Support NeoGAF

[Bonen no Max'd]

There is always a way to get what you want, no matter how impossible or improbable it may seem. Which takes me to my next gem, from Pirates of the Caribbean:

Will Turner: "You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you."

Jack Sparrow: "That's not much incentive for me to fight fair then, is it?"

Sometimes you have to play "dirty" to get what you want, to think outside the proverbial box. Why is it that Republicans are willing to go that route while Democrats are not? They're politicians, you aren't voting for them so they can uphold a squeaky clean image, you're voting for them because you believe they can best represent you. So, ask yourself, if you were a senator would you strictly play by the rules if you knew it would lose you a supreme court candidate, for example, or would you think that candidate/position was important enough to devise new strategies in order to get him/her appointed? It's easy to say from where I'm sitting, but I would hope my Democratic senator would go to the same lengths his/her Republican counterparts do, if not further. If you're playing it safe just so you can enjoy your $174,000 salary you don't deserve that seat.

I'm looking forward to Elizabeth Warren's fight for her seat next year in Massachusetts as it looks like she'll have a very Trump-like candidate opposing her in Shiva Ayyadurai. It'll probably wind up being the best gauge of the Democrats' ability to fend off Trump in 2020.

what

 

[pigeon]

There is always a way to get what you want, no matter how impossible or improbable it may seem. Which takes me to my next gem, from Pirates of the Caribbean:

Will Turner: "You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you."

Jack Sparrow: "That's not much incentive for me to fight fair then, is it?"

Sometimes you have to play "dirty" to get what you want, to think outside the proverbial box. Why is it that Republicans are willing to go that route while Democrats are not? They're politicians, you aren't voting for them so they can uphold a squeaky clean image, you're voting for them because you believe they can best represent you. So, ask yourself, if you were a senator would you strictly play by the rules if you knew it would lose you a supreme court candidate, for example, or would you think that candidate/position was important enough to devise new strategies in order to get him/her appointed? It's easy to say from where I'm sitting, but I would hope my Democratic senator would go to the same lengths his/her Republican counterparts do, if not further. If you're playing it safe just so you can enjoy your $174,000 salary you don't deserve that seat.

I'm looking forward to Elizabeth Warren's fight for her seat next year in Massachusetts as it looks like she'll have a very Trump-like candidate opposing her in Shiva Ayyadurai. It'll probably wind up being the best gauge of the Democrats' ability to fend off Trump in 2020.

This post is magical.

I mean literally, you believe in magic.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

There is always a way to get what you want, no matter how impossible or improbable it may seem. Which takes me to my next gem, from Pirates of the Caribbean:

Will Turner: "You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you."

Jack Sparrow: "That's not much incentive for me to fight fair then, is it?"

Sometimes you have to play "dirty" to get what you want, to think outside the proverbial box. Why is it that Republicans are willing to go that route while Democrats are not? They're politicians, you aren't voting for them so they can uphold a squeaky clean image, you're voting for them because you believe they can best represent you. So, ask yourself, if you were a senator would you strictly play by the rules if you knew it would lose you a supreme court candidate, for example, or would you think that candidate/position was important enough to devise new strategies in order to get him/her appointed? It's easy to say from where I'm sitting, but I would hope my Democratic senator would go to the same lengths his/her Republican counterparts do, if not further. If you're playing it safe just so you can enjoy your $174,000 salary you don't deserve that seat.

I'm looking forward to Elizabeth Warren's fight for her seat next year in Massachusetts as it looks like she'll have a very Trump-like candidate opposing her in Shiva Ayyadurai. It'll probably wind up being the best gauge of the Democrats' ability to fend off Trump in 2020.

 

[Ray Down]

There is always a way to get what you want, no matter how impossible or improbable it may seem. Which takes me to my next gem, from Pirates of the Caribbean:

Will Turner: "You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you."

Jack Sparrow: "That's not much incentive for me to fight fair then, is it?"

Sometimes you have to play "dirty" to get what you want, to think outside the proverbial box. Why is it that Republicans are willing to go that route while Democrats are not? They're politicians, you aren't voting for them so they can uphold a squeaky clean image, you're voting for them because you believe they can best represent you. So, ask yourself, if you were a senator would you strictly play by the rules if you knew it would lose you a supreme court candidate, for example, or would you think that candidate/position was important enough to devise new strategies in order to get him/her appointed? It's easy to say from where I'm sitting, but I would hope my Democratic senator would go to the same lengths his/her Republican counterparts do, if not further. If you're playing it safe just so you can enjoy your $174,000 salary you don't deserve that seat.

