Skip to content

This could be bad news

Political Discussion
76 13 1.7k
  • biden and co just want to ride the wave of lies and hateful rhetoric to more power, more authority, more wealth, more control.

    It's history - some governments get the idea to take everything over.

    That includes every person n the country. Manipulated, censored, threatened, and

    politically selective enforcement of "laws".

    A very good read:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/11/why_america_is_in_real_danger_143929.html#!

    Why America Is in Real Danger

  • YouTube permanently bans conservative host Dan Bongino

    https://www.theblaze.com/news/youtube-permanently-bans-dan-bongino-but-he-already-left

    College students in UK get trigger warning about George Orwell's iconic '1984' — a novel that features 'thought police' and censorship as a primary theme

    https://www.theblaze.com/news/college-trigger-warning-george-orwell-1984

  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in mid September 2020 and Amy C. Barrett was confirmed by a Republican majority in the Senate by the end of October; GOP rushed the nomination through to get it done before the November election that year. Whether you like it or not, Biden is the President and the Democrats have the majority in the Senate, so the GOP and conservatives can't really complain if Biden and the Senate Democrats push through a liberal Supreme Court justice pick before the midterm elections. They have the Constitutional prerogative to do so if they wish, and it'll only take 51 votes to get it done (or a 50/50 split, with Harris being the tie-breaker).

    That's why elections matter and it pays to be the winner.

  • A further thought: it used to take a 60 vote supermajority for a Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed by the Senate. This was changed in 2017, when the then GOP majority used the "nuclear option" to make it a simple majority vote to push through Neil Goursch's nomination.

    So if Biden and the Democrats push through a woke liberal justice nominee with just a simple majority, everyone can go ahead and thank Cocaine Mitch for pulling the trigger on the nuclear option. Everyone reaps what they sow eventually.

  • A further thought: it used to take a 60 vote supermajority for a Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed by the Senate. This was changed in 2017, when the then GOP majority used the "nuclear option" to make it a simple majority vote to push through Neil Goursch's nomination.

    So if Biden and the Democrats push through a woke liberal justice nominee with just a simple majority, everyone can go ahead and thank Cocaine Mitch for pulling the trigger on the nuclear option. Everyone reaps what they sow eventually.

    @jbluhm86 said:

    A further thought: it used to take a 60 vote supermajority for a Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed by the Senate. This was changed in 2017, when the then GOP majority used the "nuclear option" to make it a simple majority vote to push through Neil Goursch's nomination.

    So if Biden and the Democrats push through a woke liberal justice nominee with just a simple majority, everyone can go ahead and thank Cocaine Mitch for pulling the trigger on the nuclear option. Everyone reaps what they sow eventually.

    I said that when they ran through the nuclear option; that's going to come back and bite somebody in the ass.

    WSS

  • @texasag1969 said:

    Fishin' in this ole rabbit hole is still good these days. Caught two Bass............Tards.???

    You're not fishing.   You been spouting the 'were going to get Trump' for years now, and never have you been correct.

    @diehardbrownsfan said:

    You're not fishing.   You been spouting the 'were going to get Trump' for years now, and never have you been correct.

    Even the blind pig finds an acorn now and then.? Sooner or later I get the acorn courtesy of the orange loser.?‍♂️

  • @diehardbrownsfan said:

    You're not fishing.   You been spouting the 'were going to get Trump' for years now, and never have you been correct.

    Even the blind pig finds an acorn now and then.? Sooner or later I get the acorn courtesy of the orange loser.?‍♂️

    @texasag1969 said:

    Even the blind pig finds an acorn now and then.? Sooner or later I get the acorn courtesy of the orange loser.?‍♂️

    In other words There's Hope for you yet?

    Doesn't seem like a good bet but what the hell

    WSS

  • @diehardbrownsfan said:

    You're not fishing.   You been spouting the 'were going to get Trump' for years now, and never have you been correct.

    Even the blind pig finds an acorn now and then.? Sooner or later I get the acorn courtesy of the orange loser.?‍♂️

    @texasag1969 said:

    Even the blind pig finds an acorn now and then.? Sooner or later I get the acorn courtesy of the orange loser.?‍♂️

    Orange man much better than demented socialist.

  • We should hope the president of either party would have fairness and a rational view of the constitution in mind when selecting a Supreme Court nomination. If you're number one criteria is skin color or sex....

    You know who you are and you know how  you would react if it were the other way around.

    WSS

  • We should hope the president of either party would have fairness and a rational view of the constitution in mind when selecting a Supreme Court nomination. If you're number one criteria is skin color or sex....

    You know who you are and you know how  you would react if it were the other way around.

    WSS

    @westside-steve said:

    We should hope the president of either party would have fairness and a rational view of the constitution in mind when selecting a Supreme Court nomination. If you're number one criteria is skin color or sex....

    You know who you are and you know how  you would react if it were the other way around.

    WSS

    This was Dementia Joe’s criteria for selecting his VP…and we both know how that worked out.

  • @diehardbrownsfan said:

    You're not fishing.   You been spouting the 'were going to get Trump' for years now, and never have you been correct.

    Even the blind pig finds an acorn now and then.? Sooner or later I get the acorn courtesy of the orange loser.?‍♂️

    @texasag1969 said:

    Even the blind pig finds an acorn now and then.? Sooner or later I get the acorn courtesy of the orange loser.?‍♂️

    I'm glad that Trump continues to live in your head.

  • @texasag1969 said:

    Even the blind pig finds an acorn now and then.? Sooner or later I get the acorn courtesy of the orange loser.?‍♂️

    In other words There's Hope for you yet?

    Doesn't seem like a good bet but what the hell

    WSS

    @westside-steve said:

    In other words There's Hope for you yet?

    Doesn't seem like a good bet but what the hell

    WSS

    Doubt it. Not promising for someone who thinks of himself as a blind pig. 

  • Good to see racism still alive and well on the Browns Board

  • We should hope the president of either party would have fairness and a rational view of the constitution in mind when selecting a Supreme Court nomination. If you're number one criteria is skin color or sex....

    You know who you are and you know how  you would react if it were the other way around.

    WSS

    @westside-steve said:

    We should hope the president of either party would have fairness and a rational view of the constitution in mind when selecting a Supreme Court nomination. If you're number one criteria is skin color or sex....

    You know who you are and you know how  you would react if it were the other way around.

    WSS

    I’d hope the highest the court in the land would represent the people that they preside over. And that would include race and sex.  You aren’t being put before Congress as a nominee with qualifications.

  • @westside-steve said:

    We should hope the president of either party would have fairness and a rational view of the constitution in mind when selecting a Supreme Court nomination. If you're number one criteria is skin color or sex....

    You know who you are and you know how  you would react if it were the other way around.

    WSS

    I’d hope the highest the court in the land would represent the people that they preside over. And that would include race and sex.  You aren’t being put before Congress as a nominee with qualifications.

    @baconhound said:

    I’d hope the highest the court in the land would represent the people that they preside over. And that would include race and sex.  You aren’t being put before Congress as a nominee with qualifications.

    You are joking right? Since there really is no qualification required. 

    WSS

  • We should hope the president of either party would have fairness and a rational view of the constitution in mind when selecting a Supreme Court nomination. If you're number one criteria is skin color or sex....

    You know who you are and you know how  you would react if it were the other way around.

    WSS

    @westside-steve said:

    We should hope the president of either party would have fairness and a rational view of the constitution in mind when selecting a Supreme Court nomination. If you're number one criteria is skin color or sex....

    WSS

    That would be both Reagan and Trump who first voiced the woman criteria.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/10/15/reagan-pledges-he-would-name-a-woman-to-the-supreme-court/844817dc-27aa-4f5d-8e4f-0ab3a5e76865/

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/20/politics/trump-supreme-court-woman-nominee-2020/index.html

    How's that foot taste Steve?

  • But only a black woman.  That is racists.  Typical of you liberals.

  • Black is fine, woman is fine - but the left will nominate a puppet lefty that will vote however the left tells her to.

    Major problem.

    activist crap - the left justices break their promises every vote.

  • @westside-steve said:

    We should hope the president of either party would have fairness and a rational view of the constitution in mind when selecting a Supreme Court nomination. If you're number one criteria is skin color or sex....

    WSS

    That would be both Reagan and Trump who first voiced the woman criteria.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/10/15/reagan-pledges-he-would-name-a-woman-to-the-supreme-court/844817dc-27aa-4f5d-8e4f-0ab3a5e76865/

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/20/politics/trump-supreme-court-woman-nominee-2020/index.html

    How's that foot taste Steve?

    @texasag1969 said:

    That would be both Reagan and Trump who first voiced the woman criteria.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/10/15/reagan-pledges-he-would-name-a-woman-to-the-supreme-court/844817dc-27aa-4f5d-8e4f-0ab3a5e76865/

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/20/politics/trump-supreme-court-woman-nominee-2020/index.html

    How's that foot taste Steve?

    I don't like either of those pledges. Especially if they were compounded by selecting the color. I know it's tough for you to understand because Trump hatred is your only Criterion. I think it's a stupid idea to narrow your search to in the case of a woman approximately 40% of the attorneys, if you guys think you need to be an attorney which you don't, and the further minimize that by requiring a negro. And by Bacon's rule another negro would make too many of them on a nine-member court but that's a stupid criteria too.

    Imagine if stefanski said he was going to draft the best white cornerback.

    WSS