Oh boy....
just when you think it couldn't get any crazier....
|
exactly. we are now in a whole new plane of crazy.
i liked ginsburg personally, really liked that she and scalia were very good friends who even vacationed together. we could use a lot more of that ability to disagree respectfully. especially now! unless the senate republicans make it clear they won’t confirm anyone until next year, unless that's the case, there’s no way this potus doesn’t nominate a staunch conservative, and there’s no chance it will be a white man, so he’ll get the democrats to show, right before the election, just how much they care about women and minorities with the smear campaign about to happen. amy barrett looking very compelling, staunch catholic with 7 children who schumer will smear without mercy. elections have consequences. that’s what obama used to like to say. funny how the willingness to accept that idea changes so regularly for people with zero principles. this is trumps chance to actually re shape the next 20 years. you could argue it’s more important than him getting elected. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
to increase the number of scotus justices. thats their only card. there could be 50 judges on that court before we’re dead. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Her death is going to seal the gop’s fate.
Watch how they behave over this. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
if trump nominates a non white man, and the senate democrats do to her what they did to kavanaugh, and a few percent of swing voters are turned off that, that seals Biden’s fate. lots of if’s. obama nominated garland, then gave his nomination to the senate. the 2016 election shows that the american people were ok with what senate republicans did. why the heck wouldn’t trump do the same? elections have consequences. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
it’s an unfortunate political reality. they can’t wait. not should they. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Trump might not nominate anyone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
you are cute sometimes. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
important than his re election. and having the nation watching senate democrats smear and attack a female/minority nominee, will give him lots of political capital in the election. he’s not desperate, he’s to cocky to think he has a chance of losing. you still don’t get him. if i had to choose between replacing her with a conservative or trump getting re elected, id choose tilting the court to the right. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
this is the most pro life president in history. he doesn’t want to replace ginsburg with a conservative? you’re right, he might not have the votes, which is why i said very clearly that not having the votes is the only way he doesn’t nominate someone. i completely agree a thumbs down vote on. a nominee would be a disaster before the election. obviously. if he has the votes, this is a disaster for the democrats. in addition to having the court shift, they are in a no win situation. if they give his female nominee the kavanaugh treatment just before the election, undecided voters may get turned off. if they don’t give her the kavanaugh treatment, they run the risk of angering the progressive wing of their base, who aren’t thrilled with biden already. a disaster. their only hope is trump not having the votes. which could happen, especially with susan colins up for re election. that's the democrats only hope. what does joe manchin do? he voted for kavanaugh. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
interesting video of trump being told on a live camera about Ginsburg’s death by a reporter. he managed to not blow it for once.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EGzo-sAnevk Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
did. after scalias death. why is it ok when obama did it, but the end of civility if trump does it? there’s been little civility since 2008. there’s a 95% chance they replace her before the election. packing the scotus is foolish, eventually the other side will do the same thing. hell the gop can do it now. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
not going to cash in the ticket because that way the prize will increase next week, and hopefully i’ll win again.” to think he’s not going to nominate someone before the election ( if they have the votes in the senate) is to know nothing about him. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
the democrats took scotus confirmations to a new level of political bs with bork, to the point that there is a new word to be unfairly vilified, to be “borked”. it continued with thomas and god knows with kavanaugh.
meanwhile, obama’s two nominees got plenty of republican votes. for good or ill, this is where we are. the democrats under Biden and Reid brought us here, and not wanting to be wearing boxing gloves when the other guy is wearing brass knuckles, we elected trump. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
they wait? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Republicans can't even hide there dishonesty .. even a legitimate selection process takes longer than 50 days
And Jom election have consequences BS you pull out to defend them when they would not put garland foward and stonewalled for a year but this is ok .. Republicans have zero moral ground. On any topic its really sad to watch Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
obama nominated garland, and sent that nomination to the senate. the senate chose not to confirm. i’m not sure it’s reasonable to assume the american people have senate control to republicans because they wanted scalia replaced with garland. this is the same thing. trump will probably nominate someone, and send the nomination to the senate. i’m sorry, but that’s how it works, and i’m sorry that elections have consequences. the senators can do what they choose, and shortly after, he people will decide what we think of that in an election. the american people elected trump, and gave senate control to the democrats. that had consequences. if you want to go back to the days when senators on both sides confirmed all nominees, if also welcome that. bill clinton’s no i need were confirmed, almost unanimously in ginsburgs case, a lot of republicans voted for her. then the democrats changed the rules. if they changed the rules thinking they’d hold the senate forever and never be on the receiving end, that’s their fault, blame harry reid for that. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Garland was nominated on 3/16/16 have someone do that math for you. that’s about 31 days, and 31<50. so either kindly show us your posts back then where you said obama went too fast and therefore it was an “illegitimate selection”, or kindly admit you’re a naked hypocrite who can’t subtract. you don’t even know what you’re saying, it’s just left wing incoherent gibberish. and i did not like what senate republicans did back then, i said that garland should have had a vote, where they voted no. i probably said that here, it’s how i always felt. friggin hypocrite. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
i’m not a huge fan of McConnell, but this is where he shines. he’s a shrewd legislative mechanic. he can most likely get 50 votes, in which case get ready for a very different SCOTUS. one that makes decisions based on what the constitution actually says, not based on what they wish it said. that’s a good thing. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Did you masturbate after posting that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com