Mitch McConnell has some freaking nerve (money, federal, voted, firearms)
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.
I fully understand when Garland was nominated . And while , as I said , I don't agree with the action, the campaign for a new POTUS was on and the decision to wait until that new POTUS was elected is not the same as attempting to stop all nominees in their tracks .
But Garland was a moderate choice. Many Republicans praised the man. Yet, Obama chooses him Republicans throw a hissy fit and refuse to do their jobs. What they did isn't right. And if Dems do it, they won't be right either.
But Garland was a moderate choice. Many Republicans praised the man. Yet, Obama chooses him Republicans throw a hissy fit and refuse to do their jobs. What they did isn't right. And if Dems do it, they won't be right either.
Obama got back what he dished out. His inability to even reach out to work with Republicans on most anything backfired and cost him a historic opportunity to seat someone on the Supreme Ct. If I'm not mistaken he will be the only President in 240 years to have lost the opportunity in this manner.
Was it wrong? There are two answers to that question.
Yes - Because it demonstrates how the political parties, on both sides, prevent functioning government.
No - Elections have consequences. Obama said it himself. Obama's actions cost him the US Senate in 2014 and with it, his ability to push through a nomination without working with the Senate.
Obama got back what he dished out. His inability to even reach out to work with Republicans on most anything backfired and cost him a historic opportunity to seat someone on the Supreme Ct. If I'm not mistaken he will be the only President in 240 years to have lost the opportunity in this manner.
Was it wrong? There are two answers to that question.
Yes - Because it demonstrates how the political parties, on both sides, prevent functioning government.
No - Elections have consequences. Obama's actions cost him the US Senate in 2014 and with it, his ability to push through a nomination without working with the Senate.
This speaks for itself.
I think you are placing too much blame on Obama as Republicans themselves made clear they wouldn't work with him either.
If no one agrees to compromise, all of us suffer. No one should be supporting this type of behavior.
That comment was something surreal to hear. Totally absurd.
Hmmm.....maybe it's too obvious a question to ask, but why don't liberals/progressives do what conservatives have been doing for some time now and kick your establishment trash to the curb.
If you did that, you might win more elections and not find yourselves in this position.
After what the GOP did with Garland's nomination, which was unprecedented, and what he threatened to do for FOUR YEARS with anyone Hilary nominated if she won, he has the nerve to say the American people won't stand for the Dems trying to hold anything up? What a hypocrite.
Interviewer: "So you admit that you lied when you said that Mitt Romney hadn't paid any taxes for ten years."
Harry Reid: "Well, we won, didn't we?"
What does this have to do with the thread topic? I really don't care for Harry Reid but I fail to see what this quote has to do with this thread.
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.
