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

[ghuns]

So I guess your point is that obstruction of a president's constitutionally granted powers has been an ongoing issue?...

Is it an issue?

Or is it because, as somebody once said, elections have consequences.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is it an issue?

Or is it because, as somebody once said, elections have consequences.

Maybe you don't know it, but you're helping my point.

 

[ghuns]

Maybe you don't know it, but you're helping my point.

Refresh my memory, what was your point?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Refresh my memory, what was your point?

In reference to Democrats obstructing Trump.

 

[jamil]

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.

Not part Democrat. Not part Republican. I'm 100% me and my family. I look at individual ideas more than groups. A group doesn't own an idea they support. Once an idea is out there, it's anyone's to support or condemn. I don't subscribe to the set of ideas of a particular group either.

About scores. It's not a game where scores matter. Let's say Republicans do have a better score. You think I'm going to support an idea I don't like just because they have a slightly higher score on some scale of unearned morality?

Something else related, some people think that because it's a republican idea, it must be the right idea. Many democrats have the same problem. People don't have good or bad ideas because they belong to a political party. I mean, don't get me wrong, there's some correlation there especially lately. I haven't heard any republicans saying there's no biological difference between men and women. I haven't heard any republicans saying the US must convert the entire economy to 100% green energy in 11 years. I don't know the score, but it seems the bat-**** craziest ideas are coming from progressives these days and it's not even close. But democrats don't call their own crazies out because if you're a democrat, you must be right.

Btw, about moral scores, the dems think they're in the lead.

 

[ghuns]

In reference to Democrats obstructing Trump.

Oh. They are welcome too.

I am a firm believer that gridlock is the best we can hope for at this point.

 

[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.

Not part Democrat. Not part Republican. I'm 100% me and my family. I look at individual ideas more than groups. A group doesn't own an idea they support. Once an idea is out there, it's anyone's to support or condemn. I don't subscribe to the set of ideas of a particular group either.

About scores. It's not a game where scores matter. Let's say Republicans do have a better score. You think I'm going to support an idea I don't like just because they have a slightly higher score on some scale of unearned morality?

Something else related, some people think that because it's a republican idea, it must be the right idea. Many democrats have the same problem. People don't have good or bad ideas because they belong to a political party. I mean, don't get me wrong, there's some correlation there especially lately. I haven't heard any republicans saying there's no biological difference between men and women. I haven't heard any republicans saying the US must convert the entire economy to 100% green energy in 11 years. I don't know the score, but it seems the bat-**** craziest ideas are coming from progressives these days and it's not even close. But democrats don't call their own crazies out because if you're a democrat, you must be right.

Btw, about moral scores, the dems think they're in the lead.

I agree with you. But one problem comes when it is time to vote. I vote for individuals too. The problem is you get the whole package, you can't split up one candidate and say I am voting for you on this issue and that issue but not on this other issue. My process is to prioritize the issues and see who is in best alignment on the most important issues to me. This has been ridiculously easy lately.

 

[BugI02]

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?

That certainly seemed to be Clinton's (either one) raison d'être

 

[BugI02]

Not part Democrat. Not part Republican. I'm 100% me and my family. I look at individual ideas more than groups. A group doesn't own an idea they support. Once an idea is out there, it's anyone's to support or condemn. I don't subscribe to the set of ideas of a particular group either.

About scores. It's not a game where scores matter. Let's say Republicans do have a better score. You think I'm going to support an idea I don't like just because they have a slightly higher score on some scale of unearned morality?

Something else related, some people think that because it's a republican idea, it must be the right idea. Many democrats have the same problem. People don't have good or bad ideas because they belong to a political party. I mean, don't get me wrong, there's some correlation there especially lately. I haven't heard any republicans saying there's no biological difference between men and women. I haven't heard any republicans saying the US must convert the entire economy to 100% green energy in 11 years. I don't know the score, but it seems the bat-**** craziest ideas are coming from progressives these days and it's not even close. But democrats don't call their own crazies out because if you're a democrat, you must be right.

Btw, about moral scores, the dems think they're in the lead.

Ahh, but that's because so many immoral things they support they just don't see as issues involving their twisted, rootless, relativistic version of morality

 

[BugI02]

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?

That certainly seemed to be Clinton's (either one) raison d'être

 

[SheepDog4Life]

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?

No, neither. Apples and oranges, a false comparison.

Since the founding of our country, a majority opposition controlled Senate has refused to give consent to SCOTUS candidates nominated in the run-up to a Presidential election (opening and nomination in the election year). Right or wrong, THAT is baked into our country's DNA, and has been since forever.

To equate that (Garland plus 11 other SCOTUS nominees in history) to a minority party obstructing all nominees or any potential SCOTUS nominee, and not in the Presidential election year, is intellectually dishonest.

As usual, Dems change the "rules" to enhance their power, but expect the Repubs to play by the old, collegial rules. They were surprised when McConnell "nuked" the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees... they thought only they could do that, when they needed to, lol! And, does anyone doubt that they would have done so to get an Obama SCOTUS nominee through, if necessary?

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, neither. Apples and oranges, a false comparison.

Since the founding of our country, a majority opposition controlled Senate has refused to give consent to SCOTUS candidates nominated in the run-up to a Presidential election (opening and nomination in the election year). Right or wrong, THAT is baked into our country's DNA, and has been since forever.

To equate that (Garland plus 11 other SCOTUS nominees in history) to a minority party obstructing all nominees or any potential SCOTUS nominee, and not in the Presidential election year, is intellectually dishonest. As usual, Dems change the "rules" to enhance their power, but expect the Repubs to play by the old, collegial rules. They were surprised when McConnell "nuked" the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees... they thought only they could do that, when they needed to, lol!

So you are saying that the more frequent the shenanigans, the more acceptable they are. Either that, or I missed the "election year refusal" clause, in the Constitution, as the reasoning for blocking a president's Supreme Court pick.

 

[KLB]

No, neither. Apples and oranges, a false comparison.

Since the founding of our country, a majority opposition controlled Senate has refused to give consent to SCOTUS candidates nominated in the run-up to a Presidential election (opening and nomination in the election year). Right or wrong, THAT is baked into our country's DNA, and has been since forever.

To equate that (Garland plus 11 other SCOTUS nominees in history) to a minority party obstructing all nominees or any potential SCOTUS nominee, and not in the Presidential election year, is intellectually dishonest.

As usual, Dems change the "rules" to enhance their power, but expect the Repubs to play by the old, collegial rules. They were surprised when McConnell "nuked" the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees... they thought only they could do that, when they needed to, lol! And, does anyone doubt that they would have done so to get an Obama SCOTUS nominee through, if necessary?

I can't remember and am too lazy to look it up again. Did the previous instances involve not voting or did they just vote against?

 

[T.Lex]

So you are saying that the more frequent the shenanigans, the more acceptable they are. Either that, or I missed the "election year refusal" clause, in the Constitution, as the reasoning for blocking a president's Supreme Court pick.

It is embedded in the Senate confirmation process.

POTUS can't dictate when and how the Senate does its business. That's up to the Senate.

 

[Fargo]

So you are saying that the more frequent the shenanigans, the more acceptable they are. Either that, or I missed the "election year refusal" clause, in the Constitution, as the reasoning for blocking a president's Supreme Court pick.

There is no “reasoning” requirement in the Constitution. The Senate can withhold consent for pretty much any or no reason. My issue with the Garland thing was that they elected to not discharge their advise/consent duties by refusing to consider the nom.

 

[Kutnupe14]

There is no “reasoning” requirement in the Constitution. The Senate can withhold consent for pretty much any or no reason. My issue with the Garland thing was that they elected to not discharge their advise/consent duties by refusing to consider the nom.

So by the notion put forth above, from the original premise, "obstruction," isn't the same as actively opposing a political stance.

 

[Mongo59]

Obstruction is what you get on a bread and water diet...

 

[actaeon277]

Obstruction is what you get on a bread and water diet...

small thread jack.
The military is debating getting rid of bread/water punishment.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I can't remember and am too lazy to look it up again. Did the previous instances involve not voting or did they just vote against?

A combination of each (or is it both?). From a long ago post in 2016 (which I linked to a couple posts ago):

Contrary to what mainstream media reporting (or rather non-reporting) would lead you to believe, all 11 met the same result as Garland, no vote (or a "no" vote) PRIOR to the election. Four were confirmed AFTER the election when either the nominating President won re-election OR the election changed control of the Senate.

So, everything from completely ignoring the nomination (a la Garland) until the election results were in, to actively voting down the nomination.

There is no “reasoning” requirement in the Constitution. The Senate can withhold consent for pretty much any or no reason. My issue with the Garland thing was that they elected to not discharge their advise/consent duties by refusing to consider the nom.

So they should have put on a "dog and pony show" only to vote no? IMO, not considering the nomination, nor wasting time upon it, was the more honest action (non-action). Plus, voting down the Garland nomination would require a re-nomination to reconsider after the election if the result had been "positive" towards going forward with it.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So you are saying that the more frequent the shenanigans, the more acceptable they are. Either that, or I missed the "election year refusal" clause, in the Constitution, as the reasoning for blocking a president's Supreme Court pick.

Like it or not, it has ALWAYS been that an opposing party Senate majority would not consider or approve SCOTUS nominees when the opening on the court occurred "close" to the Presidential election. ALWAYS. From the beginning! Both parties! No exceptions! 11-0. Batting 1.000.

But it was somehow unfair to treat Obama's nominee EXACTLY the same because.... because why? Please explain to me why Obama's nomination of Garland deserved, and by MSM propagandized accounts, DEMANDED, an unprecedented treatment unheard of in the entire history of our country. Anything other than the demanded special treatment was <fill-in the blank>.

Please, explain it to me like I'm a 5th grader, because it's entirely possible I'm just dense.