Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, September 20, 2020

Democrats are threatening to increase the number of Supreme Court justices if Trump goes ahead with filling Ginsberg's seat. Sen. Kamala Harris told a Los Angeles audience earlier this month, "I think it's a conversation that we need to have. I am open to increasing the numbers on the Supreme Court"

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

If the Republicans make an election year appointment four years after refusing to allow an election year appointment, the Democrats should increase the size of the Supreme Court.

How many times have we been told by Republicans that it's OK to do things when there's nothing to stop you from doing it?

The same logic holds for a Democratic Congress passing legislation to increase the number of Supreme Court justices. There's nothing to stop them from doing that if they have the majority.

If you'd prefer instead for norms to be respected, call on the GOP to respect their own norm by letting the next president make the nomination.

#1 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 07:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I keep reading republicans are being hypocritical for blocking Obama's replacement but wanting to go forward now.

Personally, I don't buy that argument because I don't think it was some moral high ground why Obama's nomination was blocked.

It was simply because they could.

Doing what you can get away with is politics as usual, however, even FDR who threatened to pack the Supreme Court to pass the New Deal backed down because it would not have been received well by the public.

Republicans blocked Obama simply because they could and they believed the impact would be inconsequential.

Now Trump has to evaluate what would be the repercussions one way or the other.

And then Democrats will do the same.

I don't think politicians are very concerned with moral high ground for the most part.

It's just a matter of what they can get away with.

#2 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-20 07:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#1 ... If you'd prefer instead for norms to be respected, call on the GOP to respect their own norm by letting the next president make the nomination. ...

While I generally agree with your comment...

I also look at this issue from a different viewpoint...

Any nominee proffered for a position on the Supreme Court of the United States needs to be viewed and judged in the terms of what said nomination does to bring the United States forward to the future.

What problems will we see in the future? How will any candidate address those problems?

Where do we, as a Country, want to go?

I really do not care about the partisan bickering that seems to occur each time we are faced with a Supreme Court nomination.

I do think of the nominations as a strategy, not a tactic.

As such, I look at a Supreme Court nomination as a decision we make now, but one that has an effect for decades.

So far, all I have seen from those proffering possible candiates are sltuons to problems we see, feel and are affected by now.

What about the next three decades?

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-09-20 07:36 PM | Reply

@#3

are sltuons to problems

Wow, that one slipped by..

Should be

are solutions to problems


(apologies)

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-09-20 07:40 PM | Reply

Lamp,

"As such, I look at a Supreme Court nomination as a decision we make now, but one that has an effect for decades."

I don't see where your opinion is a "different perspective".

What you said is exactly what everyone knows is true and why it matters so very much.

Because America is at a moral/social/cultural precipice, this particular judge may impact America for the next 100 years.

That is why Democrats are threatening a nuclear option. They know it.

This is going to get really nasty.

#5 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-20 07:47 PM | Reply

I don't think politicians are very concerned with moral high ground for the most part.

The Republicans didn't have to invent the "not in an election year" rule. They didn't have to deny Merrick Garland a hearing. They could have brought him to a vote.

They didn't have to make a big show out of their commitment to their new rule. They didn't have to grandstand on it as recently as this year and challenge the public to hold them to their word.

When Republicans did all of those things and then said without hesitation that they would break their word, it damages more than their own credibility. It damages the public's respect for government.

It's slash-and-burn thinking. What good is running the country if you run it with such contempt for ethical behavior that you weaken the country?

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 07:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

"Well, all politicians are bad opportunist scheisters" is such a defeatist attitude. Why even try to do anything right or have any morals?

#7 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-09-20 07:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What good is running the country if you run it with such contempt for ethical behavior that you weaken the country?

They're not running it. They are bilking it.

#8 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-09-20 07:59 PM | Reply

They didn't have to make a big show out of their commitment to their new rule.

You keep using this term "New Rule".

These are politicians making tactical decisions for power.

Like Chuckie did when he eliminated the filibuster.

Quit pretending like this is some egregious breach of conduct. Long, long before RBG assumed room temperature the leftist scum were openly discussing packing the Supreme Court, eliminating the Electoral College, granting statehood to various geo-political entities, etc, all in a bid to seize the power they can't seem to obtain at the ballot box under our current Constitutional system of governance.

Your party would do the same thing if in the same situation.

Suggest you start winning some elections instead of whinging about the partisanship and tactics you people have created.

#9 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-20 08:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#5 ... What you said is exactly what everyone knows is true and why it matters so very much. ...

If "everyone knows" then why the huge rush to solve the problem now.

if the solution of a problem has the result that is decades worth of possible change, then I would want an explanation of why that problem needs a solution now, this very instant.

If the solution to the problem has decades of effect, then we should not need to rush into a solution.

We should let the rolling average of time help us to provide the long term solution.


In other words, if, as you seem to agree, that the solution will have decades of effect, why should we rush to save days in order to reach an appropriate solution?

#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-09-20 08:07 PM | Reply

"Well, all politicians are bad opportunist scheisters" is such a defeatist attitude. Why even try to do anything right or have any morals?

Okay.

You ------- can go first :)

#11 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-20 08:14 PM | Reply

Ham,

Since when has politics not been deceitful and manipulative?

