The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[jamil]

The left has obstructed the typical business of government to an unprecedented degree such as normal activities like appointments to ambassadors and judges and other positions. It is a crime to obstruct a police officer in carrying out his duties. These dumocraps should be held responsible for their obstruction of the government.

What about Republican obstruction of Obama? Not saying I didn't appreciate it. I was quite pleased with Obama getting his gun control shoved back up his ass. But, Republicans did it too. You can perhaps say democrats do it more or worse than Republicans did, but then I'm not sure it makes your case to make it a competition for worst.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The left has obstructed the typical business of government to an unprecedented degree such as normal activities like appointments to ambassadors and judges and other positions. It is a crime to obstruct a police officer in carrying out his duties. These dumocraps should be held responsible for their obstruction of the government.

So you think that what the democrats are doing, should be considered a criminal offense?

 

[nonobaddog]

What about Republican obstruction of Obama? Not saying I didn't appreciate it. I was quite pleased with Obama getting his gun control shoved back up his ass. But, Republicans did it too. You can perhaps say democrats do it more or worse than Republicans did, but then I'm not sure it makes your case to make it a competition for worst.

Yes, there certainly were some deterrents by the Repuplicans. Some judicious deterrent and debate is good and necessary. Some of obummers controversial appointments are a good example of when debate is required. The same is true for a few of Trump's appointments. But what I am talking about is pure obstruction of the government by obstructing almost all appointments that are not even controversial in the least. For hundreds of Trump's appointments the dumocraps are forcing cloture votes as a way of avoiding their filibusters. This calls for 30 hours of debate when no debate is necessary. I said not necessary because after the required 30 hours(like a week of Congressional session) of wasted time(sometimes the valuable floor time is just silence because there is nothing to debate) when they finally get to a vote - the appointment is approved UNANIMOUSLY. This is pure obstructionism of the government. Now multiply this times hundreds of appointments and you see the dumocraps are obstructing the Congress of the United States from its normal duties for YEARS worth of floor time. Congress has to choose what it will do with the little valuable floor time it has available. There are many important positions that are empty and not enough time to go through this process forced by the dumocraps so many of these positions will remain empty. This amounts to an attack on the United States. Any honest American should be very pissed off at this obstructionism.

There really needs to be two different terms used here.
One that describes the good process of checks and balances that don't allow one side to run wild
and another term that describes blocking normal activities that are not controversial and are required to run a country.

Frequently obstruction is used for both which only leads to ambiguity and misunderstanding.

 

[nonobaddog]

 

[Kutnupe14]

Isnt that what the GOP did with Gorsuch?

 

[KLB]

Isnt that what the GOP did with Gorsuch?

I assume you mean Merrick Garland.

 

[jbombelli]

Isnt that what the GOP did with Gorsuch?

No. Gorsuch was a Trump nominee.

 

[Hawkeye]

Hmmm.... TDS getting to you?

 

[printcraft]

What about Republican obstruction of Obama? Not saying I didn't appreciate it. I was quite pleased with Obama getting his gun control shoved back up his ass. But, Republicans did it too. You can perhaps say democrats do it more or worse than Republicans did, but then I'm not sure it makes your case to make it a competition for worst.

It it really boils down to Republicans obstructing to prevent Dems from removing rights of Americans.
Dems obstructing to grant rights to non Americans and doing something detrimental to America.

One side has the high ground here.

 

[jamil]

It it really boils down to Republicans obstructing to prevent Dems from removing rights of Americans.
Dems obstructing to grant rights to non Americans and doing something detrimental to America.

One side has the high ground here.

Why are we looking for who is standing on higher ground? Neither’s ground is all that firm. It’s still quibbling over who is the worst. I’m fine with Democrats obstructing Republicans or Republicans obstructing Democrats, when it’s a violation of the constitution, or, depending how they do it, if it’s to block retarded laws. Not everything Republicans obstructed was that. They made it clear from the beginning of Obama’s term that they were going to block everything. That was McConnell’s promise.

I think what we’re really talking about here is justifying “our” side for doing the same thing we’re condemning Democrats for. And then pretending that the distinction, the thing that justifies it all, is that our side has the moral high ground. And case by case, R’s might be on ground a few inches higher. But then we’re back to justifying bad actions for being least worse.

Doing something for dishonest reasons less often than the comparison isn’t a moral high ground.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I assume you mean Merrick Garland.

Correct

 

[nonobaddog]

Why are we looking for who is standing on higher ground? Neither’s ground is all that firm. It’s still quibbling over who is the worst. I’m fine with Democrats obstructing Republicans or Republicans obstructing Democrats, when it’s a violation of the constitution, or, depending how they do it, if it’s to block retarded laws. Not everything Republicans obstructed was that. They made it clear from the beginning of Obama’s term that they were going to block everything. That was McConnell’s promise.

