Concerned about violent threats, not doing anything about peaceful protestors. Man that Garland is a crazy radical.Rawhide said:"Garland last fall argued some violent threats against school officials "could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism"Booray said:Man, you are tossing out the BS today.GrowlTowel said:Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?Booray said:Much more moderate than his two other picks. Which is why the GOP had no problem with him as a DC Circuit Appeals judge or AG. The "other side" (regardless of which side you are on) is not a monolith.Rawhide said:Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.Sam Lowry said:Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.RMF5630 said:Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.TWD 74 said:Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
Not doing a damn thing about prosecuting protesters in front the homes of Surpreme Court Justices
Where's the crackdown on illegals being arrested and charged?
Jan 6 committee
126,996 Views |
3026 Replies |
Last: 5 mo ago by Harrison Bergeron
Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...Booray said:You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.RMF5630 said:You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??Booray said:I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.RMF5630 said:Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?Booray said:Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.
Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?
And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.
How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.
Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.
The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.
Enjoy your life in fantasyland.
I'm not offended.Booray said:Redbrickbear said:Garland may not have ever said the exact words "domestic terrorists" in regards to parents but the DOJ under his command was investigating parents for speaking out at school board meetings.Booray said:Just because there are a lot of people who believe political lies does not mean you have to be one of them.GrowlTowel said:There was an entire gubernatorial election about it. Try again.Booray said:Man, you are tossing out the BS today.GrowlTowel said:Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?Booray said:Much more moderate than his two other picks. Which is why the GOP had no problem with him as a DC Circuit Appeals judge or AG. The "other side" (regardless of which side you are on) is not a monolith.Rawhide said:Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.Sam Lowry said:Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.RMF5630 said:Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.TWD 74 said:Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
This has been well reported on and documented.........
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/may/12/whistleblowers-fbi-probed-parents-under-counterter/
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fbi-whistleblowers-claim-agents-investigated-parents-accused-of-threatening-school-boards-over-mask-policies/
https://nypost.com/2022/05/12/fbi-tracked-parents-opposed-to-covid-policies-republicans-say/
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2022/may/republicans-offer-proof-of-fbi-targeting-parents-in-almost-every-region-for-speaking-out-at-school-board-meetings🚨 SMOKING GUN: Whistleblowers reveal the FBI has labeled dozens of investigations into parents with a threat tag created by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division pic.twitter.com/uDMd7x1no3
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) May 11, 2022
Also, part of the scandal is that this is a massive example of Federal overreach on Constitutional grounds. If (and its a big If) there were actual credible threats at local ISD meetings. Then that is something for State and local authorities to investigate and deal with. The Feds have no business getting involved in what is Constitutionally a local law and order issue.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
I am sorry if the FBI responding to threats of violence against local officials offends you, but that is part of its mission.
[url=http://www.flackcheck.org/][/url]
I just believe in the Constitution and the separation of powers.
If (and against it's a big if) there were actual "threats" from parents at local ISD meetings...then its a State and Local law enforcement issue.
Its not a matter for the Federal government or the FBI.
I think Garland knows that and the Department got fooled by liberal activists into getting involved in a local school issue that they later realized was a big mistake, huge jurisdictional overreach, and tried to walk it back.
Ignoring federal law.... yeah, nothing to see here.Booray said:Concerned about violent threats, not doing anything about peaceful protestors. Man that Garland is a crazy radical.Rawhide said:"Garland last fall argued some violent threats against school officials "could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism"Booray said:Man, you are tossing out the BS today.GrowlTowel said:Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?Booray said:Much more moderate than his two other picks. Which is why the GOP had no problem with him as a DC Circuit Appeals judge or AG. The "other side" (regardless of which side you are on) is not a monolith.Rawhide said:Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.Sam Lowry said:Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.RMF5630 said:Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.TWD 74 said:Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
Not doing a damn thing about prosecuting protesters in front the homes of Surpreme Court Justices
Where's the crackdown on illegals being arrested and charged?
The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.RMF5630 said:Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...Booray said:You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.RMF5630 said:You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??Booray said:I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.RMF5630 said:Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?Booray said:Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.
Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?
And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.
How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.
Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.
The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.
Enjoy your life in fantasyland.
All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol
Was not a great look that his son-in-law owns a company that monetizes radical school programs.Redbrickbear said:
I think Garland knows that and the Department got fooled by liberal activists into getting involved in a local school issue that they later realized was a big mistake, huge jurisdictional overreach, and tried to walk it back.
https://nypost.com/2021/10/13/critical-race-theory-firm-linked-to-ag-garlands-kin-serves-schoolscompany-co-founded-by-ag-garlands-son-in-law-serves-over-20k-schools/Harrison Bergeron said:Was not a great look that his son-in-law owns a company that monetizes radical school programs.Redbrickbear said:
I think Garland knows that and the Department got fooled by liberal activists into getting involved in a local school issue that they later realized was a big mistake, huge jurisdictional overreach, and tried to walk it back.
Yep, his son had a vested interest in selling the kind of books/curriculum/materials influenced by CRT adjacent ideology that fueled the school protests in the first place.
A threat of violence against a government official meant to influence policy, even if the official is state or local, is a federal crime. See 18 USC Sec. 2331(5)(b)(2), defining such activity as domestic terrorism. It is squarely in the FBI's jurisdiction.Redbrickbear said:I'm not offended.Booray said:Just ignore reality:Redbrickbear said:Garland may not have ever said the exact words "domestic terrorists" in regards to parents but the DOJ under his command was investigating parents for speaking out at school board meetings.Booray said:Just because there are a lot of people who believe political lies does not mean you have to be one of them.GrowlTowel said:There was an entire gubernatorial election about it. Try again.Booray said:Man, you are tossing out the BS today.GrowlTowel said:Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?Booray said:Much more moderate than his two other picks. Which is why the GOP had no problem with him as a DC Circuit Appeals judge or AG. The "other side" (regardless of which side you are on) is not a monolith.Rawhide said:Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.Sam Lowry said:Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.RMF5630 said:Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.TWD 74 said:Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
This has been well reported on and documented.........
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/may/12/whistleblowers-fbi-probed-parents-under-counterter/
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fbi-whistleblowers-claim-agents-investigated-parents-accused-of-threatening-school-boards-over-mask-policies/
https://nypost.com/2022/05/12/fbi-tracked-parents-opposed-to-covid-policies-republicans-say/
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2022/may/republicans-offer-proof-of-fbi-targeting-parents-in-almost-every-region-for-speaking-out-at-school-board-meetings🚨 SMOKING GUN: Whistleblowers reveal the FBI has labeled dozens of investigations into parents with a threat tag created by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division pic.twitter.com/uDMd7x1no3
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) May 11, 2022
Also, part of the scandal is that this is a massive example of Federal overreach on Constitutional grounds. If (and its a big If) there were actual credible threats at local ISD meetings. Then that is something for State and local authorities to investigate and deal with. The Feds have no business getting involved in what is Constitutionally a local law and order issue.
The following month, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan sent a letter to Garland saying that information from a Justice Department whistleblower called into question the accuracy of Garland's testimony that "the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation were not using federal counterterrorism tools to target concerned parents at local school board meetings."
Jordan said a "protected disclosure" from the whistleblower showed "that the FBI's Counterterrorism Division is compiling and categorizing threat assessments related to parents, including a document directing FBI personnel to use a specific 'threat tag' to track potential investigations."
Specifically, Jordan cited an FBI email that said in response to Garland's Oct. 4 memo, "the Counterterrorism and Criminal Divisions created a threat tag, EDUOFFICIALS, to track instances of related threats." It directed FBI offices to apply that threat tag to "investigations and assessments of threats specifically directed against school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff."
According to Jordan, "This disclosure provides specific evidence that federal law enforcement operationalized counterterrorism tools at the behest of a left-wing special interest group against concerned parents."
But the email does not say that the FBI ought to apply tags to parents merely speaking out at school board meetings. Rather, the practice applies only to cases of "violence, threats of violence, and other forms of intimidation and harassment" directed at school officials.
To summarize: Garland's memo never labeled parents speaking at school board meetings "domestic terrorists." In congressional testimony, Garland made clear that he considered parents voicing concerns at school board meetings to be protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech.
And the attorney general said that he could not "imagine a circumstance" where "parents complaining" at a school board meeting would be "labeled as domestic terrorism." Rather, as his memo made clear, the Justice Department was solely focused on addressing threats of violence against school officials. That focus was affirmed in the FBI email released by Jordan.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
I am sorry if the FBI responding to threats of violence against local officials offends you, but that is part of its mission.
[url=http://www.flackcheck.org/][/url]
I just believe in the Constitution and the separation of powers.
If (and against it's a big if) there were actual "threats" from parents at local ISD meetings...then its a State and Local law enforcement issue.
Its not a matter for the Federal government or the FBI.
I think Garland knows that and the Department got fooled by liberal activists into getting involved in a local school issue that they later realized was a big mistake, huge jurisdictional overreach, and tried to walk it back.
Which federal law is he ignoring?Rawhide said:Ignoring federal law.... yeah, nothing to see here.Booray said:Concerned about violent threats, not doing anything about peaceful protestors. Man that Garland is a crazy radical.Rawhide said:"Garland last fall argued some violent threats against school officials "could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism"Booray said:Man, you are tossing out the BS today.GrowlTowel said:Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?Booray said:Much more moderate than his two other picks. Which is why the GOP had no problem with him as a DC Circuit Appeals judge or AG. The "other side" (regardless of which side you are on) is not a monolith.Rawhide said:Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.Sam Lowry said:Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.RMF5630 said:Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.TWD 74 said:Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
Not doing a damn thing about prosecuting protesters in front the homes of Surpreme Court Justices
Where's the crackdown on illegals being arrested and charged?
OK. Now find a mirror and read that same statement to yourself,Booray said:Just because there are a lot of people who believe political lies does not mean you have to be one of them.GrowlTowel said:There was an entire gubernatorial election about it. Try again.Booray said:Man, you are tossing out the BS today.GrowlTowel said:Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?Booray said:Much more moderate than his two other picks. Which is why the GOP had no problem with him as a DC Circuit Appeals judge or AG. The "other side" (regardless of which side you are on) is not a monolith.Rawhide said:Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.Sam Lowry said:Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.RMF5630 said:Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.TWD 74 said:Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Do you have proof that parents were actually threating violence against any school admins?Booray said:A threat of violence against a government official meant to influence policy, even if the official is state or local, is a federal crime. See 18 USC Sec. 2331(5)(b)(2), defining such activity as domestic terrorism. It is squarely in the FBI's jurisdiction.Redbrickbear said:I'm not offended.Booray said:Just ignore reality:Redbrickbear said:Garland may not have ever said the exact words "domestic terrorists" in regards to parents but the DOJ under his command was investigating parents for speaking out at school board meetings.Booray said:Just because there are a lot of people who believe political lies does not mean you have to be one of them.GrowlTowel said:There was an entire gubernatorial election about it. Try again.Booray said:Man, you are tossing out the BS today.GrowlTowel said:Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?Booray said:Much more moderate than his two other picks. Which is why the GOP had no problem with him as a DC Circuit Appeals judge or AG. The "other side" (regardless of which side you are on) is not a monolith.Rawhide said:Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.Sam Lowry said:Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.RMF5630 said:Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.TWD 74 said:Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
This has been well reported on and documented.........
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/may/12/whistleblowers-fbi-probed-parents-under-counterter/
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fbi-whistleblowers-claim-agents-investigated-parents-accused-of-threatening-school-boards-over-mask-policies/
https://nypost.com/2022/05/12/fbi-tracked-parents-opposed-to-covid-policies-republicans-say/
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2022/may/republicans-offer-proof-of-fbi-targeting-parents-in-almost-every-region-for-speaking-out-at-school-board-meetings🚨 SMOKING GUN: Whistleblowers reveal the FBI has labeled dozens of investigations into parents with a threat tag created by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division pic.twitter.com/uDMd7x1no3
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) May 11, 2022
Also, part of the scandal is that this is a massive example of Federal overreach on Constitutional grounds. If (and its a big If) there were actual credible threats at local ISD meetings. Then that is something for State and local authorities to investigate and deal with. The Feds have no business getting involved in what is Constitutionally a local law and order issue.
The following month, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan sent a letter to Garland saying that information from a Justice Department whistleblower called into question the accuracy of Garland's testimony that "the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation were not using federal counterterrorism tools to target concerned parents at local school board meetings."
Jordan said a "protected disclosure" from the whistleblower showed "that the FBI's Counterterrorism Division is compiling and categorizing threat assessments related to parents, including a document directing FBI personnel to use a specific 'threat tag' to track potential investigations."
Specifically, Jordan cited an FBI email that said in response to Garland's Oct. 4 memo, "the Counterterrorism and Criminal Divisions created a threat tag, EDUOFFICIALS, to track instances of related threats." It directed FBI offices to apply that threat tag to "investigations and assessments of threats specifically directed against school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff."
According to Jordan, "This disclosure provides specific evidence that federal law enforcement operationalized counterterrorism tools at the behest of a left-wing special interest group against concerned parents."
But the email does not say that the FBI ought to apply tags to parents merely speaking out at school board meetings. Rather, the practice applies only to cases of "violence, threats of violence, and other forms of intimidation and harassment" directed at school officials.
To summarize: Garland's memo never labeled parents speaking at school board meetings "domestic terrorists." In congressional testimony, Garland made clear that he considered parents voicing concerns at school board meetings to be protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech.
And the attorney general said that he could not "imagine a circumstance" where "parents complaining" at a school board meeting would be "labeled as domestic terrorism." Rather, as his memo made clear, the Justice Department was solely focused on addressing threats of violence against school officials. That focus was affirmed in the FBI email released by Jordan.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
I am sorry if the FBI responding to threats of violence against local officials offends you, but that is part of its mission.
[url=http://www.flackcheck.org/][/url]
I just believe in the Constitution and the separation of powers.
If (and against it's a big if) there were actual "threats" from parents at local ISD meetings...then its a State and Local law enforcement issue.
Its not a matter for the Federal government or the FBI.
I think Garland knows that and the Department got fooled by liberal activists into getting involved in a local school issue that they later realized was a big mistake, huge jurisdictional overreach, and tried to walk it back.
I have seen the media and partisan activists throw this term around....but never seen it proven.
It sounds like the kind of thing an activist would say to discredit the parents involved in the protests and to get the matter taken up by the Feds vs State/local officials who did not seem to believe threats were taking place.
Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.Doc Holliday said:The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.RMF5630 said:Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...Booray said:You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.RMF5630 said:You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??Booray said:I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.RMF5630 said:Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?Booray said:Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.
Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?
And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.
How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.
Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.
The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.
Enjoy your life in fantasyland.
All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol
Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,
That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.
You are being ridiculously melodramatic. The Republicans do not pose an existential challenge to our democracy. I think you know better, just as you knew better than to label me as someone willing to trade democracy for comfort. Let's cut the partisan rhetoric.Booray said:Opposing someone who tried to destroy our democracy doesn't strike me as deranged.Mothra said:Rawhide said:He's not confused. He's just another dishonest troll looking for bananasMothra said:What are you talking about? I think what Trump did on January 6th was despicable. I've said his attempts to subvert the election results should ruin any future political aspirations. I've said I hope he leaves and never returns. I literally cannot stand the man.Booray said:Guy Noir said:I have never stated any support for the current administration. I prefer Republican Policies over the current "Progressive" programs.Mothra said:Guy Noir said:What conservative values are you talking about? Are you talking about spending. Trump did nothing to balance the budget. Are you talking about monetary policy? Trump applied pressure on Powell to keep interest rates low and kept the Obama quantitative easing policy in place. I believe this is some of the foundation that has brought us high inflation, now. I realize the Democrats have kicked spending into high gear causing high inflation to become an acute problem, but Trump did contribute a little to the problem.Mothra said:Guy Noir said:
I watched the hearing and I am surprised because.
1. People still support Trump even though he aligns himself with White Supremacist groups.
2. Trump did incite the protests with his public communications.
3. Some people downplay an attack on Congress.
I have been a Republican all my life but I cannot support any candidate aligned with Trump. I cannot support the Democratic Candidates either.
Then you deserve ****ty govt that's the antithesis of conservative values.
Mothra, you have presented very few facts and a lot of biased opinion. Did you watch the hearing? Liz Cheney has shown integrity the last several months. Standing up for the truth of this event will cost her politically. When you label her a war monger like her father that is a cheap and untrue argument.
Are you seriously trying to argue that the country under Biden hasn't taken a serious turn to the left? Do I really need to point out the obvious for you? It shocks me how glib some of you are. Here ya go:
Our borders are basically open right now. Biden is doing nothing to stop the influx. Zero. Trump at the very least tried to make it more difficult. Biden is simply saying come on over. We've had a city the size of Dallas cross the border since Biden took office.
Spending is out of control. You thought Trump was bad, let's talk about the handouts under Biden. Let's talk about build back better. Pork and more pork. It's out of control.
Energy policy has been a total disaster. Biden is not allowing new drilling. He's shutting down pipelines. He's allowing OPEC to dictate supply. As a result we have our highest gas prices ever. Ever.
How about transgender rights. His first couple of weeks in office Biden signs an executive order forcing schools to allow transgender athletes to compete against biological women.
Let's talk foreign policy. Trump adhered to the old Reagan adage of walking softly and carrying a big stick. With Biden, we've already had our fall of Saigon moment in Afghanistan with that disastrous pull out. North Korea is testing nuclear weapons again. And we are closer to war with Russia than at any point since the 80s. It's 1980 all over again.
And of course there are the labor shortages, the food shortages, the gas shortages - it's basically Carter 2.0.
Now tell me something, Guy. Did I really have to point these things out for you? Are you really paying that little attention to what's going on in the world around you? Surely you knew all of the above, right? You're not this glib.
I am no fan of trump and agree with you he was not fiscal conservative. But any conservative who thinks his policies weren't far superior to the current liberal **** show has his head up his ass. Either you are simply not paying a lick of attention or you're just not a conservative.
As for Cheney, she was one of her father's - a bloodthirsty warmonger and liar who got us into the Iraq war - biggest cheerleaders. She has defended him and the Iraq war on numerous occasions. Do a quick google search. There are numerous interviews of her on this subject.
I am thankful that she doesn't have a chance in hell of ever being president.
I am a fiscal conservative. I am not sure what the conservative platform is anymore. If it is white supremacy, then I do not support that. The Jan 6th event is separate from the Biden Administration Activities.
I think the January 6th events were a serious challenge to the USA Federal Government election process. If Trump would have gotten Pence to throw out the election results while using the riots as a statement of public opinion to justify stopping the transfer of power we might still be waiting to have a new election. Trump could have remained in power for an indeterminate amount of time. (Didn't this happen in Venezuela?)
I ask for the 3rd time. Did you watch the hearing? or did you have your mind already made up. It was a well presented argument.
Unlike you, Mothra is willing to trade democracy for comfort. When democracy results in policies that hurt his pocket book or offend his religious views he becomes ok with the idea of stealing the government.
Unfortunately, the country currently has about 50 million Mothra's.
The point I was making with Guy Noir was different. I was responding to his point about not being able to vote for republicans in the near future, why voting for trump the last election cycle was the right thing to do for conservatives. And we are seeing why I was right with each passing day, given the **** show you voted for.
You are clearly confused.
Booray used to be one of the more honest and reasonable posters. Apparently Trump has deranged him as well.
My comment towards you is based on the sentiments you express. While you appropriately distance yourself from Trump you seem unconcerned that the GOP is unwilling to do the same thing. It is one thing to not impeach a President; it is another to exhibit lapdog loyalty to a former president psycho whose sole focus is non-existent election fraud.
Our system of government can withstand anything except a loss of belief by the citizenry. Yet the current GOP are not just spectators to Trump's campaign to destroy that belief, they are active participants in his plan. The Biden administration and the left present many problems in the way they govern, but none of those problems are existential. Trump's and the GOP's challenge to our democracy is existential.
I vote on policy, and I think if you're honest, you would admit that the policies of the Biden admin have been severely detrimental to the country - more detrimental that Trump's bogus election fraud claims, and more bogus than the little January 6th skirmish.
No, I don't have any proof. And Merrick Garland was very clear-the FBI would look at threats of violence, but protests against CRT, BLM, social-emotional learning, etc. do not qualify as threats.Redbrickbear said:Do you have proof that parents were actually threating violence against any school admins?Booray said:A threat of violence against a government official meant to influence policy, even if the official is state or local, is a federal crime. See 18 USC Sec. 2331(5)(b)(2), defining such activity as domestic terrorism. It is squarely in the FBI's jurisdiction.Redbrickbear said:I'm not offended.Booray said:Just ignore reality:Redbrickbear said:Garland may not have ever said the exact words "domestic terrorists" in regards to parents but the DOJ under his command was investigating parents for speaking out at school board meetings.Booray said:Just because there are a lot of people who believe political lies does not mean you have to be one of them.GrowlTowel said:There was an entire gubernatorial election about it. Try again.Booray said:Man, you are tossing out the BS today.GrowlTowel said:Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?Booray said:Much more moderate than his two other picks. Which is why the GOP had no problem with him as a DC Circuit Appeals judge or AG. The "other side" (regardless of which side you are on) is not a monolith.Rawhide said:Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.Sam Lowry said:Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.RMF5630 said:Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.TWD 74 said:Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
This has been well reported on and documented.........
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/may/12/whistleblowers-fbi-probed-parents-under-counterter/
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fbi-whistleblowers-claim-agents-investigated-parents-accused-of-threatening-school-boards-over-mask-policies/
https://nypost.com/2022/05/12/fbi-tracked-parents-opposed-to-covid-policies-republicans-say/
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2022/may/republicans-offer-proof-of-fbi-targeting-parents-in-almost-every-region-for-speaking-out-at-school-board-meetings🚨 SMOKING GUN: Whistleblowers reveal the FBI has labeled dozens of investigations into parents with a threat tag created by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division pic.twitter.com/uDMd7x1no3
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) May 11, 2022
Also, part of the scandal is that this is a massive example of Federal overreach on Constitutional grounds. If (and its a big If) there were actual credible threats at local ISD meetings. Then that is something for State and local authorities to investigate and deal with. The Feds have no business getting involved in what is Constitutionally a local law and order issue.
The following month, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan sent a letter to Garland saying that information from a Justice Department whistleblower called into question the accuracy of Garland's testimony that "the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation were not using federal counterterrorism tools to target concerned parents at local school board meetings."
Jordan said a "protected disclosure" from the whistleblower showed "that the FBI's Counterterrorism Division is compiling and categorizing threat assessments related to parents, including a document directing FBI personnel to use a specific 'threat tag' to track potential investigations."
Specifically, Jordan cited an FBI email that said in response to Garland's Oct. 4 memo, "the Counterterrorism and Criminal Divisions created a threat tag, EDUOFFICIALS, to track instances of related threats." It directed FBI offices to apply that threat tag to "investigations and assessments of threats specifically directed against school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff."
According to Jordan, "This disclosure provides specific evidence that federal law enforcement operationalized counterterrorism tools at the behest of a left-wing special interest group against concerned parents."
But the email does not say that the FBI ought to apply tags to parents merely speaking out at school board meetings. Rather, the practice applies only to cases of "violence, threats of violence, and other forms of intimidation and harassment" directed at school officials.
To summarize: Garland's memo never labeled parents speaking at school board meetings "domestic terrorists." In congressional testimony, Garland made clear that he considered parents voicing concerns at school board meetings to be protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech.
And the attorney general said that he could not "imagine a circumstance" where "parents complaining" at a school board meeting would be "labeled as domestic terrorism." Rather, as his memo made clear, the Justice Department was solely focused on addressing threats of violence against school officials. That focus was affirmed in the FBI email released by Jordan.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
I am sorry if the FBI responding to threats of violence against local officials offends you, but that is part of its mission.
[url=http://www.flackcheck.org/][/url]
I just believe in the Constitution and the separation of powers.
If (and against it's a big if) there were actual "threats" from parents at local ISD meetings...then its a State and Local law enforcement issue.
Its not a matter for the Federal government or the FBI.
I think Garland knows that and the Department got fooled by liberal activists into getting involved in a local school issue that they later realized was a big mistake, huge jurisdictional overreach, and tried to walk it back.
I have seen the media and partisan activists throw this term around....but never seen it proven.
It sounds like the kind of thing an activist would say to discredit the parents involved in the protests and to get the matter taken up by the Feds vs State/local officials who did not seem to believe threats were taking place.
The GOP is unwilling to stand up and say: what Donald Trump after the election results were clear and continues to do today is wrong. In fact the party ostracizes anyone who says that. The evidence is right on front of your face that Trump and an army of conspiracy addled nuts actively tried to create fake state electors and force Mike Pence to declare Trump won. A huge number of people believe that is what should have happened.Mothra said:You are being ridiculously melodramatic. The Republicans do not pose an existential challenge to our democracy. I think you know better, just as you knew better than to label me as someone willing to trade democracy for comfort. Let's cut the partisan rhetoric.Booray said:Opposing someone who tried to destroy our democracy doesn't strike me as deranged.Mothra said:Rawhide said:He's not confused. He's just another dishonest troll looking for bananasMothra said:What are you talking about? I think what Trump did on January 6th was despicable. I've said his attempts to subvert the election results should ruin any future political aspirations. I've said I hope he leaves and never returns. I literally cannot stand the man.Booray said:Guy Noir said:I have never stated any support for the current administration. I prefer Republican Policies over the current "Progressive" programs.Mothra said:Guy Noir said:What conservative values are you talking about? Are you talking about spending. Trump did nothing to balance the budget. Are you talking about monetary policy? Trump applied pressure on Powell to keep interest rates low and kept the Obama quantitative easing policy in place. I believe this is some of the foundation that has brought us high inflation, now. I realize the Democrats have kicked spending into high gear causing high inflation to become an acute problem, but Trump did contribute a little to the problem.Mothra said:Guy Noir said:
I watched the hearing and I am surprised because.
1. People still support Trump even though he aligns himself with White Supremacist groups.
2. Trump did incite the protests with his public communications.
3. Some people downplay an attack on Congress.
I have been a Republican all my life but I cannot support any candidate aligned with Trump. I cannot support the Democratic Candidates either.
Then you deserve ****ty govt that's the antithesis of conservative values.
Mothra, you have presented very few facts and a lot of biased opinion. Did you watch the hearing? Liz Cheney has shown integrity the last several months. Standing up for the truth of this event will cost her politically. When you label her a war monger like her father that is a cheap and untrue argument.
Are you seriously trying to argue that the country under Biden hasn't taken a serious turn to the left? Do I really need to point out the obvious for you? It shocks me how glib some of you are. Here ya go:
Our borders are basically open right now. Biden is doing nothing to stop the influx. Zero. Trump at the very least tried to make it more difficult. Biden is simply saying come on over. We've had a city the size of Dallas cross the border since Biden took office.
Spending is out of control. You thought Trump was bad, let's talk about the handouts under Biden. Let's talk about build back better. Pork and more pork. It's out of control.
Energy policy has been a total disaster. Biden is not allowing new drilling. He's shutting down pipelines. He's allowing OPEC to dictate supply. As a result we have our highest gas prices ever. Ever.
How about transgender rights. His first couple of weeks in office Biden signs an executive order forcing schools to allow transgender athletes to compete against biological women.
Let's talk foreign policy. Trump adhered to the old Reagan adage of walking softly and carrying a big stick. With Biden, we've already had our fall of Saigon moment in Afghanistan with that disastrous pull out. North Korea is testing nuclear weapons again. And we are closer to war with Russia than at any point since the 80s. It's 1980 all over again.
And of course there are the labor shortages, the food shortages, the gas shortages - it's basically Carter 2.0.
Now tell me something, Guy. Did I really have to point these things out for you? Are you really paying that little attention to what's going on in the world around you? Surely you knew all of the above, right? You're not this glib.
I am no fan of trump and agree with you he was not fiscal conservative. But any conservative who thinks his policies weren't far superior to the current liberal **** show has his head up his ass. Either you are simply not paying a lick of attention or you're just not a conservative.
As for Cheney, she was one of her father's - a bloodthirsty warmonger and liar who got us into the Iraq war - biggest cheerleaders. She has defended him and the Iraq war on numerous occasions. Do a quick google search. There are numerous interviews of her on this subject.
I am thankful that she doesn't have a chance in hell of ever being president.
I am a fiscal conservative. I am not sure what the conservative platform is anymore. If it is white supremacy, then I do not support that. The Jan 6th event is separate from the Biden Administration Activities.
I think the January 6th events were a serious challenge to the USA Federal Government election process. If Trump would have gotten Pence to throw out the election results while using the riots as a statement of public opinion to justify stopping the transfer of power we might still be waiting to have a new election. Trump could have remained in power for an indeterminate amount of time. (Didn't this happen in Venezuela?)
I ask for the 3rd time. Did you watch the hearing? or did you have your mind already made up. It was a well presented argument.
Unlike you, Mothra is willing to trade democracy for comfort. When democracy results in policies that hurt his pocket book or offend his religious views he becomes ok with the idea of stealing the government.
Unfortunately, the country currently has about 50 million Mothra's.
The point I was making with Guy Noir was different. I was responding to his point about not being able to vote for republicans in the near future, why voting for trump the last election cycle was the right thing to do for conservatives. And we are seeing why I was right with each passing day, given the **** show you voted for.
You are clearly confused.
Booray used to be one of the more honest and reasonable posters. Apparently Trump has deranged him as well.
My comment towards you is based on the sentiments you express. While you appropriately distance yourself from Trump you seem unconcerned that the GOP is unwilling to do the same thing. It is one thing to not impeach a President; it is another to exhibit lapdog loyalty to a former president psycho whose sole focus is non-existent election fraud.
Our system of government can withstand anything except a loss of belief by the citizenry. Yet the current GOP are not just spectators to Trump's campaign to destroy that belief, they are active participants in his plan. The Biden administration and the left present many problems in the way they govern, but none of those problems are existential. Trump's and the GOP's challenge to our democracy is existential.
I vote on policy, and I think if you're honest, you would admit that the policies of the Biden admin have been severely detrimental to the country - more detrimental that Trump's bogus election fraud claims, and more bogus than the little January 6th skirmish.
I am not being melodramatic, you are minimizing because you do not want to endanger policies that threaten your cultural preferences or your pocketbook.
I vote policies also. The number one policy for me is the preservation of democracy and the rule of law.
To try and halt a congressional procedure and demand there be a legitimate investigation over the 2020 election is "overturning an election". Wow. Just wow. I would say better than 99% of those rowdy tourists just wanted to be heard.Booray said:Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.Doc Holliday said:The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.RMF5630 said:Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...Booray said:You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.RMF5630 said:You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??Booray said:I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.RMF5630 said:Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?Booray said:Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.
Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?
And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.
How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.
Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.
The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.
Enjoy your life in fantasyland.
All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol
Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,
That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.
A different outcome is perhaps what they hoped, but by God man, if that's your bar then the wacko liberals should've been hauled off as insurrectionists when they tried to disrupt and halt the confirmation of Kavanaugh.
With all due respect, I think you are. The election is over. January 6th is over. There are no valid claims of election fraud sufficient to overturn the election. That is why you don't see a single Republican member of Congress continuing to harp on those theories. Even the wingnuts have shut up about it.Booray said:The GOP is unwilling to stand up and say: what Donald Trump after the election results were clear and continues to do today is wrong. In fact the party ostracizes anyone who says that. The evidence is right on front of your face that Trump and an army of conspiracy addled nuts actively tried to create fake state electors and force Mike Pence to declare Trump won. A huge number of people believe that is what should have happened.Mothra said:You are being ridiculously melodramatic. The Republicans do not pose an existential challenge to our democracy. I think you know better, just as you knew better than to label me as someone willing to trade democracy for comfort. Let's cut the partisan rhetoric.Booray said:Opposing someone who tried to destroy our democracy doesn't strike me as deranged.Mothra said:Rawhide said:He's not confused. He's just another dishonest troll looking for bananasMothra said:What are you talking about? I think what Trump did on January 6th was despicable. I've said his attempts to subvert the election results should ruin any future political aspirations. I've said I hope he leaves and never returns. I literally cannot stand the man.Booray said:Guy Noir said:I have never stated any support for the current administration. I prefer Republican Policies over the current "Progressive" programs.Mothra said:Guy Noir said:What conservative values are you talking about? Are you talking about spending. Trump did nothing to balance the budget. Are you talking about monetary policy? Trump applied pressure on Powell to keep interest rates low and kept the Obama quantitative easing policy in place. I believe this is some of the foundation that has brought us high inflation, now. I realize the Democrats have kicked spending into high gear causing high inflation to become an acute problem, but Trump did contribute a little to the problem.Mothra said:Guy Noir said:
I watched the hearing and I am surprised because.
1. People still support Trump even though he aligns himself with White Supremacist groups.
2. Trump did incite the protests with his public communications.
3. Some people downplay an attack on Congress.
I have been a Republican all my life but I cannot support any candidate aligned with Trump. I cannot support the Democratic Candidates either.
Then you deserve ****ty govt that's the antithesis of conservative values.
Mothra, you have presented very few facts and a lot of biased opinion. Did you watch the hearing? Liz Cheney has shown integrity the last several months. Standing up for the truth of this event will cost her politically. When you label her a war monger like her father that is a cheap and untrue argument.
Are you seriously trying to argue that the country under Biden hasn't taken a serious turn to the left? Do I really need to point out the obvious for you? It shocks me how glib some of you are. Here ya go:
Our borders are basically open right now. Biden is doing nothing to stop the influx. Zero. Trump at the very least tried to make it more difficult. Biden is simply saying come on over. We've had a city the size of Dallas cross the border since Biden took office.
Spending is out of control. You thought Trump was bad, let's talk about the handouts under Biden. Let's talk about build back better. Pork and more pork. It's out of control.
Energy policy has been a total disaster. Biden is not allowing new drilling. He's shutting down pipelines. He's allowing OPEC to dictate supply. As a result we have our highest gas prices ever. Ever.
How about transgender rights. His first couple of weeks in office Biden signs an executive order forcing schools to allow transgender athletes to compete against biological women.
Let's talk foreign policy. Trump adhered to the old Reagan adage of walking softly and carrying a big stick. With Biden, we've already had our fall of Saigon moment in Afghanistan with that disastrous pull out. North Korea is testing nuclear weapons again. And we are closer to war with Russia than at any point since the 80s. It's 1980 all over again.
And of course there are the labor shortages, the food shortages, the gas shortages - it's basically Carter 2.0.
Now tell me something, Guy. Did I really have to point these things out for you? Are you really paying that little attention to what's going on in the world around you? Surely you knew all of the above, right? You're not this glib.
I am no fan of trump and agree with you he was not fiscal conservative. But any conservative who thinks his policies weren't far superior to the current liberal **** show has his head up his ass. Either you are simply not paying a lick of attention or you're just not a conservative.
As for Cheney, she was one of her father's - a bloodthirsty warmonger and liar who got us into the Iraq war - biggest cheerleaders. She has defended him and the Iraq war on numerous occasions. Do a quick google search. There are numerous interviews of her on this subject.
I am thankful that she doesn't have a chance in hell of ever being president.
I am a fiscal conservative. I am not sure what the conservative platform is anymore. If it is white supremacy, then I do not support that. The Jan 6th event is separate from the Biden Administration Activities.
I think the January 6th events were a serious challenge to the USA Federal Government election process. If Trump would have gotten Pence to throw out the election results while using the riots as a statement of public opinion to justify stopping the transfer of power we might still be waiting to have a new election. Trump could have remained in power for an indeterminate amount of time. (Didn't this happen in Venezuela?)
I ask for the 3rd time. Did you watch the hearing? or did you have your mind already made up. It was a well presented argument.
Unlike you, Mothra is willing to trade democracy for comfort. When democracy results in policies that hurt his pocket book or offend his religious views he becomes ok with the idea of stealing the government.
Unfortunately, the country currently has about 50 million Mothra's.
The point I was making with Guy Noir was different. I was responding to his point about not being able to vote for republicans in the near future, why voting for trump the last election cycle was the right thing to do for conservatives. And we are seeing why I was right with each passing day, given the **** show you voted for.
You are clearly confused.
Booray used to be one of the more honest and reasonable posters. Apparently Trump has deranged him as well.
My comment towards you is based on the sentiments you express. While you appropriately distance yourself from Trump you seem unconcerned that the GOP is unwilling to do the same thing. It is one thing to not impeach a President; it is another to exhibit lapdog loyalty to a former president psycho whose sole focus is non-existent election fraud.
Our system of government can withstand anything except a loss of belief by the citizenry. Yet the current GOP are not just spectators to Trump's campaign to destroy that belief, they are active participants in his plan. The Biden administration and the left present many problems in the way they govern, but none of those problems are existential. Trump's and the GOP's challenge to our democracy is existential.
I vote on policy, and I think if you're honest, you would admit that the policies of the Biden admin have been severely detrimental to the country - more detrimental that Trump's bogus election fraud claims, and more bogus than the little January 6th skirmish.
I am not being melodramatic, you are minimizing because you do not want to endanger policies that threaten your cultural preferences or your pocketbook.
I vote policies also. The number one policy for me is the preservation of democracy and the rule of law.
Trump remains an extremely popular person with millions of Americans, which is why you don't see mass condemnation of him by Republicans. I am sure you would love them to do so, as it would help your party of choice, but that's just not going to happen.
I am not just talking about January 6, which was bad enough. Trying to install fake electors, trying to force Mike pence into being a king maker, making up all sorts of bogus claims preceded and resulted in January 6th. Continuing the ridiculous story after failing in every conceivable recount, court case continues the harm from January 6th.Rawhide said:To try and halt a congressional procedure and demand there be a legitimate investigation over the 2020 election is "overturning an election". Wow. Just wow. I would say better than 99% of those rowdy tourists just wanted to be heard.Booray said:Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.Doc Holliday said:The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.RMF5630 said:Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...Booray said:You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.RMF5630 said:You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??Booray said:I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.RMF5630 said:Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?Booray said:Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.
Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?
And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.
How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.
Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.
The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.
Enjoy your life in fantasyland.
All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol
Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,
That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.
A different outcome is perhaps what they hoped, but by God man, if that's your bar then the wacko liberals should've been hauled off as insurrectionists when they tried to disrupt and halt the confirmation of Kavanaugh.
The rule of law allows us a multitude of ways to demand :legitimate investigations." Trump and the spineless majority of the GOP are not interested in those things, preferring propaganda, conspiracy theory and mob rule.
Just ignore everything we have learned about Biden's "win" since November 2020.
Booray sees only Eeeeeeeeevil Trump.
There are damn good reasons for Americans to believe this election was stolen, and all the false innocence of Donkey cheerleaders won't change any of them.
Booray sees only Eeeeeeeeevil Trump.
There are damn good reasons for Americans to believe this election was stolen, and all the false innocence of Donkey cheerleaders won't change any of them.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
— THAT SOUTHERN DUDE (@TSDmemes) June 12, 2022
AG candidates in 14 states are election deniers: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/election-deniers-say-trump-won-2020-are-running-top-cop-4-battleground-rcna29705Mothra said:With all due respect, I think you are. The election is over. January 6th is over. There are no valid claims of election fraud sufficient to overturn the election. That is why you don't see a single Republican member of Congress continuing to harp on those theories. Even the wingnuts have shut up about it.Booray said:The GOP is unwilling to stand up and say: what Donald Trump after the election results were clear and continues to do today is wrong. In fact the party ostracizes anyone who says that. The evidence is right on front of your face that Trump and an army of conspiracy addled nuts actively tried to create fake state electors and force Mike Pence to declare Trump won. A huge number of people believe that is what should have happened.Mothra said:You are being ridiculously melodramatic. The Republicans do not pose an existential challenge to our democracy. I think you know better, just as you knew better than to label me as someone willing to trade democracy for comfort. Let's cut the partisan rhetoric.Booray said:Opposing someone who tried to destroy our democracy doesn't strike me as deranged.Mothra said:Rawhide said:He's not confused. He's just another dishonest troll looking for bananasMothra said:What are you talking about? I think what Trump did on January 6th was despicable. I've said his attempts to subvert the election results should ruin any future political aspirations. I've said I hope he leaves and never returns. I literally cannot stand the man.Booray said:Guy Noir said:I have never stated any support for the current administration. I prefer Republican Policies over the current "Progressive" programs.Mothra said:Guy Noir said:What conservative values are you talking about? Are you talking about spending. Trump did nothing to balance the budget. Are you talking about monetary policy? Trump applied pressure on Powell to keep interest rates low and kept the Obama quantitative easing policy in place. I believe this is some of the foundation that has brought us high inflation, now. I realize the Democrats have kicked spending into high gear causing high inflation to become an acute problem, but Trump did contribute a little to the problem.Mothra said:Guy Noir said:
I watched the hearing and I am surprised because.
1. People still support Trump even though he aligns himself with White Supremacist groups.
2. Trump did incite the protests with his public communications.
3. Some people downplay an attack on Congress.
I have been a Republican all my life but I cannot support any candidate aligned with Trump. I cannot support the Democratic Candidates either.
Then you deserve ****ty govt that's the antithesis of conservative values.
Mothra, you have presented very few facts and a lot of biased opinion. Did you watch the hearing? Liz Cheney has shown integrity the last several months. Standing up for the truth of this event will cost her politically. When you label her a war monger like her father that is a cheap and untrue argument.
Are you seriously trying to argue that the country under Biden hasn't taken a serious turn to the left? Do I really need to point out the obvious for you? It shocks me how glib some of you are. Here ya go:
Our borders are basically open right now. Biden is doing nothing to stop the influx. Zero. Trump at the very least tried to make it more difficult. Biden is simply saying come on over. We've had a city the size of Dallas cross the border since Biden took office.
Spending is out of control. You thought Trump was bad, let's talk about the handouts under Biden. Let's talk about build back better. Pork and more pork. It's out of control.
Energy policy has been a total disaster. Biden is not allowing new drilling. He's shutting down pipelines. He's allowing OPEC to dictate supply. As a result we have our highest gas prices ever. Ever.
How about transgender rights. His first couple of weeks in office Biden signs an executive order forcing schools to allow transgender athletes to compete against biological women.
Let's talk foreign policy. Trump adhered to the old Reagan adage of walking softly and carrying a big stick. With Biden, we've already had our fall of Saigon moment in Afghanistan with that disastrous pull out. North Korea is testing nuclear weapons again. And we are closer to war with Russia than at any point since the 80s. It's 1980 all over again.
And of course there are the labor shortages, the food shortages, the gas shortages - it's basically Carter 2.0.
Now tell me something, Guy. Did I really have to point these things out for you? Are you really paying that little attention to what's going on in the world around you? Surely you knew all of the above, right? You're not this glib.
I am no fan of trump and agree with you he was not fiscal conservative. But any conservative who thinks his policies weren't far superior to the current liberal **** show has his head up his ass. Either you are simply not paying a lick of attention or you're just not a conservative.
As for Cheney, she was one of her father's - a bloodthirsty warmonger and liar who got us into the Iraq war - biggest cheerleaders. She has defended him and the Iraq war on numerous occasions. Do a quick google search. There are numerous interviews of her on this subject.
I am thankful that she doesn't have a chance in hell of ever being president.
I am a fiscal conservative. I am not sure what the conservative platform is anymore. If it is white supremacy, then I do not support that. The Jan 6th event is separate from the Biden Administration Activities.
I think the January 6th events were a serious challenge to the USA Federal Government election process. If Trump would have gotten Pence to throw out the election results while using the riots as a statement of public opinion to justify stopping the transfer of power we might still be waiting to have a new election. Trump could have remained in power for an indeterminate amount of time. (Didn't this happen in Venezuela?)
I ask for the 3rd time. Did you watch the hearing? or did you have your mind already made up. It was a well presented argument.
Unlike you, Mothra is willing to trade democracy for comfort. When democracy results in policies that hurt his pocket book or offend his religious views he becomes ok with the idea of stealing the government.
Unfortunately, the country currently has about 50 million Mothra's.
The point I was making with Guy Noir was different. I was responding to his point about not being able to vote for republicans in the near future, why voting for trump the last election cycle was the right thing to do for conservatives. And we are seeing why I was right with each passing day, given the **** show you voted for.
You are clearly confused.
Booray used to be one of the more honest and reasonable posters. Apparently Trump has deranged him as well.
My comment towards you is based on the sentiments you express. While you appropriately distance yourself from Trump you seem unconcerned that the GOP is unwilling to do the same thing. It is one thing to not impeach a President; it is another to exhibit lapdog loyalty to a former president psycho whose sole focus is non-existent election fraud.
Our system of government can withstand anything except a loss of belief by the citizenry. Yet the current GOP are not just spectators to Trump's campaign to destroy that belief, they are active participants in his plan. The Biden administration and the left present many problems in the way they govern, but none of those problems are existential. Trump's and the GOP's challenge to our democracy is existential.
I vote on policy, and I think if you're honest, you would admit that the policies of the Biden admin have been severely detrimental to the country - more detrimental that Trump's bogus election fraud claims, and more bogus than the little January 6th skirmish.
I am not being melodramatic, you are minimizing because you do not want to endanger policies that threaten your cultural preferences or your pocketbook.
I vote policies also. The number one policy for me is the preservation of democracy and the rule of law.
Trump remains an extremely popular person with millions of Americans, which is why you don't see mass condemnation of him by Republicans. I am sure you would love them to do so, as it would help your party of choice, but that's just not going to happen.
Secretary of State candidates in 19 states are election deniers: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/election-deniers-say-trump-won-2020-are-running-top-cop-4-battleground-rcna29705
Marjorie Taylor Greene had to be put under oath before she would stop pushing the stolen election claim: https://news.yahoo.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-denied-under-192122815.html
The GOP nominees for governor of Penn and Senator from NC are election deniers: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/17/pennsylvania-north-carolina-primary-races-trump-republicans
https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-may-17-takeaways-a56c76245e03bc88745e7286b524c92c
147 GOP representatives and Senators voted to not certify the election results after the January 6 riot-how many of them are like Paul Gosar, Mo Brooks, Debbie Lesko, Louie Gohmert, etc. and still believe that was the right thing to do and would do it again? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html
68% of the GOP believes Trump's lie. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/trump-voters-big-lie-stolen-election/629572/
You can tell yourself that the GOP is over it to make yourself feel better. But it isn't true.
There is much space for reasonable discussion of the 2020 election, where ironically the so-called rule of law was ignored specifically around changing voting procedures without following appropriate rules of law. That does not mean all of Trump's claims have merit, but a reasonable discussion should be had, but both sides prefer propaganda, conspiracy theory, and mob rule.Booray said:I am not just talking about January 6, which was bad enough. Trying to install fake electors, trying to force Mike pence into being a king maker, making up all sorts of bogus claims preceded and resulted in January 6th. Continuing the ridiculous story after failing in every conceivable recount, court case continues the harm from January 6th.Rawhide said:To try and halt a congressional procedure and demand there be a legitimate investigation over the 2020 election is "overturning an election". Wow. Just wow. I would say better than 99% of those rowdy tourists just wanted to be heard.Booray said:Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.Doc Holliday said:The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.RMF5630 said:Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...Booray said:You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.RMF5630 said:You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??Booray said:I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.RMF5630 said:Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?Booray said:Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.
Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?
And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.
How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.
Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.
The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.
Enjoy your life in fantasyland.
All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol
Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,
That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.
A different outcome is perhaps what they hoped, but by God man, if that's your bar then the wacko liberals should've been hauled off as insurrectionists when they tried to disrupt and halt the confirmation of Kavanaugh.
The rule of law allows us a multitude of ways to demand :legitimate investigations." Trump and the spineless majority of the GOP are not interested in those things, preferring propaganda, conspiracy theory and mob rule.
If Democrats did not call for fake electors and do not continue to parrot conspiracy theories about the 2016 election, I would take your charges more seriously. Similarly, this Jan. 6 Committee has no desire to uncover the truth about the Capitol riot. It is political theater designed to distract voters from the realities of 2022.
I think most Republicans are not dissimilar to me ... think Trump's claims and actions were terrible but have a hard time getting too worked up out it since his actions were little different than how Democrats behaved after 2016. Lest you forget there was widescale rioting after Trump's election and during his inauguration.
I agree with this, in that Trumps attempt to subvert the official results of an election and repeatedly feeding his most devoted followers that theory as fact was definitely wrong.Booray said:Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.Doc Holliday said:The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.RMF5630 said:Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...Booray said:You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.RMF5630 said:You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??Booray said:I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.RMF5630 said:Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?Booray said:Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.
Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?
And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.
How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.
Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.
The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.
Enjoy your life in fantasyland.
All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol
Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,
That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.
I do wish our politicians tried to tackle our Countries woes with the same fervor they are trying to work Jan 6th.
This is your problem on this thread.Booray said:
I vote policies also. The number one policy for me is the preservation of democracy and the rule of law.
You care about American democracy and the rule of law.
Many people on this forum do not care about democracy or the rule of law as long as whoever controls the government supports the policies they support.
In fact, they consider any election they don't win illegitimate. Because that's what their leaders are telling them.
The talking point is that we're a republic and not a democracy. I come to this site to learn what the RWNJ talking points are, and that's the current biggie.
That's how Trump Republicans defending their support for or toleration of Trump's naked attempt to steal an election he clearly did not win, which his advisors, including Bill Barr, and members of his cabinet told him repeatedly that he did not win.
I disagree with most policy position Liz Cheney holds. I think her record of voting for Trump admin policies was above 90%.
But she is an Public Enemy # 1 to this group because she took a stand against Trump's assault on American democracy. I hope she is right the the dishonor Republicans who stood by Trump despite the fact they knew he was lying and that they knew he was profiting bigly from his false claims the election had been stolen will remain.
If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?Booray said:Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.Doc Holliday said:The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.RMF5630 said:Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...Booray said:You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.RMF5630 said:You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??Booray said:I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.RMF5630 said:Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?Booray said:Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.
Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?
And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.
How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.
Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.
The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.
Enjoy your life in fantasyland.
All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol
Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,
That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.
Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.
The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.Doc Holliday said:If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?Booray said:Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.Doc Holliday said:The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.RMF5630 said:Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...Booray said:You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.RMF5630 said:You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??Booray said:I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.RMF5630 said:Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?Booray said:Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.
Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?
And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.
How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.
Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.
The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.
Enjoy your life in fantasyland.
All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol
Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,
That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.
Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.
At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.
Why didn't Pelosi allow the GOP to staff the committee?Booray said:The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.Doc Holliday said:If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?Booray said:Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.Doc Holliday said:The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.RMF5630 said:Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...Booray said:You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.RMF5630 said:You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??Booray said:I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.RMF5630 said:Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?Booray said:Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.
Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?
And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.
How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.
Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.
The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.
Enjoy your life in fantasyland.
All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol
Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,
That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.
Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.
At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.
What were the ratings? Was it the bonanza the Democrats had hoped? That should be a good bellweather of how much the average American cares.
Putting Jim Jordan and Jim Banks on that committee was Kevin McCarthy's way to sabotage this investigation.Harrison Bergeron said:Why didn't Pelosi allow the GOP to staff the committee?Booray said:
The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.
At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.
What were the ratings? Was it the bonanza the Democrats had hoped? That should be a good bellweather of how much the average American cares.
Which, the presentations by Liz Cheney and Zoe Lofgren have made clear, was completely justified and necessary.
Republicans didn't want to investigate because some of them engaged in illegal activity.
It was clear that some Republicans did not even think Mike Pence would show up to certify the vote.
McCarthy failed to respond to a subpeona. So did lots of GOP House reps.
That's indefensible.
Honest and honorable Republicans should WANT this investigation to root out government officials who valued loyalty to Trump over a peaceful transition of power. Don't you agree?
Booray said:Which federal law is he ignoring?Rawhide said:Ignoring federal law.... yeah, nothing to see here.Booray said:Concerned about violent threats, not doing anything about peaceful protestors. Man that Garland is a crazy radical.Rawhide said:"Garland last fall argued some violent threats against school officials "could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism"Booray said:Man, you are tossing out the BS today.GrowlTowel said:Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?Booray said:Much more moderate than his two other picks. Which is why the GOP had no problem with him as a DC Circuit Appeals judge or AG. The "other side" (regardless of which side you are on) is not a monolith.Rawhide said:Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.Sam Lowry said:Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.RMF5630 said:Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.TWD 74 said:Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
Not doing a damn thing about prosecuting protesters in front the homes of Surpreme Court Justices
Where's the crackdown on illegals being arrested and charged?
The one that states that it is illegal to protest or try to influence (federal) judges at their place of work or their residence? Stop ignoring VERY public fact to further your arguments. Ignoring this doozy against Garland is like saying fire isn't hot. You lose a LOT of credibility.
Richard Reese
(True) Freshman - Bellville, TX
152 carries/791 yards/5.2 YPC/12 touchdowns
11 receptions/80 yards
1 game clinching studly TD vs Kansas
ZERO fumbles
Brett “Big Ballz” Yormark- Commissioner Big 12-16 Conference
One badass new TV contract with more goodies to come
(True) Freshman - Bellville, TX
152 carries/791 yards/5.2 YPC/12 touchdowns
11 receptions/80 yards
1 game clinching studly TD vs Kansas
ZERO fumbles
Brett “Big Ballz” Yormark- Commissioner Big 12-16 Conference
One badass new TV contract with more goodies to come
The one that states that it is illegal to protest or try to influence (federal) judges at their place of work or their residence? Stop ignoring VERY public fact to further your arguments. Ignoring this doozy against Garland is like saying fire isn't hot. You lose a LOT of credibility.
Lawyers are divided on using the 1950's law against current SCOTUS protest. From Politifact:
Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code, which was enacted in 1950. Under this law, it is illegal to picket or parade in front of a courthouse or a judge's home "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge."
While I do not condone the protest outset any Justice's Home, the recent protests have in no way interfered with the Justice's work. It is also hard to follow how anyone protesting would expect to have an influence over Kavenaugh. It would be more likely to presume that the protesters were there because the cameras would follow.
It might be somewhat ironic that the ability to prohibit such actions against the homes of Justices might depend on whether the Justice's and family have such a thing as a right to privacy.
Lawyers are divided on using the 1950's law against current SCOTUS protest. From Politifact:
Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code, which was enacted in 1950. Under this law, it is illegal to picket or parade in front of a courthouse or a judge's home "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge."
While I do not condone the protest outset any Justice's Home, the recent protests have in no way interfered with the Justice's work. It is also hard to follow how anyone protesting would expect to have an influence over Kavenaugh. It would be more likely to presume that the protesters were there because the cameras would follow.
It might be somewhat ironic that the ability to prohibit such actions against the homes of Justices might depend on whether the Justice's and family have such a thing as a right to privacy.
Seriously, if the intent was not to "influence" the Justices, why then did the protesters do so at the homes of those justices?
The plain fact is that this was a clear violation of federal law.
The plain fact is that this was a clear violation of federal law.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Why is this even a federal matter and why is the FBI involved in the first place? And what is flackcheck?Booray said:Just ignore reality:Redbrickbear said:Garland may not have ever said the exact words "domestic terrorists" in regards to parents but the DOJ under his command was investigating parents for speaking out at school board meetings.Booray said:Just because there are a lot of people who believe political lies does not mean you have to be one of them.GrowlTowel said:There was an entire gubernatorial election about it. Try again.Booray said:Man, you are tossing out the BS today.GrowlTowel said:Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?Booray said:Much more moderate than his two other picks. Which is why the GOP had no problem with him as a DC Circuit Appeals judge or AG. The "other side" (regardless of which side you are on) is not a monolith.Rawhide said:Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.Sam Lowry said:Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.RMF5630 said:Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.TWD 74 said:Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
This has been well reported on and documented.........
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/may/12/whistleblowers-fbi-probed-parents-under-counterter/
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fbi-whistleblowers-claim-agents-investigated-parents-accused-of-threatening-school-boards-over-mask-policies/
https://nypost.com/2022/05/12/fbi-tracked-parents-opposed-to-covid-policies-republicans-say/
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2022/may/republicans-offer-proof-of-fbi-targeting-parents-in-almost-every-region-for-speaking-out-at-school-board-meetings🚨 SMOKING GUN: Whistleblowers reveal the FBI has labeled dozens of investigations into parents with a threat tag created by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division pic.twitter.com/uDMd7x1no3
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) May 11, 2022
Also, part of the scandal is that this is a massive example of Federal overreach on Constitutional grounds. If (and its a big If) there were actual credible threats at local ISD meetings. Then that is something for State and local authorities to investigate and deal with. The Feds have no business getting involved in what is Constitutionally a local law and order issue.
The following month, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan sent a letter to Garland saying that information from a Justice Department whistleblower called into question the accuracy of Garland's testimony that "the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation were not using federal counterterrorism tools to target concerned parents at local school board meetings."
Jordan said a "protected disclosure" from the whistleblower showed "that the FBI's Counterterrorism Division is compiling and categorizing threat assessments related to parents, including a document directing FBI personnel to use a specific 'threat tag' to track potential investigations."
Specifically, Jordan cited an FBI email that said in response to Garland's Oct. 4 memo, "the Counterterrorism and Criminal Divisions created a threat tag, EDUOFFICIALS, to track instances of related threats." It directed FBI offices to apply that threat tag to "investigations and assessments of threats specifically directed against school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff."
According to Jordan, "This disclosure provides specific evidence that federal law enforcement operationalized counterterrorism tools at the behest of a left-wing special interest group against concerned parents."
But the email does not say that the FBI ought to apply tags to parents merely speaking out at school board meetings. Rather, the practice applies only to cases of "violence, threats of violence, and other forms of intimidation and harassment" directed at school officials.
To summarize: Garland's memo never labeled parents speaking at school board meetings "domestic terrorists." In congressional testimony, Garland made clear that he considered parents voicing concerns at school board meetings to be protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech.
And the attorney general said that he could not "imagine a circumstance" where "parents complaining" at a school board meeting would be "labeled as domestic terrorism." Rather, as his memo made clear, the Justice Department was solely focused on addressing threats of violence against school officials. That focus was affirmed in the FBI email released by Jordan.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
I am sorry if the FBI responding to threats of violence against local officials offends you, but that is part of its mission.
[url=http://www.flackcheck.org/][/url]
Federal official. They'd have to have a racketeering angle for the FBI to get involved. The expansion of what counts as "terrorist" has gotten out of hand at a domestic level. You're worried about the citizens belief in its government? How about the governments lack of belief in its citizens and the power they continue to expand wielding over them as that decays? Or rather motivated by power and control.Booray said:A threat of violence against a government official meant to influence policy, even if the official is state or local, is a federal crime. See 18 USC Sec. 2331(5)(b)(2), defining such activity as domestic terrorism. It is squarely in the FBI's jurisdiction.Redbrickbear said:I'm not offended.Booray said:Just ignore reality:Redbrickbear said:Garland may not have ever said the exact words "domestic terrorists" in regards to parents but the DOJ under his command was investigating parents for speaking out at school board meetings.Booray said:Just because there are a lot of people who believe political lies does not mean you have to be one of them.GrowlTowel said:There was an entire gubernatorial election about it. Try again.Booray said:Man, you are tossing out the BS today.GrowlTowel said:Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?Booray said:Much more moderate than his two other picks. Which is why the GOP had no problem with him as a DC Circuit Appeals judge or AG. The "other side" (regardless of which side you are on) is not a monolith.Rawhide said:Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.Sam Lowry said:Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.RMF5630 said:Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.TWD 74 said:Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.RMF5630 said:So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.Sam Lowry said:Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.RMF5630 said:True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...Aliceinbubbleland said:Mothra said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.
Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.
EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.
Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.
If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
This has been well reported on and documented.........
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/may/12/whistleblowers-fbi-probed-parents-under-counterter/
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fbi-whistleblowers-claim-agents-investigated-parents-accused-of-threatening-school-boards-over-mask-policies/
https://nypost.com/2022/05/12/fbi-tracked-parents-opposed-to-covid-policies-republicans-say/
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2022/may/republicans-offer-proof-of-fbi-targeting-parents-in-almost-every-region-for-speaking-out-at-school-board-meetings🚨 SMOKING GUN: Whistleblowers reveal the FBI has labeled dozens of investigations into parents with a threat tag created by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division pic.twitter.com/uDMd7x1no3
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) May 11, 2022
Also, part of the scandal is that this is a massive example of Federal overreach on Constitutional grounds. If (and its a big If) there were actual credible threats at local ISD meetings. Then that is something for State and local authorities to investigate and deal with. The Feds have no business getting involved in what is Constitutionally a local law and order issue.
The following month, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan sent a letter to Garland saying that information from a Justice Department whistleblower called into question the accuracy of Garland's testimony that "the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation were not using federal counterterrorism tools to target concerned parents at local school board meetings."
Jordan said a "protected disclosure" from the whistleblower showed "that the FBI's Counterterrorism Division is compiling and categorizing threat assessments related to parents, including a document directing FBI personnel to use a specific 'threat tag' to track potential investigations."
Specifically, Jordan cited an FBI email that said in response to Garland's Oct. 4 memo, "the Counterterrorism and Criminal Divisions created a threat tag, EDUOFFICIALS, to track instances of related threats." It directed FBI offices to apply that threat tag to "investigations and assessments of threats specifically directed against school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff."
According to Jordan, "This disclosure provides specific evidence that federal law enforcement operationalized counterterrorism tools at the behest of a left-wing special interest group against concerned parents."
But the email does not say that the FBI ought to apply tags to parents merely speaking out at school board meetings. Rather, the practice applies only to cases of "violence, threats of violence, and other forms of intimidation and harassment" directed at school officials.
To summarize: Garland's memo never labeled parents speaking at school board meetings "domestic terrorists." In congressional testimony, Garland made clear that he considered parents voicing concerns at school board meetings to be protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech.
And the attorney general said that he could not "imagine a circumstance" where "parents complaining" at a school board meeting would be "labeled as domestic terrorism." Rather, as his memo made clear, the Justice Department was solely focused on addressing threats of violence against school officials. That focus was affirmed in the FBI email released by Jordan.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/
I am sorry if the FBI responding to threats of violence against local officials offends you, but that is part of its mission.
[url=http://www.flackcheck.org/][/url]
I just believe in the Constitution and the separation of powers.
If (and against it's a big if) there were actual "threats" from parents at local ISD meetings...then its a State and Local law enforcement issue.
Its not a matter for the Federal government or the FBI.
I think Garland knows that and the Department got fooled by liberal activists into getting involved in a local school issue that they later realized was a big mistake, huge jurisdictional overreach, and tried to walk it back.
Barr said Trump got a raw deal from media over Russia collusion (in Barr's book)RMF5630 said:
Funny thing about these hearings. Everything Barr says saying DOJ could not find evidence of large scale fraud is played as the truth and Trump was told.
But, everything he said about Russia-gate and other are untruths.