The case for Donald Trump as the front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination is incredibly obvious. As my colleague Nathaniel Rakich pointed out after the f…
You’re also part of that new school of thought that posits that Mussolini and the PNF were left wingers, contrary to every political theorist known to man.
Liberals writing revisionist history don't convince intelligent people to ignore reality.
Mussolini thought he was a leftist.
I'll take his word on his beliefs over yours thanks.
Are ignoring that Hastert was a pedophile or that Mussolini and fascism belong on the right of the political spectrum?
Show me one example of what McConnell did happening before. It never happened before. And then he did a 180 and pushed through a lifetime Supreme Court appointment weeks before a presidential election.
You want me to show you American history? Look it up.
There have been 10 occasions in US history where a SCOTUS seat opened in an election year when the president and the Senate were from opposite parties.
90% of the time there is no confirmation.
In the 29 occasions where the seat opened up in an election year with the president and the Senate were of the same party there was a confirmation... 29 times.
You being ignorant doesn't mean the precedent doesn't exist. You were told to be outraged so you're outraged without even knowing why. That's liberalism 101.
Show me one example of what McConnell did happening before. It never happened before. And then he did a 180 and pushed through a lifetime Supreme Court appointment weeks before a presidential election.
You want me to show you American history? Look it up.
There have been 10 occasions in US history where a SCOTUS seat opened in an election year when the president and the Senate were from opposite parties.
90% of the time there is no confirmation.
In the 29 occasions where the seat opened up in an election year with the president and the Senate were of the same party there was a confirmation... 29 times.
You being ignorant doesn't mean the precedent doesn't exist. You were told to be outraged so you're outraged without even knowing why. That's liberalism 101.
14 times has a Us Supreme Court vacancy occurred during a presidential election year. The last time it happened with the Senate controlled by an opposing party to that of the President was 1888. And the Republican-led Senate confirmed Democrat Grover Cleveland’s nominee.
Show me one example of what McConnell did happening before. It never happened before. And then he did a 180 and pushed through a lifetime Supreme Court appointment weeks before a presidential election.
You want me to show you American history? Look it up.
There have been 10 occasions in US history where a SCOTUS seat opened in an election year when the president and the Senate were from opposite parties.
90% of the time there is no confirmation.
In the 29 occasions where the seat opened up in an election year with the president and the Senate were of the same party there was a confirmation... 29 times.
You being ignorant doesn't mean the precedent doesn't exist. You were told to be outraged so you're outraged without even knowing why. That's liberalism 101.
Lol!!!! And you know what right wing MAGAt 101 is? Being spoon fed lies constantly from his right wing "news" sources and straight from the top, i.e. his president [ Trumpy] and most of his Representatives.
And then regurgitating them as " facts".
Most of your #'s are waaaay off. 29??? Lol.
Read this(below link)- I know there are probably too many big words in there for you to follow but the basic point is:
1] your lies are not correct on the actual numbers at all
2] many of the instances cited where a nominee was rejected "during election year" the election had already occurred and is not similar at all to the McConnell Garland situation
3] there has never been an instance similar to McConnell and Garland where the Senate completely blocked even consideration of a nominee a year or from the election "because it was an ejection year". NEVER happened like that before. UNprecedented.
You want me to show you American history? Look it up.
There have been 10 occasions in US history where a SCOTUS seat opened in an election year when the president and the Senate were from opposite parties.
90% of the time there is no confirmation.
In the 29 occasions where the seat opened up in an election year with the president and the Senate were of the same party there was a confirmation... 29 times.
You being ignorant doesn't mean the precedent doesn't exist. You were told to be outraged so you're outraged without even knowing why. That's liberalism 101.
You want me to show you American history? Look it up.
There have been 10 occasions in US history where a SCOTUS seat opened in an election year when the president and the Senate were from opposite parties.
90% of the time there is no confirmation.
In the 29 occasions where the seat opened up in an election year with the president and the Senate were of the same party there was a confirmation... 29 times.
You being ignorant doesn't mean the precedent doesn't exist. You were told to be outraged so you're outraged without even knowing why. That's liberalism 101.
14 times has a Us Supreme Court vacancy occurred during a presidential election year. The last time it happened with the Senate controlled by an opposing party to that of the President was 1888. And the Republican-led Senate confirmed Democrat Grover Cleveland’s nominee.
So what precedent are you referring to?
Here's your list. I strongly suspect you'll need help.
I'm pretty convinced DeSantis isn't going to run in '24, because he's smart, and doesn't want to get the stink of this upcoming circus election with Donald Trump as it's ringmaster all over him, and has plenty of time to run for president later...so Trump will be the nominee.
And he has zero chance of winning as a third party candidate, so he likely won't do that.
Wow , you are stupider than even the average Trump-t- a - r- d.
That's ONE poll. ONE! Others don't show the same thing.
And you said "it's not even close" in R's preference for DeSantis over Trump.
If it even exists at all I'd say it's pretty close.
Hey but keep telling lies and pretending that you're not wrong. it's what your hero Trump did for his entire life! [ oh wait are you finally turning on your hero?!?! Traitor!]
Wow , you are stupider than even the average Trump-t- a - r- d.
That's ONE poll. ONE! Others don't show the same thing.
And you said "it's not even close" in R's preference for DeSantis over Trump.
If it even exists at all I'd say it's pretty close.
Hey but keep telling lies and pretending that you're not wrong. it's what your hero Trump did for his entire life! [ oh wait are you finally turning on your hero?!?! Traitor!]
