• 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!

Sleasebag Schumer attempts to adjourn Senate.

skeptic llc said:
How about they take only as much time to vote on her as they took to vote on Garland? Would that be fair?
Click to expand...
How about we stick to the topic instead of repeating "what about Garland" 57 times? An off-party nominee from a lame duck President wasn't going anywhere.
 
Bullseye said:
How about we stick to the topic instead of repeating "what about Garland" 57 times? An off-party nominee from a lame duck President wasn't going anywhere.
Click to expand...
Yeah, let's forget everything that ever happened before when it's inconvenient. Gee, I wonder if you say that for partisan reasons.
 
skeptic llc said:
Yeah, let's forget everything that ever happened before when it's inconvenient. Gee, I wonder if you say that for partisan reasons.
Click to expand...
I say for facts. Obama was a lame duck, the Senate was GOP the Senate Dem - 80% that combination resulted in a nominee being rejected. As far as I know failing to hold hearings on Garland didn't punish any civilians or small businesses.
 
Bullseye said:
I say for facts. Obama was a lame duck, the Senate was GOP the Senate Dem - 80% that combination resulted in a nominee being rejected. As far as I know failing to hold hearings on Garland didn't punish any civilians or small businesses.
Click to expand...
Do you publish these rules in advance? Did you state something in advance that made it ok for Trump to fill a seat on the verge of his un-election? Or do you just make up these rules as you go along? (No need to answer, everyone knows.)
 
skeptic llc said:
Do you publish these rules in advance? Did you state something in advance that made it ok for Trump to fill a seat on the verge of his un-election? Or do you just make up these rules as you go along? (No need to answer, everyone knows.)
Click to expand...
Rules? Yeah, it's called the US Constitution. As supported by RBG "Presidents are elected for four years".
 
Bullseye said:
Rules? Yeah, it's called the US Constitution. As supported by RBG "Presidents are elected for four years".
Click to expand...
OK, so you're in the camp that says anything the constitution doesn't prohibit is fair game. That's fine. Keep that position in mind in the coming years when you might otherwise be inclined to cry foul.
 
skeptic llc said:
OK, so you're in the camp that says anything the constitution doesn't prohibit is fair game. That's fine. Keep that position in mind in the coming years when you might otherwise be inclined to cry foul.
Click to expand...
Those camps exist only in your mind.
 
Bullseye said:
Those camps exist only in your mind.
Click to expand...
Wonderful news! Here I thought you were a total hypocrite. So Rs should play by the same rules they announced in 2016, to explain why they wouldn't consider Garland?
 
skeptic llc said:
Wonderful news! Here I thought you were a total hypocrite. So Rs should play by the same rules they announced in 2016, to explain why they wouldn't consider Garland?
Click to expand...
They did - When White House and Senate held by different parties nominees rarely get approve; when the President is a lame duck it's even worse When House and WH same party approval is practically a slam dunk.
 
Bullseye said:
They did - When White House and Senate held by different parties nominees rarely get approve; when the President is a lame duck it's even worse When House and WH same party approval is practically a slam dunk.
Click to expand...
So you think that's what they said in 2016? Just that it was all a power play based on who controlled what? Or did you notice them attempting to give rationales for it that they are now completely contradicting?
 
skeptic llc said:
So you think that's what they said in 2016? Just that it was all a power play based on who controlled what? Or did you notice them attempting to give rationales for it that they are now completely contradicting?
Click to expand...
No need to be hypothetical, here's a simple test. Read their 2016 statements for why they wouldn't consider an Obama appointee, then apply those same statements to a current Trump appointee and see how it comes out. Are they following their stated positions/principles? (Or is it just partisan BS, and that the "rules" are that whatever Rs can get away with they will do?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom