Yeah, well, nothing in my post justified or encouraged anything. Calling something rational is not the same as endorsing it. It was rational for Mitch McConnell to filibuster everything. It was rational for him to refuse to have a vote on Garland. And for that reason, the problem has not gone away. We now just accept 60 votes as a threshold for Senate action. I don't think that's in any way right, but if it were the actions of a lunatic it wouldn't be anything to worry about. The problem is quite obviously that it's not.
How can you stop that problem? Well, the only solution is doing away with the filibuster. Which isn't going to happen if we don't talk about how the filibuster will be abused.
Nobody who knows me could possibly think I was glorifying Gustavo Princip. Nobody who reads that comment would interpret it as saying "attaboy" or "we need more of this." Ignoring the problem will never make it go away. It will never stop anyone with an extremist and violent personality from reading the history books, realizing that Princip did actually achieve his goal. A monumental cost to mankind, perhaps the most horrible war ever fought (save maybe Iran-Iraq), but furthering the cause of Serbian independence. And while I do not expect anyone to copycat him, someone could try a lesser version (or what they think to be a lesser version). Again, because a person who doesn't care all that much about a body count (e.g. Hamas, Netanyahu, etc) but does care about some abstract goal can form their own judgments. They aren't waiting for my approval.
Another guy who achieved his goals through violence was named Osama Bin Laden. 9/11 was, long-term, more spectacularly effective in advancing his horrible agenda than he probably could have dreamed. He fortunately didn't live long enough to see Trump, but he would surely have been thrilled. So maybe back in 2002-03, people should have been saying, "use of war as a partisan political cudgel is exactly what OBL wants us to do," which was a sentiment I rarely heard. There was plenty of debate about the should, but nobody tying it to the expressed goal of the attack. I remember when I read OBL's manifesto, I thought he was a lunatic. And then I saw his prophecy come true/intent was successful. If that's glorifying OBL I don't know what to say.
