Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RIP...

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Irish YJ
    replied
    Originally posted by 317Irish View Post
    MSM is the copout. Trump seeps his way into the brain of his enablers to blame MSM, or Antifa, or crazy Nancy or sleepy Joe or whatever his latest twist is. Whatís crazy is the media has to choose what to do: report on the typical Trump absurdity and risk the polarization that comes with it from his 40%, or decide that stating that POWís are losers, he didnít have sex with a pornstar, the audio with Woodward was him proving that heís the most pro-America President, those are all non-stories. The media, as much as we are all now taught to hate them, has a duty to report the absurdity that we have lived in the last 4 years. I get that your an ďissue voterĒ. Me too bud. The thing is that if 46 says you know what, Kim Jong Un really knows how to run his country, lets all give him an American salute, I will quickly be requesting #47 ASAP. I guess thatís the difference between me and Trumpís enablers?
    Not true either. The trust in media has declined steadily since the early 2000s. Gallup poll below. And trust, especially by conservatives has declined, which is no surprise given the leans of media. I've also included 2014 (before Trump) poll figures on bias, which as you see, most clearly believe the media is more an more one sided (again pre-Trump).



    Leave a comment:


  • 317Irish
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
    Not really true.



    https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31171.html

    And I'd add in that opposition to views (if you read the full study), is many times also opposition to the sitting president. So it's muddy view of things. But bottom line, it's not like 2016 was "new"
    Ur really reaching, but 2016 was new to the extent that the Majority leader said he wouldn’t allow a vote due to proximity to the electing while still 8 months away. There was not an issue with the candidate himself so they say.

    Leave a comment:


  • 317Irish
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
    I don't like Trump as a person at all. Pretty disgusting to me (HRC was too). But let's be honest, the constant faux outrage (by the media and the left) over every breath he takes, and every fart he makes (yes, gonna play some Police now), has a lot to do with the toxic environment. I don't care what GOP candidate is elected, the mainstream media and left politics is unhinged and will find outrage in everything now. Trump didn't create that. He's a symptom of the disease.

    Look no further than the Kav stuff. That wasn't Trump. Or even stupid stuff like the MSM slamming Melania's shoes, while praising the same shoes on Harris. Everything is simply off the charts dumb these days. It's a new world with social media, mainstream media, and the overall "everything conservative is evil and immoral" position of the left. Biden, depending on how you view him, is either status quo swampy, or now a far left cuck. Anyway, I don't vote on personality. I vote on issues.
    MSM is the copout. Trump seeps his way into the brain of his enablers to blame MSM, or Antifa, or crazy Nancy or sleepy Joe or whatever his latest twist is. What’s crazy is the media has to choose what to do: report on the typical Trump absurdity and risk the polarization that comes with it from his 40%, or decide that stating that POW’s are losers, he didn’t have sex with a pornstar, the audio with Woodward was him proving that he’s the most pro-America President, those are all non-stories. The media, as much as we are all now taught to hate them, has a duty to report the absurdity that we have lived in the last 4 years. I get that your an “issue voter”. Me too bud. The thing is that if 46 says you know what, Kim Jong Un really knows how to run his country, lets all give him an American salute, I will quickly be requesting #47 ASAP. I guess that’s the difference between me and Trump’s enablers?

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish YJ
    replied
    Originally posted by 317Irish View Post
    Wait, what are you trying to say? That is the president’s role and until 2016 we have never had quite the same issue confirming the person the president recommended.
    Not really true.

    Opposition to the President
    Opposition to the nominating President played a role in at least 16 of the 36 nominations that were not confirmed. Many of the 16 were put forward by a President in the last year of his presidency—seven occurred after a successor President had been elected, but before the transfer of power to the new administration. Each of these "lame duck" nominations transpired under 19th century Presidents when the post-election period lasted from early November until early March. Four one-term Presidents made nominations of this kind. President John Quincy Adams nominated John J. Crittenden in December 1828, after losing the election to Andrew Jackson.17 President Tyler's third nomination of Walworth, second nomination of King, and only nomination of Read all came after Tyler had lost to James Polk.18 President Millard Fillmore nominated George E. Badger and William C. Micou after Franklin Pierce had been elected to replace him.19 Finally, President James Buchanan forwarded the name of Jeremiah S. Black to the Senate less than a month before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration.20 Other nominations where opposition to the President was a major factor include the remaining unsuccessful Tyler nominations, Fillmore's nomination of Edward A. Bradford, and Andrew Johnson's nomination of Henry Stanbery.21

    President Lyndon B. Johnson's two unsuccessful nominations (Fortas and Thornberry) occurred during the last seven months of his presidency, when, having announced he was not seeking re-election, he was considered by some to be a lame duck even before the election of his successor. Nineteen Senators issued a statement indicating that, on this basis, they would oppose any nomination by President Johnson.22 The committee report accompanying the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice, however, suggests that the opposition to Justice Fortas was based, to a considerable extent, on concern about money received by Fortas for delivering university lectures while an Associate Justice, Fortas's close relationship and advisory role with President Johnson while an Associate Justice, and his judicial philosophy.23

    President Rutherford B. Hayes nominated Stanley Matthews in late January 1881, about six weeks before the transfer of power to the Garfield administration. In this case, however, the opposition seems to have centered on the nominee and his views, as discussed below, rather than on the nominating President.
    https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31171.html

    And I'd add in that opposition to views (if you read the full study), is many times also opposition to the sitting president. So it's muddy view of things. But bottom line, it's not like 2016 was "new"

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish YJ
    replied
    Originally posted by 317Irish View Post
    The problem is the evolution of the parties straying further away, each way, from the things that many moderates believe in. The only thing that still amazes me is the allowance that Trump gets on the human front. I would rather have a far right conservative that has dignity and respect for all, and has the back of the entire country in hard times, being the bigger man and not stooping to lower levels like an adolescent. Iím willing to forgo any political leanings where the alternative intentionally creates such a toxic environment.
    I don't like Trump as a person at all. Pretty disgusting to me (HRC was too). But let's be honest, the constant faux outrage (by the media and the left) over every breath he takes, and every fart he makes (yes, gonna play some Police now), has a lot to do with the toxic environment. I don't care what GOP candidate is elected, the mainstream media and left politics is unhinged and will find outrage in everything now. Trump didn't create that. He's a symptom of the disease.

    Look no further than the Kav stuff. That wasn't Trump. Or even stupid stuff like the MSM slamming Melania's shoes, while praising the same shoes on Harris. Everything is simply off the charts dumb these days. It's a new world with social media, mainstream media, and the overall "everything conservative is evil and immoral" position of the left. Biden, depending on how you view him, is either status quo swampy, or now a far left cuck. Anyway, I don't vote on personality. I vote on issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • 317Irish
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
    McConnell's statement in itself is hypocritical. He should have just been honest and said the GOP held the Senate majority, and that's that. Instead he wanted to spin saying:



    Conversely though, President Obama responded that he intended to



    So it's funny now that the right will go all Obama, and the left will all McConnell. The hypocrisy from all sides is strong lol.
    Wait, what are you trying to say? That is the president’s role and until 2016 we have never had quite the same issue confirming the person the president recommended.

    Leave a comment:


  • 317Irish
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
    I'm absolutely independent and have gone split ticket most of my life. I'm pro national health care, pro lesbian/gay/bi, "pro-choice" first trimester and pro-life 2nd and 3rd, pro flat tax, pro keeping out stupid wars, and pro-limited gov.

    If you consider that fitting neatly into the box of GOP or conservative, I'm not sure what to tell you. If there was a Dem candidate that held those views, or at least was a centrist and was not afraid to tell the far left to F-off, I'd vote for them. They haven't existed for the last several years.

    I don't care to fit into a box. Most people that do fit perfectly into either left or right box are nothing more than sheep. Politics will never be a religion to me.
    The problem is the evolution of the parties straying further away, each way, from the things that many moderates believe in. The only thing that still amazes me is the allowance that Trump gets on the human front. I would rather have a far right conservative that has dignity and respect for all, and has the back of the entire country in hard times, being the bigger man and not stooping to lower levels like an adolescent. I’m willing to forgo any political leanings where the alternative intentionally creates such a toxic environment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish YJ
    replied
    Originally posted by TheRealLynch51 View Post
    What if I told you that no democrat candidate will ever fill those boxes the rest of the time you live and that you'll vote republican for the rest of the time you live? Would you believe me?
    What if I told you that doesn't mean I'm a "republican", or that I'm not an IND.

    It might make me a never-Dem again, but it doesn't make me a republican. The parties have changed, my views for the most part haven't. I'll just pray in the meantime for someone, or some party, to emerge with common sense and more center views. In fact, most of my views are held by most of the people. It's the parties, especially the left right now, that have gone extreme. I don't have to go along.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish YJ
    replied
    Originally posted by 317Irish View Post
    I guess that’s a fair point to use about Reid and I had a feeling that someone would use that as a counterpoint, but I feel like it’s almost apples and oranges when u talk about the way that Mitch used it early in 2016 to say that it was “so close to an election”
    McConnell's statement in itself is hypocritical. He should have just been honest and said the GOP held the Senate majority, and that's that. Instead he wanted to spin saying:

    "'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,'"
    Conversely though, President Obama responded that he intended to

    "fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court," and that there was no "well established tradition" that a president could not fill a Supreme Court vacancy during the U.S. President's last year in office.
    So it's funny now that the right will go all Obama, and the left will all McConnell. The hypocrisy from all sides is strong lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheRealLynch51
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
    I'm absolutely independent and have gone split ticket most of my life. I'm pro national health care, pro lesbian/gay/bi, "pro-choice" first trimester and pro-life 2nd and 3rd, pro flat tax, pro keeping out stupid wars, and pro-limited gov.

    If you consider that fitting neatly into the box of GOP or conservative, I'm not sure what to tell you. If there was a Dem candidate that held those views, or at least was a centrist and was not afraid to tell the far left to F-off, I'd vote for them. They haven't existed for the last several years.

    I don't care to fit into a box. Most people that do fit perfectly into either left or right box are nothing more than sheep. Politics will never be a religion to me.
    What if I told you that no democrat candidate will ever fill those boxes the rest of the time you live and that you'll vote republican for the rest of the time you live? Would you believe me?

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish YJ
    replied
    Originally posted by TheRealLynch51 View Post
    You really trying to say you're an independent?
    I'm absolutely independent and have gone split ticket most of my life. I'm pro national health care, pro lesbian/gay/bi, "pro-choice" first trimester and pro-life 2nd and 3rd, pro flat tax, pro keeping out stupid wars, and pro-limited gov.

    If you consider that fitting neatly into the box of GOP or conservative, I'm not sure what to tell you. If there was a Dem candidate that held those views, or at least was a centrist and was not afraid to tell the far left to F-off, I'd vote for them. They haven't existed for the last several years.

    I don't care to fit into a box. Most people that do fit perfectly into either left or right box are nothing more than sheep. Politics will never be a religion to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • 317Irish
    replied
    Originally posted by 317Irish View Post
    I guess that’s a fair point to use about Reid and I had a feeling that someone would use that as a counterpoint, but I feel like it’s almost apples and oranges when u talk about the way that Mitch used it early in 2016 to say that it was “so close to an election”
    Honesty I think the election will resolve all issues. If Biden is elected in a fair election, and we already have our new 9th, then pack the courts will unfortunately be discussed. If Biden is elected with no 9th, then dems will prolly also control the senate and control the pick. If Trump is elected then the dems don’t have a lot of room to bitch as long as it’s a fair election.

    Leave a comment:


  • 317Irish
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
    2013 Harry Reid Nuclear Option, 2016-? collusion delusion, 2017 Gorsuch obstruction and McConnell going Harry Reid, the dem led fiasco against Kav....

    Yup, classic Karma.



    I disagree to an extent on the Left pulling a Garland. If you want to pick a spot that changed the game, you have to go back to 2013 with Dem Harry Reid and the Nuclear Option. It's always been cutthroat, but it went "nuclear" in 2013 lol. The Kav stuff just upped the game. And keep in mind Mitch used Reid's own ploy against the Dems in 2017 because the Dem's were being trying to block Gorsuch. In short, it just all started going off the tracks in 2013.
    I guess that’s a fair point to use about Reid and I had a feeling that someone would use that as a counterpoint, but I feel like it’s almost apples and oranges when u talk about the way that Mitch used it early in 2016 to say that it was “so close to an election”

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish YJ
    replied
    Originally posted by ulukinatme View Post


    After the way the left has fought tooth and nail against Trump since 2016, including his justice nominations, I say push it through. The Kavanaugh situation was ridiculous. Feels like karma.
    2013 Harry Reid Nuclear Option, 2016-? collusion delusion, 2017 Gorsuch obstruction and McConnell going Harry Reid, the dem led fiasco against Kav....

    Yup, classic Karma.

    Originally posted by 317Irish View Post
    I agree with everything you just said. The only thing is I truly think that the left would not have performed a Merrick Garland treatment prior to that. They one upíed it with the Kavanaugh BS (Im not trying to disqualify a womanís statement but the whole ordeal was done improperly), but I didnít think that treatment was possible until Mitch threw out the script to his advantage.
    I disagree to an extent on the Left pulling a Garland. If you want to pick a spot that changed the game, you have to go back to 2013 with Dem Harry Reid and the Nuclear Option. It's always been cutthroat, but it went "nuclear" in 2013 lol. The Kav stuff just upped the game. And keep in mind Mitch used Reid's own ploy against the Dems in 2017 because the Dem's were being trying to block Gorsuch. In short, it just all started going off the tracks in 2013.

    Leave a comment:


  • FDNYIrish1
    replied
    Just what we needed leading up to the election. More fuel for the fire. Poor woman isn’t even cold yet and the battle has begun.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheRealLynch51
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
    Oh based on his statement, it's absolutely hypocritical. It's DC. But let's not pretend the left would not do the same thing.

    McConnell slowed down all of Obama's nominations for his last two years, not just SCOTUS. He's actually responsible for the large amount of vacancies that Trump has filled. And he's a big reason why the process of filling those vacancies has gone into overdrive.

    As an IND who is against "policy by SCOTUS" (or courts in general), I think McConnell has done absolutely a great job, and has absolutely represented his base well. So regardless of hypocrisy, he's doing exactly what his voters want him to do.

    It's DC, and it's politics. Not shocked. But I'm sure a bunch of folks will act shocked, and the faux outrage will be on full display.
    You really trying to say you're an independent?

    Leave a comment:


  • 317Irish
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
    Oh based on his statement, it's absolutely hypocritical. It's DC. But let's not pretend the left would not do the same thing.

    McConnell slowed down all of Obama's nominations for his last two years, not just SCOTUS. He's actually responsible for the large amount of vacancies that Trump has filled. And he's a big reason why the process of filling those vacancies has gone into overdrive.

    As an IND who is against "policy by SCOTUS" (or courts in general), I think McConnell has done absolutely a great job, and has absolutely represented his base well. So regardless of hypocrisy, he's doing exactly what his voters want him to do.

    It's DC, and it's politics. Not shocked. But I'm sure a bunch of folks will act shocked, and the faux outrage will be on full display.
    I agree with everything you just said. The only thing is I truly think that the left would not have performed a Merrick Garland treatment prior to that. They one up’ed it with the Kavanaugh BS (Im not trying to disqualify a woman’s statement but the whole ordeal was done improperly), but I didn’t think that treatment was possible until Mitch threw out the script to his advantage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish YJ
    replied
    Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
    You canít justify it. Nope. THat is not at all what Mitchís rule said.
    Oh based on his statement, it's absolutely hypocritical. It's DC. But let's not pretend the left would not do the same thing.

    McConnell slowed down all of Obama's nominations for his last two years, not just SCOTUS. He's actually responsible for the large amount of vacancies that Trump has filled. And he's a big reason why the process of filling those vacancies has gone into overdrive.

    As an IND who is against "policy by SCOTUS" (or courts in general), I think McConnell has done absolutely a great job, and has absolutely represented his base well. So regardless of hypocrisy, he's doing exactly what his voters want him to do.

    It's DC, and it's politics. Not shocked. But I'm sure a bunch of folks will act shocked, and the faux outrage will be on full display.

    Leave a comment:


  • 317Irish
    replied
    I feel bad for contributing to this. A Supreme Court justice just passed away. The last time this happened was ions ago when the worst thing was a few days later a small group of people screaming conspiracy via a pillow choking death and a (per Cack) 237 day mistreatment of Garland. The country has evolved so much that within 30 minutes we forgot a human life and went to to “let’s see what sneaky Mitch is able to accomplish!” This country is not great again folks. I understand the political implications of that statement but fuck no this country isn’t great right now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sea Turtle
    replied
    It's going to be interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cackalacky2.0
    replied
    Originally posted by ulukinatme View Post


    After the way the left has fought tooth and nail against Trump since 2016, including his justice nominations, I say push it through. The Kavanaugh situation was ridiculous. Feels like karma.
    I imagine that is what it must feel like. I’m just here for the gymnastics
    Last edited by Cackalacky2.0; 09-18-2020, 09:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish YJ
    replied
    Originally posted by 317Irish View Post
    One would think Collins, Jones, and Gardner are a few others to watch. YJ Iím not sure if December would work logistically? But I also think as long as Republicans get to 50 we will have another justice before the election. If net 4 say no then it will push on to 46 (or Jan 20)
    I'm honestly not sure of the timing either, but Nov28 to Dec20 is considered a legislative period. McConnell has done an incredible job on the courts in general, so I'm not going to bet against him. This will likely be one of the toughest of his battles, if not his toughest.

    Get your popcorn.


    Here's a list of their off periods.


    Feb 17 - Feb 21 State Work Period Presidents' Day - Feb 17
    Mar 16 - Mar 20 State Work Period
    Apr 6 - Apr 17 State Work Period
    May 25 - May 29 State Work Period Memorial Day - May 25
    Jul 3 - Jul 17 State Work Period Independence Day - Jul 4
    Aug 10 - Sep 7 State Work Period Labor Day - Sep 7
    Sep 28 - Sep 29 State Work Period
    Oct 12 - Nov 6 State Work Period Columbus Day - Oct 12
    Nov 11 Veterans Day
    Nov 23 - Nov 27 State Work Period Thanksgiving - Nov 26
    Dec 21 - Dec 31 State Work Period

    Leave a comment:


  • 317Irish
    replied
    Originally posted by ulukinatme View Post


    After the way the left has fought tooth and nail against Trump since 2016, including his justice nominations, I say push it through. The Kavanaugh situation was ridiculous. Feels like karma.
    Well placed GIF lol

    Leave a comment:


  • ulukinatme
    replied
    Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
    So no one wants to address Mitchís clear hypocrisy. Yíall GOP supporters gonna stand by and take the win?


    After the way the left has fought tooth and nail against Trump since 2016, including his justice nominations, I say push it through. The Kavanaugh situation was ridiculous. Feels like karma.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cackalacky2.0
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
    I addressed the Garland situation in the post I just made.

    Honest question. Do you not think the Dems would do the exact same thing in the same situation?
    You can’t justify it. Nope. THat is not at all what Mitch’s rule said.

    Leave a comment:


  • 317Irish
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
    That would have absolutely been the ideal time from a political perspective. But hindsight because you never know when you'll lose the super majority, or plain majority. Or a huge presidential upset.

    I've never liked the "for life" to be honest. I hate the lack of term limits across the board in the Senate, House, and SCOTUS. At minimum, should have an age limit of 80 or 85 for SCOTUS.





    I'm not sure why you would expect him to say anything different.

    On Garland, technically, it's a different situation. Even at 237, we knew Obama was a lame duck, we don't yet know that Trump is a lame duck. And with Garland, the Dems didn't have a majority. At this point, Trump is still president, eligible for a 2nd term, and his party has the Senate.



    We'll get a nominee IMO within 2 weeks. He's already got his list, and I'm guessing he'll be working with Mitch to pick the one that will make it hardest on the fringe 2-4 folks in the GOP to go against. If Mitch can get control of a few fringe folks, hearings could start and confirmation done in early December.

    I can't see Trump not nominating. I can see the process crashing if Mitch can't rally a few.
    One would think Collins, Jones, and Gardner are a few others to watch. YJ I’m not sure if December would work logistically? But I also think as long as Republicans get to 50 we will have another justice before the election. If net 4 say no then it will push on to 46 (or Jan 20)

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish YJ
    replied
    Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
    He held up Merrick Garland for 237 days.
    Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
    So no one wants to address Mitchís clear hypocrisy. Yíall GOP supporters gonna stand by and take the win?
    I addressed the Garland situation in the post I just made.

    Honest question. Do you not think the Dems would do the exact same thing in the same situation?

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish YJ
    replied
    Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
    Yeah she was diagnosed with cancer in 2009 and itís pretty odd she didnít step down when Democrats had a super majority in Obamaís first term. But when they say appointment for life, they mean for life.
    That would have absolutely been the ideal time from a political perspective. But hindsight because you never know when you'll lose the super majority, or plain majority. Or a huge presidential upset.

    I've never liked the "for life" to be honest. I hate the lack of term limits across the board in the Senate, House, and SCOTUS. At minimum, should have an age limit of 80 or 85 for SCOTUS.

    Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
    You talk about politics ..... RGB isnít even in the ground And he just said he is gonna have a vote. Lol. Murkowski says she wonít vote. Fair is fair. I wonder what you all think of that? Should he hold a vote when he held up Garland?

    How many GOP will not vote to confirm?

    Already Romney and Murkowski a no.
    Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
    Iím really interested in yíalls thoughts on Mitchís hypocrisy.

    Merrick Garland was nominated 237 days before the election.
    I'm not sure why you would expect him to say anything different.

    On Garland, technically, it's a different situation. Even at 237, we knew Obama was a lame duck, we don't yet know that Trump is a lame duck. And with Garland, the Dems didn't have a majority. At this point, Trump is still president, eligible for a 2nd term, and his party has the Senate.

    Originally posted by Bishop2b5 View Post
    Extremely unlikely we'll get a nominee, hearings, and a vote before the election. I'd be surprised if Trump even nominates anyone until after the election.
    We'll get a nominee IMO within 2 weeks. He's already got his list, and I'm guessing he'll be working with Mitch to pick the one that will make it hardest on the fringe 2-4 folks in the GOP to go against. If Mitch can get control of a few fringe folks, hearings could start and confirmation done in early December.

    I can't see Trump not nominating. I can see the process crashing if Mitch can't rally a few.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cackalacky2.0
    replied
    Originally posted by 317Irish View Post
    Cack, itís the political landscape nowadays. It is what it is. Iím more interested in how things will work if it rolls into the lame duck session? Could it potentially come down to the Supreme Court vote if Trump tries to pass it through in December? My mind is a little rusty on what happened when Obama tried to implement an executive order back in 2010.
    No sir. Mitch creates the rule last election he held up MG for 237 days. We are now at 50 days. If he tries it, and Dems win Senate and POTUS..... Dems should expand the SCOTUS to 11 and admit DC and PR as states.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cackalacky2.0
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
    I can't see a situation to be honest of it not happening. We all know both sides would do the same given the timing and situation. The average time from nomination to Senate vote is 67 days which easily puts it in the window, so not really a "ram". And we all know Trump won't take long to nominate.

    The only obstacle is those 2-4 Senators who are always on the fringes. I expect Trump to nominate a female, in an attempt to make it hard on those fringe folks. What also works against the dems, is her faith to an extent, given she'll be buried quickly (likely early next week). Had she been another faith, we'd likely see at least a few weeks of mourning and ceremony, which would have delayed a nomination. Or at least it would have looked bad to nominate prior to a funeral.
    He held up Merrick Garland for 237 days.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cackalacky2.0
    replied
    So no one wants to address Mitch’s clear hypocrisy. Y’all GOP supporters gonna stand by and take the win?

    Leave a comment:


  • 317Irish
    replied
    Originally posted by Bishop2b5 View Post
    Extremely unlikely we'll get a nominee, hearings, and a vote before the election. I'd be surprised if Trump even nominates anyone until after the election.
    You would be surprised if Trump doesn’t nominate someone before November 3rd?? He has to... this might shake things up one way or the other but he’s projected to lose... and not in the same way that he was in 2016

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish YJ
    replied
    Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
    Seems to me if Mitch tries to ram a judge through before inauguration. there may be blood in the streets.
    I can't see a situation to be honest of it not happening. We all know both sides would do the same given the timing and situation. The average time from nomination to Senate vote is 67 days which easily puts it in the window, so not really a "ram". And we all know Trump won't take long to nominate.

    The only obstacle is those 2-4 Senators who are always on the fringes. I expect Trump to nominate a female, in an attempt to make it hard on those fringe folks. What also works against the dems, is her faith to an extent, given she'll be buried quickly (likely early next week). Had she been another faith, we'd likely see at least a few weeks of mourning and ceremony, which would have delayed a nomination. Or at least it would have looked bad to nominate prior to a funeral.

    Leave a comment:


  • 317Irish
    replied
    Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
    I’m really interested in y’alls thoughts on Mitch’s hypocrisy.

    Merrick Garland was nominated 237 days before the election.
    Cack, it’s the political landscape nowadays. It is what it is. I’m more interested in how things will work if it rolls into the lame duck session? Could it potentially come down to the Supreme Court vote if Trump tries to pass it through in December? My mind is a little rusty on what happened when Obama tried to implement an executive order back in 2010.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cackalacky2.0
    replied
    I’m really interested in y’alls thoughts on Mitch’s hypocrisy.

    Merrick Garland was nominated 237 days before the election.
    Last edited by Cackalacky2.0; 09-18-2020, 08:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cackalacky2.0
    replied
    Originally posted by Bishop2b5 View Post
    Extremely unlikely we'll get a nominee, hearings, and a vote before the election. I'd be surprised if Trump even nominates anyone until after the election.
    Uh.... Mitch just said he will have a vote. Trump has already thrown out nominees last week. They no new this was coming. If Trump loses and it’s looking like the Senate is in jeopardy too, they will have a vote before inauguration

    Leave a comment:


  • Bishop2b5
    replied
    Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
    You talk about politics ..... RGB isnít even in the ground And he just said he is gonna have a vote. Lol. Murkowski says she wonít vote. Fair is fair. I wonder what you all think of that? Should he hold a vote when he held up Garland?

    How many GOP will not vote to confirm?

    Already Romney and Murkowski a no.
    Extremely unlikely we'll get a nominee, hearings, and a vote before the election. I'd be surprised if Trump even nominates anyone until after the election.

    Leave a comment:


  • IrishLax
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
    I believe she was asked later in 2015 ish as well.

    To be fair, I wouldn't call her selfish. Or at minimum, I think she fully assumed HRC would win in 2016 making it a moot issue anyway. I think she simply felt she had more work to do. I don't agree with her politically, but can't really blame her for not retiring so long as she thought her health did not compromise her ability to work.

    If removing politics (which you can't), she should have retired as soon she couldn't carry out her duties, and her health reached a certain point. But that would have been last year some time probably, and wasn't going to happen solely because of the politics.

    Just my opinion, and just spit balling... but I think she tried to leave politics out of it in 2008 and 2015 by staying. And then reinserted it fully at the last minute. I'd also bet she would have retired in 2015 had she known HRC would lose, or had she known her health would take a turn. But to be honest, she almost made it to 2020. Tough old bird. Always has been.
    Yeah she was diagnosed with cancer in 2009 and itís pretty odd she didnít step down when Democrats had a super majority in Obamaís first term. But when they say appointment for life, they mean for life.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cackalacky2.0
    replied
    You talk about politics ..... RGB isn’t even in the ground And he just said he is gonna have a vote. Lol. Murkowski says she won’t vote. Fair is fair. I wonder what you all think of that? Should he hold a vote when he held up Garland?

    How many GOP will not vote to confirm?

    Already Romney and Murkowski a no.
    Last edited by Cackalacky2.0; 09-18-2020, 08:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • sharksamardzija8345
    replied
    Originally posted by GATTACA! View Post
    RIP

    She was selfish and chose not to retire in 2008. Looks to be one of the worst political decision in decades.
    Stay classy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cackalacky2.0
    replied
    Seems to me if Mitch tries to ram a judge through before inauguration. there may be blood in the streets.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish YJ
    replied
    Originally posted by GATTACA! View Post
    RIP

    She was selfish and chose not to retire in 2008. Looks to be one of the worst political decision in decades.
    I believe she was asked later in 2015 ish as well.

    To be fair, I wouldn't call her selfish. Or at minimum, I think she fully assumed HRC would win in 2016 making it a moot issue anyway. I think she simply felt she had more work to do. I don't agree with her politically, but can't really blame her for not retiring so long as she thought her health did not compromise her ability to work.

    If removing politics (which you can't), she should have retired as soon she couldn't carry out her duties, and her health reached a certain point. But that would have been last year some time probably, and wasn't going to happen solely because of the politics.

    Just my opinion, and just spit balling... but I think she tried to leave politics out of it in 2008 and 2015 by staying. And then reinserted it fully at the last minute. I'd also bet she would have retired in 2015 had she known HRC would lose, or had she known her health would take a turn. But to be honest, she almost made it to 2020. Tough old bird. Always has been.

    Leave a comment:


  • 317Irish
    replied
    We can take a few things from Canada. I think deep down even she (or Scalia?) would recommend such a thing here in the U.S.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish YJ
    replied
    Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
    Shit was already turned up to 11. Now itís immeasurable.
    I thought it was immeasurable already. But yes, if it wasn't, it is now. I'm just waiting for aliens to show up now. It's about the only thing that hasn't happened (at least publicly).


    And her supposed dying words.

    ďMy most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,Ē Ginsburg said in parting statement she dictated days before her death Friday, to her granddaughter Clara Spera,
    Scripted obviously, and just shows the politicization of the court these days even by the actual judges themselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • GATTACA!
    replied
    RIP

    She was selfish and chose not to retire in 2008. Looks to be one of the worst political decision in decades.

    Leave a comment:


  • tadman95
    replied
    Originally posted by 317Irish View Post
    RIP to RBG. Iím pretty concerned about the repercussions of the dogfight that is about to occur. If anyone thought the Garland ordeal was bad and then was blown away by the Kavanaugh debacle, they havenít seen anything yet. I hope to be wrong.
    I hope you are wrong too but I doubt it. This is going to show the hypocrisy in our government.

    Vote them all Out!

    Rest in Peace RBG.

    Leave a comment:


  • 317Irish
    replied
    RIP to RBG. I’m pretty concerned about the repercussions of the dogfight that is about to occur. If anyone thought the Garland ordeal was bad and then was blown away by the Kavanaugh debacle, they haven’t seen anything yet. I hope to be wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • zelezo vlk
    replied
    Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord.

    Sent from my SM-J337U using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • Whiskeyjack
    replied
    https://twitter.com/SeanRMoorhead/st...714558465?s=09

    We are definitely in The Cool Zone now.

    Leave a comment:


  • tussin
    replied
    Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
    Shit was already turned up to 11. Now itís immeasurable.
    Will there be riots from this alone?

    Leave a comment:

Adsense

Collapse
Working...
X