reddogblitz Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 we elect idiots, doesn't that make us idiots? Please tell me who non idiots would vote for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 Please tell me who non idiots would vote for.it starts at local elections, sweetheart. While i know everything, I dont know the individual ballots of every local race. But start there. Vote the old out. Vote new in, for starters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 Please tell me who non idiots would vote for. A libertarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 it starts at local elections, sweetheart. While i know everything, I dont know the individual ballots of every local race. But start there. Vote the old out. Vote new in, for starters Anyone who has been in office more than 2 election cycles is probably part of the problem and needs to be voted out. Too many politicians stick around because of name recognition and being part of the dominant party in the area. Our idiot county executive is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to decide if erie county should ban plastic shopping bags. Seriously that's the best use of time and resources he could come up with? Too many politicians want to just make new unnecessary laws just to have more control. Its sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 "Let's show these third world !@#$s how democracy works!" Major William Rawls - The Wire. Have McConnell tell B. O. his nominee will get a hearing when the DOJ brings Hillary's email case to a grand jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 SCOTUS can and will render decisions w/o a full roster. And without ultra-conservative Scalia, the lack of full court isn't harmful to progressive causes. As we've seen the other Justices can actually sometimes put the law and humanity before politics...which is kinda their damn job. Even if the GOP wins the White House, I doubt they could find anyone worse that Scalia who'd actually be confirmed (especially i they look to someplace like TX, AL, FL etc. for one of their patented evangelical creationist anti-human being wackos). The fact that Obama chose a fairly moderate guy who doesn't satisfy the extreme left or right, and that the Senate won't even consider him, only hurts the GOP which is already looking extremely stupid - and deservedly so - for it's hilarious "presidential" candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 On Supreme Court, Republicans are playing by the Democrats’ rules It’s “about a principle, and not a person,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday of his refusal to consider President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. McConnell’s clearly right. And Obama’s party set that principle — the Biden rule. In 1992, then-Judiciary Chairman Joe Biden warned sitting President George H.W. Bush not to try filling any high court vacancies. “Once the political season is under way,” Biden said, “action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee . . . Otherwise . . . we will be in deep trouble as an institution,” stuck in “a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the president.” He was no doubt feeling guilty about his own role in (successfully) demonizing Judge Robert Bork in 1986, and in the (failed) campaign of personal destruction against then-Judge Clarence Thomas in 1991. Biden might as well have said, We don’t want to smear another good man — so don’t send us one. Late in the George W. Bush years, Sen. Chuck Schumer said much the same: “We should reverse the presumption of confirmation” lest the lame-duck president shift the court’s balance. Here’s McConnell on Wednesday: “The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court . . . so of course the American people should have a say.” Obama wants Garland to take Antonin Scalia’s seat — replacing a conservative with a liberal. It exactly mirrors the situation where Biden and Schumer drew their lines; why is he pretending the GOP might go along? Again, McConnell has it right: “It seems clear President Obama made this nomination not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election.” That is, to try to paint Republicans as obstructionists for playing by the rules the Democrats set when they ran the Senate. If Democrats want to change those rules, they’ll have to do it when it doesn’t nakedly serve their own partisan interest. . So the GOP lets a Dem Senator from decades ago make the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 (edited) So the GOP lets a Dem Senator from decades ago make the rules? Yep. We had Joe Biden as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1987 until 1995 we lived under Senate leader Harry Reid's silliness from January 3, 2007 – January 3, 2015. Not much fun following their warped decisions............is it ? Added: I have to comment on Baskin's hilarious (from decades ago) attempt to minimalize the CURRENT Democrat Vice President................ ..He left the Senate in 2009 . Edited March 20, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Turnabout... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Also: A small group of black lawmakers are openly expressing their disappointment that Obama’s Supreme Court nomination isn’t politically motivated enough, and apparently not black enough either. Nevermind the fact that the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a political branch of government. Or the American value that individuals should be judged by character over race. Politico reports: Some African-American lawmakers urged their Congressional Black Caucus colleagues to skip a meeting with Valerie Jarrett because of discontent with President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. The members are irked by Obama’s selection of a moderate judge instead of a progressive who could rally the base, according to three lawmakers and senior aides familiar with the meeting. They also don’t think that their input was adequately sought by the administration before Merrick Garland was nominated. A source said members are asking themselves, “What is the point” of attending the meeting, now that Garland has been nominated. The meeting took place on Thursday morning. And some of the lawmakers questioned why Garland, who is white, was selected over a minority in an effort to make the court more diverse. So when are the Media reports of Garland being paraded from dem office to office for photo ops supposed to start ? Because that will rally the electorate............... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Our idiot county executive is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to decide if erie county should ban plastic shopping bags. Seriously that's the best use of time and resources he could come up with? Too many politicians want to just make new unnecessary laws just to have more control. Its sad Our town counsel wants to spend $40,000 (of which $10,000 will come from the local taxpayers) for an engineering report on extending water and sewer lines. So after they spend the money they are going to ask the affected property owners if they want it. Not that they have any intention of listening to the affected property owners as one of the councilmen remarked "it will improve property values" and "raise the tax base". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 So the GOP lets a Dem Senator from decades ago make the rules? You were probably really another outraged Republican back in those days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Both Reid and McConnell were on the Meet The Press this AM and shown video clips of their previous positions on election year SCOTUS nominees from years ago. Neither when faced with the contrast of their previous positions to current positions would back down or acknowledge that they are playing politics with this. No shock in that but it's amazing how these guys can stare into the camera and lie and spin and of course we the voters keep electing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 21, 2016 Author Share Posted March 21, 2016 WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. delivered some blunt remarks about the Supreme Court confirmation process. The Senate should ensure that nominees are qualified, he said, and leave politics out of it. “Anytime Judge Garland disagrees, you know you’re in a difficult area,” Chief Justice Roberts said at his 2005 confirmation hearing. In last month’s remarks, delivered at New England Law, a private law school in Boston, the chief justice raised a second concern: Ugly confirmation fights damage the Supreme Court’s legitimacy and authority. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/us/politics/john-roberts-criticized-supreme-court-confirmation-process-before-there-was-a-vacancy.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 You were probably really another outraged Republican back in those days. I voted GOP across the line for many years...slowed in 2004 and slowed much more in 2009... Number of Dem's I have voted for probably lower than 5... I am just against hypocrisy bro....got to end somewhere - I wish it was the GOP who stepped up.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/us/politics/john-roberts-criticized-supreme-court-confirmation-process-before-there-was-a-vacancy.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news He's not wrong. He also doesn't get a say. It's the Senate's business, no one else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 21, 2016 Author Share Posted March 21, 2016 He's not wrong. He also doesn't get a say. It's the Senate's business, no one else's. That's true and shame doesn't seem to count for anything anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) Washington Post: Why the campaign to pressure Republicans to confirm Merrick Garland is failing. Because, even the (most) low info Americans can see the hypocrisy of Reid, Biden, Clinton, and Schumer. . Edited March 24, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Washington Post: Why the campaign to pressure Republicans to confirm Merrick Garland is failing. Because, even the (most) low info Americans can see the hypocrisy of Reid, Biden, Clinton, and Schumer. . Countered by the hypocrisy of the GOP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts