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.
He may but if they torture the GOP for a while, it would suit me fine. If they force nuclear, fine. I fully support any actions they take with McConnell and Ryan. Maybe the government gets shut down. What we saw is the GOP got to behave horribly and were not punished by voters in any way.
That's because your "interpretation" of events is biased by your political ideology. The GOP wasn't punished by voters because they've been doing exactly what the majority of the voters want. The result: A grand total of the loss of 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships, and the presidency.
Looks to me and the rest of the country like the Democrats were punished, and severely so, as they should have been.
It is ungovernable but the only way to make the point is to give it to the GOP as badly as they gave it to us. Just make their lives miserable every single day.
Oh, please, please, PLEASE have the Dems do so. That'll backfire on them, spectacularly! They didn't lose over 1,000 elected positions throughout the last 8 years of election cycles for nothing, you know.
Sooo the Reps. had to alter the rules and the Dems are crying foul. It's not like that hasn't been done before on both sides of the aisle.
What really bugs me is that Gorsuch was certainly qualified for the job and the Dems moved to block him for the simple fact that their plan is to stop everything Trump.
How long will they block everything Trump puts his hand to? Are we talking the next 4 years?
There was no reason outside of petty politics to not confirm Gorsuch. He is the perfect replacement for Scalia.
But there was reason to not even hold hearings for the Garland nomination?
Do tell.
If Gorsuch was actually a good and decent human being who cared about the Constitution, he would have recused himself from consideration.
That he didn't, tells me all I need to know about him.
The Republicans did not follow our constitution by not giving Merrick Garland a senate hearing. The people of the US had spoken when they elected president Obama. President Obama had one fourth of his elected term remaining when he nominated Garland.
When a fair vote would not elect Gorsuch, the Republicans changed the rules.
These are the type of goverment activities that are seen in communist governments. You should fear for our democracy and the health of our constitution.
Agreed! Not only that but Obama's candidate was a moderate (not sure he was a democrat).
However when the route republicans took was clear to all, what was the point with continuing the filibuster? Now the law is changed for ALL future Supreme Court nominations. What's the point in the childish partisan game when all they are hurting is America?
But there was reason to not even hold hearings for the Garland nomination?
Do tell.
That would be the Biden Rule of 1992.
Hoist upon their own petty petard were the Dems. Boy, was Drunken Joe Biden's face red in 2016 when he saw his own rule, whereby he proclaimed that the Senate Judiciary Committee would not consider any Supreme Court nominations in the 1992 election year, turned against his own party. This rule was specifically invoked by the GOP majority at the time of Garland's nomination.
Clearly Drunken Joe Biden did not foresee any situation in which this could come back to bite the Dems on the butt, although anybody whose IQ exceeds their shoe size could have seen it coming.
I have a funny feeling the $hit is gonna hit the fan when folks wake up to consider:
money is NOT speech.
corporations are NOT people.
giving huge piles of undisclosed cash to politicians in exchange for access & influence DOES, in fact & in practice, constitute corruption.
It seems inevitable considering the above is just common sense.
The question is when? Under the Trump family's boutique fiefdom? Sometime after he crashes & burns?
What is common sense is CU was the correct decision. The 1st Amendment protects political speech most of all. It takes money to reach people with your message. The legislation should have been called the Incumbant Protection Act.
Agreed! Not only that but Obama's candidate was a moderate (not sure he was a democrat).
However when the route republicans took was clear to all, what was the point with continuing the filibuster? Now the law is changed for ALL future Supreme Court nominations. What's the point in the childish partisan game when all they are hurting is America?
A "moderate" who would have destroyed the 2nd Amendment and severely damaged the 1st Amendment.
Agreed! Not only that but Obama's candidate was a moderate (not sure he was a democrat).
However when the route republicans took was clear to all, what was the point with continuing the filibuster? Now the law is changed for ALL future Supreme Court nominations. What's the point in the childish partisan game when all they are hurting is America?
We will now pack the Supreme Court with justices who have a high regard for individual rights and freedom. And who are most likely pro-business and pro-energy. That's what is good for America, not progressive nihilists. Their tenure will last for 30-60 years even if Democrats win the next 5 elections. That's what's important. Packing, packing, packing.
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.
