And in the 11 months we still have before President Obama leaves office, he may very well have a nominee that gets confirmed also. It's way too early to cite that as a difference.
You don't get points for not staging an unconditional civil rebellion starting from the minute you lose an election.
Sophistry. The Republican Leadership, regardless what you may think of them, hasn't done anything that the Democrats didn't do when they were in power; it's a plague on both their houses.
As one can probably expect, at least until Trump takes the White House, at which point dissent or opposition in Congress will become treason and rancor again.
You forgot the part where President Trump goes full-on Brothers Grimm and lures small children into the White House and then cooks them and eats them.
No, it’s not. It may suit you to judge Democrats by their intentions but not their actions, and it may suit you to judge Republicans by their actions but not their intentions, but it’s magical thinking.
The Republican Leadership, regardless what you may think of them, hasn't done anything that the Democrats didn't do when they were in power
False equivalence.
You forgot the part where President Trump goes full-on Brothers Grimm and lures small children into the White House and then cooks them and eats them.
Reduction to absurdity. Not because it’s absurd that Trump would eat a child. If nothing else, then because it’s absurd to think there’s anything either party would never do.
And your basis for that argument is what exactly? It's February 26th, 2016 that's 255 days between now and the election in November, and nearly a full eleven months before President Obama leaves office, yet you're claiming as fact that no one will be confirmed to the Supreme Court between now and then. So either: A) Your argument has no basis in fact and you're just speculating like everyone else, or B) You're claiming to have knowledge of the future. Are you a time-traveler? Do you have visions of things to come? Is your future self sending you periodic faxes? If so, can you tell me how my Pirates are going to do this season?
The rhetoric thus far from Republican Leadership has been identical to the rhetoric we saw from Democrats in 2006 and 2007-- as evidenced by the videos I linked previously. Chuck Schumer made the same arguments about rejecting any nominee out of hand, and President Obama joined in Senator Kerry's filibuster, once there was a nominee. In the end however, the Senate did ultimately confirm Samuel Alito, and the Senate may very well end up confirming a nominee this time too. So unless you're willing to tell us how you're getting your information from the future, then it's absolutely too early to claim what Republicans will or won't do.
False equivalence.
Identical behavior between two groups is only a false equivalent if you're making the argument that the two groups are, or should be, held to different standards.
Reduction to absurdity.
You're absolutely right, because it was an absurd premise. You argue that:
...at least until Trump takes the White House, at which point dissent or opposition in Congress will become treason and rancor again
Again, what's your basis for this argument? Do you have any evidence that Donald Trump would attempt to expand the legal definition of treason (18 U.S. Code § 2381) to include criticizing the President? Do you have any evidence that Congress would go along with such a change? Any evidence that the Supreme Court would consider-- even for a moment, upholding such a blatant violation of the First Amendment? If so, by all means share it with the rest of us.
Are you a time-traveler? Do you have visions of things to come?
Yes. I’m a visitor from a strange realm we call “The Past.”
it's absolutely too early to claim what Republicans will or won't do
Quick, you better get the GOP Senate leadership on the horn, pronto! Someone has to tell them what you’ve figured out before it’s too late!
Identical behavior between two groups
There’s your problem right there.
You argue that
At the risk of seeming contrarian, let me suggest that I’m not arguing anything. I doubt the good folks reading us here are all that into arguments at all.
Do you have any evidence that Donald Trump would attempt to expand the legal definition of treason (18 U.S. Code § 2381) to include criticizing the President?
A wise lady that comes on the radio sometimes signs off her program with the admonition to “Go easy, and if you can’t go easy, go as easy as you can.”
Remember that business about the simplest explanation being the most likely? Bearing that in mind, do you suppose I meant a) that dissent and opposition would be called treason and rancor, or b) that I was foretelling a dystopian future Hell world in which substantial changes were made to that title and section of relevant and applicable federal law? Take your time before you answer. Hint, if you wanted to redefine treason, how would you best browbeat the opposition to doing so?
Some of us from across the yawning chasm of time remember a thing called the PATRIOT Act. How old were you then?
And in the 11 months we still have before President Obama leaves office, he may very well have a nominee that gets confirmed also. It's way too early to cite that as a difference.
Sophistry. The Republican Leadership, regardless what you may think of them, hasn't done anything that the Democrats didn't do when they were in power; it's a plague on both their houses.
You forgot the part where President Trump goes full-on Brothers Grimm and lures small children into the White House and then cooks them and eats them.
No, it’s not. It may suit you to judge Democrats by their intentions but not their actions, and it may suit you to judge Republicans by their actions but not their intentions, but it’s magical thinking.
False equivalence.
Reduction to absurdity. Not because it’s absurd that Trump would eat a child. If nothing else, then because it’s absurd to think there’s anything either party would never do.
And your basis for that argument is what exactly? It's February 26th, 2016 that's 255 days between now and the election in November, and nearly a full eleven months before President Obama leaves office, yet you're claiming as fact that no one will be confirmed to the Supreme Court between now and then. So either: A) Your argument has no basis in fact and you're just speculating like everyone else, or B) You're claiming to have knowledge of the future. Are you a time-traveler? Do you have visions of things to come? Is your future self sending you periodic faxes? If so, can you tell me how my Pirates are going to do this season?
The rhetoric thus far from Republican Leadership has been identical to the rhetoric we saw from Democrats in 2006 and 2007-- as evidenced by the videos I linked previously. Chuck Schumer made the same arguments about rejecting any nominee out of hand, and President Obama joined in Senator Kerry's filibuster, once there was a nominee. In the end however, the Senate did ultimately confirm Samuel Alito, and the Senate may very well end up confirming a nominee this time too. So unless you're willing to tell us how you're getting your information from the future, then it's absolutely too early to claim what Republicans will or won't do.
Identical behavior between two groups is only a false equivalent if you're making the argument that the two groups are, or should be, held to different standards.
You're absolutely right, because it was an absurd premise. You argue that:
...at least until Trump takes the White House, at which point dissent or opposition in Congress will become treason and rancor again
Again, what's your basis for this argument? Do you have any evidence that Donald Trump would attempt to expand the legal definition of treason (18 U.S. Code § 2381) to include criticizing the President? Do you have any evidence that Congress would go along with such a change? Any evidence that the Supreme Court would consider-- even for a moment, upholding such a blatant violation of the First Amendment? If so, by all means share it with the rest of us.
Now you’re arguing for its own sake, I’m not ‘claiming’ that.
Yes. I’m a visitor from a strange realm we call “The Past.”
Quick, you better get the GOP Senate leadership on the horn, pronto! Someone has to tell them what you’ve figured out before it’s too late!
There’s your problem right there.
At the risk of seeming contrarian, let me suggest that I’m not arguing anything. I doubt the good folks reading us here are all that into arguments at all.
A wise lady that comes on the radio sometimes signs off her program with the admonition to “Go easy, and if you can’t go easy, go as easy as you can.”
Remember that business about the simplest explanation being the most likely? Bearing that in mind, do you suppose I meant a) that dissent and opposition would be called treason and rancor, or b) that I was foretelling a dystopian future Hell world in which substantial changes were made to that title and section of relevant and applicable federal law? Take your time before you answer. Hint, if you wanted to redefine treason, how would you best browbeat the opposition to doing so?
Some of us from across the yawning chasm of time remember a thing called the PATRIOT Act. How old were you then?