It seems like “right-side-of-the-aisle” shaming (much like left-side-of-the-aisle shaming) is deployed when Republicans in Congress, or anywhere for that matter, actually take action that would assist them in what they wish to accomplish. Now, it may surprise you to hear, but I have no problem with politicians having political agendas. Especially considering people voted for them in order to enact certain policies be they generally left, or right, so long as they fall within what the Constitution allows for. This sentiment that any move to further a political agenda whatsoever is necessarily slimy, sleazy, or unconstitutional is flat-out nonsense. I hear this a lot from people who say, “This politician is only doing this to push their agenda,” well no shit they are. Their job is to push an agenda. That isn’t to say that every move to push an agenda is excusable, but not every move should be condemned. The Republicans actually have a noble goal here, in my opinion, considering the Court’s ideological shift and certain rights being retained. But then again, we are living in an age where the term “unconstitutional” is synonymous with “thing I don’t like.” Here is the short version of the situation. Obama can nominate a Supreme Court Justice if he wants, and Congress can refuse to confirm that nominee if they want. As I’ve mentioned previously calling Republicans “obstructionists” for refusing to confirm nominees is one thing, but absolving the other party in these dealings has become a tried and true tactic of the Democratic party.
If President Obama tries to ram through nominees who he knows that Congress will not approve of in an attempt to further *his* political agenda, is he not just as responsible for “business not being done?” Yet, that isn’t what will happen. If Obama attempts to nominate a starkly left-leaning judge and Congress rejects them, the President will whine, bitch, moan, and complain about how Congress is being uncooperative. I’m pretty sure, Mr. President, that not doing exactly what you want 100% of the time does not make someone uncooperative. That’s how our government functions. We actually don’t give one man absolute power over the country. It makes you stubborn as well and just as much of an “obstructionist.”
And, of course, Hillary had to jump on this bandwagon (does anyone even care that she exists anymore? Seriously?) during her speech in Harlem where she implied that the Republicans are speaking in a secret racism language that only she, and those like her, understands. Also, Republicans pretty much support rape, right? Yes, Republicans disagree with Obama because he is black, and also condone rape or are at least indifferent to it. What is this nonsense? Why is this happening? I’m pretty sure anyone who has been following politics recently is aware of Hillary Clinton’s brand new section of her campaign called, “Attempt to grab that minority vote because it’s my only advantage against Sanders.” And it’s getting pretty pathetic at this point. She’s not very good at naming things either. But since everyone turns stupid for a week after things like this happen, it was entirely expected.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and I’m not using that phrase in the manner in which you’re used to. I would rather be confronted with someone who has no knowledge at all, considering they wouldn’t be able to articulate a position on a subject that they are entirely ignorant about. And I don’t fault people for being ignorant of something, I’m ignorant of a whole host of things. I just don’t pretend to know what I’m talking about when I don’t. Which is why I haven’t written a piece discussing what I think about the tactics used in the Punic Wars, whether Java or Python is the better coding language, or how to make a Beef Wellington without making the dough all soggy at the bottom.
And, I would like to confront someone who has a lot of knowledge about a subject considering I could learn from them after checking out their information for myself post-discussion. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Superficial knowledge of a topic masquerading as expertise is a dangerous thing because it allows people to take advantage of that superficial knowledge. Achieving that by crafting their language so that it pretty much conforms to what you already kinda know is true, it all sounds very complicated and smart, you see similar jargon interspersed within it so, sure, why not take it on board?
In my current English class it has become ritual to discuss politics for around five or ten minutes before class begins. Another student and I frequently get into clashes about certain things. This student provides a very good example of what I’m trying to highlight here. This person was talking about how Donald Trump is the only decent Republican candidate out there. So I asked him what he thought of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. He said he really didn’t like them, especially Marco Rubio. So I asked him directly after why he wasn’t a big fan of Rubio. He replied with, “Because he supported the Gang of Eight bill.” So I asked him what was in the bill that he disagreed with. The silence after that question was deafening. So here we have someone, clearly, just repeating a talking point that he heard on the news because he thinks it will give him some sort of devastating argument to deploy whenever this situation comes up. When in reality, he knows nothing about the gang of eight bill, all he knows is that Trump doesn’t like it, a few other candidates don’t like it, and since he supports Trump the best course of action for him to take is not like it as well. Despite having not read a word of the actual bill.
Notice I didn’t even need to spell out my own position on anything within that exchange. All I had to do was get to the point where he’d actually have to support his position instead of spouting whatever he heard from other people and he had nothing. All of this, I learned when reading about how to interview people. I see the same sort of nonsense involved with the constitution considering (as I’ve mentioned before) “Unconstitutional” has become synonymous with “thing I don’t like.” And politicians are taking advantage of that ignorance.
From my experience, Sanders supporters and Trump supporters are the biggest culprits of the disease known as, “Not knowing what the fuck you’re talking about, but acting as if you do.” I can’t even get a word in edge-wise about a particular candidate without someone mentioning a revolution, polls, or how sexist I am. With the revolution bit, coming from Sanders supporters, most of which sound like people who are just extremely upset that rich people can buy more things than they can. And they get even more upset when you say that someone being poor might be, at least in part, their being terrible with money as opposed to a vastly rigged economic system. The Sanders supporters that tout this stuff around seem to be blissfully unaware of the fact that making poor financial decisions have negative consequences. Maybe don’t have three children if you can’t afford one, maybe don’t buy a house that you can’t afford, you may actually have to downgrade your lifestyle for a bit in order to upgrade it later. But, unfortunately, these supporters are already in a state of permanent, “Fuck it, it’s too hard, do it for me” stagnation so there is no reasoning with them.
Some Trump supporters on the other hand have reached a point of reality dismissal where Donald Trump could break into their house, steal their television while they watched, Trump could turn and say, “I’m not stealing your television,” and then that person will call you a liar when you say Trump stole his TV because after all…Trump said he didn’t steal it and eventually you’ll get a cease and desist letter in the mail from Trump’s campaign. Nothing matters. Plus, like Trump, some of his supporters will routinely cite poll numbers whenever someone criticizes Trump on policy, what little policy he has dished out. I don’t care. I don’t care about poll numbers. Someone’s poll numbers do not dictate whether or not they will be a competent President. A fucking squirrel could be leading in the polls, that’s not an argument for competence. But, nothing matters.
It’s very disappointing to see people who were originally against the egregious standard that people on the extreme progressive left held themselves by, the mantra of “It’s okay when we do it,” doing a complete 180 when it comes to Donald Trump. Trump lies constantly. But, of course, that doesn’t matter due to the greater good, who wouldn’t want to make America great again, right? Both Trump, and Sanders, have put up a classic “feel good” curtain over themselves that most people seem to be buying. I’ve seen many an intelligent person excuse Trump’s dodging of fair questions, same with Sanders.
I’ve heard an incredible number of people say that Trump isn’t a politician even though he is doing what every politician does. Busting out meaningless platitudes and catchphrases so you hop on board. He allows you to fill your head with what you want done, and just assume that is the thing he will do for you. Why do you think he consistently talks about “doing something because something is going on,” or “We’re going to win again with Trump.” What in the fuck does that even mean on a pragmatic level, how is he going to get us there, and is the “something” he’s going to do a good thing? You have no fucking idea. Because Trump is a con-man, and you’re all lapping it up like dogs in need of an owner. That owner being a rich, spoiled brat who doesn’t know anything about anything, and never had anyone tell him “no.” I wouldn’t put it past him to attempt to sue the American People if they don’t choose him as President. Trump says he supports single-payer healthcare? Who gives a shit? Trump says he’s for hiking taxes on the wealthy? Nobody cares. However, if any other Republican candidate said they support these things Trump (and his following) would hammer them on how they support these things, and how idiotic they are for doing so.
Trump claims to have been clairvoyant on the subject of the Iraq War by saying that he said not to invade because it will totally destabilize the region, however, this is Donald Trump in September 2002 on invading Iraq.
I couldn’t simply call Trump a liar without giving an example, and so far this is the only recorded instance of Trump discussing the Iraq War before the invasion, so, the only evidence a Trump supporter would have for his claims is Trump’s word, I however, have the record button. “I guess so” isn’t avid support, but it isn’t “I was totally against it I said that it would turn out the way it turned out before it happened I know things.” And if you’re going to call me a liar and say “He said I guess so, not that he was for it,” then you’re part of the problem here.
This is your candidate. Take that for what it is.
Both Sanders and Trump are guilty of tossing out vagueness in lieu of specifics because neither of them know what the fuck they are talking about. When asked how much his programs would cost, Sanders completely floundered on the question during the last Democratic debate and reverted to his percentages that he loves spewing forth to everyone. Trump’s entire campaign is based on the phrases, “Build a wall,” “Make deals” “Our leaders are stupid and weak,” “We’ll win again with Trump, they’re killing us,” and the ever wonderful, “You’re a liar.” In this election, and perhaps every election, the political landscape has become a gigantic compost pile surrounded by industrial strength fans. Just to make sure that every single fan gets covered in it. Do you want to know what the massive issue is in the race at the time of this recording? Marco Rubio shook Obama’s hand. But then the Cruz campaign decided it would be fun to photoshop a picture of the handshake instead of using the actual handshake. But Rubio still shook Obama’s hand! Uh oh! That’s scary stuff! Is this serious? Let’s dispel with this fiction that you can’t treat your ideological opponents like human beings for goodness sake.
Lies are told so quickly and people are willing to believe them so strongly that it’s hardly even worth attempting to convince them out of their factual inaccuracy until the election is over. This can be compared directly to the situation after Scalia’s death. Shit flying in all directions about what the Constitution says, what it means, what powers certain people have, how Congress isn’t performing their Constitutional duty, when all you’d have to do is Read. The. Fucking. Constitution.
So, in the end, trying to say the Constitution prevents Obama from nominating someone in his final year is stupid (although I heard no one say that), saying that members of Congress are being obstructionists is only one side of the story, and saying that Congress refusing to confirm nominations to the Supreme Court is an example of a Constitutional threat is stupid. Obama can nominate who he wants, Congress can refuse to confirm them if they want for whatever reason they choose, the Constitution allows for both of those things. Want liberal justices? Then vote your Republican Senators out of office and elect another Democratic President. Want conservative justices? Then elect a Republican for President and elect more Republican Senators, blocking literally anyone Obama nominates even if they are a carbon copy of Scalia is stupid, you’re all stupid, and I hate everything.