Convince you of what? That you are partisan to your ideological ideals? Yeah that’s winnable. I’m pretty sure that you aren’t new to the Dope. Self recognition of your partisanship would be more the goal but even that is nigh impossible. I’m not trying to convince you. Hell, I’m partisan to my own ideologies, but, at the very least, I am capable of recognizing that.
My original reply was to someone’s wondering why people need to play the tu quoque game. My response is that the tu quoque game is played because the offense and pearl clutching of this very thread is disingenuous and reflective of one’s own personal political ideology. There are plenty of examples, in this thread on both sides, of that activity. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Because it comes across as hypocritical. The OP was started because on the surface the GOP looks stupid but upon a deeper review the Dems and the GOP are politically fencing.
I think it’s mildly dirty pool for the GOP to refuse to accept a nomination by Obama but it makes perfect (political) sense. I would expect nothing different were the roles reversed. I think it’s mildly dirty pool for the Obama camp to float a centrist GOP nomination but it makes perfect (political) sense. I would expect nothing different were the roles reversed.
You know, every time I read a thread like this it makes me a lot more positive about the next superpower taking over - circle of life and all that shit, wrote large. Britain had its time as the superpower, then became a massively self entitled brat of a nation, time for a change. The US came along, had its stint, then the same outcome…time for someone else. Might be India, probably China, doesn’t really matter, just get someone new in charge if only to stop this level of bickering and infighting.
If you don’t cherry-pick the parts you like, the message is very clear to understand.
He’s inviting the president to select a moderate nominee, and reminding him that the Senate has full authority to reject anyone they don’t like. That’s really a far cry from the Republicans saying “don’t even bother.”
We’ve already seen what is happening, and will continue to happen - Obama and the Dems and the GOP are playing politics with the nomination. And all the talk about how one side is all high-minded and the other unutterably nasty is self-serving and hypocritical.
Nobody on either side is arguing on principle, and it is the usual mix of laughable and grotesque when anyone claims they are.
Dems: Obama has the constitutional right to name a nominee.
GOP: Fuck you 0bamazazi!
Shodan: Both sides are the same.
Lobohan: Shodan is kinda dumb.
Furious: Both sides are teh same!111
Do you really believe that if Obama nominated Bricker or another conservative to the Supreme Court, that the Republicans would say no automagically? It’s functionally the same statement. Heavier posturing? Sure. Functionally? The same thing. It boils down to nominate someone we like or don’t bother.
So they’re lying? When they *say *they won’t bring any nominee to the floor, and specifically, further clarifying, won’t bring a Republican up for approval, they’re just lying?
And furthermore, when the Dems don’t do that, it’s the same exact thing, because Furious can’t be bothered to learn things, or educate himself, so they must, you see, be the same.
You can call it lying. You can call it posturing. You can call it a country hoedown starring the corpse of Fred Thompson. I don’t give it shit. It’s the same basic intent. Give us who we want or we will fuck up your shit.
You are familiar with politicians and politics, right?
Let’s be clear, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and your ignorance isn’t the same thing as knowledge.
I get it, you are wedded to the idea that things are equal. But it’s just not true. And attacking me, when you’re the one spouting nonsense, doesn’t make it so. You’re factually wrong. End of line.
I choose to, because intentionally saying X when you know it’s not true, with the intent of convincing people X is true, happens to be the definition of lying.
Pretend it’s ‘politics’ or ‘posturing’ but it’s over a line.
Whaddyagonnado? Both sides do it all the same, amirite?
Very reasonable. I totes accept you’re arguing in good faith.
It’s all politics, as always, but not equally legitimate, IMO. One side is advocating for following the Constitution, in both letter and spirit, and one side is publicly ignoring the spirit.
If the Republicans played it differently, by announcing that they would consider the nominee, but in secret agreeing in advance to vote down any nominee, then, at least publicly, they would be adhering to both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
Well, given that they just rejected the Republican governor of Nevada, and this kind of obstructionism is consistent with all their past behavior. I’d have to say that reality trumps your hypothetical.
They said nothing about “nominate someone we like”. That’s your own invention. What are they going to do, reverse their position and say “Sorry, all that principled stuff we said about historical precedent and lame duck presidents was all just bullshit”?
The Republicans have a history of painting themselves into a corner with extreme obstructionist tactics that backfire on them. I see no evidence that they have suddenly wised up.