US Midterm Election Megathread II: The Stretch Run Begins

[Vassenor]

You must really like a challenge, or really enjoy regurgitating the kind of shit retirees share on Facebook in all caps.

Lol. You’re funny when you’re all riled up. If I had known that you get this bent out of shape over the inconvenient truth I’d have done it a lot sooner

If it's true you won't mind proving it. Post Biden's exact words on the subject and explain how they mean what you say they do.

[Distruzio]

You know... following the 2008 election I found myself despairing at the value of the franchise.

Some of you will remember that I allowed myself to delve deep into an anti-democratic morass. I, like so many others, allowed the ideal utopic vision of my imagination to cloud the reality I saw around me. Coming to terms with that was... difficult.

Regardless... this will be the first time I've voted in 10 years. I'm, honestly, looking forward to it. If I'm to be a civic nationalist, which I am, then I'd best accept my civic responsibility even where my utopia fails to reflect the nation in which I live.

[Thermodolia]

Yes the GOP are hypocrites. So are the Dems.

"I-I don't like either side, t-they're both flawed" - people who invariably clearly support one side but want to give themselves asspats for being independent.

I mean it’s true. They are both flawed. The democrats aren’t angels and neither are the republicans.

And no I don’t clearly support the republicans. I don’t even vote republican.

And yes that proposal is what give McConnell the idea according to McConnell

Is that really what you believe? Wow. Truly exceptional.[/quote]
Why shouldn’t I? It’s pretty logical

[San Lumen]

You know... following the 2008 election I found myself despairing at the value of the franchise.

Some of you will remember that I allowed myself to delve deep into an anti-democratic morass. I, like so many others, allowed the ideal utopic vision of my imagination to cloud the reality I saw around me. Coming to terms with that was... difficult.

Regardless... this will be the first time I've voted in 10 years. I'm, honestly, looking forward to it. If I'm to be a civic nationalist, which I am, then I'd best accept my civic responsibility even where my utopia fails to reflect the nation in which I live.

Its wonderful to hear you've to decided to vote again. If more people voted we would not have some of the terrible politicians we do

[Telconi]

"I-I don't like either side, t-they're both flawed" - people who invariably clearly support one side but want to give themselves asspats for being independent.

I mean it’s true. They are both flawed. The democrats aren’t angels and neither are the republicans.

And no I don’t clearly support the republicans. I don’t even vote republican.

And yes that proposal is what give McConnell the idea according to McConnell

Is that really what you believe? Wow. Truly exceptional.

Why shouldn’t I? It’s pretty logical[/quote]

Clearly you're a rabid Republican, frothing at the mouth as you check every elephant box, because you don't praise the Democrats as infallible paragons of virtue and righteousness.

[Telconi]

You know... following the 2008 election I found myself despairing at the value of the franchise.

Some of you will remember that I allowed myself to delve deep into an anti-democratic morass. I, like so many others, allowed the ideal utopic vision of my imagination to cloud the reality I saw around me. Coming to terms with that was... difficult.

Regardless... this will be the first time I've voted in 10 years. I'm, honestly, looking forward to it. If I'm to be a civic nationalist, which I am, then I'd best accept my civic responsibility even where my utopia fails to reflect the nation in which I live.

Its wonderful to hear you've to decided to vote again. If more people voted we would not have some of the terrible politicians we do

I find that unlikely, we have them, and millions vote for them.

[San Lumen]

Its wonderful to hear you've to decided to vote again. If more people voted we would not have some of the terrible politicians we do

I find that unlikely, we have them, and mI'll ions vote for them.

Turnout is far less than it should be. It would not have been a republican wave in 2010 and 2014 if people got off their butts to vote.

[Telconi]

I find that unlikely, we have them, and mI'll ions vote for them.

Turnout is far less than it should be. It would not have been a republican wave in 2010 and 2014 if people got off their butts to vote.

Sure thing friend...

[Hakons]

The game is never over in American politics. After the confirmation debacle, it's hard to tell if Democrats believe in due process, and that has pushed me to be more Republican.

You seem the devout type, you don't particularly strike me as someone who never voted Democratic much anyway.

This will be my first election I'm age eligible to vote. I was oddly a Bernie supporter in 2015/2016, which I can only look back on with humor at this point.

[Distruzio]

You know... following the 2008 election I found myself despairing at the value of the franchise.

Some of you will remember that I allowed myself to delve deep into an anti-democratic morass. I, like so many others, allowed the ideal utopic vision of my imagination to cloud the reality I saw around me. Coming to terms with that was... difficult.

Regardless... this will be the first time I've voted in 10 years. I'm, honestly, looking forward to it. If I'm to be a civic nationalist, which I am, then I'd best accept my civic responsibility even where my utopia fails to reflect the nation in which I live.

Its wonderful to hear you've to decided to vote again. If more people voted we would not have some of the terrible politicians we do

Oh I doubt that.

The stuff that the Leftists are trumpeting these days - especially in the wake of Kavanaugh's confirmation... nucking futs.

Yesterday, several publications were openly musing that, to "save" democracy (and progressivism) in America, the Senate needs to be abolished, the Court needs to be packed, political leanings of the states need to be vetted in order to secure membership to the Union, and the franchise needs to either be amended or redressed to "protect" vulnerable groups. If those are the ideas that the electorate is consuming.... I have to vote, if only to do a small part in preventing that claptrap.

America isn't perfect. But it certainly isn't so far gone that we need to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

[San Lumen]

Its wonderful to hear you've to decided to vote again. If more people voted we would not have some of the terrible politicians we do

Oh I doubt that.

The stuff that the Leftists are trumpeting these days - especially in the wake of Kavanaugh's confirmation... nucking futs.

Yesterday, several publications were openly musing that, to "save" democracy (and progressivism) in America, the Senate needs to be abolished, the Court needs to be packed, political leanings of the states need to be vetted in order to secure membership to the Union, and the franchise needs to either be amended or redressed to "protect" vulnerable groups. If those are the ideas that the electorate is consuming.... I have to vote, if only to do a small part in preventing that claptrap.

America isn't perfect. But it certainly isn't so far gone that we need to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

How would you amend or redress the franchise?

[Vassenor]

Also if it's traditional not to seat SCOTUS nominees during election years, why do we have McConnell saying he'd be open to a confirmation process in 2020?

[San Lumen]

Also if it's traditional not to seat SCOTUS nominees during election years, why do we have McConnell saying he'd be open to a confirmation process in 2020?

Because Republicans are hypocrites

[Liriena]

Wow you really got 'im there! /s

-shrug- I don't waste the high quality gotchas on Liri...

Roast me harder, daddy.

[Hakons]

The game is never over in American politics. After the confirmation debacle, it's hard to tell if Democrats believe in due process, and that has pushed me to be more Republican.

Yeah, you're leaning harder into your (soft) partisan identity because you didn't like that aspect of the process. What I want to know is, does it weigh on you at all that the GOP tried to ram Kavanaugh through committee while refusing to release something like 90% of his records from the Bush administration? Does it weigh on you at all that he gave evasive and/or misleading answers to questions ranging from his role in various Bush administration activities to his adolescent behavior? I won't call any of it perjury at this time (pretty hard to do so when the relevant evasions have not been publicly examined), but it certainly contravenes the idea that a member of the judiciary should tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth while under oath.

Because otherwise this whole thing is just an excuse for people on both sides to complain about, "But the process!" There's blame to go around. Democrats wanted a serious investigation far before the "circus." Republicans wanted Kavanaugh confirmed as quickly as possible with a cursory investigation at best.

That said, I do think this has the ability to move things back in favor of the Republicans, at least to a point, but I would want to wait to see what the next couple of weeks brings forward before I'd be absolutely sure of it.

The nomination wasn't particularly rushed, it was about average. Anything concluding before the midterms would have been called "rushed." Kavanaugh released around one million documents (far, far greater than any previous nominee) I'm not sure how many more are needed. Kavanaugh's behavior was an appropriate response to the vicious uncilivity of his questioners.

"The process" isn't a partisan point, it's a deathly real issue. The Democrats behaved horrendously as they every means of stopping a nomination while they were in the minority. I support due process and basic human decency, and it is quite clear the top Democrats support neither.

[Telconi]

Also if it's traditional not to seat SCOTUS nominees during election years, why do we have McConnell saying he'd be open to a confirmation process in 2020?

Because Republicans are hypocrites

Implying the Democrats wouldn't block a 2020 nomination if thy controlled the Senate.

