Re: Dear John....
 

You know, in the real world, when you send a letter saying you aren't going to do your job, you aren't even going to show up to do your job, you aren't even going to discuss doing your job it is called a "Resignation Letter"

Re: Dear John....
 

ohhh, you mean Ty as the mod here? Nope. Slave won't fire him, not sure why.

Re: I can't believe you wasted the electrons necessary to write this post.
 

Robert Bork should have been-- fuck... slowly eaten alive by cannibals?

Does this clarify my position on that national embarrassment?

Re: I can't believe you wasted the electrons necessary to write this post.
 

Bullshit. He merely had to admit spying to an extent we all knew they were spying.

Re: I can't believe you wasted the electrons necessary to write this post.
 

You're casually accepting of political nihilism when it suits your position, intolerant of it when it doesn't.

I don't think you need to be consistent in this or any other regard, but I think your inconsistency here is worth flagging.

Re: Mother should I run for president.
 

Peter King's a Hindenberg of xenophobia and terrorist paranoia... A bloated, nativist Nazi, one rage-ignited spasm from a massive, fatal heart attack during through a Fox News segment. He's like Pat Buchanan halfway through an eight ball-- a screaming neon billboard for the notion "Irish Need Not Apply."

It's odd to say, but entirely accurate: The IRA deserved a better advocate.

Re: Mother should I run for president.
 

I don't approve of what McConnell is doing, and I don't think you can get away from the fact that Republicans are treating the first black President this way, but I disagree with your constitutional interpretation. If the Senate doesn't want to consent to a nominee, I don't think they're bound to give her a vote. I do hope and wish that voters will hold it against Republicans. I'm just not optimistic on that score.

Where does Republican intransigence end? Sooner or later Democrats are going to find a way to use it against them.

Re: I can't believe you wasted the electrons necessary to write this post.
 

What am I casually accepting? I think Clapper's testimony was a joke. And I think Congress's "oversight" of the NSA is a joke. But the number of people who care could fit comfortably on a cross-town bus. If Congress doesn't care that it's being lied to, no one is going to get prosecuted. If people are upset about NSA abuses, they need to persuade other people to care.

I don't understand why you're drawing equivalences between these various cases, which are all different. Libby intentionally blew Plame's cover, for political reasons. Clinton appears to have complied with governing regulations -- which were no doubt just as sound as all of the other regulations governing how the federal government handles things like email, but there you go. No one was harmed by what she did, but entirely predictable ongoing squabbles about whether specific emails should be classified keep feeding new stories. There is no there there, and there is no Plame, let alone anyone trying to harm her.

And then there's Clapper. I'm not sure why you think what he did has anything to do with Libby or Clinton. Every part of the government lets the NSA act as if it is above the law, and the only thing that was different about Clapper's testimony is that the rest of us got to see it for once.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

As to the Supreme Court, I am torn on McConnell's response. On one hand, he's in this position and is being forced to make a stand because rank and file Rs are beyond pissed that congressional leadership have been a bunch of pussies. I would much rather have McConnell been willing to fall on the sword for say, Cromnibus or the debt limit, rather than this, and had he done so, he wouldn't look so much like an idiot now. He appears to have gained a lot of courage since Matt Bevin won KY. I think that the Senate should take up the matter and then vote no, if that's what they want to do.

OTOH, the Ds are being exceedingly hypocritical, as always. I cannot be convinced that a Reid-led Senate would have done anything in an R President's last year. Beside the growing number of Ds found on the record as advocating just this sort of thing when the shoe was on the other foot (now Biden), the Ds have a pretty well-established history of not being able to compete a task as simple as passing a budget. They didn't even try. You cannot tell me they would have considered a GWB nominee to replace a liberal justice who kicked the bucket in 2008 (or even the second half of 2007).

As to Trumps ever increasing likelihood of being the GOP nominee, Mr. Chick and I are pulling the plug on Presidential campaign contributions. We are now putting our political donation funds toward Senate Conservatives Fund candidates and Republican governors (and maybe some state AGs). The Senate will be our last fire break against a felon, a socialist, or whatever Donald Trump is.

I spend a lot of time on the primary and research and read the survey responses for each of the multiple nominees even for the justice of the peace candidates. I voted for primary challengers against my congressman and state representative (who both suck). I admit, though that I usually vote straight party in the general election. Not this time. I cast my first vote for President for Bob Dole when I was 20 and for the first time, I will probably vote Libertarian this go round. Heck I would be as likely to vote for Lyndon LaRouche as Trump.

ETA: I will not in any way argue that McConnell is not a liar and a hypocrite as well. I think we can all agree that Mitch McConnell sucks.

Re: Mother should I run for president.
 

It doesn't say advice or consent. I would love to hear how exactly McConnell's actions are in line with that phrase in your opinion. The flat out refusal to even consider a nominee seems to fly in the face of the actual words and certainly the founders' intent. And we all know how sacred both those principles are to Republicans.

TM

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Hypocrisy is in what you believe the Dems would have done? This word, it does not mean what you think it means.

Maybe the Dems would have done the same thing, but it turns out they haven't (out of lack of opportunity or otherwise).

This number is zero.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

I know i'm going to regret engaging you at all, but how was biden not suggesting the ban in the above clip?

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Huh? He's suggesting that Reagan wait until after the election nominate someone (and then nominate someone) and that the Senate should considering waiting to act until November, when Reagan will still be in office. His point is "let's not do the nomination and confirmation process during the most active part of the election."

He most pointedly is not saying that the sitting president should not nominate someone or that the Senate should not act until after the sitting president's term is up.

ETA: It would be still be bullshit if McConnell and company were saying they'd act on a nominee after the election, given that it's February and not June, but they'd then be doing what Biden was advocating in the video.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Reagan was doing 2 million dollar a pop speeches in June 1992, or by then maybe drooling. Bush 1 was president and heading into the election he would lose to Clinton. Biden was suggesting the exact same thing.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

What? If Bush 1 was functionally president in June already, Bush 1 would be president in November. The whole point is that there is no difference in the decision makers between June and November.

There will be a different decision maker after January 20, 2017.

Biden's talking about timing. The GOP senators are talking about who decides.