• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pence: "In a more respectful time..."

JasperL said:
The generalization is very accurate, unfortunately. Not "all" republicans support him but the VAST majority do. Every poll I've seen indicates Trump has very high support - 80% or more, often approaching 90% - of those claiming to be Republicans.

E.g. https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

He's at 85% with Republicans in that poll, and was at 90% approval as recently as July 2018. We saw it in our governor's race primary a few weeks ago, with every candidate running as a "Trump" Republican. Pretty depressing from where I sit.
Click to expand...


Meh...are they really supporting him, or are they just scared of losing face? The current American political discourse doesn't leave a lot of room for "you know, I was wrong, and you were right"... My own sampling of what Republicans think of Trump doesn't suggest an 85% approval rating...and that's talking to a variety of unrelated folks. People tend to answer differently, depending on if they are speaking privately or with an audience. I've seen it many times even here. Best to focus on the ones who have changed or might change their mind, vs. the die hards...there's no getting through to them.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yes it is. He's essentially saying that if Garland had been appointed then Democrats wouldn't be acting the way that they are.
Click to expand...

More to the point, he's saying the GOP who in our actual reality refused to even hold a hearing for Garland in an exercise of raw political power are just hilariously hypocritical for lecturing anyone about "respectful" times and for not supporting the GOP nominee to the SC.
 
OlNate said:
But it gives plenty of excuse to do so...not to mention robs the folks involved with the precedent of complaining.

Just saying, bud... :) Back to "fix your own house"...

(Bear in mind, none of what I'm saying should suggest that I'm in favor of any of it).
Click to expand...

I agree, it might give an excuse, doesn't mean that it should be used.

And I know, you are not necessarily in favor of any of it. ;)
 
JasperL said:
More to the point, he's saying the GOP who in our actual reality refused to even hold a hearing for Garland in an exercise of raw political power are just hilariously hypocritical for lecturing anyone about "respectful" times and for not supporting the GOP nominee to the SC.
Click to expand...

That would depend on ones POV right? In my POV he's saying that the Democrats are acting the way that they are because Republicans acted that way.
 
OlNate said:
Meh...are they really supporting him, or are they just scared of losing face? The current American political discourse doesn't leave a lot of room for "you know, I was wrong, and you were right"... My own sampling of what Republicans think of Trump doesn't suggest an 85% approval rating...and that's talking to a variety of unrelated folks. People tend to answer differently, depending on if they are speaking privately or with an audience. I've seen it many times even here. Best to focus on the ones who have changed or might change their mind, vs. the die hards...there's no getting through to them.
Click to expand...

I support him now more than when I voted against Hillary.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I agree, it might give an excuse, doesn't mean that it should be used.

And I know, you are not necessarily in favor of any of it. ;)
Click to expand...

haha...well, if an excuse can be given, it will be used in this day and age... Any port in a **** storm, as it were.

Side request: next time please elect someone boring, I am all out of popcorn...hehe
 
Kal'Stang said:
This is just lazy. Put up a debate for crying out loud. :roll:
Click to expand...

You said Pence mentioned Garland. Please point to me where he mentioned him. I read the tweet three times over to make sure I didn't miss it, and I still don't see the word "Garland."
 
Cardinal said:
You said Pence mentioned Garland. Please point to me where he mentioned him. I read the tweet three times over to make sure I didn't miss it, and I still don't see the word "Garland."
Click to expand...

:roll: Last I knew I was talking about what Schiff said. Keep up.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Sigh... I guess we have to have this conversation again too.

"Tyranny of the majority" is not only about who the majority are, but what they use the power of governance to do in marginalizing the minority. It is about the idea of how far governance can go so that the majority did not weaponize governance, even though in our case this has already happened.

The reason we are talking about this is the further we go the more we see how the majority in power operates... until they are not majority.

This behavior is bipartisan... and we all know it.
Click to expand...

Republicans are doing this to America and Republicans are in the minority so they should heed These words as well
 
Kal'Stang said:
That would depend on ones POV right? In my POV he's saying that the Democrats are acting the way that they are because Republicans acted that way.
Click to expand...

It's to be expected that a right winger would crawl around the ground to find any crumb of logic to further his or her agenda
 
OscarLevant said:
It's to be expected that a right winger would crawl around the floor to find any crumb of logic to further his agenda
Click to expand...

And it would be expected of you to do nothing more than send insults when you can't make a valid argument.
 
Kal'Stang said:
:roll: Last I knew I was talking about what Schiff said. Keep up.
Click to expand...

Your memory is...not good. I said: "Well, what respectful time do you suppose Pence was referring to, kalstang? When Republicans blocked Obama's nominee and even in fact promised to block all of Clinton's nominees if she won? Or do you suppose he was referring to before that?"
 
Cardinal said:
Your memory is...not good. I said: "Well, what respectful time do you suppose Pence was referring to, kalstang? When Republicans blocked Obama's nominee and even in fact promised to block all of Clinton's nominees if she won? Or do you suppose he was referring to before that?"
Click to expand...

I did not see "Pence". Still waking up. My apologies on that.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I did not see "Pence". Still waking up. My apologies on that.
Click to expand...

Okay. So what what respectful time do you suppose Pence was referring to?
 
OlNate said:
Meh...are they really supporting him, or are they just scared of losing face? The current American political discourse doesn't leave a lot of room for "you know, I was wrong, and you were right"... My own sampling of what Republicans think of Trump doesn't suggest an 85% approval rating...and that's talking to a variety of unrelated folks. People tend to answer differently, depending on if they are speaking privately or with an audience. I've seen it many times even here. Best to focus on the ones who have changed or might change their mind, vs. the die hards...there's no getting through to them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it matters why, just that all indications are he enjoys VAST GOP support. What I know is those with a vested interest in it ACT like Trump has huge support, at least in Tennessee. They were falling all over each other trying to claim the "Trump Republican" prize. And look in Congress. How many in Congress are openly critical? Not many. We've got a couple threads on Sasse and he's doing nothing more than being critical of obvious problems with Trump, and the fact that he's a notable EXCEPTION tells you the extent of the problem. Those in Congress have polls and know what coming out as anti-Trump does to their chances in the primaries.
 
JasperL said:
I'm not sure it matters why, just that all indications are he enjoys VAST GOP support. What I know is those with a vested interest in it ACT like Trump has huge support, at least in Tennessee. They were falling all over each other trying to claim the "Trump Republican" prize. And look in Congress. How many in Congress are openly critical? Not many. We've got a couple threads on Sasse and he's doing nothing more than being critical of obvious problems with Trump, and the fact that he's a notable EXCEPTION tells you the extent of the problem. Those in Congress have polls and know what coming out as anti-Trump does to their chances in the primaries.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is make room for the possibility that "they" are getting battle weary too. Maybe it varies from place to place, but generalizing is today's best way of flipping each other the bird, and nothing puts fuel back in the tank better than getting flipped off.

Just my two cents... :)
 
OrphanSlug said:
I've always taken issue with this sort of thing, Pence is cherry-picking data to support a hypocritical position then calling the whole thing the absence of respect. Ultimately it speaks to his credibility.

Neil Gorsuch (Trump) was 54-45, Elena Kagan (Obama) was 63-37, Sonia Sotomayor (Obama) was 68-31, Samuel Alito (Bush 43) was 58-42, Clarence Thomas (Bush 41) was 52-48, and we have seen plenty of rejections or withdraws for whatever reason.

The politicization of the nomination process and conformation process has been full-tilt long enough to suggest Pence is intentionally being misleading.

It is as if Trump, Pence, and others are unilaterally deciding on the high road but it is all based on ****.
Click to expand...

I agree. More wrongs are better for this country. The good of the party is much more important than the good of the people.
 
Kal'Stang said:
That would depend on ones POV right? In my POV he's saying that the Democrats are acting the way that they are because Republicans acted that way.
Click to expand...

Well, certainly the GOP poisoned the well with Garland. It was a pretty remarkable demonstration of raw political power, and if the expectation is Democrats would after that go all "respectful" and pretend it's 40 years ago is pretty moronic.
 
I find it interesting that the SC members can read a law and come to different conclusions. I thought justice was suppose to be blind. It is very clear that the SC Justices view the law from their respective personal political views. If justice was blind political parties would not matter. In reality, that is not the case. Hence the political battle regarding who gets appointed to the SC.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Precedent doesn't mean it has to be followed.
Click to expand...

You must be under some impression this is grade school politics here. No, precedent doesn't have to be followed, but the GOP spent 8 years blocking and delaying Obama's judicial picks, and didn't have the "respect" for the process to even give Garland a hearing, much less a vote, much less vote to approve him because he was obviously highly qualified for the position.

It's naive to expect and quite frankly politically suicidal for Democrats to reward the GOP for that behavior by going back to norms last seen decades ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom