American Politics

[Callum]

Like, come on. Even if you think all Democrats are Marxist leftists wanting to steal your guns, I don't see how you can defend what the Republicans are doing now after what they pulled in 2016. They're going directly against the precedent they set when Obama tried to appoint a Justice in the last few months of his Presidency.

You are incorrect.
Whilst the Republicans were wrong, imo, to block Obama from doing his constitutional duty - for which he was elected - it is not the same situation. Obama was not up for re-election. He was coming to the end of his second term. Regardless of the outcome of the 2016 election there was going to be a new President.

That makes no sense and is just an example of the mental gymnastics being done here to justify rampant hypocrisy by the Republicans. In 2016 they all said that it shouldn't happen during an election year, and that the President elected later that year should be the one to make the appointment.

You really will say and justify anything if it's anti-Democrat, anti-liberal. "Centrist" my arse.

[Va-Va-Voom]

Like, come on. Even if you think all Democrats are Marxist leftists wanting to steal your guns, I don't see how you can defend what the Republicans are doing now after what they pulled in 2016. They're going directly against the precedent they set when Obama tried to appoint a Justice in the last few months of his Presidency.

You are incorrect.
Whilst the Republicans were wrong, imo, to block Obama from doing his constitutional duty - for which he was elected - it is not the same situation. Obama was not up for re-election. He was coming to the end of his second term. Regardless of the outcome of the 2016 election there was going to be a new President.

So...what's your point?

If Trump is reelected he can nominate his choice in January.

[Callum]

Like, come on. Even if you think all Democrats are Marxist leftists wanting to steal your guns, I don't see how you can defend what the Republicans are doing now after what they pulled in 2016. They're going directly against the precedent they set when Obama tried to appoint a Justice in the last few months of his Presidency.

You are incorrect.
Whilst the Republicans were wrong, imo, to block Obama from doing his constitutional duty - for which he was elected - it is not the same situation. Obama was not up for re-election. He was coming to the end of his second term. Regardless of the outcome of the 2016 election there was going to be a new President.

So...what's your point?

If Trump is reelected he can nominate his choice in January.

The Democrats don't want that to happen so, naturally, as a centrist, jayram must back the Republicans decision at all cost.

[Jedi]

Yes, extremists are a major problem and need to be called out regularly for their BS...like "packing the court would serve the people". The term packing the court relates to overloading it to serve one ideology. How you think that can be good for the people, I really don't know.

What do you think you achieve when you brand something extremist?

To me it's no different to some miquetoast liberal calling something "offensive". Just because something is extremist (or offensive) doesn't mean It's necessarily wrong. Extreme measures are sometimes necessary and warranted. To me your whining about extremism is nothing more than that - pointless whining.

Also nothing i said is remotely "extremist" and you insanely misuse that word but that's beside the point.

It achieves highlighting someone who's a problem.

Because anyone who flys the flag and isn't willing to at least discuss the actual issues and votes purely on "I'm down with whatever my gang wants" is not how democracy is supposed to be practiced.

............. that's how Nazi Germany got in power.

If you think you could never in your life vote Republican then yes, you're a fkin extremist.

As a true democratic voter your supposed to LISTEN to policies first then vote on the best one, now sure that may be different between you and me but you should still listen first before planting your flag.

My flag is the Serbian flag so i have no idea what you're talking about. When it comes to tribalism, i have every reason to hate the Dem establishment as they're the ones (Clinton) who bombed my country. So if anything, if i was biased, i would love Trump and despise the Dems as most Serbs do.

I simply look towards my core beliefs and see which party is closer aligned with those. At the moment It's the Dems.

And I don't always align with the Dems. Most recently, I've defended Kyle Rittenhouse who i thought was completely justified to shoot those people in self-defense. I'm also generally against banning guns.

We've been over this already, but unfortunately you're seemingly more senile than Biden.

What if the Republicans turned around and had better ideas top to bottom > the Dems? most of you would still never vote for the "opposition" based on pure ideology.

Obviously i would tell people to vote for the Republicans. But, unfortunately, at the moment, whether it is healthcare, climate change, the economy or foreign policy, Dems are better in every regard.

[jayramfootball]

Like, come on. Even if you think all Democrats are Marxist leftists wanting to steal your guns, I don't see how you can defend what the Republicans are doing now after what they pulled in 2016. They're going directly against the precedent they set when Obama tried to appoint a Justice in the last few months of his Presidency.

You are incorrect.
Whilst the Republicans were wrong, imo, to block Obama from doing his constitutional duty - for which he was elected - it is not the same situation. Obama was not up for re-election. He was coming to the end of his second term. Regardless of the outcome of the 2016 election there was going to be a new President.

So...what's your point?

If Trump is reelected he can nominate his choice in January.

The Democrats don't want that to happen so, naturally, as a centrist, jayram must back the Republicans decision at all cost.

I thought the Republicans decision to stop the nomination of Garland was wrong. You already knew that as I stated it earlier, so your 'back the republicans at all costs' point is crap.

