+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41

Thread: The Democratic Party of today

  1. #31
    Senior Senior Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 245 Times in 166 Posts
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 10/0
    Given: 2/0
    Could you imagine if this had been reversed and Bill Clinton was told by Mayor Guiliani that he wouldn't be safe in NYC even if he brought an army with him?? This is what the left and the Democratic Party have become..

    Gov. Cuomo: Trump ‘Had Better Have an Army if He Is Going to Walk Down the Street in NY’

    https://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-banni...down-street-ny

    “Forget bodyguards, he’d better have an army,” Democrat New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday, commenting on the prospect of President Donald Trump visiting New York City.

    Cuomo made the remarks during a conference call responding to an article by The New York Post, the newspaper reports:

    “New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Wednesday all but threatened President Trump’s safety if he returns to New York City in a rant responding to an exclusive story by The Post that Trump is looking to pull federal funds from “lawless” cities including New York.

    “Cuomo called an emergency press briefing within a half-hour on Wednesday night to tear into Trump for the order, which cites New York’s rising murder rate and defunding of the NYPD.”


    Mediavine
    Fox News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom” aired a clip of audio from Gov. Cuomo’s conference call, in which the governor says Trump “better have an army” if he plans to return to New York:

    “He can't come back to New York. He can't. He is going to walk down the street in New York? Forget bodyguards, he better have an army if he thinks he is going to walk down the street in New York.”

    “He can’t have enough bodyguards to walk through New York City, people don’t want to have anything to do with him,” The Post quotes Gov. Cuomo adding.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Crazy For This Useful Post:


  3. #32
    Administrator Old School Proud Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    10,231
    Thanks
    3,145
    Thanked 11,869 Times in 3,904 Posts
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 2,349/22
    Given: 1,087/3
    Why is Pelosi suddenly talking about the 25th Amendment?

    Speaker backs Raskin bill to set up nonpartisan commission to determine a president’s fitness, says it’s not about Trump

    Why would Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveil legislation less than one month before Election Day to establish a commission under the 25th Amendment to determine the president’s fitness for holding office?

    That’s the question many in Washington are asking Friday after Pelosi held a news conference with Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, a constitutional scholar and member of the House Democratic leadership team, to back his bill setting up a Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office.

    Democrats say they’re simply setting up a process authorized by the Constitution that should’ve been codified long ago but is especially needed now because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Republicans think Pelosi is continuing the effort she started with impeachment to try to oust President Donald Trump. And others suggest Pelosi is signaling that Trump, who tested positive for COVID-19 last week, is unfit to hold office.

    The 25th Amendment of the Constitution provides authority for the vice president to take over for the president if the commander in chief is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Most people are familiar with the part of the 25th Amendment that allows the vice president and a majority of the presidential Cabinet to determine if the president is unfit to serve, but it also delegates such authority to “such other body as Congress may by law provide.”

    Raskin’s legislation
    , an updated version of a bill he first introduced in 2017, would establish such a body: a 17-member commission composed of four physicians, four psychiatrists and eight former high-ranking executive branch officers appointed by congressional leadership from both parties. The final member would be selected by the other 16 to serve as chair of the commission.

    The commission, if called upon through House and Senate approval of a concurrent resolution, would “carry out a medical examination of the president to determine whether the president is mentally or physically unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office,” according to the bill text. The president could refuse the examination, but the commission would be authorized to factor that into their decision.

    If the commission determines the president is unfit to perform his executive duties, the vice president would take over.
    A variety of theories have been floated as to why Pelosi would push this bill at this time, but let’s start with the California Democrat’s own answer.

    “Congress has a constitutional duty to lay out the process by which a president’s incapacity as the president of any party is determined,” Pelosi said.

    “A president’s fitness for office must be determined by science and facts,” she added. “This legislation applies to future presidents, but we are reminded of the necessity of action by the heath of the current president.”

    Pelosi’s claim that Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis reminded her of the need for such a commission is supported by her lack of interest in Raskin’s bill, which he first introduced in May 2017, until now.

    Raskin said he wishes Congress had set up a body 50 years ago but acknowledged the pandemic is “what demands action” on it now.

    “In the age of COVID-19, which has killed more than 210,000 Americans and now ravages the White House staff, the wisdom of the 25th Amendment is clear,” he said. “What happens if a president, any president, ends up in a coma or on a ventilator and has made no provisions for the temporary transfer of power?”

    Republicans, who’ve been on the attack since Pelosi teased the bill announcement at her weekly presser on Thursday, think the speaker is just continuing down a path of trying to overturn the results of the 2016 election.

    “She’s now trying to overturn the results of next month’s election,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise said Friday on Fox News before Pelosi’s news conference. “She’s wanted to remove President Trump from office because she doesn’t agree with the people’s choice from the last election.”

    Pelosi insists that’s not the case.

    “This is not about President Trump. He will face the judgment of the voters,” she said. “But he shows the need for us to create a process.”

    The House is not scheduled to be in session until after Election Day, so Democrats clearly aren’t trying to push this bill before then.
    As to Scalise’s claim that the measure is about overturning the results if Trump wins reelection, there’s no way to prove whether that’s part of the calculus or not. Pelosi has said consistently for months that she is confident former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee, will beat Trump.

    Trump’s theory

    Trump has his own theory on the 25th Amendment bill that has nothing to do with him. He thinks the speaker is trying to set up a process for replacing Biden with his running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris.

    Trump and some Republicans have consistently questioned Biden’s mental faculties.

    “There are significant questions that have been raised about Joe Biden’s potential mental decline, his acuity, essentially how up is he for the task of being president,” Sen. Ted Cruz said Friday on MSNBC in the context of talking about why a virtual debate would provide an unfair advantage to Biden over a live one.

    The host then asked the Texas Republican if similar questions had not also been raised about Trump, like Pelosi questioning aloud in recent days ahead of her 25th Amendment bill announcement whether the steroids Trump had been taking for COVID-19 treatment have affected his judgment.

    “Speaker Pelosi opposes the president, has tried to get him out of the office from the beginning,” Cruz said, calling the 25th Amendment bill announcement “a political stunt” and saying he doesn’t have questions about Trump’s mental faculties like he does of Biden’s.

    If Biden wins and Democrats move forward with the bill, it could put Republicans who have questioned Biden’s mental fitness in a difficult spot.

    “If the president wins reelection, yes it will apply to him. If he doesn’t, it will apply to the next president of the United States,” Pelosi said.

    Next Congress

    Raskin said he sees action on the bill “certainly in the next Congress.” Pelosi did not speak about timing, but she said Friday’s introduction was about socializing the legislation.

    “The timing is now because people want to know,” she said. “We have to give some comfort to people that there is a way to do this very respectful, not making a judgment on the basis of a comment or behavior that we don’t like, but based upon a medical decision.”

    House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Biggs thinks Pelosi’s motivations are about influencing voters’ views of Trump ahead of the election.

    “Democrats have increasingly taken advantage of COVID-19 in an attempt to cause political harm to President Trump,” the Arizona Republican said in a statement. “Instead of taking the president’s recovery at face value, Democrats have distorted and manipulated the truth, and they have made it a political cesspool.”

    Biggs reiterated his call for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to advance a motion to vacate the chair to oust Pelosi as speaker, saying she “continues to abuse her power for political purposes and denigrate this institution to the point of no return.”

    McCarthy has so far declined to use the motion to vacate and remains unlikely to do so. Like Cruz, he dismissed the 25th Amendment bill as a political stunt and questioned Pelosi's priorities.



    Most of the questions behind Pelosi’s motivations can’t be clearly answered now. But if Biden wins the election and Democrats do not advance the bill, then it will be argued their motivations were aimed at Trump. If they advance it in spite of a Biden victory with the pandemic likely still raging, then their COVID-19 rationale holds.

    But if Trump wins, the questions about the true motivation for the measure will likely persist.

    https://www.rollcall.com/2020/10/09/...5th-amendment/

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men...Samuel Adams

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Docker For This Useful Post:


  5. #33
    Super Moderator Old School Proud GO40 Old School PROUD! GO40 Old School PROUD! GO40 Old School PROUD! GO40 Old School PROUD! GO40 Old School PROUD! GO40 Old School PROUD! GO40 Old School PROUD! GO40 Old School PROUD! GO40 Old School PROUD! GO40 Old School PROUD! GO40 Old School PROUD! GO40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,954
    Thanks
    3,732
    Thanked 3,053 Times in 998 Posts
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 237/0
    Given: 121/1
    Quote Originally Posted by Docker View Post
    Why is Pelosi suddenly talking about the 25th Amendment?

    Speaker backs Raskin bill to set up nonpartisan commission to determine a president’s fitness, says it’s not about Trump

    Why would Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveil legislation less than one month before Election Day to establish a commission under the 25th Amendment to determine the president’s fitness for holding office?

    That’s the question many in Washington are asking Friday after Pelosi held a news conference with Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, a constitutional scholar and member of the House Democratic leadership team, to back his bill setting up a Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office.

    Democrats say they’re simply setting up a process authorized by the Constitution that should’ve been codified long ago but is especially needed now because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Republicans think Pelosi is continuing the effort she started with impeachment to try to oust President Donald Trump. And others suggest Pelosi is signaling that Trump, who tested positive for COVID-19 last week, is unfit to hold office.

    The 25th Amendment of the Constitution provides authority for the vice president to take over for the president if the commander in chief is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Most people are familiar with the part of the 25th Amendment that allows the vice president and a majority of the presidential Cabinet to determine if the president is unfit to serve, but it also delegates such authority to “such other body as Congress may by law provide.”

    Raskin’s legislation
    , an updated version of a bill he first introduced in 2017, would establish such a body: a 17-member commission composed of four physicians, four psychiatrists and eight former high-ranking executive branch officers appointed by congressional leadership from both parties. The final member would be selected by the other 16 to serve as chair of the commission.

    The commission, if called upon through House and Senate approval of a concurrent resolution, would “carry out a medical examination of the president to determine whether the president is mentally or physically unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office,” according to the bill text. The president could refuse the examination, but the commission would be authorized to factor that into their decision.

    If the commission determines the president is unfit to perform his executive duties, the vice president would take over.
    A variety of theories have been floated as to why Pelosi would push this bill at this time, but let’s start with the California Democrat’s own answer.

    “Congress has a constitutional duty to lay out the process by which a president’s incapacity as the president of any party is determined,” Pelosi said.

    “A president’s fitness for office must be determined by science and facts,” she added. “This legislation applies to future presidents, but we are reminded of the necessity of action by the heath of the current president.”

    Pelosi’s claim that Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis reminded her of the need for such a commission is supported by her lack of interest in Raskin’s bill, which he first introduced in May 2017, until now.

    Raskin said he wishes Congress had set up a body 50 years ago but acknowledged the pandemic is “what demands action” on it now.

    “In the age of COVID-19, which has killed more than 210,000 Americans and now ravages the White House staff, the wisdom of the 25th Amendment is clear,” he said. “What happens if a president, any president, ends up in a coma or on a ventilator and has made no provisions for the temporary transfer of power?”

    Republicans, who’ve been on the attack since Pelosi teased the bill announcement at her weekly presser on Thursday, think the speaker is just continuing down a path of trying to overturn the results of the 2016 election.

    “She’s now trying to overturn the results of next month’s election,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise said Friday on Fox News before Pelosi’s news conference. “She’s wanted to remove President Trump from office because she doesn’t agree with the people’s choice from the last election.”

    Pelosi insists that’s not the case.

    “This is not about President Trump. He will face the judgment of the voters,” she said. “But he shows the need for us to create a process.”

    The House is not scheduled to be in session until after Election Day, so Democrats clearly aren’t trying to push this bill before then.
    As to Scalise’s claim that the measure is about overturning the results if Trump wins reelection, there’s no way to prove whether that’s part of the calculus or not. Pelosi has said consistently for months that she is confident former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee, will beat Trump.

    Trump’s theory

    Trump has his own theory on the 25th Amendment bill that has nothing to do with him. He thinks the speaker is trying to set up a process for replacing Biden with his running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris.

    Trump and some Republicans have consistently questioned Biden’s mental faculties.

    “There are significant questions that have been raised about Joe Biden’s potential mental decline, his acuity, essentially how up is he for the task of being president,” Sen. Ted Cruz said Friday on MSNBC in the context of talking about why a virtual debate would provide an unfair advantage to Biden over a live one.

    The host then asked the Texas Republican if similar questions had not also been raised about Trump, like Pelosi questioning aloud in recent days ahead of her 25th Amendment bill announcement whether the steroids Trump had been taking for COVID-19 treatment have affected his judgment.

    “Speaker Pelosi opposes the president, has tried to get him out of the office from the beginning,” Cruz said, calling the 25th Amendment bill announcement “a political stunt” and saying he doesn’t have questions about Trump’s mental faculties like he does of Biden’s.

    If Biden wins and Democrats move forward with the bill, it could put Republicans who have questioned Biden’s mental fitness in a difficult spot.

    “If the president wins reelection, yes it will apply to him. If he doesn’t, it will apply to the next president of the United States,” Pelosi said.

    Next Congress

    Raskin said he sees action on the bill “certainly in the next Congress.” Pelosi did not speak about timing, but she said Friday’s introduction was about socializing the legislation.

    “The timing is now because people want to know,” she said. “We have to give some comfort to people that there is a way to do this very respectful, not making a judgment on the basis of a comment or behavior that we don’t like, but based upon a medical decision.”

    House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Biggs thinks Pelosi’s motivations are about influencing voters’ views of Trump ahead of the election.