I think what we’re really talking about here is justifying “our” side for doing the same thing we’re condemning Democrats for. And then pretending that the distinction, the thing that justifies it all, is that our side has the moral high ground. And case by case, R’s might be on ground a few inches higher. But then we’re back to justifying bad actions for being least worse.

Doing something for dishonest reasons less often than the comparison isn’t a moral high ground.

You can be as democrat as you want but to me there is a definite difference.
How many Republican congressmen are socialists?
How many Republican congressman have called for public harassment of cabinet members and congressmen like mad max did?
In spite of eight years of great opportunities, how many Republican congressmen called obummer a mother****er?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You can be as democrat as you want but to me there is a definite difference.
How many Republican congressmen are socialists?
How many Republican congressman have called for public harassment of cabinet members and congressmen like mad max did?
In spite of eight years of great opportunities, how many Republican congressmen called obummer a mother****er?

I'm sure a lot of congressmen, from both parties, have called (in private) both Obama and Trump that word. You seem to have an issue with elected officials exhibiting decorum, more than anything else.... it seems we were well past that point prior to this most recent "outrage."

 

[nonobaddog]

No. Mother****er is a new low, even for dumocraps.

 

[BugI02]

I'm sure a lot of congressmen, from both parties, have called (in private) both Obama and Trump that word. You seem to have an issue with elected officials exhibiting decorum, more than anything else.... it seems we were well past that point prior to this most recent "outrage."

Perhaps our expectations were informed by the collective case of the vapors that developed when Rep. Joe Wilson told [strike]the real godking[/strike] [strike]Mr Tingle[/strike] Obama, correctly I might add, that "You lie" in a similar official forum. One would have thought he committed blasphemy or broke wind during an audience with The Pope

Mr Wilson has been re-elected quite handily ever since by the way, including currently. We'll see how the Representative from Michigan's PLO district does in 2020

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;KgWY8EIQAqs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgWY8EIQAqs[/video]

 

[jamil]

You can be as democrat as you want but to me there is a definite difference.
How many Republican congressmen are socialists?
How many Republican congressman have called for public harassment of cabinet members and congressmen like mad max did?
In spite of eight years of great opportunities, how many Republican congressmen called obummer a mother****er?

First, let's get this out of the way. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican either. I vote for the least worst outcome. That's about all I can do. And lately Republicans tend to be the least worst outcome.

Republicans don't deserve my loyalty though. I don't have to pretend they are inherently more moral than Democrats. I'll side with them when and only if what they're trying to do is better than Democrats. Second, the rest is just trying to say who has the lead on a scoreboard. I don't keep score. I don't care if Republicans have an overall lead on the scoreboard. It's one issue at a time.

 

[nonobaddog]

First, let's get this out of the way. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican either. I vote for the least worst outcome. That's about all I can do. And lately Republicans tend to be the least worst outcome.

Republicans don't deserve my loyalty though. I don't have to pretend they are inherently more moral than Democrats. I'll side with them when and only if what they're trying to do is better than Democrats. Second, the rest is just trying to say who has the lead on a scoreboard. I don't keep score. I don't care if Republicans have an overall lead on the scoreboard. It's one issue at a time.

Exactly, you are part democrat and part Republican, that is why I said you can be as much democrat as you want (or as little). That is your choice.

I don't believe in party loyalty either. In reality, the party is nothing, it is their stance on the issues that garners support. If the democrats and Republicans switched their stances on the issues I would switch my support too. I think that is just normal and how most people operate.
For me the driving issues are protecting the second amendment rights of Americans and reducing big government (which means avoiding socialism). I think these two issues will determine the long-term success or failure of the United States. The stance on these issues, not the name of the party, earns my support and it is clearly the Republicans that have the best stance on these issues at this time.

Also morality in government is important to me. Neither side is a winner here with the general decadence and corruption rampant in big government. However with the antics of the clintons, feinstein, mad max and pelosi, the democrats are the bigger loser. If you don't keep score you won't know the score.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Isnt that what the GOP did with Gorsuch?

I assume you mean Merrick Garland.

Correct

So, the answer is no. This is not 2020... yet.

The exact same situation as Garland, a SCOTUS opening and nomination in the Presidential election year with an OPPOSING party Senate, happened 11 times prior.

NOT ONCE was such a nominee approved prior to the election. Old "fake news" dies hard...

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...itical-discussion-thread-223.html#post7023148

 

[Kutnupe14]

The exact same situation as Garland, a SCOTUS opening and nomination in the Presidential election year with an OPPOSING party Senate, happened 11 times prior.

NOT ONCE was such a nominee approved prior to the election. Old "fake news" dies hard...

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...itical-discussion-thread-223.html#post7023148

So I guess your point is that obstruction of a president's constitutionally granted powers has been an ongoing issue? Ok sure, what does that change, or does that mean the more frequent the shenanigans, the more acceptable it is?