President Joe Biden has asserted executive privilege over the recordings of his interview with special counsel Robert Hur, according to letters from the White House and Justice Department to House Republicans.
I don’t think Biden having dementia and spewing nonsense is news to anyone. Yes it hurts him and will draw more attention in audio than in text, which is one of the reasons they aren’t releasing it.
“But be better than republicans. Hold your “team” to higher standards than just the letter by someone’s name.”
No. Fuck that. We tried that and ended up with a conservative majority on SCOTUS. Don’t do anything to give Republicans or Trump an advantage. I’m just as disappointed as anyone that Biden is the best candidate the Dems can produce, and that his campaign slogan is effectively “better than Trump”. But I don’t agree with making it easier for Republicans to hurt your campaign just for the sake of taking the moral high ground. Save that conversation for when your opponent isn’t a literal fascist. Make the Republicans work for it. If the transcript doesn’t titillate your Fox News braindead audience then too bad.
. Fuck that. We tried that and ended up with a conservative majority on SCOTUS
…
Refusing to fight for Obama’s SC pick so that it could be used to get people to vote for a candidate disliked by most people from either party is not “having standards”.
It’s wild to hear someone even suggest that’s what happened…
Refusing to fight for Obama’s SC pick so that it could be used to get people to vote for a candidate disliked by most people from either party is not “having standards”.
If this is what you think happened in 2016 after Senate Republicans openly admit that they blocked Obama’s SC pick, then I hope nobody is listening to you because you’ve lost all credibility. They even said that they would do the same thing to a Republican president, but then they moved faster than I’ve ever seen Congress move to install a new Justice just a few weeks before the 2020 election. There’s video of Lindsey Graham telling people to use his words against him if they behaved differently with roles reversed, and he behaved differently, and then that interview video went viral right before the election. There’s no excuse for not knowing what happened, so I have to assume that you’re just arguing in bad faith, trying to sow division.
It’s written that the Senate may vote to confirm, not that they have to.
If republicans refused to hold the vote because they didn’t have the votes to stop it, Obama should have just sat his pick (not the bullshit “compromise”) to the SC.
Republicans would have challenged it, and it would have went to the SC.
Would it have been guaranteed to work? No, it wouldn’t.
But it would have been better than a year out from the election just fucking giving up.
Can you explain any downside to trying anything more than accepting it?
Source:
Scores of scholars — law professors, historians and political scientists — urged the Senate to at least have a process for Garland as a duly appointed nominee with impeccable qualifications. But some lawyers and academics pointed out that the Constitution empowered the Senate to “advise and consent” but did not require it do so. (Some adding that they thought the Senate still ought to do so.)
Rather than do it and fight the battle that they were able to do it, we ran out the clock talking about if we could.
That’s the main difference between the parties.
Republicans do shit then we try to undo what they managed to get thru.
Dems have the fight before doing anything, and keep running out of time.
The entire premise of moderate politics doesn’t work anymore. We spend all our time trying to undo what republicans do, but they do so much bullshit there’s not enough time for everything, let alone anything’s ng we want to do.
How do people not see that if you’ve been paying attention to politics since at least 2016?
Not “may”, the wording is “shall” and “with””. And while I would have rather they try to end run around the road block, shall and with have specific meaning in legal documents that is much less wishy-washy than “may”
I don’t think Biden having dementia and spewing nonsense is news to anyone. Yes it hurts him and will draw more attention in audio than in text, which is one of the reasons they aren’t releasing it.
“But be better than republicans. Hold your “team” to higher standards than just the letter by someone’s name.”
No. Fuck that. We tried that and ended up with a conservative majority on SCOTUS. Don’t do anything to give Republicans or Trump an advantage. I’m just as disappointed as anyone that Biden is the best candidate the Dems can produce, and that his campaign slogan is effectively “better than Trump”. But I don’t agree with making it easier for Republicans to hurt your campaign just for the sake of taking the moral high ground. Save that conversation for when your opponent isn’t a literal fascist. Make the Republicans work for it. If the transcript doesn’t titillate your Fox News braindead audience then too bad.
…
Refusing to fight for Obama’s SC pick so that it could be used to get people to vote for a candidate disliked by most people from either party is not “having standards”.
It’s wild to hear someone even suggest that’s what happened…
If this is what you think happened in 2016 after Senate Republicans openly admit that they blocked Obama’s SC pick, then I hope nobody is listening to you because you’ve lost all credibility. They even said that they would do the same thing to a Republican president, but then they moved faster than I’ve ever seen Congress move to install a new Justice just a few weeks before the 2020 election. There’s video of Lindsey Graham telling people to use his words against him if they behaved differently with roles reversed, and he behaved differently, and then that interview video went viral right before the election. There’s no excuse for not knowing what happened, so I have to assume that you’re just arguing in bad faith, trying to sow division.
Between the insults, you said I don’t know what happened, then said what happened was the same thing I said?
Is it just because I pointed out Dems didn’t fight or try anything to get Obama his pick?
Or that the reason they didn’t was in an attempt to motivate voters to turn out for someone they don’t like?
I just don’t see anywhere else we disagree, but if you keep the insults up I’m probably just going to block you and be done with this.
If you want a political group ok with juvenile insults, republicans are on the other side of the aisle.
Senate majority leader McConnell refused to even bring it to a vote. And laughed about it. How do you propose that they should’ve fought that?
It’s written that the Senate may vote to confirm, not that they have to.
If republicans refused to hold the vote because they didn’t have the votes to stop it, Obama should have just sat his pick (not the bullshit “compromise”) to the SC.
Republicans would have challenged it, and it would have went to the SC.
Would it have been guaranteed to work? No, it wouldn’t.
But it would have been better than a year out from the election just fucking giving up.
Can you explain any downside to trying anything more than accepting it?
Source:
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
Rather than do it and fight the battle that they were able to do it, we ran out the clock talking about if we could.
That’s the main difference between the parties.
Republicans do shit then we try to undo what they managed to get thru.
Dems have the fight before doing anything, and keep running out of time.
The entire premise of moderate politics doesn’t work anymore. We spend all our time trying to undo what republicans do, but they do so much bullshit there’s not enough time for everything, let alone anything’s ng we want to do.
How do people not see that if you’ve been paying attention to politics since at least 2016?
It’s incredibly obvious what’s happening…
Not “may”, the wording is “shall” and “with””. And while I would have rather they try to end run around the road block, shall and with have specific meaning in legal documents that is much less wishy-washy than “may”