Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

[ClearwaterVol]

Uh oh. The Dems may start playing dirty pool.

You mean like the Republicans are currently?

 

[volbeast33]

You mean like the Republicans are currently?

Like both of them do constantly..... different wing of the same bird

 

[davethevol]

The things the Dems are threatening right now are things they were already planning on, they just don’t feel the need to hide it anymore.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You mean like the Republicans are currently?

Yep.

You missed my earlier post that said that both parties are power-grubbing scumbags that need to be abolished in favor of true representation of the people.

Now, with that out of the way... Unlike some fake question about who the president is, I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier: Is there anything unconstitutional about this? I mean, all I heard during the impeachment was that it was perfectly legal, so that made it perfectly OK. You guys were cheering. Creating thread after thread begging for the Republicans to "do the right thing".

But now, if the Rs don't do what you want, they'd better watch out? The Ds may take their gloves off and stop being such pictures of righteousness and trustworthy oversight of the powers entrusted to them?

Yah. How about kick rocks with that fairy tale.

It's no surprise to me when POLITICAL parties act (get this...) political. Now, the "big meany!" argument aside... And the "Democrats are pictures of virtue" lie aside... We have a Republican president that is about to have his justice nomination confirmed by a Republican Senate. Is there anything unconstitutional about that? Or are y'all just pissed that the Dems are on the short end of the political power play this time?

 

[luthervol]

Then I assume you must be quietly writing tons of letters to various Democrats expressing your extreme disappointment in their behavior. How many do you write to Biden in a day? Or are you sitting quietly on the sideline simply bellyaching about Trump?

Yeah, your analogy is horrible because we both know that no one is addressing the corruption on your chosen side. Hell, Tulsi tried, but it got her ridiculed and mocked, and amounted to nothing. Some people can't see, and some people choose not to see. When it comes to politics, most people choose not to see. I very much think you're one of those people.

I have written letters, made calls, sent e-mails.
More than that however, is the fact that I consider character a primary issue when picking a candidate.
I'm on record claiming that Jimmy Carter is the president I most admire and that I consider him one of the best presidents of my lifetime......knowing full well the kind of idiotic and shallow responses that will elicit from the peanut gallery.

 

[volbeast33]

I have written letters, made calls, sent e-mails.
More than that however, is the fact that I consider character a primary issue when picking a candidate.
I'm on record claiming that Jimmy Carter is the president I most admire and that I consider him one of the best presidents of my lifetime......knowing full well the kind of idiotic and shallow responses that will elicit from the peanut gallery.

You must be extremely disappointed in the current state of the democrat party then

 

[37L1]

I have written letters, made calls, sent e-mails.
More than that however, is the fact that I consider character a primary issue when picking a candidate.
I'm on record claiming that Jimmy Carter is the president I most admire and that I consider him one of the best presidents of my lifetime......knowing full well the kind of idiotic and shallow responses that will elicit from the peanut gallery.

I see what you did there.

 

[luthervol]

You must be extremely disappointed in the current state of the democrat party then

I am. Still find it superior to the republican party on that all important continuum.
I knew that Trump would drag both parties further down than ever before.
Just as he has dragged the country down.
Again, anybody who did not see that inevitability is simply non-functioning.
To see that inevitability and still support him is what I've never been able to process.

 

[luthervol]

I see what you did there.

Been through the cycle multiple times.

 

[AirVol]

The Dims have had constant fake investigations on Trump for 3 plus years and now he’s giving them the big FU, so now Dims are upset because they aren’t getting what they want.

 

[InVOLuntary]

The problem is this. If the Republicans jam this through going against the rule they made up last go round and the democrats take the majority in the Senate... you will see some actions taken that weaken our democracy. Whether it is enlarging the Court or abolishing the filibuster, representation will not be about representing the will of the people, but rather for grabbing as much power as you can for your side while able.

So more Democrat burn things down if they don't get their way? Sounds about right.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Maybe he should have asked me that instead of some remedial question about who the president is. I didn’t read all of his posts to everyone else, so I guess I can’t fault him for not knowing that the question he never asked me was addressed in one of my earlier posts. Oh well.

I’d guess he gave you some minimal credit on inference ability being a lawyer and all. Perhaps @Orange_Crush shouldnt give you any such benefit of the doubt in future inquiries

 

[1972 Grad]

I get along with everybody.

To me, your argument is barely different from the guy who basically said “but the Democrats really are bad” and then presented a totally made up platform with a bunch of fictitious planks to justify his emotional fervor; or the guy getting all worked up about how I’m not mad that the Democrats would hypothetically do the same thing if the roles were reversed.

These are all alternative realities constructed to preserve your respective peace of mind. Yours is far more grounded in reality than the others, but it still can only be maintained with a totally one-sided view of the facts.

It can’t be reconciled with the overwhelming and bipartisan confirmations of Kennedy and Roberts. Roberts in particular was a break in the chain of events, as your presented it.

And I’m not saying that confirmations have not been increasingly contentious for almost half a century, I don’t think anybody would say that, but it’s never been just blatant rank partisanship, until now. The opposition to Bork, Thomas, Miers, and Alito was bipartisan to varying degrees.

Also, what I remember of your characterization of Sotomayor’s confirmation is off. Her confirmation was every bit as contentious as Gorsuch, which is to say both were roughly on par with Alito. Remember “wise Latina woman?” That was back when I was still listening to Limbaugh; I remember he harped about that for weeks. Things were heated but roughly symmetrical, with both sides observing some measure of decorum, until Garland.

Since then (and before then on other matters) there has been an asymmetry to the naked partisanship in the Senate, and it starts with Mitch McConnel. That’s just reality. And the reason for it is obvious from recent electoral history and from this forum: a majority of Republican voters like it, the rest will justify it.

Meanwhile, Democrats just voted overwhelmingly to nominate a guy who campaigned on a reconciliation platform and leaned in to his record of bridging the aisle to explain how he would heal the partisan dysfunction.

Yep. Overwhelmingly bipartisan on Roberts. All 55 Repubs voted yay. 22 of 44 Dems voted nay.

 

[Mick]

Yep. Overwhelmingly bipartisan on Roberts. All 55 Repubs voted yay. 22 of 44 Dems voted nay.

Yep all republicans were partisan and the democrats weren't.

 

[1972 Grad]

Try again: "Her security costs were handled by a crowdsourced GoFundMe account. The money left over once her expenses were paid has been designated for trauma survivors."

This is the biggest issue right-wingers have never been able to explain on this because she benefited in no way from this and actually suffered tremendously due to the unrelenting ridicule and insults she received from the Right.

I can explain it. She is an idealogue who took one for the team to try to stop a nomination. Plus, she is f***ing nuts.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

The problem is this. If the Republicans jam this through going against the rule they made up last go round and the democrats take the majority in the Senate... you will see some actions taken that weaken our democracy. Whether it is enlarging the Court or abolishing the filibuster, representation will not be about representing the will of the people, but rather for grabbing as much power as you can for your side while able.

Lol

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

You mean like the Republicans are currently?

4 years of russia, russia, russia... impeach fowty fie... yeah. Reap what you have sown.

 

[1972 Grad]

I have written letters, made calls, sent e-mails.
More than that however, is the fact that I consider character a primary issue when picking a candidate.
I'm on record claiming that Jimmy Carter is the president I most admire and that I consider him one of the best presidents of my lifetime......knowing full well the kind of idiotic and shallow responses that will elicit from the peanut gallery.

Jimmy Carter should be on Mt. Rushmore.

 

[ajvol01]

Where did I say that they don’t care? Show me where Democrats are asking for him to release a list. At this point they’re not, so there’s no reason for him to do so. If they start howling for a list, then he’ll release one.

It’s got to be a short list anyway. He already limited himself to only female African Americans.

 

[1972 Grad]

Yep all republicans were partisan and the democrats weren't.

Now, do a nomination where the Dems voted against their own President's nominee.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I’d guess he gave you some minimal credit on inference ability being a lawyer and all. Perhaps @Orange_Crush shouldnt give you any such benefit of the doubt in future inquiries

I'll repeat. I never asked him who the president is. I don't know WTH he's talking about.

 

[RockyTop85]

Is that in reference to me? You should probably refresh yourself if so. I never asked if Trump is the president.

All that aside...

Is he still President, and is the Senate still active?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I'll repeat. I never asked him who the president is. I don't know WTH he's talking about.

I believe I saw a post that said is Trump still president and the senate still in session or something like that. Knowing your posting style I can easily believe that was a follow on post to a specific question. Knowing his posting style I can easily see him ignoring the initial question and focusing on the follow on poke. I’ll dig up some anonymous sources to back me up

 

[Orange_Crush]

Oh, I guess I did. So instead of lying, you ignored the actual post where I made my argument and asked germane questions.

I agreed that the Republicans are power-grabbing letches, and then asked if there is anything unconstitutional about what they're doing now. (Which I'm sure you know and knew was the reference I was making above.)

But you chose to ignore the questions since your argument falls apart when you can't attack with your whataboutism.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Oh, I guess I did. So instead of lying, you ignored the actual post where I made my argument and asked germane questions.

I agreed that the Republicans are power-grabbing letches, and then asked if there is anything unconstitutional about what they're doing now. (Which I'm sure you know and knew was the reference I was making above.)

But you chose to ignore the questions since your argument falls apart when you can't attack with your whataboutism.

Ding ding ding!!!

I believe I saw a post that said is Trump still president and the senate still in session or something like that. Knowing your posting style I can easily believe that was a follow on post to a specific question. Knowing his posting style I can easily see him ignoring the initial question and focusing on the follow on poke. I’ll dig up some anonymous sources to back me up