View Full Version : Democrat's response to President Trump's SCOTUS nominees
maineman
11-14-2016, 11:24 PM
The Supreme Court. What to do? What to do?
The Senate Majority Leader said earlier this year, "The American PEOPLE should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice." He didn't say that the STATES should have a say, or that the REPUBLIC should have a say, or even that the ELECTORAL COLLEGE should have a say. He said the American PEOPLE should have a say.
Ted Cruz stated last month, anticipating a Clinton victory, that the GOP senate should simply refuse to confirm ANY Clinton nominee to the court. Cruz cited precedent for going extended periods of time with less than nine SCOTUS justices.
Well...I think that Chuck Schumer, the incoming Minority Leader of the Senate, and his 47 democratic colleagues should begrudgingly agree with both of those esteemed republican senators. The PEOPLE of the United States voted for Hillary Clinton by nearly a two million vote margin. The PEOPLE would not have THEIR voices heard if we allowed Donald Trump to nominate SCOTUS justices given the fact that he LOST the popular vote - which is the clear and unambiguous voice of the PEOPLE.
I think that Chuck Schumer should just say that he intends to filibuster ANY SCOTUS nominee, regardless of his or her qualifications, until such time as a President elected by a majority of the American PEOPLE has the opportunity to give that majority the voice that Mitch McConnell claimed they ought to have.
We can go four more years with only eight. What's the big deal? Republicans were perfectly willing to go one...we'll just go a little bit longer.
How can anyone have a problem with that if they DIDN'T have a problem with McConnell and Cruz's earlier statements?
maineman
11-14-2016, 11:36 PM
the one and only exception to that rule would be if Trump nominated Garland. Then, I think the democrats should vote to approve that nomination.... but only him.
Captain Obvious
11-14-2016, 11:37 PM
Good luck with that.
Ted Nugent's getting on SCOTUS.
Cletus
11-14-2016, 11:38 PM
Nobody really cares what you think.
You don't control the House or the Senate or the Presidency. By the time Trump leaves office, you will have little influence on the Judiciary. :grin:
maineman
11-14-2016, 11:38 PM
how? If 41 democrats say NO, nobody gets on. We've got seven to spare.
maineman
11-14-2016, 11:39 PM
Nobody really cares what you think.
You don't control the House or the Senate or the Presidency. By the time Trump leaves office, you will have little influence on the Judiciary. :grin:
so... would you disagree with the assertion that, if 41 of 48 democrats decide to block the nomination of a SCOTUS justice, the nomination is blocked?
Cletus
11-14-2016, 11:43 PM
so... would you disagree with the assertion that, if 41 of 48 democrats decide to block the nomination of a SCOTUS justice, the nomination is blocked?
Only until the Senate goes into recess.
Boris The Animal
11-14-2016, 11:45 PM
I see the partisan hacks are coming out of the woodwork.
maineman
11-14-2016, 11:47 PM
Only until the Senate goes into recess.
and as soon as they reconvene? what happens then?
maineman
11-14-2016, 11:50 PM
I see the partisan hacks are coming out of the woodwork.
do you understand that filibusters are allowed for SCOTUS nominees?
do you understand that Mitch said that the PEOPLE ( not the states, the electoral college, or even the republic) should have a voice?
do you understand that Ted Cruz said there was plenty of precedent for a SCOTUS with less than nine judges, and that he was planning on blocking every Hillary nominee if she had won?
Do you understand that was is good for the goose is good for the gander?
Can you even tell time using a mickey mouse watch?
maineman
11-14-2016, 11:52 PM
Only until the Senate goes into recess.
If that were the case, Merrick Garland would be a supreme court justice now.
Cletus
11-14-2016, 11:53 PM
and as soon as they reconvene? what happens then?
Start all over again.
You have lost the fight. Now, you can either act like a man and accept that fact and help the country move forward, or you can continue to act like a spoiled little child and become totally irrelevant. It is pretty much up to you.
Cletus
11-14-2016, 11:54 PM
If that were the case, Merrick Garland would be a supreme court justice now.
He could have been. Obama missed his opportunity. He really is not very bright.
Cletus
11-14-2016, 11:55 PM
do you understand that filibusters are allowed for SCOTUS nominees?
do you understand that Mitch said that the PEOPLE ( not the states, the electoral college, or even the republic) should have a voice?
do you understand that Ted Cruz said there was plenty of precedent for a SCOTUS with less than nine judges, and that he was planning on blocking every Hillary nominee if she had won?
Do you understand that was is good for the goose is good for the gander?
Can you even tell time using a mickey mouse watch?
Do you understand that none of that matters even a little bit?
maineman
11-14-2016, 11:56 PM
He could have been. Obama missed his opportunity. He really is not very bright.
we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Has there EVER been a SCOTUS nominee who ascended to the court without the advice and consent of the senate?
maineman
11-14-2016, 11:57 PM
Do you understand that none of that matters even a little bit?
If Chuck Schumer decides to filibuster any and every SCOTUS nominee, it will matter a great deal.
Cletus
11-14-2016, 11:58 PM
we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Has there EVER been a SCOTUS nominee who ascended to the court without the advice and consent of the senate?
I don't know or care. It doesn't matter. The Constitution permits it. That is all that matters.
maineman
11-14-2016, 11:58 PM
Start all over again.
You have lost the fight. Now, you can either act like a man and accept that fact and help the country move forward, or you can continue to act like a spoiled little child and become totally irrelevant. It is pretty much up to you.
We lost the presidency, We did not lose the 48 votes in the senate. those are still ours and those are still our party's. We can use them effectively, I hope.
Cletus
11-14-2016, 11:59 PM
If Chuck Schumer decides to filibuster any and every SCOTUS nominee, it will matter a great deal.
Schumer is an idiot. He won't do anything but whine.
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:00 AM
I don't know or care. It doesn't matter. The Constitution permits it. That is all that matters.
but the appointment still is up for advice and consent once the senate is BACK in session. The orange clown's puppet judge ought not to unpack his bags.
HoneyBadger
11-15-2016, 12:00 AM
do you understand that filibusters are allowed for SCOTUS nominees?
Did you know they can be disallowed with stroke of a pen? Ask Harry Reid about the majorities ability to change the rules as they go along.
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:00 AM
Schumer is an idiot. He won't do anything but whine.
opinion masquerading as fact.
:yawn:
resister
11-15-2016, 12:01 AM
We lost the presidency, We did not lose the 48 votes in the senate. those are still ours and those are still our party's. We can use them effectively, I hope.
Hope the quentisential double edged sword
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:04 AM
Did you know they can be disallowed with stroke of a pen? Ask Harry Reid about the majorities ability to change the rules as they go along.
do you honestly think that a slim GOP majority would risk losing the right to filibuster future democratic presidential SCOTUS nominees in order to confirm a Trump nominee? Really? If democrats pick up seats in the midterm, which is a pretty predictable pattern for new presidents, then the possible new GOP MINORITY in 2018 would be absolutely powerless to do anything other than sit and wait for 2020.
Cletus
11-15-2016, 12:06 AM
but the appointment still is up for advice and consent once the senate is BACK in session.
Sure it is.
Of course, the odds of the Senate unseating a sitting Justice are slim to none.
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:06 AM
Hope the quentisential double edged sword
one should not use high falootin' words like that if you can't even spell them. It really makes one appear to be affecting an air of sophistication which is unearned and undeserved.
quin·tes·sen·tial
ˌkwin(t)əˈsen(t)SHəl/
adjective
representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class.
"he was the quintessential tough guy—strong, silent, and self-contained"
synonyms: typical, prototypical, stereotypical, archetypal, classic, model, standard, stock, representative, conventional; More
Cletus
11-15-2016, 12:07 AM
opinion masquerading as fact.:yawn:
You have way overused that stupid, tired phrase.
That is a FACT.
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:08 AM
Sure it is.
Of course, the odds of the Senate unseating a sitting Justice are slim to none.
the odds of a president attempting to appoint a SCOTUS justice without the advice and consent of the senate are slim to none.
Cletus
11-15-2016, 12:10 AM
the odds of a president attempting to appoint a SCOTUS justice without the advice and consent of the senate are slim to none.
There is no reason for him not to.
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:11 AM
You have way overused that stupid, tired phrase.
That is a FACT.
no. as vehemently as you stamp your feet and howl, it remains your opinion and not a fact. You, in fact, don't even know what the word "fact" means, you're so fucking dense. Chuck Schumer is a tough politician who just this week won reelection with over 70% of the vote. He has NOTHING to fear by being an anti-Trump asshole.
Cletus
11-15-2016, 12:12 AM
no. as vehemently as you stamp your feet and howl, it remains your opinion and not a fact. You, in fact, don't even know what the word "fact" means, you're so fucking dense. Chuck Schumer is a tough politician who just this week won reelection with over 70% of the vote. He has NOTHING to fear by being an anti-Trump asshole.
As usual, when you are feeling weak and impotent, you start in with the insults.
Oh well...
resister
11-15-2016, 12:12 AM
one should not use high falootin' words like that if you can't even spell them. It really makes one appear to be affecting an air of sophistication which is unearned and undeserved.
quin·tes·sen·tial
ˌkwin(t)əˈsen(t)SHəl/
adjective
representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class.
"he was the quintessential tough guy—strong, silent, and self-contained"
synonyms: typical, prototypical, stereotypical, archetypal, classic, model, standard, stock, representative, conventional; More
News flash...I don't give a shit you washed out English teacher.Move to texas and teach the immigrants
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:13 AM
There is no reason for him not to.
wanna bet some really big money that he will?
I'm serious. PayPal... ten grand... Trump NEVER recess appoints a SCOTUS justice.
are you game?
or are you all hat and no cattle?
make the bet now, or stfu.
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:15 AM
News flash...I don't give a shit you washed out English teacher.Move to texas and teach the immigrants
I have never been an English teacher, although I would imagine I'm qualified for the job, which you clearly are not.
When I move to Mexico, I will move back to Maine... I'd rather stick a sharp stick in my eye than live in Texas, for crissakes.
Cletus
11-15-2016, 12:16 AM
wanna bet some really big money that he will?
I'm serious. PayPal... ten grand... Trump NEVER recess appoints a SCOTUS justice.
are you game?
or are you all hat and no cattle?
make the bet now, or stfu.
Why would I bet with you? You have nothing I want or need.
As far as "stfu" goes... I will shut up when I choose to shut up and there is nothing you can say or do to change that. Get over yourself. Stop pretending you matter.
You don't.
resister
11-15-2016, 12:16 AM
As usual, when you are feeling weak and impotent, you start in with the insults.
Oh well...Or he turns into an "Anglish"teacher, what the hell is he doin on a forum?Shouldn't he be in a school in a sanctuary city?
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:17 AM
As usual, when you are feeling weak and impotent, you start in with the insults.
Oh well...
I didn't insult you. I merely stated the fact that you were demonstrably unaware of the definition of the word "fact". If you WERE aware, then you'd be a liar, which I would not imagine you to be.
resister
11-15-2016, 12:18 AM
wanna bet some really big money that he will?
I'm serious. PayPal... ten grand... Trump NEVER recess appoints a SCOTUS justice.
are you game?
or are you all hat and no cattle?
make the bet now, or stfu.To lazy to spell "shut the fock up"?
Cletus
11-15-2016, 12:18 AM
I have never been an English teacher, although I would imagine I'm qualified for the job, which you clearly are not.
When I move to Mexico, I will move back to Maine... I'd rather stick a sharp stick in my eye than live in Texas, for crissakes.
English teacher... marginal.
Just stay away from Geography. :grin:
resister
11-15-2016, 12:19 AM
I have never been an English teacher, although I would imagine I'm qualified for the job, which you clearly are not.
When I move to Mexico, I will move back to Maine... I'd rather stick a sharp stick in my eye than live in Texas, for crissakes.
i'll hold you to it teach
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:19 AM
Why would I bet with you? You have nothing I want or need.
As far as "stfu" goes... I will shut up when I choose to shut up and there is nothing you can say or do to change that. Get over yourself. Stop pretending you matter.
You don't.
you don't want or need more money? Can I assume, then, that you'll donate any and all further cash from any income streams you might have to charity because you don't need or want any more?
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:21 AM
i'll hold you to it teach
that'll be easy. When we leave here, we're flying from Cancun to Portland... we won't even cast a shadow on Texas as we fly by.
Cletus
11-15-2016, 12:21 AM
you don't want or need more money? Can I assume, then, that you'll donate any and all further cash from any income streams you might have to charity because you don't need or want any more?
Assume whatever you want.
I said you don't have anything I want or need and that is exactly what I meant.
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:22 AM
Why would I bet with you? You have nothing I want or need.
As far as "stfu" goes... I will shut up when I choose to shut up and there is nothing you can say or do to change that. Get over yourself. Stop pretending you matter.
You don't.
but you do, somehow?
got it.
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:23 AM
Assume whatever you want.
I said you don't have anything I want or need and that is exactly what I meant.
which means you don't want or need money, which is what I am offering in terms of a wager with you. And again... if one doesn't want or need any more money, either one has all that they need and has no future income stream, or they are lying. which would it be for you, big shooter?
Cletus
11-15-2016, 12:24 AM
wanna bet some really big money that he will?
I'm serious. PayPal... ten grand... Trump NEVER recess appoints a SCOTUS justice.
are you game?
or are you all hat and no cattle?
make the bet now, or stfu.
Before you start teaching English, you might want to bone up on the rules of capitalization.
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:25 AM
To lazy to spell "shut the fock up"?
still this foolish underling.
Cletus
11-15-2016, 12:27 AM
which means you don't want or need money
You really have a comprehension problem.
And again... if one doesn't want or need any more money, either one has all that they need and has no future income stream, or they are lying. which would it be for you, big shooter?
You really are a funny guy. Do you think your bluster does anything except highlight your impotence?
Go back and read my original quote. Analyze it word by word if you need to, then get back to me with what you discover about it meaning.
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 12:32 AM
There's going to be a huge fight within the Democratic Party. 20 to 25% of them are hard partisans. They want to obstruct everything Trump or the Republicans propose. The other 70 to 80% know that perusing that strategy will result in a complete implosion of their party. It's going to be interesting to see which way they go.
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:36 AM
There's going to be a huge fight within the Democratic Party. 20 to 25% of them are hard partisans. They want to obstruct everything Trump or the Republicans propose. The other 70 to 80% know that perusing that strategy will result in a complete implosion of their party. It's going to be interesting to see which way they go.
I would think that simply perusing it wouldn't be all that damaging
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 12:38 AM
Here we go again......
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 12:39 AM
The crack-up of the liberal party is going to be an interesting thing to watch.
resister
11-15-2016, 12:40 AM
which means you don't want or need money, which is what I am offering in terms of a wager with you. And again... if one doesn't want or need any more money, either one has all that they need and has no future income stream, or they are lying. which would it be for you, big shooter?You'd probably welch like another lefty here did me
resister
11-15-2016, 12:40 AM
Did I spell welcher right teach?
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:40 AM
You really have a comprehension problem.
You really are a funny guy. Do you think your bluster does anything except highlight your impotence?
Go back and read my original quote. Analyze it word by word if you need to, then get back to me with what you discover about it meaning.
you don't want or need money. I got it. Mr. Moneybags.
that's cool.
I know you didn't get it from a military pension, so pulling tricks at gay bars seems like a reasonable adjunct for you.
whatever gets you through the night, mi amigo.
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:41 AM
Did I spell welcher right teach?
close enough. does that mean you wanna whine from the sidelines, or do you wanna put some skin in the game?
resister
11-15-2016, 12:42 AM
Before you start teaching English, you might want to bone up on the rules of capitalization.
All ready the lefty hypocrite pops out.Looks like your not qualified neither chum
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:42 AM
Here we go again......
with what? I merely commented upon your post. Was I in error somehow?
Cletus
11-15-2016, 12:44 AM
you don't want or need money. I got it. Mr. Moneybags.
I don't want or need YOUR money.
I know you didn't get it from a military pension, so pulling tricks at gay bars seems like a reasonable adjunct for you.
Again, your insecurity and sense of impotence surfaces for all to see.
resister
11-15-2016, 12:44 AM
you don't want or need money. I got it. Mr. Moneybags.
that's cool.
I know you didn't get it from a military pension, so pulling tricks at gay bars seems like a reasonable adjunct for you.
whatever gets you through the night, mi amigo.
Juvenile insults are a sure sign of a low intellect running on fumes.Thanks for the revelation
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:45 AM
The crack-up of the liberal party is going to be an interesting thing to watch.
two million more Americans voted for Hillary. Why wouldn't Chuck Schumer play hardball with Trump now?
Oh... I know... because you think he's worried about reelection...in New York...where he won by a 70-28 margin...just last week.
This from the same guy who thought that Harry Reid MIGHT NOT win reelection this year.
mediocrity abounds!!!
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:46 AM
Juvenile insults are a sure sign of a low intellect running on fumes.Thanks for the revelation
quintessentially so!
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:49 AM
I don't want or need YOUR money.
Again, your insecurity and sense of impotence surfaces for all to see.
do you use a magic eight ball or a ouija board for your profound prognostications? Tea leaves, maybe?
Honest to fucking God...I could not be or feel more secure where I am right now in my life. I have absolutely NO insecurities. Hell... I had a bit of a worry about my ticker up until August when I went back to Maine and the cardiologist said it was working fabulously... after that...not a damn thing.
resister
11-15-2016, 12:50 AM
quintessentially so!Hey, you got the punctuation right, this time!Good job.Come to the front of the class for your cookie.
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 12:50 AM
What's going to be more interesting is watching the hard partisans themselves suffer an emotional melt-down as their party disintegrates before their very eyes.
Cletus
11-15-2016, 12:51 AM
do you use a magic eight ball or a ouija board for your profound prognostications? Tea leaves, maybe?
Honest to fucking God...I could not be or feel more secure where I am right now in my life. I have absolutely NO insecurities. Hell... I had a bit of a worry about my ticker up until August when I went back to Maine and the cardiologist said it was working fabulously... after that...not a damn thing.
You are a scared little man who feels a need to throw insults around when you have no rational response.
maineman
11-15-2016, 01:10 AM
You are a sc ared little man who feels a need to throw insults around when you have no rational response.that's obviously your opinion. It couldn't be further from the truth, but god bless ya, anyway, Cletus!
maineman
11-15-2016, 01:11 AM
What's going to be more interesting is watching the hard partisans themselves suffer an emotional melt-down as their party disintegrates before their very eyes.and what will you say if, instead, it galvanizes, Nostradamus?
maineman
11-15-2016, 01:13 AM
Hey, you got the punctuation right, this time!Good job.Come to the front of the class for your cookie.
