This bothers me.

[BigDemVoter]

I am SICK of Dems playing by the rules and expecting those fucking pigs to do the same, and they NEVER DO.

For example, they sat and watched Merrick Garland not even receive the courtesy of a hearing and then watched as the repigs destroyed the filibuster to seat their Nazi on the court.

If the Pigs aren't going to play by the rules, we shouldn't either-- EVER. What fucking use are rules if the other team doesn't obey?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/senate-markey-237078

[lapucelle]

1. I was bothered last week when Schumer didn't push back.

I actually heard McConnell say that the one reason the Democrats didn't like Gorsuch is because "he represents our party."

Wait...Supreme Court justices represent parties? Since when?

It was an admission that Gorsuch was above all a partisan political choice. The Democrats should have been beating that statement like a drum, along with the fact that this is the first time ever that lobbyists ans superpacs injected themselves into the discussion via campaign-style pro-Gorsuch ads. It was all frankly disgusting.

[Hortensis]

36. And if we become them, who would you have to vote for?

Personally, I'm sick of those who admire Republican tactics and want us to join them to put our nation's descent into hyperdrive.

[OnDoutside]

37. You don't have to become them, but neither do you have to be Cinderella. The Republicans do what

they do because they know Democrats won't give any back. They'd have more respect for Democrats if they gave a sustained kick into the Rep sweet spot. They currently do not respect/fear Democrats.

[lapucelle]

38. I think you're confused about what I actually said.

Calling Republicans out for the unprecedented politicization of the filling a vacant Supreme Court seat is not the same thing as employing their tactics.

I do not admire Republican tactics, and I certainly don't want to join them; neither am I quick to cast stones at allies based on a cursory (and mistaken) reading of what they actually said.

[Hortensis]

46. Sorry, sorry, sorry. I'd come from another thread

where, yet again, frustrated people seemed all too anxious to abandon principles, and dumped here. I wasn't "confused" about what you said, I didn't even read it. I may even have meant to post under something else altogether, don't remember.

Again, I apologize. Oh, and I agree with you. Not that they can force the media to report the message they want to hit. As for who Gorsuch will actually represent, I wonder how long Gorsuch might been positioning himself for an appointment.

Judge Gorsuch addressing billionaire Phillip Anschutz's annual dove-hunting retreat for the wealthy and politically prominent in 2010 (during a--horrors--Democratic administration):

“They say a country’s prosperity depends on three things: sound money, private property and the rule of law. This crowd hardly needs to hear from me about the first two of the problems we face on those scores.”

The message I'd like to have seen spread wide is his long pattern of elevating the "money, private property, and legal" interests of wealthy people presenting themselves as corporations over everyone else's. Wouldn't have changed anything, but at least a few of our neighbors might be more nervous about what they've done.

[furtheradu]

2. Ticks me off big-time, too!

Republikers..
rotten to the core..
lie like a rug..
crooked as a stick..
& manage to get their way almost always.

I don't want Dems to sink to their inhuman, gutter levels, but wth? ! ? FEW Dems seem to have it in 'em to fight back, to stand up to the bullies. How 'bout some righteous indignation & persistent push-back?

[NurseJackie]

3. What do you suggest?

[BigDemVoter]

10. 100% obstructionism 100% of the time

and 'bending' or flat out breaking ANYTHING that prevents us from taking advantage of the pigs. . . Playing dirty is the only fucking thing they understand.

And if we aren't going to break any rules we can still play dirty. It's no use insisting on 'fair rules for a fight' when the other side brings brass knuckles, guns and knives. . .

As much as I love and admire President Obama for just that-- his honesty and decency--I also think those traits helped usher in these fuck heads.

[NurseJackie]

20. Would that have stopped Gorsuch? We are in...

... the minority so our power is limited.

[BigDemVoter]

21. It wouldn't, but it would certainly send a message.

But I'm also talking in general here. For instance, when we DID have the White House and a majority in Congress, we were so civil. We followed the rules. We shouldn't have.

[treestar]

23. They went by the rules

and changed them. The Democrats should not change them back. They should use the nuclear option next time a filibuster prevents something (like it did the public option). Contact their offices and tell them you support their doing that. They have to know they have support. If we don't tell them and we don't have their back, how do they know we support something?

Too many time we act like they have to go it alone. We elected them. We have to support them. That's democracy in action.

[radius777]

43. agree, bullies view niceness as weakness

and all of their actions (obstructionism, birtherism, tea-partyism) during the Obama (the ultimate gentleman) era reflected this.

its why the Republicans also hate the Clintons so much, because they were willing to play a harder, dirtier game. Bill Clinton would've somehow found a way to seat Garland, even using some obscure recess appointment rule to do so.

in politics you have to be willing to kick ass once in awhile, just to show your enemies that you're ready and willing to throw down.

[brer cat]

4. How would you have stopped either of those things from happening?

[Maraya1969]

8. I suggested Obama just appoint Garland to the Supreme Court.

It might not have worked by it would have taken the Republicans a long time to fight it.

He could have said the appointment was done during a recess.

[brer cat]

11. The republicans stopped taking a recess

precisely to stop recess appointments.

[Maraya1969]

18. I still say he could have finagled it somehow but then again Obama wouldn't do such a thing

[dhill926]

5. I agree...

fuck 'em...but we have to be perceived as fighting for the people, as opposed to the repubs being assholes for assholes sake.

[JoeOtterbein]

6. Yes...

either the rules are for all or none.

[Maraya1969]

7. I have said this an suggested things and gotten the same damn response

It's against the law!

When you are dealing with lawlessness following the law just doesn't cut it.

[BittyJenkins]

9. One of the big things that no one talks about is

that Democrats do many good and strong things that the news does not cover. Their voices are never heard the same way they would be heard if they were Republicans...because the Republicans own the news. I wish that one good billionaire would step up and fund a Radio Free America.

[calimary]

15. Welcome to DU, BittyJenkins!

Yeah. It was tried once, with Air America. That eventually failed but gave us an Al Franken with a newly enhanced political profile - which eventually allowed him to run successfully for the Senate. It also gave us Rachel Maddow.

But that was then. Back then Dems didn't seem to have much fight in their bellies, and CONS everywhere were on the rise and on the march. Conditions have kinda flipped now, though.

[Fast Walker 52]

16. exactly!!! The media is bigly responsible for this situation. They are the enemy of the people--

JUST NOT THE WAY TRUMP MEANT

[JTFrog]

19. Well said.

Welcome to DU even though you've been here a few.

[PoiBoy]

22. Good point...!!

I recall several years ago a Democratic politician saying that exact point... the Republicons get all the coverage from an owned and sympathetic corporate media and the Dems were largely ignored whenever they spoke up....

[tiptonic]

12. Money

Money rules both parties. We're wasting our time, until the money is taken out of the equation.

[Fast Walker 52]

17. We're not wasting our time completely, we need to try, but the money makes our voices so much weaker

--it's maddening.

[WillowTree]

13. Input from the Two Wrongs Make a Right quarter.

[ancianita]

14. This is exactly how the corrupted try to corrupt Democracy. It's also the Putin playbook.

It's also the playbook of bad capitalists.

Those of corrupt countries always try to park their loot in the banks of law and order countries. That's the context map of those who don't play by the rules who use the orderly systems of those who do play by the rules.

They are parasites. They depend on goodness to sustain them while calling it weakness.

Those who espouse Enlightenment values of good governance must learn how to define the corrupt and fight. them. publicly.

Fighting the corrupt publicly is the only way to get the public on anyone's side.

You are SO right to let it bother you. But.

We must fight differently. We must not be like them.

[HAB911]

24. I have low expectations of Democrats

just not ruthless enough

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. UNDERSTATEMENT!!

[Amimnoch]

25. Well, when Democrats play by all the rules, and STILL get torn apart.. by other Democrats

How can we possibly expect them to get a fair shake by not playing by the rules??

If a Democrat plays by legal campaign finance, they get branded corporatists, or "bought and paid for".. by fellow Democrats.

If a Democrat has a private, and very secure email server.. one that is actually MORE secure than the Department he/she is working for, and whose predecessors in the same position used very similar practices.. gets torn apart by both the right AND the left for it.

Democratic candidate does all of the ground work to be the party leadership behind him/her totally by the long established rules, and ends up being branded "liberal elite" by their own party.

Kind of hard to expect Democratic party leadership to think about breaking the rules like Republicans do when they aren't even allowed to follow the rules by their base.

[NurseJackie]

26. You nailed it! Thank you. (Excellent post.)

[Kentonio]

27. It wasn't 'more secure' than government servers for goodness sake

Let's not start rewriting history, that's the kind of crap the Republicans do.

[Amimnoch]

28. You are incorrect.

To use Clinton.. as an example..

State department emails servers have been successfully hacked numerous times. Several while Clinton was SoS:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/state-department-hack-worst-ever/index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-email-system-hacked-shut-down/

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2592107/security0/state-department-site-hacked--servers-shut-down.html

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2582700/security0/u-s--state-department-site-hacked--servers-shut-down.html

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/01/state-department-doesnt-know-if-hillarys-server-was-breached-still-cant-say-who-approved-home-brew-system-video/

Conversely, there's little evidence, and only a single claim of successful hacking:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/security-logs-of-hillary-clintons-email-server-are-said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html?_r=0

The hacker Guccifer had claimed to have successfully compromised the server, but has never been substantiated.


Now away from this Segway, and back onto the original topic.. Thank you for making my point beautifully though. I point out that our leadership can't even follow the rules without being attacked, and you rather beautifully illustrate my point with an attack on a single point, and accuse me of being a revisionist who uses Republican type of tactics.

Bravo.

[Kentonio]

29. Or to put it more accurately..

You made a point and felt the need to include a rehash of old divisive crap that you know pisses off a lot of people and which was completely unnecessary in making your point. You just thought you'd throw it in there because you felt like it.

Oh and your links make very little sense. You're basically comparing a banks security that still got robbed to someone leaving their house unlocked, and drawing the conclusion that the house was more secure because probably no-one robbed it. Or if they did, no-one noticed.

[Amimnoch]

30. Thank you once again.

[Kentonio]

32. You're welcome

Just for reference though, you're not in the party leadership, and calling you out on false statements is not an attack on Democratic policy or strategy.

Have a nice day.

[synergie]

41. Just for reference though the false statements were asserted to attack HRC and

were literal RW talking points. Admitting that you called out a DU member in an ad hominem is a violation of the TOS. Apparently some folks don't mind being divisive and deliberately pissing people off.

[synergie]

40. It was actually. Republicans like to

rail against facts they don't like, and this particular talking point is quite literally a RW one, let's not project on top of using their talking points, that's just unnecessary, inflammatory and divisive.

[Kentonio]

42. When you spend many years working in a tech field

It becomes a matter of accuracy, not politics.

[synergie]

44. So facts don't matter? I'm all for accuracy, and will welcome some any time now.

Perhaps some of the actual facts here will help with that accuracy that has been sorely lacking?
Best of luck.

[Kentonio]

45. Ok, it was an embassasingly amateur setup

With little or no security at all for most of its time. IT professionals all groaned when they heard about it, because regardless of whether it was hacked or not, the security arrangements were a joke.

Now personally I see the whole thing as in the past and absolutely not relevant anymore, but it does really get me irritated to hear people rewriting history and making claims that are simply untrue.

[NastyRiffraff]

34. 1,000

Killer post! Every word shouts the truth. Thanks, Amimnoch

[MFM008]

33. I see the same attitude here

At DU.
"What can we do?"
"Were all weak and powerless and stuff and stuff."
"We have to eat republican and media crap because
We're as feeble as an 80 year old post stroke victim."...
Right now the public doesn't even know who the leader of the Democratic party is.
We could still get out there, make waves, be fierce and FIGHT.

[Fatemah2774]

35. Agreeing

The SC seat was stolen...and the turtle changed the rules to steal it...make him own it, and btw...there are other judicial appointments out there for 45 to submit.

OPPOSE EVERY SINGLE ONE. NOT ONE, NOT A FEW, NOT A LOT, BUT EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

[MFM008]

39. Agreeing!