Political: If you want Term Limits or a Liberal SC Justice...

[Sage_Rat]

Firstly, I suppose thanks for keeping the thread bumped. Though, I should note that this isn’t Great Debates and there’s no particular need to buy into my belief. But also like I noted, I don’t see what the advantage is for arguing against it. Even if you think I’m wrong, if there’s any chance that I’m right you’re better off to follow my recommendation. There’s no downside.

@Ravenman

Well, I feel like I’m beating a dead horse here, but this thinking is just… so odd.

A. If an 8 member court is going to make “more liberal decisions,” it is not to Republicans’ advantage to consider approving the nomination of a liberal justice appointed by a Republican President. That would just make the court even more liberal.

I don’t understand what that has to do with what I wrote. I was pointing out that there is some form of time pressure. Holding off longer doesn’t make their situation better. Non-conservative decisions and precedent are being made the longer the seat sits empty. While that might not be large, it is there.

B. “They” can only hold what for two years? Office? I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but senators are elected for six years, and the 2018 elections probably favor Republicans holding the Senate. I don’t see what this has to do with anything.

Why does 2018 favor them holding the senate? In general, the electorate doesn’t like when the government really does things. The election would, even with a regular presidency, try to balance the books and elect in Democrats, to stall the government out. And with Trump as the face of the party, it seems rather hopeful to expect that the Republic party find much favor even besides.

C. There is no open war about corruption laws. Congressional Republicans don’t have anything on the agenda for anti-corruption, and neither does Trump, to be honest. This is an imaginary issue for you. Yes, Trump said he wants to “drain the swamp,” but he hasn’t proposed anything, isn’t likely to propose anything, and is probably just going to keep yammering about the “swamp” without doing anything at all. There is no war.

There is also no wall with Mexico and no Muslim Ban.

To be sure, he might not engage in any such war. But certainly there’s nothing to be gained by assuming that to be the case, nor by letting him get away with it if he doesn’t hold tight.

If you’re in a burning building and the great odds are that you’re going to die if you run through that big ol’ flame between you and the door, that doesn’t matter much when the odds are 100% that you die if you stay still. You still run towards that door. Certain bad or probable bad might not be great options, but what’s the advantage of arguing that you should just sit still and let the building fall on top of you?

[Ravenman]

@Sage_Rat

Firstly, I suppose thanks for keeping the thread bumped. Though, I should note that this isn’t Great Debates and there’s no particular need to buy into my belief. But also like I noted, I don’t see what the advantage is for arguing against it. Even if you think I’m wrong, if there’s any chance that I’m right you’re better off to follow my recommendation. There’s no downside.

I’m saying the recommendation is nonsensical. I don’t generally waste time making nonsensical cases just because there’s “no risk.” I see the risk as one to my credibility, in any case.

And you’re right, this isn’t GD, but I just enjoy talking about these things.

I don’t understand what that has to do with what I wrote. I was pointing out that there is some form of time pressure. Holding off longer doesn’t make their situation better. Non-conservative decisions and precedent are being made the longer the seat sits empty. While that might not be large, it is there.

Again, I feel like we are living in alternative universes. There is no time pressure. A nomination has been made and it’s likely to be approved. But once again: after a whole fucking year of Republicans happily living with an 8 member court, it is simply established fact that the Repibkican Senate is happy to wait for a conservative nominee.

Why does 2018 favor them holding the senate?

Because of the states where the races will be. I’m not saying it is a lock that R’e will keep the Senate, but by virtue of geography, they have an advantage.

There is also no wall with Mexico and no Muslim Ban.

There are executive orders on each, so let’s not be silly. There is no ethics proposal Trump has unveiled that has anything to do with Congress. He’s just got a slogan and a record of appointing people who, by popular estimation, seem to be a big part of the swamp itself. There’s no reason to think there is any fight over ethics to be had, except for maybe Trumo calling his adversaries weak and corrupt just to insult them.

If you’re in a burning building and the great odds are that you’re going to die if you run through that big ol’ flame between you and the door, that doesn’t matter much when the odds are 100% that you die if you stay still. You still run towards that door. Certain bad or probable bad might not be great options, but what’s the advantage of arguing that you should just sit still and let the building fall on top of you?

In this metaphor, the Trump Administration is the burning building, correct?

In that case, running toward a door makes total sense. What you’re proposing makes zero sense, so to go back to the metaphor, it would be like you are in a burning building and you’re trying to use Harold’s Purple Crayon to draw a door on a wall in the hopes that it magically turns into an actual portal. Yes, this folly may be marginally better than sitting still, but it is worse than actually heading toward a real door that actually goes outside.

Outside of the metaphor, the real door is comprised of things like his unethical business deals, his incompetence, his racist policies, and so on. Not imaginary government reform intraparty strife.

[Quartz]

@Sage_Rat

The Democrats are not in the majority.

I’m sorry, but what you wrote makes no sense to me at all. Is anti-abortion really the be-all and end-all?

[BigT]

@Quartz

I’m sorry, but what you wrote makes no sense to me at all. Is anti-abortion really the be-all and end-all?

I concur with your first statement.

But the answer to your second question is a rather strong “YES.” The anti-abortion thing is how Trump got the Religious Right behind him. Even when pointing out how evil Trump is, the refrain is “But Clinton kills babies!” That alone was enough to make Trump the lesser of two evils.

Even now, the only political stuff I see from the Religious Right on Facebook is about abortion. Tons of stuff about how horrible Trump is. And the only defense is abortion.

I’m not saying that the Religious Right would have voted Democratic. It’s more that they would have stayed home or voted third party, if not for abortion. Trump promised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

[Quartz]

@BigT

I’m not saying that the Religious Right would have voted Democratic. It’s more that they would have stayed home or voted third party, if not for abortion. Trump promised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

According to this he said he’s going appoint pro-life judges and pass it back to the states.