Page 154 of 164 FirstFirst ... 54104144152153154155156 ... LastLast
Results 4,591 to 4,620 of 4903

Thread: TRUMP 2016

  1. #4591
    Yeah, what a shame it would be if presidents weren't allowed to do whatever they wanted as long as they invoked national security. You're a true libertarian.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  2. #4592
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Probably because he's seen the last few appointees from Democratic administrations and realized that this was a good chance for him to be replaced with someone who prioritizes clear laws over preferred outcomes.

    EDIT: Actually Kennedy is probably not the best example as he too often has swung his reasoning to favor preferred outcomes.



    And you would support such thuggery?
    After the way the GOP acted when Scalia died, keeping the Court down a justice for over a year waiting for the next election? Yes. The Senate Judiciary chair shot down the very nominee he himself had specifically recommended as an ideal candidate in order to keep waiting and waiting and waiting. The GOP made this bed. Increasing the size of the court (again) would actually be less disruptive to our judicial processes and system than forcing it down to 8 members for one or more terms the way the GOP did and the Dems now plan to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I really don't see that happening. If even an insanely popular president couldn't get it done I doubt whoever the Democrats drum up can make it happen.

    Honestly though people shouldn't wish for it because right now Trump is the POTUS and Republicans hold both the House and Senate... if it was par for the course to try to pack the court I would find Trump far more dangerous.
    But that's exactly what the GOP did do to get Gorusch. There isn't something magical by which increasing the size of the court is bad while keeping seats empty until your side can full them is ok. It's the same damn thing, playing with the courts' numbers and structure for temporary partisan advantage.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  3. #4593
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    After the way the GOP acted when Scalia died, keeping the Court down a justice for over a year waiting for the next election? Yes. The Senate Judiciary chair shot down the very nominee he himself had specifically recommended as an ideal candidate in order to keep waiting and waiting and waiting. The GOP made this bed. Increasing the size of the court (again) would actually be less disruptive to our judicial processes and system than forcing it down to 8 members for one or more terms the way the GOP did and the Dems now plan to do.



    But that's exactly what the GOP did do to get Gorusch. There isn't something magical by which increasing the size of the court is bad while keeping seats empty until your side can full them is ok. It's the same damn thing, playing with the courts' numbers and structure for temporary partisan advantage.
    No, it really isn't. The GOP could just as easily have had the vote and voted not, advise and consent != rubber stamp the president. And again - do you think trying to pack the court is a good thing or not? Honest to goodness if Trump got elected and in 2017 said "hey I'm going to pack the court and add 9 more justices" you would have been the first person breathing fire. Even if you believe not voting on Garland was wrong, two wrongs wouldn't make it right.

  4. #4594
    No two wrongs don't make a right but when one side is doing wrong, why wouldn't the other? The GOP did wrong, when [not if] the Democrats hold the levers of power again what's to stop them retaliating?
    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.

  5. #4595
    It's interesting how Mr. Retribution is now suddenly all "two wrongs don't make a right". We all know when two wrongs can arguably make a right under popular ethical frameworks, eg. when the second wrong is used as a remedy & reparation, as righteous punishment, as a deterrent etc. This view is ingrained into all our psyches, no matter what culture shaped our views.

    Altering the number of justices on SCOTUS is one legal way to remedy the impact of the questionable appointment of Gorsuch, while punishing McConnell and the GOP for their outrageous behavior and deterring further such antics by clearly signaling that there will be retaliation for such corrosive politicking. Obviously there can be unintended outcomes--things might spiral out of control and you could end up with a ludicrously large court--but to say that it is an illegitimate and wrong course of action is incorrect. Everyone in the US would know how things went down, GOP senators best of all.

    As for the argument that "The GOP could just as easily have had the vote and voted not", that's certainly true, but the crucial point is that the GOP did not even have a vote, let alone give him a hearing. They could've had a hearing and then voted no. That would've been more fair, more in line with established norms and much less harmful to the culture of the Senate. In this matter, the GOP refused to fulfill its duty even to advise.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  6. #4596
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    No, it really isn't. The GOP could just as easily have had the vote and voted not,
    Obama nominated the person the GOP Judiciary Chair literally told him was the exemplar of a good and acceptable candidate.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  7. #4597
    Hope is the denial of reality

  8. #4598
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    It's interesting how Mr. Retribution is now suddenly all "two wrongs don't make a right". We all know when two wrongs can arguably make a right under popular ethical frameworks, eg. when the second wrong is used as a remedy & reparation, as righteous punishment, as a deterrent etc. This view is ingrained into all our psyches, no matter what culture shaped our views.

    Altering the number of justices on SCOTUS is one legal way to remedy the impact of the questionable appointment of Gorsuch, while punishing McConnell and the GOP for their outrageous behavior and deterring further such antics by clearly signaling that there will be retaliation for such corrosive politicking. Obviously there can be unintended outcomes--things might spiral out of control and you could end up with a ludicrously large court--but to say that it is an illegitimate and wrong course of action is incorrect. Everyone in the US would know how things went down, GOP senators best of all.

    As for the argument that "The GOP could just as easily have had the vote and voted not", that's certainly true, but the crucial point is that the GOP did not even have a vote, let alone give him a hearing. They could've had a hearing and then voted no. That would've been more fair, more in line with established norms and much less harmful to the culture of the Senate. In this matter, the GOP refused to fulfill its duty even to advise.
    Sounds like a waste of time. Having a hearing only to know the vote is a foregone conclusion is silly.

    The senate is under *no* obligation to confirm presidential court appointees. If one party has the executive and one party has the legislature than they should try to comprise but if the election is coming up? They can wait.

  9. #4599
    You mean like years of Benghazi hearings?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  10. #4600
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    You mean like years of Benghazi hearings?
    The biggest beef with Benghazi was the ridiculous attempt to paint the attack as a spur of the moment reaction to the book burning. The fact that he asked for additional security and didn't receive it is a clear failure but doesn't really necessitate a long investigation, it should have been wrapped up quickly with a "yeah Obama fucked up, oh Hillary is a liar but nothing illegal was done here, just gross incompetence."

  11. #4601
    Truth serves them
    Embrace and defend her case
    Part flattery, part threats
    "For those who cling to this domination will partake in its fall"


  12. #4602
    Fission accomplished.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  13. #4603


    Gary Segura absolutely rips the shit out of the New York Times
    Truth serves them
    Embrace and defend her case
    Part flattery, part threats
    "For those who cling to this domination will partake in its fall"


  14. #4604
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    If Ginsburg can't hold on and the blue wave continues through the election we're going to start hearing a lot of talk to increase the size of that court again.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d646c65a265c
    Calling this was like saying the sun is going to rise in the morning, but the rumblings have started.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  15. #4605
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  16. #4606
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d646c65a265c
    Calling this was like saying the sun is going to rise in the morning, but the rumblings have started.
    Insane rumbling. Could you imagine the shrieking if Trump had called for the packing of the court day 1 of his term?

  17. #4607

  18. #4608
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Insane rumbling. Could you imagine the shrieking if Trump had called for the packing of the court day 1 of his term?
    It would understandably have been regarded as illegitimate because everyone would remember that the GOP stole a seat.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  19. #4609
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    It would understandably have been regarded as illegitimate because everyone would remember that the GOP stole a seat.
    Except they didn't! The Republicans had a senate majority, it would perfectly be in their rights to vote down every single one of Obama's nominees. Just like if the Democrats win the senate at the midterms will be *exactly* what the left will demand if there is another vacancy.

