All doubt removed - McConnell is a weasel

Bus Driver

Bacon Quality Control Specialist
In the second quote Biden is arguing that during the campaign the senate should not take up consideration of a supreme court nominee until after the election. Which is exactly what the Republicans did.
You would like us to think the two scenarios are the same.

Alas, they are not.

We wanted to use our In Context feature to lay out what Biden said back then outside of McConnell’s sound bite. Readers can determine if it’s relevant now.

Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.

There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

There was no nominee to consider.

The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

 

HuronBouy

Anarchist
799
53
Canada
Are we discussing the hypocrisy or the policy. Settle on one and move on 

If McConnell reversed on this issue, it is what it is; he is a weasel. 

If someone said the same thing earlier and did not change policy then they may be wrong or right but they are not a weasel (in this circumstance) 

So please fuck off with whataboutism  again. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dog

Super Anarchist
37,940
442
You would like us to think the two scenarios are the same.

Alas, they are not.

We wanted to use our In Context feature to lay out what Biden said back then outside of McConnell’s sound bite. Readers can determine if it’s relevant now.

Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.

There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

There was no nominee to consider.

The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.
No, the circumstances were not the same but the opinion was.

 

HuronBouy

Anarchist
799
53
Canada
In the second quote Biden is arguing that during the campaign the senate should not take up consideration of a supreme court nominee until after the election. Which is exactly what the Republicans did.
Why would you want to ham string the power of your government at some arbitrary time before an election the term is 4 years of governance not 3 or 2.5 or 3.5 or what ever its 4. Oy vey  you guys are meshugana!!!

 

Bus Driver

Bacon Quality Control Specialist
You would like us to think the two scenarios are the same.

Alas, they are not.

We wanted to use our In Context feature to lay out what Biden said back then outside of McConnell’s sound bite. Readers can determine if it’s relevant now.

Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.

There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

There was no nominee to consider.

The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.
No, the circumstances were not the same but the opinion was.
I never want to hear you say anything about apples to oranges.

 

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
29,213
4,306
Weasels everywhere are upset and depressed. 

weasel.jpg


 
Last edited by a moderator:

kent_island_sailor

Super Anarchist
27,232
5,143
Kent Island!
No, the circumstances were not the same but the opinion was.
Biden has/had an opinion. I don't agree with it.

If he had said a REPUBLICAN Senate has to wait but a DEMOCRATIC one does not then he would be full of shit and a self-serving shitweasel too. AFAIK he did not add that condition.

Also note Biden <> every single Democrat 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
44,269
9,611
Eastern NC
In the second quote Biden is arguing that during the campaign the senate should not take up consideration of a supreme court nominee until after the election. Which is exactly what the Republicans did.
Garland was nominated "during the campaign"?

Really?

-DSK

 

inneedofadvice

Super Anarchist
1,495
218
Sarnia
First in with "They are both the same!" bullshit.  So you get some kind of troll award, but don't show it off in public.   No they ain't.  
You should cut back on your caffeine intake.

While I would like to share your idealism and I think that the current bunch in power should mostly be sent packing if not to prison,  it's foolish to think that anyone will make decisions against their own self interest. Currently Republicans need to toe the line in support of their dictator or be unemployed next election. Dems fall under the same conflict of interest. I suppose it's a weakness of a democracy but it certainly exists. Honest idealists get treated like AOC and anyone else who doesn't kiss ass to big money interest.

 In there defense, they are just trying to advance their careers like the rest of us, only we get to publicly critique them while they do it.

 

Left Shift

Super Anarchist
10,532
3,272
Seattle
You should cut back on your caffeine intake.

While I would like to share your idealism and I think that the current bunch in power should mostly be sent packing if not to prison,  it's foolish to think that anyone will make decisions against their own self interest. Currently Republicans need to toe the line in support of their dictator or be unemployed next election. Dems fall under the same conflict of interest. I suppose it's a weakness of a democracy but it certainly exists. Honest idealists get treated like AOC and anyone else who doesn't kiss ass to big money interest.

 In there defense, they are just trying to advance their careers like the rest of us, only we get to publicly critique them while they do it.
How do these two sentences equate?  Do "Dems" have a dictator?  Is there a party line that they have to toe?  Other than all having IQs that actually register on the Sanford-Benet scale (unlike the current *resident),  a social conscience (also unlike the current *resident) and mostly preferring to keep their job, please identify the commonalities represented by Biden, Harris, Sanders, Pelosi, O'Rourke, Booker, Inslee, Gabbard, Klobuchar, AOC, Clinton, Schumer, Cummings, etc.

Oh...For what it's worth, I don't drink coffee or tea, and the last caffeine I recall drinking was an Irish coffee last Christmas.  Thus, although I am distressed by the Senate's seeming willingness to sell the country out in order to keep their grip on power, I am quite calm on other matters.

 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,524
3,355
The most interesting quote I heard from McConnell was this "“What can’t be undone is a lifetime appointment to a young man or woman who believes in the quaint notion that the job of a judge is to follow the law,” McConnell said during the event. “So that’s the most important thing that we’ve done for the country, which cannot be undone.”

I cannot, for the life of me, decide which side of this tradition Mitch stands. I think he wants us to believe in the "quaint notion", but really wants an appointee who will undo all the legislative and judicial advancements over the last 100 years. 

MAGA = Jim Crow, back alley abortions and union busting

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,307
5,505
De Nile
They say they disagree with what happened.

Then they say they are glad they got a conservative on the bench.
I never really understood the Conservative view on these regressive judges. A conservative, historically, would rejoice in personal freedoms.

These judges, other than GUNZ, are all about removing personal freedoms, except for Corporate freedoms, of which they are fans.

 

Left Shift

Super Anarchist
10,532
3,272
Seattle
I never really understood the Conservative view on these regressive judges. A conservative, historically, would rejoice in personal freedoms.

These judges, other than GUNZ, are all about removing personal freedoms, except for Corporate freedoms, of which they are fans.
I presume that they will be ready to repeatedly use the phrase "Innocent on a technicality" to all future indictments of tRumpian appointees.

 

badlatitude

Super Anarchist
30,345
5,551
It's pretty sad when you have to depend on Russia to win your elections. I wonder how history will view that?

The Senate will not vote on any legislation to protect US elections from foreign interference, a Republican committee chair said, despite the consensus of the intelligence community that Russia will once again seek to hack election systems and manipulate American voters in 2020.

The reason, said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on Wednesday, is that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has decided not to bring any election security bills to the floor for a vote. Blunt’s remark occurred during a hearing of the Rules and Administration Committee, which has oversight of election administration. When Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) asked Blunt, the chairman, whether he was planning mark-ups of any of the several election security bills pending before the committee, Blunt responded that it would be fruitless to advance legislation that McConnell would not allow to come up for a vote.

“I don’t see any likelihood that those bills would get to the floor if we marked them up,” Blunt said. After prodding from Durbin, Blunt explained, “I think the majority leader just is of the view that this debate reaches no conclusion.” 



Blunt also acknowledged that it was McConnell who stopped the Rules Committee last year from advancing the Secure Elections Act, a bipartisan bill to protect elections from interference. The committee was poised to mark up that bill last August when the hearing was mysteriously canceled the same morning that it was set to begin. 

The decision by Republicans not to consider election security bills is frustrating to Democrats who have been cranking out bills to stop foreign interference and increase security ahead of the 2020 elections. In addition to the Secure Elections Act, the Rules Committee has failed to take up the Protecting the Right to Independent and Democratic Elections (PRIDE) Act, the Protecting American Votes and Elections (PAVE) Act, and the bipartisan Honest Ads Act, which would give online political ads the same disclosure requirements as political ads on television and other media. All three bills were introduced last year and reintroduced this year after no action was taken in the previous Congress.

Democrats are increasingly frustrated that despite the sense of urgency from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, Republicans in Congress have taken very little action on election security. Just last month, the FBI shifted additional resources toward stopping Russians from interfering in 2020. “We are very much 

“We are very much viewing 2018 as just kind of a dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020,” Director Christopher Wray warned. But Republicans in Congress appear unwilling to cross President Donald Trump, who does not like to hear Russian election interference mentioned, according to reporting by the New York Times. Democrats in Congress say this reticence to confront the issue has trickled down, affecting not only preparedness at federal agencies but also the willingness of lawmakers to take up the issue. 

“I hope you catch the irony here that at the CIA and intelligence agencies, millions of dollars are being spent to stop the Russians from making a mess of the 2020 election,” Durbin said Wednesday, “and yet, in the United States Senate, we can’t bring a bill to the floor to even debate it.” https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/the-senate-will-not-vote-on-any-election-security-bills-gop-senator-says/
 
 
 



 

Latest posts




Top