TRUMP 2020!

[Leo]

You seem to think that the democrats are some dark party that only wants evil or something. Get real. As I have said a few times, the "quotes" from Sanger that would prove her racist have been both debunked and proven. Without any real evidence like a recording or video, you like to turn to the benefit of the doubt.

Say, what do y'all think about Trump nominating a justice? Remember when Obama nominated Merrick Garland and republicans blocked it saying that a president should not nominate a justice in an election year in order to let people's voices be heard and to let the people decide who the justice is? Remember how Lindsey Graham told everyone to use his own words against him if he ever tried to let a president nominate a justice during an election year? Well, why doesn't any of that apply to Trump? If Obama can't nominate during an election year, why would Trump be able to? Back when republicans blocked Garland, I actually agreed with the reasoning. But can they at least stay somewhat consistent? It seems they are only trying to do this because it would benefit them, and not to do what is right.

I'd like to hear some reasoning to say why Trump should get special treatment.

Mel, the post I gave was just an example. I have not stated anything on the issue, other than posting two sources.

[Meliva]

The dems are being hypocrites too you realize that don't you? They argued very hard that it is the right for a president to nominate a justice, that it's how it should work. Now, when it's trump, they want the senate to block the pick.

I will say this. The dems are hypocrites for wanting Obama's pick to go through, arguing it is the president's right, but now with Trump deciding the opposite.

The Senate leader whose name I can't remember at the moment is also a hypocrite. Now I don't know if Trump ever made a stance on either side. Show me a clip and I'll gladly say he's acting hypocritical too.

Ultimately though, the dems argued in 2016 it is the presidents right to pick a justice regardless of year. At this point honestly, with all the shady crap they've pulled, I'm in favor of the justice being allowed. Especially after they talked about using impeachment to stop it. What is meant to be a last resort for the highest crime, being used as a political tool.

Both sides are wrong, but in this case the dems are the greater evil. Plus, I like the lady who was picked. Seems like a good woman. Not a fan of super religious folks usually, but other then that, solid woman. Good character.

Also you damn well did state something on the issue, saying that Trump was permitting the abuse at the border, making it seem like trump was fine with this physco removing uteruses. Even if you didn't intend for that, that's how it came across.

[Dmanwuzhere]

You seem to think that the democrats are some dark party that only wants evil or something. Get real. As I have said a few times, the "quotes" from Sanger that would prove her racist have been both debunked and proven. Without any real evidence like a recording or video, you like to turn to the benefit of the doubt.

Say, what do y'all think about Trump nominating a justice? Remember when Obama nominated Merrick Garland and republicans blocked it saying that a president should not nominate a justice in an election year in order to let people's voices be heard and to let the people decide who the justice is? Remember how Lindsey Graham told everyone to use his own words against him if he ever tried to let a president nominate a justice during an election year? Well, why doesn't any of that apply to Trump? If Obama can't nominate during an election year, why would Trump be able to? Back when republicans blocked Garland, I actually agreed with the reasoning. But can they at least stay somewhat consistent? It seems they are only trying to do this because it would benefit them, and not to do what is right.

I'd like to hear some reasoning to say why Trump should get special treatment.

special treatment lol you mean the presidency and the senate are republican and they can do it
a dem pres and a republican senate will never agree on a justice
same if it was reversed
just like when trump wants funds and dems in the house block it
thats normal
you better hope people dont get fed up and dems lose all power
i personally am for a dem side and a rep side (except in recent years) as it encourages communication and give and take
but lately dems only want to control even as a minority
so they may very well need to lose all power so that some of the pond scum is filtered away
two sides better control a country than just one
any one pushing marxism socialism or communism should not be anywhere in the government as we are not fashioned after any of the three
i wonder why sleepy joe refused to give a list of candidates to be considered hmmmm

You seem to think that the democrats are some dark party that only wants evil or something. Get real. As I have said a few times, the "quotes" from Sanger that would prove her racist have been both debunked and proven. Without any real evidence like a recording or video, you like to turn to the benefit of the doub

well you know dems are in favor of abortion right and here a dem doctor decides hey i should give these folks an abortion that lasts forever so yeah i think both are pretty evil killing a baby and forever preventing one without the fully aware decision and consent of the victims

[Leo]

I've already said that the democrats, as a party (but not in ideals) are dumb. If it were up to me, presidents would never ever ever be able to nominate a justice during an election year. Regardless of who is president.

What I'm saying is that Obama had a nominee picked out. But republicans blocked it. Now Trump has a nominee and every point that they argued with before is now useless.

Right now I think that democrats are just angry that republicans changed their mind now that the president is a republican. I'm not sure what exactly they are arguing for.

The problem for me isn't that Trump will get to pick a nominee. As upsetting as it is to me, that just isn't it. The real problem is that Obama was not allowed to. Republicans should stay consistent about what they want, not change their opinions based on who has the power.

I think the "senate leader" you are talking about would be Mitch McConnell, who happens to be the worst majority leader in the history of the US (actually that's probably not true, but he's still really bad).

I would argue that the Republicans are the greater evil, just because they were the ones who initially took action to block Obama's pick. And then at the time the Dems argued with that. That's fine, even if they might have been wrong. But then when the Dems caught up to that belief and tried to apply it, the republicans had switched!

Maybe both sides are wrong. Like I said, I kinda agree with the reasoning the republicans initially made, but now I see it was probably just to benefit the party, not the country.

Dman, why on Earth would Joe Biden give a list of candidates? He isn't even president. He would do that once he got elected, but the point is that Trump shouldn't have made a list at all.

And yes, there is one thing in that post that I agree with, and that is that a country works better with two/multiple sides controlling it than just one. I still wish there were more than two main sides, but it is how it is.

[Dmanwuzhere]

I've already said that the democrats, as a party (but not in ideals) are dumb. If it were up to me, presidents would never ever ever be able to nominate a justice during an election year. Regardless of who is president.

What I'm saying is that Obama had a nominee picked out. But republicans blocked it. Now Trump has a nominee and every point that they argued with before is now useless.

Right now I think that democrats are just angry that republicans changed their mind now that the president is a republican. I'm not sure what exactly they are arguing for.

The problem for me isn't that Trump will get to pick a nominee. As upsetting as it is to me, that just isn't it. The real problem is that Obama was not allowed to. Republicans should stay consistent about what they want, not change their opinions based on who has the power.

I think the "senate leader" you are talking about would be Mitch McConnell, who happens to be the worst majority leader in the history of the US (actually that's probably not true, but he's still really bad).

I would argue that the Republicans are the greater evil, just because they were the ones who initially took action to block Obama's pick. And then at the time the Dems argued with that. That's fine, even if they might have been wrong. But then when the Dems caught up to that belief and tried to apply it, the republicans had switched!

Maybe both sides are wrong. Like I said, I kinda agree with the reasoning the republicans initially made, but now I see it was probably just to benefit the party, not the country.

Dman, why on Earth would Joe Biden give a list of candidates? He isn't even president. He would do that once he got elected, but the point is that Trump shouldn't have made a list at all.

And yes, there is one thing in that post that I agree with, and that is that a country works better with two/multiple sides controlling it than just one. I still wish there were more than two main sides, but it is how it is.

because trump asked him for a list any other person running for pres would jump at the chance to possibly be included in the choice of a justice
the reason he didnt is because he knew what his handlers would have elected to add to the list would show he had no control over the list and would have been some extreme left candidates
but there is no problem in republicans deciding who they want a justice to be as they have the control and responsiblity for that particular constitutional action
if it were a dem pres and dem senate they would have also done it and regardless of political thoughts those are consitutional responsibilities for the pres and senate
and if it were a dem senate and rep pres do you think they would have went with the choice of the repub pres?

[Meliva]

blue, here's a simple question for you-what does it matter of who picks a justice? Shouldn't we be more focuses on the justice themself? If we had a hitler clone as president, and he picked a justice who was a clone of Abraham Lincoln, I'd support that pick. Not because Abe is republican or I like hitler, but because I think it's a good person to be a judge. If we had Mother Teresa as president and she picked the pope Stephen the VI I wouldn't support that pick, because of what the lunatic did with the cadaver synod.

And the lady Trump picked, from what I have learned of her, a very good woman. I think she's a good pick.

[Mack]

You seem to think that the democrats are some dark party that only wants evil or something. Get real. As I have said a few times, the "quotes" from Sanger that would prove her racist have been both debunked and proven. Without any real evidence like a recording or video, you like to turn to the benefit of the doubt.

Say, what do y'all think about Trump nominating a justice? Remember when Obama nominated Merrick Garland and republicans blocked it saying that a president should not nominate a justice in an election year in order to let people's voices be heard and to let the people decide who the justice is? Remember how Lindsey Graham told everyone to use his own words against him if he ever tried to let a president nominate a justice during an election year? Well, why doesn't any of that apply to Trump? If Obama can't nominate during an election year, why would Trump be able to? Back when republicans blocked Garland, I actually agreed with the reasoning. But can they at least stay somewhat consistent? It seems they are only trying to do this because it would benefit them, and not to do what is right.

I'd like to hear some reasoning to say why Trump should get special treatment.

Mel, the post I gave was just an example. I have not stated anything on the issue, other than posting two sources.

now you did have a reason for posting that bull crap dont act like you randomly put it in there, we are watching and reading what you write bro

There is a big difference. I will give an example. The topic was Trump permitting the abuse of immigrants at the border, including women having their uteruses modified to prevent them from having children.

Liberal: Why aren't they giving men vasectomies? The ACLU needs to look into the sexism going on at the southern border!

Leftist: That is irrelevant. No one should be prevented from having children. Trump needs to be tried for crimes against humanity.

See the difference?

lol can you show me the policy trump put in place for that allegation?
of course you cant because he didnt
you had a doctor who i am sure did it for federal funds not political standpoint because i dont believe the women had cancer as he told them

now as for biden being honest he does tell the truth occasionally
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8KsxcwQ6j0

the following was a response to this post...

https://metro.co.uk/2020/09/18/uterus-collector-removed-illegal-immigrant-womens-wombs-at-us-detention-facility-13292536/

https://apnews.com/article/georgia-arch ... 722dfb097e

[The Lamb]

Careful Mel,

Only Dem women are to be admired. Women on the right get torn apart. Watch the anti woman, anti mother, anti work, anti free thought, anti religion mud that will get flung at her. They will attack her from every angle.

[Leo]

I don't understand what the problem is. In 2016 I think it was republicans blocked Obama's pick solely because it was the end of his term. Supposedly not because of their beliefs. If they were able to block a president's pick based on that, then that would be obstruction of justice.

Now that they agree with the president's pick, they support it.

It's extremely hypocritical.

Mel, from what I understand, the reason to let the incoming president pick the nominee is to give Americans the chance to decide who they want as a justice. I don't feel super strongly on this, but it does make a little sense to me.

I would not trust anyone that Hitler would appoint

Side note, Abe Lincoln is over credited. Sure he did end slavery, but he had some pretty awful beliefs. Don't let one good act gloss over the rest.

[Meliva]

I wish I could take that as a joke, but in case it wasn't, just because an evil man appoints someone into a position, does not mean that person who was appointed is bad. Just like just because a good person appoints someone doesn't mean that person is a good. HItler was a monster yes. He did however have at least one thing I agree with, and you probably do too. He believed in animal rights and conservation. Now that doesn't magically make that a bad thing does it?

Also, the americans have no bloody influence on deciding who's a justice. We don't even know any candidates Biden is considering. And after looking it up there is literally ZERO requirements to be a supreme court justice.

There are no explicit requirements in the U.S. Constitution for a person to be nominated to become a Supreme Court justice. No age, education, job experience, or citizenship rules exist. In fact, according to the Constitution, a Supreme Court justice does not need to even have a law degree.

Biden could nominate me, and I would be eligible. Now I'm not clueless when it comes to law, but I can tell you that I am not qualified to be a bloody judge on even a small court. Biden could also nominate the queen of england. Hell, he could nominate a 6 month old baby from Russian.

Ultimately you, me and every other american. We have no say on who the president nominates to be a justice. The senate could block it sure but we don't determine that either.

Why folks care about who is or isn't a justice is more for a political reason. leftists want leftists judges and vice versa usually. Personally, I don't care too much about that, so long as they arn't super far left/right. The woman Trump picked is a good judge to have in my opinion. I'd rather she get the spot then rely on Biden to pick someone in the unlikely event he wins.