• 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!

With Gorsuch, Democrats Got What They Deserved and Earned

If you think that post was "middle of the road and centrist", then you are much more partisan than you think you are. This opening sentence sounds as though it were written by a GOP spokesman: "Democrats have always been bleeding hearts with a cache of blank checks while Republicans are only bleeding hearts to those who truly do need help while wanting to be fiscally responsible at the same time"

I bashed both parties.
 
It is a rare thing in politics when chickens come home to roost right where they should. The Gorsuch nomination and confirmation comprise that rare thing. Both parties are nakedly hypocritical when it comes to nominations to the federal judiciary and SCOTUS. As majority leader in the Senate Harry Reid was stupidly short-sighted. He created the opening through which the next majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has run for a touchdown. McConnell played hardball in 2016 and went for it all. He won. Don't mess with Mitch.

Precedent, karma and the nuclear optionBy Charles Krauthammer

For euphemism, dissimulation and outright hypocrisy, there is nothing quite as entertaining as the periodic Senate dust-ups over Supreme Court appointments and the filibuster. The arguments for and against the filibuster are so well-known to both parties as to be practically memorized. Both nonetheless argue their case with great shows of passion and conviction. Then shamelessly switch sides — and scripts — depending on the ideology of the nominee.
Everyone appeals to high principle, when everyone knows these fights are about raw power. When Democrat Harry Reid had the majority in the Senate and Barack Obama in the White House, he abolished the filibuster in 2013 for sub-Supreme Court judicial appointments in order to pack three liberal judges onto the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bad karma, bad precedent, he was warned. Republicans would one day be in charge. That day is here and Republicans have just stopped a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch by extending the Reid Rule to the Supreme Court. . . .
The Gorsuch nomination is a bitter setback to the liberal project of using the courts to ratchet leftward the law and society. However, Gorsuch’s appointment simply preserves the court’s ideological balance of power. Wait for the next nomination. Having gratuitously forfeited the filibuster, Democrats will be facing the loss of the court for a generation. Condign punishment indeed.

Um...he is a conservative judge who replaced a conservative judge. Hold your horses. The real fun is four years away.
 
I think he meant the Clinton years. Before you credit congress for that, remember it was the same congress once Clinton left office, and they ran up huge deficits immediately. Their commitment to fiscal discipline is always secondary to their compulsion to give big tax cuts to their rich friends. ;)

They give tax cuts to EVERYONE. The left always seems to forget to mention that.
 
It is a rare thing in politics when chickens come home to roost right where they should. The Gorsuch nomination and confirmation comprise that rare thing. Both parties are nakedly hypocritical when it comes to nominations to the federal judiciary and SCOTUS. As majority leader in the Senate Harry Reid was stupidly short-sighted. He created the opening through which the next majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has run for a touchdown. McConnell played hardball in 2016 and went for it all. He won. Don't mess with Mitch.

Precedent, karma and the nuclear optionBy Charles Krauthammer

For euphemism, dissimulation and outright hypocrisy, there is nothing quite as entertaining as the periodic Senate dust-ups over Supreme Court appointments and the filibuster. The arguments for and against the filibuster are so well-known to both parties as to be practically memorized. Both nonetheless argue their case with great shows of passion and conviction. Then shamelessly switch sides — and scripts — depending on the ideology of the nominee.
Everyone appeals to high principle, when everyone knows these fights are about raw power. When Democrat Harry Reid had the majority in the Senate and Barack Obama in the White House, he abolished the filibuster in 2013 for sub-Supreme Court judicial appointments in order to pack three liberal judges onto the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bad karma, bad precedent, he was warned. Republicans would one day be in charge. That day is here and Republicans have just stopped a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch by extending the Reid Rule to the Supreme Court. . . .
The Gorsuch nomination is a bitter setback to the liberal project of using the courts to ratchet leftward the law and society. However, Gorsuch’s appointment simply preserves the court’s ideological balance of power. Wait for the next nomination. Having gratuitously forfeited the filibuster, Democrats will be facing the loss of the court for a generation. Condign punishment indeed.

The party that controls the courts, controls the country. So that the battle over court appointments has turned nasty and political only makes sense. What republicans need to control the court for the foreseeable future is not for one of the liberals to retire, but for Kennedy to go. After all, you don't need all 9 seats, you just need 5. If Trump can replace the moderate Kennedy who is 80 with a conservative who is 50 ensures that conservative majority and makes irrelevant what happens to the liberal members. Besides, Ginsburg will probably live to be 100.
 
They give tax cuts to EVERYONE. The left always seems to forget to mention that.

Right, but the top always benefits the most. I like tax cuts as much as the next guy, but I also see the need for fiscal responsibility. Just once I would like someone in Washington (other than Bill Clinton in the 90s) that says no, you cannot have a big tax cut, and you cannot have any new big government programs.
 
They give tax cuts to EVERYONE. The left always seems to forget to mention that.

That does not change the fact that the result was more deficit spending and a growing national debt. The problems with the income tax system are mainly that it is based on how, and upon who, that income was later spent rather than simply placing tax on "income from all sources" in order to cover the proposed spending of the federal government.
 
Right, but the top always benefits the most. I like tax cuts as much as the next guy, but I also see the need for fiscal responsibility. Just once I would like someone in Washington (other than Bill Clinton in the 90s) that says no, you cannot have a big tax cut, and you cannot have any new big government programs.

Only the biased partisan left would say that tax cuts to the poor and middle class was a bad thing.
 
That does not change the fact that the result was more deficit spending and a growing national debt. The problems with the income tax system are mainly that it is based on how, and upon who, that income was later spent rather than simply placing tax on "income from all sources" in order to cover the proposed spending of the federal government.

Now that is a different argument and one I can agree with.
 
Right, but the top always benefits the most. I like tax cuts as much as the next guy, but I also see the need for fiscal responsibility. Just once I would like someone in Washington (other than Bill Clinton in the 90s) that says no, you cannot have a big tax cut, and you cannot have any new big government programs.

That (bolded above) is because they pay the most federal income tax - unlike federal payroll taxes where the rich pay less when viewed as a percentage of gross income.
 

Senate Democrats have more than 40 votes to filibuster Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court. In response, Republicans appear to have more than 50 votes to invoke the “nuclear option” — that is, to vote Thursday morning to lower the cloture threshold for Supreme Court nominations to a bare majority. Apocalyptic rhetoric abounds. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) referred to the likely filibuster as “a new low,” while Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) suggested that lowering the cloture threshold risked “forever damaging the United States Senate.”
But the truth is, there’s less to the theatrics than meets the eye. The filibuster for Supreme Court nominees was already dead — it just hadn’t stopped moving quite yet. Before Democrats vowed to filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination, they almost certainly knew that using the tactic would mean its elimination. And this may not be the last nuclear option detonated, either: The history of Congress shows that once parliamentary tools become big enough obstacles for the majority party, they are abolished or reformed. If Senate Democrats stymie Republicans enough over the next few years, the legislative filibuster could soon be gone, too. . . .
 
You're kidding me, right? Your president runs up several trillion dollar deficits in a row and then you want to give Democrats credit for cutting those trillion dollar deficits in half?

You completely dodged my questions. And I going to tell you what you told me. "You know nothing about me or my political history.

Once again...now read my lips: Which US President has reduced the size of US government? Which US Political Party has reduced the size of US Government?
 
You completely dodged my questions. And I going to tell you what you told me. "You know nothing about me or my political history.

Once again...now read my lips: Which US President has reduced the size of US government? Which US Political Party has reduced the size of US Government?

Well, since it is bigger today than it ever has been, the correct answer is that no president has decreased the size of the government.
 
Well, since it is bigger today than it ever has been, the correct answer is that no president has decreased the size of the government.

Thank you.

And if we seriously research the topic I think it would be fair to assume that we'll find that no specific party in Congress that's held a significant majority - which has reduced the size of government. Yes? No?

I contend that we have ample historical evidence that we have a government that's consistently grown the size of government since George Washington and the First US Congress. Party affiliations doesn't seem be a deciding factor.

Correlation doesn't define causation....well usually.

We the People gave government our collective credit card. It (government consisting of varying combinations of numbers of party control) has abused the use of our collective credit card to the point that it can't be repayed.. Both parties are guilty and I'm betting that if we put the math to it - we'd find that the abuse as been pretty much equal in the end.

But we have been mind ****ed to death with political propaganda to the point that government has citizens fighting among each other to the point that we have completely take our eyes off the the thieving, corrupt mother****ers who have, over the last 240 years, learned to protect the institution of government from We the People.

So now a fair portion of the public feel disenfranchised from living under a self-will-run-riot government, that they decided to elect somebody to fix something, something that would stop our status quo corrupt government from exploiting America - "by electing one of the most unscrupulous business men in the world" to clean up all of woes. I'd like to say that Its all our fault for us getting to where we are today. That we just gave our power to all the wrong people. Or perhaps we haven't made ourselves clear about the fact that it's we the people who give consent to those we select to manage our nation's business . Not use our system to create a haven for robber barons. Government has worked hard to systematically to separate us from them.

In my opinion, worst is yet to come from our government. We ain't seen nothing yet. We have a CEO in charge, not a president. CEO's don't operate under the same rules.
 
Thank you.

And if we seriously research the topic I think it would be fair to assume that we'll find that no specific party in Congress that's held a significant majority - which has reduced the size of government. Yes? No?

I contend that we have ample historical evidence that we have a government that's consistently grown the size of government since George Washington and the First US Congress. Party affiliations doesn't seem be a deciding factor.

Correlation doesn't define causation....well usually.

We the People gave government our collective credit card. It (government consisting of varying combinations of numbers of party control) has abused the use of our collective credit card to the point that it can't be repayed.. Both parties are guilty and I'm betting that if we put the math to it - we'd find that the abuse as been pretty much equal in the end.

But we have been mind ****ed to death with political propaganda to the point that government has citizens fighting among each other to the point that we have completely take our eyes off the the thieving, corrupt mother****ers who have, over the last 240 years, learned to protect the institution of government from We the People.

So now a fair portion of the public feel disenfranchised from living under a self-will-run-riot government, that they decided to elect somebody to fix something, something that would stop our status quo corrupt government from exploiting America - "by electing one of the most unscrupulous business men in the world" to clean up all of woes. I'd like to say that Its all our fault for us getting to where we are today. That we just gave our power to all the wrong people. Or perhaps we haven't made ourselves clear about the fact that it's we the people who give consent to those we select to manage our nation's business . Not use our system to create a haven for robber barons. Government has worked hard to systematically to separate us from them.

In my opinion, worst is yet to come from our government. We ain't seen nothing yet. We have a CEO in charge, not a president. CEO's don't operate under the same rules.

If that's all you wanted I could have given that to you a long time ago. I thought you were trying to argue that Democrats cut the size of government. I was wondering what kind of kool aid you were drinking.
 
If that's all you wanted I could have given that to you a long time ago. I thought you were trying to argue that Democrats cut the size of government. I was wondering what kind of kool aid you were drinking.

:no: ........... it's emerged from a long-time in progress systemic effort to do whatever the hell they choose to do - by both major factions. We gave them consent to govern. They decided that they're gonna rule. Read my signature.

It's like we have 535 crazy King Georges who picked up some new strategies from other way less than desirable governments.
 
Back
Top Bottom