The Turtle is still butt-hurt (a term that I actually cannot stand, but in reference to evil scumbags like Mitch McConnell, I’ll use it) over Robert Bork not being confirmed for the S.C. back in the late '80s. Kinda like how evil Dick Cheney never got over how Republicans were “treated” back during Watergate. Funny how Republicans like to use ridiculous terms like “snowflake” when referring to Democrats (and other people) who simply didn’t want an ignorant, stupid, narcissistic a-hole with “daddy issues” in the W.H. but THEY’RE the ones who never seem to be able let anything go when they think they’ve been “wronged.” Interesting, that.
It’s really interesting that in 1797 and 1798 – only a decade after the document was written – there was obvious uncertainty as to the meaning of something as basic as the impeachment process. Both the House and the Senate had to debate whether a Senator could be impeached, and they wound up in effect disagreeing on the matter, while apparently not coming to a clear conclusion in the Senate.
Constitutional originalism in the 21st century? Even while most of the signers were still alive, people weren’t clear on what it meant!
I’m sure you can point at many of the regular and most recognized liberals or dems in the dope as falling for that uh?
Incidentally, Snopes has been accused many times of being a leftist rag because it debunks many right wing conspiracies but it is not usually called the other way around when it does shot down liberal conspiracies. On the contrary, guys like me are glad that those conspiracies are being shot down regardless if they are in favor of the left. More recent research that I saw (noted in previous SDMB discussions) the researches noted that yes, people on the right and the left can fall for conspiracies; but as a fake news maker from 2016 reported, it was harder to make conspiracies stick on the left for the simple reason that more people from the left make an effort to debunk them.
BTW that bit of news you linked to came from early in the Trump presidency, I have to say that many old conspiracies are still being marinated in the right wing bowl. As in, it is very hard to debunk old tripe when the leaders of the right are the ones remaking them constantly or continuing to distribute them far and wide.
I knew you’d comment on one of my posts sooner or later even though I haven’t directly commented on one of yours in the past (and with good reason as I generally feel that you’re beneath any comments by me). Shame you couldn’t just keep whatever misguided thoughts (if “thoughts” is what you really to call them) you had on this to yourself. Also, too bad you’re W-R-O-N-G, as usual (being a conservative it must SUCK for you to have that be your normal circumstance). So tell me - tell us ALL, Mr. Conservative - how do you rationalize The Turtle refusing to grant Merrick Garland ANY audience at all in 2016 but now stating (in that idiotic Kentucky accent of his) that he’s perfectly fine with S.C. nominations and confirmations next election year, hm? Oh, and by the way, Mr. Republican (it must have to suck SO BADLY for you to have go through life labeled as such) - please explain to us ALL (IF you’re able to do so - which I have my doubts about) how it is you can come on here and whine about my concerns when what The Turtle did in 2016 is ABSOLUTELY wrong (you don’t think so? Then let’s see what you have to say if and when Democrats ever try to pull that little stunt in an election year, hm?) while what the likes of Dick Cheney and The Turtle had to “endure” was perfectly fine AND deserved, hm? Oh, I know you’ll try to rationalize all of this in the usual (non-sensical) Republican way, but, as always, you’ll be DEAD WRONG.
Maybe not, but they’re a LOT closer to it than Republicans/conservatives are, ever have been, or ever will be. Nothing YOU state (ESPECIALLY anything YOU state) will EVER change that.
Or what, tough guy? As usual, you have nothing REAL to argue with ('course, that’s pretty much the “standard situation” for conservatives, isn’t it? Don’t bother answering - I already know the correct response). No wonder someone started a “BBQ Pit” thread all about YOU.
And WTF is this nonsense? Senator McConnell already explained the key difference between 2016 and a hypothetical SCOTUS vacancy in 2020: in the former, a different party controlled the Senate and the White House. In the latter, that isn’t likely to be the case. I fully expect that Dems will refuse to confirm nominees by Republican presidents if they win back control of the Senate. They were already well on their way to this back during President George W. Bush’s administration.
I’d say that’s a pretty good bet. But I’d also bet that they’ll at least give those nominees a hearing. Democrats aren’t flawless, but they’re not NEARLY as underhanded and conniving as Republicans, on the whole, are.
On the other hand, when all Republicans care about is stuffing courts with right-leaning jurists and couldn’t care less about putting somebody competent or honest in the W.H. that pretty much tells any even-handed and thinking person all he or she needs to know about “The Party of Lincoln” (I’m pretty sure that if Abraham Lincoln were alive today he would go right onto the FOX Right Wing Propaganda Machine and tell conservatives to STOP using that nickname for that particular political party)
I don’t share your confidence, but anyways, let’s pretend you’re right for a moment, and they do intend to hold hearings on nominees before virtually all of them vote against the nominee. Why do you see that sham hearing as an improvement over Senator McConnell’s decision to forego the dog and pony show? It’s not like there are many senators who go into the hearings undecided about how they’re going to vote. It was clear even before Trump’s nominees were named that they’d be getting “no” votes from almost every Dem. I can’t even guess who the next Republican President is going to be, but I’m confident that the vast majority of Dems will vote against his SCOTUS nominees. What value add is there with them putting on a charade of a hearing?
It seems that nuanced positions are hard to understand.
If confronted with two mine fields and we know that one has a 30% chance to be deadly vs the second one that has more mines so as to have the chance of being 70% deadly, will you say that the ones deciding to go through the first field are just as correct as the ones going through the second field?
So, I’m closer to Chronos, and farther away from your choice of following the ones that are increasing the number of mines in their field.
I’m well aware that you see Chronos as a political ally and me as a political foe. In this case, I don’t think that’s terribly relevant though. My rebuttal to Chronos is that there are mines in both fields. It sounds like you agree with that, but Chronos does not. Before moving on to the debate about how many mines are in each field, and what should count as a mine and what shouldn’t, I want to make sure we’ve established the objective reality that neither field is free of mines. That was the (analogous) claim that Chronos was making: “there’s such a thing as objective reality, and it’s possible for one party to agree with it, and the other to disagree with it.”
Again, it seems that you think that noticing that allows one to claim that the mine fields should be considered as the same.
And the mine field analogue to that is that if 2 army groups have to reach their goal in a determined amount of time, then trying to convince a commander that both groups will reach their goal at the same time with the same resources will not be amusing to him. In practical terms the field with the less mines is the preferred option. And in many occasions, when all is done, the sappers could say that the first minefield was the peach assignment. Objectively the best option.
