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 wrote: Yup... the reaction of Trump's SCOTUS pick by Democrats and much of the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) is only galvanizing Trump supporters. There's some real derpage out there...
Only quoting whembly as it's the latest example of this that I've seen here and elseweb.
This running theme of "you guys are making us do this" is pathetic at best and downright psychopathic at worst.
It's like when your conjoined twin, when you protest that his heavy drinking is damaging your shared liver, decides to switch to meth to teach you a lesson.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
LOL yeah I know what you mean. Well, remember how hated he was, and well, we all got through it. We'll get through this too.
Bush knew how the government worked and wasn't surrounded by total idiots at every step though. Bush wasn't a total narrisicst who needed his ego stroked every few minutes. Bush didn't act like a dictator. At this point I would gladly trade trump for Nixon, because atleast he knew how the government worked and wasn't nearly as corrupt.
I remember when Democrats were calling Bush a Nazi.
At the time he was a bad president. Still is. Just not as bad as the current president. Lesser of two evils and all that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/10 18:39:44
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
whembly wrote: Yup... the reaction of Trump's SCOTUS pick by Democrats and much of the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) is only galvanizing Trump supporters. There's some real derpage out there...
Only quoting whembly as it's the latest example of this that I've seen here and elseweb.
This running theme of "you guys are making us do this" is pathetic at best and downright psychopathic at worst.
It's like when your conjoined twin, when you protest that his heavy drinking is damaging your shared liver, decides to switch to meth to teach you a lesson.
How else is this derpage going to fething stop?
The opposition started even before the pick was announced.
But, hey... nevermind that the SCOTUS/Judiciary being quite possibly THE NUMBER ONE REASON why people voted (or held their noses) for this POTUS. Having the opposition losing their gak only strengthens Trump's positions among the electorate.
Best thing for Democrats is to swiftly move forward in confirming his SCOTUS pick waaaaaaay before the Nov. elections. THen, go back to immigration policies...
whembly wrote: Yup... the reaction of Trump's SCOTUS pick by Democrats and much of the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) is only galvanizing Trump supporters. There's some real derpage out there...
Only quoting whembly as it's the latest example of this that I've seen here and elseweb.
This running theme of "you guys are making us do this" is pathetic at best and downright psychopathic at worst.
It's like when your conjoined twin, when you protest that his heavy drinking is damaging your shared liver, decides to switch to meth to teach you a lesson.
How else is this derpage going to fething stop?
The opposition started even before the pick was announced.
But, hey... nevermind that the SCOTUS/Judiciary being quite possibly THE NUMBER ONE REASON why people voted (or held their noses) for this POTUS. Having the opposition losing their gak only strengthens Trump's positions among the electorate.
Best thing for Democrats is to swiftly move forward in confirming his SCOTUS pick waaaaaaay before the Nov. elections. THen, go back to immigration policies...
Are you genuinely expecting Dems to just get over their stolen judge? With the increasing dysfunction of COngress law by EO/SCotUS ruling is likely the way forward.
The next judge needs to be centre/left to keep that all important SCotUS balance, right?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
whembly wrote: Yup... the reaction of Trump's SCOTUS pick by Democrats and much of the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) is only galvanizing Trump supporters. There's some real derpage out there...
Only quoting whembly as it's the latest example of this that I've seen here and elseweb.
This running theme of "you guys are making us do this" is pathetic at best and downright psychopathic at worst.
It's like when your conjoined twin, when you protest that his heavy drinking is damaging your shared liver, decides to switch to meth to teach you a lesson.
How else is this derpage going to fething stop?
This "derpage" started with your party. Don't pretend like we need to compromise with your kind now. Your lot had no interest in behaving civilly for 8 years.
The opposition started even before the pick was announced.
Just like McConnell started opposition as soon as Scalia's death was announced.
But, hey... nevermind that the SCOTUS/Judiciary being quite possibly THE NUMBER ONE REASON why people voted (or held their noses) for this POTUS. Having the opposition losing their gak only strengthens Trump's positions among the electorate.
Then those people who voted that way while a party was refusing to even consider or advise on a pick should be ashamed of themselves and be stripped of their rights to vote.
Best thing for Democrats is to swiftly move forward in confirming his SCOTUS pick waaaaaaay before the Nov. elections. THen, go back to immigration policies...
Best thing for Democrats to do is to do nothing that you ever suggest. Ever. Your party started this nonsense, now when we play by your rules you get indignant.
And what's more, your lot should NOT be allowed to pick a judge given the fact that the judge retiring apparently has been in discussions to help pick his replacement and that his son was a banker for a president under investigation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/10 18:45:08
It's an election year. The people should have a say in whether or not a president under such serious investigations should get to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court. That's the policy, right?
Also, "look what you made us do" as a defense for supporters of the administration that's on pretty shaky ground when it comes to domestic violence is a bad look.
The GOP said that a POTUS shouldn't appoint a SCOTUS justice, they started that idea.
The GOP said that the ideological balance of the SCOTUS should be preserved, they started that idea.
But it's the democrats fault that they argue that we should wait until after the election to appoint a justice and that a moderate justice should be replaced with a moderate justice.
But hey, Trump voters are the abusive husband blaming his family for making him drink and beat them.
The opposition started even before the pick was announced.
Hmmm, sounds familiar.
But, hey... nevermind that the SCOTUS/Judiciary being quite possibly THE NUMBER ONE REASON why people voted (or held their noses) for this POTUS. Having the opposition losing their gak only strengthens Trump's positions among the electorate.
Hypocrisy thy name is Whembly. It was perfectly acceptable for Republicans to refuse to consider a democrat nominee for the supreme court but now that the opposite is happening suddenly it is the democrats fault.
If the Republicans hadn't refused to hold hearings and votes for Obama's nomination then this situation would never have come up.
This is your fault.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Yeah, I was going to grab some quotes from the thread around Scalia's death about how the role of the senate of advise and consent, and they can choose not to vote at all and that's totally the right of the senate. Or maybe some about maintaining the balance of the court is essential.
But that's October 2016 thinking. That's "if you point out they are hypocritical, and dishonest, and liars, then you win." You don't win anything and the truth and consistency don't matter. They haven't mattered in a while and to totally misquote Prestor Jon in meaning, the toothpaste is out of the tube and is not going back in. They're not umpires calling balls and strikes, they're just another political side quest to enacting an agenda.
The democrats should do everything they can to block this and any Trump nominee from being confirmed, if they win the midterms they should gerrymander the hell out of everywhere, and if they win the presidency in 2024, they should add 4 or 5 more justices to the court. This is how it is now and it's time to stop whining and start winning. Once that happens, the dems can shrug their hands and say "this is how you get Kamala Harris/Cory Booker/whomever" every time the GOP complains about whatever thing the dems do.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/10 19:02:58
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
Surprise, surprise, the most partisan and vocal republican on the forum thinks that the best thing for the democrats to do is to give him and his party everything they want without any inconvenience, because lots of Trump voters really want it.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Kanluwen wrote: [Then those people who voted that way while a party was refusing to even consider or advise on a pick should be ashamed of themselves and be stripped of their rights to vote.
.
The SCOTUS pick wasn't brought up for a vote. That's what happened. Technically speaking there is no requirement, or even a suggestion that this needs to happen. Only that the SCOTUS pick gets consideration, by whatever means. arguably, they followed the letter of the rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/10 19:06:36
It's silly that frenzied opposition to Trump's pick materialized before a decision was even made. It's ridiculous that many will oppose Kavanaugh for this reason alone, when there are plenty of other far more valid items to oppose his candidacy on if one is so inclined.
However, lets be real, the GOP not only set the stage on it, they wrote the book on it and made it the new "normal", indeed creating a whole new policy concept around appointing it judges in election years, after doing exactly the above to Garland, and would be doing literally the exact same thing if Hillary had been elected and were making the appointments, and I'm sure that we'd see posts about how its perfectly OK, just as how Garland was not "owed" a hearing. This is how the GOP wanted to do things, now theyll have to slog through it themselves.