    “Democrats have increasingly taken advantage of COVID-19 in an attempt to cause political harm to President Trump,” the Arizona Republican said in a statement. “Instead of taking the president’s recovery at face value, Democrats have distorted and manipulated the truth, and they have made it a political cesspool.”

    Biggs reiterated his call for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to advance a motion to vacate the chair to oust Pelosi as speaker, saying she “continues to abuse her power for political purposes and denigrate this institution to the point of no return.”

    McCarthy has so far declined to use the motion to vacate and remains unlikely to do so. Like Cruz, he dismissed the 25th Amendment bill as a political stunt and questioned Pelosi's priorities.

    https://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded...5000476274.png

    Most of the questions behind Pelosi’s motivations can’t be clearly answered now. But if Biden wins the election and Democrats do not advance the bill, then it will be argued their motivations were aimed at Trump. If they advance it in spite of a Biden victory with the pandemic likely still raging, then their COVID-19 rationale holds.

    But if Trump wins, the questions about the true motivation for the measure will likely persist.

    https://www.rollcall.com/2020/10/09/...5th-amendment/
    I believe any political office should have a age limit... now more than ever...

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to GO40 For This Useful Post:


  7. #34
    Administrator Old School Proud Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    10,231
    Thanks
    3,145
    Thanked 11,869 Times in 3,904 Posts
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 2,349/22
    Given: 1,087/3
    Quote Originally Posted by GO40 View Post
    I believe any political office should have a age limit... now more than ever...
    I wholeheartedly agree GO40... that and age and term limits for supreme court justices because their rulings are too important when it comes to cases that affect many aspects of our lives.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men...Samuel Adams

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Docker For This Useful Post:


  9. #35
    Senior Senior Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 245 Times in 166 Posts
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 10/0
    Given: 2/0
    Quote Originally Posted by Docker View Post
    I wholeheartedly agree GO40... that and age and term limits for supreme court justices because their rulings are too important when it comes to cases that affect many aspects of our lives.
    I agree that Supreme Court justices should not be a life long appointment.. There should be a mandatory retirement age.. Justice Ginsberg was a good example.. She should have retired before the 2016 election but she was so sure that Hillary was gonna win that most likely she would have retired in early 2017 but Trump spoiled the plans.. She then, not wanting to give up her seat she tried to hold on as long as she could trying to keep the seat liberal.. Her plan failed and now there is a vacant seat with the election more than likely will have to be decided by the court..
    I heard yesterday that the Pennsylvania GOP is taking PA's new election laws to the Supreme Court and are hoping to get the case heard as soon as possible.. The PA Democratically controlled SC upheld Gov Wolf's new election extension that allows the votes to be counted for three days after the election as long as the ballot is postmarked by 8 PM on election night.. These wacky new laws are gonna give November a new nickname, Election month..

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Crazy For This Useful Post:


  11. #36
    Grade school Grade School trailblazer
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 0/0
    Given: 0/0
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazy View Post
    I agree that Supreme Court justices should not be a life long appointment.. There should be a mandatory retirement age.. Justice Ginsberg was a good example.. She should have retired before the 2016 election but she was so sure that Hillary was gonna win that most likely she would have retired in early 2017 but Trump spoiled the plans.. She then, not wanting to give up her seat she tried to hold on as long as she could trying to keep the seat liberal.. Her plan failed and now there is a vacant seat with the election more than likely will have to be decided by the court..
    I heard yesterday that the Pennsylvania GOP is taking PA's new election laws to the Supreme Court and are hoping to get the case heard as soon as possible.. The PA Democratically controlled SC upheld Gov Wolf's new election extension that allows the votes to be counted for three days after the election as long as the ballot is postmarked by 8 PM on election night.. These wacky new laws are gonna give November a new nickname, Election month..
    The Supreme court should be balanced between left and right.. If this nomination goes through it will give the right a 6 to 3 majority.. I am sure you will be happy with that but in the end is it fair?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to trailblazer For This Useful Post:


  13. #37
    Administrator Old School Proud Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    10,231
    Thanks
    3,145
    Thanked 11,869 Times in 3,904 Posts
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 2,349/22
    Given: 1,087/3
    Quote Originally Posted by trailblazer View Post
    The Supreme court should be balanced between left and right.. If this nomination goes through it will give the right a 6 to 3 majority..
    'C'est la vie'

    Quote Originally Posted by trailblazer View Post
    but in the end is it fair?
    Fair... tell me that you didn't just start crying about being fair! When talking about democrats being fair is like talking about night being day... it's just not logical... and if you really think about it... it's actually kinda comical and I think it's on the liberal list of words soon to be banned. I'd start seriously thinking about jumping on that liberal bandwagon (no pun intended) again if I were you... after all... you don't want to be seen as being politically incorrect now... do you? Just looking out for you future safety... that's all.

    But... if you really want to see just how fair it is in the democratic society of today... take an all day road trip just riding around any major sanctuary city in the USA displaying a bumper sticker something like this...



    Then when you get back (hopefully with you and your car in one piece)... you and I can pick up this conversation about why in the hell any reasonable person would get a fair shake with the democratic party of today. Sure... racism was bad and one sided back in the day... no argument here... but open your eyes and look around because what I see is reverse discrimination catching up... if it hasn't already... to the one sided racism of decades past.

    And no... I'm not a racist in the least... I'm a realist who calls it like I see it no matter how that makes one perceive me who also won't be shamed into being ashamed of who he is and who he was born to. I also don't try and tell anyone how to live their life and I'll be damned if I'll let anyone else try telling me how to live mine!!! So... if you want to call me one of Trump's white supremacists... be my guest because I know better... how about you? At least I'm not delusional and allow myself to be manipulated... how about you?

    Was the impeachment hoax fair?

    Was the Kavanaugh sham fair?

    Was Obamagate fair?

    Has the bias mainstream media ever been fair to Trump?

    Before I turn this into a question bombardment... let me just sum it up with one more question... has anything the democrats done in the last 4 years been fair?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men...Samuel Adams

  14. #38
    Senior Senior Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 245 Times in 166 Posts
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 10/0
    Given: 2/0
    Quote Originally Posted by trailblazer View Post
    The Supreme court should be balanced between left and right.. If this nomination goes through it will give the right a 6 to 3 majority.. I am sure you will be happy with that but in the end is it fair?
    Well you remember back in 2018 when all we heard about was the 'blue' wave???.. Then people realized where Trump was putting all his apples.. IN THE SENATE!!!.. And now we know why.. Elections have consequences and Being Trump was elected to four FULL years.. He has the Senate and the American people voted the senate in.. The Democrats played their cards wrong again.. MAGA!!!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  15. #39
    Administrator Old School Proud Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker Old School PROUD! Docker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    10,231
    Thanks
    3,145
    Thanked 11,869 Times in 3,904 Posts
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 2,349/22
    Given: 1,087/3
    Quote Originally Posted by trailblazer View Post
    The Supreme court should be balanced between left and right.. If this nomination goes through it will give the right a 6 to 3 majority.. I am sure you will be happy with that but in the end is it fair?
    I'll give you a little credit here Trailblazer so I gave you a thanks... at least you didn't try saying it was unconstitutional like Biden and his deputy campaign manager... Kate Bedingfield just tried to do...



    All I can say is that it's pretty bad when you can't get a CNN news anchor to go along with your BS. We already expect as much from Joe these days... incoherency problem and all but what's the deal with this Kate Bedingfield? Since you seem to be able to see how the liberal mindset works... maybe you'll be able to finally be able to contribute something worthwhile for a change and explain why it's unconstitutional since she was unable to do so.

    And by the way... when in the hell did the democrats start giving a rat's ass about things being constitutional anyways? You don't have to answer that (not that you would anyway)... I already know the answer to that one... only when it suits their needs... right?


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men...Samuel Adams

  16. #40
    Senior Senior Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class Crazy Old School Junior Class
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 245 Times in 166 Posts
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 10/0
    Given: 2/0
    Quote Originally Posted by Docker View Post
    I'll give you a little credit here Trailblazer so I gave you a thanks... at least you didn't try saying it was unconstitutional like Biden and his deputy campaign manager... Kate Bedingfield just tried to do...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuSoM...ature=youtu.be

    All I can say is that it's pretty bad when you can't get a CNN news anchor to go along with your BS. We already expect as much from Joe these days... incoherency problem and all but what's the deal with this Kate Bedingfield? Since you seem to be able to see how the liberal mindset works... maybe you'll be able to finally be able to contribute something worthwhile for a change and explain why it's unconstitutional since she was unable to do so.

    And by the way... when in the hell did the democrats start giving a rat's ass about things being constitutional anyways? You don't have to answer that (not that you would anyway)... I already know the answer to that one... only when it suits their needs... right?

    What the Democrats don't seem to understand and Even Justice Ginsbugh did understand is that the President and politicians are elected to a FULL term.. Trump new exactly what he was doing by putting his money in the senate in the 2018 elections.. He has the senate now and every right to nominate a SC Justice and now it is up to the senators.. The will of the people is those who gave a majority in the Senate.. Everyone I have talked to agrees that the confirmation process should go through.. For the most part we all know how the polls work.. A wee bit heavy handed towards the left..

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts