It’s not hard to find quotes by Charles Schumer and Harry Reid that are just like Biden’s. But, OK, let’s stop all the tu quoque. Let’s imagine that the 3 people I just listed introduce a Constitutional Amendment and give preliminary remarks like this:
“We repent now of our comments and practices back in the days when we were in the minority, and we want to change to a system that prohibits long delays in voting for Supreme Court nominees. We do this in the realization that some day we may again be in the minority and have to live with these rules”. I guess that Democrats would not support this even after a D. Presidential victory in 2016. The feeling would be, “no, we won, and we can push through any necessary nominees with the usual political mess”.
I’d like think we could be friends. Can I come down to your trailer and brush your mullet?
Progressivism…
Now, gather 'round, you young-uns, and let old Uncle Stevie tell you a story about a fellow named Anthony Kennedy, way back in 1988…
That Strawman Liberal guy would definitely do it. But he’s kind of a jerk.
Seriously, this is blatant projection. “I would knock down random strangers and steal their wallets if I could get away with it, therefore I know everyone else would too!” Not that I’m suggesting that Congressional Democrats are a particularly virtuous bunch, but unsubstantiated claims of equivalence are nothing more than wishful thinking for those trying to justify their own side’s poor behavior.
This has already been discussed in this very thread, and that’s not what he said. All the selective editing by the right-wing media and desperate spinning will not change that.
Some monkeys are more full of poo than others.
I didn’t say progressives couldn’t be combative or assholes. I said they tend to favor the concept of fairness.
I even want someone like you, who can’t bother to inform himself, to be able to vote. I think Shodan has a right to vote too, even though he’s a crazy person. In fact, I’d support universal registration and a voting holiday.
If you really believe this, you have much more in common with Trump supporters than would be comfortable. They, honestly to their core, believe their guy is gonna whip this country into shape, too. It’s all about the view from your backyard, isn’t it?
You clearly missed the point there (pontificating on the one on top of your head, I spose.) Ya know, I can’t make you learn. I can only explain it in a way such that even a marginal talent like you can handle it.
By your argument every politician is as bad as Trump, right?
No, Joe Biden did not say that. You are lying.
It’s amazing how many “intelligent” people don’t understand this. It makes apparent how much of the human race is retarded.
To his credit, though, your point was stupid.
That post makes it much more apparent. 
The implication that all members of the human race are as bad as its worst member is not a particularly inspiring one, but fortunately not one supported by evidence either.
Honestly, the real problem is that the Supreme Court has become highly politicized to the point where you can accurately predict how each Justice will vote on an issue without knowing any of the legal ramifications of the case in question. At this point, it’s no longer a court of law, but a tiny appointed legislature. I don’t personally have a good solution to that problem except by noting, like Biden did, that if a President nominates a qualified, centrist jurist, then the Senate should at least evaluate that jurist on their qualifications and not on the party of the President that nominated him or her.
I will note that I think the current President who happens to be a Constitutional law scholar is well qualified for the selection task, and the current makeup of the Senate should assure that each side is going to have to compromise in the selection process. Tactically, I think it’s idiotic for the Republicans to force this issue, because it means the November election would be a referendum on the Supreme Court which would be a lot more likely to motivate liberals to get out and vote than their somewhat lukewarm support for Hillary, assuming she gets the nod.
The implication of this post - that from your perspective the “worst member[s]” of the human race are represented by the Republicans - seems to rather support DS’s point, IMO.
I don’t think there’s much in this. Maybe a bit, but not much.
Liberals are not too enthused about Hillary at this time because they’re comparing her to Sanders. In the general election they’ll be comparing her to the Republican nominee and will be very enthusiastic, regardless of a pending SC nomination. (And regardless of this particular nomination, I assume most liberals can figure out that there’s likely to be other openings over the next few years.)
I didn’t say “the worst members of the human race are represented by Republicans”, so please don’t pretend that I did. I’m arguing that the “everyone is as bad as everyone else” argument is without merit. Some people behave worse than others, and not all bad behavior is the same.
I do think that the Democrats would not have done what the Republicans are currently doing, and there’s no reason to think that they would have. The Tea Party contingent has turned the current party into a bunch of petulant ideologues unwilling to compromise on anything. When have the Democrats as a party genuinely refused to deal? When have the Democrats openly pledged to oppose *everything *a Republican president has proposed - in advance - no matter what? One can see evidence of the GOP doing such things back at least as far as Newt Gingrich. Show me the Democratic equivalents. Surely there must be something beyond the odd speech by Teddy Kennedy and the Bork hearings? The Democrats caved on the Iraq war and the PATRIOT Act; they added GOP amendment after GOP amendment to PPACA; they cut taxes willy-nilly and slashed budgets. Where are the Republican equivalents to such concessions? No matter what my low opinion of Democratic politicians - and regardless of the sins of the distant past - the two sides are not the same these days.
Of course, the recent history of the Congress tends to show that Republicans escalate (e.g. the number of filibusters) and then the Democrats rise (or sink) to match the new level when they regain control, so sadly it’s possible that they may stonewall in future but frankly the Democrats are not nearly as big on ideological purity as the Republicans so I suspect any attempts to do so would quickly fail anyway.
I’m not enthusiastic about Hillary because I don’t like Hillary. I’m not enthusiastic about Bernie because I don’t think his approach is practicable, although I like that he’s keeping Hillary from moving too far to the right at the moment (at least on paper). I wasn’t enthusiastic about Kerry or Gore either, and it took me a while to warm to Obama. But I vote for people like them because the alternatives are worse.
I agree with this. That was not my interpretation of your post.
I think this is a reflection of your own personal ideological partisanship. Which is entirely my point.
“Nuh-uh” is not a compelling argument. I offered examples and asked for counterexamples. Convince me.
I stand by what I said. Which was not that you said “the worst members of the human race are represented by Republicans”, but that this was the implication of what you said.
Because FG said “It’s the same politics, left and right, Dem and Pub” and DS responded in agreement that “It’s amazing how many “intelligent” people don’t understand this”. Neither of these posters mentioned anything about “the worst members of the human race”; they were specifically talking about whether Democrats were as bad as Republicans. But you purported to contradict them by asserting that this contained the “implication that all members of the human race are as bad as its worst member”. I don’t see any other way to read that other than what I wrote. Where did you see any implication in their words about the “worst member” if it wasn’t the Republicans?
This seems to be a collection of half-truths and misrepresentations.