It's not pandering. Criticism of these views and how widespread they are among the adherents of Islam is often met with accusations of islamophobia, or if they are recognized there are many alternate theories presented what the source is. The reason could be social, political, historical, imperialist, the list goes on. It seems to be that it is very antithetical to the values of many on the left to call out illiberal views if that means to at the same time call out a group that is a racial or religious minority or the frequent target of bigoted attacks. The last being the most important in my opinion.
Bigoted attacks and reasonable criticism are painted with the same broad brush and elicit the same response. The left's algorithm seems to put out too many false positives.

Just another non sequitur used to back up and defend fascism. I've also learned the E.C. was designed to make sure city folks didn't have a say and many other nonsensical things this year. The point of these things is to confuse the audience and waste their time and ultimately to signal "we don't care about the logic, we're doing this anyway and we're really just letting you know."

If they are going to go nuclear, they will. Why does it matter if they do it now or later?

A rambling, incoherent mess.

Almost a lock that he'll bring up grabbing by the pussy during Women's History Month.

Let them go nuclear. That's the end game here anyway. Don't, ugghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, give them a free card.

Obama, W, and Clinton had Senate majorities in their party. So nothing can be made of that, but it's a goal post shift. The opposing party has supported nominations almost every time and never denying hearings in modern history except for Garland.

Ah yes, the ol', "We must capitulate, or else they will do what they want!"

Exactly. The GOP has shown zero restraint at any time for any reason. What is stopping the nuclear option in the future that doesn't stop it now? If your answer involves the GOP/electorate giving the dems credit for compromising this time around then you are the dumbest person.

I think I am misunderstood here. I was pointing out that the nominees legal chops are not sufficient to shield him from a fight.

Re: President will only get a SC pick if he controls the Senate in the future.

That probably will happen. And whose fault is it? The GOP. If the Dems just continue to give up more equity they get nothing in return. Our democratic norms and institutions are crumbling because Republicans are taking wrecking balls to them, every, single, day. What you don't do is say "sigh, okay" and go out there with them and help them wreck institutions even more.

CBP is flat-out disregarding court orders and liberals are handwringing about prescedent and fair play. WAAF.

Then the next appointment comes along and you literally have no arrows in your quiver. Maybe the possibility of a filibuster is no arrow at all, but on the other hand, maybe the possibility of a filibuster is what convinced Trump not to nominate Pryor, who would have been ten times worse than Gorsuch.

Exactly. I mean, it's looking more and more like SCOTUS will just be for show if Trump disagrees with them.

I also don't understand the logic about Democratic members of congress who are up for reelection. "They have to vote like a Republican or they will lose their seat and then a Republican will vote like a Republican!"

Disagree strongly. Shouting about the GOPs bull**** on this issue is a winner.

from the tragic death of democrats thread

Does trump strike you as the type consider potential political fallout and to show restraint?

The stupid, it buuuuuuurns

America's democracy stands on the edge of oblivion and any acquiescing towards the Republicans is an act of cowardice with what's at stake. Even if the Dems don't have the power to stop everything, they need to dig in their heels and fight for every inch they can to stop or at least slow down the rise of fascism in America. As far as I'm concerned, conceding makes them just as culpable in the destruction of democracy as Republicans.

But if they are willing to break the filibuster next time they'll break it this time. We have no arrows.

And once we roll over on one the next one will be even more "unprecedented obstruction" or whatever. There's no political cost for playing procedural hardball, so you need to play it on everything.

The Dem base is activated and energized, the entire ****ing reason we lost in 2016 was low-info, low-engagement voters thinking both parties are the same and ****. We lose the base here and we're back to square one.

I'll make a prediction right now. Whether it is the right move or the wrong move, there will be no filibuster of Gorsuch unless something previously unreported comes to light.

And when Senate Democrats refuse to filibuster, people on this board will go bananas. Hell, maybe we can start calling Senate Democrats "cucks", just like the mouth breathing right.

You don't get political power by saving it up, you get it by exercising it. Obstruct as much as possible every time and, if you actually have any power left, the opposition will compromise in the future before they even bring things to a vote.

The mouthbreathing right just won everything. Maybe we have some things to learn.

Yeah, like the Court went from being liberal to conservative because the Democratic Senate approved Scalia.


There's no denying reality. The USA has been taken over by a right wing coup d'etat. At this point it's about 60-40 that the republic survives.

I hope everyone understands that I'm not carrying water for Trump in any way. I've never been more outraged by a President's first two weeks.

Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I'm just not ready to hand the Democratic party over to people who will behave just like the GOP. I worry that any victories would by pyrrhic at best.