Newest attempted power grab by Ohio Republicans

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(05-10-2023, 09:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In light of this thread I feel compelled to ask, what do you think about eliminating the Senate filibuster?  Also, what is your stance on expanding the number of justices in the SCOTUS?  I know these are not Ohio specific issues, but I think you understand the intent of my questions.

Yes, both should be done.  The GOP pulled their stunt with McConnell and Lindsey Graham vowing to not let a SC Justice through in an election year, and they turned right around and did it anyway.  The GOP started this dysfunction and its time for the Democrats to stop playing nice and fight fire with fire.  The Democrats always bring a knife to a gun fight and they’ve paid the price.  

Ram through the voting rights act and expand the court to keep the GOP honest and uphold them to their word

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2023, 02:50 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Yes, both should be done.  The GOP pulled their stunt with McConnell and Lindsey Graham vowing to not let a SC Justice through in an election year, and they turned right around and did it anyway.  The GOP started this dysfunction and its time for the Democrats to stop playing nice and fight fire with fire.  The Democrats always bring a knife to a gun fight and they’ve paid the price.  

Ram through the voting rights act and expand the court to keep the GOP honest and uphold them to their word

So change the rules to benefit your party, got it.  I can't see that ending badly at all.  Regardless of what you think about McConnell's move with Garland (and I can say my opinion is we dodged a major bullet on that one), it was completely within the rules.  Underhanded and hypocritical to be sure, but still no rules were broken or changed to facilitate it.  

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(05-12-2023, 04:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So change the rules to benefit your party, got it.  I can't see that ending badly at all.  Regardless of what you think about McConnell's move with Garland (and I can say my opinion is we dodged a major bullet on that one), it was completely within the rules.  Underhanded and hypocritical to be sure, but still no rules were broken or changed to facilitate it.  

So you’re saying the democrats are not allowed to be just as hypocritical  and underhanded?  LMAO! That’s what I mean about them bringing a knife to a gun fight and it’s time they repay the favor.  That’s the thing about the GOP is everything is supposed to be on the up and up when they’re not in control, but when they’re in control and have the opportunity to stick it to the democrats, they do it without hesitation.  But GOD forbid the democrats do it, that’d be just coloring outside the lines of decorum. GFY!

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

Never in the history of the Senate has a decision been made like that and they said it was due to it being an election year. McConnell set a precedent. Lindsey Graham, "Mr. Hold the tape, mark my words. If this should happen when a Republican is a president, we promise not to do it during an election year,"  and then they put in Amy Coney Barrett in the 11th hour.   The Democrats owe the GOP a big stick in the eye for that one and the GOP with McConnell and Lady Gs broken promises will have no one to blame but themselves

Regardless of what you think of Merrick Garland, he is one of the best legal minds we have.  His ratings on the DC federal circuit were rated A+ outstanding. Many Republicans before their "Underhanded" move (Your words) in 2015 said they would be OK with him being the nominee-- until he was the nominee.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-12-2023, 02:50 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Yes, both should be done.  The GOP pulled their stunt with McConnell and Lindsey Graham vowing to not let a SC Justice through in an election year, and they turned right around and did it anyway.  The GOP started this dysfunction and its time for the Democrats to stop playing nice and fight fire with fire.  The Democrats always bring a knife to a gun fight and they’ve paid the price.  

Ram through the voting rights act and expand the court to keep the GOP honest and uphold them to their word

You act like this has never happened before, just never happened as long as YOU have been paying attention to politics..

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(05-12-2023, 08:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You act like this has never happened before, just never happened as long as YOU have been paying attention to politics..

BS!  McConnell set precedence,  and now the shoe is on the other foot the Democrats are supposed to play nice?!?!?!  You GOPers are truly something else. 

When has that ever happened before in our Senate history has the reasoning been b/c it was an election year they refused to confirm a Supreme Court Justice?  Please enlighten me, dear sir.   

[*pally*]

(05-12-2023, 09:32 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: BS!  McConnell set precedence,  and now the shoe is on the other foot the Democrats are supposed to play nice?!?!?!  You GOPers are truly something else. 

When has that ever happened before in our Senate history has the reasoning been b/c it was an election year they refused to confirm a Supreme Court Justice?  Please enlighten me, dear sir.   

The actions of Mitch McConnell around the Garland nomination is why I am no longer a Republican. That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.    They owed him a hearing at least.  Garland is moderate and would have been a good and thoughtful Justice.

Their hypocrisy in 2020 would they shove through Amy Comey Barrett's nomination when actual general election voting was taking place was ethically criminal.

The power grabs by Republicans are out of control.  They know they can't win with a majority vote based on their politics so they are trying to change to the law to a supermajority.
Can't win with voters aged 18-25, so let's change the voting age, remove student IDs from the accepted ID list, and remove voting precincts from on or near college campuses.  Can't win with fairly drawn legislative districts, let's ignore the law and draw them favorable to themselves. Lose an election...cry falsely about rigged elections.  Use those lies to further attempt to suppress the votes of the other side.

I am so sick of these antics from people who claim to be "America First" and "Patriots"  

[BigPapaKain]

(05-12-2023, 09:32 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: BS!  McConnell set precedence,  and now the shoe is on the other foot the Democrats are supposed to play nice?!?!?!  You GOPers are truly something else. 

When has that ever happened before in our Senate history has the reasoning been b/c it was an election year they refused to confirm a Supreme Court Justice?  Please enlighten me, dear sir.   

You can't expect people who vote for pathological liars to be honest with anyone - including themselves.

[Dill]

(05-12-2023, 07:28 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: So you’re saying the democrats are not allowed to be just as hypocritical  and underhanded?  LMAO! That’s what I mean about them bringing a knife to a gun fight and it’s time they repay the favor.  That’s the thing about the GOP is everything is supposed to be on the up and up when they’re not in control, but when they’re in control and have the opportunity to stick it to the democrats, they do it without hesitation.  But GOD forbid the democrats do it, that’d be just coloring outside the lines of decorum. GFY!

I'm hoping democrats WON'T be just as hypocritical and underhanded. That would be a boon for "both sidesers," who'll quickly jump on the "hypocrisies" and double standards which follow with REAL instead of the usual false equivalences. 

But I share your frustration that Dems often seem like deer in the headlights as Repubs do some unprecedented thing which solidifies their
power and takes the rest of us by surprise because we assume "ethical adults don't behave that way." 

When people stop respecting the civil and civic ideals upon which our democracy was premised, then we should not be surprised if people consider how new rules--or laws--might address the power imbalances thereby created. That would be a far better, more dignified solution to the problem of hypocritical and underhanded behavior. We shouldn't continue accepting that behavior as the new civic normal.

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2023, 07:28 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: So you’re saying the democrats are not allowed to be just as hypocritical  and underhanded?  LMAO! That’s what I mean about them bringing a knife to a gun fight and it’s time they repay the favor.  That’s the thing about the GOP is everything is supposed to be on the up and up when they’re not in control, but when they’re in control and have the opportunity to stick it to the democrats, they do it without hesitation.  But GOD forbid the democrats do it, that’d be just coloring outside the lines of decorum. GFY!

You literally typed nothing that refuted my point.  What McConnell did was underhanded, but it wasn't outside the rules.  What you're advocating for is changing the rules to benefit your side.  Your point about McConnell being true, he didn't change the rules to act as he did.  I get that you don't see the insanely important difference as you appear blinded by partisanship, but the difference is enormous.  Start changing the rules to benefit your side and it will only happen again when the other party is in power.  Where does that stop?  It only stops when the rules become inherently meaningless, which is the end of our system of governance entirely.  Hyper-partisan people focus too much on winning and not on the long term cost.  In that regard you are as guilty as the people you decry.  I get you don't see that, and that's the danger of your proposed course of action.

[*pally*]

(05-13-2023, 03:37 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm hoping democrats WON'T be just as hypocritical and underhanded. That would be a boon for "both sidesers," who'll quickly jump on the "hypocrisies" and double standards which follow with REAL instead of the usual false equivalences. 

But I share your frustration that Dems often seem like deer in the headlights as Repubs do some unprecedented thing which solidifies their
power and takes the rest of us by surprise because we assume "ethical adults don't behave that way." 

When people stop respecting the civil and civic ideals upon which our democracy was premised, then we should not be surprised if people consider how new rules--or laws--might address the power imbalances thereby created. That would be a far better, more dignified solution to the problem of hypocritical and underhanded behavior. We shouldn't continue accepting that behavior as the new civic normal.

 

It is frustrating to see Republicans accuse Democrats for the things they do themselves.  Then you see it amplified by the right-wing media.  And all of a sudden it becomes lore. Then Republicans laugh all the way to the ballot box

[samhain]

(05-13-2023, 01:52 PM)pally Wrote: The actions of Mitch McConnell around the Garland nomination is why I am no longer a Republican. That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.    They owed him a hearing at least.  Garland is moderate and would have been a good and thoughtful Justice.

Their hypocrisy in 2020 would they shove through Amy Comey Barrett's nomination when actual general election voting was taking place was ethically criminal.

