Hello hillary lovers.
Still butthurt???
Hahahaha!!!
Democrats lose again!!!
-
15
-
nonequals11 wrote:
Yawn^26 wrote:
Wrong again. If people wanted Obama’s picks to be appointed, they would have voted in more democratic senators. Clearly the country was less enthusiastic about his picks than you think. In the same vein, the country gave trump a majority in the senate so he got to put his picks on. Not stolen, the word you want is “won”
and personally I look at those who use football analogies as brain dead because that’s what you have to be to watch the “sport”
“Brain dead” from the guy who doesn’t understand what is and isn’t an analogy. Hint: Moronic tribalism displayed as both as sports fans and as citizens is not analogous behavior, it’s the same behavior.
More importantly, you “McConnell is fine guys” conveniently pretend that he was honest about the situation. Of course, he wasn’t. His BS justification blamed the (non) proximity of the election, not simple majority power. And then had no concern whatsoever for the proximity of an election. Hy-po-cri-sy, plain and simple.
Lastly, none of you have answered agip’s question: If it’s fine and dandy for an opposition Senate to oppose everything, reflexively, are you also fine with empty cabinets? I don’t know if there’s a work around for that, but if there isn’t, I’m sure that a hell of a lot of Rs won’t care.Gotta love how you guys are confidently rushing towards an utterly tribal society and utterly dysfunctional government.
On Garland: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president," McConnell said.
Said early in year 4. Why not year 1? Clearly, no principle involved.
Then COMPLETELY ignored this “principle” with Trump.
But you guys insist on defending baseless arguments and gross hypocrisy as simply savvy politicking. BS.12 -
You say Garland was never going to be confirmed by any Republicans if it went to a vote in the full senate but here’s an article from 2010 that says Republicans would back Garland for the Supreme Court if nominated by Obama.
03 -
Academic Discussion wrote:
agip wrote:
So you'd be 100% fine if a D senate never let a R president put any judges on SCOTUS or the Federal Bench.
You'd in fact be fine if the Senate never let a president have a cabinet.
is that your view on this? You would nod sagely and say 'well we should have elected more R senators!'
That's exactly what the Democrats would have done, and will do when the situation arises. Joe Biden even said so as Senate Majority Leader.
Joseph Biden was NEVER Senate Majority Leader. In other words, your "argument" is unsupported.
22 -
formerly present wrote:
Academic Discussion wrote:
That's exactly what the Democrats would have done, and will do when the situation arises. Joe Biden even said so as Senate Majority Leader.
Joseph Biden was NEVER Senate Majority Leader. In other words, your "argument" is unsupported.
He was chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee. He ran the Supreme Court confirmation hearings (and did a disgraceful job both times, now that you bring it up). So my argument stands. In fact, that makes my argument stronger.
52 -
nonequals11 wrote:
Yawn^26 wrote:
Wrong again. If people wanted Obama’s picks to be appointed, they would have voted in more democratic senators. Clearly the country was less enthusiastic about his picks than you think. In the same vein, the country gave trump a majority in the senate so he got to put his picks on. Not stolen, the word you want is “won”
and personally I look at those who use football analogies as brain dead because that’s what you have to be to watch the “sport”
“Brain dead” from the guy who doesn’t understand what is and isn’t an analogy. Hint: Moronic tribalism displayed as both as sports fans and as citizens is not analogous behavior, it’s the same behavior.
More importantly, you “McConnell is fine guys” conveniently pretend that he was honest about the situation. Of course, he wasn’t. His BS justification blamed the (non) proximity of the election, not simple majority power. And then had no concern whatsoever for the proximity of an election. Hy-po-cri-sy, plain and simple.
Lastly, none of you have answered agip’s question: If it’s fine and dandy for an opposition Senate to oppose everything, reflexively, are you also fine with empty cabinets? I don’t know if there’s a work around for that, but if there isn’t, I’m sure that a hell of a lot of Rs won’t care.Gotta love how you guys are confidently rushing towards an utterly tribal society and utterly dysfunctional government.
You keep going to these ridiculous extremes.
president generally pick people they know will get confirmed. Look at Biden’s original ATF pick, he was forced to withdraw because the senate thought him to extreme. The senate did not think Garland would be a good justice, plain and simple. The republicans time and again said that elections matter which is why they got to stop Garland from being confirmed.
32 -
Democrats are queers wrote:
All democrats will be tarred and feathered wrote:
Payback is coming for all democrats.
Democrats are queers.
Mods - please enforce YOUR own rules.
32 -
Your time wrote:
Democrats are queers wrote:
Democrats are queers.
Mods - please enforce YOUR own rules.
Ok, groomer. I will think about it.
13 -
carmine9 wrote:
Hooma wrote:
Why would I spend $5 for a gallon of gas? I filled up for $2.99 a gallon this morning. Actually, that was the posted price. I got a dollar off per gallon with my Costco card, so $1.99 a gallon. You are a moron.
Where do you live?
In 2020 world?
None of your business where I live, but you can get gas for under $3 a gallon in many states now.
You continue to prove that you are an ignorant moron.
11 -
carmine9 wrote:
Hooma wrote:
Why would I spend $5 for a gallon of gas? I filled up for $2.99 a gallon this morning. Actually, that was the posted price. I got a dollar off per gallon with my Costco card, so $1.99 a gallon. You are a moron.
Where do you live?
In 2020 world?
None of your business where I live, but you can get gas for under $3 a gallon in many states now.
You continue to prove that you are an ignorant moron.
00 -
carmine9 wrote:
Hooma wrote:
Why would I spend $5 for a gallon of gas? I filled up for $2.99 a gallon this morning. Actually, that was the posted price. I got a dollar off per gallon with my Costco card, so $1.99 a gallon. You are a moron.
Where do you live?
In 2020 world?
None of your business where I live, but you can get gas for under $3 a gallon in many states now.
Look up prices for: Georgia, Kansas, Texas, Kentucky, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee
You continue to prove that you are an ignorant moron.
02 -
All democrats will be tarred and feathered wrote:
Payback is coming for all democrats.
12 -
To quote someone I forgot…
Trump could eat a live baby on television and ‘conservatives’ would say well he’s better than Hillary and it was him or her.
12 -
Sounds correct, now maybe Trump had information about nuclear weapons in his basement.
Rubio in 2016 right in the middle of his spine being removed:
One month after announcing his support for Donald Trump, Marco Rubio still believes that the presumptive GOP nominee is unfit to be commander-in-chief. "I stand by everything I said during the campaign," the Florida senator told THE WEEKLY STANDARD on Thursday when asked if he still believes Trump cannot be trusted with access to the country's nuclear weapons codes.
During the campaign, Rubio said that Trump was "dangerous" and that we must not hand "the nuclear codes of the United States to an erratic individual."11 -
Yawn^26 wrote:
nonequals11 wrote:
“Brain dead” from the guy who doesn’t understand what is and isn’t an analogy. Hint: Moronic tribalism displayed as both as sports fans and as citizens is not analogous behavior, it’s the same behavior.
More importantly, you “McConnell is fine guys” conveniently pretend that he was honest about the situation. Of course, he wasn’t. His BS justification blamed the (non) proximity of the election, not simple majority power. And then had no concern whatsoever for the proximity of an election. Hy-po-cri-sy, plain and simple.
Lastly, none of you have answered agip’s question: If it’s fine and dandy for an opposition Senate to oppose everything, reflexively, are you also fine with empty cabinets? I don’t know if there’s a work around for that, but if there isn’t, I’m sure that a hell of a lot of Rs won’t care.Gotta love how you guys are confidently rushing towards an utterly tribal society and utterly dysfunctional government.
You keep going to these ridiculous extremes.
president generally pick people they know will get confirmed. Look at Biden’s original ATF pick, he was forced to withdraw because the senate thought him to extreme. The senate did not think Garland would be a good justice, plain and simple. The republicans time and again said that elections matter which is why they got to stop Garland from being confirmed.
Nothing extreme whatsoever. You keep ignoring McConnell’s words. He didn’t say that it was about Garland’s qualifications, just time. And it WASN’T about his qualifications. Garland wasn’t widely viewed as extreme. It WAS a precedent: Refuse a justice SIMPLY because it’s for the other side and you can (and make up a silly lie about the real reason, to boot).
And, of course, none have you have lifted a finger to explain why it wasn’t rank hypocrisy when he handled the last Trump nomination 180 degrees out?
11 -
nonequals11 wrote:
Yawn^26 wrote:
You keep going to these ridiculous extremes.
president generally pick people they know will get confirmed. Look at Biden’s original ATF pick, he was forced to withdraw because the senate thought him to extreme. The senate did not think Garland would be a good justice, plain and simple. The republicans time and again said that elections matter which is why they got to stop Garland from being confirmed.
Nothing extreme whatsoever. You keep ignoring McConnell’s words. He didn’t say that it was about Garland’s qualifications, just time. And it WASN’T about his qualifications. Garland wasn’t widely viewed as extreme. It WAS a precedent: Refuse a justice SIMPLY because it’s for the other side and you can (and make up a silly lie about the real reason, to boot).
And, of course, none have you have lifted a finger to explain why it wasn’t rank hypocrisy when he handled the last Trump nomination 180 degrees out?
You can say he’s a hypocrite, that’s fine as most politicians are. My issue is when people say garlands spot was “stolen”. It wasn’t. Obama did what he was constitutionally allowed to do which is nominate someone. The senate did what was in their constitutional power which was to consider the nominee. They considered him and said “No”.
This isn’t unprecedented. Supreme Court nominees have been declined by the senate many times before. You had a 2 term democratic president on his way out the door up against a Republican led senate.
Could McConnell had avoided sounding like a hypocrite if he hadn’t used the timing rationale? Probably, but dems would be mad no matter what logic he used.
At the end of the day Obama’s famous quote of “Elections have consequences” rang true. Republicans took the senate and then the presidency. The consequences of those elections was a swing in the makeup of the Supreme Court.
Some of this falls on the DNC as well. Nominate anyone but Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Trump probably doesn’t win. Dems get to pick another nominee for the SCOTUS. Alas, Hillary was their choice and the rest is history.
11 -
PresCovid wrote:
nonequals11 wrote:
Nothing extreme whatsoever. You keep ignoring McConnell’s words. He didn’t say that it was about Garland’s qualifications, just time. And it WASN’T about his qualifications. Garland wasn’t widely viewed as extreme. It WAS a precedent: Refuse a justice SIMPLY because it’s for the other side and you can (and make up a silly lie about the real reason, to boot).
And, of course, none have you have lifted a finger to explain why it wasn’t rank hypocrisy when he handled the last Trump nomination 180 degrees out?
You can say he’s a hypocrite, that’s fine as most politicians are. My issue is when people say garlands spot was “stolen”. It wasn’t. Obama did what he was constitutionally allowed to do which is nominate someone. The senate did what was in their constitutional power which was to consider the nominee. They considered him and said “No”.
This isn’t unprecedented. Supreme Court nominees have been declined by the senate many times before. You had a 2 term democratic president on his way out the door up against a Republican led senate.
Could McConnell had avoided sounding like a hypocrite if he hadn’t used the timing rationale? Probably, but dems would be mad no matter what logic he used.
At the end of the day Obama’s famous quote of “Elections have consequences” rang true. Republicans took the senate and then the presidency. The consequences of those elections was a swing in the makeup of the Supreme Court.
Some of this falls on the DNC as well. Nominate anyone but Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Trump probably doesn’t win. Dems get to pick another nominee for the SCOTUS. Alas, Hillary was their choice and the rest is history.
falling back on the 'well it's Constitutional' is so lame and weak.
it would be 100% constitutional for a president to declassify all US secrets tomorrow. It would be totally constitutional for a president to order Paris nuked because he doesn't like French New Wave cinema. It would be totally Constitutional for the president to force the nation to give a security clearance to his son-in-law even though the professionals refused it. (trump actually did that). It would be totally Constitutional for the President to refuse to work on Mondays because he likes three day weekends.
I mean grow up and think about things from a higher level than 'well the rules allow it.' think about right and wrong and what is good for the country. McConnell refusing to hold hearings or a vote for Garland was within the rules but just plain unAmerican and bad for the nation. And then he double downed on it by rushing Kav.
11 -
agip wrote:
PresCovid wrote:
You can say he’s a hypocrite, that’s fine as most politicians are. My issue is when people say garlands spot was “stolen”. It wasn’t. Obama did what he was constitutionally allowed to do which is nominate someone. The senate did what was in their constitutional power which was to consider the nominee. They considered him and said “No”.
This isn’t unprecedented. Supreme Court nominees have been declined by the senate many times before. You had a 2 term democratic president on his way out the door up against a Republican led senate.
Could McConnell had avoided sounding like a hypocrite if he hadn’t used the timing rationale? Probably, but dems would be mad no matter what logic he used.
At the end of the day Obama’s famous quote of “Elections have consequences” rang true. Republicans took the senate and then the presidency. The consequences of those elections was a swing in the makeup of the Supreme Court.
Some of this falls on the DNC as well. Nominate anyone but Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Trump probably doesn’t win. Dems get to pick another nominee for the SCOTUS. Alas, Hillary was their choice and the rest is history.
falling back on the 'well it's Constitutional' is so lame and weak.
it would be 100% constitutional for a president to declassify all US secrets tomorrow. It would be totally constitutional for a president to order Paris nuked because he doesn't like French New Wave cinema. It would be totally Constitutional for the president to force the nation to give a security clearance to his son-in-law even though the professionals refused it. (trump actually did that). It would be totally Constitutional for the President to refuse to work on Mondays because he likes three day weekends.
I mean grow up and think about things from a higher level than 'well the rules allow it.' think about right and wrong and what is good for the country. McConnell refusing to hold hearings or a vote for Garland was within the rules but just plain unAmerican and bad for the nation. And then he double downed on it by rushing Kav.
Yeah, nuking a country is the same as a senate not confirming a Supreme Court nominee. 1 in 5 do NOT get confirmed and one of the reasons they don’t get confirmed is the senate does not like the sitting president.
It’s a fair gripe to say they didn’t have a hearing, but it doesn’t change the fact that things were handled within the bounds of the constitution.
I remember in 2013 when the democratic senate used the nuclear option to get past the filibuster and be able to get judges appointed and fill seats on the DC circuit. Many people felt that to be shady and unAmerican. It eventually came back around to benefit the republicans, however.
This situation will be similar, it might take time but democrats will get the chance to turn away a Republican nominee using McConnell’s logic.
I find it to be quite American that conservative senators represented the constituency of their states well by not confirming Obama’s nominee. Elections have consequences, remember?
As far as all your hypotheticals, politicians can choose to do any number of things that are constitutional but may not be liked. The politician has to decide if it’s worth risking losing reelection to do so, however. Trump did a lot of things that people frowned on, yet were technically ok and look where it got him.
12 -
agip wrote:
PresCovid wrote:
You can say he’s a hypocrite, that’s fine as most politicians are. My issue is when people say garlands spot was “stolen”. It wasn’t. Obama did what he was constitutionally allowed to do which is nominate someone. The senate did what was in their constitutional power which was to consider the nominee. They considered him and said “No”.
This isn’t unprecedented. Supreme Court nominees have been declined by the senate many times before. You had a 2 term democratic president on his way out the door up against a Republican led senate.
Could McConnell had avoided sounding like a hypocrite if he hadn’t used the timing rationale? Probably, but dems would be mad no matter what logic he used.
At the end of the day Obama’s famous quote of “Elections have consequences” rang true. Republicans took the senate and then the presidency. The consequences of those elections was a swing in the makeup of the Supreme Court.
Some of this falls on the DNC as well. Nominate anyone but Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Trump probably doesn’t win. Dems get to pick another nominee for the SCOTUS. Alas, Hillary was their choice and the rest is history.
falling back on the 'well it's Constitutional' is so lame and weak.
it would be 100% constitutional for a president to declassify all US secrets tomorrow. It would be totally constitutional for a president to order Paris nuked because he doesn't like French New Wave cinema. It would be totally Constitutional for the president to force the nation to give a security clearance to his son-in-law even though the professionals refused it. (trump actually did that). It would be totally Constitutional for the President to refuse to work on Mondays because he likes three day weekends.
I mean grow up and think about things from a higher level than 'well the rules allow it.' think about right and wrong and what is good for the country. McConnell refusing to hold hearings or a vote for Garland was within the rules but just plain unAmerican and bad for the nation. And then he double downed on it by rushing Kav.
Whatever happened with that Jan. 6 Committee? I thought Trump was a goner with that. How come we are not talking about any longer? Did that just fizzle out like just about everything against Trump? Wasn't Stormy Daniels going to bring him down. So too Michael Cohen. So too (fill in another 150 names here).
14 -
Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:
agip wrote:
falling back on the 'well it's Constitutional' is so lame and weak.
it would be 100% constitutional for a president to declassify all US secrets tomorrow. It would be totally constitutional for a president to order Paris nuked because he doesn't like French New Wave cinema. It would be totally Constitutional for the president to force the nation to give a security clearance to his son-in-law even though the professionals refused it. (trump actually did that). It would be totally Constitutional for the President to refuse to work on Mondays because he likes three day weekends.
I mean grow up and think about things from a higher level than 'well the rules allow it.' think about right and wrong and what is good for the country. McConnell refusing to hold hearings or a vote for Garland was within the rules but just plain unAmerican and bad for the nation. And then he double downed on it by rushing Kav.
Whatever happened with that Jan. 6 Committee? I thought Trump was a goner with that. How come we are not talking about any longer? Did that just fizzle out like just about everything against Trump? Wasn't Stormy Daniels going to bring him down. So too Michael Cohen. So too (fill in another 150 names here).
it's true - 'conservatives' don't mind it when other 'conservatives' violently attack congress, try to stuff the DOJ with unqualified flunkies, incite mobs, work with Russian spies to pervert elections, extort Ukraine, are unindicted conspirators to felonies, etc.
You put your finger on the problem with this country, Sally. Good work.
21
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
Of General Interest
-
Does not wanting my kids to watch a bisexual threesome at the Olympics make me a bigot?
-
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
-
No scholarship limits anymore! (NCAA Track and Field inequality is going to get way worse, right?)
-
Gudaf Tsegay will not race the 10000m? Just to spite the federation?