I'm looking forward to Elizabeth Warren's fight for her seat next year in Massachusetts as it looks like she'll have a very Trump-like candidate opposing her in Shiva Ayyadurai. It'll probably wind up being the best gauge of the Democrats' ability to fend off Trump in 2020.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

I'm reminded of a famous quote from the film "Dodgeball" that informs my view of reality. To overcome any obstacle all you need to do is Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

[Maxim726X]

I'm reminded of a famous quote from the film "Dodgeball" that informs my view of reality. To overcome any obstacle all you need to do is Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

The 5 Ds. I know them well.

 

[CazTGG]

.

 

[Vagabundo]

There is always a way to get what you want, no matter how impossible or improbable it may seem. Which takes me to my next gem, from Pirates of the Caribbean:

Will Turner: "You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you."

Jack Sparrow: "That's not much incentive for me to fight fair then, is it?"

Sometimes you have to play "dirty" to get what you want, to think outside the proverbial box. Why is it that Republicans are willing to go that route while Democrats are not? They're politicians, you aren't voting for them so they can uphold a squeaky clean image, you're voting for them because you believe they can best represent you. So, ask yourself, if you were a senator would you strictly play by the rules if you knew it would lose you a supreme court candidate, for example, or would you think that candidate/position was important enough to devise new strategies in order to get him/her appointed? It's easy to say from where I'm sitting, but I would hope my Democratic senator would go to the same lengths his/her Republican counterparts do, if not further. If you're playing it safe just so you can enjoy your $174,000 salary you don't deserve that seat.

I'm looking forward to Elizabeth Warren's fight for her seat next year in Massachusetts as it looks like she'll have a very Trump-like candidate opposing her in Shiva Ayyadurai. It'll probably wind up being the best gauge of the Democrats' ability to fend off Trump in 2020.

I think you win GAF for today.

 

[Flying Toaster]

There is always a way to get what you want, no matter how impossible or improbable it may seem. Which takes me to my next gem, from Pirates of the Caribbean:

Will Turner: "You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you."

Jack Sparrow: "That's not much incentive for me to fight fair then, is it?"

Sometimes you have to play "dirty" to get what you want, to think outside the proverbial box. Why is it that Republicans are willing to go that route while Democrats are not? They're politicians, you aren't voting for them so they can uphold a squeaky clean image, you're voting for them because you believe they can best represent you. So, ask yourself, if you were a senator would you strictly play by the rules if you knew it would lose you a supreme court candidate, for example, or would you think that candidate/position was important enough to devise new strategies in order to get him/her appointed? It's easy to say from where I'm sitting, but I would hope my Democratic senator would go to the same lengths his/her Republican counterparts do, if not further. If you're playing it safe just so you can enjoy your $174,000 salary you don't deserve that seat.

I'm looking forward to Elizabeth Warren's fight for her seat next year in Massachusetts as it looks like she'll have a very Trump-like candidate opposing her in Shiva Ayyadurai. It'll probably wind up being the best gauge of the Democrats' ability to fend off Trump in 2020.

Um... OK

I'm reminded of a famous quote from the film "Dodgeball" that informs my view of reality. To overcome any obstacle all you need to do is Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I like this.

 

[digdug2k]

Communication had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

It's like you people have a pornographic obsession with blaming Democrats with every single thing wrong with the country and Only If They Had Done Things Differently.

But no, it was the Democrats' fault. Jesus christ.

What the fuck. All I'm saying is they're awful at the PR game. They are. The fucking GOP has mastered it (by basically destroying the press in the process).

I'm not sure where you got "every single thing wrong with the country" out of that.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I'm legitimately depressed about this because I feel like the door has been shut on democracy and my right to participate in government. This can't be resolved by the next election, or the one after that, or the one after that. My first presidential vote was for Obama and he was denied the right to appoint a justice, which was his to make. And there isn't any actual recourse except for revolution or murder, both of which I reject.

 

[whyamihere]

What the fuck. All I'm saying is they're awful at the PR game. They are. The fucking GOP has mastered it (by basically destroying the press in the process).

I'm not sure where you got "every single thing wrong with the country" out of that.