The power grabs by Republicans are out of control.  They know they can't win with a majority vote based on their politics so they are trying to change to the law to a supermajority.
Can't win with voters aged 18-25, so let's change the voting age, remove student IDs from the accepted ID list, and remove voting precincts from on or near college campuses.  Can't win with fairly drawn legislative districts, let's ignore the law and draw them favorable to themselves. Lose an election...cry falsely about rigged elections.  Use those lies to further attempt to suppress the votes of the other side.

I am so sick of these antics from people who claim to be "America First" and "Patriots"  

I get the sentiment, and I believe that that Garland deserved a hearing.

Even so, I blame one person and one person alone for the Barrett nomination and subsequent end of Roe.

That shit is on RBG all day long.  Not many other libs will say it, but she helped end abortion on demand more than anyone involved in the conversation.  When she went through several bouts of life-threatening health issues coupled with advanced age, yet still refused to retire, she basically guaranteed a Republican replacement of the worst kind.  

Obama tried to talk her into retirement when he was in office in order to name a liberal replacement when he had the juice.  She refused.  She messed around and the rest of use found out.  Just too damned arrogant and full of herself to realize how much damage she was doing to the cause she was allegedly such a ferocious defender of.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-14-2023, 12:17 AM)samhain Wrote: I get the sentiment, and I believe that that Garland deserved a hearing.

Even so, I blame one person and one person alone for the Barrett nomination and subsequent end of Roe.

That shit is on RBG all day long.  Not many other libs will say it, but she helped end abortion on demand more than anyone involved in the conversation.  When she went through several bouts of life-threatening health issues coupled with advanced age, yet still refused to retire, she basically guaranteed a Republican replacement of the worst kind.  

Obama tried to talk her into retirement when he was in office in order to name a liberal replacement when he had the juice.  She refused.  She messed around and the rest of use found out.  Just too damned arrogant and full of herself to realize how much damage she was doing to the cause she was allegedly such a ferocious defender of.  

I get what you're saying but your assessment of RBG is a bit harsh.  First, I doubt anyone seriously predicted the rise of Trump and his eventual victory.  As loathed as Hillary was/is I don't think anyone on the GOP side but Trump would have beaten her.  But even more importantly, your ire should be squarely directed at the Democratic party for the end of Roe.  They had numerous occasions in which they could have codified Roe into federal law and chose not to do so.  The most recent being under Obama, who campaigned on doing exactly that and then, upon being elected declared that it, "wasn't a priority."

https://www.reuters.com/article/obama-abortion/obama-says-abortion-rights-law-not-a-top-priority-idUKN2946642020090430

The reason for this is simple, the Dems used Roe as a massive fund raising tool.  They knew that "protecting Roe" would be a motivating factor to mobilize left leaning voters.  So they chose to leave things as they were so they could continue to fund raise and mobilize people with this issue.  Once it was federal law they would no longer be able to do so.  So you are right, someone eff'ed around and we all found out, but the someone who did wasn't RBG, it was the Democratic party.

[Dill]

(05-13-2023, 06:29 PM)pally Wrote: It is frustrating to see Republicans accuse Democrats for the things they do themselves.  Then you see it amplified by the right-wing media.  And all of a sudden it becomes lore. Then Republicans laugh all the way to the ballot box

Yeah, the projection is systematic and intentional. 

Hannity, Ingraham, Tucker et al. know what they have to do to reverse the polarity when
Trump breaks the law or otherwise publicly embarrasses the party.

If Dems want to investigate Trump's foreign connections and abuse of office,
Then the MAGA Repubs have to find Biden foreign connections and abuse of office
--which the MSM then "suppresses" (because no evidence) to protect him.

If Biden turns in a box of classified documents he found at his residence, then that is
equivalent to Trump's deliberate theft of such and refusal to return them. Thus making
the raid on Mar a Lago to regain documents Trump denied he had into evidence of 
a double standard. "Both sides do it" but only one is assaulted by the FBI. HYPOCRISY!!

To save Trump, they have to undermine the FBI as "weaponized" by Biden, making it
another great "deep state" danger to Trump, nevermind that Trump constantly and 
publicly ordered his AG's to do his bidding, attacking friends and protecting enemies.
He fired good civil servants in the DoD and replaced them with yes men more loyal to him
than the law. His own DOJ threatened mass resignation to stop his appt. of Gates. 
So we need a DURHAM INVESTIGATION to even the scales--until that comes up empty.

You want to send all those Trump campaign officials to jail for colluding with Russians and
lying to the FBI? Well what about the Hunter Biden laptop?!? MILLIONs from Russia
and China!!  Again, the FBI is protecting Trump, witholding material documents and a 
whistleblower which would bring the Biden castle crashing down!!

30 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct from rape to groping--but what
about Clinton? As if Dems would have elected him despite the Lewinsky affair, which
was certainly inappropriate but at least consensual. 

