billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 22, 2020 10:31:33 GMT -5
i could list the case for it, right here, but really i have no time for such exercises in futility. you won't agree. i get that. i am sure that Germans in 1932 could not see what awaited them, either.
for the record, i hope i am wrong. this was once a great country, and could be one again. but it really has to start in a few short weeks, or i am afraid we have swung outside "stable equilibrium".
Thanks. (bolded) Like this ? Quote; 1 1 hours ago · Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., spoke like a fascist when he vowed that "nothing is off the table" if President Trump goes forward with a nomination to replace late Supreme Court ..www.foxnews.com/media/mark-levin-chuck-schumer-fascist-brownshirt-totalitarian"Does the Constitution give the Senate -- let alone one senator -- the power to 'put everything on the table'?" (from link above) Yes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 10:34:54 GMT -5
"Does the Constitution give the Senate -- let alone one senator -- the power to 'put everything on the table'?" (from link above) Yes. And the right for that very same Senate to approve a new judge, nominated by the president. DJ's claim of fascism seems a bit weak to me, knowing what an actual fascist state is.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 22, 2020 10:54:01 GMT -5
"Does the Constitution give the Senate -- let alone one senator -- the power to 'put everything on the table'?" (from link above) Yes. And the right for that very same Senate to approve a new judge. DJ's claim of fascism seems a bit weak to me, knowing what an actual fascist state is. I don't think that the fight over filling the SC opening is a strong element of a claim of movement towards the US becoming a fascist state. As you point out, it does fall under constitutional powers. Much more troubling is something like the executive branch creating a power to withhold congressionally approved funding based on a criteria they invented. link
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 11:06:47 GMT -5
And the right for that very same Senate to approve a new judge. DJ's claim of fascism seems a bit weak to me, knowing what an actual fascist state is. I don't think that the fight over filling the SC opening is a strong element of a claim of movement towards the US becoming a fascist state. As you point out, it does fall under constitutional powers. Much more troubling is something like the executive branch creating a power to withhold congressionally approved funding based on a criteria they invented. linkLots of things are troubling, to many people, of different beliefs and stances. This thread is titled Judges, not federal funding. I won't comment on that here.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 22, 2020 16:36:38 GMT -5
"Does the Constitution give the Senate -- let alone one senator -- the power to 'put everything on the table'?" (from link above) Yes. And the right for that very same Senate to approve a new judge, nominated by the president. DJ's claim of fascism seems a bit weak to me, knowing what an actual fascist state is. for those of you curious about what an ad hominem attack looks like, you might want to bookmark THIS /\ post.
very disappointing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 19:34:28 GMT -5
And the right for that very same Senate to approve a new judge, nominated by the president. DJ's claim of fascism seems a bit weak to me, knowing what an actual fascist state is. for those of you curious about what an ad hominem attack looks like, you might want to bookmark THIS /\ post.
very disappointing.
Ad hominem is a personal attack. I was attacking your claim of fascism. (See 3 boldeds, 1 above, 2 below) Apology not necessary. ad hominem [ˌad ˈhämənəm] ADJECTIVE (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."vicious ad hominem attacks" ADVERB in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/Best not bookmark this post, might be embarrassing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 9:08:38 GMT -5
Trump said he will announce his nomination for the next Supreme Court justice on Saturday. Trump is considering several candidates to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Two federal appeals court judges, Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa, are considered front-runners. Sen. Mitt Romney said he will vote on Trump’s nominee if the president’s pick reaches the Senate floor. www.cnbc.com/2020/09/22/trump-will-name-supreme-court-pick-to-replace-ginsburg-on-saturday.html
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2020 18:23:35 GMT -5
for those of you curious about what an ad hominem attack looks like, you might want to bookmark THIS /\ post.
very disappointing.
Ad hominem is a personal attack. I was attacking your claim of fascism. no. you attacked the claimer, not the claim. what you said was "I know more than you about the subject. you are wrong". that is actually a classic ad hominem reply, in that it undermines my veracity as a poster rather than arguing substantively about the claim.
it is rhetorically effective, but logically invalid. it may, in fact, be true that you know more about fascism than I do. it might also be true that you are a neo-fascist. a lot of things might be true.
including my claim.
NOTE: my claim had nothing to do with the Senate or judges, for the record. you might have tried clearing up that point (and not assuming that I would say something that idiotic) before concluding that I don't know anything about fascism based on that faulty premise. resorting to a dictionary to prove your point didn't help your argument. you are now claiming that I not only don't know what fascism is, but that I don't know what ad hominem is, either. so, reviewing:
1) you concluded that I was calling Trump a fascist for his court appointments (false). 2) based on that false premise, you wrongly concluded that I don't know anything about fascism (false) 3) based on that, you concluded that I don't know what ad hominem argumentative is (false).
three strikes. you're out.
but if you want to try again, the original point was that Germans probably didn't recognize that fascism was coming in 1932. and I was not actually bagging on you. I was ruminating. I was saying that these movements that happen in developed countries happen slowly, over time, like the boiling frog analogy. drip.....drip......drip.
I was encouraging vigilance. I find your dismissiveness (and the cheerleading happening on the right) utterly terrifying. and it is driving me out of these discussions and, candidly, out of this country.
edit: I just saw your final remark about bookmarks. a very low blow. and also missing wildly. i was pretty confident i got it right before your replies. now i am absolutely certain.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 19:35:19 GMT -5
Ad hominem is a personal attack. I was attacking your claim of fascism. no. you attacked the claimer, not the claim. what you said was "I know more than you about the subject. you are wrong". that is actually a classic ad hominem reply, in that it undermines my veracity as a poster rather than arguing substantively about the claim.
... Correct, in a sense that what I was saying. (bolded, underlined) I was attacking the subject, or your knowledge of it. ("The position you are maintaining", definition in reply #215) Simple as that. Not ad hominem. (personal attack)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2020 20:32:40 GMT -5
no. you attacked the claimer, not the claim. what you said was "I know more than you about the subject. you are wrong". that is actually a classic ad hominem reply, in that it undermines my veracity as a poster rather than arguing substantively about the claim.
... Correct, in a sense that what I was saying. (bolded, underlined) I was attacking the subject, or your knowledge of it. ("The position you are maintaining", definition in reply #215) Simple as that. Not ad hominem. (personal attack) i didn't claim it was a personal attack. i was not offended.
what i claimed is that you were attacking my standing to argue. that is not just ad hominem, it is the most classic debating form of it.
"ad hominem" doesn't mean personal attack in Latin, by the way. it means "to the man". it suggests that you are more focused on the poster (me in this case) than the post. you do it often.
often enough that i thought i would bring it to your attention. friendly advise. take it or leave it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 10:27:12 GMT -5
Correct, in a sense that what I was saying. (bolded, underlined) I was attacking the subject, or your knowledge of it. ("The position you are maintaining", definition in reply #215) Simple as that. Not ad hominem. (personal attack) i didn't claim it was a personal attack. i was not offended.
what i claimed is that you were attacking my standing to argue. that is not just ad hominem, it is the most classic debating form of it.
"ad hominem" doesn't mean personal attack in Latin, by the way. it means "to the man". it suggests that you are more focused on the poster (me in this case) than the post. you do it often.
often enough that i thought i would bring it to your attention. friendly advise. take it or leave it.
We are all free to debate here, even about debating. The literal translation for Ad Hominem from Latin, isn't how it defines for conversational logical fallacies usage. (Oxford, definition already posted previous) When you compare someone to a 1932 era fascist, do you expect to not be responded to in the similar ? Sep 20, 2020 at 7:31pm djAdvocate said: i could list the case for it, right here, but really i have no time for such exercises in futility. you won't agree. i get that. i am sure that Germans in 1932 could not see what awaited them, either.
Far easier to make a case for Ad Hominem with this post above. We are not exactly flowers and unicorns type of posters, so I don't understand your sudden concern with this. I'm not concerned in the slightest, and only respond because you are questioning about it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 25, 2020 11:06:16 GMT -5
When you compare someone to a 1932 era fascist, do you expect to not be responded to in the similar ? Sep 20, 2020 at 7:31pm djAdvocate said: i could list the case for it, right here, but really i have no time for such exercises in futility. you won't agree. i get that. i am sure that Germans in 1932 could not see what awaited them, either.
NOTE FROM DJ: GERMANS IS A PLURAL. I WAS COMPARING GERMANS TO AMERICANS, NOT TO D23. I APOLOGIZE IF IT APPEARED THAT WAY, BUT I HAD NO INTENTION OF MAKING THIS PERSONAL. Far easier to make a case for Ad Hominem with this post above. We are not exactly flowers and unicorns type of posters, so I don't understand your sudden concern with this. I'm not concerned in the slightest, and only respond because you are questioning about it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 11:08:22 GMT -5
When you compare someone to a 1932 era fascist, do you expect to not be responded to in the similar ? Sep 20, 2020 at 7:31pm djAdvocate said: i could list the case for it, right here, but really i have no time for such exercises in futility. you won't agree. i get that. i am sure that Germans in 1932 could not see what awaited them, either.
NOTE FROM DJ: GERMANS IS A PLURAL. I WAS COMPARING GERMANS TO AMERICANS, NOT TO D23. I APOLOGIZE IF IT APPEARED THAT WAY, BUT I HAD NO INTENTION OF MAKING THIS PERSONAL. Far easier to make a case for Ad Hominem with this post above. We are not exactly flowers and unicorns type of posters, so I don't understand your sudden concern with this. I'm not concerned in the slightest, and only respond because you are questioning about it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 11:09:51 GMT -5
Quote; The issue of whether Senate Republicans should continue confirming President Trump’s judicial nominations was on the ballot once again during the 2018 midterm elections, and the American people made their choice loud and clear. In the wake of the repulsive Democratic antics during the Kavanaugh hearings, the American people decided to expand the Republican majority in the Senate from 51 to 53 seats. Quote; History is on the side of the GOP here. Justice John Paul Stevens was nominated and confirmed by the Senate in just 19 days. Justice Ginsburg herself was nominated and confirmed in only 42 days. So we know it’s very possible for a Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed in the time left before Election Day. Senate Republicans now have the responsibility to ensure that happens. www.foxnews.com/opinion/supreme-court-nomination-david-bossie
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,937
|
Post by bean29 on Sept 27, 2020 5:20:26 GMT -5
I just feel that this is a candidate that holds such extreme views she does not belong on the supreme court. In a normal world there would be hearings, the beliefs would come out and reasonable people would determine there has to be a better choice.
If they confirm her and she messes with women’s rights/14th amendment etc. there will be a backlash against republicans.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,385
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 27, 2020 5:54:26 GMT -5
I just feel that this is a candidate that holds such extreme views she does not belong on the supreme court. In a normal world there would be hearings, the beliefs would come out and reasonable people would determine there has to be a better choice. If they confirm her and she messes with women’s rights/14th amendment etc. there will be a backlash against republicans. Are you sure about that? Over 50% of white women voted for Trump in 2016
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2020 8:55:35 GMT -5
Quote; The issue of whether Senate Republicans should continue confirming President Trump’s judicial nominations was on the ballot once again during the 2018 midterm elections, and the American people made their choice loud and clear. In the wake of the repulsive Democratic antics during the Kavanaugh hearings, the American people decided to expand the Republican majority in the Senate from 51 to 53 seats. Quote; History is on the side of the GOP here. Justice John Paul Stevens was nominated and confirmed by the Senate in just 19 days. Justice Ginsburg herself was nominated and confirmed in only 42 days. So we know it’s very possible for a Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed in the time left before Election Day. Senate Republicans now have the responsibility to ensure that happens. www.foxnews.com/opinion/supreme-court-nomination-david-bossieI completely agree, whoever thought McConnell wasn’t gonna install an extreme christian that is going to shit on women’s rights and burn down the establishment clause was dreaming. I’ll leave a quote from Barry Goldwater here, he called it over 30 years ago: “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.“
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 27, 2020 10:55:03 GMT -5
I just feel that this is a candidate that holds such extreme views she does not belong on the supreme court. In a normal world there would be hearings, the beliefs would come out and reasonable people would determine there has to be a better choice. If they confirm her and she messes with women’s rights/14th amendment etc. there will be a backlash against republicans. Are you sure about that? Over 50% of white women voted for Trump in 2016 I don't believe that will be the case this year.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,411
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 27, 2020 12:42:45 GMT -5
Quote; The issue of whether Senate Republicans should continue confirming President Trump’s judicial nominations was on the ballot once again during the 2018 midterm elections, and the American people made their choice loud and clear. In the wake of the repulsive Democratic antics during the Kavanaugh hearings, the American people decided to expand the Republican majority in the Senate from 51 to 53 seats. Quote; History is on the side of the GOP here. Justice John Paul Stevens was nominated and confirmed by the Senate in just 19 days. Justice Ginsburg herself was nominated and confirmed in only 42 days. So we know it’s very possible for a Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed in the time left before Election Day. Senate Republicans now have the responsibility to ensure that happens. www.foxnews.com/opinion/supreme-court-nomination-david-bossieI agree that putting someone in now is the constitutional thing to do, but not even giving Merrick Garland a hearing was super unconstitutional. So, McConnell sucks and he hates America.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 27, 2020 13:08:24 GMT -5
Quote; The issue of whether Senate Republicans should continue confirming President Trump’s judicial nominations was on the ballot once again during the 2018 midterm elections, and the American people made their choice loud and clear. In the wake of the repulsive Democratic antics during the Kavanaugh hearings, the American people decided to expand the Republican majority in the Senate from 51 to 53 seats. ... www.foxnews.com/opinion/supreme-court-nomination-david-bossieWell: Among the most eye-catching was a statistic showing Democrats led Republicans by more than 12 million votes in Senate races, and yet still suffered losses on the night and failed to win a majority of seats in the chamber. Link Some Americans. Also: Not since the Watergate scandal have Democrats run up such a large margin of victory in midterm House races, NBC News data showed.
