Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
An interesting idea. Were my feelings hurt when Republicans refused to consider Garland? I wonder what specific feelings people making this claim have in mind?
This feelings issue is interesting. Did Republicans deny Judge Garland a hearing because they were feeling mean that day? Were they bullying him? Were they hoping for tears from Judge Garland? Or were the issues involved more serious than Republican trivializers seemed to think?
It seems the Dems were angry last year and they are still angry.
Which is it? Are we angry? Or are our feelings hurt? And I have to ask, why does either one matter when something as important as a Supreme Court nomination is at issue? Is the attention paid to these emotions an effort to deflect attention from the real and serious issues at stake?
Sean, I disagree. It is politics, not personal. I agree that the Dems should disapprove of what the GOP did last year, but to be angry and working for revenge by doing something similar seems totally unprofessional.
Hiram, Actually anger is often the result of feeling a combination of different feelings. For instance the Dems may have felt powerless and frustrated last year, which led to anger.
This year they may be feeling resentment, fear and powerlessness which is leading to anger.
"I agree that the Dems should disapprove of what the GOP did last year, but to be angry and working for revenge by doing something similar seems totally unprofessional."
When the other side keeps breaking the norms and winning, you can either fight fire with fire or keep losing.
Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland -- a widely-respected moderate who would have been the oldest judge appointed to the Supreme Court in over 40 years. Senate Republicans didn't even give the man a hearing, much less take a vote on him.
So Democrats at the very least should force Mitch McConnell to take the political hit for blowing up the filibuster if he wants to put a 49-year-old Scalia clone on the Court instead.
I don't see anything joyful about the process. And the real problem is that Democrats regard Trump as an illegitimate president who should not be allowed to make appointments that extend beyond his term of office.
Republicans argued fiercely during the last year of the Obama presidency that the American people should have a voice in the choice of the next Supreme Court justice. I think there is actually some merit in that argument because in recent years the Court has become very political, engaging in a lot of policy issues. So the fact is, the choice of the American people was Hillary Clinton and so by the Republicans's own mederately persuasive argument, Judge Gorsuch should not be confirmed.
It's already been escalated. Democrats are participating in the Gorsuch hearings -- something Republicans didn't allow for Garland. And it's not "retaliation" to use the Senate rules as they are designed to be used.
And as soon as collusion is proven, that may be an issue.
However do you really think that some leaked Dem emails changed the outcome of the election?
I just don't see it. I think the Dems got so focused on the urban poor/minorities, wealth transfer and idealistic concepts that they forgot about all the basic things... (ie good jobs for the working class)
As I say, I would have loved to not vote for Trump... But Clinton went far left chasing Sanders voters... And I think we have had quite enough of that...
It's fascinating that you're attacking Dems for their behavior now, but supported Republicans' behavior a year ago. The "moderate" con job exposed again...
However do you really think that some leaked Dem emails changed the outcome of the election?
I don't think that is part of the elements of a treason charge. But it does seem to be worth investigating, and it does seem to me to be inappropriate to allow Trump to nominate Supreme Court justices until the investigations are completed.
Let's recall that Republican did not even grant Judge Garland a hearing despite the fact that the legitimacy of Mr. Obama's presidency was undisputed.
Sean, Here were some of our Garland comments from a year ago. I am pretty sure I did not support the GOP delaying the hearings / vote.
And I don't have anything against the Dems turning down Gorsuch if they truly disapprove of his qualifications. I just ask that they not let unrelated politics and history cloud their judgement.
Hiram, Good point. If Trump committed treason, that would make him not fit for the post he was elected to. But it does not invalidate the votes or the result. It just means Trump would hopefully be tossed in jail and Pence would take over.
In my view the Russians did nothing that changed the vote tally. All they did was leak some emails. The voters still made the choice of their own free will.
Of course this does not matter unless someone can link Trump which will be very difficult. Just think of Christie and bridge gate...
In my view the Russians did nothing that changed the vote tally.
That's not something we can know now. My guess is that releasing the emails did affect the vote tally, but that's just a guess. During the campaign, Trump seemed to think it would which is why he asked them to do it.
"I am fine with the Senate tossing him on his not supporting the 2nd amendment. Most voters like with me will be fine with it also. So I agree, let's schedule the hearing !!!"
It seemed to me that there was more than just politics involved in the resistance to Garland.
If the Dems want to try to bounce Gorsuch for solid grounds. I am fine with that also.
But to bounce him because of what happened with Garland is what I am against.
