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.
Not really happy with the choices for candidates, I'll never vote for a liberal progressive like Klinton or Sanders especially to their anti 2nd amendment stance.
Um, Clinton and Sanders have different stances on gun control (this isn't a 2bd Amendment issue.)
Not only would it be wrong, it would be unconstitutional. The Constitution specifically gives the President the power and the duty to nominate a candidate, and lays out the Senate's duty to act on said candidate. No where in the Constitution does it say, "unless it would be politically expedient for the majority party in the Senate not to act."
It's funny how Conservatives quote the Constitution...until it doesn't suit their political purposes. Then, what the Constitution says doesn't really matter so much any more.
When Chucky Shumer said, it was OK. ow when the repubs do it, Oh the horror!
Lefties don't need talk show bloviators to tell them how to think so that the only thing required of them is to say, "DITTO!" You don't need a brain to say that.
I predicted the nations repubs would never support a New England moderate.
Typically, voter turnout helps Democrats. This is evident when reviewing midterm election results. Many Democrats only vote in Presidential elections and sit home off-year, giving Republicans advantages in off-year elections.
When Chucky Shumer said, it was OK. ow when the repubs do it, Oh the horror!
Chuck Schumer is not and never has been the Senate Majority Leader, so it was never going to be up to him. On the other hand, the current Senate Majority Leader has stated, publicly to the media, his intention to not carry out his Constitutional duties. And unlike Schumer's remarks in a speech to a private audience, McConnell has the power to carry through with that intention.
I know if you try really hard you can see the difference.
If the 2nd amendment is your only you might as well not vote, it's been safe for the last 7 years in spite of the drama queens. Bernie Sanders is pro-gun rights so you really shouldn't vote until you educate yourself on the issues. You don't get to vote on Scalia's replacement that would be the present congress.
There are however some serious issues outside the 2nd amendment
I note you NEVER criticize all those on here who ALSO vote based on single issues like abortion, gays , women's rights, etc.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 02-15-2016 at 01:20 PM..
Interesting off-topic side-bar, the times article I listed showed the beginning of the tension we see today with the TEA Party uprising and again with the anti-establishment push in this election cycle with H. Ross Perot voters...
The New York Times? Now there is an unbiased media outlet, Ha-ha.
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.
