PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Steingar on October 26, 2018, 08:12:53 AM
-
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/10/25/donald-trump-john-kasich-unifier-sot-vpx-nr.cnn (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/10/25/donald-trump-john-kasich-unifier-sot-vpx-nr.cnn)
-
Tyler Q. Houlton
✔
@SpoxDHS
.@DHSgov can confirm that there are individuals within the caravan who are gang members or have significant criminal histories.
3:32 PM - Oct 23, 2018
Tyler Q. Houlton
✔
@SpoxDHS
Citizens of countries outside Central America, including countries in the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, and elsewhere are currently traveling through Mexico toward the U.S.
3:32 PM - Oct 23, 2018
-
(https://i0.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/f8-1.jpg?w=502)
-
(https://i0.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/f8-1.jpg?w=502)
and steingar believes it.
-
(https://i0.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/f8-1.jpg?w=502)
She's of the most sickening and divisive people in congress. The sooner she, Mitch McConnell, and others like them in both parties are sent packing the sooner progress can be made in our country.
-
She's of the most sickening and divisive people in congress. The sooner she, Mitch McConnell, and others like them in both parties are sent packing the sooner progress can be made in our country.
Not a big fan of Mitch, but how has he been divisive like Pelosi?
-
She's of the most sickening and divisive people in congress. The sooner she, Mitch McConnell, and others like them in both parties are sent packing the sooner progress can be made in our country.
Agreed.
People complain about the guy that lives at 1600 Pennsylvania, but he's only there for 4 or 8 years. It's the career politicians in the senate and the house that do the real damage. Also, the embedded bureaucrats of the government (SES types) also do damage.
We need term limits.
-
Not a big fan of Mitch, but how has he been divisive like Pelosi?
Two things come to my mind quickly though there were other tings as well.
1. When he stated right after Obama was elected POTUS that his main objective was to make Obama a one term president. That should never be any senator or congressman's main objective. Their main objective should be to pass legislation that will make America better. Their objective should not be sabotaging the president. BTW, I was not an Obama supporter but I found that statement reprehensible.
2. His blocking of Merrick Garland's nomination to SCOTUS. I'm not saying he should have been confirmed but I believe that any presidential nominee for any office should be heard by the relevant committee and then put to a vote before the full Senate. It's supposed to be the advice and consent of the Senate, not a single senator. The idea that a president should basically be forced to abdicate one of his duties in the last year of his term is ludicrous. Until the Kavanaugh debacle, I had never seen a SCOTUS nominee treated so wrongly. Both nominees were treated very poorly.
-
Agreed.
People complain about the guy that lives at 1600 Pennsylvania, but he's only there for 4 or 8 years. It's the career politicians in the senate and the house that do the real damage. Also, the embedded bureaucrats of the government (SES types) also do damage.
We need term limits.
100 percent agree on term limits.
-
2. His blocking of Merrick Garland's nomination to SCOTUS. I'm not saying he should have been confirmed but I believe that any presidential nominee for any office should be heard by the relevant committee and then put to a vote before the full Senate. It's supposed to be the advice and consent of the Senate, not a single senator. The idea that a president should basically be forced to abdicate one of his duties in the last year of his term is ludicrous. Until the Kavanaugh debacle, I had never seen a SCOTUS nominee treated so wrongly. Both nominees were treated very poorly.
Keep in mind that McConnell used a rule that was created by then Sen Biden. The constitution does indeed say that the senate has the role of "advise and consent" on a Presidential nominee, but that clause does not say that the senate must act on anyone the President nominates.
McConnell may be a "single senator", but under senate rules he's the Majority leader and he does have the option (again, under senate rules) to bring to the floor whatever he and his caucus decide to bring forward.
Harry Reid also did some very stupid things, among them eliminating the 60 vote rule. Of course when he did that, it was to benefit the democrats at the time, never thinking this would come back to bite them (democrats).
I'm no fan of McConnell, but I do understand the mechanism and workings of the senate.
-
Two things come to my mind quickly though there were other tings as well.
2. His blocking of Merrick Garland's nomination to SCOTUS. I'm not saying he should have been confirmed but I believe that any presidential nominee for any office should be heard by the relevant committee and then put to a vote before the full Senate. It's supposed to be the advice and consent of the Senate, not a single senator. The idea that a president should basically be forced to abdicate one of his duties in the last year of his term is ludicrous. Until the Kavanaugh debacle, I had never seen a SCOTUS nominee treated so wrongly. Both nominees were treated very poorly.
I guess you missed the way Teddy Kennedy et al treated Robert Bork.
-
Harry Reid also did some very stupid things, among them eliminating the 60 vote rule. Of course when he did that, it was to benefit the democrats at the time, never thinking this would come back to bite them (democrats).
After Obama was reelected and the free stuff machine was cranked to overdrive, the Dems believed that the Republicans would never again be in power, so they didn't care to consider the other edge of the sword. This is one reason why they are so apoplectic over having Trump in the White House and an R majortity.
-
After Obama was reelected and the free stuff machine was cranked to overdrive, the Dems believed that the Republicans would never again be in power, so they didn't care to consider the other edge of the sword. This is one reason why they are so apoplectic over having Trump in the White House and an R majortity.
Exactly.
Barry got caught up in the celebrity lifestyle and got too focused on his after WH money haul. But of course the fix was 8 years of Felonious in which she would finish it off (after all, it was her turn).
The alt left progressives made the huge fatal mistake, believing their own bullshit.
-
Two things come to my mind quickly though there were other tings as well.
1. When he stated right after Obama was elected POTUS that his main objective was to make Obama a one term president. That should never be any senator or congressman's main objective. Their main objective should be to pass legislation that will make America better. Their objective should not be sabotaging the president. BTW, I was not an Obama supporter but I found that statement reprehensible.
Ummmm.... The goal of EVERY opposition party is to defeat the other party on election day. Don't they do that on your planet?
-
Two things come to my mind quickly though there were other tings as well.
His blocking of Merrick Garland's nomination to SCOTUS. I'm not saying he should have been confirmed but I believe that any presidential nominee for any office should be heard by the relevant committee and then put to a vote before the full Senate. It's supposed to be the advice and consent of the Senate, not a single senator. The idea that a president should basically be forced to abdicate one of his duties in the last year of his term is ludicrous. Until the Kavanaugh debacle, I had never seen a SCOTUS nominee treated so wrongly. Both nominees were treated very poorly.
Do you not examine the current condition in light of established history and precedent?
I know low information democrats (stupid people) fail to do that constantly, but otherwise intelligent people actually discover the
facts before declaring other people 'reprehensible.'
The thing you are so twisted about was that Mitch McConnell actually followed Senate tradition in not confirming a justice to the USSC, instead of changing the rules to suit the current situation as Harry Reid often did.
If I typed too fast, please forgive me. I tried to use small words.
-
Keep in mind that McConnell used a rule that was created by then Sen Biden. The constitution does indeed say that the senate has the role of "advise and consent" on a Presidential nominee, but that clause does not say that the senate must act on anyone the President nominates.
McConnell may be a "single senator", but under senate rules he's the Majority leader and he does have the option (again, under senate rules) to bring to the floor whatever he and his caucus decide to bring forward.
Harry Reid also did some very stupid things, among them eliminating the 60 vote rule. Of course when he did that, it was to benefit the democrats at the time, never thinking this would come back to bite them (democrats).
I'm no fan of McConnell, but I do understand the mechanism and workings of the senate.
There was and is no such thing as the "Biden Rule". It never was a rule. It was merely a silly concept that Biden floated in 1992 and it was never put into action or even actually attempted to be made into a rule. It was a stupid idea when Biden floated it. It was even stupider as well as unethical when McConnell unilaterally implemented it. Him referring to it as a rule was an outright falsehood.
As to the 60 vote rule. Except for the few situations where the Constitution calls for a super majority, all votes should be a simple majority. I have never cared for the addition of additional super majority votes above those in the Constitution. They only lead to the dysfunction in Congress that we all should abhor.
-
There was and is no such thing as the "Biden Rule". It never was a rule. It was merely a silly concept that Biden floated in 1992 and it was never put into action or even actually attempted to be made into a rule. It was a stupid idea when Biden floated it. It was even stupider as well as unethical when McConnell unilaterally implemented it. Him referring to it as a rule was an outright falsehood.
OK, so you admit Biden was being stupid in suggesting that such a “rule” or whatever you wish to term it.
But if that’s the case, why did the dims attempt to invoke it with Kavanaugh? More stupidity?
You are aware of the latitude in which the Senate Majority Leader has with regards to what comes to the floor of the senate, correct?
Would you like to discuss items that the previous SML (Reid) would allow to come to the floor, or even some of his unilateral positions he took?
Or maybe you would like to show us where in the constitution it states the senate must vote on each and every nominee?
-
OK, so you admit Biden was being stupid in suggesting that such a “rule” or whatever you wish to term it.
But if that’s the case, why did the dims attempt to invoke it with Kavanaugh? More stupidity?
You are aware of the latitude in which the Senate Majority Leader has with regards to what comes to the floor of the senate, correct?
Would you like to discuss items that the previous SML (Reid) would allow to come to the floor, or even some of his unilateral positions he took?
Or maybe you would like to show us where in the constitution it states the senate must vote on each and every nominee?
The dems did not try to invoke the fake Biden rule with Kavanaugh. They repubs did so with Garland. What the dems did with Kavanaugh was to drag him through the mud using unsubstantiated vulgar accusations. Now if a SCOTUS position were to come open in 2020, expect the dems to try to use the "Biden Rule". To me that would fall under the old "turnabout is fair play" mentality though it would still be wrong in my opinion. Still it would be far more understandable than what they did with Kavanaugh.
Yes, I understand how much power the majority leader has but that should not be the case. He gets elected just by the voters in his state, not the country as a whole so he should not have powers that are tantamount to that of a national leader. In my opinion based upon my layman's reading of the Constitution, the Vice President in his capacity of President of the Senate has the power to preside over the Senate whenever he sees fit and not just to vote in a tiebreaker situation. As such, I do not understand why the VP doesn't exercise this power if it does in fact exist. Between Biden's Senate experience and Obama's constitutional scholarship, I am surprised that Biden didn't exert this authority and force a vote on Garland. Since that did not happen, this power probably does not exist but in my opinion it should. He certainly cannot ensure that the vote goes his way but he damn well should be able to ensure that the vote happens. Make those partisan fucks do their job.
-
The dems did not try to invoke the fake Biden rule with Kavanaugh.
Yes they did, several times. They kept proclaiming this is an election year (midterm, not presidential) and the confirmation should be delayed until the new senate was seated.
-
Yes they did, several times. They kept proclaiming this is an election year (midterm, not presidential) and the confirmation should be delayed until the new senate was seated.
Well, every other year is an election year so that wouldn't make much sense, would it? If some of the dems did say that, it was most likely hyperbole and not an actual invoking of a nonexistent rule such as McConnell did. Though I disagree vehemently with Biden's suggestion, you might want to research and review what he actually suggested and see how McConnell really twisted it.
Again, please remember that I think what McConnell did was the biggest wrong done to a nominee up to that point. I consider what subsequently happened to Kavanaugh to be much worse. The good thing is that at least Kavanaugh was given a chance to be heard and got his vote.
-
Well, every other year is an election year so that wouldn't make much sense, would it? If some of the dems did say that, it was most likely hyperbole and not an actual invoking of a nonexistent rule such as McConnell did. Though I disagree vehemently with Biden's suggestion, you might want to research and review what he actually suggested and see how McConnell really twisted it.
Again, please remember that I think what McConnell did was the biggest wrong done to a nominee up to that point. I consider what subsequently happened to Kavanaugh to be much worse. The good thing is that at least Kavanaugh was given a chance to be heard and got his vote.
I believe Garland should have got his hearing and vote, and being a republican led senate he should have been voted down. Of course the dims would have cried and screamed over that as well.
-
Kasich is a HYPOCRITE CLOWN. Still hasn't gotten over being beaten by Trump.
-
I believe Garland should have got his hearing and vote, and being a republican led senate he should have been voted down. Of course the dims would have cried and screamed over that as well.
I'm glad that you believe he should have gotten a vote. That is the way it should go.
But I wonder if the reason McConnell played it the way he did is because he was afraid a few of the more moderate Republicans might vote their conscience rather than his view of the party line. In other words, he took the cowardly bully route. If he thought the vote would go his way, taking a vote would be the less controversial approach. I believe it was that simple.
-
I'm glad that you believe he should have gotten a vote. That is the way it should go.
But I wonder if the reason McConnell played it the way he did is because he was afraid a few of the more moderate Republicans might vote their conscience rather than his view of the party line. In other words, he took the cowardly bully route. If he thought the vote would go his way, taking a vote would be the less controversial approach. I believe it was that simple.
McConnell is establishment through and through. Politically he knew giving Garland a hearing and a down vote would cost the eRepublicans down the road.
In the sum of things Garland would have been a bad SC pick anyway you cut it.
-
McConnell is establishment through and through. Politically he knew giving Garland a hearing and a down vote would cost the eRepublicans down the road.
In the sum of things Garland would have been a bad SC pick anyway you cut it.
That’s if you believe that Garland would have lost the vote. I am far from certain on that premise. As I stated, the main reason McConnell refused to move it forward is because he was afraid of the results of any vote. So he denied the vote. In the end, his vote was all that mattered. If that’s your or anyone’s idea of how the democratic process should work then I worry even more about our republic.
-
That’s if you believe that Garland would have lost the vote. I am far from certain on that premise. As I stated, the main reason McConnell refused to move it forward is because he was afraid of the results of any vote. So he denied the vote. In the end, his vote was all that mattered. If that’s your or anyone’s idea of how the democratic process should work then I worry even more about our republic.
What the fuck are you rambling about??
I simply answered using what my assumption was in relation to the discussion. You come back trying to place words in my post I didn't state.
Either you're now attempting to troll or you lack comprehension skills.
-
1. When he stated right after Obama was elected POTUS that his main objective was to make Obama a one term president. That should never be any senator or congressman's main objective. Their main objective should be to pass legislation that will make America better. Their objective should not be sabotaging the president. BTW, I was not an Obama supporter but I found that statement reprehensible.
2. His blocking of Merrick Garland's nomination to SCOTUS. I'm not saying he should have been confirmed but I believe that any presidential nominee for any office should be heard by the relevant committee and then put to a vote before the full Senate. It's supposed to be the advice and consent of the Senate, not a single senator. The idea that a president should basically be forced to abdicate one of his duties in the last year of his term is ludicrous. Until the Kavanaugh debacle, I had never seen a SCOTUS nominee treated so wrongly. Both nominees were treated very poorly.
1. Making BO a one term president would have been the single thing that would have made America better. The second term of BO was a train-wreck which we will be digging out from for quite a while. Look how quickly things turned around one BO was out of office.
2. Garland was heard by the committee, and rejected. Also, there is quite a bit of history on not-confirming or even selecting a judge in the last year of the exec term. In fact, it was the Dems who had done it way back in the late 1800s as I recall. What went around, came around. Just be glad we don't select senators like we did under the original constitution(by governors and statehouses), because the Dems would never get anywhere near a majority.
-
Two things come to my mind quickly though there were other tings as well.
1. When he stated right after Obama was elected POTUS that his main objective was to make Obama a one term president. That should never be any senator or congressman's main objective. Their main objective should be to pass legislation that will make America better. Their objective should not be sabotaging the president. BTW, I was not an Obama supporter but I found that statement reprehensible.
2. His blocking of Merrick Garland's nomination to SCOTUS. I'm not saying he should have been confirmed but I believe that any presidential nominee for any office should be heard by the relevant committee and then put to a vote before the full Senate. It's supposed to be the advice and consent of the Senate, not a single senator. The idea that a president should basically be forced to abdicate one of his duties in the last year of his term is ludicrous. Until the Kavanaugh debacle, I had never seen a SCOTUS nominee treated so wrongly. Both nominees were treated very poorly.
Garland’s life was attempted to be destroyed by partisans, through accusations of rape, assault, and other behavior? I guess I missed that.
Moral equivalency doesn’t cut it here. Neither for the high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas, or the “Borking” of Robert Bork.
All Garland got was being turned down for an interview.
-
Liberals ALWAYS attempt to compare a slight slight with the worst possible thing out there. It is some kind of insanity that affects democrats (communists)/ they absolutely need to feel like victims and will lie out their asses to try and do so.