President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#24,476
#24,476
Vol8188 said:
It’s not hypocritical. It’s the norm. Opposing parties dont vote for the other parties nominee in the last year of their presidency. They wait.

It’s the historical norm. How’s it hypocritical?
Click to expand...
It may very well be the "norm". That doesn't mitigate the fact the original premise is hypocrisy and petty tribalism. Both sides are guilty of it
 
#24,477
#24,477
Vol8188 said:
It’s not hypocritical. It’s the norm. Opposing parties dont vote for the other parties nominee in the last year of their presidency. They wait.

It’s the historical norm. How’s it hypocritical?
Click to expand...
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, regardless of how often it occurs. The definition of the word "hypocrisy" does not change, if it becomes a common practice.

It's not that Republicans wouldn't vote in favor of Merrick Garland's confirmation .... It's that they did not even allow a Senate comfirmation hearing or a vote on Garland to take place. The explanation they gave for this extraordinary step, was that it was too close to the election. They were indeed revealed to be hypocrites 4 years later when they allowed a Senate confirmation hearing and vote to go forward on Amy Coney Barrett, even though it was 6 months later in the year, and less than a month before the 2020 Presidential Election.

Having said that, if this is the historical norm, as you claim? Then name one other time when the exact same scenario has been played out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#24,478
#24,478
BernardKingGOAT said:
It may very well be the "norm". That doesn't mitigate the fact the original premise is hypocrisy and petty tribalism. Both sides are guilty of it
Click to expand...

There’s no hypocrisy. No tribalism. Just politics as normal. If your group is in control, you get to select the justice. If they’re not, you don’t.

Your stance would be like claiming it’s hypocritical that I get to make a draw a card when it’s my turn in a card game, but won’t allow my opponent to do so during my turn.
 
#24,479
#24,479
BowlBrother85 said:
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, regardless of how often it occurs. The definition of the word "hypocrisy" does not change, if it becomes a common practice.

It's not that Republicans wouldn't vote in favor of Merrick Garland's confirmation .... It's that they did not even allow a Senate comfirmation hearing or a vote on Garland to take place. The explanation they gave for this extraordinary step, was that it was too close to the election. They were indeed revealed to be hypocrites 4 years later when they allowed a Senate confirmation hearing and vote to go forward on Amy Coney Barrett, even though it was 6 months later in the year, and less than a month before the 2020 Presidential Election.

Having said that, if this is the historical norm, as you claim? Then name one other time when the exact same scenario has been played out.
Click to expand...

“Regardless of how often it occurs”….so you agree it occurs often? If so….How was it an “extraordinary step”?

Lmfao name another time two justices died 4 years apart with different presidents of different parties in charge? You’re asking for something nonsensical

If you’re asking for previous times they’ve refused to vote in the last year, once again dying in the last year doesn’t occur that often, and on top of that Congress and the president would have to be in opposition…but it happened in both 1852 and 1844.
 
#24,480
#24,480
Vol8188 said:
“Regardless of how often it occurs”….so you agree it occurs often? If so….How was it an “extraordinary step”?

Lmfao name another time two justices died 4 years apart with different presidents of different parties in charge? You’re asking for something nonsensical
Click to expand...
No, I don't think it occurs often at all. I was saying that the definition of the word "hypocrisy" does not change if it becomes a common practice. Your reading comprehension skills need a tune-up.

I'm asking you to prove your claim that what the Republicans did in 2016 and 2020 is the "historical norm" and we both know, you can't do it.
 
#24,481
#24,481
BowlBrother85 said:
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, regardless of how often it occurs. The definition of the word "hypocrisy" does not change, if it becomes a common practice.

It's not that Republicans wouldn't vote in favor of Merrick Garland's confirmation .... It's that they did not even allow a Senate comfirmation hearing or a vote on Garland to take place. The explanation they gave for this extraordinary step, was that it was too close to the election. They were indeed revealed to be hypocrites 4 years later when they allowed a Senate confirmation hearing and vote to go forward on Amy Coney Barrett, even though it was 6 months later in the year, and less than a month before the 2020 Presidential Election.

Having said that, if this is the historical norm, as you claim? Then name one other time when the exact same scenario has been played out.
Click to expand...

When it’s UT’s turn to bat, they don’t allow their opponents to bat. That’s not called hypocrisy. That’s just how the game works.
 
#24,482
#24,482
Vol8188 said:
There’s no hypocrisy. No tribalism. Just politics as normal. If your group is in control, you get to select the justice. If they’re not, you don’t.

Your stance would be like claiming it’s hypocritical that I get to make a draw a card when it’s my turn in a card game, but won’t allow my opponent to do so during my turn.
Click to expand...
That analogy is DUMB AF
 
#24,483
#24,483
BowlBrother85 said:
No, I don't think it occurs often at all. I was saying that the definition of the word "hypocrisy" does not change if it becomes a common practice. Your reading comprehension skills need a tune-up.

I'm asking you to prove your claim that what the Republicans did in 2016 and 2020 is the "historical norm" and we both know, you can't do it.
Click to expand...

Loading…

www.nationalreview.com
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6223.jpeg
    IMG_6223.jpeg
    110 KB · Views: 2
  • Like
Reactions: VAVol85
#24,486
#24,486
BernardKingGOAT said:
That analogy is DUMB AF
Click to expand...

You not understanding reality isn’t hypocrisy.

Opposing parties don’t vote for candidates of their opposition in the last year. That’s not hypocritical. That’s how the game works

“They voted for their candidate! But not for Obama’s!”…..yeah…that’s how it works.
 
#24,488
#24,488
BowlBrother85 said:
Even though Trump was able to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed even closer to the election than the nomination of Merrick Garland was? Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Click to expand...
Merrick Garland would have been an epic disaster for the SCOTUS. He proved what a partisan dick he is when he was AG. **** him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VAVol85 and Vol423
#24,489
#24,489
Vol8188 said:
You not understanding reality isn’t hypocrisy.

Opposing parties don’t vote for candidates of their opposition in the last year. That’s not hypocritical. That’s how the game works
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the norm. I agree. I'm articulating that origins of it is hypocritical.
 
#24,493
#24,493
SpaceCoastVol said:
Merrick Garland would have been an epic disaster for the SCOTUS. He proved what a partisan dick he is when he was AG. **** him.
Click to expand...
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😉
 
#24,494
#24,494
SpaceCoastVol said:
Merrick Garland would have been an epic disaster for the SCOTUS. He proved what a partisan dick he is when he was AG. **** him.
Click to expand...
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 Amy Coney Barrett. It was blatant hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#24,495
#24,495
Vol8188 said:
How so? What specifically about that is in anyway hypocritical?

I support my family, but not yours. Hypocritical or normal?
Click to expand...
You certainly do not have to "support" my family yet be hopeful for success. Or at least not wish for despair. Those two mindsets are highly possible at the same time. They are inherent in millions upon millions of people in this earth. It's a shame you can't grasp it
 
#24,496
#24,496
BernardKingGOAT said:
You certainly do not have to "support" my family yet be hopeful for success. Or at least not wish for despair. Those two mindsets are highly possible at the same time. They are inherent in millions upon millions of people in this earth. It's a shame you can't grasp it
Click to expand...

You’ve give me nothing to grasp. “They only voted for their candidate!”….yeah. That’s how it works.

Did you vote for Trump or just for your guy? Does that make you a hypocrite?
 
#24,497
#24,497
Vol8188 said:
How so? What specifically about that is in anyway hypocritical?

I support my family, but not yours. Hypocritical or normal?
Click to expand...
It sounds like you don't even know what the word hypocrisy means.

The Republicans used a rationale that it was too close to the Presidential Election in March of 2016, to hold a Senate confirmation hearing and Senate vote for the nominee of a Democratic Party President. However, they defied their own rationale 4 years later, when they did allow a Senate confirmation hearing and a Senate vote to take place for the nominee of a Republican Party President in October of 2020, which was 7 months closer to the Presidential Election.

If you don't understand how that is hypocrisy, then that is a reflection of your own lazy ignorance .... and you should take the time to look up the definition of the word "hypocrisy" like a big boy. I'm not going to post it for you.
 
#24,498
#24,498
BowlBrother85 said:
It sounds like you don't even know what the word hypocrisy means.

The Republicans used a rationale that it was too close to the Presidential Election in March of 2016, to hold a Senate confirmation hearing and Senate vote for a nominee of a Democratic Party President. However, they defied their own rationale 4 years later, when they did allow a Senate confirmation hearing and a Senate vote to take place for the nominee of a Republican Party President.

If you don't understand how that is hypocrisy, then that is a reflection of your own lazy ignorance .... and you should take the time to look up the definition of the word "hypocrisy" like a big boy. I'm not going to post it for you.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#24,499
#24,499
Vol8188 said:
You’ve give me nothing to grasp. “They only voted for their candidate!”….yeah. That’s how it works.

Did you vote for Trump or just for your guy? Does that make you a hypocrite?
Click to expand...
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
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top