2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Now I understand the point but certain positions should not have political influence. Like I said, positions with smaller terms usually run on short term stimulus plans. Imagine if our fed ran that way. That’s why they are elected for terms that succeed the president. A 6-3 house is dangerous. If trump wins, then it’s inevitable but personally I think it’s better long term if we allow the election to determine it especially during this climate.

You believe it to be dangerous. But that doesn't make it so.

Article III of the Constitution sets judicial appointments as lifetime appointments. It's been that way for 211 years and while our country has had it's historical ups and downs along the way; the court has remained in tact, legitimate and honorable. Liberal majorities and conservative majorities alike.

We're going to be great. (And the Federal Reserve doesn't run that way, so be thankful!)

[TheHeel]

Originally Posted by Boo

Seems the unhinged can't follow the rules but complain about Trump not following "rules".

You’re really comparing me, some guy, on a message board to Trump’s lies to the country?

Your stuff has been ultra weak lately. I’ve seen some your comments throughout the years and that material was so much better. What happened?

[cnewby]

Snap, snap, snap goes heelie. The break is coming.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by TheHeel

You’re really comparing me, some guy, on a message board to Trump’s lies to the country?

They hold the same weight you know.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by cnewby

Snap, snap, snap goes heelie. The break is coming.

You want company. We get it

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

You believe it to be dangerous. But that doesn't make it so.

Article III of the Constitution sets judicial appointments as lifetime appointments. It's been that way for 211 years and while our country has had it's historical ups and downs along the way; the court has remained in tact, legitimate and honorable. Liberal majorities and conservative majorities alike.

We're going to be great. (And the Federal Reserve doesn't run that way, so be thankful!)

Obviously just because I think it's dangerous doesn't mean it is. What I will say is this, with how progressive the left is becoming by not extending the olive branch now could backfire in the future. I don't think the Right has as much to gain from a 6-3 court as the left in my opinion. If terms were shorter, it wouldn't bother me as much as I do believe people usually think short term. If that is true, applying that logic to supreme court justices may not end well.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Obviously just because I think it's dangerous doesn't mean it is. What I will say is this, with how progressive the left is becoming by not extending the olive branch now could backfire in the future. I don't think the Right has as much to gain from a 6-3 court as the left in my opinion. If terms were shorter, it wouldn't bother me as much as I do believe people usually think short term. If that is true, applying that logic to supreme court justices may not end well.

You haven't been paying attention.

They'll burn the branch the second it leaves your hand. You don't keep them in check by surrendering power when you have it. You keep them in check by using it when you have it.

Think of it like every movie scene ever created. One guy is beating the hell out of the other guy, and then somehow the guy near death gets his hands on a gun and slowly stands up. What happens EVERY SINGLE TIME? Immediately, the near murderer starts negotiating ... "Whoa, Bill, let's call it a truce huh buddy, think about this; we can work this out!"

LOL. BANG. You must never hesitate.

[babyfaceposey]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

The only person that you can blame for what is going to happen to RBG's seat is RBG. It was her bravado that led to this outcome; she could and should have resigned her seat while Obama was president, ensuring her progressive legacy would remain in the generation after. She didn't and as a result, it won't.

That's just the way it is. She held 100% of the power in this situation and to complain about politicans being politicans is folly.

Complain about her.

I agree 100%. What I mean is Democrats thought Clinton would win and then RGB could step down. Instead she was forced in her mind to hold on until 2020 election in hopes of a Democrat winning the presidency because Trump ruined the plan in 2016.

[NeedChapmans]

I am shocked. SHOCKED. Grassley changed his mind!

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Obviously just because I think it's dangerous doesn't mean it is. What I will say is this, with how progressive the left is becoming by not extending the olive branch now could backfire in the future. I don't think the Right has as much to gain from a 6-3 court as the left in my opinion. If terms were shorter, it wouldn't bother me as much as I do believe people usually think short term. If that is true, applying that logic to supreme court justices may not end well.

Do you believe the Senate Republicans are so shortsighted that they don’t understand this or are they in fact banking on the radicalization of U.S politics?

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

You haven't been paying attention.

They'll burn the branch the second it leaves your hand. You don't keep them in check by surrendering power when you have it. You keep them in check by using it when you have it.

Think of it like every movie scene ever created. One guy is beating the hell out of the other guy, and then somehow the guy near death gets his hands on a gun and slowly stands up. What happens EVERY SINGLE TIME? Immediately, the near murderer starts negotiating ... "Whoa, Bill, let's call it a truce huh buddy, think about this huh, we can work this out!"

LOL. BANG. You must never hesitate.

Although that can be true, we at least know the last court justice during this time was deferred. If it was a democratic senate, maybe it would've went through. Regardless if we set a precedent based on the most recent occurrence, hopefully we can set an unwritten rule. Your point is fair, but with the upcoming of this generation's leftist movement, I'd rather take a chance on an unwritten rule rather than guaranteeing a 6-3 democratic court eventually. Because if people think short term, we both know the senate most likely would change the following election as usually congress does.

[oldgoldy97]

CBS World News Tonight just did a piece honoring some of the 200K that have died, from a fourth grade girl to an old man.

A+ worthy.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Although that can be true, we at least know the last court justice during this time was deferred. If it was a democratic senate, maybe it would've went through. Regardless if we set a precedent based on the most recent occurrence, hopefully we can set an unwritten rule. Your point is fair, but with the upcoming of this generation's leftist movement, I'd rather take a chance on an unwritten rule rather than guaranteeing a 6-3 democratic court eventually. Because if people think short term, we both know the senate most likely would change the following election as usually congress does.

He’s comparing real life to movie scenes. That tells you everything.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

He’s comparing real life to movie scenes. That tells you everything.

It's called an analogy. You liken one thing to another to enhance an argument or point of view.

A valuable tool in debate. Feel free to express your own, anytime.

[Onions]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

He’s comparing real life to movie scenes. That tells you everything.

[Madoka]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

He’s comparing real life to movie scenes. That tells you everything.

That he understands what an analogy is and how to use it appropriately?

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Although that can be true, we at least know the last court justice during this time was deferred. If it was a democratic senate, maybe it would've went through. Regardless if we set a precedent based on the most recent occurrence, hopefully we can set an unwritten rule. Your point is fair, but with the upcoming of this generation's leftist movement, I'd rather take a chance on an unwritten rule rather than guaranteeing a 6-3 democratic court eventually. Because if people think short term, we both know the senate most likely would change the following election as usually congress does.

At this very moment, the threat is not a 6-3 Democratic court, but a 9-6 Democratic court. You're here, asking Republicans to extend an olive branch at a time when the political climate is, let's say "toxic". And yet, senators on the left are openly advocating for blowing up the court system if Republicans don't yield the branch.

Republicans are following the constitution, using power instilled to them by the American people. They have a duty, to ME and to everyone who voted for them, to do so. Choose to give power to the democrats and don't expect my vote, or the vote of millions of others who know how important the courts are to our country.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Do you believe the Senate Republicans are so shortsighted that they don’t understand this or are they in fact banking on the radicalization of U.S politics?

Regardless of side, senators, presidents, and other short term positions will always usually think in the best interest of short term. Their careers depend on it because of the length of their terms. If they want to get reelected then will think short term. It's why this country has a problem budgeting and also why these socialist are getting so much traction these days. People think short term and short term positions will end up thinking short term.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by Madoka

That he understands what an analogy is and how to use it appropriately?

No and didn’t.

[oldgoldy97]

I think you meant exaggeration and hyperbole.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Regardless of side, senators, presidents, and other short term positions will always usually think in the best interest of short term. Their careers depend on it because of the length of their terms. If they want to get reelected then will think short term. It's why this country has a problem budgeting and also why these socialist are getting so much traction these days. People think short term and short term positions will end up thinking short term.

I must admit, I'm having a hard time understanding your position. You say people think short term and short term positions end up getting people to think short term, yet want term limits on SCOTUS justices rather than lifetime appointments; which will mean bouncing back and forth a lot more often than a continuity of decisions. Shouldn't you be in favor of lifetime appointments then?

[Timmay]

Haha.
anaerobic workouts at home

[packman80]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

CBS World News Tonight just did a piece honoring some of the 200K that have died, from a fourth grade girl to an old man.

A+ worthy.

Did the honor the guy that got shot a bunch of times but died of COVID?

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by Timmay

Haha.
anaerobic workouts at home

I hope they do appoint that lady. I think she’d be good.

Originally Posted by packman80

Did the honor the guy that got shot a bunch of times but died of COVID?

No, just people that actually died from Covid. It was about a dozen of them.

I don’t know what’s rarer: a person who died of Covid or someone who’s had a brat.

[rman112]

oldgoldy's passive-aggression is becoming umatched.