Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[Tiger5150]

What is the actual issue other than the dems are pissed because McConnell played political games in 2016?

That is the ethical issue. Nothing more than that. The ethical issue is simply that Republicans have previously adopted an entirely different position because it was politically convenient to do so.

I don't think the Dems have the same ethical issue. I'm suggesting that it wasn't unreasonable to expect a position to be filled 8 months out from the end of a presidents term. The Republicans said it was.

So it's reasonable now for the Dems to say, "well if you thought it shouldn't have been filled last time, the situation is even more extreme now".

I actually don't think the Dems have an ethical dilemma arising from their prior position but I think the Republicans do.

Not that it matters. We all know it's just hard ball politics and legally they are entitled to do precisely what they are doing. If the situations were reversed I expect that the Democrats would do exactly the same.

The bar for ethical behaviour in the world of politics is set pretty low.

I agree with all of this but would make the point that “political convenience” sells it short. It is not solely political convenience. The reason that the republicans were able to “hold” that position and the democrats were not is they were elected by the us public to a majority in the senate and elected to enact their policies. Dems were not and therefore can not.

Of course if/when the parties are reversed the opposite will be held.

Can’t stress enough the DNC and RBG had their chance. I suspect that is why this stings so much. As soon as Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon was elected, it was a race against time for this SCOTUS seat.

 

[tigger]

What is the actual issue other than the dems are pissed because McConnell played political games in 2016?

That is the ethical issue. Nothing more than that. The ethical issue is simply that Republicans have previously adopted an entirely different position because it was politically convenient to do so.

I don't think the Dems have the same ethical issue. I'm suggesting that it wasn't unreasonable to expect a position to be filled 8 months out from the end of a presidents term. The Republicans said it was.

So it's reasonable now for the Dems to say, "well if you thought it shouldn't have been filled last time, the situation is even more extreme now".

I actually don't think the Dems have an ethical dilemma arising from their prior position but I think the Republicans do.

Not that it matters. We all know it's just hard ball politics and legally they are entitled to do precisely what they are doing. If the situations were reversed I expect that the Democrats would do exactly the same.

The bar for ethical behaviour in the world of politics is set pretty low.

I agree with all of this but would make the point that “political convenience” sells it short. It is not solely political convenience. The reason that the republicans were able to “hold” that position and the democrats were not is they were elected by the us public to a majority in the senate and elected to enact their policies. Dems were not and therefore can not.

Of course if/when the parties are reversed the opposite will be held.

Can’t stress enough the DNC and RBG had their chance. I suspect that is why this stings so much. As soon as Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon was elected, it was a race against time for this SCOTUS seat.

It might be that we are using the term "political convenience" in slightly different contexts.

I think that it was politically convenient in 2016 for McConnell to say that the next SCOTUS appointment should be selected by the next president to be elected later that year. The reality was that the Republicans held power in the Senate and were damn well going to use it.

And that's fine. But he did rely on set of circumstances that were politically convenient to explain away their actions. I suspect that Obama could have tried to make an appointment at any time during his presidency and the Republicans, if they had the numbers at the time, would have opposed it.

But, because it was late in the term, they were able to use the "election year" reason. So it was politically convenient.

As the saying goes "No point having power if you're not prepared to use it"

 

[Harvey]

What is the actual issue other than the dems are pissed because McConnell played political games in 2016?

That is the ethical issue. Nothing more than that. The ethical issue is simply that Republicans have previously adopted an entirely different position because it was politically convenient to do so.

I don't think the Dems have the same ethical issue. I'm suggesting that it wasn't unreasonable to expect a position to be filled 8 months out from the end of a presidents term. The Republicans said it was.

So it's reasonable now for the Dems to say, "well if you thought it shouldn't have been filled last time, the situation is even more extreme now".

I actually don't think the Dems have an ethical dilemma arising from their prior position but I think the Republicans do.

Not that it matters. We all know it's just hard ball politics and legally they are entitled to do precisely what they are doing. If the situations were reversed I expect that the Democrats would do exactly the same.

The bar for ethical behaviour in the world of politics is set pretty low.

Neither side can come from an position of ethics or righteousness, they are both hypocrites. Based on their views last time the Democrats in the Senate should be supporting the appointment (subject to the normal party based political witch hunts) and the Republicans should be voting to block it.

 

[tigger]

So, @Tiger5150, you've really got me thinking about this now in a completely different way.

If McConnell was, in 2016, simply exercising the rights of the party in control of the senate, why did he dress it up as some sort of highly principled decision about the right of the people to determine the issue at an election. Why not just call it as it is. Nah, we're in control. we're not gonna let you do it.

Rusted on Republicans wouldn't care. Rusted on Democrats wouldn't expect any better. Was he playing to the middle ground? Is there a cohort of centralist swing voters who expect their representatives to not play obstructionist politics? Was he dressing up the decision to make it palatable to them? I can't think of any other reason (always assuming that he's not just a compulsive liar).

And that begs the question, why isn't he worried about that cohort now? Have the Republicans privately given up hope of winning this election? Maybe they see as this as the last opportunity to salvage something before the ship goes down.

...and yes, I am being provocative. (Blame it on the couple of red wines I had with dinner).

 

[Tiger5150]

So, @Tiger5150, you've really got me thinking about this now in a completely different way.

If McConnell was, in 2016, simply exercising the rights of the party in control of the senate, why did he dress it up as some sort of highly principled decision about the right of the people to determine the issue at an election. Why not just call it as it is. Nah, we're in control. we're not gonna let you do it.

Rusted on Republicans wouldn't care. Rusted on Democrats wouldn't expect any better. Was he playing to the middle ground? Is there a cohort of centralist swing voters who expect their representatives to not play obstructionist politics? Was he dressing up the decision to make it palatable to them? I can't think of any other reason (always assuming that he's not just a compulsive liar).

And that begs the question, why isn't he worried about that cohort now? Have the Republicans privately given up hope of winning this election? Maybe they see as this as the last opportunity to salvage something before the ship goes down.

...and yes, I am being provocative. (Blame it on the couple of red wines I had with dinner).

I dont know the answer obviously. IMO he over cooked it. There was no reason to play the "we cant voted before the election" card because they could have the vote and simply vote the nomination out. My gut feel is it may have been because it was still 8 months out. There is only so many times that the Obama could nominate someone and they vote no before it is clear they are being simply obstructionist (which they obviously were). Even though you control the senate, it is still the role to assess the nominee and vote in or out and I think there would be a limit before it damaged them.

Ive said it many times here recently, there have been 10 times that the seat was vacated when the president and senate majority were different parties, the nominee was passed twice in those 10 times.

As a previous Tigers great used to say...."it is what it is"

 

[Tiger5150]

So, @Tiger5150, you've really got me thinking about this now in a completely different way.

If McConnell was, in 2016, simply exercising the rights of the party in control of the senate, why did he dress it up as some sort of highly principled decision about the right of the people to determine the issue at an election. Why not just call it as it is. Nah, we're in control. we're not gonna let you do it.

Actually I dont think I previously answered your question directly enough in the last post. The answer to why he didnt say "Nah, we're in control. we're not gonna let you do it." is the constitution specifically says the President has to nominate, and the senate has to vote on, the nominee in a timely fashion, so he cant simply say, "not doing it".

 

[sheer64]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_0qMu8b8hQ

 

[Tiger5150]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_0qMu8b8hQ

Bingo, as I was saying to Formerguest. McConnel never said it couldnt or shouldnt happen, but said that there is no obligation and that it is a rare thing that a divided govt did.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

Don Lemon and his comments says it all really...
Ssshh Don "Don't tell everyone the Democrats plan!!!" getting rid of the electoral college.

 

[Tiger5150]

Don Lemon and his comments says it all really...
Ssshh Don "Don't tell everyone the Democrats plan!!!" getting rid of the electoral college.

They have been pretty open with it. Getting rid of electoral college, stacking SCOTUS to 11 or thirteen seats and adding DC and Puerto Rico as states. They are not hiding the ball. Hard to enter hostage negotiations if you have shot the hostage.

 

[tigger]

Don Lemon and his comments says it all really...
Ssshh Don "Don't tell everyone the Democrats plan!!!" getting rid of the electoral college.

They have been pretty open with it. Getting rid of electoral college, stacking SCOTUS to 11 or thirteen seats and adding DC and Puerto Rico as states. They are not hiding the ball. Hard to enter hostage negotiations if you have shot the hostage.

They're having themselves on.

I think those views are coming from just a small group within DNC. Lacks support from the mainstream and simply isn't going to happen

 

[Tiger5150]

The (black) AG in Kentucky has just announced that the police that "killed" Breonna Taylor will not be charged. Cue all hell breaking loose again in the US.

 

[tigger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_0qMu8b8hQ

Thanks for posting this.

His comments make a lot of sense and put the issue in a different perspective. And his statements are statements of fact, so readily checkable by those with the means to do so. (Not me).

I'd like to hear a response from someone in the DNC before I finally make up my mind about these tactics. But putting aside my prejudices against right wing politicians generally, I have to say that this explanation of what has happened, and is happening, seems to be fairly straight forward.

 

[tigger]

The statements of fact that I refer to are in relation to the voting for the filling of SCOTUS vacancies. His other comments about the Dems expanding the number of states and the the size of the high court are opinions only. Some Dems have said this but I'm not sure that it has much support.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Read an interesting article today putting forward the notion that Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon targeting Biden’s cognitive behaviour for the last few months could backfire big time in the debates. Considering how much everyone is expecting him to bomb out, the bar isn’t set too high for him to jump over. If Biden goes toe to toe, or even gets the better of him then Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon likes a fool.

 

[Tiger5150]

Read an interesting article today putting forward the notion that Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon targeting Biden’s cognitive behaviour for the last few months could backfire big time in the debates. Considering how much everyone is expecting him to bomb out, the bar isn’t set too high for him to jump over. If Biden goes toe to toe, or even gets the better of him then Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon likes a fool.

Possible but a big if. I would be amazed if Biden agrees to debates

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Read an interesting article today putting forward the notion that Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon targeting Biden’s cognitive behaviour for the last few months could backfire big time in the debates. Considering how much everyone is expecting him to bomb out, the bar isn’t set too high for him to jump over. If Biden goes toe to toe, or even gets the better of him then Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon likes a fool.

Possible but a big if. I would be amazed if Biden agrees to debates

Therein lies the point. First debate next week.The way it’s being built, Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon has more to lose.

 

[TrueTiger]

From what I gather the Republicans and Dems have supporters with varying points of issue...
I watched AOC,Pelosi,Biden and K.Harris on youtube,my conclusion was that the seem full of hate and despair for the American people and way of life,socialism seems to be at their core...I dont really know,but what I do know is listening to J.Jorden,D.Collins on separate occasions,it seems they want unity and fairness for the American people...

It doesnt worry me but to watch the rioters and people speaking out for BLM certainly makes me glad I live here and not there...

 

[Tiger5150]

Read an interesting article today putting forward the notion that Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon targeting Biden’s cognitive behaviour for the last few months could backfire big time in the debates. Considering how much everyone is expecting him to bomb out, the bar isn’t set too high for him to jump over. If Biden goes toe to toe, or even gets the better of him then Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon likes a fool.

Possible but a big if. I would be amazed if Biden agrees to debates

Therein lies the point. First debate next week.The way it’s being built, Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon has more to lose.

Will be interesting. Genuine question, I assume they don’t have teleprompters?

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Read an interesting article today putting forward the notion that Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon targeting Biden’s cognitive behaviour for the last few months could backfire big time in the debates. Considering how much everyone is expecting him to bomb out, the bar isn’t set too high for him to jump over. If Biden goes toe to toe, or even gets the better of him then Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon likes a fool.

Possible but a big if. I would be amazed if Biden agrees to debates

Therein lies the point. First debate next week.The way it’s being built, Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon has more to lose.

Will be interesting. Genuine question, I assume they don’t have teleprompters?

No idea.