Shutdown Rhetoric

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the strong suit for Republicans is to say that Democrats are willing to hold to ransom the interests of 300 million Americans to legalize 800K DACA recipients who came to this country illegally and whose future is no in jeopardy for now, given that the federal courts have stayed any action with regard to them.

I also feel that this should be the pretext for changing the senate rules to eliminate the filibuster for legislation.

So undo 230 years of rules because you can't compromise. It wasn't right when Harry Reid did it; it wasn't right when McConnell did it for Trump nominees and it isn't right now.

Our country is forged on compromise. Suspending rules may not even get the 51 votes needed. Right now, there are barely 48. Do you suggest imposing a "40 rule" vote to get your way instead?

Compromise is something that has gone out the window. Both sides are to blame for it and we need to recognize this reality. For the federal government to shut down is ludicrous and the sort of gamesmanship we have seen on the debt ceiling is within the same category.

Recognize this reality: the Republicans have been poisoning the well for forty years. The lack of compromise and level of vitriol is all Republican.

I am a liberal and quite honestly there is plenty of blame to go around.

I’m glad you’re a liberal, but you’re drunk if you think Democrats share an equal amount of blame. Democrats have compromised and compromised to the point that we’re the Charlie Brown to the GOP's football yanking Lucy. Newt. Grover Norquist. Tea Party. Freedom Caucus. Obstructing everything for eight years. Blocking Obama's SC nom. There is ZERO equivalent of any of this on the Democrats' side.

A lot of the polarization on Supreme Court appointments goes back to Robert Bork. I did not agree with Bork's judicial views but by any definition he was considered to be eminently qualified but he was vilified and brought down by some very partisan Democratic senators. He had written extensively and it was clear that he was a conservative.

It was Bork's failure to be confirmed that resulted in future appointments being people who had a minimal track record to attack and these non-committal responses during confirmation hearings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the strong suit for Republicans is to say that Democrats are willing to hold to ransom the interests of 300 million Americans to legalize 800K DACA recipients who came to this country illegally and whose future is no in jeopardy for now, given that the federal courts have stayed any action with regard to them.

I also feel that this should be the pretext for changing the senate rules to eliminate the filibuster for legislation.

So undo 230 years of rules because you can't compromise. It wasn't right when Harry Reid did it; it wasn't right when McConnell did it for Trump nominees and it isn't right now.

Our country is forged on compromise. Suspending rules may not even get the 51 votes needed. Right now, there are barely 48. Do you suggest imposing a "40 rule" vote to get your way instead?

Compromise is something that has gone out the window. Both sides are to blame for it and we need to recognize this reality. For the federal government to shut down is ludicrous and the sort of gamesmanship we have seen on the debt ceiling is within the same category.

Recognize this reality: the Republicans have been poisoning the well for forty years. The lack of compromise and level of vitriol is all Republican.

I am a liberal and quite honestly there is plenty of blame to go around.

I’m glad you’re a liberal, but you’re drunk if you think Democrats share an equal amount of blame. Democrats have compromised and compromised to the point that we’re the Charlie Brown to the GOP's football yanking Lucy. Newt. Grover Norquist. Tea Party. Freedom Caucus. Obstructing everything for eight years. Blocking Obama's SC nom. There is ZERO equivalent of any of this on the Democrats' side.

A lot of the polarization on Supreme Court appointments goes back to Robert Bork. I did not agree with Bork's judicial views but by any definition he was considered to be eminently qualified but he was vilified and brought down by some very partisan Democratic senators. He had written extensively and it was clear that he was a conservative.

It was Bork's failure to be confirmed that resulted in future appointments being people who had a minimal track record to attack and these non-committal responses during confirmation hearings.

Bork at least got a vote called. And, whether you agree or disagree with his not being confirmed, that is the constitutionally-outlined process. Garland did not even get to be put up for a vote. Not even close to the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the strong suit for Republicans is to say that Democrats are willing to hold to ransom the interests of 300 million Americans to legalize 800K DACA recipients who came to this country illegally and whose future is no in jeopardy for now, given that the federal courts have stayed any action with regard to them.

I also feel that this should be the pretext for changing the senate rules to eliminate the filibuster for legislation.

So undo 230 years of rules because you can't compromise. It wasn't right when Harry Reid did it; it wasn't right when McConnell did it for Trump nominees and it isn't right now.

Our country is forged on compromise. Suspending rules may not even get the 51 votes needed. Right now, there are barely 48. Do you suggest imposing a "40 rule" vote to get your way instead?

Compromise is something that has gone out the window. Both sides are to blame for it and we need to recognize this reality. For the federal government to shut down is ludicrous and the sort of gamesmanship we have seen on the debt ceiling is within the same category.

Recognize this reality: the Republicans have been poisoning the well for forty years. The lack of compromise and level of vitriol is all Republican.

I am a liberal and quite honestly there is plenty of blame to go around.

I’m glad you’re a liberal, but you’re drunk if you think Democrats share an equal amount of blame. Democrats have compromised and compromised to the point that we’re the Charlie Brown to the GOP's football yanking Lucy. Newt. Grover Norquist. Tea Party. Freedom Caucus. Obstructing everything for eight years. Blocking Obama's SC nom. There is ZERO equivalent of any of this on the Democrats' side.

A lot of the polarization on Supreme Court appointments goes back to Robert Bork. I did not agree with Bork's judicial views but by any definition he was considered to be eminently qualified but he was vilified and brought down by some very partisan Democratic senators. He had written extensively and it was clear that he was a conservative.

It was Bork's failure to be confirmed that resulted in future appointments being people who had a minimal track record to attack and these non-committal responses during confirmation hearings.

No, Bork was not eminently qualified. Stop rewriting history about an unscrupulous man who did Nixon’s dirty work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the strong suit for Republicans is to say that Democrats are willing to hold to ransom the interests of 300 million Americans to legalize 800K DACA recipients who came to this country illegally and whose future is no in jeopardy for now, given that the federal courts have stayed any action with regard to them.

I also feel that this should be the pretext for changing the senate rules to eliminate the filibuster for legislation.

So undo 230 years of rules because you can't compromise. It wasn't right when Harry Reid did it; it wasn't right when McConnell did it for Trump nominees and it isn't right now.

Our country is forged on compromise. Suspending rules may not even get the 51 votes needed. Right now, there are barely 48. Do you suggest imposing a "40 rule" vote to get your way instead?

Compromise is something that has gone out the window. Both sides are to blame for it and we need to recognize this reality. For the federal government to shut down is ludicrous and the sort of gamesmanship we have seen on the debt ceiling is within the same category.

Recognize this reality: the Republicans have been poisoning the well for forty years. The lack of compromise and level of vitriol is all Republican.

I am a liberal and quite honestly there is plenty of blame to go around.

I’m glad you’re a liberal, but you’re drunk if you think Democrats share an equal amount of blame. Democrats have compromised and compromised to the point that we’re the Charlie Brown to the GOP's football yanking Lucy. Newt. Grover Norquist. Tea Party. Freedom Caucus. Obstructing everything for eight years. Blocking Obama's SC nom. There is ZERO equivalent of any of this on the Democrats' side.

A lot of the polarization on Supreme Court appointments goes back to Robert Bork. I did not agree with Bork's judicial views but by any definition he was considered to be eminently qualified but he was vilified and brought down by some very partisan Democratic senators. He had written extensively and it was clear that he was a conservative.

It was Bork's failure to be confirmed that resulted in future appointments being people who had a minimal track record to attack and these non-committal responses during confirmation hearings.

Bork at least got a vote called. And, whether you agree or disagree with his not being confirmed, that is the constitutionally-outlined process. Garland did not even get to be put up for a vote. Not even close to the same.

I agree that the Bork v Garland situation is not comparable. My point is that polarization when it came to Supreme Court confirmations became crystallized with Bork and has since gotten worse. There was a time not so long ago when what senators looked at was the judicial qualification of a nominee and his general fitness to hold the position. It is now no longer the case and we are paying the price for it with the polarization that we are seeing.

[Anonymous]

This is the best rhetoric about the shutdown:

“Well, if you say who gets fired it always has to be the top,” Trump said. “I mean, problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top and the president’s the leader. And he’s got to get everybody in a room and he’s got to lead.”
He said that further down in history, “when they talk about the government shutdown, they’re going to be talking about the president of the United States, who the president was at that time.”

“They’re not going to be talking about who was the head of the House, the head the Senate, who’s running things in Washington,” Trump said.

“So I really think the pressure is on the president,” he added.

- DJT, referring to the shutdown under Obama in 2013

[Anonymous]

I agree that the polaization started with Bork, but while he was a qualified jurist, the efforts he took in the Nixon Administration were disqualifying for nomination.

But he got a vote and the vote was denied.

Very different than pocketing hundreds of qualified judicial nominations during the Obama Administration and Garland which was a flat out stolen supreme court seat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the strong suit for Republicans is to say that Democrats are willing to hold to ransom the interests of 300 million Americans to legalize 800K DACA recipients who came to this country illegally and whose future is no in jeopardy for now, given that the federal courts have stayed any action with regard to them.

I also feel that this should be the pretext for changing the senate rules to eliminate the filibuster for legislation.

So undo 230 years of rules because you can't compromise. It wasn't right when Harry Reid did it; it wasn't right when McConnell did it for Trump nominees and it isn't right now.

Our country is forged on compromise. Suspending rules may not even get the 51 votes needed. Right now, there are barely 48. Do you suggest imposing a "40 rule" vote to get your way instead?

