RBG Has Died

[Brewersfan255]

Because Republicans did it first. If the Republicans never did it first, then it would be completely unjustifiable for Democrats to do it now. They'd lose the election. Would a current Democrat Senate block it now, using the Republican precedent? Of course they would no doubt, and it would have been justifiable. And they wouldn't lose the election.

I'm just trying to follow the logic here. Because the Republicans did it first to Obama, set the precedent and created the rule, it's fine for them to break their own rule and precedent now because the Democrats would've blocked it if they controlled the Senate?

And you're right, elections have consequences. I've said it a million times that Democrats (crybaby progressives) should get most of the blame for setting themselves up for this. If they didn't sit at home or protest vote third party, they could've had the two already Trump bench spots, plus... well they would've had to play by the McConnell rule for the Ginsberg seat.

The democrats did it first when they changed the filibuster rule


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brewersfan255]

Read this and then get back to me how the republicans did this first


https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...67c_story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Walter_White]

https://twitter.com/thinkingisright/...030486023?s=21

“There’s nothing in the constitution that says the president stops being president in the last year”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Too bad the GOP didn't realize that in 2016.

[Walter_White]

The democrats did it first when they changed the filibuster rule


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Filibuster is completely irrelevant to this situation, as you fully well know.

[spliff(TONE)]

Filibuster is completely irrelevant to this situation, as you fully well know.

[GGGGG-Men]

if we are going to use what Republicans said, then do the same for what Democrats said.

guaranteed the more mainstream media is going to cover and focus more on what Republicans said.

Republicans had control them and they do now, and clearly they (and all of you supporting them) are 100% full of ****.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GGGGG-Men]

https://twitter.com/thinkingisright/...030486023?s=21

“There’s nothing in the constitution that says the president stops being president in the last year”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So just admit you want it both ways. At least own it. Don’t pretend you’re not a hypocrite on this issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lamar2006]

The democrats did it first when they changed the filibuster rule


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They did it for federal judges not for Supreme Court nominees. Moscow Mitch was the one that ended the filibuster for SC nominees. So next time Democrats hold both houses and the White House and they stack the SC. I don't wanna hear republicans ***** and cry about anything.

[ewing]

So just admit you want it both ways. At least own it. Don’t pretend you’re not a hypocrite on this issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s true. Brewers hates liberalism so much any loss of them is a win for him. Context doesn’t matter. I’ll root for anyone to beat LeBron but I’ll admit it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brewersfan255]

They did it for federal judges not for Supreme Court nominees. Moscow Mitch was the one that ended the filibuster for SC nominees. So next time Democrats hold both houses and the White House and they stack the SC. I don't wanna hear republicans ***** and cry about anything.

So you admit they changed the rules to help them get an advantage? That’s exactly the point. They couldn’t get people through so they changed the rules to their advantage


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brewersfan255]

So just admit you want it both ways. At least own it. Don’t pretend you’re not a hypocrite on this issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And admit that if the roles were reversed and Biden was president and senate dems had control you would want to see them nominate someone instead of waiting until the next election...

We all know it’s true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dbroncsinmo]

They did it for federal judges not for Supreme Court nominees. Moscow Mitch was the one that ended the filibuster for SC nominees. So next time Democrats hold both houses and the White House and they stack the SC. I don't wanna hear republicans ***** and cry about anything.

And how do you propose they'll be able to stack the SC?

[statquo]

And admit that if the roles were reversed and Biden was president and senate dems had control you would want to see them nominate someone instead of waiting until the next election...

We all know it’s true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because the Republicans did it first, of course they would. The Democrats already tried and were told that they couldn't because of an upcoming election. You can't spin it to justify it with a hypothetical. Republicans made the rule, now are breaking it. What they're saying is rules only apply to one side. And like I've said, Democrats are just as much to blame for throwing the 2016 election. This is what they deserve.

And you know what, I don't blame Republicans for wanting to cram this through and breaking their own rules. They know Trump is behind in the polls and they could even lose the Senate. You don't leave a chance at skewing the SC for a generation up to the chance. You have to do it. If he wasn't running for re-election, I wouldn't be surprised to see McConnell get this done, whether before or even worse during the lame duck session, and then immediately retire. If you've read anything about the man, stacking judges on the SC and fed benches has been his political career goal. If Trump was up in the polls, maybe they wouldn't do it now? I doubt it because there's always the chance you could lose the Senate.

