I believe your definition of “logical argument” is one which leads to your preferred view of the world?
Sure, that’s a great alternative fact for you to believe in.
Not only is my argument logical, it’s also true. Dems are defecting right and left from a filibuster fight. I predict that there will be no filibuster barring some unforeseen grave revelation about Gorsuch.
You just committed two logical fallacy in attempting to defend your argument as logical: appeal to authority and a false equivalence. I don’t care if you call your argument logical; your personal opinion is meaningless and I don’t recognize you as an authority. You can either lay out a logical case or you can continue to shy away from doing that. Secondly, just because the Dems won’t filibuster doesn’t mean they shouldn’t. The Dems are notoriously chickenshit and, if they go ahead and approve Gorsuch, it will just be a demonstration of their continued chickenshittery. This is not rocket science.
One of the fundamental features of the Senate rules is that the minority has a voice. But, it doesn’t have to be. Harry Reid went a long way towards destroying that principal when he invoked the nuclear option. Republicans will not hesitate to respond in kind.
Worrying about how Republicans will respond has hamstrung the Democrats for a long time. There is a word for this: fear. My position is the Republicans are shitlords and can be expected to behave as shitlords. Why give them the benefit of the doubt when they continue to be racist, homophobic, corrupt, corporatist, misogynist, warmongering sociopaths at every turn? Just assume the worst is coming from them and act accordingly. Oppose them, and they will try to fuck you. Cooperate, and they will try to fuck you. What’s the difference?
Remember that Democrats are almost certainly going to lose seats in the 2018 elections. Basically, you’re giving Republicans full license to trample all over you for at least the next few years. I do not believe Chuck Schumer is that stupid.
LOL. The Democrats can only do worse among their base by cooperating with Trump. How is this not obvious to everyone? What Chuck Schumer will or will not do is inapposite to this discussion because Chuck Schumer is a bought and paid for politician. He will do what his donors want. It may or may not be a tactically sound position, but it will be a personally enriching decision for him, so he’s going to be alright regardless.
Your argument, “Mitch McConnel is a giant unmitigated douche” so the proper response is “giant unmitigated douchery” gave me a chuckle, but it’s not exactly setting the world on fire in terms of rhetorical excellence.
But it is true. I see you neglected to follow the link to the game theoretic analysis of the Tit-For-Tat strategy, but it is clearly what is called for in this instance. It is the optimal strategy.
As hard as it may be for your to admit, Donald Trump won the election. You may feel that we’ve put an incompetent narcissistic internet troll in the White House. But, the fact remains that he must govern nonetheless. Declaring any nominee he puts up invalid and dreaming up inventive slanders to validate that view is not going to help move the country forward.
Now you are committing straw man fallacies. I never said anywhere I didn’t admit Donald Trump won the election. But, do you know what his presidential authority means to me? Not a damn thing, which is why I’m totally on board with Dems doing every possible thing they can to hamper everything he attempts to do. Why not be obstructionist when what you’re trying to obstruct is a global dumpster fire?
You have also misquoted me. I said the Dems should approve a likable nominee, in the event Trump proposes one. I just don’t expect that to happen, and I think the Dems should 100% oppose any SCOTUS pick who is remotely odious, such as Gorsuch. If your chief qualification is, “Trump could have picked much worse,” that’s not good enough.
If I were driven purely by partisan motives, I’d say I hope that people like you are the leaders of the leftist movement. Your policy ideas are pretty terrible. But, thankfully your political strategy is worse. Go ahead, suck American politics further into the gutter.
If you were driven by partisan motives, you’d “helpfully” tell me to adjust my strategy to be something even more easily steamrolled by your GOP heroes. No thanks.
But, I care about this country more. If you do this, make no mistake, it is unprecedented.
The iPhone was unprecedented. Steve Jobs did it anyway. The conservative approach for Jobs would have been to just make an incremental adjustment to the iPod, or roll out a new line of incrementally different Macs.
That said, it’s laughable you call this unprecedented when Mitch McConnell just did this exact same thing by refusing to even acknowledge Garland as a SCOTUS pick. Maybe you are the one who refused to accept that Obama had been elected President so that seemed perfectly fine to you? You can’t have it both ways. It’s the same thing; the only difference is the length to which this will drag on.
I am actually totally fine with McConnell’s tactics insofar as they appear to have been legal. I simply think the Democrats should employ the exact same tactics. As far as I’m concerned, this can continue until someone has a filibuster-proof Senate majority and the Presidency, or until someone starts coming through with objectively good SCOTUS picks that everyone can rally around.
If a President you despise cannot nominate qualified candidates to fill his cabinet and receive the consent of the Senate under any circumstances, the proper functioning of our constitutional system of government will become untenable. The advise and consent function of the US Senate is not the stage on which partisan bickering should play itself out. Both parties have contributed to undermining that principal and getting us to this point. But, only one party can end it.
I’m OK with the “proper functioning” of government grinding to a halt under a fascist regime. I’d rather have no new policies than idiotic, fascist, white supremacist, racist, homophobic, warmongering, police state, Christian, corporatist, knuckleheaded policies. The absolute best outcome for the billions of people on planet Earth under a Trump Presidency is that he isn’t able to do much and not much happens.
My point about the Democrats and their base is that I’m not the only person who feels this way; plenty of young Democrats do as well. What worked for the Democrats in the 80s and 90s simply will not work anymore with the new generations of voters.
Saying “one party can end it” is also nonsense. Either party can end it. Trump could nominate Merrick Garland and that would put an end to this whole thing. A centrist, corporatist hack like Garland would be enough to appease Schumer and the Democrats. Better yet, he could nominate Cornel West, and even I would have to agree with Trump’s pick. If you really want this to end, and if you are truly non-partisan, as you say, why not write a letter to Trump to nominate Merrick Garland? Garland is practically a Republican, anyway. You’ll like having that guy on SCOTUS way more than I or anyone on the left will, so you can even still book a win as a conservative.