3 ms·

I don't know that in the current political climate, the democrats would extend the same courtesy if it happened under their control of the Senate and White Hous

by cm2187 6y ago

I don't know that in the current political climate, the democrats would extend the same courtesy if it happened under their control of the Senate and White House.

matthewdgreen 6y ago
Lately I see a lot of people saying things like “this particular example of real behavior is bad and conflicts with my values so should be electorally punished, but my mental model of the other side tells me that they would probably do the same thing if they hypothetically got the opportunity, and so I’m not going to uphold my values.”
- intended 6y ago
  I’m surprised that most people in america didn’t see this coming. It’s been clear that “winning” has been the strategy for the republicans and they’ve been doing it consistently for decades now. They’ve shown up at elections, they’ve shown up for local elections, they’ve worked for every single advantage in power they could get. I mean these are the chaps who suffered a massive electoral defeat to Obama the first time and found their mettle by saying “one term president” like a mantra. They converted that into a fight for every micro meter. Eventually anyone m would also realize that “winning” (at all costs) is the strategy that works and adopt it. The best strategies get adopted by market players. The media environment for the past many decades now ensures that bipartisanship won’t work either. Maybe it’s an incorrect cultural reading on my part,
  - cm2187 6y ago
    I don’t disagree with your characterisation, but I do disagree with the idea that it is republicans alone. Unfortunately this has been the way both parties have operated for a long time. The democrats have also done their fair share of abuse of power just in the last 4 years.
    - intended 6y ago
      Sure, i don’t doubt there’s work on the Dem side when it comes to abuse of power. >in the last 4 years I’m talking 30 years. The last 4 years are just end results of other forces. Also - america has never produced an event like the trump presidency. Does that feature when we discuss abuse of power in the last 4 years? I know of no Democrat action that is comparable.
      - cm2187 6y ago
        The use by Obama of the FBI to investigate his political opponent during a presidential campaign, on a basis of an improbable opposition research report is unprecedented and to say the least, controversial. Imagine the outrage if any republican president had done that. Not saying this is only the last 4 years. I agree, at least 30 years. But no, it is not the action of a single party.
        vlovich123 6y ago
        Was there any indication this was Obama directing the FBI to behave this way, or that this was an established pattern of behavior? There’s a very important difference between a mistake or an error in judgement vs an established pattern of behavior and engagement of illicit behavior by the president himself (as with Trump offering a pardon to Assange to deny ties to Russia in the DNC hack after failing to have Ukraine fallaciously smear Biden).
        cm2187 6y ago
        "You can't prove it" isn't a terribly convincing defense.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        singemonkey 6y ago
        I always thought that "you can't prove it" was a very good defence? Isn't the burden of proof generally on the accuser? I'm not a lawyer, so I'm unfamiliar with the nitty-gritty of legalities.
notahacker 6y ago
Sure, but the argument that the Senate shouldn't approve or even consider a Supreme Court nomination in election years because voters should have a voice was made by Mitch McConnell, at a time when not approving a presidential nominee suited him. I don't think anybody can argue in good faith that it is equally incumbent upon the Democrats to act in a manner consistent with principles argued for and precedents set by Mitch McConnell.
- cm2187 6y ago
  I don’t think anyone could argue that the democrats are acting in good faith pushing for delay now while having pushed for expedition in 2016. Both parties want to shape the supreme court. I am more annoyed by the fact that the supreme court has become a political arena. Making laws should be the responsibility of the elected legislator. A court, any court, should merely arbitrate on the conformity of legal disputes to these laws. If they acted that way, no one would really care who gets nominated to the supreme court. It is because the supreme court has taken the habit of ruling on matters that should be left to the legislator and effectively to make new laws that it has become a bitter fight for nominations. I see the same power grab happening in Europe and am equally worried about it. No power should be given without accountability.
  - chki 6y ago
    >while having pushed for expedition in 2016. That's a weird way of saying "nominated a candidate via the regular process".
    - cm2187 6y ago
      Nominating a candidate now is also the regular process.
      - chki 6y ago
        Yes, that's true. But it's important to note that Republicans deviated from this process 4 years ago and will now just resume business as usual while being a lot closer to the actual election than in 2016.

by cm2187 6y ago

I don't know that in the current political climate, the democrats would extend the same courtesy if it happened under their control of the Senate and White House.

matthewdgreen 6y ago

Lately I see a lot of people saying things like “this particular example of real behavior is bad and conflicts with my values so should be electorally punished, but my mental model of the other side tells me that they would probably do the same thing if they hypothetically got the opportunity, and so I’m not going to uphold my values.”

intended 6y ago
I’m surprised that most people in america didn’t see this coming. It’s been clear that “winning” has been the strategy for the republicans and they’ve been doing it consistently for decades now. They’ve shown up at elections, they’ve shown up for local elections, they’ve worked for every single advantage in power they could get. I mean these are the chaps who suffered a massive electoral defeat to Obama the first time and found their mettle by saying “one term president” like a mantra. They converted that into a fight for every micro meter. Eventually anyone m would also realize that “winning” (at all costs) is the strategy that works and adopt it. The best strategies get adopted by market players. The media environment for the past many decades now ensures that bipartisanship won’t work either. Maybe it’s an incorrect cultural reading on my part,
- cm2187 6y ago
  I don’t disagree with your characterisation, but I do disagree with the idea that it is republicans alone. Unfortunately this has been the way both parties have operated for a long time. The democrats have also done their fair share of abuse of power just in the last 4 years.
  - intended 6y ago
    Sure, i don’t doubt there’s work on the Dem side when it comes to abuse of power. >in the last 4 years I’m talking 30 years. The last 4 years are just end results of other forces. Also - america has never produced an event like the trump presidency. Does that feature when we discuss abuse of power in the last 4 years? I know of no Democrat action that is comparable.
    - cm2187 6y ago
      The use by Obama of the FBI to investigate his political opponent during a presidential campaign, on a basis of an improbable opposition research report is unprecedented and to say the least, controversial. Imagine the outrage if any republican president had done that. Not saying this is only the last 4 years. I agree, at least 30 years. But no, it is not the action of a single party.
      - vlovich123 6y ago
        Was there any indication this was Obama directing the FBI to behave this way, or that this was an established pattern of behavior? There’s a very important difference between a mistake or an error in judgement vs an established pattern of behavior and engagement of illicit behavior by the president himself (as with Trump offering a pardon to Assange to deny ties to Russia in the DNC hack after failing to have Ukraine fallaciously smear Biden).
        cm2187 6y ago
        "You can't prove it" isn't a terribly convincing defense.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        singemonkey 6y ago
        I always thought that "you can't prove it" was a very good defence? Isn't the burden of proof generally on the accuser? I'm not a lawyer, so I'm unfamiliar with the nitty-gritty of legalities.

notahacker 6y ago

Sure, but the argument that the Senate shouldn't approve or even consider a Supreme Court nomination in election years because voters should have a voice was made by Mitch McConnell, at a time when not approving a presidential nominee suited him. I don't think anybody can argue in good faith that it is equally incumbent upon the Democrats to act in a manner consistent with principles argued for and precedents set by Mitch McConnell.

cm2187 6y ago
I don’t think anyone could argue that the democrats are acting in good faith pushing for delay now while having pushed for expedition in 2016. Both parties want to shape the supreme court. I am more annoyed by the fact that the supreme court has become a political arena. Making laws should be the responsibility of the elected legislator. A court, any court, should merely arbitrate on the conformity of legal disputes to these laws. If they acted that way, no one would really care who gets nominated to the supreme court. It is because the supreme court has taken the habit of ruling on matters that should be left to the legislator and effectively to make new laws that it has become a bitter fight for nominations. I see the same power grab happening in Europe and am equally worried about it. No power should be given without accountability.
- chki 6y ago
  >while having pushed for expedition in 2016. That's a weird way of saying "nominated a candidate via the regular process".
  - cm2187 6y ago
    Nominating a candidate now is also the regular process.
    - chki 6y ago
      Yes, that's true. But it's important to note that Republicans deviated from this process 4 years ago and will now just resume business as usual while being a lot closer to the actual election than in 2016.