logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 84

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

and now the Senate will revoke the filibuster for the Supreme Court nomination.

Your post made me think this had happened but at this point it’s not even clear if the Dems will force it, let alone if the the Repubs will follow through with it.

Sorry if that was unclear, but I think it’s almost a certainty. Trump has endorsed they do this, giving them any justification they need. Seeing as they essentially did the same thing in the less-formal committee, I don’t see why they wouldn’t go through with it in the Senate if they could.

Trump Says ‘Go Nuclear’ as Democrats Gird for Gorsuch Fight
President Trump, seeming to relish a fight with Democrats over his nominee to the Supreme Court, encouraged the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, on Wednesday to invoke the so-called nuclear option and abandon the 60-vote threshold for confirmation.

“If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear,’” the president said.

Democrats are weighing strategies for opposing the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch and debating how aggressively to pursue a battle over a seat that many of them believe was stolen from their party.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-trump.html

well for thing, it might bite them in the butt if the Dems gain a majority in the Senate. Think about what would have happened under Obama if the Republicans couldn’t filibuster.

If they do get rid of the filibuster, I it is time for all out war(not violent or the illegal kind). The Dems should block/disrupt/refuse to cooperate/fight the GOP in every way shape and form possible at all levels of government. This includes state and local level. They should also look into a possible constitutional convention. This pisses me off. After all the filibustering the GOP did during the Obama years and now they have the nerve to get rid of it now that the shoe is on the other foot.

It’s almost like they’re massive hypocrites or something.

Or it’s almost as if both parties are two sides of the same coin.

Forced by Republican obstruction.

How is that any different than the Republicans doing this now?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-merrick-garland.html?_r=0

Not to mention that Obama deliberately picked a centrist and Republicans threw a year-long hissy fit about it, and are now pissed because Democrats are pissed about an extreme conservative pick from Trump after throwing a year-long hissy fit about Obama’s centrist pick.

That was three years after the article Handman shared.

From the same article:

Republicans said the way Democrats upended the rules will result in fallout for years. “It’s another raw exercise of political power to permit the majority to do anything it wants whenever it wants to do it,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the GOP’s parliamentary expert, told reporters.

Republicans vowed to reciprocate if they reclaim the majority.

So it’s not completely unprecedented. It’s still shitty that everything’s become so partisan (and Merrick should have had a hearing).

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

You asked “How is that any different than the Republicans doing this now?” That’s the difference.

Merrick should have gotten a hearing, but he’s far from the first to have his nomination halted for purely political reasons. I’m sure we could throw examples dating back to Reagan for this. Democrats say conservative judges are picked, Republicans say too liberal/not conservative enough judges are, or the BS about an election year. Obama was in a unique position for nominees being obstructed, unfortunately. Neither party is innocent, though.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Filibustering is nothing new. If it wasn’t a key element of our democracy, it never would have been allowed in the first place.

Not holding a hearing for a SCOTUS nominee is underhand of and spits in the face of our democracy. Yet another example of how the GOP will stop at literally nothing to gain power.

There’s no doubt Dems opened a can of worms when they changed confirmations to a simple majority in 09. But that shouldn’t stop them from fighting about plainly obviously horrendous cabinet picks. The issue isn’t just that Trump is worse than Obama because he’s Republican, it’s that Trump is worse than everyone. The GOP had no reason to rally against Obama with the force they did. But Trump has proven in every waking moment since he announced his candidacy that he is simply (all politics aside) not suited for office, and his choices since being elected have only further proven that to be true. The worst cases of people playing politics in Congress right now aren’t on the Dems side, it’s the Republicans who are too afraid to stand up against Trump.

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

DominicCobb said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Handman said:

The Democrats are not doing well, they didn’t show up to the hearings for Trump’s nominees so the committee rules were suspended to allow them to continue without the party, and now the Senate will revoke the filibuster for the Supreme Court nomination.

If Dems continue to be a no-show, we’ll effectively end up in a one-party system fast.

I just remember Dominic saying that it was only the Republican’s who were making it all about “sides” and I did not agree. I certainly don’t relish being right at least some of the time but it’s been more than obvious that it is happening. People fear change but change is here and we either go down complaining or we find a way to make it positive for everyone as best we can.

Why do I even bother

We also both did agree that it should not be this way but it is. And you’re not like Frink so don’t let him drag you down. 😉

back door insult.

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Handman said:

The Democrats are not doing well, they didn’t show up to the hearings for Trump’s nominees so the committee rules were suspended to allow them to continue without the party, and now the Senate will revoke the filibuster for the Supreme Court nomination.

