Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

A Reason Why a Democrat Presidency in 2020 is an Extremely Bad Idea

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    I don't think the distinction matters. It might close to election or right after, but that wasn't the case and I'm not sure it should matter even then. If there were a national emergency - a declaration of war from a country we would have to answer, for example - we shouldn't hamstring the president we have while waiting for the new one. One would hope the current president would have sense enough to talk to incoming - but in the rare instance when we haven't the luxury to wait, the guy in office should still be President of the United States in reality and not just name.

    If we start making exceptions for this or that policy we undermine the presidency itself.

    So yeah, I AM glad McConnell did it. I do acknowledge it was completely lawful - and unfair. But now we need to plug that hole because it's not really okay even if it does serve our ends.

    Still, another Obama appointee would likely mean more dead babies, so I can't say I don't approve. When the Court stops letting people kill each other, then I'll be more reticent.
    When we start defending this type of action on the basis that it got us what we wanted, "rule of law" has essentially become moot.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      When we start defending this type of action on the basis that it got us what we wanted, "rule of law" has essentially become moot.
      Forty six years of baby killings is enough of a blight on our times. Just as people once thought slavery was justified, this, too, is a moral stain - a bloody red one.

      The rule of law lost its high ground when the Court decided to legislate. If this means a chance to return to some semblance of reason - and to stop slaughtering our children, then it's worth it. When the Court won't uphold the actual Constitution, the rule of law was already moot.
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        I made no comparison to Kennedy/Cavaugh. The question McConnell was asked was about what he would do if a SCOTUS seat opened up in 2020.
        Well, that still wouldn't be lame duck.

        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        Forty six years of baby killings is enough of a blight on our times. Just as people once thought slavery was justified, this, too, is a moral stain - a bloody red one.

        The rule of law lost its high ground when the Court decided to legislate. If this means a chance to return to some semblance of reason - and to stop slaughtering our children, then it's worth it. When the Court won't uphold the actual Constitution, the rule of law was already moot.
        What's amusing is that McConnell's decision regarding Garland actually had better precedent than Roe v. Wade did.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          Forty six years of baby killings is enough of a blight on our times. Just as people once thought slavery was justified, this, too, is a moral stain - a bloody red one.
          Gotta wonder, if this country is still around in a hundred years or so, will people be pulling down statues of anyone whoever supported abortion.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
            Well, that still wouldn't be lame duck.
            So your claim is that there is a difference in "the people's will" because the sitting president is running for office?

            By the way, Obama was not a "lame duck" either. Scalia died in February. "Lame duck" is the period AFTER an election when the person holding that office has not been re-elected to it. For the presidency, it happens when the sitting president is not re-elected and lasts from early November until late January.

            Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
            What's amusing is that McConnell's decision regarding Garland actually had better precedent than Roe v. Wade did.
            Sidetrack...
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              Forty six years of baby killings is enough of a blight on our times. Just as people once thought slavery was justified, this, too, is a moral stain - a bloody red one.

              The rule of law lost its high ground when the Court decided to legislate. If this means a chance to return to some semblance of reason - and to stop slaughtering our children, then it's worth it. When the Court won't uphold the actual Constitution, the rule of law was already moot.
              Basically, you're saying, "I got my way about something I consider truly horrible, so it's OK." Please remember that when the other side does it and points to the horrible thing they believe has been averted or ended.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                So your claim is that there is a difference in "the people's will" because the sitting president is running for office?

                By the way, Obama was not a "lame duck" either. Scalia died in February. "Lame duck" is the period AFTER an election when the person holding that office has not been re-elected to it. For the presidency, it happens when the sitting president is not re-elected and lasts from early November until late January.
                I was saying that the point that kept getting claimed was that in the election year of a lame duck president, they should hold over a nomination. That was the situation that kept getting mentioned. 2020 is not such a situation.

                It's true that it does boil down to "we'll do this in a way that benefits us" but there isn't actually a contradiction with the reasoning that was offered. Now, if Trump wins re-election and a vacancy opens up in 2023, and the Republicans try to appoint someone rather than waiting until after the new president takes office... that would be a definite contradiction.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Basically, you're saying, "I got my way about something I consider truly horrible, so it's OK." Please remember that when the other side does it and points to the horrible thing they believe has been averted or ended.
                  Mass murder versus what, exactly?

                  I got my way about something that actually is truly horrible and did so minus doing anything illegal - weren't you the one who was going on about the rule of law?

                  At least I own up to the fact that it's unfair - I will note, however, that it is perfectly legal. The Republicans didn't do anything they didn't have the legal right to do. The law should be corrected, I grant - but we can wait until it happens again if you prefer?
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                    I was saying that the point that kept getting claimed was that in the election year of a lame duck president, they should hold over a nomination. That was the situation that kept getting mentioned. 2020 is not such a situation.
                    No. It had nothing to do with "lame duck." As noted, a lame duck president only exists from November (after the election) until the end of January (inauguration) if the sitting president is not re-elected to office. Obama was a lame duck on NOvember 6, 2016 until January 21, 2017. Scalia died in February 2016. McConnell said, essentially, that a sitting president is not eligible to nominate in their final year of office. There is no such principle in the constitution. And the fact that McConnell said they would sit someone in 2020 testifies to this. The ONLY difference between 2016 and 2020 is that Obama could not run for re-election, so we KNEW the president would change but didn't know to whom. In 2020, the president MAY change, but we still do not know who will be elected president in November.

                    Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                    It's true that it does boil down to "we'll do this in a way that benefits us" but there isn't actually a contradiction with the reasoning that was offered. Now, if Trump wins re-election and a vacancy opens up in 2023, and the Republicans try to appoint someone rather than waiting until after the new president takes office... that would be a definite contradiction.
                    Unfortunately, you are in error and apparently do not understand what the term "lame duck" means.

                    The president (and any other elected office) is elected for a defined period of time. They end their office at the end of that period of time. To suggest that an office holder cannot execute their office for the full period of their term because someone else might (or will) be elected is preposterous, and opens the entire discussion to "how soon before the election."
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      Mass murder versus what, exactly?

                      I got my way about something that actually is truly horrible and did so minus doing anything illegal - weren't you the one who was going on about the rule of law?

                      At least I own up to the fact that it's unfair - I will note, however, that it is perfectly legal. The Republicans didn't do anything they didn't have the legal right to do. The law should be corrected, I grant - but we can wait until it happens again if you prefer?
                      You forget, Teal, that they do not believe that the fetus is a human life - so from their perspective, it is the state telling a mature, non-criminal woman what she must do with her body versus the survival of a piece of tissue. They don't see "life" versus "liberty;" they see "liberty versus what exactly?"

                      And by your argument, if one feels a terrible injustice is being done, one is justified in twisting the rules to suit one's purpose. So I hope you do not complain too badly when they pull the same stunts to get their way in the future. After all - it's a general principle you are defending...
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        You forget, Teal, that they do not believe that the fetus is a human life - so from their perspective, it is the state telling a mature, non-criminal woman what she must do with her body versus the survival of a piece of tissue. They don't see "life" versus "liberty;" they see "liberty versus what exactly?"

                        And by your argument, if one feels a terrible injustice is being done, one is justified in twisting the rules to suit one's purpose. So I hope you do not complain too badly when they pull the same stunts to get their way in the future. After all - it's a general principle you are defending...
                        Americans - not just Southerners - believed slavery was a perfectly moral institution. Doesn't make it right.

                        There is no rational argument for the fetus (literally 'young child') being anything other than a human child. So if they wanna believe the earth is flat - let 'em - as long as they aren't in charge of navigation. They are welcome to believe children aren't actually children - but that does NOT grant the right to slaughter human beings, period.

                        There was no 'twisting of the rules' - the Constitution does NOT specify a time frame and no Congress got around to creating one. The expectation is that the president serving will make the nomination - but the Constitution doesn't spell out what happens if the vacancy occurs a week before inauguration.

                        I think it was unfair given that there was time to complete the process. I am dubious that there was time if the Senate voted down a nominee to repeat the process - which seemed likely - but still, it could have been done with at least one. Regardless, it was a political move and, yeah, unfair. Not illegal, not even underhanded - just unfair.

