Recent content by Bass-Invader

The worst bit is that it isn't even clear that he's guilty. Because his guilt is irrelevant to the government's liability in the case most discussion about Khadr just assumes the worst. The contemporaneous evidence (given by the soldiers who were there at the time) says that the dude who threw...

So ... the outgoing admin did a good thing by preserving and disseminating important information that might otherwise have been destroyed?

Ah right, just entertainment. No real people are being affected by his policies.

- Not a law, not binding on the government nor anyone else. - It is not part of the legislative process that leads to a law. It does not create a 'shortcut' for passing new laws. If the government executes the recommendations in the motion and decides to introduce laws because of the data...

and his approvals are still at 40%.

Is 'cuck' from another language? I always thought it was from the word 'cuckold'.

Well you wouldn't see it at all (during that senate) before he won, because the Democrats had a supermajo Right, I didn't know his name. Dems had a supermajority before he took that seat. So presumably you would not have seen the filibuster used at all before that (during that senate...

I dont understand the reference, sorry.

Nobody has ever used filibusters to full scale lock down an opposition for a protracted period. The Republican lock-down obstructionism during Obama's tenure was achieved through congressional majorities.

Right, but the only reason it hasn't been done is because both parties view the continued existence of the filibuster as a Nash equilibrium. A forever-filibuster for something as important as a SCOTUS pick would outweigh the value of future Republican filibusters, so they'd use it. Also Trump is...

If the Democrats want to use obstructionism effectively, they will need a majority in one of the houses. Any party that tries to use a filibuster to summarily lock down the majority for a protracted period is going to get the nuclear option invoked, and then they are left with nothing...

Well, first of all because sometimes revenge is an act of hypocrisy (and would be here.) Second, the reasons given at the bottom of my last post. Basically a several years long filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee would have a lot more impact if reserved for someone seriously defective, and I fear...

He wouldn't be my first choice. And the story about him crying while skiing after hearing about Scalia's death is fucking weird, but from what I've seen he is pretty jurisprudentially sound. What I mean is that he does not look like he is some sort of black sheep judge who is going to overturn...

mutual agreement about not meeting, not a mutual agreement about paying for a wall. Pretty silly to try and elide the two.

And it's president now.