Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2017, 07:40:45 AM
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing-to-focus-today-on-testimony-from-friends-foes/2017/03/23/14d21116-0fc7-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.fcd23eccf12a&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Bnation&wpmk=1
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing-to-focus-today-on-testimony-from-friends-foes/2017/03/23/14d21116-0fc7-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.fcd23eccf12a&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Bnation&wpmk=1
Yet, you give the GOP a pass for not allowing Obama to rightfully select his pick..... ::)
-
Yet, you give the GOP a pass for not allowing Obama to rightfully select his pick..... ::)
talking common sense to SC is a waste of time..his hypocrisy knows no bounds
-
So what is the point? Not nominate anyone? See how that works when its libfags back in office.
-
Yet, you give the GOP a pass for not allowing Obama to rightfully select his pick..... ::)
Obama did nominate his pick.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing-to-focus-today-on-testimony-from-friends-foes/2017/03/23/14d21116-0fc7-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.fcd23eccf12a&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Bnation&wpmk=1
Dumb move.
-
Yet, you give the GOP a pass for not allowing Obama to rightfully select his pick..... ::)
Too little too late for O-fag.
-
Obama did nominate his pick.
And the GOP blocked the vote...didnt even give him the opportunity to go to a hearing. This is rightful payback
-
And the GOP blocked the vote...didnt even give him the opportunity to go to a hearing. This is rightful payback
They did the right thing. And there isn't any payback, because all McConnell has to do is use the "nuclear option" and Gorsuch will be confirmed with a simple majority. It's really just a whole lot of partisan noise and crying that will not amount to anything.
They should have saved their fight for Ginsburg's replacement.
-
They did the right thing. And there isn't any payback, because all McConnell has to do is use the "nuclear option" and Gorsuch will be confirmed with a simple majority. It's really just a whole lot of partisan noise and crying that will not amount to anything.
They should have saved their fight for Ginsburg's replacement.
I dunno. I feel that there was plenty of time to vote on an Obama nominee.
Nothing wrong with Gorsuch at all, but I don't think they should have not held a vote. The time that this took to get anyone to a vote is pretty unprecedented.
I do feel Obama's pick should have had hearings and a vote at least. Then if blocked, they can say they weren't obstructionist.
Surely the GOP was being so in not evening calling for a vote for the Obama nominee.
-
They did the right thing. And there isn't any payback, because all McConnell has to do is use the "nuclear option" and Gorsuch will be confirmed with a simple majority. It's really just a whole lot of partisan noise and crying that will not amount to anything.
They should have saved their fight for Ginsburg's replacement.
Bullshit
Republican violated their oath office by denying the sitting POTUS and the people who put him in office SCOTUS nominee
It was pure politics
Ted Cruz was talking about denying Hillary any nominees suggesting we don't need 9 justices
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/sented-cruz-supreme-court-justice-hillary-clinton/2016/10/26/id/755503/
what the Republican did was dereliction of duty
-
Bullshit
Republican violated their oath office by denying the sitting POTUS and the people who put him in office SCOTUS nominee
It was pure politics
Ted Cruz was talking about denying Hillary any nominees suggesting we don't need 9 justices
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/sented-cruz-supreme-court-justice-hillary-clinton/2016/10/26/id/755503/
what the Republican did was dereliction of duty
"Elections have consequences."
-
I dunno. I feel that there was plenty of time to vote on an Obama nominee.
Nothing wrong with Gorsuch at all, but I don't think they should have not held a vote. The time that this took to get anyone to a vote is pretty unprecedented.
I do feel Obama's pick should have had hearings and a vote at least. Then if blocked, they can say they weren't obstructionist.
Surely the GOP was being so in not evening calling for a vote for the Obama nominee.
except that he's more conservative than Scalia
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/15/neil-gorsuch-could-be-the-most-conservative-justice-on-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.a0ab984cf83a
the country is getting more liberal and the court will only be getting more conservative
-
I dunno. I feel that there was plenty of time to vote on an Obama nominee.
Nothing wrong with Gorsuch at all, but I don't think they should have not held a vote. The time that this took to get anyone to a vote is pretty unprecedented.
I do feel Obama's pick should have had hearings and a vote at least. Then if blocked, they can say they weren't obstructionist.
Surely the GOP was being so in not evening calling for a vote for the Obama nominee.
Actually my understanding is it would have been unprecedented for a president leaving office soon and being replaced by the opposing party to have a Supreme Court nominee confirmed. President Obama knew that. He knew the nomination was DOA in the Senate.
Pulling back all the layers, this was really about an attempt to change the balance of the Court. That's why you had so many liberals frothing at the mouth.
IMO it really had nothing to do with whether Garland was qualified, deserved a vote, etc. It was all about ideology.
-
"Elections have consequences."
Correct. Wasn't it that great philosopher Barack who said this? :)
-
"Elections have consequences."
This.
The Democrats need to start winning some of these rather than getting smoked on every level.
Win a few elections and you have a voice. Until that point you are simply the 90 pound weakling getting sand kicked in his face which is obviously the case now.
-
Actually my understanding is it would have been unprecedented for a president leaving office soon and being replaced by the opposing party to have a Supreme Court nominee confirmed. President Obama knew that. He knew the nomination was DOA in the Senate.
Pulling back all the layers, this was really about an attempt to change the balance of the Court. That's why you had so many liberals frothing at the mouth.
IMO it really had nothing to do with whether Garland was qualified, deserved a vote, etc. It was all about ideology.
No one knew that Obama was going to be replaced by an opposing party when he nominated Merrick
there is also and abundance of example of late term nominations for other judges and even a few for SCOTUS
link below will show how much Republicans blocked Obama from doing his job in his last year.
One can only hope that Dems have the same opportunity to completely shut down Trump in his last year (assuming he last that long and Dems take back control of Congress)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/14/marco-rubio/do-presidents-stop-nominating-judges-final-year/
-
This.
The Democrats need to start winning some of these rather than getting smoked on every level.
Win a few elections and you have a voice. Until that point you are simply the 90 pound weakling getting sand kicked in his face which is obviously the case now.
Yep. Obama left them quite the legacy.
-
No one knew that Obama was going to be replaced by an opposing party when he nominated Merrick
there is also and abundance of example of late term nominations for other judges and even a few for SCOTUS
link below will show how much Republicans blocked Obama from doing his job in his last year.
One can only hope that Dems have the same opportunity to completely shut down Trump in his last year (assuming he last that long and Dems take back control of Congress)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/14/marco-rubio/do-presidents-stop-nominating-judges-final-year/
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=427101.0;attach=471155;image)
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=427101.0;attach=471155;image)
good point
the districts are so gerrymandered that we'll have to wait of the next census to try to sort it out
https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628
one example of many
http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/once-again-michigan-dems-receive-more-votes-in-the-state-house-but-republicans-hold-onto-power/Content?oid=2472685
In 2014 and 2016, Democrats received more votes or nearly split the tally in the State House races, yet Republicans hold a huge 63-47 majority and push a deeply conservative agenda that a majority of voters don't want.
How could that be? That's classic gerrymandering. As MT reported a year ago, Republicans redrew the state's 110 state legislative districts in 2010 in such a way that Democratic voters are herded into a small number of districts. The majority of Republican voters, conversely, are spread among a much larger number of districts.
Whoever controls more districts controls the House. So "packing and stacking" Democrats into a small number districts makes it easy for Republicans to hold onto power, even if Democrats get more votes statewide. And when that happens, the government passes laws that are unpopular, but it's difficult to vote Republicans out of office.
To put it bluntly, gerrymandering is a legal form of election theft, and the results support that.
-
good point
the districts are so gerrymandered that we'll have to wait of the next census to try to sort it out
https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628
one example of many
http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/once-again-michigan-dems-receive-more-votes-in-the-state-house-but-republicans-hold-onto-power/Content?oid=2472685
Nobody cares bro.
Just win a damn election for once and maybe people will begin to care about your opinion.
-
Yep. Obama left them quite the legacy.
Obama's Legacy = Donald J. Trump
MAGA!!!!
-
Obama's Legacy = Donald J. Trump
MAGA!!!!
Right?
-
Actually my understanding is it would have been unprecedented for a president leaving office soon and being replaced by the opposing party to have a Supreme Court nominee confirmed. President Obama knew that. He knew the nomination was DOA in the Senate.
Pulling back all the layers, this was really about an attempt to change the balance of the Court. That's why you had so many liberals frothing at the mouth.
IMO it really had nothing to do with whether Garland was qualified, deserved a vote, etc. It was all about ideology.
That may be true. Sure, the nomination would be dead in the Senate, no question there, but they should have at least keep up the premise that they wouldn't obstruct the process.
I mean, we shouldn't be a nation of No No No.
The inability for the sides to work together has gotten progressively worse and the people's faith in congress has continued to drop with it.
-
That may be true. Sure, the nomination would be dead in the Senate, no question there, but they should have at least keep up the premise that they wouldn't obstruct the process.
I mean, we shouldn't be a nation of No No No.
The inability for the sides to work together has gotten progressively worse and the people's faith in congress has continued to drop with it.
If anything has become clear in the first 60 days of Trump's administration is that every one of these pricks in the highest levels of government is a spoiled petulant child and acts only in their own interest.
Both sides of the aisle.
Fucking embarrassment to the people they are supposed to represent
-
the country is getting more liberal and the court will only be getting more conservative
What kind of logic is that?
-
Nobody cares bro.
Just win a damn election for once and maybe people will begin to care about your opinion.
I understand you don't care since your party is the one that gerrymandered the districts
this is well documented and hopefully Dems can do the same with the next census
hopefully you won't care then either
btw - this probably why polling on most major issues rarely matches political outcomes.
When you have one party winning more votes in a state yet losing seats then you know it's rigged
Given all the majorities that Republican appear to have it seems odd that their policies don't have commensurate popular support
-
If anything has become clear in the first 60 days of Trump's administration is that every one of these pricks in the highest levels of government is a spoiled petulant child and acts only in their own interest.
Both sides of the aisle.
Fucking embarrassment to the people they are supposed to represent
This.
-
What kind of logic is that?
not that hard to figure out
Republican have Congress and the White House so they will put in conservative judges
Go look at polling on, for example social issues and you'll see popular support that is contray to Republican party line
pick the topics like gay marriage, abortion, planned parenthood etc..
all have popular support yet are opposed by Republicans
you'd think the party line would match up with the popular support but it does not
-
That may be true. Sure, the nomination would be dead in the Senate, no question there, but they should have at least keep up the premise that they wouldn't obstruct the process.
I mean, we shouldn't be a nation of No No No.
The inability for the sides to work together has gotten progressively worse and the people's faith in congress has continued to drop with it.
Rise of a legit 3rd party?
-
That may be true. Sure, the nomination would be dead in the Senate, no question there, but they should have at least keep up the premise that they wouldn't obstruct the process.
I mean, we shouldn't be a nation of No No No.
The inability for the sides to work together has gotten progressively worse and the people's faith in congress has continued to drop with it.
I agree about the lack of bipartisanship and obstruction. Both parties do it.
That said, the Garland thing doesn't really bother me. Remember the "Biden rule"?
Liberals crying about Garland are being absolute disingenuous hypocrites. This isn't about fairness, process, qualifications, etc. It's pure politics. And part of the reason they are so angry is liberals have trouble getting their ideas through legislatures so they many times rely on the courts to legislate from the bench.
-
not that hard to figure out
Republican have Congress and the White House so they will put in conservative judges
Go look at polling on, for example social issues and you'll see popular support that is contray to Republican party line
pick the topics like gay marriage, abortion, planned parenthood etc..
all have popular support yet are opposed by Republicans
you'd think the party line would match up with the popular support but it does not
Delusional as the day is long.
Why do I even grace my presence in this forum full of complete amateurs who do not even have the most basic grasp of politics in the current age?
-
Rise of a legit 3rd party?
You know that's my political wet dream.
I want a legit 3rd party more than anything. Someone to help balance the scales and stop the bullshit from running rampant from the right or the left.
Drives me insane how our system has found itself divided.
-
Delusional as the day is long.
Why do I even grace my presence in this forum full of complete amateurs who do not even have the most basic grasp of politics in the current age?
arrogant much
feeling defensive for some reason?
You can always volunteer to grace us with your intelligence on the topic
-
arrogant much
feeling defensive for some reason?
You can always volunteer to grace us with your intelligence on the topic
Its much more fun trolling you and your husband Andreisafatslob
-
I dunno. I feel that there was plenty of time to vote on an Obama nominee.
Nothing wrong with Gorsuch at all, but I don't think they should have not held a vote. The time that this took to get anyone to a vote is pretty unprecedented.
I do feel Obama's pick should have had hearings and a vote at least. Then if blocked, they can say they weren't obstructionist.
Surely the GOP was being so in not evening calling for a vote for the Obama nominee.
I'm a centrist pretty much, but one who feels while they hypocrisy exists on both sides, the left excels at it.
However What the GOP did with Obama's nominee was wrong, in my opinion. Politically, yes, they "won", but I think it was a bad move.
But it's done. Democrats are stupid to fight this one, as they can't win, and now come across as petty. They should take the high ground and appear to be the "mature" party in this case. And, in addition to being supremely qualified, do they really think if they blocked Gorshuch, that Trump's next nominee would be more appealing? Or even taken to the extreme, if they felt they could oust Trump, do they think Pence will appoint anyone different?
They're playing this stupid.
-
So what is the point? Not nominate anyone? See how that works when its libfags back in office.
The point is the republicans hurt the country by not following procedure and preventing the supreme court from adding another justice for over a year....where was your outrage then>?????
-
The point is the republicans hurt the country by not following procedure and preventing the supreme court from adding another justice for over a year....where was your outrage then>?????
What harm has hit the country due to this?
-
Its much more fun trolling you and your husband Andreisafatslob
The trolling is in your mind...you're not trolling anybody...you are the one who had the meltdown when Obama beat Romney and you left Getbig pissing in your pants
-
Donnelly becomes third Democrat to back Gorsuch
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326920-donnelly-becomes-third-democrat-to-back-gorsuch (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326920-donnelly-becomes-third-democrat-to-back-gorsuch)
Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) said Sunday that he will support the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, becoming the third moderate Democrat to break with his party and back President Trump’s nominee.