I'm not big on the political stuff

[Robert]

I think this video says it all


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2qIXXafxCQ&feature=youtu.be


Pelosi Vows To “Avenge President Obama If It’s Last Thing I Do’ By Opposing Trump SCOTUS Nominee

Really, I mean really, that statement alone is disgusting coming from a public official representing American people.

Question

What if Hillary had won,

  What if the military who has seen the corruption and movements from government officials in destroying America would have intervened? Maybe just maybe by Hillary not being elected, we have been saved from the uprising that would have taken place. Dont forget the military knows the backroom deals to take control of governments and societies that these elected officials have done.

[Skinhead]

What I found amusing was how the young turks were all about Hillary winning and how she was gonna mop the floor with Trump, until the election results came in and they realized she lost.  THEN she was a poor candidate and the DNC was F'd up for running her.  They should have figgered that 2 years prior.

I don't know anything about the young Turks. But I can assure you many of us would have preferred a different candidate.

Watch the video Serk posted:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpyKuzoFW40

[baldo]

I think this video says it all


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2qIXXafxCQ&feature=youtu.be


Pelosi Vows To "Avenge President Obama If It's Last Thing I Do' By Opposing Trump SCOTUS Nominee

Really, I mean really, that statement alone is disgusting coming from a public official representing American people.

Question

What if Hillary had won,

  What if the military who has seen the corruption and movements from government officials in destroying America would have intervened? Maybe just maybe by Hillary not being elected, we have been saved from the uprising that would have taken place. Dont forget the military knows the backroom deals to take control of governments and societies that these elected officials have done.

Did you think it was 'disgusting' when McConnell wouldn't even let Obama's nominee get a vote?

[f6john]

I don't find Pelosi's comment disgusting, I found it to be logical for a a devout liberal Democrat. But I think both her and Chuckie are going down in flames with this nomination. Now if the Dems were in control of the Senate, I think we know what would happen.

I can only dream what will happen if the Republicans maintain control of Congress and Trump gets to nominate a third Justice!

[Gavin_Sons]

I don't find Pelosi's comment disgusting, I found it to be logical for a a devout liberal Democrat. But I think both her and Chuckie are going down in flames with this nomination. Now if the Dems were in control of the Senate, I think we know what would happen.

I can only dream what will happen if the Republicans maintain control of Congress and Trump gets to nominate a third Justice!

it will be 20 years before democrats are back in control

[Moonshot_1]

I think this video says it all


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2qIXXafxCQ&feature=youtu.be


Pelosi Vows To "Avenge President Obama If It's Last Thing I Do' By Opposing Trump SCOTUS Nominee

Really, I mean really, that statement alone is disgusting coming from a public official representing American people.

Question

What if Hillary had won,

  What if the military who has seen the corruption and movements from government officials in destroying America would have intervened? Maybe just maybe by Hillary not being elected, we have been saved from the uprising that would have taken place. Dont forget the military knows the backroom deals to take control of governments and societies that these elected officials have done.

Did you think it was 'disgusting' when McConnell wouldn't even let Obama's nominee get a vote?

I didn't consider it a disgusting move, I considered it an abomination. The Constitution does not provide for a Political option. The President nominates and the Senate is Constitutionally obligated to be  "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" in making such appointments. You can't provide advice without a hearing. I didn't care if they voted Garland up or down. He should have had a hearing before the Senate and the American People. The guy is a centrist jurist and even Gorsuch thought very highly of him as a peer and jurist.

But let's be fair here as well, the only reason Obama nominated this guy is because he knew he wouldn't get a hearing and besides, Hillary would have the opportunity anyway. So not a lot of pushback there.

[Jess from VA]

Garland was/is a centrist, except he doesn't/didn't like the 2d amendment. (That's why he was picked)

If you don't like the 2d amendment, you don't get a hearing or a vote.

[Moonshot_1]

Garland was/is a centrist, except he doesn't/didn't like the 2d amendment. (That's why he was picked)

If you don't like the 2d amendment, you don't get a hearing or a vote.

You give him a hearing. Don't like him, vote him down. I've seen no personal opinions by Garland expressly regarding the 2nd Amendment and his decisions on various cases could very well be decisions on unrelated, but contemporaneous  points. That's why you have a hearing.

[Robert]

Did you think it was 'disgusting' when McConnell wouldn't even let Obama's nominee get a vote?

McConnell said, "let the people have the vote on the justice". I cannot say that I was disappointed at the holding over of the vote, now, after Hillary was not elected.

But this could have been a much different story if Hillary was elected and it could have gone either way and no one had a crystal ball although the media sure thought so. It was the the votes from the American people that decided on who was going to be president and therefore the one who would appoint a new justice. To the victor either democrat or republican went the spoils of the election. It was also not the rancid verbal and defiant attacks we have today and a total break down of government etiquette and rule of law.  So I am ok with it, but wouldn't have preferred it be this way, since it was a big chance that Hillary could have won and appoint a judge but didn't.