                        So, you didn't get an at bat but there wasn't a rule that said you HAD to get it. Life stinks sometimes. But literally tens of millions of children may now have a future - so no, I'm not seeing the injustice here.
                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Quill Sword

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          No. It had nothing to do with "lame duck." As noted, a lame duck president only exists from November (after the election) until the end of January (inauguration) if the sitting president is not re-elected to office. Obama was a lame duck on NOvember 6, 2016 until January 21, 2017. Scalia died in February 2016. McConnell said, essentially, that a sitting president is not eligible to nominate in their final year of office.
                          Yes--that's what I was saying. I apologize if my usage of lame duck was wrong, but in any event what you just said was what McConnell said. As Trump is able to run for re-election, the circumstances with Obama do not apply.

                          There is no such principle in the constitution. And the fact that McConnell said they would sit someone in 2020 testifies to this. The ONLY difference between 2016 and 2020 is that Obama could not run for re-election, so we KNEW the president would change but didn't know to whom. In 2020, the president MAY change, but we still do not know who will be elected president in November.
                          That that "only difference" was repeated over and over in the justifications for waiting back then. That's my point. This wasn't a distinction that was made up now, it was a distinction that was made back then. Maybe it was pulled out of nowhere just to give a justification, but once again that justification, while applying in 2015/2016, does not apply in 2019/2020.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            Americans - not just Southerners - believed slavery was a perfectly moral institution. Doesn't make it right.

                            There is no rational argument for the fetus (literally 'young child') being anything other than a human child. So if they wanna believe the earth is flat - let 'em - as long as they aren't in charge of navigation. They are welcome to believe children aren't actually children - but that does NOT grant the right to slaughter human beings, period.

                            There was no 'twisting of the rules' - the Constitution does NOT specify a time frame and no Congress got around to creating one. The expectation is that the president serving will make the nomination - but the Constitution doesn't spell out what happens if the vacancy occurs a week before inauguration.

                            I think it was unfair given that there was time to complete the process. I am dubious that there was time if the Senate voted down a nominee to repeat the process - which seemed likely - but still, it could have been done with at least one. Regardless, it was a political move and, yeah, unfair. Not illegal, not even underhanded - just unfair.

                            So, you didn't get an at bat but there wasn't a rule that said you HAD to get it. Life stinks sometimes. But literally tens of millions of children may now have a future - so no, I'm not seeing the injustice here.
                            Like I said, Teal - when the Dems do the same thing to get what THEY want, I hope you will remember your argument.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                              Yes--that's what I was saying. I apologize if my usage of lame duck was wrong, but in any event what you just said was what McConnell said. As Trump is able to run for re-election, the circumstances with Obama do not apply.

                              That that "only difference" was repeated over and over in the justifications for waiting back then. That's my point. This wasn't a distinction that was made up now, it was a distinction that was made back then. Maybe it was pulled out of nowhere just to give a justification, but once again that justification, while applying in 2015/2016, does not apply in 2019/2020.
                              Oh horse hockey. Talk about squirming to justify an inconsistent position. The fact is, "the people will speak" in November, and we will not know who the president will be until late in the day on November 3rd, 2020. So the same principle (the people's will) applies, if you're going to be consistent. McConnell is doing what he always does - finding some niggling little hole to squirm through to justify his inconsistent and misleading positions. When he first ran for the Senate, he had his people dig into the financial records of his opponent and found a few times when his opponent had not been present for a Senate vote because he was giving a money-raising speech for his campaign. Together with Roger Ailes, McConnell cooked up a brilliant add campaign about a hunting dog looking for his opponent who was not to be found. Hidden behind all of that was the fact that a) every Senator misses votes for campaign events, and b) his opponent had one of the best attendance records (96%) in the Senate. So McConnell could claim he actually told the truth when the fact was he was twisting the truth to leave a false impression.

                              He's doing it again. And if you swallow this steaming pile of horse manure, then I guess you deserve exactly the kind of leadership you're getting...
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Like I said, Teal - when the Dems do the same thing to get what THEY want, I hope you will remember your argument.
                                Remember? The Dems do it all the time! Remember Obamacare?
                                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                                My Personal Blog

                                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                                Quill Sword

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                62 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                247 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                107 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                330 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X