The Democratic Party...

[Ibanez]

Millions of people are going to vote in 4 months for the representatives that will confirm. That's equally, if not more important.


That's my opinion. I know the partisan nature of politics.

The hard work of government must plow forward. No time to rest. Onward and upward. Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'. No time like the present. Now or never. Dont' let any moss grow under your feet.

I should mention that my posts above are me playing devils advocate and pointing out the blatant hypocrisy from the GOP.

Contrary to what Trip and other Dems feel, the Constitution will work as designed- POTUS will nominate and the Senate will confirm. As they are obligated too. I have no issues with that (though, a hardline Republicans wouldn’t sit well with me.)



The 2016 stalling was a power play. They were holding out hope that HRC wouldn’t win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CAA Flagship]

Exactly. And the president isn't up for reelection this year. So, apples and cumquats.

Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy

Millions of people are going to vote in 4 months for the representatives that will confirm. That's equally, if not more important.


That's my opinion. I know the partisan nature of politics.

It's commonly referred to as the "Biden Rule".

[GannonFan]

The GOP was perfectly in their rights to deny the SCOTUS seat to Garland when they did it, they just used different reasoning to cover their actions. Basically, they held the Senate, and they weren't going to approve anyone Obama nominated. They just didn't want the optics of having to vote no to each and any nominee that was brought forward. The Senate has always been the body to approve new justices to the SCOTUS, and in 2016 that was a GOP held Senate and they weren't going to approve anyone Obama nominated. We can debate forever the particulars of whether they should've formally voted or not, but the end result was going to be the same - if they voted they would've voted no and Garland still would never be on the SCOTUS. The voters saw all of that and they still voted for a GOP Senate to continue and for a GOP (sort of) President, so that settled that.

This time, the Senate is still in GOP hands, and they have a GOP (sort of) President who is going to give them a nominee they are more than willing to vote for so it will happen. Arguing "Biden Rules" or McConnell's statements just distract from the reality that the Senate and the President are on the same side this time so the nominee will go through.

[Ibanez]

Millions of people are going to vote in 4 months for the representatives that will confirm. That's equally, if not more important.


That's my opinion. I know the partisan nature of politics.

It's commonly referred to as the "Biden Rule".

That sounds familiar

[CAA Flagship]

It's commonly referred to as the "Biden Rule".

That sounds familiar

Here's a refresher:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... minations/

[css75]

The GOP was perfectly in their rights to deny the SCOTUS seat to Garland when they did it, they just used different reasoning to cover their actions. Basically, they held the Senate, and they weren't going to approve anyone Obama nominated. They just didn't want the optics of having to vote no to each and any nominee that was brought forward. The Senate has always been the body to approve new justices to the SCOTUS, and in 2016 that was a GOP held Senate and they weren't going to approve anyone Obama nominated. We can debate forever the particulars of whether they should've formally voted or not, but the end result was going to be the same - if they voted they would've voted no and Garland still would never be on the SCOTUS. The voters saw all of that and they still voted for a GOP Senate to continue and for a GOP (sort of) President, so that settled that.

This time, the Senate is still in GOP hands, and they have a GOP (sort of) President who is going to give them a nominee they are more than willing to vote for so it will happen. Arguing "Biden Rules" or McConnell's statements just distract from the reality that the Senate and the President are on the same side this time so the nominee will go through.

^^^^^^^This. No wonder Gannon holds an elected office.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Indeed. A situation that will get worse once the illiterate Democrat socialist hordes gut the very institutions that you profess to love. What a piece of work you are.

* Democratic Socialist

or

* Democrat/socialist

**** Harvard kids....

It’s the Democrat Party and the Republic Party, you hopeless poltroon. Anthony Weiner says so.

[Ibanez]

The GOP was perfectly in their rights to deny the SCOTUS seat to Garland when they did it, they just used different reasoning to cover their actions. Basically, they held the Senate, and they weren't going to approve anyone Obama nominated. They just didn't want the optics of having to vote no to each and any nominee that was brought forward. The Senate has always been the body to approve new justices to the SCOTUS, and in 2016 that was a GOP held Senate and they weren't going to approve anyone Obama nominated. We can debate forever the particulars of whether they should've formally voted or not, but the end result was going to be the same - if they voted they would've voted no and Garland still would never be on the SCOTUS. The voters saw all of that and they still voted for a GOP Senate to continue and for a GOP (sort of) President, so that settled that.

This time, the Senate is still in GOP hands, and they have a GOP (sort of) President who is going to give them a nominee they are more than willing to vote for so it will happen. Arguing "Biden Rules" or McConnell's statements just distract from the reality that the Senate and the President are on the same side this time so the nominee will go through.

^^^^^^^This. No wonder Gannon holds an elected office.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Isn’t Gannon a dog catcher or something??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

:

* Democratic Socialist

or

* Democrat/socialist

**** Harvard kids....

It’s the Democrat Party and the Republic Party, you hopeless poltroon. Anthony Weiner says so.

You can’t even use poltroon correctly within the context of this discussion....

Spoiler: show

So what if I had to look up poltroon?

[Ivytalk]

:

It’s the Democrat Party and the Republic Party, you hopeless poltroon. Anthony Weiner says so.

You can’t even use poltroon correctly within the context of this discussion....

Spoiler: show

So what if I had to look up poltroon?

It’s my favorite multipurpose word! I know it means “coward” or something like that, but I use it as synonymous with “ultramaroon.”

[JohnStOnge]

Riveting or new is not the point. If it's old or repeated it's still the truth. We have the most dishonest President of the modern era in office right now. And he and his allies are attacking the institutions that protect us from Autocracy/Totalitarianism. It's a very bad situation.

Just what do you want policy wise?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Whatever I want policy wise does not outweigh my concern over a thoroughly dishonest President, with some success, attacking and degrading the institutions that potentially hold Presidents accountable.

[BDKJMU]

They vote on new congressmen every two years. Not the same thing.

And what do you think those congressmen do?

It's still an election year. You're splitting hairs. 23 Senators are up for election. 10 are Dems and 2 indy's. It's the same principle (I know, principles elude Congress).

Da fuq
33 senators are up for election:
24 donks, (including 2 independent that caucus with donks) 10 in states won by Trump
10 conks, 1 in a state won by Clinton.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... ions,_2018

Right now the Senate is 51 conks, 49 donks (including the 2 independent). McCain is hospitalized dying of cancer. So conks have to get ALL 50 to vote to confirm to whoever Trump nominates, or peel off donk votes that are running for relection in heavily red states.. Top candidates:
-Joe Manchin (Trump won WV 68% to 26%)
-Heidi Heitkamp (Trump won ND 63%-27%).
-Jon Tester (Trump won MT 56%-36%).
-Claire McCaskill (Trump won MO 57%-38%).
-Joe Donnelly (Trump won IN 57%-38%).

Still, conventional wisdom has it that conks lose seats in the House and gain seats in the Senate. Therefore, it would likely benefit conks to wait until after the election & the new Senate is seated to hold confirmation hearings..

[Ivytalk]

:

You can’t even use poltroon correctly within the context of this discussion....

Spoiler: show

So what if I had to look up poltroon?

It’s my favorite multipurpose word! I know it means “coward” or something like that, but I use it as synonymous with “ultramaroon.”

Also, “Milford Poltroon” was the pen name of the editor of the Wretched Mess News and the author of How to Fish Good, both of which I enjoyed in my younger days. Google it!

[JohnStOnge]

Back to the Democratic Party. They really do have a problem at least for the short term. I listened to a NPR story on a guy who was running as an extreme liberal (progressive). I think it was in New York. I've tried to find something on it on line and have not been able to. But the story was basically that he made a "Medicare for All" type of position the centerpiece of his campaign. He didn't have the money, etc. But he got a lot of grass roots support. It came to a point where some kind of board was deciding upon whether to give him the local Democrat Party endorsement or another guy. That board voted to endorse him by 7-5.

They sent their recommendation to the State Party. The State Party said the vote was too close to be decisive. They said they wanted them to go through the process again. Then the State Party started calling board members and lobbying for the other guy saying he had a better chance to win the general. Eventually they got another vote and this time the other guy won 7-5. And this time the State Party had no problem with that.

Meanwhile a woman who objected to the process got fired.

That kind of thing reeks of corruption and it's obviously going to turn off some of the most passionate and potentially motivated Democrat voters. To me it's just downright stupid. There has GOT to be a better way to handle such things.

[Ivytalk]

And what do you think those congressmen do?

It's still an election year. You're splitting hairs. 23 Senators are up for election. 10 are Dems and 2 indy's. It's the same principle (I know, principles elude Congress).

Da fuq
33 senators are up for election:
24 donks, (including 2 independent that caucus with donks) 10 in states won by Trump
10 conks, 1 in a state won by Clinton.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... ions,_2018

Right now the Senate is 51 conks, 49 donks (including the 2 independent). McCain is hospitalized dying of cancer. So conks have to get ALL 50 to vote to confirm to whoever Trump nominates, or peel off donk votes that are running for relection in heavily red states.. Top candidates:
-Joe Manchin (Trump won WV 68% to 26%)
-Heidi Heitkamp (Trump won ND 63%-27%).
-Jon Testor (Trump won MT 56%-36%).
-Claire McCaskill (Trump won MO 57%-38%).

Still, conventional wisdom has it that conks lose seats in the House and gain seats in the Senate. Therefore, it would likely benefit conks to wait until after the election & the new Senate is seated to hold confirmation hearings..

*Tester

Don’t forget Indiana’s Joe Donnelly.

[BDKJMU]

Da fuq
33 senators are up for election:
24 donks, (including 2 independent that caucus with donks) 10 in states won by Trump
10 conks, 1 in a state won by Clinton.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... ions,_2018

Right now the Senate is 51 conks, 49 donks (including the 2 independent). McCain is hospitalized dying of cancer. So conks have to get ALL 50 to vote to confirm to whoever Trump nominates, or peel off donk votes that are running for relection in heavily red states.. Top candidates:
-Joe Manchin (Trump won WV 68% to 26%)
-Heidi Heitkamp (Trump won ND 63%-27%).
-Jon Tester (Trump won MT 56%-36%).
-Claire McCaskill (Trump won MO 57%-38%).
-Joe Donnelly (Trump won IN 57%-38%).

Still, conventional wisdom has it that conks lose seats in the House and gain seats in the Senate. Therefore, it would likely benefit conks to wait until after the election & the new Senate is seated to hold confirmation hearings..

*Tester

Don’t forget Indiana’s Joe Donnelly.

Good catch. Missed Donnelly.

[CAA Flagship]

Also, “Milford Poltroon” was the pen name of the editor of the Wretched Mess News and the author of How to Fish Good, both of which I enjoyed in my younger days. Google it!

That's 93henfan, right?

[Ivytalk]

Also, “Milford Poltroon” was the pen name of the editor of the Wretched Mess News and the author of How to Fish Good, both of which I enjoyed in my younger days. Google it!

That's 93henfan, right?

I see what you did there.

[css75]

And what do you think those congressmen do?

It's still an election year. You're splitting hairs. 23 Senators are up for election. 10 are Dems and 2 indy's. It's the same principle (I know, principles elude Congress).

Da fuq
33 senators are up for election:
24 donks, (including 2 independent that caucus with donks) 10 in states won by Trump
10 conks, 1 in a state won by Clinton.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... ions,_2018

Right now the Senate is 51 conks, 49 donks (including the 2 independent). McCain is hospitalized dying of cancer. So conks have to get ALL 50 to vote to confirm to whoever Trump nominates, or peel off donk votes that are running for relection in heavily red states.. Top candidates:
-Joe Manchin (Trump won WV 68% to 26%)
-Heidi Heitkamp (Trump won ND 63%-27%).
-Jon Tester (Trump won MT 56%-36%).
-Claire McCaskill (Trump won MO 57%-38%).
-Joe Donnelly (Trump won IN 57%-38%).

Still, conventional wisdom has it that conks lose seats in the House and gain seats in the Senate. Therefore, it would likely benefit conks to wait until after the election & the new Senate is seated to hold confirmation hearings..

You have no policy, that is why you didn’t answer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Da fuq
33 senators are up for election:
24 donks, (including 2 independent that caucus with donks) 10 in states won by Trump
10 conks, 1 in a state won by Clinton.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... ions,_2018

Right now the Senate is 51 conks, 49 donks (including the 2 independent). McCain is hospitalized dying of cancer. So conks have to get ALL 50 to vote to confirm to whoever Trump nominates, or peel off donk votes that are running for relection in heavily red states.. Top candidates:
-Joe Manchin (Trump won WV 68% to 26%)
-Heidi Heitkamp (Trump won ND 63%-27%).
-Jon Tester (Trump won MT 56%-36%).
-Claire McCaskill (Trump won MO 57%-38%).
-Joe Donnelly (Trump won IN 57%-38%).

Still, conventional wisdom has it that conks lose seats in the House and gain seats in the Senate. Therefore, it would likely benefit conks to wait until after the election & the new Senate is seated to hold confirmation hearings..

You have no policy, that is why you didn’t answer.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

??

[Ibanez]

And what do you think those congressmen do?

It's still an election year. You're splitting hairs. 23 Senators are up for election. 10 are Dems and 2 indy's. It's the same principle (I know, principles elude Congress).

Da fuq
33 senators are up for election:
24 donks, (including 2 independent that caucus with donks) 10 in states won by Trump
10 conks, 1 in a state won by Clinton.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... ions,_2018

Right now the Senate is 51 conks, 49 donks (including the 2 independent). McCain is hospitalized dying of cancer. So conks have to get ALL 50 to vote to confirm to whoever Trump nominates, or peel off donk votes that are running for relection in heavily red states.. Top candidates:
-Joe Manchin (Trump won WV 68% to 26%)
-Heidi Heitkamp (Trump won ND 63%-27%).
-Jon Tester (Trump won MT 56%-36%).
-Claire McCaskill (Trump won MO 57%-38%).
-Joe Donnelly (Trump won IN 57%-38%).

Still, conventional wisdom has it that conks lose seats in the House and gain seats in the Senate. Therefore, it would likely benefit conks to wait until after the election & the new Senate is seated to hold confirmation hearings..

I must’ve read the stat wrong- doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s possible for the people to turn the senate blue, which was my point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Da fuq
33 senators are up for election:
24 donks, (including 2 independent that caucus with donks) 10 in states won by Trump
10 conks, 1 in a state won by Clinton.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... ions,_2018

Right now the Senate is 51 conks, 49 donks (including the 2 independent). McCain is hospitalized dying of cancer. So conks have to get ALL 50 to vote to confirm to whoever Trump nominates, or peel off donk votes that are running for relection in heavily red states.. Top candidates:
-Joe Manchin (Trump won WV 68% to 26%)
-Heidi Heitkamp (Trump won ND 63%-27%).
-Jon Tester (Trump won MT 56%-36%).
-Claire McCaskill (Trump won MO 57%-38%).
-Joe Donnelly (Trump won IN 57%-38%).

Still, conventional wisdom has it that conks lose seats in the House and gain seats in the Senate. Therefore, it would likely benefit conks to wait until after the election & the new Senate is seated to hold confirmation hearings..

I must’ve read the stat wrong- doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s possible for the people to turn the senate blue, which was my point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Read the stat wrong? Its 33 or 34 senators up for re election every 6 years.
Sure its theoretically possible the donks could take control, but HIGHLY unlikely considering you read the stat way wrong.

[CID1990]

I thought the GOP was going to be damaged by Trump (and it has been) but the Democratic Party is doing its level best to make it all a wash -

Democrat congresscritters openly associating with a protest group calling to abolish ICE (one was actually arrested):

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/28/ ... ington-dc/

Is this not the liberal mainstream calling for de facto open borders?

[Ibanez]

I must’ve read the stat wrong- doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s possible for the people to turn the senate blue, which was my point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Read the stat wrong? Its 33 or 34 senators up for re election every 6 years.
Sure its theoretically possible the donks could take control, but HIGHLY unlikely considering you read the stat way wrong.

For the # up for reelection, jackass. Jesus


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

Back to the Democratic Party. They really do have a problem at least for the short term. I listened to a NPR story on a guy who was running as an extreme liberal (progressive). I think it was in New York. I've tried to find something on it on line and have not been able to. But the story was basically that he made a "Medicare for All" type of position the centerpiece of his campaign. He didn't have the money, etc. But he got a lot of grass roots support. It came to a point where some kind of board was deciding upon whether to give him the local Democrat Party endorsement or another guy. That board voted to endorse him by 7-5.

They sent their recommendation to the State Party. The State Party said the vote was too close to be decisive. They said they wanted them to go through the process again. Then the State Party started calling board members and lobbying for the other guy saying he had a better chance to win the general. Eventually they got another vote and this time the other guy won 7-5. And this time the State Party had no problem with that.

Meanwhile a woman who objected to the process got fired.

That kind of thing reeks of corruption and it's obviously going to turn off some of the most passionate and potentially motivated Democrat voters. To me it's just downright stupid. There has GOT to be a better way to handle such things.

Well you should be fine with that. You've excused away every OTHER instance of underhanded subterfuge the Democratic party has engaged in over the past 30 years.