NationStates

Tranzoria wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Yeah, Trump might like to troll, but he is not going to appoint someone who is not a lawyer and experienced judge.
Although if he wanted to play it really smart but dirty, pick someone who is say an Asian, then play the rescue card.
Smart politics even if bad policy to pick based on race.

Which can cause lot's of problems but.....it's politics. To dig for gold you gotta get dirty.

Amul Thapar is the best choice if you want to use it as political bludgeon.
Again not saying it is morally right to play that, but morality will not get you far in politics.

Greater Miami Shores wrote:

Xmara wrote:We really need more people who can say "I may disagree with you but I will still show you respect." Seems like more and more people are rejecting that idea in favor of "if you don't agree with me then you're literally Hitler."

There are also many persons who are rejecting the idea in favor of, if you don't agree with me you are wrong and I am right, and there is no arguing about it.

Take your canned answers elsewhere.

Novus America wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Amy Barrett is the safe bet imo. Replace a woman with a woman etc etc, optically it's a good move and she's about as hard right as you can be.

True but Amul Thapar would be a politically brilliant choice. Not a woman, but very conservative and a sone of Indian immigrants from Michigan with a childhood dream of being on the court, despite his parents thinking it impossible.
I mean you could really play that hard for some cheap political points.

Dirty politics as it may be, honestly that is what I would do if I were him.

A Minority doing Dirty Politics will get him pushed off politics. It's just so strange to many people.
What is wrong with our society today...

Xmara wrote:

State of Turelisa wrote:


I believe contempt and hatred, which are fostered by enimity, are truly 'weak' qualities.' It's easy to give into sin, and, burning with these emotions, derive a false sense of virility from them. 'Great men' who are driven by hatred are weak, angry little men who don't understand their deranged emotions are a poor imitation of strength.

We 'weak, pathetic' Christians respect all people, even people who regard themselves as our 'enemies'- people who are against what we stand for and we believe in. Because what we believe in is to respect people.
Only God has the right to condemn, since we are all under his judgment.

This

This is what Christianity is about. It’s unfortunate that some have lost sight of that idea.

Another person I like.
Even though you may not know what it means, Shanah Tovah.

State of Turelisa wrote:

Kazarogkai wrote:No, that's respect. It's honoring the Woman who held on to the rights we owned and now she is gone.

Only the weak and the pathetic respect their enemies and wish not for their eventual downfall. When you enemy is no longer capable of facing you no matter the circumstance that is a victory and should be treated accordingly. If Stalin were to have died in Moscow would Hitler have lamented? would he have cried? Would he feel in anyway sympathetic? No, Like a proper Great Man he would have pissed on his grave(Figuratively or literally) savoring what he had achieved against his enemy and move on quietly to the next. Vice versa would have held true for the opposite.

Great men seek to destroy the legacies of their enemies, not uphold let alone "respect" them in any measurable way.

I believe contempt and hatred, which are fostered by enimity, are truly 'weak' qualities.' It's easy to give into sin, and, burning with these emotions, derive a false sense of virility from them. 'Great men' who are driven by hatred are weak, angry little men who don't understand their deranged emotions are a poor imitation of strength.

We 'weak, pathetic' Christians respect all people, even people who regard themselves as our 'enemies'- people who are against what we stand for and we believe in. Because what we believe in is to respect people.
Only God has the right to condemn, since we are all under his judgment.

I absolutely agree with the bolded statements we always need to show respect to other people.

San Lumen wrote:

Greater Miami Shores wrote:There are also many persons who are rejecting the idea in favor of, if you don't agree with me you are wrong and I am right, and there is no arguing about it.

Take your canned answers elsewhere.

He means the good way, not bad one.

Novus America wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Amy Barrett is the safe bet imo. Replace a woman with a woman etc etc, optically it's a good move and she's about as hard right as you can be.

True but Amul Thapar would be a politically brilliant choice. Not a woman, but very conservative and a son of Indian immigrants from Michigan with a childhood dream of being on the court, despite his parents thinking it impossible.
I mean you could really play that hard for some cheap political points.

Dirty politics as it may be, honestly that is what I would do if I were him.

Thapar would be very good too yeah.

Honestly no matter which way you spin this it's a massive, truly massive, victory for the GOP and the right. RBG should have retired back in 2012, because she might have doomed a lot of the causes she supported.

