Originally Posted by Guest

So did the Democrats actually block a Republican a Supreme Court nominee? If so could you provide a link please?

Yes, I would also like to read about it.

Originally Posted by Guest

During last year of G.W.Bush, Chuck Schumer said:
“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not. I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (Justices John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito.”
==============================
“It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed. The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. …Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.”

— Then-Sen. Joe Biden, statement on the floor of the Senate, June 25, 1992 (an election year)

You have to wonder what will happen, if Hillary is elected. You can almost bet that Republicans will rush to confirm Garland during the lame duck period. They will site the Biden rule, and be correct(?)(see highlighted area). They will do a complete 180 on the voters should decide, who appoints the next Supreme Court judge.

Originally Posted by Guest

You have to wonder what will happen, if Hillary is elected. You can almost bet that Republicans will rush to confirm Garland during the lame duck period. They will site the Biden rule, and be correct(?)(see highlighted area). They will do a complete 180 on the voters should decide, who appoints the next Supreme Court judge.

You are giving Hillary much more credit than she deserves. And you are giving Trump less credit than he deserves. The only way the Senate will confirm Garland is if they plan to sabotage Trump and they believe that Hillary will then have a chance of winning the election. If so, then they will all lose their next election because they will lose the support of the voter.

Originally Posted by Guest

No. There was no Supreme Court nominee in "W's" last year 2008. Also, there wasn't a nominee in his father's last year, 1992.

AND the only reason a judge was confirmed in Reagan's last year was because he was nominated the year before. He was confirmed in Feb of the election year.

Originally Posted by Guest

You are giving Hillary much more credit than she deserves. And you are giving Trump less credit than he deserves. The only way the Senate will confirm Garland is if they plan to sabotage Trump and they believe that Hillary will then have a chance of winning the election. If so, then they will all lose their next election because they will lose the support of the voter.

That is not the only way. Polls! Trump lives and breaths on polls. When they are not in his favor, he just says that they are. If Hillary is leading in the polls in August, and definitely later than that, the Senate Republicans could have a change in heart. Then, problem they may have then is Obama pulling Garland for consideration. He could do a 180 just as quickly as the Republican will be doing a 180. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

The Republicans are playing a game of chance with Garland for no good reason. Once upon a time, politics wasn't a game of chance. If they lose, they are going to get what they deserve.

Originally Posted by Guest

That is not the only way. Polls! Trump lives and breaths on polls. When they are not in his favor, he just says that they are. If Hillary is leading in the polls in August, and definitely later than that, the Senate Republicans could have a change in heart. Then, problem they may have then is Obama pulling Garland for consideration. He could do a 180 just as quickly as the Republican will be doing a 180. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

The Republicans are playing a game of chance with Garland for no good reason. Once upon a time, politics wasn't a game of chance. If they lose, they are going to get what they deserve.

You liberals always look through a two way mirror. You seem to think that everyone is against you, and that you are on the good side. You aren't and they aren't. We care more for the country than you do, period. You care only for yourselves and your radical ideology. Conservatives care about America's future and the welfare of ALL the people.

I doubt Hillary will win, unless the GOP implodes over their internal fight for power. The GOP establishment is no different than the DNC establishment in their lust for power. But, conservatives are just conservatives and do not rely on the power base to dictate how they will vote.

If Trump gets the nomination, then it is the will of the people NOT the establishment. Regardless of whether or not he is the best suited for the position, he was chosen by the people, and especially not by the elite establishment. If they change the rules, then yes Hillary will win IF she is not incarcerated by then. And with the present establishment running interference for her, it is unlikely she will be prosecuted. She has threatened to take them all down with her, if she is pushed. Just what America needs as it's next leader, scum from the bottom of the barrel.

Originally Posted by Guest

You liberals always look through a two way mirror. You seem to think that everyone is against you, and that you are on the good side. You aren't and they aren't. We care more for the country than you do, period. You care only for yourselves and your radical ideology. Conservatives care about America's future and the welfare of ALL the people.

I doubt Hillary will win, unless the GOP implodes over their internal fight for power. The GOP establishment is no different than the DNC establishment in their lust for power. But, conservatives are just conservatives and do not rely on the power base to dictate how they will vote.

If Trump gets the nomination, then it is the will of the people NOT the establishment. Regardless of whether or not he is the best suited for the position, he was chosen by the people, and especially not by the elite establishment. If they change the rules, then yes Hillary will win IF she is not incarcerated by then. And with the present establishment running interference for her, it is unlikely she will be prosecuted. She has threatened to take them all down with her, if she is pushed. Just what America needs as it's next leader, scum from the bottom of the barrel.

So, I am a liberal, and you know this how? I forgot. Everyone that doesn't walk lock step with the right, and far right has to be a liberal. There is no way that there is a middle. As the right slides farther right, and the left slides farther left, the only people left with a brain in their head are the people in the middle. Given your comments, we know that your brain has been relocated. When you pass gas, is the noise deafening?

Conservative care about all the people. They show this care by not accepting the Medicaid benefit for millions of uninsured in their states. Come on man. Get a grip. Conservatives only care about themselves. They want to cut just about very social program, and you are trying to sell the nonsense that they care about everybody. They have a awful funny way of showing it.

If you doubt that Hillary will win, you had better take a good look at electoral voting map. There has to be a big change in voting in states that have gone Democratic in the past elections. A Republican has recently written a book on it, and states that the Democrat will have 240 electoral votes right out of the chute. This Republican is main stream, and hates Trump. Given that, his numbers may be a little off.

Take a look at my post that you responded to, the Republicans are already floating the idea that if Hillary wins that they will approve Garland. Orwin Hatch said this in response to a question by Al Franken. Hatch said, "you are getting your man, so what is the problem?" They are trying to sell the notion that the next president should appoint the Supreme Court justice, and they think that approving Garland in the lame duck period doesn't fly in the face of this notion. Apparently, honesty isn't something that Republicans take very seriously.

The sooner this nomination is viewed for what it is....a political positioning game prior to election.....and not one of who is playing by what rules.

The candidate is a specifically chosen game piece. Not one that Obama would put forth if he knew it would be approved.

We also know that if Clinton should pull it out of the fire and win, Obama would withdraw his candidate and allow her to pick a for sure as far out in left field as possible candidate, that will for certain polarize the SC all the way left......for a long, long, LONG time.

So there is no reason to try to rationalize who is doing what when they already know the position each side will take. Kinda like watching a hockey game when you already when and who is going to score......

BORING known outcome.

Here is the entire Franken/Hatch discussion.
Al Franken Likens GOP

Originally Posted by Guest

Here is the entire Franken/Hatch discussion.
Al Franken Likens GOP

Funny man Franken being offered as an authentication?

He is little more than a comedian, another unqualified candidate that duped his way into congress.

It does underscore that it does not take much to get in.

Franken authentication....

Originally Posted by Guest

So, I am a liberal, and you know this how? I forgot. Everyone that doesn't walk lock step with the right, and far right has to be a liberal. There is no way that there is a middle. As the right slides farther right, and the left slides farther left, the only people left with a brain in their head are the people in the middle. Given your comments, we know that your brain has been relocated. When you pass gas, is the noise deafening?

Conservative care about all the people. They show this care by not accepting the Medicaid benefit for millions of uninsured in their states. Come on man. Get a grip. Conservatives only care about themselves. They want to cut just about very social program, and you are trying to sell the nonsense that they care about everybody. They have a awful funny way of showing it.

If you doubt that Hillary will win, you had better take a good look at electoral voting map. There has to be a big change in voting in states that have gone Democratic in the past elections. A Republican has recently written a book on it, and states that the Democrat will have 240 electoral votes right out of the chute. This Republican is main stream, and hates Trump. Given that, his numbers may be a little off.

Take a look at my post that you responded to, the Republicans are already floating the idea that if Hillary wins that they will approve Garland. Orwin Hatch said this in response to a question by Al Franken. Hatch said, "you are getting your man, so what is the problem?" They are trying to sell the notion that the next president should appoint the Supreme Court justice, and they think that approving Garland in the lame duck period doesn't fly in the face of this notion. Apparently, honesty isn't something that Republicans take very seriously.

Wrong. Apparently, you (a liberal) do not understand the ramifications of taking that Obamacare medicaid from the Feds. It is all temp and then the State is on the hook for coming up with the funding later. You liberals are real good at saying if you don't GIVE/GIVE this to the poor, you hate them. Pure rubbish. It's better to build a job force so that everyone can afford their own health care, than to use money you don't have to provide it for those that don't want to work. Go ahead and tell me that everyone that doesn't have health care, are poor and can't work because they are handicapped.

As for the Republican party being right wing, that is also hogwash. The Republican party is a bunch of moderates to RINO's. There are hardly any "right wing" politicians anymore. Anyone that is conservative is automatically targeted by the left wing radicals with charges of "hate, racist, sexist, etc." And now the left has even resorted to violence. The left does not believe in Freedom of Speech for the right and they are determined to block it.

Originally Posted by Guest

What's social security have to do with welfare? What's taking tax breaks have to do with welfare? Are you stupid, or just an idiot?

Social Security is not enough for old seniors.....then they look for other options.

I have a friend just like that who is running out of money from her IRA.

Now who looks like an idiot?

U.S. Liberals at Record 24%, but Still Trail Conservatives

"Over the past 22 years, Americans' ideological bent, or at least their willingness to associate with certain labels, has changed in subtle ways.

Although the "liberal" moniker remains the least favorite, it has enjoyed the most growth,

while "conservative" is up slightly and "moderate" has waned.

But to a large extent, these changes reflect opposing ideological shifts within the parties, not national trends. That helps explain how there could be a record proportion of liberals at a time when Democratic identification was at a long-term low. Likewise, even though 2014 was a strong election year for the Republican Party, Gallup found no increase in conservatism in 2014 compared with 2013. All of this happened at the same time that political independence was peaking, which is to say that ideological polarization and the strength of the two major parties don't necessarily go hand in hand. In fact, one may undermine the other."

Originally Posted by Guest

Social Security is not enough for old seniors.....then they look for other options.

I have a friend just like that who is running out of money from her IRA.

Now who looks like an idiot?

Like I said, what doe Social Security have to do with welfare? Do you not know what SS's purpose is/was? Do you believe that SS is welfare? It is NOT supposed to be a retirement program. It is a retirement supplement.

I don't know your friend, but it appears that she did not plan for her retirement appropriately. If she is running out of her IRA, perhaps she has a budgeting problem. It is not the duty of the government to supply you with a livelihood. It is not the duty of the government to supply you with health care either. You have a choice in life, either plan for those hard cold winters, or perish with the lazy grasshopper. Sorry, but I am not my brother's keeper. If you can't survive without gov assistance, then perhaps you are too weak.

Who looks like an idiot? Well, it is not my family that's destitute. It is not my family that is dependent on someone else to provide for them. And I didn't get anything from relatives as an adult. I earned it the hard way, just like anyone else CAN.

And before you give the same repetitious mantra of me not being a Christian, let me give you some food for thought. Christians give charity freely, not being forced. Liberals believe they are being Christian-like by giving someone else's wealth away to the unmotivated or sometimes needy, regardless of qualifiers.

[QUOTE=Guest;1200372]Wrong. Apparently, you (a liberal) do not understand the ramifications of taking that Obamacare medicaid from the Feds. It is all temp and then the State is on the hook for coming up with the funding later. You liberals are real good at saying if you don't GIVE/GIVE this to the poor, you hate them. Pure rubbish. It's better to build a job force so that everyone can afford their own health care, than to use money you don't have to provide it for those that don't want to work. Go ahead and tell me that everyone that doesn't have health care, are poor and can't work because they are handicapped.

As for the Republican party being right wing, that is also hogwash. The Republican party is a bunch of moderates to RINO's. There are hardly any "right wing" politicians anymore. Anyone that is conservative is automatically targeted by the left wing radicals with charges of "hate, racist, sexist, etc." And now the left has even resorted to violence. The left does not believe in Freedom of Speech for the right and they are determined to block it.[/QUOTE]

You (far right Republican) state that states have to come up with funding later. How much funding? You give the impression that would be a major burden on the states. That is total far right nonsense.

In the Republicans party MODERATERS are RINOs. What the hell do you call Ted Cruz? A MODERATE! When Romney ran for president, he had to move to the right to get the nomination. When he got the nomination, he went back to the middle. In the first Romney/ Obama debate, Obama didn't know who is was debating. Boehner quit, because he couldn't deal with the far right. Bipartisan bills never make it to the floor of the House, due to the Hastert Rule. The far right is the problem. I could go on and on, but I would be just talking to the wall.

Why don't you try to back up the sentences in bold with FACTS?

You really are in la la land. Your entire last paragraph is total nonsense. It is only surpassed in total by the absolute total nonsense of your first paragraph. You really do live in an alternative universe.