And on the subject of ignoring the subject. Here's the point I just made:
gbaji wrote:
Um... Smash? Ever consider that Obama's judicial nominees are being held up at an historic rate because he's attempting to appoint overtly partisan judges to key positions at an unprecedented rate? Most presidents realize that their appointments can potentially be blocked by the minority party so they engage in this amazing thing called negotiating with the minority party prior to nominating anyone so as to ensure that obstacles don't happen. And what that means is that a bit of horse trading goes on. He agrees to appoint X judges off the minority party list out of a set of X+Y judges, and in return they don't block any of them.
That's how every president that doesn't end out with a sub 50% confirmation rate does it. Obama, on the other hand, has deliberately chosen to say FU to the GOP, refuses to negotiate, and refuses to compromise on appointments, and then sits around acting shocked and surprised when his nominees get holds put on them.
And this is you completely ignoring it.
Smasharoo wrote:
Well, americanprogress.org is clearly an objective source, right? Lol!
Of counting? Yes, I'd imagine so. Seems it would be trivially easy to dispute the numerical values in question that make this, once again, the most obstructionist opposition in history. Which was the point in question, correct?
Not an explanation for why that hinges on Obama as a mustachioed villain plotting his long term political gain by nominating communist party members and NAMBLA founders with full knowledge they could never be confirmed. I'll ignore that part of your post.
Incidentally, this is just appointments, the numbers on actual legislation are far worse, and again, just math. The whole debt ceiling nonsense, etc. etc. It's provable and easily so that this opposition is the most obstructionist....ever. If you'd like to agree that the current opposition's entire strategy is not to govern at all and to oppose all attempts to, but then rationalize why that's a good idea, that's fine.
If you want to argue against something that's simple to prove and factually based, I'm afraid you're going to have to provide the same hallucinogenics you're currently using to the rest of us.
Yes. Wonderful. I'm sure the folks at the website in question can count. You'll note that unfortunately for your little strawman, my response had nothing to do with counting, and not even with counting the numbers of blocked appointments, but had everything to do with there being an explanation for why Obama has had so many of his appointments blocked other than "The GOP are just a bunch of poopyheads!".
But heaven forbid you actually address the key issue of *why* he has such an abysmal confirmation rate. That's just crazy talk. I mean, it's not like it's not the presidents job to work with congress to get his nominations passed or anything, so it's not like a low rate can reasonable be said to be the fault of said president and his staff or anything. Oh wait! Both of those things are true!