Obama to proceed with court nominee despite Republican defiance

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/2/24/obama-to-proceed-with-court-nominee-despite-republican-defiance.html


A day after Senate Republicans ruled out taking action on any Supreme Court nominee he puts forward, President Barack Obama on Wednesday vowed to move ahead with a selection who will possess an "independent mind" and grasp how laws impact people’s lives.

An intense political fight has erupted since the Feb. 13 death of long-serving conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, as Republicans maneuver to foil Obama's ability to choose a replacement who could tilt the court to the left for the first time in decades. The Senate must confirm any high court nominee.

"The Constitution vests in the president the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. It's a duty that I take seriously, and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead," Obama, sounding undeterred by the Republican-led Senate's opposition, wrote in a blog post on the independent SCOTUSblog.com website.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on Tuesday that the Republican-led Senate will not hold hearings or vote on any Supreme Court nominee until after the next president takes office in January.

Obama did not appear deterred in his blog post, writing: "As senators prepare to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to consider the person I appoint, I hope they'll move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the court can continue to serve the American people at full strength."

Obama, who did not mention potential candidates by name, laid out a list of qualifications he would seek in a nominee who he promised would be "eminently qualified."

[RandomGuy]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee/

Suggestions include a moderate Republican.

Man, wouldn't that be awkward? Republicans bashing one of their own in an election year, just because he was nominated by a Democrat.

If one wanted to paint the GOP as a bunch of raving loons, that would be a good way to do it.

[DarrinS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BazcDd-yG8

[ElNono]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee/

Suggestions include a moderate Republican.

Man, wouldn't that be awkward? Republicans bashing one of their own in an election year, just because he was nominated by a Democrat.

If one wanted to paint the GOP as a bunch of raving loons, that would be a good way to do it.

There won't be any bashing if the nomination doesn't get past the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is exactly what's going to happen.

[Wild Cobra]

I hate to say it, but Obama has every right to nominate someone. With almost a year before he is out, it is almost imperative that he select someone, and the senate approves someone.

[boutons_deux]

scorched-earth, smash-mouth, hate-govt Repugs worry about looking "awkward"? :lol

[ChumpDumper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BazcDd-yG8So are you obstructionist in this case, Darrin?

Or are you again too afraid to state an actual thought of your own?

[ChumpDumper]

And spooky music aside, what does "voted to filibuster" and "tried to block" even mean, Darrin?

Explain the video you chose to post.

[spurraider21]

And spooky music aside, what does "voted to filibuster" and "tried to block" even mean, Darrin?

Explain the video you chose to post.
well, filibusters can be brought to an end with votes. so i would just assume "voted to filibuster" means he voted against cloture. i have no clue if the assertion is factually correct, though

[Chinook]

well, filibusters can be brought to an end with votes. so i would just assume "voted to filibuster" means he voted against cloture. i have no clue if the assertion is factually correct, though

I just wish they nuked that. Have filibusters ever been used for good things?

[spurraider21]

I just wish they nuked that. Have filibusters ever been used for good things?
only when democrats do it

-boutons

[Chinook]

only when democrats do it

-boutons

Indeed. But I mean, why should a minority get to hold up legislation? The whole point of electing a congress is so the will of the people yadda yadda. They have the courts to protect rights and vetos and all that stuff.

[spurraider21]

Indeed. But I mean, why should a minority get to hold up legislation? The whole point of electing a congress is so the will of the people yadda yadda. They have the courts to protect rights and vetos and all that stuff.
because its a useful means for the democrats to stop the repugs

-boutons

[DarrinS]

det unprecedented obstruction tho

[ChumpDumper]

det unprecedented obstruction thoDarrin, when else has an entire party declared it will not consider, not even hold one hearing on any nominees for the Supreme Court with just shy of a full year left on the sitting President's term?

What is your precedent, Darrin?

[vy65]

Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this Presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.

Of Presidents Reagan's and Bush's last seven selections of the Court, two were not confirmed and two more were approved with the most votes cast against them in the history of the United States of America.

We have seen how, Mr. President, in my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a Justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

Should a Justice resign this summer and the President move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

Mr. President, where the Nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest, Presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.

I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.

Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation wouldhave to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.
In the end, this may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain.

Similarly, if Governor Clinton should win this fall, then my views on the need for philosophic compromise between the branches would not be softened, but rather the prospects for such compromise would be naturally enhanced. With this in mind, let me start with the nomination process and how that process might be changed in the next administration, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican.

It seems clear to me that within the Bush administration, the process of selecting Supreme Court nominees has become dominated by the right intent on using the Court to implement an ultraconservative social agenda that the Congress and the public have rejected. In this way, all the participants in the process can be clear well in advance of how I intend to approach any future nominations.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If the GOP actually obstructs someone who looks like a reasonable candidate then it is going to become an election issue.

[ChumpDumper]

Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this Presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.

Of Presidents Reagan's and Bush's last seven selections of the Court, two were not confirmed and two more were approved with the most votes cast against them in the history of the United States of America.

We have seen how, Mr. President, in my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a Justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

Should a Justice resign this summer and the President move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

Mr. President, where the Nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest, Presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.

I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.

Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation wouldhave to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.
In the end, this may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain.

Similarly, if Governor Clinton should win this fall, then my views on the need for philosophic compromise between the branches would not be softened, but rather the prospects for such compromise would be naturally enhanced. With this in mind, let me start with the nomination process and how that process might be changed in the next administration, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican.

It seems clear to me that within the Bush administration, the process of selecting Supreme Court nominees has become dominated by the right intent on using the Court to implement an ultraconservative social agenda that the Congress and the public have rejected. In this way, all the participants in the process can be clear well in advance of how I intend to approach any future nominations.Great, do you agree with Biden or not?

Everybody is eager to post these quotes, but loathe to actually declare themselves in favor of the current obstruction.

Are you in favor of the current obstruction?

[RandomGuy]

There won't be any bashing if the nomination doesn't get past the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is exactly what's going to happen.

It will be bashing even if there is no hearing, since a nominee with no hearing will dominate the the media cycle.

The narrative will be that the GOP in the Senate are failing in their constitutional duty, because that is the truth.

Not something that looks good to the average low-information independent.

[vy65]

Great, do you agree with Biden or not?

Everybody is eager to post these quotes, but loathe to actually declare themselves in favor of the current obstruction.

Are you in favor of the current obstruction?

Not in favor of the current obstruction. My preference would be to have a fully constituted supreme court, albeit with a conservative justice.

But stones/glass house. Do you think democrats who :cry republican obstructionism :cry have credibility in light of the VP's comments?

[vy65]

Great, do you agree with Biden or not?

Everybody is eager to post these quotes, but loathe to actually declare themselves in favor of the current obstruction.

Are you in favor of the current obstruction?

Do you not think democrats suffer from a credibility problem on this issue? If not, why?

[RandomGuy]

Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this Presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.

Of Presidents Reagan's and Bush's last seven selections of the Court, two were not confirmed and two more were approved with the most votes cast against them in the history of the United States of America.

We have seen how, Mr. President, in my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a Justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

Should a Justice resign this summer and the President move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

Mr. President, where the Nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest, Presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.

I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.

Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation wouldhave to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.
In the end, this may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain.

Similarly, if Governor Clinton should win this fall, then my views on the need for philosophic compromise between the branches would not be softened, but rather the prospects for such compromise would be naturally enhanced. With this in mind, let me start with the nomination process and how that process might be changed in the next administration, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican.

