World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Ack]

Yeah, and Boehner effectively was pushed out of politics as a result of trying to take the high road. One needed only look to McConnell to see where the GOP was really trying to go.

Yeah, which was a sad day. I expect eventually the Freedom Caucus will lose out, but its had a lot of influence lately that I'm not thrilled about, particularly its inability to compromise. But despite how nasty the rhetoric has gotten, I'm glad we at least in the past saw candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney running for the presidency on the GOP ticket, even if their running mates(well...mostly Palin) certainly didn't inspire the love of the nation.

[marurun]

As for McConnell... well, despite what he may say, he's rarely dug in his heels until recently with the Supreme Court pick. I think they played that whole thing rather poorly, however, even if I found the final result advantageous. (And turnabout is fair play, and I have no doubts the same thing will happen when the Democrats are in the same position.)

The other stuff I'll have to address at a time I'm not worried about foaming at the mouth while trying to form a coherent thought. This, however... I consider the Republican-controlled congress's stonewalling of Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court to be a contravention of their constitutional duty. I think it was, strictly speaking, illegal. It was an inappropriate and illegal wresting of control. Doing so compromised the makeup of the court for over a year and effectively opened the door for a collapse of all nominations when the senate and president are of opposing parties. By setting that precedent, a future senate can effectively shut down all nominations until they see fit.

[marurun]

it's nothing like the vigor with which Pres. Trump is getting hit with

I agree with you, but I'm not gonna get into it here. This forum generally leans hard left, and that's fine. But as a moderate I find the bias to become quickly exhausting.

I find this hilarious for all the wrong-est reasons. All of it.

[Exhuminator]

I find this hilarious for all the wrong-est reasons. All of it.

Of course you do.

[prfsnl_gmr]

To be fair, however, our current POTUS is running his administration like a complete buffoon. If he actually displayed even a scintilla of his "legendary" business acumen, he probably wouldn't be subject to as much criticism. He would get some, undoubtedly, but the ham-fisted way he is running his administration right now are making it increasingly clear that he really, really doesn't know either what he's doing or how to manage an organization.

As someone who used to make a lot of deals, it is also becoming clear that he is an absolutely horrible negotiator.

[MrPopo]

Right, it's not just that he's only getting flak from the other side because he's doing things the other side doesn't like; every leader in history has to deal with that. He's making Nixon look like a mastermind on the level of Grand Admiral Thrawn.

[Sarge]

The other stuff I'll have to address at a time I'm not worried about foaming at the mouth while trying to form a coherent thought. This, however... I consider the Republican-controlled congress's stonewalling of Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court to be a contravention of their constitutional duty. I think it was, strictly speaking, illegal. It was an inappropriate and illegal wresting of control. Doing so compromised the makeup of the court for over a year and effectively opened the door for a collapse of all nominations when the senate and president are of opposing parties. By setting that precedent, a future senate can effectively shut down all nominations until they see fit.

The mistake the Republicans made, at least from a PR standpoint, was in not giving hearings or a vote, but they are not Constitutionally obligated to, either.

"[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court."

There's nothing really there that says anything about actually confirming (or even considering) said judges, and no mechanism in place to compel them to do so. I do think the Republicans should have had hearings, and simply rejected Judge Garland on a vote, assuming it came to that. Instead, they took a page from Joe Biden's suggestion years ago.

Perhaps just as interesting was the judicial filibuster, something that is rather recent in history. The whole deal kinda snowballed, and I think it could have been handled much more effectively on both sides of the equation.

Make sure to hold my feet to the fire on this when this happens in the future. My argument shouldn't change when the shoe is on the other foot, and if it does, you have permission to light me up for it.

[marurun]

What it means to be moderate in America:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53277240#intro

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... nt/370904/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... -it-seems/

Different things, apparently. And more people identify as moderate than probably actually are. Though it does seem that being a centrist is mostly, if not completely, extinct.

[marurun]

"[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court."

There's nothing really there that says anything about actually confirming (or even considering) said judges, and no mechanism in place to compel them to do so. I do think the Republicans should have had hearings, and simply rejected Judge Garland on a vote, assuming it came to that.

The way I read that is that if the Senate declines to even hold hearings they have waived their right to advise and consent. I think Obama should have appointed Garland in the absence of Senate participation. Let it go through the courts and see how they interpret it. Unfortunately, Obama was feeling less combative than I would likely have.

[Sarge]

That NBC chart is interesting. That puts me as a mix of "Talk Radio Head" and "Righteous Right", with perhaps some different weightings involved. My biggest divergence was on the sports question. I like pro basketball! I don't care much about college football!

I would never dub myself a moderate, although I do make significant attempts to read points of view that do not align with my own. You probably feel the same way. It helps to take the edges off, so I don't go completely off into hyper-partisan land, and it helps me to think about what I believe more seriously, and how I defend it.

There's no question this last election has had me question some things I've long thought true. It's a weird feeling to have a "Republican" in the White House yet somehow still feel like I'm "in the wilderness".