The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

They can do that now. Why do you think the notion of "dem obstruction" is laughable?

Not really. Although Harrry Reid & the Dems brought the "nuclear option" into the current era for judicial nominations, that was not for all matters, The Senate is a razor thin majority on the Republican side. Although they have a stronger majority in the House, they often need some democrat votes on many issues.

I'm talking about a supermajority in both houses, strong enough where they can simply tell the Democrats to "sit down and shut up, we own you."

If this circus stunt with Ford backfires on them, that could well be what we end up with.

[SoulReaver]

anyone else wonder why the accuser revealed her political leanings? she said she was a Democrat voter why the hell would she reveal such info in this context knowing full well this could undermine her credibility?

could the ***** be covertly working for Trump?

[Annoyed]

anyone else wonder why the accuser revealed her political leanings? she said she was a Democrat voter why the hell would she reveal such info in this context knowing full well this could undermine her credibility?

could the ***** be covertly working for Trump?

Because it's obvious to anyone with 1.5 brain cells to rub together?

[Gatefan1976]

Not really. Although Harrry Reid & the Dems brought the "nuclear option" into the current era for judicial nominations, that was not for all matters, The Senate is a razor thin majority on the Republican side. Although they have a stronger majority in the House, they often need some democrat votes on many issues.

No, they don't. Repubs only need dems because they have factions within themselves.

I'm talking about a supermajority in both houses, strong enough where they can simply tell the Democrats to "sit down and shut up, we own you."

That cuts two ways.

If this circus stunt with Ford backfires on them, that could well be what we end up with.

If she is lying.
Why would a liar want an FBI investigation?

[SoulReaver]

Because it's obvious to anyone with 1.5 brain cells to rub together?

reality check: Roy Moore's main accuser was a self confessed tRump voter

[Gatefan1976]

http://time.com/5403501/trump-rosenstein/

[Annoyed]

If she is lying.
Why would a liar want an FBI investigation?

A liar, acting on the democrat's or even her own interests would want one because it would take months, long enough so that by the time a vote comes up, the senate might be in democrat hands.
Now, look at her "conditions" under which she'll testify. The accused testifies first, then she tells her story. The exact opposite of the justice system.
Every accused has the right to face his accuser; she wants to deny him that.
If she wants to testify, she doesn't get to set terms which violate the norms of an investigation or trial. Does this really sound like she wants to testify truthfully?

Add that together with her almost complete lack of memory of the incident, the complete lack of witnesses, and the other suspicious aspects, I can do nothing but call BS on the entire accusation.

As I said elsewhere, don't step in that.

[Gatefan1976]

A liar, acting on the democrat's or even her own interests would want one because it would take months, long enough so that by the time a vote comes up, the senate might be in democrat hands.

Only if we accept your first precondition, as Jel said.

Now, look at her "conditions" under which she'll testify. The accused testifies first, then she tells her story. The exact opposite of the justice system.
Every accused has the right to face his accuser; she wants to deny him that.
If she wants to testify, she doesn't get to set terms which violate the norms of an investigation or trial. Does this really sound like she wants to testify truthfully?

Sounds like what trump is doing.

Add that together with her almost complete lack of memory of the incident, the complete lack of witnesses, and the other suspicious aspects, I can do nothing but call BS on the entire accusation.

As I said elsewhere, don't step in that.

So, she's putting up with death threats and says she's willing to have an investigation, but because you don't like the conditions she wants to set, which are positively "presidential", she must be a lying stoolie willing to fall on her sword on the off chance democrats retake the house and senate?

[aretood2]

A liar, acting on the democrat's or even her own interests would want one because it would take months, long enough so that by the time a vote comes up, the senate might be in democrat hands.
Now, look at her "conditions" under which she'll testify. The accused testifies first, then she tells her story. The exact opposite of the justice system.
Every accused has the right to face his accuser; she wants to deny him that.
If she wants to testify, she doesn't get to set terms which violate the norms of an investigation or trial. Does this really sound like she wants to testify truthfully?

Add that together with her almost complete lack of memory of the incident, the complete lack of witnesses, and the other suspicious aspects, I can do nothing but call BS on the entire accusation.

As I said elsewhere, don't step in that.

Isn't that basically what the GOP did? So what's good for the GOP is only good for the GOP?

