PastaJoe

Just some of the man bears that post here.

Why did a majorty of Republican Senators vote for Merrick Garland for the D.C. Circuit court, but then blocked him from even getting hearings for the Supreme Court? What changed? (rhetorical)

The people chose Obama to be the president until 1/20/17. Garland's nomination remained before the Senate for 293 days, more than twice as long as any other Supreme Court nomination. He wasn't even given the courtesy of Senate hearings let alone a vote, as you well know. So all the people who chose Obama were denied their representation. So according to you and the Republicans, a president can only make appointments for the first 3 years. Good to know if it comes up at the end of 2019.

Are you talking about Merrick Garland? I agree, eminently qualified.

Just the people who want make their religious beliefs the law for everyone. Seperation of church and state. 'DeVos has said that she wants to advance Gods kingdom through school reform, a view that is far from mainstream. Similarly, many of her family members views which she has, whether genuinely or shrewdly sought to distance herself from recently are alarmingly extreme, such as support for conversion therapy, opposition to same-sex marriage or the view that intelligent design should be taught in schools.' Private schools would be fine if they accepted anyone who applied. But they get to decide which students they want to admit, while public schools don't. So they want public funds while being able to deny students they want. They take the best and leave the rest in public schools with less money, which can lead to public schols closing, as was the case in Detroit. 'During DeVoss hearing, Sen. Bernie Sanders asked DeVos, Do you think that if you were not a multibillionaire, if your family had not made hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions, that you would be sitting here today? The implication that DeVos is only being considered for this job, which would be her first as a public servant, as a political favor to reward her for years of donations is not without merit. While Sen. Alexander asserted in his post that her critics dislike her because shes wealthy, in reality its because her wealth appears to be buying her a cabinet post that she is unqualified to hold. By some estimates, DeVos and her family have donated over $200 million to Republicans nationally, including sizable donations to many of the senators who will vote on her confirmation. In fact, DeVos is open about her support of pay-for-play, once stating that I have decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return.' Throw in her lack of experience and subject knowledge, and yeah, there's lots to oppose. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/articles/2017-01-25/5-reasons-to-oppose-betsy-devos-for-donald-trumps-secretary-of-education https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/12/08/a-sobering-look-at-what-betsy-devos-did-to-education-in-michigan-and-what-she-might-do-as-secretary-of-education/?utm_term=.8ee3faf50b26 https://news.vice.com/story/school-choice-detroit-betsy-devos

Monday Night Massacre. Trump fired the acting attorney general because she didn't agree that the immigration exectutive order was constitutional and wouldn't enforce it. So now standing up for the constitution is grounds for dismissal. Trump is starting to make Nixon seem rational.

http://www.jta.org/2016/11/14/news-opinion/politics/trumps-chief-strategist-5-things-jews-need-to-know-about-stephen-bannon

It's a common practice for white supremacists to use the 'other people died' excuse as a way to dampen the significance of the Holocaust, which was a specific targeting of Jews. Now who in the White House is connected with a "news" organization that traffics in white supremacy and anti-Semitism. Hmm.

Well Comey did get retained. But that's why an investigation is warrented, to determine their motivations to treat Clinton and Trump differently. Or when W blamed a black eye on choking on a pretzel instead of Cheney getting him in line.

Speaking of blind, when did I criticize the Republicans? I just stated the fact that they could prove they're more ethical than Reid by not doing it, but I suspect they won't. And they could change the rule back if they thought it was wrong. Just like the criticism they had for Obama using executive orders, but now it's OK.

At least it might finally get the FBI to investigate him instead of helping him.

He has said he would be dating Ivanka if she wasn't his daughter. Maybe he'll sign an EO to make it acceptable. It must be tough for Melania knowing she's not his first choice.

Merrick Garland agrees with you. Just because Reid changed the rules doesn't mean the Republicans have to do it. But of course they will. And they could change the rules even if Reid didn't, so it's a moot point.

Trump was correct that Russia was sold uranium. His statement about Clinton was false. Another troubling Trump move was to remove the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the National Security Council and replace him with his political Rasputin, Steve Bannon.

I would if it did, but it didn't. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/sep/30/donald-trump/nuclear-claim-donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-ga/

@nytimes Breaking News: 1 U.S. commando was killed and 4 were hurt in President Trump's first counterterrorism offensive twitter.com/i/web/status/8 The first counterterrorism action under Trump unfortunately ends in American death. Will Congress investigate this? Were they given all the support they needed? #Trumpghazi

I don't remember Kerry getting a medal from Putin for selling ketchup in Russia. Did the sanctions that could be reversed by Trump that would benefit Tillerson's former employer and allow their $3.2 billion oil deal include ketchup sales in Russia? See, that's the difference in a conflict of interests.

How do the moderators allow this kind of personal attack? He should be beaten or die? Tiberius or anyone else doesn't deserve this hate for expressing their opinion. We get reprimanded on what we say about politicians, but this is allowed? Come on moderators, step up and demand that this level of personal attack stop.

So the Mexican president cancelled his meeting with Trump after Trump again said they would pay for the wall. Now Trump says it will be payed for by a 20% import tax on Mexican goods. So who will really pay for it? We will because companies will pass the cost on to us with higher prices. Mexico is our 2nd largest trading partner, with over 15% of U.S. exports going to them produced by 5 million U.S. workers, much of which are raw materials that are assembled in Mexico and sold back to us. So higher prices will reduce demand, which will decrease production in Mexico, which will decrease demand for U.S. exports, which will result in job loss in both Mexico and the U.S., and increase the incentive for Mexicans who lost their jobs to illegally enter the U.S. for work. That's quite a forward thinking policy by Trump.

They do the jobs that Americans won't do unless paid much more. Are you willing to pay $5 for a head of lettuce? I believe they should be given legal working status and pay taxes. Kicking them out is not a practical economic solution, it's just xenophobia.

Even if it's still going? The rise and fall off the Buffalo Norsemen.