You are not logged in. Please register or login.

misterID
 Rep: 460 

Re: Current Events Thread

misterID wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:

Dems HAVE to get it passed through the Republican Senate and WH, they don't get to dictate the stipulations, which is why they are refusing to bring up a vote, mitch. They are stalling for the election. That is not "negotiating."

It is negotiating...it really is...

This $1.5 trillion version has a legitimate chance...the previous one never did.

If Pelosi wanted a deal, she would have had it, and not nuked a Democrat attempt at negotiation. I mean, it's not like she doesn't have a record of using these stimulus bills to try and push tax payer money to her friends or anything...

If Barrett is SC pick, this will be so vicious and unseemly, and anti-Catholic (which already started btw) this might just give Trump a second term. Dems better not treat her the way they did Kavanaugh. This could end up very messy.

misterID
 Rep: 460 

Re: Current Events Thread

misterID wrote:

RBG in 2016: "Cooler heads will prevail, I hope sooner rather than later. The President is elected for 4 years not 3 years, so the powers that he has in year three continue into year four, & maybe some members of the Senate will wake up & appreciate that that's how it should be."

mitchejw
 Rep: 116 

Re: Current Events Thread

mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:

RBG in 2016: "Cooler heads will prevail, I hope sooner rather than later. The President is elected for 4 years not 3 years, so the powers that he has in year three continue into year four, & maybe some members of the Senate will wake up & appreciate that that's how it should be."

What is your point by posting this? Cooler heads didn't prevail.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 120 

Re: Current Events Thread

62819680.jpg

mitchejw
 Rep: 116 

Re: Current Events Thread

mitchejw wrote:

The point is that cooler heads didn't previal and they didn't follow RBG's advice then...but they're using her words now to justify what they're doing.

It's a gross misrepresentation of what she said.

mitchejw
 Rep: 116 

Re: Current Events Thread

mitchejw wrote:

Another insult....

misterID
 Rep: 460 

Re: Current Events Thread

misterID wrote:
mitchejw wrote:

The point is that cooler heads didn't previal and they didn't follow RBG's advice then...but they're using her words now to justify what they're doing.

It's a gross misrepresentation of what she said.

That wasn't an insult.

There's nothing unconstitutional about replacing her, per RBGs own words.

PaSnow
 Rep: 203 

Re: Current Events Thread

PaSnow wrote:
misterID wrote:
mitchejw wrote:

The point is that cooler heads didn't previal and they didn't follow RBG's advice then...but they're using her words now to justify what they're doing.

It's a gross misrepresentation of what she said.

That wasn't an insult.

There's nothing unconstitutional about replacing her, per RBGs own words.

The point is Moscow Mitch did not follow protocol, inventing his new policy just 4 years ago. Now, he's not going to follow his own policy. Hypocrite.

misterID
 Rep: 460 

Re: Current Events Thread

misterID wrote:

There is no policy or rule, though.

If Hillary is President, she's selecting the replacement judge like she should. Leader Schumer would push it through. And he would block Trump.

mitchejw
 Rep: 116 

Re: Current Events Thread

mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:

There is no policy or rule, though.

If Hillary is President, she's selecting the replacement judge like she should. Leader Schumer would push it through. And he would block Trump.

There is only a small group of people who created this rule and it appeared out of no where in 2016.

Schumer didn’t create this....and hasn’t had a chance to adhere to it as majority leader and Hillary was never president and has never had an opportunity to appoint anyone...let alone had a chance to comply with the contrived precedent.

If either of those people and perhaps 99% of the country were in charge in January 2016, of the Senate, there probably would’ve been a vote.

I do not think it’s fair to hold people who had nothing to do with this contrived precedent  accountable for what they hypothetically would have done over the last four years.

I do think it’s fair to hold accountable  the people who created this out of thin air.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB