(01-03-2020 02:21 AM)mrbig Wrote:  OO - we were having a discussion on passing (or refusing to even bring up for a vote) legislation. What does this article on voting on Presidential appointments have to do with legislation?

Also, to answer your question, and as described in the article you cited, Reid felt compelled to do it because of heightened levels of obstructionism by the Senate minority (aka McConnell).

Also also, from reading the article you cited, I can’t tell whether the journalist author is a Republican or Democrat. Can you help me with that?

Also also also, my comment about you not being able to change my mind was a comment about journalists and had nothing to do with who in Washington was primarily responsible for obstructionism at a specific point in time. So I am open to changing my mind on this topic. Let the evidence and citations flow forth! Just don’t cite any of them pesky Republican or Democratic journalists you do abhor!

You made this statement:

"But McConnell made it a goal to give Obama as few "wins" as possible,", as though it was something new. I think it was business as usual, but you make the claim based on Democrats being nice and Republicans mean. Truth is, Mac has done only one thing that is "unprecedented" - holding up a SCOTUS nomination until after an election.

I just get so tired of the belief, common among lefties, that their side has been noble and good, the other is, well, deplorables. Doesn't matter if their flag is blue or red, they are are all politicians.

In 2024, if the Senate is controlled by Dems, and President Trump nominates somebody to fill a SCOTUS seat, I would fully expect the majority leader to hold up that appointment until after the election. The Dems are not so morally perfect as to NOT advance their party's interests, or to adavance the other party's interests (giving them "wins") and precedent has been set. Reid set a precedent, and Mac is using it. No different.

I abhor any journalist who slants his reporting without giving notice. By comparing Fox reporting with CNN, I am able to discern examples of biased reporting. Fox has several people they bring in to balance the panels, people like Marie Harf and Juan Williams, people who will present the other side. CNN is more often like an antiTrump pep rally. I want discussions that are not just a bunch of people effectively nodding and saying "What he said". I suggest you try to compare.

Fifty years ago, I was a liberal. As I moved into the real world, I slowly figured out that I did not like some of the things the left advocated. As I slowly built up my businesses, I became less enamored of taxing the rich, and I came to realize there was nothing inherently evil about success. I finished crossing over to the right during the Carter Administration. Never seen a reason to cross back.

That doesn't mean I support everything on the right. I supported gay marriage. I oppose the death penalty. I support sensible taxation. I think people of all races, religions, genders,etc should be treated the same. While I do think abortion is the killing of a human being, it is a lawful killing. I do not support the outlawing of abortion - I grew up in those times and do not want to return to them. But I think most of the arguments the left uses are specious - don't we have other other laws telling people what they can do with their bodies?

I have, over the years, developed a hierarchy of issues I find compelling. Number one is a sensible and fair tax system. Not happening so far, but one side wants to make it less sensible and less fair, the other just the opposite. I don't support Republicans because I think they are wonderful - I support them because the Democrats are worse. I vote for the lesser evil.

So if you thiink Mac is especially evil, you have the right to say so. And I have the right to ridicule the idea.