Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/02/14 19:23:51
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
How cute, he thinks he can make it to the general.
Edit- So happy scalia is off the bench.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/14 19:24:32
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
2016/02/14 20:51:33
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Can't believe I missed this... best political Ad so far:
Oh look, something shiny! So I guess this means we are moving on after you were called out about your "no Supreme Court nominations during an election year" claim that was in no way factually accurate?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/14 21:21:25
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/14 21:27:13
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Can't believe I missed this... best political Ad so far:
Oh look, something shiny! So I guess this means we are moving on after you were called out about your "no Supreme Court nominations during an election year" claim that was in no way factually accurate?
They should be expected to move on- you already proved they were incorrect. Do you have an axe to grind or something? Are you expecting an apology? If they dropped the tangent after being proven wrong just let it go.
whembly wrote: Can't believe I missed this... best political Ad so far:
Oh look, something shiny! So I guess this means we are moving on after you were called out about your "no Supreme Court nominations during an election year" claim that was in no way factually accurate?[/quote
By the Holy Emprah™, please look at my avatar and chillax.
I said there wasn't alot of precedent.
And use fricking common sense scooty. Don't you think it'll be harder or easier to push through a Supreme Court pick when the opposite party holds the Senate?
whembly wrote: Can't believe I missed this... best political Ad so far:
Oh look, something shiny! So I guess this means we are moving on after you were called out about your "no Supreme Court nominations during an election year" claim that was in no way factually accurate?
They should be expected to move on- you already proved they were incorrect. Do you have an axe to grind or something? Are you expecting an apology? If they dropped the tangent after being proven wrong just let it go.
You must be new here. Also who is "they?" I'm not talking about the candidates here, I'm talking about Whembly and his oft tenuous relation to facts. He made a claim (or more accurately, repeated a claim that someone else made) and when told it wasn't true, he just moved on to an idiotic Ted Cruz political ad. This is relevant because in the next few weeks, after the President rightly chooses a nominee for Congress to confirm, he'll probably be back in this thread repeating the same non-truth.
BlaxicanX wrote:He didn't drop the tangent, he's just going to bring it up again in a slightly different capacity later.
Whembly's been following the same script for 280 pages.
No, actually you said no such thing. You said this:
whembly wrote: There's precendent that SC vacancy were NOT filled during election year.
You even used capital letters to prove your [wrong] point. Now you're being dishonest on two levels.
And use fricking common sense scooty. Don't you think it'll be harder or easier to push through a Supreme Court pick when the opposite party holds the Senate?
That doesn't matter nor is it the question here. I'm talking about a very specific piece of blatantly untrue information that that two people running for office said and you then repeated and at no time between those two instances did it ever become less false. The President has a constitutional obligation to nominate a qualified person to fill the seat left vacant by Justice Scalia's passing just like Congress has the constitutional obligation to to confirm that nomination. In case you and the people you vote for have forgotten, that's how this system works.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/14 22:00:12
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/14 22:03:53
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
No, actually you said no such thing. You said this:
whembly wrote: There's precendent that SC vacancy were NOT filled during election year.
You even used capital letters to prove your [wrong] point.
Fine, I'll walk it back if you want to be pandentic. I still believe it really depends on which party holds the Senate. It can go easy, or fugly (like the Bork'n time).
And use fricking common sense scooty. Don't you think it'll be harder or easier to push through a Supreme Court pick when the opposite party holds the Senate?
That doesn't matter nor is it the question here. I'm talking about a very specific piece of information that is blatantly untrue that two people running for office said and you then repeated and at no time between those two instances did it ever become less false.
Tell me how you *really* feel Scooty.
The President has a constitutional obligation to nominate a qualified person to fill the seat left vacant by Justice Scalia's passing just like Congress has the constitutional obligation to to confirm that nomination. That's how this system works.
FALSE. The Senate is NOT under "the constitutional obligation to to confirm that nomination". The Senate can tell Obama to pound sand and reject the nomination.
THAT'S how the system works.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure Obama could appoint a Recess Appointment now since the Senate is truly in Recess. Unless, the Senate goes pro forma tomorrow... That'll be some firecracker there!
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/02/14 22:09:39
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/14 22:14:33
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Fine, I'll walk it back if you want to be pandentic
"Pedantic" is the word you were looking for, and my decision to point that out is pedantry; Scooty calling you out on a core element of your argument is not.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/14 22:23:00
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/02/14 22:41:59
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Fine, I'll walk it back if you want to be pandentic. I still believe it really depends on which party holds the Senate. It can go easy, or fugly (like the Bork'n time).
Yeah, that's it Whembly... I'm just being pedantic. Dude, you repeated a blatant lie and then tried to act like you didn't, but that's somehow me being "pedantic." Just admit you were wrong and be done with it. It won't kill you.
Tell me how you *really* feel Scooty.
See above.
FALSE. The Senate is NOT under "the constitutional obligation to to confirm that nomination". The Senate can tell Obama to pound sand and reject the nomination.
THAT'S how the system works.
He has to "appoint" (more like nominate) a person with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, and of course they can reject a nomination, I never claimed that they have to accept the first one and the first one only. But they have to confirm someone because it's their constitutional duty to do so. Of course, they could shirk their duties like a bunch of asshats, which you're clearly okay with. Also, pointing out that I said "that nomination" even though it's obvious I was talking about "a nomination" is pedantry.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure Obama could appoint a Recess Appointment now since the Senate is truly in Recess. Unless, the Senate goes pro forma tomorrow... That'll be some firecracker there!
I don't think he'll make a recess appointment, though there is a precedence to confirm a recess appointment. The only one not confirmed was John Rutledge as Chief Justice in 1795, but he was already an Associate Justice at the time; all other nine appointees were eventually nominated by the Senate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/14 22:57:18
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/14 23:00:42
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Fine, I'll walk it back if you want to be pandentic. I still believe it really depends on which party holds the Senate. It can go easy, or fugly (like the Bork'n time).
Yeah, that's it Whembly... I'm just being pedantic. Dude, you repeated a blatant lie and then tried to act like you didn't, but that's somehow me being "pedantic." Just admit you were wrong and be done with it. It won't kill you.
Tell me how you *really* feel Scooty.
See above.
Fine. I'm wrong, you're right.
FALSE. The Senate is NOT under "the constitutional obligation to to confirm that nomination". The Senate can tell Obama to pound sand and reject the nomination.
THAT'S how the system works.
He has to "appoint" (more like nominate) a person with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, and of course they can reject a nomination, I never claimed that they have to accept the first one and the first one only. But they have to confirm someone because it's their constitutional duty to do so. Of course, they could shirk their duties like a bunch of asshats, which you're clearly okay with. Also, pointing out that I said "that nomination" even though it's obvious I was talking about "a nomination" is pedantry.
Actually, the Senate doesn't have to confirm *anyone*. There's no time limit.
See the Democrats from 2001 till 2007.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure Obama could appoint a Recess Appointment now since the Senate is truly in Recess. Unless, the Senate goes pro forma tomorrow... That'll be some firecracker there!
I don't think he'll make a recess appointment, though there is a precedence to confirm a recess appointment. The only one not confirmed was John Rutledge as Chief Justice in 1795, but he was already an Associate Justice at the time; all other nine appointees were eventually nominated by the Senate.
Aye, that's a possibility.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/14 23:01:00
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/14 23:32:19
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Actually, the Senate doesn't have to confirm *anyone*. There's no time limit.
See the Democrats from 2001 till 2007.
The Democrats?
From 2001 through 2007:
The 107th Senate was a 50/50 split (with a Republican VP) and had 1861 Senate Confirmations
The 108th Senate was a Republican Majority and had 1777 Senate Confirmations
The 109th Senate was a Republican Majority and had 1920 Senate Confirmations
The 110th Senate was a Democratic Majority and had 1847 Senate Confirmations
2016/02/14 23:45:40
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Actually, the Senate doesn't have to confirm *anyone*. There's no time limit.
Who said there was a time limit? Still, they have the constitutional duty confirm a nomination. What would happen if the Republicans don't regain control of the Presidency but keep control of the Senate? Would they not confirm anyone then? What about when Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires? Would they leave two seats open?
Of course, there would be irony in the party that claims to love the Constitution so much pout their way into a constitutional crisis by preventing the President from upholding the duties he was elected to perform.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/14 23:57:24
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Sorry to say it, but I follow these things, and he was a donkey-cave. Hopefully we won't ever get another Supreme Court Justice, from either political stripe, like him again.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/15 00:06:06
2016/02/15 00:06:37
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Actually, the Senate doesn't have to confirm *anyone*. There's no time limit.
See the Democrats from 2001 till 2007.
The Democrats?
From 2001 through 2007:
The 107th Senate was a 50/50 split (with a Republican VP) and had 1861 Senate Confirmations
The 108th Senate was a Republican Majority and had 1777 Senate Confirmations
The 109th Senate was a Republican Majority and had 1920 Senate Confirmations
The 110th Senate was a Democratic Majority and had 1847 Senate Confirmations
If those numbers are for all political appointees... way to distort the numbers...
Sen. Leahy & Sen. Reid blocked numerous Bush's judicial nominations. They're both on record for that.
Oh... and the GOP never held a filibuster-proof Senate. Thus, the minority D's did have considerable sway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: So Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died.
Sorry to say it, but I follow these things, and he was a donkey-cave. Hopefully we won't ever get another Supreme Court Justice, from either political stripe, like him again.
I hope we get another Scalia clone.
At least *he* was a 'textual' Justice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/15 00:07:29
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/15 00:09:28
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Dreadwinter wrote: How can you support a guy whose whole argument is "I am going to be President so I think I should get to do it!"
Because that isn't his "whole argument"? Because this is just one issue? I work to find out how closely a given candidate supports many issues I care about before making a decision. If Rubio is the best match overall then a campaign commercial likely won't matter much to me.
Besides, he isn't saying anything that the other candidates (Republican and Democrat) aren't thinking.
2016/02/15 00:10:19
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
He wasn't a textual Justice. He was a self-absorbed ego-maniac that somehow made it to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, exposed the weaknesses of our system of checks and balances, which was meant to ensure that sycophants like him don't ever gain power.
How can you support a guy whose whole argument is "I am going to be President so I think I should get to do it!"
lol, this "precedent" is silly
The bs smells so bad, it's hard to breathe it in. You're never going to be POTUS dude, it's time to get over your self-infatuation. It's the job of the POTUS to fill the Supreme Court. Notice the acronym 'POTUS'. Not Senator. Not Representative. Not 189th District Florida Retirement Committee Co-Chair.
This message was edited 14 times. Last update was at 2016/02/15 00:38:29
2016/02/15 00:50:08
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: He wasn't a textual Justice. He was a self-absorbed ego-maniac that somehow made it to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, exposed the weaknesses of our system of checks and balances, which was meant to ensure that sycophants like him don't ever gain power.
Yes, yes. Let the hate flow through you.
Anyway, there was this item on Yahoo!
According to Yahoo News Chief Political Correspondent Olivier Knox, Obama’s shortlist includes Sri Srinivasan, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the District of Columbia circuit; Merrick Garland, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; Neal Katyal, a Georgetown law professor who spent one year as Obama’s acting solicitor general; Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson; Solicitor General Don Verrilli; and former Attorney General Eric Holder.
Seriously? Eric Holder? Someone's trolling.
2016/02/15 00:52:42
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Yes, I do admit to a level of hatred when it comes to Scalia, and I think its every bit a justified as my hatred for the late Jerry Falwell. Indeed, the two were cut from the exact same soiled cloth.
2016/02/15 00:59:13
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Actually, the Senate doesn't have to confirm *anyone*. There's no time limit.
See the Democrats from 2001 till 2007.
The Democrats?
From 2001 through 2007:
The 107th Senate was a 50/50 split (with a Republican VP) and had 1861 Senate Confirmations The 108th Senate was a Republican Majority and had 1777 Senate Confirmations The 109th Senate was a Republican Majority and had 1920 Senate Confirmations The 110th Senate was a Democratic Majority and had 1847 Senate Confirmations
If those numbers are for all political appointees... way to distort the numbers...
Sen. Leahy & Sen. Reid blocked numerous Bush's judicial nominations. They're both on record for that.
For the 110th Senate (D): 177 were referred to the Judicial Committee, 111 were confirmed by the Senate, 57 Returned to the President, and 9 Withdrawn by the President. For the 109th Senate (R): 177 were referred to the Judicial Committee, 105 were confirmed by the Senate, 65 Returned to the President, and 7 Withdrawn by the President. For the 108th Senate (R): 209 were referred to the Judicial Committee, 172 were confirmed by the Senate, 35 Returned to the President, and 2 Withdrawn by the President. For the 107th Senate (R): 450 were referred to the Judicial Committee, 292 were confirmed by the Senate, 142 Returned to the President, and 16 Withdrawn by the President.
This stuff is public record you know.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/15 01:03:22
2016/02/15 00:59:27
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: I still believe it really depends on which party holds the Senate. It can go easy, or fugly (like the Bork'n time).
Funny you should use that example, since in both the previous example (Kennedy) and with Bork, it was the same senate composition (Democratic) - Kennedy was nominated around 35 days after Bork was rejected, and he was confirmed . I don't think you're proving the point you think you are, especially when the "Nay" votes for Bork were 58 against, and 7 of those were Republicans. Kennedy in fact was confirmed less than 5 months after Bork was rejected.
You're bringing up Bork because you're obviously reaching for an example of when the Democrats refused to confirm *any* nominee, so when the Republicans do it, you can say "well, both parties do it" as is your wont. You're going to have to look harder, since Kennedy was confirmed 97-0 in an election year.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/15 01:00:06
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/02/15 01:09:44
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Dreadwinter wrote: How can you support a guy whose whole argument is "I am going to be President so I think I should get to do it!"
Because that isn't his "whole argument"?
What is his whole argument then? Because honestly, that is what it is. There is absolutely no reason for Obama not to nominate a judge. It is his job. Rubio is telling Obama to not do his job, so he can do it later.
2016/02/15 01:34:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
What Republicans in the Senate thought about judicial appointments in 2005 is interesting, considering their line of rhetoric today (especially from McConnell):
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/15 01:35:11
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
According to Yahoo News Chief Political Correspondent Olivier Knox, Obama’s shortlist includes Sri Srinivasan, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the District of Columbia circuit; Merrick Garland, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; Neal Katyal, a Georgetown law professor who spent one year as Obama’s acting solicitor general; Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson; Solicitor General Don Verrilli; and former Attorney General Eric Holder.
Seriously? Eric Holder? Someone's trolling.
Spoiler:
That Srinivasan guy is the one I was talking about earlier who was at the top of CNN's short list (they didn't mention Holder on their's). Srinivasan was confirmed 97-0 by the Senate to his position (including Cruz and Rubio in that 97). Would be interesting to see what would happen if Obama nominated him. What would be the excuses for confirming him earlier, but not now?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2016/02/15 01:46:05
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I'm not familiar with the candidate, but the excuses have already been laid out by the GOP regarding any Obama nomination. For some weird reason, they are promoting as truth to the American public that the POTUS doesn't have the legitimacy to fulfill his Constitutional duties if he's in his final year of office.
Of course, this isn't a Constitutional position, not even remotely, so here we see the GOP's underlying political nihilism in plain view.
Rubio's unadulterated ambition should not go unnoticed here. He is willing to degrade the office of POTUS in a desperate effort to gain a fleeting iota of political clout. It's really pathetic coming from a doomed Presidential candidate, and speaks volumes about his character.
This message was edited 15 times. Last update was at 2016/02/15 01:59:03
2016/02/15 02:01:50
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Why would Obama being in the last year of his term make any difference? It doesn’t of course, unless someone wants to make the argument that for one out of every four years the country just stops having an active president, because something something lame duck something. And hey, if you’re going to delay a supreme court appointment for a year in the hope that the next president will be from your team, why not delay for two years, or four? President got sworn in yesterday, but you fancy your party’s chances in four years? Refuse to confirm!
That said, I quite like the idea of a partisan congress never confirming a Supreme Court nomination ever again. Just the remaining 8 judges slowly getting more powerful as one by one they drop off. Who’d be the final, super supreme court justice, who’d rule over the nation as it’s last, final tyrant, before the end times? Kagan is the youngest, but I’d give it to Alito, because he just seems like the kind who lives for absolutely bloody ages.
Sinful Hero wrote: They should be expected to move on- you already proved they were incorrect. Do you have an axe to grind or something? Are you expecting an apology? If they dropped the tangent after being proven wrong just let it go.
Part of honest and useful debate is giving credit to good arguments from the other side, and properly conceding when your own bad arguments have been shown to be false. This is important because if people never properly recognise that they’re wrong, then they’ll just return to their original false belief soon enough. It produces this pattern of bad arguments that being made then shown to be factually or logically completely wrong, but because nothing is conceded, then a week or a month later that same bad argument will be raised again. It will be smashed again, only to raise its head again and again. It’s like fighting zombies, the real danger is attrition.
This isn’t a dig at whembly. I’ve seen him concede points, so that makes him better at this than most of the internet. But there is a weird culture where people just walking away from bad arguments, or repeating them again later, is seen as less rude than pushing someone to be honest enough to admit their argument was bad. So it’s really no surprise that zombie arguments are very common.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/15 04:12:37
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/15 03:02:10
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
There's no rule against it, but it would be kind of silly. It's illegal to be part of two branches at the same time (I think, it's what the West Wing said anyway ), so he'd basically be giving up the presidency to Biden, and I doubt he'd ever be confirmed anyway. No GOP in congress wants Obama on the bench. Is he even qualified for that? He has a law degree I think, but as far as I know Barry has never been a judge at any level of government.