Nalu
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2019
- Messages
- 3,004
- Reaction score
- 952
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You don't have any interest in politics being a normal, respectable exchange between people, do you?
why? If Trump can get someone seated, he should.
You don't have any interest in politics being a normal, respectable exchange between people, do you?
I have been around 60 years. that environment started going out the window when Robert Bork was smeared. Now, what is important is hoping your side does what it needs to do to win since the other side won't hold back
The Dems may be alienating folk, but not faster that Trump and his Swamp. I think in the GOP-Partisans rush to spite, they have overestimated their hand. But we'll see what happens in 2020. But everything Trump does and the Partisans excuse, will be used by the Dems in the future. So I hope y'all are all prepared to have your games thrown back in your faces.
Actually I agree with you. But I do think the Liberal hypocrites would demand what they decried with Gorsuch
Hmm. That is the prevailing sentiment among voters. It's a tragedy. They've actually reinforced this behavior among politicians who in turn use their tools to reinforce the concept that a voter's political adversary is her mortal enemy. And so we go round and round the toilet bowl, all of us racing to get to the sewer and thinking that our little victories are all we want and need. It's a pathetic state of affairs.
The Democrats wanted a vote because they were entitled to a vote. The Republicans refused to give it to them. So to insist that the same process be followed next time isn't hypocritical.
I would have to disagree. Emerson's latest polling is a disaster for Democrats. (Excel Spreadsheet) They show 34% of the black population now thinks Trump is doing a good job. Trump won in 2016 with 8% of the black vote. Likewise support across the board has dropped for Impeachment, and Trump is leading all comers in Wisconsin AND the majority of voters said they will not vote Democrat in 2020.
What are the Democrats with a failed impeachment? Answer: Nothing.
"Other than that, how was the Play, Mrs. Lincoln?"
Miguel Estrada and Peter Keisler-Bush nominees to the Court of Appeals, both had more than enough votes to be confirmed, but the minority party-the dems-prevented a vote for either man. So to insist the GOP -which had the votes to defeat Merrick Garland-should have given him a vote after what was done for racist and anti-semitic reasons to Estrada and Keisler respectively is myopic
perhaps but if someone starts a fight with me, and then pulls a knife, I don't plan on being constricted by the Marquess of Queensberry's rules
:lamo
Biden Rule...Nuclear Option...the **** the leftists do is A-OK...but when the other guys do it.......
Your position reeks of hypocrisy.
Well the impeachment has brought to light credible evidence of suspicious behavior, but it's hamstringed so I don't think they'd ever be able to get to the bottom of it. For the sake of the Republic we should, but it's too partisan to actually hold accountable branches of government that need to be held accountable. It's unfortunate, because these things don't get better magically and once abuse is excused and dismissed, it becomes entrenched.
With the economy as it is, Trump should be neigh untouchable, but in all the polls (for as much as they're worth), he runs behind most of the Democrat contenders because he's really just that bad of a President. And if/when the economy slows, it's not going to go well for him and his swamp.
But we'll see what happens in 2020, and what sort of crazy we end up with. Hopefully something manageable, but Trumps corruption and incompetence has opened the door to some pretty extreme responses.
Not true. If Hillary had won, McConnell would have held hearings for Garland fairly promptly. I give credit to Obama for going for a young RBG type and not going middle of the road.It wouldn't have mattered who Obama picked. The point wasn't to get an Obama pick through, it was to stonewall Obama's pick, regardless of who it was, in the hopes that the GOP would pick up the WH and then be able to put in their partisan judge instead. Gorsuch would have gone through the nominal proceedings if we had been in middle of an Obama term instead of at the end.
No amount of dishonesty will erase the tactic used by the GOP here. It wasn't about Gorsuch as much as it was about avoiding an Obama pick and hoping for a Republican one instead.
Miguel Estrada and Peter Keisler-Bush nominees to the Court of Appeals, both had more than enough votes to be confirmed, but the minority party-the dems-prevented a vote for either man. So to insist the GOP -which had the votes to defeat Merrick Garland-should have given him a vote after what was done for racist and anti-semitic reasons to Estrada and Keisler respectively is myopic
There is no evidence. The witnesses, every single one, claimed a presumption or a suspicion of wrong doing but no actual evidence of any such wrong doing. The only direct contact with Trump on the subject had Trump demanding just the opposite.
But then all this is old news and people have now seen it for themselves. Democrats threw they best, most lopsided attack possible at Trump and the public support for impeachment declined. They lost, badly.
Also, I have to laugh at your suggestion that a Democrat run impeachment hearing that allowed only Democrats to call witnesses, and limited the questions thaht Republicans were allowed to ask and that witnesses were allowed to answer was "hamstringed"... :roll:
The only thing that hamstringed the Democrats in the impeachment hearings was a complete lack of material witnesses and an abundance of nitwit witnesses who don't know the chain of command.
What the Democrats set out to do was prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump bribed a foreign official ... what they ended up with is proving beyond the shadow of a doubt the existence of an insubordinate Deep state bent on sabotaging US foreign policy and the Trump presidency. Even the media, who spent all their time before the hearings laughing off the deep state "conspiracy theory" are now running interference claiming the deep state is a good thing. :roll:
It was an epic fail. It didn't have the pop of "Have you, in the end, no decency?" ... but the end result might be even more catastrophic for the neo-McCarthyists.
Not true. If Hillary had won, McConnell would have held hearings for Garland fairly promptly. I give credit to Obama for going for a young RBG type and not going middle of the road.
Much the same could be said for congressional action on the USMCA - politics moves congress critters at a partisan pace and there is no Constitutional requirement that congress act in any other manner.
I don't think it was an "epic fail". All the testimony clearly points to Trump directing everything and that he used Guiliani to get around the State Department and that funds were being withheld. But the WH also refuses to allow people to testify and won't release documentation and other forms of obstruction (which will likely be one of the articles of impeachment when they come up), so yes it is hamstringed.
I don't think that rational and honest people look at the impeachment and think it to be some Deep State conspiracy against Trump. There is worry that laws were broken and the testimony has been consistent on that account.
We shall see, but in the end if we end up with something like a Bernie Sanders, it's because the door was opened by Trump.
No, it didn't. It clearly pointed to a handful of hand picked "witnesses" who presumed something for which they had no evidence. They were not, in fact, witnesses.
The only person to present first hand knowledge was Sondland, and Sondland's only first hand knowledge was a demand by Trump that there be no quid pro quo.
And, as I said, support for the impeachment declined on conclusion of the hearing. You may be invested in believing the impeachment was successful, but how on earth can you justify that when the lopsided Democrat carnival soured more voters than it swayed, and Trump exited the hearings leading in Wisconsin against the Democrat field?
And rational and sane people DO see it as proof of a deep state. In fact, even the liberal media can't avoid it anymore. The Democrats key witnesses, and the whistleblower, were all unelected government officials working with the Democrats and leaking information to undermine US foreign policy. What is that if not the deep state? :roll:
The appropriate candidate has already been selected. It would be Amy Coney Barrett. If the Democrats were interested in actually vetting anyone I would agree with your statement, but they aren't. The travesty that the Democrats made of the Kavanaugh hearings will live in infamy.
And if Trump wins in 2020 he will almost certainly get two more SCOTUS picks and possibly three... assuming RBG remains on the bench through Trump's first term.
Stephen Breyer will likely not stay through a second term.. he'd be 86 in 2024, and RBG is clearly in decline.
Which of course just helps illustrate how disastrous the Democrat long game has been since losing in 2016. They have played insane hard-ball on Trump to appease their base, but in doing so alienated a lot of people, and ensured that, whenever the opportunity arises, Trump will just abuse the Democrats mercilessly. There was a time where I thought the best move by Trump, should Breyer step down for health reasons, would be to nominate Garland... now I say screw that, the Democrats have not earned even a token of respect, they can go pound sand.
No, it didn't. It clearly pointed to a handful of hand picked "witnesses" who presumed something for which they had no evidence. They were not, in fact, witnesses.
The only person to present first hand knowledge was Sondland, and Sondland's only first hand knowledge was a demand by Trump that there be no quid pro quo.
And, as I said, support for the impeachment declined on conclusion of the hearing. You may be invested in believing the impeachment was successful, but how on earth can you justify that when the lopsided Democrat carnival soured more voters than it swayed, and Trump exited the hearings leading in Wisconsin against the Democrat field?
And rational and sane people DO see it as proof of a deep state. In fact, even the liberal media can't avoid it anymore. The Democrats key witnesses, and the whistleblower, were all unelected government officials working with the Democrats and leaking information to undermine US foreign policy. What is that if not the deep state? :roll:
You clown yourself with the claim that the democrats have had interest in working with the republicans in the last 40 years. And thats OK, because no doubt, the republicans have been no better. This goes back to 2000. Even though there have always been partisan divides, Congress USED to be able to work together. That ended following Bush/Gore and hasnt come back...nor will it as long as the supporters of both parties keep sending back the same partisan clowns.Where's the hypocrisy? Point it out. So-called leftists have spent the past 40 years trying to work with Republicans to no avail. Republicans have shown that they are not honest actors, are fully corrupt, have no interest in governing, and seek to dismantle the government from within. They should not be compromised with under any circumstances. Doing so legitimizes the Republicans as a viable party.
By the way, I wasn't mocking you. I was AGREEING with you. Republicans will ram through a justice if RBG steps down or dies.
The Deep State conspiracy theory is just some nutty, half-assed excuse and deflection. Some real QAnon tinfoil hat nuttery. And Rational and Sane people also see that.
In a July 2016 interview with The New York Times, Ginsburg said of candidate Donald Trump: "I can't imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president" and that her late husband would have said it was "time for us to move to New Zealand." That my friend is partisan hackery and shows she no longer has the judicial temperament to be a justices on the SCOTUS. SC justices should never try to put their thumb on the scale in a Presidential election.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?