VakAttack

3. The Republicans just eschewed the rules, lol. You're literally arguing for the sides to follow different sets of rules. 4. Again, you're dragging this to January 6, where Pelosi did something she is explicitly allowed to do. And, in this scenario, we're in a post-norms world as seen by the Garland situation, so again, no, I don't think the Democrats should be playing by norms if the Republicans aren't going to. Plus, again, she approved 3 of the 5 nominations, all three of whom voted not to certify the valid 2020 election; she rejected two people who clearly were not fit to serve on that particular committee. Example: a man is on trial for a crime. Two of his best friends are probably not fit to be jurors on that trial, especially if there's a strong possibility they were witnesses to that crime.

1. Because they didn't have the votes from all of their Senators? Is your argument that politicians always vote with what's in line with what their constituents want? 2. N/A 3. Again, so you're saying the Dems should just play by the rules established by their opponents, thus ceding advantages to them. "You can only go outside the norms in ways that are approved by your opponent." That's just stupid, bad politics, and a recipe for losing. You're literally saying that only one party should be allowed to violate the norms. You then follow up explicitly showing how I am saying that if one party is going to break norms, than the other party should feel free to, and then just saying the phrase "you want it both ways", despite me literally saying that the democrats should play the same way the Republicans do. You understand that just repeating the phrase "you want it both ways" doesn't make it true, right? 4. You're changing topics to places you feel you are on more stable ground, nobody was talking about the January 6 committee. Then you're making assumptions. I don't care who was on the committee, though I had no problem w/ Pelosi saying "hey, you can't put people on the committee that are obviously very likely to be subpoenaed by said committee." The Democrats didn't refuse to have any Republicans on the committee, they refused a few certain members that were likely to be requested to testify at said committee, and then McCarthy, rather then picking from any of his other 215ish members (or by allowing the other 3 members he had nominated that hadn't been objected to to serve), cried and refused to appoint anybody, and thus volunteers were taken. Then you're comparing it to McConnell just obstructing a perfectly valid nomination.

Six of the 8 All Americans at 125 were upperclassmen, what are you talking about?

Super weird how this thread is being used to talk shit about Spencer Lee, but ok...

1. https://news.yahoo.com/poll-slim-majority-of-americans-support-expanding-supreme-court-as-confidence-wanes-194217399.html "Expansion was supported by 51% of independents, 72% of Democrats and just 27% of Republicans." 2. No. It isn't. Advice or consent. You just saying it is doesn't make it so. It's refusal to even consider it, and it wasn't based on the quality of the candidate, they refused to even consider it based on only their own partisan predilections. 3. The word "informed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this not backed up by your actual writing. You very much are projecting, as evidenced by the fact you just make a blanket statement about how I want it both ways when I showed you exactly how I did not want it both ways, how I said that the Democrats should be playing byt the same rules as teh Republicans, which is to say, the strictest letter of the law, and not previous norms that are no longer being followed. You are the one advocating for two different standards, where the Republicans should be allowed to flout the norms, but the Democrats should just pretend they still exist. 4. Six Republicans. Bork wasn't close to making it through. And that's with two Democrats voting for his nomination. I didn't even discuss the January 6 hearings, so I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China or how I want it both ways when I haven't even espoused an opinion on the subject.

I didn't assume it was guaranteed, I said highly likely. Upsets happen (obviously). I believe what I said was Iowa and Spencer likely end up with 2 and 4 but for COVID, and instead ended up winning 1 and 3. I'm not granting Spencer 4 titles. He's a three timer, sadly (for me).

A slight difference between an something off the mat, like COVID, vs. actual wrestling action, but sure.

Agreed. Iowa and Spencer were about 3 days away from (extremely, extremely likely) two team titles during his career and 4 NCAA titles butfor the COVID cancellation. Instead it's 1 and 3. Thems the breaks.

That wasn't the point of his thread. He just wanted to be able to say the thing about Spencer getting having fewer championships than the 4 timers and more losses than "a bunch of guys".

They need to institute an age limit on Congresspersons' able to deal w/ technology, because watching some of these folks try to navigate even basic stuff is cringeworthy. This should obviously apply to the Senate which I would reasonably guess skews even older. Just have a committee, nobody over 50 allowed.

This is, of course, incorrect.

Higher than he "should" for Iowa fans, lower than he "should" for Iowa haters. I use the quotations because it's an inherently subjective exercise. Where I think he ranks is likely different than where many people think he ranks. What do you value? When did he compete during your life? These things will all cause people to move him up and down in the rankings.

Pyles just Tweeted that he was guessing Truax to Penn State. Pastry's attempt to reverse troll Iowa falls flat again.

I'm planning on being there! Hope to see some of you!

So the presumption for next year is 165: Facundo 174: Starocci 184: Unclear but possibly Truax 197: Brooks ? Also, hard to believe Starocci won't come back to try to get an unprecedented 5th title with the opportunity, but I know he has his eyes on the UFC.

Truax wrote that he's graduating and looking to continue wrestling in grad school.

Great minds.

To be clear, there is no buzz on him going to Iowa outside of a poster on HR saying "you think Iowa will go after him?" I haven't heard anything definitive on him, but the initial rumors were Penn State, though that doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless Brooks is staying down, or (as has been supposed) Truax wants to go back down to 184, that would leave either Haines or (more likely) Facundo on the bench.

1. It's not good optics to the people who already don't like them. 2. How is it "necessarily an admission that your point of view is not mainstream"? The reason they don't have a majority is because McConnell gamed the system and because of the happenstance of when Justice Bader Ginsburg died. This is poppycock. EDIT: Just to add here, the party having a majority of the Justices is almost always a matter of happenstance of the death of a Justice, not about which party holds the more mainstream opinion. For that you would look towards which party gets more votes from the American people. 3. They didn't "advise and consent." They didn't even consider it or give any reasoning where, again, a very middle of the road candidate with nothing controversial in his history was just ignored and not because of who he was as a jurist, but because "the American people should have a chance to weigh in on who nominates the next Justice?" They should? My understanding was these were non-elected positions? it was a gaming of the system. 4. "You want it both ways...." You're just projecting here. My logic is consistent. The Republicans shouldn't have done what they did. However, since they did it, the Democrats choice is either to do another shitty thing, or just get trampled. If you and I were playing Monopoly, and we agreed before hand that nobody could puchase properties until they had gone around the board twice, but then you just started immediately buying properties, I'm an idiot if I wait until I have gone around the board twice because "that was the agreement." You are the logically inconsistent one here: you want it to be ok for the Republicans to game the system to their advantage and not be ok for the Democrats to also game the system. 5. Bork was voted down with the assistance of SIX Republican Senators. This was a bipartisan dismissal of his nomination. And, notably, he, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh, all got their hearings. Anything remarkable come out of the Merrick Garland hearings? Wait, they didn't happen?

@Formally140 was talking about Penn State approaching athletes directly at NCAAs, don't know if this is what he meant.

Here's why I disagree: under the normal course of business, we would have had one Democrat nominated justice (Garland) and two Republican nominated justice (I would guess it would have been Gorsuch and Coney Barrett). Instead, the Republicans "stole" one. Expansion of the court is the Democrats only move to take that power back. In a governmental apparatuses that used to be held to "norms", that's no longer the case, and if one side isn't going to abide by norms, the other side shouldn't be abiding by those norms that the first side is flouting, otherwise the second side will jsut get trampled. It's made worse by the fact that Republicans are, as of now, a minority party within the population, and they're governing w/ significant minority policies, like their stances on abortion, etc. These are policies that don't even have full-throated support WITHIN their party, let alone throughout the country. Another example: registration for gun owners. The most hardcore Republican I know, one of my best friends, is adamant that people should have to register their guns and that it should be treated similar to cars and driver's licenses. I'm talking a guy at the shooting range every couple of weeks. He swears his range buddies all feel the same way. I can't speak for them, I'm only at the range occasionally. I know the cops I deal with in my job (I'm a Public Defender) all feel that way, too. And yet, right now, the governor of my state is pushing to remove requirements for even carrying a concealed firearm, let alone firearm ownership at all. The Republicans, of whom I was until very recently a registered member (although, to be fair, that was more from laziness, I was the definition of a RINO for the last several years and am now NPA) seem to be controlled by a very loud minority within their own party.

You can keep trying to change what I'm saying all you want, that's fine. I never said any of that. Lets just put it here: if the Republicans just confirm Merrick garland, the very milquetoast centrist judge who was also highly qualified, we're not here. They didn't. Legal, but shitty. It's a gaming of the system. If one side is going to game the system, you're foolish to try to play by rules the other side is refusing to follow. That doesn't mean I think the expansion of the court is not shitty.

First rule: It is perfectly allowable for the Ds to expand the court, there is no law stopping it. It is only inertia that keeps the court at 9 Justices now, there is no law proscribing that, no evidence that 9 is some magical number. Second rule: McConnell refusing to vote on Obama's nomination for a SCOTUS seat under made up logic about it being an election year, then fasttracking a Trump nomination in the very next election year, changing his logic. Perfectly legal, ethically dubious. Precedent just means something was established. Technically, there's indications historically that SCOTUS Justice count should go along with the number of Circuit Courts at the federal level (which in this case would actually be 13), but that is, again, not proscribed anywhere by law.

You're not really explaining WHY it's different. You're telling me you just feel it's different. The number of justices on the Supreme Court has has changed multiple times in it's history, going as high as ten. So again, WHY is it different to exploit this rule vs. McConnell's exploiting of another rule?