President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#24,501
#24,501
BernardKingGOAT said:
MILLIONS of people voted against one candidate in the the last 3 general Presidential Elections. That you don't consider that fact makes my point. Most issues are not ideologically binary. Because there are only two choices doesn't change that fact. Voting for a certain candidate doesn't indicate support for every single policy position. For many Americans it comes down to just a few issues, and even then like in the last 3 elections, it's been more about choosing the best between the worst. IOW, the choices we have had in the last 12 years have been awful
Click to expand...

Your rant has 0 to do with what we are discussing. Yes people vote both for and against candidates. Thanks?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT and BernardKingGOAT
#24,502
#24,502
BowlBrother85 said:
The National Review does not cite examples that are in any way similar to what the Republicans did in 2016 and 2020. You are now being dishonest on top of being ignorant and stubborn.
Click to expand...

Obviously it does. In 2016 the parties were not aligned. So they didn’t approve Garland. In 2020 the parties were aligned. So the did approve ACB.

How are those examples provided not similar?
 
#24,504
#24,504
Vol8188 said:
It’s not hypocrisy. I already provided you the data you claimed didn’t exist (you shockingly didn’t respond to it). This is normal.

If it’s the last year and the parties align, they rush the nomination. If not, they intentionally delay or vote against until after the election.

It’s normal and it makes perfect sense. A newly elected president, the senate should approve their candidates unless there’s a major issue with the candidate (or unless he’s black and Joe Biden wants to slander him). If it’s a president who is up for election and in opposition to the congress, waiting to see who wins is perfectly reasonable.

Y’all have been crying about this for years now and it’s a giant nothing burger.
Click to expand...
It was blatant hypocrisy. You clearly don't even know what the word hypocrisy even means.

HYPOCRISY : Claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

In March of 2016, when there was a nomination for the Supreme Court made by a Democratic Party President, Senate Republicans claimed to hold the belief that Senate confirmation hearings and votes for Supreme Court nominees should not be held in the year of a Presidential Election.

However, that belief was revealed to be disingenuous in October of 2020, when Senate Republicans did allow a Senate confirmation hearing and vote on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to take place when it was made by a Republican Party President.

That was textbook hypocrisy on the part of Senate Republicans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#24,505
#24,505
Vol8188 said:
Obviously it does. In 2016 the parties were not aligned. So they didn’t approve Garland. In 2020 the parties were aligned. So the did approve ACB.

How are those examples provided not similar?
Click to expand...
You are thick as a 2x4.

The hypocrisy is in the explanation given by the Senate Republicans for not holding a Senate cofirmation hearing and vote in 2016, because it was in the year of a Presidential Election. However, they violated their own stated belief 4 years later, when they had the power to do so. You are focused only on the fact that the circumstances allowed them to be hypocrites, instead of focusing on the hypocritical behavior itself. I knew you were stubborn and couldn't admit when you are wrong, but I also thought you were a little smarter than this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#24,506
#24,506
BowlBrother85 said:
You are thick as a 2x4.

The hypocrisy is in the explanation given by the Senate Republicans for not holding a Senate cofirmation hearing and vote in 2016, ebcause it was in the year of a Presidential Election. However, they violated their own stated belief 4 years lateer, when they had the power to do so. You are focused
Click to expand...

How are the examples provided not similar? Start there.

When the president and the senate are not aligned, they typically fill the seat after the election. When they are aligned they wait.

That’s what the evidence shows. That’s what occurred.
 
#24,507
#24,507
BowlBrother85 said:
It was blatant hypocrisy. You clearly don't even know what the word hypocrisy even means.

HYPOCRISY : Claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

In March of 2016, when there was a nomination for the Supreme Court made by a Democratic Party President, Senate Republicans claimed to hold the belief that Senate confirmation hearings and votes for Supreme Court nominees should not be held in the year of a Presidential Election.

However, that belief was revealed to be disingenuous in October of 2020, when Senate Republicans did allow a Senate confirmation hearing and vote on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to take place when it was made by a Republican Party President.

That was textbook hypocrisy on the part of Senate Republicans.
Click to expand...

Find me that quote.
 
#24,508
#24,508
Vol8188 said:
How are the examples provided not similar? Start there.

When the president and the senate are not aligned, they typically fill the seat after the election. When they are aligned they wait.

That’s what the evidence shows. That’s what occurred.
Click to expand...
You are focusing on the wrong thing!

The Senate Republican explanation in March of 2016 did not make any exceptions for when the President was from the same party as the party in majority control of the Senate. Senate Republicans only stated the strict belief that Senate confirmation hearings and Senate confirmation votes for Supreme Court nominees should not take place in the year of a Presidential Election.

However, as Republican Sen. Susan Collins even noted in her dissenting vote against the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett in October of 2020, Senate Republicans were violating their own stated belief by holding a Senate confirmation hearing and vote for Amy Coney Barrett even closer to the election than when Merrick Garland's nomination had been.
 
#24,509
#24,509
BowlBrother85 said:
Assuming that's true, the Republicans should have held a Senate confirmation hearing for Garland and then voted down his nomination.

That's not what they did, however. The Republicans used the rationale that it was too close to the election to hold a hearing or a vote for a Supreme Court nominee. That rationale was revealed to be a dishonest excuse 4 years later, when they did hold a Senate confirmation hearing and Senate vote on Any Coney Barrett. It was blatant hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Good thing the leftists never do anything like that. or your moral high ground would collapse under your feet like a SoCal landslide,
 
#24,510
#24,510
BowlBrother85 said:
You are focusing on the wrong thing!

The Senate Republican explanation in March of 2016 did not make any exceptions for when the President was from a differing party from the party in majority control of the Senate. Senate Republicans only stated the strict belief that Senate confirmation hearings and Senate confirmation votes for Supreme Court nominees should not take place in the year of a Presidential Election.

However, as Republican Sen. Susan Collins even noted in her dissenting vote against the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett in October of 2020, Senate Republicans were violating their own stated belief by holding a Senate confirmation hearing and vote for Amy Coney Barrett even closer to the election than when Merrick Garland's nomination had been.
Click to expand...

Prove that. Prove they said this should just never occur. What I see McConnell said was that it was Obama’s right to nominate them, but that it was the right of the senate to not confirm the nominee.

That’s not hypocrisy.

 
#24,511
#24,511
BernardKingGOAT said:
On the SC cases since then, he probably would have voted quite often as Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh. Don't even bother to tell me why you think he would have been a disaster. The total substance would be something tribal. Like, "he's a leftist". Hell, just a few weeks ago, your response to Buffet offering his wisdom on the tariffs was, "he's a leftist"! 🤣🤣🤣

It's ok. It's not too damaging to your reputation in you Trumper safe space. At least you can fly a plane😉
Click to expand...
Re: Warren Buffett. He IS a leftist. But he is also an elitist and his perspective on tariffs is that of a man who doesn't want to suffer at all for ANY amount of time no matter the bigger picture. He can also manipulate markets, AND has a bully pulpit because of his successes and status. That doesn't mean I don't respect his investing capabilities. I wish I could buy and sell entire companies like he can. I could do some of those other things as well too.
 
#24,513
#24,513
Vol8188 said:
Prove that. Prove they said this should just never occur. What I see McConnell said was that it was Obama’s right to nominate them, but that it was the right of the senate to not confirm the nominee.

That’s not hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

McConnell did say that the reason to not hold a vote on Garland was that it was in the year of an election. I will post a link in which he says that.
 
#24,518
#24,518
Mitch told the Dems not to F with judicial norms. Said he'd go nuclear. Dems messed with those norms. So Mitch f-ed them in the ass. He's always been good at that. Not much else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#24,519
#24,519
#24,521
#24,521
Vol8188 said:
You’ve got nothing here.
Click to expand...
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Everything that needs to be there to prove hypocrisy ..... is there. I'm not surprised to see that you aren't man enough to admit when you are clearly ignorant and wrong, and you are both in great abundance.
 
#24,524
#24,524
BowlBrother85 said:
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Everything that needs to be there to prove hypocrisy ..... is there. I'm not surprised to see that you aren't man enough to admit when you are clearly ignorant and wrong, and you are both in great abundance.
Click to expand...

What specifically is there? There’s no point where he says what you claimed.

There’s nothing wrong about it. McConnell did the right thing in both scenarios.

You found the first article you came across. It has numerous quotes from McConnell and others, but never says what you say it did. If I’m wrong and I missed it in that sea of trash, feel free to screenshot the exact quote and I’ll respond
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top