If Dems continue to be a no-show, we’ll effectively end up in a one-party system fast.

I just remember Dominic saying that it was only the Republican’s who were making it all about “sides” and I did not agree. I certainly don’t relish being right at least some of the time but it’s been more than obvious that it is happening. People fear change but change is here and we either go down complaining or we find a way to make it positive for everyone as best we can.

Why do I even bother

Because just like me, you’re an idiot.

warbler, maybe you should read farther back than a post or two before making uninformed comments.

You called him an idiot. Isn’t that a personal attack?

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

The worst cases of people playing politics in Congress right now aren’t on the Dems side, it’s the Republicans who are too afraid to stand up against Trump.

Agreed, Trump has got to go.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

DominicCobb said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Handman said:

The Democrats are not doing well, they didn’t show up to the hearings for Trump’s nominees so the committee rules were suspended to allow them to continue without the party, and now the Senate will revoke the filibuster for the Supreme Court nomination.

If Dems continue to be a no-show, we’ll effectively end up in a one-party system fast.

I just remember Dominic saying that it was only the Republican’s who were making it all about “sides” and I did not agree. I certainly don’t relish being right at least some of the time but it’s been more than obvious that it is happening. People fear change but change is here and we either go down complaining or we find a way to make it positive for everyone as best we can.

Why do I even bother

We also both did agree that it should not be this way but it is. And you’re not like Frink so don’t let him drag you down. 😉

back door insult.

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Handman said:

The Democrats are not doing well, they didn’t show up to the hearings for Trump’s nominees so the committee rules were suspended to allow them to continue without the party, and now the Senate will revoke the filibuster for the Supreme Court nomination.

If Dems continue to be a no-show, we’ll effectively end up in a one-party system fast.

I just remember Dominic saying that it was only the Republican’s who were making it all about “sides” and I did not agree. I certainly don’t relish being right at least some of the time but it’s been more than obvious that it is happening. People fear change but change is here and we either go down complaining or we find a way to make it positive for everyone as best we can.

Why do I even bother

Because just like me, you’re an idiot.

warbler, maybe you should read farther back than a post or two before making uninformed comments.

You called him an idiot. Isn’t that a personal attack?

I called him nothing of the sort, he called himself that, how is it my fault? LOL

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Not holding a hearing for a SCOTUS nominee is underhand of and spits in the face of our democracy. Yet another example of how the GOP will stop at literally nothing to gain power.

Yep.

Author
Time

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN15H1RU

U.S. President Donald Trump defended his order to temporarily bar entry to people from seven majority-Muslim nations, which has come under intense criticism at home and abroad, saying on Thursday it was crucial to ensuring religious freedom and tolerance in America.

Trump, speaking at a prayer breakfast attended by politicians, faith leaders and guests including Jordan’s King Abdullah, said he wanted to prevent a “beachhead of intolerance” from spreading in the United States.

The only way to defeat intolerance and restriction of religion is to be intolerant and restrict religion…he just forgot to say “I want to ensure CHRISTIAN freedom and tolerance of CHRISTIANS, and we’ll do so by saying fuck you to the other religions.”

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Jeebus said:

DominicCobb said:

Jeebus said:

Interesting article indeed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/01/how-much-coverage-did-cnn-actually-devote-to-clintons-emails-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.002e715ef333

Yes because the one thing the election was missing was more talk about Clinton’s emails.

Yes, that’s what the data seems to indicate.

And yet the results seem to indicate people found out just fine.

Sure, but I don’t think that’s the problem.


http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1039140

The “mainstream media” showed clear bias throughout the entire election, for both sides. This is why people don’t trust the media. It’s not like everyone got a wild hair up their collective asses and decided that the news was untrustworthy, that suspicion exists for a reason.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

That article shows only one channel used terms like “illegals” and “snowflakes” regularly so I don’t think there’s really an equal comparison.

The simple fact of the matter is there wasn’t much of importance in the leaked emails. All that article tells me is that Fox, as expected, blew them out of proportion, and now we’re stuck with fuckface von clown stick (to say nothing of the fact that the whole email leak happened because one fascist leader wanted to help install another fascist leader).

If CNN devoted an inordinate amount of time to Trump, it was because they’re ratings whores. If they criticize him more than Hillary, it’s because there’s so much to criticize.

Comparing CNN to Fox boggles the mind. MSNBC is really the closest comparison (though even that doesn’t match up to the sheer ignorance of reason and viciousness that Fox displays). Anyone who’s watched CNN for even an hour could tell you there’s nothing malicious there or worthy of distrust. They announce the top stories, then have a panel with people on both sides argue. Rinse repeat all day. It’s not great TV or great reporting, but to believe they’re evidence of a highly biased mainstream media is just ignorant. You’re being tricked.

