LongRider Posted March 9, 2018 Author Share Posted March 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: Dems have nothing to lose being as obstructionist as possible in the event Trump gets to make another nomination, and it might actually get the base out to vote. Agree. After McConnell's obstructionist bullshit what did we get from the Dem's with Gorsuch? "Oh, he seems nice. I vote yes!" That shit has got to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 14 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said: I have a question because frankly I don't know so please excuse my ignorance. What could Obama have done after McConnell blocked his SC nomination of Garland? Was there a way forward that he didn't take? I've wondered that and don't know the answer, so would like to hear your comments. No, there was not. You need at least a simple majority (or at least 50 votes +VP) to get your nomination. He didn't have it. There were some arcane political rules that might have worked, but as far as I can tell he would still have required the senate to confirm, and he didn't have the votes. Essentially this means that as long as POTUS and senate are the same party, they can confirm whomever they choose. And if they are not, they will never confirm anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Nasty LongRider said: Agree. After McConnell's obstructionist bullshit what did we get from the Dem's with Gorsuch? "Oh, he seems nice. I vote yes!" That shit has got to stop. Precisely 3 Democrats - all from heavily R-leaning states - voted for Gorsuch. None of them were a deciding vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: Trump might accept that because he has no historical perspective and he’s shown he’s willing to ignore his generals if their opinions don’t suit his mood. That said, NK will never give up their nuclear program. Our behavior in Libya all but guaranteed that. It possible since Trump is unpredictable. The problem is it would be a massive disarming and the non macho move at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 41 minutes ago, Frog Eater said: Trump can nominate anyone he wants and the reaction from the left will be the same "OMG HE'S LITERALLY HITLER!!!!!" So because the reaction from the left will be this regardless, it really frees up his hand to nominate a stalwart conservative. The noise from the left hasnt changed since the election. Every day is the same. This will just get lost in the noise. The noise is the same for a reason (and by same, I mean upset with the way things are going, not "HE"S HITLER" since that's not really true). It's non stop scandals every fucking day, half the government still hasn't been appointed and 50% of the people who have been have left after a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 Most people - and most Democratic senators - thought Gorsuch was a very good and reasonable nomination. The reason Dems filibustered the vote was to protest the absurd actions that resulted in Gorsuch having a seat to take in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 5 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Precisely 3 Democrats - all from heavily R-leaning states - voted for Gorsuch. None of them were a deciding vote. I'm about one Betsy Devos visit to the enlightened parts of this country away from demanding scalps of disloyal Democrats. Don't make me go Bolshevik. You wouldn't like me when I'm Bolshevik. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 15 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: Yeah the SC was fucked for the left as soon as it became clear that Obama wouldn't be allowed to nominate ANYONE that would be considered. If RBG and Breyer retired between 2010 and 2016 there would be three Gorsuchs's sitting on the court. We've known this would be a big fucking problem for a long fucking time. The Democrats held the Senate until 2014, so it wouldn't have been an issue until then. As for what Obama could have done...probably nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Maithanet said: The Democrats held the Senate until 2014, so it wouldn't have been an issue until then. As for what Obama could have done...probably nothing. He was just a tired old man. What a disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 https://tytnetwork.com/2018/03/08/saudi-arabia-using-law-firm-tied-to-lobby-u-s-for-nuclear-deal/ the saudi government is paying a trump connected law firm $450k/mo to lobby for nuclear deal a nuclear ksa should worry you a lot more than north korea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 2 hours ago, Maithanet said: I agree with that. It is really weird that the media is spinning this as a win for the Administration. It is not. It is a win for North Korea, to meet with the US President as equals, and to buy a bit more time to work on their ICBMs. And literally every piece of evidence from NK in the past 20 years is that they will never give up their nuclear program. They can say they will (and they've said it in the past), but I'm extremely doubtful that just upping sanctions a bit has caused a complete 180 on the issue. It’s not a win for Trump, but it is a positive headline. It is absolutely a win for NK though. And I agree, I wouldn’t trust the North Koreans to keep their word. They can just say they’ve suspended the program while secretly still working on it. And really, they’ve mostly achieved their goals. They can probably hit LA with a nuke, and that’s all they need for MAD. 1 hour ago, Shryke said: Why would it moderate Trump's pick? They already stole a seat with fucking illegitimate justice Gorsuch. They still have the same 50 votes that they did for that. They do not give a fuck and will nominate another Gorsuch and pass him through. If this is true, y'all are FUCKED for the foreseeable future. Ya had yer chance in November 2016 and ya decided to vote for Jill Stein and stay home instead. Because basically any Republican senator can sink the nomination. This isn’t the same as it was with Gorsuch. They rammed him through because they needed the majority back ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Because basically any Republican senator can sink the nomination. This isn’t the same as it was with Gorsuch. They rammed him through because they needed the majority back ASAP. What? What does that even mean? You think one of them is going to stand up for decency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 35 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said: Obama should of withdrawn Garland and nominated someone who would of given the base a reason to vote. No, Obama should have nominated someone who couldn’t be denied a vote: Senator Amy Klobuchar. She’d be a Supreme Court Justice right now if he had made the right play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: No, Obama should have nominated someone who couldn’t be denied a vote: Senator Amy Klobuchar. She’d be a Supreme Court Justice right now if he had made the right play. They would have denied the vote. The issue wasn’t Garland (they unanimously voted for him before), it was Republicans trying to steal the seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: No, Obama should have nominated someone who couldn’t be denied a vote: Senator Amy Klobuchar. She’d be a Supreme Court Justice right now if he had made the right play. Orrin Hatch named Merrick Garland as someone suitable. Obama did and nothing happen. The reason is that wanted their Conservative judge not someone suitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 13 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said: What? What does that even mean? You think one of them is going to stand up for decency? What does Jeff Flake have to lose? 8 minutes ago, Mexal said: They would have denied the vote. The issue wasn’t Garland (they unanimously voted for him before), it was Republicans trying to steal the seat. 5 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said: Orrin Hatch named Merrick Garland as someone suitable. Obama did and nothing happen. The reason is that wanted their Conservative judge not someone suitable. I can’t stress this enough, Amy is really popular with her Republican colleagues. I would have dared them not to give her a fair process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: What does Jeff Flake have to lose? Dude, he LIKES Gorsuch he defended his voting with Trump by mentioning Gorsuch just last Saturday to David Axelrod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: can’t stress this enough, Amy is really popular with her Republican colleagues. I would have dared them not to give her a fair process. Amy Klobucher being nominated nothing would of happen, and you will be saying how Merrick Garland should of been nominated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted March 9, 2018 Author Share Posted March 9, 2018 20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I can’t stress this enough, Amy is really popular with her Republican colleagues. I would have dared them not to give her a fair process. That's nice, but Trump nominate a woman? Hahahahahaha! nfw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 27 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said: That's nice, but Trump nominate a woman? Hahahahahaha! nfw He was saying Obama should have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.