Jump to content
Mike Isles

***Official Here we go Debate Thead***

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Strike said:

If the Dems want to pack the courts they should be willing to own it.  He says the people deserve a say in choosing the SCOTUS, and whether he'd be willing to pack the court is a key piece of information to help those voting decide who should pick the next justice.  Why won't you call him out for his refusal to inform the populace of his stance on this important issue?

It's a fair point - I'm assuming he wants to play both sides.  Why risk losing voters until pressed to answer?  Even if pressed I'm sure he would still talk around it without commitment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

“If Trump is allowed to steal this election” May be the most out of touch statement of them all. 

From the ballot box stuffers, pretty funny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah. Electric Mayhem doesn’t seem to know how Supreme Court appointments work. Obama did nominate Garland. The senate said no. Why do liberals hate checks and balances? It’s what separates us from most of the countries in the world and every other superpower ever. 

And you could draw a direct line from his failure to get MG over the finish line to his immature and poor performance in his 1st term of his presidency.    His lack of experience in being an actual legislator and, you know, having actually gotten anything done that required working with people and building teams caused him to over-read his "mandate".   After his election and the economic disaster of 2008, republicans were beaten, demoralized, and in the wilderness.    Obama was such a clueless sh!thead that he couldn't resist taking non-stop victory laps and pushing through legislation in a manner that maximized the political blowback when he could have accomplished the same without the collateral damage.    Obama's inexperience at leading anything led him to drive people to the tea party and the republicans for his 2nd term election and that caused a blood-bath at the ballot box where basically the only dem who won anything was Obama.    I firmly believe that had Obama handled his 1st term better and been less of a dooshbag, he could have held the senate or at least had a senate whose majority didn't hate him with a passion.   Classic narcissistic over-reach by someone who had no experience on how to get things done when you need consensus and buy-in to be effective.   Also classic narcissist in that he never cared about the fortunes of the rest of his party while he was in office, just himself.    That would hurt him badly in his 2nd term and in preserving his legacy after he left office.

So when it came time to try to push MG over the finish line, Obama was staring at a majority republican senate who still remembered his snarky "I won" and "elections have consequences" comments and how he ran his admin.    Good work, Obama, you could have nominated Jesus F--ing Christ himself to the SC and the repub senate would have rejected him.    But that's on you, not them.   You created them, they were more beaten up and defeated when you started than the Washington Generals after a Globetrotters game.   You resurrected them.   I guess you were the "messiah" after all, just you saved the repubs.     

So anyone who wants to throw around "those meany repubs didn't appointment MG" can just go rummage through their memento drawer and pull out that "Hope" picture of Obama painted in red and blue hues, and hold that up to the mirror when you want to see who lost the MG nomination.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched some of this because my son had to watch it for school...

Every time Biden talked I kept saying for Trump to keep a lid on it and let Biden talk, he couldn't do it, just couldn't do it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BirdGang said:

From the ballot box stuffers, pretty funny. 

I'm sorry the what now?  I think (please feel free to prove me wrong) that the only recent election fraud recorded is on the GOP side.  I'd be interested to see your evidence of Democrats stuffing ballot boxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Electric Mayhem said:

So FFT has apparently swung even farther right then the last time I posted here, which saddens me, but for those who would like to see the debate through the eyes of the other side:

- Biden looks old.  He doesn't have dementia like Fox would have you believe with their video edits, but he looks and talks like an old man.  I get the sense that he has good answers, and knows the answers, he just struggles a bit getting his mouth to play along.  Maybe this is a lingering effect form his childhood stutter - I don't know.  I can't say I remember him speaking enough throughout his career as a comparison.

- Trump once again came across as a bully blowhard that makes things up on the fly that sound good but are not anchored in real fact of any kind.  He sounds more "there", but I don't really care.  The POTUS's job is not to be a carnival barker, it's to promote good policy, and he has none.

On the topics:

The Supreme Court

- Bottom line: in 2016, Obama had every right to appoint Garland, and Garland should be a Justice.  McConnell used his power as Senate majority leader to block the appointment.  He and the GOP know that the SCOTUS and the courts are a key chess piece in shaping US policy, and they have been playing hardball since they took power in the Senate.  It doesn't matter how INFURIATINGLY hypocritical their stance is now that the shoe is on the other foot - that's where we are.  In terms of the debate, Biden didn't even mention Garland, which was odd.  As for 'packing the courts', I personally think the Dems should also play hardball if the opportunity arises and that should be on the table.  General rules and decorum flew out the window with the Garland block.  I think it was smart for Biden to not commit on this either way.


Covid-19

- Even before the audio recordings came out, people -well, rational people- knew he didn't care about the virus' impact on the population, even less so once he realized it was mostly (at the time) impacting 'Blue States'.  He didn't want to be bothered with the work it would take to really address it.  I honestly think he believed he could somehow talk his way out of it like all of his other problems.  Unfortunately a virus won't throw up its hands and just leave out of frustration.  As heard in the debate - he really still has no plan to address it other than a vaccine.  All his eggs are in the vaccine basket, so he will say whatever he needs to to get his through the election.  Does anyone actually believe there will be a widely available vaccine by the end of the year?  Of course not.  More kick the can empty promises.  Biden at least mentioned a contingency, and a stop gap to get us through the months before the vaccine is available - fund PPE and other means of reducing the virus spread.  Trump is STILL not clear on his mask stance.  "Sure they help I guess" is about as strong as he gets.  He even jabbed at Biden for wearing a mask too much.  He again mentioned Faucci first saying not to use them before changing his position.  If he was really for masks and reducing spread he would tell people to wear them but he won't.  His contingency plan 'if any' is now herd immunity - why?  Because he doesn't have to do anything.  It's the least effort response, and that's what appeals to him, even though it would kill something like 2 million people.

- Biden missed a HUGE opportunity to call him out on his indoor rallies and THE DEATH OF HERMAIN CAIN.  Holy crap that would have been a headline maker if delivered correctly.  Whiffed.


The Economy

- Economy before the virus was good by most standards.  Those that have good paying jobs and money in the stock market were doing just fine.  The issues were in the tax policies that continue to transfer wealth to the wealthy at the expense of the general public, and the fact that many people, although technically not 'unemployed', are underemployed and trying to cobble a living together with multiple jobs.  That awesome military he loves needs to be funded, and if he and his kind can dodge the bill through evasion (legal or not), the bill still comes due.  And now that he skyrocketed the US debt with his billionaire payout, we all know the ultimate goal is to gut social security and medicare to pay for it at the expense of poor people's lives.  I want to hear the GOP have a real plan for ALL Americans to earn a decent living other than "PULL YOURSELF UP BY YOUR BOOTSRAPS, LOSERS".  God I hate that phrase so much.

Trump's view is basically "The Chinese plague (lol) killed my economy, it's not my fault I didn't feel the need to address it."  If you believe that the virus will be gone with a vaccine and we are back to normal soon, and you are a one issue voter with your eyes on your stock portfolio - Trump is your man.

The Biden plan of his version of the Green New Deal or whatever he wants to call it?  I don't know enough about it really.  At face value it sounds at least like a plan, but in order for it to really work it has to be properly funded which won't happen unless the Dems take the senate so it's all wishful thinking.  I think if he was given senate support it could be a good and needed change, but the gov't is so broken right now it's all just a feel good hope story.


Race and Violence in our Cities

- Trump says "Joe won't say Law and Order".  Joe says "Law and Order".

- Trump says "Joe won't call out the violence in the protests".  Joe calls out violence in the protests.

- Say what you want about Trump's past racism and nods to white supremacists - he was given the opportunity to denounce them on a world stage last night, and instead he told the Proud Boys to "Step back and stand by".  Those were his words.  Now the Proud Boys are literally using that phrase as a call to arms.  They are branding it.  Nice job Trump, you really put that one to rest once and for all.

- Also more lies - Trump said something about the sheriff of Portland wanting his to send in the Nat Guard or some nonsense - there is no Sheriff of Portland.  The Chief of Police for the county that includes Portland quickly Tweeted out as much, and said that he doesn't support Trump in any way.  Womp womp.


The Integrity of the Election

Holy sh1t.  Holy f'n sh1t.  Rat's ass about the rest of the debate in perspective.  The sitting President of the Untied States is openly saying that he plans to bypass the election process and install a dictatorship, and his supporters are responding with "cool, cool'.  His big election plan is to nullify mail in ballots.

Ballots that have been legally counted with no issues since the Civil War.

Ballots that the military overseas has relied on for decades.

Ballots that have never been tampered with, like ever even though the exact same opportunities to do so have always been there.

"The Postal Service cant handle them" - Lie

"They are being dumped in rivers" - Lie

"Postal workers are selling them" - Lie

By all (all) accounts there is no, zero, ziltch, nada evidence of material mail in ballot fraud.  Never has been.  Isn't now.

And even scarier?  The head of the DOJ is also parroting these lies to set up a November coup for his Chosen One.  We are literally watching the VERY REAL scenario where the US devolves into a dictatorship, and significant portions of the electorate don't care because they either hate liberals or love money.

So who 'won' the debate?  Biden I guess since Trump sounded like a uncontrollable 5 year old all night.  But who cares.  I mean, really who cares.  These debates don't mean a damn thing for this election except to feed the media machines and Twitter discourse.  If Trump is allowed to steal this election and remain in power against the will of the people - that's it folks.  Some of you may get that Civil War you've wanted all along.  I know the Proud Boys will be ready.

Most of this post is horseshit.  The rest of you wringing your hands in this thread about tone and feeling sad for the Country are ghey and probably gheyer than the Proud Boys.  If you didn't know what these two candidates stood for before last night, you don't know anything.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, avoiding injuries said:

Exactly. 
I yelled at the TV one time last night. It was when Wallace asked him to denounce KKK and white supremacy. While an inappropriate question continuing a false narrative, I yelled “JUST DENOUNCE THEM”. What damage would that do? Nothing, and it puts the 3 year lie to rest. 
Instead, he wavered and eventually said “what group”. Wallace brings up the Proud Boys, which is like 1/1000 the problem that Antifa is (WTF). But Trump said stand down and stand by. I don’t know why he thought that would help him. What’s that group going to do, vote for Biden. 

This is the point I was trying to make earlier, as one of those "swing voters".

I like guns, blue lives, lower taxes, strong immigration... renewable energy/carbon reduction, wall street regulation, reproductive rights, health care is a unalienable right,  etc. 

I don't see these as right vs. left or black vs. white. I see this gigantic gray area where most Americans lie... and then these fringe alt right/left groups that both candidates are pandering to. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol at steal the election.  Like he did last time?

Dem voters have pink hair and no jobs.  Packed in tiny corners of states with a mob mentality unable to think for themselves.  

The working citizens who pay taxes and mind their business are voting for Trump.  You know the real backbone of the country.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

Lol at steal the election.  Like he did last time?

Dem voters have pink hair and no jobs.  Packed in tiny corners of states with a mob mentality unable to think for themselves.  

The working citizens who pay taxes and mind their business are voting for Trump.  You know the real backbone of the country.  

Exactly.  We need more people like these Rep voters.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F319263061083876750%2F&psig=AOvVaw05DxeWHtgzwt1xaPB8_XRs&ust=1601567288815000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCJiwwaudkewCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

PS: I'm just playing the stereotype game with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Electric Mayhem said:

I'm sorry the what now?  I think (please feel free to prove me wrong) that the only recent election fraud recorded is on the GOP side.  I'd be interested to see your evidence of Democrats stuffing ballot boxes.

Sure thing team “we can riot in the streets but not vote in person “, it’s quite clear who’s looking for ways to get illegal votes in. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Electric Mayhem said:

It wasn't a 'check and balance'.  It was a power grab.  Burr even told his supporters in 2016 ""And if Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court."

Following the constitution is now considered a power grab by the left wing lunatics.  Ok. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Masshole said:

And you could draw a direct line from his failure to get MG over the finish line to his immature and poor performance in his 1st term of his presidency.    His lack of experience in being an actual legislator and, you know, having actually gotten anything done that required working with people and building teams caused him to over-read his "mandate".   After his election and the economic disaster of 2008, republicans were beaten, demoralized, and in the wilderness.    Obama was such a clueless sh!thead that he couldn't resist taking non-stop victory laps and pushing through legislation in a manner that maximized the political blowback when he could have accomplished the same without the collateral damage.    Obama's inexperience at leading anything led him to drive people to the tea party and the republicans for his 2nd term election and that caused a blood-bath at the ballot box where basically the only dem who won anything was Obama.    I firmly believe that had Obama handled his 1st term better and been less of a dooshbag, he could have held the senate or at least had a senate whose majority didn't hate him with a passion.   Classic narcissistic over-reach by someone who had no experience on how to get things done when you need consensus and buy-in to be effective.   Also classic narcissist in that he never cared about the fortunes of the rest of his party while he was in office, just himself.    That would hurt him badly in his 2nd term and in preserving his legacy after he left office.

So when it came time to try to push MG over the finish line, Obama was staring at a majority republican senate who still remembered his snarky "I won" and "elections have consequences" comments and how he ran his admin.    Good work, Obama, you could have nominated Jesus F--ing Christ himself to the SC and the repub senate would have rejected him.    But that's on you, not them.   You created them, they were more beaten up and defeated when you started than the Washington Generals after a Globetrotters game.   You resurrected them.   I guess you were the "messiah" after all, just you saved the repubs.     

So anyone who wants to throw around "those meany repubs didn't appointment MG" can just go rummage through their memento drawer and pull out that "Hope" picture of Obama painted in red and blue hues, and hold that up to the mirror when you want to see who lost the MG nomination.   

