row_33 Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 Why does everybody think Shillary would move farther left. Socially sure, but big freaking deal. Obama was the farthest left next to Bernie. Shill would have centered just like her husband: Best "Republican" POTUS we ever had next to Lincoln (who wouldn't be a pube today). I guess we will never know about Shill Lite because we have Shill Pro in there now. Her track record was right of centre on foreign policy and other matters. There really wasn't much of a platform for her to talk about, from what i saw. Problem was nobody in the media or her party was allowed to say anything truthful about the leaving admin, hard to run with that.
boyst Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Her track record was right of centre on foreign policy and other matters. There really wasn't much of a platform for her to talk about, from what i saw. Problem was nobody in the media or her party was allowed to say anything truthful about the leaving admin, hard to run with that. so, it was someone elses fault hillary didn't win? i thought we were over that? when will we accept that she was a terrible choice. she stole and had help doing so the position from bernie sanders. her policy and all of that was that of whatever she thought garnered votes. i could only imagine how terrible it would be if she was president today. i could give a **** about foreign affairs. i care about what she'd do to this country making LBGTRIF3.146BGHRR more important, blaming "rich" and being the hypocritical !@#$ that she was.
KD in CA Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Her track record was right of centre on foreign policy and other matters. There really wasn't much of a platform for her to talk about, from what i saw. Problem was nobody in the media or her party was allowed to say anything truthful about the leaving admin, hard to run with that. No doubt, she was the biggest hawk in the crowd. She has much bigger balls than her husband. But I think she would have leaned well left on a lot of domestic stuff to placate the retards. And sadly, SC justice picks seem pretty binary these days. Very few moderates whose vote can't be predicated anymore. Her election would have dramatically tilted the court for decades. Trump's win allows the balance to be maintained.
row_33 Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 so, it was someone elses fault hillary didn't win? i thought we were over that? when will we accept that she was a terrible choice. she stole and had help doing so the position from bernie sanders. her policy and all of that was that of whatever she thought garnered votes. i could only imagine how terrible it would be if she was president today. i could give a **** about foreign affairs. i care about what she'd do to this country making LBGTRIF3.146BGHRR more important, blaming "rich" and being the hypocritical !@#$ that she was. I don't like to get into huge battles over this stuff on here, and I joined in the BBMB sign-up, gratefully missing all the fun up to that day... The US should expect its President to act in the best direct interests of the country and its citizens in other nations and its allies. It's kind of the biggest issue on how the US reacts to anything that happens on the planet. I expect that The Donald will be less interventionist than Hillary might have been, that's all. No doubt, she was the biggest hawk in the crowd. She has much bigger balls than her husband. But I think she would have leaned well left on a lot of domestic stuff to placate the retards. And sadly, SC justice picks seem pretty binary these days. Very few moderates whose vote can't be predicated anymore. Her election would have dramatically tilted the court for decades. Trump's win allows the balance to be maintained. She and AlGore couldn't channel the charm and speech-making abilities and general likeableness of the men they were trying to glide into the office after. I'm in Canada and our Senate is a total joke and our SC doesn't re-write the law for us at its change of emotions. Your SC has been rabidly political since it was founded... not saying that's a bad thing..
boyst Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 I don't like to get into huge battles over this stuff on here, and I joined in the BBMB sign-up, gratefully missing all the fun up to that day... The US should expect its President to act in the best direct interests of the country and its citizens in other nations and its allies. It's kind of the biggest issue on how the US reacts to anything that happens on the planet. I expect that The Donald will be less interventionist than Hillary might have been, that's all. She and AlGore couldn't channel the charm and speech-making abilities and general likeableness of the men they were trying to glide into the office after. I'm in Canada and our Senate is a total joke and our SC doesn't re-write the law for us at its change of emotions. Your SC has been rabidly political since it was founded... not saying that's a bad thing.. and trumps voters, who won with their dude, didn't want him involved or intervening. So what's your point? You wanted war mongering Hillary?
row_33 Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 and trumps voters, who won with their dude, didn't want him involved or intervening. So what's your point? You wanted war mongering Hillary? This is going nowhere.
B-Man Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Back to the thread: Flip-Flop: Senate Democrat Who Opposed Alito Filibuster Now Backs Blocking GorsuchTownhall.com ^ | March 27, 2017 | Matt Vespa Well, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) opposed a filibuster of Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, but now—thanks to liberal pressure—supports blocking the equally qualified Judge Neil Gorsuch because the balance of the Court is purportedly in trouble, or something (via Tampa Bay Times): Bork was Borked, Will Gorsuch be Gorsuched!? American Thinker ^ | 03/29/2017 | Earick Ward After a handful of days of congressional testimony, Neil Gorsuch exposed the Democrats as being...well, ignorant of the law. If it had been a heavyweight fight, the referee would have been negligent in not calling the fight after the first or second round. But, lo and behold, the fight went the full ten rounds, with Gorsuch specifically, and Republicans generally, standing tall, as unanimous winners on all cards. One Democrat after another exposed his ignorance of the Constitution and its application to the rule of law. Neil Gorsuch was nearly flawless, answering idiotic question after idiotic question. He exposed not only Democrats on the dais, but Progressivism generally.
row_33 Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Why would anyone be shocked that a D in front of the state means one is going to knee-jerk block the vote?
B-Man Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Why would anyone be shocked that a D in front of the state means one is going to knee-jerk block the vote? Because.......................as the link states....................Senator Nelson previously did not "knee-jerk" block the vote. .
TH3 Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 This is going nowhere. Dude...that is the whole point of this forum....look at the threads that exist and thrive....sooner or later it all gets back to libs suck and the gop can't be held accountable for anything.... Come for the laughs...stay for the horror!
row_33 Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Because.......................as the link states....................Senator Nelson previously did not "knee-jerk" block the vote. . That was then, this is now. I would be shocked if ANY of the Dems voted for this appointment. I believe 1/3 of them are on board but won't do what they know is correct. Same old, same old. Dude...that is the whole point of this forum....look at the threads that exist and thrive....sooner or later it all gets back to libs suck and the gop can't be held accountable for anything.... Come for the laughs...stay for the horror! Not at all!!! There are pockets of good thinking people who like a discussion. Those on the Left who have actually read a book are the best people in my life to trade thoughts with.
B-Man Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 (edited) Senator Tim Kaine will filibuster Justice Gorsuch So, I guess this becomes more relevant ..............from 10/28/16 "Kaine: Dems will use 'nuclear option' if GOP blocks court nominee" http://bit.ly/2nZDM5p Nice move Timmy................ BuzzFeed NewsVerified account @BuzzFeedNews 17h17 hours ago There is a showdown brewing in the Senate that could change Supreme Court nominations forever https://www.buzzfeed.com/emmaloop/theres-a-showdown-brewing-in-the-senate-that-could-change?utm_term=.rtY4kkxQ9#.xv6Ldd4Yy … NO Buzzfeed. No #SCOTUS nominee has ever been defeated by partisan filibuster. A Republican victory in "showdown" would PRESERVE, not change, that tradition. Edited March 29, 2017 by B-Man
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Senator Tim Kaine will filibuster Justice Gorsuch So, I guess this becomes more relevant ..............from 10/28/16 "Kaine: Dems will use 'nuclear option' if GOP blocks court nominee" http://bit.ly/2nZDM5p Nice move Timmy................ NO Buzzfeed. No #SCOTUS nominee has ever been defeated by partisan filibuster. A Republican victory in "showdown" would PRESERVE, not change, that tradition. [This is an automated response.] The dissonance...it...hurts... Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.8.
row_33 Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Senator Tim Kaine will filibuster Justice Gorsuch So, I guess this becomes more relevant ..............from 10/28/16 "Kaine: Dems will use 'nuclear option' if GOP blocks court nominee" http://bit.ly/2nZDM5p Nice move Timmy................ NO Buzzfeed. No #SCOTUS nominee has ever been defeated by partisan filibuster. A Republican victory in "showdown" would PRESERVE, not change, that tradition. The process of advice and consent works very well to cause a scotching due to "are you kidding" or potential conflict or impeachment problems.
B-Man Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 DAMON LINKER: The futility of filibustering Neil Gorsuch. If Democrats had a way to exert power in an act of equal-and-opposite retaliation against Republicans (as they would have if they’d managed to win control of the Senate last November), they’d be justified in doing so. That would be very bad for the Supreme Court, keeping it hobbled with only eight justices. But it might have the salutary effect of teaching Republicans a lesson and therefore making possible a compromise down the road. But Democrats have no such power. The only thing that gives a filibustering senator the power to prevent a floor vote is a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to end debate. (Republicans hold only 52 seats and so would need at least eight Democrats to break ranks in order to clear that hurdle.) But this rule can itself be changed with a simple majority — and Democrats opted to take this so-called “nuclear option” back in November 2013, when they eliminated the filibuster for other kinds of nominations. This created a precedent that McConnell claims he will follow if Democrats attempt to block Gorsuch: He and his fellow Republicans will simply change the rule, allowing a simple majority to end debate for Supreme Court nominations. An up-or-down floor vote would then follow. This prospect is what brings Democrats to their dilemma: Should they filibuster Gorsuch and risk having this counter-majoritarian power taken away from them for good? The answer is no — because Democrats need to hold onto this meager power for the next opening on the court, when the stakes could be far, far higher for liberals. The beauty of the Reid Option is that it remains just as viable for the GOP to exercise in 2018, 2019, or 2020 as it is today. And Allahpundit, riffing on yesterday’s post, tweeted, “Really basic strategy, but the left is going to force Schumer to jump off the cliff anyway.”
row_33 Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 The beauty of the Reid Option is that it remains just as viable for the GOP to exercise in 2018, 2019, or 2020 as it is today. a very very dumb move but they honestly thought they were handed the Presidency for at least 8 more years, maybe 80 more years... hee....
Doc Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 a very very dumb move but they honestly thought they were handed the Presidency for at least 8 more years, maybe 80 more years... hee.... What, the Reid Option? I agree...
row_33 Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 What, the Reid Option? I agree... They sure acted like this was righteous and as normal as breathing air at the time, fully celebrated by the media as a move of genius. Executive orders and forcing things around the very slow deliberative process (thank goodness) often leads to trouble if done routinely or for less-than necessary reasons.... again and again and again...
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 DAMON LINKER: The futility of filibustering Neil Gorsuch. If Democrats had a way to exert power in an act of equal-and-opposite retaliation against Republicans (as they would have if they’d managed to win control of the Senate last November), they’d be justified in doing so. That would be very bad for the Supreme Court, keeping it hobbled with only eight justices. But it might have the salutary effect of teaching Republicans a lesson and therefore making possible a compromise down the road. But Democrats have no such power. The only thing that gives a filibustering senator the power to prevent a floor vote is a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to end debate. (Republicans hold only 52 seats and so would need at least eight Democrats to break ranks in order to clear that hurdle.) But this rule can itself be changed with a simple majority — and Democrats opted to take this so-called “nuclear option” back in November 2013, when they eliminated the filibuster for other kinds of nominations. This created a precedent that McConnell claims he will follow if Democrats attempt to block Gorsuch: He and his fellow Republicans will simply change the rule, allowing a simple majority to end debate for Supreme Court nominations. An up-or-down floor vote would then follow. This prospect is what brings Democrats to their dilemma: Should they filibuster Gorsuch and risk having this counter-majoritarian power taken away from them for good? The answer is no — because Democrats need to hold onto this meager power for the next opening on the court, when the stakes could be far, far higher for liberals. The beauty of the Reid Option is that it remains just as viable for the GOP to exercise in 2018, 2019, or 2020 as it is today. And Allahpundit, riffing on yesterday’s post, tweeted, “Really basic strategy, but the left is going to force Schumer to jump off the cliff anyway.” I'm so happy to see someone finally call it the Reid Option instead of the "nuclear option." If the Republicans pull this, it absolutely should be hung around his neck like a stinking trout.
Recommended Posts