Sen. Murkowski Will Vote to Confirm Barret

[Fiddle_Peghead]

Indeed.

But there are two sides to this:

Dems pointing out that what McConnell/Reps did during the Garland nom should also prevent them from nominating Barrett.

Me pointing out, as I have just given a specific example of Biden doing, of trying the same bullshit as McConnell.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

Just briefly on what I said about liberals criticizing Democrats, and I fully understand if you don’t buy what I’m going to say, as I did not make this clear: in threads that I will call Democrat vs Democrat, of course liberals criticize Democrats all the time. Look at any thread during the primary/debate season, and you will find all sorts of examples. “Buttigieg is full of shit on health care, he changes positions daily.” “Warren will destroy the country with her radical economic ideas”, etc. etc. But I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about Republican vs Democrat threads. I rarely see a known liberal from this board saying that Republicans are right about anything, or the Democrats are wrong, for issues where both parties are involved. And certainly not in threads where I criticize Democrats. I certainly don’t read all threads, so I could very well be totally off base. But I’m just giving you my experience. YMMV.

[drad_dog]

McConnel saying what he did and Biden saying what he did are not the same thing to anyone who is not of the right wing.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

Irrespective of what wing one belongs to, I maintain that they are pretty much the same. As always, I am open to a discussion about what I have written here on the Dope. If you could be more specific about your claim, I’d love to talk about it with you.

[MildlyAnnoyed]

@Fiddle_Peghead

I’m not sure what you are annoyed about, or whom the “vile scum” are.

Thread Topic: “Sen. Murkowski…” and these people(R) refers to her and all her enabling, treasonous compatriots in the U.S. Federal Government. You can be absolutely sure about that.

The GOP is a rouge, de-stabilizing criminal force, bent on absolute authoritarian control. Lucky for them fooling a low-info base was/is pretty easy in today’s scorched-earth media landscape. They no longer harbor any concern for what is good and right for anything or anybody but themselves. My personal acceptance of it won’t happen and this country won’t be safe until Trump and his entire family is in the ground.

[k9bfriender]

@Fiddle_Peghead

I read it and truly didn’t think you or Bricker remembered the rules of the game.

So, you made a false assumption based on your careless reading, then excoriate me for pointing that out?

@Fiddle_Peghead

as I have admitted to nothing of the kind.

Your words:

@Fiddle_Peghead

I do criticize Democrats. I seem to be the only liberal on the board who will do so,

@Fiddle_Peghead

Go find someone else to invent things about, because I am done with you.

Aww. No offense taken, but I hope you will not mind that I will probably point out times that you are making false assumptions based on your careless readings and motivated reasonings in the future as well. Should you choose to not respond, it will not bother me in the slightest.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@k9bfriender

To be fair, he has admitted to being fairly unperceptive of what others have to say.

Ah what the hell, it’s a new day.

Show me where I said this, and I quote you: "To be fair, he has admitted to being fairly unperceptive of what others have to say. "

Show me! Do it, or admit you are wrong. And misunderstanding is not the same as admitting to being fairly unperceptive". Alternatively, you can retract your statement. I will give you the last word, and if anyone is still interested in the actual topic being discussed, will gladly join in. But that’s all.

[Acsenray]

@Sam_Stone

@drad_dog

The Dems were responding to an ahistoric assymetric power grab in both cases.

No, they weren’t. The Republicans were the ones acting within the law and historical precedent. As I pointed out in the other thread, there have been 29 Supreme Court vacancies in an election year. The sitting President nominated a candidate before the election in every single case. Of those, when the party of the Presidency held the Senate, they voted through 9 out of 10 before the election (the others being nominated after the election but before the term was over).

So the Republicans were operating within precedent by nominating and confirming a judge in an electiin year.

There were 10 nominations by a President in an election year when that party didn’t hold the Senate. Only ONE justice made it to confirmation in that case. So the Republicans were also operating within precedent when they refused to put Merrick Garland through.

None of this is reasonably described as “precedent.” This is just manipulation of statistics.

[DrDeth]

@Fiddle_Peghead

Me pointing out, as I have just given a specific example of Biden doing, of trying the same bullshit as McConnell.

