Obstructionism: the ultimate trump card?

Forums: Politics, Supreme Court, Political Tactics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Clearly Brent Kavanaugh's accusation is being publicly aired as a political tactic to obstruct appointment of a supreme court justice until democrats have had a chance to replace Trump and appoint a pro-choice justice.

Some may feel this tactic is justified as retaliation for the obstruction of Obama's court picks before the end of his term. The question it raises is whether such obstructionism will be the ultimate trump card that comes to define politics?

In other words, will politics generally become a situation where it is business-as-usual until certain critical moments when dissent will be effectuated by whatever means possible, whether it is filibuster or sexual harassment accusations or whatever other tactic will suffice to prevent the outcome that obstructionists are so desperate to prevent?

If so, what possible responses can we expect to emerge to overcome the obstructionism? After all, no trump card is ever truly ultimate. Something else always emerges to trump the trump, so to speak.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 11,629 • Replies: 300

So anyone can stop anyone else from what they are doing any time merely by making an unsubstantiated accusation? Example: In December of 1941, the US declared war on the Axis powers. The next day, President Roosevelt is starting the work of organizing the war effort when some random person says, "40 years ago, I passed Franklin Roosevelt in a dark alley and he beat me and took my money." The person doesn't know where it happened, doesn't know when it happened except for a general time frame, has no witnesses, and made no contemporaneous statements about it to the police, school, family, or friends. But now, Roosevelt has to turn his duties over to the vice president pending an investigation on the eve of WW2?

No, this is lunacy. If there is no evidence that the wrongdoing took place other than the accuser's words, then it's not credible and no one should postpone anything until there is some evidence.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

I have had the same thought. On the other hand, it is just ludicrous to think the Democrats are trying to delay confirmation till Trump is replaced, as living lava suggests. It simply can't be drawn out for over two to six years.

2 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

I have had the same thought.

Really, Roger.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

I have had the same thought. On the other hand, it is just ludicrous to think the Democrats are trying to delay confirmation till Trump is replaced, as living lava suggests. It simply can't be drawn out for over two to six years.

They're trying to draw it out until the 2018 elections or, best case, they peel away enough votes for him to lose. Perhaps now they are putting a 2nd liar into place. Bear in mind that before this, the Democrats tried dozens of times to delay the hearings. Her allegation should never been allowed to delay the vote, since there is no evidence other than her word itself. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything.

0 Replies

We're told that she has to drive because she's afraid of flying. Maybe soon, she'll be afraid of cars and demand a covered wagon, but it must be a real, vintage Oregon covered wagon, and she can only take dirt roads. Then, if they give her that, we will be told that she tripped on a banana peel and is bedridden with oxycodone, but does want to testify when possible.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

We had a nonsense obstructionist situation in Australia around a decade back. The opposition (Liberals) blocked everything it could (in Australia there is upper and lower house, and legislation must pass both houses - the opposition had the numbers in the senate), then at the next election, accused the government (Labor) of not doing anything.

Once the Liberals got in, the Senate situation was reversed, Labor returned the favour, and the Liberals accused them of obstructionism.

Neither of the parties were interested in good governance - just in stopping whatever the other party was trying to do.

It was children's politics.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

Neither of the parties were interested in good governance - just in stopping whatever the other party was trying to do.

It was children's politics.

And the idiots think they live in democracies.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Trump is not only not ultimate, the midterms in November is going to be the game changer in politics. Here's an example why; The results from this week’s special election in Ohio’s 12th District are widely viewed as the latest indicator that Democrats are due for a strong performance this fall. Republican Troy Balderson still has a slim lead as of press time, but the fact that Democratic candidate Danny O’Connor garnered so much support in a heavily conservative district (he’s hovering around 49 percent of the vote) is just another sign that the GOP should be worried, experts say.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Trump is not only not ultimate, the midterms in November is going to be the game changer in politics. Here's an example why; The results from this week’s special election in Ohio’s 12th District are widely viewed as the latest indicator that Democrats are due for a strong performance this fall. Republican Troy Balderson still has a slim lead as of press time, but the fact that Democratic candidate Danny O’Connor garnered so much support in a heavily conservative district (he’s hovering around 49 percent of the vote) is just another sign that the GOP should be worried, experts say.

This thread is about obstructionism.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

I haven't confirmed it yet, but I have read she went to school in Hawaii.
If she did, how?

If she truly is afraid of flying, how did she get to Hawaii?
AS I said, I have not confirmed this yet, so don't take it as gospel,
It just raises an interesting question if its true.

2 Replies

@mysteryman841,

Quote:

If she truly is afraid of flying, how did she get to Hawaii?

There are boats, aren't there?

Most likely Ford is either insane or very confused. Otherwise, why would she call for an FBI investigation and a polygraph for herself. She must have a strong urge to prove herself a liar.

On the other hand, the upright and outstanding candidate for the Supreme Court finds it beneath his dignity to call for an FBI investigation or submit to a polygraph. Or else he's just terrified of the results.

2 Replies

@coluber2001,

Quote:

and a polygraph for herself

I thought I had read that she took a polygraph and passed it.

Isn't there a very good reason that these are not accepted in court?

2 Replies

@mysteryman841,

mysteryman841 wrote:

I haven't confirmed it yet, but I have read she went to school in Hawaii.
If she did, how?

If she truly is afraid of flying, how did she get to Hawaii?
AS I said, I have not confirmed this yet, so don't take it as gospel,
It just raises an interesting question if its true.

Yes, I'm told that she recently went to school in Hawaii. Did she drive there? Maybe they're playing for time to put a few more false witnesses into place.

0 Replies

@camlok,

They are not accepted in court because a polygraph can only tell that you are:
- very nervous about something; or
- hiding something

It doesn't mean you are lying about the answer:
- the nerves may relate to the way in which the question is asked by the interviewer
- in very serious cases (eg murder), nerves may relate to the seriousness of the question (the person wondering if they sound believable or not, even when telling the truth)
- the nerves may relate to the persons worry about the believability of their story, even though it's true
- the nerves may be related to something else, related to the question, that you are trying to hide, but isn't part of the investigation (eg. an affair, or some severely embarrassing moment you don't want anyone knowing)
- some people suffer anxiety as an everyday experience, and their anxiety may increase of it's own accord as the interview progresses

Given all that, I'd be surprised if any court put weight in such. Probably useful for an intelligence agency, where they know who they are working with, are familiar with the persons character traits, and the intelligence agency doesn't have to prove anything relating to their employee beyond reasonable doubt.

0 Replies

@coluber2001,

coluber2001 wrote:

...the upright and outstanding candidate for the Supreme Court finds it beneath his dignity to call for an FBI investigation or submit to a polygraph. Or else he's just terrified of the results.

So, if I suddenly claim that you committed crimes you didn't commit and I have no evidence of it whatever, you're going to delay your life to ask for an investigation and forego that great new job you were about to get? There is a difference between a claim backed by some evidence and just the fact that anyone can accuse anyone of anything. I guess if a Democrat looks like he's about to be elected president, I will just claim that he mugged me in a dark alley years ago and then he will have to drop out.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Yes, she took and passed a polygraph test, something liars very rarely do voluntarily. Nor do they ask to be investigated by the FBI. And she's not insane. I was being sarcastic.

I find it amazing that Trump would nominate Kavanaugh. Somehow he recognized a kindred spirit, i. e., both sexual predators and goddamn Liars.

2 Replies

@coluber2001,

coluber2001 wrote:

...I find it amazing that Trump would nominate Kavanaugh. Somehow he recognized a kindred spirit, i. e., both sexual predators and goddamn Liars.

Based on what evidence do you conclude that Brett Kavanaugh is a sexual predator? I thought there was no evidence at all. Do you understand that it's a serious charge? Do you care so little if innocent people are ruined that you bandy about serious accusations when you have no information about whether they're true?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Kavanaugh missed his chance to drop out. He could have made some bullshit excuse to bow out, but now he's in deep. He deserves to be ruined.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

A country that embraces 'obstructionism' as a viable form of conducting politics and governing a country will accomplish very, very little during it's term.

In short, it seems to me to be the most destructive form of governance there can be. Even pure anarchy is better, as that means no one sinks time and effort in obstructing and delaying the politics of others.

Just my two cents.

2 Replies

Obstructionism: the ultimate trump card?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know