'Murica! (132 Viewers)

[Ronn]

That's my point. Just as it wasn't illegal for the filibuster rules to change or be removed under Reid. Unprecedented, yes. Illegal, no.

Except it's refusing to do your job. Congress needs to assemble at least once a year. If they do it for a day and then go home it's legal but it's refusing to do the job. McConnel set a precedent that is far worse than changing cloture rules. Now everytime Senate and president are from different parties they just will refuse to hear SCOTUS nominations.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Hust]

Except it's refusing to do your job. Congress needs to assemble at least once a year. If they do it for a day and then go home it's legal but it's refusing to do the job. McConnel set a precedent that is far worse than changing cloture rules. Now everytime Senate and president are from different parties they just will refuse to hear SCOTUS nominations.

Perhaps, I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment.

- - - Updated - - -

and the other 100 or so appointments? also bold move?

What about them? Using the new rules to steamroll nominations to positions? Or are you referring the the nominations Obama didn't fill in his first term when both houses were in his control?

 

[Enron]

Perhaps, I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment.

- - - Updated - - -


What about them? Using the new rules to steamroll nominations to positions? Or are you referring the the nominations Obama didn't fill in his first term when both houses were in his control?

Stop playing Cam

I know you know this

McConnell let 100s of judicial nominations sit on his desk during the second term of Obama administration because he was butthurt about him winning a second term after swearing to make him a one term president in 2010

 

[Hust]

Stop playing Cam

I know you know this

McConnell let 100s of judicial nominations sit on his desk during the second term of Obama administration because he was butthurt about him winning a second term after swearing to make him a one term president in 2010

At first I couldn't tell if you were referring to using the new simply majority rules that has been used. After reading it a second time I thought you might referring to the ones he let sit idle.

- - - Updated - - -

You said appointments, meaning positions already filled that's what threw me off. Had you had said nominations, I would have assumed you meant the ones Obama wanted.

Calma

 

[Enron]

At first I couldn't tell if you were referring to using the new simply majority rules that has been used. After reading it a second time I thought you might referring to the ones he let sit idle.

- - - Updated - - -

You said appointments, meaning positions already filled that's what threw me off. Had you had said nominations, I would have assumed you meant the ones Obama wanted.

Calma

nominations, appointments, whatever

homeboy took his ball and went home, while holding up legislation and due process

 

[Hust]

nominations, appointments, whatever

homeboy took his ball and went home, while holding up legislation and due process

so what are you asking me exactly? Was it a bold move? Yes, it was...but like Ronn said it was also a dick move.

 

[Enron]

so what are you asking me exactly? Was it a bold move? Yes, it was...but like Ronn said it was also a dick move.

you said the past administration didn’t try to fill judicial positions, however they did

that’s all

 

[Hust]

you said the past administration didn’t try to fill judicial positions, however they did

that’s all

I said they left a lot of vacancies. It was reported that Obama himself didn't put an emphasis on packing the courts, he didn't see it as an issue having that many vacancies. They did, after the changed the rules. Again, nothing the republicans did was illegal.

 

[Juvellino]

All of this aside,

U.S. to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany but nearly half to stay in Europe

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rly-half-to-stay-in-europe-idUSKCN24U20L?il=0

No doubt many will be angry about this on both sides, but I think we can do with closing a base or two in Europe tbh. Not having anything to do with NATO or some trade bullshit, but I'm sure they can take care of themselves as developed nations and we could do with saving a few dollars here and there.

So half of the 12,000 are coming to the USA and half are moving to Italy and Belgium? Do I understand this correctly?

 

[Enron]

So half of the 12,000 are coming to the USA and half are moving to Italy and Belgium? Do I understand this correctly?

most likely and some of our “other bases”.

 

[Enron]

I said they left a lot of vacancies. It was reported that Obama himself didn't put an emphasis on packing the courts, he didn't see it as an issue having that many vacancies. They did, after the changed the rules. Again, nothing the republicans did was illegal.

that’s not what Mitch McConnell said last year

anywho, it’s not about legal or illegal. we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the sore loser argument

 

[Hust]

All of this aside,

U.S. to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany but nearly half to stay in Europe

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rly-half-to-stay-in-europe-idUSKCN24U20L?il=0

No doubt many will be angry about this on both sides, but I think we can do with closing a base or two in Europe tbh. Not having anything to do with NATO or some trade bullshit, but I'm sure they can take care of themselves as developed nations and we could do with saving a few dollars here and there.

That's not supposed to happen. We are supposed to be at war with everyone by now.

Jokes aside, I'm fine with this. Start to bring troops home, save money, let others defend themselves and we can be on standby from here.

 

[lgorTudor]

All of this aside,

U.S. to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany but nearly half to stay in Europe

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rly-half-to-stay-in-europe-idUSKCN24U20L?il=0

No doubt many will be angry about this on both sides, but I think we can do with closing a base or two in Europe tbh. Not having anything to do with NATO or some trade bullshit, but I'm sure they can take care of themselves as developed nations and we could do with saving a few dollars here and there.

Our enemies sit in the parliament anyway. Nothing your grunts can help with

 

[swag]

Comparing the lack of an appointment of Garland to the outright assault on the life of a decent man is no comparison. Certainly you can see the difference?

IMO, the context was different. One was the natural order of judicial appointments that should have happened. The other was more due process not really unprecedented in the past.

Sure, everyone does the fakery of believing that the Supreme Court is above politics and then loads as much politics as possible into the appointments. After which point judges, like Roberts, are lifers and can basically say, "F off, I'll do what I want." But to the extent that the vacancy was left hanging because someone thought such appointments should reflect the voting choices of the public is an outright politicizing of a position that was at least supposed to feign to be above politics. The concept that voters should sway how justices get appointed is a joke ... it is not an elected position.

As for Kavanaugh, he's got a cush job for the rest of his life now. But was this that different than, say, what happened under the Reagan presidency with nominating Robert Bork? Not really. You had a turbocharged #metoo movement underfoot, certainly. And pent-up frustration from opposition that got channeled into hysterics, no question. But many of those questions were fair questions to ask of such an appointment ... especially in light of how we now look back at Anita Hill and the nomination of Clarence Thomas. There was way too much pearl clutching going on, but appointments like that should have real scrutiny. Even though I had my doubts about how it spilled over into #metoo character assassination attempts.

Stop playing Cam

I know you know this

McConnell let 100s of judicial nominations sit on his desk during the second term of Obama administration because he was butthurt about him winning a second term after swearing to make him a one term president in 2010

Well, in other news, I saw that in 2019 Jeff Bezos had 102 lobbyists in the Senate. That's two more than there are appointed senators.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-amazon-lobbying/

"The U.S. Senate: Powered by Amazon Lobbyists in the Cloud" (LaaS, or Lobbyists as a Service)

 

[Hust]

IMO, the context was different. One was the natural order of judicial appointments that should have happened. The other was more due process not really unprecedented in the past.

Sure, everyone does the fakery of believing that the Supreme Court is above politics and then loads as much politics as possible into the appointments. After which point judges, like Roberts, are lifers and can basically say, "F off, I'll do what I want." But to the extent that the vacancy was left hanging because someone thought such appointments should reflect the voting choices of the public is an outright politicizing of a position that was at least supposed to feign to be above politics. The concept that voters should sway how justices get appointed is a joke ... it is not an elected position.

As for Kavanaugh, he's got a cush job for the rest of his life now. But was this that different than, say, what happened under the Reagan presidency with nominating Robert Bork? Not really. You had a turbocharged #metoo movement underfoot, certainly. And pent-up frustration from opposition that got channeled into hysterics, no question. But many of those questions were fair questions to ask of such an appointment ... especially in light of how we now look back at Anita Hill and the nomination of Clarence Thomas. There was way too much pearl clutching going on, but appointments like that should have real scrutiny. Even though I had my doubts about how it spilled over into #metoo character assassination attempts.



Well, in other news, I saw that in 2019 Jeff Bezos had 102 lobbyists in the Senate. That's two more than there are appointed senators.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-amazon-lobbying/

"The U.S. Senate: Powered by Amazon Lobbyists in the Cloud" (LaaS, or Lobbyists as a Service)

I agree they should have scrutiny. I said those sort of appointments are always challenging and grueling by why is it always to THAT LEVEL for republican nominated justices? I am well aware of the term getting "Bjorked" and the "high-tech lynching" of CT. That fits exactly at my point...democrats suck at losing but I guess that goes with the territory of it being a SCOTUS life-time appointment but they weren't running on his record as a judge, they were trying to conjure up some false fabcritated lie and even the lady's friends said was not accurate and you had every single democrat running with it, you had an entire media fanning the flames and you had Hollywood lunatics coming to turbocharge an already ridiculously set tone.

I don't even think Kavanaugh is allowed to coach youth sports anymore as a volunteer because of that. What they did was a shame. Had that guy gone onto lose everything they would have been fine because it would have been a jab a Trump.

-------------------------------


Classic.


Single mom but leaves her kids at home alone to go scream at police protecting a federal building.

 

[Ronn]

Well, in other news, I saw that in 2019 Jeff Bezos had 102 lobbyists in the Senate. That's two more than there are appointed senators.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-amazon-lobbying/

"The U.S. Senate: Powered by Amazon Lobbyists in the Cloud" (LaaS, or Lobbyists as a Service)

This is THE kind of news we should be paying attention to. Lobbyists spend more in Congress than Congress spends to run itself. And that's only on federal level. They probably have even more lobbyists in state governments.

 

[ALC]

I agree they should have scrutiny. I said those sort of appointments are always challenging and grueling by why is it always to THAT LEVEL for republican nominated justices? I am well aware of the term getting "Bjorked" and the "high-tech lynching" of CT. That fits exactly at my point...democrats suck at losing but I guess that goes with the territory of it being a SCOTUS life-time appointment but they weren't running on his record as a judge, they were trying to conjure up some false fabcritated lie and even the lady's friends said was not accurate and you had every single democrat running with it, you had an entire media fanning the flames and you had Hollywood lunatics coming to turbocharge an already ridiculously set tone.

I don't even think Kavanaugh is allowed to coach youth sports anymore as a volunteer because of that. What they did was a shame. Had that guy gone onto lose everything they would have been fine because it would have been a jab a Trump.

-------------------------------


Classic.


Single mom but leaves her kids at home alone to go scream at police protecting a federal building.

whats the point of all these random YouTube and twitter videos you post?

 

[Hust]

whats the point of all these random YouTube and twitter videos you post?

That one, in particular, I find funny. The point? I'd say to highlight exactly who is out there trying to get police defunded, who is advocating violence in the streets, etc. You sure as hell aren't going to see those morons on CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc.

 

[ALC]

That one, in particular, I find funny. The point? I'd say to highlight exactly who is out there trying to get police defunded, who is advocating violence in the streets, etc. You sure as hell aren't going to see those morons on CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc.

Since when did a bunch of loonies represent everyone else?

theres fuckheads of every kind, it just looks petty when I keep seeing all these videos as if they mean anything

 

[Hust]

Since when did a bunch of loonies represent everyone else?

theres fuckheads of every kind, it just looks petty when I keep seeing all these videos as if they mean anything

I know, and I trust that you folks will balance it out with the "right winger" posts, right?