Trump MAGAthread VII

[Valrifell]

Still no word on if Republicans were even allowed to waive their constitutional duty in favor of partisan hackery. They are required to at least hear the president out on his nominee and then move to confirm or deny.

Not with Obama, though, don't even have to hear him out when the general election was still a ways out. Always ironic when the Party screeching about constitutionality disregards their duties given to them for political points.

[Michael Johnathan]

Joe Biden strikes again!

TIL "Nominate a candidate after the election is finished" = "Block a nominated candidate until the next president is sworn in"

But partisanship knows no reason. Or basic comprehension of any sort, really.

Oh that's cute. We're playing semantics.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Still no word on if Republicans were even allowed to waive their constitutional duty in favor of partisan hackery. They are required to at least hear the president out on his nominee and then move to confirm or deny.

Not with Obama, though, don't even have to hear him out when the general election was still a ways out. Always ironic when the Party screeching about constitutionality disregards their duties given to them for political points.

Are they actually required to at least hear POTUS out on a nominee?

Genuinely curious because I don't know the answer.

[Thermodolia]

The question is whether making the threats or acting on the threats is more terroristy.

Terroistic Threats is a felony, IIRC.

Yes but just going on that is very shaky and difficult to prove. Most courts will throw out the case if there's no action and only words

[Ism]

Ah yes, the evil Dems are coming "fer muh gunz". They're not, but it's a nice rallying cry I suppose.

Saying they're not when they have things like "assault weapons" bans written into their party platform doesn't really work, tbh.

Tsk tsk tsk, moving the goalposts is a no no. You didn't say "some of my guns", you said "all of my guns".

[Washington Resistance Army]

Saying they're not when they have things like "assault weapons" bans written into their party platform doesn't really work, tbh.

Tsk tsk tsk, moving the goalposts is a no no. You didn't say "some of my guns", you said "all of my guns".

I think maybe one of my guns wouldn't fit the Democrats idea of what's scary and should be banned.

[Thermodolia]

Tsk tsk tsk, moving the goalposts is a no no. You didn't say "some of my guns", you said "all of my guns".

I think maybe one of my guns wouldn't fit the Democrats idea of what's scary and should be banned.

Banning guns is dumb yo.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Tsk tsk tsk, moving the goalposts is a no no. You didn't say "some of my guns", you said "all of my guns".

I think maybe one of my guns wouldn't fit the Democrats idea of what's scary and should be banned.

You're implying that the Democrats have absolutely no sensible ideas for gun control, which is clearly false.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I think maybe one of my guns wouldn't fit the Democrats idea of what's scary and should be banned.

You're implying that the Democrats have absolutely no sensible ideas for gun control, which is clearly false.

They have exceedingly few sensible ideas on the topic.

[Thermodolia]

TIL "Nominate a candidate after the election is finished" = "Block a nominated candidate until the next president is sworn in"

But partisanship knows no reason. Or basic comprehension of any sort, really.

Oh that's cute. We're playing semantics.

No. Because A it didn't happen in the 90's and B he didn't argue for blocking an appointment and thus create the longest time in history where we didn't have a full court. Apples to oranges dude

[Michael Johnathan]

You're implying that the Democrats have absolutely no sensible ideas for gun control, which is clearly false.

They have exceedingly few sensible ideas on the topic.

I mean they're sensible in terms of showboating...

[Ism]

Tsk tsk tsk, moving the goalposts is a no no. You didn't say "some of my guns", you said "all of my guns".

I think maybe one of my guns wouldn't fit the Democrats idea of what's scary and should be banned.

I sincerely doubt that. Unless you openly carry them around.

[Conserative Morality]

Indeed, and that doesn't conflict at all with what I said.

>> crediting the largely apolitical and much less influential NRA of the 30s with the removal of the handgun compromise because that's what the NRA likes to pretend it's always been about

Okay, whatever you say. Jesus Christ.

Oh that's cute. We're playing semantics.

Oh? So the matter of a SCOTUS appointment is semantics now? The matter of literally stalling a nomination until their preferred candidate gets in power to quash that nomination is a fucking semantic issue? Are you fucking kidding me?

[Conserative Morality]

I think maybe one of my guns wouldn't fit the Democrats idea of what's scary and should be banned.

And the more you support organizations like the NRA, the more Dems will oppose gun control reform in the party. But sure. Do what riles up the base. Get your rocks off in the short term by supporting fucking nutters.

[Valrifell]

Still no word on if Republicans were even allowed to waive their constitutional duty in favor of partisan hackery. They are required to at least hear the president out on his nominee and then move to confirm or deny.

Not with Obama, though, don't even have to hear him out when the general election was still a ways out. Always ironic when the Party screeching about constitutionality disregards their duties given to them for political points.

Are they actually required to at least hear POTUS out on a nominee?

Genuinely curious because I don't know the answer.

Well, technically, the Senate makes it's own rules. However it's extremely rare for the Senate to not even consider a nominee and usually happens with the President in question being a lane duck. It's not completely without precedent, but it's still an extremely shitty thing to do for political points.

[Michael Johnathan]

Oh that's cute. We're playing semantics.

No. Because A it didn't happen in the 90's and B he didn't argue for blocking an appointment and thus create the longest time in history where we didn't have a full court. Apples to oranges dude

He was practically arguing for the same thing when he said Bush Sr should hold off naming a replacement until the election cycle was over and if Bush went forward anyway, that the senate should wait. You're correct -that didn't happen. But at the end of the day he opposed nomination/confirmation until after the election was over. That's the gist of it.

[Conserative Morality]

"Wait until the election is over to exercise your lawful power as president and appoint a SCOTUS justice so that way your candidate and any controversies surrounding them don't interfere with the election."

Literally the same as stalling a nomination until you win an election and get into office. Fucking ridiculous.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I think maybe one of my guns wouldn't fit the Democrats idea of what's scary and should be banned.

I sincerely doubt that. Unless you openly carry them around.

That doesn't have anything to do with their ideas of "assault weapons" and why they should be banned.

Daily reminder that the Democrats think the part of the gun that stops you from getting third degree burns is bad.

Indeed, and that doesn't conflict at all with what I said.

>> crediting the largely apolitical and much less influential NRA of the 30s with the removal of the handgun compromise because that's what the NRA likes to pretend it's always been about

Okay, whatever you say. Jesus Christ.

They are why it was removed though. The NRA rapidly sent out General Reckord (executive VP of the NRA at the time) via train and he argued before Congress that the handgun bit was BS and should be done away with. He also argued against the rest of the bill and got other bits and pieces changed, most notably the legal definition of machinegun.

I think maybe one of my guns wouldn't fit the Democrats idea of what's scary and should be banned.

And the more you support organizations like the NRA, the more Dems will oppose gun control reform in the party. But sure. Do what riles up the base. Get your rocks off in the short term by supporting fucking nutters.

I either support the NRA now and try to stop gun control or I don't and hope the Democrats end their nearly 80 year trend of progressively banning more and more things. Only one of these options really makes sense.

Well, technically, the Senate makes it's own rules. However it's extremely rare for the Senate to not even consider a nominee and usually happens with the President in question being a lane duck. It's not completely without precedent, but it's still an extremely shitty thing to do for political points.

On that we agree, it was a really scummy thing to do. I still can't believe it actually paid off.

[Conserative Morality]

He was practically arguing for the same thing when he said Bush Sr should hold off naming a replacement until the election cycle was over and if Bush went forward anyway, that the senate should wait. You're correct -that didn't happen. But at the end of the day he opposed nomination/confirmation until after the election was over. That's the gist of it.

Until after the election is over is not the same as until the president's term is over.

[Michael Johnathan]

He was practically arguing for the same thing when he said Bush Sr should hold off naming a replacement until the election cycle was over and if Bush went forward anyway, that the senate should wait. You're correct -that didn't happen. But at the end of the day he opposed nomination/confirmation until after the election was over. That's the gist of it.

Until after the election is over is not the same as until the president's term is over.

Because it was a hypothetical... do you sincerely think the same argument wouldn't have been made had a justice vacated his seat right as Clinton won? That biden wouldn't argue the popular mandate was given to the president-elect and that he should select said justice's replacement instead of giving it to an exiting president?

Spare me.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Guys, please make a new thread, this one has expired.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Guys, please make a new thread, this one has expired.

No.

Fuck the 500 page rule.

#anarchy

[Conserative Morality]

They are why it was removed though. The NRA rapidly sent out General Reckord (executive VP of the NRA at the time) via train and he argued before Congress that the handgun bit was BS and should be done away with. He also argued against the rest of the bill and got other bits and pieces changed, most notably the legal definition of machinegun.

Source for any of this?

I either support the NRA now and try to stop gun control or I don't and hope the Democrats end their nearly 80 year trend of progressively banning more and more things. Only one of these options really makes sense.

Supporting the NRA definitely isn't it, so I guess that leaves the Dems.

Alternatively, let's sell targets of Dems to shoot at. Let's continue inflammatory rhetoric that has literally gotten people shot. Let's ignore gun issues with minorities because that doesn't get the base riled up - in fact, it gets them rather antsy.

[Conserative Morality]

Because it was a hypothetical... do you sincerely think the same argument wouldn't have been made had a justice vacated his seat right as Clinton won? That biden wouldn't argue the popular mandate was given to the president-elect and that he should select said justice's replacement instead of giving it to an exiting president?

Spare me.

"Hurr hurr politics has always been as dysfunctional as the modern GOP"

Give me a fucking break.

[Thermodolia]

I think maybe one of my guns wouldn't fit the Democrats idea of what's scary and should be banned.

And the more you support organizations like the NRA, the more Dems will oppose gun control reform in the party. But sure. Do what riles up the base. Get your rocks off in the short term by supporting fucking nutters.

Guns are a lost cause for the dems. Down here in the south most democrats don't even touch the subject.