Random Politics & Religion #00

I'm saying they can't name his running mate 99% of the time. I'm saying they couldn't tell you what the house and senate are even for. I'm saying they could name 5 celebrities but not 5 congressman. I'm saying they think the Government is something that gives them free stuff and they want more of it. I'm saying they don't care at all about the bill of rights. I could go on and on about things they don't know and don't care about. So you tell me are these people intelligent, are they voting because of Obamas policies and accomplishments?

Of coarse you are because he has no accomplishments! Unless you want to count doubling our debt and forcing people out of work with god knows how many new laws and regulations this administration has ushered in.

Most people don't give a ***others believe the system is broken and unfix-able. Pretty damn simple. Add that with an "historic event" and we get the past 7 years.

You're correct, I cannot for the life of me understand why people want to give away their freedoms, liberty, and 50%+ of their income to the government.

Vic being vic

It's genuinely upsetting that your perception and level of awareness doesn't go beyond Facebook images and clickbait. I have no interest in labeling anyone here a racist, since I don't know any of you people personally, but you really ought to think over what you said and try to pay attention to what the people who have voted for Obama are saying now and then, rather than the people who are bitching about his victories.

many of which I would definitely call accomplishments.

Regarding the debt, you can look at it a few different ways: One, which you're doing, simply take the debt when he entered office and compare it to where it is now

Two, which is more accurate, is to add up the budget deficits from his own initiatives (and then not ignore the GOP controlled House, which refuses to decrease the absurdly high military budget).

As far as unemployment, it's at 4.9%, which is outstanding.

What the *** is your argument here? Can you elaborate beyond ambiguous ragging on Obama and the public in general? If you can't, I'm gonna throw a silly gif your way since you're clearly not interested in discussing the campaign weaknesses of the Republican candidates

I will more than agree that the party is far from perfect, and the only reason I've registered as one is to vote in the primaries. If you observe the history of the party, there's actually a paradigm shift that came when Carter was elected, which continued with Clinton and to some extent, Obama: Prior Democrats (FDR, LBJ) were thoroughly in favor of socialist programs, while Carter and Clinton were, economically speaking, more in line with Reagan (see: Glass-Steagall). This is one way to view the Clinton and Sanders race (regarding domestic affairs), with Clinton being more like Carter and her husband, and Sanders working like FDR and LBJ.

Feel free to exemplify how voting Democrat causes those things.

I cannot for the life of me understand why people want to give away their freedoms, liberty, and 50%+ of their income to the government.

Now, I'm gonna assume you skipped that because you seem to become illiterate when someone uses the D word.

But the focus of these taxes (which skew very heavily towards the wealthy and light on the poor) improves public sector entities like our schools, health care, and infrastructure. Why do you have a problem with improving those things? Unless you're insanely wealthy

(and I suspect you aren't because you post a lot on a forum for a video game you don't even play)

As for taking away liberties and freedoms, what is your argument here? Cuz Democrats sure as hell aren't taking our civil liberties.

So is the record breaking 90+ million people out of the workforce.. Not counting underemployed. Keep quoting that unemployment number though.. Makes you look smart.

It's genuinely upsetting that your perception and level of awareness doesn't go beyond Facebook images and clickbait. I have no interest in labeling anyone here a racist, since I don't know any of you people personally, but you really ought to think over what you said and try to pay attention to what the people who have voted for Obama are saying now and then, rather than the people who are bitching about his victories.

Here is a brief list showing some of his major actions, many of which I would definitely call accomplishments. Regarding the debt, you can look at it a few different ways: One, which you're doing, simply take the debt when he entered office and compare it to where it is now, and then assume he's entirely responsible for all of it. Two, which is more accurate, is to add up the budget deficits from his own initiatives (and then not ignore the GOP controlled House, which refuses to decrease the absurdly high military budget). You could check out the Congressional Budget Office and find bipartisan short term projections of the savings on stuff like the ACA (which has a net gain, according to the CBO).

As far as unemployment, it's at 4.9%, which is outstanding.

What the *** is your argument here? Can you elaborate beyond ambiguous ragging on Obama and the public in general? If you can't, I'm gonna throw a silly gif your way since you're clearly not interested in discussing the campaign weaknesses of the Republican candidates (which is why I even brought any of this up in the first place).

Feel free to exemplify how voting Democrat causes those things. I will more than agree that the party is far from perfect, and the only reason I've registered as one is to vote in the primaries. If you observe the history of the party, there's actually a paradigm shift that came when Carter was elected, which continued with Clinton and to some extent, Obama: Prior Democrats (FDR, LBJ) were thoroughly in favor of socialist programs, while Carter and Clinton were, economically speaking, more in line with Reagan (see: Glass-Steagall). This is one way to view the Clinton and Sanders race (regarding domestic affairs), with Clinton being more like Carter and her husband, and Sanders working like FDR and LBJ.

Now, I'm gonna assume you skipped that because you seem to become illiterate when someone uses the D word. But the focus of these taxes (which skew very heavily towards the wealthy and light on the poor) improves public sector entities like our schools, health care, and infrastructure. Why do you have a problem with improving those things? Unless you're insanely wealthy (and I suspect you aren't because you post a lot on a forum for a video game you don't even play), they should be a considerable net gain.

As for taking away liberties and freedoms, what is your argument here? Cuz Democrats sure as hell aren't taking our civil liberties.

Yeah, leaving the SCOTUS short a Justice for a full year won't backfire one bit, especially after Bernie Sanders wins the election and picks Hillary as his VP, and then picks a far left nominee who may or may not be Obama. Just sayin' it couldn't backfire that way on the teatards.

I only did to you what you've done to me first. Go ahead, backread it is quite apparent. Every single pathetic insult was first used by you, I made sure of it because I knew you would play this card sooner or later, you always do. You bashing me for not saying anything? Hilarious, coming from the KING of saying nothing at all, thinking he doesn't need to explain his delusional fantasy while claiming he is not changing the subject. Why does me saying anything about the president getting run out of office, have the slightest impact on what I have been saying for the past two pages? The only thing it could possibly benefit is you trying to change the topic that you have been completely and totally wrong about.

Yup, that about covers it, admit you are completely and totally wrong and I will humor you with changing the subject to something you are more comfortable with.

If Republicans let a nominee through the senate, Trump or Cruz will win in a landslide. The only reason they're putting up any fight at all is because anti establishment candidates are kicking so much *** traction in the polls

Nausi, be realistic. Over half the country wants to break a bottle across Cruz's face because he's an idiot. He'll definitely never be in the White House unless he pays to take the guided tour. As for Chump, he's a racist supported by other racists. He definitely will never win the general election and be in the same boat Cruz is in. Realistically, you can expect either Hillary or Bernie to win the general elections. I'm just sayin', fighting for a year to hold out in hopes for a teachugger president will never be a good idea in the end, because teachuggers just can't win in the general election.

Now Nausi, before you go off spouting a wad of garbage, you need to see the reasoning in what I'm saying. The teachuggers, like Cruz, put all their hopes on evangelicals in the south. The world is changing, the times are changing. The chuggers go around, alienating what could be valuable voting blocs to them, such as the Latinos, the LBGTQs, and others in order to pander to the religious wingnuts, not even realizing they're basically shooting themselves in the foot when the time for the general election rolls around.

Nobody is worried about this outcome on the left, I assure you.

more vic being vic

I don't know looks like a strong breeze could knock over Uncle Bernie. I've never seen such a weak candidate.

You have everything to fear from sanders and clinton.

What do we have to fear from Sanders? You just said he wasn't going to be nominated, so why worry? Make up your mind.

Hey remember on 2008 when all the libs here said McCain was too old? wasn't vic part of that?

that the best you got?

Any pretense of governing responsibly in the wake of the sudden and shocking death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was quickly settled Saturday by a parade of Republicans, starting when GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz issued this tweet:

For once Cruz is not a senatorial Republican outlier – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said that that body will not confirm an Obama-nominated replacement. Cyborg Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida GOPer also running for president, quickly added a me-too.

The assertion that a sitting president with nearly a full year left in his term should be essentially denied his constitutional right – excuse me, responsibility – to fill a vacancy on the high court is outrageous; that this call for hat-trick gridlock (involving all three branches of the government) presumes to invoke the good of the nation and comes from a self-described "constitutional conservative" demonstrates what a blatantly and scurrilously political power grab this is.

Scalia's death in Texas not only brings into stark and startling contrast the stakes in this year's elections – both presidential and senatorial – but it belies the integrity of the cynical self-styled defenders of the Constitution who preen on the right. It is a test of the political system, to what extent we can campaign and govern at the same time. And as the Maddow Blog's Steve Benen tweeted, it's "unsettling to see [the] GOP boasting about their plan to flunk this test."

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the president the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, with the advice and consent of the Senate. To no one's surprise, President Barack Obama is reportedly going to exercise his right and make an appointment.

Of course that power has practical limitations: To use one extreme example, if a justice died days or hours before a president leaves office it would be unreasonable to think that chief executive should fill the vacancy. There wouldn't be time for the president and the Congress to do their respective due diligence. But this isn't a case of hours or days. It's months – nearly 12 of them. The kinda-sorta precedent here is the informal "Thurmond rule," which dates to South Carolina Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond blocking Lyndon Johnson nominee Abe Fortas in June, 1968. This isn't June.

McConnell's office issued a statement arguing that the American people ought to have a say in the next Supreme Court justice; but they had their say at the ballot box four years ago. The voters decided that for the term extending from January 20, 2013 to January 20, 2017 they wanted Barack Obama to have the power to appoint Supreme Court justices.

Of course, McConnell's concern for deference to the will of the voters is on its face laughable given that he plotted to block Obama's agenda as a whole before the president even took the oath of office the first time. It was McConnell who memorably said that the GOP's top priority was to make Obama a one-term president.

None will give an honest or straight answer, but I hope someone asks the Republican debaters this evening where the line is drawn: a year before the inaugural of a new president? The calendar year of the election? A year before the election? The day of a second term president's inauguration? And as I asked on Twitter only somewhat facetiously earlier this evening:

Any pretense of governing responsibly in the wake of the sudden and shocking death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was quickly settled Saturday by a parade of Republicans, starting when GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz issued this tweet:

For once Cruz is not a senatorial Republican outlier – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said that that body will not confirm an Obama-nominated replacement. Cyborg Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida GOPer also running for president, quickly added a me-too.

The assertion that a sitting president with nearly a full year left in his term should be essentially denied his constitutional right – excuse me, responsibility – to fill a vacancy on the high court is outrageous; that this call for hat-trick gridlock (involving all three branches of the government) presumes to invoke the good of the nation and comes from a self-described "constitutional conservative" demonstrates what a blatantly and scurrilously political power grab this is.

[READ: Obama Should Not Appoint Another Judge to the Supreme Court]

Scalia's death in Texas not only brings into stark and startling contrast the stakes in this year's elections – both presidential and senatorial – but it belies the integrity of the cynical self-styled defenders of the Constitution who preen on the right. It is a test of the political system, to what extent we can campaign and govern at the same time. And as the Maddow Blog's Steve Benen tweeted, it's "unsettling to see [the] GOP boasting about their plan to flunk this test."

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the president the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, with the advice and consent of the Senate. To no one's surprise, President Barack Obama is reportedly going to exercise his right and make an appointment.

Of course that power has practical limitations: To use one extreme example, if a justice died days or hours before a president leaves office it would be unreasonable to think that chief executive should fill the vacancy. There wouldn't be time for the president and the Congress to do their respective due diligence. But this isn't a case of hours or days. It's months – nearly 12 of them. The kinda-sorta precedent here is the informal "Thurmond rule," which dates to South Carolina Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond blocking Lyndon Johnson nominee Abe Fortas in June, 1968. This isn't June.

McConnell's office issued a statement arguing that the American people ought to have a say in the next Supreme Court justice; but they had their say at the ballot box four years ago. The voters decided that for the term extending from January 20, 2013 to January 20, 2017 they wanted Barack Obama to have the power to appoint Supreme Court justices.

Of course, McConnell's concern for deference to the will of the voters is on its face laughable given that he plotted to block Obama's agenda as a whole before the president even took the oath of office the first time. It was McConnell who memorably said that the GOP's top priority was to make Obama a one-term president.

None will give an honest or straight answer, but I hope someone asks the Republican debaters this evening where the line is drawn: a year before the inaugural of a new president? The calendar year of the election? A year before the election? The day of a second term president's inauguration? And as I asked on Twitter only somewhat facetiously earlier this evening:

So McConnell presumes to use congressional gridlock to check the president's power and potentially spread paralysis to the court. What happens there now? Per SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein, any Scalia votes on unannounced cases are now out the window. If he was the fifth justice in a 5-4 case, that case is now 4-4. "In those cases, there is no majority for a decision and the lower court's ruling stands, as if the Supreme Court had never heard the case," Goldstein writes.

Nominations to the high court are always part of the subtext and often the explicit motivational litany in a presidential campaign, especially to rally base voters lacking enthusiasm in the nominee. The Scalia vacancy immediately makes this a top-tier issue in a manner without precedent in recent elections – and certainly without precedent in the polarized era that dominates our politics....