|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 18, 2020 16:48:09 GMT -8
VIOLENCE ISN'T PROTEST!!!! Also, violence would not be warranted because people don't get a say in who becomes a Supreme Court Justice. The President nominates one and the Senate confirms. That is it. You are just saying what you're saying because at best you excuse the violence being done and at worst you want it done. But McConnell said the American people should have a say, which is how we got here in the first place. Can you read? LOL. Except when it's convenient to post a lame duck candidate, which hasn't happened in over a century. Barrett is a lame duck candidate and we don't need any more far-right justices. I just read that Chuck Schumer doesn't want a replacement Supreme Court Justice named unless Joe Biden wins or 2025. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 18, 2020 17:02:29 GMT -8
But McConnell said the American people should have a say, which is how we got here in the first place. Can you read? LOL. Except when it's convenient to post a lame duck candidate, which hasn't happened in over a century. Barrett is a lame duck candidate and we don't need any more far-right justices. I just read that Chuck Schumer doesn't want a replacement Supreme Court Justice named unless Joe Biden wins or 2025. More importantly, Murkowski said she would vote no, as did Grassley. Romney will do the right thing. No majority. Womp womp. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 18, 2020 17:06:11 GMT -8
The chances of the GOP getting a nominee through, before the election or after, are doubtful. The GOP is close to spineless. The Democrats on the other hand, believe in bringing automatic weapons to a knife fight. They are ruthless. To them, politics is EVERYTHING! As I have stated in the past, almost no tactic is too extreme if it helps them win elections. I think that was not the case a half century ago. But this is not your grandpa's Democratic Party.
Winning elections means power, great power especially at the federal level. When you run the government, power means money.
In my opinion, the greatest threat to the future of this country is careerism.
Let's take Rahm Emanuel as an example. His Wikipedia bio shows no hint of his ever having had a job in private industry. (I missed something. He did work for 2 years for a bank, but that was long after he had made at least a minor name for himself in government; wonder whether he would have gotten that job if had been just a guy fresh off the bus from Albuquerque.) He wisely hitched his wagon to Bill Clinton's star in '92 and was a pol, in one capacity or another, for the next 27 years.
No doubt one could name Republicans who have had similar careers. Clearly, the Founders intended for political positions to be held by people who saw such service as a temporary break from some worthy private career. They most certainly would have been appalled by pols who see public service as a pathway to wealth.
Getting back to the SCOUS question, if the tables were turned, the Dems would find an excuse to nominate and confirm a candidate. Please, I hope nobody thinks I am stupid enough to believe otherwise.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 18, 2020 17:09:10 GMT -8
The chances of the GOP getting a nominee through, before the election or after, are doubtful. The GOP is close to spineless. The Democrats on the other hand, believe in bringing automatic weapons to a knife fight. They are ruthless. To them, politics is EVERYTHING! As I have stated in the past, almost NOTHING is too much for the Left to do. Winning elections means power, great power especially at the federal level. When you run the government, power means money. In my opinion, the greatest threat to the future of this country is careerism. Let's take Rahm Emanuel as an example. His Wikipedia bio shows no hint of his ever having had a job in private industry. He wisely hitched his wagon to Bill Clinton's star in '92 and was a pol, in one capacity or another, for the next 27 years. No doubt one could name Republicans who have had similar careers. Clearly, the Founders intended for political positions to be held by people who saw such service as a temporary break from some worthy private career. They most certainly would have been appalled by pols who see public service as a pathway to wealth. Getting back to the SCOUS question, if the tables were turned, the Dems would find an excuse to nominate and confirm a candidate. AzWm Sorry, I couldn't hear you over your ironic choice of words (thinking about far-right militas showing up to a state building with automatic weapons in Michigan) or the loud stench of Mitch McConnell pissing on Ruth Bader Ginsburg's not even dug grave. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 18, 2020 17:13:16 GMT -8
How much violence was committed by the conservative protestors in Michigan? Please remind me.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 18, 2020 17:14:39 GMT -8
Not that it makes a lot of difference, Ryan, but I edited my last post after you posted your last response.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 18, 2020 17:23:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 18, 2020 17:29:32 GMT -8
You did not answer my question. I did not say that no violence has been committed by non-Left persons or groups. It was you, not I, who mentioned the protesters in Michigan. As you should know, those who brought weapons (which I would have urged them not to do) did not fire them, and they and the others were peaceful and did not commit violence. Can the same be said for the Left-wing groups who have be active in multiple locations? AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 18, 2020 17:43:38 GMT -8
I just read that Chuck Schumer doesn't want a replacement Supreme Court Justice named unless Joe Biden wins or 2025. More importantly, Murkowski said she would vote no, as did Grassley. Romney will do the right thing. No majority. Womp womp. I wouldn't count on Romney. He hates Trump but his conservative base in Utah likes conservative judges. Refusing Amy Coney Barrett could be political suicide for him. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 18, 2020 17:49:18 GMT -8
More importantly, Murkowski said she would vote no, as did Grassley. Romney will do the right thing. No majority. Womp womp. I wouldn't count on Romney. He hates Trump but his conservative base in Utah likes conservative judges. Refusing Amy Coney Barrett could be political suicide for him. I also can't find where Grassley said he'd vote no. There is an old quote where he said that he wouldn't recommend holding a hearing but nothing saying that he'd vote down a justice. What is your source for that? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 18, 2020 17:49:31 GMT -8
You did not answer my question. I did not say that no violence has been committed by non-Left persons or groups. It was you, not I, who mentioned the protesters in Michigan. As you should know, those who brought weapons (which I would have urged them not to do) did not fire them, and they and the others were peaceful and did not commit violence. Can the same be said for the Left-wing groups who have be active in multiple locations? AzWm Can you not dodge the same question in return? It's laughable that you're condoning masked men showing up to a legislative building with guns because those guns weren't fired like we live in a banana republic. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 18, 2020 17:51:51 GMT -8
I wouldn't count on Romney. He hates Trump but his conservative base in Utah likes conservative judges. Refusing Amy Coney Barrett could be political suicide for him. I also can't find where Grassley said he'd vote no. There is an old quote where he said that he wouldn't recommend holding a hearing but nothing saying that he'd vote down a justice. What is your source for that? Even the cowardly Lady G (AKA Lindsey Graham) said he would not in 2018. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 18, 2020 18:11:37 GMT -8
I also can't find where Grassley said he'd vote no. There is an old quote where he said that he wouldn't recommend holding a hearing but nothing saying that he'd vote down a justice. What is your source for that? I'm guessing you didn't take the time to actually read the article linked in that tweet. Grassley is clearly talking about not supporting a hearing rather than voting down a nominee. If McConnell can get a hearing set up over Grassley's objection, I find nothing that says Grassley will vote negative in the confirmation vote on the nominee. I think you, and those of your political bent are reading a statement in the way you want it to read rather than the way Grassley intended it. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 18, 2020 18:28:04 GMT -8
I would expect the nomination, hearing, and vote to happen quickly. McConnell doesn't have until January. He has until November. The vote in Arizona is a special one that will seat the winner immediately, and Republican McSally is currently losing in the polls. There is no time to mess around with this.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 18, 2020 18:37:32 GMT -8
I'm guessing you didn't take the time to actually read the article linked in that tweet. Grassley is clearly talking about not supporting a hearing rather than voting down a nominee. If McConnell can get a hearing set up over Grassley's objection, I find nothing that says Grassley will vote negative in the confirmation vote on the nominee. I think you, and those of your political bent are reading a statement in the way you want it to read rather than the way Grassley intended it. If he doesn't support a hearing, what the hell makes you think he is going to vote yes? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 18, 2020 18:39:04 GMT -8
I would expect the nomination, hearing, and vote to happen quickly. McConnell doesn't have until January. He has until November. The vote in Arizona is a special one that will seat the winner immediately, and Republican McSally is currently losing in the polls. There is no time to mess around with this. So you're actively okay with inciting civil war. Cool. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 18, 2020 19:58:37 GMT -8
I'm guessing you didn't take the time to actually read the article linked in that tweet. Grassley is clearly talking about not supporting a hearing rather than voting down a nominee. If McConnell can get a hearing set up over Grassley's objection, I find nothing that says Grassley will vote negative in the confirmation vote on the nominee. I think you, and those of your political bent are reading a statement in the way you want it to read rather than the way Grassley intended it. If he doesn't support a hearing, what the hell makes you think he is going to vote yes? Because if he wasn't his statement would have read like Murkowski's. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 18, 2020 19:59:56 GMT -8
I would expect the nomination, hearing, and vote to happen quickly. McConnell doesn't have until January. He has until November. The vote in Arizona is a special one that will seat the winner immediately, and Republican McSally is currently losing in the polls. There is no time to mess around with this. So you're actively okay with inciting civil war. Cool. It shouldn't be an incitement to civil war to do the jobs the Constitution says you should do. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Sept 18, 2020 20:24:59 GMT -8
I'm guessing you didn't take the time to actually read the article linked in that tweet. Grassley is clearly talking about not supporting a hearing rather than voting down a nominee. If McConnell can get a hearing set up over Grassley's objection, I find nothing that says Grassley will vote negative in the confirmation vote on the nominee. I think you, and those of your political bent are reading a statement in the way you want it to read rather than the way Grassley intended it. People reading a statement how they want it to read. Shocking. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 18, 2020 20:26:51 GMT -8
I'm guessing you didn't take the time to actually read the article linked in that tweet. Grassley is clearly talking about not supporting a hearing rather than voting down a nominee. If McConnell can get a hearing set up over Grassley's objection, I find nothing that says Grassley will vote negative in the confirmation vote on the nominee. I think you, and those of your political bent are reading a statement in the way you want it to read rather than the way Grassley intended it. People reading a statement how they want it to read. Shocking. Thanks for chiming in. Not necessary, though. I'm guessing the irony is that you didn't read the statement and as clueless as you have been on almost everything from the debates to presidential candor, I don't think you should be barking up this tree. Do some more research. (Sorry for being "condescending", but your schtick is unoriginal, boring and schoolyard heavy) - An original thought would do wonders. |
|
