• 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!

Re: Garland nomination

KLATTU

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,899
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Now that the the Dems are flip flopping and saying an SC appointment SHOULDN't be made in an election year, what do you think would have happened even if the GOP HAD let the nomination go forward?
Would they have smeared him with lies like the Dems did with Kavanaugh?

Would thy have made up so BS reasons to declare him unfit like the Dems did with Gorsuch?
 
Seems the dems have flip-flopped to support the Republican position from 2016.

Where did the Republicans go?
 
KLATTU said:
Now that the the Dems are flip flopping and saying an SC appointment SHOULDN't be made in an election year, what do you think would have happened even if the GOP HAD let the nomination go forward?
Would they have smeared him with lies like the Dems did with Kavanaugh?

Would thy have made up so BS reasons to declare him unfit like the Dems did with Gorsuch?
Click to expand...

The Trumpist actually thinks this is a clever turnaround that he can deploy to justify the GOP having its cake and eating it too.

No, that is not what "Dems" think. There is nothing inconsistent in thinking that there shouldn't be some election year rule about nominations, but since the GOP invented one to justify stealing Garland's seat, the GOP should be bound by its own made-up rule and not nominate anyone to replace RGB.
 
Mr Person said:
The Trumpist actually thinks this is a clever turnaround that he can deploy to justify the GOP having its cake and eating it too.
Click to expand...

Are you still pretending that the Dems wouldn't be doing the *exact* same thing if the table were turned?
( rhetorical- we all know the answer)
Mr Person said:
T. There is nothing inconsistent in thinking that there shouldn't be some election year rule about nominations, but since the GOP invented one to justify stealing Garland's seat, the GOP should be bound by its own made-up rule and not nominate anyone to replace RGB.
Click to expand...
How did they 'steal ' Garland's seat? They held the Senate .
You think they would have confirmed Garland even with this 'made up rule"
( rhetorical - we all know the answer).

Dems have already been schooled as to why this year is different than 2016
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom