I will grant you...

[Cugalabanza]

I thought it might be interesting to have a space for people to admit to ideas that we agree with that come from the Other Side (parties, people, institutions,)

 

For example:

 

I dislike Trump, but I think he is absolutely right when he talks about getting better treatment and services for veterans. I hope he follows through on this.

 

I think the Democrats should have given in on Gorsuch and voted to confirm him instead of forcing the stupid nuclear option. The Democrats missed their chance to force their issue with Garland. They should have pushed the issue more at that time, before the election. Once that was over, the Dems should not have done the same thing they were calling out the Republicans for. Gorsuch is a relatively moderate choice and they could have taken the high road and gained some points by saying we are not going to hold the process hostageits better to move forward and try to repair the relationship between D & R. (ok, I realize how naïve that sounds after typing it, but I do believe that.)

[DC Tom]

I think the Democrats should have given in on Gorsuch and voted to confirm him instead of forcing the stupid nuclear option. The Democrats missed their chance to force their issue with Garland. They should have pushed the issue more at that time, before the election.

 

I don't want to turn this into a Garland thread...but I'm curious how you think that could have happened? The only way I can think of is had Obama made him a recess appointment in the five-minute window between Congresses (which I would have loved to see, by the way).

 

I really have nothing to add to this thread, as I don't take sides, I take positions on issues. But I like where your head is at.

[Cugalabanza]

I don't want to turn this into a Garland thread...but I'm curious how you think that could have happened? The only way I can think of is had Obama made him a recess appointment in the five-minute window between Congresses (which I would have loved to see, by the way).

You're probably right that it was not much of a realistic possibility to get Garland. I just feel that the Democrats left a lot of runners on base in that game. The Republicans were very blatantly hijacking the system. I think they (Dems) should have hit that every day. They foolishly thought they didn't need to because...Hillary. They could have used it for more leverage before the election, if not to actually get Garland confirmed, then for points & credibility for their party.

[Tiberius]

Yes, let's blame Democrats for something they had no power to change...

[Doc Brown]

Garland was never going to get a vote because that's the GOP way as they've always put up more of a fight than the Democrats. Given prominent GOP Senators said they'd deny any SCOTUS nominee the full term if Hillary was elected, the Dems had every right in filibustering Gorsich. The GOP would of used the nuclear option the next time a SCOTUS seat opened up anyways. I've always felt Dems are timid and weak so they had to show their base they'd fight.

 

I'll admit I'm much more comfortable than I was in January with Trump as president as far as foreign policy goes. He's listening to his advisers and the two major strikes were well planned and served their purpose. I also like the current approach they're taking with North Korea and Iran.

[DC Tom]

You're probably right that it was not much of a realistic possibility to get Garland. I just feel that the Democrats left a lot of runners on base in that game. The Republicans were very blatantly hijacking the system. I think they (Dems) should have hit that every day. They foolishly thought they didn't need to because...Hillary. They could have used it for more leverage before the election, if not to actually get Garland confirmed, then for points & credibility for their party.

 

There is that. The Dems were in something of a bind, though, in that what the Republicans were doing was actually perfectly Constitutional. Low, but Constitutional, and well withing their rights as the majority party. Meaning that hammering that too hard risked making the Democrats look like petulant children whining about reasonable parliamentary points rather than unreasonable Republicans.

 

Now that I think of it, they could (and should) have hammered more the Republican's bull **** argument that the right to nominate should be reserved for the next president, on the basis of "The president has an unfettered constitutional right to nominate justices, just like the Senate Republicans have an unfettered constitutional right to act like a gaggle of bitchy little rooster-gobblers and not hold hearings on it or put it to a floor vote." So I guess, yes, the Democrats did leave something on the table...but because they were too busy making incorrect Constitutional arguments to counter the Republicans' incorrect Constitutional arguments like that.

 

 

Yes, let's blame Democrats for something they had no power to change...

 

And there is that, too. (Yes, for once dumbass here is right.) The Senate Republicans had the Democrats in a box, even worse than they do now with the nuclear option (can't filibuster a refusal to act).

 

Okay, there's my contribution to your thread topic: I will grant you that gatorman is right, just this once. I'll even grant that it's not an example of a "stopped clock" phenomenon...if only because a stopped clock is right more frequently than once every fifteen years.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I'll grant the left that Medicare-for-all would have been preferable to the abortion that is the ACA.