[jayramfootball]

Like, come on. Even if you think all Democrats are Marxist leftists wanting to steal your guns, I don't see how you can defend what the Republicans are doing now after what they pulled in 2016. They're going directly against the precedent they set when Obama tried to appoint a Justice in the last few months of his Presidency.

You are incorrect.
Whilst the Republicans were wrong, imo, to block Obama from doing his constitutional duty - for which he was elected - it is not the same situation. Obama was not up for re-election. He was coming to the end of his second term. Regardless of the outcome of the 2016 election there was going to be a new President.

So...what's your point?

If Trump is reelected he can nominate his choice in January.

The point is already made earlier.
The President and the leader of the Senate now have a Constitutional duty to nominate and call a vote, respectively.
That is their job, so they should do it.
Why would they wait?

[Callum]

Like, come on. Even if you think all Democrats are Marxist leftists wanting to steal your guns, I don't see how you can defend what the Republicans are doing now after what they pulled in 2016. They're going directly against the precedent they set when Obama tried to appoint a Justice in the last few months of his Presidency.

You are incorrect.
Whilst the Republicans were wrong, imo, to block Obama from doing his constitutional duty - for which he was elected - it is not the same situation. Obama was not up for re-election. He was coming to the end of his second term. Regardless of the outcome of the 2016 election there was going to be a new President.

So...what's your point?

If Trump is reelected he can nominate his choice in January.

The Democrats don't want that to happen so, naturally, as a centrist, jayram must back the Republicans decision at all cost.

I thought the Republicans decision to stop the nomination of Garland was wrong. You already knew that as I stated it earlier, so your 'back the republicans at all costs' point is crap.

Right, so you've no issue with them breaking their own precedent they set in 2016? The fact of the matter is they could stack the court for a generation, and you're happy for them to do that despite them blocking Obama's nomination in incredibly similar circumstances. No accountability needed I guess?

Any true centrist would be completely against this.

[jayramfootball]

Like, come on. Even if you think all Democrats are Marxist leftists wanting to steal your guns, I don't see how you can defend what the Republicans are doing now after what they pulled in 2016. They're going directly against the precedent they set when Obama tried to appoint a Justice in the last few months of his Presidency.

You are incorrect.
Whilst the Republicans were wrong, imo, to block Obama from doing his constitutional duty - for which he was elected - it is not the same situation. Obama was not up for re-election. He was coming to the end of his second term. Regardless of the outcome of the 2016 election there was going to be a new President.

So...what's your point?

If Trump is reelected he can nominate his choice in January.

The Democrats don't want that to happen so, naturally, as a centrist, jayram must back the Republicans decision at all cost.

I thought the Republicans decision to stop the nomination of Garland was wrong. You already knew that as I stated it earlier, so your 'back the republicans at all costs' point is crap.

Right, so you've no issue with them breaking their own precedent they set in 2016? The fact of the matter is they could stack the court for a generation, and you're happy for them to do that despite them blocking Obama's nomination in incredibly similar circumstances. No accountability needed I guess?

Any true centrist would be completely against this.

1) It was not a precedent for the reasons I already stated - even if it was there is nothing that the Senate does that sets a precedent for the Executive branch.
2) I think the President should do his job - which in this case is to fill the SC vacancy - you can;t get more centrist than that. Do the job you have been elected for. McConnel should then do his job.

I really don't know why you would consider that odd, unless you are playing the tit for tat politics game.

[DiamondGooner]

Yes, extremists are a major problem and need to be called out regularly for their BS...like "packing the court would serve the people". The term packing the court relates to overloading it to serve one ideology. How you think that can be good for the people, I really don't know.

What do you think you achieve when you brand something extremist?

To me it's no different to some miquetoast liberal calling something "offensive". Just because something is extremist (or offensive) doesn't mean It's necessarily wrong. Extreme measures are sometimes necessary and warranted. To me your whining about extremism is nothing more than that - pointless whining.

Also nothing i said is remotely "extremist" and you insanely misuse that word but that's beside the point.

It achieves highlighting someone who's a problem.

Because anyone who flys the flag and isn't willing to at least discuss the actual issues and votes purely on "I'm down with whatever my gang wants" is not how democracy is supposed to be practiced.

............. that's how Nazi Germany got in power.

If you think you could never in your life vote Republican then yes, you're a fkin extremist.

As a true democratic voter your supposed to LISTEN to policies first then vote on the best one, now sure that may be different between you and me but you should still listen first before planting your flag.

My flag is the Serbian flag so i have no idea what you're talking about. When it comes to tribalism, i have every reason to hate the Dem establishment as they're the ones (Clinton) who bombed my country. So if anything, if i was biased, i would love Trump and despise the Dems as most Serbs do.

I simply look towards my core beliefs and see which party is closer aligned with those. At the moment It's the Dems.

And I don't always align with the Dems. Most recently, I've defended Kyle Rittenhouse who i thought was completely justified to shoot those people in self-defense. I'm also generally against banning guns.

We've been over this already, but unfortunately you're seemingly more senile than Biden.

What if the Republicans turned around and had better ideas top to bottom > the Dems? most of you would still never vote for the "opposition" based on pure ideology.

Obviously i would tell people to vote for the Republicans. But, unfortunately, at the moment, whether it is healthcare, climate change, the economy or foreign policy, Dems are better in every regard.

Me and you haven't been over it at all so your mistaking me for someone else.

Also, sorry but your actions or words are not those of someone who is impartial or just prefers Dems currently for core beliefs, your possibly the most ardent Dem / Left supporter here and considering UFGN floats around these convo's ......... that's saying something.

LMAO and Callum both are more open to discuss than you've been so your saying one thing but actions speak louder than words.

I don't even support the Republicans and you've attacked me numerous times for any whiff of agreement with any of their or conservative policies.

To say your a possible swing voter is laughable.

[jayramfootball]

I think the Democrats have really made their own bed here - they have spoken so much of challenging the election results and not conceding if they lose that it has become imperative that the SC is not locked at 4-4. can you imagine the chaos of election challenges and legal cases with a Supreme Court not able to arbitrate.

For this reason alone the SC has to be ready to hear election challenges and make decisions quickly and decisively.

[LMAO]

Bottom line - President Trump has a Coonstitutional duty to appoint a new Justice - NOW - and the Senate has a Constitutional duty to hold a confirmation vote. Anything else is purely political and has no place in the decision making.

I don't know what constitution you're reading, but no, Trump nor the Senate have a constitutional duty to nominate and confirm or deny a new justice.

Go check Article III, Section 1 if you don't believe me. Notice anything? Yup, there's no number of justices mandated, only that there is a "supreme Court". And as far as I can tell, the number of justices on the SCOTUS currently stands at ≥ 1, so technically, any additional nominations aren't constitutionally mandated.

Any nomination and confirmation now is nothing more than a conservative power grab, except this year is worse than 2016. Since 1975, the mean SCOTUS confirmation time is 67 days and the median 71 days; we're 45 days away from the election. Scalia died 9 months before the election, but that was too close to the election. RBG died 6.5 weeks before the election, yet now it's okay to ram through a justice?

[jayramfootball]

Bottom line - President Trump has a Coonstitutional duty to appoint a new Justice - NOW - and the Senate has a Constitutional duty to hold a confirmation vote. Anything else is purely political and has no place in the decision making.

I don't know what constitution you're reading, but no, Trump nor the Senate have a constitutional duty to nominate and confirm or deny a new justice.

Go check Article III, Section 1 if you don't believe me. Notice anything? Yup, there's no number of justices mandated, only that there is a "supreme Court". And as far as I can tell, the number of justices on the SCOTUS currently stands at ≥ 1, so technically, any additional nominations aren't constitutionally mandated.

Any nomination and confirmation now is nothing more than a conservative power grab, except this year is worse than 2016. Since 1975, the mean SCOTUS confirmation time is 67 days and the median 71 days; we're 45 days away from the election. Scalia died 9 months before the election, but that was too close to the election. RBG died 6.5 weeks before the election, yet now it's okay to ram through a justice?

I have read it.

he [the president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court...

There are currently 9 Justices as per the current law of the land - Judiciary Act of 1869.

It is the actual job description of the president to now nominate to fill the vacant seat and for the Senate to vote to confirm, whether you like it or not.

The stupid comparison to Garland just takes us down the tit for tat party politics that is nothing but destructive.
there is no 'power grab'. The people voted for the current President AND the current Senate. Trump and McConnell acting to replace Ginsberg is nothing more than the execution of their mandate given by the people.

I will agree with you that Garland should have been voted on, but repeating that sh*t show now does not make it right.

The bottom line is that an elected President should nominate and the leader of the Senate should call a vote. Period.

[Pat Rice in Short Shorts]

All this hand wringing over political hypocrisy! It's about using one's power as authorized under the Constitution. The three branches are exercising their prerogatives. It's the way our Republic is supposed to work.

[DiamondGooner]

Extremism.

I remember the days when that guy behind the counter would of been knocked out.

Tell me this, how the fk is this acceptable behaviour just because someone votes Republican, in a democracy your right to vote is protected.

This is the sh*t behaviour of why I give the Left a hard time.

[Pat Rice in Short Shorts]

Extremism.

I remember the days when that guy behind the counter would of been knocked out.

Tell me this, how the fk is this acceptable behaviour just because someone votes Republican, in a democracy your right to vote is protected.

This is the sh*t behaviour of why I give the Left a hard time.

Oh it gets worse! Days after the election in 2016 some poor guy was driving white in Chicago and gets pulled out of his car and beaten up by two thugs who called him everything under the sun including a Trump voter. (Problem was he voted for Hillary.) And it has continued ever since.

Untold number of Starbucks and Mall employees sacked for doing the same shit as the video. Untold number of grown men stealing MAGA hats of heads while freaking out. Untold number of political signs stolen. And they wonder why we have untold number of "closet: Trump voters.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FxLvbifbaA