At no point is the disconnect more obvious than when Kellyanne Conway is on. She goes on and says her side, and then proceeds to complain that places like CNN never show her side! It’s ridiculous, especially because it seems like she’s on pretty much every day. They’re tricking people in to distrusting everything that doesn’t lean right. When Fox says “Fair and Balanced,” it’s because they want you to believe that any outlet that isn’t as far right as them isn’t fair or balanced.

The fact that the American people elected Trump is proof that the mainstream media failed to properly educate the populace. In what way is up for debate, but I’d say the primary reason was that people became convinced that criticizing one candidate more than the other was a sign of subjectivity, when it was really objectivity.

This didn’t happen because both sides are biased. This happened because one side decided to discredit anything that criticized their side. And I’m not just talking about cable news. This election saw the right seed distrust in just about every news outlet that wasn’t heavy conservative leaning. When fact checks are considered “bias,” that’s how you know we’re fucked.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

fuckface von clown stick

I love that if you google search this, in addition to the expected Jon Stewart articles, you get Trump’s twitter feed.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/02/trumps-threat-to-defund-berkeley-after-protest-of-breitbart-writer-makes-no-sense/?utm_term=.e7f285107fea

Contained in this story is yet more evidence that Trump makes policy by watching Fox News.

Perhaps the president had started his morning by tuning in to Fox News. Shortly before Trump sent his tweet, commentator Todd Starnes had said that “President Trump should immediately issue an executive order blocking Berkeley students from receiving any federal funding. Same goes for any other public university that wants to silence conservative voices. Free speech for all or no federal money, not a single taxpayer penny, period.”

And then of course there’s Trump’s usual alternative facts.

Trump cast Wednesday’s ugly episode as evidence that “Berkeley does not allow free speech” when it is exactly the opposite. That the university agreed to host Yiannopoulos in the first place is a sign of its commitment to free speech, which the school reiterated in a statement condemning “the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display.”

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

This should end the debate over which guy, Alex Jones or random other guy I’ve never heard of, is more dangerous.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/01/31/reporter-conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-trump-white-house-days-away-giving-us-credentials-cover/215196

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/02/01/what-it-would-mean-have-infowars-white-house-press-room/215204

Stefan Molyneux has a worse ideology than Alex Jones and isn’t much less popular.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

This should end the debate over which guy, Alex Jones or random other guy I’ve never heard of, is more dangerous.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/01/31/reporter-conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-trump-white-house-days-away-giving-us-credentials-cover/215196

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/02/01/what-it-would-mean-have-infowars-white-house-press-room/215204

Stefan Molyneux has a worse ideology than Alex Jones and isn’t much less popular.

Well I’ve never heard of him, so I don’t know about the latter, but on the former, I just looked him up and apparently he blames women (mothers specifically) for all of societies problems, so I’d being willing to hear arguments as to how he’s worse.

Author
Time

Who is the best interviewer out there now? I can’t think of anyone like David Frost out there now.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

This should end the debate over which guy, Alex Jones or random other guy I’ve never heard of, is more dangerous.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/01/31/reporter-conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-trump-white-house-days-away-giving-us-credentials-cover/215196

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/02/01/what-it-would-mean-have-infowars-white-house-press-room/215204

Stefan Molyneux has a worse ideology than Alex Jones and isn’t much less popular.

Well I’ve never heard of him, so I don’t know about the latter, but on the former, I just looked him up and apparently he blames women (mothers specifically) for all of societies problems, so I’d being willing to hear arguments as to how he’s worse.

That’s about right, and add to that that he believes that his followers should cut off all interaction with family and friends who believe in simple things like paying taxes, because he believes that thinking people should pay their taxes is the equivalent of wanting someone to be shot (no joke). He’s way worse.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Handman said:

Who is the best interviewer out there now? I can’t think of anyone like David Frost out there now.

Not many have the kind of opportunity Frost had.

Author
Time

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/donald-trump-australia/515409/

President Obama’s critics argued that the United States was no longer respected under his tenure. Trump assured his voters that he alone would make America respected again. After barely a week his undisciplined antics have damaged America’s standing with multiple allies. “World leaders be warned,” the Australian newspaper declared. “Trump’s conversations are not private and his word, unreliable.”

Who can now deny that?

Other allies were watching. Trump’s behavior made all the British papers. The story in the conservative Telegraph at one point characterized Trump as having a “tantrum.”

And the image Trump has projected to the world is bullying disloyalty.