Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.
-
Because they can.
Seriously, the opportunity is there to have a conservative-leaning court. They can assure it if they move now. If Trump loses, the effort succeeds. If Trump wins, the effort had succeeded anyway.
WOuldn't you do the same?
Graham's comments reflect the anger he felt during the scorched-earth Kavanaugh hearings.
Link to videoHe's a man on a mission.
@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
WOuldn't you do the same?
Probably and I am sure that the Democrats would also.
They are not breaking any "rules". If anything, it seems like any rule would have been in 2016 when it was 9 month before the election. To me, that one is more of a "rule break" (though I know it is technically not) than now. (I thought I read somewhere that in the Senate "laws" there is something about them having to "consider a nomination given to them by the President" or something like that)
Just because you can do something, doesn't make it right.
-
Iowahawk in 3 tweets about Romney:
-
ATTENTION: delete all your tweets regarding Mitt Romney from the previous year. Stay tuned for more alerts from the National Embarrassment Prevention Center
-
Yesterday: 50% of my TL thought Romney was a principled moral adult in the room standing as a bulwark against madness, 50% thought he was a spineless jellyfish opportunist traitor.
Today: same. -
The dude is Schroedinger's Mormon
@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Iowahawk in 3 tweets about Romney:
ATTENTION: delete all your tweets regarding Mitt Romney from the previous year. Stay tuned for more alerts from the National Embarrassment Prevention Center
Yesterday: 50% of my TL thought Romney was a principled moral adult in the room standing as a bulwark against madness, 50% thought he was a spineless jellyfish opportunist traitor.
Today: same.The dude is Schroedinger's Mormon
Romney's primary interest has always been in pandering to those he thinks will get him elected. To get elected governor in MA it helps to be a RINO, to get selected as GOP Presidential candidate, you probably want to be a committed life-long conservative dog-torturer. To get selected post-Trump, you might want to offer an alternative to Trump (unless you're Pence or one of the Trump kids). Right now, you have to do whatever the hell it is he's going to do now.
He truly is a man for all seasons. Let's hope he doesn't share Thomas More's fate.
-
-
@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
WOuldn't you do the same?
Probably and I am sure that the Democrats would also.
They are not breaking any "rules". If anything, it seems like any rule would have been in 2016 when it was 9 month before the election. To me, that one is more of a "rule break" (though I know it is technically not) than now. (I thought I read somewhere that in the Senate "laws" there is something about them having to "consider a nomination given to them by the President" or something like that)
Just because you can do something, doesn't make it right.
@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
WOuldn't you do the same?
Probably and I am sure that the Democrats would also.
They are not breaking any "rules". If anything, it seems like any rule would have been in 2016 when it was 9 month before the election. To me, that one is more of a "rule break" (though I know it is technically not) than now. (I thought I read somewhere that in the Senate "laws" there is something about them having to "consider a nomination given to them by the President" or something like that)
Just because you can do something, doesn't make it right.
The laws dictate the morality of the situation. If one believes one's politics are moral, it would be immoral to prioritize some ephemeral propriety over the ability to effect those politics.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
WOuldn't you do the same?
Probably and I am sure that the Democrats would also.
They are not breaking any "rules". If anything, it seems like any rule would have been in 2016 when it was 9 month before the election. To me, that one is more of a "rule break" (though I know it is technically not) than now. (I thought I read somewhere that in the Senate "laws" there is something about them having to "consider a nomination given to them by the President" or something like that)
Just because you can do something, doesn't make it right.
The laws dictate the morality of the situation. If one believes one's politics are moral, it would be immoral to prioritize some ephemeral propriety over the ability to effect those politics.
@Horace said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
WOuldn't you do the same?
Probably and I am sure that the Democrats would also.
They are not breaking any "rules". If anything, it seems like any rule would have been in 2016 when it was 9 month before the election. To me, that one is more of a "rule break" (though I know it is technically not) than now. (I thought I read somewhere that in the Senate "laws" there is something about them having to "consider a nomination given to them by the President" or something like that)
Just because you can do something, doesn't make it right.
The laws dictate the morality of the situation. If one believes one's politics are moral, it would be immoral to prioritize some ephemeral propriety over the ability to effect those politics.
I hate to admit this Horace, because I know you are a super smart guy. But when I read your replies, I have my dictionary out and even then, I am not sure i understand. 5555555 So, I just knock my head and pretend that I do. LOL
-
By ephemeral propriety, I mean an insubstantial temporary feeling like one is doing the right thing. I would have an issue with a politician prioritizing that over their ability to effect politics (such as SCOTUS justices) that they were voted for to effect.
I do understand that there is the court packing consequence. I won't whine that it's immoral when it happens.
-
Because they can.
Seriously, the opportunity is there to have a conservative-leaning court. They can assure it if they move now. If Trump loses, the effort succeeds. If Trump wins, the effort had succeeded anyway.
WOuldn't you do the same?
Graham's comments reflect the anger he felt during the scorched-earth Kavanaugh hearings.
Link to videoHe's a man on a mission.
@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Because they can.
Seriously, the opportunity is there to have a conservative-leaning court. They can assure it if they move now. If Trump loses, the effort succeeds. If Trump wins, the effort had succeeded anyway.
WOuldn't you do the same?
Graham's comments reflect the anger he felt during the scorched-earth Kavanaugh hearings.
Link to videoHe's a man on a mission.
I think Graham is going to shove a stick up Feinstein's ass and break it off. There is already talk that there will be NO last minute theatrics in committee.
I'm also leaning Barrett. If you're gonna stick a finger in the Dem's eye, might as well get your money's worth.
-
This feels like an interesting transition point into "fuck you... because I can" politics.
As in - no pretense that there are any higher principles at play and naked disdain of the other side.
To be clear, I'm not saying that the Republicans have contributed to this state of affairs more than the Democrats - it's just a really clear, impactful demonstration of the new normal.
-
Yeah - I was young during the Clarence Thomas confirmation. But did the Democrats and Republicans essentially just switch positions wholesale on subsequent nominations?
The Garland -> RBG replacement flip is just hilarious.
Same words, different sides.
Also did the Dems and Republicans hate each other then as much as they do now?
-
Yeah - I was young during the Clarence Thomas confirmation. But did the Democrats and Republicans essentially just switch positions wholesale on subsequent nominations?
The Garland -> RBG replacement flip is just hilarious.
Same words, different sides.
Also did the Dems and Republicans hate each other then as much as they do now?
@xenon said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Yeah - I was young during the Clarence Thomas confirmation. But did the Democrats and Republicans essentially just switch positions wholesale on subsequent nominations?
The Garland -> RBG replacement flip is just hilarious.
Same words, different sides.
Also did the Dems and Republicans hate each other then as much as they do now?
Never seen the GOP lynch somebody.
-
Not even close to what they did to Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. Trump will likely nominate a woman - then let's see the accusers come forth.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
Not even close to what they did to Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. Trump will likely nominate a woman - then let's see the accusers come forth.
@Mik said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Not even close to what they did to Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. Trump will likel ynominate a woman - then let's see the accusers come forth.
Very true, but to the main point in this thread, they did it because they could.
-
I guess the distinction I was making was that the norm has been feigned principle (e.g., "believe women")
-
Not even close to what they did to Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. Trump will likely nominate a woman - then let's see the accusers come forth.
@Mik said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Trump will likely nominate a woman
Isn't that kind of gender racist? Are there not any qualified men available?
