' for Republicans save perhaps in actually doing something like compromising with Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

What realistic thing would you like them to do, because it sounds like you're advocating for them to break the Senate as we know it. Maybe they'll have to do it at some point, but I don't think you want to do it this early and not over this nomination. If you're going to force the Republicans to go nuclear then do it on an issue that will be political suicide for them. 

Yeah.  It would be next level moronic for the democrats to obstruct that nomination for purely political reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Unreal:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/rex-tillerson-skip-key-nato-summit-plans-travel-russia-n736226

The title says all you need to know. I guess the Trump Administration's trolling has now gone global. 

You're being a bit dramatic, aren't you?

 

And the title is misleading, actually. Assuming the article is correct, and that seems like a bit of a leap at this point, he isn't skipping the NATO meetings to go to russia, as the title implies.  He's skipping the meetings to meet here with the president of China, and sending Shannon to NATO.

 

Quote

However, Tillerson is instead sending the State Department's second-most senior official, Tom Shannon, to the key NATO meeting on April 5-6.

Quote

Reuters, the news agency that first reported Tillerson's decision, quoted unidentified officials saying that the secretary of state would be staying in the U.S. to attending meetings between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the president's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

Though of course ALL of that information is from nebulous 'unnamed sources'.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

True. 

My wondering is more if it had been O'Malley or anyone other than those two.  I think it quite possible Russia wanted Bernie, but certainly not Clinton.  

I think it's more that Russia wanted to spray the US with shit so they could say "See, the US is just as shitty as us."  I think the Trump getting elected thing was totally a huge bonus.  (At least hey thought so for a while....  They may be having second thoughts)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Yeah.  It would be next level moronic for the democrats to obstruct that nomination for purely political reasons.

I'm sure that finally voters will punish obstructionism and reward pointless decorum in the next election.  Annnny time now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MerenthaClone said:

I'm sure that finally voters will punish obstructionism and reward pointless decorum in the next election.  Annnny time now.  

Moderate democratic voters will.  The exact moderate voters who failed to turn up for Hilary.

And what options do they have really?  The optics of it are bad enough after the hernia they had about this exact topic last year, but they can't really win, and Gorsuch is about as good a candidate as they are gonna get from a republican administration.

Are you suggesting they should stall for 4 years(or god forbid, 8?)? To what end?  That's some pretty pointless and dangerous brinkmanship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Moderate democratic voters will.  The exact moderate voters who failed to turn up for Hilary.

And what options do they have really?  The optics of it are bad enough after the hernia they had about this exact topic last year, but they can't really win, and Gorsuch is about as good a candidate as they are gonna get from a republican administration.

Are you suggesting they should stall for 4 years(or god forbid, 8?)? To what end?  That's some pretty pointless and dangerous brinkmanship.

Lol, care to share your data sources that indicate any of this is true?  It's a fine story you're trying to spin, but it's complete bull shit.

And what do you think the GOP were planning to do if Hillary won?  There were leaks about how the Senate leaders were planning on stalling for 4 years.

It's funny how obstructionism was ok a year ago, but now that it's the only tool Democrats can use it's "being moronic for purely political reasons".  Give me a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Man, I was hoping it was.  Did the irony just slip by you, or what?  Because the GOP has done exactly that for a year.

No.  It's not irony if it's true.  This will hurt the democrats in ways that it did not seem to hurt the GOP.

Irony would be the way the buzz phrase of the month is 'false equivalency', and yet....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aceluby said:

Lol, care to share your data sources that indicate any of this is true?  It's a fine story you're trying to spin, but it's complete bull shit.

And what do you think the GOP were planning to do if Hillary won?  There were leaks about how the Senate leaders were planning on stalling for 4 years.

It's funny how obstructionism was ok a year ago, but now that it's the only tool Democrats can use it's "being moronic for purely political reasons".  Give me a break.

Again, what is the end game of stalling here?  

Other than proving you're just as petty as the republicans, and that all that bluster about being the responsible party is just so much hot air?

So they stall on Gorsuch.  Then what?

What's your plan here, other than 'they started it!!!!'........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

No.  It's not irony if it's true.  This will hurt the democrats in ways that it did not seem to hurt the GOP.

Yes, you keep saying that, but with nothing to actually back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

No.  It's not irony if it's true.  This will hurt the democrats in ways that it did not seem to hurt the GOP.

Irony would be the way the buzz phrase of the month is 'false equivalency', and yet....

It may bring some moderates in, but how many people will it push away?  Given the protests that have been occurring, I think there is a large group of people who want to see some kind of definitive stand from their representatives instead of a small, guarded retreat. People who won't show up to vote either.  

Why will it hurt the Democratic party in ways that the GOP was not?  

 

e:  Shit, I think that on balance, their obstruction in the SCOTUS actually helped them, which is obscene.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

It may bring some moderates in, but how many people will it push away?  Given the protests that have been occurring, I think there is a large group of people who want to see some kind of definitive stand from their representatives instead of a small, guarded retreat. People who won't show up to vote either.  

Why will it hurt the Democratic party in ways that the GOP was not?  

 

e:  Shit, I think that on balance, their obstruction in the SCOTUS actually helped them, which is obscene.  

Again, what's the end game here?  To stall for four years (or 8)?  And then what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

Why will it hurt the Democratic party in ways that the GOP was not?  

Because on average Democrats are more likely to want compromise and cooperation whereas on average Republicans are more likely to want to burn everything to the ground and hate everything that they don't like?

I can't prove it, but you can't deny it doesn't feel right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

It may bring some moderates in, but how many people will it push away?  Given the protests that have been occurring, I think there is a large group of people who want to see some kind of definitive stand from their representatives instead of a small, guarded retreat. People who won't show up to vote either.  

Why will it hurt the Democratic party in ways that the GOP was not?  

 

e:  Shit, I think that on balance, their obstruction in the SCOTUS actually helped them, which is obscene.  

Yeah, all things point to Hillary losing because she couldn't turn out her base.  The base that is marching in the streets now.  The base that is pissed for the last year of obstructionism.  The base that wants something to vote FOR in midterms.

So yeah, I absolutely support requiring 60 votes to get a SC nomination through and think those should be damn hard to achieve.  The more fronts the GOP is fighting to push their draconian dogma, the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Again, what's the end game here?  To stall for four years (or 8)?  And then what?

Hope that all the conservatice judges die before the liberals, I suppose. May Ruth be the last gal standing and rule supreme over the constitution. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...