It seems clear to me that within the Bush administration, the process of selecting Supreme Court nominees has become dominated by the right intent on using the Court to implement an ultraconservative social agenda that the Congress and the public have rejected. In this way, all the participants in the process can be clear well in advance of how I intend to approach any future nominations.

You might want to attribute the quote to Biden.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/biden_in_1992_bush_should_not_name_a_nominee_until _after_the_november_election.html

... who was wrong then too.

Worth noting that the position was to wait until after the November election. Not "after the next president assumes office".

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you not think democrats suffer from a credibility problem on this issue? If not, why?

Amongst the independents that actually matter in an election year?

Our board GOP type doesn't seem to understand the actual political dynamics. Youre going to not find them credible no matter what, crayola, so your assertions are meaningless.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A Pew Research Center survey found 56 percent in favor of holding a hearing, compared to 38 percent who said the nomination should be the responsibility of the next president. And 62 percent of respondents in a Fox News poll said current leaders should “take action to fill the vacancy now,” compared to 34 percent who felt the president “shouldn’t get to nominate someone for a lifetime appointment … this late in his term.”

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-23/senate-gop-no-hearings-no-vote-on-supreme-court-nominee

[FuzzyLumpkins]

At the same time, however, Democrats need just four seats to take the Senate, and several vulnerable GOP senators up for re-election in battleground states – including Mark Kirk in Illinois, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania – are at risk if the party doesn’t hold serve in November.

same source.

[RandomGuy]

Not in favor of the current obstruction. My preference would be to have a fully constituted supreme court, albeit with a conservative justice.

But stones/glass house. Do you think democrats who :cry republican obstructionism :cry have credibility in light of the VP's comments?

No they don't. Just as the GOP doesn't. Both are wrong.

Worth noting that he was arguing a hypothetical, not saying he would reject hearings for a nominee sight-unseen, and merely suggesting that a nomination take place after an election was held. Shades of differences from the current temper tantrum.

[baseline bum]

Obama really should nominate someone black and center left so the Dems can play the race card, as black voter turnout will be critical for trying to get the senate back.

[ChumpDumper]

Do you not think democrats suffer from a credibility problem on this issue? If not, why?Seeing as they didn't actually stop any nominations on a party-wide basis in the current fashion, they don't really have a problem.

[vy65]

No they don't. Just as the GOP doesn't. Both are wrong.

Agreed

[RandomGuy]

Obama really should nominate someone black and center left so the Dems can play the race card, as black voter turnout will be critical for trying to get the senate back.

Nah, I would nominate an Hispanic for the same reason. Let the GOP shoot itself in the foot some more by bashing the fastest, youngest demographic in the country.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, why can't the Republicans just vote down anyone Obama nominates? Bring it to a vote.

[vy65]

Seeing as they didn't actually stop any nominations on a party-wide basis in the current fashion, they don't really have a problem.

Why does that matter? Republicans are doing exactly what Biden said should be done.

[vy65]

Seriously, why can't the Republicans just vote down anyone Obama nominates? Bring it to a vote.

I don't understand that either. They should at least start the process. If someone is voted down, then that is what it is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why does that matter? Republicans are doing exactly what Biden said should be done.

Actions speak louder than words. GOP is not looking forward to the nomination. If they put out a prosecutor then they're going to be in a tough position.

[RandomGuy]

Seeing as they didn't actually stop any nominations on a party-wide basis in the current fashion, they don't really have a problem.

Also a good point.

The right though, still are bitching about Bork.

[baseline bum]

Nah, I would nominate an Hispanic for the same reason. Let the GOP shoot itself in the foot some more by bashing the fastest, youngest demographic in the country.

I think the black vote is more important than the latino vote for Democrats this election.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-demographics-will-shape-the-2016-election/

The Republicans shooting down a centrist black nomination without even considering would be huge for mobilizing the black vote. It would help re-enforce the Republicans = White Nationalists rhetoric about voter ID. It would tell black voters how critical they are for getting a Democrat senate that wouldn't be able to stop a more diverse court (diverse = black here). It might even remind black voters how important they'd be for midterms.

[vy65]

Actions speak louder than words. GOP is not looking forward to the nomination. If they put out a prosecutor then they're going to be in a tough position.

So democrats should advocate something but do the exact opposite when it's politically convenient and suits them?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Also a good point.

The right though, still are bitching about Bork.

Bork and Scalia on the same court is something we should all be glad we avoided.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So democrats should advocate something but do the exact opposite when it's politically convenient and suits them?

:lol your parroting McConnell's press release literally.

'Should' doesn't come into the equation and you know it, counselor crayola. You're supposed to be a lawyer remember?

[vy65]

:lol your parroting McConnell's press release literally.

'Should' doesn't come into the equation and you know it, counselor crayola. You're supposed to be a lawyer remember?

Of course should comes into the equation. Ironic that you're taking "words mean nothing" position for all your word vomit about intellectual sincerity. Then again, you are a coward.

[vy65]

:lol your parroting McConnell's press release literally.

'Should' doesn't come into the equation and you know it, counselor crayola. You're supposed to be a lawyer remember?

This is literally the shittiest defense of "democrats should be able to lie because it lets them get their way" I've ever heard.

Sophist Pieces of Shit

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is literally the shittiest defense of "democrats should be able to lie because it lets them get their way" I've ever heard.

Sophist Pieces of Shit

Oh noes Counselor Crayola views my argument unfavorably yet has no supporting thought beyond demonstrating he is butthurt.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Of course should comes into the equation. Ironic that you're taking "words mean nothing" position for all your word vomit about intellectual sincerity. Then again, you are a coward.

I never said words are meaningless. I said actions speak louder. Try and keep up. READing is FUNdamental.

You sure are mad though.

[FromWayDowntown]

Whatever the import of Biden's statements, the most recent historical precedent is that in an election year, a Democratic Senate confirmed a Republican nominee made by a lame duck President. That the nomination happened to have been made a few months earlier in time doesn't change the fact that Justice Kennedy was afforded the courtesy of full and fair hearings and a vote by the Senate in February of an election year.

Biden may be contradicting himself, but the notion that the Republican grandstanding is some principled point justified by historical precedent is laughably false and, itself, hypocritical.

I still think it would be hilarious for Obama to float the name of an uber conservative potential nominee, just to see if he could make the politics of this even more clear -- and absolutely destroy the history/precedent rhetoric.

[vy65]

I never said words are meaningless. I said actions speak louder. Try and keep up. READing is FUNdamental.

You sure are mad though.


'Should' doesn't come into the equation and you know it

lol mad

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol mad

multiple posts to a single post, boldings, and generalized ranting. Recall: actions speak louder than words, crayola.

That isn't an argument. We are talking about politicians and discussions of what they "should" and "shouldn't" do are a waste of time outside of your personal ethics/actions. Trying to force your horseshit onto others is gratuitous nonsense particularly when dealing with an audience with a diverse set of opinions.

I am trying to discuss what is actually going to happen and not what I think 'should' happen. You can try and pigeonhole me with Obama, Reid, and Schumer all you like but it just reinforces my opinion that you have poor reading and critical thinking skills.

[vy65]

multiple posts to a single post, boldings, and generalized ranting. Recall: actions speak louder than words, crayola.

That isn't an argument. We are talking about politicians and discussions of what they "should" and "shouldn't" do are a waste of time outside of your personal ethics/actions. Trying to force your horseshit onto others is gratuitous nonsense particularly when dealing with an audience with a diverse set of opinions.

