How fast will Senator Graham move the nomination out of committee?
How fast will the Senate vote to confirm?
It is my opinion that joe biden, k harris and nancy pelosi are pushing the "Court Packing" threat tactic to scare the Republicans away from a confirmation. We will see if it works.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 10-11-2020).]
Gotta be honest, I really want them to just confirm as quickly as possible. I know the Democrats are upset, I know they would rather have it go another way, but part of me wants to let them make fools of themselves... but at the same time... I want it quick and over so we can have it solidified.
Tomorrow is supposed to be reserved for "opening statements".
That should be the "tell" for how the Leftists are going to try to attack ACB
My bet is that they are going to spend an inordinate amount of time whining about confirming her before the election.
It's obviously wasted time but wasting time, and our money, is what they do best.
"Heels up Harris" is supposed to appear "virtually" so the devil only knows what will happen with that clown act.
I'm also anxious to see what that idiot "Spurtacus" Booker is going to pull this time. He's been very quiet lately.
PRACTICE NOTE: Remember how Committee Chairman, Senator Grassley was interrupted over and over by "Heels Up Harris" and other Leftists before he could finish the first two sentences of his opening statement to even begin the Kavanaugh hearing........Expect more of that crap. Senator Graham is the Committee Chair now and is a lot more assertive, so also expect the crap to be shut down very fast.
Tomorrow is supposed to be reserved for "opening statements".
That should be the "tell" for how the Leftists are going to try to attack ACB
My bet is that they are going to spend an inordinate amount of time whining about confirming her before the election.
It's obviously wasted time but wasting time, and our money, is what they do best.
"Heels up Harris" is supposed to appear "virtually" so the devil only knows what will happen with that clown act.
I'm also anxious to see what that idiot "Spurtacus" Booker is going to pull this time. He's been very quiet lately.
PRACTICE NOTE: Remember how Committee Chairman, Senator Grassley was interrupted over and over by "Heels Up Harris" and other Leftists before he could finish the first two sentences of his opening statement to even begin the Kavanaugh hearing........Expect more of that crap. Senator Graham is the Committee Chair now and is a lot more assertive, so also expect the crap to be shut down very fast.
I'd be lying if I said I wasn't nervous.
This is a huge opportunity for America... and I really just want this done quickly. Again, love to let the Democrats metaphorically hang themselves with their charade and stupid games... but ugh...
..... part of me wants to let them make fools of themselves... but at the same time... I want it quick and over so we can have it solidified.
I'd like to see BOTH.
Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing all the Lunatic Leftist Fat Girls dressed up in their comical hand-made-"Hand Maid" costumes again.
Mental illness sure as hell can be fun to watch sometimes, because nothing says "I'm serious" quite like dressing up as a fictional movie character and shuffling around Washington D.C. with a gaggle of other similarly afflicted nutcases.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-11-2020).]
I expect to see the left try to make the confirmation vote mostly about Obamacare. That is, imply that any senator that votes for confirmation is voting to kill off Obamacare, which the left sees tantamount to depriving 10s of thousands of people of their health care insurance. I doubt seriously that this strategy will work at all but that's what I see them trying.
If it goes more than 7 days before she's confirmed, I'll be surprised.
I expect to see the left try to make the confirmation vote mostly about Obamacare. That is, imply that any senator that votes for confirmation is voting to kill off Obamacare, which the left sees tantamount to depriving 10s of thousands of people of their health care insurance. I doubt seriously that this strategy will work at all but that's what I see them trying.
If it goes more than 7 days before she's confirmed, I'll be surprised.
Spot on Don.
Leftists started out with Obamacare this morning and are busy propping up huge pictures of their sick constituents.
Lots of emotional, anecdotal, sob stories and appeals but zero Constitutional content or argument.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-12-2020).]
Can she be denied, or is it pretty-much a done deal? I think she’s a loon.
Unless someone finds something, she can start decorating the office by the end of the week. Perspective, it's all about perspective. If she's a loon, we can use several more. One of the most qualified people to ever be nominated.
I would ask, what's your issue with her? Is it because President Trump nominated her? She Catholic? She's a Constitutionalist? What? She was accused of being racist, is she in your opinion?
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-12-2020).]
Unless someone finds something, she can start decorating the office by the end of the week. Perspective, it's all about perspective. If she's a loon, we can use several more. One of the most qualified people to ever be nominated.
I would ask, what's your issue with her? Is it because President Trump nominated her? She Catholic? She's a Constitutionalist? What?
Rams
*Senator Braun of Indiana just pointed out something that I hadn't realized before.
ACB will be the first justice on the court that did NOT graduate law school from Harvard or Yale and is the first justice that didn't spend her professional career on the east coast and is the first justice from West of Washington D.C.
(* That's Sen. Braun's claim and I'll have to check it out but it seems correct AFAIK right now )
*Senator Braun of Indiana just pointed out something that I hadn't realized before.
ACB will be the first justice on the court that did NOT graduate law school from Harvard or Yale and is the first justice that didn't spend her professional career on the east coast and is the first justice from West of Washington D.C.
(* That's Sen. Braun's claim and I'll have to check it out but it seems correct AFAIK right now )
She just confirmed that she will be the first not from Yale or Harvard and thought she might be able to teach the other Justices something about football.
1. I would ask, what's your issue with her? 2. Is it because President Trump nominated her? 3. She Catholic? 4. She's a Constitutionalist? 5. What? 6. She was accused of being racist, is she in your opinion?
1. What she believes, “religiously”.* 2. No. That “gotcha”’ is so tired. 3. No. 4. No. 5. See 1. 6. I have no idea.
* Google for more information.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-12-2020).]
So you're going for the comic relief angle, right?
Abject ignorance of the United States Constitution isn't usually comical but I did chuckle at that instance of it.
I'm sure this will be totally lost on Leftists:
United States Constitution
Article VI
(Last paragraph)
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-12-2020).]
Can she be denied, or is it pretty-much a done deal? I think she’s a loon.
Do you remember Harry Reid? Here is a quick >3 minute video from CNN to remind you:
To which Mitch McConnell responded:
.
So... I'm kind of holding back my elation on this... and trying not to sound giddy in this response. But no, there is nothing they can do short of bringing a gun to the Senate and holding everyone hostage until the election.
So, you don't mind that she's Catholic but have a problem with what she believes in "religiously"? You're gonna have to explain that one to me..
Rams
I've wanted to have a discussion with him because... whenever I see someone so confident in their views, I make the assumption that maybe they know something that I do not... and I want to find out in case I'm in the wrong. Every time I "try" to have a discussion with him, he shrinks away... so good luck. He might respond because I'm calling him out on it, but this last sentence may cause him to not respond again for fear that he's caving to my demands. But then, you never know... he might say, "I'll do what I want," and then respond anyway, only to read this last line and be like... dammit, not going to respond because that's what he wants (which is what I want, because I want to have a discussion). So we'll see... heheh
So, you don't mind that she's Catholic but have a problem with what she believes in "religiously"? You're gonna have to explain that one to me..
Rams
That one is actually easy, because I share it....every devout person on this planet (doesnt matter which religion) has their base values and world view tainted by that belief system. They are incapable (at some level) of going against them. It's the REASON behind the concept of separation of church and state. Muslums are going to favor muslim-sympathetic laws. Christians are going to favor christian-sympathetic laws. Pastafatarians are going to favor garlic sauce. It's just the way humans are.
The ONLY way to ensure fairness and non-bias to to allow only non-believers into any positions of power. They are the only ones who at a deep level are not biased or tainted by a belief system.
Originally posted by Boondawg: Can she be denied, or is it pretty-much a done deal?
Looks like it is not a done deal. There is a challenge in the courts, which who knows, could end up before the Supreme Court. The case is in the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals in Kalifornia, San Francisco.
Judge Wardlaw followed up on her ruling, saying: "We hereby rule any attempt by President Trump to appoint a replacement to be unconstitutional. We will block any attempt until we figure out a way to resurrect her or maybe clone her and restore her to her already 'legally alive' state. We're still figuring that part out."
That one is actually easy, because I share it....every devout person on this planet (doesnt matter which religion) has their base values and world view tainted by that belief system. They are incapable (at some level) of going against them. It's the REASON behind the concept of separation of church and state. Muslums are going to favor muslim-sympathetic laws. Christians are going to favor christian-sympathetic laws. Pastafatarians are going to favor garlic sauce. It's just the way humans are.
The ONLY way to ensure fairness and non-bias to to allow only non-believers into any positions of power. They are the only ones who at a deep level are not biased or tainted by a belief system.
I understand where you're views on this stand, but you should know that most religions are based on the near-universal "Golden Rule."
If I could nerd myself out here for a minute... the only religion that doesn't totally comply to that, is Islam. They are the "Klingons" in a Star Trek universe. To a large degree, they also share the golden rule. And those are basically, don't steal, don't kill, etc.
Where this deviates USUALLY has nothing to do with religion, but in how people feel about others who are not like them.
I have this lurid fantasy that ACB will be confirmed, then a floodgate of lawsuits against the ATF will open up. The SCOTUS will finally have to take action. And the ATF will get taken behind the woodshed.
I have this lurid fantasy that ACB will be confirmed, then a floodgate of lawsuits against the ATF will open up. The SCOTUS will finally have to take action. And the ATF will get taken behind the woodshed.
Hey, a man can dream...
I have a lurid fantasy about her, too. But we won't talk about that.
In the first debate idiot Trump missed the most grand opportunity because Biden stated right at the beginning that he isn't against Amy. Never heard a single commentator point that out, while Biden says he is the Democrat Party.
In the first debate idiot Trump missed the most grand opportunity because Biden stated right at the beginning that he isn't against Amy. Never heard a single commentator point that out, while Biden says he is the Democrat Party.
I saw most of the debate, and I think he made a lot of mistakes. but his biggest mistake was being way to abrasive. I thinks he would have done MUCH better if he was tactful and humble, focusing on his contributions to his term and the failure of biden. He could have done this without being a bull in the China shop.
But I don't think he is an idiot. After all he was nominated for 3 possibly 4 Nobel Peace prizes vrs Obama and his one for simply getting elected.
It's true that he couldn't get out of his own way in the debate. Also, might as well have an ear piece himself since the competition wouldn't agree for an independent inspection to prevent them. As to the negotiations with Bahrain and Israel, do we really think he did that? Presidents can't/don't do anything anymore. It's all the unelected lifetime bureaucrats. The deep staters.
I saw most of the debate, and I think he made a lot of mistakes. but his biggest mistake was being way to abrasive. I thinks he would have done MUCH better if he was tactful and humble, focusing on his contributions to his term and the failure of biden. He could have done this without being a bull in the China shop.
But I don't think he is an idiot. After all he was nominated for 3 possibly 4 Nobel Peace prizes vrs Obama and his one for simply getting elected.
You should probably go read the transcript of that debate.
I did.
It will help you realize why the President reacted the way he did.
When you have to debate your opponent AND the "moderator" simultaneously a different, more forceful, "style" is required.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-27-2020).]
Politics sucks. You have to really be willing to get slimy when you're at that level. Trump isn't wrong about the media, but for the blasting he gives we can't be surprised at how they treat him. And Matthews may not recover from the way he handled the debate.
It's true that he couldn't get out of his own way in the debate. Also, might as well have an ear piece himself since the competition wouldn't agree for an independent inspection to prevent them. As to the negotiations with Bahrain and Israel, do we really think he did that? Presidents can't/don't do anything anymore. It's all the unelected lifetime bureaucrats. The deep staters.
I don't think he had an earpiece, but I may never know. Yes Trump played a part in negotiations even if was just appointing people to do it. Without Trump, Clearly it would not have gotten done. Both biden and clinton could have done it IF they were as savvy as Trump. Both of them are life long carrier politicians that had PLENTY of time and influence to do what took Trump just 3 years.
[i][/i] You should probably go read the transcript of that debate.
I did.
It will help you realize why the President reacted the way he did.
When you have to debate your opponent AND the "moderator" simultaneously a different, more forceful, "style" is required.
I understand why, (personally I myself would not have been so kind or calm as Trump) I just disagree with how he handled himself as a President doing a job interview. Trump should have simply pointed out the lies and failures of biden like Pense was VERY successful at doing at his debate. My opinion is that Trump fans will vote for him even if he physically pushed biden, but the few people in the middle may have seen clips and soundbites of Trump and decided they don't like his unpresidential personality? That is exactly why both biden and harris tried so hard to not lash out. They attempted to be an exact opposite of Trump to capitalize on Trumps lack of Presidential stage presence. Either way Trump is without doubt a standout that broke the molds that cast many of politicians.
