President Joe Biden has asserted executive privilege over the recordingsĀ of his interview with special counsel Robert Hur, according toĀ lettersĀ from theĀ White House andĀ Justice Department to House Republicans.
I donāt 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 arenāt releasing it.
āBut be better than republicans. Hold your āteamā to higher standards than just the letter by someoneās name.ā
No. Fuck that. We tried that and ended up with a conservative majority on SCOTUS. Donāt do anything to give Republicans or Trump an advantage. Iām just as disappointed as anyone that Biden is the best candidate the Dems can produce, and that his campaign slogan is effectively ābetter than Trumpā. But I donāt 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 isnāt a literal fascist. Make the Republicans work for it. If the transcript doesnāt titillate your Fox News braindead audience then too bad.
. Fuck that. We tried that and ended up with a conservative majority on SCOTUS
ā¦
Refusing to fight for Obamaās 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 āhaving standardsā.
Itās wild to hear someone even suggest thatās what happenedā¦
Refusing to fight for Obamaās 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 āhaving standardsā.
If this is what you think happened in 2016 after Senate Republicans openly admit that they blocked Obamaās SC pick, then I hope nobody is listening to you because youāve lost all credibility. They even said that they would do the same thing to a Republican president, but then they moved faster than Iāve ever seen Congress move to install a new Justice just a few weeks before the 2020 election. Thereās 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. Thereās no excuse for not knowing what happened, so I have to assume that youāre just arguing in bad faith, trying to sow division.
Itās written that the Senate may vote to confirm, not that they have to.
If republicans refused to hold the vote because they didnāt have the votes to stop it, Obama should have just sat his pick (not the bullshit ācompromiseā) 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 wouldnāt.
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 ā law professors, historians and political scientists ā 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 āadvise and consentā 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.
Thatās 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 doesnāt work anymore. We spend all our time trying to undo what republicans do, but they do so much bullshit thereās not enough time for everything, let alone anythingās ng we want to do.
How do people not see that if youāve been paying attention to politics since at least 2016?
Not āmayā, the wording is āshallā and āwithāā. 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 āmayā
I donāt 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 arenāt releasing it.
āBut be better than republicans. Hold your āteamā to higher standards than just the letter by someoneās name.ā
No. Fuck that. We tried that and ended up with a conservative majority on SCOTUS. Donāt do anything to give Republicans or Trump an advantage. Iām just as disappointed as anyone that Biden is the best candidate the Dems can produce, and that his campaign slogan is effectively ābetter than Trumpā. But I donāt 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 isnāt a literal fascist. Make the Republicans work for it. If the transcript doesnāt titillate your Fox News braindead audience then too bad.
ā¦
Refusing to fight for Obamaās 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 āhaving standardsā.
Itās wild to hear someone even suggest thatās what happenedā¦
If this is what you think happened in 2016 after Senate Republicans openly admit that they blocked Obamaās SC pick, then I hope nobody is listening to you because youāve lost all credibility. They even said that they would do the same thing to a Republican president, but then they moved faster than Iāve ever seen Congress move to install a new Justice just a few weeks before the 2020 election. Thereās 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. Thereās no excuse for not knowing what happened, so I have to assume that youāre just arguing in bad faith, trying to sow division.
Between the insults, you said I donāt know what happened, then said what happened was the same thing I said?
Is it just because I pointed out Dems didnāt fight or try anything to get Obama his pick?
Or that the reason they didnāt was in an attempt to motivate voters to turn out for someone they donāt like?
I just donāt see anywhere else we disagree, but if you keep the insults up Iām 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 shouldāve fought that?
Itās written that the Senate may vote to confirm, not that they have to.
If republicans refused to hold the vote because they didnāt have the votes to stop it, Obama should have just sat his pick (not the bullshit ācompromiseā) 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 wouldnāt.
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.
Thatās 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 doesnāt work anymore. We spend all our time trying to undo what republicans do, but they do so much bullshit thereās not enough time for everything, let alone anythingās ng we want to do.
How do people not see that if youāve been paying attention to politics since at least 2016?
Itās incredibly obvious whatās happeningā¦
Not āmayā, the wording is āshallā and āwithāā. 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 āmayā