KY-SEN: Amy McGrath in

[GALeftist]

Y'all literally need to chill with the truly weird obsessive hatred of McConnell.

Please, won't someone think of poor McConnell???

[Calthrina950]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

[Heebie Jeebie]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue he's actually done some real good by making the Senate and the federal judiciary more (little-d) democratic.  He's destroyed a bunch of norms that were deeply unfair to begin with.  Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

[Calthrina950]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue he's actually done some real good by making the Senate and the federal judiciary more (little-d) democratic.  He's destroyed a bunch of norms that were deeply unfair to begin with.  Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

You do have a point, and it's true that any other Republican probably would have done the same. It's just that he's been so blatant with the exercise of his power, and hasn't bothered to hide the fact that what he's doing is driven by a desire to establish the Republican Party as the nation's dominant political force down the line. But I'm not too happy about many of the precedents which have been established, and I fear that the continuation of such behavior in the future will exacerbate the polarization which has engulfed our political system.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

This isn't about "different values and objectives" this was Mitch intentionally refusing to pass ANYTHING and refusing to engage in ANY bipartisanship or hold ANY hearings whatsoever.  It was always about partisan political gain, pure and simple.  And the supreme court is a perfect case study, because Obama specifically selected Merrick Garland because he was someone REPUBLICANS SAID THEY WOULD APPROVE.  Direct quote from Orrin Hatch: "Merrick Garland would be a consensus nominee, there's no question he would be confirmed.  But Obama won't send us Merrick Garland, he'll send us some liberal activist."  So Obama doesn't even compromise, he straight up gives the Republicans everything they want.  Nominee Merrick Garland.  And what does Mitch McConnell due?  Blockades the entire thing.  No judge, period.  Even if Obama had sent over Amy Coney Barrett, McConnell would have blocked her.  Because it wasn't about ideology.  It was about pure political power.  It was about denying the Democrats any opportunity to win public approval by making America a better place.  It was about denying the Democrats their ability to exercise their constitutional rights to govern.  If we can't govern the country, we'll make it completely ungovernable, and let it slowly decay until people get fed up and blame it on the party in power (the Democrats).

[SevenEleven]

How did McGrath get nominated? Ugh.

[Heebie Jeebie]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue he's actually done some real good by making the Senate and the federal judiciary more (little-d) democratic.  He's destroyed a bunch of norms that were deeply unfair to begin with.  Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

You do have a point, and it's true that any other Republican probably would have done the same. It's just that he's been so blatant with the exercise of his power, and hasn't bothered to hide the fact that what he's doing is driven by a desire to establish the Republican Party as the nation's dominant political force down the line. But I'm not too happy about many of the precedents which have been established, and I fear that the continuation of such behavior in the future will exacerbate the polarization which has engulfed our political system.

There are a lot of reasons to criticize (even loathe) McConnell, but a desire "to establish the Republican Party as the nation's dominant political force" isn't one of them.  That's what politicians are supposed to do!  Compete for the right to govern.  The Senate's not some social club--it's a place to get things done.  "Polarization" is just socially engaged citizens organizing to pursue a shared agenda and electing representatives who will also pursue that agenda--it's the very essence of democratic politics.  McConnell had the decency to stop pretending you can separate politics from governance.

[SevenEleven]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue he's actually done some real good by making the Senate and the federal judiciary more (little-d) democratic.  He's destroyed a bunch of norms that were deeply unfair to begin with.  Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

The Senate is not a democratic institution by its very nature. Nice try, though.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

This isn't about "different values and objectives" this was Mitch intentionally refusing to pass ANYTHING and refusing to engage in ANY bipartisanship or hold ANY hearings whatsoever.  It was always about partisan political gain, pure and simple.  And the supreme court is a perfect case study, because Obama specifically selected Merrick Garland because he was someone REPUBLICANS SAID THEY WOULD APPROVE.  Direct quote from Orrin Hatch: "Merrick Garland would be a consensus nominee, there's no question he would be confirmed.  But Obama won't send us Merrick Garland, he'll send us some liberal activist."  So Obama doesn't even compromise, he straight up gives the Republicans everything they want.  Nominee Merrick Garland.  And what does Mitch McConnell due?  Blockades the entire thing.  No judge, period.  Even if Obama had sent over Amy Coney Barrett, McConnell would have blocked her.  Because it wasn't about ideology.  It was about pure political power.  It was about denying the Democrats any opportunity to win public approval by making America a better place.  It was about denying the Democrats their ability to exercise their constitutional rights to govern.  If we can't govern the country, we'll make it completely ungovernable, and let it slowly decay until people get fed up and blame it on the party in power (the Democrats).

At the time, McConnell was the leader of the opposition.  He did what his voters sent him to Washington to do--oppose the Democratic agenda.  On Garland specifically, the Senate has the Constitutional authority to give or deny consent to the president's nominee, an authority which Senate Republicans dutifully exercised.  We're supposed to disparage Senate Republicans for being responsive to their voters now?

[Heebie Jeebie]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue he's actually done some real good by making the Senate and the federal judiciary more (little-d) democratic.  He's destroyed a bunch of norms that were deeply unfair to begin with.  Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

The Senate is not a democratic institution by its very nature. Nice try, though.

It should be!  And what I'm arguing is that McConnell is nudging it in that direction.

[SevenEleven]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue he's actually done some real good by making the Senate and the federal judiciary more (little-d) democratic.  He's destroyed a bunch of norms that were deeply unfair to begin with.  Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

The Senate is not a democratic institution by its very nature. Nice try, though.

It should be!  And what I'm arguing is that McConnell is nudging it in that direction.

The only way to make the Senate more democratic is to have it function like the HoR or abolish it entirely.

[Stuart98]

How did McGrath get nominated? Ugh.

National Democrats pushing her on the state party.

[SevenEleven]

How did McGrath get nominated? Ugh.

National Democrats pushing her on the state party.

😬
Almost worse than the Katie McGinty debacle.

[Heebie Jeebie]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue he's actually done some real good by making the Senate and the federal judiciary more (little-d) democratic.  He's destroyed a bunch of norms that were deeply unfair to begin with.  Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

The Senate is not a democratic institution by its very nature. Nice try, though.

It should be!  And what I'm arguing is that McConnell is nudging it in that direction.

The only way to make the Senate more democratic is to have it function like the HoR or abolish it entirely.

You can't abolish it, or ever make it exactly like the House.  But you can make it more democratic and more functional--abolish the filibuster and add new states.  McConnell, more than anyone else, is pushing Democrats toward both.

[SevenEleven]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue he's actually done some real good by making the Senate and the federal judiciary more (little-d) democratic.  He's destroyed a bunch of norms that were deeply unfair to begin with.  Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

The Senate is not a democratic institution by its very nature. Nice try, though.

It should be!  And what I'm arguing is that McConnell is nudging it in that direction.

The only way to make the Senate more democratic is to have it function like the HoR or abolish it entirely.

You can't abolish it, or ever make it exactly like the House.  But you can make it more democratic and more functional--abolish the filibuster and add new states.  McConnell, more than anyone else, is pushing Democrats toward both.

That's like saying WW2 was a good thing for helping end the Depression and leading to NATO.

[Calthrina950]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue he's actually done some real good by making the Senate and the federal judiciary more (little-d) democratic.  He's destroyed a bunch of norms that were deeply unfair to begin with.  Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

You do have a point, and it's true that any other Republican probably would have done the same. It's just that he's been so blatant with the exercise of his power, and hasn't bothered to hide the fact that what he's doing is driven by a desire to establish the Republican Party as the nation's dominant political force down the line. But I'm not too happy about many of the precedents which have been established, and I fear that the continuation of such behavior in the future will exacerbate the polarization which has engulfed our political system.

There are a lot of reasons to criticize (even loathe) McConnell, but a desire "to establish the Republican Party as the nation's dominant political force" isn't one of them.  That's what politicians are supposed to do!  Compete for the right to govern.  The Senate's not some social club--it's a place to get things done.  "Polarization" is just socially engaged citizens organizing to pursue a shared agenda and electing representatives who will also pursue that agenda--it's the very essence of democratic politics.  McConnell had the decency to stop pretending you can separate politics from governance.

I understand that politics is a competition between parties, but McConnell has escalated our partisan warfare to new and even more intense heights. You seem to be giving him much credit here, and I'm not sure if he should receive so much of it.

[GALeftist]

Piping hot take incoming: I don't actually care whether McConnell believes in little d democracy or not. To be clear, I don't think he does, seeing as how he uses the power of an inherently undemocratic Senate in combination with a President who has no popular mandate. I also don't care that he clearly is only concerned with acquiring power, per se; I think there's an argument to be made that, if one truly believes that their political ideals are best for the people, then pursuing power by any means necessary is justified (after all who cares about norms when lives are on the line). My real quarrel with McConnell is the fact that he knows that his ideas are bad for most Americans and just doesn't care, and to be clear, I would hate him just as much for this if he had a popular mandate for his horrid ideals. He has shown us that he is fine oppressing, impoverishing, and literally killing hundreds of thousands in order to enrich himself and his friends and impose his perverse ideals. That sin means McConnell has blood on his hands, and it's a sin almost every Republican nationwide is at least complicit in.

[Heebie Jeebie]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue he's actually done some real good by making the Senate and the federal judiciary more (little-d) democratic.  He's destroyed a bunch of norms that were deeply unfair to begin with.  Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

The Senate is not a democratic institution by its very nature. Nice try, though.

It should be!  And what I'm arguing is that McConnell is nudging it in that direction.

The only way to make the Senate more democratic is to have it function like the HoR or abolish it entirely.

You can't abolish it, or ever make it exactly like the House.  But you can make it more democratic and more functional--abolish the filibuster and add new states.  McConnell, more than anyone else, is pushing Democrats toward both.

That's like saying WW2 was a good thing for helping end the Depression and leading to NATO.

That's not my intent at all.  Like I said in a different thread, norms are important, but they must serve fair rules.  When they cease to, both the norms and the rules must be reformed, because to be healthy, democracy has to be responsive to voters.  McConnell has spent years making the Senate more responsive to the voters who put his party in power.  He has assaulted norms that were deeply unfair.  I only hope Democrats are willing to continue this reform when they reclaim power.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Piping hot take incoming: I don't actually care whether McConnell believes in little d democracy or not. To be clear, I don't think he does, seeing as how he uses the power of an inherently undemocratic Senate in combination with a President who has no popular mandate. I also don't care that he clearly is only concerned with acquiring power, per se; I think there's an argument to be made that, if one truly believes that their political ideals are best for the people, then pursuing power by any means necessary is justified (after all who cares about norms when lives are on the line). My real quarrel with McConnell is the fact that he knows that his ideas are bad for most Americans and just doesn't care, and to be clear, I would hate him just as much for this if he had a popular mandate for his horrid ideals. He has shown us that he is fine oppressing, impoverishing, and literally killing hundreds of thousands in order to enrich himself and his friends and impose his perverse ideals. That sin means McConnell has blood on his hands, and it's a sin almost every Republican nationwide is at least complicit in.

I agree with almost all of this.

[Alben Barkley]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1148561454037184512?s=19

I mean, he ain't wrong.

That performance was far from impressive. She easily could and should have won. She lost due to incompetent campaigning. Totally blew it.

[Alben Barkley]

Tonight's debate.

https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1315810457110958081

Goddamn I wish he could lose. I don't want him to die knowing he never lost an election, which he probably will because he probably won't run again after his next term. It's just not fair.

[Badger]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

Established: All Republican senators are scumbags.

[MillennialModerate]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

Established: All Republican senators are scumbags.

That’s the kind of thinking that is ruining our political discourse.

Although I’m afraid you might not be far off.

Romney and Murkowski are the only one who I think of as half decent

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Are they gonna ever poll this race, Act blue send out emails keep saying McGrath is within 1 pt but never come out with a poll, just like KS only come out with internals

[Badger]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue he's actually done some real good by making the Senate and the federal judiciary more (little-d) democratic.  He's destroyed a bunch of norms that were deeply unfair to begin with.  Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

The Senate is not a democratic institution by its very nature. Nice try, though.

It should be!  And what I'm arguing is that McConnell is nudging it in that direction.

" honestly guys, tearing down centuries of Senate norms and replacing even attempts at bipartisanship with knee-jerk gridlock an attempt to enforce a narrow vanity of the popular will on the large majority is not just McConnell's right, but his patriotic Duty!"

So sad that we got rid of the eye roll icon for posts like this