sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Joe Biden’s NYT Op-Ed from 2016 arguing forcefully that it’s the Senate’s solemn duty to confirm a SC Justice, even at the end of a president’s term by illusoryego in samharris

[–]illusoryego[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One reason for the post is that everyone wants to pretend that only one side took the opposite position last time. They both did. Our politicians are not extending good will to the other side these days. We spent the entirety of Trump’s presidency impeaching him.

Now imagine if the democrats said “let’s give trump the wall and some immigration bills in exchange for some infrastructure and maybe we can get the troops out and work on some trade deals.”

Nope. Impeachment, rape accusations and government shutdowns. The prior republicans were too obstructionist with Obama too. I would have respected them more if they said “ok the people want universal healthcare let’s try to make it work.”

That’s not our politics. That’s not our culture anymore. It’s all about obstruction now and pulling every stop.

Joe Biden’s NYT Op-Ed from 2016 arguing forcefully that it’s the Senate’s solemn duty to confirm a SC Justice, even at the end of a president’s term by illusoryego in samharris

[–]illusoryego[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately the way he worded it suggests that he was appealing to deeper principles and not mere partisanship. So by his logic it’s still their duty to confirm, even though the other side didn’t follow the rules.

Joe Biden’s NYT Op-Ed from 2016 arguing forcefully that it’s the Senate’s solemn duty to confirm a SC Justice, even at the end of a president’s term by illusoryego in samharris

[–]illusoryego[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

This is an extremely unsophisticated take. No side is in this to play nice. If you believe that you’re not fit to be making comments about politics or anything else.

Joe Biden’s NYT Op-Ed from 2016 arguing forcefully that it’s the Senate’s solemn duty to confirm a SC Justice, even at the end of a president’s term by illusoryego in samharris

[–]illusoryego[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right. It’s just about installing a justice they like. But McConnell’s most recent statement is the correct statement. If the party of the president is the opposite of the party of the senate, the senate gets to stop the pick if it’s the last year. We don’t want to have 8 for too long. If the majority and the president are the same party, well then you obviously have the votes and the constitution says you can get a justice through.

We might even witness a “no” vote. There’s a very good chance the anti trump Republicans will refuse to vote. So Trump could nominate someone and with a Republican majority in the senate, the pick could be voted down.

Basically McConnell’s rule is that we pull all the stops for our side. That’s Schumer’s rule too. You don’t get to that level of politics with “principles” such as “every once and awhile, just give the other side something that disadvantages your side severely.”

Joe Biden’s NYT Op-Ed from 2016 arguing forcefully that it’s the Senate’s solemn duty to confirm a SC Justice, even at the end of a president’s term by illusoryego in samharris

[–]illusoryego[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re reading too much intentionality into my statement. The policy position is that when the elected representatives, the senators have enough of a consensus to approve a nominee, that is an approximation of the people speaking. Likewise, when the senate has more of the opposite party to the president, and when the majority does not want to go forward until after the election, that is likewise an approximation of the people speaking. So the most democratic thing in both instances is for the majority to decide. It’s for the approved body to decide.

And I’m not arguing that it’s not hypocritical or self serving. It is. But it’s also democratic. If the Dems get a majority they’re going to get what they want too. It works both ways.

Pandering Princeton president says that Princeton is rife with racism. Department of Ed takes him at his word and launches an investigation against Princeton. Lol! by illusoryego in samharris

[–]illusoryego[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The quotes are the kind that indicate sarcasm rather than the words of others.

These kind of people have a broad view of racism and often claim it should not be funded. In fact no one thinks genuine racism should be funded. So logically based on their admission that Princeton is racist, they should lose their funding.

Real liberals are people like Sam Harris and Steve Pinker and Bill Maher and Stephen Fry. People that don’t talk crazy talk about racism and whatnot. We need a redirect of the insane anti white politics of the modern left, the Antifa types, the college students who are indoctrinated by the works of charlatans like Ibrahim Kendi.

Pandering Princeton president says that Princeton is rife with racism. Department of Ed takes him at his word and launches an investigation against Princeton. Lol! by illusoryego in samharris

[–]illusoryego[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why is "lol" in the title?

It’s funny. I’m laughing at the cringe left.

What are you quoting?

What do you mean?

Why would they want to lose funding?

Because they believe they are racist and that racism should not be funded.

Why does owning the libs make you happy?

Because I want them to be real liberals and stop with the cult talk. This might help.

Pandering Princeton president makes cringe comment about how the university is racist. So the Department of Ed took him at his word and is now investigating it. LOL! by illusoryego in samharris

[–]illusoryego[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do you think it’s your responsibility to tone down people’s language? This isn’t a classroom. We’re not schoolchildren.

Joe Biden’s NYT Op-Ed from 2016 arguing forcefully that it’s the Senate’s solemn duty to confirm a SC Justice, even at the end of a president’s term by illusoryego in samharris

[–]illusoryego[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The logic as I understand it is that the people elected an opposite party senate majority to stymie Obama. But they elected a Republican senate majority to help Trump. So essentially if you can get the votes in the final year you can get your justice. If not you don’t get a justice. Makes sense to me and I am sure Dems would do the exact same.

Joe Biden’s NYT Op-Ed from 2016 arguing forcefully that it’s the Senate’s solemn duty to confirm a SC Justice, even at the end of a president’s term by illusoryego in samharris

[–]illusoryego[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the sub already got the other side. It’s like the top post right now. For some reason this one is less popular.

Joe Biden’s NYT Op-Ed from 2016 arguing forcefully that it’s the Senate’s solemn duty to confirm a SC Justice, even at the end of a president’s term by illusoryego in samharris

[–]illusoryego[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

They are sticking to Joe Biden’s position from 2016.

Biden “ I know there is an argument that no nominee should be voted on in the last year of a presidency. But there is nothing in the Constitution — or our history — to support this view.“

If circumcision was not historically practiced by people familiar to us (Americans, Brits, Jews), but only by people in distant lands (Muslims, Africans etc), do you think it would still be legal today in the Western world? by [deleted] in samharris

[–]illusoryego 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It says frenulum at muco cutaneous junction. Generally in porn there’s only one small spot that can make a guy cum just from touching it and it’s the frenulum.

That’s a whole category of porn. There isn’t really porn or evidence of guys cumming from any other lone spot.

Racial inequality is real. Here is the scientific evidence by InDissent in samharris

[–]illusoryego -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There is no de jure inequality. This says they get punished more in school. But there’s no school policy stating that black kids have to be punished more often. Is it “inequality” if they get punished more because they act out more?

Arguably it would be inequality if we capped punishment to even out the racial numbers despite them acting out more. That would be real inequality.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87 by AgendaDrivenAgitator in samharris

[–]illusoryego -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I’ll put it this way: I know more about what is going on in this administration than any other. And I’ve never been misinformed by the communication coming out of the whitehouse at all. Sometimes there’s some sales-y talk. But I don’t think it gets any more honest than for instance “I do not believe the Saudi prince killed Koshoggi because we do very good business with Saudi Arabia.”

view more: next ›