|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 19, 2020 20:42:15 GMT -8
The world is just a little different now... How so? AzWm Is that a serious question? Demographics are wildly different, income inequality has skyrocketed, poverty has risen and so on and so forth. Things evolve with time and the world evolves with them. I understand you want right-wing justices who reshape policy and destroy things like Roe v. Wade and re-litigate the past. I don't. I fear for the next generation with a serious level of anxiety at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by La Mesa Aztec on Sept 19, 2020 22:54:50 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. Romney is 73 years old and has more money than he knows what to do with. So he won't stick it to Trump because he's concerned that his "base" will still be butthurt four years from now? |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 20, 2020 5:35:08 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. Romney is 73 years old and has more money than he knows what to do with. So he won't stick it to Trump because he's concerned that his "base" will still be butthurt four years from now? Did you read the tweet I posted from his Communications Director? Romney is a yes. Beyond that we already have confirmation, I think that you are missing some things about human nature. At this point for Romney it isn't about money but about legacy. This is a legacy moment in history. Does Mitt Romney want to be viewed by most of the people living around him as a traitor? Does Romney want his kids to be viewed as belonging to a traitorous family? It won't be good enough if California likes him and his kids because his neighbors, friends, and immediate family, the people he sees every day are in Utah. Long after Trump is gone, every big decision that comes down from the Supreme Court will remind people of how Romney acted in this moment. Did Romney betray Conservatives values and the obvious will of the majority who trusted him to represent them or did Romney act as the champion the majority of his electorate wanted? Even before we had the confirmation, all you needed to know was human nature and what Utah is like. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 20, 2020 17:49:20 GMT -8
Is that a serious question? Demographics are wildly different, income inequality has skyrocketed, poverty has risen and so on and so forth. Things evolve with time and the world evolves with them. I understand you want right-wing justices who reshape policy and destroy things like Roe v. Wade and re-litigate the past. I don't. I fear for the next generation with a serious level of anxiety at this point. Ryan, you are unbelievably presumptuous. You seem to favor putting people into preconceived boxes. Roe v. Wade is a good example. Why do you assume that I favor overturning that decision? Can you point to anything I have posted that supports that view? You cannot because I have posted nothing of the kind. In point of fact, I would not, even if I were a member of the SCOTUS, choose to overturn Roe v Wade. It's just too late to do that. I do believe that the decision, at least the breadth of it, was a mistake. I suppose many pro-abortion advocates believed that the issue had been settled. I imagine that those advocates never imagined that we would be in for nearly a half century of terribly acrimonious fighting over abortion. I am not alone in criticizing the decision. In fact, one who did was --- get ready for this --- Ruth Bader Ginsburg!!! In a 1993 lecture, she said the following: A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.I do not mean to argue the issue of abortion at this point. I bring it up because you foolishly claim that I take an extreme anti-Roe position when that is not the case. I find that kind of presumptuousness offensive. Back to the earlier point of who makes up the Supreme Court, I merely pointed out that not so long ago (historically) the SCOTUS was made up 100% of justices chosen by Presidents of one of our major parties. The post that inspired me to make that point held that it would be bad if the Court was made up predominantly of people appointed by one (Republican) party. You countered by suggesting that recent changes in America somehow limit the role of the President in choosing SCOTUS nominees. Last time I looked, the Constitution still gives the President that power, whether we like it or not. We can argue about whether a particular nominee is a good one. That's politics. But POTUS has the power and responsibility to make that decision. Ideally, the party that nominates SCOTUS Justices should be irrelevant. But that would require that all Justices decide issues on what the Constitution says, not on their personal political predilections. Needless to say, I do not believe in a "living Constitution". Those who believe in a "living Constitution" believe in no Constitution at all. Just ask Rep. Phil Hare (Dem-Ill). In a moment of atypical honesty, he declared that he did not worry about the constitution. One must at least admire honesty. www.foxnews.com/politics/congressman-i-dont-worry-about-the-constitution-on-health-care-overhaulAzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 20, 2020 19:20:37 GMT -8
