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.

Yay... ignore the video itself!

Bet you'd believe it's been altered and edited.

 whembly wrote:
Yay... ignore the video itself!

Bet you'd believe it's been altered and edited.

Given the channels past posting yes you can believe that

 whembly wrote:
Yay... ignore the video itself!

Bet you'd believe it's been altered and edited.

Nope, but I believe that Gorsuch has embarrassed the hell out of himself in his judicial career(supporting the firing of a trucker for abandoning his truck due to subzero temps and it being broken down on a highway, for example...) and this hearing.

But hey. He "showed them" a couple of times during the hearing, so he must be appropriate yeah?

Party of the working man my left buttock.

 d-usa wrote:
The irony of one of the most insulting posters having the thinnest skin would be amazing, but since that works for Trump I guess it makes people presidential instead.

Considering that frazz threatened to kill someone on one of the US politics threads and didn't get perma banned but only a few week long vacation it is indeed ironic

Frazzled is like an actual wienerdog, he runs around with his chest puffed out, dolphin nosing people in the face to prove he's a great big dog! And then someone eventually gets tired of it and forces him belly up and its all just jokes as he kicks on his back.

 Ustrello wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The irony of one of the most insulting posters having the thinnest skin would be amazing, but since that works for Trump I guess it makes people presidential instead.

Considering that frazz threatened to kill someone on one of the US politics threads and didn't get perma banned but only a few week long vacation it is indeed ironic

The only thing I ever threatened to kill on the internet was the use of correct English.*


*but yes I would kill for a plate of mom's pinto beans, ham and cornbread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lonestarr777 wrote:
Frazzled is like an actual wienerdog, he runs around with his chest puffed out, dolphin nosing people in the face to prove he's a great big dog! And then someone eventually gets tired of it and forces him belly up and its all just jokes as he kicks on his back.

You clearly have never been around an actual wiener dog.
1) They are biting machines and will bleed a !
2) They have perfected the art of rolling back over (except TBone who once got his collar caught in the carpet).

My best friend has four wienerdogs. And they don't bite. If your dogs bite thats a really bad reflection on you as dogs are only as good as their owners.

lonestarr777 wrote:
My best friend has four wienerdogs. And they don't bite. If your dogs bite thats a really bad reflection on you as dogs are only as good as their owners.

Hrm, not necessarily true, dogs, like people, have their own personalities and tendencies. I've had dogs that would never in a million years harm me or any family member, but would absolutely not tolerate an unknown human male without some adjustment time with me there, or that would bite in fear at tiny screaming children pulling at their ears, and no amount of training was going to solve that.

EDIT: upon further reflection, we should probably pull this thread away from focusing on other posters and back on politics.


Rex Tillerson to skip Nato meeting - but visit Moscow

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39339431

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will miss a meeting of Nato foreign ministers next month, US officials say.
He will instead travel to a G7 meeting in Sicily, Italy, and then to Moscow to meet Russian leaders.
Under Secretary of State Tom Shannon will represent the US at the Western military alliance meeting in Brussels.
The US State Department said that when it realised Mr Tillerson would be absent for the 5-6 April meeting, it offered alternative dates to Nato.
Spokesman Mark Toner said the United States remained "100%" committed to the security alliance.

Thoughts? On the surface it certainly looks awkward, but also could be just a weird timing thing.

So far I am impressed with the manner Judge Gorsuch is handling himself during questioning by the Senate. Picking him for the Supreme Court was a very smart decision on the part of President Trump.

lonestarr777 wrote:
My best friend has four wienerdogs. And they don't bite. If your dogs bite thats a really bad reflection on you as dogs are only as good as their owners.

Thats interesting. But what does it really say?
And here...we..go.

A list of the most recent dogs:

*George the giant pit bull. Never bit a person ever (he could literally kill a person). He was however famous for jumping on me or Dad from the stairs, holding on and licking us until we couldn't breath. He would also jump a fence to steal the neighbor's clothes.

*Melvin the bird dog. He had a dent in his skull and had been abandoned to starve to death in an apartment. He was verifiably crazy but no one else would take him. mom loved him to death.

*Rusty the Ancient Mountain Dog (Dad's). Never bit a biped but if you're another dog he thinks you sure got a purty mouth... he's been attacked by five pit bulls over his life including one last week. WTF??? Usually they end up losing a lot of blood.

*TBone Lord of All Dogs and Herald of the Great Wienie. He once tried to bite my shoe for my insolence in shushing him away from a rattler. If you could be bitten by a blind deaf wiener dog battling pancreatic cancer and a heart condition you deserve to get the three teeth (because thats all he had) of Doom!

*Rodney the Shanker. He has scars all over his chest and torso. You make sudden moves and you get the buzzsaw. You follow into his kennel and you get the buzzsaw. You have male genetalia and you get buzzsaw. You have food? No buzzsaw. Food run out? Buzzsaw! Also Rusty the Mountain Dog will running. He hates the wiener dog but nobody messes with pack.

Ever seen a wiener dog yodel? Terrifying.

To the topic:

Rex Tillerson to skip Nato meeting - but visit Moscow

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39339431

Thats...strange (I think). Is it normal for the Sec State to attend or is that normally a Sec Def thing?

 whembly wrote:

Merric Garland is not OWED a fething hearing.

Jamming fingers in your ears screaming, "I can't hear you lalalalalalalalalalala!!!!!" is not "advise and consent".... Advise and consent would be a hearing. At least act like you're playing politics.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Merric Garland is not OWED a fething hearing.

Jamming fingers in your ears screaming, "I can't hear you lalalalalalalalalalala!!!!!" is not "advise and consent".... Advise and consent would be a hearing. At least act like you're playing politics.

Garland should have been given a hearing. Agreed. Then voted down.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Merric Garland is not OWED a fething hearing.

Jamming fingers in your ears screaming, "I can't hear you lalalalalalalalalalala!!!!!" is not "advise and consent".... Advise and consent would be a hearing. At least act like you're playing politics.

Garland should have been given a hearing. Agreed. Then voted down.

Out of interest, what was so bad about Garland?

Dude should at least have been given a hearing for sure. The senate can vote to not confirm, but simply refusing to even have the hearing was not loyal opposition politics, it was neither advising nor and consenting, it was neither a check nor a balance, it was obstruction for its own sake, pure and simple, with zero relevance on the candidate.

Vote him up or vote him down, but the precedent set here with Garland bears nothing good for the future. Much like everything invovled with Trump's presidency, it validated a slew of underhanded, infantile, damaging, counterproductive and flat out insane behaviors for temporary partisan gain.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Merric Garland is not OWED a fething hearing.

Jamming fingers in your ears screaming, "I can't hear you lalalalalalalalalalala!!!!!" is not "advise and consent".... Advise and consent would be a hearing. At least act like you're playing politics.

Garland should have been given a hearing. Agreed. Then voted down.

Out of interest, what was so bad about Garland?

Except for his views on the 2nd Amendment he was fine to me, but he was no conservative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Dude should at least have been given a hearing for sure. The senate can vote to not confirm, but simply refusing to even have the hearing was not loyal opposition politics, it was neither advising nor and consenting, it was neither a check nor a balance, it was obstruction for its own sake, pure and simple, with zero relevance on the candidate.

Vote him up or vote him down, but the precedent set here with Garland bears nothing good for the future. Much like everything invovled with Trump's presidency, it validated a slew of underhanded, infantile, damaging, counterproductive and flat out insane behaviors for temporary partisan gain.

It was obstruction without putting your butt on the line and having to vote. The Congress hates to actually vote on anything now.

 Frazzled wrote:


It was obstruction without putting your butt on the line and having to vote. The Congress hates to actually vote on anything now.

Indeed, voting and actually enacting anything is almost impossible and in fact undesireable, and has been referenced previously, I think the GOP's stance shift from "small government" to "anything related to government is evil" has not played in their favor once actually in power, but has really set up poor standards for the future, with moves toward increasingly less accountability and action.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Merric Garland is not OWED a fething hearing.

Jamming fingers in your ears screaming, "I can't hear you lalalalalalalalalalala!!!!!" is not "advise and consent".... Advise and consent would be a hearing. At least act like you're playing politics.

Please show me in the US constitution where a hearing is required for each and every appointment.

I'll wait...

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Merric Garland is not OWED a fething hearing.

Jamming fingers in your ears screaming, "I can't hear you lalalalalalalalalalala!!!!!" is not "advise and consent".... Advise and consent would be a hearing. At least act like you're playing politics.

Please show me in the US constitution where a hearing is required for each and every appointment.

I'll wait...

I mean...I guess it's constitutionally legal for thr senate to just not do their job, there's nothing that will compel the senate to actually do what they were elected and invested with powers to do, but it's certainly not the way it was intended or has been traditonally practiced. That's getting pretty pedantic about it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Merric Garland is not OWED a fething hearing.

Jamming fingers in your ears screaming, "I can't hear you lalalalalalalalalalala!!!!!" is not "advise and consent".... Advise and consent would be a hearing. At least act like you're playing politics.

Please show me in the US constitution where a hearing is required for each and every appointment.

I'll wait...

I mean...I guess it's constitutionally legal for thr senate to just not do their job, there's nothing that will compel the senate to actually do what they were elected and invested with powers to do, but it's certainly not the way it was intended or has been traditonally practiced. That's getting pretty pedantic about it.

It's not being pedantic.

The words in the US constitution only has 'advise and consent'. Nowhere at all in that document describes what that entails. So, the Senate actually makes the procedural rules as to what that means. So, it's a stretch to say "it's certainly not the way it was intended" simply because the majority determines the 'what' and 'how' to exercise this function.

Nothing in the US Constitution describes how the Senate filibuster works... hence, Harry Reid was able to nuke it to stuff the courts with Obama picks.

I get that it's upsetting to Democrats... I really do. But saying that the Senate 'didn't do their job' is a stretch when the Senate majority dictates what that job entails.

Ergo, President Obama fulfilled his obligation in nominating Garland. The Senate, fulfilled their obligation by deciding NOT to have a hearing.

You're upset that this gambit worked for The Turtle. Cool. Don't vote for him and his buddies... and convince your fellow American not to vote for them.

Furthermore, it's really no difference if some junior congress-critters drafting a bill and submitting to the committee. There's nothing mandatory that the committee nor the full quorum on the floor to debate/vote on that junior's bill.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Merric Garland is not OWED a fething hearing.

Jamming fingers in your ears screaming, "I can't hear you lalalalalalalalalalala!!!!!" is not "advise and consent".... Advise and consent would be a hearing. At least act like you're playing politics.

Please show me in the US constitution where a hearing is required for each and every appointment.

I'll wait...

I mean...I guess it's constitutionally legal for thr senate to just not do their job, there's nothing that will compel the senate to actually do what they were elected and invested with powers to do, but it's certainly not the way it was intended or has been traditonally practiced. That's getting pretty pedantic about it.

It's not being pedantic.

The words in the US constitution only has 'advise and consent'. Nowhere at all in that document describes what that entails. So, the Senate actually makes the procedural rules as to what that means. So, it's a stretch to say "it's certainly not the way it was intended" simply because the majority determines the 'what' and 'how' to exercise this function.

I get that it's upsetting to Democrats... I really do. But saying that the Senate 'didn't do their job' is a stretch when the Senate majority dictates what that job entails.

Ergo, President Obama fulfilled his obligation in nominating Garland. The Senate, fulfilled their obligation by deciding NOT to have a hearing.

How are they going to advise and consent when they don't have a hearing or anything else? Doing nothing is not "advice and consent", particularly when it wouldn't matter *who* was going to be nominated, they weren't going to be approving *any* candidate. That is not fulfilling their obligation, and that is obstruction for its own sake. Simply refusing to do anything is not fulfilling their obligation, what it is is not showing up to work.

You're upset that this gambit worked for The Turtle. Cool. Don't vote for him and his buddies... and convince your fellow American not to vote for them.

It doesn't matter who it's for, when it first arose there was no telling who was going to be the next president and nominating a replacement because we were well over a year out and still well within Obama's term. I have been advocating every chance I get that nobody should be voting for these people. That's besides the point. The Senate chose not to do its job.

Ultimately all this does is lay groundwork and precedent for a terrible governance and infantile behavior at the highest levels of government.

Fun fact - a straight up repeal of ACA would cause 23 million people to lose coverage. The AHCA plan currently being pushed by Republicans will cost 24 million people to lose coverage. It doesn't just undo the improved coverage achieved under ACA, it actually makes the situation even worse.

All this so that rich people can get their capital gains tax lowered again.

Prestor Jon wrote:
There were conservatives and Republicans made that exact argument to support Obama's decision to commit the US to military intervention in Libya. McCain supported intervention in Libya and he was the Republican presidential nominee, Rubio supported intervention in Libya and he ran in 2016, there was prominent Republican support for intervention.

Pointing out two Republicans who weren't hypocritical turds on this issue is not the argument you seem to want it to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If we never got involved Assad and Putin would have already have achieved their objective of crushing the opposition and Syria is back to its status quo which while far from perfect was much better for the country than the mess they have now.

"While far from perfect".

Holy fething gak. Do you want me to start sending you pictures of the 13,000 people found in Assad's prisons, starved, tortured and mutilated? Do you want me to start an essay on how those 13,000 were just those identified in prison cells since captured by anti-Assad forces, and Assad's death toll before fighting even began was in excess of 500,000? Or can we just accept what you just typed was either grossly ignorant or plainly fething deplorable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Please show me in the US constitution where a hearing is required for each and every appointment.

I'll wait...

And now we're back to this same argument that all a government has to do is follow the literal obligations of the job laid out in the constitution and nothing bad could happen. Culture matters. Accepted process matters. Ignore those things and you can move to banana republic frighteningly quickly.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Please show me in the US constitution where a hearing is required for each and every appointment.

I'll wait...

And now we're back to this same argument that all a government has to do is follow the literal obligations of the job laid out in the constitution and nothing bad could happen. Culture matters. Accepted process matters. Ignore those things and you can move to banana republic frighteningly quickly.

You mean like when Reid Nuked the filibuster.

Gotcha.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, this happened at Gorsuch's meeting:

“Let me start with something lighter, and a topic on which I believe you have some familiarity,” noted Senator Cruz: “What is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything?”

The question prompted some laughter among the people in attendance. Gorsuch simply replied, “42.”

Heh.

 whembly wrote:
hence, Harry Reid was able to nuke it to stuff the courts with Obama picks.

Words matter, and what the words here show is that you are not being honest. "Stuff the courts with Obama picks" is a fething bonkers phrase. Obama wasn't adding massive new numbers to the courts so he could tilt it his way with new nominees, like FDR considered, he was replacing positions as they became vacant. Nor was there anything strange in Obama making these picks, that is the job of the president.

Now, of course, the president can't just make appointments as he pleases. The senate has their role in approving appointments, and there is nothing wrong with the senate rejecting specific candidates that they find unacceptable for specific reasons. Even a minority could do this, if it could maintain a filibuster.

But of course Republicans didn't just review and stop particular nominees. They filibustered every Obama nominee. This in turn lead to Reid to change the rule on filibustering for judicial nominees, a filibuster power for a minority is only practical when the minority party shows restraint in their use of it, and Republicans plainly showed no restraint at all.

And now you'll see the same thing happen with Democrats in the minority. If Democrats fail to make any kind of substantial case against Gorsuch, and they then filibuster his appointment just out of partisan conviction, well then Republicans will do exactly what Democrats did, remove another filibuster power. This is just a basic fact of how politics works.

It's a reality you've missed despite me now explaining several times. You've missed this reality because you are committed to a partisan understanding of the issue (its all Reid's fault), and you protect that reality by using ridiculous phrasing like the above.

I'm just gonna ask again - please fething stop it. Stop with this kind of partisan hackery. Be honest. You'll be amazed out how quickly you'll start being able to make a real, lasting sense of everything that is happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
You mean like when Reid Nuked the filibuster.

Read my answer below. Your continued insistence that Reid nuked the filibuster out of nowhere and without any input from Republicans is completely wrong.

In fact, Reid nuking the filibuster is a perfect example of why accepted practices matter. Because Republicans changed the game, they moved from the accepted practice of using the filibuster sparingly, to using it en masse, blocking many Obama nominees. They changed the game. Which in turn prompted Reid to change the game again, by removing the filibuster on all non-SC nominees.

That in turn has changed accepted practice on this new SC nominee. Add in the refusal to consider Obama's nominee last year, and Democrats are placed in a position where they almost have to obstruct. And if Democrats do Republicans are almost certain to dump the SC filibuster.

Are you starting to see how when a party starts to ignore accepted practice, things begin to move off in to new and unintended places?

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
hence, Harry Reid was able to nuke it to stuff the courts with Obama picks.

Words matter, and what the words here show is that you are not being honest. "Stuff the courts with Obama picks" is a fething bonkers phrase. Obama wasn't adding massive new numbers to the courts so he could tilt it his way with new nominees, like FDR considered, he was replacing positions as they became vacant. Nor was there anything strange in Obama making these picks, that is the job of the president.

Now, of course, the president can't just make appointments as he pleases. The senate has their role in approving appointments, and there is nothing wrong with the senate rejecting specific candidates that they find unacceptable for specific reasons. Even a minority could do this, if it could maintain a filibuster.

But of course Republicans didn't just review and stop particular nominees. They filibustered every Obama nominee. This in turn lead to Reid to change the rule on filibustering for judicial nominees, a filibuster power for a minority is only practical when the minority party shows restraint in their use of it, and Republicans plainly showed no restraint at all.

And now you'll see the same thing happen with Democrats in the minority. If Democrats fail to make any kind of substantial case against Gorsuch, and they then filibuster his appointment just out of partisan conviction, well then Republicans will do exactly what Democrats did, remove another filibuster power. This is just a basic fact of how politics works.

It's a reality you've missed despite me now explaining several times. You've missed this reality because you are committed to a partisan understanding of the issue (its all Reid's fault), and you protect that reality by using ridiculous phrasing like the above.

I'm just gonna ask again - please fething stop it. Stop with this kind of partisan hackery. Be honest. You'll be amazed out how quickly you'll start being able to make a real, lasting sense of everything that is happening.

I am being honest.

When are you going to stop demanding that these politicians operate based on your perceived notion as the 'proper way of running good governance'? You might as well as pine for Utopia.

Or, you can actualize that you and I have differences of opinions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
You mean like when Reid Nuked the filibuster.

Read my answer below. Your continued insistence that Reid nuked the filibuster out of nowhere and without any input from Republicans is completely wrong.

In fact, Reid nuking the filibuster is a perfect example of why accepted practices matter. Because Republicans changed the game, they moved from the accepted practice of using the filibuster sparingly, to using it en masse, blocking many Obama nominees. They changed the game. Which in turn prompted Reid to change the game again, by removing the filibuster on all non-SC nominees.

That in turn has changed accepted practice on this new SC nominee. Add in the refusal to consider Obama's nominee last year, and Democrats are placed in a position where they almost have to obstruct. And if Democrats do Republicans are almost certain to dump the SC filibuster.

Are you starting to see how when a party starts to ignore accepted practice, things begin to move off in to new and unintended places?

... and you are ignoring 'accepted practice' when Reid Nuked the Filibuster.

You can't spin away the fact that Reid did that. Saying "but GOP were baaaaaad" isn't going to cut it. The Democrats were warned that they won't be the majority forever.

Yes, of course this changes how SC nominees are conducted. That's part of the evolution of our governance... and not in a good way.

But, don't sit there a simply drop this at the GOP's feet. There is a looooong history of both parties using the SCoTUS and other appointment picks in brazen political manner.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/former-colorado-gop-chairman-steven-curtis-charged-with-voter-fraud

So it turns out there was a case of voter fraud in Colorado in 2016. Just one. And it was done by the former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, who filled out his wife’s ballot and forged her signature on it. Curtis was, of course, a strong believer in the awful state of voter fraud, “It seems to be, and correct me if I’m wrong here, but virtually every case of voter fraud I can remember in my lifetime was committed by Democrats.”

And in AHCA news, here's the breakdown of tax savings that come from cutting 24 million people out of healthcare coverage.


I hope you all are going to get a nice tax cut!

 whembly wrote:
I am being honest.

You described Obama making appointments to fill court vacancies as 'stuff the courts with Obama picks' so clearly that isn't true.

When are you going to stop demanding that these politicians operate based on your perceived notion as the 'proper way of running good governance'? You might as well as pine for Utopia.

I'm not asking for any kind of utopia, if I wanted my own personal utopia of decent governance it would have very little to do with what goes on in Washington.

What I am talking about is what has happened in the past. What processes that were built up over time and accepted as being how things are done, and respecting that ignoring such processes is likely to set off a chain of unknowable consequences. The reality is that you don't need perfect processes, you just need good enough processes that have proven to be good enough, and that everyone accepts as the way things are done. Move away from those processes and you don't know where it leads.

Or, you can actualize that you and I have differences of opinions.

There are many different opinions, and we all have some little blindspots and rationalisations that prop up our opinions. And many of us have very big blind spots, and very weak rationalisations, and it is important to not only check our own beliefs for those blindspots and rationalisations, but also call them out in others when we see them. That's what real debate is about.

... and you are ignoring 'accepted practice' when Reid Nuked the Filibuster.

You can't spin away the fact that Reid did that.

See, there's more of that dishonest language, 'spin away the fact that Reid did that'. Why in feth would I be spinning for Reid, if you'd read any of my posts here you'd know I was hardly a supporter of his, and also he's fething gone - who would spin for a retired guy?

Take away your dishonest language and we get to the reality of what's actually in place, that I am arguing for a proper understanding of the consequences of moving away from accepted process. And the plain reality is that

No, I'm saying the Repu thing led to another. This gak aren't hard to get, but here I am typing out an explanation for your for maybe the tenth time, not because you can't understand it because you choose not to understand.

But to explain it again, Republicans decided to filibuster Obama nominees as a matter of course. This left Reid with two choices, either to accept that a party that doesn't have the presidency or even a majority in the senate could block all judicial nominees forever, or to remove that power from the minority power. The former is not a choice anyone is going to take, ever. Put Republicans in the same place and they'll make the same choice, put any political party in that position and they'll make that choice.

You know that's true. You know that if Democrats attempt to block Gorsuch, Republicans will remove the minority filibuster on SC nominees.

As such, the only honest answer is to recognise that Reid acted in response to the decision made by Republicans.

Yes, of course this changes how SC nominees are conducted. That's part of the evolution of our governance... and not in a good way.

And here you're accepting that what I've said is true. The process is changing, and not in a good way. But because you prop up your understanding with nonsense like 'Obama stacked courts' you still don't get the basic reality of what happened and why.

But, don't sit there a simply drop this at the GOP's feet. There is a looooong history of both parties using the SCoTUS and other appointment picks in brazen political manner.

And here you are again, hearing only a partisan 'your side' 'no your side'. The real discussion here is about choices made each party in recent years, and the consequences of those choices, so that people can start to understand how decisions such as ignoring past practice can start to impact politics in new and unexpected ways.

I mean feth it, if you want we can go back to find some Democrats moving away from accepted practice. We can go back to Teddy Kennedy's famous borking. That wasn't the first time a SC nomination was rejected, of course, but it was the first time it was done in a higly public manner, where the press coverage was the primary purpose for the rejection. That opened the door to more partisan SC hearing played out in the media, which produced a much more erratic and cynical process. Which in turn, played a part in the devolution of process that, along with a bunch of other stuff, eventually led to the situation you have now.

So no, this isn't a 'Republicans are always bad' thing. It's a 'Republicans are the ones making irresponsible choices right now, just like Democrats were making irresponsible choices 30 years ago' thing.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I am being honest.

You described Obama making appointments to fill court vacancies as 'stuff the courts with Obama picks' so clearly that isn't true.

When are you going to stop demanding that these politicians operate based on your perceived notion as the 'proper way of running good governance'? You might as well as pine for Utopia.

I'm not asking for any kind of utopia, if I wanted my own personal utopia of decent governance it would have very little to do with what goes on in Washington.

Seb... you and I will be going in circles till our keyboards are worn down to it's nubs.

What I am talking about is what has happened in the past. What processes that were built up over time and accepted as being how things are done, and respecting that ignoring such processes is likely to set off a chain of unknowable consequences. The reality is that you don't need perfect processes, you just need good enough processes that have proven to be good enough, and that everyone accepts as the way things are done. Move away from those processes and you don't know where it leads.

Of course. That's pretty much the general description over any status quo or conventional wisdom breaks down.

Or, you can actualize that you and I have differences of opinions.

There are many different opinions, and we all have some little blindspots and rationalisations that prop up our opinions. And many of us have very big blind spots, and very weak rationalisations, and it is important to not only check our own beliefs for those blindspots and rationalisations, but also call them out in others when we see them. That's what real debate is about.

Aye... and I'm going to point out a big one in just a sec...

... and you are ignoring 'accepted practice' when Reid Nuked the Filibuster.

You can't spin away the fact that Reid did that.

See, there's more of that dishonest language, 'spin away the fact that Reid did that'. Why in feth would I be spinning for Reid, if you'd read any of my posts here you'd know I was hardly a supporter of his, and also he's fething gone - who would spin for a retired guy?

Because we wouldn't be 'in this place now' had Reid NOT invoke the nuclear option. We'd be having a mega-fething fireworks on EVERY Trump appointment. Which would've forced Trump to truly and honestly work with the Senate in a bi-partisan manner to get his peeps through. Could you imagine the fireworks and the pissy Trump reaction? At some point, he'd have to pull towards the center in order to have his cabinet filled, as opposed to right now being agressively pulled to his right by Preibus/Bannon/et el.

Take away your dishonest language and we get to the reality of what's actually in place, that I am arguing for a proper understanding of the consequences of moving away from accepted process. And the plain reality is that

Dishonest language? That's a whole lotta bull ca-ca you're shoveling buddy...

No, I'm saying the Repu thing led to another. This gak aren't hard to get, but here I am typing out an explanation for your for maybe the tenth time, not because you can't understand it because you choose not to understand.

And here's the patented Sebster-Analysis™ where he lays the wood on Republicans and saying just as little as possible regarding Democrats.

