Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Sure, let’s just change the accepted definition of troll since some people don’t have the ability handle a viewpoint they disagree with. It’s awesome because being able to call someone a name when you disagree with them is so much fun. It really shows off your superior intellect and moral perspective. And if anyone questions it just call them a name too. Stupid, or troll, whatever.

Basically it’s saying you can’t engage in vigorous debate without calling someone a derogatory slur, and you need to justify whatever you like to use.

It’s frustrating because there are times when the differing thoughts and perspectives on here can really be thought provoking. Other times it seems like I’m just reading school aged bickering and name calling.

I agree we shouldn't call someone we disagree with a troll.

However, if there actually is a troll, then it is OK to call them out on it.

Its like I don't think you should call someone a Nazi if you disagree with them. However, I think its perfectly fine to call someone a Nazi if they are one.

FYI: There is someone in this thread that is CLEARLY trolling, and they're wearing a jersey with the number 19 on it.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Sure, let’s just change the accepted definition of troll since some people don’t have the ability handle a viewpoint they disagree with. It’s awesome because being able to call someone a name when you disagree with them is so much fun. It really shows off your superior intellect and moral perspective. And if anyone questions it just call them a name too. Stupid, or troll, whatever.

Basically it’s saying you can’t engage in vigorous debate without calling someone a derogatory slur, and you need to justify whatever you like to use.

It’s frustrating because there are times when the differing thoughts and perspectives on here can really be thought provoking. Other times it seems like I’m just reading school aged bickering and name calling.

He’s literally doing the definition of trolling. Posting intentionally inflammatory opinions to stir up #### with zero effort to engage in a meaningful discussion.

The real interesting part here is that you think that tripe Bo is posting is thought provoking. It’s not. If you want to be a Trump/Republican supporter, just say so. They aren’t hiding the fact they’re hypocrites, so why would you bother defending such an outlandish position?

New Era showed incredible patience responding to an obvious troll. We should be applauding him it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Sure, let’s just change the accepted definition of troll since some people don’t have the ability handle a viewpoint they disagree with. It’s awesome because being able to call someone a name when you disagree with them is so much fun. It really shows off your superior intellect and moral perspective. And if anyone questions it just call them a name too. Stupid, or troll, whatever.


It’s frustrating because there are times when the differing thoughts and perspectives on here can really be thought provoking. Other times it seems like I’m just reading school aged bickering and name calling.

You’re right, better not to use words that upset people.

You can’t really pretend you care about “name calling” out of one side of your mouth while simultaneously insulting anyone who uses a word you don’t like in a manner you don’t approve of.

[calgarybornnraised]

Can we all remember what turtle neck Mitch said after Obama got elected. They (Republicans) would block any thing he tried.

What I find so disgusting on my TL is that a lot of men seem to think because RBG died, now all our rights are over. Being told to go back in the kitchen.

If 1 Woman held all this power imagine what a herd of us could do.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Can we stop using the term “Troll” just for someone you disagree with? This has become too common on this board, that “troll” gets thrown out to stifle a differing opinion. So simple minded.

There are tons of stupid opinions on here, most of them aren’t trolling.

And BoLevi is trolling like crazy. When you pick their garbage to pieces and they hide behind lame excuses, and refuse to engage, that is trolling.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

So in 2016, the Democrats felt it was a constitutional right, and now they think it isn't?

Okay.

Also: name calling is unnecessary. And pointless.

So in 2016, the Republicans felt they should not uphold their constitutional responsibility to hold a confirmation hearing to confirm a President's nomination for the Supreme Court, and now they think it should? You're so transparent and weak it isn't even funny.

See, you give people like this an inch by treating them with sympathies, they take a mile and try to make you all look like weak idiots. But we can't insult their sensibilities. We instead have to put up with them continually insulting the collective intelligence of the board.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by calgarybornnraised

Can we all remember what turtle neck Mitch said after Obama got elected. They (Republicans) would block any thing he tried.

What I find so disgusting on my TL is that a lot of men seem to think because RBG died, now all our rights are over. Being told to go back in the kitchen.

If 1 Woman held all this power imagine what a herd of us could do.

Really? There are men who think this, talk about insecure.

[calgarybornnraised]

And they call us snowflakes. Lol.

[calgarybornnraised]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Really? There are men who think this, talk about insecure.

Ya it’s all over Twitter and crap. So far she killed 30 million babies and now it’s all over and men can control our uteruses again.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by calgarybornnraised

And they call us snowflakes. Lol.