Aw please.... Can't I just sit in back here and sip my tequila?
resister
11-15-2016, 01:17 AM
that's obviously your opinion. It couldn't be further from the truth, but god bless ya, anyway, @Cletus (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1708)!He aint the only one
resister
11-15-2016, 01:18 AM
Aw please.... Can't I just sit in back here and sip my tequila?Long as I can drink my beer
maineman
11-15-2016, 01:25 AM
Long as I can drink my beerplebian drinks for plebians! By all means. ;)
resister
11-15-2016, 01:33 AM
plebian drinks for plebians! By all means. ;)
Yeah, your right I am a common man,but i'm not from Rome.Who the hell do you fancy yourself to be?Caligula?Delusions any one?
maineman
11-15-2016, 01:55 AM
Rome? I'm Illinois born and raised, moved to Maine when I retired from the Navy, and now I live in Mexico. Are you feeling somewhat insecure about your beverage choice? Does it come in a can? Do you? Cum in a can, that is?
maineman
11-15-2016, 01:58 AM
For you English buffs... did you catch the double entendre there?
HoneyBadger
11-15-2016, 03:46 AM
do you honestly think that a slim GOP majority would risk losing the right to filibuster future democratic presidential SCOTUS nominees in order to confirm a Trump nominee? Really? If democrats pick up seats in the midterm, which is a pretty predictable pattern for new presidents, then the possible new GOP MINORITY in 2018 would be absolutely powerless to do anything other than sit and wait for 2020.
8 of the senate seats up for reelection are in what are now red states.
While you were crying over losing the election, the Republicans took control of the majority of state legislatures and Governorships.
http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/NY-Times-Map-State-Control-of-Governor-2016-Election-e1479000210245.png
http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/NY-Times-Map-State-Control-of-Legislature-2016-Election-e1479000222639.png
You guys have lost more than the Presidency. :shocked:
patrickt
11-15-2016, 07:38 AM
how? If 41 democrats say NO, nobody gets on. We've got seven to spare.
I guess you don't believe your glorious leader who said, "Elections have consequences." Then he dropped his pants and dance around the room saying, "I won, I won, I won."
Consider Sen. Harry Reid's nuclear option:
"Before November 2013, Senate rules required a three-fifths vote of the "duly chosen and sworn" members of the Senate – (usually 60 votes) to end debate on a bill, nomination or other proposal; they also require a two-thirds vote ("present and voting" – 67 or fewer votes) for a change to the Senate rules. Those rules effectively allowed a minority of the Senate to block a bill or nomination through the technique of the filibuster. This had resulted in a de facto requirement that a nomination have the support of 60 Senators to pass, rather than a majority of 51. A three-fifths vote is still required to end debates on legislation and Supreme Court nominations.In most proposed variations of the nuclear option, the presiding officer would rule that a simple majority vote is sufficient to end debate. If the ruling is challenged, a majority would be required to overturn it. If the ruling is upheld, it becomes a precedent. This would end what had effectively become a 60-vote requirement for confirmation of an executive or judicial nominee, or the passage of legislation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
maineman
11-15-2016, 09:05 AM
I repeat:
A three-fifths vote is still required to end debates on legislation and Supreme Court nominations
maineman
11-15-2016, 09:06 AM
8 of the senate seats up for reelection are in what are now red states.
While you were crying over losing the election, the Republicans took control of the majority of state legislatures and Governorships.
http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/NY-Times-Map-State-Control-of-Governor-2016-Election-e1479000210245.png
http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/NY-Times-Map-State-Control-of-Legislature-2016-Election-e1479000222639.png
You guys have lost more than the Presidency. :shocked:
what does any of that have to do with our ability to stop all supreme court nominations?
MisterVeritis
11-15-2016, 09:09 AM
how? If 41 democrats say NO, nobody gets on. We've got seven to spare.
Nuclear option.
MisterVeritis
11-15-2016, 09:12 AM
do you honestly think that a slim GOP majority would risk losing the right to filibuster future democratic presidential SCOTUS nominees in order to confirm a Trump nominee? Really? If democrats pick up seats in the midterm, which is a pretty predictable pattern for new presidents, then the possible new GOP MINORITY in 2018 would be absolutely powerless to do anything other than sit and wait for 2020.
Democrats will have 25 exposed Senators in two years. Republicans are going to pick up a larger majority.
MisterVeritis
11-15-2016, 09:18 AM
I know you didn't get it from a military pension, so pulling tricks at gay bars seems like a reasonable adjunct for you.
Is pulling tricks at a gay bar that profitable? I defer to your experience.
MisterVeritis
11-15-2016, 09:20 AM
two million more Americans voted for Hillary. Why wouldn't Chuck Schumer play hardball with Trump now?
Oh... I know... because you think he's worried about reelection...in New York...where he won by a 70-28 margin...just last week.
This from the same guy who thought that Harry Reid MIGHT NOT win reelection this year.
mediocrity abounds!!!
Imagine how long he will remain minority leader when the Democrats lose more seats in the Senate in two years.
Common
11-15-2016, 09:41 AM
The left is going to shit their pants, scream, rant, stamp their feet and in the end Scotus will go the way its going to go.
maineman
11-15-2016, 10:01 AM
all valid opinions... no doubt.
resister
11-15-2016, 10:17 AM
Rome? I'm Illinois born and raised, moved to Maine when I retired from the Navy, and now I live in Mexico. Are you feeling somewhat insecure about your beverage choice? Does it come in a can? Do you? Cum in a can, that is?
No but your mom does.Dont use words you don't know the definition of.It really doesn't jive with that whole superior intellect you attempt to portray
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 11:15 AM
two million more Americans voted for Hillary. Why wouldn't Chuck Schumer play hardball with Trump now?
Oh... I know... because you think he's worried about reelection...in New York...where he won by a 70-28 margin...just last week.
This from the same guy who thought that Harry Reid MIGHT NOT win reelection this year.
mediocrity abounds!!!
The liberal melt-down is well underway.
maineman
11-15-2016, 11:19 AM
The liberal melt-down is well underway.
why can't you just carry on a dialog and answer my questions?
again:
Why wouldn't Chuck Schumer play hardball with Trump now?
Crepitus
11-15-2016, 11:23 AM
Good luck with that.
Ted Nugent's getting on SCOTUS.
Ted Nugent ain't getting on anything these days, much less the SC.
maineman
11-15-2016, 11:23 AM
No but your mom does.Dont use words you don't know the definition of.It really doesn't jive with that whole superior intellect you attempt to portray
I never use words I don't know the definition of.
plebeian
noun ple·be·ian \pli-ˈbē-ən\
: a member of the common people of ancient Rome
: a common person
I was using it in the sense of the bolded definition. I'm sorry if that confused you. ;)
Crepitus
11-15-2016, 11:25 AM
do you understand that filibusters are allowed for SCOTUS nominees?
do you understand that Mitch said that the PEOPLE ( not the states, the electoral college, or even the republic) should have a voice?
do you understand that Ted Cruz said there was plenty of precedent for a SCOTUS with less than nine judges, and that he was planning on blocking every Hillary nominee if she had won?
Do you understand that was is good for the goose is good for the gander?
Can you even tell time using a mickey mouse watch?
I'm gonna guess the answer to all those questions is "NO".
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 11:30 AM
why can't you just carry on a dialog and answer my questions?
again:
Why wouldn't Chuck Schumer play hardball with Trump now?
Because he's going to look foolish. He's not going to be able to get his own party in line.
maineman
11-15-2016, 11:32 AM
Because he's going to look foolish. He's not going to be able to get his own party in line.
why would you think that? Besides West Virginny Joe, who else do you think won't go along with a hardline stance against Trump?
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 11:38 AM
and what will you say if, instead, it galvanizes, Nostradamus?
It's more than likely going to corrode. Chances are the most entrenched partisans didn't learn any lessons from current events.
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 11:39 AM
why would you think that? Besides West Virginny Joe, who else do you think won't go along with a hardline stance against Trump?
I'll just sit back, watch and laugh. You and the other hacks will be amusing at least.
Common
11-15-2016, 11:46 AM
all valid opinions... no doubt.
Look Republicans had the majority in the senate and house and obama
Got Sotomayor. What makes you think the GOP wont get who they want with the Senate and the house and the presidency.
You smoke the flute too much
nic34
11-15-2016, 11:49 AM
The Supreme Court. What to do? What to do?
The Senate Majority Leader said earlier this year, "The American PEOPLE should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice." He didn't say that the STATES should have a say, or that the REPUBLIC should have a say, or even that the ELECTORAL COLLEGE should have a say. He said the American PEOPLE should have a say.
Ted Cruz stated last month, anticipating a Clinton victory, that the GOP senate should simply refuse to confirm ANY Clinton nominee to the court. Cruz cited precedent for going extended periods of time with less than nine SCOTUS justices.
Well...I think that Chuck Schumer, the incoming Minority Leader of the Senate, and his 47 democratic colleagues should begrudgingly agree with both of those esteemed republican senators. The PEOPLE of the United States voted for Hillary Clinton by nearly a two million vote margin. The PEOPLE would not have THEIR voices heard if we allowed Donald Trump to nominate SCOTUS justices given the fact that he LOST the popular vote - which is the clear and unambiguous voice of the PEOPLE.
I think that Chuck Schumer should just say that he intends to filibuster ANY SCOTUS nominee, regardless of his or her qualifications, until such time as a President elected by a majority of the American PEOPLE has the opportunity to give that majority the voice that Mitch McConnell claimed they ought to have.
We can go four more years with only eight. What's the big deal? Republicans were perfectly willing to go one...we'll just go a little bit longer.
How can anyone have a problem with that if they DIDN'T have a problem with McConnell and Cruz's earlier statements?
Fantastic idea!
decedent
11-15-2016, 11:59 AM
Trump wants to ban Muslims. Bannon doesn't like Jews.
But at least David Duke likes both of these guys.
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:39 PM
Before you start teaching English, you might want to bone up on the rules of capitalization.
e.e. cummings was my hero.
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:42 PM
Look Republicans had the majority in the senate and house and obama
Got Sotomayor. What makes you think the GOP wont get who they want with the Senate and the house and the presidency.
did you read the OP? The GOP may very well get who they want. I merely suggested a viable plan that uses the words of GOP senators against them and blocks Trump SCOTUS appointments. I'm not Chuck Schumer.... he'll do whatever the fuck he wants to. I merely laid out a position on what he might do and what he could do.
and...I'm curious... what does a GOP majority in the House have to do with a discussion of SCOTUS nominations?
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:43 PM
I'll just sit back, watch and laugh. You and the other hacks will be amusing at least.
tarbaby.
you are incapable of engaging in any sort of a back and forth conversation.
useless as tits on a bull.
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 12:47 PM
tarbaby.
you are incapable of engaging in any sort of a back and forth conversation.
useless as tits on a bull.
There's a classic pot vs kettle comment.
maineman
11-15-2016, 12:50 PM
There's a classic pot vs kettle comment.
I have replied to you on point in this thread and have asked you some questions in those replies that were designed to foster a dialog. You have refused to do so... as you always do.
Cletus
11-15-2016, 12:54 PM
e.e. cummings was my hero.
And?
You are not writing poetry here.
People who ignore basic rules of grammar and them make excuses for it are just lazy.
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 12:54 PM
I have replied to you on point in this thread and have asked you some questions in those replies that were designed to foster a dialog. You have refused to do so... as you always do.
This guy is persistent. I'll give him that.
FDR wanted to add as many as 6 new justices to the supreme court for a total of 15. Congress stopped that. In 1801 Congress reduced the number of justices to 5. We now have 8 with 1 open seat. If the democrats filibuster then maybe republicans could respond by reducing the number of justices to 7 eliminating the open seat and dumping the most junior member who is a liberal. Or maybe just threaten to. I think all they need is a simple majority to do it.
maineman
11-15-2016, 01:30 PM
This guy is persistent. I'll give him that.
as you are consistent. consistently dodging discussion in favor of insults.
:yawn:
booooooring.
maineman
11-15-2016, 01:31 PM
FDR wanted to add as many as 6 new justices to the supreme court for a total of 15. Congress stopped that. In 1801 Congress reduced the number of justices to 5. We now have 8 with 1 open seat. If the democrats filibuster then maybe republicans could respond by reducing the number of justices to 7 eliminating the open seat and dumping the most junior member who is a liberal. Or maybe just threaten to. I think all they need is a simple majority to do it.
to go from eight to seven, it would need to be by attrition.
maineman
11-15-2016, 01:33 PM
And?
You are not writing poetry here.
People who ignore basic rules of grammar and them make excuses for it are just lazy.
Upper Case Letters don't aid or hinder comprehension. misspulled werds dew.
sea the diffrence?
Cletus
11-15-2016, 02:02 PM
Upper Case Letters don't aid or hinder comprehension. misspulled werds dew.
sea the diffrence?
More excuses?
You really should just quit. Remember the First Rule of Holes.
Scrounger
11-15-2016, 02:05 PM
The Supreme Court. What to do? What to do?
The Senate Majority Leader said earlier this year, "The American PEOPLE should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice." He didn't say that the STATES should have a say, or that the REPUBLIC should have a say, or even that the ELECTORAL COLLEGE should have a say. He said the American PEOPLE should have a say.
Ted Cruz stated last month, anticipating a Clinton victory, that the GOP senate should simply refuse to confirm ANY Clinton nominee to the court. Cruz cited precedent for going extended periods of time with less than nine SCOTUS justices.
Well...I think that Chuck Schumer, the incoming Minority Leader of the Senate, and his 47 democratic colleagues should begrudgingly agree with both of those esteemed republican senators. The PEOPLE of the United States voted for Hillary Clinton by nearly a two million vote margin. The PEOPLE would not have THEIR voices heard if we allowed Donald Trump to nominate SCOTUS justices given the fact that he LOST the popular vote - which is the clear and unambiguous voice of the PEOPLE.
I think that Chuck Schumer should just say that he intends to filibuster ANY SCOTUS nominee, regardless of his or her qualifications, until such time as a President elected by a majority of the American PEOPLE has the opportunity to give that majority the voice that Mitch McConnell claimed they ought to have.
We can go four more years with only eight. What's the big deal? Republicans were perfectly willing to go one...we'll just go a little bit longer.
How can anyone have a problem with that if they DIDN'T have a problem with McConnell and Cruz's earlier statements?
In other words, you want the country to sit in gridlock. You don't care who the president nominates so long as you can keep the us v them war going? I think that Merrick Garland ought to have been considered and rejected for the political hack that he is. And, if Trump brings in some nutjob that doesn't understand the Constitution, they should be rejected as well.
If Trump brings qualified people to the table, you should be willing to consider them. Kagan got approved with five Republican votes- and she was a communist with NO judicial experience. The Democrats don't want a bipartisan Court, they want control and they want socialism at any cost.
Cigar
11-15-2016, 02:08 PM
In other words, you want the country to sit in gridlock. You don't care who the president nominates so long as you can keep the us v them war going? I think that Merrick Garland ought to have been considered and rejected for the political hack that he is. And, if Trump brings in some nutjob that doesn't understand the Constitution, they should be rejected as well.
If Trump brings qualified people to the table, you should be willing to consider them. Kagan got approved with five Republican votes- and she was a communist with NO judicial experience. The Democrats don't want a bipartisan Court, they want control and they want socialism at any cost.
So now Democrats are suppose to be Civil Adults and consider qualified people :laugh:
I best you can say that with a straight face :grin:
Now that is Rich ... wan't Gridlock a Good thing two weeks ago?
maineman
11-15-2016, 02:15 PM
In other words, you want the country to sit in gridlock. You don't care who the president nominates so long as you can keep the us v them war going? I think that Merrick Garland ought to have been considered and rejected for the political hack that he is. And, if Trump brings in some nutjob that doesn't understand the Constitution, they should be rejected as well.
If Trump brings qualified people to the table, you should be willing to consider them. Kagan got approved with five Republican votes- and she was a communist with NO judicial experience. The Democrats don't want a bipartisan Court, they want control and they want socialism at any cost.
Ted Cruz said that there was plenty of precedent for a court with less than nine justices. Was he wrong? yes or no. And if he WAS wrong, can you point to posts you might have made at the time castigating him for it?
Mitch said that the PEOPLE should have a voice. He didn't say, the republic or the states or the electoral college. He said, THE PEOPLE. What is wrong with waiting until a president that was elected by a majority of the PEOPLE is in office so that the PEOPLE CAN have a say? As it is now, Trump did not have the backing of the majority of the PEOPLE.... merely a majority of electoral votes, which reflect the states and the republic, but not the people themselves.
Green Arrow
11-15-2016, 02:16 PM
Personally, I hope the Democrats are as childish as maineman wants them to be. That only makes the third party message stronger for 2020.
I can see the ads now..."Democrats and Republicans are willing to hold your country and your future hostage to their partisan bickering. When children throw such tantrums, you punish them. Don't reward them with your vote."
AZ Jim
11-15-2016, 02:18 PM
Only until the Senate goes into recess.You cannot make a SCOTUS appointment without senate approval recess included.
Cigar
11-15-2016, 02:19 PM
Personally, I hope the Democrats are as childish as maineman wants them to be. That only makes the third party message stronger for 2020.
I can see the ads now..."Democrats and Republicans are willing to hold your country and your future hostage to their partisan bickering. When children throw such tantrums, you punish them. Don't reward them with your vote."
Hang On ... don't change the Subject yet :laugh:
Ethereal
11-15-2016, 02:19 PM
Ted Cruz said that there was plenty of precedent for a court with less than nine justices. Was he wrong? yes or no. And if he WAS wrong, can you point to posts you might have made at the time castigating him for it?
Mitch said that the PEOPLE should have a voice. He didn't say, the republic or the states or the electoral college. He said, THE PEOPLE. What is wrong with waiting until a president that was elected by a majority of the PEOPLE is in office so that the PEOPLE CAN have a say? As it is now, Trump did not have the backing of the majority of the PEOPLE.... merely a majority of electoral votes, which reflect the states and the republic, but not the people themselves.
If you're waiting for a candidate that is elected by the majority of the people, you will be waiting a very, very long time. Even when Obama won, he only received about 20% of the vote from the country. The remaining 80% either did not vote or voted for one of his opponents.
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 02:23 PM
as you are consistent. consistently dodging discussion in favor of insults.
:yawn:
booooooring.
You only recognize answers which mesh with your prejudiced notions.
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 02:25 PM
Personally, I hope the Democrats are as childish as maineman wants them to be. That only makes the third party message stronger for 2020.
I can see the ads now..."Democrats and Republicans are willing to hold your country and your future hostage to their partisan bickering. When children throw such tantrums, you punish them. Don't reward them with your vote."
A rational person will agree with that.
maineman
11-15-2016, 02:25 PM
If you're waiting for a candidate that is elected by the majority of the people, you will be waiting a very, very long time. Even when Obama won, he only received about 20% of the vote from the country. The remaining 80% either did not vote or voted for one of his opponents.
people who don't vote abdicate their right to bitch about the result, imho. I am waiting for a candidate who is elected with the most votes as well as the most electoral college votes. Like Mitch said... the PEOPLE should have a voice.
Green Arrow
11-15-2016, 02:26 PM
people who don't vote abdicate their right to bitch about the result, imho. I am waiting for a candidate who is elected with the most votes as well as the most electoral college votes. Like Mitch said... the PEOPLE should have a voice.
Where is that qualifier in the Bill of Rights?
maineman
11-15-2016, 02:26 PM
Personally, I hope the Democrats are as childish as maineman wants them to be. That only makes the third party message stronger for 2020.
I can see the ads now..."Democrats and Republicans are willing to hold your country and your future hostage to their partisan bickering. When children throw such tantrums, you punish them. Don't reward them with your vote."
was Ted Cruz wrong when he stated there was no absolute necessity for nine justices? yes or no?
maineman
11-15-2016, 02:28 PM
Where is that qualifier in the Bill of Rights?
it isn't there. I mean, they can always bitch if they want to...but once I find out that someone is bitching who didn't bother to vote, I just laugh at them and ignore their bitching from that point forward.
maineman
11-15-2016, 02:29 PM
You only recognize answers which mesh with your prejudiced notions.
that is incorrect. you refuse to answer questions. you always do. If you want to prove me wrong, go back in this thread and start answering the questions I thoughtfully posed to you. Go for it.
Green Arrow
11-15-2016, 02:30 PM
was Ted Cruz wrong when he stated there was no absolute necessity for nine justices? yes or no?
No, he wasn't. There's no law or constitutional provision setting a specific number, as long as it's an odd number (for tiebreaking) there shouldn't be an issue. Most state Supreme Courts only have 5 or 7.
maineman
11-15-2016, 02:30 PM
No, he wasn't. There's no law or constitutional provision setting a specific number, as long as it's an odd number (for tiebreaking) there shouldn't be an issue. Most state Supreme Courts only have 5 or 7.
is the odd number thing in the constitution?
Green Arrow
11-15-2016, 02:32 PM
it isn't there. I mean, they can always bitch if they want to...but once I find out that someone is bitching who didn't bother to vote, I just laugh at them and ignore their bitching from that point forward.
Why is it unreasonable for them not to vote for president? If you don't like the Democrat or the Republican, the third parties can't win because of institutional discrimination and your vote for D or R doesn't matter anyway unless you live in one of just five states. Why bother finding a sitter for your kids or getting time off from work, a ride, etc. for a meaningless ritual?
Green Arrow
11-15-2016, 02:32 PM
is the odd number thing in the constitution?
No, that's just common sense.
maineman
11-15-2016, 02:36 PM
No, that's just common sense.
so.... how is advocating a SCOTUS with eight justices childish? It CERTAINLY isn't unconstitutional. It CERTAINLY is a position that the GOP themselves was poised to adopt upon a Hillary victory. If one is worried about the direction a SCOTUS filled with Trumpsters would go, holding the line at eight is a very principled decision.
to go from eight to seven, it would need to be by attrition.
Possibly. But congress has another tool they can use and its also in the constitution.
Article III of the Constitution places the judicial power of the federal government in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts" as the Congress might decide to establish. The Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases in which states are a party and those involving diplomats, but leaves for Congress to determine the size and responsibilities of the Court that is the capstone of the federal judiciary
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 03:00 PM
as you are consistent. consistently dodging discussion in favor of insults.:yawn:booooooring.From you that's actually funny. Every time someone disagrees with you or challenges your views, you default into insult mode.
maineman
11-15-2016, 03:28 PM
are you gonna discuss this thread or are you gonna discuss me?
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 03:29 PM
that is incorrect. you refuse to answer questions. you always do. If you want to prove me wrong, go back in this thread and start answering the questions I thoughtfully posed to you. Go for it.
First, present a thoughful question. Nothing you have ever stated is thoughtful. Everything is 100% partisan. You have no ability to consider anything which isn't completely in synch with the Democratic Party line.
maineman
11-15-2016, 03:30 PM
Let's try again.
You said:
Because he's going to look foolish. He's not going to be able to get his own party in line.
I replied:
why would you think that? Besides West Virginny Joe, who else do you think won't go along with a hardline stance against Trump?
Can you actually try to answer the question?
Here's a hint: Don't say Harry Reid.... he "lost" last week.
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 03:33 PM
No, he wasn't. There's no law or constitutional provision setting a specific number, as long as it's an odd number (for tiebreaking) there shouldn't be an issue. Most state Supreme Courts only have 5 or 7.
Why is nine the magic number? Why not seven? If nine is good, wouldn't eleven be even better?
I can see a benefit to having an even number.
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 03:34 PM
Let's try again.
You said:
I replied:
Can you actually try to answer the question?
Here's a hint: Don't say Harry Reid.... he "lost" last week.
UNCLE.....you win.... I give up...
Subdermal
11-15-2016, 03:45 PM
people who don't vote abdicate their right to $#@! about the result, imho. I am waiting for a candidate who is elected with the most votes as well as the most electoral college votes. Like Mitch said... the PEOPLE should have a voice.
They spoke.
You simply want to empower those who cluster together in small areas for the purpose of milking the cow which is the rest of society.
In point of fact, if the plight of those clustered truly justified the vote they cast, it wouldn't have been an issue to the remainder of the country.
But it was. It was the ultimate check on the attempt by leftist population centers to vote as wolves to have sheep for dinner.
The EC worked as intended, and thank God it did.
maineman
11-15-2016, 03:53 PM
They spoke.
You simply want to empower those who cluster together in small areas for the purpose of milking the cow which is the rest of society.
In point of fact, if the plight of those clustered truly justified the vote they cast, it wouldn't have been an issue to the remainder of the country.
But it was. It was the ultimate check on the attempt by leftist population centers to vote as wolves to have sheep for dinner.
The EC worked as intended, and thank God it did.
the EC worked as designed. It gave inordinate power to sparsely populated states. That was never a bone of contention in the OP. Clearly, you did not bother to read it, señor.
maineman
11-15-2016, 03:57 PM
It's more than likely going to corrode. Chances are the most entrenched partisans didn't learn any lessons from current events.
and again, you avoid answering the question.
tarbaby.
nic34
11-15-2016, 03:57 PM
In other words, you want the country to sit in gridlock.
Like the GOPers already have us in?
If Trump brings qualified people to the table, you should be willing to consider them.
Why should they?
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 04:02 PM
the EC worked as designed. It gave inordinate power to sparsely populated states. That was never a bone of contention in the OP. Clearly, you did not bother to read it, señor.
Don't respond to me any more unless you have something intelligent to say.
That should mean I won't see anything from a while.
maineman
11-15-2016, 04:11 PM
Don't respond to me any more unless you have something intelligent to say.
That should mean I won't see anything from a while.
I thought you said you gave up in post #136. Why are you still here cluttering up MY thread with your blathering? gtfo
Tahuyaman
11-15-2016, 04:14 PM
I thought you said you gave up in post #136. Why are you still here cluttering up MY thread with your blathering? gtfo
I tried to let you win, but you refused.
maineman
11-15-2016, 04:18 PM
you can't answer a simple question. Lets try again:
WHO in the senate democratic caucus, besides Joe Manchin, would be inclined to not go along with their new leader if he played hardball with Trump?
maineman
11-15-2016, 04:22 PM
and realize that it would take Manchin and seven OTHER senators to ALL defy the will of their minority leader for Schumer to lose the power to filibuster. Who do you think would be in that list of seven?
Green Arrow
11-15-2016, 05:39 PM
so.... how is advocating a SCOTUS with eight justices childish? It CERTAINLY isn't unconstitutional. It CERTAINLY is a position that the GOP themselves was poised to adopt upon a Hillary victory. If one is worried about the direction a SCOTUS filled with Trumpsters would go, holding the line at eight is a very principled decision.
It's childish because you're doing it to get back at the GOP. You're going to hold my future hostage for political gamesmanship.
MisterVeritis
11-15-2016, 05:43 PM
to go from eight to seven, it would need to be by attrition.
Why do you believe that?
Scrounger
11-15-2016, 05:48 PM
So now Democrats are suppose to be Civil Adults and consider qualified people :laugh:
I best you can say that with a straight face :grin:
Now that is Rich ... wan't Gridlock a Good thing two weeks ago?
Gridlock is never a good thing. I did notice you had a sign up where you work. It says your top five exercises are:
1) Jumping to conclusions
2) Flying off the handle
3) Carrying things too far
4) Dodging responsibilities
5) Pushing my luck
As I see it, in this instance you pushed your luck - I respond. You have dodged your responsibilities and I'd like to leave you with a Bible verse on this one:
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18: 13
Personally I think you carry things too far because you feel really insecure, so let's keep going down this road.
You flew off the handle and jumped to conclusions. Just so you know, I only voted for Trump because of the Supreme Court. The Democrats offered up Kagan - a communist with NO judicial experience and the Republicans even gave you five votes to appease the left. Then they bring out Merrick Garland, a freaking political hack. Yeah, the Senate should have voted and rejected that POS. But, that's yesterday's news.
You can't keep talking a double standard, playing the blame game and hope to get anything done.
Hillary acted like everyone expected Trump to act if he didn't win. Harry Reid embarrassed all of the Democrats. So I see it from both sides and it's juvenile. But just so you know, I'm a Libertarian so you know what you can do with that criticism of me on this issue.
Hey, if the Democrats don't want to act like they are mature, go into meltdown mode and maybe leave the door open in the mid terms for the first Libertarians to get elected to Congress.
Green Arrow
11-15-2016, 07:24 PM
Like the GOPers already have us in?
Why should they?
Because - and this will blow some people away - if the country goes down, we all go down with it.
NapRover
11-15-2016, 07:33 PM
you can't answer a simple question. Lets try again:
WHO in the senate democratic caucus, besides Joe Manchin, would be inclined to not go along with their new leader if he played hardball with Trump?
Maybe the 25 or so dem senators up for reelection in 2 yrs
decedent
11-15-2016, 10:22 PM
Juvenile insults are a sure sign of a low intellect running on fumes.
I just can't believe that somebody like you is saying this.
resister
11-15-2016, 10:23 PM
I just can't believe that somebody like you is saying this.
Say's baby killer endorser
maineman
11-15-2016, 11:58 PM
Maybe the 25 or so dem senators up for reelection in 2 yrs
can you name one who would not go along with Schumer?
maineman
11-16-2016, 12:01 AM
It's childish because you're doing it to get back at the GOP. You're going to hold my future hostage for political gamesmanship.
if one believes that allowing a conservative majority on SCOTUS is bad for your future, it's not about gamesmanship, but about the future of your rights as an American citizen.
TrueBlue
11-16-2016, 12:04 AM
The Supreme Court. What to do? What to do?
The Senate Majority Leader said earlier this year, "The American PEOPLE should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice." He didn't say that the STATES should have a say, or that the REPUBLIC should have a say, or even that the ELECTORAL COLLEGE should have a say. He said the American PEOPLE should have a say.
Ted Cruz stated last month, anticipating a Clinton victory, that the GOP senate should simply refuse to confirm ANY Clinton nominee to the court. Cruz cited precedent for going extended periods of time with less than nine SCOTUS justices.
Well...I think that Chuck Schumer, the incoming Minority Leader of the Senate, and his 47 democratic colleagues should begrudgingly agree with both of those esteemed republican senators. The PEOPLE of the United States voted for Hillary Clinton by nearly a two million vote margin. The PEOPLE would not have THEIR voices heard if we allowed Donald Trump to nominate SCOTUS justices given the fact that he LOST the popular vote - which is the clear and unambiguous voice of the PEOPLE.
I think that Chuck Schumer should just say that he intends to filibuster ANY SCOTUS nominee, regardless of his or her qualifications, until such time as a President elected by a majority of the American PEOPLE has the opportunity to give that majority the voice that Mitch McConnell claimed they ought to have.
We can go four more years with only eight. What's the big deal? Republicans were perfectly willing to go one...we'll just go a little bit longer.
How can anyone have a problem with that if they DIDN'T have a problem with McConnell and Cruz's earlier statements?
You got it! And that's what we should rightfully push for in order to allow All Americans to have a hand in the selection of SCOTUS Justices as positions become available from now on. That would be a super way to handle it and no one could claim that partisanship played a role in the selection process.
resister
11-16-2016, 12:08 AM
Your signature is attributed to Hillary.But likely, some one fed her that.FYI
maineman
11-16-2016, 12:23 AM
Your signature is attributed to Hillary.But likely, some one fed her that.FYI
your undocumented guess. why should we give a flying fuck?
resister
11-16-2016, 12:39 AM
your undocumented guess. why should we give a flying fuck?
Because....your plebian face is Caligula:grin:
Green Arrow
11-16-2016, 01:20 AM
if one believes that allowing a conservative majority on SCOTUS is bad for your future, it's not about gamesmanship, but about the future of your rights as an American citizen.
Don't bullshit a bullshitter. You've made it clear that this is only about revenge.
decedent
11-16-2016, 10:19 AM
Juvenile insults are a sure sign of a low intellect running on fumes.Thanks for the revelation
I just can't believe that somebody like you is saying this.
Say's baby killer endorser
There you go.
NapRover
11-16-2016, 10:28 AM
can you name one who would not go along with Schumer?
No, I can't. It would be those who face tight races in 2 years, and might fear the "red tide" we are currently experiencing. Moderation is key, they need to pick other battles, not the SCOTUS.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 11:49 AM
There are a couple of new faces who might not be willing to follow the ultra liberal NY progressive line.
They need to consider that the Democratic Party has their support centered in just a few states. Mostly California, Massachusetts and New York plus the DC region.
The majority of governors are Republicans. Nearly 70% of the state legislatures are in Republican hands.
The Democratic Party has shifted too far to the left and they lost their national appeal. If they think a more radical shift to the left is the answer..... So be it.
maineman
11-16-2016, 12:15 PM
Don't bullshit a bullshitter. You've made it clear that this is only about revenge.
not revenge at all. A last ditch effort to save the progressive gains that a conservative SCOTUS will reverse. The fact that I suggest using the words of McConnell and Cruz as justification is just the way I think this should play out.
maineman
11-16-2016, 12:16 PM
There are a couple of new faces who might not be willing to follow the ultra liberal NY progressive line.
They need to consider that the Democratic Party has their support centered in just a few states. Mostly California, Massachusetts and New York plus the DC region.
The majority of governors are Republicans. Nearly 70% of the state legislatures are in Republican hands.
The Democratic Party has shifted too far to the left and they lost their national appeal. If they think a more radical shift to the left is the answer..... So be it.
do you have the names of anyone other than Manchin who you think would go against the Senate Minority Leader? And you'll need seven more.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 12:31 PM
do you have the names of anyone other than Manchin who you think would go against the Senate Minority Leader? And you'll need seven more.
You are one loyal hard partisan. I'll give you that.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 12:40 PM
Twenty five Democrats are going to be up for reelection in 2018. Any number of them are going to be looking to protect their interests, not those of Chuch Schumer and his NY liberal agenda which is not selling well outside of a few states.
I hope the Democrats stay with the hard left agenda.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 02:32 PM
How many of those 25 Democrats who are up for reelection are going to be willing to put their political future in the trust of Schumer and his bitterly partisan New York liberal agenda?
birddog
11-16-2016, 02:58 PM
If they filibuster, it should be a real one. Except for a short break, they should have to be talking to the Senate.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 03:37 PM
Schumer is not going to be able to keep control a bunch who are up for reelection. Many are from states like Missouri, Florida and Montana which don't represent NY style liberalism. Schumer is really entertaining when he doesn't get his way.
nic34
11-16-2016, 03:39 PM
I hope the Democrats stay with the hard left agenda.
Hope so too. Not nominating Bernie was their biggest mistake.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 03:43 PM
Hope so too. Not nominating Bernie was their biggest mistake.
Bernie Sanders would have lost by a wider margin. Contested states which went for Clinton would not have gone to Bernie.
Boris The Animal
11-16-2016, 03:46 PM
America rejected European style "Progressivism" in a big way.
maineman
11-16-2016, 05:19 PM
You are one loyal hard partisan. I'll give you that.
typical of you. never actually answer questions, just nonsensically comment upon them.
maineman
11-16-2016, 05:20 PM
If they filibuster, it should be a real one. Except for a short break, they should have to be talking to the Senate.
the GOP hasn't done that and they set a record for the number of filibusters during a term.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 05:36 PM
Twenty five Democrats are going to be up for reelection in 2018. Any number of them are going to be looking to protect their interests, not those of Chuch Schumer and his NY liberal agenda which is not selling well outside of a few states.
I hope the Democrats stay with the hard left agenda.
How many of those 25 Democrats who are up for reelection are going to be willing to put their political future in the trust of Schumer and his bitterly partisan New York liberal agenda?
maineman can't address that.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 05:37 PM
the GOP hasn't done that and they set a record for the number of filibusters during a term.
Cry me a river.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 05:39 PM
America rejected European style "Progressivism" in a big way.
More is yet to come.
Green Arrow
11-16-2016, 06:06 PM
Bernie Sanders would have lost by a wider margin. Contested states which went for Clinton would not have gone to Bernie.
Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania would have gone to Bernie.
Green Arrow
11-16-2016, 06:11 PM
America rejected European style "Progressivism" in a big way.
Is that why only about 58% of Americans turned out to vote, and the majority of that 58% picked the "European style progressive"?
maineman
11-16-2016, 06:28 PM
maineman can't address that.
my guess? maybe four.
Nelson in FL, Donnelly in IN, Tester in MT, Heitkamp in ND.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 07:33 PM
Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania would have gone to Bernie.
I doubt that.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 07:35 PM
my guess? maybe four.
Nelson in FL, Donnelly in IN, Tester in MT, Heitkamp in ND.
I think at least ten. Schumer represents NY style liberalism. That's being rejected by the rest of the country. Schumer is in a losing position.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/senate-2018-democrats-228055
The party starts with five ruby-red seats to defend: Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia. Then, Democrats have a slew of Senate seats up in traditional swing states, including Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin. If he doesn’t become vice president, Tim Kaine (https://cd.politicopro.com/people/175490) will also face reelection in closely divided Virginia in 2018. And if he does, a Democratic appointee could face an expensive special election in 2017 before the race for a full term the next year.
Green Arrow
11-16-2016, 07:49 PM
I doubt that.
I'm sure you do.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 07:52 PM
I'm sure you do.
you are jaded by being a zealous Sanders supporter.
Honestly, he had no chance in a national election for POTUS. None what so ever.
Personally, I respected Sanders much more than Hillary Clinton. At least he has the courage to represent his views honestly.
Green Arrow
11-16-2016, 07:55 PM
you are jaded by being a zealous Sanders supporter.
Honestly, he had no chance in a national election for POTUS. None what so ever.
You can call it whatever you like to help you sleep at night. The facts are still there.
exploited
11-16-2016, 08:01 PM
you are jaded by being a zealous Sanders supporter.
Honestly, he had no chance in a national election for POTUS. None what so ever.
Personally, I respected Sanders much more than Hillary Clinton. At least he has the courage to represent his views honestly.
I don't understand this logic.
Clinton voters would not have voted for Trump. They would have voted for Sanders. Same with Sanders voters.
Same with the people in the Rust Belt.
http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-would-have-crushed-trump/
In five states Sanders won where exit polling data is available — Indiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wisconsin — the demographics that helped Trump hit 270 electoral college votes were also Sen. Sanders’ key demographics that helped him defeat the former Secretary of State in multiple primaries in different regions of the country.The numbers suggest that there may have been enough Sanders votes in those pivotal states to have swung the election in Sanders’ favor if superdelegates and restrictive closed primaries weren’t part of the Democratic primary process. Popular blog All That Is Interesting created an electoral map assuming that Sanders won white, rural rust belt voters in the traditionally blue states that Hillary Clinton lost on Tuesday night in a hypothetical Trump/Sanders general election matchup, giving Sanders with a 303-235 advantage.
http://usuncut.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/atimap.png
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 08:05 PM
You can call it whatever you like to help you sleep at night. The facts are still there.
What facts? Earning votes in a partisan primary season in not a sign that you will earn the presidency.
Still, like I Said. I have much more respect for Sanders than I do Mrs.Clinton. I still wouldn't vote for him though.
resister
11-16-2016, 08:06 PM
You can call it whatever you like to help you sleep at night. The facts are still there.The fact is he did not run.Period, that's the fact
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 08:07 PM
I don't understand this logic.
Clinton voters would not have voted for Trump. They would have voted for Sanders...
Thats just an opinion which can't be supported by anything other than more opinion.
Boris The Animal
11-16-2016, 08:10 PM
Is that why only about 58% of Americans turned out to vote, and the majority of that 58% picked the "European style progressive"?Please :rolleyes: America is a Conservative country. Your form of "progress" is one of the reasons why there is no heavy industry here anymore.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 08:11 PM
Clinton voters would not have voted for Trump. They would have voted for San
http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-would-have-crushed-trump/
BTW, your map is inaccurate.
Green Arrow
11-16-2016, 08:14 PM
Please :rolleyes: America is a Conservative country. Your form of "progress" is one of the reasons why there is no heavy industry here anymore.
America is not a "conservative" country any more than it is a liberal one. And I don't think you have any idea what my form of "progress" is.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 08:16 PM
America is not a "conservative" country any more than it is a liberal one. And I don't think you have any idea what my form of "progress" is.
individuals live their own life more in line with conservative principles.
Green Arrow
11-16-2016, 08:17 PM
Thats just an opinion which can't be supported by anything other than more opinion.
It's supported by logic and reason, actually, but whatever.
Green Arrow
11-16-2016, 08:18 PM
The fact is he did not run.Period, that's the fact
He did run. He just lost the primary.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 08:20 PM
It's supported by logic and reason, actually, but whatever.
If Sanders was that much of a credible candidate, he would have won the nomination.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 08:23 PM
The Democrats are really worried about the seats they have up for reelection in 2018. If they think Schumer and his desire to filibuster everything is a winning strategy..... Drive on with that one.
Green Arrow
11-16-2016, 08:34 PM
If Sanders was that much of a credible candidate, he would have won the nomination.
Yes, of course, because everyone knows the average Democratic voter is concerned about credible candidates...after all, that's why they nominated Clinton :rollseyes:
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 08:38 PM
Yes, of course, because everyone knows the average Democratic voter is concerned about credible candidates...after all, that's why they nominated Clinton :rollseyes:
The Democrats are concerned with winning elections. If Sanders could have won the election, the Democrat establishment types would have supported him enthusiastically.
It's time to retire the Bernie Sanders pipe dream.
Green Arrow
11-16-2016, 08:50 PM
The Democrats are concerned with winning elections. If Sanders could have won the election, the Democrat establishment types would have supported him enthusiastically.
It's time to retire the Bernie Sanders pipe dream.
No, they wouldn't have. They would have run the most establishment-friendly candidate out there. They don't just want to win, they want their guy to win. It's no different than the party boss system of the late 1800s, early 1900s. The party bosses never chose a wild candidate they couldn't trust or count on to rule in favor of the party bosses even if that candidate gave them the best chance at winning. They chose the candidate that would be favorable to the bosses, and then did whatever they could to make sure that candidate won.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 09:08 PM
No, they wouldn't have. They would have run the most establishment-friendly candidate out there. They don't just want to win, they want their guy to win. It's no different than the party boss system of the late 1800s, early 1900s. The party bosses never chose a wild candidate they couldn't trust or count on to rule in favor of the party bosses even if that candidate gave them the best chance at winning. They chose the candidate that would be favorable to the bosses, and then did whatever they could to make sure that candidate won.
The Democratic Party establishment would have supported him as zealously as any other Democratic candidate if he could have won. He couldn't.
Green Arrow
11-16-2016, 09:23 PM
The Democratic Party establishment would have supported him as zealously as any other Democratic candidate if he could have won. He couldn't.
He appealed to the white working class demographic that put Trump over the top and gave him the Rust Belt.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 09:27 PM
He appealed to the white working class demographic that put Trump over the top and gave him the Rust Belt.
Now that might be true.
Sanders still had no shot at winning a national election.
Green Arrow
11-16-2016, 09:28 PM
Now that might be true.
Sanders still had no shot at winning a national election.
That is your belief that you can't support with reason or logic. Whatever works for you. It's a moot point. Clinton ran, Trump won.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 09:35 PM
That is your belief that you can't support with reason or logic. Whatever works for you. It's a moot point. Clinton ran, Trump won.
He would have won against Sanders too. It would have been worse. Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and a couple others would have gone to Trump.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 09:47 PM
Getting back on topic..... I'll be laughing when the Schumer can't unify the Democrats in this pipe dream of filibustering evertything Trump or the Republicans propose.
Green Arrow
11-16-2016, 09:57 PM
He would have won against Sanders too. It would have been worse. Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and a couple others would have gone to Trump.
What logic and reason do you have to justify that position?
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 09:59 PM
What logic and reason do you have to justify that position?
The same logic you would use to dispute that.
resister
11-16-2016, 10:03 PM
Now that might be true.
Sanders still had no shot at winning a national election.
we don't care for socialism round here
Green Arrow
11-16-2016, 10:04 PM
The same logic you would use to dispute that.
Lay it out for me.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 10:17 PM
Lay it out for me.
Hillary was a more popular candidate than Sanders. Clinton had some narrow victories in states that have a history of going either way. Sanders is considered a crazy novelty in most of the country. He would only win the fhard left population centers that Clinton won easily .
Trump might have even have won Washington and Oregon if Sanders was the nominee instead of Clinton.
Tahuyaman
11-16-2016, 10:18 PM
we don't care for socialism round here
Most people view Sanders as that crazy novelty candidate.
Green Arrow
11-16-2016, 10:26 PM
Hillary was a more popular candidate than Sanders. Clinton had some narrow victories in states that have a history of going either way. Sanders is considered a crazy novelty in most of the country. He would only win the fhard left population centers that Clinton won easily .
Trump might have even have won Washington and Oregon if Sanders was the nominee instead of Clinton.
Do you have a source to back up the bolded claims?
What logic and reason do you have to justify that position?
none
resister
11-16-2016, 11:21 PM
none
Thank you captain useless
Tahuyaman
11-17-2016, 12:05 AM
Do you have a source to back up the bolded claims?
Did she defeat Sanders for the Democratic nomination?
maineman
11-17-2016, 01:17 AM
I think at least ten. Schumer represents NY style liberalism. That's being rejected by the rest of the country. Schumer is in a losing position.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/senate-2018-democrats-228055
The party starts with five ruby-red seats to defend: Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia. Then, Democrats have a slew of Senate seats up in traditional swing states, including Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin. If he doesn’t become vice president, Tim Kaine (https://cd.politicopro.com/people/175490) will also face reelection in closely divided Virginia in 2018. And if he does, a Democratic appointee could face an expensive special election in 2017 before the race for a full term the next year.
I named four... why don't you name six more... if you can?
gamewell45
11-17-2016, 07:00 AM
Schumer is an idiot. He won't do anything but whine.
He may whine, but there is an old saying that the squeaky wheel is the one that gets oiled. In NY he gets things done for the state which is why he gets re-elected to office.
Tahuyaman
11-17-2016, 08:50 AM
I named four... why don't you name six more... if you can?
pick any of the 23 Democrats and or two of the independents up for reelection in 2018.
patrickt
11-17-2016, 10:26 AM
I'm shocked. Maineman didn't list the usual Democrat responses to anything they don't like. First, threaten riots. Then, whine endlessly. Lie a lot or as liberals call them, use heavenly deceptions, have mass protests with dozens of protesters. Then, point out that if we were a true communist nation we would have riots and whining and demonstrations and opposition in the Elitists Paradise.
maineman
11-17-2016, 10:28 AM
pick any of the 23 Democrats and or two of the independents up for reelection in 2018.
I have already stated which of those I felt might be worried about their reelection. For you to suggest that Bernie Sanders has anything to worry about in Ver-fucking-mont, of all places or Angus King - the most popular two term governor in the State's history - in Maine just shows your total lack of any depth of understanding about politics in general, and those senators in specific.
maineman
11-17-2016, 10:30 AM
I'm shocked. Maineman didn't list the usual Democrat responses to anything they don't like. First, threaten riots. Then, whine endlessly. Lie a lot or as liberals call them, use heavenly deceptions, have mass protests with dozens of protesters. Then, point out that if we were a true communist nation we would have riots and whining and demonstrations and opposition in the Elitists Paradise.
once you've gotten over your shock, maybe you could perhaps contribute something of substance to the conversation?
exploited
11-17-2016, 01:06 PM
Thats just an opinion which can't be supported by anything other than more opinion.
Well, you know, besides the evidence provided immediately below what you just quoted.
maineman
11-17-2016, 01:31 PM
Well, you know, besides the evidence provided immediately below what you just quoted.
you honestly didn't think he'd READ that, did you?
The Democrats are really worried about the seats they have up for reelection in 2018. If they think Schumer and his desire to filibuster everything is a winning strategy..... Drive on with that one.
It worked for Republicans - WTF not? :confused:
once you've gotten over your shock, maybe you could perhaps contribute something of substance to the conversation?
Chances of patrick or Tahu contributing something of substance to this conversation are bupkis.
maineman
11-17-2016, 11:12 PM
and...poof...they both disappeared.
color me seventeen different shades of surprised!
Tahuyaman
11-18-2016, 02:55 PM
I have already stated which of those I felt might be worried about their reelection. For you to suggest that Bernie Sanders has anything to worry about in Ver-$#@!ing-mont, of all places or Angus King - the most popular two term governor in the State's history - in Maine just shows your total lack of any depth of understanding about politics in general, and those senators in specific.
You're funny.
Tahuyaman
11-18-2016, 02:58 PM
It worked for Republicans - WTF not? :confused:
Not really. They maintained their majority, but they didn't build on it as they had hoped they would.
Tahuyaman
11-18-2016, 03:17 PM
Chances of patrick or Tahu contributing something of substance to this conversation are bupkis.
I have provided substance. All you can do is throw out idiotic and juvenile insults.
Tahuyaman
11-18-2016, 03:23 PM
and...poof...they both disappeared.
color me seventeen different shades of surprised!
Gee... I'm sorry that I wasn't on the edge of my seat while I was flying back to my winter home in the United States of Mecixo. About 85 degrees with a nice gentle breeze coming off the pacific.....perfect.
It so perfect even your nonsense is not irritating.
maineman
11-18-2016, 03:55 PM
Gee... I'm sorry that I wasn't on the edge of my seat while I was flying back to my winter home in the United States of Mecixo. About 85 degrees with a nice gentle breeze coming off the pacific.....perfect.
It so perfect even your nonsense is not irritating.
you can't spell the name of the town you stay at and you can't even spell the name of the country.
that's kinda funny.
Tahuyaman
11-18-2016, 04:10 PM
you can't spell the name of the town you stay at and you can't even spell the name of the country.
that's kinda funny.
what's funny is how your dumb-ass grabs ahold of a typo like a dog with a bone. I leave it as is because it bothers you so much.
Perfect day.....
Tahuyaman
11-18-2016, 04:19 PM
Lot of people out surfing today. My boogie board is missing. I think the kid ( Victor) who watches over my place while I'm gone has it.
Bethere
11-18-2016, 04:42 PM
Gee... I'm sorry that I wasn't on the edge of my seat while I was flying back to my winter home in the United States of Mecixo. About 85 degrees with a nice gentle breeze coming off the pacific.....perfect.
It so perfect even your nonsense is not irritating.
We don't send Mexico our best.
Tahuyaman
11-18-2016, 05:09 PM
We don't send Mexico our best.
We do on the west coast of Mexico.
Actually, I had a discussion with one of my Mexican buddies this morning. He's amused by the left wingers here all acting as though the world is coming to an end. Mexicans are only paying attention to the exchange rate of the peso.
Tahuyaman
11-18-2016, 05:28 PM
I have never seen so many coconuts in the trees here. Huge bunches. Must be a product of global warming.
Tahuyaman
11-18-2016, 09:56 PM
I'm going down to Vallarta with friends for dinner tonight. So, maineman shouldn't accuse me of running away.
maineman
11-19-2016, 10:11 AM
You're funny.
and you avoid answering questions when you know you've already gotten you ass handed to you. Again.... care to explain why you think that either Bernie Sanders of Angus King has a THING to worry about in 2018?
Tahuyaman
11-19-2016, 11:44 AM
and you avoid answering questions when you know you've already gotten you ass handed to you. Again.... care to explain why you think that either Bernie Sanders of Angus King has a THING to worry about in 2018?
I gave you the answer. You just can't handle things you disagree with.
maineman
11-19-2016, 01:59 PM
I gave you the answer. You just can't handle things you disagree with.
please direct me to the post where you explained how Bernie or Angus has anything to worry about in 2018.
Tahuyaman
11-19-2016, 02:49 PM
please direct me to the post where you explained how Bernie or Angus has anything to worry about in 2018.
You sure like to change or modify your stupid questions.
maineman
11-19-2016, 03:30 PM
I named four... why don't you name six more... if you can?
your inane response:
pick any of the 23 Democrats and or two of the independents up for reelection in 2018.
the two independents up for reelection are just about as safe as any two people could be except those who might run unopposed.... and who knows... my guess is that Bernie and/or Angus might very well run opposed in 2018... but they sure as hell will win going away.... which is why, still looking for you to show some depth of understanding on this topic, I replied, saying:
I have already stated which of those I felt might be worried about their reelection. For you to suggest that Bernie Sanders has anything to worry about in Ver-fucking-mont, of all places or Angus King - the most popular two term governor in the State's history - in Maine just shows your total lack of any depth of understanding about politics in general, and those senators in specific.
and still avoiding the question, you replied with this fluffy little piece of utter non-responsiveness:
You're funny.
I again pressed you for some meat:
and you avoid answering questions when you know you've already gotten you ass handed to you. Again.... care to explain why you think that either Bernie Sanders of Angus King has a THING to worry about in 2018?
your evasive reply:
I gave you the answer. You just can't handle things you disagree with.
I still hadn't seen any answer to my question, so I pressed again, asking where this supposed "answer" might be:
please direct me to the post where you explained how Bernie or Angus has anything to worry about in 2018.
and the tap dancing continues.
You sure like to change or modify your stupid questions.
clearly, you don't have a fucking clue about who is running for the senate in 2016... just like you didn't know who was running for the senate in 2016 (Harry Reid ring a bell?)
I would again ask you to either do some research and answer the question, or to just refrain from muddying up my thread.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Tahuyaman
11-19-2016, 03:55 PM
your inane response:
the two independents up for reelection are just about as safe as any two people could be except those who might run unopposed.... and who knows... my guess is that Bernie and/or Angus might very well run opposed in 2018... but they sure as hell will win going away.... which is why, still looking for you to show some depth of understanding on this topic, I replied, saying:
and still avoiding the question, you replied with this fluffy little piece of utter non-responsiveness:
I again pressed you for some meat:
your evasive reply:
I still hadn't seen any answer to my question, so I pressed again, asking where this supposed "answer" might be:
and the tap dancing continues.
clearly, you don't have a $#@!ing clue about who is running for the senate in 2016... just like you didn't know who was running for the senate in 2016 (Harry Reid ring a bell?)
I would again ask you to either do some research and answer the question, or to just refrain from muddying up my thread.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
I like watching hacks tap dance.
maineman
11-19-2016, 04:48 PM
but you find yourself incapable of carrying on an intelligent back and forth conversation.
isn't that just precious?
Tahuyaman
11-19-2016, 04:50 PM
but you find yourself incapable of carrying on an intelligent back and forth conversation...
With you, an intelligent conversation is indeed impossible.
maineman
11-19-2016, 05:05 PM
With you, an intelligent conversation is indeed impossible.
I'll try again... can you name any specific democratic senators, beyond the four previously listed by me, that you feel are in such danger of losing in 2018 that they would not go along with the caucus leader on filibustering Trump's SCOTUS nominees?
Tahuyaman
11-19-2016, 05:12 PM
I'll try again... can you name any specific democratic senators, beyond the four previously listed by me, that you feel are in such danger of losing in 2018 that they would not go along with the caucus leader on filibustering Trump's SCOTUS nominees?
Scroll back. My original answer has not changed.
maineman
11-19-2016, 05:14 PM
Scroll back. My original answer has not changed.
Angus and Bernie are in such danger? do you really think so?
Tahuyaman
11-19-2016, 05:20 PM
Angus and Bernie are in such danger? do you really think so?
My original answer did not name either one of those nit-wits.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.