This doesn't help the nation as a whole, but I have less than zero problem watching the GOP hoist by its own petard in this case, and similarly habe little sympathy for idea that the mean ol' libs getting mad about something are galvanizing the Trump supporters when literally everything they do is directed to that goal alone above and beyond anything else, it's literally the central policy platform of the Republican Party at this point.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Ouze wrote: [
Yeah, I was going to grab some quotes from the thread around Scalia's death about how the role of the senate of advise and consent, and they can choose not to vote at all and that's totally the right of the senate. Or maybe some about maintaining the balance of the court is essential.
The democrats should do everything they can to block this and any Trump nominee from being confirmed, if they win the midterms they should gerrymander the hell out of everywhere, and if they win the presidency in 2024, they should add 4 or 5 more justices to the court. This is how it is now and it's time to stop whining and start winning. Once that happens, the dems can shrug their hands and say "this is how you get Kamala Harris/Cory Booker/whomever" every time the GOP complains about whatever thing the dems do.
I still think the Court needs to be balanced. I like having 4 Conservatives, 4 liberals, and a flip-flopper. Ideally it would be 3 of each. As for right now, I'd prefer if Kennedy was replaced by a neutral guy that has plenty of history of threading the needle between the two parties.
Kanluwen wrote: [Then those people who voted that way while a party was refusing to even consider or advise on a pick should be ashamed of themselves and be stripped of their rights to vote. .
The SCOTUS pick wasn't brought up for a vote. That's what happened. Technically speaking there is no requirement, or even a suggestion that this needs to happen. Only that the SCOTUS pick gets consideration, by whatever means. arguably, they followed the letter of the rules.
That's not the argument that was being put forward that I replied to.
So keep your strawmanning to yourself please.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/10 19:14:40
Vaktathi wrote: It's silly that frenzied opposition to Trump's pick materialized before a decision was even made. It's ridiculous that many will oppose Kavanaugh for this reason alone, when there are plenty of other far more valid items to oppose his candidacy on if one is so inclined.
Actually, it's not so silly. It's pretty obvious at this point that any judge chosen by a Republican president is going to come from a small list vetted by the Heritage Foundation. There's little to no chance that we'll ever see any bipartisan moderates considered.
Ouze wrote: [
Yeah, I was going to grab some quotes from the thread around Scalia's death about how the role of the senate of advise and consent, and they can choose not to vote at all and that's totally the right of the senate. Or maybe some about maintaining the balance of the court is essential.
The democrats should do everything they can to block this and any Trump nominee from being confirmed, if they win the midterms they should gerrymander the hell out of everywhere, and if they win the presidency in 2024, they should add 4 or 5 more justices to the court. This is how it is now and it's time to stop whining and start winning. Once that happens, the dems can shrug their hands and say "this is how you get Kamala Harris/Cory Booker/whomever" every time the GOP complains about whatever thing the dems do.
I still think the Court needs to be balanced. I like having 4 Conservatives, 4 liberals, and a flip-flopper. Ideally it would be 3 of each. As for right now, I'd prefer if Kennedy was replaced by a neutral guy that has plenty of history of threading the needle between the two parties.
Call me crazy, but I think all nine justices should be, what's the word, oh yes, impartial.
"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
whembly wrote: Yup... the reaction of Trump's SCOTUS pick by Democrats and much of the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) is only galvanizing Trump supporters. There's some real derpage out there...
Only quoting whembly as it's the latest example of this that I've seen here and elseweb.
This running theme of "you guys are making us do this" is pathetic at best and downright psychopathic at worst.
It's like when your conjoined twin, when you protest that his heavy drinking is damaging your shared liver, decides to switch to meth to teach you a lesson.
How else is this derpage going to fething stop?
This "derpage" started with your party. Don't pretend like we need to compromise with your kind now. Your lot had no interest in behaving civilly for 8 years.
Oh boy, we are down to the dehumanising "your kind" now? *grabs more popcorn* Can't wait for that civil war to start.
In all seriousness, please don't use such polarising language. It is good for no one and nothing except worsening division.
I remember when Democrats were calling Bush a Nazi.
Don’t forget about all the dire, hyperbolic stuff about Romney. And Obama would probably be looking good to some folks on the right had Bernie somehow gotten elected.
Things operate better when people act with some political perspective. Everything can’t be positioned as an apocalyptic twilight struggle between good and absolute evil. It’s not healthy for our nation. But it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Yes. Comparing Trump to Hitler doesn't mean anything because that comparison was drawn a thousand unjustified times to Obama and Bush already. It ties into "they're both bad" because when there is no nuance Clinton and Trump get put into "totally bad" as the opposite of "totally good" and are just equivalent levels of bad.
Ouze wrote: [
Yeah, I was going to grab some quotes from the thread around Scalia's death about how the role of the senate of advise and consent, and they can choose not to vote at all and that's totally the right of the senate. Or maybe some about maintaining the balance of the court is essential.
The democrats should do everything they can to block this and any Trump nominee from being confirmed, if they win the midterms they should gerrymander the hell out of everywhere, and if they win the presidency in 2024, they should add 4 or 5 more justices to the court. This is how it is now and it's time to stop whining and start winning. Once that happens, the dems can shrug their hands and say "this is how you get Kamala Harris/Cory Booker/whomever" every time the GOP complains about whatever thing the dems do.
I still think the Court needs to be balanced. I like having 4 Conservatives, 4 liberals, and a flip-flopper. Ideally it would be 3 of each. As for right now, I'd prefer if Kennedy was replaced by a neutral guy that has plenty of history of threading the needle between the two parties.
Write to your congressman and senator and the local branch of the GOP and tell them so.
Another thing would be to vote Democrat in November.
It's a line I've seen all over the internet. I think it's a way of rationalising all the awful, stupid, mean, self sabotaging gak the current admin has done this past year +. It's textbook stuff. The alternative is accepting what a horrible sack of gak my champion is.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Kanluwen wrote: [Then those people who voted that way while a party was refusing to even consider or advise on a pick should be ashamed of themselves and be stripped of their rights to vote.
.
The SCOTUS pick wasn't brought up for a vote. That's what happened. Technically speaking there is no requirement, or even a suggestion that this needs to happen. Only that the SCOTUS pick gets consideration, by whatever means. arguably, they followed the letter of the rules.
That's not the argument that was being put forward that I replied to.
So keep your strawmanning to yourself please.
Forgive the confusion when you literally mention that the candidate wasn't given consideration.
Ouze wrote: [
Yeah, I was going to grab some quotes from the thread around Scalia's death about how the role of the senate of advise and consent, and they can choose not to vote at all and that's totally the right of the senate. Or maybe some about maintaining the balance of the court is essential.
The democrats should do everything they can to block this and any Trump nominee from being confirmed, if they win the midterms they should gerrymander the hell out of everywhere, and if they win the presidency in 2024, they should add 4 or 5 more justices to the court. This is how it is now and it's time to stop whining and start winning. Once that happens, the dems can shrug their hands and say "this is how you get Kamala Harris/Cory Booker/whomever" every time the GOP complains about whatever thing the dems do.
I still think the Court needs to be balanced. I like having 4 Conservatives, 4 liberals, and a flip-flopper. Ideally it would be 3 of each. As for right now, I'd prefer if Kennedy was replaced by a neutral guy that has plenty of history of threading the needle between the two parties.
Call me crazy, but I think all nine justices should be, what's the word, oh yes, impartial.
While I'd like to agree with you on this, there is one reason I don't. In order to get a case heard before the court you need 4 justices to vote for it. Sometimes certain cases are only heard because of a little bit of bias. I know it sounds pretty counter intuitive.
Ouze wrote: [
Yeah, I was going to grab some quotes from the thread around Scalia's death about how the role of the senate of advise and consent, and they can choose not to vote at all and that's totally the right of the senate. Or maybe some about maintaining the balance of the court is essential.
The democrats should do everything they can to block this and any Trump nominee from being confirmed, if they win the midterms they should gerrymander the hell out of everywhere, and if they win the presidency in 2024, they should add 4 or 5 more justices to the court. This is how it is now and it's time to stop whining and start winning. Once that happens, the dems can shrug their hands and say "this is how you get Kamala Harris/Cory Booker/whomever" every time the GOP complains about whatever thing the dems do.
I still think the Court needs to be balanced. I like having 4 Conservatives, 4 liberals, and a flip-flopper. Ideally it would be 3 of each. As for right now, I'd prefer if Kennedy was replaced by a neutral guy that has plenty of history of threading the needle between the two parties.
Write to your congressman and senator and the local branch of the GOP and tell them so.
Another thing would be to vote Democrat in November.
Yeah, Maybe not. I have as little faith in Democrats as I do Republicans to keep a non-biased SC.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/10 20:36:41
Kanluwen wrote: [Then those people who voted that way while a party was refusing to even consider or advise on a pick should be ashamed of themselves and be stripped of their rights to vote.
.
The SCOTUS pick wasn't brought up for a vote. That's what happened. Technically speaking there is no requirement, or even a suggestion that this needs to happen. Only that the SCOTUS pick gets consideration, by whatever means. arguably, they followed the letter of the rules.
That's not the argument that was being put forward that I replied to.
So keep your strawmanning to yourself please.
Forgive the confusion when you literally mention that the candidate wasn't given consideration.
Then maybe you could have read the post that I quoted and was replying to...?
Yeah, Maybe not. I have as little faith in Democrats as I do Republicans to keep a non-biased SC.
"Both sides!" is a weak argument when it comes to this stuff.
People with strong political party leaning should not be considered for supreme court justice. Straight up.
The SCOTUS should vote in new justices with a required unanimous vote.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Spinner wrote: It's an election year. The people should have a say in whether or not a president under such serious investigations should get to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court. That's the policy, right?
Also, "look what you made us do" as a defense for supporters of the administration that's on pretty shaky ground when it comes to domestic violence is a bad look.
I never knew Taylor Swift was a deep political philosopher..... but, there are many things that I do not know.....
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Kanluwen wrote: [Then those people who voted that way while a party was refusing to even consider or advise on a pick should be ashamed of themselves and be stripped of their rights to vote.
.
The SCOTUS pick wasn't brought up for a vote. That's what happened. Technically speaking there is no requirement, or even a suggestion that this needs to happen. Only that the SCOTUS pick gets consideration, by whatever means. arguably, they followed the letter of the rules.
That's not the argument that was being put forward that I replied to.
So keep your strawmanning to yourself please.
Forgive the confusion when you literally mention that the candidate wasn't given consideration.
Then maybe you could have read the post that I quoted and was replying to...?
Yeah, Maybe not. I have as little faith in Democrats as I do Republicans to keep a non-biased SC.
"Both sides!" is a weak argument when it comes to this stuff.
Are you deliberately trying to be ironic?
You dismiss the both sides are bad argument while posting that the Democrats should do the exact same thing that was reprehensible when the Republicans did it. So we’re just giving up on any desire for competent governance and are instead embracing wholeheartedly stigginit to the other part as the ultimate goal. Both sides aren’t bad but both sides need to race each other to the bottom of weaponized hyper tribalism politics as fast as possible.
Repubs with a spine/sense of shame/moral compass need to abandon their party as it's crystal clear their party has none of those.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Vaktathi wrote: It's silly that frenzied opposition to Trump's pick materialized before a decision was even made. It's ridiculous that many will oppose Kavanaugh for this reason alone, when there are plenty of other far more valid items to oppose his candidacy on if one is so inclined.
Actually, it's not so silly. It's pretty obvious at this point that any judge chosen by a Republican president is going to come from a small list vetted by the Heritage Foundation. There's little to no chance that we'll ever see any bipartisan moderates considered.
You are immediately assuming bad faith. Try not doing that. Even if it seems unintelligent consider good faith from the opposition. Who knows - it might start to catch on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: Repubs with a spine/sense of shame/moral compass need to abandon their party as it's crystal clear their party has none of those.
The same can be said for both parties.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/10 20:53:12
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
