Gimpy wrote:I hate Obama's SCOTUS choice. What a limp-dick selection.

It's a political poker move, had the senate leaders not come out with a we ain't confirming anyone stance an hour after Scalia gets cold he probably would have nominated someone more exciting

Nominate a guy who is moderate and older and see if they still want to roll the dice when Trump gets nominated

Monkeyboy wrote:I think you're really reaching for reasons to call people stupid and it's a major distraction. And weird. And unnecessary. And weird.

I have a strong conviction, based on facts, that drumpf will fall short. I have little patience for "I watch the games" defenses in any realm. So, kindly fuck straight off

pacino wrote:A moderate, like you!

Tough on crime, against habeas corpus for gitmo detainees, tends to defer to agencies (like when he sided with the DEA when it came to reclassifying marijuana), and isn't a big fan of constitutional rights.

Yea, I guess we share a lot of views.

Round 2:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

Gimpy wrote:I hate Obama's SCOTUS choice. What a limp-dick selection.

It's a political poker move, had the senate leaders not come out with a we ain't confirming anyone stance an hour after Scalia gets cold he probably would have nominated someone more exciting

Nominate a guy who is moderate and older and see if they still want to roll the dice when Trump gets nominated

Right--Obama has a strong hand, and he's calling the Republican's bluff, since they foolishly came out and said they won't consider anyone. So, the Republicans now have no choice but to spend the summer of an election year looking like either obstructionist jerks or a bunch of dopes who go out and make ridiculous ultimatums and then completely fold. The former makes them look bad to the general electorate, the latter results in a Republican base electorate going even more apeshit than they are now. Indeed, if they do go back on their word and hold hearings, I'd think that would be the final nail in the Republican coffin--the party would almost certainly be torn apart in two. Remember how much schadenfreude we all enjoyed when Boehner gave up his seat? Imagine what will happen when the already unpopular McConnell is perceived as folding yet again.

So wait, legal weed yet or nah

Woody wrote:So wait, legal weed yet or nah

According to Garland? Not just illegal, but Schedule 1. So as bad as heroin and bath salts and worse than crack cocaine.

How do we get all three branches of government into the jungle for an ayahuasca retreat?

Perfect is the enemy of the good. I'll expound on this later, but it's a smart long-term pick.

Gimpy wrote:

Woody wrote:So wait, legal weed yet or nah

According to Garland? Not just illegal, but Schedule 1. So as bad as heroin and bath salts and worse than crack cocaine.

So, a judge was following the written law huh?

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

Woody wrote:So wait, legal weed yet or nah

According to Garland? Not just illegal, but Schedule 1. So as bad as heroin and bath salts and worse than crack cocaine.

So, a judge was following the written law huh?

He was following an agency regarding a law that was being challenged.

This seems to be kind of a dipshit thing to say about the DEA.

"Don't we have to defer to their judgment?" Garland asked about the agency. "We're not scientists. They are."

drsmooth wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:I think you're really reaching for reasons to call people stupid and it's a major distraction. And weird. And unnecessary. And weird.

I have a strong conviction, based on facts, that drumpf will fall short. I have little patience for "I watch the games" defenses in any realm. So, kindly #$!&@ straight off

I kind of like that BSG has it's own Donald Trump.

^ +1

Watching the PA house live and a rep just told his story of having stomach cancer and turning down his friends weed because of his position. He conveyed how much he wants his his daughters to have that option of relief if they ever were in the same spot.


Basically every rep is coming up to have their say on record before the vote

I mean, Monkeyboy has strong opinions but I'd never call him an Authoritarian

Wait was that Vox?

Who

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Wait was that Vox?

yes!

Woody wrote:
Read the Vox article on Authoritarianism: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/tr ... itarianism

I'm scared

Missed his name but a PA rep just finished his speech with, "vote for senate bill 3 and I promise you that a building won't fall on you"