Trumped - Supreme Court Edition

[Amazing Larry]

14 minutes ago, InsideThePark said:

...but it's escalated to a new level in the last 8 years.

This is a country in which political rivals used to draw pistols and shoot each other. Have some perspective. We're going to be fine. 

[InsideThePark]

1 minute ago, Lawrence said:

This is a country in which political rivals used to draw pistols and shoot each other. Have some perspective. We're going to be fine. 

Did I say we weren't going to be fine? Nice straw man lol

I was talking relative to the last several decades.

[Amazing Larry]

Just now, InsideThePark said:

Did I say we weren't going to be fine? Nice straw man lol

I was talking relative to the last several decades.

The 60's were more polarizing than recent times. Hell, 1992 was way shittier. 

[Tank]

1 hour ago, InsideThePark said:

But did it affect his vote? Didn't think so.

I don't really agree with what the other guy said, nor do I agree with the similar sentiment coming from the base. Don't obstruct just to obstruct - that's stupid. Pick your battles. Boehner and McConnell got a lot of heat from their base for not obstructing enough if you could believe it. Obviously there weren't enough voices on the right demanding that their side play fair, and there won't be many on the left calling for civility now. It's kind of easy to call out both sides now when your party is in power and your looking for a little cooperation from the other side. But this is why people hate politics... our elected officials generally don't put country before party.

Did it affect my vote? Absolutely! I didn't vote for incumbents in congress on my ballot, and I voted for Johnson for POTUS. 

And what about you?

[Ordos]

6 minutes ago, Tank said:

Did it affect my vote? Absolutely! I didn't vote for incumbents in congress on my ballot, and I voted for Johnson for POTUS. 

And what about you?

Some voted for the POTUS to have a Johnson, some didn't.

[InsideThePark]

18 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

The 60's were more polarizing than recent times. Hell, 1992 was way shittier. 

In terms of polarization, not even close. Not saying it was peaches and cream back then but it's escalated to new heights because of the left/right media. Democrats and Republicans in Congress used to be able to go out to dinner together... from what I understand, that is no longer the case because the other side has cooties.

[InsideThePark]

10 minutes ago, Tank said:

Did it affect my vote? Absolutely! I didn't vote for incumbents in congress on my ballot, and I voted for Johnson for POTUS. 

And what about you?

Really? I mean I don't really care either way but towards the very end, you told us that you were leaning towards Trump.

I live in a Republican District so I didn't bother there, and I didn't know enough about the two Democratic senators to make an informed decision so I left that blank as well.

For president, I wrote someone else in. I wasn't even going to vote but there were some important propositions on the ballot, and I wanted my voice to be heard (cheesy, I know). I said I wasn't going to vote in 2012 too, but ultimately, I cast my vote for the same reasons.

[Jason]

5 minutes ago, InsideThePark said:

In terms of polarization, not even close. Not saying it was peaches and cream back then but it's escalated to new heights because of the left/right media. Democrats and Republicans in Congress used to be able to go out to dinner together... from what I understand, that is no longer the case because the other side has cooties.

I don't think congress and the two party system is more adversarial. It's just that we can see and hear more of it with advancements in media so we as citizens become more divided. 

[InsideThePark]

12 minutes ago, Jason said:

I don't think congress and the two party system is more adversarial. It's just that we can see and hear more of it with advancements in media so we as citizens become more divided. 

Respectfully, I think it's had a direct impact on the gridlock. Constituents from both sides are demanding hardline positions from their representatives. It's also pushed politicians further left or right, depending on party affiliation. And that sucks for the rest of us who are closer to the middle.

[Jason]

13 minutes ago, InsideThePark said:

Respectfully, I think it's had a direct impact on the gridlock. Constituents from both sides are demanding hardline positions from their representatives. It's also pushed politicians further left or right, depending on party affiliation. And that sucks for the rest of us who are closer to the middle.

I agree. I just think it's been that way for a while now

[Angels#1Fan]

2 hours ago, Blarg said:

If you are stupid enough to take the position that this the first time one side of the aisle tried to block the other you've made your stand on quicksand.

If you're stupid enough to think I made such an argument then so be it!

 

[Angels#1Fan]

4 minutes ago, calscuf said:

Just chill and remember your audience.

Right-wing hornets nest?
 

[Spirit]

8 hours ago, Ordos said:

Some voted for the POTUS to have a Johnson, some didn't.

 

Some voted for Clinton, some voted for Stein. 

 

 

 

[Blarg]

9 hours ago, InsideThePark said:

...but it's escalated to a new level in the last 8 years. Neither side is free of blame.

Maybe you need a history book thrown at your head.

[Blarg]

9 hours ago, Lawrence said:

This is a country in which political rivals used to draw pistols and shoot each other. Have some perspective. We're going to be fine. 

It was a more efficient form of breaking a filibuster.

[Ordos]

45 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

Some voted for Clinton, some voted for Stein. 

 

 

 

That's some subtle hilarity right there. Well done 

[EnglishCop]

18 hours ago, Tank said:

i'll bet @EnglishCop is a white dude.

