Ruth Bader Ginsburg RIP

BLtheKid wrote:

Um, what dictators did we cozy up to? Taking jobs back from China is not anti-trade. Improving from NAFTA to USMCA is not anti-trade. Stopping illegal immigration is not anti-immigration. And the vast majority of those we seeing getting caught in the "Me, Too" movement are liberals and mostly in Hollywood. Similarly with those caught up in the Epstein case.

Fiscal discipline has not been adhered to - that I fully agree with you on.

Do Putin, Erdogan, MBS and Kim Jong Un ring a bell? What kind of a US president would side with Putin against his own DNI?

He didn't take any job back from China. And USMCA is the first "trade deal" in history to actually restrict trade. You think reducing LEGAL immigration is not anti-immigration?

He bragged about his favorite method of sexual assault in Access Hollywood" tape, which was recorded years before the "#Me To" movement.

YMMV wrote:

Trump had 8% of the black vote in 2016. He is now polling at 25%.

That's probably off by at least 100% and potentially 200%. It's hard to be off by that much in a polling prediction, that's impressive. Let's save this estimate to review it after the election, should be fun. 25%? LOL

I have seen the same thing happen to some of my friends after they stopped running. They aren’t married. I figured they went down the parh because they were looking for a new community after leaving the running community and feeling party of a group that makes them feel like only they can save America gives them a sense of purpose. Same thing with some of the woke crowd. The go more and more into the purity of it try to gain status in their crowd.

But I listen to some right wing talk radio and the people that don’t leave that bubble live in an alternate realty.

I saw the same thing happen to and older lady neighbor after her husband passed. In her case the group from church started flooding her with propaganda and next thing you know she's getting magazines with Trump on the cover claiming he's acting as the hand of God, giving speeches about how low income young single mothers continuously get pregnant to live the "luxurious life" of social benefits.

Interacting with her is a cognitive dissonance roller coaster

CorrectorII wrote:

YMMV wrote:

Trump had 8% of the black vote in 2016. He is now polling at 25%.

That's probably off by at least 100% and potentially 200%. It's hard to be off by that much in a polling prediction, that's impressive. Let's save this estimate to review it after the election, should be fun. 25%? LOL

He's getting confused between approval and voting intention.

I saw a Rasmussen Poll (!) that had Trump at 28% approval with black voters, the very same poll had him at 8% voting intention for the election.

There was no confirm or not on Garland. McConnell refused to hold any hearings, any votes, or do anything at all. He didn't do his job. He could have held hearings and a vote and let him be voted down if he wanted to stick with precedent. Instead, he did something unprecedented and made up a fantasy new rule that the future president should make the pick, which has no basis in the law. And now, of course, he does the opposite.

Putin was actually correct that they didn't hack the emails, so Trump was CORRECT to question his own intelligence agencies. We've since learned that there is NO EVIDENCE that Russia hacked the DNC's emails or Hillary's emails.

Even Biden admits that the USMCA trade deal is better than NAFTA

Legal immigration was way too high. Especially now that unemployment is high, he has an obligation to make sure that when jobs are created they go to AMERICANS. Why would we increase the size of the labor force when there is already mass unemployment?

Timmy Treadwell wrote:

There was no confirm or not on Garland. McConnell refused to hold any hearings, any votes, or do anything at all. He didn't do his job. He could have held hearings and a vote and let him be voted down if he wanted to stick with precedent. Instead, he did something unprecedented and made up a fantasy new rule that the future president should make the pick, which has no basis in the law. And now, of course, he does the opposite.

There's no difference between voting him down and not having hearings. Actually it was better for Garland to not have hearings - if McConnell voted him down, then Garland would most likely not be nominated again by Clinton if she won.

Timmy Treadwell wrote:

He could have held hearings and a vote and let him be voted down if he wanted to stick with precedent.

In which case we'd be in the exact same place as now and you'd still be whining about a 'stolen seat.' Why does it matter? Republicans controlled the Senate and they didn't want Obummer's pick regardless. People could have voted those Senators out but they didn't.

This is a good point. Democrats want the people to decide on a nominee in an election....but there was an election in 2018 and republicans actually GREW their majority in the senate. The people did speak in 2018 and they overwhelming want a conservative justice.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

Timmy Treadwell wrote:

There was no confirm or not on Garland. McConnell refused to hold any hearings, any votes, or do anything at all. He didn't do his job. He could have held hearings and a vote and let him be voted down if he wanted to stick with precedent. Instead, he did something unprecedented and made up a fantasy new rule that the future president should make the pick, which has no basis in the law. And now, of course, he does the opposite.

There's no difference between voting him down and not having hearings. Actually it was better for Garland to not have hearings - if McConnell voted him down, then Garland would most likely not be nominated again by Clinton if she won.

Your reply is the stupidest reply so far on this thread filled with stupid replies.

Under McConnell's 50 vote nuclear rule Garland would have been on the SCOTUS for over four years now. Garland would even be a SCOTUS under the 60 vote rule. Under the 60 vote rule Gorsuch would make it to the SCOTUS, but no way Kavanaugh gets on, and no way Amy Coney Barrett gets. Barrett fails because she votes based on her religious views over the law. She is quoted as saying, "a legal career is but a means to an end … and that end is building the Kingdom of God."

You mean HARRY REID'S 50 vote nuclear rule. Yes, it was a democrat that started it.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

This is a good point. Democrats want the people to decide on a nominee in an election....but there was an election in 2018 and republicans actually GREW their majority in the senate. The people did speak in 2018 and they overwhelming want a conservative justice.

That's just an idiosyncrasy of the senate.

Overall 2018 was a massive rebuke to the Republicans, but the way the map was in 2018 it meant there were a number of Dem senators in Trump states that were very vulnerable.

So just because Missouri voted in a Republican to the Senate, that's hardly the American people overwhelmingly demanding a conservative justice.

McLame family wrote:

Timmy Treadwell wrote:

He could have held hearings and a vote and let him be voted down if he wanted to stick with precedent.

In which case we'd be in the exact same place as now and you'd still be whining about a 'stolen seat.' Why does it matter? Republicans controlled the Senate. People could have voted those Senators out but they didn't.

Incorrect. Garland would be on the SCOTUS. Gorsuch would also be on the SCOTUS under the 60 vote rule IF Garland was allowed a vote. Kavanugh would not be on the SCOTUS. Trump would be forced to nominate less of a Trump's sack licker than Kavanaugh to get a second nomination approved.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

You mean HARRY REID'S 50 vote nuclear rule. Yes, it was a democrat that started it.

Please name the SCOTUS who was appointed under the 50 vote rule? That would have been Garland. But .... you are to ignorant to understand.

You are also too ignorant to know that it was McConnell who was denying every single Obama court nominee with a cabal of 40 right-wing senators. No court nominees allowed by a black guy ... yes, McConnell is a racist.

McConnell was saving all the court appointment for a Republican Anticrist to steal the presidency in the 2016 election.

You also did not know that McConnell guaranteed republican donors that they would be appointing a new SCOTUS in October to replace RGB. And that came to be. McConnell was absolutely certain it would happen. And people have come to realize that it was not beyond Trump and Barr to help her end her life before October. Because Trump likes winning at all costs.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

This is a good point. Democrats want the people to decide on a nominee in an election....but there was an election in 2018 and republicans actually GREW their majority in the senate. The people did speak in 2018 and they overwhelming want a conservative justice.

It’s cute you want to guess what people wan from the senate race results. If you want to use old results as a guide Trump lost the popular vote, why not use that?

An election is coming that will tell us what the electorate wants in 6 weeks. No need to guess

TheCorrectorII wrote:

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

This is a good point. Democrats want the people to decide on a nominee in an election....but there was an election in 2018 and republicans actually GREW their majority in the senate. The people did speak in 2018 and they overwhelming want a conservative justice.

It’s cute you want to guess what people wan from the senate race results. If you want to use old results as a guide Trump lost the popular vote, why not use that?

An election is coming that will tell us what the electorate wants in 6 weeks. No need to guess

Still whining about the popular vote. Lol. Quit living in the past.. By the way, he is correct. People don't want the liberal lawlessness nonsense.

Dem nominees to SCOTUS going back to 1949 and excluding the two people of color they nominated (Marshall and Sotomayor). Merrick Garland, Elena Kagan, Stephen Bryer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Abe Fortas, and Arthur Goldberg and Sherman Minton. Seven out of seven share an ethnicity. Can you guess what that ethnicity is?

I would guess not many times in history have impeached presidents nominated a SCJ after their impeachment with the Senate so adamant on their rush to confirm a few weeks from an election that is probably lost.