With votes continuing to be tallied more than two weeks after Election Day, Democrats hold a lead over Republicans in the House popular vote by more than 8.6 million votes. link
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 10:05:35 GMT -5
Quote; The issue of whether Senate Republicans should continue confirming President Trump’s judicial nominations was on the ballot once again during the 2018 midterm elections, and the American people made their choice loud and clear. In the wake of the repulsive Democratic antics during the Kavanaugh hearings, the American people decided to expand the Republican majority in the Senate from 51 to 53 seats. Quote; History is on the side of the GOP here. Justice John Paul Stevens was nominated and confirmed by the Senate in just 19 days. Justice Ginsburg herself was nominated and confirmed in only 42 days. So we know it’s very possible for a Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed in the time left before Election Day. Senate Republicans now have the responsibility to ensure that happens. www.foxnews.com/opinion/supreme-court-nomination-david-bossieI completely agree, whoever thought McConnell wasn’t gonna install an extreme christian that is going to shit on women’s rights and burn down the establishment clause was dreaming. I’ll leave a quote from Barry Goldwater here, he called it over 30 years ago: “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.“ One name presented right here for the Democrat hypocrites, since we're going some years back... John F Kennedy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 10:10:18 GMT -5
Quote; The issue of whether Senate Republicans should continue confirming President Trump’s judicial nominations was on the ballot once again during the 2018 midterm elections, and the American people made their choice loud and clear. In the wake of the repulsive Democratic antics during the Kavanaugh hearings, the American people decided to expand the Republican majority in the Senate from 51 to 53 seats. ... www.foxnews.com/opinion/supreme-court-nomination-david-bossieWell: Among the most eye-catching was a statistic showing Democrats led Republicans by more than 12 million votes in Senate races, and yet still suffered losses on the night and failed to win a majority of seats in the chamber. Link Some Americans. Also: Not since the Watergate scandal have Democrats run up such a large margin of victory in midterm House races, NBC News data showed.
With votes continuing to be tallied more than two weeks after Election Day, Democrats hold a lead over Republicans in the House popular vote by more than 8.6 million votes. link Might have some difficulty changing the constitution to allow more than 2 senators per state, the actual argument presented. Not eye catching at all, since every one knows population isn't equal among the states.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 10:13:26 GMT -5
Quote; The issue of whether Senate Republicans should continue confirming President Trump’s judicial nominations was on the ballot once again during the 2018 midterm elections, and the American people made their choice loud and clear. In the wake of the repulsive Democratic antics during the Kavanaugh hearings, the American people decided to expand the Republican majority in the Senate from 51 to 53 seats. Quote; History is on the side of the GOP here. Justice John Paul Stevens was nominated and confirmed by the Senate in just 19 days. Justice Ginsburg herself was nominated and confirmed in only 42 days. So we know it’s very possible for a Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed in the time left before Election Day. Senate Republicans now have the responsibility to ensure that happens. www.foxnews.com/opinion/supreme-court-nomination-david-bossieI agree that putting someone in now is the constitutional thing to do, but not even giving Merrick Garland a hearing was super unconstitutional. So, McConnell sucks and he hates America. It wasn't unconstitutional, like now, the Democrats didn't have the votes in the Senate. Quite simple actually. McConnel loves the US and follows what his constituents want.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,385
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 28, 2020 10:50:30 GMT -5
A little bit of musing over the recent past has come to mind. Being a retired war dog, formerly in the business of producing/designing weapons, I have plenty of business colleagues which I'm still in contact. You can call them national and international contacts. I sometimes think about all the slamming of Trump, for his somewhat disjointed approach to the pandemic. I also think how I was already hearing conversation about the spreading virus in China, during last years Christmas/New Years holiday socializing. If I can catch early wind of the virus, I think our executive branch was also very much aware. I would say impeachment proceedings over mostly partisan nonsense, really affected the executive response, don't you think ? The proceedings carried on right into the beginning of February, the exact time response should of been hammered out. Denials will fly of course, there is no way this Trump lover could of heard about the virus at such an advanced date, when it was actually starting to spread. He's full of shit about his contacts. With all the smarts, as it's sometimes said around here, didn't anyone notice the timing of the starting of a thread, about Federal judge appointments, just a few days before the announcement of RBG's passing ? If trump is incapable of handling more than one thing at a time, then he is unqualiftto be president. He should have capable asvisors who could keep track of things. If he doesn’t, that is on him. Plenty of people who have high level positions manage this. If trump cannot, he should resign
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 10:58:16 GMT -5
A little bit of musing over the recent past has come to mind. Being a retired war dog, formerly in the business of producing/designing weapons, I have plenty of business colleagues which I'm still in contact. You can call them national and international contacts. I sometimes think about all the slamming of Trump, for his somewhat disjointed approach to the pandemic. I also think how I was already hearing conversation about the spreading virus in China, during last years Christmas/New Years holiday socializing. If I can catch early wind of the virus, I think our executive branch was also very much aware. I would say impeachment proceedings over mostly partisan nonsense, really affected the executive response, don't you think ? The proceedings carried on right into the beginning of February, the exact time response should of been hammered out. Denials will fly of course, there is no way this Trump lover could of heard about the virus at such an advanced date, when it was actually starting to spread. He's full of shit about his contacts. With all the smarts, as it's sometimes said around here, didn't anyone notice the timing of the starting of a thread, about Federal judge appointments, just a few days before the announcement of RBG's passing ? If trump is incapable of handling more than one thing at a time, then he is unqualiftto be president. He should have capable asvisors who could keep track of things. If he doesn’t, that is on him. Plenty of people who have high level positions manage this. If trump cannot, he should resign This post sounds like nonsense generic filler. Much more and I'll have to move my post down. Being the president of the US, isn't like doing a job everyday, where you follow established protocol.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,385
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 28, 2020 11:01:45 GMT -5
If trump is incapable of handling more than one thing at a time, then he is unqualiftto be president. He should have capable asvisors who could keep track of things. If he doesn’t, that is on him. Plenty of people who have high level positions manage this. If trump cannot, he should resign This post sounds like nonsense generic filler. Much more and I'll have to move my post down. So trump, who claims to have the best brain and runs a billion dollar(so he claims), corporation, cannot deal with more than one issue at a time? That is what you claim, he was distracted by impeachment
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 11:17:25 GMT -5
This post sounds like nonsense generic filler. Much more and I'll have to move my post down. So trump, who claims to have the best brain and runs a billion dollar(so he claims), corporation, cannot deal with more than one issue at a time? That is what you claim, he was distracted by impeachment Now you are trying to change my words on what I said, hilarious. Quote; "really affected the executive response," I'll move the post down so you can reread. Once again, being the president of the US, isn't like doing a job everyday, where you follow established protocol. Maybe you can tell me again in a post like before, "that I should watch the news" so I know what's going on.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 11:29:05 GMT -5
One of the presidents jobs is to nominate a new judge for the Supreme Court when necessary. Now that it has been expedited, the Republican controlled Senate will move to approve the nomination. All's that is required for this is the votes in the Senate. The posturing from both sides of the aisle, in the media echo chamber, has been deafening.
|
|
flan327
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 8, 2020 10:25:08 GMT -5
Posts: 1,034
|
Post by flan327 on Sept 28, 2020 12:00:36 GMT -5
I completely agree, whoever thought McConnell wasn’t gonna install an extreme christian that is going to shit on women’s rights and burn down the establishment clause was dreaming. I’ll leave a quote from Barry Goldwater here, he called it over 30 years ago: “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.“ One name presented right here for the Democrat hypocrites, since we're going some years back... John F Kennedy. Trashing JFK? I expect nothing less from you...
|
|
flan327
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 8, 2020 10:25:08 GMT -5
Posts: 1,034
|
Post by flan327 on Sept 28, 2020 12:02:30 GMT -5
I agree that putting someone in now is the constitutional thing to do, but not even giving Merrick Garland a hearing was super unconstitutional. So, McConnell sucks and he hates America. It wasn't unconstitutional, like now, the Democrats didn't have the votes in the Senate. Quite simple actually. McConnel loves the US and follows what his constituents want. You might want to learn how to spell your hero's name. MCCONNELL LOVES HIMSELF HE ALSO LOVES POWER PATHETIC
|
|