By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DrDoomz on 08 October 2018
Edit Thread
Machiavellian said:
DrDoomz said:

That is a bit of a strange comment. I mean of course they’d want a judge that is nominated from their side rather than a judge that the dems nominated. How can you fault them for that? That’s literally what either party would do. And of course either party is pro party (or to be more accurate, more focused on their base) and not pro country (else they’d all be moderates and not left/right), that is just the sad truth of American politics these days. The only thing is that now the Repubs are the ones with the power to do so and the Dems are basically trying to stop them by any means necessary (though I feel the dems may have crossed a line here by taking mudslinging to the next level).

Nothing strange about it.  The GOP dared Obama to pick Garland and he picked Garland just to show how partisan they are.  When it was their time to step up they choose to ignore a pick both parties could agree to.  Basically what I am saying is you only paid attention to politics when Trump became president then you probably should not be throwing out opinions as if this is anything new.  The whole process was a sham from the beginning because the GOP had absolutely no intent of not confirming Kavanaugh.  There is equal blame to throw around, neither of these parties are beyond anything when it comes to power.  If you believe either one is better than the other you have not been paying attention for the last couple decades. 

This is also a strange reply. Why do you think they need to “step up”? This isn’t 5-year old tag where you need to let the other kid win too so everyone can have happy feelings. This is american politics. At this point of time, both sides practically hate each other and both sides have acted in bad faith towards each other on more than one occasion. But the Repubs have the power to get someone they want into the SC, is it hard to believe that they would indeed try and get someone they want into the SC? Do you think the Repubs owe the Dems some sort of uneeded compromise here? And of course they had no intention to “not confirm Kavanaugh”. Duh. He is the candidate they selected. They’re behaving exactly as they should. Of course, if unquestionably indisputable evidence came up, I’m certain that the GOP would have abandoned Kav faster than rats off a sinking ship. The problem was the Dems chose a bad angle (since they didn’t have convincing proof) to try and get Kav (someone they don’t want in the SC) “not confirmed”.

And why is “when I paid attention to politics” relevant? And what are you basing it on? My posting history? I barely posted before because I usually have better things to do (I’m in between games now so I thought I’d post my opinion on the matter). And how would you know if I paid attention or not IRL or in other forums? Is there some sort of VGC-only criteria I’m supposed to pass in terms of post history credentials in order to chime in on political discussions? And I even said this was nothing new and par for course on what is to be expected on the matter so I don’t where you came up with “you should not be throwing out opinions as if this is anything new”. And where did you come up with “If you believe either one is better” when I specificially said: “literally what either party would do”, meaning that I find both parties just as bad and just as likely to abuse a positional advantage over the other. The only difference in this one example is that I feel that using the #metoo movement (thereby undermining its credibility) as a political weapon to try and condemn a person and destroy his life/career/family based on (from what I’ve seen) very flimsy evidence kind of steps over a line and is what a lot of people find distasteful, myself included, in this discussion (personally, I couldn’t care less about who gets into the SC, I just don’t find the idea of accusation = proof of guilt all that palatable).

Last edited by DrDoomz - on 08 October 2018