turtlespeed

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    63,487

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by turtlespeed

  3. 3 hours ago, jakee said:

    Then the makeup of the court would for a short time swing to one side, to reflect the fact that the election results swung to one side. 

     

    It's not just about time, though the time argument alone does make you and McConnell hypocrites of the highest order. It's about fundamental fairness, balance and representation. McConnell said "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president" and that was when the nomination would decide which way a 5-4 split went. Now, weeks away from an election he thinks his candidate will lose, he wants to let a 1 term President create a 6-3 split in the court.

     

    Again, it is quite clear in this process that McConnell cares about nothing but allowing his party to impose their will on the American people, and only a pure right wing partisan like you could ever pretend that reflects badly on the democrats.

    I think you need to go back and read my comments.

    Hillary wanted to rush through Scalia's replacement. 

    As far as what Mcconnell cares about ramming down our throats - look to your own party and tell me they are innocent, or label yourself as just as much the hypocrite as you do me.

     

  5. 16 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

    7-8 years ago she was at the height of her ability to do the job.  Why should someone who is one of the sharpest minds in the law quit when they still have years in them?  Some people don't especially relish sitting in a bingo parlor wasting time until the grim reaper comes for them.  I have read that she planned to retire when there was a woman in the oval office, which she (and most people) thought would be 2017.  I've also read that McConnell and others have been pressuring Thomas to retire for the same reason, and he has (so far) refused for the same reason: he loves the job and thinks no-one else would be better.

    Probably the best idea I've seen is to limit terms to 20 years, and stagger them so each president automatically gets 2 positions per term to fill.  That way it won't be possible to stack the court so ideologies get locked in for generations and become totally disconnected from American society.

    Unless you get something like 2 - 2 term presidents of the same party.

  6. · Edited by turtlespeed

    14 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

    Who is this "she" of which you speak?

    I was referring to the image that I posted earlier of HRC. Post 28.

    In a nutshell, sh claimed it would be dishonoring the constitution if you don't vote in a new SCJ before the election.  Of course - Obama was president then. I'm pretty sure the opinion has now flipped over a flop.

    You are probably right about the rest - I went off memory and didn't fact check myself.

  10. 14 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

    There's no hard date. People are just pointing out that the timeframes are:

    1. Wildly disproportionate. If I slept with my wife the day Scalia died, we could have a fully formed bouncing baby by election day. If we did it yesterday, we couldn't even know we were pregnant by election day. It's a dumb analogy but I stand by it.
    2. Wildly hypocritical. Republicans made hard arguments in one direction for Scalia's position, and won. Now that we have an even tighter timeframe than last time they have flipped completely and abandoned any precept of observing the will of the people. It is probably the most brazen power grab to date and that's saying something.

    Honestly you should be just as mad as the rest of us. I guarantee you that the next few Democratic admins are just going to completely abandon any attempt at bipartisanship. Mitch et al have stonewalled at every opportunity for over a decade, what's the fucking point anymore?

    It's not really going to affect me.

    I'm finding a lot of humor, not anger, in this.

    My prediction is that the flip-flopping will become MUCH stronger, and the excuses for said Flip-Flopping will be ironic.

    It will happen on both sides.

    The Left will find statements and backups on why the seat should stay empty and throw it in the faces of the R's and the right will do the same.

    Notice that I didn't say she was wrong, or right.  

    I really don't think she is right.  I think the seat needs to be filled by someone that is fully vetted.

    BUT - the Democrats opened that door wide open, when they let Harry Reid change the threshold from a 60 vote to a simple majority in response to the Republicans' stonewalling Merrick Garland's appointment.

    THEN the democrats were pretty upset that backfired on the democrats with the Kavanaugh deal.

    Should be interesting.

    Like a train wreck that goes on and on - you just can't stop watching.

     

     

  11. · Edited by turtlespeed

    3 minutes ago, obelixtim said:

    You are right. It does explain a lot. Down is up. Black is white. No surprise there.

    . . . and when you have to see the picture from a mirror . . . .

    ;)

    And please - don't bring race into this - there are enough threads for that already.xD

  12. 27 minutes ago, jakee said:

    I know you don't want to be informed about anything, that's the problem.

    Have you ever considered not being a massive hypocrite? Anyone who ever asked you a question that was already answered anywhere in the whole forum and you tell them to do their own homework, yet time and again you demand to be spoon fed basic information even after the link to said information has been put right in front of your face. It's arrogant, it's lazy, and it's why you're so wrong so often.

    Generally - a quote from the article is a time saver.

    This is why I don't answer you anymore, and rarely read your posts.

    I won't block you, I'm not a coward.

    I just don't usually have the interest in, or the time to respond to someone like you. 

     

  14. 23 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

    And yet all the enthusiasm is on our side and all the hate, anger, and violence is on their side. Go figure.

    WWG1WGA

    That is a patently false statement.

    I'm sure you like to view it that way, but there is some real, true, and damaging racism against blacks, from whites in this country.

    There is also some real, true, and damaging racism in the exact opposite order.

    I also think its more than the left wants to think about.

  17. 2 minutes ago, kallend said:

    Looks like yet another one of your unproven conjectures to offset known facts.

    BTW I was a scholarship fund boy (to Cambridge, the REAL Cambridge) and no-one gave me any answers.  I went on to earn a "double first"** and get a PhD there, all on scholarship.

     

    **https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/double first

     

    Since when are imaginary scenarios provable by fact and NOT conjecture?

  18. · Edited by turtlespeed

    On 9/18/2020 at 1:47 PM, SkyDekker said:

    What is fucked up is you thinking the crime of rape is based on the victim's decision.

    So many times, though, it can be.  So many times though, it is.

    Have you never heard of people being vindictive?

     

    ETA: I'd say its even more common than bad cops.

    That's just what I feel is reasonable as a comparison.

  20. 6 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

    9 months, vs 6 weeks (actually I think only 2 weeks of sitting congress?). It would be the fastest confirmation process in history. The two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, especially considering the GOP stance was that it was absolutely critical to not fill the seat until after the election.

    Regardless of what arguments people made at the time, the Republican's were the ones who ultimately set the precedent. They get to own the hypocrisy too.

    So now its down to a time frame.

    At what date or day  does it cease being a dishonor to the Constitution? 

    Let me guess November 4th?  Is that when the Senate is free to fulfil it's responsibility again?

     

     

  22. 8 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

    I feel like you're overcomplicating things when my point was a lot more straightforward - don't make arguments from the stance of free markets and eradicating subsidies, if your preferred industry reached its position due substantially to a century of subsidies (that you would categorically deny to the other industry).

    Yeah - It's probably not the best practice to just dump all the subsidies all at once.

    I really wish they would consider a defunding them on, say, a 10 year schedule.

    8 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

    I don't think some massive flip in funding is actually viable politically, I'm just pointing out the overwhelming hypocrisy Brent either hasn't recognised for himself, or otherwise seems to think people will overlook.

    It's a give and take.

    I can see his point, and his view. 

    I also see the resistance you provide him, which fuels his love of arguing the subject.

    8 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

    Lastly I have no idea what you're trying to do with my trust-fund scholarship analogy but it doesn't look legal. Step away. Bad Turtle! :P

    :tongue:Yeah - I could have worded that better.  Basically - Green energy wouldn't be where it is without the oil and gas industry making advances in tech and making the ability to advance the tech as it has. 

    That, then making use of those advances in the way of forwarding the ability to create the solar, wind, and other green energy even as efficiently as they are made today.