Gyroscopic Investing

doodle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:41 pm If the Democrats did the same to Republican president and then turned on word if be supporting their side. If one fighter hits below the belt then I support the other fighting dirty as well. Keep pushing the envelope techno, as a computer person you'd think you'd have a basic understanding of game theory. Your approach ends in civil war.

The Democrats in Congress have reversed their arguments many times when faced with a situation with the parties reversed from the original situations. They never seem to pay a price for doing so.

I support honesty over party. We can have legitimate disagreements on policy and philosophy but I don't believe the ends justifies the means when it comes to dishonesty....that is corrosive. Democrats lie and that is despicable. Their hypocrisy is inexcusable. However, no politician has ever been as big of a bullshitter as Trump. He is a con man and a demagogue. That is a fact. You may take the approach that his end goals justify whatever means are necessary...Mao and Stalin took that perspective as well. Those here that radically support the tribalism happening in our country now over the honesty to call a bullshitter out on his lies will gut this countries institutions. In the same way, Democrats need to have honest discussion on race and police violence in this country. Just because I am vehemently anti Trump doest make me pro Democrat. If they get into power and start spewing misinformation and lies and pushing dishonest policies I will criticize them just as harshly.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:25 pm

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:12 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:50 pm Republicans set a precedent with Merrick Garland that they are now chosing not to follow.

False.

Scott Adams explains the "McConnell Rule" to his imaginary liberal friend "Dale": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgyny2ktF7Q

Good one. Condition 2 of the McConnell rule as he explains it is that the President and Senate majority have to be opposite parties for the appointment to be delayed. I cannot find anything from back in 2016 that includes this condition. Everything I am finding only speaks to Condition 1, namely that it is an election year and the next president ought to make the pick. Can you point me to something that spells out Condition 2 when McConnell made the arguments to block the hearings on Garland?

I'm trying to determine whether it was something he specifically articulated at the time, or whether he is only now clarifying, or maybe re-interpreting what he really meant.
Thanks

Everyone knows that all of these rules are imaginary, right?

The president can nominate and the senate can decide to confirm or not.
Anything else is pablum.

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:07 pm I enjoyed reading this reminiscense by The Volokh Conspiracy at Reason Magazine.

That was indeed a good read. Thanks for sharing.

doodle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:50 pm This is a green light for the Democrats to do whatever they want. . .

Oh my goodness, we passed that landmark a very, very long time ago.

The dems are literally burning down cities and they want republicans to adhere to standards of decorum? Their credibility is so completely shot at this point that it's flatly impossible for them to take any sort of principled position with a straight face. Commupance is a bitch.

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:07 pm Everyone knows that all of these rules are imaginary, right?

The president can nominate and the senate can decide to confirm or not.
Anything else is pablum.

+100. Why should anyone give a fuck what a Senator wanted to do that one time if it's all part of the Constitutional playbook? Follow the process.

Maddy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:47 am The dems are literally burning down cities and they want republicans to adhere to standards of decorum? Their credibility is so completely shot at this point that it's flatly impossible for them to take any sort of principled position with a straight face. Commupance is a bitch.

Of course politicians in general act however they think will be best for them at the moment; it's not just the Democrats.
But I will say I've never seen such viciousness and lack of concern for harming innocent third parties in a US political party as the current Democrat party is displaying.

REALLY...
RBG’s Dying Words: “My Most Fervent Wish Is That I Not Be Replaced Until a New President Is Installed”
Who believes this garbage..
Did RBG write this statement down somewhere or is this just hearsay?
I would think she was not of sound mind if RBG said this, while Dying.

Does anybody here believe for one minute that if the Dems were in control they wouldn't be doing exactly what the Republicans are?

Of course they would. They're all politicians and hypocrisy is the name of the game.

pp4me wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:49 am Does anybody here believe for one minute that if the Dems were in control they wouldn't be doing exactly what the Republicans are?

Of course they would. They're all politicians and hypocrisy is the name of the game.

Yep

pp4me wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:49 am Does anybody here believe for one minute that if the Dems were in control they wouldn't be doing exactly what the Republicans are?

Of course they would. They're all politicians and hypocrisy is the name of the game.

Exactly. Shame on them for what they would probably do.

glennds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:12 am

pp4me wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:49 am Does anybody here believe for one minute that if the Dems were in control they wouldn't be doing exactly what the Republicans are?

Of course they would. They're all politicians and hypocrisy is the name of the game.

Exactly. Shame on them for what they would probably do.

Speaking of hypocrisy I just heard that Pelosi said she would be willing to impeach the president again if he tries to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. The reason she gave was to save the constitution and our Democracy.

The constitution says that the president is the one who nominates the Supreme Court justice and the Senate approves or denies. Where does it say anything about an election year? So how is it that going ahead with this is violating the constitution exactly?

As for saving Democracy that makes more sense as long as you understand that in Pelosi's mind Democracy means Democrats run the country.

I think a confirmation hearing would be a very entertaining and enlightening spectacle for the American people to watch just before the election.

It will be interesting to see how they are planning on sliming Amy Comey Barrett if she is nominated, which it's sounding like she will be. She has adopted kids from Haiti so the racist accusations might not play well although they might be able to make something out of a white person adopting black kids. I know a lot of progressives think that is a bad thing. My guess is the main thing they will go after is her religion. I don't know much about it but I've already heard it described as a "sect".

But the big question is are they going to let Kamala Harris play a major role like she did with Kavanaugh? I'm getting the impression lately that the handlers are keeping her out of the spotlight even more than Joe. Probably has something to do with saying things like BLM isn't going to stop and they shouldn't and referring to the "Harris administration". If we are going to have a Harris administration I think it would be a good thing for the American people to see her in action again.

I said this before on a different thread: it will almost certainly be Barbara Lagoa. She ticks the immigrant family, minority, and female boxes, thus presenting the smallest possible attack surface for the Democrat dirty tricks.

Tortoise wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:41 pm OPED: I was raped by whoever Trump picks to replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court

A year old — and awesome

I was wondering exactly how the Democrats will manage to savage a woman candidate without looking seriously ridiculous. If they suggest she's not qualified they'll be open to discrimination charges, if not outright slander. And the usual sexual abuse stories will be a lot harder to find. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'm really going to enjoy watching this one.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:05 pm I was wondering exactly how the Democrats will manage to savage a woman candidate without looking seriously ridiculous. If they suggest she's not qualified they'll be open to discrimination charges, if not outright slander. And the usual sexual abuse stories will be a lot harder to find. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'm really going to enjoy watching this one.

I expect them to throw everything they have at her, and fail.
But the more they do it, on national TV, the worse they will look.

I see that Biden has promised to nominate a black woman.

So there you have it. Are the Republicans going to continue to perpetuate systemic racism by putting a white woman on the court in a seat that should rightfully belong to a woman of color?

I guess it wouldn't be 2020 if the race wasn't all about race.

With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.

Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:45 am With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.

So this must mean Mitt is not a RINO after all.
Does toeing the line on the nomination get him back on the team?

glennds wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:44 pm

Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:45 am With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.

So this must mean Mitt is not a RINO after all.
Does toeing the line on the nomination get him back on the team?

All of the LABELS and REASONS serve only to obfuscate the simple. Politicians act in their best interests at the moment. End of story.

There is value in releasing a statement that implies some high ground "reason". But only because we humans are wired to latch onto and accept a "reason".

So much simpler to just acknowledge that they did the calculation and acted on the highest utility.