"There was a lot of political bluster but no real consequences."
Tell that to the millions of people who will lose their health insurance.
The consequences are that Hillary lost, likely in part due to all the trumped up nonsense against her. So, the consequences of it will fall on the backs of a great many Americans.
So you think Clinton lost because of Benghazi, her email server choices and DEM email releases?
As I said above...
I just don't see it... I think the Dems got so focused on the urban poor/minorities, wealth transfer and idealistic concepts that they forgot about all the basic things... (ie good jobs for the working class)
As I say, I would have loved to not vote for Trump... But Clinton went far left chasing Sanders voters... And I think we have had quite enough of that...
"So you think Clinton lost because of Benghazi, her email server choices and DEM email releases?"
If you go back and look at the tracking polls, the gap began to close after Comey's October letter -- which proved to be a nothingburger. Yet, Comey had nothing to say publicly about the investigation of Trump-Russia which had been underway since July.
To deny that chain of events wasn't one factor in the Clinton loss is foolish.
Anonymoose, Since most of the failing schools are in the urban areas that vote for Dems, I don't even know where to go with that?
Sean, I guess my point is that the Clinton voters called all of that noise a non-issue. (ie just GOP attacking like usual) I find it hard to believe the Clinton voters gave credibility to any of that.
I'm not interested in going round after round where you repeat the same nonsense that you believe is so brilliant but is really only a way for you to explain how much better you think you are than 'those' people who've not lived up to your standards.
You are bad at this in that you always come back to the same talking points. Instead of these conversations and arguments leading you to a new thought, you somehow lead yourself right back around to where you've always been.
And you ask other people to change and grow so they can be 'deserving' of living in the greatest country on the planet, all while not changing a single thing about your own ideas.
So instead of those other people changing in order to please your sense of fairness, perhaps it's time to reevaluate your own personal sense of what's fair. In other words: start with yourself.
Always wonder about this correlation causation thing people talk about. we depend much more on correlation than causation. We don't, for example, know why cigarette smoking causes cancer, but we do know that there is one, which is why all the packs have warnings.
You know, things like science and the scientific methods which help us understand causation have only been in existence for a few hundred years, and as any scientist would tell you even now there is a lot more we don't know than we do, yet somehow humanity has managed to bumble it's way into the 21st century while merrily correlating stuff all along the way.
Yes and relying on correlation has led to some real bad errors.
Sure, there are landing strip cults out there. But what else are we going to rely on? It's not as if there is very much out there we know the cause of.
An interesting idea. Were my feelings hurt when Republicans refused to consider Garland? I wonder what specific feelings people making this claim have in mind?
ReplyDelete--Hiram
This feelings issue is interesting. Did Republicans deny Judge Garland a hearing because they were feeling mean that day? Were they bullying him? Were they hoping for tears from Judge Garland? Or were the issues involved more serious than Republican trivializers seemed to think?
ReplyDeleteAny thoughts?
--Hiram
The GOP took a chance and won their bet. I assume they feel pretty happy today, and were quite anxious when it looked like Clinton would win.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the Dems were angry last year and they are still angry.
"It seems the Dems were angry last year and they are still angry."
ReplyDeleteAnd with good reason.
It seems the Dems were angry last year and they are still angry.
ReplyDeleteWhich is it? Are we angry? Or are our feelings hurt? And I have to ask, why does either one matter when something as important as a Supreme Court nomination is at issue? Is the attention paid to these emotions an effort to deflect attention from the real and serious issues at stake?
--Hiram
Sean,
ReplyDeleteI disagree. It is politics, not personal. I agree that the Dems should disapprove of what the GOP did last year, but to be angry and working for revenge by doing something similar seems totally unprofessional.
Hiram,
Actually anger is often the result of feeling a combination of different feelings. For instance the Dems may have felt powerless and frustrated last year, which led to anger.
This year they may be feeling resentment, fear and powerlessness which is leading to anger.
"I agree that the Dems should disapprove of what the GOP did last year, but to be angry and working for revenge by doing something similar seems totally unprofessional."
ReplyDeleteWhen the other side keeps breaking the norms and winning, you can either fight fire with fire or keep losing.
Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland -- a widely-respected moderate who would have been the oldest judge appointed to the Supreme Court in over 40 years. Senate Republicans didn't even give the man a hearing, much less take a vote on him.
So Democrats at the very least should force Mitch McConnell to take the political hit for blowing up the filibuster if he wants to put a 49-year-old Scalia clone on the Court instead.
The joy of escalation and retaliation... No one wins, especially not the US citizens...
ReplyDeleteAt least let's hope someone feels better in the end... :-)
The joy of escalation and retaliation..
ReplyDeleteI don't see anything joyful about the process. And the real problem is that Democrats regard Trump as an illegitimate president who should not be allowed to make appointments that extend beyond his term of office.
Republicans argued fiercely during the last year of the Obama presidency that the American people should have a voice in the choice of the next Supreme Court justice. I think there is actually some merit in that argument because in recent years the Court has become very political, engaging in a lot of policy issues. So the fact is, the choice of the American people was Hillary Clinton and so by the Republicans's own mederately persuasive argument, Judge Gorsuch should not be confirmed.
--Hiram
Well there is little actual benefit in "escalation and retaliation", so I assume it must be making someone feel better.
ReplyDeleteAs for illegitimate President, that makes the Dems seem even more irrational since the rule of the game are very clear and well documented.
It's already been escalated. Democrats are participating in the Gorsuch hearings -- something Republicans didn't allow for Garland. And it's not "retaliation" to use the Senate rules as they are designed to be used.
ReplyDeleteUsing the rules is fine...
ReplyDeleteThe intent concerns me more.
Are they giving Gorsuch a fair rational hearing/vote or are they too vested in their emotions and politics?
"As for illegitimate President...the rule of the game are very clear and well documented."
ReplyDeleteThat's right. And collusion with Russia makes one decidedly illegitimate.
Anonymoose
"As for illegitimate President...the rule of the game are very clear and well documented."
ReplyDeleteOne of the rules is that presidents aren't supposed to commit treason. How is that one working out for Trump?
==Hiram
Excellent name !!!
ReplyDeleteAnd as soon as collusion is proven, that may be an issue.
However do you really think that some leaked Dem emails changed the outcome of the election?
I just don't see it. I think the Dems got so focused on the urban poor/minorities, wealth transfer and idealistic concepts that they forgot about all the basic things... (ie good jobs for the working class)
As I say, I would have loved to not vote for Trump... But Clinton went far left chasing Sanders voters... And I think we have had quite enough of that...
It's fascinating that you're attacking Dems for their behavior now, but supported Republicans' behavior a year ago. The "moderate" con job exposed again...
ReplyDeleteHowever do you really think that some leaked Dem emails changed the outcome of the election?
ReplyDeleteI don't think that is part of the elements of a treason charge. But it does seem to be worth investigating, and it does seem to me to be inappropriate to allow Trump to nominate Supreme Court justices until the investigations are completed.
Let's recall that Republican did not even grant Judge Garland a hearing despite the fact that the legitimacy of Mr. Obama's presidency was undisputed.
--Hiram
Sean,
ReplyDeleteHere were some of our Garland comments from a year ago. I am pretty sure I did not support the GOP delaying the hearings / vote.
And I don't have anything against the Dems turning down Gorsuch if they truly disapprove of his qualifications. I just ask that they not let unrelated politics and history cloud their judgement.
Hiram,
Good point. If Trump committed treason, that would make him not fit for the post he was elected to. But it does not invalidate the votes or the result. It just means Trump would hopefully be tossed in jail and Pence would take over.
If Trump committed treason, that would make him not fit for the post he was elected to. But it does not invalidate the votes or the result.
ReplyDeleteI have to ask, why wouldn't it? It seems obvious to me that it would.
--Hiram
In my view the Russians did nothing that changed the vote tally. All they did was leak some emails. The voters still made the choice of their own free will.
ReplyDeleteOf course this does not matter unless someone can link Trump which will be very difficult. Just think of Christie and bridge gate...
In my view the Russians did nothing that changed the vote tally.
ReplyDeleteThat's not something we can know now. My guess is that releasing the emails did affect the vote tally, but that's just a guess. During the campaign, Trump seemed to think it would which is why he asked them to do it.
--Hiram
"I am pretty sure I did not support the GOP delaying the hearings / vote."
ReplyDeleteYou literally said "No problems here" in reference to their behavior.
"Of course this does not matter unless someone can link Trump which will be very difficult. Just think of Christie and bridge gate..."
ReplyDeleteThat's hardly the standard that y'all applied to Hillary Clinton.
Sean,
ReplyDeleteI also said...
"I am fine with the Senate tossing him on his not supporting the 2nd amendment. Most voters like with me will be fine with it also. So I agree, let's schedule the hearing !!!"
It seemed to me that there was more than just politics involved in the resistance to Garland.
If the Dems want to try to bounce Gorsuch for solid grounds. I am fine with that also.
But to bounce him because of what happened with Garland is what I am against.
Actually it is the same as Clinton, please remember that she did not even go to trial. There was a lot of political bluster but no real consequences.
ReplyDeleteJust like today there is a lot of political bluster about Trump and no real consequences.
"There was a lot of political bluster but no real consequences."
ReplyDeleteTell that to the millions of people who will lose their health insurance.
The consequences are that Hillary lost, likely in part due to all the trumped up nonsense against her. So, the consequences of it will fall on the backs of a great many Americans.
Anonymoose
So you think Clinton lost because of Benghazi, her email server choices and DEM email releases?
ReplyDeleteAs I said above...
I just don't see it... I think the Dems got so focused on the urban poor/minorities, wealth transfer and idealistic concepts that they forgot about all the basic things... (ie good jobs for the working class)
As I say, I would have loved to not vote for Trump... But Clinton went far left chasing Sanders voters... And I think we have had quite enough of that...
I mean how else would you explain the unprecedented GOP power in the state and federal governments?
ReplyDeleteI mean if the Dems were strong and Clinton lost, then maybe you would have a point. But that is not the case.
"I mean how else would you explain the unprecedented GOP power in the state and federal governments?"
ReplyDeleteYou endlessly debate the state of our educational system. Do you really need to ask this question?
Anonymoose
...and the bill goes down in flames.
ReplyDeleteIt's amusing to watch people who hate government fail at governing.
Anonymoose
"So you think Clinton lost because of Benghazi, her email server choices and DEM email releases?"
ReplyDeleteIf you go back and look at the tracking polls, the gap began to close after Comey's October letter -- which proved to be a nothingburger. Yet, Comey had nothing to say publicly about the investigation of Trump-Russia which had been underway since July.
To deny that chain of events wasn't one factor in the Clinton loss is foolish.
Anonymoose,
ReplyDeleteSince most of the failing schools are in the urban areas that vote for Dems, I don't even know where to go with that?
Sean,
I guess my point is that the Clinton voters called all of that noise a non-issue. (ie just GOP attacking like usual) I find it hard to believe the Clinton voters gave credibility to any of that.
Even I did not care about it...
"Since most of the failing schools are in the urban areas that vote for Dems, I don't even know where to go with that?"
ReplyDeleteCorrelation =\= causation
You're really bad at this.
Anonymoose
I love Correlation vs Causation discussions. What is your point again?
ReplyDeleteInsulting me helps no one, and if you do it to another commentor I delete the comment...
Please make professional logical arguments.
To help you focus:
ReplyDelete"I mean how else would you explain the unprecedented GOP power in the state and federal governments?" G2A
"You endlessly debate the state of our educational system. Do you really need to ask this question?" Anonymoose
"Since most of the failing schools are in the urban areas that vote for Dems, I don't even know where to go with that?" G2A
"Correlation =\= causation" Anonymoose
"???" G2A
I'm not interested in going round after round where you repeat the same nonsense that you believe is so brilliant but is really only a way for you to explain how much better you think you are than 'those' people who've not lived up to your standards.
ReplyDeleteYou are bad at this in that you always come back to the same talking points. Instead of these conversations and arguments leading you to a new thought, you somehow lead yourself right back around to where you've always been.
And you ask other people to change and grow so they can be 'deserving' of living in the greatest country on the planet, all while not changing a single thing about your own ideas.
So instead of those other people changing in order to please your sense of fairness, perhaps it's time to reevaluate your own personal sense of what's fair. In other words: start with yourself.
Anonymoose
Always wonder about this correlation causation thing people talk about. we depend much more on correlation than causation. We don't, for example, know why cigarette smoking causes cancer, but we do know that there is one, which is why all the packs have warnings.
ReplyDeleteYou know, things like science and the scientific methods which help us understand causation have only been in existence for a few hundred years, and as any scientist would tell you even now there is a lot more we don't know than we do, yet somehow humanity has managed to bumble it's way into the 21st century while merrily correlating stuff all along the way.
--Hiram
Yes and relying on correlation has led to some real bad errors... Remember that blood letting was popular at one time.
ReplyDeleteYes and relying on correlation has led to some real bad errors.
ReplyDeleteSure, there are landing strip cults out there. But what else are we going to rely on? It's not as if there is very much out there we know the cause of.
--Hiram
Hiram,
ReplyDeleteSometimes your answer leave me wondering... :-)