[San Lumen]

Because Republicans are hypocrites

Implying the Democrats wouldn't block a 2020 nomination if thy controlled the Senate.

If Republicans could do it in 2016 why cant democrats do the same in 2020?

[Telconi]

Implying the Democrats wouldn't block a 2020 nomination if thy controlled the Senate.

If Republicans could do it in 2016 why cant democrats do the same in 2020?

They can, and any of y'all who cried about Garland and support it would also be hypocrites...

[Distruzio]

Oh I doubt that.

The stuff that the Leftists are trumpeting these days - especially in the wake of Kavanaugh's confirmation... nucking futs.

Yesterday, several publications were openly musing that, to "save" democracy (and progressivism) in America, the Senate needs to be abolished, the Court needs to be packed, political leanings of the states need to be vetted in order to secure membership to the Union, and the franchise needs to either be amended or redressed to "protect" vulnerable groups. If those are the ideas that the electorate is consuming.... I have to vote, if only to do a small part in preventing that claptrap.

America isn't perfect. But it certainly isn't so far gone that we need to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

How would you amend or redress the franchise?

Not me. Folks at the NYT, WaPo, the Atlantic... etc.

They are the ones making those arguments.

They never explicitly stated "how". Given the tenor of their commentary throughout the several articles and the behavior of the lunatic Left since 2016, I imagine that, for Leftists, democracy is only valid when they win. So when authors espousing Leftist/Progressive talking points insist that the franchise needs to be amended or redressed... it is no small leap of logic to presume that those authors are pondering the restriction (at best) of the franchise for conservatives, constitutionalists, and libertarians.

[Hakons]

Implying the Democrats wouldn't block a 2020 nomination if thy controlled the Senate.

If Republicans could do it in 2016 why cant democrats do the same in 2020?

Yes, if they take the senate, they would do the same. I don't think there's anything wrong with the Senate checking the Presidency, just at some point we have to find a compromise where nominations get through in times of split government.

[Petrasylvania]

What we are forgetting is that the GOP was holding to the tradition of past presidents, a tradition Obama tried to challenge. That being not appointing new SCOTUS Justices during an election year.

If only Scalia had the decency to not die during an election year...

[Petrasylvania]

Because Republicans are hypocrites

Implying the Democrats wouldn't block a 2020 nomination if thy controlled the Senate.

You were sneering that the Democrats would actually lose Senate seats.

[Telconi]

Implying the Democrats wouldn't block a 2020 nomination if thy controlled the Senate.

You were sneering that the Democrats would actually lose Senate seats.

Whatever you say Gauth. *Pats head*

[Telconi]

What we are forgetting is that the GOP was holding to the tradition of past presidents, a tradition Obama tried to challenge. That being not appointing new SCOTUS Justices during an election year.

If only Scalia had the decency to not die during an election year ever...

FTFY.

[Seangoli]

What we are forgetting is that the GOP was holding to the tradition of past presidents, a tradition Obama tried to challenge. That being not appointing new SCOTUS Justices during an election year.

If only Scalia had the decency to not die during an election year...

Its also a complete load of horseshit. There is no such lomg standing tradition at all. Kenedy himself was appointed in 1988, which was an election year. Numerous justices in the past 100 uears or so were appointed during election years.

It is true that its rare for a Justice to be appointed during an election year, butnthats because its rare to appoint a justice ever. You might as well say that its a long standing tradtion to not appoint a Justice in your first year in office, because there have been about as many of these in the past 100 years as there have been election year appoints.


The Republicans are absolutely the ones who turned the Supreme Court process political woth their bullshit with Garland, and fabricatong some sort of nonsensical nonexistent "tradition" to explain it away is bull. They have zero right to claim the Democrats are tryong to politicoze the process, because that is exactly what they did and frankly they started it.

Edit: To note, he isnreferring to the "Thurmond rule", and likely applying as some sort of actual Senate rule or tradition. Its not, but rather is nothing more than an observation that nominations tend to slow during the last year of a Presidents second term. Its like Godwins Law, which is not a literal law but an observation of phenomena. Amd even then, the Thurmond Rule does not even seem to exist in the first place, as there is zero indication it actually happens in reality. It is a meme amd a myth, and should bebtreated as such.