-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election
- Thread starter Lacius
- Start date
- Views 257,273
- Replies 3,721
- Likes 7
D
Deleted User
Guest
holy crap mother of word salad from many of you.
1. there's a part of the quote in the "biden rule" that Republicans are intentionally leaving out. the quote that is being used to defend the original block (back in 2016) is as follows
"It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed,”
there is a teeeny tiny part that is missing from this quote but has massive impacts
'if the president consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter,'
What does this mean? This means that Garland was supposed to at LEAST get a hearing. The senate did not do that all.
So okay, if the senate didn't do that? So who gives?
Well, that would mean Garland was supposed to get at least a hearing. As I previously stated, that didn't happen. Which basically means, Republicans are playing favorites. They tried to claim using the biden rule back in 2016. Which, the catch was they didn't speak or work with the president of that time to at least provide a hearing. But NOW it's okay because the president is a republican. Simply put, that's a double standard and a half. that's putting party over people.
Not so, if this was vice versa, and the biden rule was properly applied (back in 1992)
1. there's a part of the quote in the "biden rule" that Republicans are intentionally leaving out. the quote that is being used to defend the original block (back in 2016) is as follows
"It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed,”
there is a teeeny tiny part that is missing from this quote but has massive impacts
'if the president consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter,'
What does this mean? This means that Garland was supposed to at LEAST get a hearing. The senate did not do that all.
So okay, if the senate didn't do that? So who gives?
Well, that would mean Garland was supposed to get at least a hearing. As I previously stated, that didn't happen. Which basically means, Republicans are playing favorites. They tried to claim using the biden rule back in 2016. Which, the catch was they didn't speak or work with the president of that time to at least provide a hearing. But NOW it's okay because the president is a republican. Simply put, that's a double standard and a half. that's putting party over people.
Last edited by ,
Even if you exclude the unique circumstances surround each appointment I believe that being a hypocrite is okay if it means that a new Conservative Judge is appointed to the Supreme Court. There's far worse things than being a hypocrite, like breaking the law, starting wild fires, looting, murdering, lying, arson, trying to use Impeachment as an unjustified tool during an election year or voting for these fools who have been running great cities into the ground for decades. I can deal with Mitch being a hypocrite, if that's what was taking place, but @Foxi4 already provided you with a quote that set out the specifics and you just choose to selectively use what makes you sound correct from the quote and ignore the rest. That's a personal flaw, but your willing blindness doesn't change what he said, what he meant, why he said it and what took place back then compared to what's happening now. Though, this topic is boring. Democrats will fight against an appointment and will say anything and do anything regardless of truthfulness to stop it while Republicans will try their best to get a new Judge onto the bench. The lies your side comes up with have no bearing on the situation. It's not like you can lie and cheat your way around the rules.
D
Deleted User
Guest
Well, let's see here one was a president pushing for a country not to go through a policy, however said country still had a choice.
Meanwhile hacking into a election and changing votes, or pouring money into a election as a foreign country is far more direct of election tampering. One was a policy, the other was tampering with a presidential election.
Please, you tell me which is worse?
Good! We don't need another judge that supports identity politics or murdering the unborn. They can play favorites until the sun burns out.
To be fair to @Lacius, this is a clarification McConnel provided in 2019, meaning after everything was said and done, but also long before the current debacle. Either way, if the issue was never brought up in front of the Senate then there was no Senate consent. Even if it was brought up before the Senate, it wouldn't pass either way. All of this is hypothetical coulda shoulda woulda, at the end of the day the GOP will take what they can get if the opportunity arises - the reelection is uncertain, the seat is surefire. They could do it tomorrow if they really wanted to, there's nothing stopping them.
you should ponder this is it murder if the mother's life is in danger? if you say yes that your as hypocrical as all of you lot maybe worse
Last edited by chrisrlink,
If they voted on Garland and it didn't pass, that sucks but it's fair (excluding issues with Senate composition being unrepresentative of the population). Elections have consequences. One man stating he's not even going to let anybody vote on him for a single reason (it's an election year) and then contradicting that when it's convenient is hypocrisy, plain and simple. If that's what happens, the Democrats should pack the court. It wouldn't be moral, but it wouldn't be any worse than what McConnell is trying to get away with.
And, as I said earlier, it was arguably unconstitutional for McConnell not to take up the Garland nomination, even if it was going to fail.
That's what many Republicans are thinking but not saying. Thank you for being honest.
Too bad your side nuked the 60 vote requirement to confirm judicial nominees.
Too bad Ginsburg didn't retire before 2106.
Too bad.
I guess my feeling about this is summed up in this excerpt I picked up from another site.
"The only real principle in play now — and since 2002 — is power, on both sides of the aisle. Democrats blockaded George W. Bush’s nominees because they could, and then Republicans did the same to Obama’s for the same reason. Democrats changed the rules in 2013 to stack the court because they could, and Republicans did the same in 2017 for the same reason. They left Merrick Garland twisting in the wind for the same reason — because they could. And so they did, all of them, over the years."
Last edited by Hanafuda,
A woman has (and should have) a right to control her body. In addition, abortion isn't murder, since it's not a person.
hey, i'm willing to let trump get that SC seat if it burns his chances at the presidency, and guarantees dems the senate. at that point the dems could impeach Kavanaugh, and add 2 more justices. no one on the GOP side care about hypocrisy or using underhanded tactics anyways, so why not.
people here have their minds made up about who they are going to vote for. other people don't. Also this would turn the presidential race from "oh gosh i'm not a fan of these two candidates" to "oh Jesus fuck the impartiality SC is in danger". Honestly it happening now will energize the fuck out of the semi-sleepy democrats and unlikely young voters.
people care a whole lot about the supreme court, and women care about having representation on the highest court in the land. if trump shoves through someone who has a stance against abortion, it's game over for him and a GOP senate majority, as that is a boiling point issue.
people here have their minds made up about who they are going to vote for. other people don't. Also this would turn the presidential race from "oh gosh i'm not a fan of these two candidates" to "oh Jesus fuck the impartiality SC is in danger". Honestly it happening now will energize the fuck out of the semi-sleepy democrats and unlikely young voters.
people care a whole lot about the supreme court, and women care about having representation on the highest court in the land. if trump shoves through someone who has a stance against abortion, it's game over for him and a GOP senate majority, as that is a boiling point issue.
Last edited by omgcat,
Always the baby murdering card. RepubliCONS, pretending they care about you... until birth. Then they don't give a fuck what happens to anyone.
The filibuster was always stupid, even if its removal has been inconvenient at times. Talking filibusters are fine though.
Yes, it's too bad Ginsburg didn't retire when we were screaming she should.
None of this changes the blatant hypocrisy on display by the Republicans, and Democrats should still pack the court if Trump gets a third appointment. He should only get two in a fair world (unfairness of the electoral college aside), and court packing would even the playing field in an unfair world.
Last edited by Lacius,
That's incorrect.
In addition, McConnell is the one arbitrarily changing the rules to get what he wants. Nice try.
Sounds like a perfect case for the new SC to ponder, I wonder how Justice Amy Coney Barret is going to rule on it. All jokes aside, it sounds like you don't have a standard either if you're willing to respond in a way you know is immoral. We can only hope it won't come to that, I personally find "packing the court" to be a far more egregious move - at least McConnel's following the playbook, you want to rewrite it in your favour. Applying this logic to any other position of importance reveals just how outrageous it is. Let's have 3 Presidents, 5 Attorney Generals and 10 Supreme Court Justices. Hell, sky's the limit, let's have a 100, it's all good because "McConnel was a meanie". It's vindictive and silly, not to mention transparent. Everybody knows it's all about stacking odds in favour of certain outcomes. If it's partisan, there's no shame in that. If it's vengeance then it's petty. Either one is a bad look.
I'm not rewriting a playbook anymore than McConnell is. The difference is I'm not being a hypocrite.
Re Russia and China.
Both have a very dubious track record internally on rights and externally on international fun and games.
China has some serious problems in the mid term -- the legacy of the one child policy will likely hit hard before too terribly long, wages and houses are getting to be tricky to afford, local tax schemes are harder and harder (local tax is not a thing so land rights are mostly it and in many places land is scarce), internal make work projects and infrastructure only do so much, I doubt we will see too much in the way of human rights takeup there but one can dream (though if someone pushes the social credit score bit too hard then maybe) and being the world's factory is getting harder (environmental regs and increasing wages, even more so if workers are scare because there literally are none, a lot of stuff already happens to be starting up in small Asian countries because China is too expensive). If they manage the belt and road bit, own most of Africa, own resource extraction in South America, own key assets in Europe and Australia (and probably the US too), isolate India (arguably their biggest rival in neighbouring politics) and continue to play the handful of middle east states like a fiddle then that is a nice position to be in, one that can weather a storm better than they can if that storm happened now.
Russia on the other hand is playing the long game. Get a few more degrees in the world and Russia gains a few ports that it presently lacks, a nice chunk of farmland and possibly an arctic sea passage (or will make a nice nuclear icebreaker fleet) which means Suez and Panama are immediately not as big a player as they are used to being and world trade changes if not overnight then however many weeks it takes for the boats to get there (by similar token Canada would also get a northwest passage become a viable thing). If China is then on its knees, India was caught napping and the US disappears up its own arse/into infighting then it is Russia's time to shine. Taking your eye off Russia then is the same short sightedness that we normally laugh at politicians for. Russia has its own problems (corruption is an art form there, population is similarly troubled (look up the laws on getting a vasectomy there) and all the rest that makes Russia a place most are unlikely to go set up shop looking for a nice life.
Both have a very dubious track record internally on rights and externally on international fun and games.
China has some serious problems in the mid term -- the legacy of the one child policy will likely hit hard before too terribly long, wages and houses are getting to be tricky to afford, local tax schemes are harder and harder (local tax is not a thing so land rights are mostly it and in many places land is scarce), internal make work projects and infrastructure only do so much, I doubt we will see too much in the way of human rights takeup there but one can dream (though if someone pushes the social credit score bit too hard then maybe) and being the world's factory is getting harder (environmental regs and increasing wages, even more so if workers are scare because there literally are none, a lot of stuff already happens to be starting up in small Asian countries because China is too expensive). If they manage the belt and road bit, own most of Africa, own resource extraction in South America, own key assets in Europe and Australia (and probably the US too), isolate India (arguably their biggest rival in neighbouring politics) and continue to play the handful of middle east states like a fiddle then that is a nice position to be in, one that can weather a storm better than they can if that storm happened now.
Russia on the other hand is playing the long game. Get a few more degrees in the world and Russia gains a few ports that it presently lacks, a nice chunk of farmland and possibly an arctic sea passage (or will make a nice nuclear icebreaker fleet) which means Suez and Panama are immediately not as big a player as they are used to being and world trade changes if not overnight then however many weeks it takes for the boats to get there (by similar token Canada would also get a northwest passage become a viable thing). If China is then on its knees, India was caught napping and the US disappears up its own arse/into infighting then it is Russia's time to shine. Taking your eye off Russia then is the same short sightedness that we normally laugh at politicians for. Russia has its own problems (corruption is an art form there, population is similarly troubled (look up the laws on getting a vasectomy there) and all the rest that makes Russia a place most are unlikely to go set up shop looking for a nice life.
Similar threads
- Locked
-
- Poll
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
I wonder if I could recommend that to some emulation devs that perhaps the sound could use some smoothing out to simulate those old TVs -
@
Psionic Roshambo:
I think a few of the early systems could benefit from that, at least up to the 8 bit generation, by the 16 bit generation I think TVs had gotten a lot better in almost every way
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
it says it only works for the original R4, R4i Gold (r4ids.cn), R4iDSN (r4idsn.com) and Acekard R.P.G. -
-
-
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Just give it a try, but honestly if you have a 3DS you can play DS games without a card just off the internal SD card
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