Compromise is something that has gone out the window. Both sides are to blame for it and we need to recognize this reality. For the federal government to shut down is ludicrous and the sort of gamesmanship we have seen on the debt ceiling is within the same category.

Recognize this reality: the Republicans have been poisoning the well for forty years. The lack of compromise and level of vitriol is all Republican.

I am a liberal and quite honestly there is plenty of blame to go around.

I’m glad you’re a liberal, but you’re drunk if you think Democrats share an equal amount of blame. Democrats have compromised and compromised to the point that we’re the Charlie Brown to the GOP's football yanking Lucy. Newt. Grover Norquist. Tea Party. Freedom Caucus. Obstructing everything for eight years. Blocking Obama's SC nom. There is ZERO equivalent of any of this on the Democrats' side.

A lot of the polarization on Supreme Court appointments goes back to Robert Bork. I did not agree with Bork's judicial views but by any definition he was considered to be eminently qualified but he was vilified and brought down by some very partisan Democratic senators. He had written extensively and it was clear that he was a conservative.

It was Bork's failure to be confirmed that resulted in future appointments being people who had a minimal track record to attack and these non-committal responses during confirmation hearings.

Teddy Kennedy's remarks about "Bork's America" were very harsh. But that was about the vote that would have overturned Roe v. Wade. Justice Kennedy voted to uphold that precedent years later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A lot of the polarization on Supreme Court appointments goes back to Robert Bork. I did not agree with Bork's judicial views but by any definition he was considered to be eminently qualified but he was vilified and brought down by some very partisan Democratic senators. He had written extensively and it was clear that he was a conservative.

It was Bork's failure to be confirmed that resulted in future appointments being people who had a minimal track record to attack and these non-committal responses during confirmation hearings.

Teddy Kennedy's remarks about "Bork's America" were very harsh. But that was about the vote that would have overturned Roe v. Wade. Justice Kennedy voted to uphold that precedent years later.

Oh, I am aware that it was Roe v Wade but the focus on judicial philosophy and how issues dear to each side would be determined is why we ended up with Garland not being given a hearing. The Republicans wanted Scalia's seat to be filled by a conservative because there were issues important to them that they did not want to leave to the mercy of liberal Supreme court.

[Anonymous]

Bork was a hack who undermined democratic norms. He was "qualified" in the elitist technocratic sense (the right schools, the right job, savvy), but he lacked moral fiber and respect for law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bork was a hack who undermined democratic norms. He was "qualified" in the elitist technocratic sense (the right schools, the right job, savvy), but he lacked moral fiber and respect for law.

Clearly an objective, non-partisan view

[Anonymous]

Shep Smith:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=nXH1-yVsvqI


I guess he is wrong, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the best rhetoric about the shutdown:

“Well, if you say who gets fired it always has to be the top,” Trump said. “I mean, problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top and the president’s the leader. And he’s got to get everybody in a room and he’s got to lead.”
He said that further down in history, “when they talk about the government shutdown, they’re going to be talking about the president of the United States, who the president was at that time.”

“They’re not going to be talking about who was the head of the House, the head the Senate, who’s running things in Washington,” Trump said.

“So I really think the pressure is on the president,” he added.

- DJT, referring to the shutdown under Obama in 2013

DJT is trying. He summoned Chuck Schumer to the WH. It is up to Schumer to stop the shut down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the best rhetoric about the shutdown:

“Well, if you say who gets fired it always has to be the top,” Trump said. “I mean, problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top and the president’s the leader. And he’s got to get everybody in a room and he’s got to lead.”
He said that further down in history, “when they talk about the government shutdown, they’re going to be talking about the president of the United States, who the president was at that time.”

“They’re not going to be talking about who was the head of the House, the head the Senate, who’s running things in Washington,” Trump said.

“So I really think the pressure is on the president,” he added.

- DJT, referring to the shutdown under Obama in 2013

DJT is trying. He summoned Chuck Schumer to the WH. It is up to Schumer to stop the shut down.

I guess making a last ditch effort when your vacation is about to get cancelled counts as trying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the best rhetoric about the shutdown:

“Well, if you say who gets fired it always has to be the top,” Trump said. “I mean, problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top and the president’s the leader. And he’s got to get everybody in a room and he’s got to lead.”
He said that further down in history, “when they talk about the government shutdown, they’re going to be talking about the president of the United States, who the president was at that time.”

“They’re not going to be talking about who was the head of the House, the head the Senate, who’s running things in Washington,” Trump said.

“So I really think the pressure is on the president,” he added.

- DJT, referring to the shutdown under Obama in 2013

DJT is trying. He summoned Chuck Schumer to the WH. It is up to Schumer to stop the shut down.

Are you 12?

[Anonymous]

Schumer said a little progress, still many disagreements.

Likely no deal.