You need to take your meds.
You didn't like the Florida poll so I showed you a national poll.
Now you're breathlessly claiming it's just a single poll.
More polls will come out now that the election is over as the 2024 cycle gets going.
They will all say the same thing.
Whatever happens you will remain painfully stupid.
I'm pretty convinced DeSantis isn't going to run in '24, because he's smart, and doesn't want to get the stink of this upcoming circus election with Donald Trump as it's ringmaster all over him, and has plenty of time to run for president later...so Trump will be the nominee.
And he has zero chance of winning as a third party candidate, so he likely won't do that.
So there ya go.
+1
desantis will only run if he gets the blood promises of GOPers to support him and not trump, oaths on the lives of GOP politicians kids, money in escrow, public declarations of support, help in the primaries etc. Solid oaths of support from the GOP. All of them.
Like all of us should be, Ron is 100% aware that the GOP has 2 or 3 times tried to dump trump and failed. Ron knows this is likely to happen again when the base votes. Ron knows he is likely to be left spinning in the wind after the first primaries have trump winning and Ron losing.
Ron would be smart to hold out a long time...until trump is convicted or he believes the GOP will support him no matter what. Ron knows the mud he will have to swim through and doesn't want to do it unless the fix is in.
14 times has a Us Supreme Court vacancy occurred during a presidential election year. The last time it happened with the Senate controlled by an opposing party to that of the President was 1888. And the Republican-led Senate confirmed Democrat Grover Cleveland’s nominee.
So what precedent are you referring to?
Here's your list. I strongly suspect you'll need help.
Fourteen of them vacant during a Presidential election year. 2016 was the first time the Senate majority leader just refused to hold a hearing.
McConnell: “All we are doing is following the long-standing tradition of not fulfilling a nomination in the middle of a presidential year.”
Look at your list. What McConnell said wasn't true. The last time the Senate was led by a different party than the President and a Supreme Court vacancy opened up, the Senate confirmed the nominee. It's a precedence of one instance, but that was the most recent precedence before McConnell refused to hold a hearing.
But not of that matters to you. Winning is the only thing that matters and you project that trait on your enemies. The only right and wrong is "us and them." All else is expendable.
yes, but the problem is the nomination process doesn't just involve two candidates...if it did Trump would likely lose.
but when there are 16 candidates running, the vote gets split
Trump still gets his 30% hardcore base
the rest of the field splits and if a number #2 candidate doesn't emerge quickly enough they will get beat out of the delegates in all the early races - giving Trump a big lead.
Fourteen of them vacant during a Presidential election year. 2016 was the first time the Senate majority leader just refused to hold a hearing.
McConnell: “All we are doing is following the long-standing tradition of not fulfilling a nomination in the middle of a presidential year.”
Look at your list. What McConnell said wasn't true. The last time the Senate was led by a different party than the President and a Supreme Court vacancy opened up, the Senate confirmed the nominee. It's a precedence of one instance, but that was the most recent precedence before McConnell refused to hold a hearing.
But not of that matters to you. Winning is the only thing that matters and you project that trait on your enemies. The only right and wrong is "us and them." All else is expendable.
And you needed help.
"N" on the last means the president appointed a SCOTUS nominee and NO ACTION was taken by the senate.
Your "one instance" is the one time out of 10.
You're ignoring the rule because you wanted the exception because you like the politics in that case.
A Republican buddy of mine didn't think it was a big deal that Trump was running again. "He won't win the nomination as the primary voters will rally around someone else - probably DeSantis - just like the Dems did when it looked like Sanders was going to win."
I told him. I don't think you really get Trump. Dude's ego is too big. He'll never accept a loss. Plus I think it's quite likely he's making money off these campaigns. He'll run as a third party candidate and then it's game, set, match, loss for the GOP.
My buddy was like, "Wow. You're right, i hadn't thought of that."
I think there is almost zero chance Trump wins the nomination - less than 5% but a great than 25% chance he goes 3rd party. What do you think?
As long as Trump's able to get on national TV and say "I charged tariffs to other countries, China paid us money", and even the CNN fact checkers don't have the balls to say "that's not a thing", then I think Trump could still win the nomination.
He has zero actual skills other than lying about his own accomplishments, but unfortunately that's the only skill he needs.
Fourteen of them vacant during a Presidential election year. 2016 was the first time the Senate majority leader just refused to hold a hearing.
McConnell: “All we are doing is following the long-standing tradition of not fulfilling a nomination in the middle of a presidential year.”
Look at your list. What McConnell said wasn't true. The last time the Senate was led by a different party than the President and a Supreme Court vacancy opened up, the Senate confirmed the nominee. It's a precedence of one instance, but that was the most recent precedence before McConnell refused to hold a hearing.
But not of that matters to you. Winning is the only thing that matters and you project that trait on your enemies. The only right and wrong is "us and them." All else is expendable.
And you needed help.
"N" on the last means the president appointed a SCOTUS nominee and NO ACTION was taken by the senate.
Your "one instance" is the one time out of 10.
You're ignoring the rule because you wanted the exception because you like the politics in that case.
Stop being dishonest.
I'm not even a Republican....
Adult in the room it seems like you are awfully mad a democrats for not creating the specific version of reality you would prefer. Unfortunately; self identifying as a republican/libertarian on a message board will not fix those issues for you. Progress is coming whether you like it or not.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
