Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet no liberal called out Obama for doing the same thing. Hypocrites.
Obama's immigration policies, especially in his first term, were widely criticized by many, actually. Just because you didn't notice because you were too busy focusing on foot-on-desk-gate doesn't mean it wasn't happening. However, there were clear differences between what's been happening recently and what happened under Obama. Obama prioritized the deportation of felons, not families, students, kids, etc. He maintained the legal norm of allowing people to seek asylum without deportation. Any family separations were done only if/when they had serious criminal records or blood relations couldn't be established. Those separations were largely temporary and didn't lead to automatic deportation, none of which is true under Trump. Obama supported DACA, Trump doesn't. Obama supported immigration reform. Trump supports expensive walls. Obama didn't use nationalism or racism as foundations of his immigration policy. Trump does. And on and on it goes. So yes, Obama had some issues with immigration, but it is orders of magnitude worse on all fronts under Trump.
Besides, if you truly believed that Obama and Trump were the same on immigration, why was Obama constantly accused as being soft on immigration by Republicans/conservatives? It literally cannot be both. So when were you guys lying? Then or now? My guess is both times.
That is pretty damn close to the end of the administration!!! No I don't know that any more than you will admit there is a huge difference in the two situations. Let's face it, we all know the party in power usually will determine the supreme court nominees but the dems just never dreamed the right would have 2 chances and maybe even three.
A president is elected for a 4-year term. There is no such thing in the Constitution or anywhere that says a president cannot nominate someone to the SC in his final year. There is nothing that supports what the Republicans did. They refused to adhere to their sworn duties as members of Congress. They were obligated to give the man a hearing. They could've easily done that and rejected Garland, but they had to give him the hearing. They chose not to at all. Republicans always do things like this, failing to realize that they're undermining their own position when power inevitably changes. Not only that, but failing to adhere to constitutional duties and long-established norms only further damages the system. What happens when the severe partisanship shown by Republicans becomes the norm? Do the parties simply refuse to confirm anyone nominated by the other party? How does the judicial branch not end up collapsing in that scenario? Republicans are doing serious, lasting damage.
That is pretty damn close to the end of the administration!!! No I don't know that any more than you will admit there is a huge difference in the two situations. Let's face it, we all know the party in power usually will determine the supreme court nominees but the dems just never dreamed the right would have 2 chances and maybe even three.
Yes there is a huge difference one side refused to actually even do anything or hold an actual hearing. That is the difference
That is pretty damn close to the end of the administration!!! No I don't know that any more than you will admit there is a huge difference in the two situations. Let's face it, we all know the party in power usually will determine the supreme court nominees but the dems just never dreamed the right would have 2 chances and maybe even three.
So Trump will not get a third if a SCJ leaves eleven months before the end of Trump's term, correct? Because I'm really looking forward to seeing the GOP try to justify otherwise, especially someone like Cruz.
Where in the HELL did you come up with the definition of a Republican? I think you better check your references a little closer or maybe you need to check how many women who are Republicans do not fit your idea of a Republican. I could go on and on, but your statement isn't worth my time.
The world'd mainline religions Muslims, Christians and Jews declared women could not be leaders in the church, synagogues or Mosques. Some are more relaxed these days.
Catholics, Baptist, Mormons and many evangelicals still do not allow women as heads of the congregations. Why is is so hard to see that women who attend these churches agree with that position? These women have no desire to be equal.
Cruz is very popular, despite the left's contention otherwise. And btw, Cruz was in Llano, a small Texas town just this weekend, talking to the townspeople and answering questions.
Many Texans do see their lives improving, particularly small business owners like my husband and I. The optimism is palatable these days.
Beto has had the privilege of using his family name to get out of trouble several times. And as Kibby noted, his body language in the old video speaks for itself.
Beto is a handsome man, but that is the last thing I consider when considering who to vote for.
When I read this about a TownHall in Llano - I thought to myself, if I were doing a deal in Llano, I would try for Cooper's BBQ - That's where it was, Cooper's opened early for the meeting - pictures said it was packed and Cooper's holds a LOT of folks. It's not to be missed if you travel through there, some of the best BBQ in Texas, they have opened a few other locations around the State.
So Trump will not get a third if a SCJ leaves eleven months before the end of Trump's term, correct? Because I'm really looking forward to seeing the GOP try to justify otherwise, especially someone like Cruz.
President Trump will "get a third" next year - we will see after that how many he "gets".
I feel that Clarence Thomas will announce his retirement sometime in 2019.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
