All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[aja_christopher]

Blah blah blah geographic sorting blah blah blah.

This is how top Republicans think after driving our country into one of the worst economic recessions in history:



There's really no point in trying to reason with this kind of thinking, nor those who defend them.

[ZombieHavoc]

Michael Wolff's book is currently the #1 best seller on Amazon, any category. Similarly, for some reason, Newt Gingrich's 'Understanding Trump' is the #1 best seller in the Canadian Politics category. 2018 in overdrive.

[Mister Mets]

This is how top Republicans think after driving our country into one of the worst economic recessions in history:



There's really no point in trying to reason with this kind of thinking, nor those who defend them.

Do you think Schumer doesn't want Trump to be a one-term President? Do you think Daschle and Reid didn't want that for W?

[Iron Maiden]

Given the fact that Mets defended the Republicans stealing a Supreme Court pick by refusing to even vote on the issue while Obama was in office, there's really no point in trying to reason with him on matters like this.

That still makes me want to punch McConnell in his turtle face.

[Gray Lensman]

Do you think Schumer doesn't want Trump to be a one-term President? Do you think Daschle and Reid didn't want that for W?

Not as the number one priority, although with Trump I can understand. America's international standing may take a generation to recover from Benedict Donald, and the man has all but declared war on the states that didn't go his way in the election.

[aja_christopher]

Do you think Schumer doesn't want Trump to be a one-term President? Do you think Daschle and Reid didn't want that for W?

What I think -- based on what I've seen you post on this forum -- is that you'll say almost anything to justify the completely reprehensible behavior of your selected party's representatives.

To answer the question at hand: no, I don't think that would be their top priority after driving the nation into one of the worst recessions in history, but since it's the Republican party (under Bush) that caused said recession, it's an irrational comparison, regardless.

[Mister Mets]

Given the fact that Mets defended the Republicans stealing a Supreme Court pick by refusing to even vote on the issue while Obama was in office, there's really no point in trying to reason with him on matters like this.

I will argue the facts and the law rather than go personal.

I get the view that some positions are indefensible, although I don't think that applies to a consideration of existing law in Virginia on a close election.

With the Supreme Court, that could've been avoided if Obama hadn't tried to change the balance of the court in an election year when the other party held the Senate. Democrats lose their moral authority with the Clinton campaign's failure to strongly and unambiguously back Garland, likely for strategic reasons.

[aja_christopher]

With the Supreme Court, that could've been avoided if

The Republicans had just done the right thing and voted on the nominee like they were supposed to.

[Iron Maiden]

I will argue the facts and the law rather than go personal.

I get the view that some positions are indefensible, although I don't think that applies to a consideration of existing law in Virginia on a close election.

With the Supreme Court, that could've been avoided if Obama hadn't tried to change the balance of the court in an election year when the other party held the Senate. Democrats lose their moral authority with the Clinton campaign's failure to strongly and unambiguously back Garland, likely for strategic reasons.

Scalia died in February of 2016.... are you blaming Obama for the timing of his death now??

[Mister Mets]

Scalia died in February of 2016.... are you blaming Obama for the timing of his death now??

I'm blaming him for how he responded to an unusual situation.

I don't think Democrats would've acted differently in an analogous situation (if Ruth Bader Ginsburg keeled over on February 2016 and President Romney were selecting her replacement while Democrats controlled the Senate.)

[aja_christopher]

Edit: Following my own advice -- really no point in arguing this.

Only real solution at this point is that people wake up and vote the Republican party into oblivion.

[KOSLOX]

Didn't you just claim you argue the facts and law?

I will argue the facts and the law rather than go personal.

I get the view that some positions are indefensible, although I don't think that applies to a consideration of existing law in Virginia on a close election.

With the Supreme Court, that could've been avoided if Obama hadn't tried to change the balance of the court in an election year when the other party held the Senate. Democrats lose their moral authority with the Clinton campaign's failure to strongly and unambiguously back Garland, likely for strategic reasons.

Weird that you would immediately follow that claim with a counterfactual.

I'm blaming him for how he responded to an unusual situation.

I don't think Democrats would've acted differently in an analogous situation (if Ruth Bader Ginsburg keeled over on February 2016 and President Romney were selecting her replacement while Democrats controlled the Senate.)

It's almost as if... the original statement was BS and you are arguing in bad faith.

[Kevinroc]

I'm blaming him for how he responded to an unusual situation.

I don't think Democrats would've acted differently in an analogous situation (if Ruth Bader Ginsburg keeled over on February 2016 and President Romney were selecting her replacement while Democrats controlled the Senate.)

You have no evidence to support this. Saying "both sides" is not evidence. You're arguing your feelings. And as recent history has shown, "both sides" are not equal.

[aja_christopher]

You have no evidence to support this.

While there is evidence against it.

-----
"In the time frame Republicans are suggesting, only three presidents have had the chance to fill a seat on the Supreme Court bench in an election year, and all of them took it.

In 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated Frank Murphy, after the death of Pierce Butler in 1939.

In 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan. Brennan was nominated and confirmed after Eisenhower won reelection.

In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson — who announced he would not run for reelection — made two unsuccessful nominations. He picked sitting Justice Abe Fortas to replace retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Homer Thornberry to replace Fortas.

Facing strong opposition from Congress, Fortas asked his name to be withdrawn and Thornberry followed suit. Warren delayed his retirement.

And there’s also 1988, when Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a vote of 97-0. President Ronald Reagan, in his last term, nominated Kennedy in 1987.

Even in 1968 — the clearest parallel to 2016’s Supreme Court scuffle — the Senate held confirmation hearings for Fortas. Should Republican lawmakers refuse to begin the process of confirming an Obama nomination, it would be the first time in modern history."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...cy-hasnt-been/

[Iron Maiden]

Do you think Schumer doesn't want Trump to be a one-term President?

Considering Trump lost the popular vote by about 3 million I'd say considerably more people want Trump to be a one term President. I think the popular vote difference would be even wider now that people realize what a mistake it was to assume Trump would pivot or grow a brain.