Projection is their super power.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by New Era

So in 2016, the Republicans felt they should not uphold their constitutional responsibility to hold a confirmation hearing to confirm a President's nomination for the Supreme Court, and now they think it should? You're so transparent and weak it isn't even funny.

That's exactly what the GOP did and are now doing. They flip-flopped outright. I've never claimed otherwise.

The problem for the partisans who are shaking their canes at McConell is that the Dems have also flip-flopped.

Who you think is right in their flip-flip depends on your partisan position, I suppose.

This is pretty consistent with a number of other areas. Democrats hate the expansion of executive power when its a Republican president, but love it when it's a Democratic president. And vice versa.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by calgarybornnraised

Can we all remember what turtle neck Mitch said after Obama got elected. They (Republicans) would block any thing he tried.

What I find so disgusting on my TL is that a lot of men seem to think because RBG died, now all our rights are over. Being told to go back in the kitchen.

If 1 Woman held all this power imagine what a herd of us could do.

It's a virtual certainty that Trump will nominate a woman for SCOTUS.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

That's exactly what the GOP did and are now doing. They flip-flopped outright. I've never claimed otherwise.

The problem for the partisans who are shaking their canes at McConell is that the Dems have also flip-flopped.

Who you think is right in their flip-flip depends on your partisan position, I suppose.

This is pretty consistent with a number of other areas. Democrats hate the expansion of executive power when its a Republican president, but love it when it's a Democratic president. And vice versa.

Can you provide some evidence of the Democrats “flip flopping”? I mean we have clear evidence of Republicans saying one thing in 2016, and despite the situation being much closer to the election this time, completely changing their position. You would think 9 months closer to an election would strengthen any “let the American people decide” and soften any “we’ll push through our person” rhetoric, right? Not the opposite?

In the end though, you can pretend this is a partisan issue if you want, and continue to pretend like you’re not partisan yourself, but anyone can look and this critically and see that this is a pretty simple issue: what the Democrats think didn’t matter in 2016 and it doesn’t matter in 2020, because they did not have the power to decide the outcome. The GOP did and does, that’s why it matters.

If you think “everybody flip flops” or “hypocrisy is just part of politics” are thoughtful responses to this issue, then you don’t understand the issue. And given how simple it is, the inability to understand why this is an issue probably stems from some deeply partisan thinking.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Can you provide some evidence of the Democrats “flip flopping”? I mean we have clear evidence of Republicans saying one thing in 2016, and despite the situation being much closer to the election this time, completely changing their position. You would think 9 months closer to an election would strengthen any “let the American people decide” and soften any “we’ll push through our person” rhetoric, right? Not the opposite?

In the end though, you can pretend this is a partisan issue if you want, and continue to pretend like you’re not partisan yourself, but anyone can look and this critically and see that this is a pretty simple issue: what the Democrats think didn’t matter in 2016 and it doesn’t matter in 2020, because they did not have the power to decide the outcome. The GOP did and does, that’s why it matters.

If you think “everybody flip flops” or “hypocrisy is just part of politics” are thoughtful responses to this issue, then you don’t understand the issue. And given how simple it is, the inability to understand why this is an issue probably stems from some deeply partisan thinking.

I don't think the Democrats flip-flopped on anything.

Obama nominated Merrick Garland as he was supposed to do.

McConnell argued that in an election year, it should be up to the American people to decide.

February 13, 2016: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."

February 16, 2016: "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia."

February 22, 2016: "[W]hile finding the right person to take the seat [Scalia] occupied will clearly be a monumental task, it's one we think the American people are more than equipped to tackle. Some disagree and would rather the Senate simply push through yet another lifetime appointment from a president who's on his way out the door...I believe that it is today the American people who are best-positioned to help make this important decision."

February 23, 2016: "The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter after the American people finish making in November the decision they've already started making today....[Mr. Obama] could let the people decide and make this an actual legacy-building moment, rather than just another campaign roadshow."

March 20, 2016: "We think the important principle in the middle of this presidential election, which is raging, is that American people need to weigh in and decide who's going to make this decision."

March 20, 2016: "The American people are about to weigh in on who is going to be the president. And that's the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment."

This caused a constitutional crisis. Do you hold confirmation hearings in the middle of an election? Or, do you wait and let the voice the American people have a say on that nomination?



The Democrats argued that the nomination should be held immediately. Upholding the current rules.

The Republicans argued that it should be an election issue. Creating a new rule.

