or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 270

post #4036 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

The government is functioning exactly like it's supposed to. If Obama wanted the senate to confirm his nominee he should have nominated someone the senate would accept. Even then they were under no obligation to actually do it. Maybe they would give his nominee more consideration had he not trampled all over the GOP when he had the chance.

crackup[1].gif

The notion that there was any chance the GOP was ever prepared to have a respectful, cooperative relationship with Barack Hussein is one of the most intellectually dishonest things every posted in this wildly intellectually dishonest space.
post #4037 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

The government is functioning exactly like it's supposed to. If Obama wanted the senate to confirm his nominee he should have nominated someone the senate would accept. Even then they were under no obligation to actually do it. Maybe they would give his nominee more consideration had he not trampled all over the GOP when he had the chance.

Once again, Hatch is the chair of the judiciary committee. Once again,he's on record as saying the nominee should pass muster with no problems. Hell, just last week he mentioned Garland in a positive fashion and said he doubted Obama would nominate someone so moderate and acceptable. Well guess what, home boy? Obama did it. Now the Senate needs to do their job and vet him.
post #4038 of 5129
Is that from the same guy who just posted this?
Quote:
Eh, that's like observing a David Duke rally and saying patriotism is motivated by racism and penis-size-shame rather than what it claims. The fact that lots of hateful, self-pitying idiots use the label of "feminism" to try to justify their crap doesn't mean that there isn't a real, non-crazy kind of feminism.

Certainly, no conservative would underestimate the willingness of the GOP establishment to compromise with the left. They've done it over and over and over again. Obama would have been no different had he not decided he had a mandate to do whatever he wanted when he first came into office.
post #4039 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Is that from the same guy who just posted this?
Certainly, no conservative would underestimate the willingness of the GOP establishment to compromise with the left. They've done it over and over and over again. Obama would have been no different had he not decided he had a mandate to do whatever he wanted when he first came into office.

Yes, it is. Your position is that there is no such thing as legitimate feminism? I guess that shouldn't surprise me.
post #4040 of 5129
As should be obvious, I am saying that your positions here and there are inconsistent.

Obama promised to be a compromiser when he was running for office. Then he immediately shoved through legislation (stimulus, Obamacare, etc.) that between them were only able to garner what, two votes from Republican legislators? The idea that every single one of them (along with all the voters who "shellaced" Obama's accomplices out of office in the next election) just hated his guts from the get go is absurd.

Anyway, what I tried to argue before was that the senate considering a nominee from the other party's president in an election year would be exceptional and would have to be the product of an exceptional relationship between the president and the other party. Certainly, the Democrats would never have done it for either of the Bushes, as prominent Democrats are on record saying.
post #4041 of 5129
They might be a little more willing to accept this guy now if the future option is either:

A) a Trump justice nominaiton
or
B) a Bernie/Hillary nomination that comes with a "fuck you, you obstructionist assholes" voter mandate.
post #4042 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

As should be obvious, I am saying that your positions here and there are inconsistent.

As should be obvious, they aren't at all.

But then, we really have no way of knowing whether I typed them in a secret code that means something other than what appears on the screen.
post #4043 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

As should be obvious, they aren't at all.

But then, we really have no way of knowing whether I typed them in a secret code that means something other than what appears on the screen.

Hard to argue with that second part, in light of the first...
post #4044 of 5129

The Republican Party seems hellbent on self destruction

Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

They might be a little more willing to accept this guy now if the future option is either:

A) a Trump justice nominaiton
or
B) a Bernie/Hillary nomination that comes with a "fuck you, you obstructionist assholes" voter mandate.


No chance of either of those .We'll just stick to the story that considering a supreme court nominee in an election year is unheard of and wringing our hands over how a Trump coulda' happened. That way we can better assure another 8 years of Democratic administration while we tell folks how miserable their lives are and why its all those guys fault

post #4045 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post
 

The Republican Party seems hellbent on self destruction


No chance of either of those .We'll just stick to the story that considering a supreme court nominee in an election year is unheard of and wringing our hands over how a Trump coulda' happened. That way we can better assure another 8 years of Democratic administration while we tell folks how miserable their lives are and why its all those guys fault

 

16 years of a single party holding the presidency would almost be unprecedented.  The Democratic-Republicans held for 28 years, the Republicans held for 16 years after the Civil War, the Republicans held for 16 years before Woodrow Wilson, and of course there is the FDR train, but since WW2, the only example of more than two consecutive terms by one party is Reagan followed by one term of Bush.

 

I'm not saying it can't or won't happen.  I find it hard to believe though.  If Hillary wins, I think she's a one termer.  If Bernie wins, well, he'll probably die in office.

post #4046 of 5129
post #4047 of 5129
Wonderful. Constitutional government at work.
post #4048 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Argentino View Post

Wonderful. Constitutional government at work.

Like Obamacare, you mean?
post #4049 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Like Obamacare, you mean?

Bad choice for an example. It's constitutional because the not-a-tax is a tax and Congress that passed the law with the not-a-tax has the power to tax...
post #4050 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Bad choice for an example. It's constitutional because the not-a-tax is a tax and Congress that passed the law with the not-a-tax has the power to tax...

Which is why I chose it. Legislation passed by House and Senate, signed by President, upheld by SCOTUS. Thus, at least under a positivist view, it is Constitutional and nobody has any business complaining.

I was just pimping ElArg, but I took the basic premise of his post to be "substantive merits aside, if you're taking an action the Constitution contemplates your branch taking, it's all good".

I don't actually disagree with that on a very general level, I'm just suggesting that many folks are fairly selective in deciding when to make that their primary analysis.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob