OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Poupou Escobar]

If they win, they can appoint whomever the f**k they like, but with a clear majority they aint about to stack shit.

Why would they, there's no advantage in it for them?

So next time they replace the Democrats it'd be ok?

 

[Bandwagon]

So next time they replace the Democrats it'd be ok?

If the Dem's stack the court, then there's no legitimate argument they could make that opposes the GOP doing the same.

Just as when the GOP refused to entertain confirmation hearings prior to the last election based upon the idea that the election was to close at hand, there is no legitimate argument for reversing that position as they are doing now.

You're arguing negative reciprocity is limited to same same here, that escalation is unjustified, which ignores that in the first place in order to have that reciprocity you must have an initial escalation. Focusing solely upon the act of stacking as the escalation, leading to further one upmanship, while completely ignoring that it is the actions of the GOP here that are the initial escalation, makes no sense.

The Dem's choice is to be rolled, or retaliate. Personally if I was in their position, given the opportunity, I'd go nuclear.

 

[Gary Gutful]

*Nucular

 

[Poupou Escobar]

If the Dem's stack the court, then there's no legitimate argument they could make that opposes the GOP doing the same.

Just as when the GOP refused to entertain confirmation hearings prior to the last election based upon the idea that the election was to close at hand, there is no legitimate argument for reversing that position as they are doing now.

The fact the election was near was just fancy words. The legitimate argument was that they controlled the senate. If the Democrats controlled the senate now they'd rightly be blocking this.

You're arguing negative reciprocity is limited to same same here, that escalation is unjustified, which ignores that in the first place in order to have that reciprocity you must have an initial escalation. Focusing solely upon the act of stacking as the escalation, leading to further one upmanship, while completely ignoring that it is the actions of the GOP here that are the initial escalation, makes no sense.

The Dem's choice is to be rolled, or retaliate. Personally if I was in their position, given the opportunity, I'd go nuclear.

So how big do you think the SCOTUS will get?

#SCROTUS

 

[Bandwagon]

The fact the election was near was just fancy words. The legitimate argument was that they controlled the senate. If the Democrats controlled the senate now they'd rightly be blocking this.

Yeah righto mate, we do because we can might well be the reason, but it is hardly a legitimate argument.

So how big do you think the SCOTUS will get?

#SCROTUS

See my initial post on the subject.....

If the Democrats weren't such a bunch pussies, they'd let the GOP senate know in no uncertain terms that if they're going to weaponize there current position in the senate to push the appointment through, they can expect a stacked court should the election go their way.

And then if they do win ( which is looking more likely than not ) follow through and make the appointments

The inference is pretty obvious that I think they'll do f**king jack about it. Because they are a bunch of f**king pussies.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I think it's pretty obvious that in holding the senate they have taken two opposing positions in confirmation hearings leading into the presidential election.

Well, some would beg to differ.

If their position is that they were elected to control the Senate and do Republican things in the Senate then their position is entirely consistent.

That's partisan (shock, horror, it's a government) but it's not weaponisation.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Don’t the conservatives already have a majority?

I think the Congress make the decision about the Supreme Court numbers and the Senate do the confirmations.

 

[Bandwagon]

Well, some would beg to differ.

If their position is that they were elected to control the Senate and do Republican things in the Senate then their position is entirely consistent.

That's partisan (shock, horror, it's a government) but it's not weaponisation.

Really mate? I'm shocked.

Here's the thing, if that's their position, why would they not articulate that in their public discourse of the matter?

Could it just be that they believe the electorate at large would find such an argument unpalatable, and might well lead to loss of such control?

Again I believe the counter arguments being made here fail to recognise the value of convention in a democracy, the myriad of unwritten rules that govern the manner in which the written rules are implemented. Or indeed they are simply making hierarchal judgements of one convention over the other.

When you do that, that's what weaponizing power looks like, again we do because we can is not a legitimate argument to do.

 

[Gronk]

Jacinta won in NZ without having to cut a deal with Winston Peters. Funny cos I was told by two Kiwis that NZers hate her beause lockdowns.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It's not a federation of states so there's no internal conflict requiring a strongman. New Zealand politics is a friendly, low stakes business. There's enough Chinese funding for everyone.

 

[Gronk]

It's not a federation of states so there's no internal conflict requiring a strongman. New Zealand politics is a friendly, low stakes business. There's enough Chinese funding for everyone.

Nothingtoseehereism.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Here's the thing, if that's their position, why would they not articulate that in their public discourse of the matter?

.

Well, that's simple - they may be partisan (that's what they're supposed to be) but that can also make them hypocrites.

I'm not saying that what they've done is right, or just, or moral, or that I agree with it or whatever. I'm just saying that it hasn't "weaponised" the Senate. It's just politics and has been that way for a while, now.

 

[Bandwagon]

Well, that's simple - they may be partisan (that's what they're supposed to be) but that can also make them hypocrites.

To the contrary, it is the line they have publicly taken that exposes them to assertions of hypocrisy, after all, they are rushing to confirm in a shorter time frame now, than they argued to be improper then. Had they simply argued they are doing what is right for their party, and screw all else, there is no hypocrisy, both episodes would be entirely consistent with each other

But of course that would also then concede a very cynical use of power at best, and that is far more likely electorally damaging than the path they have taken. Which is looking to be damaging at this point at any rate.

I'm not saying that what they've done is right, or just, or moral, or that I agree with it or whatever. I'm just saying that it hasn't "weaponised" the Senate. It's just politics and has been that way for a while, now.

I don't really care enough here to attempt a moral judgement either, my interest is in that the whole shebang I find rather fascinating. However I'm well prepared to name the behaviour for what it is, and we'll have to agree to disagree it seems on how that's described.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Nothingtoseehereism.

Haven't you asked yourself why left wing politics only works in places like New Zealand?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

No mention of Creepy Uncle Joe and his son?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Haven't you asked yourself why left wing politics only works in places like New Zealand?

Is it because the All Blacks like passing right to left?

 

[Gronk]

Haven't you asked yourself why left wing politics only works in places like New Zealand?

You do realise that the two PMs before Ahern (Labor) were from the Nationals ? So ....

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You do realise that the two PMs before Ahern (Labor) were from the Nationals ? So ....

I never claimed conservative politics doesn't work there, or anywhere else. It is by definition proven over time. My comment was about the traction of progressive politics. An entirely separate issue.

 

[Gronk]

I never claimed conservative politics doesn't work there, it anywhere else. It is by definition proven over time. My comment was about the traction of progressive politics. An entirely separate issue.

More to the point, what is conservative politics? Germany and UK are governedby conservatives yet are progressive compared to AU and USA. USA are moving towards evangelactivism. Bat shit crazy they are.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

They're heading towards something alright.