*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7237
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6200 on: September 19, 2020, 07:59:10 PM »
If Democrats could have nominated and passed a judge in 2016, they would have done so. If Democrats could nominate and pass a judge right now, they would be doing so. A Republican Senate supports Republicans. Everyone please proceed to act shocked and gasp loudly.

Democrats weren't the ones who said a judge shouldn't be nominated in 2016, Republicans did, that's the source of the issue.

Well, yes, Democrats had a president in office while Republicans controlled the Senate. Any nominee would have been inherently a Democrat one. Republicans don't want to confirm Democrat nominees. This isn't a revolutionary revelation.

If Democrats could have nominated and passed a judge in 2016, they would have done so. If Democrats could nominate and pass a judge right now, they would be doing so. A Republican Senate supports Republicans. Everyone please proceed to act shocked and gasp loudly.

Oh yes.  And I'm not saying its not Trump's right to have one.  I mean, Ruth did ask to not pick one until the next President but ignoring that, its his right as President.
Just like it was Obama's right in 2016.  Which the Repubicans ignored.

See, I just hate the Hypocracy. 

It's not hypocrisy based on the fundamental reasons behind it: the Republican senators ensuring that the Republican party maintains control. This is why it's important to never read too literally into what politicians say. Ultimately, they'll say whatever it takes to ensure their party and its constituents receive the most benefit.

Remember how badly Harris criticized Biden during the primaries? Now she's 100% behind him. American politicians will always put party interests first. Always. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm just finding it fascinating that "you said a thing four years ago that you're not standing by today!" is at all surprising or even newsworthy.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6661
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6201 on: September 19, 2020, 08:03:41 PM »
If Democrats could have nominated and passed a judge in 2016, they would have done so. If Democrats could nominate and pass a judge right now, they would be doing so. A Republican Senate supports Republicans. Everyone please proceed to act shocked and gasp loudly.

Democrats weren't the ones who said a judge shouldn't be nominated in 2016, Republicans did, that's the source of the issue.

Well, yes, Democrats had a president in office while Republicans controlled the Senate. Any nominee would have been inherently a Democrat one. Republicans don't want to confirm Democrat nominees. This isn't a revolutionary revelation.

If Democrats could have nominated and passed a judge in 2016, they would have done so. If Democrats could nominate and pass a judge right now, they would be doing so. A Republican Senate supports Republicans. Everyone please proceed to act shocked and gasp loudly.

Oh yes.  And I'm not saying its not Trump's right to have one.  I mean, Ruth did ask to not pick one until the next President but ignoring that, its his right as President.
Just like it was Obama's right in 2016.  Which the Repubicans ignored.

See, I just hate the Hypocracy. 

It's not hypocrisy based on the fundamental reasons behind it: the Republican senators ensuring that the Republican party maintains control. This is why it's important to never read too literally into what politicians say. Ultimately, they'll say whatever it takes to ensure their party and its constituents receive the most benefit.

Remember how badly Harris criticized Biden during the primaries? Now she's 100% behind him. American politicians will always put party interests first. Always. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm just finding it fascinating that "you said a thing four years ago that you're not standing by today!" is at all surprising or even newsworthy.

This is you just excusing their hypocrisy with post-hoc rationalizations. McConnell said it was not fair to the electorate to choose a justice in an election year. He obviously doesn’t give a fuck about the electorate and it would be great if these issues were actually taken seriously. People who don’t give a fuck about their responsibility shouldn’t have a job as a politician.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7237
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6202 on: September 19, 2020, 08:38:30 PM »
This is you just excusing their hypocrisy with post-hoc rationalizations. McConnell said it was not fair to the electorate to choose a justice in an election year. He obviously doesn’t give a fuck about the electorate and it would be great if these issues were actually taken seriously. People who don’t give a fuck about their responsibility shouldn’t have a job as a politician.

McConnell's responsibility is ensuring his party has the best position possible moving forward. He's doing exactly what his job requires of him. I don't understand why this is surprising or why it's considered hypocrisy. McConnell's behavior is quite predictable and consistent, which wouldn't be the case if he were a hypocrite as so many claim. I would expect someone like Pelosi to behave in precisely the same manner, were she leading in the Senate instead of leading the House.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2020, 08:42:46 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1996
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6203 on: September 19, 2020, 08:44:44 PM »
If Democrats could have nominated and passed a judge in 2016, they would have done so. If Democrats could nominate and pass a judge right now, they would be doing so. A Republican Senate supports Republicans. Everyone please proceed to act shocked and gasp loudly.

Republicans blocked Obama from making a nomination in an election year on the grounds that it was wrong to nominate a new justice shortly before an election. The exact same Republicans are now supporting Trump making a nomination in an election year with significantly less time before an election on the grounds of "because we can." That is bullshit, and you know it. If you're okay with the side you support pulling a move like this, I'm probably not going to be able to change your mind, but don't pretend that this isn't sleazy as hell or that Democrats shouldn't be angry at such blatant hypocrisy.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7237
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6204 on: September 19, 2020, 08:54:14 PM »
Republicans blocked Obama from making a nomination in an election year on the grounds that it was wrong to nominate a new justice shortly before an election. The exact same Republicans are now supporting Trump making a nomination in an election year with significantly less time before an election on the grounds of "because we can." That is bullshit, and you know it. If you're okay with the side you support pulling a move like this, I'm probably not going to be able to change your mind, but don't pretend that this isn't sleazy as hell or that Democrats shouldn't be angry at such blatant hypocrisy.

"Republicans use their political will to only support Republican interests, more news at 11"

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1996
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6205 on: September 19, 2020, 09:40:16 PM »
Members of Congress have long worked together on fulfilling key functions of the government, even when it's not in their party's best interests. It's the United States Senate, after all, not the Republicans Only Senate. Discarding these customs in favor of purely partisan might-makes-right governance leads us to some very unpleasant hypothetical scenarios. For example, why stop at not allowing the president of an opposing party to make a SC nomination during an election year? And why stop at SC nominations? Suppose that Trump wins reelection, but Democrats take the Senate. Would you be okay with the Senate then saying that they will refuse to hear or vote on any nominations that Trump makes? No SC justices if any vacancies appear, no new judges, no new Cabinet members, nothing. Or when the time for passing a new budget comes, Congress refusing to pass a new budget until Trump and Pence resign? They have the power to do either of those things. Nobody's going to stop them.

Republicans won't be in power forever, and Democrats won't cling to their principles for much longer if Republicans continue to play dirty. It's in the interests of both parties, as well as all of us regular people, that they abide by some general rules and customs that establish a certain level of consistency in governance. Setting the welfare of the nation aside to focus on kicking the shit out of the losing political side - and then switching positions every two or four years to do it all over again - is no way to run a country.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5754
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6206 on: September 19, 2020, 10:13:17 PM »
Republicans blocked Obama from making a nomination in an election year on the grounds that it was wrong to nominate a new justice shortly before an election. The exact same Republicans are now supporting Trump making a nomination in an election year with significantly less time before an election on the grounds of "because we can." That is bullshit, and you know it. If you're okay with the side you support pulling a move like this, I'm probably not going to be able to change your mind, but don't pretend that this isn't sleazy as hell or that Democrats shouldn't be angry at such blatant hypocrisy.

"Republicans use their political will to only support Republican interests, more news at 11"

And if they stated that, that's fine.  Hell, Linsay Grahm specifically stated that he would support the rule as of last year.  But now, not.

And if Democrats were doing this, you bet your ass Republicans would be bitching. 

I say we get rid of em both.  Wipe the slate clean.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6207 on: September 19, 2020, 10:24:35 PM »
Lindsey Graham already said that things changed before she died. He was asked about nomination in August.

"Yeah. We'll cross that bridge. After [Brett] Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I'm concerned," -August 2020

Because the Democrats fought tooth and nail and played dirty against Kavanaugh it's all-out war and anything goes now on the Supreme Court, all promises are off.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5754
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6208 on: September 19, 2020, 10:29:10 PM »
Lindsey Graham already said that things changed before she died. He was asked about nomination in August.

"Yeah. We'll cross that bridge. After [Brett] Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I'm concerned," -August 2020

Because the Democrats fought tooth and nail and played dirty against Kavanaugh it's all-out war and anything goes now on the Supreme Court, all promises are off.

As if thats the reason reason.

McConnel told it like it is: The Senate and White House are controlled by the same party.  Therefore, they will proceed.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9233
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6209 on: September 19, 2020, 10:45:58 PM »
Lindsey Graham already said that things changed before she died. He was asked about nomination in August.

"Yeah. We'll cross that bridge. After [Brett] Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I'm concerned," -August 2020

Yes, he said that a month ago. B Kav was two years ago, so Graham sure waited a while to clarify his position. Good thing Graham changes his mind just in time. Because previously he literally said:

"I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."

Just do the Rushy thing and point out that Republicans don't have to be logically or ethically consistent in any way. They are going to what benefits them and the Democrats could learn a thing or two.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5754
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6210 on: September 19, 2020, 11:06:20 PM »
Lindsey Graham already said that things changed before she died. He was asked about nomination in August.

"Yeah. We'll cross that bridge. After [Brett] Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I'm concerned," -August 2020

Yes, he said that a month ago. B Kav was two years ago, so Graham sure waited a while to clarify his position. Good thing Graham changes his mind just in time. Because previously he literally said:

"I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."

Just do the Rushy thing and point out that Republicans don't have to be logically or ethically consistent in any way. They are going to what benefits them and the Democrats could learn a thing or two.
Honestly, once the Dems have power again, they should just get rid of all Republcians.  One swoop.  It'll be really good for their party.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7237
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6211 on: September 19, 2020, 11:07:02 PM »
Democrats won't cling to their principles for much longer if Republicans continue to play dirty.

Hah, remember that time Democrats changed the vote threshold for nominations just so they could ram their candidate through without a large majority of votes. Democrats quite literally did this to themselves and your "cling to their principles" comment really adds the icing to this cake of irony. Imagine getting wrecked by your own rule change that you made just to 'play dirty' and then you turn around and say "we're the good guys clinging to our principles!" It's gross and you should be ashamed.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6661
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6212 on: September 19, 2020, 11:36:20 PM »
This is you just excusing their hypocrisy with post-hoc rationalizations. McConnell said it was not fair to the electorate to choose a justice in an election year. He obviously doesn’t give a fuck about the electorate and it would be great if these issues were actually taken seriously. People who don’t give a fuck about their responsibility shouldn’t have a job as a politician.

McConnell's responsibility is ensuring his party has the best position possible moving forward.

Lol no.

Quote
He's doing exactly what his job requires of him. I don't understand why this is surprising or why it's considered hypocrisy. McConnell's behavior is quite predictable and consistent, which wouldn't be the case if he were a hypocrite as so many claim. I would expect someone like Pelosi to behave in precisely the same manner, were she leading in the Senate instead of leading the House.

And Pelosi would then expose herself as even more of a hypocrite than she already is. Just because Mitch isn’t a cunning hypocrite doesn’t mean he isn’t a hypocrite. Maybe you are too jaded to admit this but a politicians job isn’t to keep power for their party or themselves. It’s to serve the people of the country that elected them.

A government for the people...

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7237
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6213 on: September 20, 2020, 12:16:36 AM »
Lol no.

I can now see why you (incorrectly) believe him to be doing something hypocritical.

And Pelosi would then expose herself as even more of a hypocrite than she already is. Just because Mitch isn’t a cunning hypocrite doesn’t mean he isn’t a hypocrite. Maybe you are too jaded to admit this but a politicians job isn’t to keep power for their party or themselves. It’s to serve the people of the country that elected them.

A government for the people...

He wasn't born into his position. The Republican party won the Senate and that's the party whose interest he is serving. The people who didn't vote for him, unsurprisingly, are upset with his actions. The people who did vote for him, I imagine, are actually quite pleased. This is a fundamental property of democracy.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1996
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6214 on: September 20, 2020, 12:19:58 AM »
Hah, remember that time Democrats changed the vote threshold for nominations just so they could ram their candidate through without a large majority of votes. Democrats quite literally did this to themselves

That has nothing to do with it. I'm not criticizing Republicans for putting people on the SC with only 51 votes instead of 60. I'm criticizing them for refusing to let Democratic nominees get a vote close to a year before an election supposedly because we shouldn't dare nominate people during an election year, only to eagerly nominate people themselves when their party is in power a few short weeks before the election. And yes, I think it is pretty clear that Democrats are making a concerted effort to take the high road over the past several years, in contrast to Republicans who are embracing their IRL villainy more and more. Democrats wouldn't stand behind people like Roy Moore or Duncan Hunter, they wouldn't give racist trolls like Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon important jobs in the White House, and for their part, it's very hard to imagine Republicans insisting that Al Franken or Katie Hill resign. I guess that kind of behavior comes with the territory when your main job is playing yes-man to a corrupt, sleazy huckster who has no interest in policy or governing and only cares about his wealth, power, and public image.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6661
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6215 on: September 20, 2020, 12:23:05 AM »
Lol no.

