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.
2016/02/15 03:11:22
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
She'd never accept. She's far too greedy for power to give up on the presidency like that.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Probably right. I think she would have a hard time being one of nine. Otherwise I could see the appeal to her. Lifetime in the media as opposed to eight more years.
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/02/15 07:52:18
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!"
lol, this "precedent" is silly
Well, I can support him by not wanting another wise Latina appointed to the court more than I want someone running for president to only make constitutionally-sound arguments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/15 08:01:50
2016/02/15 07:59:05
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I finally watched that Rubio video from a page back, and man, did Chris Christie ever nail him - almost robotlike, the way he recites and switches to his prepared little speech almost verbatim over 3 appearances. Not a dude with a lot of verbal flexibility. When he got asked about Kennedy in Reagan's last turn, I felt you could see a second of panic before he just doubled down and re-iterated.
I wonder if he has a habit of going off message that his handlers are trying to conquer.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/15 10:24:41
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 10:22:12
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Seaward wrote: I think you might want to go back and read what I actually typed.
I did. Reading it again doesn't make it any less silly of a statement.
So your argument is that Rubio has a constitutionally-sound argument that Obama should wait?
I think that's pretty ridiculous, and I'm fairly sure you don't actually mean that. The Constitution gives the president the power to nominate Supreme Court justices. It doesn't have an "except in election years!" clause.
2016/02/15 11:01:17
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Seaward wrote: I think you might want to go back and read what I actually typed.
I did. Reading it again doesn't make it any less silly of a statement.
So your argument is that Rubio has a constitutionally-sound argument that Obama should wait?
I think that's pretty ridiculous, and I'm fairly sure you don't actually mean that. The Constitution gives the president the power to nominate Supreme Court justices. It doesn't have an "except in election years!" clause.
I'll state it again: I can support him by not wanting a wise Latina appointed to the court more than I want a guy running for president to make constitutionally-sound arguments.
To rephrase, because apparently English is difficult for some: my desire to avoid another Sotomayor outweighs my desire to have a presidential candidate make a legitimate argument on the issue, which Rubio is most definitely not doing.
2016/02/15 11:53:40
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I'll state it again: I can support him by not wanting a wise Latina appointed to the court more than I want a guy running for president to make constitutionally-sound arguments.
To rephrase, because apparently English is difficult for some: my desire to avoid another Sotomayor outweighs my desire to have a presidential candidate make a legitimate argument on the issue, which Rubio is most definitely not doing.
So wait, you are perfectly fine with your candidate holding up a very important constitutionally mandated process because you want a supreme court justice that you believe will uphold an interpretation of the constitution you agree with?
That is all sorts of special.
NSFW Language btw
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/15 11:56:05
2016/02/15 13:34:30
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
So wait, you are perfectly fine with your candidate holding up a very important constitutionally mandated process because you want a supreme court justice that you believe will uphold an interpretation of the constitution you agree with?
That is all sorts of special.
How's it any different from Borking, a thing with progressives still laud to this day?
2016/02/15 14:07:09
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Because the excuse "but they did it, too/first" belongs on the elementary school playground.
"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 14:20:34
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
It's basically a term to describe the slandering of a candidate/potential candidate so badly that they won't want to run.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2016/02/15 14:40:25
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Except Bork was given an up and down vote, and he lost - and 7 republicans voted against him. The guy Reagan picked to replace a moderate justice was a guy who stated repeatedly that he doesn't believe there is any right to privacy in the constitution and would overturn Roe vs Wade.
Bork was an extremely flawed nominee, is the other (maybe most honest) way of thinking about it, rather than creating a false analogy - that where Democrats would refuse to consider a candidate, ANY candidate, because of partisan nonsense. I can see why that would be a useful analogy if you're sympathetic to the expected GOP efforts to prevent any SCOTUS nomination for a year, no matter who it is. It only breaks down when you remember the next nominee - also proposed by Reagan, also before a Democratic senate - passed 97-0.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/15 14:45:07
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 14:48:02
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Excuse me, but the President can nominate anybody he damn well please...
Just like the Senate can deny any nominated candidate at any damn time...
Full stop.
Can I take this to assume you're in favor of the novel legal theory that a President shouldn't nominate any appointments for 25% of their terms? For a two term president, this means 2 years are off-limits?
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 14:57:17
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Excuse me, but the President can nominate anybody he damn well please...
Just like the Senate can deny any nominated candidate at any damn time...
Full stop.
Can I take this to assume you're in favor of the novel legal theory that a President shouldn't nominate any appointments for 25% of their terms? For a two term president, this means 2 years are off-limits?
I never said he *couldn't* nominate anyone at anytime... just that he's dreaming if this current Senate is going to schedule a vote or to confirm a lefty Justice.
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.
Thanks...
I think...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/15 15:01:04
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/15 15:04:24
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Tannhauser42 wrote: Because the excuse "but they did it, too/first" belongs on the elementary school playground.
Excuse me, but the President can nominate anybody he damn well please...
Just like the Senate can deny any nominated candidate at any damn time...
Full stop.
I think you meant to quote someone else, because your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
"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 15:14:43
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Grey Templar wrote: She'd never accept. She's far too greedy for power to give up on the presidency like that.
Wait, aren't Supreme Court Justices at the height of political power? Isn't that the Conservative talking point these days?
They definitely do have a lot of power, but Clinton wants to be "running the country". Plus she wants to be the first woman president. We've already had a first female SCOTUS judge, she'll never accept being second string.
Maybe she'd be interested in the position after she's had her run in the White House.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/15 17:35:38
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
2016/02/15 20:07:01
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
