You’ve been wrong before.
Interesting.
Here’s the post I responded to:
But that post doesn’t garner a reaction of, “Bullshit. We’ll never know what would have happened if a vote had been taken. You assert one possible outcome, and that might even be the most likely outcome, but it’s far from a certainty.”
But my denial of that claim with an equally confident counter-claim does.
Why is that?
I don’t agree that enough senators would have broken ranks to confirm Garland, because that, too, would “get [them] into some hot water.”
Republicans broke ranks to not convict Bill Clinton when he was impeached.
Republicans broke ranks, twice, recently in refusing to get rid of Obamacare.
Those were some big votes, not naming a post office.
We’ll never know of course but history, even recent history with this same set of senators, suggests it is reasonable to think Garland might have gotten appointed. Particularly since I doubt many senators seriously thought Trump could win so best to get the somewhat moderate Garland in rather than whoever Clinton might appoint.
Excellent question. Why didn’t you say that to him? For what it’s worth I agree that his statement was bullshit, but I am under no obligation to reply to every post that I think is bullshit.
Because rather than saying it was bullshit, I accepted it as true and showed the flaws in the method of thinking: a gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied.
Now, by ignoring bullshit that furthers your cause but calling out bullshit that hurts your cause, you reveal that your true interest is not in mitigating bullshit but in advancing your cause. You sound a pious complaint against bullshit, but your real objection is not to bullshit: it’s to bullshit that doesn’t help you.
if that’s true, then I question your “hot water” claim of a few posts back.
I too didn’t bother to rebut the obvious hyperbole. I usually wait for the dead horse to be beat a few times before assuming anyone is trying to sell their hyperbole is literal fact, since they’re usually not.
Bricker:
Perhaps you missed this.
What "hot water"claim did I make?
Yes, by design.
Yeah. What’s your point? Just because it was by design does not make it good. The 3/5 compromise in the constitution was by design too. That did not make it a good thing.
Senators represent states, not the “population”. If you had an ounce of brains, you would know that.
P.S. Good luck changing the Constitution to meet your whims.
I am perfectly aware of that and never suggested otherwise. If you had an ounce of reading comprehension you would know that but why let that stand in the way of your snark?
Also, I am not trying to change how the senate works (as the constitution outlines it). I am pushing back at someone sagely telling me the solution to all this is at the ballot box when it can be shown the ballot box is heavily skewed in a number of ways.
If you had any ability to follow what others are talking about you’d have known that too.
So tilting at windmills, then.
I know the reference but don’t understand what you mean by it here.
For better or for worse, this is our system of government. Whining about it on a message board isn’t going to change anything.
I guess you missed the part where John Mace told us the solution to this is at the ballot box. Responding to him is exactly what we do on a message board.
Changing the Senate is simply not going to happen. Do you understand that?
Wow…your reading comprehension really does suck. Seriously. I mean that.