Trump makes unprecedented threat to adjourn both chambers of congress

  • Thread starter Thread starter JapaneseKappa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course, the Republicans could have hamstrung themselves (and in their minds and mine, hurt the country) by rolling back rules the Democrats had proven they would change to give them an advantage. No thanks. The Republicans had an opportunity to do what the Dems did, and were warned by many of the same Dems who supported the rule change when they were in power.

If you are going to violate long standing norms and protocols while warning others not to, you lose any moral high guide when your opponents act in what you perceive to be a cavalier manner.
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
But you act like this never happened before Trump.
Click to expand...
Not at all. My question was informed by the relatively simple time Trump has had in getting his nominees through compared to other Presidents.
Dr_Meinheimer said:
No thanks
Click to expand...
Fine. But when you "violate long standing norms and protocols after complaining about others who have done so, you lose any moral high ground. And more importantly, the “Johnny did it first” justification for unprincipled action has never had a thing going for it.
 
Those are campaign helping appointments. And yes, the appointments end when you say when not confirmed
 
There is no moral high-ground any more. Once the Dems decided they didn’t like how federal justices were seated, after warning Republicans not to change the rules, they did once they had power. Once they go down that path, the dam is open. That’s how you lose out on guys like Merrick Garland, how we get a change to USSC voting rules, and on and on. The Democrats didn’t care about the impact in the moment; they simply wanted what they wanted, and we are all reaping what they sowed. Conveniently, I have yet see you condemn what they did but rather pseudo-chastise the Republicans for not turning the other cheek.

If I felt like the country wouldn’t better for it and for my children, I’d oppose it. But until we talk about illegalities
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
Once they go down that path, the dam is open.
Click to expand...
Once you go down that path, there is no automatic flood. Rather, there are independent decisions to repeat the same kind each time. Going to the next level. Or not.
Dr_Meinheimer said:
Conveniently, I have yet see you condemn what they did
Click to expand...
That is off-topic. But in response to you, I just note that act provides no justification whatsoever for the acts undertaken by the Republicans in the Senate and proposed by the Republican in the White House. There is no theology behind that type of reasoning.
 
There is political reality, and pragmatism. Taking the low road can never be defended, spiritually, and that applies to both parties.

However, anyone can see the reality of what such transgressions lead to - doesn’t make future actions right or wrong per se, but does make them very likely. Would that it were not the case but original sin kind of tells us what to expect if we deal with others poorly and blithely expect them to turn the other cheek. How often does that actually happen in politics?
 
And I am discussing a predictable reality. If you want to have a philosophical discussion with someone, there is a board for that.
 
You leave out one other feature.
Escalation.
Garland became a furthur departure.
Just as Impeachment trials broke with tradition of calling live witnesses since Andrew Johnson. Including witnesses that didn’t testify in the House
 
Last edited:
Which all occurred after the Senate Democrats changed the voting rules on federal judicial nominees, despite warning Republicans against doing so in 2007. Your point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top