Uh, no. I was saying this is not Democrat's fault. You said, but messaging!

That has literally nothing to do with this. You're bringing something up that literally has nothing to do with the argument at hand. You might as well be talking about cheeseburgers.

This has been inevitable since November 8th. There was nothing Democrats's could've done. Yet for some reason, you bring up messaging! Maybe you need to make yourself more familiar with the process instead of screaming nonsense.

 

[DOWN]

There is always a way to get what you want, no matter how impossible or improbable it may seem. Which takes me to my next gem, from Pirates of the Caribbean:

Will Turner: "You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you."

Jack Sparrow: "That's not much incentive for me to fight fair then, is it?"

Sometimes you have to play "dirty" to get what you want, to think outside the proverbial box. Why is it that Republicans are willing to go that route while Democrats are not? They're politicians, you aren't voting for them so they can uphold a squeaky clean image, you're voting for them because you believe they can best represent you. So, ask yourself, if you were a senator would you strictly play by the rules if you knew it would lose you a supreme court candidate, for example, or would you think that candidate/position was important enough to devise new strategies in order to get him/her appointed? It's easy to say from where I'm sitting, but I would hope my Democratic senator would go to the same lengths his/her Republican counterparts do, if not further. If you're playing it safe just so you can enjoy your $174,000 salary you don't deserve that seat.

I'm looking forward to Elizabeth Warren's fight for her seat next year in Massachusetts as it looks like she'll have a very Trump-like candidate opposing her in Shiva Ayyadurai. It'll probably wind up being the best gauge of the Democrats' ability to fend off Trump in 2020.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Two very important things:
- First, that quote should properly attribute the statement to Chris Gardner, Will Smith's character in the movie, not Will Smith.
- Second, the name of the movie is spelled wrong in the image. It's the Pursuit of Happyness.

 

[Shadow_Lord]

So wait, can a filibuster be reinstated through any way after the nuclear option?

 

[GaimeGuy]

So wait, can a filibuster be reinstated through any way after the nuclear option?

It can be, but why should it be reinstated? The GOP has shown that they'll just chsnge tge rules at the first sign of resistance to get their way.

 

[Stumpokapow]

So wait, can a filibuster be reinstated through any way after the nuclear option?

Sure, if the majority party supported it. But why would they? If the majority opposes the president's nominee, they simply vote them down or privately urge the nominee to withdraw to prevent that from occurring. Only the minority would want to reinstate the filibuster, and they're the minority, so they don't have the votes.

 

[hobozero]

So wait, can a filibuster be reinstated through any way after the nuclear option?

They can always change the rules again, but why would the majority ever change the rules to give power to the minority? If you have a majority, why would you concede any power?

Edit: What Stump said.

 

[tinytim54]

Not surprised.

 

[DOWN]

Two very important things:
- First, that quote should properly attribute the statement to Chris Gardner, Will Smith's character in the movie, not Will Smith.
- Second, the name of the movie is spelled wrong in the image. It's the Pursuit of Happyness.

No please, I love that they attributed the quote to Will Smith. It makes the post so much better.

 

[fredrancour]

So wait, can a filibuster be reinstated through any way after the nuclear option?

yes. but it'd only happen with a majority that decides to change how things work right before an election it expects to lose control in. It'd have to be reinstated in a way that prevents easy re-nuking or the other party would just kill it asap though.

I guess it could be reinstated with different re-nuking rules?

 

[whyamihere]

There is always a way to get what you want, no matter how impossible or improbable it may seem. Which takes me to my next gem, from Pirates of the Caribbean:

Will Turner: "You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you."

Jack Sparrow: "That's not much incentive for me to fight fair then, is it?"

Sometimes you have to play "dirty" to get what you want, to think outside the proverbial box. Why is it that Republicans are willing to go that route while Democrats are not? They're politicians, you aren't voting for them so they can uphold a squeaky clean image, you're voting for them because you believe they can best represent you. So, ask yourself, if you were a senator would you strictly play by the rules if you knew it would lose you a supreme court candidate, for example, or would you think that candidate/position was important enough to devise new strategies in order to get him/her appointed? It's easy to say from where I'm sitting, but I would hope my Democratic senator would go to the same lengths his/her Republican counterparts do, if not further. If you're playing it safe just so you can enjoy your $174,000 salary you don't deserve that seat.