And I don't know what the Democrats out is. Some are saying that if Collins, Murkowski and Romney vote no, and then Kelly wins in Arizona and is sworn in immediately after the election, they'll have the votes to at least hold it off during the lame duck session, IF, a nominee isn't voted in before the election. But if Collins loses her seat, but is still sitting during the lame duck session, why wouldn't she vote yes for the nominee? And of course, Trump could very well win the election anyways, making it all a mute point.

But that being said, how naive are some people to think this isn't going to do irreparable damage your country? It'll throw the entire governing structure into serious debate, with Democrats pledging revenge. This was already going to be a brutal last two months leading up to the election. But adding a Supreme Court fight? This will be worse than the Kavanagh nomination. It's worst case scenario for the country. The doomsdayers might get what they've been wishing for.

[lamar2006]

And how do you propose they'll be able to stack the SC?

simple. end filibuster for legislation. pass law adding SC judges from 9 to 11-13. add that any future additions to SC would require 2/3's majority support. then President Biden signs it and becomes law. but Dems don't have the balls to do it. they need to be like republicans and say FU to any nors, precedent, institutions.

[joeyc77]

The tag line itself isn't necessarily the issue although often they are extremes themselves, it is the fear and simplifying everything around it that is. To some it might actually be those things, the issue is allowing that to control the narrative from the actual politicians to the whole. That they resort to associating others beliefs who don't think that way in with the extremes is the issue and I agree each team does this plenty. I don't care that a few people have those extreme beliefs nor do I even care if you wanna call it pro life or choice even if a bit over the top. The issue is making it a battle between none or allowing it until after birth or whatever with no regulations when the large majority probably see a middle ground. That's when politicians go too far but it is how they create the animosity towards "the other side".

Obama was not nearly the same as the level we have hit but in some ways I agree. The opposition to him was far more over the top than anything we have seen though, he was attacked for the most minor issues regularly in the team game fashion (like birthirism from current POTUS). I don't think he attacked others in nearly the same ways.

Sure, CNN/Fox and many other bad media stations also do this. They are corporations feeding off this divide for profit but the issue is still that politicians play into it to avoid policy for the people as opposed to winning for the team. My point is that people selling something isn't necessarily an issue, it's the extremes they go to. Trump is far and away the biggest/worst example I have seen of this in my life from a politician. He is playing this game for his team harder than even those stations at times.

What needs to change is voting for the hardest team players as opposed to the more policy based politicians. Every politician has tag lines and goes over the top some but not all of them have it as a main component of their appeal. Trump, Biden and even Hillary all were relying on the message of beating the other team. Bernie for 2 elections has had one of the biggest arguments aimed at him that he can't win. Beating Trump and the deplorables has been a major message from both Biden/Hillary. You could take almost any dem and they had much better arguments or focus on policy differences in debates (I named 3 people already but even like Mayor Pete or Steyer this applies to in comparison to Biden, Amy really dug into the "others are extreme" position so exclude her for that). We are going to keep going round and round as long as people remain incapable of deciphering context/difference and devolve everything into a sides matchup.

I don’t mind someone trying to sell something. When there’s a beer commercial during football, I’m not offended that there’s a hot chick trying to sell it. The difference is, politicians are not suppose to be “salesman.” Their purpose is to identify and solve issues facing the country or their local district. You’re right in identifying the issues, I just see politicians as leading into these extremes if not outright causing them.

Prior to Obama were Bush and Clinton who had just as much over the top opposition as Obama, if not more. Clinton was “impeached” and Bush was labeled a murderer and blamed (by some) for acts out of his control- 9/11, Katrina, etc. Both of them had it just as bad as Trump and Obama. The reason that Obama is the same is because he ran on extremes and catered/rallies his base. Obama and Trump are very similar candidates, just different on the issues. If you look at the candidates both have faced, they are similar as well. McCain, Romney, Hillary and Biden are all “moderate” candidates compared to the candidate they faced/facing. This typically doesn’t rally the base as it’s not good enough to run against a candidate. Usually, people don’t leave the houses to vote against a candidate. They want to vote for someone.