But to explain it again, Republicans decided to filibuster Obama nominees as a matter of course. This left Reid with two choices, either to accept that a party that doesn't have the presidency or even a majority in the senate could block all judicial nominees forever, or to remove that power from the minority power. The former is not a choice anyone is going to take, ever. Put Republicans in the same place and they'll make the same choice, put any political party in that position and they'll make that choice.

You know that's true. You know that if Democrats attempt to block Gorsuch, Republicans will remove the minority filibuster on SC nominees.

As such, the only honest answer is to recognise that Reid acted in response to the decision made by Republicans.

...and here's your blind spot.

At no point, whatsoever, did President Obama and Harry Reid deign to extend any olive branch/negotiation towards the GOP party. It was 'their way, or blame GOP for obstructionism'. It isn't A) let the GOP get away with blocking Obama's pick and keeping the filibuster OR B) nuke the filibuster. There's also C) negotiate with GOP to overcome the filibuster by working together in bi-partisan manner.

That's the breakdown Seb. This is the blindspot that you refused to acknowledge.

This will also be a problem in the Current congress. The roles are reversed now... now the Democrats are going to be that 'stick in the mud' in opposition to anything the GOP does. The only difference, is that in the Senate, the filibuster rule is only for legislative bills and SCoTUS picks. Even then, the filibuster isn't viewed as sacrosanct anymore. Since Reid 'weakened' it, what's to stop McConnegal from simply nuking all of it? (I certainly hope he doesn't, as his party won't be the majority forever).

This here, is the true consequences of the nuked filibuster that I lay squarely on Reid and the Democrat's lap.

Yes, of course this changes how SC nominees are conducted. That's part of the evolution of our governance... and not in a good way.

And here you're accepting that what I've said is true. The process is changing, and not in a good way. But because you prop up your understanding with nonsense like 'Obama stacked courts' you still don't get the basic reality of what happened and why.

'Packing the Court' is a very different than when I said 'stacked the court'. The former is what FDR did to increase the # of seats... the latter was my shorthand that post-Reid nukage, many federal court seats were filled with liberal jurist, w/o the mitigation of the old filibuster where more picks had to be moderate to pass bi-partisan muster.

But, don't sit there a simply drop this at the GOP's feet. There is a looooong history of both parties using the SCoTUS and other appointment picks in brazen political manner.

And here you are again, hearing only a partisan 'your side' 'no your side'. The real discussion here is about choices made each party in recent years, and the consequences of those choices, so that people can start to understand how decisions such as ignoring past practice can start to impact politics in new and unexpected ways.

I mean feth it, if you want we can go back to find some Democrats moving away from accepted practice. We can go back to Teddy Kennedy's famous borking. That wasn't the first time a SC nomination was rejected, of course, but it was the first time it was done in a higly public manner, where the press coverage was the primary purpose for the rejection. That opened the door to more partisan SC hearing played out in the media, which produced a much more erratic and cynical process. Which in turn, played a part in the devolution of process that, along with a bunch of other stuff, eventually led to the situation you have now.

So no, this isn't a 'Republicans are always bad' thing. It's a 'Republicans are the ones making irresponsible choices right now, just like Democrats were making irresponsible choices 30 years ago' thing.

That bell can't be unrung anymore dude. You're simply taking Republicans to task for something that the Democrats will then take advantage. You're advocating for one party to martyr themselves in order to resurrect some past practices/policy.

feth it.

Until there are enough adults on both side of the aisle, it's going to be knarly Thumderdome politics.

'specially since *that* guy is in the WhiteHouse.

 whembly wrote:
That bell can't be unrung anymore dude. You're simply taking Republicans to task for something that the Democrats will then take advantage. You're advocating for one party to martyr themselves in order to resurrect some past practices/policy.

Well that's certainly a convenient excuse. "My Team can't do the right thing, because obviously if they do then Their Team will take advantage of it, so of course My Team is justified in doing whatever they want". I swear, your blatant My Team partisanship is unbelievable.

 whembly wrote:
Of course. That's pretty much the general description over any status quo or conventional wisdom breaks down.

Yeah, which is why its generally accepted that you don't change this stuff without a very good reason.

The weirdest thing in this conversation is that you keep giving my own arguments back to me

Because we wouldn't be 'in this place now' had Reid NOT invoke the nuclear option.

You keep returning to your central premise, that this all came out of Reid's decision, that happened out of the blue. That is fething wrong. Reid made that change in response to a change in how Republicans were using the filibuster.

Which would've forced Trump to truly and honestly work with the Senate in a bi-partisan manner to get his peeps through.

I really thought the last 8 years would have finally killed the myth that you can make people be bi-partisan. Politics just doesn't work that way.

Dishonest language? That's a whole lotta bull ca-ca you're shoveling buddy...

I've shown you repeated cases of you using loaded language and completely inaccurate descriptions in order to prop up a narrative that just ain't fething true. That's called dishonest language.

And here's the patented Sebster-Analysis™ where he lays the wood on Republicans and saying just as little as possible regarding Democrats.

A long time back, might even be twenty years now, one of Australian footballs more... aggressive clubs was very angry that in the last few weeks the only players who'd been suspended were from their club. At the tribunal hearing the defense attorney was asking why this was the case, trying to build a case that the most recent charge against one of their players was tainted by some kind of bias.

A bemused official responded "Well that'd be because your club is the only one that's been punching people lately."

At no point, whatsoever, did President Obama and Harry Reid deign to extend any olive branch/negotiation towards the GOP party. It was 'their way, or blame GOP for obstructionism'. It isn't A) let the GOP get away with blocking Obama's pick and keeping the filibuster OR B) nuke the filibuster. There's also C) negotiate with GOP to overcome the filibuster by working together in bi-partisan manner.

That's the breakdown Seb. This is the blindspot that you refused to acknowledge.

You've missed the political reality again. There is no olive branch that can be offered to a party that has made a commitment to its voters to obstruct, and can base all its recent gains on that promise. Republicans weren't promising to drive a hard deal, they were promising to block Obama wherever they could. There was no olive branch on God's earth that would somehow make the Republicans break their promise to the base and start any real negoatiations.

This will also be a problem in the Current congress. The roles are reversed now... now the Democrats are going to be that 'stick in the mud' in opposition to anything the GOP does. The only difference, is that in the Senate, the filibuster rule is only for legislative bills and SCoTUS picks. Even then, the filibuster isn't viewed as sacrosanct anymore. Since Reid 'weakened' it, what's to stop McConnegal from simply nuking all of it? (I certainly hope he doesn't, as his party won't be the majority forever).

There was never anything to stop anyone from nuking it, except accepted process. See what I'm saying now?

This here, is the true consequences of the nuked filibuster that I lay squarely on Reid and the Democrat's lap.

No, because once again, what Reid did was the inevitable product of the strategy Republicans decided to undertake.

'Packing the Court' is a very different than when I said 'stacked the court'. The former is what FDR did to increase the # of seats... the latter was my shorthand that post-Reid nukage, many federal court seats were filled with liberal jurist, w/o the mitigation of the old filibuster where more picks had to be moderate to pass bi-partisan muster.

Obama picked who he wanted, that's simply the first step of the process. If one or more nominations were so unacceptable that Republicans could either vote them down, or maintain a filibuster then negotiation would happen. Except Republicans didn't pick out the odd far leftie here or there, they filibustered almost every single nomination. And they bragged about this and said it was meeting their electoral promises.

Hence the position Reid was put in, hence the decision he made.

That bell can't be unrung anymore dude. You're simply taking Republicans to task for something that the Democrats will then take advantage. You're advocating for one party to martyr themselves in order to resurrect some past practices/policy.

No, I'm not arguing for anyone to martyr anything to anyone for any reason. I don't even know where you got that from.

What I am saying is that what is done is done. You can't put the toothpaste back in the bottle. All we can do is hope that people are honest to recognise that what happened was a direct result of a strategy Republicans used to exploit the , and from there realise that they should never support anyone, Democrat or Republican, looking to exploit the filibuster in that way again.

This would mean, for instance, that Democrats shouldn't use the remaining SC filibuster on Gorsuch for just political gain. The filibuster should still be used if a nominee is truly, completely horrible but not for anything run of the mill. Unless Democrats can somehow prove to everyone that Gorsuch is a truly, deeply awful pick for some reason or another, then it should be allowed to go to a vote.

 sebster wrote:
It's a reality you've missed despite me now explaining several times. You've missed this reality because you are committed to a partisan understanding of the issue (its all Reid's fault), and you protect that reality by using ridiculous phrasing like the above

I have several times now considered making a running total of how many times Whembly has referenced "thank Harry Reid" for some gakky thing the GOP is doing, with a running count of someone explaining why Harry Reid had no option but the remove the filibuster option, followed by Whembly repeating it again a little while later. By my count it would be at least 6 by now.

But at the end of the day what would the point be? Hackery gonna hack ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm not American so i could be setting, but isn't there an added level of irony with the Republicans once being known as the "party of personal responsibility?"