2296
Spin Zone / Re: Hookers for Hillary
« on: February 16, 2016, 08:58:19 AM »
Who says they aren't eager for Hillary's business as well?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The difference was that even Democratic members of Congress saw FDR's court-packing plan as an unreasonable overreach by the Executive branch.
I see no similar scruples with today's Democrats in Congress.
Aside from the ridiculousness of the rape analogy when discussing the Senate's parliamentary rules, I understand your desire for Republicans to be "above the fray." However, the Court and the Constitution are now at stake. It is not unreasonable to withhold support, or even a vote, on an Obama nominee in this circumstance.^^ THIS ^^
Harry Reid changed the rules for the filibuster. When McConnell became the majority leader, he brought the rule back, essentially giving power to the minority that was denied the GOP when they were in the Senate minority.
It's almost like McConnell is more comfortable being in the minority than the majority.
I'm just kinda surprised there's any debate on this at all - the sitting President gets to select Supreme Court Justices. Democracy in action.First, the President doesn't get to select Supreme Court justices, he gets to nominate them and it's up to the Senate to confirm them. There is no obligation that the Senate confirm the nominee. Second, a president doesn't get to choose if there is a vacancy on the court since they are lifetime appointments. Generally speaking, with death being the exception, Supreme Court justices try to retire during a presidency that is closely aligned to their ideology so that their replacement is also of the same ideology.
If and when there's a Republican president, then he'll get to choose if and when another vacancy opens up.
It just seems so simple.
Totally agree can't we say we are better than them and do thing the right way?
So when your kids get in trouble do you let them off becuase they tell you that everyone is doing it. Sure it is ok to cheat on the test everyone else did any ways.
Me too.
You may want to read the article and sources. This is an organization that is known to be respectable by folks on both sides of the aisle.
Sure we will, despite the hyperbole.
These swings have historically been like a pendulum, always swinging back to the center after trending too far left or right.
Regardless, since the president gets to choose, and the president was duly elected by a majority of the electorate, time to suck it up and realize the system is likely working exactly as it was designed to.
Reince Priebus is an ass for going along with these absurd debates. If they want a true debate, put it on CSPAN, no audience and pick neutral moderators and leave out the personal bullshit and stick to real topics, and give them time to discuss positions.
I am saying that maybe if we accept a moderate now, and avoid a partisan battle, we'd have a better chance of winning the White House, and then be able to appoint conservatives when other justices retire.
Yep, thank you all loyal Republicans who stayed home in 2012 to "protest" Romney as the nominee.
Your so called protest is about to pay off.
My preference is to have a conservative for the general election. A vote for Trump for the republican nomination is a vote to guarantee a Democrat in the WHYou can keep repeating this bullshit trope all you want Jeff but it simply ain't so. Trump's actual history with the Republican party 'trumps' your blind losertarian-jihad since the party itself sought to have him run almost 30 years ago now. This is the second time he has been a candidate within the party primary series.
Jeff, did you ever get an answer to this question?This has been asked and answered already - Ronald Reagan, inarguably the most impactful conservative leader in American history, would not pass this 'test' since he did not 'passionately advocate conservative positions when not running for office'. He was campaigning for Governor of CA when he gave the Time for Choosing speech - and had been a Democrat previously.
Jeff you can THINK that all you want, but to state it as FACT is just wrong and totally unsupported by the actual evidence.
So, if Hillary were to switch and run in the Republican primary, conservatives would be prohibited from criticizing the fact that she's actually a democrat because "inward directed fire"?
Trump is a democrat in all but name. As such, he is a far more dangerous enemy than Hillary, as some folks think you can't call attention to that fact because it's "inward directed fire". He is running purely on a Cult of Personality, one that would make the Kims of DPRK jealous.
What do you think of this Rubio ad (played in the first minute below)While the above referenced ad is surely explaining his religious views I don't see him coming across as a Jim Baker wannabe. Then again, my view may be shaped by my prejudices. Watch Cruz and wait for the head tilt. In poker we call that a "tell". With Cruz, it's a tell that he's fixin' to turn on the shtick.