bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) deleted Edited November 15, 2019 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: They retained because a Trump nominated judge was done dirty, without that the result would have been different. With a Clinton nominated judge being done dirty, no way the GOP would have retained. 2016 was more important. Pure speculation....McConnell did it anyway and still got more seats: Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Yzermandius19 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) Just now, bush_cheney2004 said: Pure speculation....McConnell did it anyway and still got more seats: Informed speculation, unlike your speculation, which is based on wishful thinking that Republicans doing Clinton judges dirty would have been rewarded in 2018 had she won, a laughable assertion. Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 Just now, Yzermandius19 said: Informed speculation, unlike your speculation, which is based on wishful thinking. What are you arguing about...what might have happened ? What matters is what actually did happen, and McConnell won at that game. I don't give a crap what Clinton would or would not have done for SCOTUS, because the GOP still would have controlled the Senate. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Yzermandius19 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: What are you arguing about...what might have happened ? What matters is what actually did happen, and McConnell won at that game. I don't give a crap what Clinton would or would not have done for SCOTUS, because the GOP still would have controlled the Senate. I am arguing that given hindsight, where Republicans barely retained the Senate in 2018 off the backs of Democrat Senators being dicks to Kavanaugh, that you should not have so confident that Senate would have shut down all of Clinton's judges until 2020, and that you should voted for Trump in 2016, because what actually happened is vastly superior for Republicans compared to what would have happened had Clinton won. Trump winning was the difference between a 5-4 Republican SCOTUS majority and a 6-3 Democrat SCOTUS majority. Your justifications for not voting for Trump in 2016 are very lacking, if this is the best you got, that's pretty lame. Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 Just now, Yzermandius19 said: I am arguing that given hindsight, where Republicans barely retained the Senate in 2018 off the backs of Democrat Senators being dicks to Kavanaugh, that you should not have so confident that Senate would have shut down all of Clinton's judges until 2020. I was confident then because the GOP was favoured to retain the Senate, even before the Democrats committed suicide. The GOP did far better than "retain"...they picked up two more seats ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Yzermandius19 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: I was confident then because the GOP was favoured to retain the Senate, even before the Democrats committed suicide. The GOP did far better than "retain"...they picked up two more seats ! The GOP would not have been favored to retain the Senate in 2018 without the Senate Democrats committing suicide trying to stop Kavanaugh. That only happened because Trump won, otherwise Kavanaugh would not have been nominated, and it would have been Senate Republicans committing suicide trying to stop a Clinton appointed judge. Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: The GOP would not have been favored to retain the Senate in 2018 without the Democrats committing suicide trying to stop Kavanaugh. No so, as the Democrats were already disadvantaged by the breakdown of 35 seat elections mostly held by them, not the GOP. The GOP did not face as many potential seat losses in 2018 regardless of the Kavanaugh hearings. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Yzermandius19 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: No so, as the Democrats were already disadvantaged by the breakdown of 35 seat elections mostly held by them, not the GOP. The GOP did not face as many potential seat losses in 2018 regardless of the Kavanaugh hearings. Whichever party decided to commit political suicide by opposing a judge for no reason other than partisan politics, would not have been in control of the Senate in 2018, it was a toss up until Dems shot themselves in the foot, and it would have been a toss up unless the GOP shot themselves in the foot. It was too close for you to be as confident as you were, prior to the Kavanaugh debacle. Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 Just now, Yzermandius19 said: Whichever party decided to commit political suicide by opposing a judge for no reason other than partisan politics, would not have been in control of the Senate in 2018, it was a toss up until Dems shot themselves in the foot, and it would have been a toss up unless the GOP shot themselves in the foot. That's just isn't the case, because the Democrats faced an uphill battle long before the Kavanaugh hearings. It was not a toss up.....odds were against the Democrats taking control of the Senate in 2018. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Yzermandius19 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: That's just isn't the case, because the Democrats faced an uphill battle long before the Kavanaugh hearings. It was not a toss up.....odds were against the Democrats taking control of the Senate in 2018. Not so long against the Democrats that Republicans shooting themselves in the foot blocking Clinton SCOTUS nominations over bullshit wouldn't have cost them the Senate. The Senate Republicans in swing seats who did so were going to lose in that scenario, same as what happened to the Senate Democrats in swing seats. Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 Just now, Yzermandius19 said: Not so long against them that Republicans shooting themselves in the foot blocking Clinton nominations over bullshit wouldn't have cost them the Senate. But still against them...and the GOP would prevail until at least 2020 anyway. Clinton never got her chance, and McConnell's ruthless strategy worked out well for the GOP. What, did you think the GOP would just roll over on SCOTUS justices just to save a seat or two.....no way. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Yzermandius19 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: But still against them...and the GOP would prevail until at least 2020 anyway. Clinton never got her chance, and McConnell's ruthless strategy worked out well for the GOP. What, did you think the GOP would just roll over on SCOTUS justices just to save a seat or two.....no way. I'm saying they wouldn't have rolled, which would have cost them the Senate in 2018. There were too many Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats in swing seats for either of them to get away with doing SCOTUS judges dirty for clearly partisan reasons, without costing them potential control of the Senate. So obsturcting Clinton would have given the Democrats control over the Senate in 2018, and a 6-3 Democrat SCOTUS majority before 2020, and you were willing to risk that because of your overconfidence in Republicans maintaining the Senate until at least 2020 even if Trump had not have won. Very risky, thankfully, Trump won and things didn't go that way, but if they had, you would have been kicking yourself real hard for not voting Trump in 2016. Because it didn't happen, you convince yourself through wishful thinking that all would have been fine anyway to justify not voting for Trump in 2016. Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 Just now, Yzermandius19 said: I'm saying they wouldn't have, which would have cost them the Senate in 2018. There were too many Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats in swing seats for either of them to get away with doing SCOTUS judges dirty for clearly partisan reasons, without costing them potential control of the Senate. But they already did it, using rules changes passed when the Democrats had a majority. Judges will face the same tactics going forward from both sides now....it is game on...forever. Americans understand the fight, and many have chosen their side....right down the middle. We play hard ball down here...political blood sport...it ain't Canada. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Yzermandius19 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: But they already did it, using rules changes passed when the Democrats had a majority. Judges will face the same tactics going forward from both sides now....it is game on...forever. Americans understand the fight, and many have chosen their side....right down the middle. We play hard ball down here...political blood sport...it ain't Canada. Yes and that game often backfires on the obstructing party in Senate elections, as 2018 proved. Which means your assumption that Republicans can stop all Clinton nominees until 2020 doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Thankfully it didn't backfire on Senate Republicans in 2016 because it was mostly Democrat seats up for election. It also helped Trump because it was Scalia's seat being replaced and Obama was a lame duck, so the let the 2016 POTUS election decide who gets to replace Scalia pitch worked. 2018 would have been a very different story had Clinton won in 2016 and Republicans shut down all her nominees for purely partisan reasons. Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: Yes and that game often backfires on the obstructing party in Senate elections, as 2018 proved. Which means your assumption that Republicans can stop all Clinton nominees until 2020 doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. More speculation on top of previous conjecture. How's about paying more attention to what actually happened in not only 2018, but 2016, when the GOP only lost two seats after Garland got shut out. The Democrats had dug such a hole in 2012 & 2014 in the Senate, it didn't matter. McConnell has been able to nurse a slim majority ever since, plus he has the VP as tie breaker. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Yzermandius19 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: More speculation on top of previous conjecture. How's about paying more attention to what actually happened in not only 2018, but 2016, when the GOP only lost two seats after Garland got shut out. The Democrats had dug such a hole in 2012 & 2014 in the Senate, it didn't matter. McConnell has been able to nurse a slim majority ever since, plus he has the VP as tie breaker. You're the one who said your not voting for Trump was because you were confident in Republicans retaining the Senate until 2020 even if Clinton had won in 2016. So your deflection to why don't you focus on what really happened instead what would have happened, that also plays into my argument that based on Trump exceeding your expectations, you should have voted for him in 2016, given hindsight. Whichever way you argue it, you f*cked up. All your arguments for not voting for Trump in 2016 are bad, so if this is the best material you got, you might want to rethink your position on the 2016 election, especially in regards to 2020 somehow being more important, especially for Republicans. Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 Just now, Yzermandius19 said: You're the one who said your not voting for Trump was because you were confident in Republicans retaining the Senate even if Clinton had won in 2016. So your deflection to why don't you focus on what really happened also plays into my argument that based on Trump exceeding your expectations that you should have voted for him in 2016, given hindsight. That's not what I said at all...I didn't vote for Donald Trump because he promised more fiscal excess. I live in a blue state...both of my Senators are Democrats. Also, I am not a Republican. Lastly, I don't vote in hindsight...and neither does anybody else. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senator Mitch McConnell is the SCOTUS hero far more than Trump. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Yzermandius19 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: That's not what I said at all...I didn't vote for Donald Trump because he promised more fiscal excess. I live in a blue state...both of my Senators are Democrats. Also, I am not a Republican. Lastly, I don't vote in hindsight...and neither does anybody else. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senator Mitch McConnell is the SCOTUS hero far more than Trump. Right, but I presented a hypothetical, and asked you to answer how you would have voted if you had the benefit of hindsight. Trump is the bigger hero because without him there would be no Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, and the Democrats would have a 6-3 SCOTUS majority. Obstructing Clinton for as long as he can would not gain him hero status in and of itself, he needed a Republican in the White House to lock down the SCOTUS for decades, he couldn't do it all by himself, even if some Republican came in and nominated Gorsuch and Kavanaugh after winning in 2020, that still would have been the case. Trump needed control of the Senate to be a SCOTUS hero, and McConnell needed a Republican President to be a SCOTUS hero. If the Dems had control of the Senate or Presidency in 2016, neither would have been a hero. Also which state are you in? Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: Right, but I presented a hypothetical, and asked you to answer how you would have voted if you had the benefit of hindsight. ...and I responded third party (not Trump) for the same reason anyway, regardless of any risk to GOP Senate control. I am in a state that Trump did not win. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Yzermandius19 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: ...and I responded third party (not Trump) for the same reason anyway, regardless of any risk to GOP Senate control. I am in a state that Trump did not win. Your response of third party doesn't seemed to be backed with any solid justification, especially in hindsight. If it is, feel free to reveal that reason, unless that is top secret. Never claimed your vote swung the election. What state are you in that Trump didn't win? Is that top secret too? Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: Never claimed your vote swung the election. What state are you in that Trump didn't win? Is that top secret or something? It is now.....why do you want to know ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Yzermandius19 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said: It is now.....why do you want to know ? Just curious. Has nothing to do with my argument, if you don't want to tell me, whatever. I see no reason to hide which state you are in though. At least you narrowed it down to states with two Democrat Senators that voted against Trump. Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: Just curious. Has nothing to do with my argument, if you don't want to tell me, whatever. I see no reason to hide which state you are in though. At least you narrowed it down to states with two Democrat Senators that voted against Trump. OK...California !! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Yzermandius19 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: OK...California !! Hopefully you're in a saner part of the state instead of on a Democrat plantation. Too bad Making California Great Again is such a long shot that won't happen any time soon. If it does happen down the road though, then California will be the place to be. Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.