Come on...Polly Anna.

#12 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-20 08:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Like Chuckie did when he eliminated the filibuster.

You're a fool if you think McConnell would have kept the filibuster once Democrats used it on a Trump nominated justice. That was obviously never going to happen.

Your party would do the same thing if in the same situation.

Weak and corrupt people always excuse their behavior by saying others would have done the same thing. The reality is that Democrats haven't done anything like what McConnell is doing or what Trump has done to the norms of the presidency.

The Democrats never gave a Republican president's SCOTUS nominee no hearing so they could hold the seat open for a year. Republicans did.

How about you hold Republicans accountable for their actions instead of making excuses?

Long, long before RBG assumed room temperature the leftist scum were openly discussing packing the Supreme Court, eliminating the Electoral College, granting statehood to various geo-political entities, etc, all in a bid to seize the power they can't seem to obtain at the ballot box under our current Constitutional system of governance.

Expanding the Supreme Court and granting statehood are both permitted under the Constitution.

The elimination of the Electoral College has been discussed for a century by both parties.

Since you don't care about norms, you have no credibility to complain about Democrats potentially breaking them.

#13 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 08:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Since when has politics not been deceitful and manipulative?

All you accomplish with this attitude is to put more liars and manipulators in office and let the ones already there get away with their wrongdoing.

"They're all ------ so what does it matter?" is destroying this country.

Do you think we won World War II, put astronauts on the Moon or passed the Civil Rights Act by being resigned to the notion that our politics is deceitful and manipulative?

No. We expected more from our politicians and ourselves. And we often got it.

#15 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 08:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You're a fool if you think McConnell would have kept the filibuster once Democrats used it on a Trump nominated justice.

I am?

Because I just read in the same post that Weak and corrupt people always excuse their behavior by saying others would have done the same thing

#17 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-20 08:28 PM | Reply

Do you think McConnell would have kept the filibuster when the Democrats used it on Gorsuch? Yes or no.

#18 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 08:29 PM | Reply

I don't even have to ask this as a hypothetical. McConnell eliminated the filibuster because the Democrats had 41 votes to defeat Gorsuch.

He wasn't forced to do this because of an action a Democratic Senate did in an earlier term. They retained the Supreme Court filibuster when they had power.

McConnell made a choice and Mao won't hold him accountable for that. Instead it's like those old Family Circus cartoons where children misbehave and they insist a ghost named Somebody Else did it.

#20 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 08:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Do you think McConnell would have kept the filibuster when the Democrats used it on Gorsuch? Yes or no.

Hypothetical and irrelevant.

#21 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-20 08:35 PM | Reply

Ethical concerns are always irrelevant to today's Republican leaders.

#22 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 08:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Funny thing is if the republicans had let Obama have his SC pick, they would have less of an issue allowing ------- to replace RBG bringing back the perceived "balance" on the court.

#23 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-20 08:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If Republicans had given Merrick Garland a hearing and voted against him without ever grandstanding about a "not in an election year" rule, they wouldn't look like brazen hypocrites.

Watch Lindsay Graham on the election year rule promising to follow it if a justice died in 2020. It's Guinness World Record-level hypocrisy.

#24 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 08:48 PM | Reply

@#22 ... Ethical concerns are always irrelevant to today's Republican leaders. ..

OK, I think you may be being bit provocative here.

I would not go so far as "always".

Mostly, yes.

But always? I'm not convinced of that yet.


btw, this song just popped up on the media center...

Eels - Mr. E's Beautiful Blues
www.youtube.com

On the other hand, you do mention Republican leaders. That does winnow the universe of candidates.

Let me look at one...

Sen Graham

I would want to look at how that Senate Republican leader has acted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=Qp0_dK3mvr4&feature=emb_logo

Oh wow.

This ain't good.


#25 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-09-20 08:50 PM | Reply

Rcade,

I don't endorse lying.

But I also think you're being foolish is you really thought Republicans were stopping Obama for any other reasons than power.

I knew from the very start they would block Obama.

I seem to recall posting republicans were going to be like Gandalf..."YOU SHALL NOT PASS"....and I was right.

That's why you can't always say what you really mean.

People twist your words.

Because I say I believe politics is deceitful and manipulative, I get accused of defending it.

Regardless what you think Republicans were saying/meaning about blocking Obama, it is always about power.

#26 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-20 08:51 PM | Reply

Regardless what you think Republicans were saying/meaning about blocking Obama, it is always about power.

#26 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Hey, look, Captain Obvious is posting on the DR!

#27 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-20 08:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

OK, I think you may be being bit provocative here. I would not go so far as "always". Mostly, yes. But always? I'm not convinced of that yet.

Yes there are a handful of Republicans who pay more than lip service to ethics.

But McConnell and Trump lead the party. Neither demonstrates even the slightest concern for ethical behavior. Trump even openly muses about not understanding the honor and sacrifice of American soldiers, asking "what was in it for them?"

Republicans go along with everything McConnell and Trump do.

#28 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 08:56 PM | Reply

It's politics. And it's nasty. But it is completely aligned and in-bounds with what is Constitutionally permissible. [...]

#29 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-20 09:00 PM | Reply

But it is completely aligned and in-bounds with what is Constitutionally permissible.

Refusing to give Garland a hearing abdicated the Senate's Constitutional responsibility to advise and consent.

If what McConnell did is acceptable, a Democratic Senate could acceptably never give a hearing to a Republican president's SCOTUS nominee.

P.s. I don't need to hear your opinion of how I run this site. If you have sand in your cranny take care of it on your own time.

#30 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 09:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Would a potential solution be to maybe re-examine the things that the American Democrat party stands for?

Get rid of the Preferred Pronouns and Communist Rioters?

The Socialism?

Maybe go back to hiding it better?

#31 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-20 09:07 PM | Reply

Rcade,

Individually, some people are more personally inclined to ethical behavior and truthfulness.

But you won't go far in politics if you really think will get much accomplished by spilling your guts and telling everyone what you really think and feel.

I mean...why not just show your enemy your cards and get it over with.

#32 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-20 09:08 PM | Reply

Pronouns and riots? Jesus. Watching a lot of Fox News this weekend to be scared about things that are exaggerated or invented to keep old white people tuned in?

#33 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 09:10 PM | Reply

@#26 ... But I also think you're being foolish is you really thought Republicans were stopping Obama for any other reasons than power.

I knew from the very start they would block Obama....

There was an episode of PBS's Frontline series.

The show was broadcast during the Obama administration.

The particular episode interviewed Republican strategists.

Those strategists told Frontline how they met during the Obama inauguration ceremonies.

While the inauguration ceremonies wer taking place.

And during those ceremonies, those Republican strategist decided that going forward they would oppose everything that the Obama administration proposed.

A "just say no" strategy.

Think about that for a second or two.

No matter what fmr Pres Obama proposes, the Republicans would oppose it. Sight unseen. They were against it.


I was appalled.

But to your point...

I knew from the very start they would block Obama

Yeah. That egregious abdication of governing that you foresaw seems to be confirmed.



#34 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-09-20 09:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

P.s. I don't need to hear your opinion of how I run this site.

I would never do that, Rogers.

I'm just an observer.

Contributor since 2003

Banned since 2013

Reactivated in 2020

Been here a long time.

#35 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-20 09:10 PM | Reply

- Communist Rioters

People who are more concerned about a handful of anti-Fascists than they are about the rwing voting block of Fascist white supremacist's that DHS calls our biggest domestic terrorist threat have already shown their true colors.

Of course, they might just be trying to change the subject.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-20 09:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I would never do that, Rogers.

You just did in #29. I deleted that part because I don't need the drama even though you at least phrased it well.

#37 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 09:14 PM | Reply

- you at least phrased it well.

It's true. Eloquent rwingers are far and few between around here.... OK, almost anywhere.

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-20 09:16 PM | Reply

I don't need the drama even though you at least phrased it well

And I appreciate the ---- out of that.

But there does need to be a little bit of a conversation.

If you tell me what your goals are for this site I can modify my content to align with those.

Surely it must be something better than a bunch of half-wits sitting around calling people "Nazis" and "Fascists".

#39 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-20 09:23 PM | Reply

Fever Tree - The Sun Also Rises
www.youtube.com

(yeah, I know it's not tunes Friday...)

When you're standing in the middle of the road, going nowhere....

(Fever Tree?)

#40 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-09-20 09:25 PM | Reply

- Preferred Pronouns and Communist Rioters?
- a bunch of half-wits sitting around calling people "Nazis" and "Fascists".

I'm not worried. You'll get the hang of this again soon.

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-20 09:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You know I could go along with this politics is a blood sport thing if I didn't have to listen to the christian values --------.

#42 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-09-20 09:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I will beat you bloody to cross the street and hold up my bible.

#43 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-09-20 09:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you tell me what your goals are for this site I can modify my content to align with those.

I don't know what to do with this site. Until the election I'm treading water and banning and unbanning people like a capricious god because I don't know how to make a site work when any hardcore Trumpers are on it.

If Trump loses, we may try to revive the pre-2016 spirit of the place.

If he wins, that doesn't seem viable to me. It'll just be another four years of the war on truth and constant rage-tweeting and I'll have to do never-ending cleanups on Aisle 10.

#44 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 09:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

- the war on truth and constant rage-tweeting

Where Trump leads, they will follow. I watched people like JeffyJ go from nice moderate conservatives to radicalized pinheads almost overnight.

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-20 09:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"P.s. I don't need to hear your opinion of how I run this site."

That would be an interesting topic, if your ego could handle it.

#47 | Posted by willowby at 2020-09-20 09:45 PM | Reply

My comment wasn't online for 10 minutes before a Trump troll who has created multiple accounts showed up to prove my point. He gets banned and keeps coming back.

Too many Trumpers just want to subvert this place and make liberals eat ----. They don't care about discussion.

#49 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 09:53 PM | Reply

Rcade,

Why not shut it down?

Doesn't sound you enjoy it very much.

Think you can revive the pre-2016 spirit?

Even if Biden wins there's always going to be a running thread on his latest gaffe.

Or a thread blaming everything on Trump.

#50 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-20 09:55 PM | Reply

Rcade, just get the my pillow guy for your sponsor and let them go at it. Delete your email account and collect a check.

When Covid is over take a long vacation and then come back.

#51 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-09-20 09:56 PM | Reply

@#44 ... Until the election I'm treading water and banning and unbanning people like a capricious god ..

Yeah.

Been there done that.

Unfortunately, the board I ran was before the hyper-politics of late.

My advice to you?

Good luck.

Wow, that was simple for me, but probably fairly useless for you.

But that's all I got on that topic.

But if you will allow me to wander amok....

I think you are basically doing OK. Not great, but OK. That's better than so-so. So take a bow, you've earned that much.

From my view you seem to want to provide a corner of the web where substantiated conversation can fester.

That is A Good Thing.

(now, if you could only fix those annoying bugs in the HTML editor for submitting comments... Maybe a HTML editor along the lines of what slashdot.com does, with reiterating previews... Just a thought...)

#52 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-09-20 10:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why not shut it down? Doesn't sound you enjoy it very much.

I've run it for as long as I have because it was fun -- and before the ad revenue collapsed on independent news sites beginning in 2017, it also made decent money.

I've given up community sites before and that was a bummer. I'd rather find a way to make it work again.

#53 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 10:03 PM | Reply

- He gets banned and keeps coming back.

It's like they can't live without us, lol.

Here's an business plan... make the rwingers pay and let the lefties post free. You could make a fortune!

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-20 10:07 PM | Reply

Rcade,

"I'd rather find a way to make it work again"

Get rid of the ugly behavior....not the opposing opinions.

#55 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-20 10:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Rcade,

My perception of the place....

You permit bad behavior from liberals you don't accept from other people.

#56 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-20 10:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Some of the trolls may actually be Russian moles, whose only purpose is to divide and cause chaos by flaming from either side of the political spectrum.

#57 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-09-20 10:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Rcade,

I'm not an insider here...just a visitor so I don't know what's really going on that much.

It's just my impression of things.

#58 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-20 10:24 PM | Reply

You permit bad behavior from liberals you don't accept from other people.

#56 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Nonsense.

No liberal who comes here parrots actual, literal Russian propaganda and then acts like he will defend it to the death.

#59 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-20 10:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Some of the trolls may actually be Russian moles

#57 | POSTED BY HAMBURGLAR AT 2020-09-2

Pay attention to this, BILL. The man is being accurate. Actual Russians or nasty home-grown American traitors finding convenient cause with Russians.

#60 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-20 10:31 PM | Reply

all in a bid to seize the power they can't seem to obtain at the ballot box under our current Constitutional system of governance.

Pointing to the process as justification for unethical behavior is the refuge of a coward.

The GOP doesn't have the trust and confidence of the bulk of this country and you know it. That's why they have to do everything they can to limit voter participation, short circuit the census and stack the judiciary with loons and partisans.

Congrats you great "patriot" you, you're burning the house down thinking you're saying it.

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2020-09-20 10:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

I think a President Biden should seek to pack the Court, as a necessary lesson to a certain large cadre of Republican bastards. I think if Democrats take the Senate that should certainly happen. Statehood for Puerto Rico, also.

#62 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-20 10:35 PM | Reply

@#53 ... community sites ...

That is, imo, the key here.

We are a community.

Let me say that again.

We are a community.

We visit this site to discuss and have substantiated discussions with others in the community.

Emphasis on the substantiated discussions. Such discussions are so lacking elsewhere.

I come here to read things that I do not necessarily agree with.

I come here to learn and understand.

I come here to have my opinions challenged.

Quite frankly, I'd have a vacuum in my daily (hourly?) site visits if this site were to disappear.

I do not know of any other site that offers me such comfort.


#63 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-09-20 10:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#56

Like he said, he's acting like a capricious God. He's a far leftist himself, he owns the site, can do what he wants with it. That's free enterprise. Anybody to the right of Mao Zedong shouldn't expect equal treatment here. I'm fine with it. Like I said, he owns it.

#64 | Posted by willowby at 2020-09-20 10:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Oddly, this song popped up on the playlist here...

Howard Jones - No One Is To Blame promo
www.youtube.com

Karma?

#65 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-09-20 10:45 PM | Reply

@#64 ... Like he said, he's acting like a capricious God. ...

There seems to be a fundamental contradiction inherent within your comment.

If I may summarize it... why do you visit this site if you seem, as your comment illustrates, so against what the site represents?

Do you come here merely to criticize?

What do you hope to contribute to the site?


#66 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-09-20 10:53 PM | Reply

...all in a bid to seize the power they can't seem to obtain at the ballot box under our current Constitutional system of governance.

You do realize that there has been a Democrat president in power for 8 of the last 12 years, correct?

#67 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-09-20 10:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- It'll just be another four years of the war on truth and constant rage-tweeting

Is what has destroyed comity not only on this site, but nationally.

As long as the right tolerates fact-free anger ranting from their leadership, it will stay that way.

#68 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-20 10:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

You do realize that there has been a Democrat president in power for 8 of the last 12 years, correct?

#67 | Posted by REDIAL

Trumpers haven't needed facts for almost 4 years, they're not going to start caring now.

#69 | Posted by jpw at 2020-09-20 10:59 PM | Reply

He's a far leftist himself, he owns the site, can do what he wants with it.

I wouldn't call myself a far leftist. I voted for Hillary over Bernie in 2016. I'm closer to center-left than the far left.

#70 | Posted by rcade at 2020-09-20 11:05 PM | Reply

#66

"If I may summarize it... why do you visit this site if you seem, as your comment illustrates, so against what the site represents?"

The same reason I watch MSNBC a lot.

#71 | Posted by willowby at 2020-09-20 11:05 PM | Reply

#70

Just giving you a hard time, rcade.

I tried the reasonable, rational route. With all the invective and hyperbole in response, I decided to join in.

#72 | Posted by willowby at 2020-09-20 11:09 PM | Reply

#71

Masochism?

#73 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-20 11:10 PM | Reply

Why do you always end up down at Nick's Cafe?

Another fun tune that popped up, that has little to do with the topic of the thread....

Robbie Robertson - Somewhere Down The Crazy River
www.youtube.com

Good tune, though. :)

#74 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-09-20 11:13 PM | Reply

@#71 ... The same reason I watch MSNBC a lot. ...

... and that reason is?

#75 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-09-20 11:16 PM | Reply

Whoa...

This one popped up. It's been a while since last heard it ...

Triumvirat - Illusions on A Double Dimple
www.youtube.com

A song for all who've tried and lost
A sad and bitter tale
You can't succeed your whole life long
But some folks always fail...

Woof...

#76 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-09-20 11:42 PM | Reply

#72, Willowby, had no idea you've been here for 10 years. What, has your prostate been acting up lately?

Anyway I don't think that Rcade needs to come here and defend his site.

Hell for my first 10 years I didn't think he ever posted here.

Anyway stfu folks!

#77 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-09-20 11:52 PM | Reply

If you want to discuss the site, take it to the Nooner. :@)

#78 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2020-09-21 12:43 AM | Reply

#75

Being in an ideological bubble is unhealthy.

#79 | Posted by willowby at 2020-09-21 02:44 AM | Reply

If we're going to threaten people, it can't be something we were doing anyways.

#80 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-09-21 08:32 AM | Reply

"Doing what you can get away with is politics as usual, however, even FDR who threatened to pack the Supreme Court to pass the New Deal backed down because it would not have been received well by the public."

Baloney, he backed down because Republicans agreed to stop blocking every part of the New Deal. They told him if he woould not pack the court they would stop blocing his bills.

#81 | Posted by danni at 2020-09-21 08:44 AM | Reply

"Trumpers haven't needed facts for almost 4 years, they're not going to start caring now."

Do you honestly think they aren't the same folks who supported Bush and the invasion of Iraq? They are Republicans and they support whatever they are told to support by their party. Mindless gnomes, usually wrong about most things. Remember when they were cheering for "that great Bush economy?" How did that work out? Oh, and "a democracy in the middle east, which was supposed to be Iraq." They are always wrong about everything.

#82 | Posted by danni at 2020-09-21 08:48 AM | Reply

Republicans block Garlands vote because they can...
Republicans nominate judge 50 days before election...because they can

So when the dems sweep in November...

Democrats pack the court to 13
Democrats allow California to break up into 3 states with 6 senators
Democrats make Washington DC a state, 2 more senators

Because they can.... fair is fair and the future is looking up.

#83 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2020-09-21 09:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

fair is fair

#83 | Posted by 503jc69

Not a concept Trumpites have.

Punish them politically and make it hurt like a mother. Some people need to be instructed in manners.

#84 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-21 09:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Funny...

Any other time liberals would accuse republicans of having no morals or ethics.

But now that they want to prevent Trump from nominating someone....NOW you're claiming republicans took the moral high ground with Obama and trying to shame republicans into waiting for the next president.

Which is it?

#85 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-21 10:16 AM | Reply

I'm fine with the threat.

But......Does anybody think the GOP is scared of that threat?

#86 | Posted by eberly at 2020-09-21 10:24 AM | Reply

Which is it?

#85 | Posted by BillJohnson

Nothing mentioned in your incoherent post, BILL>

#87 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-21 11:04 AM | Reply

Does anybody think the GOP is scared of that threat?

#86 | Posted by eberly at

Not at all. But they'll scream like stuck pigs at the reality.

#88 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-21 11:05 AM | Reply

Which is it?

Here "it" is, Bill.

Obama nominated Merrick Garland in MARCH.

Republicans said MARCH was too close to the election.

The correct principle, articulated at that time, was that as President Obama had every right to nominate a justice and have a confirmation hearing on that nominee.

Republicans ignored that correct principle, and instead pressed on with the dubious notion that MARCH was too close to an election to hold hearing a on a nominee.

Fast forward to today. It is now SEPTEMBER, which is six months CLOSER to an election than MARCH.

The very same Republicans who said MARCH was too close to an election to hold hearings on a nominee are about to hold hearings on a nominee in SEPTEMBER.

I will always agree that Presidents have a right to nominate justices during their term, but should probably abstain from doing so during a lame duck period which IMO should not even exist anymore.

But Republicans didn't play by that rule. They created a different rule. And now they don't want to play by that one either.

Republicans are scum. And for supporting them, you are scum.

#89 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-21 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Republicans are scum. And for supporting them, you are scum.

#89 | Posted by JOE at 2020

He's got you there, BILL.

