So, the failure of Bork’s nomination did not, in fact, represent a new precedent?
Good to know.
Never said it did.
The TREATMENT of Bork, in which his nomination failure is one aspect, is fairly called the start of the modern incivility.
Then what’s the significance of how many Democrats supported one candidate or opposed the other?
Is the reason Bork was treated that way equivalent to the reason Obama was treated the way he was? Do you remember what Bork was famous for?
Paint us a picture for how that lead to our current situation, rather than being an isolated incident. Because I sure can connect the dots from Gringrich through Fox News through Trump.
it’s sort of true, in that the extremes on both sides are the same.
the real mind-fuck is that we refuse to believe anything exists between said extremes.
I wouldn’t call “kill’em all” veiled, much less barely.
This is a warning for personal insults. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around d the corner.
Ah yes.
Like in Trump’s speech today, how he criticized the “alt left”, the term created by the right wing media to try to make it sound like both sides are equally guilty.
Alt right: Blood and soil! Genocide!
Alt left: Everyone should have health care!
Both sides are equal.
I’ve heard people say in a deragatory way that Bernie Sanders is the left’s equivelant to Trump. And this is supposed to reflect badly on them. Ha.
This whole “whataboutism” is a fallacy that needs to stop because there is no end to it.
Whatabout Bork? Let’s say he was treated unfairly. Does that mean forevermore the consent process is stuck in the shit show it is now?
The demonization is fair when the other side will not even agree to the facts. If one side says immigration is a real problem and immigrants are ruining this country we should look at the facts and decide how bad it is and how to best address it. But one side wants no part of the facts. They want to tell you that Mexicans are out there waiting to rape your wife or daughter.
Lower taxes? Who needs facts about how low taxes are? They just need to be lower and trickle down totally works.
You could make a laundry list of this stuff. You cannot have a debate if you can’t even agree on the premise and one side is studiously averse to actual facts that would establish the premise.
Yes, winning the Ethnocracy Games certainly made him legitimate from the perspective of an advocate for Democracy… how?
Rhode Island Demographics
California Demographics
California Population: 33,871,648
Rhode Island Population: 1,048,319
CA/RI Population Ratio: 32.31
CA/RI Electoral College Ratio: 13.75
(97% White) Rhode Islander vs (53% Minority) California Vote Ratio: 2.35
It may not have been originally intended to work that way, but at present the electoral college very much amplifies white voter’s elective power over that of minorities. Rural states are overwhelmingly white states, and rural states are those with disproportionate voting power.
Clearly I’m not the one who is misinformed.
Bork was a terrible incident, but the radicalization of the Right wing base began before Bork in the anti-busing and Religious Right campaigns of the 1970s that came to flourish under the Gingrich led House of Representatives. Congressional consensus died in the 104th Congress with a radicalized group of newly elected representatives who were not interested in old style “politics,” but who failed to provide a new method with which to encourage cooperative action.
And accusations against Bush 43 followed on significantly more absurd accusations against Clinton.
I would suggest that “both sides are the same” misses the point that each side takes actions that are different but equally potentially harmful to the body politic.
Oh, I see. Their actions are different, but the effect they have on society are exactly the same. Trump would’ve been the exact same as Clinton or Bernie Sanders. A completely Republican controlled government is equally damaging to society as a completely Democratic government.
Might I ask, can I see your math on that? I mean, let’s think about it for a moment - we have thousands of people involved in high levels of government with different philosophies and practices and competancies. What are the odds that no matter what they do or how they change or how time goes by, the damage they do to society is always exactly, precisely equal? That seems like quite a cosmic balance to achieve, on the order of trillions to one or greater. One side can deny global warming and encourage neo-nazi rallies, and the other side can try to get people affordable health care, and each will damage society exactly the same amount.
“Equally harmful?”
That’s completely factually inaccurate and exactly what the OP was speaking about. Just what is the Democratic equivalent of “our entire platform is meant to make this a one term president?”
It. Is. Not. A. Wash.
One side raises their voice, the other side launches nukes (almost literally with the so-called “nuclear option”…), and you call it “equal.”
Nah. The word “potentially” got lost in an edit and has been restored.
It was never my intention to say that in the correct situation, both sides are equal.
The outside behavior by some folks on both sides can appear the same to a casual observer.
An Antifa demonstrator wearing a mask, shoving, and shouting slogans appears little different, to an observer ten yards away, than an alt-right demonstrator wearing a mask, shoving, and shouting slogans.
But not similar forcing children to join an indoctrinating association. There were cattle trains in the Allies but to a much smaller degree and they didn’t end at the butcher’s shop. The key differences weren’t on the war front, they were on the home front.
Emails. Duh.
Let’s concede, for sake of argument that what you say is indeed accurate, why is it assumed that so-called ethnic blocks vote as monolithic hive minds?
Don’t forget Lyndon Johnson saying that if you vote for Goldwater you were voting for nuclear war. This is generally considered the first modern attack ad.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk