Dem Defense Strategies

4,017 Views | 68 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Jack and DP
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

riflebear said:

fubar said:

HashTag said:

HuMcK said:



Barr should have been impeached the moment the first prosecutor resigned in protest on Stone's case, doubly so after Flynn, and that's independent of this latest standoff. DeJoy also arguably has some exposure for his handling of the USPS. I actually don't think Pelosi will do that now though to tie up the Senate.

That said, I'm fine with it if she does. After listening to all the self righteous "might makes right" sentiments lately from Republicans in re RBG, I just don't have any appetite for Dems rolling over and doing nothing. The House has some might too, might be time to wield it.

This is what y'all wanted. Y'all were warned again and again that what McConnell did to Garland would escalate things, and now you have most of that same GOP Senate putting their bad faith on full display and saying "so what". Antagonism has consequences, and if y'all want to turn the court into a nakedly partisan instrument (which McConnell has made loud and clear), that has consequences to.
SHOCKER!

One of the most triggered TDSers on this board isn't happy with the Republicans (again).

Let me guess.... it's all Trump's fault (again)?
I won't try to speak for Huey, but this is on Mitch McConnell and any Senate Republican who was in the Senate in 2016. I'll give a partial pass to those who took a seat for the first time after 2016 ... they weren't in on the game in 2016.

By the way, why in the world are you guys worried about this? The consensus from the Trumpty Dumpts is that we're headed for a landslide.


Because we don't want to see thousands of innocent businesses burned against and billions of $$ worth of damage.

If GOP voters get mad they might shout but they go vote to change things.

When Dems get mad they want to burn everything down and it doesn't matter what corrupt or illegal things they do to win back power.

Which party do you want to support?


Hopefully the GOP bring me back in 2024.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! You fonny fubar. And quash is a Libertarian.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

HashTag said:

fubar said:

HashTag said:

HuMcK said:



Barr should have been impeached the moment the first prosecutor resigned in protest on Stone's case, doubly so after Flynn, and that's independent of this latest standoff. DeJoy also arguably has some exposure for his handling of the USPS. I actually don't think Pelosi will do that now though to tie up the Senate.

That said, I'm fine with it if she does. After listening to all the self righteous "might makes right" sentiments lately from Republicans in re RBG, I just don't have any appetite for Dems rolling over and doing nothing. The House has some might too, might be time to wield it.

This is what y'all wanted. Y'all were warned again and again that what McConnell did to Garland would escalate things, and now you have most of that same GOP Senate putting their bad faith on full display and saying "so what". Antagonism has consequences, and if y'all want to turn the court into a nakedly partisan instrument (which McConnell has made loud and clear), that has consequences to.
SHOCKER!

One of the most triggered TDSers on this board isn't happy with the Republicans (again).

Let me guess.... it's all Trump's fault (again)?
I won't try to speak for Huey, but this is on Mitch McConnell and any Senate Republican who was in the Senate in 2016. I'll give a partial pass to those who took a seat for the first time after 2016 ... they weren't in on the game in 2016.

By the way, why in the world are you guys worried about this? The consensus from the Trumpty Dumpts is that we're headed for a landslide.
So you want McConnell to follow what he said in 2016, but the those that demanded for a floor vote, it's okay for them to change their mind now? - okay.

I would think those dems that demanded a floor vote then would be demanding a floor vote now - hypocrites.

By the way, don't know why you think we're worried, RBG passing benefits the GOP and Trump.

Democrats will overplay what ever hand they think they have and turn off many Americans by making threats about packing the court, impeaching Trump to stall confirmation, etc.....

In 2016, over 25% of Trump voters said the Supreme Court was the most important factor in their decision to support him. Potential justice appointments was shaping up to be la less powerful argument this time around. Not anymore.
If you change the rules, play by the rules you made. Calling the other side -- the one without power to do anything of substance -- hypocritical, while you're Grand Marshal of the Hypocrite Parade, is asinine. Nobody outside of the True Believers in the echo chamber buys it.

You know what could've avoided this whole sorry spectacle? Holding hearings and a vote on Merrick Garland in 2016. You vote him down, you can explain why and move on.
McConnell didn't change any rules in 2016 and he's not changing any rules in 2020.

Changing the rules is what Harry Reid did (the nuclear options) and now it's coming back to bite them in the ass.

First, they're all hypocrites, to pretend the other side is hypocritical and your side is not.... well, it foolish at best.

Second, when in politics, it's never about principle and always about power.

Third, even if Garland received a down vote, it would still be a spectacle... that's what democrats do. McConnell's only mistake was providing a "reason" (excuse) for not holding a floor vote for Garland. He didn't need to. He's majority leader. If we wants to call a vote, he can. If he doesn't want to call a vote, he can.

Fourth, if you honestly think that if the roles were reversed and democrats wouldn't do the same thing... you're awfully stupid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though.

Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

fubar said:

riflebear said:

fubar said:

HashTag said:

HuMcK said:



Barr should have been impeached the moment the first prosecutor resigned in protest on Stone's case, doubly so after Flynn, and that's independent of this latest standoff. DeJoy also arguably has some exposure for his handling of the USPS. I actually don't think Pelosi will do that now though to tie up the Senate.

That said, I'm fine with it if she does. After listening to all the self righteous "might makes right" sentiments lately from Republicans in re RBG, I just don't have any appetite for Dems rolling over and doing nothing. The House has some might too, might be time to wield it.

This is what y'all wanted. Y'all were warned again and again that what McConnell did to Garland would escalate things, and now you have most of that same GOP Senate putting their bad faith on full display and saying "so what". Antagonism has consequences, and if y'all want to turn the court into a nakedly partisan instrument (which McConnell has made loud and clear), that has consequences to.
SHOCKER!

One of the most triggered TDSers on this board isn't happy with the Republicans (again).

Let me guess.... it's all Trump's fault (again)?
I won't try to speak for Huey, but this is on Mitch McConnell and any Senate Republican who was in the Senate in 2016. I'll give a partial pass to those who took a seat for the first time after 2016 ... they weren't in on the game in 2016.

By the way, why in the world are you guys worried about this? The consensus from the Trumpty Dumpts is that we're headed for a landslide.


Because we don't want to see thousands of innocent businesses burned against and billions of $$ worth of damage.

If GOP voters get mad they might shout but they go vote to change things.

When Dems get mad they want to burn everything down and it doesn't matter what corrupt or illegal things they do to win back power.

Which party do you want to support?


Hopefully the GOP bring me back in 2024.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! You fonny fubar. And quash is a Libertarian.
It's always amusing when the liberals on this board (and elsewhere) try to pretend they aren't liberals.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

They're talking about an impeachment, I haven't seen that it has to or would be Trump specifically. He could get swept up in a Barr impeachment though. If interference in judicial processes for Trump's cronies is the underlying conduct being examined, I imagine his name would at least come up.
You can watch the video again, it's quite short.
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Welcome to politics, where both sides are hypocrites.

This is great

RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HashTag said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

fubar said:

riflebear said:

fubar said:

HashTag said:

HuMcK said:



Barr should have been impeached the moment the first prosecutor resigned in protest on Stone's case, doubly so after Flynn, and that's independent of this latest standoff. DeJoy also arguably has some exposure for his handling of the USPS. I actually don't think Pelosi will do that now though to tie up the Senate.

That said, I'm fine with it if she does. After listening to all the self righteous "might makes right" sentiments lately from Republicans in re RBG, I just don't have any appetite for Dems rolling over and doing nothing. The House has some might too, might be time to wield it.

This is what y'all wanted. Y'all were warned again and again that what McConnell did to Garland would escalate things, and now you have most of that same GOP Senate putting their bad faith on full display and saying "so what". Antagonism has consequences, and if y'all want to turn the court into a nakedly partisan instrument (which McConnell has made loud and clear), that has consequences to.
SHOCKER!

One of the most triggered TDSers on this board isn't happy with the Republicans (again).

Let me guess.... it's all Trump's fault (again)?
I won't try to speak for Huey, but this is on Mitch McConnell and any Senate Republican who was in the Senate in 2016. I'll give a partial pass to those who took a seat for the first time after 2016 ... they weren't in on the game in 2016.

By the way, why in the world are you guys worried about this? The consensus from the Trumpty Dumpts is that we're headed for a landslide.


Because we don't want to see thousands of innocent businesses burned against and billions of $$ worth of damage.

If GOP voters get mad they might shout but they go vote to change things.

When Dems get mad they want to burn everything down and it doesn't matter what corrupt or illegal things they do to win back power.

Which party do you want to support?


Hopefully the GOP bring me back in 2024.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! You fonny fubar. And quash is a Libertarian.
It's always amusing when the liberals on this board (and elsewhere) try to pretend they aren't liberals.
Anybody that has bought into and supporting this crazy Democratic /Socialist Party has gone down the rabbit hole and they ain't coming back!!!!
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
fubar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

HashTag said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

fubar said:




Hopefully the GOP bring me back in 2024.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! You fonny fubar. And quash is a Libertarian.
It's always amusing when the liberals on this board (and elsewhere) try to pretend they aren't liberals.
Anybody that has bought into and supporting this crazy Democratic /Socialist Party has gone down the rabbit hole and they ain't coming back!!!!
I'm not supporting the Democrats so much as I am opposing the Party of Trump, who has proven he is not up to the job. There are a lot of people like me out here, though you in the echo chamber aren't listening. I don't give a **** what you call me, I'll vote my conscience and hope for the best.

This liberal has voted for Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Libertarian, Bush 43, (no vote), McCain, Romney, Libertarian.

P.S. Your actions now are waking up the Bernie Wing of voters. Well done!
STxBear81
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I believe America has had enough of the Democratic lying and bull crap. Everyone knows the Dems behind the chaos in the country. Only a select few losers accept what is going on. VIVA la Trump
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

HashTag said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

fubar said:




Hopefully the GOP bring me back in 2024.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! You fonny fubar. And quash is a Libertarian.
It's always amusing when the liberals on this board (and elsewhere) try to pretend they aren't liberals.
Anybody that has bought into and supporting this crazy Democratic /Socialist Party has gone down the rabbit hole and they ain't coming back!!!!
I'm not supporting the Democrats so much as I am opposing the Party of Trump, who has proven he is not up to the job. There are a lot of people like me out here, though you in the echo chamber aren't listening. I don't give a **** what you call me, I'll vote my conscience and hope for the best.

This liberal has voted for Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Libertarian, Bush 43, (no vote), McCain, Romney, Libertarian.

P.S. Your actions now are waking up the Bernie Wing of voters. Well done!
My actions? I'm just voting for the guy that does not have dementia.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
STxBear81
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Im voting for the guy who supports our constitution...not the CCP
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear said:

Welcome to politics, where both sides are hypocrites.

This is great


WOW!!!!!! How quickly things change. Thanks for posting, riflebear.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

HashTag said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

fubar said:




Hopefully the GOP bring me back in 2024.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! You fonny fubar. And quash is a Libertarian.
It's always amusing when the liberals on this board (and elsewhere) try to pretend they aren't liberals.
Anybody that has bought into and supporting this crazy Democratic /Socialist Party has gone down the rabbit hole and they ain't coming back!!!!
I'm not supporting the Democrats so much as I am opposing the Party of Trump, who has proven he is not up to the job. There are a lot of people like me out here, though you in the echo chamber aren't listening. I don't give a **** what you call me, I'll vote my conscience and hope for the best.

This liberal has voted for Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Libertarian, Bush 43, (no vote), McCain, Romney, Libertarian.

P.S. Your actions now are waking up the Bernie Wing of voters. Well done!
They typically wake up in the afternoon, just in time to gather bricks and Mollies before sunset.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
George Truett said:

riflebear said:

fubar said:

HashTag said:

HuMcK said:



Barr should have been impeached the moment the first prosecutor resigned in protest on Stone's case, doubly so after Flynn, and that's independent of this latest standoff. DeJoy also arguably has some exposure for his handling of the USPS. I actually don't think Pelosi will do that now though to tie up the Senate.

That said, I'm fine with it if she does. After listening to all the self righteous "might makes right" sentiments lately from Republicans in re RBG, I just don't have any appetite for Dems rolling over and doing nothing. The House has some might too, might be time to wield it.

This is what y'all wanted. Y'all were warned again and again that what McConnell did to Garland would escalate things, and now you have most of that same GOP Senate putting their bad faith on full display and saying "so what". Antagonism has consequences, and if y'all want to turn the court into a nakedly partisan instrument (which McConnell has made loud and clear), that has consequences to.
SHOCKER!

One of the most triggered TDSers on this board isn't happy with the Republicans (again).

Let me guess.... it's all Trump's fault (again)?
I won't try to speak for Huey, but this is on Mitch McConnell and any Senate Republican who was in the Senate in 2016. I'll give a partial pass to those who took a seat for the first time after 2016 ... they weren't in on the game in 2016.

By the way, why in the world are you guys worried about this? The consensus from the Trumpty Dumpts is that we're headed for a landslide.


Because we don't want to see thousands of innocent businesses burned against and billions of $$ worth of damage.

If GOP voters get mad they might shout but they go vote to change things.

When Dems get mad they want to burn everything down and it doesn't matter what corrupt or illegal things they do to win back power.

Which party do you want to support?

As I recall, there was no looting and rioting during the last Democratic administration.


It is almost as if you have no clue. BLM started under the last Democratic administration. Remember the make-believe "hands up, don't shoot?" Recall those Occupy Wall Street freaks taking over NYC?

Biden is your candidate for sure. He doesn't remember what happened between 2008-2016 either.
Jack and DP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

HashTag said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

fubar said:




Hopefully the GOP bring me back in 2024.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! You fonny fubar. And quash is a Libertarian.
It's always amusing when the liberals on this board (and elsewhere) try to pretend they aren't liberals.
Anybody that has bought into and supporting this crazy Democratic /Socialist Party has gone down the rabbit hole and they ain't coming back!!!!
I'm not supporting the Democrats so much as I am opposing the Party of Trump, who has proven he is not up to the job. There are a lot of people like me out here, though you in the echo chamber aren't listening. I don't give a **** what you call me, I'll vote my conscience and hope for the best.

This liberal has voted for Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Libertarian, Bush 43, (no vote), McCain, Romney, Libertarian.

P.S. Your actions now are waking up the Bernie Wing of voters. Well done!


Not up for the job? What do you have against world peace?
Jack and DP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
STxBear81
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sentimental Schumer
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

HashTag said:

fubar said:

HashTag said:

HuMcK said:



Barr should have been impeached the moment the first prosecutor resigned in protest on Stone's case, doubly so after Flynn, and that's independent of this latest standoff. DeJoy also arguably has some exposure for his handling of the USPS. I actually don't think Pelosi will do that now though to tie up the Senate.

That said, I'm fine with it if she does. After listening to all the self righteous "might makes right" sentiments lately from Republicans in re RBG, I just don't have any appetite for Dems rolling over and doing nothing. The House has some might too, might be time to wield it.

This is what y'all wanted. Y'all were warned again and again that what McConnell did to Garland would escalate things, and now you have most of that same GOP Senate putting their bad faith on full display and saying "so what". Antagonism has consequences, and if y'all want to turn the court into a nakedly partisan instrument (which McConnell has made loud and clear), that has consequences to.
SHOCKER!

One of the most triggered TDSers on this board isn't happy with the Republicans (again).

Let me guess.... it's all Trump's fault (again)?
I won't try to speak for Huey, but this is on Mitch McConnell and any Senate Republican who was in the Senate in 2016. I'll give a partial pass to those who took a seat for the first time after 2016 ... they weren't in on the game in 2016.

By the way, why in the world are you guys worried about this? The consensus from the Trumpty Dumpts is that we're headed for a landslide.
So you want McConnell to follow what he said in 2016, but the those that demanded for a floor vote, it's okay for them to change their mind now? - okay.

I would think those dems that demanded a floor vote then would be demanding a floor vote now - hypocrites.

By the way, don't know why you think we're worried, RBG passing benefits the GOP and Trump.

Democrats will overplay what ever hand they think they have and turn off many Americans by making threats about packing the court, impeaching Trump to stall confirmation, etc.....

In 2016, over 25% of Trump voters said the Supreme Court was the most important factor in their decision to support him. Potential justice appointments was shaping up to be la less powerful argument this time around. Not anymore.
If you change the rules, play by the rules you made. Calling the other side -- the one without power to do anything of substance -- hypocritical, while you're Grand Marshal of the Hypocrite Parade, is asinine. Nobody outside of the True Believers in the echo chamber buys it.

You know what could've avoided this whole sorry spectacle? Holding hearings and a vote on Merrick Garland in 2016. You vote him down, you can explain why and move on.
There is nothing unusual going on.

29 times in the last year of a Presidency this has occured, and 29 times a nominee was chosen by the President.

When the party in power in the Senate nominated, 17 out of 19 times they passes. When the party out of power nominated, only 2 out of 10 passed.

Still wish they would have taken a vote on Merrick Garland, he wouldn't have passed, but the vote should have been taken.

Why are we taking business as usual and making it into a highly unusual situation, it's not.
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Have the Democrats ever held up the nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice in any election year in which they controlled both the Senate and the Presidency? Has any party, in the history of the nation, ever held up the nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice in any election year in which that party controlled both the Senate and the Presidency?
fubar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:



There is nothing unusual going on.

29 times in the last year of a Presidency this has occured, and 29 times a nominee was chosen by the President.

When the party in power in the Senate nominated, 17 out of 19 times they passes. When the party out of power nominated, only 2 out of 10 passed.

Still wish they would have taken a vote on Merrick Garland, he wouldn't have passed, but the vote should have been taken.

Why are we taking business as usual and making it into a highly unusual situation, it's not.
With all due respect, most of this is BS.

You hold hearings and vote. McConnell denied this for Merrick Garland, and the GOP Senate hid behind him. The "they wouldn't have confirmed him anyway" is garbage. You hold hearings. You vote. You seem to agree with me here.

But having decided not to do that -- let the people decide via the upcoming elections, was the mantra -- you've set yourself up for the outrage to come. That it's happened less than four years later just illustrates the GOP hypocrisy that much more brightly.

And that one of the reasons given that we really need to move fast is so that we'll have a fully-staffed Supreme Court in case of litigation regarding the coming election ... I suspect even the truest of the True Believers sees the absurdity of the argument.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:



There is nothing unusual going on.

29 times in the last year of a Presidency this has occured, and 29 times a nominee was chosen by the President.

When the party in power in the Senate nominated, 17 out of 19 times they passes. When the party out of power nominated, only 2 out of 10 passed.

Still wish they would have taken a vote on Merrick Garland, he wouldn't have passed, but the vote should have been taken.

Why are we taking business as usual and making it into a highly unusual situation, it's not.
With all due respect, most of this is BS.

You hold hearings and vote. McConnell denied this for Merrick Garland, and the GOP Senate hid behind him. The "they wouldn't have confirmed him anyway" is garbage. You hold hearings. You vote. You seem to agree with me here.

But having decided not to do that -- let the people decide via the upcoming elections, was the mantra -- you've set yourself up for the outrage to come. That it's happened less than four years later just illustrates the GOP hypocrisy that much more brightly.

And that one of the reasons given that we really need to move fast is so that we'll have a fully-staffed Supreme Court in case of litigation regarding the coming election ... I suspect even the truest of the True Believers sees the absurdity of the argument.
If you look at McConnell's statements at the time, he makes it clear that letting the people decide is appropriate in that particular context, i.e. when the people have created a split between the executive branch and the Senate. That is not the situation today.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:



There is nothing unusual going on.

29 times in the last year of a Presidency this has occured, and 29 times a nominee was chosen by the President.

When the party in power in the Senate nominated, 17 out of 19 times they passes. When the party out of power nominated, only 2 out of 10 passed.

Still wish they would have taken a vote on Merrick Garland, he wouldn't have passed, but the vote should have been taken.

Why are we taking business as usual and making it into a highly unusual situation, it's not.
With all due respect, most of this is BS.

You hold hearings and vote. McConnell denied this for Merrick Garland, and the GOP Senate hid behind him. The "they wouldn't have confirmed him anyway" is garbage. You hold hearings. You vote. You seem to agree with me here.

But having decided not to do that -- let the people decide via the upcoming elections, was the mantra -- you've set yourself up for the outrage to come. That it's happened less than four years later just illustrates the GOP hypocrisy that much more brightly.

And that one of the reasons given that we really need to move fast is so that we'll have a fully-staffed Supreme Court in case of litigation regarding the coming election ... I suspect even the truest of the True Believers sees the absurdity of the argument.
How can statistical facts be BS. The only issue is Merrick Garland didn't get a vote. He should have, but didn't.

The Republicans were playing politics, as if the democrats don't.

Nominating and voting on a qualified candidate would be the normal thing to do.

