Taro T

No. She didn't cause anyone's death, though some have thought they were gonna die.

Dead. Hospitality. Woman. Still dead.

No. Strike 1.

OK. Have one.

DeWitt Clinton

45 - 315 Biden - 223 Biden takes everything VA & North except PA, WV, & 1 EV from Maine. He takes IL. He takes CO & NM & 1 EV in NE. He gets NV & everything touching the Pacific except AL. 45 takes everything else including WI & MN in a shocker. Apparently riots don't get independents to side w/ you and fire up the other guy's base. PA is most likeliest of flips. Would still be 295-243.

He did have a better game though still did have more WTF's than the stud trade up to draft in the 1st MLB should have in his 3rd season. Still hoping it's the shoulder that's the reason. Either way, he's better than Klein. Now, if THAT guy could tackle ...

Pretty sure that one needs to have initially BEEN relevant in order to STAY relevant.

News Report o n Ongoing FBI Investigation

Not this year, no, because that wasn't the rule that was set up. But in the future, absolutely. There is almost no way a conscientious voter ends up with & needing to mail in a ballot ON election day. They LITERALLY have MONTHS to obtain & return that ballot. Allowing ballots postmarked on election day encourages ALL parties to manufacture ballots.

And, due to the fact that technically votes can recieve a postmark (or be deposited in a ballot collection station) on the day of the election but be submitted AFTER the polls have closed (unless they make sure EVERY mailbox is emptied and the contents collected at the poll closing time; & there's no realistic way that could ever happen), those SHOULD be required to be put into the mailbox/ballot collection box by the day prior to the polls closing to cut down on ballot stuffing AFTER polls have closed. That would not be "voter suppression" in any meaningful form of the term as people would still have had months to get their mail in or absentee ballot submitted. But it would limit every party's ability to stuff the ballots as prior to the polls closing, they don't know for certain who will or won't vote & also don't know just how many votes they need to manufacture to get the "right" outcome.

So, maybe all the hand wringing about Justice ACB being a conservative shill was misplaced?

3 things. 1st, conservatives realize that 4-4 decisions from the SC create even more chaos than we all are currently expecting. And having a jurist whom darn near everybody (from both sides of the aisle) that speaks of her claims is brilliant is something good to have on the bench. Lastly, that something hasn't been done in over 100 years does not mean the D's are beyond doing it. Senator Reid fired the 1st shot in removing the filibuster when he did away with it for appointments other than the Supreme Court. This vote apparently was (haven't had a chance to confirm it, thus apparently) the 1st time since the mid-1800's that a SC Justice was confirmed without a single vote from anybody that isn't in the majority party. They passed the 1st MAJOR legislation on a strict party line vote in ages with the ACA. Schumer is on record as saying if he's Majority Leader the filibuster is gone entirely. With all that, why would a conservative (or a liberal, for that matter) trust that the D's won't pack the SC given the chance? (Not only that, the last President to threaten packing the court had a D next to his name as well.)

Cool. So, you agree the rest of the items are correct. Glad to see you're coming around, Tibs. There may be hope for you yet. And, don't agree with you about not improving relations w/ hostile nations. 45 met w/ Kim; 1st President to ever do so. Also, Sudan signed a peace deal w/ Israel & is getting taken off the terrorist watch list. That's just ottomh. So, you didn't even get that one right, but it was a good effort.

Well, it's hypothetical in that Biden doesn't have any say in court packing at present, but it isn't hypothetical in that Democrat think tanks are promoting court packing, senators such as Senator C oons has essentially threatened lower level federal judges, and Biden has explicitly NOT ruled out packing the Supreme Court. Should he win & control the Senate, the SC WILL get at least 2 more members & likely 4.

Which items on that list are made up?

No comments on Tucker Carlson's interview of Tony Bobulinski? Biden LLC CEO Interview Why is that not surprising?

Pathetic. But not surprising that nobody here cares about a sitting senator on the judiciary committee making veiled threats against duly sworn federal judges.

Doubt that McConnell would've been as adamant about not confirming a replacement of a liberal judge in '16, but she could've retired in '15 too. As to your last sentence, we shall see whether that's correct soon enough.

She could've retired toward the end of 44's term but chose not to. Decisions & elections have consequences.

52-48. Maine's Susan Collins the lone Senator that didn't vote with her party. Justice Thomas to swear her in. Welcome to the Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett. 🍺

Gary, you truly have the gift of making people laugh.

They're just desperately trying to make it look like there's a principled reason for their votes against her. Well, beyond the actual principle of "you're not one of us." She should be approved 100-0. She'll get 52 yeas.

Can assume what the loon posted, but it looks like her account was suspended. (Guessing it was suspended by her. Based on other comments around her now suspended tweets, doesn't seem to be the type of posting twitter usually takes issue with.)

Noooo, the info is here. It's not an issue that's interesting enough to bother saving any of the articles/links or would direct you to them specifically. But, do you honestly believe there aren't any children brought into this country via traffickers rather than there parents & that none of those manage to get rescued from their traffickers? There are literally 11MM+ illegals in the USA today and HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people come over the border illegally every year and this discussion was about 500 kids. Seriously, you honestly think that many aren't trafficked?