How is it not hypocritical to push thorugh an SC nominee right before an election after block Obama?

[Highmark]

13 hours ago, Kivalo said:

Justification for hypocrisy noted.

You also need to comprehend Snake's post.   While similar if one really breaks down the history its not as hypocritical as it appears on the surface.

[SSFB]

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

You also need to comprehend Snake's post.   While similar if one really breaks down the history its not as hypocritical as it appears on the surface.

Are there statements of Republican Senators saying in 2016 that it was fine because the Senate was controlled by the opposing party? I don't remember that being the narrative at all. What I remember is "we shouldn't have a new SCoTUS Justice during an election year". 

I said the same thing then, the President should appoint a nominee but the Senate of course is under no obligation to confirm. 

[Highmark]

9 minutes ago, SSFB said:

Are there statements of Republican Senators saying in 2016 that it was fine because the Senate was controlled by the opposing party? I don't remember that being the narrative at all. What I remember is "we shouldn't have a new SCoTUS Justice during an election year". 

I said the same thing then, the President should appoint a nominee but the Senate of course is under no obligation to confirm. 

I agree that is what some of the GOP was saying and I also agree with your second point.   There was nothing wrong with Obama or Trump in this case nominating someone and the Senate has no obligation to confirm.   As Obama said elections have consequences. 

Both sides will use this for getting out the vote motivation.   Interesting yesterday an interview where a GOP pundit said that it generally helps the GOP more than the Dem's and the Dem pundit did not say anything to disagree.  

Edited September 24, 2020 by Highmark

[Kivalo]

14 minutes ago, Highmark said:

You also need to comprehend Snake's post.   While similar if one really breaks down the history its not as hypocritical as it appears on the surface.

Sure it is. Both Democrats and Republicans have done a complete 180 from when Obama was running. Now they are using logical gymnastics to justify that flip.

 

[Highmark]

4 minutes ago, Kivalo said:

Sure it is. Both Democrats and Republicans have done a complete 180 from when Obama was running. Now they are using logical gymnastics to justify that flip.

 

Without a doubt there was more talk then about letting the people or next president choose was the main talking point but the history of the 29 past election year nominee's was brought up.  

[Anler]

48 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

Sort of like when the house would not do there job ? You people act like this is something new and now trump sbould for zero reason rise above it all. LmfAo yeah like it would be any diff if tables were turned.  

I had to deal with it when the dems had the votes and I have been paying more every mo for far worse overage from that day forward.  

No we people dont act like this is something new, you have selective amnesia. 

[Carlos Danger]

1 hour ago, Kivalo said:

Sure it is. Both Democrats and Republicans have done a complete 180 from when Obama was running. Now they are using logical gymnastics to justify that flip.

 

Even after all that the simple fact remains that if the Dems did not change the rules in order to make the courts more left wing and radical they would currently be in a position to do something about Trump's nomination. Hell Mcconnell begged them not to do it but they didn't so what kind of sympathy do they deserve?

[Kivalo]

27 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

Even after all that the simple fact remains that if the Dems did not change the rules in order to make the courts more left wing and radical they would currently be in a position to do something about Trump's nomination. Hell Mcconnell begged them not to do it but they didn't so what kind of sympathy do they deserve?

No one is saying they deserve sympathy, you ding ding. Just pointing out massive hypocrisy of these asshats and those that are supporting them.

[Kivalo]

27 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

Even after all that the simple fact remains that if the Dems did not change the rules in order to make the courts more left wing and radical they would currently be in a position to do something about Trump's nomination. Hell Mcconnell begged them not to do it but they didn't so what kind of sympathy do they deserve?

No one is saying they deserve sympathy, you ding ding. Just pointing out massive hypocrisy of these asshats and those that are supporting them.

[Angry ginger]

it is not hypocritical for Trump to put forth a nomination.  It's his job required by the constitution just like when Obama nominated Garland in his final year.  It is the Senates job to consider it.   Had they rejected Garland rather than ducking the process then they would not be hypocrites but they refused to. That is the simple fact.  Now they should just man up admit it and push through their nominee.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Roosting]

1 hour ago, Angry ginger said:

it is not hypocritical for Trump to put forth a nomination.  It's his job required by the constitution just like when Obama nominated Garland in his final year.  It is the Senates job to consider it.   Had they rejected Garland rather than ducking the process then they would not be hypocrites but they refused to. That is the simple fact.  Now they should just man up admit it and push through their nominee.  

 

 

 

 

 

well unlike the dems the repubs were not interested in a sham show. Only the dems are willing and able to set up a sham show to advance their political ideals with the full help of the MSM.

If you already know there are not enough votes to go forward why go forward? Especially when it is a known fact the media would negatively report on anything the repubs do.

[Angry ginger]

13 minutes ago, Roosting said:

well unlike the dems the repubs were not interested in a sham show. Only the dems are willing and able to set up a sham show to advance their political ideals with the full help of the MSM.

If you already know there are not enough votes to go forward why go forward? Especially when it is a known fact the media would negatively report on anything the repubs do.

it is their job that is why you do it.  Allowing them to pick and choose when to do their job when they are in service to the people is wrong.  Blue or red they are all pieces of shit but until we figure this out in the streets instead of playing partisan games nothing will get better.   Look at the guys here who were gargling Tea party nuts and now Trumps just because they are both Pubs even though they are so different.   

[racer254]

1 hour ago, Angry ginger said:

it is their job that is why you do it.  Allowing them to pick and choose when to do their job when they are in service to the people is wrong.  Blue or red they are all pieces of shit but until we figure this out in the streets instead of playing partisan games nothing will get better.   Look at the guys here who were gargling Tea party nuts and now Trumps just because they are both Pubs even though they are so different.   

Tea party nuts  wanted change and wanted both dem and republicans out.  Fucking republicans like boehner were caving to everything the dems wanted and the tea party wanted those people GONE.  Many "leaders" on the R side are gone, but the Dems still have the same people that were in power for YEARS

Edited September 24, 2020 by racer254

[Roosting]

3 hours ago, Angry ginger said:

it is their job that is why you do it.  Allowing them to pick and choose when to do their job when they are in service to the people is wrong.  Blue or red they are all pieces of shit but until we figure this out in the streets instead of playing partisan games nothing will get better.   Look at the guys here who were gargling Tea party nuts and now Trumps just because they are both Pubs even though they are so different.   

Not bringing up for a vote is something you can argue about for sure but you need to also look at the fallout for rejecting a SC nominee by a vote.

Repubs knew they were going to be slaughtered in the MSM one way or another so they chose the one with the least political fallout. They are paying a price right now but if looked at objectively the dems in the same position would act the same so not sure where the outrage is justifiable by either party as they all have shit under their finger nails. But it is quite obvious that one side has a larger part as to where and how things have progressed to this point of contention. Starts with a D

[Carlos Danger]

There was never going to be the votes for Garland. 

[XC.Morrison]

1 hour ago, Carlos Danger said:

There was never going to be the votes for Garland. 

Immaterial.  By Mitch stopping confirmation hearings and a vote it was a direct attack on small r republicanism.  Instead of elected representatives getting an official vote, their constituents were usurped of  any representation.  Kentucky shouldn’t get to decide for all of us.  If, after a vote, Garland was not confirmed, Obama should’ve been allowed to select a new nominee.  
 

 

[Angry ginger]

1 minute ago, XC.Morrison said:

Immaterial.  By Mitch stopping confirmation hearings and a vote it was a direct attack on small r republicanism.  Instead of elected representatives getting an official vote, their constituents were usurped of  any representation.  Kentucky shouldn’t get to decide for all of us.  If, after a vote, Garland was not confirmed, Obama should’ve been allowed to select a new nominee.  
 

 

spot on.   People with critical thinking skills understand this.  Unfortunately Trump kool aid takes that ability away for many.  Every one of them here has lost that capability.  

 

 

[Snake]

The democrats can say what the fuck ever. Anyone can run their mouth. At the end of the day, a justice is going to be confirmed and Trump is going to shove it right up their asses.

After 4 years of the shit they pulled, they got the stones to expect him to follow 'precedent' and 'norms'... when that is what he is doing. Fuck your rules. Fuck your morals. Fuck your principles.

Cheat 3 quarters of the game then bitch the ref makes a call against you.

[steve from amherst]

4 hours ago, Angry ginger said:

it is not hypocritical for Trump to put forth a nomination.  It's his job required by the constitution just like when Obama nominated Garland in his final year.  It is the Senates job to consider it.   Had they rejected Garland rather than ducking the process then they would not be hypocrites but they refused to. That is the simple fact.  Now they should just man up admit it and push through their nominee.  

 

 

 

 

 

this

[Ez ryder]

6 hours ago, Anler said:

No we people dont act like this is something new, you have selective amnesia. 

Lmfao so you are saying during no other presidency has the house or congress refused to bring bills up or nominations forward because they had the power to say fuck off . Lmfao talk about selective amnesia you best look at your reflection with that comment 

[Anler]

25 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

Lmfao so you are saying during no other presidency has the house or congress refused to bring bills up or nominations forward because they had the power to say fuck off . Lmfao talk about selective amnesia you best look at your reflection with that comment 

Do you understand English?

[Jimmy Snacks]

4 minutes ago, Anler said:

Do you understand English?

He barely speaks it.

[Carlos Danger]

2 hours ago, Angry ginger said:

spot on.   People with critical thinking skills understand this.  Unfortunately Trump kool aid takes that ability away for many.  Every one of them here has lost that capability.  

 

 

The thing is the battles over the SC really don't even involve Trump.  Sure he puts up nominees but the war that has brewed for the last 30 or 40 years has nothing to do with him. I would say to this point Trump has really not put up anybody controversial. As far as the votes on judges go the Repubs have a much better record than the Democrats.  If a radical like Ginsberg gets 90+ votes in the Senate than how does a guy like Roberts or Gorsuch get party line votes. 

[J. Jackson]

6 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

The thing is the battles over the SC really don't even involve Trump.  Sure he puts up nominees but the war that has brewed for the last 30 or 40 years has nothing to do with him. I would say to this point Trump has really not put up anybody controversial. As far as the votes on judges go the Repubs have a much better record than the Democrats.  If a radical like Ginsberg gets 90+ votes in the Senate than how does a guy like Roberts or Gorsuch get party line votes. 

The hatred is much stronger on the left. 

[Angry ginger]

15 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

The thing is the battles over the SC really don't even involve Trump.  Sure he puts up nominees but the war that has brewed for the last 30 or 40 years has nothing to do with him. I would say to this point Trump has really not put up anybody controversial. As far as the votes on judges go the Repubs have a much better record than the Democrats.  If a radical like Ginsberg gets 90+ votes in the Senate than how does a guy like Roberts or Gorsuch get party line votes. 

Radical like Ginsberg SMH