Author Topic: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet  (Read 3475 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16162
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #35 on: February 01, 2017, 02:14:30 PM »
Pelosi's just doing her job, in the modern political sense. Passing reasonable laws is secondary to their roles as representatives. Obstruction, fealty, bitching and cheerleading are what they're there for nowadays.

 :facepalm: (at the reality of our political world, not you)

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40272
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #36 on: February 01, 2017, 02:22:27 PM »
Following.

I don't know much so not going to add anything but want to read what others have to say. 

However, last night when I got into bed I turned on the news and saw Trump had named the appointee.  I figured let's see what the dems think because I put on fox news and Hannity was drooling over it as expected so I put on CNN and Don Lemon and myself were both surprised to see his panel was almost completely agreeing that this was a good pick.  Lemon even mentioned something along the lines of "wow and Trump would never expect CNN to be on his side for this"  :lol

If everyone (or most really, never going to please everyone) is happy then I am happy with the pick.
I think the surprise, certainly for me, at least, was that it wasn't a deliberate Fuck You to the democrats. Based on the last two weeks I was expecting the most far right justice he could dig up from somewhere. The smooth thing would have been to re-nominate Garland, but mending fences isn't really Grabby's style, after all. .
Yep.  I mean, he is obviously conservative, but I was expecting someone more distasteful to Democrats.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5387
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #37 on: February 01, 2017, 02:22:58 PM »
Judge Gorsuch’s dissent in the case of a 13-year-old arrested for making fake burps in class

Gotta say, I agree with his dissent in this case, and I also like his writing style.

We'll see what happens.

I just read that dissent. Nicely done, but all I could think of is, if schools were arresting disruptive students back in the 70's, my juvenile record would have been phone book thick.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9865
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #38 on: February 01, 2017, 02:57:18 PM »
Sure, they may oppose the particular pick, as is their right.

That's not the same as doing anything to necessarily prevent him being voted in.  Like I said, they will require the 60-vote minimum, but I don't see anything wrong with that.  Although the Republicans probably will.

Not one Republican that I have heard from has gone on record as objecting to the 60 in and of itself.  There were a couple that objected to the use of the filibuster.  Not the same thing.  So, no, "Republicans probably won't". 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9865
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #39 on: February 01, 2017, 03:01:44 PM »
But didn't Pelosi refer to it as a "hostile pick"?

She also was just caught on tape whispering into the ear of Indiana Democratic Representative Andre Carson at a rally "Tell them you're a Muslim! Tell them you're a Muslim!"   Not like we're using this as a prop.  What a bigot. 

She's not moving the process forward one bit. 

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2961
  • Gender: Female
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #40 on: February 01, 2017, 03:17:59 PM »

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40272
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #41 on: February 01, 2017, 03:28:54 PM »
Sure, they may oppose the particular pick, as is their right.

That's not the same as doing anything to necessarily prevent him being voted in.  Like I said, they will require the 60-vote minimum, but I don't see anything wrong with that.  Although the Republicans probably will.

Not one Republican that I have heard from has gone on record as objecting to the 60 in and of itself.  There were a couple that objected to the use of the filibuster.  Not the same thing.  So, no, "Republicans probably won't".
Well, I listened to one of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee on NPR this morning (the name escapes me - not sure which one it was), and he said that in U.S. Senate parlance, the term "fillibuster" doesn't necessarily mean what most people think of, with a Senator speaking for hours on end to hold things up.  They use the term fillibuster for the 60-vote requirement, which would be a supermajority.  So if Republicans object to the fillibuster, they are objecting to the 60 vote supermajority and want instead to go with a simple majority vote.

That was my understanding from what he said this morning.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 362
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #42 on: February 01, 2017, 03:31:05 PM »
Sure, they may oppose the particular pick, as is their right.

That's not the same as doing anything to necessarily prevent him being voted in.  Like I said, they will require the 60-vote minimum, but I don't see anything wrong with that.  Although the Republicans probably will.