#90 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-21 11:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Joe,

"The correct principle, articulated at that time, was that as President Obama had every right to nominate a justice and have a confirmation hearing on that nominee."

Right...smight.

It has to do with power.

Republicans had the ability to block Obama and so they did.

And now Trump can nominate someone and Democrats can't stop it.

They would if they could.

#91 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-21 11:48 AM | Reply

It has to do with power.

#91 | Posted by BillJohnson

It's all about power so you and yours need to be crushed, BILL.

Thank you for focusing the anger.

#92 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-21 11:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When people speak of power, I warn them to be careful what you wish for.

#93 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-21 12:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danni,

"Baloney, he backed down because Republicans agreed to stop blocking every part of the New Deal. They told him if he woould not pack the court they would stop blocing his bills."

Ok...let's say that's true.

This time Democrats are threatening to do it out of retaliation and not part of negotiation.

Bottomline is this.

Democrats couldn't stop Republicans before and can't stop them now. Otherwise they would.

I can see why they might feel vindictive.

#94 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-21 12:10 PM | Reply

I can see why they might feel vindictive.

#94 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020

"Vindictive"?

That's how you see it?

Wow. All as if you see a moral dimension to this.

For one side.

#95 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-21 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Republicans had the ability to block Obama and so they did.
And now Trump can nominate someone and Democrats can't stop it.
They would if they could.
#91 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Congrats Bill! You are THE problem!

#96 | Posted by jpw at 2020-09-21 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

What will you say if Democrats take the Senate, nuke the filibuster, and pack the Court, Bill?

All's fair? If Republicans could stop them they would, but since they can't, that's all that matters?

Let's say Dems admit DC and PR as states, and then make every neighborhood in New York City and San Francisco a state, to gain a veto-proof Senate majority for the rest of your miserable life.

If Republicans could stop them, they would. But they can't. So that would be fine, then?

#97 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-21 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If Republicans could stop them, they would. But they can't. So that would be fine, then?

#97 | Posted by JOE at

I think you understand BILL'S arguments better than he does.

#98 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-21 12:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think Bill is an extremely short sighted fool. Because we will have our payback if the GOP really goes that route. And it will be extreme.

#99 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-09-21 02:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He's a far leftist himself,
#64 | POSTED BY WILLOWBY

Anyone left of Hitler is a "far leftist" in Willow's book.

He's a Trump cultist.

His ability to think ends when it conflicts with anything Trump.

#100 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-21 03:12 PM | Reply

Joe,

"What will you say if Democrats take the Senate, nuke the filibuster, and pack the Court, Bill?"

That's all part of the game, isn't it?

Now...the question is what would be the fallout if they did that?

Exercising your power is a calculated risk.

#101 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-21 03:17 PM | Reply

Once again I see posters putting up strawmen.

Just because I point out the game, doesn't mean I like it or even agree with how things work.

I wouldn't want to work in politics because I don't like how the game is played.

But someone has to.

I'm done.

#102 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-21 03:32 PM | Reply

Uh huh.

When President Kamala Harris expands the Supreme Court to 15 seats, appoints Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Barack Obama as lifetime justices, admits DC, PR and each borough of NYC as a state, and gives Democrats a permanent supermajority in the Senate, I am quite confident your only reaction would be "this is now the game is played."

#103 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-21 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Dems have talked about doing this long before her death, so what's new?

#104 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-09-21 04:17 PM | Reply

Dems have talked about doing this long before her death, so what's new?

#104 | POSTED BY MSGT

The GOP is forcing it to become a reality?

#105 | Posted by jpw at 2020-09-21 04:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Pack the court? Dems should shut the government down until after the election.

#106 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-21 08:16 PM | Reply

#106 No they shouldn't.

If they did, Republicans would successfully frame it as the reason nobody's getting any more COVID relief.

The ads would write themselves. Show people struggling and dying of Covid, show hungry children with unemployed parents, and blame Democrats for abdicating their responsibilities.

If Dems shut down the government, it would turn what appears to be a 50/50 chance at complete control of Congress and the White House into a 100% Republican landslide.

#107 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-21 10:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Can I assume you people who think Trump should wait were in agreement with republicans back when they blocked Obama?

Or were you for it before you were against it?

Politics is mostly a big power grab using "ethics" as a tool to manipulate.

#108 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-22 08:42 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I thought you were done, Bill?

Not done yet?

No, in 2016, I and many others rightfully thought that a justice nominated 237 days before an election should get a hearing.

Republicans disagreed and said it was too close to the election. They didn't say "we're in power and we're going to wield it however the ---- we want." They said - "let the people decide who the next SC justice should be in November."

That became their operative principle. So when Trump nominated someone this Friday, which will be just 39 days before the November election, Republicans will be shown to be absolutely shameless liars when they claimed in 2016 they were deferring to the will of the people.

What is wrong with you that you can't understand this?

#109 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-22 08:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Re: #108

It's all BS and nothing matters. Screw true leadership, screw the people, nihilism and anarchy and chaos are all we have

#110 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-09-22 08:53 AM | Reply

BILL seems to be intent on shrugging his shoulders and accepting that we're all in Hell.

No one goes to Hell unless they really want to.

#111 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-22 08:55 AM | Reply

Joe,

"They didn't say "we're in power and we're going to wield it however the ---- we want."

Could you imagine if they had?

Politicians say what they must to block opposition.

Both parties.

Come on...how much back peddling and contradicting themselves do we see in government?

Ultimately politicians are judged by results and not much else.

#112 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-22 10:07 AM | Reply

Zed,

"BILL seems to be intent on shrugging his shoulders"

Once again I am being accused of endorsing the system.

I'm pointing it out.

Sorry if you can't accept the truth about the world and the ugliness of the human race.

At one time things have been better in our government, I believe.

Just not right now.

#113 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-22 10:16 AM | Reply

The level hatred and animosity for an awful lot of people is much higher these days.

I don't know why or who or what is causing it but it is.

Something is dreadfully wrong right now.

Maybe it's just that with the internet we know too much about each other.

#114 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-22 10:26 AM | Reply

I don't know why or who or what is causing it but it is.

#114 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020

Tell me who you vote for and send money to and I'll be glad to tell you.

#115 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-22 10:36 AM | Reply

The human race is very competitive naturally.

Maybe just a built in survival mechanism?

Thru the ages Christianity did have a positive influence on mankind, overall.

Here in the west.

Western man is kind of rudderless right now without that influence.

And all our man made values that blow with the prevailing winds aren't working.

#116 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-22 10:39 AM | Reply

Could you imagine if they had?
Politicians say what they must to block opposition.
Both parties.

This "both parties do it" -------- is nonsense, Bill. The only real world example we have for this is that in 1988, a Democratic-led Senate held hearings on and confirmed a Reagan SCOTUS nominee, in an election year. So to say both parties do this is a lie. You're a liar.

#117 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-22 12:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Thru the ages Christianity did have a positive influence on mankind, overall.
Here in the west.
Western man is kind of rudderless right now without that influence.

A Trumper bemoaning the lack of Christian influence in America is hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

#118 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-22 12:02 PM | Reply

A Trumper bemoaning the lack of Christian influence in America is hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

#118 | Posted by JOE at

His position, as a Trumper, is that Jesus would support Trump and wear a red Maga cap while walking on water.

#119 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-22 12:06 PM | Reply

Western man is kind of rudderless right now without that influence.
And all our man made values that blow with the prevailing winds aren't working.

#116 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

LOL oh man just...LOL

#120 | Posted by jpw at 2020-09-22 12:47 PM | Reply

Zed,

"His position, as a Trumper, is that Jesus would support Trump"

No...that is not my position.

#121 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-22 06:11 PM | Reply

Joe,

"A Trumper bemoaning the lack of Christian influence in America is hilarious and pathetic at the same time."

Secular America isn't doing well...is it?

America is becoming a cesspool....Look at our cities....

Look at who your children emulate....are our young girls wanting to wear a full face of makeup at the age of 10 and thinking she's too fat?

Women want men with money instead of men who are good.

Are our young boys finding a path to manhood or are they being shamed and taught men are naturally bad and must conform to something that is demasculinized.

Families can't stay together.

What kind of hope does that offer for future generations?

#122 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-22 06:35 PM | Reply

Men are taught that they are naturally bad?!?

#123 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-09-22 07:12 PM | Reply

"Families can't stay together."

Especially migrant families in detention.
But that never bothered you.

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-22 07:25 PM | Reply

Ham,

"Men are taught that they are naturally bad?!?"

Pay attention to the subtle messages you hear.

#125 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-22 07:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Women want men with money instead of men who are good.

You should try telling that to my daughter, she'll laugh in your face.

#126 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-22 07:36 PM | Reply

Are our young boys finding a path to manhood or are they being shamed and taught men are naturally bad and must conform to something that is demasculinized.

My 3 sons are each young men that i am proud to know. Each "masculine" in their own way.

So, iow, ---- you.

#127 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-22 07:38 PM | Reply

Gay men are naturally bad, according to BillJohnson.

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-22 07:38 PM | Reply

"are they being shamed and taught men are naturally bad and must conform to something that is demasculinized."

What does that mean?

#129 | Posted by eberly at 2020-09-22 07:42 PM | Reply

It means men who don't grab 'em by the ----- have been demasculinized.

Real GOP men grab 'em by the -----.

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-22 09:05 PM | Reply

What does that mean?

It means that when the "Snoofies" of the world acquire some power within a bureaucratic educational system, the prevailing ideology is such that men are naturally bad and must conform to something that is demasculinized. Regardless of biological reality.

The Snoofies know this, and are more than willing to use carefully-placed personal, homophobic slurs to deal with the heretics.

#131 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-22 09:08 PM | Reply

Truth,

"My 3 sons are each young men that i am proud to know."

They've got an advantage that they actually live with their father.

However......"---- you"...hmm....not very impressive.

Do you have anger issues?

Are they modeling that?

#132 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-22 09:09 PM | Reply

"It means that when the "Snoofies" of the world acquire some power within a bureaucratic educational system, the prevailing ideology is such that men are naturally bad"

Men already commit 90% of the violent crime.
You really think I can grow that to 100?
Sounds kinda sexist to not leave a little room for naturally bad women.

#133 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-22 09:13 PM | Reply

Men already commit 90% of the violent crime

Men are the more aggressive sex and therefore pre-disposed to violence and violent behaviour as inherent to the Human Condition.

