SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by visionary

[Momma There Goes That Man]

27 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

 

They have to help their most vulnerable.  Not pad the wins of the blue staters 

 

It doesn't help them in vulnerable states to lose their base by having party leadership fold

 

Nobody is going to switch to a Dem vote because "well...i was unsure of my vote or i was going to vote GOP but then a handful of super liberal Dems voted for Trump's nomination so they are clearly interested in bipartisanship. I'll vote Dem"

Edited July 10, 2018 by Momma There Goes That Man

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

It doesn't help them in vulnerable states to lose their base by having party leadership fold

I guess that’s the math of it.  

 

If they “fold” does it bring in more R and I voters than D voters it loses?

 

 

[DogofWar1]

11 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I guess that’s the math of it.  

 

If they “fold” does it bring in more R and I voters than D voters it loses?

No.  It hasn't ever in the past so there's no reason to pretend it will now.  If Trump's approval among GOP was like 65% or lower, then maybe you extend that olive branch.  But its not.  There's no upside.

 

Make GOP get that seat the hard way.  Shoot, they have the votes, if they have any trouble its their own problem.

 

Dems have the hype.  They've crushed special elections.  Rs have been trying to spin 20 point swings as "victories," which is a pretty god indication you've got the wind at your back.  You screw with that momentum you deserve to lose.  Hold the line.

[Kilmer17]

20 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

No.  It hasn't ever in the past so there's no reason to pretend it will now.  If Trump's approval among GOP was like 65% or lower, then maybe you extend that olive branch.  But its not.  There's no upside.

 

Make GOP get that seat the hard way.  Shoot, they have the votes, if they have any trouble its their own problem.

 

Dems have the hype.  They've crushed special elections.  Rs have been trying to spin 20 point swings as "victories," which is a pretty god indication you've got the wind at your back.  You screw with that momentum you deserve to lose.  Hold the line.

Well that’s part of it too.  If the Dems dig in the GOP can just ignore them and call the vote. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I read all these posts and think how sad it is that politics has become such a team sport.  No one mentions doing what is for the country.

 

Not saying you all are wrong, just how sad it is.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

 It has nothing to do with it being a team sport for Dems. There isn’t much choice but to play it like this until whatever the Republican Party has become is destroyed and some measure normalcy and sanity returns.

 

To do otherwise is basically to forfeit the country to them and there is no getting it back once we do that. Even still, losing in 2018 and 2020 is probably the end of democracy in this country  

[twa]

[DogofWar1]

3 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Well that’s part of it too.  If the Dems dig in the GOP can just ignore them and call the vote. 

Come now.  Do you really, honestly, know any Republicans who would suddenly vote for Democrats if, say, 7 of them voted for Brett?

[twa]

2 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Come now.  Do you really, honestly, know any Republicans who would suddenly vote for Democrats if, say, 7 of them voted for Brett?

 

I think they are addressing swing voters(and yes they exist), I'm fine with the Dems going damn the torpedoes though. 

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

4 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I read all these posts and think how sad it is that politics has become such a team sport.  No one mentions doing what is for the country.

 

Not saying you all are wrong, just how sad it is.

That’s simply laughable. You can honestly look at the past two years plus and with a straight face say that our opposition to Trump is about tribalism and team sports?

If so then you’re probably something I’d get banned for saying.

[twa]

Say It, Say It!

 

Ya tease .

[DogofWar1]

38 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I think they are addressing swing voters(and yes they exist), I'm fine with the Dems going damn the torpedoes though. 

 

 

Swing voters move with momentum.

 

Guess who has it?

 

There is zero upside to capitulation.  All it will do is create a rift between the establishment and the progressive wings.

[twa]

5 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Swing voters move with momentum.

 

Guess who has it?

 

There is zero upside to capitulation.  All it will do is create a rift between the establishment and the progressive wings.

 

that might work, though the big Mo might not work like you assume.

 

Hell I endorse balls to the wall. 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by twa

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

7 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I read all these posts and think how sad it is that politics has become such a team sport.  No one mentions doing what is for the country.

I do. That's all I do. Some people think I'm a democrat but I'm not. I just realize that what's best for the country is for the current GOP to be crushed.

[Gibbit]

Kavanaugh is a Bush guy though right? Kennedy apparently wouldn't have retired without the assurance that Trump would select from his recommendations. This is strictly Dems vs Reps

 

Its cool to tea party up though... but calm, rational and bipartisan is drop dead sexy to swing voters if it stands out against the bickering. It does probably require the "potential one" to be doing reaching across though...(Senator Obama)

Edited July 11, 2018 by Gibbit

[visionary]

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Gibbit said:

Kavanaugh is a Bush guy though right? 

Yeah, it will be interesting to see what files come up from then and what he had to say on some of the abuses we had going on here and abroad.

[TheGreatBuzz]

8 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

That’s simply laughable. You can honestly look at the past two years plus and with a straight face say that our opposition to Trump is about tribalism and team sports?

If so then you’re probably something I’d get banned for saying.

One, I look further past than the last 2 years.  Two, the talk about who should vote to confirm to protect other members of the party etc is about team sports, not just voting the way they feel they should.  Three, you're telling me that not a single person on the left thinks Brett is acceptable and every single person on the right thinks he is?  That shows votes are about team sports.  And it expands to most any other issue that gets voted on.

 

If you think tribalism isn't involved in the way our politicians vote, you're probably something I can't say or Ill get banned.

Edited July 11, 2018 by TheGreatBuzz
Grammar

[Zguy28]

55 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

One, I look further past than the last 2 years.  Two, the talk about who should vote to confirm to protect other members of the party etc is about team sports, not just voting the way they feel they should.  Three, you're telling me that not a single person on the left thinks Brett is acceptable and every single person on the right thinks he is?  That shows votes are about team sports.  And it expands to most any other issue that gets voted on.

 

If you think tribalism isn't involved in the way our politicians vote, you're probably something I can't say or Ill get banned.

I think our Founding Fathers made one fatal mistake, they allowed political parties. But then who knows if it would be worse without them.

[Burgold]

Buzz is correct. Tribalism and team sports have a lot to do with what's going in political America today. If not, do you really think House GOP members would stay mum on collusion and treason? Do you think Mitch McConnell would have played these games with Garland and the rest of the GOP would applaud him for it? Do you think that Trump could be firebombing our relations with NATO, the G8, engineering trade wars with our allies, and orchestrating things that are elevating China, Russia, and North Korea influence to our detriment without any tangible benefit for us without objecting or putting a halt to it?

 

As for this Justice pick, there's certainly tribalism going on too, but it's also because the basic conservative think tank philosophy is problematic to most Democrats (and actually most Americans) IE corporate rights over people rights, concern for civil rights, women's rights, privacy rights, gerrymandering, etc. All of these are under attack by the modern right.

 

The Dems oppose this Trump pick because he is a Trump pick, but also because there are damn good reasons to do so. Trump and his cadre are trying to do some really awful things. Trump and his cadre have already done some really awful things. Trump is trying to pick the judge who will decide his fate once Mueller speaks. That alone is pretty questionable. Worse, Congress has completely forfeited its obligation to be a check not only on corruption, but against treason. SCOTUS may be the only chance this country has left.

 

And yeah... I'm overstating things a little, but sadly, only by a tiny bit.

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

One, I look further past than the last 2 years.  Two, the talk about who should vote to confirm to protect other members of the party etc is about team sports, not just voting the way they feel they should.  Three, you're telling me that not a single person on the left thinks Brett is acceptable and every single person on the right thinks he is?  That shows votes are about team sports.  And it expands to most any other issue that gets voted on.

 

If you think tribalism isn't involved in the way our politicians vote, you're probably something I can't say or Ill get banned.

NO ONE is denying the existence of tribalism in politics...I’ve said it myself MANY times. But please do not suggest that opposition to Trump is tribal. Remember, I could have voted for a Republican that isn’t a willing hostage in Trumandia. 

don’t know anything about this justice other than he wrote that a President can’t be indicted, which is an absurdity. I also don’t like the deal making aspect of Kennedy’s retirement although I recognize that it probably saved us from an extremist. I think Kennedy’s retirement now is a betrayal to moderates.

[nonniey]

4 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

 

5 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

........ 

don’t know anything about this justice other than he wrote that a President can’t be indicted, which is an absurdity. .......

Then I guess you don't know anything about this justice at all.

[Kilmer17]

I'd like to see where Kavanaugh wrote that a President cant be indicted.  

[Cooked Crack]

9 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I'd like to see where Kavanaugh wrote that a President cant be indicted.  

Quote

Kavanaugh wrote in an article for the Minnesota Law Review from 2009 that Congress should pass a law “exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.”

 

“I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” Kavanaugh wrote. “We should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.” Furthermore, Kavanaugh opined that the “indictment and trial of a sitting President” would “cripple the federal government.”

 

Now, this is in the context of calling for Congress to change existing law — not for the Supreme Court to interpret it differently. However, these beliefs and opinions could well influence how Kavanaugh would rule on the major topics related to civil or criminal investigations that do end up reaching the Supreme Court.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17551584/brett-kavanaugh-president-criminal-investigation

[Kilmer17]

We all know he wrote that article.  I'm pointing out that what he called for in that article is no where close to saying that the POTUS cant be indicted.  In fact, it pretty much means he thinks a POTUS CAN be indicted, and is calling on CONGRESS to act to stop it.