¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ will get you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Oh neat, thanks!
Also, uh, the thing I take away from that story is, “Democratically controlled Senate confirmed judge appointed by Republican president near the end of his term”. Which Republicans wouldn’t do. For any candidate. I’ll remind you, again, that before the election, Republican Senators said things like:
Oh actually my final \ was unnecessary, post has been edited.
To be fair that is a triple-escape so that is freakier.
The usual case is more like weirdo @tomchick who insists on “signing” his posts, like so
- Tom
- Tom
Ooops! looks like a list! But let’s add that slash to escape the special character and…
\- Tom
- Tom
Yeah, basically, one side is still playing chess saying “check out my awesome Queen’s gambit!” and the other side is just chucking pieces at their opponent’s face.
Basically it comes down to a choice. Do you want to be a Sucker, or a Psychopath?
Great choice, huh?
Not sure if a Civil War is possible, since there is no longer a north/south divide. Instead, you have compact blue areas embedded in large swaths of red (except for California maybe). It’s a lot easier to maneuver tanks and stuff in the red areas, and the blue areas make for better/easier targets in bombing raids.
Idea for novel: The Confederation of Latte-Sipping City States
This is why I secretly hope climate change / sea rise really fucks up all the southern red states.
Yeah, if the really conservatives wanted to, they could just bulldoze the cities and build NYC 2.0 or whatever 100 miles to the West. They’re so generous that they haven’t done this already, don’t you think?
Now he’s signing Tom’s name to his posts. Is this the beginning… of a Civil War?
Kind of! It kind of is like that!
- Tom
It is 2018, maybe we could do a battle royale mode? 50 states enter, 1 state leaves.
I’m on Tony’s side.
Well, with them taking away food stamps from convicts and meals from schoolchildren, seems like Hunger Games might be the more apt analogy.
I hope a civil war won’t happen, because if it does it will be like the premise of the handmaids tale: bad guys take it all, good guys etch out a little corner of a Canadian city to drink coffee and hold vigils for things.
You guys are being way nicer about this than is really warranted.
The correct response is:
“Hurr, durr. Derpy hurr derr herr.”
AKA: Fuck that. Garland is as much an activist judge as, idk, Kennedy. McConnell is literally going to burn for eternity alongside Goebbels et al for the suffering he has caused the nation, nay, the world.
I’m not sure what you mean by activist, I’m not even sure you do. Cause frankly it is pretty damn hard to be too activitist judge on the court of appeals. I do know that he was no smarter, nor better legal scholar than Judge Bork, and if Judge Bork deserved to be rejected because his ideas were too extremist in Reagan time, than judge Merrick deserved the was the same fate in Obama’s time. Bottom line he didn’t have 51 votes in the Senate, and all the hand wring and complaining about McConnell isn’t going to change that simple fact, hearing or no hearing.
You mean 60 votes in the Senate.
About which you apparently need to be reminded, Barack Obama could have proposed the Puppies are Fluffy and Adorable Act of 2017 and he couldn’t have gotten 60 votes in the Senate.
And besides which:
A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork’s nomination ensued, partly fueled by strong opposition by civil and women’s rights groups concerned with Bork’s stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts, and his opposition to the federal government’s right to impose standards of voting fairness upon the states. Bork is one of only three Supreme Court nominees to ever be opposed by the ACLU.[11] Bork was also criticized for being an “advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy,”[12] as demonstrated by his role in the “Saturday Night Massacre” during Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal.
Garland was not anywhere near Bork. C’mon, man.