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.

The argument is not that Democrats should do it because both sides are bad.

The argument is that Democrats should govern like Republicans to act as a mirror to their face about how crappy that really is.

 d-usa wrote:
The argument is not that Democrats should do it because both sides are bad.

The argument is that Democrats should govern like Republicans to act as a mirror to their face about how crappy that really is.

How does both sides acting like fething morons help anyone?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 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.

It's not an assumption when you're working with a mountain of evidence, especially with Trump (who does little to zero thinking on real political decisions), McConnell, Ryan, and other current Republican leadership. The Heritage Foundation picks the Supreme Court nominations for the Republican Party, and it's controlled by and funded by ultra-rich, ultra-conservative operators. There's no reason to think that anyone on that list won't fall along party lines and swing as hard to the right as possible when it comes to SCOTUS decisions.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

Oh, I have criticism for the Dems, believe me. But I'm not gonna worry about the squeaky floorboards and peeling paint while the house is on fire.

 Kanluwen wrote:
["Both sides!" is a weak argument when it comes to this stuff.

Because you say so? Let's not pretend this isn't a problem on both sides, and one both sides need to clean up.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The argument is not that Democrats should do it because both sides are bad.

The argument is that Democrats should govern like Republicans to act as a mirror to their face about how crappy that really is.

How does both sides acting like fething morons help anyone?

Sometimes, one side just doesn’t realize how stupid they are acting until it hits them in the face.

It’s like the parent thworing a tantrum in the store to embarrass their kids.

 KTG17 wrote:


The Hammonds committed arson and illegally poached deer, and had a long history of run-ins with the feds. They get no support from me.

Just remember kids. It's all about law and order until you break laws that infringe on your freedom

 LordofHats wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:


The Hammonds committed arson and illegally poached deer, and had a long history of run-ins with the feds. They get no support from me.

Just remember kids. It's all about law and order until you break laws that infringe on your freedom

I must admit I initially felt some sympathy for these guys. Burning off invasive species encroaching on your land because the government wouldn't is somewhat excusable. Then I learned that they did it to try to cover up a poach.

I also think that lighting backfires to protect your land is excusable, then I learned that they lit them knowing it could have killed nearby crews. Total gak move.

I have little forgiveness for poachers. We have a local, ex-police official here that has been caught poaching three or four times. Never convicted. Once the police "forgot" to show up to testify. Once paperwork wasn't filed right. Lot's of "blue wall".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44785916

Well, on one side, they try to separate Americans from their children at the boarder too now. On the other, a last name is a pretty flimsy reason to question a mother/daughter relationship.

Remember when you had to be unable to read to work for the government? Now you have to be an donkey-cave, like me, but more racist.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The argument is not that Democrats should do it because both sides are bad.

The argument is that Democrats should govern like Republicans to act as a mirror to their face about how crappy that really is.

How does both sides acting like fething morons help anyone?

How does one side getting away with everything they want without any opposition help anyone?

Democrats are always put in this position and they almost always get screwed, because they always end up backing down.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The argument is not that Democrats should do it because both sides are bad.

The argument is that Democrats should govern like Republicans to act as a mirror to their face about how crappy that really is.

How does both sides acting like fething morons help anyone?

How does one side getting away with everything they want without any opposition help anyone?

Democrats are always put in this position and they almost always get screwed, because they always end up backing down.

This. By this point it is clear that the republican voters will not punish the republican party for their actions and so instead it falls on others to show how damaging those actions are and hold them to account.

Does anyone else appreciate the irony that we have a lot liberal posters promoting the "We have to be bad because they made us be bad" approach?

But until the Republican voters hold the party accountable for the sacrifice of protocol and rules, I don't know what else Democrats can do. The Republican voters still support the policies of Trump. They still support a party that just cares about winning at any cost. It seems like they are generally fine with aim of not making things better for them, but making things worse for people they believe is the enemy / don't like.

I mean, what option is available? What could democrats do? Do you really think if they try to be respectable, make good policy, and stick to the original rules, they will win? How long to you think it would take?

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I yearn for the days of GW Bush...

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.

That doesn't make him a Nazi, any more than Obama's failing make him a Bolshevik.

 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.

Most probably would if they believed that the democrats with a spine/sense of shame/moral compass would abandon their party as it's crystal clear their party has none of those.

That's how they keep control - by threatening you with the rule of the other side.

feeder wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

Oh, I have criticism for the Dems, believe me. But I'm not gonna worry about the squeaky floorboards and peeling paint while the house is on fire.

ChargerIIC wrote:

 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.

Most probably would if they believed that the democrats with a spine/sense of shame/moral compass would abandon their party as it's crystal clear their party has none of those.

That's how they keep control - by threatening you with the rule of the other side.

Already covered that upthread



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
That doesn't make him a Nazi, any more than Obama's failing make him a Bolshevik.

I think the main difference between this 'both sides' nonsense is "Bush is a literal Nazi" came from the grassroots, whereas the "Bama is a secret Kenyan Muslim" was spearheaded by the man who became the PotUS.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The argument is not that Democrats should do it because both sides are bad.

The argument is that Democrats should govern like Republicans to act as a mirror to their face about how crappy that really is.

How does both sides acting like fething morons help anyone?

How does one side getting away with everything they want without any opposition help anyone?

Democrats are always put in this position and they almost always get screwed, because they always end up backing down.

This. By this point it is clear that the republican voters will not punish the republican party for their actions and so instead it falls on others to show how damaging those actions are and hold them to account.

How does poor behavior by the Democrats hold the Republicans accountable? If none of the Democrats in the Senate vote to confirm Trumps nominees and the Dems and the public can sway 1 or 2 Republicans in the Senate to join them then Trumps nominee doesn’t get confirmed. It’s simple. If the Democrats want to just stymie the entire process for months all that does is ramp up the intensity of the midterms and improve the chances that the Republicans make gains in the Senate and if that happens then Trump will get his nominees confirmed anyway and possibly decide to try out that whole pack the court idea being floated by Democrat pundits.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Does anyone else appreciate the irony that we have a lot liberal posters promoting the "We have to be bad because they made us be bad" approach?

I'm not entirely sure how that's an irony honestly.

Lots of liberal political positions are based on the premise that mitigating factors are significant in society and should be considered in policy making.

Literally anything the left does can be seen as 'galvanizing Trump's base'. It's a benefit of the enormous media spotlight they've been given, combined with their flexibility on policy to whatever Trump said last and focus on stigginit. Anyone still in his camp isn't going to be won over to vote for a Democrat, and trying to woo them is going to alienate people who will.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Does anyone else appreciate the irony that we have a lot liberal posters promoting the "We have to be bad because they made us be bad" approach?

But until the Republican voters hold the party accountable for the sacrifice of protocol and rules, I don't know what else Democrats can do. The Republican voters still support the policies of Trump. They still support a party that just cares about winning at any cost. It seems like they are generally fine with aim of not making things better for them, but making things worse for people they believe is the enemy / don't like.

I mean, what option is available? What could democrats do? Do you really think if they try to be respectable, make good policy, and stick to the original rules, they will win? How long to you think it would take?

Do you honestly think that people vote Republican and that Democrat voter turnout has declined because Democrats in Congress aren’t petty vindictive malicious obstructionists? Bad behavior isn’t impressive at all. Literally anybody can be bad at their job but being really good at takes work and effort that can be very impressive. Escalating hyper partisanship shenanigans to the Nth degree just to stick it to the other party in the vain hope that if we just obstruct the other side severely enough everybody will see how much better we are and how much worse they are is stupid. Using bad behavior by the other party to justify bad behavior by your own party is stupid. If you good governance you shouldn’t tolerate bad governance because if you’re willing to put up with bad governance you’ll never get good governance.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 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.

I don't want impartial. I want Bill of Rights Zealots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 feeder wrote:
quoting whembly

Validating bad-faith posting in the thread.

 gorgon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


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.

Indeed. It's as maddening as the twerps that called Obama a communist.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I yearn for the days of GW Bush...

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.

That doesn't make him a Nazi, any more than Obama's failing make him a Bolshevik.

And neither did I say it did.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 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?

Yes...I do expect them to get over it after nuking the filibuster.

Next judge just need to just interpret the law.... not use their positions to further progressive/conservative causes.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
Does anyone else appreciate the irony that we have a lot liberal posters promoting the "We have to be bad because they made us be bad" approach?

But until the Republican voters hold the party accountable for the sacrifice of protocol and rules, I don't know what else Democrats can do. The Republican voters still support the policies of Trump. They still support a party that just cares about winning at any cost. It seems like they are generally fine with aim of not making things better for them, but making things worse for people they believe is the enemy / don't like.

I mean, what option is available? What could democrats do? Do you really think if they try to be respectable, make good policy, and stick to the original rules, they will win? How long to you think it would take?

Do you honestly think that people vote Republican and that Democrat voter turnout has declined because Democrats in Congress aren’t petty vindictive malicious obstructionists?

It worked for the Republicans when they did it...

Ugh. Just ugh.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The argument is not that Democrats should do it because both sides are bad.

The argument is that Democrats should govern like Republicans to act as a mirror to their face about how crappy that really is.

How does both sides acting like fething morons help anyone?

How does one side getting away with everything they want without any opposition help anyone?

Democrats are always put in this position and they almost always get screwed, because they always end up backing down.

This. By this point it is clear that the republican voters will not punish the republican party for their actions and so instead it falls on others to show how damaging those actions are and hold them to account.

How does poor behavior by the Democrats hold the Republicans accountable? If none of the Democrats in the Senate vote to confirm Trumps nominees and the Dems and the public can sway 1 or 2 Republicans in the Senate to join them then Trumps nominee doesn’t get confirmed. It’s simple. If the Democrats want to just stymie the entire process for months all that does is ramp up the intensity of the midterms and improve the chances that the Republicans make gains in the Senate and if that happens then Trump will get his nominees confirmed anyway and possibly decide to try out that whole pack the court idea being floated by Democrat pundits.

Why would 2 republicans turn? Honestly, he has choose two supreme court nominees that are supported by the Heritage Foundation. Why would the Republicans not accept the nominees (unless they end up having some serious skeletons in the closet)?

The main arguments on the Democrats side to protest seems to be:
1. Our lawful SCOTUS nomination was 'stolen.'
2. The Republicans were blatantly lying about the 'Election Year' argument.

Why would a Republican senator agree with either?

Roe v. Wade is an issue some Republicans oppose. One is on record against any justice that has shown any tendency against abortion.

Trump can argue that he didn’t ask any justice about RvW, but he wouldn’t need to ask them since they came from a list of anti-RvW Justices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also: $200 billions more in tariffs against China.

Also: slashed ACA funding.

 d-usa wrote:
Roe v. Wade is an issue some Republicans oppose. One is on record against any justice that has shown any tendency against abortion.

Trump can argue that he didn’t ask any justice about RvW, but he wouldn’t need to ask them since they came from a list of anti-RvW Justices.

Honestly I think it's worth considering that this guy wasn't picked to succeed but rather to galvanize the base. That's a sword that cuts both ways, but I could see Trump's "it seems like a good idea in the moment" brand of showmanship taking that position and using the nomination as a campaign tool rather than a serious nomination.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 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.

Nope... .this escalation started with Kennedy's seat when Ted Kennedy led the way to Bork Robert Bork. Frankly, that was the original "stolen" seat if you want to use that terminology.

Don't pretend like we need to compromise with your kind now.

My "kind"?

Yeah... okay. You go with that and see how far that'll take you.

Your lot had no interest in behaving civilly for 8 years.

Civily? Grow up. You treated as any opposition to the Democrat/The Sainted One's ideas as "god's gift" and any opposition was met with sneers instead of sincere interests in compromise in good faith.

The opposition started even before the pick was announced.

Just like McConnell started opposition as soon as Scalia's death was announced.

Not really the same.

Ya see... the GOP controls Congress and as such, determines how to conduct their "Advise and Consent" process. Being that in the last freaking year of Obama's tenure, the GOP took a stand and asked the American people have a vote. Now? Nothing like that at all... it's just reflective reaction to oppose everything Trump does.

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.

You and what army?

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.

Democrats started this SCOTUS escalation with Bork. Then with the "high tech lynching" of Thomas. Then taking GWB to the woodshed in approving only the liberal jurists in GWB's olive branch while refusing to give up/down for his conservative jurists. Which lead up to the Gang of 8.

Furthermore, I was opining that Trump's voters get riled up over Judges... so, the best electoral tactic for Democrats is to quickly consent to Trump's pick then go back to things like immigration... which was really doing a number to Trump.

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

WHich as you would know by know, this is #FakeNews.

and that his son was a banker for a president under investigation.

Who gave him a loan decades ago? Or are you talking about something else?

 AdeptSister wrote:
Does anyone else appreciate the irony that we have a lot liberal posters promoting the "We have to be bad because they made us be bad" approach?

But until the Republican voters hold the party accountable for the sacrifice of protocol and rules, I don't know what else Democrats can do. The Republican voters still support the policies of Trump. They still support a party that just cares about winning at any cost. It seems like they are generally fine with aim of not making things better for them, but making things worse for people they believe is the enemy / don't like.

I mean, what option is available? What could democrats do? Do you really think if they try to be respectable, make good policy, and stick to the original rules, they will win? How long to you think it would take?

There's a subtle but important different between doing something bad, clearly of ones own volition, and claiming 'they forced us too!' after the fact verses a calculated political move mirroring the previous actions of the opposing party both to show them what they have done and because there are no other options left. There is also a matter of equivalency; Dems would be doing exactly what the GOP had whereas the GOP just claims 'they made us bad!' while being far, far worse AND instigating the questionable actions in the first place.

 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?

Nope.

The Biden rule was for Presidential election year.

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.

It's not "look what you made us do"...

It's... here's a taste of the same medicine you gave us when you were in power. Those were the new rules... no it's "our" turn to see if you like living under the same rules.

Hopefully this'll make some think about breaking social norms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The GOP said that a POTUS shouldn't appoint a SCOTUS justice, they started that idea.

Biden argued for it.

GOP took his idea and ran with it.

The GOP said that the ideological balance of the SCOTUS should be preserved, they started that idea.

Sure... funny how when GOP is in power they argue for this... just as now Democrats argue for it.

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.

Nah... it's the democrats fault (as well as GOP) who escalated this... up to Reid nuking the filibuster for all but the SCOTUS pick... which in turn Cocaine Mitch nuked the filibuster for SCOTUS pick over Gorsuch, who was replacing Scalia.

But hey, Trump voters are the abusive husband blaming his family for making him drink and beat them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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.

Is this a Presidential election year? NO? Oh...so its not the same thing.

News flash, Democrats can whine/bitch, but Trump is going to get his SCOTUS pick nominated simply because Harry Reid started the nukage business, when they were expressly warned by Cocaine Mitch not to do so. Had the filibuster remained in placed, Trump definitely would've had to work with Democrats to find that consensus pick or even not fill it during his tenure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Hmmm, sounds familiar..

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 2nd year of Trump's tenure is not the same as the last months of Obama's tenure.

I'd RATHER scotus simply call balls and strikes. Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh certainly fit that mold... rather than jurists who use their positions to further the progressive/conservative causes.

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.

Yup. That's where we're at.

That reaction crystalized for me during Obama's 8 years of worship. For all the cries of more gerrymandering and court-packing wishes... what announce it now when your party isn't in power? What's to stop the GOP party from packing the court themselves? (Courtpacking is a fething dumb idea... gerrymandering is an inherent political act that happens no matter what).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Your dear leader said “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.”

Why shouldn't Trump/GOP treat the Democrats the same way? You explain that to me, please. I'm all ears.