Tranzoria wrote:

Novus America wrote:

True but Amul Thapar would be a politically brilliant choice. Not a woman, but very conservative and a sone of Indian immigrants from Michigan with a childhood dream of being on the court, despite his parents thinking it impossible.
I mean you could really play that hard for some cheap political points.

Dirty politics as it may be, honestly that is what I would do if I were him.

A Minority doing Dirty Politics will get him pushed off politics. It's just so strange to many people.
What is wrong with our society today...

Xmara wrote:This

This is what Christianity is about. It’s unfortunate that some have lost sight of that idea.

Another person I like.
Even though you may not know what it means, Shanah Tovah.

Well it would be Trump (or for deniability PACs) doing the politics, not Amul Thapar himself, who is fully qualified and would be a good choice anyways. He is also a close associate of Mitch.

Using his nomination as a political bludgeon to score points in Michigan and to cast the Democrats as hurting a poor son of immigrants from achieving his dream and becoming the first Asian on the court and all would be the dirty part, not picking him.

Doing that and swapping Pence for Haley would be a brilliant political move, even if playing ugly identity politics.

San Lumen wrote:

Greater Miami Shores wrote:There are also many persons who are rejecting the idea in favor of, if you don't agree with me you are wrong and I am right, and there is no arguing about it.

Take your canned answers elsewhere.

You mean Facts, you don't wish to hear, I have been very respectful to RBG on this thread, and I have strongly condemned my fellow right wingers for disrespecting RBG on this thread, she is now with God the Lord, according to my religious views as I have posted about on NS a few times.

Greater Miami Shores wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Take your canned answers elsewhere.

You mean Facts, you don't wish to hear, I have been very respectful to RBG on this thread, and I have strongly condemned my fellow right wingers for disrespecting RBG on this thread, she is now with God the Lord, according to my religious views as I have posted about on NS a few times.

GMS, he just didn't understand what you meant, it's okay.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Novus America wrote:

True but Amul Thapar would be a politically brilliant choice. Not a woman, but very conservative and a son of Indian immigrants from Michigan with a childhood dream of being on the court, despite his parents thinking it impossible.
I mean you could really play that hard for some cheap political points.

Dirty politics as it may be, honestly that is what I would do if I were him.

Thapar would be very good too yeah.

Honestly no matter which way you spin this it's a massive, truly massive, victory for the GOP and the right. RBG should have retired back in 2012, because she might have doomed a lot of the causes she supported.

Tbh, it’s a bit disgusting to consider her death a “victory”.

San Lumen wrote:

Greater Miami Shores wrote:There are also many persons who are rejecting the idea in favor of, if you don't agree with me you are wrong and I am right, and there is no arguing about it.

Take your canned answers elsewhere.

Cut him some slack. I sometimes get tired of how repetitive he is, but in this thread, his posts have been appropriate.

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Thapar would be very good too yeah.

Honestly no matter which way you spin this it's a massive, truly massive, victory for the GOP and the right. RBG should have retired back in 2012, because she might have doomed a lot of the causes she supported.

Tbh, it’s a bit disgusting to consider her death a “victory”.

Politics is disgusting, welcome to the real world.

Tranzoria wrote:

Greater Miami Shores wrote:You mean Facts, you don't wish to hear, I have been very respectful to RBG on this thread, and I have strongly condemned my fellow right wingers for disrespecting RBG on this thread, she is now with God the Lord, according to my religious views as I have posted about on NS a few times.

GMS, he just didn't understand what you meant, it's okay.

Thank you, but S L and I know each other very well on NS, S L did understand, I keep posting I respect all of my fellow nations rights to think differently than I do and post it too me, it is called Democracy in America, the USA, many here don't do so towards me. This respect is given, it is not earned and it exists.

I will not respond any further to anyone on this side issue, back on topic. God Bless RBG.

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Thapar would be very good too yeah.

Honestly no matter which way you spin this it's a massive, truly massive, victory for the GOP and the right. RBG should have retired back in 2012, because she might have doomed a lot of the causes she supported.

Tbh, it’s a bit disgusting to consider her death a “victory”.

TBF WRA is not a Republican at all. He is saying it is a political victory for a party he does not even like.
Sure using a death for political gain is gross (he is not doing that, just saying (correctly) it will be done) but politics is disgusting unfortunately.

If we are trying to make a realistic assessment of the political implications, unfortunately it will require talking about the disgusting nature of politics.

Saying kind words of condolences and praise are good, but we cannot ignore the political implications.
Regardless of whether or not we think it should be politicized, it is.

If we are trying to determine the political games that are going to be played here, we have to think about what is likely to happen, not what morally or ethically should happen, as those are going to be completely different things.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Tbh, it’s a bit disgusting to consider her death a “victory”.

Politics is disgusting, welcome to the real world.

I’m well aware of the real world and have been living in it for quite some time, thank you.

Collins is going to be an interesting one to watch. She's shaping up to lose in November so she has no reason not to go balls to the walls and help ram through a nomination.

From Townhall according to many Leftists on NS an un reliable, always biased, garbage, trash and a rag source, a few excerpts on RBG:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the four liberal justices on the Supreme Court, sided with her conservative colleagues on Monday over a prisoner's supervisory release. She joined Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh in the majority

Her vote was swapped with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan in their dissent.

Justice Thomas delivered the Court's opinion.

Today they managed to find an issue on which they have common ground.

GMS: It also mentions an abortion related case where they strongly disagreed.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyob ... s-n2547312

But according to them, their leftist sources are never biased, garbage, trash and a rag.

Necroghastia wrote:hitler was the very definition of weak and pathetic lmfao
"Great Man"
This day has sucked for me but damn that's giggle worthy.

Great is defined entirely by ones power over humanity and by extension their lasting effects. The morality of ones actions have little bearing on ones place in the course of history, only whether you affected that course. Hence by all definitions Hitler along with Stalin, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Timer, Napoleon, etc regardless of whether you like them are not were Great Men whose effects continue to be felt to varying levels into the modern era.

At their deaths they became immortal, will the same be said for you?

Kazarogkai wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:hitler was the very definition of weak and pathetic lmfao
"Great Man"
This day has sucked for me but damn that's giggle worthy.

Great is defined entirely by ones power over humanity and by extension their lasting effects. The morality of ones actions have little bearing on ones place in the course of history, only whether you affected that course. Hence by all definitions Hitler along with Stalin, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Timer, Napoleon, etc regardless of whether you like them are not were Great Men whose effects continue to be felt to varying levels into the modern era.

At their deaths they became immortal, will the same be said for you?

I too was 14 once.

Kazarogkai wrote:Great is defined entirely by ones power over humanity and by extension their lasting effects. The morality of ones actions have little bearing on ones place in the course of history, only whether you affected that course. Hence by all definitions Hitler along with Stalin, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Timer, Napoleon, etc regardless of whether you like them are not were Great Men whose effects continue to be felt to varying levels into the modern era.

At their deaths they became immortal, will the same be said for you?

Right, Hitler is eternally known as one of the most evil men in the course of 5,000 years of human civilization. I don't think I want to be known like Hitler.

Kazarogkai wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:hitler was the very definition of weak and pathetic lmfao
"Great Man"
This day has sucked for me but damn that's giggle worthy.

Great is defined entirely by ones power over humanity and by extension their lasting effects. The morality of ones actions have little bearing on ones place in the course of history, only whether you affected that course. Hence by all definitions Hitler along with Stalin, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Timer, Napoleon, etc regardless of whether you like them are not were Great Men whose effects continue to be felt to varying levels into the modern era.

At their deaths they became immortal, will the same be said for you?

Immortal?
Who will remember them when man is scoured from the earth?
Who will sing the praises of the Great Man when the sky has gone cold and dark?

The first person to discover fire had a greater impact on history than any of the people you mentioned, yet who remembers their name now?
What good is it to build a legacy when that legacy is erased by the sands of time?
Such is the fate of all men, Great or not.



(Also from a historical perspective, GMT is bullshit)

Tarsonis wrote:Well things just got interesting

You’re actually going to do it arn’t you?

May the Notorious RBG Rest in Power.

Kowani wrote:So, in the absence of an official source, which I will be updating as soon as I can, Senators Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney have committed to not confirming a SCOTUS nominee until inagauration day.

Regarding Murkowski, her statement came out as a hypothetical before RBG's death was public afaik. It's very possible a combination of McConnell's politicking and the realization voting no would end her career could get her to fall in line.

Plus, even if Romney, Murkowski and Collins all voted no (something I find doubtful with the latter two), that'd be a 50-50 split and the GOP still wins via Pence.

Also, man, Harry Reid is officially the worst Senate strategist in history