The Republican Utopia

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

I think knapp read your post wrong. I did at first too because it didn’t make sense as a reply. The Democrat senators did exactly what their job was in 2016 when there was a vacancy and a judge was nominated. The Democrats have every right to be outraged by McConnell’s complete 180 on his so called beliefs. He should do his job regardless of what party the president is a member of. 

 

True.

 

So, are you saying that if Ginsburg dies in February and Trump nominates a judge in March, the Dems will do everything they can to not stall the confirmation?

[Moiraine]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

 

True.

 

So, are you saying that if Ginsburg dies in February and Trump nominates a judge in March, the Dems will do everything they can to not stall the confirmation?

 

 

You mean like vet the judge, like the senate is supposed to do? Like it or not they’ve never done what the Republicans did in 2016 and won’t have the opportunity to do so in 2020.

[BigRedBuster]

The fact is, Democrats and liberals are outraged and frustrated that Trump has been able to nominate as many judges as he has and the thought of him getting another one blows their minds. Which...I don't blame them.  Even as a conservative, I'm uncomfortable with Trump being able to do that.

 

But, this happens all the time where a party is outraged about something and then a few years later the other one is outraged about the same thing the other direction.

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

You mean like vet the judge, like the senate is supposed to do? Like it or not they’ve never done what the Republicans did in 2016 and won’t have the opportunity to do so in 2020.

The question simply was:  If a SC justice dies next year, what will you do?

 

answer:  Nominate and confirm.

 

That simply is what I said any politician is going to say.  That's what started this discussion and I stick by that statement.

Now, anyone can find many reasons to be outraged by McConnell and I would probably agree with most/all of them.  But, my statement about his answer stands.

[Moiraine]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The fact is, Democrats and liberals are outraged and frustrated that Trump has been able to nominate as many judges as he has and the thought of him getting another one blows their minds. Which...I don't blame them.  Even as a conservative, I'm uncomfortable with Trump being able to do that.

 

But, this happens all the time where a party is outraged about something and then a few years later the other one is outraged about the same thing the other direction.

 

 

This conversation we're having, starting with my first post, isn't an example of that. I'm talking about a party taking an actual action, blocking a vote of a supreme court justice because it's an election year. I'm not talking about a party being upset that 3 judges might get nominated by a buffoon. There's nothing wrong with them being upset by that and it isn't an action they're taking to erode our democracy.

[Moiraine]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The question simply was:  If a SC justice dies next year, what will you do?

 

answer:  Nominate and confirm.

 

That simply is what I said any politician is going to say.  That's what started this discussion and I stick by that statement.

Now, anyone can find many reasons to be outraged by McConnell and I would probably agree with most/all of them.  But, my statement about his answer stands.

 

 

Except it isn't what he said or they actually did in 2016, and that had never happened before. That's why his statement now should be angering. He did a 180 on his so called beliefs just because a Republican is in charge. If he believed the reason he gave then he should still believe it now. It had never happened before, the Republicans didn't do their job, and it was wrong.

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Moiraine said:

 

 

This conversation we're having, starting with my first post, isn't an example of that. I'm talking about a party taking an actual action, blocking a vote of a supreme court justice because it's an election year. I'm not talking about a party being upset that 3 judges might get nominated by a buffoon. There's nothing wrong with them being upset by that and it isn't an action they're taking to erode our democracy.

 

Read my post right above this one.  This discussion has gone farther than my original post on this subject was intended.  

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

He did a 180 on his so called beliefs just because a Republican is in charge.

 

I hate to break it to you, but many of them do this all the time.  How many Democratic politicians fully supported Clinton in his blue dress scandal only to be outraged about Trump's womanizing?  That's just one example and there are many I could list.  That's what they do and way too many Americans are totally blinded by it.

[knapplc]

If you're still "both-sides" about the current state of American politics then you've learned nothing over the past three years.

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

If you're still "both-sides" about the current state of American politics then you've learned nothing over the past three years.

 

Just because one side has gone totally off the rails, that doesn't mean there aren't still certain things that "both sides" do.

 

Nominating a judge and trying to get him/her confirmed in an election year is one of those things.  That's simply what my original statement was about.  It's been proven before in the past and will be proven true in the future.  

 

My original statement had nothing to do with what happens after than nomination and what lengths the opposing side will be willing to do to stop it.  It simply was about McConnell's statement about what he would do if a judge died next year.  His answer was "nominate and confirm"......and, there isn't one politician in Washington that, if in the exact same situation would say, "well, I think our party's President should hold off on a nomination till after the election to see if he wins a second term or not".  

[Moiraine]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Just because one side has gone totally off the rails, that doesn't mean there aren't still certain things that "both sides" do.

 

Nominating a judge and trying to get him/her confirmed in an election year is one of those things.  That's simply what my original statement was about.  It's been proven before in the past and will be proven true in the future.  

 

My original statement had nothing to do with what happens after than nomination and what lengths the opposing side will be willing to do to stop it.  It simply was about McConnell's statement about what he would do if a judge died next year.  His answer was "nominate and confirm"......and, there isn't one politician in Washington that, if in the exact same situation would say, "well, I think our party's President should hold off on a nomination till after the election to see if he wins a second term or not".  

 

 

 

You’re ignoring the point, which is that McConnell did a complete 180 on his stated convictions a mere 3 years later. There would literally nothing wrong or fake about the Democrats being upset about this.

 

McConnell didn’t make this statement in a vacuum. 

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

You’re ignoring the point, which is that McConnell did a complete 180 on his stated convictions a mere 3 years later. There would literally nothing wrong or fake about the Democrats being upset about this.

Remember a few weeks ago when you got upset because you claimed I read into your post more than what was intended?

[knapplc]

10 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Just because one side has gone totally off the rails, that doesn't mean there aren't still certain things that "both sides" do.

 

Nominating a judge and trying to get him/her confirmed in an election year is one of those things.  That's simply what my original statement was about.  It's been proven before in the past and will be proven true in the future.  

 

My original statement had nothing to do with what happens after than nomination and what lengths the opposing side will be willing to do to stop it.  It simply was about McConnell's statement about what he would do if a judge died next year.  His answer was "nominate and confirm"......and, there isn't one politician in Washington that, if in the exact same situation would say, "well, I think our party's President should hold off on a nomination till after the election to see if he wins a second term or not".  

 

Democrats have never done what Republicans did to Merrick Garland. It's unprecedented. Pretending that's a both-sides issue ignores history and is not factual.

[Moiraine]

12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Remember a few weeks ago when you got upset because you claimed I read into your post more than what was intended?

 

 

I’m replying to your actual words rather than putting words in your mouth and imagining what you’re thinking. You keep saying McConnell’s statement is fine when what he said before is the most relevant thing there is and his change in convictions is the problem. In a vacuum his quote is fine but we know his past beliefs.

 

You also keep saying how annoying it is that the Democrats have changed their minds and are faux angry (can’t look up exact quote rt now). I didn’t put words in your mouth. 

 

 

And finally, if someone punches you in the face are you okay with it because someone else punched you in the face yesterday? I have and will call out Democrats when they are fake or do s#!tty things. 

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

Democrats have never done what Republicans did to Merrick Garland. It's unprecedented. Pretending that's a both-sides issue ignores history and is not factual.

 

My original post.

 

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

But, are you says if the Dems were in charge in the Senate they would hold off and not try to nominate and confirm someone before the election???

  Your reply.

 

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

They've never done it before.

 

yes, they have.

2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

You keep saying McConnell’s statement is fine

Where did I say that?