June 21, 20223 yr 8 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: While I understand the sentiment, it's the rote middle road many have taken, it's also problematic. You can't defend the right to abortion if you say you are anti-abortion. That's exactly the wordsmithing magic the right has won this war with. Biden decried the loss of roe v wade...and never once said the word abortion in his speech. In a nutshell, that's why we are here, with women's rights about to be catapulted into theocracy because we are ashamed of the word. No it’s not. We’re here because they took the SC. It has nothing to do anyones wording about this particular issue (most Americans support Roe and disagree with the ruling). Now if you want to talk about broader messaging coming from the left then I agree. They suck at messaging and are miles behind the right.
June 21, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: No it’s not. We’re here because they took the SC. It has nothing to do anyones wording about this particular issue (most Americans support Roe and disagree with the ruling). Now if you want to talk about broader messaging coming from the left then I agree. They suck at messaging and are miles behind the right. I'm gonna say yes it is Van. How did they take the SC? By decades of shaming politicians from openly defending abortions. Decades of the word only being used by those against it has given it a poisonous political connotation. It's very similar to how we end up with a draconian criminal system, nobody openly defends criminals.
June 21, 20223 yr 23 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: I'm gonna say yes it is Van. How did they take the SC? By decades of shaming politicians from openly defending abortions. Decades of the word only being used by those against it has given it a poisonous political connotation. It's very similar to how we end up with a draconian criminal system, nobody openly defends criminals. That's just not how they took the SC. They took the court because RGB was a narcissistic c-word and stayed on longer than she should have.
June 21, 20223 yr 13 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: That's just not how they took the SC. They took the court because RGB was a narcissistic c-word and stayed on longer than she should have. Too bad the justices don’t just go by the words on the paper when it comes to the constitution, and then it wouldn’t matter if someone decided to stay on until they died
June 21, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Too bad the justices don’t just go by the words on the paper when it comes to the constitution, and then it wouldn’t matter if someone decided to stay on until they died Thank you for that completely irrelevant addition to my and dawk's conversation.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 1 hour ago, VanHammersly said: That's just not how they took the SC. They took the court because RGB was a narcissistic c-word and stayed on longer than she should have. The bigger thing is that Mitch literally stole a seat from Garland. If he had simply followed his Constitutional obligations, the GOP would still have their outsized majority, but enough balance would've been preserved to save Roe.
June 21, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: The bigger thing is that Mitch literally stole a seat from Garland. If he had simply followed his Constitutional obligations, the GOP would still have their outsized majority, but enough balance would've been preserved to save Roe. I mean, it's 6 in one half dozen in the other. You get a balance either way. But since there's no reason to ever assume Republicans aren't going to play dirty, she should've retired. It was arrogant bull sheet that she stayed on and she should be properly vilified for it by the left.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: I mean, it's 6 in one half dozen in the other. You get a balance either way. But since there's no reason to ever assume Republicans aren't going to play dirty, she should've retired. It was arrogant bull sheet that she stayed on and she should be properly vilified for it by the left. Obama approached her about retiring in 2013. At that time, no one could've predicted that scenario. Mitch was always an unscrupulous a**hole, but no one truly knew the depths of his treachery at that point, and the particular tactic he used with Garland wasn't an obvious one.
June 21, 20223 yr 18 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: The bigger thing is that Mitch literally stole a seat from Garland. If he had simply followed his Constitutional obligations, the GOP would still have their outsized majority, but enough balance would've been preserved to save Roe. "Constitutional obligations" Do you seriously believe that if he was in violation that the Obama administration wouldn't have hauled him into court?
June 21, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Obama approached her about retiring in 2013. At that time, no one could've predicted that scenario. Mitch was always an unscrupulous a**hole, but no one truly knew the depths of his treachery at that point, and the particular tactic he used with Garland wasn't an obvious one. Again, assume Republicans are going to play dirty at every single opportunity, because they always do. They're vile, disgusting scumbags who hate America. Dems should always act accordingly. In this case, all it would've taken would've been RGB looking in the mirror and realizing that she's old as F and she should retire for the good of the country. But she didn't. Because she was an arrogant ****.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 11 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Again, assume Republicans are going to play dirty at every single opportunity, because they always do. They're vile, disgusting scumbags who hate America. Dems should always act accordingly. In this case, all it would've taken would've been RGB looking in the mirror and realizing that she's old as F and she should retire for the good of the country. But she didn't. Because she was an arrogant ****. Did anyone have the idea that Mitch would attempt what he did? Were there any articles written that warned about the potential use of such a tactic? I don't remember any scholars or legal experts pointing out the danger that the Senate could simply refuse to take up the nomination. My point is that, I certainly don't think RBG is blameless, but you're dabbling a little bit in revisionist history here. If you can go back and show me that people were imagining and worried about the scenario that played out, then I would agree with your larger point, but I think it just wasn't something that was conceivable to you, me, or anyone in the know at the time.
June 21, 20223 yr There is something extra creepy about these stories... like what's the WaPo's point here? That the mother would be so much better off if her infant children were dead? Just gross.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 17 minutes ago, lynched1 said: "Constitutional obligations" Do you seriously believe that if he was in violation that the Obama administration wouldn't have hauled him into court? The wording of that section is pretty emphatic that the Senate is required to consider the President's nominee, but any sort of legal action against an individual would've been murky, since Majority Leader is not an official position. The Constitution doesn't even recognize the existence of parties. But ultimately, no, I don't think that they had the balls to any take legal action. They don't even have the balls to indict Trump.
June 21, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Did anyone have the idea that Mitch would attempt what he did? Were there any articles written that warned about the potential use of such a tactic? I don't remember any scholars or legal experts pointing out the danger that the Senate could simply refuse to take up the nomination. My point is that, I certainly don't think RBG is blameless, but you're dabbling a little bit in revisionist history here. If you can go back and show me that people were imagining and worried about the scenario that played out, then I would agree with your larger point, but I think it just wasn't something that was conceivable to you, me, or anyone in the know at the time. Except that, when Obama went to RGB in 2013, Scalia hadn't died yet, and there was really no reason to think that he would. It was pretty shocking when he did. At the time, they assumed things would go to the next President, whoever that was, exactly the same, which is why RGB should've stepped down. You don't put that kind of thing at risk.
June 21, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, Kz! said: There is something extra creepy about these stories... like what's the WaPo's point here? That the mother would be so much better off if her infant children were dead? Just gross. Why don't you read the story and find out?
June 21, 20223 yr 9 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: The wording of that section is pretty emphatic that the Senate is required to consider the President's nominee, but any sort of legal action against an individual would've been murky, since Majority Leader is not an official position. The Constitution doesn't even recognize the existence of parties. But ultimately, no, I don't think that they had the balls to any take legal action. They don't even have the balls to indict Trump. Obama? He seemed to like picking fights out of boredom. As far as indicting Trump the DOJ doesn't appear to have necessary proof to indict. They have requested the information the committee claims to have but at this time they have refused the DOJ request to produce it.
June 21, 20223 yr 28 minutes ago, Kz! said: Why is the left always so disgusting and vile? 15 minutes ago, Kz! said: They're so stupid. Maybe if they put that energy into looking for a job they wouldn't be screaming like lunatics in the streets on a Tuesday afternoon? And yes, I'm referring to everyone there.
June 21, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, paco said: Maybe if they put that energy into looking for a job they wouldn't be screaming like lunatics in the streets on a Tuesday afternoon? And yes, I'm referring to everyone there. I have a feeling they're all being paid.
June 21, 20223 yr 10 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Why don't you read the story and find out? I did, and, yes, that was the gist. Imagine how disgusting of a human you have to be to write a story like that. "Man, poor down on her luck 18 year old is dealing with two fussy infants. It's a shame those kids aren't dead." The left is utterly vile.
June 21, 20223 yr Just now, Alpha_TATEr said: You might be on to something Maybe he's paying both sides?
Create an account or sign in to comment