Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 331 to 345 of 345

Thread: Today's Republican Party is....

  1. #331
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,181
    Yeah, I totally don't get the constitutional argument here. The constitution says the president nominates and the Senate confirms. It doesn't say the president has to nominate, and it doesn't say the Senate has to confirm.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  2. #332
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,733
    It is an amusing argument to watch, because quite a few people on both sides said exactly the opposite under the Republican president.

    That said, I understand a nomination after the election but before the inauguration would be blocked. I also understand that the Senate would block a candidate they think is too left or rightwing when elections are not far away. But this is pretty much a good nominee who would generally be acceptable right? I don't see why that should be blocked 10 months before a new president starts.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  3. #333
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,260
    Because he's probably a Muslim, why else would Obama pick him??
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  4. #334
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    It is an amusing argument to watch, because quite a few people on both sides said exactly the opposite under the Republican president.

    That said, I understand a nomination after the election but before the inauguration would be blocked. I also understand that the Senate would block a candidate they think is too left or rightwing when elections are not far away. But this is pretty much a good nominee who would generally be acceptable right? I don't see why that should be blocked 10 months before a new president starts.
    Because even a hint of cooperation with Obama is fatal to many Republicans.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  5. #335
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Because even a hint of cooperation with Obama is fatal to many Republicans.
    What's really amusing is that back when Kagan was nominated, Orrin Hatch publicly lamented that Obama couldn't have picked a moderate who the GOP would happily confirm, like Garland. He'd said the same think back during the Clinton administration. And he repeated the sentiment two or three weeks ago, saying it was a shame Obama wouldn't select someone like Garland. And now Hatch is sitting there, having to oppose Garland because that's what the GOP wants and no doubt stewing at Obama for doing this to him.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  6. #336
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,181
    Welcome to party politics 2016.

  7. #337
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,260
    At first I was lmao but then I read what that idiot is saying in defense of this idiocy and now I'm sad
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  8. #338
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,487
    The stupid thing is that the Republicans are odds-on to lose the Presidential election and Hillary will be under no obligation to renominate Garland at that point and could easily nominate someone who is clearly qualified but more liberal. Then what is the Senate to do? Keep blocking the newly elected Presidents nominations?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  9. #339
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    The stupid thing is that the Republicans are odds-on to lose the Presidential election and Hillary will be under no obligation to renominate Garland at that point and could easily nominate someone who is clearly qualified but more liberal. Then what is the Senate to do? Keep blocking the newly elected Presidents nominations?
    Which is probably why Obama chose to nominate Garland now anyway. It wouldn't leave me terribly surprised if the nomination had been withdrawn (probably at Garland's "request") if it looked like it was actually going to pass easily.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  10. #340
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,154
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    The stupid thing is that the Republicans are odds-on to lose the Presidential election and Hillary will be under no obligation to renominate Garland at that point and could easily nominate someone who is clearly qualified but more liberal. Then what is the Senate to do? Keep blocking the newly elected Presidents nominations?
    Sadly its true though if the Republican primary voters can their heads out of their ass and realize that Trump is the worst possible fucking thing that could happen to the party and nominate ANYONE else they have a decent shot against Clinton. Clinton has a lot of baggage and there is also an outside chance of an indictment.

  11. #341
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,154
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Which is probably why Obama chose to nominate Garland now anyway. It wouldn't leave me terribly surprised if the nomination had been withdrawn (probably at Garland's "request") if it looked like it was actually going to pass easily.
    Nah I don't think that would happen - you've been watching too much House of Cards. This was a pretty straightforward attempt to embarrass Republicans by picking someone who was actually recommended by Republicans as a potential nominee earlier in his time in office. Nominating someone only to withdraw them because there was too much support... ugly politics and damages Obama's 'legacy.'

  12. #342
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    Well, you know 'Today's Republican Party' is totally messed up when even Republicans agree.

    That's what I've been trying to say for years, despite criticisms from certain posters for how I've said it.

  13. #343
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    Bump.

    Today's Republican Party is.....fairly well fucked up. The "leader" of the Republican party is POTUS, but he's fucked up, too. Is this what a constitutional crisis looks like?

  14. #344
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,152
    Parties in the US are relatively weak organizations. The media and most people like to forget this.

  15. #345
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Parties in the US are relatively weak organizations. The media and most people like to forget this.
    How can you say that when the political parties decide if we have open or closed primaries?

Posting Permissions

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