The current state of affairs is far from “extinct”. It’s not good but it is not remotely in endangered territory yet.
Remember Trump lost the popular vote and barely eked out a win in the states he needed to win the EC. Red states have been Gerrymandering like mad and imposing all manner of impediments to voting and they got a paper thin victory for it against the most disliked candidate the Dems have ever put forth.
Gerrymandering is before the SC right now. Trump is doing serious damage to the conservative brand. Liberal voters are energized for a change.
Yeah the dems need to change and I hope they do. “Republican-lite” is not working well for them. Regardless they are nowhere near out of it.
Like nothing. Our political system by its very nature will result in a two-party system. Dems and Reps have a lock on it. They are not going anywhere. The chances a third party will replace one are remote and I see none in the wings that pose a serious threat to either.
I was objecting even to “the colloquial use of the term”. This is like George, in a Seinfeld episode. Get over it, or it’s going to be your undoing. (The generic “you”.)
Nah, it was stolen. Republicans were underhanded in taking that seat.
Imagine I exploited a loophole in the law that allowed me to take your car. I didn’t technically break the law and won’t go to jail for it and you can’t get your car back.
Would you be content having people here tell you it wasn’t stolen? You’d just shrug and tell me well done?
They need to think, and I mean really think, not just blame those mean old [xxxx], about this loss.
They lost to Donald Trump. Someone near to one of the very minor demons in a theurgic list of the dominions of Hell. Coarse and vulgar without actually being evil and kinda obviously unwinnable anywhere but in a strict democracy, it should have been a walkover.
A blinding flash may one day reveal to them that they shouldn’t run the candidate they think the people* ought to have*, even if that candidate sickens the half-people who will vote their party in, someone who wouldn’t even win against Donald Trump; but run a candidate the people actually like and want.
Pandering it may be, to consider the feelings of the electorate — and “Lies, All Lies !” maybe the alleged flaws of the imposed — but it would seem basic politics to run one who was less of a natural target and was admired by most.
Particularly when the competitor is Donald Trump.
Indeed. As with Tony Blair, the suspicion arises that the slightly-lefter party has been infiltrated and colonized by the slightly-righter party. Offering the same painted a different colour just means voters become accustomed to the ideologies of the dominant party, even if unhappy about it.
See, I look at it the other way around: you can, with my explicit permission, take my car; but I haven’t given you my permission, and so you don’t get to take it. As far as I can tell, that’s not me stealing the car, just like how I haven’t given you permission to enter my house or grab a beer out of the fridge. Did I steal that beer from you?
They should learn from Republicans. Require that voters register in the largest cities or by Snapchat. Close down all the rural polling places, too. The longer the lines to vote in rural counties, the better. Require that in order to get a voter ID, you have to disclose how many guns you have in your home. Declare a War on Fraud and permanently disenfranchise everyone convicted of a white collar crime including tax fraud. Decide that fighting the opioid epidemic is best done through a drug war that imprisons as many users as possible, focusing your policing in rural communities, and strip their voting rights. While you’re at it, actually, close down all the rural prisons and construct them in Democratic districts so you get a double whammy! If you’re CA or WA or NJ of HI, get rid of your bipartisan redistricting commissions and gerrymander the fuck out your state. If you can’t beat WI’s gerrymander, you aren’t trying hard enough! Purge everyone over 70 from the voter rolls on the theory that they might be dead, and if they’re alive, then they can re-register.
But it doesn’t just have to be reciprocal. You can do some new shit too. Start with court-packing. Sure. Give immigrants the right to vote in your state elections. Drop the voting age to 16. As soon as you win a temporary majority in Congress, you’d best start incorporating some new territories as states!
I am comfortable describing things which haven’t happened since before the Civil War, and which no contemporaneous accounts explain, as unprecedented. YMMV.
I believe that he was claiming that the SC seat belonged to the republicans in the first place, and therefore, not letting the democrats have their pick isn’t stealing, it’s just keeping what is already theirs.
FTR, I think that that is one of the dumber arguments presented on this board, but I can’t say it was the dumbest.
President Fillmore nominated Edward A. Bradford to replace John McKinley who had died. The senate chose not to act before the session ended. I cannot find precise dates but McKinley died on July 19, 1852 and the congressional session ended August 31, 1852. Presumably there was at least a bit of a lag between the death and the end of the session but even if Fillmore immediately nominated Bradford that is not a long time to wait (does the senate ever do these things in less than six weeks?..I do not know). When congress came back into session Fillmore did not re-nominate Bradford for the post (I do not know why).
The second one Fillmore nominated (of the two mentioned) was William C. Micou in February, 1853. The senate declined to act because Franklin Pierce was taking office on March 4, 1853. Seems reasonable to me.
The law of the land says the President can, with the consent of the Senate, appoint someone to the Supreme Court. As far as I can tell, the reason why Garland isn’t on the Supreme Court is because the President didn’t get consent from the Senate that time; and the reason why Gorsuch is, is because the President got consent from the Senate. Folks can, with my permission, borrow my car or enter my house or grab a beer out of the fridge; but, as far as I can tell, none of you have gotten my permission to do any of that. How is that anything but (a) dead on, and (b) easy to follow?
The Senate ‘owns’ the ability to, uh, give consent. Feel free to change the analogy to one where you need my consent to do something and you haven’t gotten it yet, but no other ‘ownership’ factor is in play, if you like; the change strikes me as making no difference, but you’re welcome to it.
This statement is completely, unequivocally false. That seat was Barak Obama’s to fill, not Donald Trump’s, and the GOP simply decided not to let him do it under any circumstance. They weren’t voting against a particular nomination, they actually said they would not consider anyone for the seat.
This is absolutely theft of the SCOTUS seat, and I don’t think the conservative side realizes exactly how angry the left is about it. There is no conceivable reading of the Constitution in which the GOP’s position is legitimate.
The candidate the Dems ran made absolutely no difference to the outcome of the election, since Donald Trump ran against a fictionalized version, created from whole cloth by the only media conservative viewers “trust.” Any candidate that was run would have lost – by that point, I even suspect Obama would have – because something like half the country were deeply offended by the heinous traits that the candidate didn’t even possess.
