I hope you are not suggesting the Majority Leader lied when he said no Obama nominee will be considered, sir, because if so, it will be pistols at dawn.
I agree. This fiasco is all Sarah Palins fault.
Wait, huh? AFAIK “lame duck” has never referred only to a single-term politician. Anyone who continues to serve out a term after someone else has become position-elect is a lame duck. Obama will be one between November 8, 2016, and January 20, 2017.
OTOH, I’m totally fine with blaming anything and everything on Mama Grizz.
Ah, the old Brickeroo: "This thing that is vaguely similar to something else is EXACTLY THE SAME THING BECAUSE BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME, AND MY PARTY ISN’T REALLY EVIL, BECAUSE SAME!!!1111One"
Just 'cause you’re a pony doesn’t mean you can only know one trick. 
I hate this thing that people do on the Dope. “Oh, the Repubs are not wrong because the Dems did this before.” Who the fuck cares? Go make your own thread about what the Dems did before (or vice versa). Right now we are talking about today’s issues and bringing up the old ones is just a way of deflecting the new ones.
Bricker is the uncrowned king of tu quoque. There’s just about no act of Republican scumbaggery so vile that he won’t defend it by groveling back through history to find some vaguely similar action by a Democratic politician. I don’t know, maybe it’s because lawyers are biased towards thinking in terms of precedents and case law. Or maybe because he just doesn’t have any actual valid arguments.
As a lawyer, he doesn’t want arguments that are actually valid. He wants arguments that convince people. Most people don’t bother to think too hard about his shit. Or evaluate if the thing he’s comparing something to is actually all that similar.
He’s a car salesman on the prowl for a companion at the motel bar. He doesn’t need to be James Bond, he just has to be the most charming guy in the place.
Better clean your pistol, because if Obama nominated a conservative judge, the GOP would flip-flop and confirm him or her.
The point is that Obama isn’t going to nominate someone who the GOP wants, and he hasn’t done so with this trial balloon about the RINO. He is playing politics, as mentioned. If Obama thinks the GOP is bluffing, then he can nominate someone and we will see if they are or not.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re so cute when you demand orthodoxy for the ignorant racist moron club you vote for to make the country worse.
What it shows is that this entire discussion and up in arms vapors having is disingenuous partisanship at best.
If you don’t think that this would be done by the Dems in the reverse, you are as partisan and politically informed as Clothahump or absolutely anacephalic (neither of those are mutually exclusive).
Joe Biden, as a Senator, said the Dems would do it… end scene. All the hand waving and excuse making and parsing in the world will not change that.
It’s the same politics, left and right, Dem and Pub. All same monkeys flinging the same poo.
I agree. In addition to possibly getting the Republicans to back off their “no appointments by Obama” stance, he gets to look bipartisan and make the Republicans look obstructionist.
The only way I can see it backfiring is if a whole bunch of other Democrats sign on and he gets pressured into actually doing it. But that seems unlikely based on the early going. Harry Reid spoke of it positively, as above, but that’s in part home-state loyalty.
I agree that they look foolish. But you have to deal with the hand you have, and it may be the best they can do in that circumstance. Declaring that they would not consider an Obama nominee and then immediately reversing themselves to say “except if it’s a Republican” looks even more foolish and makes it hard to pretend to have some sort of principled stance about lame duck nominations.
That’s not how politics or government work.
In this case, the Republicans are perfectly within their constitutional roles to refuse to consider any Obama nominee ever. The reason to not do this is because it’s a break from the way things are done and undermines the functioning of government. But if it’s not a break from the way things are done, that that’s very different.
They haven’t, and because of the nature of progressives, I doubt they would.
You’re either unable to read for comprehension, or incapable of the level of comprehension required.
You’re mentally lazy, so you’ve come up with a dodge so you don’t have to think critically about the issue. Don’t revel in your shortcomings. At least be embarrassed about them.
“Nature of progressives” I think I just choked on my coffee…
You’re so entirely full of shit that your hubris is fashioned of mushrooms.
Yet you’re the stupid asshole that thinks, against all odds, it’s all the same. And who reads Biden’s comments as the same, when they are clearly very different.
It’s okay to be simple. The world needs empty heads for tedious jobs.
You shouldn’t however, intrude in the conversations of those who aren’t when you are incapable or unwilling to do the homework.
Shut up, troll.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re an idiot. You’re the Clothy of the “progressives”. Duly noted. Lobohump it is.
Since you edited your post to add that, allow me to explain:
Progressives want fair shakes. They want equal opportunity. They want more people to vote. For voting to be easy. And for taxes, and tax money to be distributed in a more equitable manner.
People who are all about enhancing fairness, are less likely to line up and cheer a disingenuous cunt talking about how the next president should choose a replacement for Scalia, when clearly that’s rubbish.
I’m not saying that progressives are necessarily more honest, mind you. Just that they are less likely to line up behind such a shitty thing to do.
as deluded as Clothy too… the arnold schwarzenegger and danny devito of the Dope… can’t tell which is which though
You can’t argue, so you attack. I can’t make you learn, I can only try to explain it such that even a marginal talent like you can handle it.
<3
OK <pats on head> Toddle off to bed now Loby.