I can now see why you (incorrectly) believe him to be doing something hypocritical.

And Pelosi would then expose herself as even more of a hypocrite than she already is. Just because Mitch isn’t a cunning hypocrite doesn’t mean he isn’t a hypocrite. Maybe you are too jaded to admit this but a politicians job isn’t to keep power for their party or themselves. It’s to serve the people of the country that elected them.

A government for the people...

He wasn't born into his position. The Republican party won the Senate and that's the party whose interest he is serving. The people who didn't vote for him, unsurprisingly, are upset with his actions. The people who did vote for him, I imagine, are actually quite pleased. This is a fundamental property of democracy.


Mitch McConnell quote famously does jack shit for the generally poor people of Kentucky who voted him in and no matter how cynical your view of politics is, it isn’t his job to serve his parties interests. Just like going for coffee with your boss isn’t your job, but can help you keep your job anyway.

Saying that an action is wrong and then taking that action at the first opportunity is textbook hypocrisy. It’s astounding that you can think otherwise.

EDIT: It’s not even clear Republican voters favor this course of action

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/517238-majority-of-voters-say-trump-should-not-nominate-a-supreme-court
« Last Edit: September 20, 2020, 12:48:15 AM by Rama Set »

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7237
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6216 on: September 20, 2020, 01:25:08 AM »
Mitch McConnell quote famously does jack shit for the generally poor people of Kentucky who voted him in and no matter how cynical your view of politics is, it isn’t his job to serve his parties interests. Just like going for coffee with your boss isn’t your job, but can help you keep your job anyway.

Few politicians actually do anything at all for their constituents, but that doesn't mean they weren't voted in.

Saying that an action is wrong and then taking that action at the first opportunity is textbook hypocrisy. It’s astounding that you can think otherwise.

The point is to sway a political situation at a given time. Both times he supported his party. That doesn't read as hypocrisy to me. Hypocrisy would be doing the opposite, sticking to his word, even if it hurts his voters. That's hypocritical for a politician, it's also why none of them do it.

EDIT: It’s not even clear Republican voters favor this course of action

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/517238-majority-of-voters-say-trump-should-not-nominate-a-supreme-court

Only 51% of all voters support forgoing the nomination. Considering the vast majority of voters are Democrats, that means that either all Republicans and some Democrats are okay with this, or only some Republicans and a large portion of Democrats. Overall, this poll sounds like there's heavy bipartisan support for going ahead and nominating someone.

Hah, remember that time Democrats changed the vote threshold for nominations just so they could ram their candidate through without a large majority of votes. Democrats quite literally did this to themselves

That has nothing to do with it. I'm not criticizing Republicans for putting people on the SC with only 51 votes instead of 60. I'm criticizing them for refusing to let Democratic nominees get a vote close to a year before an election supposedly because we shouldn't dare nominate people during an election year, only to eagerly nominate people themselves when their party is in power a few short weeks before the election. And yes, I think it is pretty clear that Democrats are making a concerted effort to take the high road over the past several years, in contrast to Republicans who are embracing their IRL villainy more and more. Democrats wouldn't stand behind people like Roy Moore or Duncan Hunter, they wouldn't give racist trolls like Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon important jobs in the White House, and for their part, it's very hard to imagine Republicans insisting that Al Franken or Katie Hill resign. I guess that kind of behavior comes with the territory when your main job is playing yes-man to a corrupt, sleazy huckster who has no interest in policy or governing and only cares about his wealth, power, and public image.

"It's okay when our party does questionable things, but when the Republicans also do questionable things, that isn't okay." Fantastic work, keep it up.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6217 on: September 20, 2020, 01:40:03 AM »
« Last Edit: September 20, 2020, 02:04:57 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5754
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6218 on: September 20, 2020, 06:55:48 AM »
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/701953299268902912




Yes and?

Literally no one here is arguing otherwise.  We're just bitching because Republicans did not do their constitutional duty in 2016 but are very quickly doing it now. 



@Rushy: Party over all, eh?  I mean, if you wanna define hypocrisy as "not doing everything possible to keep your party in power" then everyone is a hypocrite.  McConnel could do far more.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1520
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6219 on: September 20, 2020, 07:04:37 PM »
Seems like the definition of hypocrisy:

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.