• 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!

Rachel Has a Good Point - How Can Republicans Not Expect Democrats to Retaliate?

If we're trying to decide which party has been more bipartisan when it comes to SCOTUS nominees, let's look at the nominee confirmation vote totals over the last 30 years.

Democrat nominee Senate confirmation votes:
  • Kagan 63-3
  • Sotomayor 68-31
  • Breyer 87-9
  • Ginsburg 96-3

Republican nominee Senate confirmation votes:
  • Kavanaugh 50-48
  • Gorsuch 54-45
  • Alito 58-42
  • Roberts 78-22
  • Thomas 52-48
  • Barrett 52-48

QED: the GOP has been more bipartisan on these votes than the Democrats.
 
jonny5 said:
You dont realize you just proved my point? GOP does one thing, so Dems do something worse. Thats literally the opposite of the moral high ground.
Click to expand...

Why was getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees worse? It's a stupid Senate tradition, nothing more.

What is MUCH worse is Moscow Mitch refusing to even have confirmation hearings for all of Obama's judicial nominees, as well as for Merrick Garland in 2016. That is anti-democratic and much worse than some arcane silly 60 vote supermajority rule.
 
NatMorton said:
Nothing quite like a commitment to diversity.
Click to expand...

I say use the same tactics used by your adversary. They made their bed. Now they can lie in it.

I say
pack the court

Reaportion the senate https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/579172/

go after the red states for redistricting , voter suppression, discrimination in number of polling places, everything possible https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL30747.html

Any tactic possible to keep Republicans from ever gaining power again
 
rickc said:
I say use the same tactics used by your adversary. They made their bed. Now they can lie in it.

I say
pack the court

Reaportion the senate https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/579172/

go after the red states for redistricting , voter suppression, discrimination in number of polling places, everything possible https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL30747.html

Any tactic possible to keep Republicans from ever gaining power again
Click to expand...
Ironically, you make be describing a "tactic" that returns the GOP to power.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Which is a good example why political parties are one of the worst forms of corruption. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Click to expand...
Consider the following: If there were no (or at least not our current 2-party stranglehold) parties, just exactly how different would America look, and present itself? Just look at this forum - take out the partisan crap, and many would find that the real & genuine issues we face are not so insurmountable or overwhelming. Partisan politics is one extreme or the other, but Americans are mostly middle-of-the-road. What could go wrong with that?
 
lurchadams said:
And the answer is: Get money out of politics and term limits.
Click to expand...
I don't support term limits because there are some good people in elected government and we shouldn't toss pout the good with the bad, but getting the money out by overturning Citizens United and banning lobbyists would be a great first step. All elections should be publically funded and limited to 90 days instead of the current 2 years.
 
Lisa said:
I don't support term limits because there are some good people in elected government and we shouldn't toss pout the good with the bad, but getting the money out by overturning Citizens United and banning lobbyists would be a great first step. All elections should be publically funded and limited to 90 days instead of the current 2 years.
Click to expand...
Really hard to do without repealing the First Amendment.
 
lurchadams said:
You understand that that's how trumpublicans are now perceived, don't you? Their refusing to allow witnesses at a trial, double-standard on the supreme court, gerrymandering, voter suppression, enabling trump's criminal behavior, etc..

Just so ya know!

That's why I created this thread.
Click to expand...
yes perceived by the left sure. Bias works like that.
 
Lisa said:
I don't support term limits because there are some good people in elected government and we shouldn't toss pout the good with the bad, but getting the money out by overturning Citizens United and banning lobbyists would be a great first step. All elections should be publically funded and limited to 90 days instead of the current 2 years.
Click to expand...
If only!
 
BlueTex said:
That solution will be forthcoming quickly with a DNC house, senate and presidency... When the senate removes the legislative filibuster, the GOP will become irrelevant to everyone except Fox News viewers...
Click to expand...

Gallup polls disagree. As of 2020, the country is still considered center-right.
 
lurchadams said:
If only!
Click to expand...
Click your heels together three times and think happy thoughts that will only disappoint you when they don't come true.

NatMorton said:
Really hard to do without repealing the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
Money in elections isn't free speech because you cannot buy more speech than someone else. Corporations are not people.

Citizens United is one of the worst legal hairballs that the SCOTUS has ever coughed up.
 
I really still marvel at those who think one election cycle will render either party "irrelevant." Have we learned nothing in the last 12 years?

After the 2008 elections, and the Democratic ascendancy to the WH and both houses of Congress, the GOP was declared "dead" by many. Just eight years later, the Democrats were at their lowest ebb of national and state elected office holders since the Civil War. Just four years later and they may now be a week away from again having the WH and both houses of Congress.

These things go in cycles, folks. Nothing seems to bring either party back faster than a few years of the other party being in charge.
 
Lisa said:
Money in elections isn't free speech because you cannot buy more speech than someone else. Corporations are not people.

Citizens United is one of the worst legal hairballs that the SCOTUS has ever coughed up.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't think you have Citizens United assessed correctly. It does not declare that corporations are people. It does assert that like unions and other legal entities, corporations are associations of people, and it would be odd that the framers wanted to give you a First Amendment right to call the President of the United States a fathead, but be ok with the federal government imprisoning you for saying the same thing while part of a chorus.

And yes, speech is absolutely money. You're 90 day ban on election activity would, for example, make it illegal for me to pay for an ad in my local newspaper back in, say, June criticizing Donald Trump with the express purpose of getting people in my community to vote for his opponent in November.

IMO, we're better off erring on the side of too much political speech rather than too little.
 
NatMorton said:
Of course. 90% of the people who do not share your political views are nazis and racists. I think we all know that.
Click to expand...

Why else would they vote for Trump? He is a mentally ill sociopath and a racist. He's totally unfit for office.

Not to mention that he is a national security threat that owes at least $450 million to foreign countries.
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
Why else would they vote for Trump? He is a mentally ill sociopath and a racist. He's totally unfit for office.

Not to mention that he is a national security threat that owes at least $450 million to foreign countries.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood my post. You've established that 9 out of 10 people who disagree with you about Trump are nazis and racists. That's clear to me now, and I think we've all got some soul searching to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom