cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

---

is there a reason to change the law?

---

What's the threat?

---

i am dont care one way or the other... there hasnt been a need in the last 100 years, why is there a need now?

---

It's simple. The McConnell Rule of 2016.

---

i understand- we need a prodeeedural rule change, not a number of jurists change

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

---

is there a reason to change the law?

---

What's the threat?

---

i am dont care one way or the other... there hasnt been a need in the last 100 years, why is there a need now?

---

It's simple. The McConnell Rule of 2016.

---

i understand- we need a prodeeedural rule change, not a number of jurists change

---

We'll get what the Republicans make necessary.

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

---

is there a reason to change the law?

---

What's the threat?

---

i am dont care one way or the other... there hasnt been a need in the last 100 years, why is there a need now?

---

It's simple. The McConnell Rule of 2016.

---

i understand- we need a prodeeedural rule change, not a number of jurists change

---

We'll get what the Republicans make necessary.

---

got to win first... looking at new voter registrations this year in battleground states, it is likley that polling is probably off.

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

---

is there a reason to change the law?

---

What's the threat?

---

i am dont care one way or the other... there hasnt been a need in the last 100 years, why is there a need now?

---

It's simple. The McConnell Rule of 2016.

---

i understand- we need a prodeeedural rule change, not a number of jurists change

---

We'll get what the Republicans make necessary.

---

got to win first... looking at new voter registrations this year in battleground states, it is likley that polling is probably off.

---

In PA, there is a record 2 million vote by mail requests, two thirds of which were made by Democrats. In Philly, there is normally a 7:1 mail in ballot deferential that favors Democrats. The Republican commissioner in charge of elections in Philly just reported that benefit is now 17:1.
As of 8/31, the Trump campaign had an impressive 131 million dollars cash on hand. The Biden campaign had a whopping 458 million cash on hand.

See why I'm dubious of your unsupported claims?

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

---

is there a reason to change the law?

---

What's the threat?

---

i am dont care one way or the other... there hasnt been a need in the last 100 years, why is there a need now?

---

It's simple. The McConnell Rule of 2016.

---

i understand- we need a prodeeedural rule change, not a number of jurists change

---

We'll get what the Republicans make necessary.

---

got to win first... looking at new voter registrations this year in battleground states, it is likley that polling is probably off.

---

In PA, there is a record 2 million vote by mail requests, two thirds of which were made by Democrats. In Philly, there is normally a 7:1 mail in ballot deferential that favors Democrats. The Republican commissioner in charge of elections in Philly just reported that benefit is now 17:1.
As of 8/31, the Trump campaign had an impressive 131 million dollars cash on hand. The Biden campaign had a whopping 458 million cash on hand.

See why I'm dubious of your unsupported claims?

---

hillary out spent Trump... Mail in dont mean new voters... mail in doesnt mean democrat voter... what you got for new registered voters?

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

---

is there a reason to change the law?

---

What's the threat?

---

i am dont care one way or the other... there hasnt been a need in the last 100 years, why is there a need now?

---

It's simple. The McConnell Rule of 2016.

---

i understand- we need a prodeeedural rule change, not a number of jurists change

---

We'll get what the Republicans make necessary.

---

got to win first... looking at new voter registrations this year in battleground states, it is likley that polling is probably off.

---

In PA, there is a record 2 million vote by mail requests, two thirds of which were made by Democrats. In Philly, there is normally a 7:1 mail in ballot deferential that favors Democrats. The Republican commissioner in charge of elections in Philly just reported that benefit is now 17:1.
As of 8/31, the Trump campaign had an impressive 131 million dollars cash on hand. The Biden campaign had a whopping 458 million cash on hand.

See why I'm dubious of your unsupported claims?

---

hillary out spent Trump... Mail in dont mean new voters... mail in doesnt mean democrat voter... what you got for new registered voters?

---

Are you counting the billions in free adverting the corporate media gave Trump?. Even you should know that Democratic registration far outnumber Republicans. Trump has not sought new voters.He has just focused on making people like you more rabid.

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

---

is there a reason to change the law?

---

What's the threat?

---

i am dont care one way or the other... there hasnt been a need in the last 100 years, why is there a need now?

---

It's simple. The McConnell Rule of 2016.

---

i understand- we need a prodeeedural rule change, not a number of jurists change

---

We'll get what the Republicans make necessary.

---

got to win first... looking at new voter registrations this year in battleground states, it is likley that polling is probably off.

---

In PA, there is a record 2 million vote by mail requests, two thirds of which were made by Democrats. In Philly, there is normally a 7:1 mail in ballot deferential that favors Democrats. The Republican commissioner in charge of elections in Philly just reported that benefit is now 17:1.
As of 8/31, the Trump campaign had an impressive 131 million dollars cash on hand. The Biden campaign had a whopping 458 million cash on hand.

See why I'm dubious of your unsupported claims?

---

hillary out spent Trump... Mail in dont mean new voters... mail in doesnt mean democrat voter... what you got for new registered voters?

---

Are you counting the billions in free adverting the corporate media gave Trump?. Even you should know that Democratic registration far outnumber Republicans. Trump has not sought new voters.He has just focused on making people like you more rabid.

---

lol, believe what you want... i am telling you there are red flags you are missing

Republicans should expand the Court to 15 after the election if they still control the Senate.

Carlos Safety said:

---

Republicans should expand the Court to 15 after the election if they still control the Senate.

---

Yep, that's what I've been saying. The democrats have proved themselves to be the sorriest of all sorry losers and have no problem with scorched America policies when they don't get their way.

Far too long Republicans have let them get away with it... it's time they fight back and give them a dose of their own medicine.

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

---

is there a reason to change the law?

---

What's the threat?

---

i am dont care one way or the other... there hasnt been a need in the last 100 years, why is there a need now?

---

It's simple. The McConnell Rule of 2016.

---

i understand- we need a prodeeedural rule change, not a number of jurists change

---

We'll get what the Republicans make necessary.

---

got to win first... looking at new voter registrations this year in battleground states, it is likley that polling is probably off.

---

In PA, there is a record 2 million vote by mail requests, two thirds of which were made by Democrats. In Philly, there is normally a 7:1 mail in ballot deferential that favors Democrats. The Republican commissioner in charge of elections in Philly just reported that benefit is now 17:1.
As of 8/31, the Trump campaign had an impressive 131 million dollars cash on hand. The Biden campaign had a whopping 458 million cash on hand.

See why I'm dubious of your unsupported claims?

---

hillary out spent Trump... Mail in dont mean new voters... mail in doesnt mean democrat voter... what you got for new registered voters?

---

Are you counting the billions in free adverting the corporate media gave Trump?. Even you should know that Democratic registration far outnumber Republicans. Trump has not sought new voters.He has just focused on making people like you more rabid.

---

You consider overwhelmingly negative press coverage to be "free advertising"?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/07/donald-trump-was-right-he-got-incredibly-negative-press-coverage/

HuMcK said:

---

Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.

Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...

---

you might want to see this... who needs to be reminded of their position from 4 years ago??

JXL said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

---

is there a reason to change the law?

---

What's the threat?

---

i am dont care one way or the other... there hasnt been a need in the last 100 years, why is there a need now?

---

It's simple. The McConnell Rule of 2016.

---

i understand- we need a prodeeedural rule change, not a number of jurists change

---

We'll get what the Republicans make necessary.

---

got to win first... looking at new voter registrations this year in battleground states, it is likley that polling is probably off.

---

In PA, there is a record 2 million vote by mail requests, two thirds of which were made by Democrats. In Philly, there is normally a 7:1 mail in ballot deferential that favors Democrats. The Republican commissioner in charge of elections in Philly just reported that benefit is now 17:1.
As of 8/31, the Trump campaign had an impressive 131 million dollars cash on hand. The Biden campaign had a whopping 458 million cash on hand.

See why I'm dubious of your unsupported claims?

---

hillary out spent Trump... Mail in dont mean new voters... mail in doesnt mean democrat voter... what you got for new registered voters?

---

Are you counting the billions in free adverting the corporate media gave Trump?. Even you should know that Democratic registration far outnumber Republicans. Trump has not sought new voters.He has just focused on making people like you more rabid.

---

You consider overwhelmingly negative press coverage to be "free advertising"?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/07/donald-trump-was-right-he-got-incredibly-negative-press-coverage/

---

I consider the inset of an empty arena awaiting the arrival of candidate Trump on MSNBC free advertising.