Chef Jim Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 All I'll say at this point is it's another selection based on gender vs the best candidate. I have an issue with that. The minute Trump said his pick was going to be a woman I felt the exact same way that I felt when Biden based is VP pick on gender AND color. 1
snafu Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 1 minute ago, Chef Jim said: All I'll say at this point is it's another selection based on gender vs the best candidate. I have an issue with that. The minute Trump said his pick was going to be a woman I felt the exact same way that I felt when Biden based is VP pick on gender AND color. Last time around, if I remember, it was Kavanaugh or Barrett. I don’t think this is giving up quality vs. an identity-based candidate. She’s probably already been thoroughly investigated for bones under her floorboards the last time she was considered.
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 1 minute ago, snafu said: Last time around, if I remember, it was Kavanaugh or Barrett. I don’t think this is giving up quality vs. an identity-based candidate. She’s probably already been thoroughly investigated for bones under her floorboards the last time she was considered. ...agreed......apples and oranges vs Kamala the Thrillah.......correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Trump's initial list included BOTH males and females......and he subsequently said a female is likely...replacing a female with a qualified female is a bad strategy?....Biden said "black female for VP" from the onset......sickening to see the MSM vultures circling in on Barret's Catholic religion......this society gets more effed up daily......religion is a qualifier?.....
snafu Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...agreed......apples and oranges vs Kamala the Thrillah.......correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Trump's initial list included BOTH males and females......and he subsequently said a female is likely...replacing a female with a qualified female is a bad strategy?....Biden said "black female for VP" from the onset......sickening to see the MSM vultures circling in on Barret's Catholic religion......this society gets more effed up daily......religion is a qualifier?..... If Catholic is her hardest knock, then she will be lucky. 1
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 1 minute ago, snafu said: If Catholic is her hardest knock, then she will be lucky. ...for the MSM (including that woeful putz azzclown Bill Maher) to even bring it up as a potential disqualifier is beyond repulsive..... 2
ALF Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 She's qualified but would she have received the 60 votes needed before April 2017 nuclear option ?
Tiberius Posted September 26, 2020 Author Posted September 26, 2020 4 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...agreed......apples and oranges vs Kamala the Thrillah.......correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Trump's initial list included BOTH males and females......and he subsequently said a female is likely...replacing a female with a qualified female is a bad strategy?....Biden said "black female for VP" from the onset......sickening to see the MSM vultures circling in on Barret's Catholic religion......this society gets more effed up daily......religion is a qualifier?..... Dems are focusing the publics attention on this pro-life women's probable repeal vote for health care. Killing health insurance during a pandemic for tens of millions of Americans should get this court off to a popular start! Hearings should focus on that, not her silly religious devotion.
snafu Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 Just now, Tiberius said: Dems are focusing the publics attention on this pro-life women's probable repeal vote for health care. Killing health insurance during a pandemic for tens of millions of Americans should get this court off to a popular start! Hearings should focus on that, not her silly religious devotion. Right... If Obamacare can’t stand up to judicial scrutiny, then let the legislature do its job correct next time. And since her religious devotion is “silly” as you put it, then there’s no need to ever bring it up. 2
Tiberius Posted September 26, 2020 Author Posted September 26, 2020 1 minute ago, snafu said: Right... If Obamacare can’t stand up to judicial scrutiny, then let the legislature do its job correct next time. And since her religious devotion is “silly” as you put it, then there’s no need to ever bring it up. Nothing the Democrats will pass can pass this courts scrutiny. (Left leaning country, right leaning government) These monsters--good religious folks?--are going to kill a whole bunch more people now, and cheers. They are cannibals. She says she is pro-life, lol. That is funny. And so many religions has been so exposed as child molesting, terrorism committing, Trump backing immoral hypocrites of the highest order. Many religions are a rackett, ask Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert and Pat Robertson. Many religious institutions are great, many are not. Which camp does she belong too? The public will probably not get to know until after she is on the court.
Alaska Darin Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 9 minutes ago, snafu said: Right... If Obamacare can’t stand up to judicial scrutiny, then let the legislature do its job correct next time. And since her religious devotion is “silly” as you put it, then there’s no need to ever bring it up. Constitution, schomnstitution, amirite libs?
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, snafu said: Right... If Obamacare can’t stand up to judicial scrutiny, then let the legislature do its job correct next time. And since her religious devotion is “silly” as you put it, then there’s no need to ever bring it up. ..ObamaCare was actually HillaryCare that the Clintonites launched via their cardboard cutout prop job after the pantsuit lost......a cobbled together disaster from the get go authored by politicians, the epitome of health care experts ON BOTH SIDES (COUGH)....health care lobbyists?.....naw.....Cliff Notes version of our company: 200 Union electricians covered by self-insured policy and I pay $6+ million annually in their premiums (100%).....12 non-Union employees and I pay 60% of their premiums...ObamaCare mandates cast my non-Union folks from "community rated pool" to block rated pool", resulting in a 35% increase in premiums....they panicked and were going to drop coverage....We threw an additional $25,000 in premium sponsorship to help them.....certainly Excellus/Anthem health care premiums are spiraling.....I'm moving my 12 to a local Excellus buyer's group of 3,000 members and my 2021 savings are $49,000.....ask yourself how well the government has done with Medicaid or Medicare........uh oh......
Alaska Darin Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 3 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ..ObamaCare was actually HillaryCare that the Clintonites launched via their cardboard cutout prop job after the pantsuit lost......a cobbled together disaster from the get go authored by politicians, the epitome of health care experts ON BOTH SIDES (COUGH)....health care lobbyists?.....naw.....Cliff Notes version of our company: 200 Union electricians covered by self-insured policy and I pay $6+ million annually in their premiums (100%).....12 non-Union employees and I pay 60% of their premiums...ObamaCare mandates cast my non-Union folks from "community rated pool" to block rated pool", resulting in a 35% increase in premiums....they panicked and were going to drop coverage....We threw an additional $25,000 in premium sponsorship to help them.....certainly Excellus/Anthem health care premiums are spiraling.....I'm moving my 12 to a local Excellus buyer's group of 3,000 members and my 2021 savings are $49,000.....ask yourself how well the government has done with Medicaid or Medicare........uh oh...... There's a reason they only trumpeted the 4(ish) good things about the law...because the other 3k pages were packed with incredibly expensive nonsense. 1
Tiberius Posted September 26, 2020 Author Posted September 26, 2020 16 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said: Constitution, schomnstitution, amirite libs? As long as the system is rigged to ensure your side interprets the document, amirite Trumpers?
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 12 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said: There's a reason they only trumpeted the 4(ish) good things about the law...because the other 3k pages were packed with incredibly expensive nonsense. EXACTLY......and 2,997 pages were NEVER read by the 535 parasitic hangers on (BOTH SIDES).....my pet peeve for 45+ years with these 535 skanks alleging to "doing the people's business".....alleged "Health Care Legislation" is offered......yet on pages 2,643 to 2,651, the 535 were granted free haircuts, manicures, pedicures, condoms for discreet encounters, allowance for sex change operations et al...any Amendment that does NOT pertain to the true spirit of the legislation should be denied......yet this garbage is surreptitiously slipped in that NONE of these clowns read, and becomes law at the taxpayers' expense....18% Congressional approval rating so noted....they could care less............
IDBillzFan Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 1 hour ago, ALF said: She's qualified but would she have received the 60 votes needed before April 2017 nuclear option ? Let me ask Harry Reid. Stand by. 2 2
KD in CA Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 1 hour ago, snafu said: If Catholic is her hardest knock, then she will be lucky. Get with the times man! She's gonna be a RAYSIS!! no matter who Chuck needs to invent to make it happen.
ALF Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said: Let me ask Harry Reid. Stand by. Let me ask McConnell. Stand by In November 2013, the then-Democratic Senate majority eliminated the filibuster for executive branch nominees and judicial nominees except for Supreme Court nominees, invoking the so-called nuclear option. In April 2017, the Republican Senate majority applied the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations as well, enabling the nomination of Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch to proceed to a vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Orlando Buffalo Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: Dems are focusing the publics attention on this pro-life women's probable repeal vote for health care. Killing health insurance during a pandemic for tens of millions of Americans should get this court off to a popular start! Hearings should focus on that, not her silly religious devotion. How are they going to cancel health insurance for people? They will allow people not to have it, they will not take it away from anyone. Only to someone who thinks govt is the only answer does allowing people freedom become" killing" health insurance.
Orlando Buffalo Posted September 26, 2020 Posted September 26, 2020 40 minutes ago, Tiberius said: As long as the system is rigged to ensure your side interprets the document, amirite Trumpers? Rigged to a Liberal- laying our rules for all to see and interpreting rules as if the words have meaning. The constitution states the president must present a nominee- as Barack did- and the senate must consent and confirm for nominee to take seat. In 2016 the senate did not consent and confirm. And yes I think Merrick Garland was given a raw deal
Recommended Posts