I'm looking forward to Elizabeth Warren's fight for her seat next year in Massachusetts as it looks like she'll have a very Trump-like candidate opposing her in Shiva Ayyadurai. It'll probably wind up being the best gauge of the Democrats' ability to fend off Trump in 2020.

I keep reading this and it gets better every time.

 

[Oblivion]

It is the highest federal court in the United States. They have the final say on certain federal (and occasionally state) cases and is the foremost authority on the interpretation of the overarching law in the nation. The member makeup obviously plays a very key role for how the law represents many basic and essential functions and freedoms our society adopts.

The GOP wanted Scalia 2.0, a highly conservative individual that tends to have a similar social outlook to the party line. Gorsuch possibly goes even further as his record shows many of his prior judgments favor corporate gain over individuals on many of his cases. Even in cases that sided on behalf of individuals amid considerable evidence sometimes unanimously in their favor, Gorsuch has written dissent statements showing his disagreement and favoritism for corporate power.

Maybe that was too subtle...

Spoiler

I was making fun of the idea that that's what the average American probably thinks

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I'm surprised that more fingers aren't being pointed at voters.

They knew what Republicans were going to do if they won, and held the door open for them.

This. It's on the voters that elected Trump under our electoral system. One way or the other.

 

[IrishNinja]

can we talk about how dumb "strict constitutionalism" is here or is there a thread for that

 

[To Far Away Times]

I hope all future democrat responses to all GOP policies going forward are partisan as fuck. Stealing Obama's nomination and giving it to Trump was a historically dirty move.

If there was any pretense of extending an olive branch and working across the isle, it's gone now.

 

[SaviourMK2]

So when will they start repealing voting rights for women and minorities?
When will they make being gay illegal?
I just wanna know how long until the US becomes beyond irredeemable.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

So when will they start repealing voting rights for women and minorities?
When will they make being gay illegal?
I just wanna know how long until the US becomes beyond irredeemable.

We still had a lot of progress made when Scalia was on the court. It wasn't conservative enough to take that kind of backwards action.

The danger comes when the next justice dies or steps down, then Republicans can swing things in their favor. Glob help us if Trump gets to make multiple appointments in his term.

 

[Joe T.]

This post is magical.

I mean literally, you believe in magic.

Want to see a magic trick?

Really, though, I'm tired of the constant whining about Trump and Republicans coming from the same people who then turn around and quickly squash the voices from the left offering ideas to improve the Democratic party, in this case Michael Moore. I don't even much care for the man, but really, there has to be a better way of approaching these issues than just throwing mud everywhere or acting like the status quo is fine - it isn't.

Two very important things:
- First, that quote should properly attribute the statement to Chris Gardner, Will Smith's character in the movie, not Will Smith.
- Second, the name of the movie is spelled wrong in the image. It's the Pursuit of Happyness.

Yeah, I noticed the typo, but if I spent time pointing out everyone's spelling or grammatical errors that's all I would be doing when online. I figured it was a safe assumption that most people here would be familiar enough with Will Smith and the movie that I didn't need to point those things out.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

We still had a lot of progress made when Scalia was on the court. It wasn't conservative enough to take that kind of backwards action.

The danger comes when the next justice dies or steps down, then Republicans can swing things in their favor. Glob help us if Trump gets to make multiple appointments in his term.

It was though? Gutting the VRA just happened recently.

 

[Cyan]

Life can be a challenge. Life can seem impossible. It's never easy when there's so much on the line. But you and I can make a difference. There's a mission just for you and me....Just look inside and you will find just what you can do.

 

[Mobius 1]

A heist America should never forget or forgive.

The same America that put Trump in the White House? You're giving this fucking country too much credit.

 

[OniBarubary]

I'm looking forward to Elizabeth Warren's fight for her seat next year in Massachusetts as it looks like she'll have a very Trump-like candidate opposing her in Shiva Ayyadurai. It'll probably wind up being the best gauge of the Democrats' ability to fend off Trump in 2020.

Warren.

Ever being in danger of losing her seat.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[wandering]

Life can be a challenge. Life can seem impossible. It's never easy when there's so much on the line. But you and I can make a difference. There's a mission just for you and me....Just look inside and you will find just what you can do.

 

[Escape Goat]

The next appointee is going to really hurt. Trump pack the court with 50 year old Scalias and we're fucked for decades.

 

[Amir0x]

Want to see a magic trick?

Really, though, I'm tired of the constant whining about Trump and Republicans coming from the same people who then turn around and quickly squash the voices from the left offering ideas to improve the Democratic party, in this case Michael Moore. I don't even much care for the man, but really, there has to be a better way of approaching these issues than just throwing mud everywhere or acting like the status quo is fine - it isn't.

Michael Moore is an complete fraud, though. If you believe you need to defend him as some fight against the "status quo", you've already lost. And also, the left has a far deeper intellectual well than fucking Michael Moore. You owe yourself better, Christ.

 

[sturgboski]

Fuck the GOP, fuck the people who voted R, and fuck the self centered shits who didn't vote to prevent this because they wanted to make a statement when their unicorn candidate wasnt the nominee. Don't be fooled we are a two party system and not voting or voting third party this election was voting for Trump.

 

[poppedcollar69]

Is it hypothetically possible to sue Congress for not allowing a vote on Garland

 

[Escape Goat]

Is it hypothetically possible to sue Congress for not allowing a vote on Garland

Nope

 

[SpaceCadetKeon]

It fucking kills me that 71 million registered voters thought it was a good idea to stay home during an election where the Supreme Court hanged in the balance.

 

[faint.]

It passed 54-45 votes, so three Democrats joined the Repubs. I'm guessing Manchin is one, but who were the others?

Heitkamp and Donnelly.

 

[GKSilKamina]

It fucking kills me that 71 million registered voters thought it was a good idea to stay home during an election where the Supreme Court hanged in the balance.

My brother's one of those non-voters. He completely doesn't care about what's been going on in politics/the government. Didn't care before the election, didn't care during it, and still doesn't care after it. The only excuse I ever heard from him for not voting (which was said before election day) was "not like Trump's going to win anyway".

It makes my blood boil.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Is it hypothetically possible to sue Congress for not allowing a vote on Garland

... I mean, no, obviously

 

[ForsakenLotus]

We are far from Trump being impeached, but IF he is impeached along with some other people in his cabinet removed from office, is there any precedent for a SCOTUS nomination during a time like that and is it remotely feasible that Gorsuch could be removed to redo the process?

Because I assume the answer is no, and if so our government is pretty dysfunctional if a president and multiple cabinet members collided with another country yet something as important as a lifetime appointment will be upheld - especially considering the methods used by the GOP to obstruct nominations for a year and change the rules of the Senate to confirm a nomination.

 

[pigeon]

Really, though, I'm tired of the constant whining about Trump and Republicans coming from the same people who then turn around and quickly squash the voices from the left offering ideas to improve the Democratic party, in this case Michael Moore. I don't even much care for the man, but really, there has to be a better way of approaching these issues than just throwing mud everywhere or acting like the status quo is fine - it isn't.

"There has to be a better option than either yelling about how things are bad or not yelling about how things are bad."

 

[Escape Goat]

We are far from Trump being impeached, but IF he is impeached along with some other people in his cabinet removed from office, is there any precedent for a SCOTUS nomination during a time like that and is it remotely feasible that Gorsuch could be removed to redo the process?

Because I assume the answer is no, and if so our government is pretty dysfunctional if a president and multiple cabinet members collided with another country yet something as important as a lifetime appointment will be upheld - especially considering the methods used by the GOP to obstruct nominations for a year and change the rules of the Senate to confirm a nomination.

Trump nominated and Congress voted to approve. It's over and done. Unless Gorsuch committed any crimes.

 

[Jobbs]

there's no justice in the world

I guess the bright side is maybe down the road we can put some super left wing socialist judges on the court with a party line vote

 

[guek]

Say Trump is found guilty of treason.

After the weeks of orgasmic celebration fade, I wonder if Gorsuch would be willing to consider resigning. It wouldn't be fair to him but the bigger issue is how his nomination wouldn't be fair to the American people (or at least even less fair than it is now).

 

[Makonero]

There are more things in heaven and earth, GAF,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[Amir0x]

Say Trump is found guilty of treason.

After the weeks of orgasmic celebration fade, I wonder if Gorsuch would be willing to consider resigning. It wouldn't be fair to him but the bigger issue is how his nomination wouldn't be fair to the American people (or at least even less fair than it is now).

No. This whole thing is over. Better to focus on the coming inevitable storm over changing the court irreparably for the rest of our lives when a liberal justice resigns/dies.