HurricaneDitka, a note on English usage: One does not usually refer to one “shifting” positions when the new position is the same as the old one. In her first letter, Pelosi said that she didn’t think that an unfunded agency would be able to offer adequate security. In her later statement, she said that she didn’t think that an unfunded agency would be able to offer adequate security. This is not what we refer to as a “shift”.
I’d be interested in reading a thread discussing strong versus weak unitary executive theory if you’d be so kind as to start one with your own position. TIA.
It wasn’t her position that the headline referred to as “shifting” but her reasoning. And it did.
After reading those excerpts, is there anything about your post you’d like to “shift”?
Would you please cite your source? I’m not doubting anything, but I would like to read the entire article.
Here you go. It’s the Washington Times, so don’t expect much.
“We get both kinds of opinion at this White House. Rants from nasty right-wing bitches whose pussy we’d like to grab, and rants from nasty right-wing boy toys who’d like to help us grab some o’ that pussy. Both kinds of advice.”
Once upon a time it wasn’t entirely unreasonable to think some of the posts from you two were not entirely unreasonable. What happened? Dawning realization that your boy is an incompetent criminal is causing cognitive breakdown?
Well, I suppose I could repeat an argument or explanation I’ve provided that a poster hasn’t responded to and may have overlooked, or I could just point to it.
Not sure why one would be better or worse ‘form’ than the other.
That must seriously hurt the feelings of the Fox and Friends couch potatoes.
I at least expected it to make a case that Pelosi had switched positions. All they did was quote what she said and take it as given that it was a different position.
But it isn’t. If they can’t pay them, then they can’t afford to do the job under the current budge. Those are the same position. They could have at least tried to argue it was different.
I’m a little bit confused what you think there is to negotiate. Neither republicans nor democrats want the government shut down, the senate passed a bill to open the government 100-0 in the last session, the house passed that same bill, and now for some reason, the senate won’t even consider it. There’s not really anything to negotiate - republicans can end the shutdown whenever they want. As soon as they want to, they can get back to good-faith governance, i.e. if they want policy, they can either convince the democrats it’s a good idea, or negotiate for something that the democrats want without holding the government hostage over it. Y’know, the way these things are supposed to work.
In reality, any “negotiation” over the shutdown comes down to “give us the wall or we keep torturing the hostage”. That’s not negotiation, and the good news is that, for once, the American people aren’t falling for it.
In retrospect I don’t think I can add anything to these three posts. “A greek tragedy in three posts”? On the whole, this thread really is kind of depressing to read, because even here, on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, the conservative posts are just… so bad.
That’s fine. What wasn’t fine was your saying, “Lovely demographic for the dims to covet so highly.”
Do you have a problem with that demographic, or don’t you? And if so, what’s your problem?
I just think the optics of slavering over the convicted felon demographic to be interesting. Now compared to what people say about Trump, Republicans, etc in this forum or even in this very thread that would have lead to tut-tutting if directed at a different politician what I said is unremarkable. The fact that it isn’t unremarkable is remarkable.
Now do I have a problem with released felons? People who include in their ranks rapists, murderers, arsonists, frauds, etc? :dubious::dubious::dubious::dubious::dubious::dubious::dubious: what type of question is that? Regardless, of how I feel about them or their crimes if they are released from prison alive then they need to be reintegrated into society. IMO, restoration of voting rights can at least be considered.
You shifted even farther left?
You still don’t get it, octopus. Democrats don’t want felons to vote because it will give us more power. To a rational person, power is not itself a goal, but a means to an end. In this case, the actual end is that we support democracy, and want people to be voting. The reason why we want to win elections is so that we can do things like that. And if the other party won elections but did thing that we liked, like supporting democracy, we’d be happy with that even though we were losing the elections.
Your own fucking principles say “this is the right thing to do”. Why do you care about the optics?
It makes even less sense. If Republicans also adopted this position because it’s the right thing to do, and pushed for felon voting rights even harder than Democrats, then *they’d *reap the rewards. Why not stand up for your principles AND get votes? It’s not like felons are inherently going to vote D.
Well, what you don’t get is your whole argument fails because of your assumption of rationality. Trump is president. Is that the product of Vulcan logic?
EDIT: never mind, not worth it.
‘Slavering’? If you’re going to use words like that, I think an example that fits that description is called for.
And what BPC said about the optics. Screw optics.
I can’t even parse that monstrosity of a sentence. Try again, or not.
We’re talking specifically about Florida. So the good news is that you’re safe from the threat of a released murderer or rapist wielding a ballot; the referendum specifically excluded them from eligibility to have their franchise restored.
Not sure about arsonists or frauds, but given that you Republicans put a fraud in the White House, it shouldn’t bother you too much if frauds will now be able to vote in Florida.
But people whose felony (WTF, Florida?!) consisted of driving with a suspended license will now be able to vote again. You should be glad of this, and you should think it’s quite reasonable that Dem candidates seek their votes.
Yeah… when this board is infested with people who can’t wait for old white males to die and think that conservatives should be stripped of the right to vote and put in re-education camps and no one bats an eye or feigns outrage or wants to tone police forgive me if I don’t share your so-called concern.