Ruth Bader Ginsburg died

[Tgo01]

This is sad. Given her health issues and age it was kind of expected, but at the same time she was fighting like a champ until the end so it was also kind of surprising.

I don't think I have agreed with her on a single issue but it's still sad to see. She never struck me as evil like a lot of people in politics clearly are today, she was just misguided. May she rest in peace.

As if 2020 couldn't get worse, imagine the absolute cluster fuck both if Trump and Senate Republicans try to fill her seat before the elections and if they don't and instead it will be yet another campaign issue for both sides.

[kutter]

I doubt they will fill it before the election but it will get filled before the next presidential term is started though. If nothing else as a fuck you from the outgoing administration. Assuming Trump fills it and Biden wins, watch for the left to want to add justices to the court.

[Blazar]

Trump has a list he just added to and revised, and Graham and McConnell have both said any vacancies this year would absolutely be filled, so you can pretty much guarantee it will be filled. And they will be sure to fil it with an old, bitter, unscrupulous white man that is just like them. Chances are, it'll be someone who Trump has dirt on as I'm sure they've learned their lesson from Roberts with the handful of times he's gone against their regime. This is how politics works, because it's how you "win". Trump isn't any different in spite of you liking to think he "isn't a politician". :sucker:

[Tgo01]

Trump has a list he just added to and revised, and Graham and McConnell have both said any vacancies this year would absolutely be filled, so you can pretty much guarantee it will be filled. And they will be sure to fil it with an old, bitter, unscrupulous white man that is just like them. Chances are, it'll be someone who Trump has dirt on as I'm sure they've learned their lesson from Roberts with the handful of times he's gone against their regime. This is how politics works, because it's how you "win". Trump isn't any different in spite of you liking to think he "isn't a politician". :sucker:

Experts say you should take your tin foil hat off from time to time to allow your brain to breath.

Also you're especially wrong about this part:

"And they will be sure to fil it with an old, bitter, unscrupulous white man that is just like them."

I think the name of the game lately has been to fill lifetime seats with younger people.

[kutter]

Trump has a list he just added to and revised, and Graham and McConnell have both said any vacancies this year would absolutely be filled, so you can pretty much guarantee it will be filled. And they will be sure to fil it with an old, bitter, unscrupulous white man that is just like them. Chances are, it'll be someone who Trump has dirt on as I'm sure they've learned their lesson from Roberts with the handful of times he's gone against their regime. This is how politics works, because it's how you "win". Trump isn't any different in spite of you liking to think he "isn't a politician". :sucker:

I am not going to say you are wrong about that but I think it will be Amy Coney Barrett. It takes out all of the MeToo stuff, which is a big deal. It will also make the liberals look like bullies if they go after a woman like they did Kavanaugh. Yes, that should not matter, but it does to a lot of people still.

[Tgo01]

"Journalists" already threatening riots if Trump fills her seat:

https://twitter.com/LEBassett/status/1307104689561825280?s=20


If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots.

[Taernath]

Remember when Senate Republicans refused to consider Supreme Court nominations from Obama because "it was an election year"? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[Tgo01]

Remember when Senate Republicans refused to consider Supreme Court nominations from Obama because "it was an election year"? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

I seem to recall Democrats saying that was a terrible idea and that the Senate should have totally filled that seat in an election year. For once it sounds like Democrats were right about something.

[Tgo01]

Chuck Schumer's first tweet in response to this news:

https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1307104888963428357?s=20


The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.

This was literally minutes after the news broke. It's like he had the tweet saved just waiting for the minute RBG died so he could troll McConnell. Keep it classy, Chucky.

[~Rocktar~]

She should have retired long ago under Obama but her selfish pride would not let her. Maybe we can get another constitutional conservative and put the brakes on the activist court bullshit.

[Fortybox]

Chuck Schumer's first tweet in response to this news:

https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1307104888963428357?s=20



This was literally minutes after the news broke. It's like he had the tweet saved just waiting for the minute RBG died so he could troll McConnell. Keep it classy, Chucky.

They did. It was the 2016 election.

Trump won and he will win this election too.

[Blazar]

Remember when Senate Republicans refused to consider Supreme Court nominations from Obama because "it was an election year"? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

The justification there is that at that time, the president was a democrat and the senate was controlled by Republicans, so they consider it a different situation, since basically both have to rubber stamp the appointee. Again, this is how you "win", no one wins at politics being the nice guy, because there are way too many sharks that eat the nice guys alive. Once a nice guy gets eaten a few times, he either gives up or becomes a shark. Over and over again we go.

I'll be *really* surprised if it is someone Trump doesn't have a past with. And I mean really, really, really surprised. Which would be nice to be surprised these days, because not a lot is.

[Tgo01]

The justification there is that at that time, the president was a democrat and the senate was controlled by Republicans, so they consider it a different situation, since basically both have to rubber stamp the appointee.

No. The justification was Obama was in his second term and it was an election year, meaning there was no way Obama was going to be president after the election.

You don't have to like the justification because it really doesn't matter what anyone likes. The Senate makes the rules for how they operate. Tell your party to win more Senate seats if they want to control how the Senate operates.

[Blazar]

No. The justification was Obama was in his second term and it was an election year, meaning there was no way Obama was going to be president after the election.

You don't have to like the justification because it really doesn't matter what anyone likes. The Senate makes the rules for how they operate. Tell your party to win more Senate seats if they want to control how the Senate operates.

Again you're wrong, but there's nothing new there, is there? And again with the "your party" dumbass shit. Just because you're a sheep that blindly follows a party and everything they do, not all of us are like that. I'm a libertarian if anything (as I've told you dozens of times), even if it is a two party system because the smart ones realize that the two party system will be the downfall of this country. Our founding fathers knew it, and other smart people do too. You rabid idiots that are team blue or team red are the fucking problem. Get smarter, suck less.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/498133-graham-on-potential-supreme-court-vacancy-this-would-be-a-different
(https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/498133-graham-on-potential-supreme-court-vacancy-this-would-be-a-different)

“Well, Merrick Garland was a different situation. You had the president of one party nominating, and you had the Senate in the hands of the other party. A situation where you've got them both would be different. I don't want to speculate, but I think appointing judges is a high priority for me in 2020,” Graham said in an interview on “Full Court Press with Greta Van Susteren” set to air Sunday.


"If you look into the history of the country, there had not been an occasion where somebody was confirmed in a presidential election year after primary started when you had divided government," he added.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-outraged-after-mcconnell-vows-to-fill-any-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020


But McConnell's communications director pushed back agains the criticism, explaining why McConnell's position is different now than it was in 2016. He argued that while in 2020 the White House and Senate will be controlled by the same party, that was not the case during President Obama's last year in office.

[Fortybox]

Again you're wrong, but there's nothing new there, is there? And again with the "your party" dumbass shit. Just because you're a sheep that blindly follows a party and everything they do, not all of us are like that. I'm a libertarian if anything (as I've told you dozens of times), even if it is a two party system because the smart ones realize that the two party system will be the downfall of this country. Our founding fathers knew it, and other smart people do too. You rabid idiots that are team blue or team red are the fucking problem. Get smarter, suck less.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/498133-graham-on-potential-supreme-court-vacancy-this-would-be-a-different
(https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/498133-graham-on-potential-supreme-court-vacancy-this-would-be-a-different)


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-outraged-after-mcconnell-vows-to-fill-any-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020

Crymoar

[Stolis]

I may not have agreed on several things with her, but she was still a Supreme Court Justice, and she tried to do what she felt was right. She agreed on some things, disagreed on some as well. I never met her, but I hope she was an overall good person.

Rest in Peace, Justice Ginsburg.

[ClydeR]

Leave it to me to foresee the consequences that you have all missed.

All Republican Senate candidates in close races will have to answer before the election whether or not they will vote for a replacement nominated by Trump if Trump is not reelected. In some states, especially Maine, the answer to that question may determine the outcome of the Senate race.

Nominating someone before the election will be risky for Trump. The safer course would be to promise that he will appoint someone great but that he will wait until after the election so as not to politicize it. Promising a great judicial nominee is a lot easier than finding one, sort of like how promising a great health plan is easier than revealing one.

If Trump nominates someone before the election and if it appears likely that the Senate will confirm the nominee, then Trump will suffer electorally among conservatives who approve of the nominee. "What!?" I hear you asking through the computer screen. Allow me to explain. Another conservative Supreme Court judge would give conservatives a 6-3 margin on the court. Without the pressing need for a Supreme Court majority, religious conservatives who support Trump solely to regain the court will be relieved that they will not have to vote for a candidate they loathe.

I am not predicting the following, but it would not surprise me. Realizing the above, Trump might announce that he will nominate someone great if he is reelected but that he will not nominate anyone after the election if he is not reelected.

It will take the experts several days to think through it to reach the same conclusions.

[Taernath]

The justification there is that at that time, the president was a democrat and the senate was controlled by Republicans, so they consider it a different situation, since basically both have to rubber stamp the appointee. Again, this is how you "win", no one wins at politics being the nice guy, because there are way too many sharks that eat the nice guys alive. Once a nice guy gets eaten a few times, he either gives up or becomes a shark. Over and over again we go.

I'll be *really* surprised if it is someone Trump doesn't have a past with. And I mean really, really, really surprised. Which would be nice to be surprised these days, because not a lot is.

I'm aware of what their justification was and of how politics work. At the end of the day it was more obstructionist rules for thee but not for me bullshit.

[Parkbandit]

Remember when Senate Republicans refused to consider Supreme Court nominations from Obama because "it was an election year"? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

And remember how mad you were? I would think you would be 100% for President Trump to nominate someone...

[time4fun]

There are a few things in motion right now, and for some of them it's pretty clear where things are headed while for others it's wild cards.


Dems will be fired up. Republicans will be fired up. Independents will likely start breaking for Democrats as they don't like it when one party has too much power.
This will fire up Democrats, but candidly this tends to be motivating to the group that's already definitely going to vote no matter what. This will fire up Trump supporters, and that will matter. It will grab him a few points from Evangelicals who had started to soften a bit on him. Independents in the US genuinely dislike when one party appears to have too much power, and they tend to break heavily for the other party in those cases, and it's very likely that we'll see that play out here. But these groups don't show up in equal proportions around the country, so it's really unclear what the overall thrust of this will be.

Collins and Gardener went from almost assuredly toast to the walking dead.
As far as the Senate goes, Collins and Gardener just saw their slim chances of holding on evaporate. Regardless, they'll want to try to hold on so they won't be voting to push a nomination process forward before the election. McConnell won't try anyway.

McSally is probably still going to lose (and that really matters)
If McSally were anyone other than herself, this would likely mean that she would coast to re-election. But she's not, and Kelly has a huge lead right now. She only has a GOP defection rate of about 5-6%, which isn't much to work with here, and she's getting slaughtered with independents already- who are likely to be even more skeptical of her after this. But it's AZ, so you never know for sure.

Tillis should thank his lucky stars
Tillis likely just got the hail mary he's been praying for. At minimum, this will likely take his race from most likely out of the running to legitimately neck and neck. He was missing about 20% of the GOP vote in North Carolina. They'll likely find their way back home after this.

Kelly may throw a massive wrench into everything for McConnell if he wins
Arizona is the single most important race, however. If Kelly wins he can be sworn into the Senate as early as Nov 30th since he would be replacing McCain's replacement. It would be his job to carry out the rest of McCain's term. At that point in time, the Senate is at a 52-48 split. Murkowski and Collins are not likely to vote for anyone Trump nominates this time. Collins will be on her way out and likely won't want this to be her legacy. And Murkowski has enough cover with the Garland situation. That puts the votes 50-50.

Cory Gardener may be the next John McCain...or just the next Collins.
At that point in time, you just need one Cory Gardener- who loathes Donald Trump and who will be on his way out the door- to decide if he wants to vote his party or his conscience.

McConnell almost assuredly retains his position next year now.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

46 more days of this. I can almost hear the liberals yelling at the sky outside.

[Parkbandit]

There are a few things in motion right now, and for some of them it's pretty clear where things are headed while for others it's wild cards.


Dems will be fired up. Republicans will be fired up. Independents will likely start breaking for Democrats as they don't like it when one party has too much power.
This will fire up Democrats, but candidly this tends to be motivating to the group that's already definitely going to vote no matter what. This will fire up Trump supporters, and that will matter. It will grab him a few points from Evangelicals who had started to soften a bit on him. Independents in the US genuinely dislike when one party appears to have too much power, and they tend to break heavily for the other party in those cases, and it's very likely that we'll see that play out here. But these groups don't show up in equal proportions around the country, so it's really unclear what the overall thrust of this will be.

Collins and Gardener went from almost assuredly toast to the walking dead.
As far as the Senate goes, Collins and Gardener just saw their slim chances of holding on evaporate. Regardless, they'll want to try to hold on so they won't be voting to push a nomination process forward before the election. McConnell won't try anyway.

McSally is probably still going to lose (and that really matters)
If McSally were anyone other than herself, this would likely mean that she would coast to re-election. But she's not, and Kelly has a huge lead right now. She only has a GOP defection rate of about 5-6%, which isn't much to work with here, and she's getting slaughtered with independents already- who are likely to be even more skeptical of her after this. But it's AZ, so you never know for sure.

Tillis should thank his lucky stars
Tillis likely just got the hail mary he's been praying for. At minimum, this will likely take his race from most likely out of the running to legitimately neck and neck. He was missing about 20% of the GOP vote in North Carolina. They'll likely find their way back home after this.

Kelly may throw a massive wrench into everything for McConnell if he wins
Arizona is the single most important race, however. If Kelly wins he can be sworn into the Senate as early as Nov 30th since he would be replacing McCain's replacement. It would be his job to carry out the rest of McCain's term. At that point in time, the Senate is at a 52-48 split. Murkowski and Collins are not likely to vote for anyone Trump nominates this time. Collins will be on her way out and likely won't want this to be her legacy. And Murkowski has enough cover with the Garland situation. That puts the votes 50-50.

Cory Gardener may be the next John McCain...or just the next Collins.
At that point in time, you just need one Cory Gardener- who loathes Donald Trump and who will be on his way out the door- to decide if he wants to vote his party or his conscience.

McConnell almost assuredly retains his position next year now.

Andraste, you should be the absolute last person to make political predictions about anything.. except maybe if the groundhog sees his shadow (only because that's 50/50).

You're bad at it and you are rarely ever right.

[time4fun]

And yet it's astounding that he is literally hoping for another Justice to come in and completely disregard Stare Decisis- because he thinks THAT'S the opposite of an "activist Court".

[Stolis]

People already clamoring about who is gonna fill her seat like people fighting for inheritance. Maybe calm down for a bit. Cancer has yet again taken the life of someone who had a family, who had children, etc. That sucks.

[time4fun]

In fairness- she had one dying wish.

And it centered around filling her seat.

I think it's okay to talk about that.

[beldannon5]

I haven't checked but was that in writing? or from her own lips not hearsey?

[SonoftheNorth]

I haven't checked but was that in writing? or from her own lips not hearsey?




Who gives a shit that isn't how it works.

[Blazar]

I haven't checked but was that in writing? or from her own lips not hearsey?

LOL, one of the rabid Trump supporters now cares about truth? Say it ain't so.


As NPR reported, Ginsburg’s final statement, dictated to her granddaughter Clara Spera from her deathbed, was simply: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-dying-wish.html

[Taernath]

And remember how mad you were?

Not really, no. I think this is the only time I've mentioned it, aside from a few jokes in a Scalia topic years ago. I'm a little irritated at the hypocrisy on display here, but that's nothing new. If you want to drop the 'lol you mad' psychic vampire LARP we can have an actual discussion.


I would think you would be 100% for President Trump to nominate someone...

He can always nominate someone. I just want the legislative body that we elected and paid for to actually do their jobs, and not come up with ex post facto reasons to obstruct. And I DO remember making that abundantly clear during the Kavanaugh hearings.

[time4fun]

I haven't checked but was that in writing? or from her own lips not hearsey?


It was dictated to her grand daughter. If McConnell honored her dying wish, he could keep from tearing this country apart.

But he won't do that. And a lifetime of public service and inspiring generations of young women to shatter the glass ceiling is going to be desecrated.

And it really will tear us apart.

[Tgo01]

It was dictated to her grand daughter. If McConnell honored her dying wish, he could keep from tearing this country apart.

Why should he "honor her dying wish"?

I don't recall anywhere in the constitution which states "If a supreme court justice says they want a new president to replace them then this must be honored."

Also let's stop with the fuckery already. We have been hearing for years from people such as yourself that Trump and Republicans are "tearing this country apart" and it's been pretty obvious who is doing the tearing, and it sure as shit ain't Trump or the Republicans.

[kutter]

How can anyone even know if she really said that to her granddaughter? In addition to that, Clara Spera's politics are very left leaning so it sounds exactly like a thing someone would say to throw a wrench in the works.

[Neveragain]

It was dictated to her grand daughter. If McConnell honored her dying wish, he could keep from tearing this country apart.

But he won't do that. And a lifetime of public service and inspiring generations of young women to shatter the glass ceiling is going to be desecrated.

And it really will tear us apart.

Oh, piss off with this nonsense. You sound like a fucking child.

[Tgo01]

How can anyone even know if she really said that to her granddaughter?

Yeah personally I'm calling bullshit. I wouldn't put it past her granddaughter to dishonor the memory of her grandmother to push petty politics. It just seems a little too convenient to the Democrat narrative.

But of course I'm sure the narrative that has already been crafted is that if you question her granddaughter then you're a racist, sexist, conspiracy theorist Nazi.

[Tgo01]

Trump upon first hearing the news that Ginsburg died:

https://twitter.com/YahooNews/status/1307127173644537857?s=20


She just died? Wow. I didn't know that, you're telling me now for the first time.

She led an amazing life. What else can you say? She was an amazing woman, whether you agreed or not, she was an amazing woman who led an amazing life. I'm sad to hear that.

Let's contrast that with Schumer's first response upon hearing the news:


The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.

But remember it's Trump and Republicans who are heartless people and are tearing this country apart. Christ. The mental gymnastics you people go through is nothing short of disgusting at this point.

[drauz]

I honestly don't care what her dying wish is.

That being said I do hope it doesn't get filled till after the elections.

[Methais]

This is sad. Given her health issues and age it was kind of expected, but at the same time she was fighting like a champ until the end so it was also kind of surprising.

I don't think I have agreed with her on a single issue but it's still sad to see. She never struck me as evil like a lot of people in politics clearly are today, she was just misguided. May she rest in peace.

As if 2020 couldn't get worse, imagine the absolute cluster fuck both if Trump and Senate Republicans try to fill her seat before the elections and if they don't and instead it will be yet another campaign issue for both sides.

Thanks to Harry Reid, it will almost definitely be filled before the election.

[Methais]

Trump has a list he just added to and revised, and Graham and McConnell have both said any vacancies this year would absolutely be filled, so you can pretty much guarantee it will be filled. And they will be sure to fil it with an old, bitter, unscrupulous white man that is just like them. Chances are, it'll be someone who Trump has dirt on as I'm sure they've learned their lesson from Roberts with the handful of times he's gone against their regime. This is how politics works, because it's how you "win". Trump isn't any different in spite of you liking to think he "isn't a politician". :sucker:

https://media.tenor.com/images/e96be627101c6efc84181d2140a85682/tenor.gif

[Parkbandit]

Not really, no. I think this is the only time I've mentioned it, aside from a few jokes in a Scalia topic years ago. I'm a little irritated at the hypocrisy on display here, but that's nothing new. If you want to drop the 'lol you mad' psychic vampire LARP we can have an actual discussion.

And that's the rub.. you only have a problem with the hypocrisy you don't align with.

[Tgo01]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiQJ1r0WAAEg33V?format=png&name=small

[Parkbandit]

It was dictated to her grand daughter. If McConnell honored her dying wish, he could keep from tearing this country apart.

But he won't do that. And a lifetime of public service and inspiring generations of young women to shatter the glass ceiling is going to be desecrated.

And it really will tear us apart.

You do realize there isn't some magical rule pertaining to dying wishes, right?

Imagine that as your dying wish... not that you loved someone or wanted world peace or something profound.. just "Don't replace me until the next election!"

Sounds like bullshit to me.. I'm not surprised at all that you are there gobbling it up and hoping it's used as a tool to advance your political agenda.

[Parkbandit]

Oh, piss off with this nonsense. You sound like a fucking child.

Exactly this.

"IF I DON'T GET MY WAY I'M GOING TO THROW A HISSY FIT!" - Andraste 2020

[Parkbandit]

Thanks to Harry Reid, it will almost definitely be filled before the election.

Eh, I'm not so sure. I honestly don't believe there is enough time to do this.

BUT, if Trump loses the election, I can guarantee you he will do it between the election and Inauguration Day... which would make it even more funny... because he wanted to respect Ginsburg "dying wish".

https://media2.giphy.com/media/H7jAZip9RWQr6/source.gif

[Methais]

Leave it to me to foresee the consequences that you have all missed.

All Republican Senate candidates in close races will have to answer before the election whether or not they will vote for a replacement nominated by Trump if Trump is not reelected. In some states, especially Maine, the answer to that question may determine the outcome of the Senate race.

Nominating someone before the election will be risky for Trump. The safer course would be to promise that he will appoint someone great but that he will wait until after the election so as not to politicize it. Promising a great judicial nominee is a lot easier than finding one, sort of like how promising a great health plan is easier than revealing one.

If Trump nominates someone before the election and if it appears likely that the Senate will confirm the nominee, then Trump will suffer electorally among conservatives who approve of the nominee. "What!?" I hear you asking through the computer screen. Allow me to explain. Another conservative Supreme Court judge would give conservatives a 6-3 margin on the court. Without the pressing need for a Supreme Court majority, religious conservatives who support Trump solely to regain the court will be relieved that they will not have to vote for a candidate they loathe.

I am not predicting the following, but it would not surprise me. Realizing the above, Trump might announce that he will nominate someone great if he is reelected but that he will not nominate anyone after the election if he is not reelected.

It will take the experts several days to think through it to reach the same conclusions.

This whole election is going to be about turnout. 99.99999999999% of people who are voting have likely already made up their minds who they're voting for, or at least who they're voting against.

[Methais]

There are a few things in motion right now, and for some of them it's pretty clear where things are headed while for others it's wild cards.


Dems will be fired up. Republicans will be fired up. Independents will likely start breaking for Democrats as they don't like it when one party has too much power.
This will fire up Democrats, but candidly this tends to be motivating to the group that's already definitely going to vote no matter what. This will fire up Trump supporters, and that will matter. It will grab him a few points from Evangelicals who had started to soften a bit on him. Independents in the US genuinely dislike when one party appears to have too much power, and they tend to break heavily for the other party in those cases, and it's very likely that we'll see that play out here. But these groups don't show up in equal proportions around the country, so it's really unclear what the overall thrust of this will be.

Collins and Gardener went from almost assuredly toast to the walking dead.
As far as the Senate goes, Collins and Gardener just saw their slim chances of holding on evaporate. Regardless, they'll want to try to hold on so they won't be voting to push a nomination process forward before the election. McConnell won't try anyway.

McSally is probably still going to lose (and that really matters)
If McSally were anyone other than herself, this would likely mean that she would coast to re-election. But she's not, and Kelly has a huge lead right now. She only has a GOP defection rate of about 5-6%, which isn't much to work with here, and she's getting slaughtered with independents already- who are likely to be even more skeptical of her after this. But it's AZ, so you never know for sure.

Tillis should thank his lucky stars
Tillis likely just got the hail mary he's been praying for. At minimum, this will likely take his race from most likely out of the running to legitimately neck and neck. He was missing about 20% of the GOP vote in North Carolina. They'll likely find their way back home after this.

Kelly may throw a massive wrench into everything for McConnell if he wins
Arizona is the single most important race, however. If Kelly wins he can be sworn into the Senate as early as Nov 30th since he would be replacing McCain's replacement. It would be his job to carry out the rest of McCain's term. At that point in time, the Senate is at a 52-48 split. Murkowski and Collins are not likely to vote for anyone Trump nominates this time. Collins will be on her way out and likely won't want this to be her legacy. And Murkowski has enough cover with the Garland situation. That puts the votes 50-50.

Cory Gardener may be the next John McCain...or just the next Collins.
At that point in time, you just need one Cory Gardener- who loathes Donald Trump and who will be on his way out the door- to decide if he wants to vote his party or his conscience.

McConnell almost assuredly retains his position next year now.

Shut up Andraste nobody reads your stupid.

[Methais]

In fairness- she had one dying wish.

And it centered around filling her seat.

I think it's okay to talk about that.

In fairness, everyone knows that you're Andraste and can see you bending over backwards to try and ignore being called out for it. Again. Just like when you were posting as Caramia and telling everyone that flat belly avatar was you in real life while cunting it up all over the forums. :lol:

This also means everything you've ever claimed about yourself, like your 4487920237932 PhDs and whatnot, are all bullshit. Not that that's news to anyone though, as Andraste (you) has been a boil on the ass of GS for decades now and a pathological liar all around.

[Tgo01]

Trump is going for it:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1307321159113936896?s=20


.@GOP
We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!

[Methais]

Not really, no. I think this is the only time I've mentioned it, aside from a few jokes in a Scalia topic years ago. I'm a little irritated at the hypocrisy on display here, but that's nothing new. If you want to drop the 'lol you mad' psychic vampire LARP we can have an actual discussion.



He can always nominate someone. I just want the legislative body that we elected and paid for to actually do their jobs, and not come up with ex post facto reasons to obstruct. And I DO remember making that abundantly clear during the Kavanaugh hearings.

Just remember, if the Senate confirms a new justice, Harry Reid made this possible.

[~Rocktar~]

She should have retired long ago under Obama but her shelfish pride would not let her. Maybe we can get another constitutional conservative and put the brakes on the activist court bullshit.

Oooo, the whiny leftists didn't like this post. Well, fuck off. Her arrogant ego wouldn't let her retire, her judicial activism is part of why we have the phrase "legislate from the bench" and we need an conservative focused on the constitution says and means, not what people want it to say to help bring us back from the brink of oblivion.

Hopefully we can come back from the precipice of the leftist cliff without even more violence and a real civil war. I am not confident it's possible much to my deep sorrow.

[~Rocktar~]

Just remember, if the Senate confirms a new justice, Harry Reid made this possible.

This.

[drauz]

Oooo, the whiny leftists didn't like this post. Well, fuck off. Her arrogant ego wouldn't let her retire, her judicial activism is part of why we have the phrase "legislate from the bench" and we need an conservative focused on the constitution says and means, not what people want it to say to help bring us back from the brink of oblivion.

Hopefully we can come back from the precipice of the leftist cliff without even more violence and a real civil war. I am not confident it's possible much to my deep sorrow.

I just said it was a piece of shit thing to say and I stand by that. I mean you couldn't even be bothered to spell your insult right.

[Methais]

Trump is going for it:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1307321159113936896?s=20

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiSM9ZFWsAI4jKP?format=jpg&name=large

So peaceful.

[Fortybox]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiSM9ZFWsAI4jKP?format=jpg&name=large

So peaceful.

Chances of civil war just went up big time.

[~Rocktar~]

I just said it was a piece of shit thing to say and I stand by that. I mean you couldn't even be bothered to spell your insult right.

Oh no, it's the grammar police.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1001856372240191488/wnj9vrp5.jpg

[drauz]

Oh no, it's the grammar police.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1001856372240191488/wnj9vrp5.jpg

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ActiveEquatorialKob-small.gif

[time4fun]

This.

Actually no he didn't. The changes in 2013 explicitly included a Supreme Court exemption.

McConnel is the one who removed the 60 vote threshold for Supreme Court justices.

As usual, you're just rolling in misinformation.

[time4fun]

As a reminder- Ginsburg wrote the brief in Reed vs Reed that finally earned women equal protection under the 14th amendment. So your wives, your sisters, your daughters, your nieces...only have even hypothetical equal rights to men BECAUSE OF Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Because as it turns out, a bunch of white property- and slave-owning men from the 1700s didn't really write their laws with any of the rest of us in mind.

And if you want to call that Judicial Activism- go for it. The rest of us call it progress and basic human dignity. And you and your families owe this woman an extraordinary debt and profound respect.

[Parkbandit]

As a reminder- Ginsburg wrote the brief in Reed vs Reed that finally earned women equal protection under the 14th amendment. So your wives, your sisters, your daughters, your nieces...only have even hypothetical equal rights to men BECAUSE OF Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Because as it turns out, a bunch of white property- and slave-owning men from the 1700s didn't really write their laws with any of the rest of us in mind.

And if you want to call that Judicial Activism- go for it. The rest of us call it progress and basic human dignity. And you and your families owe this woman an extraordinary debt and profound respect.

For a white, liberal Democrat, you sure do seem to have a lot of self hatred going on.

If I lived in your shoes, I would probably be a self hater too..

[Methais]

As a reminder- I am Andraste.

This is correct.

[Tgo01]

Actually no he didn't. The changes in 2013 explicitly included a Supreme Court exemption.

McConnel is the one who removed the 60 vote threshold for Supreme Court justices.

No fucking shit. Reid is the one who started the dismantling of the 60 votes. Pull your head out of your ass and start making sense for once.

[Tgo01]

As a reminder- Ginsburg wrote the brief in Reed vs Reed that finally earned women equal protection under the 14th amendment. So your wives, your sisters, your daughters, your nieces...only have even hypothetical equal rights to men BECAUSE OF Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Yet strangely enough women to this day still don't have to sign up for the draft.

They also get much more lenient prison sentences and their maximum security prisons are like summer camps compared to male maximum security prisons. Let's not forget that when it comes to custody battles the baseline is the woman will get full custody and the father has to practically prove the mother is a drug addicted who burns her children with matches, and even then it's a toss up as to who will get custody.

So weird that I never hear people such as you complain about these things.

[Parkbandit]

Folks, there's a vacancy on the damn Court. It doesn't matter who is President, when the next election year is, what the damn weather is like, or who wins the Super bowl. The government does not function if we don't keep it staffed- especially in the highest level of the Judiciary.

[Stanley Burrell]

I hope we get a real paradigm-shifting black swan motherfucker. Like Clarence Thomas. Or a Clarence Thomas clone.

(Sorry, I have a weird obsession with how in the fuck he exists.)

I think I would do O.K.

That being said, RIP RBG. You were a real fighter. Aside from that I don't know too much about what you did. Sorry.

[Methais]

Folks, there's a vacancy on the damn Court. It doesn't matter who is President, when the next election year is, what the damn weather is like, or who wins the Super bowl. The government does not function if we don't keep it staffed- especially in the highest level of the Judiciary.

But what about Andraste's feelings?????????????

[Methais]

Actually no he didn't. The changes in 2013 explicitly included a Supreme Court exemption.

McConnel is the one who removed the 60 vote threshold for Supreme Court justices.

As usual, you're just rolling in misinformation.

Shut up Andraste, you're literally the embodiment of lies and misinformation.

And cunting.

[Tgo01]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiS2ktDWAAY4_wK?format=jpg&name=medium

You Democrats should probably stop arguing with Obama, unless you are openly admitting you are a racist.

[drauz]

The government does not function if we don't keep it staffed- especially in the highest level of the Judiciary.

How about election officials during an election year?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-20/fec-paralyzed-by-vacancies-as-2020-presidential-election-nears

[Parkbandit]

How about election officials during an election year?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-20/fec-paralyzed-by-vacancies-as-2020-presidential-election-nears

I can't read it because I don't pay for Bloomberg... but let me guess.. B-b-b-but TRUMP!

[Methais]

I can't read it because I don't pay for Bloomberg... but let me guess.. B-b-b-but TRUMP!

A well timed press of the ESC key while the page is loading will fuck over the paywall.


Editorial Board
The Federal Election Commission Needs Commissioners
An agency that was already weak is now paralyzed by vacancies.

What’s to be done about the Federal Election Commission?

Commissioner Matthew S. Petersen, who joined the FEC in 2008, recently resigned. His departure further depletes the commission, which is supposed to have six members but is now down to three, all of whom are on “holdover status” because their terms expired long ago.

The FEC requires four members for a quorum, so it’s now unable to determine whether laws have been violated or to impose fines for transgressions. It was already in retreat. From 1999 to 2008, the FEC levied $33.6 million (inflation-adjusted) in fines for campaign finance violations. From 2009 to 2018, as partisan gridlock on the commission grew more intense, the fines declined to less than $12 million, according to the Campaign Legal Center, a pro-regulation advocacy group. The decline occurred despite both soaring campaign spending and the advent of ever dodgier ways of deploying money.

Inertia is powerful at the FEC, even when it’s fully staffed. No more than three commissioners may be from the same political party, which in practice has produced a great many 3-3 stalemates between Democratic and Republican members. Recently, the stalemates have been rendered 2-2, as when the commission gridlocked over an investigation into links between the National Rifle Association, a prodigious campaign spender, and Russian nationals. Without consensus, the investigation was shelved.

The FEC is weak by design. Congress didn’t want an aggressive cop on the campaign beat, and some of its reasons were democratically sound, if also self-serving. Elections, after all, should be decided by voters, not regulatory bureaucracies.

More from
Let’s Appreciate Justice Ginsburg Before We Fight Over Replacing Her
An NRA ‘Tell-All’ Is a Dishonest Read
What Does QAnon Stand For?
Now Is Not the Time to Buy a New House
Still, the rules must be enforced if elections are to be fair — and seen to be fair. With the 2020 election fast approaching, it’s an inauspicious moment to disable the federal election watchdog — especially when the president’s personal lawyer is already busy soliciting campaign help from a foreign government and the U.S. attorney general has publicly equivocated about whether it’s improper for agents of hostile foreign nations to provide political dirt to U.S. campaigns.

The FEC continues to do vital work in processing, and disclosing, financial reports from campaigns and political committees, including the campaigns of Democratic candidates for president. Normally, it engages in rule-making, issues advisory opinions and offers advice to campaigns seeking to function within the law. But to perform such tasks, the commission needs commissioners.

In 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Texas lawyer James “Trey” Trainor III to serve on the FEC. The nomination went nowhere. Trump resubmitted it this year, but the Senate, which is not known to be overburdened by legislation, has not held a confirmation hearing.

The president should pick a full slate of new commissioners: three Democrats and three Republicans, chosen with careful input from senators of both parties. If that’s too much efficiency to ask of a haphazard White House, then add the FEC to the list of repairs facing the next president and the next Senate. With luck — and, let’s hope, a fair election — they’ll address it.

[drauz]

I can't read it because I don't pay for Bloomberg... but let me guess.. B-b-b-but TRUMP!

https://i.imgur.com/Q6k2lP0.gif

[Ashliana]

Folks, there's a vacancy on the damn Court. It doesn't matter who is President, when the next election year is, what the damn weather is like, or who wins the Super bowl. The government does not function if we don't keep it staffed- especially in the highest level of the Judiciary.

How interesting. Let's see how your 2016 self holds up to 2020.

https://i.imgur.com/hlrWKwV.png

https://i.imgur.com/uLfQtVg.png

Not to mention that McConnell's prime strategy throughout Obama's tenure was keeping the judiciary empty, and Trump currently has failed to nominate enough of his own candidates to the Federal Election Commission to give them a quorum and allow them to operate. And more than a dozen of own appointees are "acting" officials in violation of the law (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/08/14/top-dhs-officials-wolf-cuccinelli-are-not-legally-eligible-serve-their-current-roles-congressional-watchdog-agency-finds/).

Nobody ever expected intellectual consistency out of you. A shameless hypocrite to the core, like everybody already knew. Never let reality get in the way of a good, retarded right-wing narrative though, right?

[Methais]

How interesting. Let's see how your 2016 self holds up to 2020.

https://i.imgur.com/hlrWKwV.png

https://i.imgur.com/uLfQtVg.png

Not to mention that McConnell's prime strategy throughout Obama's tenure was keeping the judiciary empty, and Trump currently has failed to nominate enough of his own candidates to the Federal Election Commission to give them a quorum and allow them to operate. And more than a dozen of own appointees are "acting" officials in violation of the law (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/08/14/top-dhs-officials-wolf-cuccinelli-are-not-legally-eligible-serve-their-current-roles-congressional-watchdog-agency-finds/).

Nobody ever expected intellectual consistency out of you. A shameless hypocrite to the core, like everybody already knew. Never let reality get in the way of a good, retarded right-wing narrative though, right?

Let's check with the big guy again though from 2016:

https://i.imgur.com/yeec5z5.png

[Parkbandit]

How interesting. Let's see how your 2016 self holds up to 2020.

https://i.imgur.com/hlrWKwV.png

https://i.imgur.com/uLfQtVg.png

Not to mention that McConnell's prime strategy throughout Obama's tenure was keeping the judiciary empty, and Trump currently has failed to nominate enough of his own candidates to the Federal Election Commission to give them a quorum and allow them to operate. And more than a dozen of own appointees are "acting" officials in violation of the law (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/08/14/top-dhs-officials-wolf-cuccinelli-are-not-legally-eligible-serve-their-current-roles-congressional-watchdog-agency-finds/).

Nobody ever expected intellectual consistency out of you. A shameless hypocrite to the core, like everybody already knew. Never let reality get in the way of a good, retarded right-wing narrative though, right?

There is nothing inconsistent at all in what I said.

Let me guess... you were all for Obama getting his nominee pushed through but you are against Trump? Isn't that hypocritical on your part?

[Ashliana]

There is nothing inconsistent at all in what I said.

Looking at a picture of a blue sky and declaring "That's purple!" doesn't make the sky purple: it reveals you either as a liar or an imbecile, both of which are true in your case.



Let me guess... you were all for Obama getting his nominee pushed through but you are against Trump? Isn't that hypocritical on your part?

Ah, the part where right after bullshitting, you hope for a serious response. Nope, PB, if you want to examine my past statements, you'll have to do the work like I did.

Even taking your argument at face value: Scalia died 264 days before an election, and the right-wing's response was "welp, there's an election this year, so it really wouldn't be fair, let's establish this new precedent...." Now, RGB died 46 days before an election, and the right-wing's response is "welp, them's the breaks, and the precedent we established doesn't mean anything."

You don't have a consistent argument. That's totally fine: You can argue "politics is dirty, and one should do everything they can to win." But spare everyone the indignant "but the Judiciary must be at capacity at all times, especially the Supreme Court!" routine when you're already on record hoping for delays. Intellectual dishonesty is already the defining trait of the Trump-era Republican.

[Parkbandit]

Looking at a picture of a blue sky and declaring "That's purple!" doesn't make the sky purple: it reveals you either as a liar or an imbecile, both of which are true in your case.

The first screenshot you posted was factual.. I gave no opinion in it at all. The 2nd was me saying what I would do if I were McConnell. True, I was all for them obstructing the Obama nominee of Garland.

There is a huge difference in the 2 scenarios though: which party has control of the Senate. Democrats didn't have control when Obama was in office... Republicans do when Trump is in office.


Ah, the part where right after bullshitting, you hope for a serious response. Nope, PB, if you want to examine my past statements, you'll have to do the work like I did.

I'm sure you've already scrubbed it for your "AHAHA! I GOT HIM THIS TIME" moment... ala Kiephre or however you spell one of your many alt accounts here.


Even taking your argument at face value: Scalia died 264 days before an election, and the right-wing's response was "welp, there's an election this year, so it really wouldn't be fair, let's establish this new precedent...." Now, RGB died 46 days before an election, and the right-wing's response is "welp, them's the breaks, and the precedent we established doesn't mean anything."

I'm surprised you didn't bring up "dying wish" as your reasoning... but went with number of days? What the fuck does that even matter? Do you not believe a President could nominate someone and have a vote in the Senate in 46 days?


You don't have a consistent argument. That's totally fine: You can argue "politics is dirty, and one should do everything they can to win." But spare everyone the indignant "but the Judiciary must be at capacity at all times, especially the Supreme Court!" routine when you're already on record hoping for delays. Intellectual dishonesty is already the defining trait of the Trump-era Republican.

If you only knew... but hold on a bit and I'll clue you in...

[Ashliana]

The first screenshot you posted was factual.. I gave no opinion in it at all. The 2nd was me saying what I would do if I were McConnell. True, I was all for them obstructing the Obama nominee of Garland.

There is a huge difference in the 2 scenarios though: which party has control of the Senate. Democrats didn't have control when Obama was in office... Republicans do when Trump is in office.



I'm sure you've already scrubbed it for your "AHAHA! I GOT HIM THIS TIME" moment... ala Kiephre or however you spell one of your many alt accounts here.



I'm surprised you didn't bring up "dying wish" as your reasoning... but went with number of days? What the fuck does that even matter? Do you not believe a President could nominate someone and have a vote in the Senate in 46 days?



If you only knew... but hold on a bit and I'll clue you in...

It's okay. You're fine with being the PC's village idiot, a role you relish and proudly embrace. You've modeled yourself after the dishonesty that, again, defines the Trump era Republican. You can drop the "but I have a principled position!" charade.

[Parkbandit]

It's okay. You're fine with being the PC's village idiot, a role you relish and proudly embrace. You've modeled yourself after the dishonesty that, again, defines the Trump era Republican. You can drop the "but I have a principled position!" charade.

I've never said I was unbiased or anything of the sort. Sorry all your hard work trying to catch me failed.

Poor thing.

[Methais]

Looking at a picture of a blue sky and declaring "That's purple!" doesn't make the sky purple: it reveals you either as a liar or an imbecile, both of which are true in your case.



Ah, the part where right after bullshitting, you hope for a serious response. Nope, PB, if you want to examine my past statements, you'll have to do the work like I did.

Even taking your argument at face value: Scalia died 264 days before an election, and the right-wing's response was "welp, there's an election this year, so it really wouldn't be fair, let's establish this new precedent...." Now, RGB died 46 days before an election, and the right-wing's response is "welp, them's the breaks, and the precedent we established doesn't mean anything."

You don't have a consistent argument. That's totally fine: You can argue "politics is dirty, and one should do everything they can to win." But spare everyone the indignant "but the Judiciary must be at capacity at all times, especially the Supreme Court!" routine when you're already on record hoping for delays. Intellectual dishonesty is already the defining trait of the Trump-era Republican.

I'm gonna need you to explain the lack of bold italics and underlines.

This happened last time you posted too, and it's just not right.

Explain yourself immediately. Or else reported. And backtraced.

https://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Backtraced+it+i+regret+nothing_2217d1_4030981.jpg

[Methais]

Here’s RBG in 2016 being upset over the Senate not confirming Garland:


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html


Asked if the Senate had an obligation to assess Judge Garland’s qualifications, her answer was immediate.

“That’s their job,” she said. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

[Candor]

I say nominate and confirm a conservative Justice to the Supreme Court by Election day. Let the Democrats scream all they want, but make it happen.

[~Rocktar~]

I say nominate and confirm a conservative Justice to the Supreme Court by Election day. Let the Democrats scream all they want, but make it happen.

I agree, and we need to be ready for the civil war to come as well because with the twitter storm of threats and so on, they sure seem to want it.

[Parkbandit]

I agree, and we need to be ready for the civil war to come as well because with the twitter storm of threats and so on, they sure seem to want it.

OH NOEZ! THEY ARE GOING TO TYPE OUT A MEAN WORDED INSULT ON TWITTER!

[Candor]

I agree, and we need to be ready for the civil war to come as well because with the twitter storm of threats and so on, they sure seem to want it.

When Trump gets reelected and the liberals get over their crying fits, some of them are going to be fighting mad. There will be riots, violence, and destruction. Trump will have to call out the National Guard in large numbers to a stop to it. If there is a new conservative Supreme Court justice as well, things will be worse.

The question I keep wondering is...what happens afterwards...

[Solkern]

When Trump gets reelected

You write it, like it’s a foregone conclusion. Do you want to throw $100 down on it?

[Solkern]

I just say, nominate a fucking judge and vote. All because a judge leans conservative or liberal, doesn’t mean they always vote that way.
If I remember right, one of Trump’s appointed judges voted with the liberals recently right?

[Parkbandit]

When Trump gets reelected and the liberals get over their crying fits, some of them are going to be fighting mad. There will be riots, violence, and destruction. Trump will have to call out the National Guard in large numbers to a stop to it. If there is a new conservative Supreme Court justice as well, things will be worse.

The question I keep wondering is...what happens afterwards...

They only riot in Democrat controlled cesspools... why is that? Because they know the mayor will just be "Oh it's peaceful protesting and it's their right!" and not send in some people with guns to put it down and end it.

Try doing that in a city with a mayor/governor who's not a limp wristed liberal and see how long it'll last.

And there also won't be a Presidential election coming up.. so whoever's bankrolling these "riots" won't be spending the money for another 4 years.

[Fortybox]

They only riot in Democrat controlled cesspools... why is that? Because they know the mayor will just be "Oh it's peaceful protesting and it's their right!" and not send in some people with guns to put it down and end it.

Try doing that in a city with a mayor/governor who's not a limp wristed liberal and see how long it'll last.

And there also won't be a Presidential election coming up.. so whoever's bankrolling these "riots" won't be spending the money for another 4 years.

This has the potential of being something bigger though.

[Parkbandit]

This has the potential of being something bigger though.

If it is, they are overplaying their hand.

[Fortybox]

If it is, they are overplaying their hand.

Of course they do. They are all about the party of peace until they don't get their way. Then it's violence and vengeance to force compliance into their way of thinking.

[kutter]

Of course they do. They are all about the party of peace until they don't get their way. Then it's violence and vengeance to force compliance into their way of thinking.

They need to be careful what they wish for, I am reminded of the quote, which cannot really be attributed to anyone directly but says, People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf, and there are rough men ready to do violence if some seek to destroy what has been built in this great experiment.

Now some are going to inevitably say, "but we have problems that need to be addressed', and while that me be true, you do not throw the baby out with the bathwater; if you want me to empathize with your cause, destroying private and public property is probably not the best way to start.

Here is another thing someone on the left needs to explain to me, if all law enforcement is evil because of a very small percentage of bad apples? Why aren't all protesters criminals because of a small percentage making trouble? Just a thought.

[Parkbandit]

Of course they do. They are all about the party of peace until they don't get their way. Then it's violence and vengeance to force compliance into their way of thinking.

I've never been more ready to pull the lever for Trump. Hopefully, Trump wins and we get to see what these beta cucks will do...

[Parkbandit]

They need to be careful what they wish for, I am reminded of the quote, which cannot really be attributed to anyone directly but says, People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf, and there are rough men ready to do violence if some seek to destroy what has been built in this great experiment.

Now some are going to inevitably say, "but we have problems that need to be addressed', and while that me be true, you do not throw the baby out with the bathwater; if you want me to empathize with your cause, destroying private and public property is probably not the best way to start.

Here is another thing someone on the left needs to explain to me, if all law enforcement is evil because of a very small percentage of bad apples? Why aren't all protesters criminals because of a small percentage making trouble? Just a thought.

I have their answer: "YOU'RE A RACIST!"

I can't believe they believe that still works.... given that they side with literally the Party of slavery and the KKK...

[Solkern]

Quite interesting.


2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Mitch McConnell, March 2016


My question, why the flip all of a sudden?

[Parkbandit]

Quite interesting.


2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Mitch McConnell, March 2016


My question, why the flip all of a sudden?

You worked so hard on this..

Now, do the same exact thing with Democrat quotes in 2016 and then see if you can figure this dumb question out on your own.

I have faith that even someone as "special" as you can do this, given enough time and coaxing.

We're all rooting for you!

[kutter]

Quite interesting.


2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Mitch McConnell, March 2016


My question, why the flip all of a sudden?

"To the victor belong the spoils" - New York Senator William L. Marcy

[BriarFox]

"To the victor belong the spoils" - New York Senator William L. Marcy

At least this is an honest statement. All the inconsistency stuff is and always has been secondary justifications.

[Solkern]

You worked so hard on this..

Now, do the same exact thing with Democrat quotes in 2016 and then see if you can figure this dumb question out on your own.

I have faith that even someone as "special" as you can do this, given enough time and coaxing.

We're all rooting for you!

Copy and pasting from Facebook, extremely difficult, well for you yeah, for a non retard, quite easy.
Keep trying cupcake.

And I love how you failed to answer, and instead you deflect and blame others for the republicans own words, did another whataboutism, BUT BUT BUT THE DEMOCRATS!! Then tried to throw an insult and failed.

No wonder, the constant green rep I get is 80% PB is the biggest fucking idiot on these forums. You continuously prove that the rep is correct. You get a pink princess sticker.

[kutter]

At least this is an honest statement. All the inconsistency stuff is and always has been secondary justifications.

I thought McConnell handled the Garland thing all wrong, I believed he should have let hearings proceed, let them go on for a long time, then simply vote and not accept him then let the clock run out on Obama but I think he wanted to thumb his nose at the Dems. It feels good to do stuff like that, but there is often a price to pay.

[Parkbandit]

Copy and pasting from Facebook, extremely difficult, well for you yeah, for a non retard, quite easy.
Keep trying cupcake.

Yea.. after I gave credit for you doing it.. I was like "no way he could have done that".


And I love how you failed to answer, and instead you deflect and blame others for the republicans own words, did another whataboutism, BUT BUT BUT THE DEMOCRATS!! Then tried to throw an insult and failed.

I also gave you credit for being able to figure out an answer to your retarded question. Did you even bother asking someone for help to get you some Democrat quotes from 2016 when this exact same thing happened and what they were saying then compared to now?

Are you really not understanding it? Let me know if you are still puzzled... because quite honestly, you might be the only one here that is.


No wonder, the constant green rep I get is 80% PB is the biggest fucking idiot on these forums. You continuously prove that the rep is correct. You get a pink princess sticker.

I'm just going to chalk this stupidity up to you being as confused about simple math as you are everything else.

[Parkbandit]

I thought McConnell handled the Garland thing all wrong, I believed he should have let hearings proceed, let them go on for a long time, then simply vote and not accept him then let the clock run out on Obama but I think he wanted to thumb his nose at the Dems. It feels good to do stuff like that, but there is often a price to pay.

What's the price he's paying though? Dems are upset? Big fucking deal... most Democrats are miserable people who want everyone around them to be as miserable as they are.

If you believe that the Dems wouldn't do the same exact thing if the tables were turned.. I have some swampland in Florida to sell you.

[Solkern]

Yea.. after I gave credit for you doing it.. I was like "no way he could have done that".



I also gave you credit for being able to figure out an answer to your retarded question. Did you even bother asking someone for help to get you some Democrat quotes from 2016 when this exact same thing happened and what they were saying then compared to now?

Like I care about you giving me credit? Lol that ego. Who gives a shit what the Dems said? I quoted Republicans on their words, and asked why they are flipping? Your response? BECAUSE OF THE DEMOCRATS!!!! Did they put a gun to the republicans and force them to say these words? Nope, they didn’t. Stop trying to blame everything on the Dems. That’s the only response you can ever give. BUT BUT BUT THE DEMS!! Your one skill at life? You’re good at whataboutisms.


You simply can’t answer the question, you spent two posts blaming the Dems and everyone else.

Let me ask again, multiple Republicans said “you should not nominate and vote on a Supreme Court justice during an election year”, one even said, I would say this to a Republican president. Multiple said it hasn’t been done in 80 years!! Yet here they are, doing what they said shouldn’t happen. So why the flip?


Personally I don’t give two fucks if they nominate and vote, I’m curious on why they flipped their stance.

Let me guess THE DEMS WANTED TO DO WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING NOW!!
That fucking shit doesn’t matter. The republicans are doing what they stopped the democrats from doing.

[time4fun]

I thought McConnell handled the Garland thing all wrong, I believed he should have let hearings proceed, let them go on for a long time, then simply vote and not accept him then let the clock run out on Obama but I think he wanted to thumb his nose at the Dems. It feels good to do stuff like that, but there is often a price to pay.

It's not that. It's part of a concerted conservative strategy of Court packing: it's basically all the Senate has accomplished in the last 4 years. It's not even properly responding to things like COVID because McConnell is too busy reshaping the Courts. It's one of the ways a minority party can stay in power. It's how Poland and Hungary's right wing parties managed to stay entrenched in power. Same with Putin.

The funny thing is, Republicans run around screaming about "judicial activism" while they've spent the last 4 years installing incredibly right wing ideologues who, in many cases, don't actually have the qualifications for the jobs. They're there because they can be trusted to ignore the law and precedent and make rulings on personal opinions.

Kind of like how Republicans run around screaming about voter fraud while they're systematically targeting groups who don't generally vote for them to take away their ability to cast votes. They've closed countless voting stations in minority and urban areas, enacted voter ID laws that restricted the number of acceptable IDs (in their favor), tried to do away with early voting and Sunday voting (Souls to the Polls is bad for business), and they engage in endless litigation to try to make voting harder, not easier. And now Trump is literally telling people to vote twice.

And like how Republicans scream about Free Speech and then call people who protest "terrorists", support a President who uses force against peaceful protesters, smile and nod while he deploys military assets on the ground to intimidate protesters, and clap their hands as he tries to retaliate against tech companies because they aren't giving priority to articles that say good things about him and his administration.

Or how they scream about media bias and then restrict themselves *only* to heavily partisan, conservative news outlets. Non-partisan outlets? Must be secretly partisan. Fact checkers? Must be secretly partisan. Fox News? Totally fair and balanced.

Generally speaking, take stock of what Republicans are screaming about. It's usually what they're busy doing.

[kutter]

What's the price he's paying though? Dems are upset? Big fucking deal... most Democrats are miserable people who want everyone around them to be as miserable as they are.

If you believe that the Dems wouldn't do the same exact thing if the tables were turned.. I have some swampland in Florida to sell you.

Its not the Dems he has to worry about, it is the Republicans like Murkowsky and Collins that are more centrist and Kerry that just hates Trump enough to vote against a staunch conservative just because. If any of the other never Trumpers in the senate decide to vote against their constituents wishes, and they will be since Trump will undoubtedly nominate a clear conservative, then they cannot pass it. The simple fact of the matter, there was no need for a victory lap, and a lot of reason to not do one. If he had not it would not have put some of the Senators into a position now where they either follow the party line or are forced to recant a previous statement.

[Parkbandit]

Like I care about you giving me credit? Lol that ego. Who gives a shit what the Dems said? I quoted Republicans on their words, and asked why they are flipping? Your response? BECAUSE OF THE DEMOCRATS!!!! Did they put a gun to the republicans and force them to say these words? Nope, they didn’t. Stop trying to blame everything on the Dems. That’s the only response you can ever give. BUT BUT BUT THE DEMS!! Your one skill at life? You’re good at whataboutisms.

You simply can’t answer the question, you spent two posts blaming the Dems and everyone else.

Let me ask again, multiple Republicans said “you should not nominate and vote on a Supreme Court justice during an election year”, one even said, I would say this to a Republican president. Multiple said it hasn’t been done in 80 years!! Yet here they are, doing what they said shouldn’t happen. So why the flip?

Personally I don’t give two fucks if they nominate and vote, I’m curious on why they flipped their stance.

Let me guess THE DEMS WANTED TO DO WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING NOW!!
That fucking shit doesn’t matter. The republicans are doing what they stopped the democrats from doing.

You are literally the only person on this message board that is actually confused about this process. Even Andraste who bemoans what is happening doesn't seem confused by the process.. but here's Solkern, retarding the place up with "Why are they flipping their stances!"

It's politics you fucking retard.

[Furryrat]

Of the 179 seats on the 13 circuits of the United States Court of Appeals, including DC and Federal, there are currently 98 (55%) Republican affiliated and 81 (45%) Democrat affiliated justices. Heavily weighted toward circuits of middle America, if discounted, the blue imbalance becomes strikingly more apparent. For example, the Federal Circuit, which can hear any case it so chooses in wide-ranging District Court matters, contains 12 members of which 8 (67%) are Democrats (and 7 of the 8 appointed by Obama) and only 4 (33%) are Republicans. The DC circuit has a similar 7 to 4 imbalance.

This is after Republican "court-packing."

It is terribly unfortunate that a paragon of thought and service such as Justice Ginsburg should meet her finality with the country mired in such bitterness and hatred.

[Parkbandit]

It's not that. It's part of a concerted conservative strategy of Court packing: it's basically all the Senate has accomplished in the last 4 years. It's not even properly responding to things like COVID because McConnell is too busy reshaping the Courts. It's one of the ways a minority party can stay in power. It's how Poland and Hungary's right wing parties managed to stay entrenched in power. Same with Putin.

The funny thing is, Republicans run around screaming about "judicial activism" while they've spent the last 4 years installing incredibly right wing ideologues who, in many cases, don't actually have the qualifications for the jobs. They're there because they can be trusted to ignore the law and precedent and make rulings on personal opinions.

Kind of like how Republicans run around screaming about voter fraud while they're systematically targeting groups who don't generally vote for them to take away their ability to cast votes. They've closed countless voting stations in minority and urban areas, enacted voter ID laws that restricted the number of acceptable IDs (in their favor), tried to do away with early voting and Sunday voting (Souls to the Polls is bad for business), and they engage in endless litigation to try to make voting harder, not easier. And now Trump is literally telling people to vote twice.

And like how Republicans scream about Free Speech and then call people who protest "terrorists", support a President who uses force against peaceful protesters, smile and nod while he deploys military assets on the ground to intimidate protesters, and clap their hands as he tries to retaliate against tech companies because they aren't giving priority to articles that say good things about him and his administration.

Or how they scream about media bias and then restrict themselves *only* to heavily partisan, conservative news outlets. Non-partisan outlets? Must be secretly partisan. Fact checkers? Must be secretly partisan. Fox News? Totally fair and balanced.

Generally speaking, take stock of what Republicans are screaming about. It's usually what they're busy doing.

Jesus... you sound like you are having an absolute and complete meltdown. Are you literally crying when you post nonsense like this?

[audioserf]

I appreciate how naked the Republicans have been about actually wanting to win. The Democrats don't want to hold power or govern. They want to keep the idea that they're the 'good guys' going while maintaining the grift that lines their pockets with big donor money. The GOP being like 'yeah, we didn't want Obama's pick, so we didn't vote, we're for sure voting this time though, lol' is honesty we don't get out of either party, usually.

[Solkern]

You are literally the only person on this message board that is actually confused about this process. Even Andraste who bemoans what is happening doesn't seem confused by the process.. but here's Solkern, retarding the place up with "Why are they flipping their stances!"

It's politics you fucking retard.

Post #3 where Parkbitch still avoids the question, and continues on with his little insults, because well his retarded ass doesn’t have an answer. Aww, are you upset cupcake? PB, you already are the resident forum retard. Don’t try to pass your tiara off to anyone else who’s less worthy than you.

I didn’t think you could get any dumber than the jet lag comment, but damn! You just keep one upping yourself! Carry on!

Republicans are no better than the democrats, just saying/promising whatever they can to get a political victory, than shitting on those same words/promises to get more political victories, and you are here parading around like the republicans are so much better than the democrats. You’re truly a fucking idiot.

The answer was simple, because in politics your words and promises are empty(both parties). That was too difficult for you, instead you had to:
BUT BUT BUT THE DEMOCRATS!!!
Insult insult insult
BUT BUT BUT THE DEMOCRATS!!!
Insult insult insult.

Typical pattern for you.

[Parkbandit]

I appreciate how naked the Republicans have been about actually wanting to win. The Democrats don't want to hold power or govern. They want to keep the idea that they're the 'good guys' going while maintaining the grift that lines their pockets with big donor money. The GOP being like 'yeah, we didn't want Obama's pick, so we didn't vote, we're for sure voting this time though, lol' is honestly we don't get out of either party, usually.

The Democrats most certainly want to hold power and govern... the sensible people of the country just reject their ideas and don't vote for them.

[Parkbandit]

Post #3 where Parkbitch still avoids the question, and continues on with his little insults, because well his retarded ass doesn’t have an answer. Aww, are you upset cupcake? PB, you already are the resident forum retard. Don’t try to pass your tiara off to anyone else who’s less worthy than you.

I didn’t think you could get any dumber than the jet lag comment, but damn! You just keep one upping yourself! Carry on!

Ok... what part of what is going on are you confused with STILL? I'll try to only use words with 3 or less syllables for you:

2016: Justice Scalia dies. Democrat (Obama) President and Republican in power in Senate. Democrats say need to replace Justice and Republicans say no wait for election. Obama nominates new Justice and Republican Senate doesn't bring up matter in Senate because they hope Trump wins. Trump wins and Democrats mad.

2020: Justice Ginsburg dies. Republican (Trump) President and Republican in power in Senate. Democrats say do not replace Justice and Republicans say need to replace. Trump will nominate new Justice and Republican Senate will vote on it because they are in power.

The key to this is which party has control of the Senate. In both cases, Republicans have control.

I honestly hope this helps you, given you are the only one that is STILL confused and ignorant about the process. If this doesn't help you, maybe I will draw it out in pretty colors.

[time4fun]

Of the 179 seats on the 13 circuits of the United States Court of Appeals, including DC and Federal, there are currently 98 (55%) Republican affiliated and 81 (45%) Democrat affiliated justices. Heavily weighted toward circuits of middle America, if discounted, the blue imbalance becomes strikingly more apparent. For example, the Federal Circuit, which can hear any case it so chooses in wide-ranging District Court matters, contains 12 members of which 8 (67%) are Democrats (and 7 of the 8 appointed by Obama) and only 4 (33%) are Republicans. The DC circuit has a similar 7 to 4 imbalance.

This is after Republican "court-packing."

It is terribly unfortunate that a paragon of thought and service such as Justice Ginsburg should meet her finality with the country mired in such bitterness and hatred.

Context here: McConnell left over 100 Federal Judiciary seats open during Obama's last term. He was refusing to hold hearings to keep the Judges from getting through.

In the last 4 years, almost 200 Judges have been pushed through. 25% of all Federal Judges were appointed by Trump (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/15/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/)- no recent President has had anything close to that in one term. It's more than Bush had in two terms. It's about 2/3 of what Obama had in 2 terms.

And these aren't "run of the mill" Judges. They've been handpicked because they can be relied on to be, as the right loves to put it, "activist judges".

[time4fun]

Meanwhile, Trump threatened to use an Executive Order (https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/09/20/trump-threatens-to-issue-executive-order-preventing-biden-from-being-elected-president/#5c7b5a6076f6) to keep Biden from being able to run for President:


"You can't have this guy as your president," Trump argued. "You can't have — maybe I'll sign an executive order, you cannot have him as your president

I don't know how to explain to half of you that a President who cozies up to Dictators and has shown nothing but contempt for democratic institutions "joking" about this is a VERY bad thing.

And before anyone says it- no, he's not kidding. He's testing the reaction to see what he can get away with.

No he doesn't have the authority to do this, but this man has been slowly but surely desensitizing a big chunk of this country to authoritarianism. You give him 4 more years, and you may literally be stuck with him for life. He controls the US Military.

The article had some great reminders of other VERY scary things he's been saying:


Prominent Democrats have expressed serious concerns that Trump may refuse to leave office should he lose the election in November. When asked by Fox News' Chris Wallace in July, if he would accept the election results, Trump said, "I have to see. Look, you — I have to see. No, I'm not going to just say yes. I'm not going to say no, and I didn't last time, either."

Earlier this summer, Trump suggested delaying the presidential election, in which he trails by double-digits in many polls. "With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???" Trump tweeted in late July.

Earlier this month, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders warned that Congress and the media should begin to prepare for a scenario in which Trump refuses to willingly leave the White House. "This is not just idle speculation," said Sanders. "What we have got to do in the next two months is to alert the American people about what that nightmarish scenario might look like in order to prepare them for that possibility and talk about what we do if that happens."

[Parkbandit]

Meanwhile, Trump threatened to use an Executive Order (https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/09/20/trump-threatens-to-issue-executive-order-preventing-biden-from-being-elected-president/#5c7b5a6076f6) to keep Biden from being able to run for President:

I don't know how to explain to half of you that a President who cozies up to Dictators and has shown nothing but contempt for democratic institutions "joking" about this is a VERY bad thing.

And before anyone says it- no, he's not kidding. He's testing the reaction to see what he can get away with.

No he doesn't have the authority to do this, but this man has been slowly but surely desensitizing a big chunk of this country to authoritarianism. You give him 4 more years, and you may literally be stuck with him for life. He controls the US Military.

The article had some great reminders of other VERY scary things he's been saying:

https://media3.giphy.com/media/3o751XCnKoIwchqtEs/giphy.gif

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/panic-attacks/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20376027

Please get medicated.

[Solkern]

Ok... what part of what is going on are you confused with STILL? I'll try to only use words with 3 or less syllables for you:

2016: Justice Scalia dies. Democrat (Obama) President and Republican in power in Senate. Democrats say need to replace Justice and Republicans say no wait for election. Obama nominates new Justice and Republican Senate doesn't bring up matter in Senate because they hope Trump wins. Trump wins and Democrats mad.

2020: Justice Ginsburg dies. Republican (Trump) President and Republican in power in Senate. Democrats say do not replace Justice and Republicans say need to replace. Trump will nominate new Justice and Republican Senate will vote on it because they are in power.

The key to this is which party has control of the Senate. In both cases, Republicans have control.

I honestly hope this helps you, given you are the only one that is STILL confused and ignorant about the process. If this doesn't help you, maybe I will draw it out in pretty colors.


Damn, you are a fucking idiot. Obviously the senate controls the process. All that blah blah blah, for absolutely nothing.
Republicans and democrats words and promises are empty, that’s the plain simple truth.


2016-2018 Republicans:
you should never elect a lifetime appointment in an election year
A lifetime appointment hasn’t been elected in an election year in 80 years.
Even if it’s a Republican president, I’ll still tell him not to do it.

2016 democrats:
WTF SENATE, don’t delay the appointment process!
It doesn’t matter if it’s an election year! Confirm the justice!!

2020 republicans:
Who gives a fuck what we said in 2016-2018 if it’s an election year!!

2020 democrats:
WTF republicans? What happened to everything you said in 2016-2018?

PB: BUT BUT BUT THE DEMOCRATS!!! Did you read what they were saying!?!?!

Empty words, empty promises cupcake.

[Gelston]

This discussion is pointless. Trump is going to nominate someone. Republicans are probably going to put him or her in.

Pout about it.

[Solkern]

This discussion is pointless. Trump is going to nominate someone. Republicans are probably going to put him or her in.

Pout about it.


Yup, I’ve said multiple times, I don’t give two shits, just nominate and vote for someone and get the shit over with.
I was curious about why they flipped and how these republicans here would answer/defend the flip.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Yup, I’ve said multiple times, I don’t give two shits, just nominate and vote for someone and get the shit over with.
I was curious about why they flipped and how these republicans here would answer/defend the flip.

As a conservative, I certainly don't need to defend anything. But I would say this: Winners make the rules. Back when the Nevada senator implemented the nuclear option is one example. All the appointments since would be further examples.

Every dem flipped now, 2020, from their positions in 2016. So too, did republicans. Why?, you trolled? Because it's politics.

[Solkern]

As a conservative, I certainly don't need to defend anything. But I would say this: Winners make the rules. Back when the Nevada senator implemented the nuclear option is one example. All the appointments since would be further examples.

Every dem flipped now, 2020, from their positions in 2016. So too, did republicans. Why?, you trolled? Because it's politics.

I concur, they all flipped. The words and promises they make, mean nothing.

[Parkbandit]

Damn, you are a fucking idiot. Obviously the senate controls the process. All that blah blah blah, for absolutely nothing.
Republicans and democrats words and promises are empty, that’s the plain simple truth.

2016-2018 Republicans:
you should never elect a lifetime appointment in an election year
A lifetime appointment hasn’t been elected in an election year in 80 years.
Even if it’s a Republican president, I’ll still tell him not to do it.

2016 democrats:
WTF SENATE, don’t delay the appointment process!
It doesn’t matter if it’s an election year! Confirm the justice!!

2020 republicans:
Who gives a fuck what we said in 2016-2018 if it’s an election year!!

2020 democrats:
WTF republicans? What happened to everything you said in 2016-2018?

PB: BUT BUT BUT THE DEMOCRATS!!! Did you read what they were saying!?!?!

Empty words, empty promises cupcake.

Empty words, empty head, sockpuppet.

What you STILL fail to understand is you have only asked about why the Republicans flipflopped their position from 2016 to 2020. You claim you don't know why.... which is why I instructed you to take a peek at what the Democrats said in 2016 vs. 2020.

Then, if you had an IQ above 23, you would be able to figure it out. But you didn't do that.. you were just crying almost as hard as Andraste is 'WHY ARE THE REPUBLICANS CHANGING THEIR MIND IN FOUR YEARS!!!!!" I attempted to explain the process to you, but that wasn't your purpose.. you only focused your tiny brain on one side of the equation and just couldn't understand what was happening.

It's like last week when your teacher for "special" students asked you to solve the equation "What's 2+2 equal" and you answered "2" You only dealt with part of it and as usual, failed with a big fat F.

[Parkbandit]

I concur, they all flipped. The words and promises they make, mean nothing.

And this just took you a full fucking day to finally get.

Fantastic.

Tomorrow, we are going to work on your letters. You get easily confused around the "L, M, N, O, P" section.

I'm here for you, Socko.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/8f6c8898fb45c2e48ed62fdf52a5a226/tumblr_inline_ot3kqvwFoC1tilys8_400.gifv

[Solkern]

And this just took you a full fucking day to finally get.

Fantastic.

Tomorrow, we are going to work on your letters. You get easily confused around the "L, M, N, O, P" section.

I'm here for you, Socko.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/8f6c8898fb45c2e48ed62fdf52a5a226/tumblr_inline_ot3kqvwFoC1tilys8_400.gifv

You’re a fucking idiot. BUT BUT BUT THE DEMS!!
It has nothing to do with the democrats.
Republicans are full of shit, and are no better than the Dems.
They changed their stance cause they are all liars.

[Solkern]

Empty words, empty head, sockpuppet.

What you STILL fail to understand is you have only asked about why the Republicans flipflopped their position from 2016 to 2020. You claim you don't know why.... which is why I instructed you to take a peek at what the Democrats said in 2016 vs. 2020.

Hey cupcake, when did I claim I didn’t know why? Please quote me on that.
Oh me asking why, is me not knowing why? It’s more like me wanting to hear your bullshit excuse and watch you blame the democrats some more for the republicans own words. I gave the reason a few posts back, the reason you couldn’t say because well, BUT BUT BUT THE DEMOCRATS! Laughable. And you still can’t say it, your response? It’s politics, can’t admit that your Republican Party is a lying sack of shit like the Dems. No no no, the GOP is not like the Dems!

Dear god you are once dense dumb fucknut. I feel sorry for you.

[Tgo01]

When asked Pelosi would not rule out impeaching Trump again in an effort to prevent him from nominating someone for supreme court.

How much longer are you leftists going to turn a blind eye to this bullshit?

[Tgo01]

Reading all of these news articles and comments from Democrats screaming that you can't replace a supreme court justice in an election year after whining endlessly in 2016 about how you MUST replace a supreme court justice in an election year is just too rich.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

When asked Pelosi would not rule out impeaching Trump again in an effort to prevent him from nominating someone for supreme court.

How much longer are you leftists going to turn a blind eye to this bullshit?

I fucking HOPE they go down the impeachment road again. Lets start right fucking now.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Another win for rational people.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mitch-mcconnells-kentucky-home-targeted-in-supreme-court-vacancy-protest


At least one protester was arrested Saturday after a group of about 100 people gathered outside the Kentucky home of Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell.


I love it. Please, crazy fucking terrorists, continue being terrorists so we can win by a landslide and start putting all of you in jail.

[Tgo01]

Today's "news" in America:

Trump Uses Curve Gesture While Saying He'll Nominate a Woman to Supreme Court (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uses-curve-gesture-while-saying-hell-nominate-woman-supreme-court-1533141)


However, his remarks were accused of being "creepy" and "sexist" by many critics who pointed to an hourglass hand curve gesture he made while describing how a female judge may fill the vacant seat.

The "curve" gesture in question at about the 10 second mark:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=gyRROGN2Jik&feature=emb_logo

You know, the same fucking gesture he makes whenever he speaks.

[Methais]

Like I care about you giving me credit? Lol that ego. Who gives a shit what the Dems said? I quoted Republicans on their words, and asked why they are flipping? Your response? BECAUSE OF THE DEMOCRATS!!!! Did they put a gun to the republicans and force them to say these words? Nope, they didn’t. Stop trying to blame everything on the Dems. That’s the only response you can ever give. BUT BUT BUT THE DEMS!! Your one skill at life? You’re good at whataboutisms.


You simply can’t answer the question, you spent two posts blaming the Dems and everyone else.

Let me ask again, multiple Republicans said “you should not nominate and vote on a Supreme Court justice during an election year”, one even said, I would say this to a Republican president. Multiple said it hasn’t been done in 80 years!! Yet here they are, doing what they said shouldn’t happen. So why the flip?


Personally I don’t give two fucks if they nominate and vote, I’m curious on why they flipped their stance.

Let me guess THE DEMS WANTED TO DO WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING NOW!!
That fucking shit doesn’t matter. The republicans are doing what they stopped the democrats from doing.

https://i.imgur.com/HqnxNLW.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/yeec5z5.png

[Methais]

It's not that. It's part of a concerted conservative strategy of Court packing: it's basically all the Senate has accomplished in the last 4 years. It's not even properly responding to things like COVID because McConnell is too busy reshaping the Courts. It's one of the ways a minority party can stay in power. It's how Poland and Hungary's right wing parties managed to stay entrenched in power. Same with Putin.

The funny thing is, Republicans run around screaming about "judicial activism" while they've spent the last 4 years installing incredibly right wing ideologues who, in many cases, don't actually have the qualifications for the jobs. They're there because they can be trusted to ignore the law and precedent and make rulings on personal opinions.

Kind of like how Republicans run around screaming about voter fraud while they're systematically targeting groups who don't generally vote for them to take away their ability to cast votes. They've closed countless voting stations in minority and urban areas, enacted voter ID laws that restricted the number of acceptable IDs (in their favor), tried to do away with early voting and Sunday voting (Souls to the Polls is bad for business), and they engage in endless litigation to try to make voting harder, not easier. And now Trump is literally telling people to vote twice.

And like how Republicans scream about Free Speech and then call people who protest "terrorists", support a President who uses force against peaceful protesters, smile and nod while he deploys military assets on the ground to intimidate protesters, and clap their hands as he tries to retaliate against tech companies because they aren't giving priority to articles that say good things about him and his administration.

Or how they scream about media bias and then restrict themselves *only* to heavily partisan, conservative news outlets. Non-partisan outlets? Must be secretly partisan. Fact checkers? Must be secretly partisan. Fox News? Totally fair and balanced.

Generally speaking, take stock of what Republicans are screaming about. It's usually what they're busy doing.

Kagan was never a judge before being on SCOTUS, so shut the fuck up about who you think isn't qualified. Everything else you said is massively retarded too.

Also, shut the fuck up Andraste.

[Methais]

Context here: McConnell left over 100 Federal Judiciary seats open during Obama's last term. He was refusing to hold hearings to keep the Judges from getting through.

In the last 4 years, almost 200 Judges have been pushed through. 25% of all Federal Judges were appointed by Trump (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/15/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/)- no recent President has had anything close to that in one term. It's more than Bush had in two terms. It's about 2/3 of what Obama had in 2 terms.

And these aren't "run of the mill" Judges. They've been handpicked because they can be relied on to be, as the right loves to put it, "activist judges".

Context here: You’re Andraste

[Methais]

Damn, you are a fucking idiot. Obviously the senate controls the process. All that blah blah blah, for absolutely nothing.
Republicans and democrats words and promises are empty, that’s the plain simple truth.


2016-2018 Republicans:
you should never elect a lifetime appointment in an election year
A lifetime appointment hasn’t been elected in an election year in 80 years.
Even if it’s a Republican president, I’ll still tell him not to do it.

2016 democrats:
WTF SENATE, don’t delay the appointment process!
It doesn’t matter if it’s an election year! Confirm the justice!!

2020 republicans:
Who gives a fuck what we said in 2016-2018 if it’s an election year!!

2020 democrats:
WTF republicans? What happened to everything you said in 2016-2018?

PB: BUT BUT BUT THE DEMOCRATS!!! Did you read what they were saying!?!?!

Empty words, empty promises cupcake.

What exactly did you think he meant when he said “It’s politics.”?

[~Rocktar~]

Context here: McConnell left over 100 Federal Judiciary seats open during Obama's last term. He was refusing to hold hearings to keep the Judges from getting through.

In the last 4 years, almost 200 Judges have been pushed through. 25% of all Federal Judges were appointed by Trump (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/15/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/)- no recent President has had anything close to that in one term. It's more than Bush had in two terms. It's about 2/3 of what Obama had in 2 terms.

And these aren't "run of the mill" Judges. They've been handpicked because they can be relied on to be, as the right loves to put it, "activist judges".

Context here, when Dems ran the Senate,they didn't push through many judges despite having the chance too. More context, Reid and the Dems removed the 2/3 majority rule to confirm Supreme Court justices. At the time, McConnell told them that this was a bad idea and it would bite them in the ass. They forgot the cardinal law of politics:

Robespierre’s Law – Power you give government to do unto others will be used to do unto you.

In other words you dumbass, The Democrats set this stage, the Republicans are just dancing on it.

Also: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL you think constitutional origionalists are "activist judges".




Meanwhile, Trump threatened to use an Executive Order (https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/09/20/trump-threatens-to-issue-executive-order-preventing-biden-from-being-elected-president/#5c7b5a6076f6) to keep Biden from being able to run for President:



I don't know how to explain to half of you that a President who cozies up to Dictators and has shown nothing but contempt for democratic institutions "joking" about this is a VERY bad thing.

And before anyone says it- no, he's not kidding. He's testing the reaction to see what he can get away with.

No he doesn't have the authority to do this, but this man has been slowly but surely desensitizing a big chunk of this country to authoritarianism. You give him 4 more years, and you may literally be stuck with him for life. He controls the US Military.

The article had some great reminders of other VERY scary things he's been saying:

Hummm, such a dictator that he couldn't get Obamacare repealed. Such a dictator that he couldn't just wave his hand and build a wall. Such a dictator that he has had immense challenges in court to simple, legal actions like reversing an illegal executive order to ignore immigration law and enforce the law, the EXACT thing the office is supposed to do, further legal challenges to things like the temporary travel ban to tighten security, the list goes on and on. Seems like he isn't much of a dictator.

Meanwhile we are finding out that the previous administration illegally gave guns back to criminals, used the IRS to persecute it's political enemies, used illegally obtained warrants to spy on citizens, wrote executive orders to completely ignore immigration law, funneled billions in cash to a terrorist dictatorship, sold 20% of the US uranium supply to the enemy after getting a massive donation to their "charitable foundation" where most of the employees are friends and family and paid shit tons of cash for nothing, and who famously was quoted as saying "I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone”. AND who has run around being the present administration to all kinds of dictatorships like Iran and Syria and others to cuddle up with them and tell them to just wait out Trump and then things will go as planned. Sounds a lot more like a dictator to me.

Gods I want to see some people prosecuted for the felonies of the previous administration and I would LOVE to see someone get nailed with the Hatch Act.

So please, fuck off you dumbass you are playing along the Leftist playbook almost line for line.


Just a reminder in case you think people have forgotten, here is a quick summary of your/the left's playbook:

Fuck white people. White people are racists and the only racists in the world

Fuck America. Blame America and its military for every problem on earth. (mention Iraq)

Defend the Muslims. Create a false equivalence with Christianity and muddy the waters.

Blame Christianity and Jewish faiths for everything its all hate speech and a scourge on our society

Fuck the cops.

Fuck conservatives and Republicans.

Fuck Democracy if the results aren't what is liked.... riot.. or throw a temper tantrum until you get your way to change it

Save the blacks. Treat black people as if they are helpless infants who lack agency and can be nothing but victims.

Disregard and ignore linear time and history. Blur the past with the present so as to demonize modern people for the actions of those from the distant past.

Disregard and ignore proven science blurring the lines about gender and biological sex.. there are 70 genders and more can be created with time

Mention that it's not all. Assert that they are saying it's 'all', then tell them it's not all. Then eject.

If someone brings up a problem, pivot to talking about a non-problem.

If someone presents a problem to you, mention another problem because two wrongs make a who cares.

Virtue signal whenever conceivably possible. How is the world supposed to know how awesome you are unless you announce it to them repeatedly?

Use buzzwords all the time as factual evidence

Fight against bullies. If there are none, pretend that there are. This will help you process your resentment towards all those mean kids who bullied you. Fight for the Ewoks, not the stormtroopers.

[Parkbandit]

You’re a fucking idiot. BUT BUT BUT THE DEMS!!
It has nothing to do with the democrats.

It has everything to do with Democrats... unless you believe "2+2" really does equal 2 (see above)


Republicans are full of shit, and are no better than the Dems.
They changed their stance cause they are all liars.

Who here claimed anything else? It was ONLY you that were trying to figure out why ONLY the Republicans flip flopped.

[Tgo01]

Democrats need to stop bitching already. Like I said at the beginning of this discussion if they want to make the rules then win some fucking elections. Republicans won seats in the senate so they can make the rules. Democrats won seats in the House so they make the rules there. This is how it all works.

Bitching about whether or not McConnell is being a hypocrite means exactly jack shit.

[Parkbandit]

Hey cupcake, when did I claim I didn’t know why? Please quote me on that.

Here:


Quite interesting.


2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Mitch McConnell, March 2016


My question, why the flip all of a sudden?


Oh me asking why, is me not knowing why?

LOL.

"I WUZ JUST TROLLIN GUYS!"


It’s more like me wanting to hear your bullshit excuse and watch you blame the democrats some more for the republicans own words. I gave the reason a few posts back, the reason you couldn’t say because well, BUT BUT BUT THE DEMOCRATS! Laughable. And you still can’t say it, your response? It’s politics, can’t admit that your Republican Party is a lying sack of shit like the Dems. No no no, the GOP is not like the Dems!

Now, don't just make up my position. I never said Republicans aren't lying politicians. Of course they are, they are politicians.

BUT it was YOU that only wanted to focus on the Republicans while giving the Democrats a free pass.

And it took a full day of remedial exercises to finally get you to this point.

I feel like we made great progress today. Who said you can't teach the mentally retarded!? I just proved you can, if you give them enough time and motivation.

You're welcome.


Dear god you are once dense dumb fucknut. I feel sorry for you.

Oh no. However will I get through the day...

https://64.media.tumblr.com/8f6c8898fb45c2e48ed62fdf52a5a226/tumblr_inline_ot3kqvwFoC1tilys8_400.gifv

[Parkbandit]

When asked Pelosi would not rule out impeaching Trump again in an effort to prevent him from nominating someone for supreme court.

How much longer are you leftists going to turn a blind eye to this bullshit?

They aren't turning a blind eye.. they are all for it.

It's the leftists that have taken over the Democrat Party and made it extreme.

They are all:

https://media2.giphy.com/media/l4HodBpDmoMA5p9bG/giphy.gif

[beldannon5]

Context here, when Dems ran the Senate,they didn't push through many judges despite having the chance too. More context, Reid and the Dems removed the 2/3 majority rule to confirm Supreme Court justices. At the time, McConnell told them that this was a bad idea and it would bite them in the ass. They forgot the cardinal law of politics:

Robespierre’s Law – Power you give government to do unto others will be used to do unto you.

In other words you dumbass, The Democrats set this stage, the Republicans are just dancing on it.

Also: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL you think constitutional origionalists are "activist judges".





Hummm, such a dictator that he couldn't get Obamacare repealed. Such a dictator that he couldn't just wave his hand and build a wall. Such a dictator that he has had immense challenges in court to simple, legal actions like reversing an illegal executive order to ignore immigration law and enforce the law, the EXACT thing the office is supposed to do, further legal challenges to things like the temporary travel ban to tighten security, the list goes on and on. Seems like he isn't much of a dictator.

Meanwhile we are finding out that the previous administration illegally gave guns back to criminals, used the IRS to persecute it's political enemies, used illegally obtained warrants to spy on citizens, wrote executive orders to completely ignore immigration law, funneled billions in cash to a terrorist dictatorship, sold 20% of the US uranium supply to the enemy after getting a massive donation to their "charitable foundation" where most of the employees are friends and family and paid shit tons of cash for nothing, and who famously was quoted as saying "I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone”. AND who has run around being the present administration to all kinds of dictatorships like Iran and Syria and others to cuddle up with them and tell them to just wait out Trump and then things will go as planned. Sounds a lot more like a dictator to me.

Gods I want to see some people prosecuted for the felonies of the previous administration and I would LOVE to see someone get nailed with the Hatch Act.

So please, fuck off you dumbass you are playing along the Leftist playbook almost line for line.


Just a reminder in case you think people have forgotten, here is a quick summary of your/the left's playbook:

Fuck white people. White people are racists and the only racists in the world

Fuck America. Blame America and its military for every problem on earth. (mention Iraq)

Defend the Muslims. Create a false equivalence with Christianity and muddy the waters.

Blame Christianity and Jewish faiths for everything its all hate speech and a scourge on our society

Fuck the cops.

Fuck conservatives and Republicans.

Fuck Democracy if the results aren't what is liked.... riot.. or throw a temper tantrum until you get your way to change it

Save the blacks. Treat black people as if they are helpless infants who lack agency and can be nothing but victims.

Disregard and ignore linear time and history. Blur the past with the present so as to demonize modern people for the actions of those from the distant past.

Disregard and ignore proven science blurring the lines about gender and biological sex.. there are 70 genders and more can be created with time

Mention that it's not all. Assert that they are saying it's 'all', then tell them it's not all. Then eject.

If someone brings up a problem, pivot to talking about a non-problem.

If someone presents a problem to you, mention another problem because two wrongs make a who cares.

Virtue signal whenever conceivably possible. How is the world supposed to know how awesome you are unless you announce it to them repeatedly?

Use buzzwords all the time as factual evidence

Fight against bullies. If there are none, pretend that there are. This will help you process your resentment towards all those mean kids who bullied you. Fight for the Ewoks, not the stormtroopers.

All that is so true and so sad :(

[ClydeR]

From Trump's epic Fox and Friends interview this morning..


President Donald Trump on Monday told “Fox & Friends” that he believed Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish may have been a “hoax” concocted by Democrats.

During the interview, the president was asked about Ginsburg saying that she did not want to be replaced until after the 2020 presidential election.

More... (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/09/trump-tells-fox-friends-that-rbgs-dying-wish-may-be-a-hoax-written-by-adam-schiff/)

[~Rocktar~]

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/120026191_2860027407548489_246595602545036945_n.jp g?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=WQ3BFEa0XqoAX_9_o4I&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=8d35c891a5a186f8d9932ab2b2456908&oe=5F8E1429

[Methais]

This is the most pathetic "But our feelings!" card the left has played yet. I think.

[Tgo01]

This is the most pathetic "But our feelings!" card the left has played yet. I think.

It's beyond despicable now. Suddenly we just upend our entire constitution, the way our government operates, hundreds of years of precedence, all because of a dying wish made by a supreme court justice that coincidentally only her very far leftist granddaughter heard her make.

[Methais]

It's beyond despicable now. Suddenly we just upend our entire constitution, the way our government operates, hundreds of years of precedence, all because of a dying wish made by a supreme court justice that coincidentally only her very far leftist granddaughter heard her make.

https://i.imgur.com/HqnxNLW.jpg

[Tgo01]

https://i.imgur.com/HqnxNLW.jpg

But apparently there is a footnote in the constitution that no one ever noticed before that says as long as a sitting female supreme court justice makes a dying wish on her deathbed then she can totally dictate who gets to replace her.

[Orthin]

Both parties are going full counter from each other in 2016. I think everyone can see that, and no one should be shocked about that. It will most likely happen that Trump will bring someone in. While the Judge is most likely going to be a conservative once they are sworn in the Judge can lean however they want in whatever way they want (we even have recent evidence of this). I think it's funny everyone is using quotes from all these people (both sides) in the past because clearly life has taught us that all statements are timeless and neither people or policies will change.

The court still has to hear the cases and make the rulings. There are a lot of hoops for anyone to jump through to have their cases make it to the supreme court (and money), and then on top of that to be picked. Then everyone has to hope that the right judges lean the right way, but nothing is guaranteed. Does it help the conservative leaning side, of course...is it guaranteed to mean that all rulings will go to conservative thinking, no.

[Parkbandit]

Both parties are going full counter from each other in 2016. I think everyone can see that, and no one should be shocked about that. It will most likely happen that Trump will bring someone in. While the Judge is most likely going to be a conservative once they are sworn in the Judge can lean however they want in whatever way they want (we even have recent evidence of this). I think it's funny everyone is using quotes from all these people (both sides) in the past because clearly life has taught us that all statements are timeless and neither people or policies will change.

The court still has to hear the cases and make the rulings. There are a lot of hoops for anyone to jump through to have their cases make it to the supreme court (and money), and then on top of that to be picked. Then everyone has to hope that the right judges lean the right way, but nothing is guaranteed. Does it help the conservative leaning side, of course...is it guaranteed to mean that all rulings will go to conservative thinking, no.

True. So called "Conservative" judges have never been very reliable to vote the way Conservatives feel they should.. at least not in the same manner that the Liberal judges vote as a block.

[Candor]

Fox is reporting that Trump has a short list of five names for nomination to the Supreme Court, and that he plans to announce his final pick by this Friday or Saturday.

Here is a link to the article: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-supreme-court-list-is-down-to-5-announcement-coming-friday-or-saturday

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Fox is reporting that Trump has a short list of five names for nomination to the Supreme Court, and that he plans to announce his final pick by this Friday or Saturday.

Here is a link to the article: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-supreme-court-list-is-down-to-5-announcement-coming-friday-or-saturday

Liberal trash has already linked one potential woman nom who has 7 children and adopted a couple (don't recall how many) to the "cult group" that the Handmaiden's tale is based on or some dumb shit like that.

I LOVE how far dems are willing to go to destroy a noms life. It makes them look like the trash they are and further galvanizes anyone who thinks rationally to vote for Trump. Kavanaugh's "trial" was what cemented my decision to vote for Trump.

[Candor]

Liberal trash has already linked one potential woman nom who has 7 children and adopted a couple (don't recall how many) to the "cult group" that the Handmaiden's tale is based on or some dumb shit like that.

I LOVE how far dems are willing to go to destroy a noms life. It makes them look like the trash they are and further galvanizes anyone who thinks rationally to vote for Trump. Kavanaugh's "trial" was what cemented my decision to vote for Trump.

They are desperate. Another conservative justice could mean that Roe vs Wade eventually gets overturned, and they will do anything to prevent that possibility.

[drauz]

They are desperate. Another conservative justice could mean that Roe vs Wade eventually gets overturned, and they will do anything to prevent that possibility.

Would be a travesty if it is overturned.

[Tgo01]

Would be a travesty if it is overturned.

Yeah, all those unborn children given a chance at life. So horrible.

[Methais]

Yeah, all those unborn children given a chance at life. So horrible.

Imagine how many more democrat voters there would be if they couldn't abort their kids though.

[Tgo01]

Imagine how many more democrat voters there would be if they couldn't abort their kids though.

True dat.

[drauz]

Yeah, all those unborn children given a chance at life. So horrible.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/aVBcwz1jd28A8/giphy.gif

[Tgo01]

https://media4.giphy.com/media/aVBcwz1jd28A8/giphy.gif

No I totally agree with you! Babies am I right? Bunch of fuckers.

[Parkbandit]

Imagine how many more democrat voters there would be if they couldn't abort their kids though.

Yea.. I honestly never understood their steadfast defense of abortion. I get that the motivation behind Planned Parenthood was to eliminate as many minority babies as possible.. but that was 100 years ago. Given that black Americans vote upwards of 80-90% for Democrats.. aren't they just killing off future voters?

[time4fun]

Both parties are going full counter from each other in 2016. I think everyone can see that, and no one should be shocked about that. It will most likely happen that Trump will bring someone in. While the Judge is most likely going to be a conservative once they are sworn in the Judge can lean however they want in whatever way they want (we even have recent evidence of this). I think it's funny everyone is using quotes from all these people (both sides) in the past because clearly life has taught us that all statements are timeless and neither people or policies will change.

The court still has to hear the cases and make the rulings. There are a lot of hoops for anyone to jump through to have their cases make it to the supreme court (and money), and then on top of that to be picked. Then everyone has to hope that the right judges lean the right way, but nothing is guaranteed. Does it help the conservative leaning side, of course...is it guaranteed to mean that all rulings will go to conservative thinking, no.

If the GOP manages to install someone on the Court before January 3rd, a part of me is praying the Dems don't take back the Senate. You're right that conservatives may not get their ruling, but I think you're wrong on the reasons.

If the Dems take back the Senate, then they've also taken the White House. For the last 10 years Democrats have been watching Republicans play dirtier and dirtier- gerrymandering in a way no one had ever had the gall to do before, sweeping voter disenfranchisement, perverting the SCOTUS nomination process (in so many ways), refusing to do their Constitutional duties in the impeachment case...there is so much (no pun intended) fire and fury built up on the left right now.

It's going to be bad. I can already see it: killing the Filibuster, stacking the Supreme Court, and then giving DC and Puerto Rico statehood- which is great but not when you're doing it to manipulate the senate.

Ultimately the filibuster is part of what protects us from authoritarians like Trump and their enablers. It's also part of what keeps this country from being in a perpetual pendulum swing of extreme policy positions. (Imagine Abortion becoming legalize and then banned and then legalized and then banned over and over again every few years).

I get the rage on the left- I get being tired of being the adults in the room while Republicans run around burning the house down. But Democrats are holding gas cans right now and are ready to "solve the problem" by throwing pouring them directly into the flames.

There aren't going to be any adults left in the room.

[Tgo01]

If the Dems take back the Senate, then they've also taken the White House. For the last 10 years Democrats have been watching Republicans play dirtier and dirtier

The absolute fucking disconnect one has to have from reality to actually say with a straight face that Republicans are the ones playing dirty.

Democrats, the ones who openly give their blessing to Antifa and BLM to act like their own Brown Shirts.

Democrats, the ones who willingly tried to turn their cities and states into absolute shit via endless shutdowns and riots in order to hurt Trump at the polls.

Democrats, the ones who are using a pandemic as an excuse to push mail in voting to make it easier for them to cheat.

But yes, do bitch and moan about Republicans and your dumb shit gerrymandering nonsense, as if Democrats don't fucking gerrymander.

Look at this fucking Democrat district:

https://media.wired.com/photos/592738ecaf95806129f51f72/master/w_1753,c_limit/Illinois04.jpg

[SonoftheNorth]

I get the rage on the left- I get being tired of being the adults in the room









HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH

[Risen]

Small factoid: The 4th District of Illinois has been this shape since 1992, with very few changes, and has withstood multiple additional lawsuits to be redrawn. The gerrymandered map is the outcome of a lawsuit which challenged the Democratic Governor and Mayor concerning their Latino-based districting attempts. That lawsuit included two maps, each of which the three-judge panel suggested passed all tests the court imposed. The plaintiff (Congressman Dennis Hastert) won the lawsuit and also had the map which the court approved to be implemented.

The bonus factoid: Hastert's party -- Republican.

"A three-judge panel of the federal district court adopted the map proposed by Hastert and other Republican members of the Illinois Congressional delegation.[13] Subsequent lawsuits challenging the redistricting as racially biased[14] did not succeed in redrawing the district boundaries. The district, as it was in 2009, was in some places less than 50 metres wide and parts covered no more than one city block.[15]" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional_district

[beldannon5]

Don't the babies vote Democrat anyways? Too low?

[~Rocktar~]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH

This

[Fortybox]

If the GOP manages to install someone on the Court before January 3rd, a part of me is praying the Dems don't take back the Senate. You're right that conservatives may not get their ruling, but I think you're wrong on the reasons.

If the Dems take back the Senate, then they've also taken the White House. For the last 10 years Democrats have been watching Republicans play dirtier and dirtier- gerrymandering in a way no one had ever had the gall to do before, sweeping voter disenfranchisement, perverting the SCOTUS nomination process (in so many ways), refusing to do their Constitutional duties in the impeachment case...there is so much (no pun intended) fire and fury built up on the left right now.

It's going to be bad. I can already see it: killing the Filibuster, stacking the Supreme Court, and then giving DC and Puerto Rico statehood- which is great but not when you're doing it to manipulate the senate.

Ultimately the filibuster is part of what protects us from authoritarians like Trump and their enablers. It's also part of what keeps this country from being in a perpetual pendulum swing of extreme policy positions. (Imagine Abortion becoming legalize and then banned and then legalized and then banned over and over again every few years).

I get the rage on the left- I get being tired of being the adults in the room while Republicans run around burning the house down. But Democrats are holding gas cans right now and are ready to "solve the problem" by throwing pouring them directly into the flames.

There aren't going to be any adults left in the room.

https://media.giphy.com/media/1kfhoNWKY94uLGX2kO/giphy.gif

Thanks for the laugh. Now go back to game hosting Andraste.

[Parkbandit]

I get being tired of being the adults in the room while Republicans run around burning the house down.

Literally no one with an IQ over 12 believe that the Democrats are the adults in any room they go into. Even 1st graders handle themselves in a more adult fashion.

Jesus, Andraste.. how fucking deluded and disconnected are you from reality anyways? I mean yea, we get the typical lies you tell (I got 2 PhDs from Stanford, I make more than anyone here, I have a boyfriend, etc... ) but fuck, no one believes anything you spew out.

[Neveragain]

If the GOP manages to install someone on the Court before January 3rd, a part of me is praying the Dems don't take back the Senate. You're right that conservatives may not get their ruling, but I think you're wrong on the reasons.

If the Dems take back the Senate, then they've also taken the White House. For the last 10 years Democrats have been watching Republicans play dirtier and dirtier- gerrymandering in a way no one had ever had the gall to do before, sweeping voter disenfranchisement, perverting the SCOTUS nomination process (in so many ways), refusing to do their Constitutional duties in the impeachment case...there is so much (no pun intended) fire and fury built up on the left right now.

It's going to be bad. I can already see it: killing the Filibuster, stacking the Supreme Court, and then giving DC and Puerto Rico statehood- which is great but not when you're doing it to manipulate the senate.

Ultimately the filibuster is part of what protects us from authoritarians like Trump and their enablers. It's also part of what keeps this country from being in a perpetual pendulum swing of extreme policy positions. (Imagine Abortion becoming legalize and then banned and then legalized and then banned over and over again every few years).

I get the rage on the left- I get being tired of being the adults in the room while Republicans run around burning the house down. But Democrats are holding gas cans right now and are ready to "solve the problem" by throwing pouring them directly into the flames.

There aren't going to be any adults left in the room.


https://media.tenor.com/images/a9ef5375bfde41a9f8d397d278487f90/tenor.gif

[Tgo01]

Amy Klobuchar:

https://twitter.com/amyklobuchar/status/1308149561240813569?s=20


The people pick the President; the President nominates the Justice. That is how it works.

Now I know what you're thinking, "That's another quote from 2016!!!" Nope! It's a tweet from earlier today.

It's funny though because she must have received a lot of shit for daring to go against the terrorists known as the modern day Democrat party, so an hour later she tweeted this reply to her original tweet:

https://twitter.com/amyklobuchar/status/1308165446051467271?s=20


People are voting RIGHT NOW to pick our president — that president should pick the next Supreme Court Justice.

Nice save, Klobuchar. I'm sure the morons like time4fun actually believe this wasn't backpeddling at all and this was all just a single thought broken up into two tweets that needed to be sent 1 hour apart.

[Solkern]

What exactly did you think he meant when he said “It’s politics.”?

Oh that’s what he meant? When he said




It's politics you fucking retard.

Oh thanks methais how stupid of me! But.....

Didn’t he mean this explanation he gave in his next response to me?


Ok... what part of what is going on are you confused with STILL? I'll try to only use words with 3 or less syllables for you:

2016: Justice Scalia dies. Democrat (Obama) President and Republican in power in Senate. Democrats say need to replace Justice and Republicans say no wait for election. Obama nominates new Justice and Republican Senate doesn't bring up matter in Senate because they hope Trump wins. Trump wins and Democrats mad.

2020: Justice Ginsburg dies. Republican (Trump) President and Republican in power in Senate. Democrats say do not replace Justice and Republicans say need to replace. Trump will nominate new Justice and Republican Senate will vote on it because they are in power.

The key to this is which party has control of the Senate. In both cases, Republicans have control.

I honestly hope this helps you, given you are the only one that is STILL confused and ignorant about the process. If this doesn't help you, maybe I will draw it out in pretty colors.

Or did he mean what I said the very next post after he realized how fucking stupid his answer was, and it doesn’t answer my question?


Damn, you are a fucking idiot. Obviously the senate controls the process. All that blah blah blah, for absolutely nothing.
Republicans and democrats words and promises are empty, that’s the plain simple truth.



Which is it?

[Solkern]

Here:





LOL.

"I WUZ JUST TROLLIN GUYS!"


Damn, you are a fucking idiot. Obviously the senate controls the process. All that blah blah blah, for absolutely nothing.
Republicans and democrats words and promises are empty, that’s the plain simple truth.


Obviously I did know why, my question was rhetorical, as you can tell from my response above, I gave the fucking answer, while you just BUT BUT BUT THE DEMOCRATS!! damn you are fucking stupid.



Now, don't just make up my position. I never said Republicans aren't lying politicians. Of course they are, they are politicians.

BUT it was YOU that only wanted to focus on the Republicans while giving the Democrats a free pass.
Oh because I asked why the republicans flipped, that means I’m giving the democrats a free pass? As you can see from my quote above, I didn’t give them a free pass. I even did the extra step and made it bold for you to help you understand that. Can you see it princess PB? It’s you that constantly gives the republicans a free pass. Try harder cupcake!




Republicans are no better than the democrats, just saying/promising whatever they can to get a political victory, than shitting on those same words/promises to get more political victories, and you are here parading around like the republicans are so much better than the democrats. You’re truly a fucking idiot.

The answer was simple, because in politics your words and promises are empty(both parties).

Here’s another example of me not giving the democrats a free pass, and again trying to get you to understand why they flipped, but you just didn’t get it. You are just full of fail.


And it took a full day of remedial exercises to finally get you to this point.

I feel like we made great progress today. Who said you can't teach the mentally retarded!? I just proved you can, if you give them enough time and motivation.


Like in my previous response to Methais, you can see exactly why you are a fucking idiot. Your responses have nothing to do with them being liars or breaking promises, it’s all about BUT BUT BUT THE DEMOCRATS!! You only changed your stance after I gave you the reason TWICE, why they flipped, and you continue to just throw insults, like that was what you were implying the entire time, too bad your own stupid fucking post I quoted above in my response to Methais contradicts your retarded ass.

I thought the jet lag comment was the stupidest thing you’ve ever said on these forums, nope you managed to one up yourself again! Good job! You 100% deserve the tiara you are wearing for being the biggest retard on these boards.

That’s your problem Parkbitch, you change your stance and lie so much, you don’t even remember your own post or what the fuck you are saying outside of BUT BUT BUT THE DEMOCRATS and your pathetic attempts to insult people.
Go back and sit in the corner cupcake.

[Methais]

I get being tired of being the adults in the room while Republicans run around burning the house down.

The funny part, Andraste, you dumb cunt, is that it's you idiots who are literally burning down your own cities because orange man bad.

What's it like to be the worst and most hated by everyone GM in the history of Gemstone though?

[Methais]

Oh that’s what he meant? When he said



Oh thanks methais how stupid of me! But.....

Didn’t he mean this explanation he gave in his next response to me?



Or did he mean what I said the very next post after he realized how fucking stupid his answer was, and it doesn’t answer my question?




Which is it?




Obviously I did know why, my question was rhetorical, as you can tell from my response above, I gave the fucking answer, while you just BUT BUT BUT THE DEMOCRATS!! damn you are fucking stupid.


Oh because I asked why the republicans flipped, that means I’m giving the democrats a free pass? As you can see from my quote above, I didn’t give them a free pass. I even did the extra step and made it bold for you to help you understand that. Can you see it princess PB? It’s you that constantly gives the republicans a free pass. Try harder cupcake!



Here’s another example of me not giving the democrats a free pass, and again trying to get you to understand why they flipped, but you just didn’t get it. You are just full of fail.




Like in my previous response to Methais, you can see exactly why you are a fucking idiot. Your responses have nothing to do with them being liars or breaking promises, it’s all about BUT BUT BUT THE DEMOCRATS!! You only changed your stance after I gave you the reason TWICE, why they flipped, and you continue to just throw insults, like that was what you were implying the entire time, too bad your own stupid fucking post I quoted above in my response to Methais contradicts your retarded ass.

I thought the jet lag comment was the stupidest thing you’ve ever said on these forums, nope you managed to one up yourself again! Good job! You 100% deserve the tiara you are wearing for being the biggest retard on these boards.

That’s your problem Parkbitch, you change your stance and lie so much, you don’t even remember your own post or what the fuck you are saying outside of BUT BUT BUT THE DEMOCRATS and your pathetic attempts to insult people.
Go back and sit in the corner cupcake.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/939f5b8432591e502f851b88196e9713/tenor.gif?itemid=14481724

[Solkern]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/939f5b8432591e502f851b88196e9713/tenor.gif?itemid=14481724

Upset? Nah, more like face palming. Watching PB make an idiot of himself is quite amusing.

[drauz]

No I totally agree with you! Babies am I right? Bunch of fuckers.

I'm sure you're against the death penalty as well, right?

[Methais]

I'm sure you're against the death penalty as well, right?

One is being put the death for a heinous crime, usually murder. The other is being put to death for simply existing.

But yes they're totally the same.

[Tgo01]

I'm sure you're against the death penalty as well, right?

I'm totally in favor of the death penalty for babies if they are guilty of murder.

[drauz]

If the GOP manages to install someone on the Court before January 3rd, a part of me is praying the Dems don't take back the Senate. You're right that conservatives may not get their ruling, but I think you're wrong on the reasons.

If the Dems take back the Senate, then they've also taken the White House. For the last 10 years Democrats have been watching Republicans play dirtier and dirtier- gerrymandering in a way no one had ever had the gall to do before, sweeping voter disenfranchisement, perverting the SCOTUS nomination process (in so many ways), refusing to do their Constitutional duties in the impeachment case...there is so much (no pun intended) fire and fury built up on the left right now.

It's going to be bad. I can already see it: killing the Filibuster, stacking the Supreme Court, and then giving DC and Puerto Rico statehood- which is great but not when you're doing it to manipulate the senate.

Ultimately the filibuster is part of what protects us from authoritarians like Trump and their enablers. It's also part of what keeps this country from being in a perpetual pendulum swing of extreme policy positions. (Imagine Abortion becoming legalize and then banned and then legalized and then banned over and over again every few years).

I get the rage on the left- I get being tired of being the adults in the room while Republicans run around burning the house down. But Democrats are holding gas cans right now and are ready to "solve the problem" by throwing pouring them directly into the flames.

There aren't going to be any adults left in the room.

Democrats are acting like spoiled children and the politicians enabling them isn't a good look. Many of these people they are catering to don't even vote. All they are doing is pushing away moderate people in the center with this non-sense rhetoric. They really should look at the facts and take them as they are instead of trying to make the facts fit their narrative.

They want to be seen as the adults at the table? Then they need to start acting like it.

[Fortybox]

Upset? Nah, more like face palming. Watching PB make an idiot of himself is quite amusing.

Someone that writes that many paragraphs is definitely upset. What a waste of time on an anonymous internet forum for a 30-year old text-based game.

[drauz]

One is being put the death for a heinous crime, usually murder. The other is being put to death for simply existing.

But yes they're totally the same.

I'm just disregarding the declaration of independence, same as you.

[Parkbandit]

Upset? Nah, more like face palming. Watching PB make an idiot of himself is quite amusing.

Talk about living in an alternate reality.....

[Solkern]

Someone that writes that many paragraphs is definitely upset. What a waste of time on an anonymous internet forum for a 30-year old text-based game.

Thanks for your expert prognosis! Just what I needed by anonymous person who thinks they are a psychologist on an anonymous Internet forum for a 30-year-old text bass game. I’m sure you have quite a lot of self-diagnosed experience regarding the matter.

[Methais]

Thanks for your expert prognosis! Just what I needed by anonymous person who thinks they are a psychologist on an anonymous Internet forum for a 30-year-old text bass game. I’m sure you have quite a lot of self-diagnosed experience regarding the matter.

Whether you realize it or not, your posts really do come across as being mad and upset.

[Solkern]

Whether you realize it or not, your posts really do come across as being mad and upset.

I’m neither mad or upset, I find this place amusing or I wouldn’t be posting here.

[Viekn]

One is being put the death for a heinous crime, usually murder. The other is being put to death for simply existing.

But yes they're totally the same.

I think the point is that most pro life advocates argue simply that an unborn child is a human life and the sanctity of human life should be protected. In which case said person should also be against the death penalty, which anecdotally I believe isn't generally the case, which negates their pro life anti-abortion argument. In which case the stance becomes: some human life should be protected and others shouldn't. Now you've opened the door to the fact that not all lives are equal when it comes to the life we have been given and someone else can now judge whether that life should be protected or not. But any human judge is bound to be flawed, because we are human. So do we want to then allow for a flawed individual deciding what lives are worth protecting and which aren't? I'd argue that we apply the logic equally across the board: Either abortions are allowed and so is the death penalty, or abortions are outlawed and so is the death penalty.

I do not argue the point because I am not in favor of babies having the opportunity to live their lives. I argue the point because I think logical arguments should be used universally, not selectively. I am very much in favor of all babies having the opportunity of a life. But until we find a way to make adoptions not cost tens of thousands of dollars, provide completely free healthcare for pregnant mothers who may not want their child, provide completely free and easy universal access to whatever contraception a woman wants to use, we have no business trying to argue the point whether abortions should be legal or illegal. If overnight abortion became outlawed in the US, do you think that would stop all abortions in our society from happening overnight? Absolutely not, people will find ways. So instead of both sides being idiotic and fighting to have things 100% their way, if they would get their shit together and accept compromises, many more babies could have the opportunity for life in a much shorter amount of time than what's being done now.

Sorry for the semi-rant, but when there's something as important as a life involved and people can't see past their own ideals in order for true progress to happen, it just burns my bacon.

[Tgo01]

the sanctity of human life should be protected.

That's not me. My position is the sanctity of innocent human life should be protected.

I've always found this counterargument to pro-life people to be bizarre, even when I was pro-abortion myself.

"Oh so you think innocent babies in the womb should be protected huh? I bet you think Hitler deserved to live too!"

[Parkbandit]

I think the point is that most pro life advocates argue simply that an unborn child is a human life and the sanctity of human life should be protected. In which case said person should also be against the death penalty, which anecdotally I believe isn't generally the case, which negates their pro life anti-abortion argument. In which case the stance becomes: some human life should be protected and others shouldn't. Now you've opened the door to the fact that not all lives are equal when it comes to the life we have been given and someone else can now judge whether that life should be protected or not. But any human judge is bound to be flawed, because we are human. So do we want to then allow for a flawed individual deciding what lives are worth protecting and which aren't? I'd argue that we apply the logic equally across the board: Either abortions are allowed and so is the death penalty, or abortions are outlawed and so is the death penalty.

I do not argue the point because I am not in favor of babies having the opportunity to live their lives. I argue the point because I think logical arguments should be used universally, not selectively. I am very much in favor of all babies having the opportunity of a life. But until we find a way to make adoptions not cost tens of thousands of dollars, provide completely free healthcare for pregnant mothers who may not want their child, provide completely free and easy universal access to whatever contraception a woman wants to use, we have no business trying to argue the point whether abortions should be legal or illegal. If overnight abortion became outlawed in the US, do you think that would stop all abortions in our society from happening overnight? Absolutely not, people will find ways. So instead of both sides being idiotic and fighting to have things 100% their way, if they would get their shit together and accept compromises, many more babies could have the opportunity for life in a much shorter amount of time than what's being done now.

Sorry for the semi-rant, but when there's something as important as a life involved and people can't see past their own ideals in order for true progress to happen, it just burns my bacon.

I think there is a definite distinction between life and innocent life. While I'm pro-choice up to a certain point.. I can understand the stance of Pro-life people who are also for the death penalty.

[drauz]

That's not me. My position is the sanctity of innocent human life should be protected.

I've always found this counterargument to pro-life people to be bizarre, even when I was pro-abortion myself.

"Oh so you think innocent babies in the womb should be protected huh? I bet you think Hitler deserved to live too!"

No innocent people have ever been executed in our court system.... Oh wait...

[Methais]

No innocent people have ever been executed in our court system.... Oh wait...

That's only because Kamala Harris couldn't cover up that guy's evidence that proved him innocent any longer.

[Tgo01]

No innocent people have ever been executed in our court system.... Oh wait...

The other odd argument; since our justice system isn't 100% perfect then we shouldn't try at all. No prison for anybody! An innocent person might be sent to prison!

[Solkern]

If life is considered at conception, and that zygote is considered a human life, I’m assuming this unborn child has right? Or do they only get rights once they are born? Would a pregnant mother and her husband be able to claim this unborn child as a dependent, for let’s say tax purposes? Can we get this unborn child a social security number, etc?

When it comes to child birth/abortion, I always think of 2pac. “Since a man can’t make one, he has no right to tell a women when and where to create one.”

[drauz]

The other odd argument; since our justice system isn't 100% perfect then we shouldn't try at all. No prison for anybody! An innocent person might be sent to prison!

Nice strawman you got there. You can let someone out of prison if they are found innocent and give them money to try and compensate. You cannot however unkill someone. We've been trying for a long time with no results.

Nice try though.

[Viekn]

The other odd argument; since our justice system isn't 100% perfect then we shouldn't try at all. No prison for anybody! An innocent person might be sent to prison!

Am I the only one here that would like to see penal colonies on remote islands come back in to an option? Why spend all of our tax dollars to put someone to death. Send them to an island that's minimally equipped for survival and let them either have a chance at life...or not.

[Parkbandit]

If life is considered at conception, and that zygote is considered a human life, I’m assuming this unborn child has right? Or do they only get rights once they are born? Would a pregnant mother and her husband be able to claim this unborn child as a dependent, for let’s say tax purposes? Can we get this unborn child a social security number, etc?

When it comes to child birth/abortion, I always think of 2pac. “Since a man can’t make one, he has no right to tell a women when and where to create one.”

When you post this type of stupidity.. all I can see is this..

https://64.media.tumblr.com/8f6c8898fb45c2e48ed62fdf52a5a226/tumblr_inline_ot3kqvwFoC1tilys8_400.gifv

[Solkern]

When you post this type of stupidity.. all I can see is this..

https://64.media.tumblr.com/8f6c8898fb45c2e48ed62fdf52a5a226/tumblr_inline_ot3kqvwFoC1tilys8_400.gifv

And when you post things like this, it means you don’t know the answer. It’s ok cupcake, you just don’t need to reply, it’ll make you look less stupid
I’m not up to date with US laws, abortions etc, that’s why I asked.

[Methais]

And when you post things like this, it means you don’t know the answer. It’s ok cupcake, you just don’t need to reply, it’ll make you look less stupid
I’m not up to date with US laws, abortions etc, that’s why I asked.

We're gonna need you to select a new pastry for the time being.

[Parkbandit]

And when you post things like this, it means you don’t know the answer. It’s ok cupcake, you just don’t need to reply, it’ll make you look less stupid
I’m not up to date with US laws, abortions etc, that’s why I asked.

It's not that you are not up to date with US laws.. it's that you really, really wanted to make an intelligent point.. and as usual, failed.

There are about a million abortions every year in the US and about 10-20 percent of ALL pregnancies end in miscarriage.

In before you claim you were just trolling again...

[Sighisoara]

That's not me. My position is the sanctity of innocent human life should be protected.

I've always found this counterargument to pro-life people to be bizarre, even when I was pro-abortion myself.

"Oh so you think innocent babies in the womb should be protected huh? I bet you think Hitler deserved to live too!"

Serious question: What do you consider to be innocent human life?

[Tgo01]

Serious question: What do you consider to be innocent human life?

That's a pretty broad question but I'll sum up my two big points of what doesn't make someone an innocent human: someone found guilty of murder or rape.

[Sighisoara]

That's a pretty broad question but I'll sum up my two big points of what doesn't make someone an innocent human: someone found guilty of murder or rape.

I appreciate that it was broad question and you've managed to answer it rather succinctly. I've heard people use the phrase 'innocent life,' and I think that it can mean drastically different things to different people. I think it's interesting to hear from people where they draw the line in what is acceptable state sanctioned killing.

[Gelston]

You cannot however unkill someone.

Yet.

[Seran]

Democrats are acting like spoiled children and the politicians enabling them isn't a good look. Many of these people they are catering to don't even vote. All they are doing is pushing away moderate people in the center with this non-sense rhetoric. They really should look at the facts and take them as they are instead of trying to make the facts fit their narrative.

They want to be seen as the adults at the table? Then they need to start acting like it.

And if those spoiled children decide to retaliate for having been denied a Supreme Court nomination hearing in 2016 by raining hellfire all over the Republican plans, then so be it. Democrats are the only ones trying to play fair at this point, while Trump and his cronies are crying victim while stacking the deck and robbing the house blind at the same time.

[Seran]

Reciprocity is going to be a bitch.

[Sighisoara]

And if those spoiled children decide to retaliate for having been denied a Supreme Court nomination hearing in 2016 by raining hellfire all over the Republican plans, then so be it. Democrats are the only ones trying to play fair at this point, while Trump and his cronies are crying victim while stacking the deck and robbing the house blind at the same time.

huh?

[Gelston]

My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent. The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.

The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.

I was almost expecting him to vote against no matter what.

[Sighisoara]

Reciprocity is going to be a bitch.

It will be, but not how you think. The Democratic party's biggest failing is its inability to foresee basic things in the not too distant future. As much as I dislike Mitch McConnell, he's seen it from the very beginning. Every bit of this started when the Democrats held a majority, but couldn't break a filibuster, so they changed the rules. They were warned, by McConnell no less, that it would bite them in the ass. It did.

The ascendency of Trump and the Republicans ceding their platform to him gave the Democrats the greatest political gift they could've asked for. All they had to do was not fuck it up and they could control the federal government for likely multiple administrations. All they had to do was not double down on stupid. What'd they do? They doubled down on stupid.

tl/dr: If you give the Democrats a chance, they'll cock it up and then cry foul.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm sure you're against the death penalty as well, right?

Wait, I'm not following. Are you saying being against the death penalty is equivalent to being against abortion? So if you are pro abortion, you must be pro death penalty?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I appreciate that it was broad question and you've managed to answer it rather succinctly. I've heard people use the phrase 'innocent life,' and I think that it can mean drastically different things to different people. I think it's interesting to hear from people where they draw the line in what is acceptable state sanctioned killing.

I'd add to that; people who abuse animals for sport or pleasure. And no, I can't be much more specific than I hate people who abuse animals and wish them death. And it's my scale. Like, swatting a dog for misbehaving isn't abuse, beating them repeatedly is. I'd love to be Judge Dread for animal abusers.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

And if those spoiled children decide to retaliate for having been denied a Supreme Court nomination hearing in 2016 by raining hellfire all over the Republican plans, then so be it. Democrats are the only ones trying to play fair at this point, while Trump and his cronies are crying victim while stacking the deck and robbing the house blind at the same time.

What? Some of your posts I get, but this one is way out there in "I'm blind to all politics" land. Current SCOTUS situation is a DIRECT RESULT of Dems.

[Sighisoara]

I'd add to that; people who abuse animals for sport or pleasure. And no, I can't be much more specific than I hate people who abuse animals and wish them death. And it's my scale. Like, swatting a dog for misbehaving isn't abuse, beating them repeatedly is. I'd love to be Judge Dread for animal abusers.

I would definitely have a much more expansive list, as well. One problem with it, though, is that there is a fluctuation between everyone as to what is reasonable. For example, and borrowing from your addition of animal abuse, our family puppy ate one of my dress shoes a few weeks ago. I thought it was totally reasonable to take the remainder of the show and smack her over the head with it. My wife disagreed, and was fucking pissed.

[Tgo01]

Democrats are the only ones trying to play fair at this point

Oh come the fuck on. There are already Democrats in congress openly talking about packing the court the next time they control the White House and Senate. This is of course after months of shutting down cities and states to hurt the economy and thus Trump, trying to scare people away from the polls so they can implement their mail in voting scheme, and either flat out encouraging/accepting their Brown Shirts wrecking havoc on the country or turning a blind eye to the violence.

Playing fair my hairy ass.

[drauz]

Wait, I'm not following. Are you saying being against the death penalty is equivalent to being against abortion? So if you are pro abortion, you must be pro death penalty?

I am saying its a tough sell to talk about the sanctity of life and then be for the death penalty. It's even more hilarious when Christians do it.

For the record I am for the death penalty and pro abortion.

[Tgo01]

I am saying its a tough sell to talk about the sanctity of life and then be for the death penalty. It's even more hilarious when Christians do it.

It's a good thing I never made such a vague argument such as the "sanctity of life."


It's even more hilarious when Christians do it.

Bible says eye for an eye, I don't recall a part in the bible where Jesus was encouraging women to abort their babies.

[drauz]

Bible says eye for an eye

Bible doesn't say that at all actually.


You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

— Matthew 5:38–39 English Standard Version

[Tgo01]

Bible doesn't say that at all actually.

That's the New Testament. Old Testament is very clear on this:

Deuteronomy 19:15-21


“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, hen both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

And just so we're clear here I am very much agnostic.

[Solkern]

It's not that you are not up to date with US laws.. it's that you really, really wanted to make an intelligent point.. and as usual, failed.

There are about a million abortions every year in the US and about 10-20 percent of ALL pregnancies end in miscarriage.

In before you claim you were just trolling again...

And you still didn’t answer one single question I asked. Did I ask how many abortions were in the US every year? Did I ask about miscarriages? Are you really that bad at reading comprehension?
My questions were towards if life starts at conception, if a zygote, is considered life, what rights do they have? Should they have rights? If they are considered a human life, could a parent claim them as a dependent? Etc etc.

You try to make an intelligent response, next time, try to respond to the actual questions asked. I know it might be difficult for you, but give it a try.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Bible doesn't say that at all actually.

Didn't you just say "it doesn't say that at all actually", and then quote exactly an eye for an eye?

I know, not your point, but I found it worth a chuckle.

[Gelston]

That's the New Testament. Old Testament is very clear on this:

Deuteronomy 19:15-21



And just so we're clear here I am very much agnostic.

The New Testament sorta overwrites the old in conflicting points. Otherwise, no Christian should be eating pork.

[drauz]

That's the New Testament. Old Testament is very clear on this:

Deuteronomy 19:15-21



And just so we're clear here I am very much agnostic.

Old Testament is before Jesus. What I said is a quote directly attributed to Jesus, who you mentioned.

[drauz]

Didn't you just say "it doesn't say that at all actually", and then quote exactly an eye for an eye?

I know, not your point, but I found it worth a chuckle.

Turn the other cheek is the exact opposite of eye for an eye.......

[Methais]

I'd add to that; people who abuse animals for sport or pleasure. And no, I can't be much more specific than I hate people who abuse animals and wish them death. And it's my scale. Like, swatting a dog for misbehaving isn't abuse, beating them repeatedly is. I'd love to be Judge Dread for animal abusers.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Parkbandit]

Democrats are the only ones trying to play fair at this point

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BigUnequaledAlbino-small.gif

[Parkbandit]

I was almost expecting him to vote against no matter what.

Yup. He so desperately wants to be relevant and loved.

[Parkbandit]

All they had to do was not double down on stupid. What'd they do? They doubled down on stupid.


https://media1.tenor.com/images/497288f1fdd111a91b4eedf6f92149b6/tenor.gif?itemid=8475447

https://media.tenor.com/images/b65e96e364f8ed08f1094da451153132/tenor.gif

[Parkbandit]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/8f6c8898fb45c2e48ed62fdf52a5a226/tumblr_inline_ot3kqvwFoC1tilys8_400.gifv

Yes, yes... double down on it....

I know, I know.. you just aren't up to date on the US laws.......................

[Parkbandit]

Old Testament is before Jesus. What I said is a quote directly attributed to Jesus, who you mentioned.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ConcernedPrestigiousLacewing-small.gif

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Turn the other cheek is the exact opposite of eye for an eye.......

Wasn't my point. My point was, you said it doesn't say that at all, but in the bible it says exactly that "an eye for an eye", just followed by more text. I guess I was the only one who though it was funny. I know it wasn't your point, just the irony of saying it doesn't say that, then quoting exactly it saying that (again, I know that wasn't your point...). Just funny to me.

[time4fun]

And you still didn’t answer one single question I asked. Did I ask how many abortions were in the US every year? Did I ask about miscarriages? Are you really that bad at reading comprehension?
My questions were towards if life starts at conception, if a zygote, is considered life, what rights do they have? Should they have rights? If they are considered a human life, could a parent claim them as a dependent? Etc etc.

You try to make an intelligent response, next time, try to respond to the actual questions asked. I know it might be difficult for you, but give it a try.

It's astounding. 200,000 dead Americans- the third largest mass death event in the history of this country, and these fools are sitting around talking about abortion.

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortions- it stops safe abortions.

What stops abortions are: easy access to contraceptives, easy access to the morning after pill, and comprehensive sexual health education.

Which means Democrats have done more to lower the abortion rate than Republicans ever have. If conservatives *actually* cared about lowering the abortion rate, they would have supported all of those things instead of constantly trying to stop them.

But they don't. They care about controlling women's sexuality.

[Methais]

It's astounding. 200,000 dead Americans- the third largest mass death event in the history of this country, and these fools are sitting around talking about abortion.

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortions- it stops safe abortions.

What stops abortions are: easy access to contraceptives, easy access to the morning after pill, and comprehensive sexual health education.

Which means Democrats have done more to lower the abortion rate than Republicans ever have. If conservatives *actually* cared about lowering the abortion rate, they would have supported all of those things instead of constantly trying to stop them.

But they don't. They care about controlling women's sexuality.

Abortion also results in less people like you running around. Otherwise we'd really be in trouble, Andraste.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

these fools are sitting around talking about abortion.


Making abortion...

ZERO

SELF

AWARENESS

[Fortybox]

It's astounding. 200,000 dead Americans- the third largest mass death event in the history of this country, and these fools are sitting around talking about abortion.

It would be 4th, behind the spanish flu, world war II and the civil war you moron. 200k isn't an accurate number though as many of these deaths have been classified as COVID but COVID was not the actual cause of death.

[Tgo01]

It's astounding. 200,000 dead Americans- the third largest mass death event in the history of this country, and these fools are sitting around talking about abortion.

Abortions have killed anywhere from 700k to 1 million unborn babies in the US EACH YEAR for the past decade, and this fool sitting here talking about the Chinese Flu being the "third largest mass death event in the history of this country."

Is this the new dumb angle Democrats are going for? Democrats are the masters of gaslighting.

[kutter]

It would be 4th, behind the spanish flu, world war II and the civil war you moron. 200k isn't an accurate number though as many of these deaths have been classified as COVID but COVID was not the actual cause of death.

By the CDC estimates only somewhere between 6% and 7% are a direct result of Covid-19, the rest are attributed to pre-existing health conditions. From everything I have read, when this is all said and done, the percentages will not be significantly worse than a bad flu year. Since when do we lock down the world for the flu?

[Gelston]

By the CDC estimates only somewhere between 6% and 7% are a direct result of Covid-19, the rest are attributed to pre-existing health conditions. From everything I have read, when this is all said and done, the percentages will not be significantly worse than a bad flu year. Since when do we lock down the world for the flu?

Asian Flu and Hong Kong Flu were pretty damn horrible in 58 and 68. They still had Woodstock as Hong Kong Flu was still raging on. It mostly killed people over 65.

Thing is, we'll never know how worse COVID would have been without lock downs. It might have been a lot worse. It might have been the exact same if they'd just lock down the at risk.

[ClydeR]

By the CDC estimates only somewhere between 6% and 7% are a direct result of Covid-19, the rest are attributed to pre-existing health conditions. From everything I have read, when this is all said and done, the percentages will not be significantly worse than a bad flu year. Since when do we lock down the world for the flu?


That was such a surprising assertion that I took a few minutes to Google it and discovered that it is a debunked conspiracy theory.

It all started from a tweet by a QAnon conspiracy theorist, which was retweeted by Trump and then deleted, including Trump's retweet, by Twitter.

Here is an explanation..


So what’s happening here? Well, it’s pretty simple — in the U.S., deaths are recorded using standardized death certificates. On these certificates, completed by medical certifiers, there are several spaces to fill in — one for the immediate cause of death, and then several lines for the underlying causes of that. As an example, say someone has lung cancer, and dies in hospital of an infection after having a lung removed. The immediate cause of death is the infection, which occurred due to complications of the lung removal, which was ultimately caused by the underlying issue of lung cancer. In the same way, someone who gets COVID-19, which causes respiratory failure, and then dies of kidney failure due to being on a ventilator would have at least three things on their form — the immediate cause, kidney failure, the secondary cause, respiratory failure, and the underlying cause, COVID-19.

When you see that “only 6%” of people had COVID-19 as the sole reason listed on their death forms, what it means is that there were only a small fraction of people who died of the disease who didn’t have any other underlying or immediate causes noted by the medical certifiers. This is completely unsurprising, as it’s pretty rare that someone wouldn’t have at least one issue caused by coronavirus prior to their death, and all it means is that in 94% of cases people who had COVID-19 also developed other issues, or had other problems at the same time.

One way of looking at the precise number is to ask how many COVID-19 deaths had coronavirus as the UNDERLYING cause. That is, the cause that precipitated any other issues, or the thing that actually killed a person. The CDC has actually estimated this, and puts it at >95% of all COVID-19 deaths, meaning that the vast majority of deaths recorded as caused by coronavirus in the U.S. were caused by COVID-19.

More... (https://medium.com/@gidmk/covid-19-deaths-are-mostly-caused-by-coronavirus-2a6d2d43bd09)

There are links in the article so that you can verify it all yourself, since I'm sure you're not the sort of person who normally falls for conspiracy theories.

[Methais]

That was such a surprising assertion that I took a few minutes to Google it and discovered that it is a debunked conspiracy theory.

It all started from a tweet by a QAnon conspiracy theorist, which was retweeted by Trump and then deleted, including Trump's retweet, by Twitter.

Here is an explanation..



There are links in the article so that you can verify it all yourself, since I'm sure you're not the sort of person who normally falls for conspiracy theories.

Those damn drug overdoses and motorcycle accident COVID deaths.

[Tgo01]

By the CDC estimates only somewhere between 6% and 7% are a direct result of Covid-19, the rest are attributed to pre-existing health conditions. From everything I have read, when this is all said and done, the percentages will not be significantly worse than a bad flu year. Since when do we lock down the world for the flu?

It will be interesting to see the total number of US deaths in 2020 compared to previous years.

For example according to the CDC there were 2,813,503 US deaths in 2017 and 2,839,205 deaths in 2018. Very similar numbers. If we see a much higher number for 2020 then the Wuhan flu is probably killing people who potentially had years left to live, if the numbers are close to the 2017 and 2018 figures then the Wuhan flu either mostly took people who had months to live or the Wuhan flu was a minor contributing factor in their death.

I wonder if we will ever see the true 2020 total death numbers or if Democrats will try their hardest to conceal the truth because otherwise it might make it look like they made everyone's life hell and scared the shit out of people all for political power.

[Risen]

Current excess deaths percentages as reported by the CDC week over week, for the last 3 years and 9 months.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

[kutter]

That was such a surprising assertion that I took a few minutes to Google it and discovered that it is a debunked conspiracy theory.

It all started from a tweet by a QAnon conspiracy theorist, which was retweeted by Trump and then deleted, including Trump's retweet, by Twitter.

Here is an explanation..



There are links in the article so that you can verify it all yourself, since I'm sure you're not the sort of person who normally falls for conspiracy theories.

Actually no, I am looking here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

You have to parse their numbers but the long and short of it is that the VAST majority of deaths are a result of things other than Covid-19. Pre-existing underlying conditions contribute greatly to the death toll, just like they do with the flu, but again, we do not lock down the country for the flu.

[Avaia]

HIV/AIDS kills almost no one either. Much like COVID-19 what it does is reduce ability to fight off other infections. Does this mean that HIV is not deadly?

[Tgo01]

Current excess deaths percentages as reported by the CDC week over week, for the last 3 years and 9 months.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

Well that's interesting. If I'm reading it right the CDC puts the excess deaths at 208k, and currently the US has 206k confirmed deaths.

I sense some fuckery going on.

[Solkern]

Well that's interesting. If I'm reading it right the CDC puts the excess deaths at 208k, and currently the US has 206k confirmed deaths.

I sense some fuckery going on.

https://theconversation.com/up-to-204-691-extra-deaths-in-the-us-so-far-in-this-pandemic-year-143139

Those excess deaths are only through July.
We haven’t even hit flu season yet.

[kutter]

HIV/AIDS kills almost no one either. Much like COVID-19 what it does is reduce ability to fight off other infections. Does this mean that HIV is not deadly?

Actually not that many people die per year as a result of HIV, hiv.gov says a little over 15K and that is anyone that has HIV that dies, it does not break down how. I realize 15K people is a lot in how we think of it, but as a percentage of the population, especially for an illness that fairly easily preventable, as evidenced by the decreasing number who contract it every year. HIV is not the death sentence it once was and I suspect that sometime in the next 10-20 years, science will find a way to deal with it completely.

[Solkern]

Actually not that many people die per year as a result of HIV, hiv.gov says a little over 15K and that is anyone that has HIV that dies, it does not break down how. I realize 15K people is a lot in how we think of it, but as a percentage of the population, especially for an illness that fairly easily preventable, as evidenced by the decreasing number who contract it every year. HIV is not the death sentence it once was and I suspect that sometime in the next 10-20 years, science will find a way to deal with it completely.


I also think this is a little misleading, but it is true. But you also need to look at the bigger picture.

Since the beginning of the epidemic, nearly 675,000 people with AIDS in the United States have died, and even today, nearly 13,000 people with AIDS in the United States die each year. Engagement in care: AIDS-related deaths occur when people who are infected do not receive the testing, treatment and care they need.

As of 2018, we’ve had almost 30 years of HIV research, we have ample medicine, knowledge and treatment to help combat HIV. I’m sure the death toll during the first years of this pandemic when we knew nothing about it was much much higher. The same case can be said about Covid, we currently have 7 months and know almost nothing, we still can’t even confirm how it totally spreads. As we learn more the death count will drop, but as of now it’ll be much higher cause we know nothing.

[kutter]

I also think this is a little misleading, but it is true. But you also need to look at the bigger picture.

Since the beginning of the epidemic, nearly 675,000 people with AIDS in the United States have died, and even today, nearly 13,000 people with AIDS in the United States die each year. Engagement in care: AIDS-related deaths occur when people who are infected do not receive the testing, treatment and care they need.

As of 2018, we have ample medicine, medical research and treatment to help combat HIV. I’m sure the death toll during the first years of this pandemic when we knew nothing about it was much much higher. The same case can be said about Covid. As we learn more the death count will drop, but as of now it’ll be much higher cause we know nothing.

Actually the death count from Covid-19 has already dropped dramatically as a percentage of the infected, one of the largest factors is not putting people on a vent since almost everyone that was put on a vent ended up dying. Even in as short a time as it has been, the method of treatment has progressed significantly towards preventing deaths. Everyone thinks that we 'flattened the curve' to save lives, but it was only to prevent overloading healthcare institutions, and I suppose it worked but at what cost to things other than the virus. I realize it is hard to place a cost on things like unemployed people, but there is a cost and I have 3 friends that lost their jobs as a result of it. Their companies just downsized during the pandemic and eliminated their jobs. Their is a cost to be payed other than just how we count deaths. There are only two ways this thing goes away, vaccine or herd immunity or a combination of both more likely.

[Parkbandit]

But they don't. They care about controlling women's sexuality.

YOU NAILED IT ANDRASTE! THAT IS THE ENTIRE MOTIVE RIGHT THERE.. TO CONTROL WOMEN!

If that were really the case, it would be Republicans for abortion and the DemoKKKrats against it.

Please remember your history: Democrats were for slavery, against women rights and vehemently against civil rights for blacks (that filibuster still is the record...).

[Fortybox]

Actually no, I am looking here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

You have to parse their numbers but the long and short of it is that the VAST majority of deaths are a result of things other than Covid-19. Pre-existing underlying conditions contribute greatly to the death toll, just like they do with the flu, but again, we do not lock down the country for the flu.

This is why time4fakestanfordeducation is a major problem of propagating incorrect information. She likes the 200k number because it's big and scary. The numbers do not support this "pandemic" as being as great as it is. Again like you mention, basically a bad flu season. 2020 will go down in history as a total overreaction.

Hopefully our children in the future will learn to take on challenges as they come based on the facts and not giving way to drama queens like time4dumb.

[Solkern]

Actually no, I am looking here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

You have to parse their numbers but the long and short of it is that the VAST majority of deaths are a result of things other than Covid-19. Pre-existing underlying conditions contribute greatly to the death toll, just like they do with the flu, but again, we do not lock down the country for the flu.
COVID-19 had direct involvement(either major or minor) with underlying health conditions that were the main cause of death as well.
Of course we don’t shut down for the flu. We have how many years of medical research, medicine and knowledge, including a vaccine to help combat the flu? Do we have that for COVID-19?

[Parkbandit]

It's astounding. 200,000 dead Americans- the third largest mass death event in the history of this country, and these fools are sitting around talking about abortion.

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortions- it stops safe abortions.

What stops abortions are: easy access to contraceptives, easy access to the morning after pill, and comprehensive sexual health education.

Which means Democrats have done more to lower the abortion rate than Republicans ever have. If conservatives *actually* cared about lowering the abortion rate, they would have supported all of those things instead of constantly trying to stop them.

But they don't. They care about controlling women's sexuality.

How hard is it to get contraceptives in this country? You can order them online, go to just about any store.. hell, they are in vending machines in most bar bathrooms..

Or are you talking about free condoms? Because I don't feel the need to pay for someone's condoms who would rather pick up the new iPhone than to buy rubbers..

And what the fuck is "comprehensive sexual health education"? If you haven't figured out that fucking a chick might get her pregnant by now.... not sure having a teacher tell you this will lower anything.

[Parkbandit]

This is why time4fakestanfordeducation is a major problem of propagating incorrect information. She likes the 200k number because it's big and scary. The numbers do not support this "pandemic" as being as great as it is. Again like you mention, basically a bad flu season. 2020 will go down in history as a total overreaction.

Hopefully our children in the future will learn to take on challenges as they come based on the facts and not giving way to drama queens like time4dumb.


#lol@2phdsmorelikezerodegrees

THANKFULLY, her retard gene dies with her.

[drauz]

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ConcernedPrestigiousLacewing-small.gif

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/EuphoricNegativeKodiakbear-size_restricted.gif

[Parkbandit]

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/EuphoricNegativeKodiakbear-size_restricted.gif

It actually means exactly what I thought it means.. you literally moved the goalpost. Here, let's revisit:


Bible says eye for an eye,


Bible doesn't say that at all actually.


Deuteronomy 19:15-21


Old Testament is before Jesus. What I said is a quote directly attributed to Jesus, who you mentioned.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/WXtccLGTLB1NS/giphy.gif

[Risen]

Well that's interesting. If I'm reading it right the CDC puts the excess deaths at 208k, and currently the US has 206k confirmed deaths.

I sense some fuckery going on.

If the base number is wrong, all analysis from that base number will also be wrong. I give the benefit of the doubt and say it is directionally correct. There are anomalies, some might be simple mistakes and some might be criminal offenses. I trust the process enough to consider it higher than 95% accurate.

There are a couple of other points that should be considered. Mental health impacts due to job loss, social isolation, and so on. Today during a committee hearing, upticks in all categories of deaths related to our response to COVID-19 was referenced, but I did not hear any number reported. The problem is, that number will also only trend up while we screw around with this.

[Methais]

https://i.imgur.com/2Tkuoq3.png