Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all.
But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.
RBG said she would have retired had there not been a filibuster and Obama would have been allowed to seat her replacement without being blocked by 41 republicans.
The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.
Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.
Two seats stolen.
Two.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,070
https://apple.news/AbrGVExSOQ9C_x_GrlHGhLg They all look alike white bearded overweight ugly men & women! They all behave the same way vile humans, I need to move out of this country...
https://apple.news/AbrGVExSOQ9C_x_GrlHGhLg They all look alike white bearded overweight ugly men & women! They all behave the same way vile humans, I need to move out of this country...
Don’t let these assholes, who are a minority, force you from your country.
I hope they remain in the minority, M, but it sure looks like they are increasing in numbers. Maybe it's just because they are so loud and obnoxious. But when I look at many other countries and and then look at what has happened here, I have a hard time feeling connected to ours. I hope that changes by next year.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all.
But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.
RBG said she would have retired had there not been a filibuster and Obama would have been allowed to seat her replacement without being blocked by 41 republicans.
The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.
Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.
Two seats stolen.
Two.
unfortunately, blame the constitution. was it illegal? nope. was it unethical? arguable. but the republicans did what they were allowed to do under the law.
zero seats were stolen.
it sucks when it isn't "our/your" side, but it doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal. mitch mcconell is a rat. but he's smart, and he has no qualms about doing anything under the sun that he's legally allowed to do to tip the scales to the red.
if democrats stack the court, will you call those new seats stolen? or will you justify it because "well the republicans did it first"?
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all.
But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.
RBG said she would have retired had there not been a filibuster and Obama would have been allowed to seat her replacement without being blocked by 41 republicans.
The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.
Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.
Two seats stolen.
Two.
unfortunately, blame the constitution. was it illegal? nope. was it unethical? arguable. but the republicans did what they were allowed to do under the law.
zero seats were stolen.
it sucks when it isn't "our/your" side, but it doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal. mitch mcconell is a rat. but he's smart, and he has no qualms about doing anything under the sun that he's legally allowed to do to tip the scales to the red.
if democrats stack the court, will you call those new seats stolen? or will you justify it because "well the republicans did it first"?
Agreed.
And I do think the Dems are justified in "packing" the court, if you want to call it that, as a result of the bad faith efforts by the Republicans.
I look forward to Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden appointing several hijab wearing women and a male satanist to the court. 4 and 13 seem like real nice numbers. The repub coronaries and exploding heads would be fabulous to watch.
Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all.
But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.
RBG said she would have retired had there not been a filibuster and Obama would have been allowed to seat her replacement without being blocked by 41 republicans.
The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.
Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.
Two seats stolen.
Two.
unfortunately, blame the constitution. was it illegal? nope. was it unethical? arguable. but the republicans did what they were allowed to do under the law.
zero seats were stolen.
it sucks when it isn't "our/your" side, but it doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal. mitch mcconell is a rat. but he's smart, and he has no qualms about doing anything under the sun that he's legally allowed to do to tip the scales to the red.
if democrats stack the court, will you call those new seats stolen? or will you justify it because "well the republicans did it first"?
I definitely agree, but the context was Cincy’s comment; in fact it is a manipulation of rules so each side plays by different ones
It’s possible the country is about to drastically change, possibly 52 states, 104 senators and 12 or more court justices. I am all for that. But the need for that is a result of the mass manipulations we have seen the past ten years.
Which is necessitated by one side always changing the rules to gain unfair advantage, whether it be manipulating voting rights, closing polling places, redrawing congressional districts so the Dems are all in only one of them, using the filibuster to block a pick then deny its use to the other side. Whether we call all that “theft” or something else, perhaps you have a better word. Manipulation? Lack of order?
But the Dems problem is they try to play by “the rules” while republicans slash and burn them to their benefit. Let’s hope the Dems are willing to join this game and fight fire with fire.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all.
But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.
RBG said she would have retired had there not been a filibuster and Obama would have been allowed to seat her replacement without being blocked by 41 republicans.
The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.
Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.
Two seats stolen.
Two.
unfortunately, blame the constitution. was it illegal? nope. was it unethical? arguable. but the republicans did what they were allowed to do under the law.
zero seats were stolen.
it sucks when it isn't "our/your" side, but it doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal. mitch mcconell is a rat. but he's smart, and he has no qualms about doing anything under the sun that he's legally allowed to do to tip the scales to the red.
if democrats stack the court, will you call those new seats stolen? or will you justify it because "well the republicans did it first"?
I definitely agree, but the context was Cincy’s comment; in fact it is a manipulation of rules so each side plays by different ones
It’s possible the country is about to drastically change, possibly 52 states, 104 senators and 12 or more court justices. I am all for that. But the need for that is a result of the mass manipulations we have seen the past ten years.
Which is necessitated by one side always changing the rules to gain unfair advantage, whether it be manipulating voting rights, closing polling places, redrawing congressional districts so the Dems are all in only one of them, using the filibuster to block a pick then deny its use to the other side. Whether we call all that “theft” or something else, perhaps you have a better word. Manipulation? Lack of order?
But the Dems problem is they try to play by “the rules” while republicans slash and burn them to their benefit. Let’s hope the Dems are willing to join this game and fight fire with fire.
let's get the verbiage right though. republicans are playing by the rules. they haven't broken any of them. there are simply "unwritten" rules that everyone seemed to agree to play by in the past. and republicans have stopped doing that. democrats needs to step up and start the same.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all.
But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.
RBG said she would have retired had there not been a filibuster and Obama would have been allowed to seat her replacement without being blocked by 41 republicans.
The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.
Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.
Two seats stolen.
Two.
unfortunately, blame the constitution. was it illegal? nope. was it unethical? arguable. but the republicans did what they were allowed to do under the law.
zero seats were stolen.
it sucks when it isn't "our/your" side, but it doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal. mitch mcconell is a rat. but he's smart, and he has no qualms about doing anything under the sun that he's legally allowed to do to tip the scales to the red.
if democrats stack the court, will you call those new seats stolen? or will you justify it because "well the republicans did it first"?
I definitely agree, but the context was Cincy’s comment; in fact it is a manipulation of rules so each side plays by different ones
It’s possible the country is about to drastically change, possibly 52 states, 104 senators and 12 or more court justices. I am all for that. But the need for that is a result of the mass manipulations we have seen the past ten years.
Which is necessitated by one side always changing the rules to gain unfair advantage, whether it be manipulating voting rights, closing polling places, redrawing congressional districts so the Dems are all in only one of them, using the filibuster to block a pick then deny its use to the other side. Whether we call all that “theft” or something else, perhaps you have a better word. Manipulation? Lack of order?
But the Dems problem is they try to play by “the rules” while republicans slash and burn them to their benefit. Let’s hope the Dems are willing to join this game and fight fire with fire.
let's get the verbiage right though. republicans are playing by the rules. they haven't broken any of them. there are simply "unwritten" rules that everyone seemed to agree to play by in the past. and republicans have stopped doing that. democrats needs to step up and start the same.
So expanding the court would be in that same spirit...
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all.
But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.
RBG said she would have retired had there not been a filibuster and Obama would have been allowed to seat her replacement without being blocked by 41 republicans.
The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.
Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.
Two seats stolen.
Two.
unfortunately, blame the constitution. was it illegal? nope. was it unethical? arguable. but the republicans did what they were allowed to do under the law.
zero seats were stolen.
it sucks when it isn't "our/your" side, but it doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal. mitch mcconell is a rat. but he's smart, and he has no qualms about doing anything under the sun that he's legally allowed to do to tip the scales to the red.
if democrats stack the court, will you call those new seats stolen? or will you justify it because "well the republicans did it first"?
I definitely agree, but the context was Cincy’s comment; in fact it is a manipulation of rules so each side plays by different ones
It’s possible the country is about to drastically change, possibly 52 states, 104 senators and 12 or more court justices. I am all for that. But the need for that is a result of the mass manipulations we have seen the past ten years.
Which is necessitated by one side always changing the rules to gain unfair advantage, whether it be manipulating voting rights, closing polling places, redrawing congressional districts so the Dems are all in only one of them, using the filibuster to block a pick then deny its use to the other side. Whether we call all that “theft” or something else, perhaps you have a better word. Manipulation? Lack of order?
But the Dems problem is they try to play by “the rules” while republicans slash and burn them to their benefit. Let’s hope the Dems are willing to join this game and fight fire with fire.
let's get the verbiage right though. republicans are playing by the rules. they haven't broken any of them. there are simply "unwritten" rules that everyone seemed to agree to play by in the past. and republicans have stopped doing that. democrats needs to step up and start the same.
So expanding the court would be in that same spirit...
of course it would be. i have no issue with it. my point is that all the democrats complaining about mitch mcconnel's tactics will turn around and applaud packing the court full of liberal justices, and they'll justify by saying the republicans started it.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all.
But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.
RBG said she would have retired had there not been a filibuster and Obama would have been allowed to seat her replacement without being blocked by 41 republicans.
The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.
Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.
Two seats stolen.
Two.
unfortunately, blame the constitution. was it illegal? nope. was it unethical? arguable. but the republicans did what they were allowed to do under the law.
zero seats were stolen.
it sucks when it isn't "our/your" side, but it doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal. mitch mcconell is a rat. but he's smart, and he has no qualms about doing anything under the sun that he's legally allowed to do to tip the scales to the red.
if democrats stack the court, will you call those new seats stolen? or will you justify it because "well the republicans did it first"?
I definitely agree, but the context was Cincy’s comment; in fact it is a manipulation of rules so each side plays by different ones
It’s possible the country is about to drastically change, possibly 52 states, 104 senators and 12 or more court justices. I am all for that. But the need for that is a result of the mass manipulations we have seen the past ten years.
Which is necessitated by one side always changing the rules to gain unfair advantage, whether it be manipulating voting rights, closing polling places, redrawing congressional districts so the Dems are all in only one of them, using the filibuster to block a pick then deny its use to the other side. Whether we call all that “theft” or something else, perhaps you have a better word. Manipulation? Lack of order?
But the Dems problem is they try to play by “the rules” while republicans slash and burn them to their benefit. Let’s hope the Dems are willing to join this game and fight fire with fire.
let's get the verbiage right though. republicans are playing by the rules. they haven't broken any of them. there are simply "unwritten" rules that everyone seemed to agree to play by in the past. and republicans have stopped doing that. democrats needs to step up and start the same.
So expanding the court would be in that same spirit...
of course it would be. i have no issue with it. my point is that all the democrats complaining about mitch mcconnel's tactics will turn around and applaud packing the court full of liberal justices, and they'll justify by saying the republicans started it.
And they'd be right. It doesn't even need justification. Liberals try to explain too much to no effect. Fuck it. Just do it. We all get it.
Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all.
But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.
I'm curious considering you are more right leaning...is something that will make you reconsider voting for Biden?
In this election? It would have to be a doozy!
I can’t wait to vote for real republicans again in the future...if they ever exist again. I fully expect to hate a lot of what Joe does, especially after the first couple of years. But he isn’t a wannabe dictator that someone brainwashed a lot of people.
Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all.
But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.
I'm curious considering you are more right leaning...is something that will make you reconsider voting for Biden?
In this election? It would have to be a doozy!
I can’t wait to vote for real republicans again in the future...if they ever exist again. I fully expect to hate a lot of what Joe does, especially after the first couple of years. But he isn’t a wannabe dictator that someone brainwashed a lot of people.
Okay...PHEW. I am wondering if this will cost him a few votes with some republicans who were considering voting for him though.
i read a couple of hours ago that the senate GOP fears they can lose as many as 7 seats on election night. the article quotes sources saying that they will view losing the senate 51-49 or 52-48 as "a good night". will try to find the article.
at any rate, get out and vote!!
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
https://apple.news/AbrGVExSOQ9C_x_GrlHGhLg They all look alike white bearded overweight ugly men & women! They all behave the same way vile humans, I need to move out of this country...
Don’t let these assholes, who are a minority, force you from your country.
Hey. Don’t stop him from considering Sweden.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
https://apple.news/AbrGVExSOQ9C_x_GrlHGhLg They all look alike white bearded overweight ugly men & women! They all behave the same way vile humans, I need to move out of this country...
Don’t let these assholes, who are a minority, force you from your country.
Hey. Don’t stop him from considering Sweden.
Our loss is your gain. No way, buddy. He's staying.
National Lead: At this point in 2016, Clinton's lead over Trump was just 6 pts, at only 46%. Biden is up over the highly desired 50% mark at 52% compared to 42% for Trump
White & Non-College Whites: Biden has eaten a massive amount into Trump's hold with white voters (Trump won whites by 18 pts in 2016, now he's up only 2 pts) & non-college whites (Trump won by 30 pts in 2016, now down to 18 pts)
Ohio and Iowa: Trump blew out Clinton and won these by 8 & 9 pts respectively in 2016, Biden is now leading 1 & 2 pts respectively, a huge shift
Favorability: Clinton was a very disliked candidate, at only 42% favorable and a whopping 53% unfavorable. It's completely shifted: Biden is well liked at 53% favorable vs 41% unfavorable
Honesty/Trustworthiness: Where Clinton and Trump's trustworthiness among likely voters was at 41% & 45% respectively, Biden and Trump are at 58% & 33%, another huge difference
Trust to handle nation's biggest problem: Republicans were more trusted to handle the country's problems by 4 pts, 42% to 38% for Dems in 2016, while now it's shifted to 47% for Dems & 39% for Reps
National Lead: At this point in 2016, Clinton's lead over Trump was just 6 pts, at only 46%. Biden is up over the highly desired 50% mark at 52% compared to 42% for Trump
So that means at this point in 2016, Trump was at 40. In theory he's more well-liked now. That's disturbing. Four years ago, I knew he was unqualified and completely nuts. But I kinda get why people wanted to roll the dice on him (I mean, I thought it was crazy, but we didn't know nearly what we know now). Now? After the last four years, he's holding steady; well liked by nearly half of Americans. That's amazing and depressing.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
National Lead: At this point in 2016, Clinton's lead over Trump was just 6 pts, at only 46%. Biden is up over the highly desired 50% mark at 52% compared to 42% for Trump
So that means at this point in 2016, Trump was at 40. In theory he's more well-liked now. That's disturbing. Four years ago, I knew he was unqualified and completely nuts. But I kinda get why people wanted to roll the dice on him (I mean, I thought it was crazy, but we didn't know nearly what we know now). Now? After the last four years, he's holding steady; well liked by nearly half of Americans. That's amazing and depressing.
He consolidated the party. But the trustworthy number is a huge negative on him. 33%??? Jesus even if that's wrong by 5 points it's still awful, awful.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,070
National Lead: At this point in 2016, Clinton's lead over Trump was just 6 pts, at only 46%. Biden is up over the highly desired 50% mark at 52% compared to 42% for Trump
So that means at this point in 2016, Trump was at 40. In theory he's more well-liked now. That's disturbing. Four years ago, I knew he was unqualified and completely nuts. But I kinda get why people wanted to roll the dice on him (I mean, I thought it was crazy, but we didn't know nearly what we know now). Now? After the last four years, he's holding steady; well liked by nearly half of Americans. That's amazing and depressing.
I find that to be depressing as well. The idea that million, MILLIONS of Americans still support that man, that are that stupid, that deceived, that foolish... it's sickening.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
National Lead: At this point in 2016, Clinton's lead over Trump was just 6 pts, at only 46%. Biden is up over the highly desired 50% mark at 52% compared to 42% for Trump
So that means at this point in 2016, Trump was at 40. In theory he's more well-liked now. That's disturbing. Four years ago, I knew he was unqualified and completely nuts. But I kinda get why people wanted to roll the dice on him (I mean, I thought it was crazy, but we didn't know nearly what we know now). Now? After the last four years, he's holding steady; well liked by nearly half of Americans. That's amazing and depressing.
He consolidated the party. But the trustworthy number is a huge negative on him. 33%??? Jesus even if that's wrong by 5 points it's still awful, awful.
Yeah...I cherry-picked the worst one...I'll comment on each...
National Lead: At this point in 2016, Clinton's lead over Trump was just 6 pts, at only 46%. Biden is up over the highly desired 50% mark at 52% compared to 42% for Trump
White & Non-College Whites: Biden has eaten a massive amount into Trump's hold with white voters (Trump won whites by 18 pts in 2016, now he's up only 2 pts) & non-college whites (Trump won by 30 pts in 2016, now down to 18 pts)
Ohio and Iowa: Trump blew out Clinton and won these by 8 & 9 pts respectively in 2016, Biden is now leading 1 & 2 pts respectively, a huge shift
Favorability: Clinton was a very disliked candidate, at only 42% favorable and a whopping 53% unfavorable. It's completely shifted: Biden is well liked at 53% favorable vs 41% unfavorable
Honesty/Trustworthiness: Where Clinton and Trump's trustworthiness among likely voters was at 41% & 45% respectively, Biden and Trump are at 58% & 33%, another huge difference
Trust to handle nation's biggest problem: Republicans were more trusted to handle the country's problems by 4 pts, 42% to 38% for Dems in 2016, while now it's shifted to 47% for Dems & 39% for Reps
Better lead than last time but that 42% for Trump is really is disheartening.
It's good to see white voters closer but still a tough pill for me to swallow that they overall support him. The non-college whites part is fascinating...the devotion to an Ivy League - educated billionaire that's never mowed a lawn.
Good to see that Biden has a shot in a couple Trump states (in theory; I still think turnout alone keeps those states for Trump, and that's without voter suppression and other shenanigans).
Not a surprise. Hillary had been hated since the day her husband became a household name. A couple of years ago I thought this could be the difference in 2020 (But now I think suppression and blatant cheating will be)
Fascinating. I'm not really surprised at the Biden/Hillary difference. Hillary was just so hated for so long. But, again in theory, about 20% of Trump's supporters do not find him to be trustworthy. "He's not trustworthy, but that pisses the libs off even more!"
This shift makes sense, since the GOP has mis-handled the biggest problem we've had in my memory..
All good stuff (though not as good as it ought to be; given that it shows a critical mass of support for a wannabe dictator). I just hope the complacency of 2016 doesn't repeat itself and that the Party of Trump hasn't already gotten this thing rigged.
Post edited by OnWis97 on
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all.
But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.
RBG said she would have retired had there not been a filibuster and Obama would have been allowed to seat her replacement without being blocked by 41 republicans.
The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.
Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.
Two seats stolen.
Two.
unfortunately, blame the constitution. was it illegal? nope. was it unethical? arguable. but the republicans did what they were allowed to do under the law.
zero seats were stolen.
it sucks when it isn't "our/your" side, but it doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal. mitch mcconell is a rat. but he's smart, and he has no qualms about doing anything under the sun that he's legally allowed to do to tip the scales to the red.
if democrats stack the court, will you call those new seats stolen? or will you justify it because "well the republicans did it first"?
I definitely agree, but the context was Cincy’s comment; in fact it is a manipulation of rules so each side plays by different ones
It’s possible the country is about to drastically change, possibly 52 states, 104 senators and 12 or more court justices. I am all for that. But the need for that is a result of the mass manipulations we have seen the past ten years.
Which is necessitated by one side always changing the rules to gain unfair advantage, whether it be manipulating voting rights, closing polling places, redrawing congressional districts so the Dems are all in only one of them, using the filibuster to block a pick then deny its use to the other side. Whether we call all that “theft” or something else, perhaps you have a better word. Manipulation? Lack of order?
But the Dems problem is they try to play by “the rules” while republicans slash and burn them to their benefit. Let’s hope the Dems are willing to join this game and fight fire with fire.
let's get the verbiage right though. republicans are playing by the rules. they haven't broken any of them. there are simply "unwritten" rules that everyone seemed to agree to play by in the past. and republicans have stopped doing that. democrats needs to step up and start the same.
that I do not agree with. Actually that bolder part is a false statement.The rules are written and have been applicable for a long time. The fact is McConnell changed them . Every Justice was subject to the 60 vote test since 1805, except the 3 nominated by trump. Changing the rules to only benefit yourself but to punish the other side is not playing by the rules.
If the Dodgers were to “buy” the commissioners office, and change the strikeout rule to 2 strikes for opponents of teams in LA and beginning with the letter D and then go on to win the World Series, would everyone agree the Dodgers are “playing by the rules?”
Comments
Are you day drinking?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.
Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.
Two.
I hope they remain in the minority, M, but it sure looks like they are increasing in numbers. Maybe it's just because they are so loud and obnoxious. But when I look at many other countries and and then look at what has happened here, I have a hard time feeling connected to ours. I hope that changes by next year.
zero seats were stolen.
it sucks when it isn't "our/your" side, but it doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal. mitch mcconell is a rat. but he's smart, and he has no qualms about doing anything under the sun that he's legally allowed to do to tip the scales to the red.
if democrats stack the court, will you call those new seats stolen? or will you justify it because "well the republicans did it first"?
-EV 8/14/93
And I do think the Dems are justified in "packing" the court, if you want to call it that, as a result of the bad faith efforts by the Republicans.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Which is necessitated by one side always changing the rules to gain unfair advantage, whether it be manipulating voting rights, closing polling places, redrawing congressional districts so the Dems are all in only one of them, using the filibuster to block a pick then deny its use to the other side. Whether we call all that “theft” or something else, perhaps you have a better word. Manipulation? Lack of order?
But the Dems problem is they try to play by “the rules” while republicans slash and burn them to their benefit. Let’s hope the Dems are willing to join this game and fight fire with fire.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
-EV 8/14/93
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
-EV 8/14/93
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Yes give us your $$$ and if you don’t give enough you suck lol
at any rate, get out and vote!!
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I find that to be depressing as well. The idea that million, MILLIONS of Americans still support that man, that are that stupid, that deceived, that foolish... it's sickening.
Yeah...I cherry-picked the worst one...I'll comment on each...
-
Better lead than last time but that 42% for Trump is really is disheartening.
- It's good to see white voters closer but still a tough pill for me to swallow that they overall support him. The non-college whites part is fascinating...the devotion to an Ivy League - educated billionaire that's never mowed a lawn.
- Good to see that Biden has a shot in a couple Trump states (in theory; I still think turnout alone keeps those states for Trump, and that's without voter suppression and other shenanigans).
- Not a surprise. Hillary had been hated since the day her husband became a household name. A couple of years ago I thought this could be the difference in 2020 (But now I think suppression and blatant cheating will be)
- Fascinating. I'm not really surprised at the Biden/Hillary difference. Hillary was just so hated for so long. But, again in theory, about 20% of Trump's supporters do not find him to be trustworthy. "He's not trustworthy, but that pisses the libs off even more!"
- This shift makes sense, since the GOP has mis-handled the biggest problem we've had in my memory..
All good stuff (though not as good as it ought to be; given that it shows a critical mass of support for a wannabe dictator). I just hope the complacency of 2016 doesn't repeat itself and that the Party of Trump hasn't already gotten this thing rigged.2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
that I do not agree with. Actually that bolder part is a false statement.The rules are written and have been applicable for a long time. The fact is McConnell changed them . Every Justice was subject to the 60 vote test since 1805, except the 3 nominated by trump. Changing the rules to only benefit yourself but to punish the other side is not playing by the rules.
If the Dodgers were to “buy” the commissioners office, and change the strikeout rule to 2 strikes for opponents of teams in LA and beginning with the letter D and then go on to win the World Series, would everyone agree the Dodgers are “playing by the rules?”