• 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!

Mitt Romney backing of Supreme Court vote paves way for election-year confirmation

iguanaman said:
2/3rds of fertilized eggs do not end in a child. So that makes God the biggest abortionist in history. There is a huge difference between a zygote being "alive" and it being a human. It has no more human characteristics than a fingernail clipping.
Click to expand...
I dont believe in any god so I couldn't give a flying fart.

But do please continue your science denialist ramblings, they are quite entertaining
 
99percenter said:
Of course. If garland had a fair hearing, they republicans might have avoided the hypocrisy allegations but they didn't even do that.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think so. If they had even just gone through the motions of fulfilling their duty to the Republic and the People, they'd be in a much better position to argue that they should hear Trump's pick now.
 
Gondwanaland said:
I dont believe in any god so I couldn't give a flying fart.

But do please continue your science denialist ramblings, they are quite entertaining
Click to expand...

You might not believe in God but you certainly want to play him. Who died and gave you the right to punish women you never met because you "know" that abortion is wrong?
 
Metric Mouse said:
Correct. Let's get back to the precedent that has existed for many decades. Republicans have clearly realized how wrong they were in 2016, and since the past can not be changed one can only take comfort in that they are doing the right thing in 2020. Democrats should be celebrating Republicans coming around; turns out they're disgusting opportunistic hypocrites as well. Oh well.
Click to expand...
That precedent never existed until mitch mconnel set it. No dice. Republicans never realized they were wrong, they are just hypocrites.
 
99percenter said:
She also wants the next president to replace her? But of course you don't care what she wants, so your quotes are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

He thinks whatever his cult leader The Donald tells him to think. If The Donald says she's lying, then she's lying. That's how it works in cults. Dissent against Father is verboten.
 
Metric Mouse said:
Correct. Let's get back to the precedent that has existed for many decades. Republicans have clearly realized how wrong they were in 2016, and since the past can not be changed one can only take comfort in that they are doing the right thing in 2020. Democrats should be celebrating Republicans coming around; turns out they're disgusting opportunistic hypocrites as well. Oh well.
Click to expand...

I actually don't think it's a bad justification but the GOP can't even admit that what they were doing in 2016 was wrong. Their egos wont let them.
 
Trump has yet to figure out that Turtleman's unseemly rush to fill the seat means that he expects Trump to lose!
 
Manc Skipper said:
Trump has yet to figure out that Turtleman's unseemly rush to fill the seat means that he expects Trump to lose!
Click to expand...
exactly. That's why it's critical he gets it done before the election. It would be even more hypocritical to let a lameduck decide after saying in 2016 that the people need to have a say.
 
I work for his campaign and am a solid supporter of Mitt's, have met with him personally and have a great respect for him. What everyone needs to remember is he is still a member of the GOP and a centrist. I don't think it's a fair statement as I have heard today that he aligns with the Never-Trump movement, ne has never given me that impressions.

Early on after RBG's death his constituents including myself have been lobbying hard for him to allow the vote. Remember, even us Never-Trumpers want conservative judges, we just don't want Trump in the White House.
 
iguanaman said:
You might not believe in God but you certainly want to play him. Who died and gave you the right to punish women you never met because you "know" that abortion is wrong?
Click to expand...
No I have no interest in playing god. Just interested in defending the right of life guaranteed in our founding documents of those who cannot and do not have the voice to defend themselves.
 
Last edited:
Gondwanaland said:
Making DC a state requires a constitutional Amendment. Not likely gonna happen
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. The Constitution just limits their number of electoral votes to three.
 
Gondwanaland said:
No I have no interest in paying god. Just interested in defending the right of life guaranteed in our founding documents of those who cannot and do not have the voice to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Then I am sure that 200,000 Americans who died to the trump virus is a catastrophe to you?
 
Ikari said:
Honestly, I think so. If they had even just gone through the motions of fulfilling their duty to the Republic and the People, they'd be in a much better position to argue that they should hear Trump's pick now.
Click to expand...


If they had gone through the motions, it would have avoided the “hypocrisy” argument four years later....
 
Phys251 said:
No it doesn't. The Constitution just limits their number of electoral votes to three.
Click to expand...
Nope, the constitution establishes it as federal land, seceded from any state, under the authority and governorship of the federal government as the capital of the nation. Statehood for DC requires an amendment to change the constitution.
 
Metric Mouse said:
Right!? Absolutely agree. How anyone has an argument against considering a nominee is crazy. We saw the consequences last time; no need to repeat it. Good analogy.
Click to expand...

There is a very big difference between the two.

Last time was nine months between the nomination and the election, now we have five weeks.

Republicans were willing to leave the seat empty for a year. So their sudden urgency is complete bullshit.

The main difference though is the fact that voting has already begun.

This is not during an election year,this is during an ongoing election...
 
Last edited:
itstony said:
I work for his campaign and am a solid supporter of Mitt's, have met with him personally and have a great respect for him. What everyone needs to remember is he is still a member of the GOP and a centrist. I don't think it's a fair statement as I have heard today that he aligns with the Never-Trump movement, ne has never given me that impressions.

Early on after RBG's death his constituents including myself have been lobbying hard for him to allow the vote. Remember, even us Never-Trumpers want conservative judges, we just don't want Trump in the White House.
Click to expand...

Yes and no (to your last line). As a #NeverTrumper myself, I don't want to see uber conservative judges any more than I want to see uber liberal judges on SCOTUS. That's why I like Roberts. He's middling and fair. Moderate.
 
Gondwanaland said:
Nope, the constitution establishes it as federal land, seceded from any state, under the authority and governorship of the federal government as the capital of the nation. Statehood for DC requires an amendment to change the constitution.
Click to expand...

What was the number of the Constitutional Amendment making Hawaii a state?
 
tres borrachos said:
You posted a link to a blog. Not the Constitution.

You can't do that? So you lied, in other words.
Click to expand...
I posted a link to an article that explains it and quotes the relevant parts of the constitution. Read it or dont, that's up to you. No, son, just because you're too damn lazy to read what was provided does not mean I "lied". My truthfulness is not dependent on your laziness and unwillingness to read, so kindly go pound sand.
 
Gondwanaland said:
Nope, the constitution establishes it as federal land, seceded from any state, under the authority and governorship of the federal government as the capital of the nation. Statehood for DC requires an amendment to change the constitution.
Click to expand...

Show me the exact text that says that DC cannot become a state.

While you're looking that nonexistent text up, there's also nothing in the Constitution that prevents dividing up Washington into the government section that isn't represented and the populated region that is. The latter could be just a couple acts of Congress away from becoming the 52nd state, after Puerto Rico.
 
Gondwanaland said:
I posted a link to an article that explains it and quotes the relevant parts of the constitution. Read it or dont, that's up to you. No, son, just because you're too damn lazy to read what was provided does not mean I "lied". My truthfulness is not dependent on your laziness and unwillingness to read, so kindly go pound sand.
Click to expand...

You need to post a link to the Constitution. That wasn't an "article". It was a blog. Why do you lie so much?

You can't quote the part of the Constitution yourself because....you can't think without someone's blog?
 
Phys251 said:
Then I am sure that 200,000 Americans who died to the trump virus is a catastrophe to you?
Click to expand...
People die all the time to all sorts of diseases. When they are deliberately killed, like those in nursing homes under Cupmo and Whitmer, certainly that is an outrage.
 
tres borrachos said:
You need to post a link to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
First off, I dont need to do anything, so let's get that out of the way right away, sparky. You are not in control of me. Secondly, I already posted a link to an article which directly cited the relevant parts of the constitution. If you cannot grasp what was said I suggest talking to your grade school teacher about how she failed you in teaching reading comprehension
That wasn't an "article". It was a blog. Why do you lie so much?

You can't quote the part of the Constitution yourself because....you can't think without someone's blog?
Click to expand...
*shrug* That's on you. I already did my due diligence to support my argument. I can lead a moron to water but cannot force him to drink.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom