4th and Inches said:

---

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.

---

anybody who says they KNOW there was no fraud is lying.. our system makes that nearly impossible to prove either way, especially on a national scale.

They cant be honest and say that because it would make people lose their sh.. on both sides of the aisle

---

He didn't say no fraud, he said large scale fraud. Big difference.

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

Ahh, the Biden rule. Damn it feels good to be a gangster . . .

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.

RMF5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

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.

---

anybody who says they KNOW there was no fraud is lying.. our system makes that nearly impossible to prove either way, especially on a national scale.

They cant be honest and say that because it would make people lose their sh.. on both sides of the aisle

---

He didn't say no fraud, he said large scale fraud. Big difference.

---

also not provable one way or another, especially on such a large scale with a short time frame. 2000 mules shows he might be wrong and that took months to figure out there needs to be further investigation..

Booray said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Booray said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

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.

---

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, 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 have never stated any support for the current administration. I prefer Republican Policies over the current "Progressive" programs.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He's not confused. He's just another dishonest troll looking for bananas

---

Booray used to be one of the more honest and reasonable posters. Apparently Trump has deranged him as well.

---

Opposing someone who tried to destroy our democracy doesn't strike me as deranged.

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.

---

Killary tried as well as Algore. Luckily the "democracy" (which is not a presidential election) survives to the next Democrat outrage.

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.

---

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.

If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

Ahh, the Biden rule. Damn it feels good to be a gangster . . .

---

Biden was wrong and McConnel was wrong. But regardless of right or wrong, nobody was going to be confirmed so it was senseless to try a second nomination.

---

Ahh, the Biden rule.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

Based on what happened last week, Where is the outrage?!! Oh yeah, nobody covered it so nobody knows about the crazy person who took a gun to a SCOTUS justices house to shoot him.

Sundays # of mentions of "Kavanaugh":
ABC's This Week: 0 mentions
NBC's Meet The Press: 0 mentions
CBS's Face The Nation: 0 mentions
CNN SOTU: 0 mentions
Fox News Sunday covered

---

It's almost like people don't care about violent threats unless it's the other party making them.

---

Honestly, I'm seeing more about Kavanaugh on this forum than I recall seeing about the truly horrific incident where a crazy man damn near killed Steve Scalise.

I don't like Scalise's politics, but I was horrified that someone was able to shoot and seriously wound him, and I prayed for his recovery. The assailant who shot at House Republicans at a baseball practice was mentally disturbed, and the FBI determined that he committed "suicide by cop."

Scalise's assailant and Kavanaugh's would-be assailant, who was a 26-year-old man who bailed on his mission, called 911 to report hismelf, and acknowledged he was mentally ill, both remind me of John Hinkley.

Except Kavanaugh's would-be assailant told police where he would be and that his gun wasn't loaded and to come and get him.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/crime/911-man-accused-plot-to-kill-kavanaugh-called-police-himself

None of the men involved in the shootings above should have ever been able to get a gun. Scalise was lucky he didn't suffer the same fate as Jim Brady and Gabby Giffords, two smart, capable, high-functioning professionals whose careers and normal lives were ended by traumatic brain injuries caused by bullets.

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.

---

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.

If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.

---

Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.

---

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.

If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.

---

Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?

---

Man, you are tossing out the BS today.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/

Well, judging from this thread, Booray is quite the expert on BS production.

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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?

If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality", 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.

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.

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.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.

---

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.

If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.

---

Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?

---

Man, you are tossing out the BS today.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/

---

There was an entire gubernatorial election about it. Try again.

---

Just because there are a lot of people who believe political lies does not mean you have to be one of them.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Well, judging from this thread, Booray is quite the expert on BS production.

---

What did I say that was incorrect?

Did Al Gore not concede?

Were Hillary's complaints not directed at foreign interference? Did she conduct an 18-month post election campaign claiming that the votes for Trump were not actually votes?

Did Merrick Garland actually target all school board protestors or did he say that the FBI would respond to threats of violence against local officials (which is what the FBI is supposed to do)?

Was there some Democratic nominee other than Garland that Mitch McConnel would have allowed a vote on?

---

I think the implication here is that Obama could have nominated someone palatable to McConnell.

Whatever the hard-righties on this forum say, Garland was a cautious moderate. As he's shown as A.G.

McConnell made it clear he wasn't going to let the Senate talk to anyone.

The person who screwed Obama/Democrats the worst was Ginsburg.

She should have resigned early in Obama's presidency. Then she had no choice but to try to outlast Trump, and she almost made it, thus forcing McConnell to show what a big lie his refusal to even talk to Garland was.

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.

---

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.

If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.

---

Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?

---

Man, you are tossing out the BS today.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/

---

There was an entire gubernatorial election about it. Try again.

---

Just because there are a lot of people who believe political lies does not mean you have to be one of them.

---

It's cool you want to ignore the letter and the FBI's account. Black lives matter.

J.B.Katz said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Well, judging from this thread, Booray is quite the expert on BS production.

---

What did I say that was incorrect?

Did Al Gore not concede?

Were Hillary's complaints not directed at foreign interference? Did she conduct an 18-month post election campaign claiming that the votes for Trump were not actually votes?

Did Merrick Garland actually target all school board protestors or did he say that the FBI would respond to threats of violence against local officials (which is what the FBI is supposed to do)?

Was there some Democratic nominee other than Garland that Mitch McConnel would have allowed a vote on?

---

I think the implication here is that Obama could have nominated someone palatable to McConnell.

Whatever the hard-righties on this forum say, Garland was a cautious moderate. As he's shown as A.G.

McConnell made it clear he wasn't going to let the Senate talk to anyone.

The person who screwed Obama/Democrats the worst was Ginsburg.

She should have resigned early in Obama's presidency. Then she had no choice but to try to outlast Trump, and she almost made it, thus forcing McConnell to show what a big lie his refusal to even talk to Garland was.

---

Dang that Biden rule.

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.

---

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.

If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.

---

Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?

---

Man, you are tossing out the BS today.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/

---

There was an entire gubernatorial election about it. Try again.

---

Just because there are a lot of people who believe political lies does not mean you have to be one of them.

---

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.

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.

Booray said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Booray said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

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.

---

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, 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 have never stated any support for the current administration. I prefer Republican Policies over the current "Progressive" programs.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He's not confused. He's just another dishonest troll looking for bananas

---

Booray used to be one of the more honest and reasonable posters. Apparently Trump has deranged him as well.

---

Our system of government can withstand anything except a loss of belief by the citizenry.

---

This will come to fruition because of establishment policies faster than anything like J6.

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

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.

If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.

---

Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?

---

Man, you are tossing out the BS today.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/

---

There was an entire gubernatorial election about it. Try again.

---

Just because there are a lot of people who believe political lies does not mean you have to be one of them.

---

He doesn't have to be one of them.

He wants to be one of them.

The only way you can justify many things House and Senate Republicans have supported is to say, loudly and often and especially on forums like Fox, that you believe political lies.

After today, I suspect the "election fraud" and "stolen election" lies will be considerably less popular. Barr certainly folded like a wet blanket under oath, saying he knew there had been no election fraud and that he told Trump that.

Now, he's singing like a canary.

But, back in 2020, Barr encouraged misinformation about absentee ballots and mail-in ballots.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-claims-a-man-collected-1700-ballots-and-filled-them-out-as-he-pleased-prosecutors-say-thats-not-what-happened/2020/09/03/923aafac-ee2e-11ea-ab4e-581edb849379_story.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mail-in-voting-ballot-election-fraud-claims/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-attorney-general-barr-attacks-voting-by-mail-while-in-arizona

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.

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.

---

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??

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.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Well, judging from this thread, Booray is quite the expert on BS production.

---

What did I say that was incorrect.

1. Did Al Gore not concede?

2. Were Hillary's complaints not directed at foreign interference? Did she conduct an 18-month post election campaign claiming that the votes for Trump were not actually votes?

3. Did Merrick Garland actually target all school board protestors or did he say that the FBI would respond to threats of violence against local officials (which is what the FBI is supposed to do)?

4. Was there some Democratic nominee other than Garland that Mitch McConnel would have allowed a vote on?

---

1. See my previous post on Al Gore and Democrats not letting go of the 2000 election being "stolen".

2. Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election 'Was Not On the Level': 'We Still Don't Know What Really Happened'
So, yes. You would have had to be in hiding to not know Hillary has been on a campaign to continually cast doubt on the the 2016 election results - which would be casting doubt on votes.

3. Garland Memo on School Boards after NSBA complaints to DOJ
The use of the term "or efforts to intimidate" is a very broad spectrum that should not be used without clarification. Those words (and the timing of the memo to the NASB email addressing parents as perpetrators) is the source of consternation from Republicans and parents. While Garland may not have said the words out loud, it is implied that parents will be targets in light of the timing as the NASB included these words in their communication to DOJ:
"The letter went on to suggest that verbal confrontations and other incidents at local school board meetings across the US constituted "domestic terrorism and hate crimes."
The NASB later had to apologize for the letter to the DOJ. I would include that letter here, but NASB has taken it down from their website and issued an apology to state school board associations:

:"On behalf of NSBA, we regret and apologize for the letter," the NSBA Board of Directors said in an email to its members. "To be clear, the safety of school board members, other school officials and educators, and students is our top priority, and there remains important work to be done on this issue. However, there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter. We should have had a better process in place to allow for consultation on a communication of this significance. We apologize also for the strain and stress this situation has caused you and your organizations."
NASB apology letter

4. I haven't talked to Mitch and have no idea if he would have taken up any nominee other than one off a Republican list. I think likely not.

J.B.Katz said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

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.

If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.

---

Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?

---

Man, you are tossing out the BS today.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/

---

There was an entire gubernatorial election about it. Try again.

---

Just because there are a lot of people who believe political lies does not mean you have to be one of them.

---

He doesn't have to be one of them.

He wants to be one of them.

The only way you can justify many things House and Senate Republicans have supported is to say, loudly and often and especially on forums like Fox, that you believe political lies.

After today, I suspect the "election fraud" and "stolen election" lies will be considerably less popular. Barr certainly folded like a wet blanket under oath, saying he knew there had been no election fraud and that he told Trump that.

Now, he's singing like a canary.

But, back in 2020, Barr encouraged misinformation about absentee ballots and mail-in ballots.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-claims-a-man-collected-1700-ballots-and-filled-them-out-as-he-pleased-prosecutors-say-thats-not-what-happened/2020/09/03/923aafac-ee2e-11ea-ab4e-581edb849379_story.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mail-in-voting-ballot-election-fraud-claims/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-attorney-general-barr-attacks-voting-by-mail-while-in-arizona

---

Honestly, I believe what I believe because of people like you that have never had an independent thought in their entire lives. Everything has to be spoon fed to you in small emotional size bites.

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.

---

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.

If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.

---

Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?

---

Man, you are tossing out the BS today.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/

---

There was an entire gubernatorial election about it. Try again.

---

Just because there are a lot of people who believe political lies does not mean you have to be one of them.

---

It's cool you want to ignore the letter and the FBI's account. Black lives matter.

---

What letter? What account?

I am aware that someone outside the government wrote a letter to DOJ that said some of the protestors should be considered domestic terrorists; that Garland wrote a memo that did not endorse that view but said the FBI should respond to threats of violence or harassment against local officials and the the always reliable Jim Jordan mangled a whistleblower report tp say that the FBI was going too far, when it clearly wasn't.

All of that is public record and objective fact. Do you have something else?

---

See above. Do you have something else because you are losing this argument? Badly.,

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Garland a moderate pick. That's hilarious. I guess moderate like Obama's other 2 justices.

---

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.

If you disagree and it is so obvious, why don't you point out some of Merrick Garland's radicalness.

---

Targeting suburban moms as terrorists?

---

Man, you are tossing out the BS today.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/attorney-general-never-called-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists/

---

"Garland last fall argued some violent threats against school officials "could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism"

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?

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.

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.

---

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??

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.

---

You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.

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.