2 Scoops wrote: » Wasn't McConnell talking about a Presidential election year? Blocking picks every 2 years seems nonsensical.http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/dems-misuse-mcconnells-fake-supreme-court-rule-get-scolded.html “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Later, in a Fox News interview, McConnell added, “All we are doing is following the long-standing tradition of not fulfilling a nomination in the middle of a presidential year.” The Times pointed out that the “tradition” McConnell cited is entirely made up. But it’s important for Democrats to be fair: the majority leader did clearly state that his imaginary rule was about presidential years.
everlast75 wrote: » You say it's important for Dems to be fair. I addressed that in my post above
2 Scoops wrote: » From the little I've read about it there doesn't seem to be anything the Democrats can do to stop the nomination.
Leroy42 wrote: » There is no precedent, you do whatever you can get away with. And the Dems let them get away with it. That should have been a massive point in the POTUS election campaign, and although I am sure it came up, it wasn't ever the big ticket item for the Dems that the GOP made it for them. .
StringerBell wrote: » They didn't even give him a hearing, it's a disgrace what they did. The rest is not fact though, the Dems didn't not focus on it because they underestimated Trump and sure as **** his base didn't have a Supreme Court pick being top of their agenda when voting for him. So no, them not facts.
RIGOLO wrote: » [...]Kavanaugh looks like a well chosen candidate, his selection will feed into the blue wave in november and further undermines the left side on many fronts.
Leroy42 wrote: » Rigolo, why do your posts come out with such weird fonts, bolds etc. It makes them incredibly difficult to read, or in all honesty, to take seriously as anything other than a copy and paste job. In terms of some of the points you made, I agree, and that was the point I raised. Clearly the GOP placed a huge emphasis on SCOTUS, to the extent that they were willing to override all previous precedents to stop Obama getting his pick. So in effect, they said that the House not the POTUS gets the say.And you are right that the SCOTUS is longer term than the POTUS, but inherent in that you are accepting that Trump goes with flaws, just that these flaws are accepted as a price worth paying to secure SCOTUS. But that creates a problem. Why do GOP supporters continue to support Trump? He delivered SCOTUS pick, nobody could have reliably known that another one could come up. If there a level that the GOP will not accept. Because it sounds very much like they are willing to basically burn everything to the ground once they get their SCOTUS.
RIGOLO wrote: » You should really stop infering so much from other peoples posts. Your inferences tend to make up the bulk of your responses and are generally wrong. I didnt infer anything of the like. You just lead the discussion down rabbit holes and clog up the posts cos people have to rebuke incorrect inferences you have made. As to the copy and paste jibe.. Im used to it and just ignore it.
RIGOLO wrote: » I dont think posters here appreciate or understand how seriously US voters take the prospect of having SCOTUS appointments when casting their POTUS ballot. One of the most underappreciated reasons that Donald Trump won the 2016 election was voters motivated by a vacancy on the Supreme Court. One in five voters told CNN in an exit poll that the Supreme Court was one reason they had cast a ballot. American electorate understand a POTUS is for 4 years , but a SCOTUS could be for 30 years.
RIGOLO wrote: » You should really stop infering so much from other peoples posts. Your inferences tend to make up the bulk of your responses and are generally wrong. I didnt infer anything of the like. You just lead the discussion down rabbit holes and clog up the posts cos people have to rebuke incorrect inferences you have made.
RIGOLO wrote: » As to the copy and paste jibe.. I'm used to it and just ignore it.
everlast75 wrote: » As a defender of DJT, is there any chance you could reply to my 3 questions re Trump and Putin?
RIGOLO wrote: » Y As to the copy and paste jibe.. Im used to it and just ignore it.
Harika wrote: » Trump threatening to reduce the US defence budget if the NATO states don't up their game. Good luck with that, this will costs jobs jobs jobs biggy. Also how the trade war affects the economy globally. German Article. But in short, in retaliation for the tariffs, car imports from the US to China have been hit with a 40% tariff and reduced the tariff from the rest of the world from 25 to 15%. At first that makes BMW cars for Chinese more expansive and BMW will apply it to their chinese customers as 90k of those cars are build in the US and exported. To appease the Chinese, they will invest in China and increase their production by 120k there. Another action that will cost jobs jobs jobs in the US, as those cars won't be build in the US anymore. Same with Soy, instead of importing the tariff burdened Soy from the US, India promised to jump in and replace most of it. The US farmers where growth of the plants is under way and cannot be stopped will be punished with far lower prices than expected. Again jobs jobs jobs lost
RIGOLO wrote: » He isnt threatening to reduce the US Defence budget, whats he is threatening is to reduce the amount the US contributes to NATO.
Harika wrote: » While it is true that the US pays the most to Nato with 22% overall, Germany pays 15% and France 10 but for the US that is 66 million dollar a year. Compare that to a defence budget of 582 Billion! Dollar, this is peanuts.The Nato goal is that every country spends 2% of their GDP in defence, not in NATO fees or anything. This is only achieved by US; UK; Poland and some other small countries. Germany and France spend something like 1% on it and this is what Trump is pointing out. Nato is aware of it and there is the commitment from all countries to up this until 2022. So if Trump whines every month about it, it makes no sense. Cutting those 582 billion will hurt jobs jobs jobs.
Manic Moran wrote: » Yes, but of interest, he wrote that after his own experiences of investigating Bill Clinton, who was in office at the time. He is fine with the impeachment process for keeping Presidents in line, and the writing was not particularly far from the mainstream, despite he current focus on it in the current news cycle. Definitely conservative, as if we expected otherwise, but his reasonings in his opinions at the circuit level have been using more moderate argument. Strong believer in precedent, which is riling up conservatives who want him to overrule Roe, and tends to be a believer of Wheaton’s Law.https://twitter.com/cjscalia/status/1016470261053485056 Yep the idea he will protect Trump is a misguided, but its out there now and a lot of people who believe this have little interest in fact checking. Roe v Wade is fine as if they wanted to over turn that then Barrett would have got the gig. That's why some conservatives will be a little underwhelmed. I suspect some of the grifters in the resistance:pac: will be secretly annoyed as they would have wanted Barrett as a culture war is a great setting for them to make hay.
Harika wrote: » While it is true that the US pays the most to Nato with 22% overall, Germany pays 15% and France 10 but for the US that is 66 million dollar a year. Compare that to a defence budget of 582 Billion! Dollar, this is peanuts. The Nato goal is that every country spends 2% of their GDP in defence, not in NATO fees or anything. This is only achieved by US; UK; Poland and some other small countries. Germany and France spend something like 1% on it and this is what Trump is pointing out. Nato is aware of it and there is the commitment from all countries to up this until 2022. So if Trump whines every month about it, it makes no sense. Cutting those 582 billion will hurt jobs jobs jobs.
Captain Obvious wrote: » 8 GOP senators travel to Russia to meet sanctioned individuals. They refuse to reveal most of the people they are meeting. They claim sanctions were not discussed. It also turns out that the presidents personal lawyer is also representing foreign persons including a political figure in the Ukrainian civil war and an Iranian terrorist. There is absolutely no question in my mind if the Obama administration had engaged in anything like what Trump and the GOP have been up to there would be violent protest from the right. The hypocrisy is just astounding.
Quin_Dub wrote: » I don't quite get the utter focus on the monetary value.. Surely a more relevant measure is Military readiness, equipment levels , headcount etc..? Obviously those things cost money but if a country can meet it's physical requirements in terms of staffing and readiness levels then surely if they manage to do that by spending less money that's a good thing. I will confess to not knowing if Germany and the others are actually hitting those sort of real measurements at their current spending levels , but it's still a better measure in my view.. US Military spending is hardly a watch-word for fiscal prudence and efficiency.. Or is it less about Military readiness and more about big dollar contracts for the Northrups et al of this world???
