The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

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.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Oh, one guy thought it was OK? Well then.

Just countering the idea that its the end of the Republic if Obama doesn't seat the next Justice!

Which is not an idea that anyone floated, of course.

I'm sorry... but, weren't you implying a few posts back that by refusing an up/down vote till after November, that the GOP Senate isn't actually "running" the country?

**Killionaire**

Part of it is the overt disdain for the process. Immediate refusal to hold even the slightest consideration for a year? Within 2 hours of Scalia's death?

Voting down or blocking candidates is one thing, and in part is good for the country by promoting some sort of compromise if Obama's place someone there.. Refusing to play the game outright petulant. Especially if a hypothetical new Dem shows up next year. What, are we now going to refuse to hear new judges if the President's party is different than the Senate Majority?

That sort of logjam is how government descends into chaos that's good for nobody.

**skyth**

We need to add to the a square to the Dakka bingo for when Whembly brings up something that has been proven false again...

**Ouze**

Look, I wanted to try and have this discussion, I really did. I realize now that it just isn't a good use of my time, at all, to try and debate this with you. Or maybe anything, but certainly this. I realize now that if I keep having to explain basic concepts like, "if the Senate refuses to even hold hearings, which is their job, they aren't doing the job of running the country" somehow equates to "nothing in government at all works"... then really, I'm the donkey-cave for continuing to keep this going.

You finally win, sort of.

**whembly**

skyth wrote:
We need to add to the a square to the Dakka bingo for when Whembly brings up something that has been proven false again...

This, here, is a lie.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Look, I wanted to try and have this discussion, I really did. I realize now that it just isn't a good use of my time, at all, to try and debate this with you. Or maybe anything, but certainly this. I realize now that if I keep having to explain basic concepts like, "if the Senate refuses to even hold hearings, which is their job, they aren't doing the job of running the country" somehow equates to "nothing in government at all works"... then really, I'm the donkey-cave for continuing to keep this going.

You finally win, sort of.

I was just trying to counter the idea that when a 4-4 ruling occurs, it's not some megatronic governmental earthquake. Not even close...

This has happened in the past, and things eventually got back on track.

Now, if you think this tactic is irresponsible and could endanger the future of GOP's hold of the Senate (which is already a huge risk), then, yeah... that's a fair argument.

But saying that the Senate isn't doing their job is a stretch.

**Ustrello**

Well we pay them to pass legislature, which they aren't really doing (see passing bills they know have no hope of passing the veto) and now refuse to do another aspect of their job.

**whembly**

Ustrello wrote:
Well we pay them to pass legislature, which they aren't really doing (see passing bills they know have no hope of passing the veto) and now refuse to do another aspect of their job.

Well... keep in mind that both branches of Congress is very much a Deliberative Body. The Senate is quite a bit different as they have a bunch of parlimentary arcane rules that I find myself saying "I didn't know that..." over the years.

So... a body can "express it's Advise" function by not even considering a Presidential nomination.

Look at it this way, we all know that it isn't likely at all that the Senate would Confirm anybody... so, why would you want them to waste everyone's time? (and waste the time of the nominee!!)

**d-usa**

I wonder if an IT person working for a pharmacy could successfully argue to keep his job by claiming that never turning on his computer to even consider any potential tickets is the same thing as looking at tickets in order to triage which, if any, need to be addressed today.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
I wonder if an IT person working for a pharmacy could successfully argue to keep his job by claiming that never turning on his computer to even consider any potential tickets is the same thing as looking at tickets in order to triage which, if any, need to be addressed today.

Nice strawman that doesn't even come close.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

They're not stopping him from nominating anyone.

And pocket vetoes aren't things.

whembly wrote:

If you believe this Senate are big "bags of dicks" for not scheduling a hearing, because they'd rather the next President to choose... then by all means and vote accordingly in the next election.

See, the problem with that is it doesn't hold the supporters of those Senator's accountable. Those people need to be held accountable if democracy is to function. If you do not wish to be held accountable, then it is best to bow out of public life.

whembly wrote:

Well... keep in mind that both branches of Congress is very much a Deliberative Body.

And it is refusing to deliberate. Senate leaders have straight up said they will not be giving the "advice" portion of the "advice and consent" clause.

whembly wrote:

The Senate is quite a bit different as they have a bunch of parlimentary arcane rules that I find myself saying "I didn't know that..." over the years.

It is different from the House, yes, but the House also has a lot of procedural rules.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I wonder if an IT person working for a pharmacy could successfully argue to keep his job by claiming that never turning on his computer to even consider any potential tickets is the same thing as looking at tickets in order to triage which, if any, need to be addressed today.

Nice strawman that doesn't even come close.

You are right.

It's more like not liking the way your current boss does things, but he is retiring next year anyway. So you are just not going to turn on your computer to look at tickets until the new boss gets hired next year.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I wonder if an IT person working for a pharmacy could successfully argue to keep his job by claiming that never turning on his computer to even consider any potential tickets is the same thing as looking at tickets in order to triage which, if any, need to be addressed today.

Nice strawman that doesn't even come close.

You are right.

It's more like not liking the way your current boss does things, but he is retiring next year anyway. So you are just not going to turn on your computer to look at tickets until the new boss gets hired next year.

LOL... no. I'm not elected on my job. We can't fire Congress-critters at will. (except, of course, during the election)

If this bothers you so much, then vote accordingly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

They're not stopping him from nominating anyone.

And pocket vetoes aren't things.

They're not?

whembly wrote:

If you believe this Senate are big "bags of dicks" for not scheduling a hearing, because they'd rather the next President to choose... then by all means and vote accordingly in the next election.

See, the problem with that is it doesn't hold the supporters of those Senator's accountable. Those people need to be held accountable if democracy is to function. If you do not wish to be held accountable, then it is best to bow out of public life.

You hold them accountable on election day. That's it.

whembly wrote:

Well... keep in mind that both branches of Congress is very much a Deliberative Body.

And it is refusing to deliberate. Senate leaders have straight up said they will not be giving the "advice" portion of the "advice and consent" clause.

Uh... their "advice" was to nominate a Scalia mold. But we know that'll never happen. Hence, the signal to Mr. President that they won't have hearings.

whembly wrote:

The Senate is quite a bit different as they have a bunch of parlimentary arcane rules that I find myself saying "I didn't know that..." over the years.

It is different from the House, yes, but the House also has a lot of procedural rules.

True. There's also quite a bit of unwritten rules that the public are largely unaware of...

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Is that your new zinger? Which derposhere blog did you pick that one up from?

**d-usa**

The Senate might be taken over by democrats next year with a democratic president. The voters may want to change gun laws.

Maybe Obama should direct the FBI to stop processing background checks this year because there may be a new congress and president next year.

Just to let the voters decide, of course.

**Grey Templar**

Ustrello wrote:
Well we pay them to pass legislature, which they aren't really doing (see passing bills they know have no hope of passing the veto) and now refuse to do another aspect of their job.

Not quite true.

We elect them to pass and block legislature, as their constituents desire.

As much as neither side may like it(when the other does it), blocking legislation(or passing stuff that will get vetoed) is also part of their job that they get elected to do.

**whembly**

Grey Templar wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Well we pay them to pass legislature, which they aren't really doing (see passing bills they know have no hope of passing the veto) and now refuse to do another aspect of their job.

Not quite true.

We elect them to pass and block legislature, as their constituents desire.

As much as neither side may like it(when the other does it), blocking legislation(or passing stuff that will get vetoed) is also part of their job that they get elected to do.

Grey... stop sounding so reasonable.

Also, while endorsements generally doesn't help/harm a candidate, this could be a pretty big deal for Rubio:
http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article60856927.html

Gov. Haley endorsing Rubio for president

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio will win South Carolina’s most Republican coveted endorsement of the 2016 presidential race when Gov. Nikki Haley announces her support at a Chapin rally on Wednesday evening, a source with knowledge of the governor’s decision told The State.

Haley, the state’s most popular GOP politician in polls, has decided to back the establishment candidate considered to be in best position to challenge Republican front-runners Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who has shared advice on education issues with the governor and helped her raise money for her re-election bid in 2014, also was considered a top contender to win Haley’s endorsement.

But he has lagged in recent S.C. polls, falling to fifth in the six-candidate GOP field. Rubio sits third.

Haley’s decision was a bit of a reversal in the past day. The governor told reporters Tuesday that she had not made up her mind on who to back in the 2016 race.

She endorsed Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race. While the former Massachusetts governor won the GOP nomination, he lost the S.C. primary to former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, breaking the state’s three-decade streak of voting for the candidate who landed on the November ballot.

Haley has become a favorite to make vice presidential short lists after her handling of last year’s Charleston shooting and successful call to remove the Confederate flag from the S.C. State House grounds. She gave the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union last month.

The governor’s endorsement comes at a critical time for Rubio.

The Florida senator needs momentum in South Carolina after finishing fifth in New Hampshire after a rattled debate performance. Rubio trails Trump and Cruz in the Palmetto State with three days ahead of the S.C. GOP presidential primary on Saturday.

Haley joins U.S. Sen. Tim Scott of North Charleston, the only African-American Republican in the Senate, and U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, a Spartanburg Republican who heads a special panel investigating the Benghazi attack, in endorsing Rubio.

Rubio has had success wooing financial support in the state.

He met major GOP donor Hank Scott, chief executive of an Allendale lumber products company, at the S.C. GOP party’s annual dinner in 2012. Scott would later choose to back Rubio for president and donate a total of $200,000 to a pro-Rubio PAC, the largest contributions tied to the presidential race from a South Carolinian.

Haley and Rubio share similar backgrounds. They are both 44-year-old children of immigrants who were elected to their current seats in the Tea Party fervor of 2010.

Rubio first met Haley when they were first running for their current offices. The senator spoke at the S.C. GOP party’s annual dinner in 2012, a way for him to start building relationships in early-primary state.

They have communicated while Rubio has been on the trail. The senator also has said during stops in South Carolina this week how Haley would make a good vice president.

Haley has been battling with Trump. She said she was referring to him as one of the “angriest voices” in her State of the Union response and criticized him over his combative campaigning.

The daughter of Indian immigrants called Trump’s proposal to ban temporarily Muslims from entering the country an embarrassment to the GOP and un-American.

Trump has said Haley is not doing enough to protect South Carolina from Syrian refugees and the possibility of Guantanamo prisoners being transferred to the Navy brig outside Charleston. Haley has protested both issues to federal officials.

Haley has not criticized Cruz, but she has not kept in regular contact with the Texas senator, who like Rubio, is the son of Cuban immigrant.

Bush pushed hard for her support. His father and brother, both former presidents who won the S.C. presidential primary, have reached out to Haley in recent weeks.

But Bush is lagging in South Carolina. Bush sits in fourth in polls with several recent surveys putting him behind Ohio Gov. John Kasich in fifth.

Bush told NBC News on Tuesday that Haley’s endorsement is “the most powerful meaningful one in the state.”

Asked what kind of message would be sent by not getting her nod, Bush said: “It sends a signal that (I’ve) got to work harder.”

Man... I really hope Rubio can knock out Trump/Cruz.

**Breotan**

whembly wrote:
Man... I really hope Rubio can knock out Trump/Cruz.

Same here. I don't trust Trump and Cruz is not a leader.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

They're not?

Your entire argument is predicated on the fact that Senate Republicans have provided "advice" by saying they will wait out Obama's final year in office. This is akin to a pocket veto, something of dubious Constitutionality.

whembly wrote:

You hold them accountable on election day. That's it.

No, you hold supporters accountable every day they deign to open their mouths. You call them out, that's how a vibrant public debate works.

whembly wrote:

Uh... their "advice" was to nominate a Scalia mold. But we know that'll never happen. Hence, the signal to Mr. President that they won't have hearings.

That was the advice given by Senate Republicans, but not by the Senate as a whole. Perhaps if a hearing were to take place a debate between Democrats and Republicans could occur.

whembly wrote:

True. There's also quite a bit of unwritten rules that the public are largely unaware of...

You mean like not refusing to hold a hearing regarding a Presidential appointee, regardless of who that appointee is, simply because the President is a member of the opposing Party?

**whembly**

Breotan wrote:
whembly wrote:
Man... I really hope Rubio can knock out Trump/Cruz.

Same here. I don't trust Trump and Cruz is not a leader.

Well... according to this poll:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/surprise-trump-falls-behind-cruz-national-nbc-wsj-poll-n520296
Cruz'n Rum is leading the pack now...

Cruz: 28%
Trump: 26%
Rubio: 17%
Everyone else needs to drop out.

This poll is sorta interesting is that it's the first poll that I've seen that included all of the days since the SC debate.

<--- this guy is hoping that Trump is flaming out and the the battle will be between Cruz & Rubio (me pulling for Rubio of course).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

They're not?

Your entire argument is predicated on the fact that Senate Republicans have provided "advice" by saying they will wait out Obama's final year in office. This is akin to a pocket veto, something of dubious Constitutionality.

Show me in the Constitution where it explicitly spells out what is the "Advise" & "Consent" rules?

whembly wrote:

You hold them accountable on election day. That's it.

No, you hold supporters accountable every day they deign to open their mouths. You call them out, that's how a vibrant public debate works.