[f6john]

The majority leader was within his rights to not have a hearing before the election, if he were not the hearing would have been held. McConnell is majority leader due to Obama's actions in the first two years of his term so you can thank him for the situation. Obama used every ounce of political capital he had in the first two years to ram the ACA down our throats leaving the blowback to fall on his democratic Congress. Payback is hell.

Given the liberal stance of a Trump nomination what do you think would be the outcome if ththe Democrats were in the majority today. They would be perfectly happy with a similar abomination to protect every woman's right to kill an unborn child on demand.

[Robert]

Trump Pardons Oregon Ranchers Whose Imprisonment Sparked Deadly 41-Day Standoff




Ex-Sailor Pardoned By Trump, Sues Obama And Comey For Not Prosecuting Hillary



"Unmasking Antifa" Act Introduced In Congress: 15 Year Sentence For Masked Mayhem
A measure introduced last month in the House would punish anyone wearing a mask who "injures, oppresses, threatens or intimidates" a person "in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege" with a fine and up to 15 years in prison.

Just a few of the headlines we would not have seen if the past admins had been in office.

Kavanaugh: A Judge Must Interpret The Law, Not Make The Law

Wow what a concept something we never would have heard from the previous admins appointees and hints at the real problem.

[baldo]

The majority leader was within his rights to not have a hearing before the election, if he were not the hearing would have been held.

Explain that to me.

[baldo]

Garland was/is a centrist, except he doesn't/didn't like the 2d amendment. (That's why he was picked)

If you don't like the 2d amendment, you don't get a hearing or a vote.

Where does it say that?

[baldo]

But let's be fair here as well, the only reason Obama nominated this guy is because he knew he wouldn't get a hearing and besides, Hillary would have the opportunity anyway. So not a lot of pushback there.

I appreciate your stance, to a point. Are you trying to blame Obama for what McConnell did?

[Bighead]

Keep sratchin that itch.

[f6john]

The majority leader was within his rights to not have a hearing before the election, if he were not the hearing would have been held.

Explain that to me.

Explain the inverse to me.

[baldo]

The majority leader was within his rights to not have a hearing before the election, if he were not the hearing would have been held.

Explain that to me.

Explain the inverse to me.

That's not how it works. You make a statement like that, you should defend it. No deflection, no squirrels. Stand up!

[f6john]

The majority leader was within his rights to not have a hearing before the election, if he were not the hearing would have been held.

Explain that to me.

Explain the inverse to me.

That's not how it works. You make a statement like that, you should defend it. No deflection, no squirrels. Stand up!

That's the beauty of living in America. I am free to say what I want and I'm not obligated to explain anything.

[Willow]

The majority leader was within his rights to not have a hearing before the election, if he were not the hearing would have been held.

Explain that to me.

Explain the inverse to me.

That's not how it works. You make a statement like that, you should defend it. No deflection, no squirrels. Stand up!

Actually that is how it works.  In a criminal court case the accuser is required to prove guilt.  The accused is not required to prove innocence.  In a disagreement the one claiming that one is in error is required to prove that error. 

And that, my friend, is how it works.

[G-Man]

My wife would not watch the returns on election night because she was sure that Secretary Clinton would win.  At 2am, she woke up and looked and started whooping and screaming so much it woke the whole house up.   We were happy with the results.

You've brainwashed your wife.  Whooping and screaming, Oh sure, like she would ever be happy about Secretary Clinton losing, unless she voted for Trump because you told her to.  Afterall, that's what the failed-candidate stated.  And her cronies said there would be a special place in the afterlife for women who didn't vote for her.  So you must have coerced her somehow.

Shame on you!  

[G-Man]

Quite the Hillary Hate-a-thon going on here. You do realize that she is not in the White house, right?

All this constant vitriol to someone that's not in office. Yet every time I inform everyone that trump is a psychotic POS, my post gets deleted......

As long as she keeps putting herself on the stage, with her whirlwind tours bashing our President, our electoral process, women of white men, etc., she will have lettuce hurled at her.  I wish there were some unripened tomatoes and a couple hard rocks in there a well.  Until SHE goes away, she deserves everything she gets, and more.

"This is not who we are" we kept hearing from the left when she was threatened with prosecution for actual obstruction of justice that anyone else would have been separated from their kids for and then have the key thrown away.  And she made a HYUGE deal about President Trump accepting the results, and look at the hypocrisy we are all witnessing.  I guess THAT'S who we are.  An hypocritical nation that allows the loser to embarrass herself and our country airing her filthy laundry.  She should be more interested in her husbands filthy sheets and leave America alone already.

[Moonshot_1]

The majority leader was within his rights to not have a hearing before the election, if he were not the hearing would have been held. McConnell is majority leader due to Obama's actions in the first two years of his term so you can thank him for the situation. Obama used every ounce of political capital he had in the first two years to ram the ACA down our throats leaving the blowback to fall on his democratic Congress. Payback is hell.

Given the liberal stance of a Trump nomination what do you think would be the outcome if ththe Democrats were in the majority today. They would be perfectly happy with a similar abomination to protect every woman's right to kill an unborn child on demand.

Sure, you can say the Majority leader was within his rights. But he took an oath as a Senator to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a specific process to nominate and seat a Supreme Court Justice. McConnell refused to honor that Constitutional process. I consider that an abomination.

[G-Man]

The majority leader was within his rights to not have a hearing before the election, if he were not the hearing would have been held. McConnell is majority leader due to Obama's actions in the first two years of his term so you can thank him for the situation. Obama used every ounce of political capital he had in the first two years to ram the ACA down our throats leaving the blowback to fall on his democratic Congress. Payback is hell.

Given the liberal stance of a Trump nomination what do you think would be the outcome if ththe Democrats were in the majority today. They would be perfectly happy with a similar abomination to protect every woman's right to kill an unborn child on demand.

Sure, you can say the Majority leader was within his rights. But he took an oath as a Senator to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a specific process to nominate and seat a Supreme Court Justice. McConnell refused to honor that Constitutional process. I consider that an abomination.

Precedence is a b i t c h. 

One side does it, or makes a stance against it, and the other side uses it for its advantage, so the former now considers it an abomination.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

[baldo]

The majority leader was within his rights to not have a hearing before the election, if he were not the hearing would have been held.

Explain that to me.

Explain the inverse to me.

That's not how it works. You make a statement like that, you should defend it. No deflection, no squirrels. Stand up!

Actually that is how it works.  In a criminal court case the accuser is required to prove guilt.  The accused is not required to prove innocence.  In a disagreement the one claiming that one is in error is required to prove that error. 

And that, my friend, is how it works.

So anyone can throw out any BS they want, and it falls on the other side to waste their time and energy to prove that its bullshit? Not buying it.

And the mighty Willow has spoken.

[baldo]

The majority leader was within his rights to not have a hearing before the election, if he were not the hearing would have been held. McConnell is majority leader due to Obama's actions in the first two years of his term so you can thank him for the situation. Obama used every ounce of political capital he had in the first two years to ram the ACA down our throats leaving the blowback to fall on his democratic Congress. Payback is hell.

Given the liberal stance of a Trump nomination what do you think would be the outcome if ththe Democrats were in the majority today. They would be perfectly happy with a similar abomination to protect every woman's right to kill an unborn child on demand.

Sure, you can say the Majority leader was within his rights. But he took an oath as a Senator to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a specific process to nominate and seat a Supreme Court Justice. McConnell refused to honor that Constitutional process. I consider that an abomination.

Exactly, well said. And what are these 'rights' you speak of? What right does he have to violate the Rules of the Senate?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Bob, you are forgetting the number 1 criteria. "The ends justify the means"

[baldo]

Bob, you are forgetting the number 1 criteria. "The ends justify the means"

It would appear to be so....Too bad

[f6john]

Does the Constitution put a time limit on the scheduling of a Justice hearing? That would be the only "crime" committed. I don't think so. Was it dirty pool? Probably, was it an abomination? I'm sure every Democrat thinks so right up until it suits their situation.

When I make a statement on this board it is my opinion and I don't and probably won't try to defend it to someone who will never accept my reasoning, because as we all know Democrats are always right and conservatives are always stupid, deplorable and smelly.

Most of us realize that in some people's world Trump is an abomination and the conversation can end right there.

#1 criteria, "The ends justify the means" fits a lot of people and situations and not limited to any one political slant.

[Willow]

The majority leader was within his rights to not have a hearing before the election, if he were not the hearing would have been held.

Explain that to me.

Explain the inverse to me.

That's not how it works. You make a statement like that, you should defend it. No deflection, no squirrels. Stand up!

Actually that is how it works.  In a criminal court case the accuser is required to prove guilt.  The accused is not required to prove innocence.  In a disagreement the one claiming that one is in error is required to prove that error. 

And that, my friend, is how it works.

So anyone can throw out any BS they want, and it falls on the other side to waste their time and energy to prove that its bullshit? Not buying it.

And the mighty Willow has spoken.

I'm surprised that you don't recognize the process as you regularly have practiced.

LOL!  Yes, he has. (or at least typed.     )

[G-Man]

So anyone can throw out any BS they want, and it falls on the other side to waste their time and energy to prove that its bullshit? Not buying it.

Seems to be correct in most cases nowadays.  Except one.  The Left threw out the BS of Trump/Russia collusion and instead of Trump wasting time and energy, the entire country is wasting 10 cruise ships full of money and further dividing people more than they ever could have dreamed of.

[f6john]

The majority leader was within his rights to not have a hearing before the election, if he were not the hearing would have been held.

Explain that to me.

Explain the inverse to me.

That's not how it works. You make a statement like that, you should defend it. No deflection, no squirrels. Stand up!

Actually that is how it works.  In a criminal court case the accuser is required to prove guilt.  The accused is not required to prove innocence.  In a disagreement the one claiming that one is in error is required to prove that error. 

And that, my friend, is how it works.

So anyone can throw out any BS they want, and it falls on the other side to waste their time and energy to prove that its bullshit? Not buying it.

And the mighty Willow has spoken.

I get that your not buying it, but you didn't ask Willow to explain it for you????

[baldo]

The majority leader was within his rights to not have a hearing before the election, if he were not the hearing would have been held.

Explain that to me.

Explain the inverse to me.

That's not how it works. You make a statement like that, you should defend it. No deflection, no squirrels. Stand up!

Actually that is how it works.  In a criminal court case the accuser is required to prove guilt.  The accused is not required to prove innocence.  In a disagreement the one claiming that one is in error is required to prove that error. 

And that, my friend, is how it works.

So anyone can throw out any BS they want, and it falls on the other side to waste their time and energy to prove that its bullshit? Not buying it.

And the mighty Willow has spoken.

I'm surprised that you don't recognize the process as you regularly have practiced.

LOL!  Yes, he has. (or at least typed.     )

I don't post anything that I know is BS. If I've ever posted anything that turns out to be wrong, incorrect, a load of crap, I've owned up to it and apologized.

I don't take the "that's my opinion and I don't care what you say" even though it's total bullshit approach. If someone puts out a lie, willingly puts it out there, they should own up to it when challenged. It doesn't do anyone any good to keep putting lies out there for others to take as gospel and continue to spread. Now that one line of crap becomes a larger pile of crap, and so on and so on. That's how you get Fox and others.

[baldo]

The majority leader was within his rights to not have a hearing before the election, if he were not the hearing would have been held. McConnell is majority leader due to Obama's actions in the first two years of his term so you can thank him for the situation. Obama used every ounce of political capital he had in the first two years to ram the ACA down our throats leaving the blowback to fall on his democratic Congress. Payback is hell.

Given the liberal stance of a Trump nomination what do you think would be the outcome if ththe Democrats were in the majority today. They would be perfectly happy with a similar abomination to protect every woman's right to kill an unborn child on demand.

Sure, you can say the Majority leader was within his rights. But he took an oath as a Senator to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a specific process to nominate and seat a Supreme Court Justice. McConnell refused to honor that Constitutional process. I consider that an abomination.

Precedence is a b i t c h. 

One side does it, or makes a stance against it, and the other side uses it for its advantage, so the former now considers it an abomination.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

There was no precedent when McConnell pulled his little stunt.

How do you feel about this? Your words are quite apropos....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/us/politics/fact-check-supreme-court-senate-confirm.html

[baldo]

And then there's this little nugget.....

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-anthony-kennedy-brett-kavanaugh-corrupt-secret-deal-13fd59473ecf/

Anyone got any outrage they're saving up?

[f6john]

And then there's this little nugget.....

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-anthony-kennedy-brett-kavanaugh-corrupt-secret-deal-13fd59473ecf/

Anyone got any outrage they're saving up?

I applied this situation to Obama and asked would I be outraged? I figure I would at least act like it and jump up and down and stomp my feet but in reality it would not surprise me. I am certain if the same situation had happened with Obama we would never know about it. I don't really see where it matters as Jesus himself would not pass muster with the Democrats.

This is all BS as are most of my posts.

[Serk]

[Bighead]

Famous last words "He will NEVER be President "........and my favorite from Baldo himself....."Get used to saying Madam President "        

[..]

Famous last words "He will NEVER be President "........and my favorite from Baldo himself....."Get used to saying Madam President "        

Best chuckle of the day.

No, I don't need a Snickers bar baldo you can stick it up yer jacksie.

[Moonshot_1]

And then there's this little nugget.....

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-anthony-kennedy-brett-kavanaugh-corrupt-secret-deal-13fd59473ecf/

Anyone got any outrage they're saving up?

I see an outgoing Justice providing the President excellent council on his replacement possibilities. What is corrupt about that? Was there a monetary payoff here somewhere? I just don't see the corruption here.

[baldo]

Famous last words "He will NEVER be President "........and my favorite from Baldo himself....."Get used to saying Madam President "        

Just for you, my friend.