Or KFC hotwings. Nobody goes hungry.Originally Posted by ccmdfd
Or KFC hotwings. Nobody goes hungry.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
That was Greenland. Even scarier than Iceland, Greenland killed the Vikings.
I read about that. They were farming and should have been fishing/hunting. Inuit are still there.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
While it is easy to forget that twitter isn't reflective of the hoi polloi outside the pundit class, I have noticed that only one side on there's been chanting 'burn it down' in regards to this particular case of replacing the newly-vacant seat.
I don't disagree, but all they really need is 50 and the presidentcy.
Then you could have a really interesting two years, especially if they add four...or hell, a dozen new justices "to overcome the illegitimate appointments of Trump in lower courts." Make sure the new appointments are down with taking on new cases involving voting rights, redistricting and such at the maximum pace possible for four years.
My real question is if Biden wins and the senate remains a Republican majority, what's the excuse for not filling any vacancies left by right-leaning justices for four years? Because that's where we are probably headed.
The horseshit about "letting the people speak" in 2016 is going to be intensely regretted by the GOP, it's just a question of when. I'm sure the Dems will be shutting off all possible Republican routes to future SC control they can find next time the Senate and Presidentcy are in their hands. And while that may not be likely soon, neither was a Trump presidentcy or a global pandemic that is most likely going to shape the globe in ways we can't even fathom yet.
And in the very unlikely event we get Dems in control of the Senate and four more years of Trump, they will shoot down any nominee he sends as a "lame duck nomination---we need to let the people speak."
In fact, I have a feeling the Democrats will not allow any Republican presidential nominee to the court to see a vote if they control the Senate, regardless of the first or second term status of the president, for the next generation or so. Republicans have proved you can do whatever the fuck you want with the process and it doesn't lose you any voters, so why not go total war on it? It rallies the base!
This is the new normal, because this is what no compromise looks like.
REPETITION CREATES BELIEF
REPETITION BUILDS THE SEPARATE WORLDS WE LIVE AND DIE IN
NO EXCEPTIONS
This is the new normal, because this is what no compromise looks like.[/QUOTE]
Our failure to compromise is our failure to communicate. We’re all fucked because we can’t talk to one another.
Not "can't". "Won't".
There's nothing civil about this war.
Oh, generally, both side's supporters lock hands and chant "I am an independent thinker" in unison these days.
Isn't unity grand?
ETA: more accurately, the above chant is for Republicans, Democrats chant "They lack empathy!"
REPETITION CREATES BELIEF
REPETITION BUILDS THE SEPARATE WORLDS WE LIVE AND DIE IN
NO EXCEPTIONS
Michael Malice had an interesting assertion that when there has been bipartisanship between the parties, the country actually has suffered as a result.
Anyhow, here's one summary on what the Senate is up to as we start the week on Monday.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...me-court-fight
So far, two GOP senators — Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), the only GOP senator to oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination, and Susan Collins (Maine), who is facing a tough reelection bid — have said they do not believe the Senate should take up the Supreme Court nomination before the Nov. 3 election, which is 44 days away.
Alexander and Portman, in particular, were considered potential votes to watch. Alexander, though a McConnell ally, is considered an institutionalist and is retiring, freeing him from the guaranteed political blowback that would come from Trump and his supporters for wanting to delay a Supreme Court vote. Portman, meanwhile, has had breaks with Trump over high-profile issues including the emergency declaration for the border wall.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), the party's 2012 presidential nominee, is considered another lawmaker to watch. He is one of the president's most vocal critics within the caucus and is viewed as a potential swing vote. He was the only GOP senator to vote for one of the articles of impeachment earlier this year.
Gardner also did not address what the Senate should do. He declined to say, when questioned while speaking before a business group on Saturday, if he stood by his 2016 comments that whoever won the 2016 election should appoint the successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat.
Graham, in a tweet linking to his campaign fundraising page, said he was "dead set" on confirming whomever Trump picks.
I kinda doubt that “moderate” democrats go onto the General Discussion section of their special interest websites and warn the hardcore progressives not to anger conservatives. Does anyone really think that dems on HuffPo are telling progressive readers that more gun control is going to enrage us, and maybe they should consider national reciprocity? Shit no.
Hell, it’s hard to find a Democrat who willing to denounce rioting and other forms of domestic terrorism. Yet, there is never a shortage of “moderate” Republicans warning of the perils that come with angering the left.
I like my rifles like my women - short, light, fast, brown, and suppressed.
Reply With Quote