I'll bet you can capitalize the first word of your post irrespective of where it appears in a sentence.

[Tank]

23 minutes ago, EnglishCop said:

I'll bet you can capitalize the first word of your post irrespective of where it appears in a sentence.

i'll bet you're wrong.

[Tank]

14 hours ago, Angels#1Fan said:

The reason nothing got done was because the Republicans obstructed Obama for eight years, but that was OK...right?

Oh, I get it, it's OK for cons to obstruct Obama at every turn. It's even OK to shut down the government and threaten our credit rating..that's OK as long as Republicans do it. Mitch McConnell said that his main mission was to make Obama a one term president, that was OK also. His main concern wasn't terrorist or the security of America..it was to play political games.

It was even OK for that asshole to shout out that Obama was a liar at the SOTU Address.

Enough is enough, Democrats need to get tough with Republicans just as they did with Democrats..what comes around goes around and if Democrats that are in Congress can't stand up and fight then it's time to replace them with people that will, otherwise the Republicans will run over them just like they did when they shut down the government and failed to live up to their Constitutional requirements when they refused to consider Garland. Cons haven't complained about only having 8 justices for over a year, so they shouldn't mind going another year or two.

wow, in your desire to slam me you missed reading the part of my post that came next. here it is: 

 

14 hours ago, Angels#1Fan said:

The cons were wrong to stall obamas nomination and speak out so brashly that they wouldn't even consider him. They could just as easily voted No on his nomination and not looked as dooshy. 

not only did you miss my point, but you also ascribed to me things i don't believe in nor things i said. you then went on a reinforcing rant about how the libs need to obstruct the cons essentially to teach them a lesson/get revenge. you're wrong. you are 100% wrong, and it's that kind of reasoning that causes our congress to be so ineffective, unless you're really glad that we have a declaration from them to celebrate national eggplant day.

i hope you never run for any kind of political office.

[EnglishCop]

4 minutes ago, Tank said:

i'll bet you're wrong.

Watch your back, pal. I can easily get an executive order written stating that you can wear nothing but Anaheim Ducks and LA Dodgers gear.

[Tank]

Just now, EnglishCop said:

Watch your back, pal. I can easily get an Executive Order written stating that you can wear nothing but Anaheim Ducks and LA Dodgers gear.

FTFY.

[Ordos]

Haha

[Angels#1Fan]

1 hour ago, Tank said:

wow, in your desire to slam me you missed reading the part of my post that came next. here it is: 

My post was not an attempt to slam you.

If you noticed I highlighted in bold the one thing I addressed specifically. Then I started a new paragraph in which I gave several examples of things Republicans in general (not you specifically) didn't have a problem with like shutting down the government to hold it hostage over the debt ceiling etc. I don't know what your position is on those things, but the overall point I made was that Republicans (and you specifically) have bitched and whined about how nothing got done in the last eight years. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy because the Republicans obstructed and blocked most things, so of course nothing got done. lol And then they had the nerve to complain about it!  A bit hypocritical don't you think?

1 hour ago, Tank said:

you then went on a reinforcing rant about how the libs need to obstruct the cons essentially to teach them a lesson/get revenge. you're wrong. you are 100% wrong, and it's that kind of reasoning that causes our congress to be so ineffective,

I think you need to go back over my original post because I didn't say nor imply that I felt the Democrats need to obstruct to "teach the Republicans a lesson/get revenge".. Some people would say "you get what you give". The Democrats have to stand up for their values and fight if necessary to obtain those goals because the Republicans have shown nothing in the way of wanting to cooperate in any way. In fact it's been the Republican Party's mission the last eight years to make everything as difficult as possible for the Obama administration specifically and the Democratic Party in general. The Republicans became the Party of NO..have you forgotten how the Republicans chose to "effectively" govern the last eight years? Now all of a sudden you and the Republicans want to "effectively" govern. That's pretty funny Tank.

1 hour ago, Tank said:

t's that kind of reasoning that causes our congress to be so ineffective,

Well Tank, all I can say to you is I haven't forgotten how the Obama administration has been treated by the Republicans. They tried to delegitimize his presidency, disrespected him from the floor of Congress (ie; when the asshole shouted out "liar" during the sotua) and stole the SC nomination. Those things and many others were done solely for political gain and had nothing to do with trying to make Congress effective. An example was the when the cons shut down the government over the debt limit..was that effective governing Tank?

As I mentioned, Democrats need to get tough with Republicans because their values are at stake, it has nothing to do with getting even or extracting revenge. If it did I would have suggested that at Trumps first SOTUA someone should shout out that he is a liar..that's vengeful and just plain nasty. Standing up and fighting for what one believes isn't 100% wrong.

1 hour ago, Tank said:

i hope you never run for any kind of political office.

 Is that a slam? lol

 

[m0nkey]

1 hour ago, Tank said:

FTFY.

Fire English Cop.

[Tank]

24 minutes ago, m0nkey said:

Fire English Cop.

or at least give him a serious time out.