Things Republicans Can Never Again Complain About

[iceaura]

Then what do you suppose iceaura meant by, "As far as the Supreme Court, any real conservatives still left in the US voted for Clinton"?

That a real conservative would vote for someone guaranteed to nominate a conservative Justice - like Merrick Garland, already nominated and endorsed by Clinton - rather than someone with Trump's obviously intellectually shallow, compromised, and ill-prepared status.

You do know what CPAC is, right? While Milo does advocate many conservative values, and in any other setting many conservatives would love to hear him speak, his abrasive manor alone would preclude him from being the face (keynote speaker) of the conservative movement. Hell, even if they didn't rescind the invitation, the worst that would likely happen is fewer people would attend (conservatives aren't big on protests).
- - -
Most rational people know that our system of checks and balances is more than capable of reigning in an out of control executive branch, with things like the threat of impeachment, Congressional approval for declarations of war, etc..

Two examples of the "it never happened" take, one of the more likely approaches of "conservatives" to the history of the Trump administration:

CPAC never celebrated Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter - each of them more abrasive and less personally charming than Milo - as leaders of the conservative movement in the US. They never got big crowds, made popular speeches, enjoyed enthusiastic welcomes as the face of conservatism in the US.

And the Iraq War never happened.

Calling an originalist and textualist a "radical interventionist" is so far beyond stupid that it is contrary to reality. What laws were subverted? Cite them

Among many others:
The Citizens United ruling overturned 250 years of precedent and defied any semblance of common sense. There is no possible "originalist" or "textualist" defense of it - the notion of the Founders or any "original" considering corporate campaign contributions to a Party as "speech" and entitled to First Amendment protection, of anonymous cash payments to a candidate for public office as Constitutionally protected, is absurd.

Or how about this one: let's base our Constitutional interpretations on Pope-endorsed Catholic theology, and call that "originalist" and "textualist". Because the Founders were famous for their endorsement of Catholic theology and the Pope's governing wisdom.

 

[joepistole]

The maniacs are those who think the world is going to end.

You are obfuscating comrade.

Obviously you know nothing about mental illness or you are being disingenuous. The fact is you and your Republican cohorts voted for a man whose mental health is seriously challenged (to be kind) for no other reason than the fact his is a Republican. Those were your words.

Then what do you suppose iceaura meant by, "As far as the Supreme Court, any real conservatives still left in the US voted for Clinton"?

How is that the least bit relevant. You constructed a straw man: a fallacy.

Was Scalia a "moderate justice"? No, so why would conservatives want to upset the current balance on the court? Self-defeating altruism?

Who said they did? That's really not relevant. Obviously, Republicans, i.e. so called "conservatives", who are anything but conservative wanted to keep control of the Supreme Court. But that doesn't justify what they did. It doesn't justify their refusal to carry our their constitutional duties.

Wow. You are woefully ignorant about the Constitution...among other things. Calling an originalist and textualist a "radical interventionist" is so far beyond stupid that it is contrary to reality. What laws were subverted? Cite them. The Constitution not only doesn't require Congress to hear a Supreme Count nominee, it grants Congress the right to determine the number of justices on the court.

LOL....

Reality bites doesn't it? Attacking me isn't going to solve your problem. And the fact is so called "originalism" and "textualism"
was and is nothing more than a fiction created by right wing extremists like Scalia in an attempt to rationalize the irrational.

Compared to Democrats who regularly call the Constitution a "living, breathing document".

Well, that's the right wing spiel anyway. The fact is the founding fathers realized change was necessary. That's why they incorporated mechanisms for change within the Constitution. What you and your right wing cohorts don't or refuse to understand is that it is impossible to know what or how the founding fathers would react to or think about current events and issues before the courts, to pretend that you know as Republicans have done and continue to do is a fraud if not outright laughable.

Additionally, the founding fathers were not of a unitary mind. They all had differing opinions and perspectives. It is impossible to know who the founding fathers would react or think about issues before the courts some 240 years later. So for so called "conservatives" to demand we live who live in the 21st century live in an 18th century world is to say the least absurd. But hey, absurdity has never stopped you.

And? Wait, didn't you just claim the Republicans "subverted the law"? The Constitution does require the president to nominate a new justice ("[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court." - Article II), but does not require Congress to confirm or even consider such nominations.

And? Republicans in the senate refused to do their constitutional duty to advice and consent.

I didn't vote for him at all. But many did, for the reasons I've already told you.

So now you didn't vote for him, but you support him. And you think that makes a difference?

Only the left thinks the world is going to end. Most rational people know that our system of checks and balances is more than capable of reigning in an out of control executive branch, with things like the threat of impeachment, Congressional approval for declarations of war, etc.. It's truly hilarious how many leftists are suddenly touting "patriotism". Supposedly, party loyalty denied Bernie his win.

Well, the world will end at some point; whither it ends under a Trump administration remains to be seen. You are making shit up comrade. The left is concerned that we have a mentally unstable person at the helm of state and with his fingers on the nuclear codes. That should unnerve any thinking person. Relying upon a constitutional crisis to save your butt is probably not a very good strategy, because there is always a chance things will not workout as you have anticipated, e.g. The Donald. He wasn't suppose to win.

In case you missed the last two centuries, you don't need declaration of war to begin a nuclear or any other kind of war. That's why the POTUS carries with him the nuclear codes and the ability to launch a nuclear war within minutes. NO congressional authorization is required.

Liberals have always touted patriotism. That hasn't changed. Now you obviously disagree with them, but that doesn't mean they aren't patriots. That's part of the danger these so called "conservatives" have brought into American life. Their heavy reliance upon identity politics, disinformation, and authoritarianism is scary and a threat to our democracy. Trump is just the latest manifestation of that threat.

Are you saying they shouldn't draw the line at pedophilia? What the left calls hate speech is any conservative speaker, because they're bigoted.

Is that what I said? Did I even hint at that? No. You are making shit up again comrade. Once again for your edification, you right wingers don't mind hate speech. You actually endorse it. But you finally drew the line at pedophilia. That's a pretty damn low bar. I would have drawn the line at hate speech.

 

[Bells]

9. The amount of time the president spends playing golf. (Trump golfed 6 times in his first month in office).

Ya..

Remember when Republicans used to pitch fits about Obama and golf and his travel expenses? Remember when Trump used to whine about Obama using Air Force One and the cost involved?

Behold!

On Monday, President Trump returns to Washington DC from his private Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, where he’s spent the last three weekends.

The Washington Post reports that those three trips “probably cost the federal treasury about $10 million, based on figures used in an October government report analyzing White House travel, including money for Coast Guard units to patrol the exposed shoreline and other military, security and staffing expenses associated with moving the apparatus of the presidency.”

So far, the highlight of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago trips has been he and his aides struggling to deal with an international crisis in full view of diners and staff during the evening of February 11.

The three Mar-a-Lago getaways, combined with the hundreds of thousands of public dollars spent on Secret Service protection during two international trips Trump’s adult sons have taken to promote their father’s business, cost taxpayers about $11.3 million over the first month’s of Trump’s presidency, according to the UK-based Independent. President Obama, by contrast, spent an average of $12.1 million on travel each year.

It wasn’t even a year ago that Trump was complaining about taxpayers “paying a fortune for the use of Air Force One.”

[...]

[...]

Trump’s decision to spend three consecutive weekends at his “southern White House” stands in contrast to what he promised during the campaign, when he said he’d “rarely leave the White House.”

“I would rarely leave the White House because there’s so much work to be done,” Trump told a reporter in 2015. “I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off… You don’t have time to take time off.”

While in Florida on Sunday, Trump, who repeatedly criticized Obama for playing golf while president, enjoyed his sixth golf outing during his first month as president. On Monday, the White House admitted to misleading reporters about the amount of golf Trump played during his 18-hole excursion with pro golfer Rory McIlroy:

​

Add to that the nearly $200 million a year for his wife and son staying in New York..

The kicker?

Trump stands to benefit from all these taxpayers expenses. In order to have constant access to the commander-in-chief, the military is forced to rent space in Trump Tower at a taxpayer cost estimated to be $1.5 million annually, with the money lining the Trump family’s pockets. Relocating the executive branch to Mar-a-Lago each weekend raises the profile of the club and encourages people to pay for the access a $200,000 membership provides. And the Trump sons’ international business trips generate free publicity for the Trump Organization, while their appearances at the White House reinforce the message that doing business with them is a way to gain access to their father.​

This is apparently the Conservative way of cutting back on spending.

Nix that.. Cut back on spending programs for the poor and needy. Just so long as they get to line their pockets, ensure their private businesses benefit from their position in office and fly Air Force One down to his golf course in Florida every weekend, not to mention forcing the Government and military to rent floor space in his building, at taxpayer expense, it's all okay. "Bigly"..

 

[iceaura]

Another issue with the OP:

Republicans are motivated, not discouraged, by having actually done themselves what they complain about. Maybe projection from introspection gives them a sense of authority in ascribing motives, or some such factor, but having done it themselves seems to redouble the intensity and insistence with which they accuse and complain about Democrats doing something.

They will even complain about the Dems doing things, like electoral fraud and poll rigging , that only the Reps did at any significant scale.

 

[Syne]

Trump had the best chance to get a whole lot of Republican votes of any Republican candidate they could find - and they were right. Trump did get a whole a lot of Republican votes. 63 million of them. More than any other Republican ever got in the history of the United States.

Partially due to population growth, partially due to anti-Hilary turnout.

Hence the observation: he represents the Republican voter, the Republican idea of who other Republicans want to be President, the Republican idea of who best represents the will of the Republican Party. You're looking at it. That's the representation of the actual, real life, Republican Party, in the opinion of the people who call themselves Republicans.

Nope. You're grossly oversimplifying. Like I said, there's often a "who can win" math. Hilary drove many who wouldn't have even turned out to Trump.

Don't forget "the liberals did it", "both sides did it", and "it never happened".

Oh, like "all politicians lie", "both sides have been racist", and "Hilary never lied about Bengazi"?

That a real conservative would vote for someone guaranteed to nominate a conservative Justice - like Merrick Garland, already nominated and endorsed by Clinton - rather than someone with Trump's obviously intellectually shallow, compromised, and ill-prepared status.

Thinking Garland is as conservative as Scalia is delusional.

Two examples of the "it never happened" take, one of the more likely approaches of "conservatives" to the history of the Trump administration:

CPAC never celebrated Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter - each of them more abrasive and less personally charming than Milo - as leaders of the conservative movement in the US. They never got big crowds, made popular speeches, enjoyed enthusiastic welcomes as the face of conservatism in the US.

And the Iraq War never happened.

Neither of them harass people online, use vulgar jokes, etc., and if you think they're equivalent to Milo, you're oblivious to reality. They have both been best sellers, and draw large crowds. Milo Yiannopoulos draws sellout crowd (498). Ann Coulter draws about 900. Limbaugh draws 10,000.

Why would Republicans deny the Iraq war? Democrats voted for it too.

Among many others:
The Citizens United ruling overturned 250 years of precedent and defied any semblance of common sense. There is no possible "originalist" or "textualist" defense of it - the notion of the Founders or any "original" considering corporate campaign contributions to a Party as "speech" and entitled to First Amendment protection, of anonymous cash payments to a candidate for public office as Constitutionally protected, is absurd.

Or how about this one: let's base our Constitutional interpretations on Pope-endorsed Catholic theology, and call that "originalist" and "textualist". Because the Founders were famous for their endorsement of Catholic theology and the Pope's governing wisdom.

Oh, you just mean legally overturned and you don't like it. And?
""It never shows why 'the freedom of speech' that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form." ... Scalia principally argued that the First Amendment was written in "terms of speech, not speakers" and that "Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker.""

 

[Randwolf]

Neither of them harass people online, use vulgar jokes, etc.

I guess it depends on your definition of vulgar and whether "on the air" counts - Part I...

1. “Women should not be allowed on juries where the accused is a stud.”
~Rush Limbaugh, 1994 List of 35 Undeniable Truths

2. “If you feed them, if you feed the children, three square meals a day during the school year, how can you expect them to feed themselves in the summer? Wanton little waifs and serfs dependent on the State. Pure and simple.”
~Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show, December 2011

3. “Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.”
~Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show, August 12, 2005

4. “Let’s say we discover the gene that says the kid’s gonna be gay. How many parents, if they knew before the kid was gonna be born, [that he] was gonna be gay, they would take the pregnancy to term? Well, you don’t know but let’s say half of them said, “Oh, no, I don’t wanna do that to a kid.” [Then the] gay community finds out about this. The gay community would do the fastest 180 and become pro-life faster than anybody you’ve ever seen. … They’d be so against abortion if it was discovered that you could abort what you knew were gonna be gay babies.”
~Rush Limbaugh, offending homosexuals, women, parents, etc…, January 2003

5. “The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It’s natural. It’s as natural as the ocean water is.” –Rush Limbaugh, on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and refuting science, May 3, 2010

6. “Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?”
~Rush Limbaugh, while holding up a photograph of 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton on his 1993 television show

7. “They’re out there protesting what they actually wish would happen to them sometimes.”
~Rush Limbaugh, on women who protest against sexual harassment, The Rush Limbaugh Show, April 26, 2004

8. “Exercise freaks … are the ones putting stress on the health care system.” ~Rush Limbaugh, accusing people who exercise of being the reason why health care costs are so high, June 12, 2009

9. “What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”
~Rush Limbaugh, referring to Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law School who was denied the right to speak at a congressional hearing on contraception hearing, in which she planned to discuss a friend of hers who needed contraception to prevent the growth of cysts, February 29, 2012

10. “A Georgetown coed told Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex they’re going broke, so you and I should have to pay for their birth control. So what would you call that? I called it what it is. So, I’m offering a compromise today: I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want. … So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
~Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show, March 1, 2012

11. “Let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do — let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.”
~Rush Limbaugh, radio show, Fall 1993

12. “It doesn’t look like Michelle Obama follows her own nutritionary dietary advice. And then we hear that she’s out eating ribs at 1500 calories a serving with 141 grams of fat … No, I’m trying to say that our first lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue or of a woman Alex Rodriguez might date every six months or what have you.”
~Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 21, 2011

13. “These were highly civil comments for crying out loud. I mean, people are going nuts. USA Today, the Politico. And some people were suggesting that my comments were below the belt. Well, take a look at some pictures. Given where she wears her belts. I mean, she wears them high up there around the bust line. Isn’t just about everything about her below the belt when you look at the fashion sense she has?”
~Rush Limbaugh, after being criticized for making derogatory comments about First Lady Michelle Obama’s weight, Feb. 22, 2011

14. “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”
~Rush Limbaugh, basically saying that all wanted criminals are black people on his radio show in the early 1990s.

15. “I’m a huge supporter of women. What I’m not is a supporter of liberalism. Feminism is what I oppose. Feminism has led women astray. I love the women’s movement — especially when walking behind it.”
~Rush Limbaugh, responding to criticism that he is sexist and defending his selection as one of the judges at the 2010 Miss America Pageant, “Fox News’ Fox & Friends,” February 3, 2010

16. “We’re not sexists, we’re chauvinists — we’re male chauvinist pigs, and we’re happy to be because we think that’s what men were destined to be. We think that’s what women want.”
~Rush Limbaugh, claiming that women want men to be assholes, April 15, 2004

17. “Given the National Organization for Women’s membership and proclivities, it’s no wonder that people now view the NOW gang as being obsessed with only two issues: abortion rights and lesbian rights.

I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. The term describes any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion.

A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed. Their unspoken reasoning is quite simple. Abortion is the single greatest avenue for militant women to exercise their quest for power and advance their belief that men aren’t necessary. Nothing matter but me, says the feminazi; the is an unviable tissue mass. Feminazis have adopted abortion as a kind of sacrament for their religion/politics of alienation and bitterness.”
~Rush Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought To Be, p.192-93 , 1992

18. “There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?”
~Rush Limbaugh, See, I Told You So, p.68, November 1993

19. “From this day forward, somebody propose it, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns. It’s just that simple. Liberals should have their speech controlled and not be allowed to buy guns. I mean if we want to get serious about this, if we want to face this head on, we’re gonna have to openly admit, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns, nor should they be allowed to use computer keyboards or typewriters, word processors or e-mails, and they should have their speech controlled. If we did those three or four things, I can’t tell you what a sane, calm, civil, fun-loving society we would have. Take guns out of the possession, out of the hands of liberals, take their typewriters and their keyboards away from ‘em, don’t let ‘em anywhere near a gun, and control their speech. You would wipe out 90% of the crime, 85 to 95% of the hate, and a hundred percent of the lies from society.”
~Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show, January 2011

20. “Cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease. Nothing wrong with saturated fats.”
~Rush Limbaugh, disputing science despite his own hospitalization back in 2009 for chest pains, March 8, 2011
http://addictinginfo.org/2012/03/08/35-hateful-and-stupid-rush-limbaugh-quotes/​

 

[Randwolf]

I guess it depends on your definition of vulgar and whether "on the air" counts - Part II...

21. “Obama is a clown. You don’t have to be a scientist to know that the President doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he says fossil fuels are the energy of the past. We have more oil than we need. We’ll never run out of it. It’s all we’ve got.”
~Rush Limbaugh, saying the world has unlimited oil despite what geologists and other scientists say, March 8, 2011

22. “You know, one of the benefits of school being out, in addition to your kids losing weight because they’re starving to death out there because there’s no school meal being provided, one of the benefits of school being out, college campi being vacant this time of year, is that our audience levels go up. I think, you know what we’re going to do here, we’re going to start a feature on this program: “Where to find food.” For young demographics, where to find food. Now that school is out, where to find food. We can have a daily feature on this. And this will take us all the way through the summer. Where to find food. And, of course, the first will be: “Try your house.” It’s a thing called the refrigerator. You probably already know about it. Try looking there.”
~Rush Limbaugh, denigrating poor children, June 16, 2010

23. “Some people are self-starters, and some people are born lazy. Some people are born victims. Some people are just born to be slaves. Some people are born to put up with somebody else making every decision for them.”
~Rush Limbaugh, talking about economic inequality, October 8, 2010

24. “Public and private polling indicates that Ohioans, by a substantial margin, want to overturn the new law. Which means, if this is true, that people in Ohio want to rape themselves”
~Rush Limbaugh, comparing the repeal of anti-union laws to rape, November 7, 2011

25. “What is it with all of these young, single white women? Overeducated- doesn’t mean intelligent.”
~Rush Limbaugh, insulting educated women, March 6, 2012

26. “Look it, let me put it to you this way. The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”
~Rush Limbaugh, making a racist comment, January 19, 2007

27. “You just gotta be who you are, and I think it’s time to get rid of this whole National Basketball Association. Call it the TBA, the Thug Basketball Association, and stop calling them teams. Call ’em gangs.”
~Rush Limbaugh, another racist comment, December 8, 2004

28. “Holocaust? Ninety million Indians? Only four million left? They all have casinos — what’s to complain about?”
~Rush Limbaugh, making yet another racist statement, September 25, 2009. There once was 15 million Native Americans in North America. After the centuries of genocidal policies, Native Americans were nearly wiped out, with only 250,000 left by the end of the 19 Century. There are in fact, about 2 million today, but casinos hardly make up for the near extinction.

29. [T]he nags … the national association of gals, that’s our pet name for the NOW gang … the nags are a bunch of whores to liberalism.
~Rush Limbaugh, another attack on women, October 14, 2010

30. “To some people, bankers — code word for Jewish — and guess who Obama’s assaulting? He’s assaulting bankers. He’s assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there’s starting to be some buyer’s remorse there.”
~Rush Limbaugh, stereotyping Jewish people, January 20, 2010

31. “Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the Constitution was written.”
~Rush Limbaugh, ignorant of the fact that when the Constitution was written, the United States consisted of 13 colonies along the East Coast, February 18, 1994

32. “The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them.”
~Rush Limbaugh, advocating for blowing up the world.

33. “Citizen service is a repudiation of the principles upon which our country was based. We are all here for ourselves.”
~Rush Limbaugh, selfishly saying that we should never serve our fellow citizens unless we get something for it.
34. “I think this reason why girls don’t do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, ‘All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what’s it going to be?’ We all know what was chosen.”
~Rush Limbaugh, making another degrading comment about women, February 23, 1994

35. “When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult; it’s an invitation.”
~Rush Limbaugh, making a “joke” about homosexual men, Summer 1994
http://addictinginfo.org/2012/03/08/35-hateful-and-stupid-rush-limbaugh-quotes/


Nothing vulgar or harassing there - nice guy, right​

 

[Tiassa]

unfamiliar | not

Click to pass the blame.​

I didn't vote for him at all. But many did, for the reasons I've already told you.

Couldn't see that one coming.

No, really, I couldn't.

But that's the thing. You're just speculating, then. Those voters are mere political abstractions to you; you don't actually know. And, besides, you seem to think you know better than Republicans↑ what a Republican is.

Still, though, it's not like you're completely wrong. There quite literally isn't a whole lot of mystery about it this time. Trump voters are either particularly bigoted (supremacist), generally antisocial (lulzies), or, as we can agree, thought they had some reason good enough to justify endorsing the rest of it with their vote↑.

We get it↑: Something was just that important.

 

[Syne]

You are obfuscating comrade.

Obviously you know nothing about mental illness or you are being disingenuous. The fact is you and your Republican cohorts voted for a man whose mental health is seriously challenged (to be kind) for no other reason than the fact his is a Republican. Those were your words.

So in your little world, the mentally ill can become wealthy business men? I didn't say it was only because he was Republican...many of his promises do align with conservative values (whether he keeps them or was juts pandering is yet to be seen, and that doubt is why he didn't garner even more support).

Democrats are not your so called "conservative" and no one has represented them to be so.

Then what do you suppose iceaura meant by, "As far as the Supreme Court, any real conservatives still left in the US voted for Clinton"?

How is that the least bit relevant. You constructed a straw man: a fallacy.

LOL! So since you can't seem to manage the mental gymnastics iceaura employed to construct that gem, you're just begging off by erroneously claiming fallacy. Unless you can explain otherwise, it would be iceaura's fallacy, if anything.

Who said they did? That's really not relevant. Obviously, Republicans, i.e. so called "conservatives", who are anything but conservative wanted to keep control of the Supreme Court. But that doesn't justify what they did. It doesn't justify their refusal to carry our their constitutional duties.

No one, because conservatives are not self-defeating altruists.
There is no such "constitutional duty", but why should I expect a leftist to bother to learn anything about the Constitution.

LOL....

Reality bites doesn't it? Attacking me isn't going to solve your problem. And the fact is so called "originalism" and "textualism"
was and is nothing more than a fiction created by right wing extremists like Scalia in an attempt to rationalize the irrational.

Way to avoid the inconvenient facts about the Constitution. Typical. You can't hide your ignorance.

Well, that's the right wing spiel anyway. The fact is the founding fathers realized change was necessary. That's why they incorporated mechanisms for change within the Constitution. What you and your right wing cohorts don't or refuse to understand is that it is impossible to know what or how the founding fathers would react to or think about current events and issues before the courts, to pretend that you know as Republicans have done and continue to do is a fraud if not outright laughable.

Additionally, the founding fathers were not of a unitary mind. They all had differing opinions and perspectives. It is impossible to know who the founding fathers would react or think about issues before the courts some 240 years later. So for so called "conservatives" to demand we live who live in the 21st century live in an 18th century world is to say the least absurd. But hey, absurdity has never stopped you.

And the mechanisms for changing the Constitution reside with Congress, not the judiciary. I'm sure those who haven't bothered to read the Federalist Papers have no clue as to original intent nor agreement among the founding fathers. Ignorance must be bliss, because you sure cling to it.

And? Republicans in the senate refused to do their constitutional duty to advice and consent.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin argued the Constitution imposes no such duty upon the Senate to hold confirmation hearings and to give a nominee an up-or-down vote.[43] Jonathan H. Adler agreed, writing that while he personally has "long argued that the Senate should promptly consider and vote on every presidential judicial nominee, ... there is no textual or historical basis" for the contention that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to do so.[44] Eugene Volokh argues that there has not been a "constant practice of Senators agreeing that every nominee should be considered without regard to there being a looming election" and that "in the absence of such a practice, we come down to more results-oriented politics."[45] George Mason University law professor David Bernstein argued that while "preexisting constitutional norms" would suggest that "hearings and eventual votes on Supreme Court nominees" were mandatory, this norm is not required by the constitutional text and has been undermined by recent political practice.[46]

Bernstein also noted that a Democratic-controlled Senate in 1960, in reaction to President Eisenhower's 1956 recess appointment of William J. Brennan, Jr., passed a Senate resolution "Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business."[47] Noah Feldman, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, has said "it’s hard to argue that [the Constitution] requires the [Senate] to put a nominee to a vote."[48] Vikram Amar, constitutional law professor and dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, wrote that "the text of the Constitution certainly does not use any language suggesting the Senate has a legal obligation to do anything," but that the "absolutist position" taken by Senate Republicans presents "grave risks" of escalating the judicial-appointment process into "extreme moves and countermoves."[49]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merri...mination#Scholarly_and_legal_counterarguments​

Can you find legal opinions that differ? Otherwise your "duty" argument is nonsense.

So now you didn't vote for him, but you support him. And you think that makes a difference?

Who said I support him, other than the same bigoted stereotypes that just assume any conservative must have voted for him?

Well, the world will end at some point; whither it ends under a Trump administration remains to be seen. You are making shit up comrade. The left is concerned that we have a mentally unstable person at the helm of state and with his fingers on the nuclear codes.

Yeah, no fear of him ending the world at all there.

In case you missed the last two centuries, you don't need declaration of war to begin a nuclear or any other kind of war. That's why the POTUS carries with him the nuclear codes and the ability to launch a nuclear war within minutes. NO congressional authorization is required.

Did I say "nuclear war"? No. I'm not paranoid about the end of the world.

That's part of the danger these so called "conservatives" have brought into American life. Their heavy reliance upon identity politics, disinformation, and authoritarianism is scary and a threat to our democracy. Trump is just the latest manifestation of that threat.

How hypocritical can you be? Democrats have set themselves up as the party of women, blacks, the poor, gays, transgenders, etc.. You can't find more identity politics anywhere else.

Are you saying they shouldn't draw the line at pedophilia? What the left calls hate speech is any conservative speaker, because they're bigoted.

Is that what I said? Did I even hint at that? No. You are making shit up again comrade.

I asked a question. It wasn't rhetorical.

Once again for your edification, you right wingers don't mind hate speech. You actually endorse it. But you finally drew the line at pedophilia. That's a pretty damn low bar. I would have drawn the line at hate speech.

Give me some specific examples of this hate speech then.

 

[Syne]

I didn't vote for him at all. But many did, for the reasons I've already told you.

Couldn't see that one coming.

No, really, I couldn't.

But that's the thing. You're just speculating, then. Those voters are mere political abstractions to you; you don't actually know. And, besides, you seem to think you know better than Republicans↑ what a Republican is.

Hey, if that's what you need to tell yourself. Maybe you don't weigh the pros and cons of a candidate all the up to the voting booth. Maybe you just go along with the herd the whole way. If so, I can definitely see why you might not have any clue about the reasoning or motives of any other voter. No accounting for personal myopia.

Still, though, it's not like you're completely wrong. There quite literally isn't a whole lot of mystery about it this time. Trump voters are either particularly bigoted (supremacist), generally antisocial (lulzies), or, as we can agree, thought they had some reason good enough to justify endorsing the rest of it with their vote↑.

We get it↑: Something was just that important.

Again, maybe you only vote for people you can 100% endorse. Maybe you never hold your nose while voting. Maybe you're just not all that discerning.

 

[iceaura]

Partially due to population growth, partially due to anti-Hilary turnout.

But mostly due to his great popularity among the rank and file of the Republican Party.

Nope. You're grossly oversimplifying. Like I said, there's often a "who can win" math.

The estimation, by Republicans, of how their fellow Republicans would vote turns out to have been accurate - all those "do the math" Republicans agreed with me that Trump was the candidate that best represented the Republican Party and the typical Republican voter.

Hilary drove many who wouldn't have even turned out to Trump.

Which has nothing to do with the primary votes.
And which is beside the point here - the choice of Trump over all other Republican candidates remains: he is the true and representative Republican leader, of all Republicans available Trump was the one that best represented the Party. All those Republicans who "did the math" agree with me.