Sure if you want to win over the minds and heart of the voters... but, then you still have to vote for which candidate that can make the sell.

whembly wrote:

Uh... their "advice" was to nominate a Scalia mold. But we know that'll never happen. Hence, the signal to Mr. President that they won't have hearings.

That was the advice given by Senate Republicans, but not by the Senate as a whole. Perhaps if a hearing were to take place a debate between Democrats and Republicans could occur.

dogma, let's talk hypothetical here... let's say Obama does nominate a "Scalia" like Justice. You don't think the GOP Senate would reconsider?

whembly wrote:

True. There's also quite a bit of unwritten rules that the public are largely unaware of...

You mean like not refusing to hold a hearing regarding a Presidential appointee, regardless of who that appointee is, simply because the President is a member of the opposing Party?

You mean, exactly like what Chuck Schumer said too?

**d-usa**

Do you actually believe that Schumer said that they will not hold any hearings on any nominee, or are you planning to lie often enough until everybody else to get too tired to call you out on it?

Meanwhile, interesting development regarding Scalia:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/17/justice-scalias-death-and-questions-about-who-pays-for-supreme-court-justices-to-visit-remote-resorts/

The owner of the ranch where he died had given Justice Scalia a free trip and room and board there. The owner also had a case before the Supreme Court last year that was decided in his favor when the court declined to hear the case.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
Do you actually believe that Schumer said that they will not hold any hearings on any nominee, or are you planning to lie often enough until everybody else to get too tired to call you out on it?

It's amazing to me that you think "having a hearing but the majority promises not to confirm" is not the same as "the majority saying we'll not have any hearings".

It's like we're arguing over the pronunciation of "to MAY toe" vs "to MAH toe".

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Do you actually believe that Schumer said that they will not hold any hearings on any nominee, or are you planning to lie often enough until everybody else to get too tired to call you out on it?

It's amazing to me that you think "having a hearing but the majority promises not to confirm" is not the same as "the majority saying we'll not have any hearings".

It's like we're arguing over the pronunciation of "to MAY toe" vs "to MAH toe".

*Turns on computer, looks at IT tickets, realizes they are all trash, closes them, turns computer off* vs *I'm not going to turn on the computer*

I know you love the whole "the other guys did it too" excuse for any sort of actions by the GOP, but actually holding hearings and voting people down is actually doing their job. Saying you won't even hold any hearing under any circumstances until next year isn't.

Of course this also ignores the difference between the GOP saying nobody gets nominated until next year no matter what, and Schumer saying "We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,"

So the end result is GOP saying "we won't have any hearings for no one, no matter what, go away" and Democrats saying "we will have hearnigs, we will most likely turn them down, but we are leaving a window open".

It's a small difference, but it's big enough to call you out on your lie.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Do you actually believe that Schumer said that they will not hold any hearings on any nominee, or are you planning to lie often enough until everybody else to get too tired to call you out on it?

It's amazing to me that you think "having a hearing but the majority promises not to confirm" is not the same as "the majority saying we'll not have any hearings".

It's like we're arguing over the pronunciation of "to MAY toe" vs "to MAH toe".

*Turns on computer, looks at IT tickets, realizes they are all trash, closes them, turns computer off* vs *I'm not going to turn on the computer*

I know you love the whole "the other guys did it too" excuse for any sort of actions by the GOP, but actually holding hearings and voting people down is actually doing their job. Saying you won't even hold any hearing under any circumstances until next year isn't.

Of course this also ignores the difference between the GOP saying nobody gets nominated until next year no matter what, and Schumer saying "We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,"

So the end result is GOP saying "we won't have any hearings for no one, no matter what, go away" and Democrats saying "we will have hearnigs, we will most likely turn them down, but we are leaving a window open".

It's a small difference, but it's big enough to call you out on your lie.

Oh c'mon d...

Do you think that Bush would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to that Democrat Majority Senate? (please be cognizant of what else is happening at that time).

Likewise...

Do you think that Obama would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to this GOP Majority Senate?

Or, are you just pissing in the wind here?

**Ensis Ferrae**

The thing I find ironic here, is that people like Whembly are A-OK with this tactic, when it wasn't long ago they were doing this:

And this picture/meme is merely one of about half a dozen or so I've seen repeated on my FB wall over the course of the past couple of days.

Why is it that 10 years ago it was "let's do our jobs and vote on this person" but today it's "lets do our "job" and block anything and everything?" This truly is hypocrisy.

Just for gaks and giggles, I kind of wish there was an auto-pass on the nomination process if the POTUS puts forward a nomination, and there's no hearing/vote done in a certain time period (similar to how, once a bill gets to his desk, he's got 10 days to sign it, or veto it... if he lets it sit, it gets passed)

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:

Do you think that Bush would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to that Democrat Majority Senate? (please be cognizant of what else is happening at that time).

Likewise...

Do you think that Obama would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to this GOP Majority Senate?

Maybe, maybe not.

But the Democratic Majority Senate promised to do their job, and left the window open for approving a nominee. The Republican Majority Senate promised not to do their job regardless of the nominee.

Or, are you just pissing in the wind here?

No, just countering your lie.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:

Do you think that Bush would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to that Democrat Majority Senate? (please be cognizant of what else is happening at that time).

Likewise...

Do you think that Obama would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to this GOP Majority Senate?

Maybe, maybe not.

But the Democratic Majority Senate promised to do their job, and left the window open for approving a nominee. The Republican Majority Senate promised not to do their job regardless of the nominee.

Or, are you just pissing in the wind here?

No, just countering your lie.

It's not a lie if you're convinced that it's the same thing. But, whateves.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:

It's not a lie if you're convinced that it's the same thing. But, whateves.

And here is the fundamental problem with 80% of your posts.

**whembly**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The thing I find ironic here, is that people like Whembly are A-OK with this tactic, when it wasn't long ago they were doing this:

And this picture/meme is merely one of about half a dozen or so I've seen repeated on my FB wall over the course of the past couple of days.

Why is it that 10 years ago it was "let's do our jobs and vote on this person" but today it's "lets do our "job" and block anything and everything?" This truly is hypocrisy.

Sure it's hypocritical, but so what?

It's hypocritical now that the Democrats are up in a tizzy over this.

Just for gaks and giggles, I kind of wish there was an auto-pass on the nomination process if the POTUS puts forward a nomination, and there's no hearing/vote done in a certain time period (similar to how, once a bill gets to his desk, he's got 10 days to sign it, or veto it... if he lets it sit, it gets passed)

That was actually proposed by one of the founding fathers (I forget who), but it was shot down and the compromise is that "Advise & Consent" function.

**feeder**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:

Do you think that Bush would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to that Democrat Majority Senate? (please be cognizant of what else is happening at that time).

Likewise...

Do you think that Obama would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to this GOP Majority Senate?

Maybe, maybe not.

But the Democratic Majority Senate promised to do their job, and left the window open for approving a nominee. The Republican Majority Senate promised not to do their job regardless of the nominee.

Or, are you just pissing in the wind here?

No, just countering your lie.

It's not a lie if you're convinced that it's the same thing. But, whateves.

I have no dog in this fight. But are you geniunely convinced that "No, with conditions" is the same as "No, not ever"?

Edit: format is hard :(

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:

It's not a lie if you're convinced that it's the same thing. But, whateves.

And here is the fundamental problem with 80% of your posts.

Oh... so opinions don't matter.

K... vote accordingly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:

Do you think that Bush would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to that Democrat Majority Senate? (please be cognizant of what else is happening at that time).

Likewise...

Do you think that Obama would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to this GOP Majority Senate?

Maybe, maybe not.

But the Democratic Majority Senate promised to do their job, and left the window open for approving a nominee. The Republican Majority Senate promised not to do their job regardless of the nominee.

Or, are you just pissing in the wind here?

No, just countering your lie.

It's not a lie if you're convinced that it's the same thing. But, whateves.

you
I have no dog in this fight. But are you geniunely convinced that "No, with conditions" is the same as "No, not ever"?

Think back during the 2nd Gulf War when the Democrats re-took that Senate.

Think about how toxic it was over anything Bush did.

There was no chance in hell that Bush would've gotten his nominee through if he had that chance. Zero. Ziltch.

Flash forward to today, the "No, not ever?" ploy is simply signaling to Obama, your nominee (of the Sotomeyer/Kegan mold) will not be acceptable, so don't bother.

However, if for some reason (can't think of any) Obama truly does nominate an acceptable Judge, then that "No, not ever" Senators should change their minds.

In politics... you're allowed to change your mind ya know... they're people too.

The folks objecting to this tactic because they're disappointed that Obama doesn't get to drastically shape the SC bench in their favor. And, let me add, it's OK to be disappointed.

But, when Obama was elected in '08 we keep hearing Obama saying that "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won". Well, ya know what? The GOP won the majority at the Senate in '14 has consequences as well.