Cowboys for Trump ~ Calls for Execution of Dem Leaders

[CenterField]

At this point it is very safe to say the hard left are not Americans. They are foreign invaders, figuratively, seeking to fundamentally transform the United States into a cradle to grave welfare hellhole. Following their messiah, The One. Obama.

Obama is rather a moderate. I'd say, the above is partially true, but who they are following is their two messiahs, Bernie Sanders and AOC. I can't stand either one. Their platforms are way more radical than anything Obama has ever proposed (and ended up not even acting on 98% of it anyway).

[CenterField]

Do you know when the SOCTUS confirmation process because partisan and acrimonious? It was the Bork confirmation hearing. Do you know who led the opposition against Judge Bork?

Joe Biden.



Joe Biden Was Behind The Robert Bork Nomination Smear




So for anyone who thinks the SCOTUS nomination process is broken, you can thank Joe.

It's somewhat of a good point. Still, I don't really pay a lot of attention to who started what, lest we think like kids in elementary school recess: "you did if first" "no, you did." Because I always subscribe to the notion that two wrongs don't make a right.

Now, see, isn't a conservative, someone who greatly values the Constitution? Do you remember why Biden opposed Bork? What Biden (and many others) highlighted at the time is that the Constitution stands for rights for liberty and privacy and Bork was opposed to those ideas. Not to forget, another thing that derailed Bork was his role in the Nixon Saturday Night Massacre which disgusted many Republicans. If you remember it, Republicans were also ready to impeach Nixon, which is why he resigned before it happened. So, this wasn't simply a Biden issue, as shown in the final score, when Bork gathered only 42 votes with 6 Republican senators voting against him, and 2 Democratic senators voting for him.

Was this strictly an issue of party? No, if you look at what happened next: Reagan then nominated Anthony Kennedy, and do you remember what the score was, then? 97 to 0. To 0! So, if the Dems at the time just wanted to oppose a Reagan nominee, would they have massively voted for Reagan's next nominee? (I mean, not next next; there was another one but that judge withdrew himself from consideration).

So, it seems like the opposition to Bork was based on Bork's ideas and actions, not based on pure partisanship hatred.

[Peter1469]

It's somewhat of a good point. Still, I don't really pay a lot of attention to who started what, lest we think like kids in elementary school recess: "you did if first" "no, you did." Because I always subscribe to the notion that two wrongs don't make a right.

Now, see, isn't a conservative, someone who greatly values the Constitution? Do you remember why Biden opposed Bork? What Biden (and many others) highlighted at the time is that the Constitution stands for rights for liberty and privacy and Bork was opposed to those ideas. Not to forget, another thing that derailed Bork was his role in the Nixon Saturday Night Massacre which disgusted many Republicans. If you remember it, Republicans were also ready to impeach Nixon, which is why he resigned before it happened. So, this wasn't simply a Biden issue, as shown in the final score, when Bork gathered only 42 votes with 6 Republican senators voting against him, and 2 Democratic senators voting for him.

Was this strictly an issue of party? No, if you look at what happened next: Reagan then nominated Anthony Kennedy, and do you remember what the score was, then? 97 to 0. To 0! So, if the Dems at the time just wanted to oppose a Reagan nominee, would they have massively voted for Reagan's next nominee? (I mean, not next next; there was another one but that judge withdrew himself from consideration).

So, it seems like the opposition to Bork was based on Bork's ideas and actions, not based on pure partisanship hatred.

Bork was an originalist. I wouldn't pay much attention to what the hard left and the "media," sorry to repeat myself, says about him.

[jet57]

You mean the liberal reinterpretation?

No I mean Trump fanning the flames with incendiary comments.

[stjames1_53]

No I mean Trump fanning the flames with incendiary comments.

like............you and Hilary aren't?

[stjames1_53]

It's somewhat of a good point. Still, I don't really pay a lot of attention to who started what, lest we think like kids in elementary school recess: "you did if first" "no, you did." Because I always subscribe to the notion that two wrongs don't make a right.

Now, see, isn't a conservative, someone who greatly values the Constitution? Do you remember why Biden opposed Bork? What Biden (and many others) highlighted at the time is that the Constitution stands for rights for liberty and privacy and Bork was opposed to those ideas. Not to forget, another thing that derailed Bork was his role in the Nixon Saturday Night Massacre which disgusted many Republicans. If you remember it, Republicans were also ready to impeach Nixon, which is why he resigned before it happened. So, this wasn't simply a Biden issue, as shown in the final score, when Bork gathered only 42 votes with 6 Republican senators voting against him, and 2 Democratic senators voting for him.

Was this strictly an issue of party? No, if you look at what happened next: Reagan then nominated Anthony Kennedy, and do you remember what the score was, then? 97 to 0. To 0! So, if the Dems at the time just wanted to oppose a Reagan nominee, would they have massively voted for Reagan's next nominee? (I mean, not next next; there was another one but that judge withdrew himself from consideration).

So, it seems like the opposition to Bork was based on Bork's ideas and actions, not based on pure partisanship hatred.

Because I always subscribe to the notion that two wrongs don't make a right.

Well, there goes the need for a revolution against Great Britain right out the window. Maybe we shouldn't have fought back...........with violence and subterfuge.

[Hoosier8]

No I mean Trump fanning the flames with incendiary comments.

LOL, yes, Trump is always responsible for people that want an excuse to loot and burn buildings.

[CenterField]

Well, there goes the need for a revolution against Great Britain right out the window. Maybe we shouldn't have fought back...........with violence and subterfuge.

No, obviously my use of a simple saying didn't intend to go as far as you propose. The "two wrongs don't make a right" is something I often say when people use the "But Trump" or "But Obama" or "But Hillary" or "But Bush" defenses, and similar. Like I said, I dislike both major parties. I do not excuse the bad behavior of one of the parties, because the other party has also engaged in bad behavior. That is a simple notion. No need to extrapolate like you are doing now.

Like I showed above, regretfully both parties have engaged in systematic opposition of Supreme Court nominees by the president of the opposing party regardless of merit, contrary to the previous practice of going by merit, and overwhelmingly confirming a nominee with bipartisan support. It is wrong when the GOP does it (going party rather than going merit), and it is wrong when the Dems do it, too.

And saying "Biden started it" is not accurate because at the time, Bork's rejection was bipartisan, and the next nominee got confirmed with a 97-0 vote. So, the issue was with Bork's ideas and actions, the issue was not simply trying to oppose the other party's nominee - otherwise, why was the next one confirmed with a complete majority (except for three senators who were absent at the time, two out of town, and one sick)? The 97-0 confirmation showed that there was no animosity between the parties at the time, like we see today, which is the point I was originally making.

[carolina73]

Obama is rather a moderate. I'd say, the above is partially true, but who they are following is their two messiahs, Bernie Sanders and AOC. I can't stand either one. Their platforms are way more radical than anything Obama has ever proposed (and ended up not even acting on 98% of it anyway).

Obama was not really a moderate. He just understood that you can't take to big of a bite without starting a fight. He has moved further left after leaving office. He is not a Bernie Sanders though.

[carolina73]

You seem to think that only leftists are responsible for the divisiveness. Both sides are to blame, clearly. Remember GOP's complete obstructionism of Obama? It was almost as bad as the Dem's antagonism towards Trump (granted, the GOP didn't try to impeach Obama but I guess they would have tried, if Obama had given them an opportunity, since their animosity towards him was very similar to the one the Dems display towards Trump). And while the Dems made a circus of Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, the Repubs didn't even allow confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland. So, it's really not just one side. There is a reason why I dislike both major parties and prefer to remain unaffiliated. Both parties are a disgrace. Another example: both parties posture a lot about it, but neither party really wants to fix the problem of illegal immigration. When a bipartisan initiative was proposed (including McCain and Rubio from the GOP side), both parties shut it down.

Like in disagreements between two members of a couple involved in a bitter divorce, it is NEVER 100% just the fault of one party and 0% the other one. There's just no such thing. In the past both parties respectfully opposed each other but kept the eyes on the good of the American people and the advancement of the nation. These days, each party's major objective is to screw the other one, and the nation be damned.

It is interesting what you say about Merrick Garland. Do you remember the ruler that McConnell used to deny the nomination?

It was called "The Biden Rule"

Biden created the rule to state he would deny Bush a vote on any SCOTUS judges in the last year of his term.
The Biden Rule was applied against Merrick Garland.

But don't get me wrong. I am Tea Party. McConnell, Rubio, Graham, Romney... are our baggage from the neocon rule over our party. We would love to get rid of them but we just cannot risk the seat until our margin is comfortable enough.