funhusker Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 34 minutes ago, teachercd said: Okay, is this maybe a little staged? There’s no way someone didn’t tell him between leaving the stage and meeting reporters. Who was the college coach that told his QB to not say something stupid after winning a championship game? That’s the QB this reminds me of. Link to comment
teachercd Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 Just now, funhusker said: There’s no way someone didn’t tell him between leaving the stage and meeting reporters. Who was the college coach that told his QB to not say something stupid after winning a championship game? That’s the QB this reminds me of. Yeah, I sort of think he knew. Either way, the reaction is really sweet and warm. But it almost seems too perfect. Link to comment
QMany Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 Protections for existing conditions, essential health benefits, annual/lifetime caps, etc. are likely dead. Trump has been in court for years trying to kill Obamacare, without a replacement plan. 4-4 tie = lower court stands. On top of the 200,000 that have died from COVID-19, Trump voters will own this too. 1 Link to comment
QMany Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 I don’t think they will before the election, I think they’ll try to ram it through after Trump loses. 1 Link to comment
Cdog923 Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 4 hours ago, teachercd said: I suppose that would be unfortunate considering the good she could do but she probably would refuse considering the current position she is in, which is also going to be historic. In terms of her situation, being the VP to Joe Biden is more advantageous than being a Supreme Court Justice. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 I agree with this, but I’m also concerned about the election results getting to the SC and end in a 4-4 tie. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 Someone has discovered and pointed out that the utter piece of s#!t’s message about RBG was an exact f#&%ing replica of the one written about Scalia except the name and pronoun were changed. 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 30 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: I agree with this, but I’m also concerned about the election results getting to the SC and end in a 4-4 tie. Eh. That’d be better than 5-4. Actually it’d probably result in the same thing. Link to comment
commando Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 who should pick the next SC justice? lets ask some top republicans Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 4 hours ago, commando said: who should pick the next SC justice? lets ask some top republicans I agree that I want it to wait till after the election. However, Republicans aren’t the only ones that are flip flopping on this issue. Democrats thought just the opposite last time too. 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: I agree that I want it to wait till after the election. However, Republicans aren’t the only ones that are flip flopping on this issue. Democrats thought just the opposite last time too. This is a weird "both sides," and I don't agree. The Republicans were in charge of the Senate both times. The Democrats are asking them to stay consistent and not base how they deal with this on who is president. If the Republicans had done what they were supposed to in 2016 the Democrats wouldn't have as good of an argument now and wouldn't make it as much, although we're talking 4 months now vs 10 or whatever it was. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 3 minutes ago, Moiraine said: This is a weird "both sides," and I don't agree. The Republicans were in charge of the Senate both times. The Democrats are asking them to stay consistent and not base how they deal with this on who is president. If the Republicans had done what they were supposed to in 2016 the Democrats wouldn't have as good of an argument now and wouldn't make it as much, although we're talking 4 months now vs 10 or whatever it was. So, in 2016 Democrats weren’t saying Obama should be able to nominate the judge and have it voted on in the senate. 1 Link to comment
commando Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: So, in 2016 Democrats weren’t saying Obama should be able to nominate the judge and have it voted on in the senate. yes they were....and then the republicans set a precedent that they now want to ignore. 3 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 45 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: So, in 2016 Democrats weren’t saying Obama should be able to nominate the judge and have it voted on in the senate. Yes they were saying it, and in general that's how it should be, although maybe they should make a law that limits how much time before January they can do it. Like 6 months or whatever. Or 3. Make it a law so it isn't flip flopping based on partisan reasons. What I am saying is Republicans have decided both times because they were in charge of the Senate and they have shown right now that everything they said in 2016 was a lie. This isn't a both sides thing where the 2 flipped and that's all there is to it. The context of the situations matter. Republicans did the wrong thing in 2016 based on a lie. The Republicans changing their own rules because Trump is in charge makes them hypocrites, and in addition to that the time is way shorter this time. We're at 4 months instead of 11. They had 11 f#&%ing months last time and all the Democrats asked for was a vote. The Democrats have never done what the Republicans did in 2016 and it isn't up to them what happens now and wasn't back then. Link to comment
Recommended Posts