I don't know how you can in good faith blame Obama for not getting anything done when the GOP leadership is quoted as saying:

Boehner "“We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

McConnell: "“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

If you want to argue that Obama, somehow in his first 2 years before the House flipped, pissed off the Americas people so much that it was his fault - well I don't know what to tell you.  I would guess that the Obama win satisfied the left and pissed off the right enough that turnout favored the other side.  Isn't that typical for a House vote after a POTUS election year?

Either way, I suspect your opinions of Obama were formed prior to his taking office.  And if you think bringing the country back from the Bush financial disaster was a failure - again I think your biases are obvious here.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

Lol at steal the election.  Like he did last time?

Dem voters have pink hair and no jobs.  Packed in tiny corners of states with a mob mentality unable to think for themselves.  

The working citizens who pay taxes and mind their business are voting for Trump.  You know the real backbone of the country.  

I actually have no hair (lulz) and a good job, but go on with your generalizations.

As for "The working citizens who pay taxes and mind their business", please remember that Blue states overwhelming fund Red states through the taxes that you claim they don't pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Electric Mayhem said:

I don't know how you can in good faith blame Obama for not getting anything done when the GOP leadership is quoted as saying:

Boehner "“We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

McConnell: "“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

If you want to argue that Obama, somehow in his first 2 years before the House flipped, pissed off the Americas people so much that it was his fault - well I don't know what to tell you.  I would guess that the Obama win satisfied the left and pissed off the right enough that turnout favored the other side.  Isn't that typical for a House vote after a POTUS election year?

Either way, I suspect your opinions of Obama were formed prior to his taking office.  And if you think bringing the country back from the Bush financial disaster was a failure - again I think your biases are obvious here.

Ummm, no.   You don't need to "suspect" anything, I put in writing in my post.    But nice try to infer things I didn't say.   

And you are wrong, very wrong.   While I did not vote for him I did hope that Obama would be a good president and good for the country and was vocal when dealing with conservatives about "giving him a chance" and "he's our president now".    He quickly disappointed me and never really learned or grew on the job.  My opinion changed.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BirdGang said:

Sure thing team “we can riot in the streets but not vote in person “, it’s quite clear who’s looking for ways to get illegal votes in. 😂

I missed the part with the evidence of Democrats stuffing ballots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Following the constitution is now considered a power grab by the left wing lunatics.  Ok. 

The GOP did not 'follow the Constitution'.  Garland's nomination never made it past committee for a vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Masshole said:

Ummm, no.   You don't need to "suspect" anything, I put in writing in my post.    But nice try to infer things I didn't say.   

And you are wrong, very wrong.   While I did not vote for him I did hope that Obama would be a good president and good for the country and was vocal when dealing with conservatives about "giving him a chance" and "he's our president now".    He quickly disappointed me and never really learned or grew on the job.  My opinion changed.

OK, inferences aside, the GOP made it very clear that they would not work with or compromise with Obama once the House went red early in his first term.  I don't know how that is somehow a referendum on Obama.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Electric Mayhem said:

Hey, checks and balances, right?

Hey, elections have consequences,  right ?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Nice to see you around again. 

Thanks man. Mostly stopped by to settle my bet with 90sbaby, but thought I'd join the convo for a bit.

Just been focusing on my sobriety and mental health, which has been even more challenging with all this covid crap! Had about a year sober until mid 2019 when my father passed. Went off the rails a bit, but got back on track January 2020. Got about 9 months right now, so focusing on that and the fam! 

All the best to you and your fam!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine the NYT running a story about Biden and Ukraine, or Hunter receiving $3.5 million from the wife of Moscow’s mayor a few days before the debate. 
I hope the Republicans have an October surprise.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Electric Mayhem said:

Sooo, cool with the SCOTUS increase?

Sure, giving trump a few more picks would be great. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Electric Mayhem said:

The GOP did not 'follow the Constitution'.  Garland's nomination never made it past committee for a vote.

The hearing is a courtesy. There’s nothing in the constitution about committees. Geez. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Electric Mayhem said:

I missed the part with the evidence of Democrats stuffing ballots.

You miss a lot apparently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The hearing is a courtesy. There’s nothing in the constitution about committees. Geez. 

According the the constitution, the POTUS nominates someone, the Senate advises and consents, and the nominee is appointed.

So Obama nominated (following Article II of the Constitution)

Senate refused to advise and consent (NOT following Article II of the Constitution)

(and I guess I need to throw in a "gee whiz" or something at the end to show my contempt for your interpretation of the facts)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, mobb_deep said:

Just been focusing on my sobriety and mental health, which has been even more challenging with all this covid crap! Had about a year sober until mid 2019 when my father passed. Went off the rails a bit, but got back on track January 2020. Got about 9 months right now, so focusing on that and the fam! 

 

Just a few words of encouragement, my child's father died in the hospital of organ failure due to his inability to stop drinking. Here's the thing, he wouldn't even ever admit he drank or had a problem. So you can see how he was a prime example of admitting you have a problem is the first step. You have really accomplished a lot mob_deep and I'm really proud of you. No matter what happens, keep trying each day. We all have addictions, just some are more apparent than others. Peace and blessings!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, posty said:

Unfortunately that will probably be politics for the future...  Trash the other person 24/7, don't state anything about what you will want to do...

Trump talks a lot about what he did and is going to do. Biden has said more than once, in the debate and prior to it, that it's not about him, it's about Trump. 

Trump had every right to be pissed off at the crap Biden was spewing, and the moderator didn't challenge Biden  on anything really.

All the NY Slimes has to do is wait until a week before the next debate and print some garbage about Trump and it will be a topic at the debate even if it's not true.

The democrats have been waging civil war but when people fight back against their violence biden speaks up and says it's all because of Trump's violent followers. And biden doesn't have to denounce antifa because he says it's an idea? 

Why didn't they ask biden about harris calling him a segragationist in their debate? I would like to see him pressed on that answer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Electric Mayhem said:

According the the constitution, the POTUS nominates someone, the Senate advises and consents, and the nominee is appointed.

So Obama nominated (following Article II of the Constitution)

Senate refused to advise and consent (NOT following Article II of the Constitution)

(and I guess I need to throw in a "gee whiz" or something at the end to show my contempt for your interpretation of the facts)

Why didn’t it get taken to court if it was unconstitutional? That’s what courts are for. Seems like it would have been a slam dunk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, mobb_deep said:

Thanks man. Mostly stopped by to settle my bet with 90sbaby, but thought I'd join the convo for a bit.

Just been focusing on my sobriety and mental health, which has been even more challenging with all this covid crap! Had about a year sober until mid 2019 when my father passed. Went off the rails a bit, but got back on track January 2020. Got about 9 months right now, so focusing on that and the fam! 

All the best to you and your fam!

Good to hear.  All the best to you as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why didn’t it get taken to court if it was unconstitutional? That’s what courts are for. Seems like it would have been a slam dunk. 

One would think.  I looked it up - there was a lawsuit filed but it was thrown out because the plaintiff was just a regular voter or something.

There have been opinions on both sides on whether the Senate should have held a vote on Garland.  As I mentioned in my original post - it is what it is, GOP held the power and used it.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Electric Mayhem said:

OK another opportunity for you to show me then.

You are getting owned left and right in here already, I’ll just sit back and laugh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Electric Mayhem said:

One would think.  I looked it up - there was a lawsuit filed but it was thrown out because the plaintiff was just a regular voter or something.

There have been opinions on both sides on whether the Senate should have held a vote on Garland.  As I mentioned in my original post - it is what it is, GOP held the power and used it.

Oh. But was it abuse of power, or just the power the constitution grants them? Like the president has a veto. Would you say the president using his veto powers is a power grab? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BirdGang said:

You are getting owned left and right in here already, I’ll just sit back and laugh. 

EM -1

BirdGang - 0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Oh. But was it abuse of power, or just the power the constitution grants them? Like the president has a veto. Would you say the president using his veto powers is a power grab? 

I'm not going to pretend that I'm a constitutional scholar.  I will say that in my lifetime there has been norms and courtesies assumed in gov't.  Vetoes, executive orders, and the like have been used by the President in the past.  Filibusters would entail an actual person reciting gibberish for hours to make a political stand against what they felt was an injust bill.

Now EOs are more the norm and filibusters are just a rule used like a playing card whenever the situation calls for it.  SCOTUS nominations have ALWAYS been a smooth process regardless or who was POTUS, until this cycle.  Think of the precedent this now sets.  Open seats remain open until one party holds the WH and Senate?  Is this what the framers intended?

So do I think that McConnell went against the Constitution by denying Obama's pick?  I think he saw an opportunity to grab power by interpreting the Constitution in a way beneficial to him at the time.  And this is more apparent now that he is re-defining his original stances now that he can benefit by doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Electric Mayhem said:

scoreboard

Three SCOTUS judges to none

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Electric Mayhem said:

He's still losing, but nice jab from left field I guess?

Just messing with you.... :P

I am just jazzed about the potential to restore minority employment, rework trade deals, and pull troops back.....as long as THAT continues I dont much care who is president....

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×