No, no you have not.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

Not in the sense of McConnell blocking a nomination, since obviously Biden is not a Senator, but as I showed in the link, from his words and the clarification.

[DrDeth]

which link, where?

[k9bfriender]

Umm, I just did, in the post above yours.

You know, when you said

@Fiddle_Peghead

I do criticize Democrats. I seem to be the only liberal on the board who will do so,

That says that you do not perceive other liberals criticizing Democrats on this board.

Other liberals do criticize Democrats on this board.

Therefore, you do not seem to be perceptive of what others have to say.

Now, if you want to say that your statement of “seem” didn’t mean anything, then I’ll let you do so, and let you retract your statement, as it was empty and meaningless, as well as when you said,

@Fiddle_Peghead

I am as pissed off, still, about Garland as it seems you are.

@Fiddle_Peghead

but some of the questions seemed like bullshit to me.

@Fiddle_Peghead

I just wanted to make the point that it seems to me, saying one thing as a part of simply exercising your right to free speech outside of a hearing, is different once you are in an actual hearing.

@Fiddle_Peghead

Seems an argument can be made that there are two different standards.

@Fiddle_Peghead

It seems to me that the framers would have taken that into account.

@Fiddle_Peghead

Because it seems to me that I’m the one being specific about this, and you are only responding in generalities.

If what you mean is that when you use the word “seem” then it simply means that it is not meant to be taken seriously as a statement of fact, then it seems it would be hypocritical for you to accuse me of inventing things about you, when the statement that you first took exception to was in fact:

@k9bfriender

you seem very devoted to the idea of finding fault in the Democrats for anything they do,

To say that something “seems” a certain way is to say that that is your perception. I certainly have the perception that you are looking for fault in anything the Democrats do based on your attempts to smear them with hypocrisy in this thread, just as you have said that you have the perception that you are the only liberal on this board that criticizes Democrats. To have that perception would be to be fairly unperceptive of what others have to say.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@DrDeth

which link, where?

Post #172. The Blade link.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

As Bill O’Reilly always kind of said “I gave you the last word.”

Thanks for the reply.

[DrDeth]

Did you go to the source on that one?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/13/politics/biden-barrett-unconstitutional-fact-check/index.html?utm_term=image&utm_content=2020-10-13T19%3A50%3A06&utm_source=twCNNp&utm_medium=social
When asked by CNN, the Biden campaign argued that the Senate’s push to confirm Barrett ahead of the election doesn’t violate a specific clause of the Constitution, but people’s constitutional right to have a say in who makes the nomination. According to his campaign, Biden’s comments refer to the principles and spirit of the Constitution, which they* insist *the effort to confirm Barrett before the election violates.

So yeah, Joes comment was technically false, but his reasoning is purely a matter or opinion.

and you said "

@Fiddle_Peghead

Biden doing, of trying the same bullshit as McConnell.

Which Joe didnt do. Joe tried nothing.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@DrDeth

When asked by CNN, the Biden campaign argued that the Senate’s push to confirm Barrett ahead of the election doesn’t violate a specific clause of the Constitution, but people’s constitutional right to have a say in who makes the nomination.

First off, I have no idea what the “people’s constitutional right to have a say in who makes the nomination” means, other than voting for a president. Anyway…

McConnell: Blocking Supreme Court Nomination 'About A Principle, Not A Person'

“The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide.”

Did the Democrats agree with this reasoning from McConnell, or think it bullshit? Did Biden say essentially the same thing, or something different? If you have read my posts in this thread, you will probably know my opinion. I don’t think I need to state it again, except to say that IMO Biden did do the same thing. What say you?

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@DrDeth

Which Joe didnt do. Joe tried nothing.

Right, of course he didn’t “try” anything, as he was not a Senator. I mean trying the same tactic as making up a bullshit excuse a la McConnell.

[DrDeth]

Did Biden actually block any nomination?

[DrDeth]

You see, the different is that Moscow Mitch actually DID it.

[drad_dog]

You really are determined to ruin this “both-sides” party,