"Nuke Em"

Yes dick lips...that is why I used the word 'current'.


. Originally Posted by WTF

You're a moronic buffoon. You neither think nor proof read.

My apologies, I misunderstood your post.

If the Senate is still controlled by the Republicans during the last year of a Trump Presidency, then they will certainly vote for his Nominee. Originally Posted by Jackie S

You understood the intent of his post. WDF's question is moronicly posed, like him.

The Dems demise was just a matter of time after campaign finance reform ruling. Originally Posted by WTF

Amuse me. What's your rationale behind this statement?

Before you answer:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...paign-finance/

Amuse me. What's your rationale behind this statement?

Before you answer:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...paign-finance/ Originally Posted by gnadfly

Speaking of moronic baffons...do you think that was the only money spent on the campaign? Clinton would not have raised half that total had she not been the presumptive favorite. You're being your typical little picture self.

My apologies, I misunderstood your post.

If the Senate is still controlled by the Republicans during the last year of a Trump Presidency, then they will certainly vote for his Nominee. Originally Posted by Jackie S

You mean to say that their argument last year vs Garland would not hold water?

My point is neither party holds any moral superiority. To the victor go the spoils....but please spare me this crap about Trump saving the country from some dark inner state.

He wants to advance his agenda...from what I've seen , it is not to help the common worker. His policies to date will enrich the already very very wealthy.

...for the first time in history a Supreme Court nominee is being filibustered. The democrats are the ones changing the rules. McConnell is just putting things back to 2003 and the way they were for over 200 years. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Correction: this is the first time a SCOTUS nominee was filibustered on a purely partisan basis, i.e. by one party only. I believe at least one previous nominee was subject to a bipartisan filibuster - was it Abe Fortas (under LBJ)?

Until today, Senators only tried to filibuster if the nominee was clearly unqualified.

Thank, Chucky Schumer. Thanks, Dems. Why don't you start another race to the bottom?

Here's an idea - why not replace the Senate filibuster with the sit-in?

The Dems demise was just a matter of time after campaign finance reform ruling. Obama knew that as did all others with half a brain. Originally Posted by WTF

You're the one with half a brain. I saw one claim that Hildebeest spent NINE TIMES as much as Trump on the 2016 election and still lost! I believe the numbers were $2.5 billion versus $280 million, respectively.

And yet, idiots like you still whine about Citizens United and all those "dark money" pools - while you grossly outspend your opponent and still manage to lose!

Hahahahaha....

Correction: this is the first time a SCOTUS nominee was filibustered on a purely partisan basis, i.e. by one party only. I believe at least one previous nominee was subject to a bipartisan filibuster - was it Abe Fortas (under LBJ)?

Until today, Senators only tried to filibuster if the nominee was clearly unqualified.

Thank, Chucky Schumer. Thanks, Dems. Why don't you start another race to the bottom?

Here's an idea - why not replace the Senate filibuster with the sit-in?

Originally Posted by lustylad

It's always a good laugh to see these Democrat morons acting like 6 year old kids on the playground.

Speaking of moronic baffons...do you think that was the only money spent on the campaign? Clinton would not have raised half that total had she not been the presumptive favorite. You're being your typical little picture self. Originally Posted by WTF

Typical WTF moronic buffoon response - neither thought out or proof read.

That doesn't come close to explaining your campaign reform financing assertion.

But I'm amused anyway at your constant flailing and lisping.

Typical WTF moronic buffoon response - neither thought out or proof read.

That doesn't come close to explaining your campaign reform financing assertion.

But I'm amused anyway at your constant flailing and lisping.

Originally Posted by gnadfly

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

And yet, idiots like you still whine about Citizens United and all those "dark money" pools - while you grossly outspend your opponent and still manage to lose!
Originally Posted by lustylad

I wasn't running for anything and didn't lose shit.

I should also have mentioned gerrymandering and the new voting requirements.

And Hillary was a horrible candidate because her name was Clinton. In actuality, she was way better versed than Trump. The Clinton Foundation was why I'd never vote for her and that is probably more of Bill than her.

I do not think Trump will run for a 2nd term and even if he does, I do not think he will win but that is a long way out and a lot can happen.

Correction: this is the first time a SCOTUS nominee was filibustered on a purely partisan basis, i.e. by one party only. I believe at least one previous nominee was subject to a bipartisan filibuster - was it Abe Fortas (under LBJ)?

Originally Posted by lustylad

STFU...people are partisan in politics!

Garland wasn't a partisan decision?

The pendulum has been swinging right...in 2006 and 2008 it was swinging hard left. That is the nature of the beast.

Are you stupid enough to think it will never swing left again? Do you not know a thing about history?

It's always a good laugh to see Democrat morons acting like 6 year old kids on the playground.... Originally Posted by Jackie S

The question is...when are they not?

STFU... people are partisan in politics!

Garland wasn't a partisan decision? Originally Posted by WTF

Stop making an ass out of yourself.

It wasn't partisan in the least for the GOP to deep-six the Garland nomination. In fact, it was completely consistent with the Biden Rule (as subsequently affirmed by Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid). How can it be "partisan" when Republicans scrupulously observe rules laid down by the Democrats?

Such fucking hypocrisy.

Such a horrible day for democracy.

And McConnell went up and down the aisle high fiving his pals for overruling what he spent the last eight years of his life doing.

They will be held accountable.

And Twitler got lucky. He got a nominee through in the last year of his presidency.

BIGLY. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

And YOU didn't have ANY problem when Dirty Harry Reid pushed odummer's agenda doing the very same thing, right ASSUP ? Still pissed the shirlLIARy lost ? STILL pissed that the rainbow flags have been taken down in ALL commands of the military ? STILL butt hurt that YOUR protégé ( Lube ) is banned ? Guess his " I did NOT" excuse didn't fly !!!!
And with assup's continual posting of pictures of Trump jerking a photo-shopped dick with his avatar, might it be a subliminal message about how assup wants to " offer his services " to THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ?????? Are ya butt hurt that shrilLIARy didn't make it ta where YOU could " jerk-a-gherkin " in public, like YOU try to have Trump doing in YOUR POS responses ???? STILL PISSED OVER BIG SIR STEALING YER PROTEGE WOOMBY ??? !