Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516 LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 240

Thread: Democrats Will Need 4 Republican Senators To Block Nomination. It's Possible.

  1. #181 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,303
    Thanks
    145,721
    Thanked 82,529 Times in 52,746 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    When calling out others for name-calling it would behoove to refrain from name-calling.
    Sure thing, mom.

    The only problem here is, of course, that name-calling was only one of the many reason why I have chosen to ignore the trolls. Carry on.
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals." -- Mark Twain

  2. #182 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Dutch Uncle,

    I rely on logic for morality. It just makes sense to be sociable when living in a society.

    The more sociable the members of a society are, the better it can function as a collective.
    Agreed. I doubt many would disagree. Disagreements appear to come from how this is achieved; by force of law or social change.

    Wearing a mask is a simple indicator of this problem. Good leadership and peer pressure negates the need for laws mandating compliance. The US had poor leadership from the beginning on this. Not just Trump either. He's the low hanging fruit, but Congress bears a great deal of responsibility in creating this situation. It goes back to education, as previously discussed, but is mainly the nature of increasingly partisan politics on the national level.

    It's easier for a nation like North Korea to limit the spread of COVID-19 than a free nation since they can force compliance on pain of death. A free nation shouldn't emulate North Korea just because of a pandemic. It should actively create a society which fosters good will and willingness to do what is best for everyone. This used to be known as patriotism, civic duty and honor. Traits that no longer seem to thrive in our nation as they once did.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  3. The Following User Groans At Doc Dutch For This Awful Post:

    Earl (09-23-2020)

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Doc Dutch For This Post:

    PoliTalker (09-23-2020), ThatOwlWoman (09-23-2020)

  5. #183 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Dutch Uncle,



    I rely on logic for morality. It just makes sense to be sociable when living in a society.

    The more sociable the members of a society are, the better it can function as a collective.
    We aren’t a collective, Comrade.

    We are a nation of freedom loving individuals, for the most part, who believe the Founding Fathers were right, the least government

    (governance) is the best government.

    If you are looking for someone to tell you when to brush your teeth, ask your madre.

  6. #184 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Earl View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Dutch Uncle,

    I rely on logic for morality. It just makes sense to be sociable when living in a society.

    The more sociable the members of a society are, the better it can function as a collective.
    We aren’t a collective, Comrade.

    We are a nation of freedom loving individuals, for the most part, who believe the Founding Fathers were right, the least government

    (governance) is the best government.

    If you are looking for someone to tell you when to brush your teeth, ask your madre.
    PoliTalker is obviously smarter than you are now, Captain. His comment wasn't what you claim it to be.

    col·lec·tive /kəˈlektiv/

    adjective
    done by people acting as a group.
    "a collective protest"


    noun
    a cooperative enterprise.


    Why did you groan patriotism, civic duty and honor? You don't have to answer, but I'm curious why a person who claims to be a USAF Captain would do so.

    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  7. The Following User Groans At Doc Dutch For This Awful Post:

    Earl (09-23-2020)

  8. #185 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello ThatOwlWoman,

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    Sure thing, mom.

    The only problem here is, of course, that name-calling was only one of the many reason why I have chosen to ignore the trolls. Carry on.


    When I created my PIP I had to wrangle with what I wanted to be acceptable, and what I deemed unacceptable. I realized that if I wanted to hold people to a certain standard that I would need to meet it myself.

    That took some doing. I was aided by having an interest in habit control. We humans are creatures of habit, like so many animals. But if we desire, we have the ability to purposely change our habits. The easiest way to do that is to replace an existing habit with a new one. It will be required to notice each time the old habit is repeated, and to then override the normal impulse to repeat the old habit. Substitute the desired new action on each occasion.

    Do this for 2-3 weeks and the new action becomes habit.

    After that point it will be decreasingly necessary to purposely override the old action. The new desirable action will become the new habit, and will be performed subconsciously.

    I used this many years ago to reduce sugar consumption.

    I would always get a soft drink with lunch. I needed to cut some calories out of my diet, so I decided to switch to water. It wasn't fun at first. I was so used to the sweet beverage!

    But I forced myself. Sure enough, after a few weeks I no longer even desired the soft drink. It got to the point where if I ate at a place that offered a soft drink with the 'combo,' and the rest of the combo was deemed to be a good deal, that I would pay for the combo but not get the soft drink. Sometimes they would bring it anyway. It didn't matter. I had the will power to have it right there in front of me and not touch it.

    Such a feeling of empowerment ensued that I have used the technique extensively ever since that time.

    I can't tell you how fabulous it is to think I am in control of my habits, rather than my habits controlling me.

    Of course, I know there are some habits I would not consider changing.

    Hey. I'm only human. We are creatures of habit.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  9. #186 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    That's the nicest way of saying they are fucking hypocrites and liars that I've ever seen. Kudos!
    It was supposed to be a nice way of saying both sides use "principles" to justify their political actions. They then switch those principles when the situation is reversed making both sides hypocrites.

  10. #187 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Flash,

    What the Republicans did in 2016 was a travesty of the founding documents. They have become what we revolted from. Unfair rigged power.
    Then obviously you believe the Republicans should appoint and vote on the confirmation of a new justice before January so they do not repeat the same mistake and do Trump dirty like they did Obama.

    I think you are reading things into the Constitution that are not there.

  11. #188 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It was supposed to be a nice way of saying both sides use "principles" to justify their political actions. They then switch those principles when the situation is reversed making both sides hypocrites.
    Neither side has principles by the simple fact they use "principles" to justify their political actions. Two wrongs don't make a right. Until more Americans push hard to eliminate this behavior by their political parties, it will continue to exist. These days the most common excuse is "Bu..bu..but they're doing it too!!!"
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  12. #189 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    You can spin it as you please. The facts are clear: They blocked Garland's appointment for MONTHS on the pretext that it was an election year. This time they refuse to "let the people make the choice." They have no honor, no principles. Neither do their supporters.
    You are the one spinning it for partisan bias. I just stated the facts--both parties used a justification to benefit their side. Letting the people make their choice was the same justification used by the Republicans in 2016.

    Why does that principle apply now but not in 2016?

  13. #190 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Flash,

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Then obviously you believe the Republicans should appoint and vote on the confirmation of a new justice before January so they do not repeat the same mistake and do Trump dirty like they did Obama.

    I think you are reading things into the Constitution that are not there.
    Obviously the Constitution should be amended to correct this.

    The serenity to accept the things which cannot be changed and the courage to change the things that can.

    Unless the Constitution is amended, Democrats would be in full compliance with the Constitution to expand the number of justices.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  14. #191 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Flash,

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You are the one spinning it for partisan bias. I just stated the facts--both parties used a justification to benefit their side. Letting the people make their choice was the same justification used by the Republicans in 2016.

    Why does that principle apply now but not in 2016?
    The time difference.

    The SCOTUS nomination in 2016 came at a time when the candidates were not even known yet. The candidate nominations had not yet been made. It was still primary season.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  15. #192 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Neither side has principles by the simple fact they use "principles" to justify their political actions. Two wrongs don't make a right. Until more Americans push hard to eliminate this behavior by their political parties, it will continue to exist. These days the most common excuse is "Bu..bu..but they're doing it too!!!"
    The parties and voters care more about winning than principles. They should not try to justify their actions based on principles but just explain they want to block or appoint a liberal/conservative to the SC. Next time they can use the same justification and won't have to reverse their principles which were phony in the first place.

    Democrats had to go from saying they should make an appointment in an election year to now saying they should wait for the new president. Republicans went from saying they should wait for the new president to saying they shouldn't wait. Principles had nothing to do with it and I don't think there is any guiding principle higher than letting the majority decide because they were elected by the votes.

  16. #193 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Flash,

    Obviously the Constitution should be amended to correct this.

    Unless the Constitution is amended, Democrats would be in full compliance with the Constitution to expand the number of justices.
    I disagree. It is not important enough issue to amend the Constitution. Let the president and Senate make the decision about whether to replace a vacancy in an election year.

    In the early days of the republic President Adams tried to fill the judiciary with Federalists after being defeated by Jefferson resulting in the Marbury v. Madison decision giving the court the power of judicial review.

    Democrats can try to enlarge the size of the court. FDR tried and it didn't work out so well, but politics is very different today.

  17. #194 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Flash,



    The time difference.

    The SCOTUS nomination in 2016 came at a time when the candidates were not even known yet. The candidate nominations had not yet been made. It was still primary season.
    What does that have to do with a SC nomination? Republicans knew they did not want a Democratic appointment regardless of the presidential candidates.

    That is no more relevant than the Republicans claiming they changed their position because the president and Senate are both controlled by the Republicans.

  18. #195 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Flash,

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I disagree. It is not important enough issue to amend the Constitution. Let the president and Senate make the decision about whether to replace a vacancy in an election year.

    In the early days of the republic President Adams tried to fill the judiciary with Federalists after being defeated by Jefferson resulting in the Marbury v. Madison decision giving the court the power of judicial review.

    Democrats can try to enlarge the size of the court. FDR tried and it didn't work out so well, but politics is very different today.
    Elections have consequences.

    I would support SCOTUS expansion if Dems get the chance. Then, a new law preventing more expansion. But, of course, that would motivate Republicans to organize and vote. And they could subsequently overturn a law.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 53
    Last Post: 09-26-2019, 10:47 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-25-2019, 02:23 PM
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-10-2019, 05:13 AM
  4. Kavanaugh tells U.S. senators he will not withdraw nomination
    By Truth Detector in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-24-2018, 02:43 PM
  5. Liberal in the lead for the Republican nomination!
    By Jarod in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-15-2006, 01:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •