• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Graham: "You can use my words against me"

M

Maybe the rule that changed was Graham is not going to attempt to placate or appease Dems anymore

Good for him :)

Trump 2020
Again, there was no rule. And one of things I used to respect Graham for was his unwillingness to appease/placate anyone (at least, not during outside of an election cycle).
 
Show me, you can tell me anything...and the gop is stepping right up and showing all of us what they say means nothing, you have to watch what they do.

They smile in your face, the backstabbers.
 
In 2016, Lindsey Graham stated regarding voting on a Supreme Court Nominee in the last year of a presidency:



and now, less than 2 months before the election, Lindsey Graham



It is evident there is no honor left in Graham as he is going totally against what he said in 2016 and where he stated "you can use my words against me if I don't do what I stated"

This is exactly the guidelines that Trump has set up in his term:"words mean nothing and you can't trust them, even I or any of my supporters say them".

Is this the kind of guidelines you want to live by?

He certainly has the unfettered right to change his mind.
Look at you, a person who claims to have never voted in a presidential election before is gung ho on changing his position.
 
In 2016, Lindsey Graham stated regarding voting on a Supreme Court Nominee in the last year of a presidency:



and now, less than 2 months before the election, Lindsey Graham



It is evident there is no honor left in Graham as he is going totally against what he said in 2016 and where he stated "you can use my words against me if I don't do what I stated"

This is exactly the guidelines that Trump has set up in his term:"words mean nothing and you can't trust them, even I or any of my supporters say them".

Is this the kind of guidelines you want to live by?


He is nothing but a shameless whore. I have no idea why any person would be so mean and corrupt. If he was in sales, he would not last a day pulling this kind of stuff. But here we are, at least 50 US Senators willing to ignore all human decency in pursuit of pure power. What is it that they want? Well for starters, they want to turn our women into brood mares. Then, they want to give corporations all the power they want so that we can go back to the late 1800s apparently. How can anyone be this mean and cruel? My answer is that religion gives them fuel and religion makes them whole. It really doesnt matter if they follow the true lessons of Christ or Muhammed, its just an excuse for being a total asshole. Assholes love being assholes.
 
He certainly has the unfettered right to change his mind.
Look at you, a person who claims to have never voted in a presidential election before is gung ho on changing his position.
Yeah, Graham said that before the embarrassing behavior of the Dems during the Kavanaugh confirmation. They should also check who made judicial appointments simple majority rather than filibuster-proof 60 votes.
 
The thing to remember is they're not being hypocritical; they're insulting you. It's a not-subtle difference.
 
He certainly has the unfettered right to change his mind.
Look at you, a person who claims to have never voted in a presidential election before is gung ho on changing his position.


There is no honor in changing positions on things you strongly believe in. Lindsey was adamant about his position on this in 2016 (when it was to his benefit in order to be reelected) but now that benefit has changed and he has changed. This means that your words mean nothing and can't be depended on. That is not what a person should ever be (undependable) but even worse when you are a representative of the people. You got elected on the person you promised to be and that people believed in and now you shift with the wind.............to your own personal benefit!

I certainly do not have any respect for someone like this.

As far as you using my not voting before as an excuse, that is like talking apples and oranges. I explained I never voted before because I did not consider any of the candidates to be bad enough or good enough to have my vote make a difference. On this occasion, I consider Trump to be bad enough that I need to vote. I have not changed my mind on anything. The situation has changed, not me. In the case of Graham, the situation is exactly the same as it was in 2016 and he has changed his mind. That is what makes it wrong.
 
There is no honor in changing positions on things you strongly believe in.

Right.

"Ginsburg was similarly frank about her displeasure with Senate Republicans after Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016. She offered her unqualified support for Garland and took Senate Republicans to task for ducking a hearing and confirmation vote during an interview with the New York Times.

"That's their job," she said. "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year."

She left no doubt about her opinion of Garland's fitness.

"I think he is about as well qualified as any nominee to this court," she said. "Super bright and very nice, very easy to deal with. And super prepared. He would be a great colleague."

Before she died, Ginsburg had made her wishes regarding a successor plain. "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," she said in a statement dictated to a family member."


#BOOM

You really should stop with the spiritual hilltopping.

You sound like a buffoon.
 
In 2016, Lindsey Graham stated regarding voting on a Supreme Court Nominee in the last year of a presidency:



and now, less than 2 months before the election, Lindsey Graham



It is evident there is no honor left in Graham as he is going totally against what he said in 2016 and where he stated "you can use my words against me if I don't do what I stated"

This is exactly the guidelines that Trump has set up in his term:"words mean nothing and you can't trust them, even I or any of my supporters say them".

Is this the kind of guidelines you want to live by?

Bottom line: The constitution provides a blueprint on how things must be done and that is the way they have been done and are currently being done. The party drawing the short stick always gripes about the other party being able to do things.
 
Hypocrisy is apparant on both sides. Those who were strictly against an appointment are now for it, and vice versa.
 
Right.

"Ginsburg was similarly frank about her displeasure with Senate Republicans after Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016. She offered her unqualified support for Garland and took Senate Republicans to task for ducking a hearing and confirmation vote during an interview with the New York Times.

"That's their job," she said. "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year."

She left no doubt about her opinion of Garland's fitness.

"I think he is about as well qualified as any nominee to this court," she said. "Super bright and very nice, very easy to deal with. And super prepared. He would be a great colleague."

Before she died, Ginsburg had made her wishes regarding a successor plain. "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," she said in a statement dictated to a family member."


#BOOM

You really should stop with the spiritual hilltopping.

You sound like a buffoon.
 
Right.

"Ginsburg was similarly frank about her displeasure with Senate Republicans after Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016. She offered her unqualified support for Garland and took Senate Republicans to task for ducking a hearing and confirmation vote during an interview with the New York Times.

"That's their job," she said. "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year."

She left no doubt about her opinion of Garland's fitness.

"I think he is about as well qualified as any nominee to this court," she said. "Super bright and very nice, very easy to deal with. And super prepared. He would be a great colleague."

Before she died, Ginsburg had made her wishes regarding a successor plain. "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," she said in a statement dictated to a family member."


#BOOM

You really should stop with the spiritual hilltopping.

You sound like a buffoon.
There are 2 big differences.

1) In Garland's case, there was still almost a full year to go and for the Supreme Court to be without a judge for that period of time, stretches the reasons for no vote to the absolute limits.

2) In this case, there are only 54 days to go and there is absolutely no reason for them not to wait.

In addition, this Senate has shown itself to be totally biased and the end result is a foregone conclusion no matter who is picked. With RBG was a very intelligent and knowledgeable person and she knows that confirmation of a Supreme Court judge needs to go through a complete overview of who is chosen and for the people deciding, for there to be complete fairness in confirming a Supreme Court justice and that does not exist here. Whoever is chosen and no matter whether they are qualified or not, they will pass.

RBG was the pinnacle of fairness and adherence to the law and that does not exist now. The least the Senate could do in respect for her as well as in respect for fairness, is to wait until the new president is installed. It would not be fair for this to have not happened in 2016 but not for it to happen, simply because the Republican Senate wants it to happen.
 
Graham was disgusted by the travesty the Dams created during Kavanaugh hearings and said, based on their abysmal behavior "rules have changed". Yet another circular firing squad for the Dems.
So if the "Dams" take power you wont have an issue when they change the rules once again, cool.
 
RBG was the pinnacle of fairness and adherence to the law and that does not exist now. T
That's just BS. She's a partisan activist judge. She's an activist for the agenda #you# like, so you don't mind.
 
That's just BS. She's a partisan activist judge. She's an activist for the agenda #you# like, so you don't mind.


RBG proved her worth as a Supreme Court Judge throughout her life. She was not partisan. She was pro LAW.
 
RBG proved her worth as a Supreme Court Judge throughout her life. She was not partisan. She was pro LAW.

What we are seeing is the last gasp of the old white Christian majority now facing extinction but for the courts. By holding onto the power of the courts, they hope to limit the coming liberal majorities down the road. The short term gains they will make by remaking the Supremes into a conservative wall will backfire on them sooner or later. As younger voters gain power and boomers die off, the nation will move further to the left and if the new court stops them, they will remake the courts in their wake. What is apparent to the vast majority of us is that the current system is broken. It is heavily unbalanced in favor of a minority of Americans holding a minority view and that is not a system that can guide us through the next era. I just hope the left finally understands the stakes and stops the hand wringing. Its clobbering time, clobber something.
 
Lenningrad Graham and Moscow Mitch were never going to hold to their own arguments they used to deny Obama's pick now. The GOP has no integrity, this is known. The GOP is just a yellow-bellied, spineless, amoral party lacking all character and integrity. They're nothing more than Big Government fascists at this point.
 
RBG proved her worth as a Supreme Court Judge throughout her life. She was not partisan. She was pro LAW.

Oy vey...

when the NY times says you're a liberal partisan, I think that says it all

hen President Bill Clinton put Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court in 1993, some liberals feared she would turn out be a moderate. She had, for instance, voiced doubts about the court’s reasoning in Roe v. Wade, saying it had moved too fast in establishing a nationwide right to abortion.

The fears were misplaced. Over her 27 years on the court, she emerged as a champion of progressive causes. By the time her death ended her tenure on Friday, she was the leader of its liberal wing. She assumed that role in 2010, after the departure of Justice John Paul Stevens, and she seemed to enjoy it. “I am now the most senior justice when we divide 5-4 with the usual suspects,” she said in the 2013 interview.


Lee Epstein, a law professor and political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, said Justice Ginsburg “cast more liberal votes than any other justice in the court’s weightiest cases.”

“Ginsburg’s liberalism extended to all areas of the law: civil rights, of course
, but also criminal procedure, civil liberties and even economic disputes,” Professor Epstein said. “She was the least likely member of the current court to favor business over governments, unions, shareholders and employees.”

 
Lenningrad Graham and Moscow Mitch were never going to hold to their own arguments they used to deny Obama's pick now. The GOP has no integrity, this is known. The GOP is just a yellow-bellied, spineless, amoral party lacking all character and integrity. They're nothing more than Big Government fascists at this point.
Now do Democrats.

We'll wait.
 
There is no honor in changing positions on things you strongly believe in. Lindsey was adamant about his position on this in 2016 (when it was to his benefit in order to be reelected) but now that benefit has changed and he has changed. This means that your words mean nothing and can't be depended on. That is not what a person should ever be (undependable) but even worse when you are a representative of the people. You got elected on the person you promised to be and that people believed in and now you shift with the wind.............to your own personal benefit!

I certainly do not have any respect for someone like this.

As far as you using my not voting before as an excuse, that is like talking apples and oranges. I explained I never voted before because I did not consider any of the candidates to be bad enough or good enough to have my vote make a difference. On this occasion, I consider Trump to be bad enough that I need to vote. I have not changed my mind on anything. The situation has changed, not me. In the case of Graham, the situation is exactly the same as it was in 2016 and he has changed his mind. That is what makes it wrong.

So what? He probably has no respect for the stuff you say either.
 
Back
Top Bottom