'Murica! (141 Viewers)

[Hust]

It's all a matter of who you believe. Not granting hearing to Garland was a dick move since it's clearly within the rights of the president to nominate a SCOTUS justice. And reducing cloture requirements for judicial appointments, or what you called nuclear option had nothing to do with it. You're confusing it with liberals complaint that Trump is filling too many judicial positions and Senate is fast tracking them.

It was a dick move, but was it illegal?


Reid did this b/c they didn't have the 60 votes needed to push through confirmations. McConnell simply used the precedent set by Reid and added SCOTUS nominations. Republicans even warned Reid at that time that this would be a bad decision in event they became the minority again, Reid still did it.



Comparing the lack of an appointment of Garland to the outright assault on the life of a decent man is no comparison. Certainly you can see the difference?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[ALC]

That's the problem.

Per the second part, good luck with that argument. Bush & Obama didn't have the media fanning the flames like they do under this Admin. Surely you can't deny that its at another level of polarization with regards to the media?

I disagree that it’s a problem. Cities can’t function under republican ideals, they need taxes and regulation, things the republicans want to get rid of or lower considerably

 

[Hust]

I disagree that it’s a problem. Cities can’t function under republican ideals, they need taxes and regulation, things the republicans want to get rid of or lower considerably

Ok. Fair. Then don't be shocked when things continue to get worse and its no coincidence that people (the ones that actually pay the taxes for the benefits others get) are fleeing large cities.

 

[JuveJay]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...tssnd7xmuSIgoe9RBQxoWfhXt8#Echobox=1596002905

What a fucking moron. Of course, he’s not a social justice warrior, so it’s okay if he says it.

I was about to say that some of things this woman was coming out with were witch doctor-level tribal mumbo jumbo, then I saw that she is from Cameroon.

 

[Ronn]

It was a dick move, but was it illegal?


Reid did this b/c they didn't have the 60 votes needed to push through confirmations. McConnell simply used the precedent set by Reid and added SCOTUS nominations. Republicans even warned Reid at that time that this would be a bad decision in event they became the minority again, Reid still did it.



Comparing the lack of an appointment of Garland to the outright assault on the life of a decent man is no comparison. Certainly you can see the difference?

Again, filibuster reform had nothing to do with it. Republicans had the majority and controlled the committees. You're confusing two different things.
Reforming filibuster is not illegal either. Senate has control over its own rules and in fact those rules have changed a lot. During 1960s civil rights fight you needed a two third majority to avoid cloture.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...tssnd7xmuSIgoe9RBQxoWfhXt8#Echobox=1596002905

What a fucking moron. Of course, he’s not a social justice warrior, so it’s okay if he says it.

I guess the pivot lasted 5 minutes.

 

[Hust]

I was about to say that some of things this woman was coming out with were witch doctor-level tribal mumbo jumbo, then I saw that she is from Cameroon.

Didn't she say she was Nigerian?

- - - Updated - - -

Again, filibuster reform had nothing to do with it. Republicans had the majority and controlled the committees. You're confusing two different things.
Reforming filibuster is not illegal either. Senate has control over its own rules and in fact those rules have changed a lot. During 1960s civil rights fight you needed a two third majority to avoid cloture.

You brought up Garland as a comparison to what Republicans have done against Democrats, no? I simply point out that entire scenario with Garland was politics 101. Drafting lies against a nomination and running with it to ruin the life of that person is on another level. If it was Kavanaugh it would have been someone else getting the same treatment and it was disgusting and not the first time they've used that tactic before.

They really are the worst losers.

- - - Updated - - -

Reid was in the majority, changed the rules because he couldn't get his nominations through, hence the precedent that led to the rejection of Garland. By the time Garland came around and Republicans had majority on those committees but not the 60 votes needed, Majority Leader used the precedent by the guy he took over for.

 

[ALC]

Ok. Fair. Then don't be shocked when things continue to get worse and its no coincidence that people (the ones that actually pay the taxes for the benefits others get) are fleeing large cities.

I actually ended up fleeing the city myself

if I was making more money or worked there I would still be there tho

 

[Hust]

I actually ended up fleeing the city myself

if I was making more money or worked there I would still be there tho

But you didn't go far

Aren't you in the burbs to said city?

 

[JuveJay]

Didn't she say she was Nigerian?

Part of Cameroon became Nigeria in the 60s - it's a long story. Maybe that is where the confusion comes from. Her name is more Nigerian.

Not sure how good your Nigerian pidgin is: https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-53574144

Dr Stella say be Cameroon citizen wey train for neighbour kontri Nigeria and she enta America for 1992. She also tok say she don dey US for "30 years".

She could be any age and either (or both) nationality. Africa

 

[swag]

Follow the outcome of the Durham & Bash investigations. Misuse of the Intelligence Community to try and bring down a campaign AND THEN President. Unprecedented, as the democrats in the media love to say. Indeed it is - and the fact that media awarded themselves Pulitzer Prizes for the lies they continued to propagate knowing it was false is the cherry on top. The riots will stop eventually, law enforcement will win the day as they should. That includes justice being served for what a handful of people did to overthrow an election.

- - - Updated - - -

I also don't remember Republicans treating SCOTUS appointments so viciously. lol again, no comparison. Those appointments are never easy, don't get me wrong, but that shit was unnecessary for Kavanaugh.

- - - Updated - - -

Per the violence in big cities part, I am going to have to go with you get what you voted for. Want a change? Try changing your vote.

The whole Russia collusion thing made no sense on a lot of levels. For one, Democrats. Stupid enough to believe Putin would entrust Trump with any secrets -- to a guy who will Tweet anything he could find convenient to rouse the base and has shown zero ability to keep his mouth shut.

For another, Trump. For publicly admiring and cozying up to a Russian dictator even after there was plenty of evidence of the Putin-created-and-funded Internet Research Agency buying up psychotic ads on Facebook in the run-up to the election.

The superpower battlefields don't involve warships, armies, or nukes anymore. They involve computers. Russia and China know this. The US has been slow to acknowledge and respond in kind. Regardless of the details in how federal agencies were or were not tainted for political ends, the fact remains that the US is generally unprepared for an era of cyberwarfare and it's failing to respond to the actual threats on the ground.

Media has been a big loss for society. It's a pillar that should counterbalance the political machinery and hold truth to power. That Pulitzer prizes went to liberal pieces is a fair question. But with a Republic administration (save for the House), that should be pretty much the case by definition, right? You can only be most effective in opposition from the official narrative in power in that role. The media would not be doing its job when giving Obama a free pass for comparison. But that's a valid pre-2016 complaint, not a post-2016 gripe.

As for SCOTUS appointments, it's pretty clear that "acting" is part of the title of most cabinet office heads. He's been lax to appoint most positions. Kavanaugh was US at its ugliest and most alarmist, and Kavanaugh didn't come out smelling like a rose from that either. The irony now being that it's Roberts that's going all rogue to plans. I still see the appointment battles being more tit-for-tat between both parties, really. Nothing new here.

I guess we are are ready for c3po for president then i think it's nice and admirable to try to consider all facets, but the fallacy there is thinking somehow that will lead to solutions, it never does. One has to pick settle for the side with the better tradeoff.

Booyah!
Governance is an old model. Worshipping at the hierarchical cult of singular personality is dying in a world now defined by networks. It was always a fallacy that a presidential administration was about the man at the podium. We give too much credit for a lone president's influence, which is probably a good thing given the necessary nature of checks and balances. The world has enough dictators.

Even look at GWB. That was a puppet largely string-pulled by the likes of Cheney if not also Rumsfeld, who could run circles around him. THAT was the presidency in my mind.

That's the problem.

Per the second part, good luck with that argument. Bush & Obama didn't have the media fanning the flames like they do under this Admin. Surely you can't deny that its at another level of polarization with regards to the media?

It's a problem for whom, though? Because if you're saying that's the problem for city voters from a position of "I know what's better for you than you do", then you're acting no better than the liberate elites.

This admin has the media fanning the flames because they pretty much declared outright war on them. What did you expect?

 

[ALC]

But you didn't go far

Aren't you in the burbs to said city?

yes lol

 

[Ronn]

Didn't she say she was Nigerian?

- - - Updated - - -


You brought up Garland as a comparison to what Republicans have done against Democrats, no? I simply point out that entire scenario with Garland was politics 101. Drafting lies against a nomination and running with it to ruin the life of that person is on another level. If it was Kavanaugh it would have been someone else getting the same treatment and it was disgusting and not the first time they've used that tactic before.

They really are the worst losers.

- - - Updated - - -

Reid was in the majority, changed the rules because he couldn't get his nominations through, hence the precedent that led to the rejection of Garland. By the time Garland came around and Republicans had majority on those committees but not the 60 votes needed, Majority Leader used the precedent by the guy he took over for.

Politics 101? For a similar treatment of a SCOTUS nominee you need to go back to 1853, where a judge was nominated 1 month before the inauguration of a new president and Senate didn't act. What McConnell did was far more consequential than the treatment Kavanaugh received. That's hardly debatable.
Also about being a sore loser, do you remember this?

 

[Enron]

That last Administration had left gaping holes with judicial appointments at all levels. Can't be mad at this Administration took advantage of a majority Senate.

In any case, that was politics. Democrats took it to a personal level and tried to destroy the livelihood of individuals because they lost.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, Greg said it. Point still stands, if that's all you can come up with ...get some new material.

last administration left gaping holes in the judicial system? Mitch McConnel was part of the last administration?

 

[Hust]

The whole Russia collusion thing made no sense on a lot of levels. For one, Democrats. Stupid enough to believe Putin would entrust Trump with any secrets -- to a guy who will Tweet anything he could find convenient to rouse the base and has shown zero ability to keep his mouth shut.

For another, Trump. For publicly admiring and cozying up to a Russian dictator even after there was plenty of evidence of the Putin-created-and-funded Internet Research Agency buying up psychotic ads on Facebook in the run-up to the election.

The superpower battlefields don't involve warships, armies, or nukes anymore. They involve computers. Russia and China know this. The US has been slow to acknowledge and respond in kind. Regardless of the details in how federal agencies were or were not tainted for political ends, the fact remains that the US is generally unprepared for an era of cyberwarfare and it's failing to respond to the actual threats on the ground.

Media has been a big loss for society. It's a pillar that should counterbalance the political machinery and hold truth to power. That Pulitzer prizes went to liberal pieces is a fair question. But with a Republic administration (save for the House), that should be pretty much the case by definition, right? You can only be most effective in opposition from the official narrative in power in that role. The media would not be doing its job when giving Obama a free pass for comparison. But that's a valid pre-2016 complaint, not a post-2016 gripe.

As for SCOTUS appointments, it's pretty clear that "acting" is part of the title of most cabinet office heads. He's been lax to appoint most positions. Kavanaugh was US at its ugliest and most alarmist, and Kavanaugh didn't come out smelling like a rose from that either. The irony now being that it's Roberts that's going all rogue to plans. I still see the appointment battles being more tit-for-tat between both parties, really. Nothing new here.



Booyah!
Governance is an old model. Worshipping at the hierarchical cult of singular personality is dying in a world now defined by networks. It was always a fallacy that a presidential administration was about the man at the podium. We give too much credit for a lone president's influence, which is probably a good thing given the necessary nature of checks and balances. The world has enough dictators.

Even look at GWB. That was a puppet largely string-pulled by the likes of Cheney if not also Rumsfeld, who could run circles around him. THAT was the presidency in my mind.



It's a problem for whom, though? Because if you're saying that's the problem for city voters from a position of "I know what's better for you than you do", then you're acting no better than the liberate elites.

This admin has the media fanning the flames because they pretty much declared outright war on them. What did you expect?

Per the Cyber side, I agree to the point we are ill-position but its not because they are better than we are, its because of the red-tape it requires to launch a cyber attack. Chinese are our biggest threat, but from what I've seen the Russians are better. China has sheer numbers that makes them effective as well as the whole supply side issues we are seeing now. This Admin at least recognizes that threat and is attempting to correct it. When we take our gloves off we are ridiculously talented but we have to be allowed to take the gloves off.

- - - Updated - - -

Politics 101? For a similar treatment of a SCOTUS nominee you need to go back to 1853, where a judge was nominated 1 month before the inauguration of a new president and Senate didn't act. What McConnell did was far more consequential than the treatment Kavanaugh received. That's hardly debatable.
Also about being a sore loser, do you remember this?

Agree about how consequential the action McConnell did was, but someone before him gave him reason to do it. That's my point. They changed the rules to play the game, so did McConnell. Can't be sour grapes about that. You said it yourself, they can manage their own rules for their committees.

And I disagree. The treatment of Kavanaugh will prevent great people from both sides wanted to work in those roles because they know how ugly it can get now. As Greg said, that was America at it's ugliest and it came from one side. Another precedent had been set, lets see if on the next one they will be adults.

- - - Updated - - -

last administration left gaping holes in the judicial system? Mitch McConnel was part of the last administration?

There were plenty of unfilled vacancies.

 

[AFL_ITALIA]

All of this aside,

U.S. to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany but nearly half to stay in Europe

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rly-half-to-stay-in-europe-idUSKCN24U20L?il=0

No doubt many will be angry about this on both sides, but I think we can do with closing a base or two in Europe tbh. Not having anything to do with NATO or some trade bullshit, but I'm sure they can take care of themselves as developed nations and we could do with saving a few dollars here and there.

 

[Ronn]

Per the Cyber side, I agree to the point we are ill-position but its not because they are better than we are, its because of the red-tape it requires to launch a cyber attack. Chinese are our biggest threat, but from what I've seen the Russians are better. China has sheer numbers that makes them effective as well as the whole supply side issues we are seeing now. This Admin at least recognizes that threat and is attempting to correct it. When we take our gloves off we are ridiculously talented but we have to be allowed to take the gloves off.

- - - Updated - - -


Agree about how consequential the action McConnell did was, but someone before him gave him reason to do it. That's my point. They changed the rules to play the game, so did McConnell. Can't be sour grapes about that. You said it yourself, they can manage their own rules for their committees.

And I disagree. The treatment of Kavanaugh will prevent great people from both sides wanted to work in those roles because they know how ugly it can get now. As Greg said, that was America at it's ugliest and it came from one side. Another precedent had been set, lets see if on the next one they will be adults.

Good God! They had nothing to do with each other. Cloture rules have changed many times. There's no excuse for what McConnell did.

 

[Hust]

Good God! They had nothing to do with each other. Cloture rules have changed many times. There's no excuse for what McConnell did.

There is no excuse for a leader changing the rules for the committee they run?

 

[Ronn]

There is no excuse for a leader changing the rules for the committee they run?

McConnel didn't change any rules. He just didn't take it up. Technically it's legal, but very unprecedented as I stated above.

 

[Hust]

McConnel didn't change any rules. He just didn't take it up. Technically it's legal, but very unprecedented as I stated above.

That's my point. Just as it wasn't illegal for the filibuster rules to change or be removed under Reid. Unprecedented, yes. Illegal, no.

- - - Updated - - -

In any case, McConnell's argument was that no nomination should be made during an election year until the election was completed. His argument was the American people should have a say. Unprecedented yes, and as I said a couple days ago for that reason, Trump was elected. I believe that if that SCOTUS spot would have been filled, a lot of republicans would have stayed home on Election Day. Was a bold move.

I will add this too, again. RBG is cheating death, voters smell blood in the water again and if you think they will stay home and miss out on another potential SCOTUS pick (or two judging by age) then people have a big shock. A SCOTUS pick was the reason people begrudgingly voted for Trump. Those same people will come out and do it again.

 

[Enron]

That's my point. Just as it wasn't illegal for the filibuster rules to change or be removed under Reid. Unprecedented, yes. Illegal, no.

- - - Updated - - -

In any case, McConnell's argument was that no nomination should be made during an election year until the election was completed. His argument was the American people should have a say. Unprecedented yes, and as I said a couple days ago for that reason, Trump was elected. I believe that if that SCOTUS spot would have been filled, a lot of republicans would have stayed home on Election Day. Was a bold move.

and the other 100 or so appointments? also bold move?