There are moments when the system is rocked and disoriented--like when Trump orchestrated
1/6 or when Fox settled the Dominion Suit and fires Tucker, but it is usually able to recover
within a month. "Why didn't Pelosi expand the Capitol police if she knew there was danger!"
"Why won't the FBI tell us how many of their agents were among the rioters?" "Why send
Capitol rioters to prison but not BLM protestors--they are the REAL insurrectionists!--Double standard!!"  
"Fox has moved to 'the left'!" "Tucker was fired for speaking truth to power!" etc. 

"You claim FOX acts like the GOP's own messaging system, but the whole MSM is like that
for the Dems" (as if political wannabees know they can speak to Biden as he watches CNN everyday
and maybe even be selected for WH positions, like Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper text Biden every evening). 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cable-cabinet/2022/01/09/96fac488-6fe6-11ec-b9fc-b394d592a7a6_story.html

The basic elements of this system have been in place since the late 90s, when the narrative was
developed that the failure of so many Clinton investigations to pan out meant one standard
for the Clintons and another for the rest of us, because they used their party connections
to hide their wrongdoing and that of their "elite" friends. Unfounded accusations against Dem leaders 
have became impervious to correction over 20 years. MSM reporting of GOP wrongdoing, especially
Trump's, is at the same time immediately discounted as "fake news." Self-censorship is at the
heart of the system now. MAGA viewers always already know Dems are "lying"--so why tune
into the Capitol hearings to watch everyone from Trump's AG to his legal counsel assuring him
the election had not been stolen?   

[samhain]

(05-14-2023, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get what you're saying but your assessment of RBG is a bit harsh.  First, I doubt anyone seriously predicted the rise of Trump and his eventual victory.  As loathed as Hillary was/is I don't think anyone on the GOP side but Trump would have beaten her.  But even more importantly, your ire should be squarely directed at the Democratic party for the end of Roe.  They had numerous occasions in which they could have codified Roe into federal law and chose not to do so.  The most recent being under Obama, who campaigned on doing exactly that and then, upon being elected declared that it, "wasn't a priority."

https://www.reuters.com/article/obama-abortion/obama-says-abortion-rights-law-not-a-top-priority-idUKN2946642020090430

The reason for this is simple, the Dems used Roe as a massive fund raising tool.  They knew that "protecting Roe" would be a motivating factor to mobilize left leaning voters.  So they chose to leave things as they were so they could continue to fund raise and mobilize people with this issue.  Once it was federal law they would no longer be able to do so.  So you are right, someone eff'ed around and we all found out, but the someone who did wasn't RBG, it was the Democratic party.

Idk.  I think codifying Roe was something the Dems feared for electoral reasons.  The representatives in deep blue states/district wouldn't have an issue, but any dem that voted to codify abortion as a federal right would be in serious trouble if they were setting up for tight races for re-election.  There's zero chance that the GOP would not have exploited the chance to whoop up the religious base, just as the dems have done with theirs after the GOP finally killed Roe.  

I think they knew there would be consequences and hoped that the court would continue to interpret Roe as the law of the land.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-14-2023, 07:46 PM)samhain Wrote: Idk.  I think codifying Roe was something the Dems feared for electoral reasons.  The representatives in deep blue states/district wouldn't have an issue, but any dem that voted to codify abortion as a federal right would be in serious trouble if they were setting up for tight races for re-election.  There's zero chance that the GOP would not have exploited the chance to whoop up the religious base, just as the dems have done with theirs after the GOP finally killed Roe.  

I think they knew there would be consequences and hoped that the court would continue to interpret Roe as the law of the land.  

Respectfully, you're making my point for me here.

[guyofthetiger]

(05-11-2023, 10:06 AM)Nately120 Wrote: What's with all the legislation?  Why not just use thoughts and prayers to open hearts and minds to the GOPs policies?

Are you suggesting to pray to allow killing of babies? That would go over real well with God. 

[*Nately120*]

(05-14-2023, 11:00 PM)guyofthetiger Wrote: Are you suggesting to pray to allow killing of babies? That would go over real well with God. 

No I'm saying they should use thoughts and prayers to ask god to stop people from getting abortions, not go the legislative route. 

[Dill]

(05-15-2023, 08:18 AM)Nately120 Wrote: No I'm saying they should use thoughts and prayers to ask god to stop people from getting abortions, not go the legislative route. 

So then God would take the place of Big Government, regulating a woman's right to choose? 

[BigPapaKain]

(05-15-2023, 12:06 PM)Dill Wrote: So then God would take the place of Big Government, regulating a woman's right to choose? 

If history is any indication, thoughts and prayers would only lead to a boom in abortions. See also: using thoughts and prayers against school shootings.