Hey, another great example! The guy you voted for and support, the goddamn president of the United States, just said that Ford’s allegations were a hoax perpetrated by the democrats! Is that “disappointing”? Did you “expect better”? Is that “disgusting” to you? That’s not some rando leftie on a message board, you voted to elect him to leader of the free world. Any comment, Ditka? Or is this really just about giving me shit because you know you can?
You appear to be very upset. I hope you get a grip before you do something very foolish.
Yeah, figured. Part of the problem is that you hold me to a far hogher standard than your own president, who made multiple calls for violence during his own campaign. And people wonder why I say there are no good republicans.
I don’t hold you to any standard at all. I strongly suggest that we try using our words rather than violence to accomplish our political goals, but you do you. I’d suggest the same to President Trump if I were on a message board with him.
And no, I don’t wonder why you say that. Your posts reflect a deeply-partisan worldview. It’s no wonder to me at all that you can’t see any good in your political opponents.
Mister Pot, allow me to introduce to you my friend Mister Kettle.
The problem as I see it is that the Constitution was written with the assumption that the government would be run by men of good faith. Until the Republican ascendancy, (Yes, nitpickers, I know about Fillmore’s nominees) it has been true. It was assumed that the Senate would review Supreme Court nominations and render its advice and consent in an expedient manner. Mitch McConnell has broken the system and perhaps the entire country. He deserves the everlasting shame that he will receive.
But you are. The “message board” you’re on with him was the election, and your post on that message board said “I agree” to what Trump was saying.
On that “message board” we all face a binary choice. My “post” was that I thought he was a superior candidate to HRC, not that I agree with every single thing he says or does. I rarely vote for a candidate where I can say with confidence I agree with everything they say, and I suspect it’s similar for you and for most Americans.
I’m not the one saying “there are no good” Democrats. Your attempted equivalency is false.
It’s funny you would say that because it’s quite clear the opposite is true. The whole point of having three co-equal branches with checks and balances was that one cannot count on “good faith” to rule the day. The founders were deeply suspicious of concentrating power in the hands of one individual or branch to minimize the need to count on good faith.
Mitch McConnell is the symptom, not the cause. McConnell was acting in accordance with the wishes of his voters who put him in the Senate, who generally wanted no compromise.
Sure, he could have done the “right” thing and scheduled a vote, but that would have either resulted in consequences at the ballot box for both himself and any “moderate” R’s, however the vote went down. It was a lose-lose proposition, and Mitch isn’t the type to fall on his sword for such nonsense as “the long term health the democracy”. But it’s not his fault. It is who Mitch is.
Its the voters fault. Especially the low-information voters, the voters with poor critical thinking skills, the voters that are so clouded by partisanship that they fail to see reason, and the organizations responsible for preying upon these voters, supplying them with poor information, amping up the rhetoric, and whipping them up into a frenzy. And the voters that actually knew better (or at least better than average), but were too lazy to vote anyway. Fix the voters, and you fix the candidates. Anything that isn’t directed at that is just shouting at the wind.
That’s a nice way to put it. Or, the Founding Fuckups didn’t trust each other any further than that little bitch Al Hamilton could throw Jimmy Madison. (About eight feet, given a favorable wind.)
To misquote Voltaire, I agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to misattribute it. 
And to repeat, you are correct - Senate advice and consent to the Supreme Court is a check on the President, whose nominations are a check on the Supreme Court. And the fact that the Senate cannot nominate someone is a check on the Senate. And so forth.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, I’m confident that was an innocent mistake.
Well that’d be a pretty silly thing to say, wouldn’t it? Democrats are, by and large, not voting in support of the republican party.
It’s a shame tge system completely falls apart at times of extreme partisanship. When the interests of all three branches become the interests of the party, the separation of power becomes largely meaningless.
I don’t consider it to be any sillier than what you said.
The nicest thing I can say about any republican voter is that they’re a good person who insists on doing something dangerous, stupid, and harmful. There are “good republicans” in the sense that there are “good leaded paint salesmen”, I guess?
Original poster here.
Fretful Porpentine’s proposed strategy is a very clever one, and - with the benefit of hindsight - seems like it might well have worked.
One minor caveat… the initial nominee, who is unwittingly offered up as a sacrificial lamb, should eventually be given a different plum position for his/her trouble. It seems only fair.
Both of you. I suggest you both take a step back.
[/moderating]
It wouldn’t have worked. I think that McConnell was playing the long game, and was concerned about a shift in the court “to the left” if Obama replaced Scalia. It didn’t matter if it was 4 steps to the left ofr14 steps. He saw an opportunity to keep “Scalia’s seat” firmly in the conservative end of things, and he went down that path. In the end, it worked for him.
Leaving aside the fact that Clinton was a superior candidate to Trump by every reasonable measure, it wasn’t a binary choice. Who did you vote for in the primary?