Reply With Quote
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.
No they don't. Just as the GOP doesn't. Both are wrong.Not in favor of the current obstruction. My preference would be to have a fully cons uted supreme court, albeit with a conservative justice.
But stones/glass house. Do you think democrats whorepublican obstructionism
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.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-25-2016 at 01:30 PM. Reason: Clarity, misread question at first.
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.
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.
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.
Seriously, why can't the Republicans just vote down anyone Obama nominates? Bring it to a vote.
Why does that matter? Republicans are doing exactly what Biden said should be done.
I don't understand that either. They should at least start the process. If someone is voted down, then that is what it is.
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.
Also a good point.
The right though, still are ing about Bork.
I think the black vote is more important than the latino vote for Democrats this election.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...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.
So democrats should advocate something but do the exact opposite when it's politically convenient and suits them?
Bork and Scalia on the same court is something we should all be glad we avoided.
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.
'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 tiest defense of "democrats should be able to lie because it lets them get their way" I've ever heard.
'Should' doesn't come into the equation and you know it, counselor crayola. You're supposed to be a lawyer remember?
Sophist Pieces of
Oh noes Counselor Crayola views my argument unfavorably yet has no supporting thought beyond demonstrating he is butthurt.
I never said words are meaningless. I said actions speak louder. Try and keep up. READing is FUNdamental.
You sure are mad though.
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.
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 horse 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
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
-disingenuous
-fallacy
What's everybody else got?
Actions speak louder than words
Can't believe I forgot "platform of bluster"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
