You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Current Events Thread
Romney came out and is voting. It's over. Dems need to move on & point out the blatant hypocrisy of Moscow Mitch, as well as emphasize it in Senate race states that are close like CO (seems over now), AZ, SC (bad move for Graham imho) as well as other toss up Senate seats.
But fighting it etc would be a bad move. Maybe question this woman heavily on how she'd vote if Roe v Wade came up, and get an answer. Aside from that just put her thru if they see fit.
Yea...i mean...the whole thing is a lost cause. Pretty silly that trump gets to nominate 3 justices in 4 years.
Is there any silver lining here that the rush to do this is because they don’t feel good about November?
Re: Current Events Thread
mitchejw wrote:misterID wrote:You seriously think Schumer wouldn't do it?
Garland should have got the vote.
It changes nothing.
It's the presidents right.
Biden had no problem with it specifically because they knew this was probable.How can you be so sure? How do you know what Schumer would do?
It’s disheartening that you use this hypothetical to justify what is about to happen and what has happened.
If Garland was on the bench right now, no one would have a thing to say.
Because I'm not naive to believe Schumer would forego his constitutional right to proceed and NOT put a justice on the bench just out of the kindness of his heart?
Again, there is nothing wrong with putting a judge on the bench. Not for any party. You've been given quotes by all parties saying, yes, this is cool, you can fill that seat at any point in a president's term... (By you, we mean only if *we* get to do it)
If Garland were on the seat, Democrats would STILL be screaming and begging and threatening to burn everything down if RBG's seat is filled by Trump.
Sometimes i feel like we’re not talking about the same thing.
Re: Current Events Thread
mitchejw wrote:misterID wrote:You seriously think Schumer wouldn't do it?
Garland should have got the vote.
It changes nothing.
It's the presidents right.
Biden had no problem with it specifically because they knew this was probable.How can you be so sure? How do you know what Schumer would do?
It’s disheartening that you use this hypothetical to justify what is about to happen and what has happened.
If Garland was on the bench right now, no one would have a thing to say.
Because I'm not naive to believe Schumer would forego his constitutional right to proceed and NOT put a justice on the bench just out of the kindness of his heart?
Again, there is nothing wrong with putting a judge on the bench. Not for any party. You've been given quotes by all parties saying, yes, this is cool, you can fill that seat at any point in a president's term... (By you, we mean only if *we* get to do it)
If Garland were on the seat, Democrats would STILL be screaming and begging and threatening to burn everything down if RBG's seat is filled by Trump.
MisterID did Democrats ever not take a vote because its an election year? (in recent times)
Re: Current Events Thread
misterID wrote:mitchejw wrote:How can you be so sure? How do you know what Schumer would do?
It’s disheartening that you use this hypothetical to justify what is about to happen and what has happened.
If Garland was on the bench right now, no one would have a thing to say.
Because I'm not naive to believe Schumer would forego his constitutional right to proceed and NOT put a justice on the bench just out of the kindness of his heart?
Again, there is nothing wrong with putting a judge on the bench. Not for any party. You've been given quotes by all parties saying, yes, this is cool, you can fill that seat at any point in a president's term... (By you, we mean only if *we* get to do it)
If Garland were on the seat, Democrats would STILL be screaming and begging and threatening to burn everything down if RBG's seat is filled by Trump.
MisterID did Democrats ever not take a vote because its an election year? (in recent times)
Besides the stimulus and police reform bills?
Re: Current Events Thread
PaSnow wrote:misterID wrote:Because I'm not naive to believe Schumer would forego his constitutional right to proceed and NOT put a justice on the bench just out of the kindness of his heart?
Again, there is nothing wrong with putting a judge on the bench. Not for any party. You've been given quotes by all parties saying, yes, this is cool, you can fill that seat at any point in a president's term... (By you, we mean only if *we* get to do it)
If Garland were on the seat, Democrats would STILL be screaming and begging and threatening to burn everything down if RBG's seat is filled by Trump.
MisterID did Democrats ever not take a vote because its an election year? (in recent times)
Besides the stimulus and police reform bills?
You know you dont have to vote for something just because it’s proposed right?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Current Events Thread
Honestly, guys, I'd be really concerned why Biden keeps issuing lids on the media (refusing to speak) so much when he NEEDS to be out in the media everyday. That's highly unusual. He's looked really, really bad recently.
It's a concern. It's pretty bad. People need to realize he had a very short primary as he was losing until SC, then NV, then I think Super Tuesday, so it was concentrated to about 3 weeks.
He's not the best choice. Not at all. Warren ran a pretty shit campaign tho by going far right (Bernie right), then stomping down Bloomberg, a qqualified guy once he entered. She should have stayed moderate, and Bloomberg should have entered sooner. I think he held out as courtesy to Biden until he saw Biden struggling to pull ahead.