I am trying to discuss what is actually going to happen and not what I think 'should' happen. You can try and pigeonhole me with Obama, Reid, and Schumer all you like but it just reinforces my opinion that you have poor reading and critical thinking skills.

No. This is an argument about why democrats lack credibility when they attack republicans for holding up a nomination in this specific instance. They lack that credibility because their VP advocated exactly what the republicans are doing now. You don't think the dems's credibility is harmed because Biden was speaking hypothetically -- meaning you think it's ok for dems to advocate one thing but do the exact opposite when it suits them. Saying "actions speak louder than words" is irrelevant and meaningless and you're throwing that out there in lieu of saying something specific and relevant.

The very first thing I said was that the republicans are wrong and that I'd like to see someone put on the court. I honestly have no idea why you chose this issue to spew your nonsense

[vy65]

There's gotta be a fuzzy drinking game. Something like take a shot whenever you read the following words/terms

-critical thinking
-critical thinking skills
-sophistry
-sophist piece of shit
-disingenuous
-fallacy

What's everybody else got?

[DarrinS]

There's gotta be a fuzzy drinking game. Something like take a shot whenever you read the following words/terms

-critical thinking
-critical thinking skills
-sophistry
-sophist piece of shit
-disingenuous
-fallacy

What's everybody else got?


Actions speak louder than words

[vy65]

Actions speak louder than words

Can't believe I forgot "platform of bluster"

[spurraider21]

Can't believe I forgot "platform of bluster"
"putting you on ignore"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No. This is an argument about why democrats lack credibility when they attack republicans for holding up a nomination in this specific instance. They lack that credibility because their VP advocated exactly what the republicans are doing now. You don't think the dems's credibility is harmed because Biden was speaking hypothetically -- meaning you think it's ok for dems to advocate one thing but do the exact opposite when it suits them. Saying "actions speak louder than words" is irrelevant and meaningless and you're throwing that out there in lieu of saying something specific and relevant.

The very first thing I said was that the republicans are wrong and that I'd like to see someone put on the court. I honestly have no idea why you chose this issue to spew your nonsense


So democrats should advocate something but do the exact opposite when it's politically convenient and suits them?


Of course should comes into the equation. Ironic that you're taking "words mean nothing" position for all your word vomit about intellectual sincerity. Then again, you are a coward.

Your narcissism is on full display. You are saying they are not credible on the basis of what you think they 'should' do. The two notions are not mutually exclusive and you have no idea how to make a deduction, crayola. :lol lawyer

You realize that you are a GOP sycophant, you've behaved accordingly, yet you don't grasp the nuance that you don't represent anyone but yourself.

I agree that the democratic leadership outside of Warren has no credibility but at the same time I feel the same about the people whose takes you are regurgitating, McConnell and the GOP leadership. At the end of the day the whole congress' favorability is still objectively in the shitter. What will happen will still happen despite all of that. What you are whining about makes no difference.

[ChumpDumper]

Why does that matter? Republicans are doing exactly what Biden said should be done.Biden didn't actually do it. Good for him.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol if you want to get me to give a shit about my word choice try arguing whether or not I'm using them correctly. Just whining that I use them at all makes you seem like a dullard.

[Aztecfan03]

Biden didn't actually do it. Good for him.
He didn't get the chance to. That's no excuse to switch positions now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So outside of Biden and other dems being a hypocrites are there any other arguments against the nomination. For example, somewhere they actually blocked a GOP election season nominee?

It's sad that this is the best that the GOP and their board sycophants can come up with.

[ChumpDumper]

No. This is an argument about why democrats lack credibility when they attack republicans for holding up a nomination in this specific instance.I guess that's the only argument Republicans have and the only one you want to discuss.

But what does it matter? Do you really just want to start an endless parade of examples of hypocrisy for each side? Because that can easily be done.

But so what? You're arguing like a politician or a talk show host right now. Voters want the process to go on from everything I have seen, and Republicans always fuck themselves when shutting down government in whatever way they try. Democrat credibility doesn't factor into that.

[vy65]

Your narcissism is on full display. You are saying they are not credible on the basis of what you think they 'should' do. The two notions are not mutually exclusive and you have no idea how to make a deduction, crayola. :lol lawyer

Nope, not at all what I'm saying. I was clear, but I'll reiterate: "They lack that credibility because their VP advocated exactly what the republicans are doing now."

If you think what Biden said in '92 isn't mutually exclusive with the dems position today, you need to consult your PHL101A notes on what "mutually exclusive" means


You realize that you are a GOP sycophant, you've behaved accordingly, yet you don't grasp the nuance that you don't represent anyone but yourself.

You do realize I said the GOP is wrong on this one, right? lol sycophant.


I agree that the democratic leadership outside of Warren has no credibility but at the same time I feel the same about the people whose takes you are regurgitating, McConnell and the GOP leadership. At the end of the day the whole congress' favorability is still objectively in the shitter. What will happen will still happen despite all of that. What you are whining about makes no difference.

Who's take am I regurgitating? I said I'd like someone nominated and put on the court. You're doing your word vomit thing to make this thread fit your preconceived narrative. Which is why you're far off base Pierre

[vy65]

"putting you on ignore"

"mutually exclusive"
"dullard"

[TheSanityAnnex]

There's gotta be a fuzzy drinking game. Something like take a shot whenever you read the following words/terms

-critical thinking
-critical thinking skills
-sophistry
-sophist piece of shit
-disingenuous
-fallacy

What's everybody else got?
-mutually exclusive

[ChumpDumper]

He didn't get the chance to. That's no excuse to switch positions now.Sure there is. You're just fuming because the reason is political.

Do you personally approve of the current political obstruction by the Republicans?

Yes or no.

"But Biden said" isn't an answer.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nope, not at all what I'm saying. I was clear, but I'll reiterate: "They lack that credibility because their VP advocated exactly what the republicans are doing now."

If you think what Biden said in '92 isn't mutually exclusive with the dems position today, you need to consult your PHL101A notes on what "mutually exclusive" means



You do realize I said the GOP is wrong on this one, right? lol sycophant.



Who's take am I regurgitating? I said I'd like someone nominated and put on the court. You're doing your word vomit thing to make this thread fit your preconceived narrative. Which is why you're far off base Pierre

Still haven't demonstrated how they are mutually exclusive, crayola. I was saying my argument of what you think should happen and the issue of credibility. It's stuff like this that first made me ask whether or not you wrote out your briefs in crayon. You cannot even keep up when I bold the shit to help you read it.

Your parroting the press release of McConnell, arguing in favor of it and personalizing it. Actions speak louder than words.

You repeat yourself again. I'll just ignore it. You really suck at argumentation and this gets boring quick having to repeat direct refutations you ignore or fail to grasp.

[vy65]

But what does it matter?

Because politicians should be held accountable for what they say. Because both sides are hypocrites doesn't make this point irrelevant.

[ChumpDumper]

Because politicians should be held accountable for what they say. Because both sides are hypocrites doesn't make this point irrelevant.Sure, you want to hold Democrats accountable now because you're a Republican.

So what?

They aren't held accountable.

They're politicians.

I defy any partisan here to tell the story of a person they voted for then voted for the other party's candidate because he was holding the person he originally voted for accountable for what he said.

[spurraider21]

It's convenient to look the other way when your party was an asshole only to hold the rivaling party to a higher standard just because the tables flipped

But yeah, the obstruction is retarded

[vy65]

Still haven't demonstrated how they are mutually exclusive, crayola. I was saying my argument of what you think should happen and the issue of credibility. It's stuff like this that first made me ask whether or not you wrote out your briefs in crayon. You cannot even keep up when I bold the shit to help you read it.


"As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed."



"The Constitution vests in the President the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. It’s a duty that I take seriously, and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead."

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/a-responsibility-i-take-seriously/

Lol for all your bloviating about mutual exclusivity, you have no idea what it means.


Your parroting the press release of McConnell, arguing in favor of it and personalizing it. Actions speak louder than words.

Nope, I'm not, haven't read any press release from McConnell.


You repeat yourself again. I'll just ignore it. You really suck at argumentation and this gets boring quick having to repeat direct refutations you ignore.

If we were playing the fuzzy drinking game, this'd be a double whammy: "suck at argumentation" and "direct refutations"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure, you want to hold Democrats accountable now because you're a Republican.

So what?

They aren't held accountable.

They're politicians.

I defy any partisan here to tell the story of a person they voted for then voted for the other party's candidate because he was holding the person he originally voted for accountable for what he said.

But the SHOULD be!

[vy65]

Sure, you want to hold Democrats accountable now because you're a Republican.

So what?

They aren't held accountable.

They're politicians.

I defy any partisan here to tell the story of a person they voted for then voted for the other party's candidate because he was holding the person he originally voted for accountable for what he said.

I want both parties accountable. I know that's pie in the sky, but I don't see how making excuses for the dems because the GOP is evil is productive. Can you explain?

[vy65]

Sure, you want to hold Democrats accountable now because you're a Republican.

So what?

They aren't held accountable.

They're politicians.

I defy any partisan here to tell the story of a person they voted for then voted for the other party's candidate because he was holding the person he originally voted for accountable for what he said.

Oh and I'm not a republican, nor a partisan. Like I said, the GOP is wrong to prevent someone from being appointed to the Court. I also disagree with the GOP on a number of other issues too.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/a-responsibility-i-take-seriously/

Lol for all your bloviating about mutual exclusivity, you have no idea what it means.



Nope, I'm not, haven't read any press release from McConnell.



If we were playing the fuzzy drinking game, this'd be a double whammy: "suck at argumentation" and "direct refutations"
Chance for a bonus drink when he doesn't ignore it and responds as usual :bobo

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/a-responsibility-i-take-seriously/

Lol for all your bloviating about mutual exclusivity, you have no idea what it means.



Nope, I'm not, haven't read any press release from McConnell.



If we were playing the fuzzy drinking game, this'd be a double whammy: "suck at argumentation" and "direct refutations"

Mutually exclusive means that two things cannot happen concurrently. That they are exclusive to each other. In an attempt to deduce my argument about your narcissism, you are saying that you are not making the argument I am saying but instead your credibility argument. I am saying that they are not mutually exclusive; that you are making both arguments and that they go hand in hand.

Your deduction is invalid because of this thus me saying you suck at deductions. You do.

I don't care what you say, the argument that Biden and the dems are hypocrites is the argument that McConnell came out with before you started regurgitating it. I'm not surprised you ahve no idea where you got the idea from. Recall: i think you have poor reading and critical thinking skills.


In remarks on the Senate floor, McConnell acknowledged Obama's constitutional right to offer a replacement for late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died earlier this month. But he said even Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, had argued back in 1992 for postponing action on Supreme Court nominees during an election year.

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/23/senate-wont-confirm-any-obama-supreme-court-nominee-mcconnell/21317349/

[ChumpDumper]

I want both parties accountable. I know that's pie in the sky, but I don't see how making excuses for the dems because the GOP is evil is productive. Can you explain?The GOP is "evil" right now because they stopped the process right now.

Were the Democrats doing the same right now I would call them "evil."

How does fighting a nomination war that didn't occur 20 years ago help the process go forward now? Can you explain?

If you want the process to go forward now, what do you do about it? I don't think posting quotes from a guy who hasn't been in the Senate for years makes one iota of difference in that respect.

[vy65]

Chance for a bonus drink when he doesn't ignore it and responds as usual :bobo

No, the ignored-but-not-really move is more significant. I think you gotta pound a seabreeze or an appletini, or similar drink that conjures Fuzzy's persona

[Blake]

I want both parties accountable. I know that's pie in the sky, but I don't see how making excuses for the dems because the GOP is evil is productive. Can you explain?

Yeah, that's called a logical fallacy.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh and I'm not a republican, nor a partisan. Like I said, the GOP is wrong to prevent someone from being appointed to the Court. I also disagree with the GOP on a number of other issues too.OK which time did you switch your vote to that other party because you were holding the person you originally voted for to his/her word?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Chance for a bonus drink when he doesn't ignore it and responds as usual :bobo

I use ignore because it prevents you from spamming the round and round. You have chump and others for that.

I do it to take away your go to tactic and it works. You just whine about me now and I don't have to sift through your spam. Plus for awhile it was good for outing your and your buddy's extra accounts. You guys do get butthurt.

[vy65]

Mutually exclusive means that two things cannot happen concurrently. That they are exclusive to each other. In an attempt to deduce my argument about your narcissism, you are saying that you are not making the argument I am saying but instead your credibility argument. I am saying that they are not mutually exclusive; that you are making both arguments and that they go hand in hand.

Your deduction is invalid because of this thus me saying you suck at deductions. You do.

I don't care what you say, the argument that Biden and the dems are hypocrites is the argument that McConnell came out with before you started regurgitating it. I'm not surprised you ahve no idea where you got the idea from. Recall: i think you have poor reading and critical thinking skills.



http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/23/senate-wont-confirm-any-obama-supreme-court-nominee-mcconnell/21317349/


Seriously, how did you ever pass high school English?

What Biden said in 92 is mutually exclusive with what Obama wants right now. You've conceded as much.

Dems freaking out over GOP obstructionists lack credibility. The GOP is wrong to block the nomination. That's all I've said.

Your word vomit and going on-and-on about :cry narcissism :cry proves that the only narcissist here is you. You clearly love the sound of your own voice (words)

[vy65]

OK which time did you switch your vote to that other party because you were holding the person you originally voted for to his/her word?

I don't identify or vote democrat or republican, so I've never switched my vote. Why's this relevant?

Is voting the only way to hold one or more of the parties accountable? Awfully narrow-minded if you think so.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I use ignore because it prevents you from spamming the round and round. You have chump and others for that.

I do it to take away your go to tactic and it works. You just whine about me now and I don't have to sift through your spam. Plus for awhile it was good for outing your and your buddy's extra accounts. You guys do get butthurt.
But you don't use ignore. Case in point this response ^^^

bottoms up vy :bobo :lol

[vy65]

I use ignore because it prevents you from spamming the round and round. You have chump and others for that.

I do it to take away your go to tactic and it works. You just whine about me now and I don't have to sift through your spam. Plus for awhile it was good for outing your and your buddy's extra accounts. You guys do get butthurt.

http://cdn.barmano.com/recipe-images/sea-breeze-cocktail-66-big.jpg

Drink up TSA

[ChumpDumper]

I don't identify or vote democrat or republican, so I've never switched my vote.You have voted for Republicans and Democrats. Have you ever voted against a person you had voted for to hold them accountable for what they said?


Why's this relevant? I'm asking how you hold the people you vote for accountable.


Is voting the only way to hold one or more of the parties accountable? Awfully narrow-minded if you think so.Don't make stupid assumptions. If you haven't ever held anyone accountable using your vote, how did you hold them accountable?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Seriously, how did you ever pass high school English?

What Biden said in 92 is mutually exclusive with what Obama wants right now. You've conceded as much.

Dems freaking out over GOP obstructionists lack credibility. The GOP is wrong to block the nomination. That's all I've said.

Your word vomit and going on-and-on about :cry narcissism :cry proves that the only narcissist here is you. You clearly love the sound of your own voice (words)

Strawman much? What Biden said in 92 in relation to what Obama is about to do is not my argument, simpleton.

That is not all you have said. I keep talking about what you claim 'should' happen too in support of your take. Recall:


So democrats should advocate something but do the exact opposite when it's politically convenient and suits them?


Of course should comes into the equation. Ironic that you're taking "words mean nothing" position for all your word vomit about intellectual sincerity. Then again, you are a coward.

I'm saying that none of that shit matters. Chumps gets it as he has started arguing along the same lines:


I guess that's the only argument Republicans have and the only one you want to discuss.

But what does it matter? Do you really just want to start an endless parade of examples of hypocrisy for each side? Because that can easily be done.

But so what? You're arguing like a politician or a talk show host right now. Voters want the process to go on from everything I have seen, and Republicans always fuck themselves when shutting down government in whatever way they try. Democrat credibility doesn't factor into that.

Yet you cannot even grasp it. Makes me think of Aristotle when he says:


It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

A narcissist of course is not going to be able to see outside his worldview.

[vy65]

You have voted for Republicans and Democrats. Have you ever voted against a person you had voted for to hold them accountable for what they said?

I'm asking how you hold the people you vote for accountable.

Don't make stupid assumptions. If you haven't ever held anyone accountable using your vote, how did you hold them accountable?

You know who I vote for? Pretty impressive trick.

I hold the parties accountable like anyone else -- with my vote. Doesn't mean I've voted for them. There are other parties or the option to not vote.

But you seem to think its either Dem or GOP, which is pretty narrowminded and sad

[vy65]

Strawman much? What Biden said in 92 in relation to what Obama is about to do is not my argument, simpleton.

But it was mine, simpleton.

[ChumpDumper]

You know who I vote for? Pretty impressive trick
I hold the parties accountable like anyone else -- with my vote. Doesn't mean I've voted for them. There are other parties or the option to not vote.I asked you about candidates. You make it sound like you have never held an actual candidate you voted for accountable for his /her words. That's normal.


But you seem to think its either Dem or GOP, which is pretty narrowminded and sadlol your trying to insult me here is what's sad.

Let's keep it simple -- have you voted for Democrats or Republicans ever in your life?

Yes or no.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But it was mine, simpleton.

not your only one, crayola. I quoted them to help you twice now. We get the hypocrisy argument. are you saying you concede being wrong about the whole notion of 'should?'

[vy65]

I asked you about candidates. You make it sound like you have never held an actual candidate accountable for his /her words. That's normal.

lol your trying to insult me here is what's sad.

Let's keep it simple -- have you voted for Democrats or Republicans ever in your life?

Yes or no.

You didn't ask - you asserted "You have voted for Republicans and Democrats." And the assumption here - either Republicans or Democrats - is incorrect.

What's the relevance of your question? I want to stay on topic, so you're going to have to tell me why switching votes from republicans to democrats or vice versa is the only way to hold them accountable. Or, if that's not your point, you're going to have to explain what is your point.

[vy65]

not your only one, crayola. I quoted them to help you twice now. We get the hypocrisy argument. are you saying you concede being wrong about the whole notion of 'should?'

I've clarified my point several times. You're latching onto a word I used to make a stupid point. No one cares.

[clambake]

You didn't ask - you asserted "You have voted for Republicans and Democrats." And the assumption here - either Republicans or Democrats - is incorrect.

What's the relevance of your question? I want to stay on topic, so you're going to have to tell me why switching votes from republicans to democrats or vice versa is the only way to hold them accountable. Or, if that's not your point, you're going to have to explain what is your point.

you couldn't tell he was only providing an unbiased platform with which everyone could agree?

[Blake]

I've clarified my point several times. You're latching onto a word I used to make a stupid point. No one cares.

Yeah that was a pretty important word in your point.

[ChumpDumper]

You didn't ask - you asserted "You have voted for Republicans and Democrats." And the assumption here - either Republicans or Democrats - is incorrect.

What's the relevance of your question? I want to stay on topic, so you're going to have to tell me why switching votes from republicans to democrats or vice versa is the only way to hold them accountable. Or, if that's not your point, you're going to have to explain what is your point.Ah, now your stonewalling because you don't want to admit you ever voted for a Democrat or Republican.

That's OK. It wouldn't be the worst thing to admit to. If you have never voted for a Democrat or Republican, I have no idea why you would want to hide that.

Since you don't want to talk about anything you actually do to hold people you have actually voted for accountable for what they say, I will conclude you have done nothing to hold people you have actually voted for accountable for what they say. That is also OK.

I don't think you will do anything to hold Republicans accountable in this instance either. That's Ok.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've clarified my point several times. You're latching onto a word I used to make a stupid point. No one cares.

Narcissism again. You speak for yourself; you care so much that you respond in anger. Chump cared enough to use the same argument. You want no one to care; that is obvious.

Youre right to say it was stupid though. Self centered as well. I brought it up though because that was your response to our rebuttal. Should is simply the operative word and demonstrates your methodology.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ah, now your stonewalling because you don't want to admit you ever voted for a Democrat or Republican.

That's OK. It wouldn't be the worst thing to admit to. If you have never voted for a Democrat or Republican, I have no idea why you would want to hide that.

Since you don't want to talk about anything you actually do to hold people you have actually voted for accountable for what they say, I will conclude you have done nothing to hold people you have actually voted for accountable for what they say. That is also OK.

I don't think you will do anything to hold Republicans accountable in this instance either. That's Ok.

He doesn't want to address who he votes for because it belies his narrative. That is what I see. He isn't very brave.

[DarrinS]

lol @ Fuzzy calling anyone an angry narcissist

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol @ Fuzzy calling anyone an angry narcissist

Yes because I insist on everything being about me. Because I couch everything in terms of me.

You guys are the ones tripping over my word choice and that I 'talk smart.' You are the ones following me around and taking pot shots. I would just as soon do without the attention.

I value the objective empirical truth and despise you because you don't. That is the extent of it.

[DarrinS]

Yes because I insist on everything being about me. Because I couch everything in terms of me.

You guys are the ones tripping over my word choice and that I 'talk smart.' You are the ones following me around and taking pot shots. I would just as soon do without the attention.

I value the objective empirical truth and despise you because you don't. That is the extent of it.


No one really thinks you "talk smart", tbh. I suppose a narcissist might think that about himself.

I don't know any truly smart people that use sophist and piece of shit together.


Looks like it is uniquely yours



http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sophist+piece+of+shit

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No one really thinks you "talk smart", tbh. I suppose a narcissist might think that about himself.

I don't know any truly smart people that use sophist and piece of shit together.


Looks like it is uniquely yours



http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sophist+piece+of+shit

:lol that was terrence. he likes to tell me that I 'try hard' to 'act smart.' pretending like I don't get that shit is humorous though.

I have stated that given my fragments, profanity, and disregard for punctuation I don't see myself as 'smart' when I write here. I think it's hilarious that I can make you guys so insecure about your own intelligence. Here you are telling me that I'm not as smart as I think I am and trying to turn my argument against me. Your reaction tells me that you get my argument enough to act on it. Actions speak louder than words.

[vy65]

Ah, now your stonewalling because you don't want to admit you ever voted for a Democrat or Republican.

That's OK. It wouldn't be the worst thing to admit to. If you have never voted for a Democrat or Republican, I have no idea why you would want to hide that.

Since you don't want to talk about anything you actually do to hold people you have actually voted for accountable for what they say, I will conclude you have done nothing to hold people you have actually voted for accountable for what they say. That is also OK.

I don't think you will do anything to hold Republicans accountable in this instance either. That's Ok.

Not stonewalling. Don't want to get off topic. I'll wait for you to answer my questions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not stonewalling. Don't want to get off topic. I'll wait for you to answer my questions.

you really cannot figure it out, crayola? you want me to help with context clues?

[ChumpDumper]

Not stonewalling. Don't want to get off topic. I'll wait for you to answer my questions.I've been waiting for you to answer mine, but you're stonewalling.

[vy65]

I've been waiting for you to answer mine, but you're stonewalling.

If you can't justify why you're asking the question you're asking, it's not going to be answered.

[ChumpDumper]

If you can't justify why you're asking the question you're asking, it's not going to be answered.They are on the topic you want to talk about -- holding politicians accountable for the things they say. You put on your forum cop uniform because you seem uncomfortable with the questions. That's OK. Just say you don't want to answer. No need to pretend you're enforcing some sacred rules of discussion.

You never have to answer any questions and no one ever needs to justify simple questions. You want to make up rules as you go along. Your topic isn't the OP topic but for some reason people here let you get away with that apparently egregious crime without demanding that you justify your tangent. Are you just lucky or do other people just not develop sticks in their asses when asked to express an opinion or personal experience about whatever topic they bring up in the course of a discussion?

[vy65]

They are on the topic you want to talk about -- holding politicians accountable for the things they say. You put on your forum cop uniform because you seem uncomfortable with the questions. That's OK. Just say you don't want to answer. No need to pretend you're enforcing some sacred rules of discussion.

You never have to answer any questions and no one ever needs to justify simple questions. You want to make up rules as you go along. Your topic isn't the OP topic but for some reason people here let you get away with that apparently egregious crime without demanding that you justify your tangent. Are you just lucky or do other people just not develop sticks in their asses when asked to express an opinion or personal experience about whatever topic they bring up in the course of a discussion?


I don't identify or vote democrat or republican, so I've never switched my vote. Why's this relevant?

Is voting the only way to hold one or more of the parties accountable? Awfully narrow-minded if you think so.

I've answered your question to the extent it was relevant. To the extent you want something more, sorry but you're going to have to justify yourself. People absolutely need to justify the relevance of their questions to me if they want them answered. These aren't "made up rules," they're pretty basic (although I'm sure concepts like relevance are lost on you). I'm sure concepts like "relevance" are lost on you, but they're not lost on me.

Quoting Biden's 1992 speech goes to the core of the issue here -- the politics behind pushing/obstructing the SCOTUS nomination. You're attempting to inject irrelevance about how I individually hold democrats, republicans, or any other political party responsible. That's irrelevant.

We both agree that the republicans should bring this to a vote, so we probably both agree that the republicans are wrong to obstruct the nomination. I'm guessing we probably also agree that what Biden advocated in 1992 was also wrong. So why are you making this thread about my politics? Am I that interesting to you? Are you just trying to come up with disagreement for the sake of disagreement? Why?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've answered your question to the extent it was relevant. To the extent you want something more, sorry but you're going to have to justify yourself. People absolutely need to justify the relevance of their questions to me if they want them answered. These aren't "made up rules," they're pretty basic (although I'm sure concepts like relevance are lost on you). I'm sure concepts like "relevance" are lost on you, but they're not lost on me.

Quoting Biden's 1992 speech goes to the core of the issue here -- the politics behind pushing/obstructing the SCOTUS nomination. You're attempting to inject irrelevance about how I individually hold democrats, republicans, or any other political party responsible. That's irrelevant.

We both agree that the republicans should bring this to a vote, so we probably both agree that the republicans are wrong to obstruct the nomination. I'm guessing we probably also agree that what Biden advocated in 1992 was also wrong. So why are you making this thread about my politics? Am I that interesting to you? Are you just trying to come up with disagreement for the sake of disagreement? Why?

Well we see you have completely abandoned your initial position of handwaving that one side has a credibility problem. You have abandoned the 'should' and 'should not' argument. Your comment about how he is the one injecting individuality is cute though relative to your previous position fo what epople should do. Sophist is as sophist does.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Sophist is as sophist does.

XNtTEibFvlQ

[ChumpDumper]

I've answered your question to the extent it was relevant. To the extent you want something more, sorry but you're going to have to justify yourself. People absolutely need to justify the relevance of their questions to me if they want them answered. These aren't "made up rules," they're pretty basic (although I'm sure concepts like relevance are lost on you). I'm sure concepts like "relevance" are lost on you, but they're not lost on me.

Quoting Biden's 1992 speech goes to the core of the issue here -- the politics behind pushing/obstructing the SCOTUS nomination. You're attempting to inject irrelevance about how I individually hold democrats, republicans, or any other political party responsible. That's irrelevant.

We both agree that the republicans should bring this to a vote, so we probably both agree that the republicans are wrong to obstruct the nomination. I'm guessing we probably also agree that what Biden advocated in 1992 was also wrong. So why are you making this thread about my politics? Am I that interesting to you? Are you just trying to come up with disagreement for the sake of disagreement? Why?You said the topic is about holding officeholders accountable for what they say. My claim is people don't actually do that in cases like this, if ever. I went further into your topic, since you claim to be a firm believer in holding officeholders accountable, asking you for examples of how you do this. I admit I asked for perhaps overly specific examples, but nothing that warranted your complete shutdown of your topic. I resorted to trying to make you take baby steps toward giving an example of how you might hold an officeholder accountable in one scenario, but you were in complete stonewall mode, I assume because you saw where your topic was going to end up and it might not make you look like the ethical crusader you make yourself out to be. I could be wrong, but there is no way to prove me wrong since your replies are reduced to stonewalling, forum policing and personal insults.

That's all fine. It's just a message board. I believe we do agree about the current obstruction, but that was not the topic you were discussing and its disingenuous to say you were after explicitly stating your topic.

[vy65]

You said the topic is about holding officeholders accountable for what they say.

Incorrect. I said the topic was that Democrats are hypocrites for crying about Republican obstructionism.

You asked


But what does it matter?

And everything else followed.

You can go around and around in circles about forum police etc... My point doesn't get any clearer. I'm sorry you don't like it or want to pick a fight about other shit or whatever it is you're trying to do.

[vy65]

I honestly don't understand why Chump can't just say, "yah, it's fucked up that Dems did a 180, they're hypocrites" and move on. That would have avoided 2 pages of unnecessary replies.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://cdn.barmano.com/recipe-images/sea-breeze-cocktail-66-big.jpg



*perk*

[ChumpDumper]

Incorrect. I said the topic was that Democrats are hypocrites for crying about Republican obstructionism.

You asked



And everything else followed.

You can go around and around in circles about forum police etc... My point doesn't get any clearer. I'm sorry you don't like it or want to pick a fight about other shit or whatever it is you're trying to do.
I asked you why does it matter. You answered because people in office should be held accountable for what they say. I then tried to get you to say what that actually means using your personal measures and you shut down.

I honestly don't understand why Chump can't just say, "yah, it's fucked up that Dems did a 180, they're hypocrites" and move on. That would have avoided 2 pages of unnecessary replies.
I said they are all hypocrites and not held to account because that's politics. You could have simply told me how you personally hold officeholders accountable for their words instead of turning into forum cop and shutting down the conversation you were all too happy to be having before. If all you want to to have someone agree with you no matter what and that's it, talk to a dog.

[ElNono]

It will be bashing even if there is no hearing, since a nominee with no hearing will dominate the the media cycle.

The narrative will be that the GOP in the Senate are failing in their constitutional duty, because that is the truth.

Not something that looks good to the average low-information independent.

I don't think it will dominate the media cycle with a presidential campaign ongoing, tbh...

[vy65]

I asked you why does it matter. You answered because people in office should be held accountable for what they say. I then tried to get you to say what that actually means using your personal measures and you shut down.

I said they are all hypocrites and not held to account because that's politics. You could have simply told me how you personally hold officeholders accountable for their words instead of turning into forum cop and shutting down the conversation you were all too happy to be having before. If all you want to to have someone agree with you no matter what and that's it, talk to a dog.

Me and my personal politics aren't on trial and are not relevant to (a) what Biden said or (b) the notion that politicians should be held accountable. For someone complaining about forum cop, I don't understand why you're asking about me personally.

If you said they're all hypocrites, I must have missed that. But you also tried to make this about me. I'm still waiting to hear why that's relevant

[ChumpDumper]

Me and my personal politics aren't on trialThis isn't a legal proceeding of any kind. Save the rest of the speech.

I asked how you hold people you voted for accountable for what they say since you said they should be held accountable for what they say. If you think that is some kind of personal attack and reason to complain and stonewall, that is your choice.

[vy65]

This isn't a legal proceeding of any kind. Save the rest of the speech.

I asked how you hold people you voted for accountable for what they say since you said they should be held accountable for what they say. If you think that is some kind of personal attack and reason to complain and stonewall, that is your choice.

Never said it was a personal attack. I find it funny that you're accusing me of being forum cop while at the same time trying to get to know personal details, like you're conducting an investigation into my political activities. So the speech is called for.

I don't see, and you haven't explained, the relevance. I don't care about the details of your political activity, so why do you care about mine?

[ChumpDumper]

Never said it was a personal attack. I also find it funny that you're accusing me of being forum cop while at the same time trying to get to know personal details, so the speech is called for.Really, how personal do you think this is? You stated your personal belief about accountability.I just asked you for examples of how you hold people you vote for accountable for the things they say, not your social security number. If you feel this is such a terrible violation of your privacy, I'm going to call you a little pussy if that's OK with you and your forum laws -- but your forum laws should now include your never stating any personal beliefs or opinions, because that is getting too personal. Anything else would be hypocritical -- and you have stated your personal disdain for hypocrisy already -- although you shouldn't. It's personal.


I don't see, and you haven't explained, the relevance. I don't care about the details of your political activity, so why do you care about mine?You stated your personal belief about accountability. If you can't provide even one example of how you hold people you vote for accountable for the things they say, that's fine. I wasn't really expecting you to.

[vy65]

Really, how personal do you think this is? You stated your personal belief about accountability.I just asked you for examples of how you hold people you vote for accountable for the things they say, not your social security number. If you feel this is such a terrible violation of your privacy, I'm going to call you a little pussy if that's OK with you and your forum laws -- but your forum laws should now include your never stating any personal beliefs or opinions, because that is getting too personal. Anything else would be hypocritical -- and you have stated your personal disdain for hypocrisy already -- although you shouldn't. It's personal.

You stated your personal belief about accountability. If you can't provide even one example of how you hold people you vote for accountable for the things they say, that's fine. I wasn't really expecting you to.

I never said my privacy was being violated so save the high school bully bit.

Please explain why my belief that politicians should be held accountable opens the door to my personal political activities? Do you disagree with me, and that they shouldn't be accountable? If not, and we're in agreement, then why are you asking me these questions?

[ChumpDumper]

I never said my privacy was being violated so save the high school bully bit.

Please explain why my belief that politicians should be held accountable opens the door to my personal political activities? Do you disagree with me, and that they shouldn't be accountable? If not, and we're in agreement, then why are you asking me these questions?You stated your personal belief about accountability. If it's too frightening to tell how you effect such accountability, don't worry about it. Consider this your safe space.

[vy65]

Really, how personal do you think this is? You stated your personal belief about accountability.I just asked you for examples of how you hold people you vote for accountable for the things they say, not your social security number. If you feel this is such a terrible violation of your privacy, I'm going to call you a little pussy if that's OK with you and your forum laws -- but your forum laws should now include your never stating any personal beliefs or opinions, because that is getting too personal. Anything else would be hypocritical -- and you have stated your personal disdain for hypocrisy already -- although you shouldn't. It's personal.

This honestly might be the most petulant tantrum I've seen on this here forum.

[ChumpDumper]

This honestly might be the most petulant tantrum I've seen on this here forum.
So you can get personal?

You need to post your full set of rules here because you look like a complete hypocrite right now.

[vy65]

You stated your personal belief about accountability. If it's too frightening to tell how you effect such accountability, don't worry about it. Consider this your safe space.

We're here to discuss politics. It's not an activists meeting. What I do in the real world is irrelevant. We're not here to discuss how we're making the world a better place. I'm sorry that you're not going to hear about my personal political activities so you can shit post all over the board.

If you think what I've just said in any way discredits the belief I've articulated, say so. Otherwise, why are you asking me the same question over and over?

[vy65]

So you can get personal?

You need to post your full set of rules here because you look like a complete hypocrite right now.

Not personal. Referred to the annoyingly petulant post you made, not you.

[ChumpDumper]

We're here to discuss politics. It's not an activists meeting. What I do in the real world is irrelevant. We're not here to discuss how we're making the world a better place. I'm sorry that you're not going to hear about my personal political activities so you can shit post all over the board.

If you think what I've just said in any way discredits the belief I've articulated, say so. Otherwise, why are you asking me the same question over and over?
What you said discredits the belief you have articulated.

[ChumpDumper]

Not personal. Referred to the annoyingly petulant post you made, not you.
Post your rules.

[vy65]

What you said discredits the belief you have articulated.

I'm saddened you think so. Do you share my belief?

[vy65]

Post your rules.

My rules on what's a temper tantrum looks like? Take a look at your post that I quoted and you'll know.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm saddened you think so. Do you share my belief?
You know that is too personal a question for you to ask.

Please follow the rules.

[vy65]

You know that is too personal a question for you to ask.

Please follow the rules.

Not at all what I said, but your concession here is logged and saved for future use

[ChumpDumper]

Not at all what I said, but your concession here is logged and saved for future use
What a petulant little twat bitch of a whiny post.

[spurraider21]

look, chump involved in another derailed thread

[ChumpDumper]

look, chump involved in another derailed threadironic

[spurraider21]

ironic
actually, not ironic at all. find a derailed thread in the political forum with pages of back and forth, and there's a good chance you are involved

[ChumpDumper]

actually, not ironic at all. find a derailed thread in the political forum with pages of back and forth, and there's a good chance you are involvedActually is is ironic, since if it's not me involved in such an exchange, it's you. Or maybe the both of us. Don't bother getting defensive about it, you're already getting too personal for vy65's taste.

[Wild Cobra]

Nah, I would nominate an Hispanic for the same reason. Let the GOP shoot itself in the foot some more by bashing the fastest, youngest demographic in the country.

Rasict...

Nominating by race.

Racist...

[spurraider21]

Actually is is ironic, since if it's not me involved in such an exchange, it's you. Or maybe the both of us. Don't bother getting defensive about it, you're already getting too personal for vy65's taste.
you're doing enough of that for both of us

[ChumpDumper]

you're doing enough of that for both of usDon't get pissy about your e-rep. You earned it.

[spurraider21]

Don't get pissy about your e-rep. You earned it.
projection as a result of being defensive :tu

[ChumpDumper]

projection as a result of being defensive :tuNot at all. I own my arguments. You're trying to act like you don't do the same thing.

At the risk of getting too personal for vy65's delicagte sensibilities, that is a bitch move on your part. :tu

[RandomGuy]

Rasict...

Nominating by race.

Racist...

Technically, nominating someone with ethnicity as a factor is, by definition, racist, yes.

In the sense that race was considered.

One could also make a valid argument that favoring one race over another is racism.

Such thin arguments though, paper over rather glaring holes in the past. If you want to re-visit affirmative action debate, you should create a thread on it, probably get a fairly active discussion.

Personally, I am comfortable with technical racism in this matter. Just as I am comfortable with murder in some circumstances.

I draw the line though between good-faith attempts to redress employment imbalances, and the kind of blanket stupidity of "(race X) is bad because (undesirable behavior by cherry-picked anecdotes)"

[RandomGuy]

I don't think it will dominate the media cycle with a presidential campaign ongoing, tbh...

I don't quite agree. It won't dominate, but it will be part of that circus, and already is.

[RandomGuy]

Bork and Scalia on the same court is something we should all be glad we avoided.

(shudders)

Bork was obviously a shitty pick. Must have been one of the first symptoms of Reagans eventual dementia.


On October 20, 1973, Solicitor General Bork was instrumental in the "Saturday Night Massacre", U.S. President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, following Cox's request for tapes of his Oval Office conversations. Nixon initially ordered U.S. Attorney General, ****** Richardson, to fire Cox. Richardson resigned rather than carry out the order. Richardson's top deputy, Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, also considered the order "fundamentally wrong"[16] and also resigned, making Bork the Acting Attorney General. When Nixon reiterated his order, Bork complied and fired Cox, an act found illegal in November of that year in a suit brought by Ralph Nader.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

That right there, should disqualify you from SCOTUS. Fucking period, /debate.

(edit)

**** for the "E1iott" word that shall not be spoken here... LOL

[Blake]

Personally, I am comfortable with technical racism in this matter. Just as I am comfortable with murder in some circumstances.

I draw the line though between good-faith attempts to redress employment imbalances, and the kind of blanket stupidity of "(race X) is bad because (undesirable behavior by cherry-picked anecdotes)"

Some people don't even want to be operated on by black surgeons, amirite Wild Cobra

[spurraider21]

I don't think it will dominate the media cycle with a presidential campaign ongoing, tbh...


I don't quite agree. It won't dominate, but it will be part of that circus, and already is.
sounds like you agree, then

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I honestly don't understand why Chump can't just say, "yah, it's fucked up that Dems did a 180, they're hypocrites" and move on. That would have avoided 2 pages of unnecessary replies.

Probably the same reason you cannot admit your 'should' arguments even existed or that the GOP does the same shit so what difference does it make beyond demonstrating through action show where you allegiances really are.

[RandomGuy]

No. This is an argument about why democrats lack credibility when they attack republicans for holding up a nomination in this specific instance.

"lacks credibility" is probably not the best way to phrase that. "is hypocritical" is better.

FWIW:

Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"


Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.
The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

Democrats are completely, 100% right when they say that the GOP is wrong not to consider or vote. The claim is credible, because it is true, regardless of who makes the point.

Giving in to ad hominem-style thinking is a bad way to consider truth.

[RandomGuy]

Quote Originally Posted by ElNono
I don't think it will dominate the media cycle with a presidential campaign ongoing, tbh...

Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I don't quite agree. It won't dominate, but it will be part of that circus, and already is.



sounds like you agree, then

Not quite.

"to a certain or fairly significant extent or degree; fairly."

If you prefer, "It won't entirely dominate, but still be a significant part of the debate".

[RandomGuy]

I think the black vote is more important than the latino vote for Democrats this election.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-demographics-will-shape-the-2016-election/

The Republicans shooting down a centrist black nomination without even considering would be huge for mobilizing the black vote. It would help re-enforce the Republicans = White Nationalists rhetoric about voter ID. It would tell black voters how critical they are for getting a Democrat senate that wouldn't be able to stop a more diverse court (diverse = black here). It might even remind black voters how important they'd be for midterms.

(nods) All fair points.

Personally I think Democrats nationally have been taking the black vote for granted a bit too much, and need to do more, so I would be good either way.

[spurraider21]

back to semantics

[FuzzyLumpkins]

back to semantics

well when the same people act obtuse about the meanings of words you get what you get. It's how you dissemble that causes the phenomenon.

I stopped playing along with the stupidity and don't let you get away with it anymore. You guys apparently like going around in those insipid circles. I know you don't argue in good faith.

[RandomGuy]

back to semantics

(shrugs)

Whatever it takes to make you happy. Let me know.

[Blake]

back to semantics

He cleared it up which is what I would think you would want in a real discussion.

If you want to just play the contradiction busting game, then yeah I think you scored a mild victory.

[vy65]

"lacks credibility" is probably not the best way to phrase that. "is hypocritical" is better.

FWIW:

Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"



Democrats are completely, 100% right when they say that the GOP is wrong not to consider or vote. The claim is credible, because it is true, regardless of who makes the point.

Giving in to ad hominem-style thinking is a bad way to consider truth.

That's a distinction without difference. I have a hard time finding hypocrites credible on the subject of their hypocrisy.

[RandomGuy]

The claim is credible, because it is true, regardless of who makes the point. Giving in to ad hominem-style thinking is a bad way to consider truth.


That's a distinction without difference. I have a hard time finding hypocrites credible on the subject of their hypocrisy.

I am not surprised you can't see a difference between the underlying truth of a claim and the person that makes the claim. You would reach better conclusions about the world, were you not so slavishly devoted to being smug and superior to people you think have some character flaw.

[clambake]

i don't know about smug or simply self-defense.

he does have some wc in him.

[mingus]

This childish muffling of the ears strategy by Republicans toward Obama got old like 6 years ago. Cut the political bullshit and move forward with a compromise appointment.

[boutons_deux]

Obama blew it, after hearing the Repugs say they will not even hear any of his nominees, by not appointing a (extremely progressive) judge while Congress was in recess.

When the fuck does Obama learn he's got to play hard ball with these motherfucking Repug assholes?

[Splits]

Obama blew it, after hearing the Repugs say they will not even hear any of his nominees, by not appointing a (extremely progressive) judge while Congress was in recess.

When the fuck does Obama learn he's got to play hard ball with these motherfucking Repug assholes?

Recess appointments are only good until the next Congress. Best option is to let them obstruct, destroy their party by nominating Trump, take back the Senate, then ram it through in Jan when Congress sits but before he leaves office