Can you apply that brilliance and do a similar analysis based on race, rather than sex?

And also apply that same level of -------- smugness?

Thanks.

#134 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-22 09:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I would love to see it applied to women that identify as men but in the absence of hormone therapy

That's an outstanding point.

One of my personal failings is unconsciously harbouring cis-Normative sentiments in what I post. I'm working on that and trying to get better.

Thanks for making a guy feel like a total -------. :(

#136 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-22 09:55 PM | Reply

"Can you apply that brilliance and do a similar analysis based on race, rather than sex?"

I'm down.

So the males of certain races are more aggressive than the feminized corn syrupy males of other races...

So whichever race is the most aggressive, those are the most masculine men in the world... and whichever other race gets victimized the most by the strongest, those are the biggest p---ies.

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-22 10:04 PM | Reply

confused over which bathroom to use at Target?

Depends.

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-22 10:06 PM | Reply

and whichever other race gets victimized the most by the strongest, those are the biggest p---ies.

Or colonized.

#140 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-22 10:08 PM | Reply

"sounds like you are implying"

I provided the analysis as requested in #134.

"(which seems kind racist to me actually)"

Why? The starting point of this analysis begins with explaining that men commit more violent
crime simply by virtue of being male:

"Men are the more aggressive sex and therefore pre-disposed to violence and violent behaviour as inherent to the Human Condition."

Is that sexist?

Is it racist to say certain races are the more aggressive race?

#143 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-22 10:21 PM | Reply

I guess I haven't been paying attention to the subtle messages "they" are telling me. Toxic masculinity is real and it is a problem in America, always has been.

#144 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-09-22 10:27 PM | Reply

"Toxic masculinity is real and it is a problem in America, always has been."

They cheer Zimmerman for his toxic masculinity and boo Trayvon for the same...

#145 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-22 10:35 PM | Reply

It's slash-and-burn thinking.

#6 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2020-09-20 07:51 PM | FLAG:

Gamesmanship is the accurate description.

#146 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-09-23 08:59 AM | Reply

Not only should the dems pack the court they should reorganize how it works. Expand the SCOTUS to have dozens of judges. Although 9 judges would hear a case, the 9 judges selected to hear a case would be chosen by lottery. With such a scenario, MULTIPLE supreme courts could be operational at the same time. Multiple supreme courts would also help reduce any backlog of cases that might arise.

Such an approach would also reduce the partisanship associated with the selection of supreme court justices.

#147 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2020-09-23 12:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Snoofy,

"So whichever race is the most aggressive, those are the most masculine men in the world"

You believe there's a direct correlation between masculinity and violence?

Apparently you have no idea what masculinity actually involves.

What makes you think you're any more qualified to define "toxic" masculinity?

#148 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-23 03:19 PM | Reply

"You believe there's a direct correlation between masculinity and violence?"

The data are strongly correlated, with something like 90% of violent crimes being committed by men.

But I didn't suggest a cause.

The idea being male causes violence came from the troll:

"Men are the more aggressive sex and therefore pre-disposed to violence and violent behaviour as inherent to the Human Condition."

#149 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-23 03:40 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

I don't deny more violence is done by men.

But tying it to masculinity is the problem for me.

Toxic masculinity is an attitude and beliefs more than a way of behaving.

It's not masculinity causing more violence.

Personally I suspect it's a lack of masculinity for these men.

#150 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-23 03:50 PM | Reply

Toxic masculinity is an attitude and beliefs more than a way of behaving.

I would offer that "toxic masculinity" is more of a description employed by its users to signal their own virtue rather than identify any actual traits or sets of behaviors. In this case I often see it used as a dog-whistle by ineffectual Beta-Male Cucks like Snoofy---or bitter, un-attractive feminists to alert those around them that they, too, reject the cis-normative hierarchy.

Other --------, non-quantifiable terms include "systemic racism", "white fragility", and the ever popular "white privilege".

There was a Dungeons & Dragons thread on the Drudge Retort recently. Contemporary -------- Leftism reminds me so much of Dungeons & Dragons--- a made up world of fictional terms and narratives all woven together into this enormous bag self-affirming, non-falsifiable --------- that basically feeds off itself.

It's fascinating, really.

#151 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-23 04:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

What he said.

#152 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-23 04:48 PM | Reply

Re: #151

Your post is an example of toxic masculinity and anti-intellectualism. The old-timey system works for you, so anytime it's questioned, regardless of the evidence, you whinge just like all the fools on Fox News

#153 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-09-23 04:55 PM | Reply

>reminds me so much of Dungeons & Dragons--- a made up world of fictional terms and narratives all woven together into this enormous bag self-affirming, non-falsifiable --------- that basically feeds off itself.

Fox News must remind you of Dungeons & Dragons as well.

#154 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2020-09-23 04:58 PM | Reply

Your post is an example of toxic masculinity and anti-intellectualism

Gender and Critical Race Theories aren't "intellectualism", -------.

#155 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-23 05:01 PM | Reply

Re: #155

You don't know what intellectualism is, either. Sad.

#156 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-09-23 05:03 PM | Reply

Grim.

#157 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-23 05:06 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort