by td11 » Mon Jan 30, 2017 17:54:28
JUburton wrote:it would be nice if this was just a rumor but with mike motherfucker pence on board, probably not.CalvinBall wrote:EO allowing LGBQT discrimination coming to a united states near you!
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/01/sour ... ming-soon/
by pacino » Mon Jan 30, 2017 17:59:27
thephan wrote:pacino's posting is one of the more important things revealed in weeks.
Calvinball wrote:Pacino was right.
by slugsrbad » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:01:11
pacino wrote:Mosque shooter was an alt-right piece of crap
Doll Is Mine wrote:This Ellen DeGeneres look alike on ESPN is annoying. Who the hell is he?
by jerseyhoya » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:01:12
CalvinBall wrote:spicer on dems filibustering the scotus nom. incredible world.
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/8 ... 4566876164
by CalvinBall » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:10:53
jerseyhoya wrote:CalvinBall wrote:spicer on dems filibustering the scotus nom. incredible world.
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/8 ... 4566876164
He could've stuck on the bit about them making up their minds to filibuster before they even find out who it is and it would've been a good answer.
by TenuredVulture » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:14:10
td11 wrote:JUburton wrote:it would be nice if this was just a rumor but with mike motherfucker pence on board, probably not.CalvinBall wrote:EO allowing LGBQT discrimination coming to a united states near you!
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/01/sour ... ming-soon/
what does Thiel think of this i wonder
by pacino » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:18:00
CalvinBall wrote:jerseyhoya wrote:CalvinBall wrote:spicer on dems filibustering the scotus nom. incredible world.
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/8 ... 4566876164
He could've stuck on the bit about them making up their minds to filibuster before they even find out who it is and it would've been a good answer.
Didn't Rs say no vote before the even knew who it was?
thephan wrote:pacino's posting is one of the more important things revealed in weeks.
Calvinball wrote:Pacino was right.
by Monkeyboy » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:18:12
CalvinBall wrote:jerseyhoya wrote:CalvinBall wrote:spicer on dems filibustering the scotus nom. incredible world.
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/8 ... 4566876164
He could've stuck on the bit about them making up their minds to filibuster before they even find out who it is and it would've been a good answer.
Didn't Rs say no vote before the even knew who it was?
by pacino » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:18:30
In an August 2016 speech in Kentucky, Senator McConnell said, "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy."
thephan wrote:pacino's posting is one of the more important things revealed in weeks.
Calvinball wrote:Pacino was right.
by Slowhand » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:23:40
pacino wrote:Mosque shooter was an alt-right piece of crap
by jerseyhoya » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:26:20
CalvinBall wrote:jerseyhoya wrote:CalvinBall wrote:spicer on dems filibustering the scotus nom. incredible world.
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/8 ... 4566876164
He could've stuck on the bit about them making up their minds to filibuster before they even find out who it is and it would've been a good answer.
Didn't Rs say no vote before the even knew who it was?
Second before going into the GOP nomination stuff, a few words about the Supreme Court fight. There are few things more certain in life than political process fights devolving into hypocrisy. I think there's something approaching a 100% chance that if RBG died in February 2008 that the Dem Senate would not have confirmed a Bush nominee to her spot. And we would have screamed our heads off about how unfaithful to the constitution Dem sens were being, and maybe they'd have paid a bit of a price at the polls (Ted Stevens might have won and maybe Obamacare would've never happened, who knows), but the Democrats would have been right to stand their ground given the consequences for the party and the progressive movement for shifting the court if Bush had replaced a liberal stalwart. The GOP is completely right to eat shit on this because the stakes are so high. McConnell could've handled it better without saying no hearings/no votes - I think we'd get 51+ no votes for any non GOP nominee (Kirk/Collins/maybe Murkowski) - but it's vital that the line is held. So I think it will be. If resulting unpopularity costs a senate seat or even the White House, that would suck, but allowing Obama to appoint someone who makes the court 5-4 or 6-3 lib on every contentious issue isn't something a conservative GOP senate can just roll over on. It's going to be good times 8 years from now when Stephen Breyer dies and President Rubio breaks his pledge to defer a last year nomination to the next president, and we get to hear how much of a hypocrite Rubio is.
by jerseyhoya » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:27:12
by JFLNYC » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:33:14
jerseyhoya wrote:Unless Rubio is going to primary Trump in 2020 and win!
by Stay_Disappointed » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:45:29
pacino wrote:thephan wrote:You guys were looking for this, right...
After weekend of silence, Toomey backs Trump's ban on refugees
What a pos
by Stay_Disappointed » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:47:10
pacino wrote:nominate merrick garland and all is forgiven regarding SC, i say
by Bucky » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:47:32
by pacino » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:57:42
Warszawa wrote:pacino wrote:nominate merrick garland and all is forgiven regarding SC, i say
They need 60 votes for the SC right?
thephan wrote:pacino's posting is one of the more important things revealed in weeks.
Calvinball wrote:Pacino was right.
by JUburton » Mon Jan 30, 2017 18:58:49
currently, yes.Warszawa wrote:pacino wrote:nominate merrick garland and all is forgiven regarding SC, i say
They need 60 votes for the SC right?
by Stay_Disappointed » Mon Jan 30, 2017 19:00:00
pacino wrote:Warszawa wrote:pacino wrote:nominate merrick garland and all is forgiven regarding SC, i say
They need 60 votes for the SC right?
Currently
by Youseff » Mon Jan 30, 2017 19:01:28
