1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Was 8 months not reasonable for Garland?

It was and they should've done it. I'm not arguing against that. All I'm saying is that repeating that mistake is wrong. How far in advance should it be? 8 months?, 6 months?, 1 year? 2 years? only in the 1st year of a second term? Maybe just a couple of weeks? My stated position is that if there is enough time to reasonably go through the confirmation process, then as RBG said herself, do it, because that's their job.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

GOP had the Senate and elections have consequences. 

Yep, they certainly do.

31 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

You Commies always think two wrongs make a right. That's a big reason why a guy like Trump won in the first place. He was PREFERABLE to your childish nonsense like weaponizing the DOJ for political purposes. The left is a temper tantrum waiting to happen any time they take an "L" on anything. 

You're usually more reasonable than this.

Calling people who espouse zero socialist ideas and lament the attacks on procedural norms developed over 200 years in this country to help prevent against the worst forms of majoritarian excesses "commies" does not hold water.

The right has been throwing temper tantrums since '92. And weaponizing the DoJ?  

All the liberal kvetching in here

19 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Tarmac. But, that's irrelevant now. he won, so he doesn't care.

Another Commie rant. They were mean to us so lets seek vengeance 10 fold against all who anger us!! Stalin would love you dearly if he were still alive.

BS dude. utter BS. 

11 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

That's actually an entertaining response.

focusing on the 2nd half of that 2nd sentence is a mistake though. Ask yourself why did a guy like Trump win by such a large electoral margin? What was so wrong with the Democrats that it happened? What have the Dems done to change their image/platform/etc. to avoid it happening again? 

Is this really what you're going with? A black swan election?

23 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Even if Trump wins, he needs a super majority for a Constitutional change. Not happening.

He doesn't need to change the constitution. The constitution is just a piece of paper. It can't stop him. So I'll ask you, who is going to stop him from running for a 3rd term? Are the cops going to arrest him? No. Is the republican party going to refuse to put him on the ballot? No. The dems will sue, but he will just keep appealing like he's done with his tax returns until it goes to the SC. Finding an appointee who will back his run for a 3rd term will be the primary criteria he will use for picking someone this week. 

Just now, Gannan said:

He doesn't need to change the constitution. The constitution is just a piece of paper. It can't stop him. So I'll ask you, who is going to stop him from running for a 3rd term? Are the cops going to arrest him? No. Is the republican party going to refuse to put him on the ballot? No. The dems will sue, but he will just keep appealing like he's done with his tax returns until it goes to the SC. Finding an appointee who will back his run for a 3rd term will be the primary criteria he will use for picking someone this week. 

8 more years baby!!!!!

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

8 more years baby!!!!!

I'm thinking 12 at least. 

2 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I'm thinking 12 at least. 

14 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

It's happening before and it absolutely should. It doesn't matter what polls or liberals including RINOs think. The more those people rend their clothes the more it means it is on point. It also ensures the election with the BS the liberals are planning with recounts.

Rasmussen is a RINO now.  

You rubes never cease to amaze me. 

22 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

To me, it would be akin to letting the refs decide it in a game that should be a blowout. Take them out of the equation by running up the score, and they won't even be a factor.

40 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

You Commies always think two wrongs make a right. That's a big reason why a guy like Trump won in the first place. He was PREFERABLE to your childish nonsense like weaponizing the DOJ for political purposes. The left is a temper tantrum waiting to happen any time they take an "L" on anything. 

The right is the only one that needs this to even govern. Their policies are so unpopular that packing the courts is the only way they can get any of their BS across. Talk about projection. The right is the biggest snowflakes on the planet. Trump won because he ran against HRC who no one likes. He won because a game show made him seem not brain dead like he is and because the GOP primary system of first past the post in early states had him racking up Ws with 33% of the vote.

I'd be shocked if Trump were to survive 4 more years, let alone 8.  The guy's already had a series of mini-strokes.  Another big one and he'll be a vegetable.  The real question is, would anyone be able to tell the difference between the current version of Trump and one with zero cognitive function?

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Rasmussen is a RINO now.  

You rubes never cease to amaze me. 

15 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

It was and they should've done it. I'm not arguing against that. All I'm saying is that repeating that mistake is wrong. How far in advance should it be? 8 months?, 6 months?, 1 year? 2 years? only in the 1st year of a second term? Maybe just a couple of weeks? My stated position is that if there is enough time to reasonably go through the confirmation process, then as RBG said herself, do it, because that's their job.

Pretty convenient...

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I'd be shocked if Trump were to survive 4 more years, let alone 8.  The guy's already had a series of mini-strokes.  Another big one and he'll be a vegetable.  The real question is, would anyone be able to tell the difference between the current version of Trump and one with zero cognitive function?

Trick question as he already has zero cognitive function.

28 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

To me, it would be akin to letting the refs decide it in a game that should be a blowout. Take them out of the equation by running up the score, and they won't even be a factor.

I kind of agree, but there are a lot of unknowns this year with the voting situation.  It’s like starting a rookie QB.

2 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

And all minorities. 

Yeah!  Like how about some of these minorities

• African Americans (duh)
• Redheads
• People with minimum 10 pronouns
• Bi-sexuals
• Really short people, say under 5ft
• Fatties (bobeph is a leading candidate)
• Hippy law professor spouses
• People of mixed Chinese/Romanian descent with green eyes

What list are you working off of?

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

Yeah!  Like how about some of these minorities

• African Americans (duh)
• Redheads
• People with minimum 10 pronouns
• Bi-sexuals
• Really short people, say under 5ft
• Fatties (bobeph is a leading candidate)
• Hippy law professor spouses
• People of mixed Chinese/Romanian descent with green eyes

What list are you working off of?

Midgets for sure

Capricorns

People with 5 or more gold teeth

Someone from a Scandinavian country who votes in our elections

Someone with a French accent

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Midgets for sure

Capricorns

People with 5 or more gold teeth

Someone from a Scandinavian country who votes in our elections

Someone with a French accent

 

Quote

President Donald Trump has mocked the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish that she not be replaced until a new president can be installed, falsely suggesting the quote was created by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders.

Asked about justice Ginsburg’s statement that was dictated to her granddaughter and later reported by NPR, the president told Fox News on Monday morning: "I don’t know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff and [Chuck] Schumer and Pelosi?”

He added: "I would be more inclined to the second.”

classy guy

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

I do agree, though, that they have turned their backs on individual liberties re: free speech, which to me is part of the bedrock of modern liberalism. It's concerning, and I often find myself pushing back against the cancel culture and extreme political correctness of the left's youngest generation. It's hard to respectfully disagree with this movement as a leftist and be acknowledged as an ally. You're more likely to just get attacked by the woke mob, which really just reinforces the complaint

100%  They pollute their entire agenda with this approach and render it invalid overall.  It is really very very sad if you ask me.

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

100%  They pollute their entire agenda with this approach and render it invalid overall.  It is really very very sad if you ask me.

Blaming young people ain’t it, brah.  Do better.

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

100%  They pollute their entire agenda with this approach and render it invalid overall.  It is really very very sad if you ask me.

I don't believe their "entire agenda" is invalidated, but it certainly would be more popular and more palatable by the masses if they would/could stifle some of the more insane voice.

This was excellent, and related: https://samharris.org/podcasts/217-new-religion-anti-racism/

 

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

I don't believe their "entire agenda" is invalidated, but it certainly would be more popular and more palatable by the masses if they would/could stifle some of the more insane voice.

This was excellent, and related: https://samharris.org/podcasts/217-new-religion-anti-racism/

 

Certainly a discussion but to me when you no longer truly stand behind freedom of speech you’ve lost your credibility. There is a reason it is the first amendment. Everything else is built on top.