2020 US General Election Thread IX: One Month and Counting

[San Lumen]

Of course you know, they said it wasn't right for a president to appoint an SC in election year, and that this would now be a precedent - no appointments in election year!

Except..

Silly man. You expected the republicans to follow their own stances?

Standard are different for Republicans.

[Bombadil]

Of course you know, they said it wasn't right for a president to appoint an SC in election year, and that this would now be a precedent - no appointments in election year!

Except..

Silly man. You expected the republicans to follow their own stances?

I rarely expect any politician to these days, certainly not in the money-fuelled politics of the US. It's too expensive to afford principles. However Lindsay Graham has really reached a new bar lately, I hope he didn't crick his neck with that enormous about face of his.

McConnell I expect it.

[San Lumen]

repost as this huge news seems to have gotten lost.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4ayz ... do-changes

The USPS has announced it will undo all changes made by Trump hack Louis DeJoy and will make delivering election mail its number one priority.

[The Black Forrest]

Silly man. You expected the republicans to follow their own stances?

I rarely expect any politician to these days, certainly not in the money-fuelled politics of the US. It's too expensive to afford principles. However Lindsay Graham has really reached a new bar lately, I hope he didn't crick his neck with that enormous about face of his.

McConnell I expect it.

Indeed. “you can use my words against me”. Sure Lindsey; they are being used against you. Hopefully you will go when your master goes.

[Telconi]

Silly man. You expected the republicans to follow their own stances?

Standard are different for Republicans.

Yes.

[Lamoni]

How stupid are the people who think a dementia addled old man like Biden can beat Trump lol, he's ruthless and Biden will be literally bullied.

*** Warning for Trolling ***

[Greater Miami Shores]

Silly man. You expected the republicans to follow their own stances?

Standard are different for Republicans.

The Democrats want to pack the court or whatever anyone calls it, they want to add more Democrats to the court, even RBG was against doing this.

"Standard are different for Republicans." What about the Different standards of those Democrats?

[Rusozak]

Standard are different for Republicans.

The Democrats want to pack the court or whatever anyone calls it, they want to add more Democrats to the court, even RBG was against doing this.

"Standard are different for Republicans." What about the Different standards of those Democrats"

Is "The democrats do it too" your only defense? Is there absolutely nothing you can contribute to either condemn or logically defend the Republicans in this case? I implore you to find a defense that doesn't say anything about Democrats, the left, or any opposition to the Republicans or conservatism.

[Post War America]

Standard are different for Republicans.

The Democrats want to pack the court or whatever anyone calls it, they want to add more Democrats to the court, even RBG was against doing this.

"Standard are different for Republicans." What about the Different standards of those Democrats"

The Republicans are violating their own standards is the thing tho. It was Mitch McConnell that explicitly set the precedent that the Senate should not hear SCOTUS nominees during presidential election years. Now just four years later, Mitch McConnell is trying to ram through a SCOTUS nomination process with far less time on the clock.

Conversely not a single living Dem has never explicitly set a precedent about expanding SCOTUS.

Its not just a matter of who's following the rules but that the Republicans can't even follow the rules they made for themselves.

[Greater Miami Shores]

The Democrats want to pack the court or whatever anyone calls it, they want to add more Democrats to the court, even RBG was against doing this.

"Standard are different for Republicans." What about the Different standards of those Democrats"

Is "The democrats do it too" your only defense? Is there absolutely nothing you can contribute to either condemn or logically defend the Republicans in this case? I implore you to find a defense that doesn't say anything about Democrats, the left, or any opposition to the Republicans or conservatism.

lol, I have made many good arguments on my posts why a Republican President Trump or say a Democrat President Hillary has the right under the US constitution to name and try to confirm a highly qualified US Supreme Court Justice of their choice anytime during their elected term.

[Bombadil]

Is "The democrats do it too" your only defense? Is there absolutely nothing you can contribute to either condemn or logically defend the Republicans in this case? I implore you to find a defense that doesn't say anything about Democrats, the left, or any opposition to the Republicans or conservatism.

lol, I have made many good arguments on my posts why President Trump or any President like say a Hillary President has the right under the US constitution to name and try to confirm a highly qualified US Supreme Court Justice of their choice anytime during their elected term.

So you disagree with the Republican actions in 2016?

[The Black Forrest]

Is "The democrats do it too" your only defense? Is there absolutely nothing you can contribute to either condemn or logically defend the Republicans in this case? I implore you to find a defense that doesn't say anything about Democrats, the left, or any opposition to the Republicans or conservatism.

lol, I have made many good arguments on my posts why President Trump or any President like say a Hillary President has the right under the US constitution to name and try to confirm a highly qualified US Supreme Court Justice of their choice anytime during their elected term.

Oh come on now. No need to lie. You know you would have been defending the blocking of Merrick Garland.

[Greater Miami Shores]

lol, I have made many good arguments on my posts why President Trump or any President like say a Hillary President has the right under the US constitution to name and try to confirm a highly qualified US Supreme Court Justice of their choice anytime during their elected term.

So you disagree with the Republican actions in 2016?

Yes I do disagree but many, a few or some of the fair, unbiased Democrat Political saints of today, right now, want to pack the US Supreme Court with extra Leftist Liberal Democrats, instead of allowing Republican President Trump to nominate and try to confirm a highly qualified US Supreme Court Justice nominee of his choice anytime during his elected term, lol. as the democratic US constitution allows. Those certain many, a few or some Leftist Liberal Democrats who want to Pack the US Supreme Court with extra Leftist Liberal Democrat Justices are wrong. I was being sarcastic, as in lol,

[Bombadil]

So you disagree with the Republican actions in 2016?

Yes I do disagree but many, a few or some of the fair, unbiased Democrat Political saints of today, right now, want to pack the US Supreme Court with extra Leftist Liberal Democrats, instead of allowing Republican President Trump to nominate and try to confirm a highly qualified US Supreme Court Justice nominee of his choice anytime during his elected term, lol. as the democratic US constitution allows. Those certain many, a few or some Leftist Liberal Democrats who want to Pack the US Supreme Court with extra Leftist Liberal Democrat Justices are wrong. I was being sarcastic, as in lol,

Right, good, so they were wrong to block Merrick Garland without even a hearing.
Therefore they were wrong to state that there was now a precedent that no SC would be appointed in an election year.
Thus they're dishonourable for instantly breaking that precedent the first chance they got

Glad we agree, because I also believe a president should be able to nominate an SC during an election year but neither I nor the Democrats set any precedent to the opposite.

Having broken these things, not keeping their word, Republicans have provided license for the Democrats to do whatever the fuck they like.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Yes I do disagree but many, a few or some of the fair, unbiased Democrat Political saints of today, right now, want to pack the US Supreme Court with extra Leftist Liberal Democrats, instead of allowing Republican President Trump to nominate and try to confirm a highly qualified US Supreme Court Justice nominee of his choice anytime during his elected term, lol. as the democratic US constitution allows. Those certain many, a few or some Leftist Liberal Democrats who want to Pack the US Supreme Court with extra Leftist Liberal Democrat Justices are wrong. I was being sarcastic, as in lol,

Right, good, so they were wrong to block Merrick Garland without even a hearing.
Therefore they were wrong to state that there was now a precedent that no SC would be appointed in an election year.
Thus they're dishonourable for instantly breaking that precedent the first chance they got

Glad we agree, because I also believe a president should be able to nominate an SC during an election year but neither I nor the Democrats set any precedent to the opposite.

Having broken these things, not keeping their word, Republicans have provided license for the Democrats to do whatever the fuck they like.

Wrong, all I said was they should have let Obama choose a nominee, just like the Democrats of right now today, should let President Trump choose a nominee, end of story, end of post, lol.

[Rusozak]

Right, good, so they were wrong to block Merrick Garland without even a hearing.
Therefore they were wrong to state that there was now a precedent that no SC would be appointed in an election year.
Thus they're dishonourable for instantly breaking that precedent the first chance they got

Glad we agree, because I also believe a president should be able to nominate an SC during an election year but neither I nor the Democrats set any precedent to the opposite.

Having broken these things, not keeping their word, Republicans have provided license for the Democrats to do whatever the fuck they like.

Wrong all I said was they should have let Obama choose a nominee, just like the Democrats of right now today, should let President Trump choose a nominee, end of story, end of post,

I can at least respect the consistency. Either both were in the right or both were in the wrong.

[Bombadil]

Right, good, so they were wrong to block Merrick Garland without even a hearing.
Therefore they were wrong to state that there was now a precedent that no SC would be appointed in an election year.
Thus they're dishonourable for instantly breaking that precedent the first chance they got

Glad we agree, because I also believe a president should be able to nominate an SC during an election year but neither I nor the Democrats set any precedent to the opposite.

Having broken these things, not keeping their word, Republicans have provided license for the Democrats to do whatever the fuck they like.

Wrong all I said was they should have let Obama choose a nominee, just like the Democrats of right now today, should let President Trump choose a nominee, end of story, end of post, lol.

By saying that you are also saying it's wrong to state there's a precedent to disallow presidents from appointing an SC in election year. You can't separate the two. In given they did, and given they broke that, they are dishonourable. By accepting the first you automatically accept the other two.

Are you saying it's right they set a precedent? Surely not. Therefore it was wrong.

It's all baby steps GMS, but with time and reason you'll come around.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I think the Republicans are playing politics to their base, and I think the Democrats are playing politics to their base, lets all admit it, on both sides, lol.

For the Record:
lol, and lol attacks are my favorite expressions, not always necessarily an actual lol or a lol attack, and usually not so.

[Bombadil]

I think the Republicans are playing politics to their base, and I think the Democrats are playing politics to their base, lets all admit it. lol.

For the Record:
lol, and lol attacks are my favorite expressions, not always necessarily an actual lol or a lol attack, and usually not so.

It's ok, we're used to those on the right not meaning what they say, Lindsay Graham for example..

1. Senator Ted Cruz Quote: “Let the Election Decide”

“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

…This should be a decision for the people. Let the election decide. If the Democrats want to replace this nominee, they need to win the election.”

2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
2. Senator Lindsey Graham:

“I strongly support giving the American people a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee by electing a new president. I hope all Americans understand how important their vote is when it comes to picking a new Supreme Court justice.

“…If there’s a Republican President… and a vacancy occurs in the last year… you can say, Lindsay Graham said let’s let the next President, whoever that may be, make that nomination, and you could use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.

2016, Sen. Lindsey Graham (Republican -S.C.)
3. Mitch McConnell Quote:

“Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term … Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in...

The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, March 2016
4. “If it Was a Republican President…”

“I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term – I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
5. “Do Not Start This Process…” (Merrick Garland Nomination)

“The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.)
6. “Lifetime Appointments in an Election Year…”

“I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.

During a very partisan year and a presidential election year … both for the sake of the court and the integrity of the court and the legitimacy of the candidate, it’s better to have this occur after we’re past this presidential election.”

2016, Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
7. “The American People Should Not Be Denied…”

“A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) – Merrick Garland nomination
8. “Partisan, Divisive Confirmation Battle…”

“The campaign is already underway. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016, Thom Tillis (Republican Senator, N.C.) about Obama’s Merrick Garland nomination
9. “Vacancy Should Not Be Filled…”

“In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (Republican -N.C.)
10. “Should Not Confirm a New Supreme Court Justice…”

“The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
11. “Too Close to the Election”

“I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.)
12. “The American People Should Decide…”

“I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.)
13. “Full Faith of the People…”

“In a few short months, we will have a new president and new senators who can consider the next justice with the full faith of the people. Why would we cut off the national debate on the next justice? Why would we squelch the voice of the populace? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the make-up of the Supreme Court?”

Senator Tom Cotton March 16, 2016
14. “The American People Should Have Their Voices Heard…”

“The American people should have the opportunity to make their voices heard before filling a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court. In November, the country will get that chance by choosing a new president – a process that is well underway. Until then, our time should be spent addressing the many other legislative matters before us to strengthen our economy, create jobs, and secure our nation.”

Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker – WSJ March 16, 2016 discussing Merrick Garland nomination
15. “Let the People Decide the Supreme Court’s Future”

…the next president should be the one to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. … I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.”

Jim Inhofe (Republican Senator Oklahoma)

[Greater Miami Shores]

I think the Republicans are playing politics to their base, and I think the Democrats are playing politics to their base, lets all admit it. lol.

For the Record:
lol, and lol attacks are my favorite expressions, not always necessarily an actual lol or a lol attack, and usually not so.

It's ok, we're used to those on the right not meaning what they say, Lindsay Graham for example..

lol, it's ok were used to those on the left not meaning what they say, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Adam Schiff, Democrat, Chuck Schumer, Democrat Hillary Clinton, Democrat President Obama, Democrat Vice President Joe Biden, and many, many more, lol again.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's ok, we're used to those on the right not meaning what they say, Lindsay Graham for example..

lol, it's ok were used to those on the left not meaning what they say, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Adam Schiff, Democrat, Chuck Schumer, Democrat Hillary Clinton, Democrat President Obama, Democrat Vice President Joe Biden, and many, many more, lol again.

It's rather telling that you didn't provide any quotes for these people. Almost like it's not a rebuttal.

[Greater Miami Shores]

lol, it's ok were used to those on the left not meaning what they say, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Adam Schiff, Democrat, Chuck Schumer, Democrat Hillary Clinton, Democrat President Obama, Democrat Vice President Joe Biden, and many, many more, lol again.

It's rather telling that you didn't provide any quotes for these people. Almost like it's not a rebuttal.

lol, No, I don't have too provide any quotes like you guys do.

We are all Political Junkies here, lets admit it, lets all admit it?

You all know how fair, unbiased, unpartisan Democrat Adam Schiff was during President Trump s impeachment trial by the Democrats?

Question option for Democrats and Democrat supporters?
1 - Democrats are always fair, unbiased, Political saints
2 - Democrats are not always fair, unbiased Political saints
5 - For Democrats and Democrat supporters - Yes or No?
You all know how fair, unbiased, unpartisan Democrat Adam Schiff was during President Trump s impeachment trial by the Democrats?

Question option for Republicans and Republican supporters:
3 - Republicans are always fair, unbiased Political saints
4 - Republicans are not always fair, unbiased Political saints
6 - For Republicans and Republican supporters -
Yes or No?
You all know how fair, unbiased, unpartisan Democrat Adam Schiff was during President Trump s impeachment trial by the Democrats?

I am doing various regional Polls open to all nations that I am allowed to share on these threads, this one is not one of them, but I should do this one soon.

[Vassenor]

Honestly, all those senators need to be censured for their lack of faith in Trump's reelection chances. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until after his assured landslide victory when they can fill the seat with no objections?

[Corrian]

On a random note, you know shits gotten bad when, after the RBG news, my far leftist friend said it might be time to buy a gun.

[The Huskar Social Union]

On a random note, you know shits gotten bad when, after the RBG news, my far leftist friend said it might be time to buy a gun.

He should buy a tank instead.

Because Tanks are cool.

Like Fez's

Fez's are cool.