|
patentmagus posted:Yes, they play the same role for the left wing that Soros and Bloomberg play for the right wing. ...but are not the same people?
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:35 |
|
|
euphronius posted:Maybe I'm naive and dumb but I still think the GOP is just staking out a negotiating position. conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind. to the Washington Examiner posted:We’re not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of [the government shutdown]. And I don’t know what that even is. patentmagus posted:Yes, they play the same role for the left wing that Soros and Bloomberg play for the right wing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The President nominates someone who they believe is both worthy of the bench and will get a majority vote from the Senate. Despite all the bluster, if the Judicial Committee were to hold actual hearings on an Obama nominee and the nominee were actually put to a vote, that nominee is highly likely to be accepted. There are at least 4 Republicans who aren't going to vote against a qualified nominee, if put on the spot, just because they don't like Obama and then Diamond Joe breaks the tie. Yeah this, if it gets to a floor vote there are probably enough Senators from more moderate states that don't fear a primary challenger and don't want to go into a general election having to explain why a moderate justice they approved 97-0 a couple years ago is suddenly not qualified. Or just moderates in general who don't like the Tea Party and don't like what they're doing to the Republican party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:It's the same power brokers behind parties. *walks into thread. Drops pants* Both parties on the same! *pulls up pants and walks away*
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Yes, they play the same role for the left wing that Soros and Bloomberg play for the right wing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham are the only two republican senators to vote for born sotomayor and kagan, for what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Team Rocket's voter base lives and breathes the Supreme Court. Ever since Brown v. Board of Education, the Court is why they've had to send their little white daughters to the same schools as black boys, why the schools can't lead their kids in prayer every morning, why criminals get a briefing on their rights when the police arrest them for their crimes, why a woman can murder a life that's growing inside her on the way to Starbucks, why Obamacare's death panels are still convening on a daily basis, and of course they're the ones who let the gays get married in every state of the union. The Supreme Court is why they vote. To those true believers, those rubes who the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson and Charles Schwab target with their ads and newspaper editorials, a Supreme Court that molds the laws of the land to fit the laws of God is the endgame. Since the organized Evangelical right wing became one with the 1% in the form of Saint Reagan in 1980 convening a permanent reactionary right-wing majority in the Court has been the whole job. They can replace that turncoat Souter, they can replace that Judas John Paul Stevens but for the Democrat President to fill Scalia's seat with some secularist, minority-coddling baby killer simply cannot happen. If their base gets even a whiff that the Team Rocket majority in the Senate is caving to Barack Hussein Obama on this, they'll stay home. They'll stay home in November and they'll lose the Presidency and probably the Senate with it. Hillary Clinton will get exactly what she wants. No poo poo they're saying no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Yes, they play the same role for the left wing that Soros and Bloomberg play for the right wing. God I wish. I like Soros (as long as he is never allowed within 2km of the Federal Reserve), I'd be 150% onboard with him purchasing a couple states.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
Lynn Vavreck at the NYT supposedly dug up a month old YouGov poll that found that its cross-tabs supposedly included the fact that 20% of Trump's supporters oppose the Emancipation Proclamation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:God I wish. I like Soros (as long as he is never allowed within 2km of the Federal Reserve), I'd be 150% onboard with him purchasing a couple states. Bloomberg being some Koch-y left wing type is funny. The guy's a loving billionaire fascist. If he's one of the major power brokers on the left then it's no wonder the American left and the Democrats are so inept.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Man, every time I see someone like you come here I'm baffled. Why are you a Republican and posting here? That's a genuine question. I didn't realize that this is a safe space.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:I didn't realize that this is a safe space.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:I think it's a genuine question, like it's just very unusual and must be a super hostile environment, so why would somebody do that to themselves. Because they think their point of view is important, even if no one listening respects it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:I didn't realize that this is a safe space.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
In my life time I have seen Soros and Bloomberg rise to become the "Democrats do it too" of oiligarchs and kleptocrats even though their level of involvement in politics pales in comparison to all the efforts of the Kochs, AEI, and the Heritage foundation think tanks. To try to draw equivilancy between the two pretty much outs yourself as a dumbshit know nothing Radio Republican that ranges on a spectrum somewhere between "It's still the 90's and I like fiscal responsibility!" and "I like Rubio and Trumps success and influence in my party has nothing to do with my tolerance of pride of ignorance"
RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Also Soros did more to bring about the fall of the USSR than ten reagans. Reaganites would be forgiven for totally forgetting that, given their idol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Do you honestly think Mike Bloomberg is left-wing? If so, can you elaborate on how come, or is it just that he's bad, so obviously he's a leftist? Pretty sure there's not much thought behind this beyond Jewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwws
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:God I wish. I like Soros (as long as he is never allowed within 2km of the Federal Reserve), I'd be 150% onboard with him purchasing a couple states. He needs to be executed for black wednesday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
tekz posted:He needs to be executed for black wednesday. Look, when you make a pact with dark gods for perfect currency speculation superpowers, you use them, okay?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:I think it's a genuine question, like it's just very unusual and must be a super hostile environment, so why would somebody do that to themselves. You think he's trapped here with you, but you've got it all wrong. You're the ones trapped with him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Lynn Vavreck at the NYT supposedly dug up a month old YouGov poll that found that its cross-tabs supposedly included the fact that 20% of Trump's supporters oppose the Emancipation Proclamation. Nonono, they aren't racist, they just hate executive overreach offfffffffshits pants, runs
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Obama's being advised that he'll have trouble getting consent. The senate doesn't owe him their consent. If they don't hold hearings, then they can't say no. That's consent 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
So, when a Democrat wins the Presidential election what are they going to do? Just keep blocking it forever until a Republican wins? Or are we going to start hearing about how it's tradition that the second place winner of an election actually gets to nominate. Makes as much sense as their current argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
In all serious, what happens if Obama "nominates" someone, waits a month, then takes the Senate's refusal to have a hearing as "default consent", and on the following Monday the nominee just shows up to work?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The Constitution doesn't really define "consent" though. What is consent? Are we talking about affirmative consent, or what? Anyways the Senate has ways of shutting that down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
woosh
Kilroy fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
^^e: That was a "legitimate rape" joke.Rigged Death Trap posted:Anyways the Senate has ways of shutting that down.  The Supreme Court has a quorum of 6, right? If the Dems keep the White House and the GOP just block until only 5 justices are left, what would happen next?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:In all serious, what happens if Obama "nominates" someone, waits a month, then takes the Senate's refusal to have a hearing as "default consent", and on the following Monday the nominee just shows up to work? There is no default consent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:In all serious, what happens if Obama "nominates" someone, waits a month, then takes the Senate's refusal to have a hearing as "default consent", and on the following Monday the nominee just shows up to work? It goes to court
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
This is the worst constitutional crisis in a long long time. It's a new era now really and probably the beginning of the end of this form of government. Well it's over. We won't have a stable government until the Republican Party is ruined.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:This is the worst constitutional crisis in a long long time. It's a new era now really and probably the beginning of the end of this form of government. Well it's over. We won't have a stable government until the Republican Party is ruined. This isn't a Constitutional crisis because the Republicans (nor Obama) have actually done anything yet. Thus far it's just a lot of talk. It may not play out that way. Let events take care of themselves. People getting way ahead of themselves in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:There is no default consent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Says who? The Senate rules committee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Says who? It would get shot down by the rest of the court before the new nominee finds his office.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:This isn't a Constitutional crisis because the Republicans (nor Obama) have actually done anything yet. Thus far it's just a lot of talk. Yesterday the GOP talked themselves into a box I don't see them walking out of absent McConnell losing his leadership post which I don't even think can happen until the next Senate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:In all serious, what happens if Obama "nominates" someone, waits a month, then takes the Senate's refusal to have a hearing as "default consent", and on the following Monday the nominee just shows up to work? Hilarity is what happens. He should wait until the day after the election to do it though. Give Republicans that extra little kick in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:The Senate rules committee. If the Senate doesn't even give the nominee a hearing, they've abdicated their responsibility to advise and consent. The Constitution doesn't outline what to do in that case, but why does that mean the nominee by default does not become a Justice?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:In all serious, what happens if Obama "nominates" someone, waits a month, then takes the Senate's refusal to have a hearing as "default consent", and on the following Monday the nominee just shows up to work? That would be less radical than what the GOP is doing
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
I have to admit that this kind of totally rejecting political precedence has me a little scared that if we get a President Trump, he's going to put up some terrible, unqualified candidate (maybe worse that when Bush put up his lawyer friend) and the Senate will just ram it through. There doesn't seem to be any sort of illusion of wanting good governance anymore. Like maybe not even a lawyer bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:35 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:But, they're not deliberating on the nominee, they're just thumbing their noses and making fart noises. They are in fact, allowed by the Senate rules to not refer a candidate to committee and simply say "No".
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:56
|
|