Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Ooh, you’re such a jaded bad boy! Making fun of those nerds! I bet the suburban cocktail party chicks eat that routine up. Do you wear a black leather jacket with a heater tucked behind your ear when you deliver your little speeches?

Your problem is you incorrectly assume that I am engaging you on the substance of your little “all is fair in politics and war” thesis. BORING. Remember how Ty said that debating you is like reading a book review where the reviewer doesn’t talk about the book at all? The title of my book is “Sebastian is Always Wrong. (And then he lies about it.)”

If there's an interesting misrepresentation anywhere in the back and forth between us, it's your posturing that You Don't Care.

You do. You care very deeply about Trump and you do get upset. You're childlike in this regard.

I'll argue anything. Win, lose -- who cares? You actually get distressed about politics. It's cute. I want to pat you on the head... or give you a Xanax.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Filibusters were ended how? I’ve seen Mr Smith goes to Washington. Or are you saying if the Dems didn’t blow up the protection McConnel would do it now? You can’t say the words “ the Dems did something wrong” can you?

Filibusters for Supreme Court nominees were eliminated by simple majority vote, entirely (I think) by GOP members in 2017 (technically, the rules allow cloture by simple majority).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Filibusters for Supreme Court nominees were eliminated by simple majority vote, entirely (I think) by GOP members in 2017 (technically, the rules allow cloture by simple majority).

Really? I'd read recently that a Dem Senate removed roadblocks that had existed, and McConnell told them they'd live to regret it. Could be complete bullshit, but there was the appearance of truth to it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Filibusters were ended how? I’ve seen Mr Smith goes to Washington. Or are you saying if the Dems didn’t blow up the protection McConnel would do it now? You can’t say the words “ the Dems did something wrong” can you?

The filibuster is a creation of Senate rules, and can be changed at any time by changing the Senate rules. I am saying that McConnell would not have let that rule stop him from confirming a Republican appointee to the Supreme Court if he had 50 votes for it, regardless of what happened when the filibuster rule was changed before (something that has happened more than once).

If you have a pathological tendency to try to find a Democratic misdeed to counterbalance whatever Republicans are doing, seek medical help.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’m obtuse? You still think “nationally” is a relevant concept.

Psst... Ya think Coltrane’s joking about blue and red countries out of thin air? The internet is making everything increasingly regional/cultural.

There is no United States of America anymore. It’s a big tent that isn’t holding.

E Pluribus Unum.

Who said that a pointless contrarianism was a hobgoblin of a little mind?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I may have argued it that way. In my thinking, all is fair and innocent in politics. (I’ll stipulate I did. I truly don’t recall because what I say to you doesn’t mean shit to me.) It makes no difference. I think obstruction of a political investigation is fine. The investigation is tainted, so a target is excused no matter what he does.

I’d give Clinton back his law license. Guilty or not, it’s frivolous. Only matters to officious opponents like you, and in the case of Clinton, Richard Mellon Scaife. Right, left — all hall monitors.

So again, Ralph, or Cartman, what’s my demerit? Cite me the rule, and how many days detention for refusing to recognize the naive ideal politics should be assiduously policed by opponents starting political witch hunts against each other?

How do you tell if an investigation is "political"?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Really? I'd read recently that a Dem Senate removed roadblocks that had existed, and McConnell told them they'd live to regret it. Could be complete bullshit, but there was the appearance of truth to it.

Suppose that's true. Suppose that the Democratic Senate could have removed those roadblocks by a majority vote, but chose not to. Suppose that McConnell had 55 votes to confirm Gorsuch, but not 60. Is there any doubt in your mind that McConnell would have removed the roadblock and confirmed Gorsuch?

If the roadblock still existed, is there any doubt in your mind that McConnell would get rid of it now to confirm a justice to replace RBG? Or would say, oh well, I guess I'll let Biden appoint a new justice instead?

Hmm, it's a stumper.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The filibuster is a creation of Senate rules, and can be changed at any time by changing the Senate rules. I am saying that McConnell would not have let that rule stop him from confirming a Republican appointee to the Supreme Court if he had 50 votes for it, regardless of what happened when the filibuster rule was changed before (something that has happened more than once).

If you have a pathological tendency to try to find a Democratic misdeed to counterbalance whatever Republicans are doing, seek medical help.

Wow. RT said she wants the Senate to get rid of the filibuster. I said I think they already basically did. You now call me stupid because “the Rs would have done it anyway?”

Look at your argument from the standpoint of a professor grading an answer? Because that is what I do when I read your posts.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Suppose that's true. Suppose that the Democratic Senate could have removed those roadblocks by a majority vote, but chose not to. Suppose that McConnell had 55 votes to confirm Gorsuch, but not 60. Is there any doubt in your mind that McConnell would have removed the roadblock and confirmed Gorsuch?

If the roadblock still existed, is there any doubt in your mind that McConnell would get rid of it now to confirm a justice to replace RBG? Or would say, oh well, I guess I'll let Biden appoint a new justice instead?

Hmm, it's a stumper.

From your recent posts I can only assume you are not currently in therapy. I think you really need to go. Two, maybe three times a week?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If there's an interesting misrepresentation anywhere in the back and forth between us, it's your posturing that You Don't Care.

You do. You care very deeply about Trump and you do get upset. You're childlike in this regard.

I'll argue anything. Win, lose -- who cares? You actually get distressed about politics. It's cute. I want to pat you on the head... or give you a Xanax.

Of course, I care about Trump. I never suggested that I didn’t. For example, I care about the fact that he says racist things, and has emboldened and been a catalyst for increased activity by white supremacist groups and other similar extremists. This upsets me on principle, and also because I have friends who are people of color who already have enough bullshit to deal with in the world without having a racist president. You, on the other hand, don’t care about that at all, and only worry about the potential tax implications for your real estate investments, which you curiously posture as the superior, and more “adult” position. That all said, I still am not interested in entering into any substantive debates with you because, as I have repeatedly mentioned in the past, I find debating with a chronic liar to be pointless.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Wow. RT said she wants the Senate to get rid of the filibuster. I said I think they already basically did. You now call me stupid because “the Rs would have done it anyway?”

Look at your argument from the standpoint of a professor grading an answer? Because that is what I do when I read your posts.

You're not stupid, you aren't articulating your point in a way I can understand it.

The Dems got rid of the filibuster for some reasons, not for others. If the rule had blocked the Republicans' tax package, they would have gotten rid of it then, but it didn't so they didn't have to. The filibuster is something like a norm, a sort of commitment to bipartisanship. Either party will get rid of it if it keeps them from doing something they care about.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

From your recent posts I can only assume you are not currently in therapy. I think you really need to go. Two, maybe three times a week?

Just answer the question, eh?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Just answer the question, eh?

Okay. The answer is yes. Three times a week.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Okay. The answer is yes. Three times a week.

Ha ha.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

How do you tell if an investigation is "political"?

It involves politicians and benefits one over another.

Russiagate
Whitewater
Benghazi*
Clinton Impeachment*
Trump Impeachment**

All political. The investigations into Trump's taxes in NY, which would never have occurred but for who he is and who he's pissed off? Political.

Ted Stevens
Rostenkowski

Trafficant, that idiot from Ohio, is a rare exception in which a prosecution of a sitting legislator was not in part political. He was a criminal. Same goes for Sheldon Silver in NY. Those guys were engaged in racketeering.

The indictment of that DOJ lawyer for altering FISA court documents? Political.

Stone's indictment? Yup.

Manafort's? Yup. Had he not been in Trump's orbit, he'd have never been charged. In fact, a prior investigation of him for the same stuff he was convicted of had been closed without charges. (How dumb is he?)

That Obama lawyer who was put on trial by Mueller for failing to register as an agent of a foreign government? That one was really political. Disgustingly political. He was charged so Mueller's team could look tough on both sides. That one was truly outrageous.

_____
* Not criminal prosecutions, but brought by opponents purely for political gain.
** Technically defensible as Trump had attempted to shake down Ukraine, but also brought for political gain. (Had a Democrat president done that, the House would not have pushed for impeachment.)