That's the actual Republican Party - that guy, with Steve Bannon his right-hand man and his son-in-law running point on the deals. That's the Republican Party as everyone not afflicted by amnesia has recognized it for many, many years now.

Thinking Garland is as conservative as Scalia is delusional

Garland is much more conservative than a radical revisionist like Scalia. He wouldn't throw away 250 years of precedent on an argument that bribes express opinions, or that corporate legal personhood entails Constitutional rights guaranteed to citizens of the country.

Oh, you just mean legally overturned and you don't like it. And?

And the reasons given, as well as the judgments themselves, are not conservative, or originalist, or textualist. That's part of why I don't like them, of course - radical alterations of precedent and the like are suspect from the git-go, conservatism is almost a virtue in itself in such matters - but not all: mostly I don't like them because they are very poorly reasoned. One of the major problems with the Citizens United ruling, for example, is that it's kind of foolish. It's got all this clever wording, and the net result is something deeply silly. Bribery is speech, and expression of opinion? Guys, you said that in public, with your reputations on the line.

Why would Republicans deny the Iraq war? Democrats voted for it too.

The Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq War - many of them at the cost of their elected office and political careers, due to the propaganda campaign launched by the Republicans throughout the corporate controlled media.

Why do Republicans so often pretend the Iraq War didn't happen? Probably for some of the same reasons you attempt to present it as something "both sides" did, "both sides" voted for, and so forth. It was a horrible disaster, a colossal fuckup and unmitigated evil the country may never recover from, that's why. It's no mystery that any Republican would want to hide it, hide from it, disavow whatever they are forced to acknowledge occurred - starting about a year after the initial military success was being celebrated by Republicans as the great Republican triumph and "morning in America" once again.

And so we see with the Donald.

 

[iceaura]

So in your little world, the mentally ill can become wealthy business men?

Of course. That's almost a stereotype.

 

[pjdude1219]

Maybe Democrats are that shortsighted, that they would give up executive power simply because they didn't agree with EVERYTHING the candidate espoused.

i believe thats called having principles

 

[Tiassa]

Of course. That's almost a stereotype.

Actually, I just needed to borrow a moment, because―

Again, maybe you only vote for people you can 100% endorse. Maybe you never hold your nose while voting. Maybe you're just not all that discerning.

―I don't know, maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me if that's the standard, Republican voters had a top-tier candidate available to them who wasn't Donald Trump.

(ahem ....)

I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something.

Oh, right. Still, though ....

 

[Kittamaru]

I vote we all just put our neighbor/comrade on ignore, since he has made it abundantly clear he has no desire to debate in good faith (or even good facts)... after all, lets not feed the troll

 

[joepistole]

You don't get points for emoticons and boldface font comrade. You get points for facts and reason. You have an abundance of the former and a dearth of the latter. Please try to have more fact and reason in your posts.

So in your little world, the mentally ill can become wealthy business men? I didn't say it was only because he was Republican...many of his promises do align with conservative values (whether he keeps them or was juts pandering is yet to be seen, and that doubt is why he didn't garner even more support).

In my "little world", which is infinitely larger than yours, the mentally ill can inherit great wealth as is the case with Trump. And unlike you, I have actually worked with mentally ill people. Additionally, not every mental illness is a complete psychotic break as you have implied. Trump very clearly suffers from narcissistic personality disorder as did Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, and that clearly puts the United States at risk, and you and your Republican cohorts voted for him. You and your Republican fellows put your politics and your party above the interests of the nation as you are wont to do.

And yes, you can inherit great wealth and be mentally ill. It doesn't take much to inherit great wealth as Trump has done. Trump didn't become a wealthy businessman. He was born a wealthy businessman. There is a big difference. Just because people are mentally ill today, it doesn't follow that they have always been mentally ill as you have implied.

Additionally, you and your Republican fellows worship the cult of wealth. Just because some people are wealthy, it doesn't make them godlike. It doesn't make them immune from the frailties of humanity. Trump has played heavily on this right wing wealth cult arguing that his wealth makes him special and immune from corruption. You and your fellow Republicans bought it, because you have been worshiping that cult for decades.

LOL! So since you can't seem to manage the mental gymnastics iceaura employed to construct that gem, you're just begging off by erroneously claiming fallacy. Unless you can explain otherwise, it would be iceaura's fallacy, if anything.

Why should I write about an irrelevant discussion which I was not a part of comrade? You are obfuscating.

No one, because conservatives are not self-defeating altruists.

Republicans refused to do their constitutional duty because they put their political ambitions above the interests of the nation. It's good of you to concede that fact.

There is no such "constitutional duty", but why should I expect a leftist to bother to learn anything about the Constitution.

Except, there is "such constitutional duty". You cited it, Article II, Section II of the US constitution.

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Way to avoid the inconvenient facts about the Constitution. Typical. You can't hide your ignorance.

Before you to accusing others of not knowing the Constitution, you had better know it yourself and obviously you don't. Unfortunately for you and your Republican fellows outside your Republican bubble, ad hominem is no substitute for fact and reason. And if you knew as much about the Constitution as you think you know, you would know you are wrong.

And the mechanisms for changing the Constitution reside with Congress, not the judiciary. I'm sure those who haven't bothered to read the Federalist Papers have no clue as to original intent nor agreement among the founding fathers. Ignorance must be bliss, because you sure cling to it.

rofessor and dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, wrote that "the text of the Constitution certainly does not use any language suggesting the Senate has a legal obligation to do anything," but that the "absolutist position" taken by Senate Republicans presents "grave risks" of escalating the judicial-appointment process into "extreme moves and countermoves."[49]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merri...mination#Scholarly_and_legal_counterarguments​

Can you find legal opinions that differ? Otherwise your "duty" argument is nonsense.

Well fortunately, we are not talking about changing the Constitution. Again, you are evading the issues. And just because some a right wing political operative says Republicans are justified in not filling the Supreme Court position, it doesn't make it so. The fact is what Republicans have done here is unprecedented. That's one of those many annoying facts right wingers like you frequently ignore or are ignorant of.

Who said I support him, other than the same bigoted stereotypes that just assume any conservative must have voted for him?

I quoted you comrade.

Yeah, no fear of him ending the world at all there.

What's the matter comrade? You don't understand why a mad man with the nuclear codes would be a cause for concern? Let me remind you of your argument. You argued checks and balances would prevent The Donald from doing anything rash.

Did I say "nuclear war"? No. I'm not paranoid about the end of the world.

You don't think nuclear war could be the end of the human world? Well that explains a lot, doesn't it? The point was your reliance on checks and balances isn't the panacea you have represented it to be. As previously pointed out to you, Trump could launch a nuclear war within in minutes and without consultation with anyone. Your reliance on "checks and balances" to contain Trump has some serious holes in it. That was the point comrade.

How hypocritical can you be? Democrats have set themselves up as the party of women, blacks, the poor, gays, transgenders, etc.. You can't find more identity politics anywhere else.

So you think representing women, blacks, poor, gays, and transgenered people is somehow hypocritical? I think you need to visit a dictionary posthaste. Representing a group or groups of people isn't hypocritical. The fact remains Republicans have used and continue to use identity politics to drive wedges between various ethnic groups. The fact remains each party has its own constituencies. The right wing constituency is lesser educated whites and wealthy autocrats. The democratic constituency is much broader and more inclusive. You don't think blacks, poor, gays, transgendered, and educated whites have a common interest? That is the Democratic constituency. Unlike Republicans, the Democratic constituency isn't limited to one or 2 constituencies. Democrats have a much broader and diverse constituency.

I asked a question. It wasn't rhetorical.

So now your question was rhetorical?

Give me some specific examples of this hate speech then.

Listen to right wing radio on any given day or hour. It's not that hard to find.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

That was funny.

I'm on Ontario disability and get a drug card so I don't pay for prescriptions - maybe I'm missing out somewhere?

 

[Kittamaru]

That was funny.

I'm on Ontario disability and get a drug card so I don't pay for prescriptions - maybe I'm missing out somewhere?

Meanwhile, my wife just lost access to her Diabetes medication (Invokana) that had been working splendidly for her the last year and a half... because her insurance decided it didn't want to cover the formulary any longer (there is no generic available) and then denied the Prior Auth her doctor sent in... so now she has been put on a different medicine that may or may not be as effective.

Doesn't matter that the invokana was doing exactly what was needed, or that her sugar has been nearly perfect since a few weeks after she started taking it, or that she has been feeling better than she had in a while thanks to it... nope, now the insurance company, not her doctor, gets to decide that she "doesn't actually need it"...

Long live capitalism ... or... something...

 

[joepistole]

Meanwhile, my wife just lost access to her Diabetes medication (Invokana) that had been working splendidly for her the last year and a half... because her insurance decided it didn't want to cover the formulary any longer (there is no generic available) and then denied the Prior Auth her doctor sent in... so now she has been put on a different medicine that may or may not be as effective.

Doesn't matter that the invokana was doing exactly what was needed, or that her sugar has been nearly perfect since a few weeks after she started taking it, or that she has been feeling better than she had in a while thanks to it... nope, now the insurance company, not her doctor, gets to decide that she "doesn't actually need it"...

Long live capitalism ... or... something...

If you don't mind, who is the insurer? It's good for others in similar situations to know and avoid it.

 

[Kittamaru]

If you don't mind, who is the insurer? It's good for others in similar situations to know and avoid it.

I think it is Highmark Blue Shield - it's insurance she has through work.

The issue is, my insurance WOULD cover it... but it has to be run through hers first before mine (her secondary insurance) will cover it... and from what the pharmacy said, they wouldn't even run it at all. Thus, the pharmacy couldn't run it on their discount program they have OR on my insurance...

which is fucking stupid IMHO...