  20. #4610
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Except they didn't! The Republicans had a senate majority, it would perfectly be in their rights to vote down every single one of Obama's nominees. Just like if the Democrats win the senate at the midterms will be *exactly* what the left will demand if there is another vacancy.
    Yes, because it will be regarded as legitimate retribution for--and mitigation of--an illegitimate act. Everyone with even a vestigial ability to feel shame knows the GOP stole that seat. Even McConnell knows it.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  21. #4611
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Yes, because it will be regarded as legitimate retribution for--and mitigation of--an illegitimate act. Everyone with even a vestigial ability to feel shame knows the GOP stole that seat. Even McConnell knows it.
    You saying it, doesn't make it so. In order for their to become a new Supreme Court Justice the President nominates and the Senate must consent. If the senate doesn't consent, the President has to come up with someone else. It isn't like the Democratic controlled senate never blocked other justices from being confirmed to lower courts.

  22. #4612
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    You saying it, doesn't make it so. In order for their to become a new Supreme Court Justice the President nominates and the Senate must consent. If the senate doesn't consent, the President has to come up with someone else. It isn't like the Democratic controlled senate never blocked other justices from being confirmed to lower courts.
    GOP senators illegitimately withheld consent for a year for no legitimate reason, without hearing any candidates. It was a dereliction of duty, specifically of their duty to advise. They made it clear they would not consider anyone Obama might nominate. Garland had previously been lauded by these same senators, so there was no legitimate reason to not give him a hearing and certainly no legitimate reason to state that Obama would not be permitted to appoint anyone to scotus. Like I said, even they know they stole that seat. Their shameful submission to McConnell's authority on this matter is probably an important reason for the present dysfunction in the senate, once described as the world's greatest deliberative body and now more accurately described as the world's dumbest deliberative body.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  23. #4613
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Yes, because it will be regarded as legitimate retribution for--and mitigation of--an illegitimate act. Everyone with even a vestigial ability to feel shame knows the GOP stole that seat. Even McConnell knows it.
    The GOP only stole it because no serious Democrats ran against Hillary in the primary and then Hillary Clinton was such a crap candidate and ran such a crap campaign that she lost to the most inexperienced, unqualified and irresponsible moron to ever hijack the GOP's primaries.

    Had the Democrats been only slightly less atrocious themselves in their campaigning then we could have been spared President Trump and a Democrat would have appointed someone to that seat.
    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.

  24. #4614
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    The GOP only stole it because no serious Democrats ran against Hillary in the primary and then Hillary Clinton was such a crap candidate and ran such a crap campaign that she lost to the most inexperienced, unqualified and irresponsible moron to ever hijack the GOP's primaries.

    Had the Democrats been only slightly less atrocious themselves in their campaigning then we could have been spared President Trump and a Democrat would have appointed someone to that seat.
    No, that's just how the GOP pulled it off. It's like saying you only robbed the bank because nobody stopped you on the way out of the vault.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  25. #4615
    Well yes but the bank's employees effectively opened the door to the vault and turned the CCTV off first.
    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.

  26. #4616
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Well yes but the bank's employees effectively opened the door to the vault and turned the CCTV off first.
    That is in no way an accurate description of McConnell blocking the appointment of a scotus justice for a year.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  27. #4617
    When you're to stupid to recognize that you're hanging yourself.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Insane rumbling. Could you imagine the shrieking if Trump had called for the packing of the court day 1 of his term?
    You never were one to understand context.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  28. #4618
    Summary of Trump's interview in the Sun:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/ddale8/st...30238329344007 (thread)

    I can see how someone like Lewk would be proud to have this racist jackass for president but every decent person will see this for the vile stomach-turning display of moral degeneracy and staggering incompence that it is.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  29. #4619
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  30. #4620
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Trump "knows an awful lot about Britain," cares what Britons think about him, and is "a true Brexiteer," Newton Dunn told the BBC. "He's really quite stung by the criticism he's been getting, the treatment he was going to get when he arrived. ... He knew all about the baby blimp. I think it hurt him."



    It's flying now by Parliament.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's actually the original French billion, which is bi-million, which is a million to the power of 2. We adopted the word, and then they changed it, presumably as revenge for Crecy and Agincourt, and then the treasonous Americans adopted the new French usage and spread it all over the world. And now we have to use it.

    And that's Why I'm Voting Leave.

Posting Permissions

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