Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

L L wrote:

Looking ahead:

What if Biden wins but Republicans hold the Senate.

Now imagine Biden has to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice two years in.

What exactly stops the Republicans from simply not holding a confirmation vote until 2025?

Nothing. That is exactly what will happen. In fact, it's likely that the new rule will be that no judge at any level is ever seated unless the president and the senate are of the same party.

Some good polling from IA today - a high-quality poll has this thing tied.

And GA looks to be a nail-biter also.

If those states are close, then most likely TX is tied also.

Enten has been writing about how there are so many knife-edge races that this thing could be 400 electoral votes for Biden...or 268, all from a tiny sliver of voters. Many state races are very tight.

I suppose the best news is that FL and PA could go red and Biden would still have a solid shot if if takes the upper midwest and either AZ or IA or GA or something like that.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

"I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, one nation, indivisible, under God, for real" ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=1DXZdEQwr0U&feature=emb_logo

"Come on, man!"

Bring on the debates, he can't even read a teleprompter correctly. It's going to be a disaster for the dems.

Keep lowering those expectations. I love it how this narrative plays right into our hands.

Fat hurts wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

"I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, one nation, indivisible, under God, for real" ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=1DXZdEQwr0U&feature=emb_logo

"Come on, man!"

Bring on the debates, he can't even read a teleprompter correctly. It's going to be a disaster for the dems.

Keep lowering those expectations. I love it how this narrative plays right into our hands.

I wonder if they will supplement water bottles with straws during the debate, and of course you know, remove any ramps or hard questions.

Fat hurts wrote:

In fact, it's likely that the new rule will be that no judge at any level is ever seated unless the president and the senate are of the same party.

The same thing I said several pages ago.

The Constitution states that the President and the Senate must work together to appoint Judges of the Supreme Court.

Mitch McConnell in action says he will not work together with a Democrat President to uphold the Constitution.

Refuses to hold a vote for an appointment made by a Democrat President in February of an election year.

Rushes to make a vote for an appointment to be made by a Republican President in September of an election year.

The same logic can be extended to an entire four year term.

The system is broken.

This version of the Republican Party must be crushed into oblivion.

The sad part is that - no matter what the report says - the news media will feel compelled to spend a ton of ink on this story, out of some primal need to 'both-sides' issues. 'Finally a dem ethics question! One for the Dems, 80,000 for the Rs! Must publicize to show we aren't biased!'

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-republicans-probe-of-joe-and-hunter-biden-nears-completion-11600720533?mod=hp_listb_pos1

agip wrote:

The sad part is that - no matter what the report says - the news media will feel compelled to spend a ton of ink on this story, out of some primal need to 'both-sides' issues. 'Finally a dem ethics question! One for the Dems, 80,000 for the Rs! Must publicize to show we aren't biased!'

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-republicans-probe-of-joe-and-hunter-biden-nears-completion-11600720533?mod=hp_listb_pos1

Very true, and an astute observation.

agip wrote:

The sad part is that - no matter what the report says - the news media will feel compelled to spend a ton of ink on this story, out of some primal need to 'both-sides' issues. 'Finally a dem ethics question! One for the Dems, 80,000 for the Rs! Must publicize to show we aren't biased!'

You realize that you are the king of the "primally needy to 'both-sides' issues", right? At least on this thread, you jumping at every opportunity to show how unbiased you are by agreeing with Sally and Rigged even when they are ridiculously wrong has been cringe worthy.

Just wanted you to know that you sound like you are posting about yourself above.

Real Obvi wrote:

agip wrote:

The sad part is that - no matter what the report says - the news media will feel compelled to spend a ton of ink on this story, out of some primal need to 'both-sides' issues. 'Finally a dem ethics question! One for the Dems, 80,000 for the Rs! Must publicize to show we aren't biased!'

You realize that you are the king of the "primally needy to 'both-sides' issues", right? At least on this thread, you jumping at every opportunity to show how unbiased you are by agreeing with Sally and Rigged even when they are ridiculously wrong has been cringe worthy.

Just wanted you to know that you sound like you are posting about yourself above.

I call it like I see it. Not sure what more I can say than that.

My job is different than the newspapers...they are supposed to report the news.

I am more of a columnist, giving my opinions.

Apples to oranges.

Romney is officially in with Trump on SCOTUS. He think the senate should consider a nominee before the election.

He wasnt' a senator last time so we can't call him a hypocrite on this.

This gender gap is truly astonishing.

Explains a lot of about fascism...it appeals to men, lets them take off their manners.

https://twitter.com/numbersmuncher/status/1308391921270878210?s=21

agip wrote:

Romney is officially in with Trump on SCOTUS. He think the senate should consider a nominee before the election.

He wasnt' a senator last time so we can't call him a hypocrite on this.

Considering a nominee is not the same as the nominee blank checks (yes, no matter who) being issued by Lyndsey Graham and other "anyone by a Democrat" Republicans.

All it takes are a few Republicans (besides Murkowski and Collins ) to abstain or vote no. Collins won't change her no vote even if she loses in November. Murkowski is not up for reelection this time around.

There is no guarantee that Moscow Mitch's herd of 50 cats will stay herded.

L L wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

In fact, it's likely that the new rule will be that no judge at any level is ever seated unless the president and the senate are of the same party.

The same thing I said several pages ago.

The Constitution states that the President and the Senate must work together to appoint Judges of the Supreme Court.

Mitch McConnell in action says he will not work together with a Democrat President to uphold the Constitution.

Refuses to hold a vote for an appointment made by a Democrat President in February of an election year.

Rushes to make a vote for an appointment to be made by a Republican President in September of an election year.

The same logic can be extended to an entire four year term.

The system is broken.

This version of the Republican Party must be crushed into oblivion.

LL - you say the President and the Senate must work together to appoint judges of the Supreme Court. Actually, it is the president ...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court.

You castigate the Republicans. But what did the Dems in the Senate do when Robert Bork was up for confirmation, or Clarence Thomas, or Neil Gorsuch (who had been confirmed by an unanimous vote for his appellate post on the 10th circuit, or Brett Kavanaugh? Were the Dems in the Senate working with the president in nominating and confirming a Supreme Court nominee. Of course not. They were down in the gutter to derail anyone with ideologies different from theirs. Again, Gorsuch was confirmed unanimously for his appellate post but later confirmed with every Dem opposing him. Bork was savagely attacked, as was Clarence Thomas as was Brett Kavanaugh. The Republicans have no playbook like the Dems have where you smear and make up stuff to stop the confirmation of nominees who they previously thought were competent justices and judges. The Republicans have no idea how to get down in the gutter and destroy reputations like the Dems have in the last 30 or 40 years. The Dems are as cutthroat and as ruthless as the come. Please don't say Repubs are so terrible when the Dems are 1000 times worse.

15940 wrote:

agip wrote:

Romney is officially in with Trump on SCOTUS. He think the senate should consider a nominee before the election.

He wasnt' a senator last time so we can't call him a hypocrite on this.

Considering a nominee is not the same as the nominee blank checks (yes, no matter who) being issued by Lyndsey Graham and other "anyone by a Democrat" Republicans.

All it takes are a few Republicans (besides Murkowski and Collins ) to abstain or vote no. Collins won't change her no vote even if she loses in November. Murkowski is not up for reelection this time around.

There is no guarantee that Moscow Mitch's herd of 50 cats will stay herded.

They said the same about Brett Kavanaugh and he currently plies his trade at One First Street in Washington, D.C. And you?

^^^^^^^^

Wife berater, ignored.

Sally Vix wrote:

15940 wrote:

Considering a nominee is not the same as the nominee blank checks (yes, no matter who) being issued by Lyndsey Graham and other "anyone by a Democrat" Republicans.

All it takes are a few Republicans (besides Murkowski and Collins ) to abstain or vote no. Collins won't change her no vote even if she loses in November. Murkowski is not up for reelection this time around.

There is no guarantee that Moscow Mitch's herd of 50 cats will stay herded.

They said the same about Brett Kavanaugh and he currently plies his trade at One First Street in Washington, D.C. And you?

Idiot. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh ONLY got on when Moscow Mitch tanked the long standing Senate Rule requiring 60 Senators to approve of a SCOTUS nominee. That forces presidents to pick moderate justices and not extremists, or rapists like Kavanaugh. Trump will ONLY put forth a nominee who promises him some election fodder; such as

-- a guarantee to vote no on Roe v. Wade,

-- a guaranteed to vote no on Romenycare (the ACA),

-- and the #1 promise, to vote to stop the election counting at midnight on election day.

Basically someone who is a political idealist who follows party and religious beliefs over the law.

Gina wrote:

^^^^^^^^

Wife berater, ignored.

Yup. Mental anguish wife abuser. Sally "teasers" her Chinese wife for being Chinese. That way the Trump Virus™ is her fault and not Trump's.

15940 wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

They said the same about Brett Kavanaugh and he currently plies his trade at One First Street in Washington, D.C. And you?

Idiot. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh ONLY got on when Moscow Mitch tanked the long standing Senate Rule requiring 60 Senators to approve of a SCOTUS nominee. That forces presidents to pick moderate justices and not extremists, or rapists like Kavanaugh. Trump will ONLY put forth a nominee who promises him some election fodder; such as

-- a guarantee to vote no on Roe v. Wade,

-- a guaranteed to vote no on Romenycare (the ACA),

-- and the #1 promise, to vote to stop the election counting at midnight on election day.

Basically someone who is a political idealist who follows party and religious beliefs over the law.

So funny you call me an idiot when it was HARRY REID who did what you say McConnell did. Classic.

Robert Bork was involved in the Watergate scandal.

Clarence Thomas had questionable character for a person to be given such a high position.

He was accused of sexual harassment.

He was confirmed 52-48.

Do you know what that means? It means that the Democrats could have filibustered the vote and required 60 votes. They chose not to filibuster and allowed the vote.

McConnell refused a vote on Garland.

Then got rid of the filibuster rule to seat Gorsuch.

Gorsuch is perfectly qualified, but they had to protest that blocked vote on Garland.

Kavanaugh showed questionable character when questioned about his drunken behavior an alleged sexual assault. He showed no concern for the woman who was apparently traumatized by this. He snapped back at senator's questions, especially the female senators. He sobbed on the stand. He showed horrible poise and disrespect for the position

He didn't get all of the Republican votes.

They could have just went to the next conservative on their list.

And that vote was held a month before a mid term election where Republicans were at risk of losing their majority. They seemed to force Kennedy into retirement just to get a new SC Justice in during that Senate term.

But the issue that I had that you quoted was that Republicans were adamant in 2016 that you absolutely could not vote on a Supreme Court Justice in an election year and now they are breaking their word.

It's just the kind of dishonesty that you admire.