American Politics XIII: (Un)Lucky For Some

[Tarsonis]

Cause of who left the vacancy for starters.

Well…..the problem with that argument; it was nullified by the replacement of RBG…….

Not really, when you control both sides of equation you can pick whoever you want.

[Uiiop]

If their replacement wasn't even an ideological match then there doesn't seem to be much in the way of constienecy with your claims.
Hard to say you felt an value mismatch if your own choice doesn't even fit. What's even the difference between just Gorsuch and Garland. I'm not even sure Garland wouldn't just begrudgingly take the gig if trump was the one who picked him.

Gorsuch is more originality than Garland is, which is what they were going for. Republicans lost 2 seats in the 2016 senate elections. So while they could still through the end of Obama's presidency, they also didn't have the votes in the next senate to put up the Mulready they wanted. They got that though with ACB.

Forgive me for assuming Murkowski and other possible defectors aren't actually anti originalist per se. It certainly wasn't near the reason some of them objected to ACB. An originalitist with the proper process wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.

[Tarsonis]

Gorsuch is more originality than Garland is, which is what they were going for. Republicans lost 2 seats in the 2016 senate elections. So while they could still through the end of Obama's presidency, they also didn't have the votes in the next senate to put up the Mulready they wanted. They got that though with ACB.

Forgive me for assuming Murkwood and other possible defectors aren't actually anti originalist per se. It certainly wasn't the reason some of them objected to ACB.

Murkowski was just theater. She fell in line in the end.

[American Legionaries]

Of course they would, because The West Wing is masturbatory fantasy for early 2000s liberals and doesn't reflect real life.

Eh, I wouldn't say that. Yeah it's an overly idealized version, but the mechanics, the process, they wheeling and dealing, that's all pretty accurate as many White House Alum have said. The always winning part, is where it becomes fantasy.

Okay, it doesn't reflect real life in any way other than the superficial. Yes, the portrayals of the executive staff are accurate on the surface, but the whole joyous optimism which somehow results in victory and success even when you lose is not accurate.

Hence, it's a masturbatory fantasy.

[San Lumen]

Today’s republicans wouldn’t take such a deal. They’d refuse to confirm anyone nominated by a Democrat.

Perhaps, but again that's a political reality.

It shouldn’t be.

[Tarsonis]

Eh, I wouldn't say that. Yeah it's an overly idealized version, but the mechanics, the process, they wheeling and dealing, that's all pretty accurate as many White House Alum have said. The always winning part, is where it becomes fantasy.

Okay, it doesn't reflect real life in any way other than the superficial. Yes, the portrayals of the executive staff are accurate on the surface, but the whole joyous optimism which somehow results in victory and success even when you lose is not accurate.

Hence, it's a masturbatory fantasy.

Which is why I watch it instead of the news.

[The Black Forrest]

Well…..the problem with that argument; it was nullified by the replacement of RBG…….

Not really, when you control both sides of equation you can pick whoever you want.

Wasn’t speaking to that. It’s the hypocrisy. When Scalia died….oh you have to pick a conservative because he was such a conservative. When RBG died…..a liberal should replace her as she was such a liberal…..the same people: Oh the President should pick whom he wants.

[Tarsonis]

Perhaps, but again that's a political reality.

It shouldn’t be.

Well it is. You're gonna have to find a way to cope.

[Uiiop]

Forgive me for assuming Murkwood and other possible defectors aren't actually anti originalist per se. It certainly wasn't the reason some of them objected to ACB.

Murkowski was just theater. She fell in line in the end.

Apologies for the typo.

However that proves my point, no?

[American Legionaries]

Okay, it doesn't reflect real life in any way other than the superficial. Yes, the portrayals of the executive staff are accurate on the surface, but the whole joyous optimism which somehow results in victory and success even when you lose is not accurate.

Hence, it's a masturbatory fantasy.

Which is why I watch it instead of the news.

Yeah, and some folks watch porno instead of having real relationships.

[Tarsonis]

Murkowski was just theater. She fell in line in the end.

Apologies for the typo.

However that proves my point, no?

Not really, whipping is still a thing. Murkowski only paid lipservice to the nomination in an election year part. She didn't have an issue with ACB as a nominee.

[American Legionaries]

Not really, when you control both sides of equation you can pick whoever you want.

Wasn’t speaking to that. It’s the hypocrisy. When Scalia died….oh you have to pick a conservative because he was such a conservative. When RBG died…..a liberal should replace her as she was such a liberal…..the same people: Oh the President should pick whom he wants.

There has never been a precedent established, and thus no precedent to be nullified. Not in the replacement of justices with ideologically similar nominees, nor in Senators being consistent or honest.

[Tarsonis]

Which is why I watch it instead of the news.

Yeah, and some folks watch porno instead of having real relationships.

And some people gamble instead of getting a real job. I never said it was healthy

[San Lumen]

It shouldn’t be.

Well it is. You're gonna have to find a way to cope.

Cope how? Two years of getting things done and then gridlock? That’s not how a sustainable democracy can run.

[Uiiop]

Apologies for the typo.

However that proves my point, no?

Not really, whipping is still a thing. Murkowski only paid lipservice to the nomination in an election year part. She didn't have an issue with ACB as a nominee.

Pointing out only an case where an apparent defector wasn't really one and saying the dissent was due to election year theatrics somehow is an counter to my speculation of there being no objections to an originalist nomination in an non-election year?

[Uiiop]

Well it is. You're gonna have to find a way to cope.

Cope how? Two years of getting things done and then gridlock? That’s not how a sustainable democracy can run.

Run for office on changing the rules. Either the election work enough to be an fair judge to you and your more progressive(If not straight red) opponents or they don't.

[Tarsonis]

Not really, when you control both sides of equation you can pick whoever you want.

Wasn’t speaking to that. It’s the hypocrisy. When Scalia died….oh you have to pick a conservative because he was such a conservative. When RBG died…..a liberal should replace her as she was such a liberal…..the same people: Oh the President should pick whom he wants.

It's not a precedent or what not its about again, political realities.

to quote God Queen Evelyn Baker Lang:

"A conservative anchor just died. A young, brilliant thinker who brought the right out of the closet and championed a whole conservative revival. You cannot replace Owen Brady with a woman who overturned a parental consent law. You'd be shish-kabobbed and set aflame on the south lawn. "


This only holds true though because A. Republicans hold the senate, B.the 60 vote threshold is still in play. If Democrats controlled 60 seats, Bartlett could have shoved almost any nominee he wanted. Ashland would have long since retired, and his successor already on the bench.

Politics is a lot like poker you gotta play the cards your dealt.

[American Legionaries]

Well it is. You're gonna have to find a way to cope.

Cope how? Two years of getting things done and then gridlock? That’s not how a sustainable democracy can run.

I mean, the possibility exists for compromise, at least in theory. But I don't see that happening soon. So I guess we get to live in interesting times with an unsustainable democracy.

[Tarsonis]

Well it is. You're gonna have to find a way to cope.

Cope how? Two years of getting things done and then gridlock? That’s not how a sustainable democracy can run.

You're gonna have to find a way. Once again "the art of the possible." The cards are what they are, whining about the cards you want won't get you anywhere.

[Tarsonis]

Cope how? Two years of getting things done and then gridlock? That’s not how a sustainable democracy can run.

I mean, the possibility exists for compromise, at least in theory. But I don't see that happening soon. So I guess we get to live in interesting times with an unsustainable democracy.

the Chinese cursed us

[Uiiop]

Wasn’t speaking to that. It’s the hypocrisy. When Scalia died….oh you have to pick a conservative because he was such a conservative. When RBG died…..a liberal should replace her as she was such a liberal…..the same people: Oh the President should pick whom he wants.

It's not a precedent or what not its about again, political realities.

to quote God Queen Evelyn Baker Lang:

"A conservative anchor just died. A young, brilliant thinker who brought the right out of the closet and championed a whole conservative revival. You cannot replace Owen Brady with a woman who overturned a parental consent law. You'd be shish-kabobbed and set aflame on the south lawn. "


This only holds true though because A. Republicans hold the senate, B.the 60 vote threshold is still in play. If Democrats controlled 60 seats, Bartlett could have shoved almost any nominee he wanted. Ashland would have long since retired, and his successor already on the bench.

Politics is a lot like poker you gotta play the cards your dealt.

The actual problem beyond my admitted nitpicking is that no one agrees on the rules or even what cards they have.
Hence why San Lumen is handwringing about an promise Sen hatch implicitly made and y'all couldn't say "Poltics isn't an game with good faith actors anymore if there ever was. The republicans lied. LMAO."

San is just trying to force the fever break somehow.

[San Lumen]

Cope how? Two years of getting things done and then gridlock? That’s not how a sustainable democracy can run.

You're gonna have to find a way. Once again "the art of the possible." The cards are what they are, whining about the cards you want won't get you anywhere.

Or how about we go back to how things used to be an stop treating the other side as the enemy. Once Obama won Republicans decided they would be an obstructionist party and when Trump won a conspiracy spouting fascist party.

They should cut Trump lose and say if you support him we don’t want your vote or you in the caucus.

[Uiiop]

You're gonna have to find a way. Once again "the art of the possible." The cards are what they are, whining about the cards you want won't get you anywhere.

Or how about we go back to how things used to be an stop treating the other side as the enemy. Once Obama won Republicans decided they would be an obstructionist party and when Trump won a conspiracy spouting fascist party.

They should cut Trump lose and say if you support him we don’t want your vote or you in the caucus.

Wanting the other side to be your friends just can't make them so. No one here even those who otherwise agree with you and going to respond what you're looking for venting and i honesty think for your sake you should seek other means to deal with the truama this hellworld is giving you.

[Tarsonis]

It's not a precedent or what not its about again, political realities.

to quote God Queen Evelyn Baker Lang:

"A conservative anchor just died. A young, brilliant thinker who brought the right out of the closet and championed a whole conservative revival. You cannot replace Owen Brady with a woman who overturned a parental consent law. You'd be shish-kabobbed and set aflame on the south lawn. "


This only holds true though because A. Republicans hold the senate, B.the 60 vote threshold is still in play. If Democrats controlled 60 seats, Bartlett could have shoved almost any nominee he wanted. Ashland would have long since retired, and his successor already on the bench.

Politics is a lot like poker you gotta play the cards your dealt.

The actual problem beyond my admitted nitpicking is that no one agrees on the rules or even what cards they have.
Hence why San Lumen is handwringing about an promise Sen hatch implicitly made and y'all couldn't say "Poltics isn't an game with good faith actors anymore if there ever was. The republicans lied. LMAO."

San is just trying to force the fever break somehow.

I've never suggested good faith actors, but mainly because i find the idea of Good Faith Politician to be somewhat oxymoronic. Everyone has an agenda, and they pursue it with whatever tactics they have. Social capital is king.

[American Legionaries]

You're gonna have to find a way. Once again "the art of the possible." The cards are what they are, whining about the cards you want won't get you anywhere.

Or how about we go back to how things used to be an stop treating the other side as the enemy. Once Obama won Republicans decided they would be an obstructionist party and when Trump won a conspiracy spouting fascist party.

They should cut Trump lose and say if you support him we don’t want your vote or you in the caucus.

What motivation do I have to treat my enemies as anything other than my enemies?