Personally, I don't buy it either. I might as well accuse you of stealing my car only that I can't remember that you stole it but by God I know you did!

[Annoyed]

No, they don't. Repubs only need dems because they have factions within themselves.

Not true.
If you recall, the tactic Republicans used to block Obama's judicial appointments was to debate endlessly, aka filibuster. It takes 60 votes in the senate to force the end of a filibuster.

Harry Reid & the Dems changed the rules on that in order to end Rep. filibusters that were blocking judicial nominations, with the exception of SCOTUS nominations.
The Republicans expanded that change to include SCOTUS.

But the filibuster is still an effective tool for blocking other legislation in the Senate, as the "60 votes to end it" rule still applies to many other things.

Yes, the House is simple majority, but once a bill passes the House, it goes to the Senate, where the minority party can block it via filibuster.

[Annoyed]

Isn't that basically what the GOP did? So what's good for the GOP is only good for the GOP?

Personally, I don't buy it either. I might as well accuse you of stealing my car only that I can't remember that you stole it but by God I know you did!

You can argue that the Republicans should have held hearings for Garland. They probably should have, but it would have simply been going through the motions, because there was no way in he** they were going to confirm him, or any one else Obama nominated.

The Democrats are only reaping what they have sewn in the Bork and Clarence Thomas fights, and their invoking the "Nuclear Option" to get Obama's judicial appointees confirmed when they didn't have the 60 votes to end filibuster on them. Ever since then, court appointments have been hyper partisan, and that's not going to change anytime soon.

In short, the Democrats started this fight, but they never expected to be on the losing side of it. They just don't expect to lose, particularly the courts and SCOTUS, because that is their primary means of advancing their agenda. They are horrified at the prospect of losing that. But that doesn't excuse their behavior regarding Kavanaugh.

And if it turns out that Ford's charges are without merit (There is no way she could even get a grand jury indictment even if the statute of limitations wasn't expired based on what we know so far) I hope someone levies charges of slander or whatever she can be charged with.

[Gatefan1976]

If that were true, which it isn't, there would not have been some 110 judgeships still open when trump became POTUS due to republican blocking.

[Annoyed]

If that were true, which it isn't, there would not have been some 110 judgeships still open when trump became POTUS due to republican blocking.

Reid and Co. changed the rules in 2013, when they had the majority in the Senate, but it was a slim majority; they were unable to force ends to Republican filibusters.

Once the Senate flipped Republican in 2014, they couldn't do squat even with the nuclear option.

See, the voters DO have a say in the composition of the courts. The process is the Executive nominates, and the Senate confirms. In 2016, the voters, knowing full well that not only was there an open seat on the SCOTUS, but that the Senate was in Republican hands, elected Trump. So by electing Trump under those conditions, they endorsed Conservative/Right-leaning justices. If they had wanted to block Gorsuch, or force confirmation of Garland, they would have elected Clinton.

And don't start on about popular vote/electoral vote. The EC system is in place, and everybody knew it going in. Trumps's victory was legitimate.

[Gatefan1976]

Reid and Co. changed the rules in 2013, when they had the majority in the Senate, but it was a slim majority; they were unable to force ends to Republican filibusters.

Once the Senate flipped Republican in 2014, they couldn't do squat even with the nuclear option.

2010, please do basic homework.

See, the voters DO have a say in the composition of the courts. The process is the Executive nominates, and the Senate confirms. In 2016, the voters, knowing full well that not only was there an open seat on the SCOTUS, but that the Senate was in Republican hands, elected Trump. So by electing Trump under those conditions, they endorsed Conservative/Right-leaning justices. If they had wanted to block Gorsuch, or force confirmation of Garland, they would have elected Clinton.

And don't start on about popular vote/electoral vote. The EC system is in place, and everybody knew it going in. Trumps's victory was legitimate.

Trump won under your system, but don't pretend that it has anything to do with the people voting, nor do they have any say on WHO gets appointed to the courts because the appointments are not done by the people.
In 30 years Republicans have won exactly ONE election out of 7 via the will of the people, which was Bush in 2004.
So yes, trump won according to the system, but you are severely deluding yourself if you think it is what "the people" wanted.

[Annoyed]

2010, please do basic homework.

The Republicans took the House in 2010, and the Senate in 2014.