US Politics: Weimar, Washington, Whining, Bush II

[A Prince of Dorne]

RIP RBG

 

Rage donating right now

http://votesaveamerica.com/getmitch

[Martell Spy]

So, if the Democrats pack the SC then what? Wouldn't the Republicans respond as soon as possible? Would the court keep growing in size?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Triskele said:

She's also an unforgivable slow-talker.  

I'm less interested in discussing her vocal patterns and more interested is discussing how she's just been a truly awful phony for a long ass time now. 

[karaddin]

7 hours ago, argonak said:

Still a lot of time left to see things change.  This is 2020 after all.  I'm still suspicious that meteor is going to hit us.

In retrospect (which is when I was reading the thread) this was really trying tempting fate and while She is holding off on the meteor for now She still called your bluff.

2 hours ago, Kalibear said:

Maximize voting turnout. There are a very large number of conservative voters who dont' like Trump but desperately want conservative justices on the court and love his picks. If you force them to vote for Trump to get that pick, they'll vote and turn out. 

I'd agree with you that if their intent is to cleanly and "legitimately" win the election then holding the seat out as a carrot to drive turn out would be the way to go. It's not like they'd be unwilling to fill it during the lame duck period after a loss anyway.

If they have no intention or expectation of winning like that and are instead ensuring they'll win the court case instead, then filling it asap is the rational course of action.

Given Mitch has already said they'll be pursuing option 2, and this is entirely consistent with previous data points of Republicans acting unconcerned with potential electoral blow back from unpopular actions, I think it's safe to draw conclusions from that.

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

Every horrible thing keeps happening, doesn't it?  There's no way this movie ends with Joe Biden beating Trump and taking office, is there?  

If you think this has a happy ending then I don't think you've been paying attention.

-Ramsay Bolton

35 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Stopped here. This is batshit, and it validates literally everything I've said. Good luck bitching from the cheat seats while accomplishing nothing. Nothing. NOTHING! 

And Jace pointed out how you have spent years here being hostile to people who don't agree with your strident views. 

He called me it while proudly proclaiming himself the champion of unity. 

I love watching white knights come down to the mud.

9 minutes ago, Triskele said:

The fact that Barr is thinking about charging protestors with Sedition seems like a nice sign of things to come.

You might want to stop posting things like this. These pages are archived.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

So, if the Democrats pack the SC then what? Wouldn't the Republicans respond as soon as possible? Would the court keep growing in size?

Yep. And that's always been my counterpoint, but it you just say fuck it, add six liberal justices and expedite a case that massively expands voting rights, perhaps Republicans will never have real power again. 

I've always believed in honor in politics, but this may be the last straw if Mitch the Bitch does this.  

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

So, if the Democrats pack the SC then what? Wouldn't the Republicans respond as soon as possible? Would the court keep growing in size?

As soon as they could, yeah.  But you need to have unified government to change the composition of the court.  That's going to be difficult with the House in the longterm for the GOP.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

51 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Stopped here. This is batshit, and it validates literally everything I've said. Good luck bitching from the cheat seats while accomplishing nothing. Nothing. NOTHING! 

And Jace pointed out how you have spent years here being hostile to people who don't agree with your strident views. 

Jace is a liar then? There are far more reputable people around here that I actually have interacted with who might say otherwise.

But yeah, please do stop, I don't care to see you respond to everything I say. Certainly you have better things to do with your time? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

He called me it while proudly proclaiming himself the champion of unity. 

I love watching white knights come down to the mud.

Okay, so I went back and, Jesus:

Quote

I don't know what Jace said, I have it on ignore. But you're clearly conflating terms. Liberals are the problem. They aren't LEFT enough. They're Republicans of the Nixon era. Hell, he was more progressive than they are now. I'd say the problem is they too "liberal." 

And you do lack empathy for others by calling what they truly, truly require (in many cases to continue living) "something that won't happen." Based on no evidence. I welcome valid criticism, but any time I make a point, it's "purity tests!!!!" or I rooted for Clinton to fail. Both of which are demonstrably untrue. I think you've talked so much shit, you forget who said what and when. 

To recap: you said I'm rooting against democrats. I'm not. I'm registered to vote, I will vote, and I actively canvassed for Clinton. You've said that I am only interested in impossible propositions. And that's not true. I'm interested in propositions that actually do something for people. You've said I accused liberals of not being liberal enough. Again, I didn't. I think liberals are a real fucking problem, though, and if anything, I would love if they weren't "liberal enough." Neo-liberalism rules the day. So, while you can play Mr. Middle of the Road, Rational, or whatever, you appear to me as I apparently appear to you. But my "downfalls" are about trying to help people, yours are "maybe we'll help them. Someday? Lolz."

This feels rather tortured. 

Also, methinks someone doesn't get what middle of the road means considering I come from extreme privilege and have argued since I was a teenager that money shouldn't exist, and that the haves should give up a fair bit to help those who are struggling.

But I lack empathy, Jace. Imagine if he heard what the real bastards at country clubs had to say......

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Jace is a liar then? There are far more reputable people around here that I actually have interacted with who might say otherwise.

They'll say the same thing. You trash everyone who disagrees with you, often times attacking the person rather than the argument. That's where this all started. I broke down how your plan would fail and you said that means I can't empathize with people. Er, what? My philosophy would actually accomplish something. Yours will do nothing. But you're the one that actually wants to help people.....

Quote

But yeah, please do stop, I don't care to see you respond to everything I say. Certainly you have better things to do with your time?

Dude, I am responding to you quoting me. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kalibear said:

I appear to be wrong, and McConnell is wanting to move fast. I think that's the wrong move electorally so I'm all in favor.

I am shocked he's pushing this now; I was sure he'd be hemming and hawing until the lame duck (hopefully) period.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Triskele said:

anecdotally it seems like there's been a huge surge in progressives using harsher language to describe liberals in recent years.  

Well that seems monumentally stupid considering "progressive" is just the repackaged name of "liberals."

[Jace, Extat]

It's just gatekeeping in politics stemming from an inability to separate their sense of self from the things they've attached value to. Any deficiency in the product (or politician in this instance) is an a assumed deficiency in their own character or values and must be refused. 

It's all pathetically juvenile.

And I'm an internet troll! 

[illrede]

10 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I am shocked he's pushing this now; I was sure he'd be hemming and hawing until the lame duck (hopefully) period.

There is a case to be made that McConnell has a anomalous amount of moral courage for a successful politician; he really will openly risk failure in the pursuit of success. That's mind-boggling; I've boggled.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I think liberal now means non-Republican that questions progressive orthodoxy on some topic some of the time.

On the Twittergrams, sure.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I think liberal now means non-Republican that questions progressive orthodoxy on some topic some of the time.

Liberal means a leftist who isn't afraid of the term. Progressives are.
 

 

[Lollygag]

1 hour ago, Mindwalker said:

Did you know that Dems in VA want to execute babies?

It's easy to just assume that Republicans are crazy, but there is lefty media bias and they aren't telling us stuff we should know which hurts productive discussion. Below is what Trump is reacting to and honestly, I can't say how you legit walk this back.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/lawmaker-at-center-of-abortion-bill-firestorm-elected-as-part-of-democratic-wave-that-changed-richmond/2019/01/31/d4f76ecc-2565-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html

Quote

When a Republican lawmaker asked during the hearing whether the bill would allow for an abortion to occur when a woman is in labor and about to give birth, Tran said yes.

But on Thursday, Tran, a mother of four, corrected herself. “I should have said: ‘Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.’ ”

An edited video of Tran’s testimony was circulated and went viral on social media, leading some on Twitter to call Tran a “baby killer” or “a demonic creature.” Asked about the incident by the Daily Caller, Trump said he had seen the video and called Tran’s testimony “terrible.”

That Democrats don't take a strong opinion on late-term or partial birth abortion is what radicalizes them to think there's a Democratic conspiracy to allow the termination of babies when they're old enough to survive on their own. When Republicans think of abortion being outlawed, their headspace has what Tran said and Democratic silence in it.

 

[A True Kaniggit]

2 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

 

1) McConnell

2) Hypocrite.

3) Piece of Shit. 

There's a chant here somewhere. I just need to put the pieces together.

By George I think I've got it.

 

"Who the hell's a Hypocrite?!

McCoonnelllll, MCcoonelllll.

Who the hell's a Piece of Shit?!

McCooneelllll, MCcoonelllll."

 

[S John]

32 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I am shocked he's pushing this now; I was sure he'd be hemming and hawing until the lame duck (hopefully) period.

Makes me wonder if McConnell thinks that Trump is going to lose the election. To the extent that R’s care about optics at all, ramming an SC pick through in a lame duck session after an election where the Republicans lose is a pretty bad look. 

McConnell may be calculating that if they get a third SC judge under Trump, that really might be the ceiling of what can be accomplished with Trump at the helm. So if he loses the election, so what? I’m sure that behind closed doors a good number of the Republican enablers and boot lickers wouldn’t be too upset about seeing the backside Trump. If he wins again fine, if not? Got 3 SC justices out of it. Not a bad haul.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I've never actually seen this show.  Might need to binge.

It drops in quality after season 4 when Sorkin got too coked out and left.