Is that a serious question? Demographics are wildly different, income inequality has skyrocketed, poverty has risen and so on and so forth. Things evolve with time and the world evolves with them. I understand you want right-wing justices who reshape policy and destroy things like Roe v. Wade and re-litigate the past. I don't. I fear for the next generation with a serious level of anxiety at this point. Ryan, you are unbelievably presumptuous. You seem to favor putting people into preconceived boxes. Roe v. Wade is a good example. Why do you assume that I favor overturning that decision? Can you point to anything I have posted that supports that view? You cannot because I have posted nothing of the kind. I point of fact, I would not, even if I were a member of the SCOTUS, choose to overturn Roe v Wade. It's just too late to do that. I do believe that the decision, at least the breadth of it, was a mistake. I suppose many pro-abortion advocates believed that the issue had been settled. I imagine that those advocates never imagined that we would be in for nearly a half century of terribly acrimonious fighting over abortion. I am not alone in criticizing the decision. In fact, one who did was --- get ready for this --- Ruth Bader Ginsburg!!! In a 1993 lecture, she said the following: A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.I do not mean to argue the issue of abortion at this point. I bring it up because you foolishly claim that I take an extreme anti-Roe position when that is not the case. I find that kind of presumptuousness offensive. Back to the earlier point of who makes up the Supreme Court, I merely pointed out that not so long ago (historically) the SCOTUS was made up 100% of justices chosen by Presidents of one of our major parties. The post that inspired me to make that point held that it would be bad if the Court was made up predominantly of people appointed by one (Republican) party. You countered by suggesting that recent changes in America somehow limit the role of the President in choosing SCOTUS nominees. Last time I looked, the Constitution still gives the President that power, whether we like it or not. We can argue about whether a particular nominee is a good one. That's politics. But POTUS has the power and responsibility to make that decision. Ideally, the party that nominates SCOTUS Justices should be irrelevant. But that would require that all Justices decide issues on what the Constitution says, not on their personal political predilections. Needless to say, I do not believe in a "living Constitution". Those who believe in a "living Constitution" believe in no Constitution at all. Just ask Rep. Phil Hare (Dem-Ill). In a moment of atypical honesty, he declared that he did not worry about the constitution. One must at least admire honesty. www.foxnews.com/politics/congressman-i-dont-worry-about-the-constitution-on-health-care-overhaulAzWm I was using a general example because the lower courts are being packed by far right-wing judges and it's no secret that the Republicans want to re-litigate legislation at this point. It's not exactly a secret that the GOP wants to get rid of the ACA (stripping away pre-existing conditions coverages) and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. If Barrett is the nominee, this country is in a lot of trouble. Ramming through a new Supreme Court Justice before a likely election loss while sitting on a COVID relief bill is betrayal of the public trust, as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Sept 20, 2020 19:47:56 GMT -8
Ryan, you are unbelievably presumptuous. You seem to favor putting people into preconceived boxes. Roe v. Wade is a good example. Why do you assume that I favor overturning that decision? Can you point to anything I have posted that supports that view? You cannot because I have posted nothing of the kind. I point of fact, I would not, even if I were a member of the SCOTUS, choose to overturn Roe v Wade. It's just too late to do that. I do believe that the decision, at least the breadth of it, was a mistake. I suppose many pro-abortion advocates believed that the issue had been settled. I imagine that those advocates never imagined that we would be in for nearly a half century of terribly acrimonious fighting over abortion. I am not alone in criticizing the decision. In fact, one who did was --- get ready for this --- Ruth Bader Ginsburg!!! In a 1993 lecture, she said the following: A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.I do not mean to argue the issue of abortion at this point. I bring it up because you foolishly claim that I take an extreme anti-Roe position when that is not the case. I find that kind of presumptuousness offensive. Back to the earlier point of who makes up the Supreme Court, I merely pointed out that not so long ago (historically) the SCOTUS was made up 100% of justices chosen by Presidents of one of our major parties. The post that inspired me to make that point held that it would be bad if the Court was made up predominantly of people appointed by one (Republican) party. You countered by suggesting that recent changes in America somehow limit the role of the President in choosing SCOTUS nominees. Last time I looked, the Constitution still gives the President that power, whether we like it or not. We can argue about whether a particular nominee is a good one. That's politics. But POTUS has the power and responsibility to make that decision. Ideally, the party that nominates SCOTUS Justices should be irrelevant. But that would require that all Justices decide issues on what the Constitution says, not on their personal political predilections. Needless to say, I do not believe in a "living Constitution". Those who believe in a "living Constitution" believe in no Constitution at all. Just ask Rep. Phil Hare (Dem-Ill). In a moment of atypical honesty, he declared that he did not worry about the constitution. One must at least admire honesty. www.foxnews.com/politics/congressman-i-dont-worry-about-the-constitution-on-health-care-overhaulAzWm I was using a general example because the lower courts are being packed by far right-wing judges and it's no secret that the Republicans want to re-litigate legislation at this point. It's not exactly a secret that the GOP wants to get rid of the ACA (stripping away pre-existing conditions coverages) and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. If Barrett is the nominee, this country is in a lot of trouble. Ramming through a new Supreme Court Justice before a likely election loss while sitting on a COVID relief bill is betrayal of the public trust, as far as I'm concerned. They're sitting on the relief bill for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 20, 2020 19:50:49 GMT -8
I was using a general example because the lower courts are being packed by far right-wing judges and it's no secret that the Republicans want to re-litigate legislation at this point. It's not exactly a secret that the GOP wants to get rid of the ACA (stripping away pre-existing conditions coverages) and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. If Barrett is the nominee, this country is in a lot of trouble. Ramming through a new Supreme Court Justice before a likely election loss while sitting on a COVID relief bill is betrayal of the public trust, as far as I'm concerned. They're sitting on the relief bill for a reason. And what's that? I can't wait to hear this. |
|
|
|
Post by La Mesa Aztec on Sept 20, 2020 20:02:15 GMT -8
Romney is 73 years old and has more money than he knows what to do with. So he won't stick it to Trump because he's concerned that his "base" will still be butthurt four years from now? Did you read the tweet I posted from his Communications Director? Romney is a yes. Beyond that we already have confirmation, I think that you are missing some things about human nature. At this point for Romney it isn't about money but about legacy. This is a legacy moment in history. Does Mitt Romney want to be viewed by most of the people living around him as a traitor? Does Romney want his kids to be viewed as belonging to a traitorous family? It won't be good enough if California likes him and his kids because his neighbors, friends, and immediate family, the people he sees every day are in Utah. Long after Trump is gone, every big decision that comes down from the Supreme Court will remind people of how Romney acted in this moment. Did Romney betray Conservatives values and the obvious will of the majority who trusted him to represent them or did Romney act as the champion the majority of his electorate wanted? Even before we had the confirmation, all you needed to know was human nature and what Utah is like. Nowhere there does it say that Romney is going to vote for Trump's nominee, just that he hasn't rejected the idea (yet). You can't be serious with your second paragraph. Dude voted to convict Trump at the impeachment. Concerns about being "traitorous"? That train left the station. I think Romney's concerned about doing what he thinks is right, and if that doesn't match the Trumpites then too bad. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Sept 20, 2020 20:19:15 GMT -8
They're sitting on the relief bill for a reason. And what's that? I can't wait to hear this. I know how you feel, because most of the time when I know a response is coming from you, in my head I'm saying to myself, "I can't wait to hear this one." Well, the senate isn't going to approve a bill when a lot of the money is going to inappropriate places. Pelosi, et al, is not going to budge on the stimulus bill demands because they don't want it to go through while Trump's President. It will only make him look good. Of course they're going to make it difficult, even though it hurts the American public. These are not pro Trump remarks. It's just a fact that's obvious. Both sides do things, or don't do things for political reasons that in turn hurt the American public. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Sept 20, 2020 20:22:03 GMT -8
Did you read the tweet I posted from his Communications Director? Romney is a yes. Beyond that we already have confirmation, I think that you are missing some things about human nature. At this point for Romney it isn't about money but about legacy. This is a legacy moment in history. Does Mitt Romney want to be viewed by most of the people living around him as a traitor? Does Romney want his kids to be viewed as belonging to a traitorous family? It won't be good enough if California likes him and his kids because his neighbors, friends, and immediate family, the people he sees every day are in Utah. Long after Trump is gone, every big decision that comes down from the Supreme Court will remind people of how Romney acted in this moment. Did Romney betray Conservatives values and the obvious will of the majority who trusted him to represent them or did Romney act as the champion the majority of his electorate wanted? Even before we had the confirmation, all you needed to know was human nature and what Utah is like. Nowhere there does it say that Romney is going to vote for Trump's nominee, just that he hasn't rejected the idea (yet). You can't be serious with your second paragraph. Dude voted to convict Trump at the impeachment. Concerns about being "traitorous"? That train left the station. I think Romney's concerned about doing what he thinks is right, and if that doesn't match the Trumpites then too bad. I was thinking the same thing. Romney's already thrown Trump under the bus with the impeachment vote, but I think he's going to vote yes though anyway in this circumstance. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 20, 2020 20:52:32 GMT -8
And what's that? I can't wait to hear this. I know how you feel, because most of the time when I know a response is coming from you, in my head I'm saying to myself, "I can't wait to hear this one." Well, the Senate isn't going to approve a bill when a lot of the money is going to inappropriate places. Pelosi, et al, is not going to budge on the stimulus bill demands because they don't want it to go through while Trump's President. It will only make him look good. Of course they're going to make it difficult, even though it hurts the American public. These are not pro Trump remarks. It's just a fact that's obvious. Both sides do things, or don't do things for political reasons that in turn hurt the American public. Well one of us at least shares actually sourced things, while the other just spouts off random opinions not based on anything but speculation. So let's break it down... The Democrats put forth a bill a few weeks ago that saw money for states and local municipalities hit hard by the pandemic, increased COVID testing and contact tracing, extending unemployment benefits and providing another round of direct stimulus checks to American households. The Republicans countered with a bill that included no direct payments to people, no help to states and/or local governments, while offering extended help to small businesses and unemployment benefits. The idea that another stimulus bill is being rejected by the Democrats because it would make the bozo in chief look good is ludicrous and nothing but fodder. They already passed one bill, which was held up by the president's ego so his name could appear on mailed out checks. The bill the Republicans proposed was woefully inadequate and Moscow Mitch has made it clear what he values now...and it isn't American lives. There is very little hope that anything will be done before November, as the housing crisis worsens, the businesses close up and the deaths continue to pile up. Both sides are playing hardball, yes. Both sides cannot agree on spending. It's political chicken with lives in the balance. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Sept 20, 2020 21:03:06 GMT -8
I know how you feel, because most of the time when I know a response is coming from you, in my head I'm saying to myself, "I can't wait to hear this one." Well, the Senate isn't going to approve a bill when a lot of the money is going to inappropriate places. Pelosi, et al, is not going to budge on the stimulus bill demands because they don't want it to go through while Trump's President. It will only make him look good. Of course they're going to make it difficult, even though it hurts the American public. These are not pro Trump remarks. It's just a fact that's obvious. Both sides do things, or don't do things for political reasons that in turn hurt the American public. Well one of us at least shares actually sourced things, while the other just spouts off random opinions not based on anything but speculation. So let's break it down... The Democrats put forth a bill a few weeks ago that saw money for states and local municipalities hit hard by the pandemic, increased COVID testing and contact tracing, extending unemployment benefits and providing another round of direct stimulus checks to American households. The Republicans countered with a bill that included no direct payments to people, no help to states and/or local governments, while offering extended help to small businesses and unemployment benefits. The idea that another stimulus bill is being rejected by the Democrats because it would make the bozo in chief look good is ludicrous and nothing but fodder. They already passed one bill, which was held up by the president's ego so his name could appear on mailed out checks. The bill the Republicans proposed was woefully inadequate and Moscow Mitch has made it clear what he values now...and it isn't American lives. There is very little hope that anything will be done before November, as the housing crisis worsens, the businesses close up and the deaths continue to pile up. Both sides are playing hardball, yes. Both sides cannot agree on spending. It's political chicken with lives in the balance. According to the Dems proposed bill, who will receive the stimulus checks? All qualified Americans and also illegal immigrants? By the way, that's not me spouting off random opinions. That's exactly what the republicans are saying. They don't like certain aspects inside the bill. Not hard to figure out. That's widely known. Sheeesh. At least I don't put words in peoples mouths to make someone look bad. You're a hall of famer at that. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 20, 2020 21:31:39 GMT -8
Well one of us at least shares actually sourced things, while the other just spouts off random opinions not based on anything but speculation. So let's break it down... The Democrats put forth a bill a few weeks ago that saw money for states and local municipalities hit hard by the pandemic, increased COVID testing and contact tracing, extending unemployment benefits and providing another round of direct stimulus checks to American households. The Republicans countered with a bill that included no direct payments to people, no help to states and/or local governments, while offering extended help to small businesses and unemployment benefits. The idea that another stimulus bill is being rejected by the Democrats because it would make the bozo in chief look good is ludicrous and nothing but fodder. They already passed one bill, which was held up by the president's ego so his name could appear on mailed out checks. The bill the Republicans proposed was woefully inadequate and Moscow Mitch has made it clear what he values now...and it isn't American lives. There is very little hope that anything will be done before November, as the housing crisis worsens, the businesses close up and the deaths continue to pile up. Both sides are playing hardball, yes. Both sides cannot agree on spending. It's political chicken with lives in the balance. According to the Dems proposed bill, who will receive the stimulus checks? All qualified Americans and also illegal immigrants? By the way, that's not me spouting off random opinions. That's exactly what the republicans are saying. They don't like certain aspects inside the bill. Not hard to figure out. That's widely known. Sheeesh. At least I don't put words in peoples mouths to make someone look bad. You're a hall of famer at that. I call it like I see it. No apologies. Of course they are going to say they don't like certain aspects of the bill, the two political parties don't agree on really anything. As far as illegal immigrants go (undocumented), the vast majority of them pay taxes. Moreover, what's more important....Helping everyone or helping nobody? Seems pretty obvious. As long as you receive the help you need, isn't that what matters? www.newsweek.com/tax-paying-undocumented-immigrants-should-get-stimulus-checks-democrats-tell-mcconnell-1522048 |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Sept 20, 2020 21:41:30 GMT -8
According to the Dems proposed bill, who will receive the stimulus checks? All qualified Americans and also illegal immigrants? By the way, that's not me spouting off random opinions. That's exactly what the republicans are saying. They don't like certain aspects inside the bill. Not hard to figure out. That's widely known. Sheeesh. At least I don't put words in peoples mouths to make someone look bad. You're a hall of famer at that. I call it like I see it. No apologies. Of course they are going to say they don't like certain aspects of the bill, the two political parties don't agree on really anything. As far as illegal immigrants go (undocumented), the vast majority of them pay taxes. Moreover, what's more important....Helping everyone or helping nobody? Seems pretty obvious. As long as you receive the help you need, isn't that what matters? www.newsweek.com/tax-paying-undocumented-immigrants-should-get-stimulus-checks-democrats-tell-mcconnell-1522048You try and call it like you see it, but you're wrong sometimes as in this case. I wasn't spouting a random opinion. So it's not so cut and dry. A LOT of people don't agree with giving illegals stimulus money. But, that's just one part of it. There's reasons why the Republicans haven't passed the bill in their eyes. Like I said, they're BOTH playing hardball which in turn hurts the AMERICAN people. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 20, 2020 22:34:06 GMT -8
You try and call it like you see it, but you're wrong sometimes as in this case. I wasn't spouting a random opinion. So it's not so cut and dry. A LOT of people don't agree with giving illegals stimulus money. But, that's just one part of it. There's reasons why the Republicans haven't passed the bill in their eyes. Like I said, they're BOTH playing hardball which in turn hurts the AMERICAN people. Until you SOURCE something, it's an opinion. That's how things work. I can say the moon is made of cheese. Unless I can source that, it's hearsay and an opinion. What am I wrong about here? You've sourced nothing, to my knowledge, in this conversation. What are the reasons the Republicans proposed a slimmed down bill that didn't help average Americans, "legal" Americans? You're saying a lot while saying nothing. Of course Republicans don't support paying essential workers who pay taxes. It destroys their narrative and doesn't pander to their base of voters. Same group of people who chant "build the wall" and other nonsense. A bill that doesn't provide direct relief to people is meaningless bad faith. Yet, there's no hesitation in stacking the courts, blocking hundreds of pieces of other legislation for months and meandering through this convoluted circle of neverending idiocy. It's just more handwringing and hypocrisy. Don't listen to me, listen to them directly. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 21, 2020 5:26:37 GMT -8
You can't be serious with your second paragraph. Dude voted to convict Trump at the impeachment. Concerns about being "traitorous"? That train left the station. I think Romney's concerned about doing what he thinks is right, and if that doesn't match the Trumpites then too bad. Utah is a bit different. Utah conservatives are not synonymous with team Trump. In the 2016 election, conservative Evan McMullin got 21.3% of the vote in the general election. A third of life long Republicans in Utah refused to vote for the Republican candidate when that candidate was Trump. www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/utah-president-clinton-trumpOutside of Utah, Romney is seen as a traitor, but not necessarily inside Utah. Worth noting is the impeachment vote was only symbolic. Mitt Romney wasn’t casting the make or break vote on impeachment. Neither of those hold true for this vote. Going against a conservative Supreme Court Judge will be seen in Utah as betraying conservatism itself, and specifically a betrayal of conservative women. After making Amy Coney Barrett the center of the political universe for a week with merciless grillings and SNL skits, etc., no one will see this as a referendum on Trump. It will be a referendum on Amy Coney Barrett and it would be the deciding vote. Mitt Romney will not attack her. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 22, 2020 8:03:03 GMT -8
For those who were holding out hope, Mitt Romney officially put the nails in the coffin.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 22, 2020 8:08:51 GMT -8
For those who were holding out hope, Mitt Romney officially put the nails in the coffin. And officially screwed tbe GOP for a generation. Good for him. Enjoy the landslide in 2021. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 22, 2020 9:03:36 GMT -8
For those who were holding out hope, Mitt Romney officially put the nails in the coffin. And officially screwed tbe GOP for a generation. Good for him. Enjoy the landslide in 2021. We'll see. The American public reeeeeeeeealy hate riots. There is zero public support and even the Democrats have realized it. If you are correct, and the seating of Amy Coney Barrett kicks off a massive wave of violent riots broadcast on every channel, with well known lefty figures saying "burn it down" and "blow it up", right before people go to vote the effect could be massive. Per polling, the rioting is the single most important issue on voter's minds, and lefties are set to show America who they really are. Yes, the Dems have more campaign money but so did Hillary. Good luck overcoming the media showing fires and violence coming from morons spouting Democrat talking points. No one cares that 93% are peaceful because the media thinks the violent lefties make for more compelling video. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 22, 2020 9:20:41 GMT -8
And officially screwed tbe GOP for a generation. Good for him. Enjoy the landslide in 2021. We'll see. The American public reeeeeeeeealy hate riots. There is zero public support and even the Democrats have realized it. If you are correct, and the seating of Amy Coney Barrett kicks off a massive wave of violent riots broadcast on every channel, with well known lefty figures saying "burn it down" and "blow it up", right before people go to vote the effect could be massive. Per polling, the rioting is the single most important issue on voter's minds, and lefties are set to show America who they really are. Yes, the Dems have more campaign money but so did Hillary. Good luck overcoming the media showing fires and violence coming from morons spouting Democrat talking points. No one cares that 93% are peaceful because the media thinks the violent lefties make for more compelling video. The nominee means very little, although Barrett is a far-right evangelical who blurs the church and state separation line in a terrifying way. It has everything to do with what the end goal has been for months....to steal the election. That's why the rush is in. Trump even admitted it - He wants judges in place to count votes (which isn't a thing) and then he will appeal all the way to the Supreme Court to try and hijack another election where he isn't supported by the majority of the people. |
|