The Republicans won and set the precedent and made a new rule. Now here we are 4 years later and the Republicans want to throw out the rule they just made.

The Democrats are arguing the uphold the rules.

If anything, their stance is the same. Follow the rules, same rules for everyone.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

That's exactly what the GOP did and are now doing. They flip-flopped outright. I've never claimed otherwise.

The problem for the partisans who are shaking their canes at McConell is that the Dems have also flip-flopped.

No, they haven't. What they are doing is holding McConnell to the new rules he established. He clearly established new rules that were counter to the constitution to deny the Democrats a seat on the court. What the Democrats are doing is forcing McConnell to live by the rules he established.

Who you think is right in their flip-flip depends on your partisan position, I suppose.

This is pretty consistent with a number of other areas. Democrats hate the expansion of executive power when its a Republican president, but love it when it's a Democratic president. And vice versa.

Except this is not the same. You know this but are intentionally playing dumb. Another behavior of trolling.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by New Era

No, they haven't. What they are doing is holding McConnell to the new rules he established. He clearly established new rules that were counter to the constitution to deny the Democrats a seat on the court. What the Democrats are doing is forcing McConnell to live by the rules he established.

I want to be sure I understand your position so please correct me if I am wrong.

You are upset at the GOP for flip-flopping on a rule that they made.

But you think it is acceptable that the Dems flip-flop on the concept of a nomination in an election year.

If I have that wrong, please clarify.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I want to be sure I understand your position so please correct me if I am wrong.

You are upset at the GOP for flip-flopping on a rule that they made.

But you think it is acceptable that the Dems flip-flop on the concept of a nomination in an election year.

If I have that wrong, please clarify.

You cannot possibly be this obtuse.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I want to be sure I understand your position so please correct me if I am wrong.

You are upset at the GOP for flip-flopping on a rule that they made.

But you think it is acceptable that the Dems flip-flop on the concept of a nomination in an election year.

If I have that wrong, please clarify.

You're wrong, and you know you're wrong. You're being, as Andy Dufresne put it, 'obtuse.'

Democrats are not 'flip-flopping.' In February of 2016, Democrats nominated a Supreme Court Justice. Republicans decided it was inappropriate to nominate a Justice in an election year. Democrats were ultimately forced to accept this precedent-setting decision by the Republicans.

Having accepted precedent, Democrats are now simply asking Republicans to live up to their own standards.

You are playing semantic games with the word 'flip-flopping' because you are a troll.

[belsarius]

The only way I can see BoLevi’s point is if a Dem senate was refusing to vote on a Trump candidate and using the “precendent” excuse, I think that would be a fair “flip-flop”. This isn’t a flip-flop, if anything it is only using the same Rhetoric as Mitch used in 2016 as a way to highlight their hypocrisy and mock them for it. I see no evidence that the Dems would have changed their position if the roles had been reversed.

On another topic, why didn’t the republicans simply vote no on Garland in 2016. Doing a quick search it seemed to be a lot more prevalent that Justices were declined over refusals to vote at all.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by belsarius

On another topic, why didn’t the republicans simply vote no on Garland in 2016. Doing a quick search it seemed to be a lot more prevalent that Justices were declined over refusals to vote at all.

Its a good question. I always assumed it was because there would have still been sufficient time for Obama to nominate a replacement (even more than one replacement) before the election and that eventually the political pressure to confirm one of the nominees would become too strong? I don't know though. Is there a precedent in US history where a Senate just refused to confirm any of a President's nominees for the Supreme Court bench?

EDIT: only 11 nominees have not been confirmed by a Senate vote in US history.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by driveway

You're wrong, and you know you're wrong. You're being, as Andy Dufresne put it, 'obtuse.'

Democrats are not 'flip-flopping.' In February of 2016, Democrats nominated a Supreme Court Justice. Republicans decided it was inappropriate to nominate a Justice in an election year. Democrats were ultimately forced to accept this precedent-setting decision by the Republicans.

Having accepted precedent, Democrats are now simply asking Republicans to live up to their own standards.

You are playing semantic games with the word 'flip-flopping' because you are a troll.

I've been consistent all along: the GOP is not living up to their rhetoric from 2016. No doubt.

The claim that I am making (with a lot of mental gymnastics as the only response), is that the Democrats were fine in concept with an election year nomination in 2016, and now they are NOT fine with an election year nomination.

2016: fine with the concept
2020: not fine with the concept.

I'm not sure such a simple statement of fact is particularly controversial. And recognizing it seems to be the opposite of obtuse.