Not one Republican that I have heard from has gone on record as objecting to the 60 in and of itself.  There were a couple that objected to the use of the filibuster.  Not the same thing.  So, no, "Republicans probably won't".
Well, I listened to one of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee on NPR this morning (the name escapes me - not sure which one it was), and he said that in U.S. Senate parlance, the term "fillibuster" doesn't necessarily mean what most people think of, with a Senator speaking for hours on end to hold things up.  They use the term fillibuster for the 60-vote requirement, which would be a supermajority.  So if Republicans object to the fillibuster, they are objecting to the 60 vote supermajority and want instead to go with a simple majority vote.

That was my understanding from what he said this morning.

Well that's needlessly confusing  :facepalm:

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19072
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2017, 03:49:04 PM »
Sure, they may oppose the particular pick, as is their right.

That's not the same as doing anything to necessarily prevent him being voted in.  Like I said, they will require the 60-vote minimum, but I don't see anything wrong with that.  Although the Republicans probably will.

Not one Republican that I have heard from has gone on record as objecting to the 60 in and of itself.  There were a couple that objected to the use of the filibuster.  Not the same thing.  So, no, "Republicans probably won't".
Well, I listened to one of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee on NPR this morning (the name escapes me - not sure which one it was), and he said that in U.S. Senate parlance, the term "fillibuster" doesn't necessarily mean what most people think of, with a Senator speaking for hours on end to hold things up.  They use the term fillibuster for the 60-vote requirement, which would be a supermajority.  So if Republicans object to the fillibuster, they are objecting to the 60 vote supermajority and want instead to go with a simple majority vote.

That was my understanding from what he said this morning.

Well that's needlessly confusing  :facepalm:
Over the years (scores, if not hundreds) it's just become standard practice that the intention to filibuster is as good as actually getting all Jimmy Stewart on the senate floor. Breaking a filibuster requires 60 votes. When something comes up that one party objects to they institute what (I believe) they call a procedural filibuster, where they just sort of take it as read that somebody is holding up the process. It's pretty silly, but both parties have embraced it. When you hear about "the nuclear option" it's referring to a change in the rules that would do away with the procedural filibuster. Everybody talks about it, but neither side is particularly keen to do so because they both use it to their advantage. Although, the democrats used it on some lower court appointments a few years back, so really all bets are probably off at this point.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24766
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2017, 03:52:37 PM »
Pelosi is insane.   

Well, yeah, there's that too.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 26066
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #45 on: February 01, 2017, 05:22:31 PM »
But didn't Pelosi refer to it as a "hostile pick"?

She also was just caught on tape whispering into the ear of Indiana Democratic Representative Andre Carson at a rally "Tell them you're a Muslim! Tell them you're a Muslim!"   Not like we're using this as a prop.  What a bigot. 

She's not moving the process forward one bit.

Did you see her on CNN last night?  CNN had a plant in the audience.  Someone should tell CNN that if you're going to have a plant, that getting someone who can read and speak English would help.  :lol :lol

Anyway, yeah, Pelosi is awful.

Online TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24766
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #46 on: February 01, 2017, 06:44:45 PM »
We have Pelosi-East with Liz Warren. What a clown!
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline pogoowner

  • Pancake Bunny
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2835
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #47 on: February 01, 2017, 08:23:00 PM »
Honestly, I'd kind of like to see the Democrats obstruct as much as possible, with this, and other issues. Too often in recent years, they've opted for the more "polite" course of action in the hopes of banking some kind of political capital down the road, and it blows up in their faces when the Republicans simply don't care. They need to stop focusing on norms and focus on actually accomplishing their agenda. And many of those that don't obstruct are going to turn around and find themselves facing a primary opponent from their left in 2018 or 2020.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19072
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #48 on: February 01, 2017, 09:25:54 PM »
Honestly, I'd kind of like to see the Democrats obstruct as much as possible, with this, and other issues. Too often in recent years, they've opted for the more "polite" course of action in the hopes of banking some kind of political capital down the road, and it blows up in their faces when the Republicans simply don't care. They need to stop focusing on norms and focus on actually accomplishing their agenda. And many of those that don't obstruct are going to turn around and find themselves facing a primary opponent from their left in 2018 or 2020.
The problem is that these particular democrats can't get away with it. As long as they're led by mealymouthed losers like Pelosi anything they try to do to thwart the Right will only play into the republicans' hand. This is likely to be the most ineffective opposition party ever seen.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5056
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #49 on: February 01, 2017, 09:30:10 PM »
Warren isn't bad at all, I like a lot of what she says and works for. Putting her in the same sentence as Pelosi is doing her a disservice.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9865
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #50 on: February 02, 2017, 06:44:39 AM »
Sure, they may oppose the particular pick, as is their right.

That's not the same as doing anything to necessarily prevent him being voted in.  Like I said, they will require the 60-vote minimum, but I don't see anything wrong with that.  Although the Republicans probably will.

Not one Republican that I have heard from has gone on record as objecting to the 60 in and of itself.  There were a couple that objected to the use of the filibuster.  Not the same thing.  So, no, "Republicans probably won't".
Well, I listened to one of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee on NPR this morning (the name escapes me - not sure which one it was), and he said that in U.S. Senate parlance, the term "fillibuster" doesn't necessarily mean what most people think of, with a Senator speaking for hours on end to hold things up.  They use the term fillibuster for the 60-vote requirement, which would be a supermajority.  So if Republicans object to the fillibuster, they are objecting to the 60 vote supermajority and want instead to go with a simple majority vote.

That was my understanding from what he said this morning.

That's not exactly true.   No, it's not a Senator standing for three days without food, water or janitorial services, but it takes a lot of time, and currently "Supreme Court nominees" are exempt from the "majority" option.  Therefore, a Supreme Court nominee needs 60% REGARDLESS of whether there is a filibuster or not, unless McConnell uses the "nuclear option" to change the laws of the Senate yet again.   So it's really a reluctance to change the laws again, rather than an objection to the 60, even if the outcome is the same.   

Point is, it's about political gamesmanship more than any specific issue with this nominee.  What I especially find odious are the Democrats stepping on their dicks to distance themselves from Harry Reid, who did exactly what McConnell could do if he wanted, simply because Reid didn't get his way.  Now all of a sudden it's "well, I didn't really agree with Harry Reid, and he shouldn't have done it, and he was high at the time, and it's Trump, and we need someone other than the Patriots to win the Super Bowl, and wow did Taylor Swift have work done or what?"    It's exactly why people voted for Trump.  To end this nonsense.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9865
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #51 on: February 02, 2017, 07:02:56 AM »
Honestly, I'd kind of like to see the Democrats obstruct as much as possible, with this, and other issues. Too often in recent years, they've opted for the more "polite" course of action in the hopes of banking some kind of political capital down the road, and it blows up in their faces when the Republicans simply don't care. They need to stop focusing on norms and focus on actually accomplishing their agenda. And many of those that don't obstruct are going to turn around and find themselves facing a primary opponent from their left in 2018 or 2020.

Oh, okay, it's always the "Republicans".  Please.  The Dems have been obstructing for no other reason than "obstruction" since the days of Reagan.   ANY post that purports to make one party out to be the "good guy" and the other the "bad guy" is wrong on it's face from the get go.    This is not about "Republicans" and "Democrats".  It's about "who has power and who doesn't".   ALWAYS it's about "who has power and who doesn't."   The insane Nancy Pelosi is a prime example.  Even giving the nod to el Barto who is a stickler for what she meant in '09 with the ACA and assuming he's right that she DIDN'T mean "pass it without reading it and THEN read it!" I notice she's not willing to let the travel ban (NOT her platform) play out to see the downstream effects, though she was more than willing to do that with the ACA (HER platform). 

Don't delude yourself; if Republicans are scum bags, then Democrats are scumbags and vice versa.  You don't play in the same sandbox without getting the same mud on your trousers.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9865
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #52 on: February 02, 2017, 07:05:24 AM »
Warren isn't bad at all, I like a lot of what she says and works for. Putting her in the same sentence as Pelosi is doing her a disservice.

There's a great (in the sense of entertaining) ad being played up here about her, and, well, it's not very complimentary.  It's basically predicated on her being a media whore and opting for grandstanding and national recognition over helping her constituents.  It's pretty brutal, but quite funny (and in my view, not entirely wrong). 

Offline axeman90210

  • Official Minister of Awesome, and Veronica knows my name!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11184
  • Gender: Male
  • Never go full Nick
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #53 on: February 02, 2017, 09:45:21 AM »
Pretty decent article I thought on why continued obstruction from the Dems on this isn't a great idea, much as they may want to.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-02/liberals-will-not-like-how-this-revenge-plot-ends
Photobucket sucks.

Offline pogoowner

  • Pancake Bunny
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2835
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #54 on: February 02, 2017, 11:15:52 AM »
Honestly, I'd kind of like to see the Democrats obstruct as much as possible, with this, and other issues. Too often in recent years, they've opted for the more "polite" course of action in the hopes of banking some kind of political capital down the road, and it blows up in their faces when the Republicans simply don't care. They need to stop focusing on norms and focus on actually accomplishing their agenda. And many of those that don't obstruct are going to turn around and find themselves facing a primary opponent from their left in 2018 or 2020.

Oh, okay, it's always the "Republicans".  Please.  The Dems have been obstructing for no other reason than "obstruction" since the days of Reagan.   ANY post that purports to make one party out to be the "good guy" and the other the "bad guy" is wrong on it's face from the get go.    This is not about "Republicans" and "Democrats".  It's about "who has power and who doesn't".   ALWAYS it's about "who has power and who doesn't."   The insane Nancy Pelosi is a prime example.  Even giving the nod to el Barto who is a stickler for what she meant in '09 with the ACA and assuming he's right that she DIDN'T mean "pass it without reading it and THEN read it!" I notice she's not willing to let the travel ban (NOT her platform) play out to see the downstream effects, though she was more than willing to do that with the ACA (HER platform). 

Don't delude yourself; if Republicans are scum bags, then Democrats are scumbags and vice versa.  You don't play in the same sandbox without getting the same mud on your trousers.
I'm not trying to make some statement about all of history here, I'm just talking about what's been happening lately. I think both parties, with very few exceptions, are full of scumbags. It just so happens that the Democratic platform is (somewhat) closer to my own views than the Republican platform is. The point I was trying to make wasn't about one side being a cut above the other. I think we have a president and a Republican majority that is not going to concern itself with traditional governmental norms. That was basically Trump's platform. In my opinion, the Dems may as well go down swinging, and try to make a statement, because they're going to get steamrolled anyway. Obviously there are risks to doing that, and ultimately, I don't think most of the Dems have the backbone to do it.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40272
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #55 on: February 02, 2017, 03:58:42 PM »
So, apparently, when Gorsuch was in school, he was president of a club called Fascism Forever.

:justjen:
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline pogoowner

  • Pancake Bunny
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2835
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #56 on: February 02, 2017, 04:22:51 PM »
So, apparently, when Gorsuch was in school, he was president of a club called Fascism Forever.

:justjen:
Saw that last night. You couldn't write this stuff. :lol

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2961
  • Gender: Female
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #57 on: February 02, 2017, 04:30:39 PM »

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19072
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #58 on: February 02, 2017, 04:52:37 PM »
It's most likely a joke yearbook entry.



About all I'd read into that is that he was apparently enough of a right winger in high-school to be ribbed about it. I'm thinking Carlton or Alex Keaton. Here's to hoping he grew a soul somewhere along the way.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5387
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #59 on: February 02, 2017, 04:54:25 PM »
Yeah, likely. I just read that the club was focused on resisting the liberal views of the faculty...at a Jesuit private school!  :lol

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19072
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #60 on: February 02, 2017, 05:08:09 PM »
Yeah, likely. I just read that the club was focused on resisting the liberal views of the faculty...at a Jesuit private school!  :lol
In WKRP in Cincinati, Arthur Carlson's son had similar issues with Prussian Valley Military Academy.  :lol
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9329
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #61 on: February 02, 2017, 08:06:20 PM »
So, apparently, when Gorsuch was in school, he was president of a club called Fascism Forever.

:justjen:

I'm guessing that didn't pop up on the GorsuchFacts twitter.

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9329
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #62 on: February 02, 2017, 08:14:32 PM »
Honestly, I'd kind of like to see the Democrats obstruct as much as possible, with this, and other issues. Too often in recent years, they've opted for the more "polite" course of action in the hopes of banking some kind of political capital down the road, and it blows up in their faces when the Republicans simply don't care. They need to stop focusing on norms and focus on actually accomplishing their agenda. And many of those that don't obstruct are going to turn around and find themselves facing a primary opponent from their left in 2018 or 2020.

Oh, okay, it's always the "Republicans".  Please.  The Dems have been obstructing for no other reason than "obstruction" since the days of Reagan.   ANY post that purports to make one party out to be the "good guy" and the other the "bad guy" is wrong on it's face from the get go.    This is not about "Republicans" and "Democrats".  It's about "who has power and who doesn't".   ALWAYS it's about "who has power and who doesn't."   The insane Nancy Pelosi is a prime example.  Even giving the nod to el Barto who is a stickler for what she meant in '09 with the ACA and assuming he's right that she DIDN'T mean "pass it without reading it and THEN read it!" I notice she's not willing to let the travel ban (NOT her platform) play out to see the downstream effects, though she was more than willing to do that with the ACA (HER platform). 

Don't delude yourself; if Republicans are scum bags, then Democrats are scumbags and vice versa.  You don't play in the same sandbox without getting the same mud on your trousers.

That's my main issue with the way things are nowadays. Maybe I'm a bad student of history as far as political decisions go but while there may be some evidence of mild compromise over the years it just seems like when one side does something, regardless of the severity, the other side's rep is obligated to come out and say they oppose it merely because "the other guy who doesn't agree with me said something" without resorting to any thought out, logical conclusions. Completely outside of this discussion, it just seems that no one admit that someone on the other side may have made a reasonable decision just because they don't play for the same team. It's that kind of black and white that is really causing a rift amongst us normal folks, at least from I can tell.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9865
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #63 on: February 03, 2017, 09:58:27 AM »
So, apparently, when Gorsuch was in school, he was president of a club called Fascism Forever.

:justjen:
Saw that last night. You couldn't write this stuff. :lol

- He was 14.
- It was a sarcastic (note the maturity of your average 14 year old) response to several onerous policies of the school administration, and likely referred more to the SCHOOL as to his political beliefs.
- There have been no other reference to fascism, or fascist policies, in any of his writings.

I'm just throwing it out there, but if one has no problem with either Hillary or Bernie's dalliances in communism in college, if one thinks that Bill's "not inhaling" is past history, and if one has no problem with Barack's marijuana use, cocaine use, and politics when HE was in college, then there's nothing to see here. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9865
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #64 on: February 03, 2017, 10:01:42 AM »
Honestly, I'd kind of like to see the Democrats obstruct as much as possible, with this, and other issues. Too often in recent years, they've opted for the more "polite" course of action in the hopes of banking some kind of political capital down the road, and it blows up in their faces when the Republicans simply don't care. They need to stop focusing on norms and focus on actually accomplishing their agenda. And many of those that don't obstruct are going to turn around and find themselves facing a primary opponent from their left in 2018 or 2020.

Oh, okay, it's always the "Republicans".  Please.  The Dems have been obstructing for no other reason than "obstruction" since the days of Reagan.   ANY post that purports to make one party out to be the "good guy" and the other the "bad guy" is wrong on it's face from the get go.    This is not about "Republicans" and "Democrats".  It's about "who has power and who doesn't".   ALWAYS it's about "who has power and who doesn't."   The insane Nancy Pelosi is a prime example.  Even giving the nod to el Barto who is a stickler for what she meant in '09 with the ACA and assuming he's right that she DIDN'T mean "pass it without reading it and THEN read it!" I notice she's not willing to let the travel ban (NOT her platform) play out to see the downstream effects, though she was more than willing to do that with the ACA (HER platform). 

Don't delude yourself; if Republicans are scum bags, then Democrats are scumbags and vice versa.  You don't play in the same sandbox without getting the same mud on your trousers.

That's my main issue with the way things are nowadays. Maybe I'm a bad student of history as far as political decisions go but while there may be some evidence of mild compromise over the years it just seems like when one side does something, regardless of the severity, the other side's rep is obligated to come out and say they oppose it merely because "the other guy who doesn't agree with me said something" without resorting to any thought out, logical conclusions. Completely outside of this discussion, it just seems that no one admit that someone on the other side may have made a reasonable decision just because they don't play for the same team. It's that kind of black and white that is really causing a rift amongst us normal folks, at least from I can tell.

This nails it perfectly, and explains a WHOLE LOT of my so-called "defenses" of Trump.  I hate Trump.  But to suggest that he's the anti-Christ, and can't POSSIBLY have a good idea of any kind is preposterous. 

And no, it wasn't always this way; the meetings between Tip O'Neill (Democrat Speaker of the House) and (among other Republican leaders) Ronald Reagan, in order to come to compromises, are legendary.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25282
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #65 on: February 03, 2017, 10:03:18 AM »
So, apparently, when Gorsuch was in school, he was president of a club called Fascism Forever.

:justjen:
Saw that last night. You couldn't write this stuff. :lol

- He was 14.
- It was a sarcastic (note the maturity of your average 14 year old) response to several onerous policies of the school administration, and likely referred more to the SCHOOL as to his political beliefs.
- There have been no other reference to fascism, or fascist policies, in any of his writings.

I'm just throwing it out there, but if one has no problem with either Hillary or Bernie's dalliances in communism in college, if one thinks that Bill's "not inhaling" is past history, and if one has no problem with Barack's marijuana use, cocaine use, and politics when HE was in college, then there's nothing to see here.

I agree that this is a non-story. I agree that the dude's probably not a fascist.

Still, no need to make it bi-partisan. This can be dismissed on its own lack of merits without pulling "BUT DEMS TOO!!!!!!!!!!".
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5387
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #66 on: February 03, 2017, 10:07:41 AM »
As I posted above, it's pretty obviously satire of the high-school variety. We should all be able to agree on that, I think.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9865
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #67 on: February 03, 2017, 10:09:22 AM »
So, apparently, when Gorsuch was in school, he was president of a club called Fascism Forever.

:justjen:
Saw that last night. You couldn't write this stuff. :lol

- He was 14.
- It was a sarcastic (note the maturity of your average 14 year old) response to several onerous policies of the school administration, and likely referred more to the SCHOOL as to his political beliefs.
- There have been no other reference to fascism, or fascist policies, in any of his writings.

I'm just throwing it out there, but if one has no problem with either Hillary or Bernie's dalliances in communism in college, if one thinks that Bill's "not inhaling" is past history, and if one has no problem with Barack's marijuana use, cocaine use, and politics when HE was in college, then there's nothing to see here.

I agree that this is a non-story. I agree that the dude's probably not a fascist.

Still, no need to make it bi-partisan. This can be dismissed on its own lack of merits without pulling "BUT DEMS TOO!!!!!!!!!!".

You're a 100% correct; I could put Republicans here ("Reagan was an actor"; "Bush did a little blow himself back in the day.") but those that would respond to those references aren't likely the same people that are posting this as if it is some massive reveal on Neil Gorsuch's secret desires.    I asked a close friend, who is almost radically liberal, at least about some issues (he is wildly anti-gun, and anti-corporations), why use this argument, and his response was "because we have to block every single thing that Trump tries to do, by any means available to us".   So...

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25282
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #68 on: February 03, 2017, 10:11:18 AM »
So? Are you really trying to constructively debate with people on the extreme side of whatever?

I mean, I dunno, maybe you're a big fan of bashing your own head against a brick wall over and over, but it doesn't sound terribly fun to me.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9865
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #69 on: February 03, 2017, 10:15:39 AM »
So? Are you really trying to constructively debate with people on the extreme side of whatever?

I mean, I dunno, maybe you're a big fan of bashing your own head against a brick wall over and over, but it doesn't sound terribly fun to me.

I do, and here's why:  I don't at all expect anyone to change their views because of me (or anyone else).  I think that is futile, and even when effective, is a short term strategy (a bunch of people who all think the same thing don't bring any new ideas to the table, and are kind of like an example of "intellectual incest").    What I do strive for, though, is an accounting of all the facts on the table.   You are entitled to your own opinions, no matter how radical or extreme, but you don't get to pick and choose your facts, or make your own.  So some of this is to get people to account for things they either didn't know about, didn't care about, or purposefully tried to ignore because it didn't fit their personal world view.