A Republican President picks a conservative nominee, not much of a shock. Seems like an all around stand up guy and very smart, not that I agree with all his opinions though. The Democrats will have to wiggle their way out of the fact that they confirmed him to his current position in 2006, including in-favor votes by Obama, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, etc. But all of a sudden hes not fit for the Supreme Court?
I am farely suprised that the headlines, outside of Huffpo at least, have been generally neutral. It's a sad state that the SCOTUS has become such a partisan divide, Im just not sure what laws or rules or concepts you could implement to lessen this. Turnabout is fair play and the republicans might be in the same spot in four years if another justice dies or retires anywhere near the election. I can't see them holding up this seat for the entire four years, they don't have the seats yet to pull something like what happened with Andrew Johnson, then again that would be a clusterfuck.
They can't either, the Democrats have to do a pushback routine to fire up the base a bit, but they can't outright prevent anything since they have elections coming in two years.
Basically what everybody was saying after Garland was nominated. The only reason this is even a thing was because the Senate decided to give Obama the silent treatment instead of doing their goddamn jobs.
Yes this is true, but it was wrong when the Republicans did it and it is equally wrong when the Democrats do it. I don;t understand this Democratic strategy of being obstructionist only because the Republicans did it too. They are losing any of the goodwill they had coming into this new Congress.
This is something Im curious to see play out for the left. With as much as their base despises Trump, will it ultimately impact them positively or negatively in the eyes of the electorate to become stone wall obstructionist? Since every day is a new constitutional crisis for them it seems, they will ultimately paint themselves into a corner as far as political goodwill in congress against appeasing the base they whip into a perpetually frenzy.
That's one of the Dems biggest problems. Their base is fired up. And when their base is fired up they protest, chant, march and disrupt other people's lives by blocking sidewalks, streets, airports, malls, and ability to hear people with opposing points of view speak. They're like a gang of SJW's. If you don't agree with them 100%, you get called names and belittled. They are not a welcoming party despite all their talk of tolerance, they have have none unless you 100% subscribe to their party line. Their best bet would be to hold rallies and try to bring like minded people into their fold even if they may have a few differing beliefs instead of excluding everyone who is not completely and totally behind everything they believe in. I actually do agree with the Dems on several things, but I also disagree with them others....I would not feel welcome in their crowd because as soon as they found out that I disagreed with one of their points they'd probably turn on me like a bunch of jackals. I'm sure there are plenty of others who feel the same way.
So yeah... this guy (Bannon) is on your Security Council while the Joint Chiefs have been removed: In remarks to a 2014 conference at the Vatican, Bannon warned his Christian audience, “We’re at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict.” “We are in an outright war against jihadists, Islam, Islamic fascism,” Bannon continued. He likewise condemned “the immense secularization of the West” and the increasing secularism among millennials. Bannon stressed that “the people in this room, and the people in the Church” must “bind together and really form what I feel is an aspect of the Church militant, to really be able to not just stand with our beliefs but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that’s starting that will literally eradicate everything that we’ve been bequeathed over the last 2,000 and 2,500 years.” In his speech, Bannon articulated a view of the world as a constant conflict between the capitalist “Judeo-Christian West,” which is a benevolent force of “enlightenment,” and the malevolent forces of socialism, atheism, and Islam.
Well they have to fire up the base constructively. Thats probably a more apt way to put it. Their base does not seem to trust the party leadership after the railroading of Bernie Sanders, and nor should they. But they need to find a way to galvanize the dissent against Trump. Holding protests at airports needs to transform into a workable set of demands or political platforms, which in turn would be represented by a viable candidate who embodies them like the Tea Party did. Now there is no one further away from the Tea Party Republicans than Donald Trump and the TP candidates were ultimately unsuccessful, but they at least made it to the national stage.
You're right, but I'm not advocating Democratic obstructionism. I would love it if people in government worked together instead of against each other. The frustrating thing to me is that politicians aren't especially interested in doing what's best for the country, or even their constituents. They seem much more concerned about enriching themselves and staying in power than being productive. The best example I can think of is Obamacare. Republicans don't give a shit about federal overreach. If they did, the government would shrink under a Republican presidency, not grow. No, the reason the GOP wants Obamacare repealed is because it raises taxes on wealthy Americans to pay the subsidies that would allow poor people to get insurance. And we all know that politicians tend to be wealthy Americans. You don't think it's shady as fuck that Republicans are now changing the rules to effectively silence half the country? You can't have a government that works that way. Or, if you don't give a shit, you can't complain when the other side does it to you down the road.
I thought their "job" was to represent the American people. If they represent the 50% of people that think the way you do, you're cool with it, but if they represent the 50% that think differently, they're not doing their job? It's totally unfair for them to change the rules! Or, follow the rules that the Republicans set up back in 2013. Oh, wait, no that was the Democrats who set those up.
I'd be mad as hell if it happened to me. You know what I'd do? I'd let my representative know that if they felt the best way to represent me was just not show up, that I would do everything in my power to make sure they don't represent me next term.
You mentioned earlier about how you wish the parties would work together and think of the citizens and not make it partisan. After these remarks, excuse me if I don;t think what you said is a load of shit. You only want that to happen when YOUR side is the one being inconvenienced. But when its YOUR side abusing power and making up rules as they go, everything is a-ok. Spare me and the rest of us your talk on non-partisanship when its clear the Republicans can't do much wrong in your eyes. The Dems didn't show up as a sign they didn't agree with the pick and they were delaying it as it is their right to do, just like the Republican senate did for a year with Garland. If the Dems had changed the rules like this the Conservative based would have exploded. Both sides are fucked in my opinion but don't act like your shit doesn't stink.
Sorry, but not showing up to do the job you were elected to do is not a partisan issue. In fact, it absolutely flies in the face of what I'd said about working together if one side doesn't even work.
I tend to think that politicians should work across the aisle to find compromise on issues. There's a pretty even split of conservatives/liberals/moderates in this country and everyone should have a voice in the debate. No one will end up 100% happy, but hopefully we develop policy that works. My problem is that currently it doesn't seem like the republican party is interested in doing that, and if the democrats don't dig their heels in than the whole country will be beholden to the conservative 35% percent of the country. Ultimately this problem was caused by the populace becoming extremely vocal on the divide between liberals and conservatives. This thread tends to be a perfect example. We don't talk policy or try to reach compromise. We yell at each other and accuse each other of being condescending, ignorant etc. I think until us citizens can stop falling for the outrage agenda that is played up by both political parties and their defacto news networks than this is going to just get worse, maybe to the point of violence. We live in a democracy and every voice should be heard and represented. We all need to get better at that.
Again, just because YOU don't think they were doing their job, doesn't mean they weren't. They were doing their job and doing it well, which is why the Republicans got pissed and changed the rules.
I have huge problems when one party decides that instead of voting or vetting or debating, you know, anything else in the job description, they have press conferences saying that they'll do nothing. If/when Democrats do this, I'll be just as pissed when Republicans were doing it for the past 6 years. If I told my boss that instead of helping the company function better, I was going to bitch about my coworkers and do nothing, I'd be fired immediately. Please, tell me where I said it was okay for Democrats to do that. While I'm waiting, I'd like to point out that I'm loathe for either party to make rules changes to circumvent the other. Why? Because eventually, one party and by extension, one half of the country, will have no voice in a government that claims to represent them.
Maybe if politicians hadn't gerrymandered the shit out of everything, that might actually be effective.