Of course you don't remember, I sure wouldn't, but I repeatedly said the Merrick Garland should get a vote when it was ongoing.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

fubar said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:



There is nothing unusual going on.

29 times in the last year of a Presidency this has occured, and 29 times a nominee was chosen by the President.

When the party in power in the Senate nominated, 17 out of 19 times they passes. When the party out of power nominated, only 2 out of 10 passed.

Still wish they would have taken a vote on Merrick Garland, he wouldn't have passed, but the vote should have been taken.

Why are we taking business as usual and making it into a highly unusual situation, it's not.
With all due respect, most of this is BS.

You hold hearings and vote. McConnell denied this for Merrick Garland, and the GOP Senate hid behind him. The "they wouldn't have confirmed him anyway" is garbage. You hold hearings. You vote. You seem to agree with me here.

But having decided not to do that -- let the people decide via the upcoming elections, was the mantra -- you've set yourself up for the outrage to come. That it's happened less than four years later just illustrates the GOP hypocrisy that much more brightly.

And that one of the reasons given that we really need to move fast is so that we'll have a fully-staffed Supreme Court in case of litigation regarding the coming election ... I suspect even the truest of the True Believers sees the absurdity of the argument.
If you look at McConnell's statements at the time, he makes it clear that letting the people decide is appropriate in that particular context, i.e. when the people have created a split between the executive branch and the Senate. That is not the situation today.
Another different situation, Obama in his last possible year of presidency, was a lame duck, Trump could actually be re-elected. In a normal year, nobody would vote for someone so diminished as Joe Biden.
643 Bears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Again, demanding a vote for Garland was as much about politics as denying a vote. Both sides were attempting to use the issue in their favor for the elections. Nobody, including the Dems in the Senate ever thought there was even a slim chance of confirmation.

Both sides were playing the same game then and both sides are playing it again today.

Elections have consequences. Get over it.

Next time, don't nominate the most unlikable candidate in decades, one of about 3 people who could possibly lose to Trump. And maybe don't spend the following 4 years with a giant case of sore loser butthurt, field a slew of socialists in the primary, and risk actually losing to him again because a corpse was the only reasonable alternative.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:



There is nothing unusual going on.

29 times in the last year of a Presidency this has occured, and 29 times a nominee was chosen by the President.

When the party in power in the Senate nominated, 17 out of 19 times they passes. When the party out of power nominated, only 2 out of 10 passed.

Still wish they would have taken a vote on Merrick Garland, he wouldn't have passed, but the vote should have been taken.

Why are we taking business as usual and making it into a highly unusual situation, it's not.
With all due respect, most of this is BS.

You hold hearings and vote. McConnell denied this for Merrick Garland, and the GOP Senate hid behind him. The "they wouldn't have confirmed him anyway" is garbage. You hold hearings. You vote. You seem to agree with me here.

But having decided not to do that -- let the people decide via the upcoming elections, was the mantra -- you've set yourself up for the outrage to come. That it's happened less than four years later just illustrates the GOP hypocrisy that much more brightly.

And that one of the reasons given that we really need to move fast is so that we'll have a fully-staffed Supreme Court in case of litigation regarding the coming election ... I suspect even the truest of the True Believers sees the absurdity of the argument.
If you actually think that there's no hypocrisy of the democrats here after saying the exact opposite as they did in 2016... then you're an idiot.

Politics is never about principle and always about power.

Both parties are guilty of exactly the same things they are accusing the other side of.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
643 Bears said:

Again, demanding a vote for Garland was as much about politics as denying a vote. Both sides were attempting to use the issue in their favor for the elections. Nobody, including the Dems in the Senate ever thought there was even a slim chance of confirmation.

Both sides were playing the same game then and both sides are playing it again today.

Elections have consequences. Get over it.

Next time, don't nominate the most unlikable candidate in decades, one of about 3 people who could possibly lose to Trump. And maybe don't spend the following 4 years with a giant case of sore loser butthurt, field a slew of socialists in the primary, and risk actually losing to him again because a corpse was the only reasonable alternative.
LOL!

So true
Gold Tron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

riflebear said:

fubar said:

HashTag said:

HuMcK said:



Barr should have been impeached the moment the first prosecutor resigned in protest on Stone's case, doubly so after Flynn, and that's independent of this latest standoff. DeJoy also arguably has some exposure for his handling of the USPS. I actually don't think Pelosi will do that now though to tie up the Senate.

That said, I'm fine with it if she does. After listening to all the self righteous "might makes right" sentiments lately from Republicans in re RBG, I just don't have any appetite for Dems rolling over and doing nothing. The House has some might too, might be time to wield it.

This is what y'all wanted. Y'all were warned again and again that what McConnell did to Garland would escalate things, and now you have most of that same GOP Senate putting their bad faith on full display and saying "so what". Antagonism has consequences, and if y'all want to turn the court into a nakedly partisan instrument (which McConnell has made loud and clear), that has consequences to.
SHOCKER!

One of the most triggered TDSers on this board isn't happy with the Republicans (again).

Let me guess.... it's all Trump's fault (again)?
I won't try to speak for Huey, but this is on Mitch McConnell and any Senate Republican who was in the Senate in 2016. I'll give a partial pass to those who took a seat for the first time after 2016 ... they weren't in on the game in 2016.

By the way, why in the world are you guys worried about this? The consensus from the Trumpty Dumpts is that we're headed for a landslide.


Because we don't want to see thousands of innocent businesses burned against and billions of $$ worth of damage.

If GOP voters get mad they might shout but they go vote to change things.

When Dems get mad they want to burn everything down and it doesn't matter what corrupt or illegal things they do to win back power.

Which party do you want to support?
Fear. That's what you got. Apparently you're not as confident in your boy as you project. Fear.

I've said many times on this site that I will be voting for Joe Biden, and I've explained why. Not going to do that again here. I'll be voting Democrat in the U.S. Senate and House races as well. (The House race isn't competitive.) Locally, I'll stick with what I usually do, which is vote Republican for the partisan jobs.

Hopefully the GOP brings me back in 2024.


I don't know you but you seem to be saying you have voted republican historically but cannot this time. You do hope the "GOP can bring you back in 2024".

This sounds like your girlfriend dumped you so you want to go try out a dude. If that doesn't work, you hope to go back to women in 4 years.
My pronouns are Deez/Dem.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

fubar said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

HashTag said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

fubar said:




Hopefully the GOP bring me back in 2024.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! You fonny fubar. And quash is a Libertarian.
It's always amusing when the liberals on this board (and elsewhere) try to pretend they aren't liberals.
Anybody that has bought into and supporting this crazy Democratic /Socialist Party has gone down the rabbit hole and they ain't coming back!!!!
I'm not supporting the Democrats so much as I am opposing the Party of Trump, who has proven he is not up to the job. There are a lot of people like me out here, though you in the echo chamber aren't listening. I don't give a **** what you call me, I'll vote my conscience and hope for the best.

This liberal has voted for Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Libertarian, Bush 43, (no vote), McCain, Romney, Libertarian.

P.S. Your actions now are waking up the Bernie Wing of voters. Well done!
My actions? I'm just voting for the guy that does not have dementia.
Yea, you get zero credits for that..
Jack and DP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack and DP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack and DP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack and DP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
George Truett said:

HuMcK said:

Collins is toast as is. Romney is untouchable in Mormon Utah. Murkowski kept her seat in 2010 by winning against a party endorsed Republican as a write in, so she's not going anywhere either. The math gets even tighter sometime in late November when Mark Kelly takes Arizona's junior Senate seat from McSally.
They'll definitely try to shove it through before the election because Kelly is way ahead of McSally, and he'll take that seat immediately.

They'll get it through, but it will degrade our politics and our country.

I knew McConnell was lying in 2016 and now he's lying again.
How will it degrade politics.........


Quote:

Fifty-two Senate Democrats and independents voted to weaken the power of the filibuster. The change reduces the threshold from 60 votes to 51 votes for Senate approval of executive and judicial nominees against unanimous GOP opposition. Three Democrats Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Carl Levin of Michigan opposed the change.
Your people created the nuclear option.

THEY degraded politics specifically for Obama, and they had a 52 vote block and could get away with it.

What it is called is "chickens have come home to roost".

You just don't like it because it against your "side". Your side created this possibility.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack and DP said:


This is simply bull**** and grandstanding.

Every person Trump has mentioned is exceptional.

He may be pretty sorry as an individual person, but he has made several good decisions as a president.
Jack and DP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack and DP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.