ADVERTISEMENT

Guess McConnell is taking a page from Obama..

ribbont

All-American
Mar 23, 2006
8,756
4,928
113
And using the "we won. Deal with it." line. Karma is a bitch.

It may not happen with the RINO's, but if the Pubs get a nominee through, then too bad, so sad. Win the election (Senate) as O said.

As an aside, I hate how this is going down. But I hate abortion more, so I hope it happens to curb or eliminate elective abortions.
 
Last edited:
And using the "we won. Deal with it." line. Karma is a bitch.

It may not happen with the RINO's, but if the Pubs get a nominee through, then too bad, so sad. Win the election (Senate) as O said.

As an aside, I hate how this is going down. But I hate abortion more, so I hope it happens to curb or eliminate elective abortions.
It won’t do a thing for abortions. All it will do is kill women who have to have back alley abortions. Do you think there were no abortions BEFORE Roe v Wade? You think women were mad in 2016? Just wait. You’re about to see a tsunami of angry women. I think ActBlue has raised over 70 million in donations in the last 24 hours. If this is rammed through expect the following: do away with filibuster, expand the court, statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Republicans have decided there are no more rules. We will see how that goes for them starting January.
 
And using the "we won. Deal with it." line. Karma is a bitch.

It may not happen with the RINO's, but if the Pubs get a nominee through, then too bad, so sad. Win the election (Senate) as O said.

As an aside, I hate how this is going down. But I hate abortion more, so I hope it happens to curb or eliminate elective abortions.
How many abortions have you had?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hondo314
And using the "we won. Deal with it." line. Karma is a bitch.

It may not happen with the RINO's, but if the Pubs get a nominee through, then too bad, so sad. Win the election (Senate) as O said.

As an aside, I hate how this is going down. But I hate abortion more, so I hope it happens to curb or eliminate elective abortions.
You almost got it. You had to try to blame Obama and deflect what's going on, but you almost got it. Here is the correct answer:

"I hate abortion so much, that I don't give three shits about democratic norms or gentlemanly behavior from elected officials. I think they should play in the mud and play dirty. I think it's okay for my team, and f*ck you if you're on the other team, because I don't care about rules. All I care about is abortion."

That would be an honest explanation. I wish more people would just own it.
 
And using the "we won. Deal with it." line. Karma is a bitch.

It may not happen with the RINO's, but if the Pubs get a nominee through, then too bad, so sad. Win the election (Senate) as O said.

As an aside, I hate how this is going down. But I hate abortion more, so I hope it happens to curb or eliminate elective abortions.

I'm more laughing about the insane hypocrisy (Shooter has a post with ten or so key Republicans acting like we'd be wiping our asses with the constitution if a Justice was rammed through on an election year in 2016).

The rubbernecking you guys are doing would make Linda Blair proud.

Just admit everything is a game. You don't give a f about things like laws or constitutions or morals or American citizens... that's all bullshit you use to help yourself.

And I'm actually not worried about it. The dems need to be motivated to play the game on the same level so...if they win the senate majority and the presidency then it will be rectified.

If they don't then RBG wasn't going to make it another four years so it wouldn't matter.

Thank you for so openly setting the precedent of blatent political bullshittery.
 
0A0E86C0-A1E5-487D-8CAB-8932186926D9.jpeg
 
You almost got it. You had to try to blame Obama and deflect what's going on, but you almost got it. Here is the correct answer:

"I hate abortion so much, that I don't give three shits about democratic norms or gentlemanly behavior from elected officials. I think they should play in the mud and play dirty. I think it's okay for my team, and f*ck you if you're on the other team, because I don't care about rules. All I care about is abortion."

That would be an honest explanation. I wish more people would just own it.

It's a big YAWN to me. Dems are taking the Senate, increasing their majority in the House, and winning the White House. This all is just insuring that happens. Last gasp of a GOP that no longer has governing principles or a reason to exist past pnwing the libs.
 
And using the "we won. Deal with it." line. Karma is a bitch.

It may not happen with the RINO's, but if the Pubs get a nominee through, then too bad, so sad. Win the election (Senate) as O said.

As an aside, I hate how this is going down. But I hate abortion more, so I hope it happens to curb or eliminate elective abortions.

And look what you have tacitly approved of to be a single issue voter. You now own all the cruelty, racism, sexism, deceit, corruption and nihilism of the Trump Administration. Pro life should be about more than a fetus. It should extend to the over 200,000 who have died of Covid. It should extend to people or color and immigrants. Hanging on to the single issue of abortion provides a lot of people agency to also receive all the awfulness. Not pointing at you personally, but I think a lot of these folks really wanted the awfulness and abortion is their outward justification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tried&true
The GOP may feel they need to jam this through, as reality looks as if they are headed into the political wilderness for some time to come. And if you are going to crash and burn, might as well go out with a bang.

Current trends are showing something close to the outcomes of the 2008 bloodbath.

USC polling, one of the few polls that frequently showed Trump winning in 2016, have Biden up by ten points, as of today.
 
You almost got it. You had to try to blame Obama and deflect what's going on, but you almost got it. Here is the correct answer:

"I hate abortion so much, that I don't give three shits about democratic norms or gentlemanly behavior from elected officials. I think they should play in the mud and play dirty. I think it's okay for my team, and f*ck you if you're on the other team, because I don't care about rules. All I care about is abortion."

That would be an honest explanation. I wish more people would just own it.
What are your thoughts about Planned Parenthood?
 
And using the "we won. Deal with it." line. Karma is a bitch.

It may not happen with the RINO's, but if the Pubs get a nominee through, then too bad, so sad. Win the election (Senate) as O said.

As an aside, I hate how this is going down. But I hate abortion more, so I hope it happens to curb or eliminate elective abortions.


Cool. I'll assume when the Democrats win the Senate, Presidency, and keep the House you'll be OK with us changing the Supreme Court to 13 justices and filling the empty seats with the most liberal Justices we can find.

Sense reasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fro
I'm more laughing about the insane hypocrisy (Shooter has a post with ten or so key Republicans acting like we'd be wiping our asses with the constitution if a Justice was rammed through on an election year in 2016).

The rubbernecking you guys are doing would make Linda Blair proud.

Just admit everything is a game. You don't give a f about things like laws or constitutions or morals or American citizens... that's all bullshit you use to help yourself.

And I'm actually not worried about it. The dems need to be motivated to play the game on the same level so...if they win the senate majority and the presidency then it will be rectified.

If they don't then RBG wasn't going to make it another four years so it wouldn't matter.

Thank you for so openly setting the precedent of blatent political bullshittery.

Are you (and others here) somehow suggesting that your team would not do the same if the roles were reversed?

That would make be laugh out loud.

The hypocrisy here is staggering. Predictable...but staggering none the less.
 
Even if Amy Barrett is on the court she will still follow the prior case law the court has established. I guess it will than be up to the Dems to have a legislative solution in the meantime. To me this will be our new prohibition era: yes it would be nice if no one drank but we voters did not ultimately like it and that too was a minority issue that got jammed through because no one wanted to vote against the proposal initially. After enough people see the result of the total ban on abortion and the prison sentences that will result we will finally get a legislative solution.
 
You almost got it. You had to try to blame Obama and deflect what's going on, but you almost got it. Here is the correct answer:

"I hate abortion so much, that I don't give three shits about democratic norms or gentlemanly behavior from elected officials. I think they should play in the mud and play dirty. I think it's okay for my team, and f*ck you if you're on the other team, because I don't care about rules. All I care about is abortion."

That would be an honest explanation. I wish more people would just own it.

What Democratic norms are being violated? There have been instances in the past where Presidents in this exact position filled Supreme Court seats. That is their constitutional duty. And the Senate is to provide advice and consent. There is not some Democratic Norm Rule that says that the left wing of this nation is guaranteed 4 seats on the Supreme Court, nor do outgoing Justices get any real say on whom or when their seat is filled. The Republicans are currently following the rules. You want to be pissed over Garland, have at it. We have had candidates Borked and Kavanaughed so getting lectured about gentlemanly behavior is ****ing laughable.

Now, you want to talk about breaking norms? Packing the court because you lost elections is breaking norms. Packing a court because an 80+ year old jurist, who could have retired when a Democrat would pick her replacement, rolled the dice and lost. Adding states to try and have additional Senators for team blue. That is breaking norms when you intend to do it by simple majority rule by ending the filibuster.

Don't put your willingness to start fudging rules because you cannot win enough elections on us. When rulings went against the right, they dug in for a decades long process to get to this point. You want abortion? Go vote on it in Congress like laws are supposed to be done. You know, the Democratic Norms you are bitching about.

Adding states and packing the court is what is outside the norms. You do that you might as well just split the country up now.
 
What Democratic norms are being violated? There have been instances in the past where Presidents in this exact position filled Supreme Court seats. That is their constitutional duty. And the Senate is to provide advice and consent. There is not some Democratic Norm Rule that says that the left wing of this nation is guaranteed 4 seats on the Supreme Court, nor do outgoing Justices get any real say on whom or when their seat is filled. The Republicans are currently following the rules. You want to be pissed over Garland, have at it. We have had candidates Borked and Kavanaughed so getting lectured about gentlemanly behavior is ****ing laughable.

Now, you want to talk about breaking norms? Packing the court because you lost elections is breaking norms. Packing a court because an 80+ year old jurist, who could have retired when a Democrat would pick her replacement, rolled the dice and lost. Adding states to try and have additional Senators for team blue. That is breaking norms when you intend to do it by simple majority rule by ending the filibuster.

Don't put your willingness to start fudging rules because you cannot win enough elections on us. When rulings went against the right, they dug in for a decades long process to get to this point. You want abortion? Go vote on it in Congress like laws are supposed to be done. You know, the Democratic Norms you are bitching about.

Adding states and packing the court is what is outside the norms. You do that you might as well just split the country up now.
Keep in mind what PJ O'Rourke said:
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats".
 
What Democratic norms are being violated? There have been instances in the past where Presidents in this exact position filled Supreme Court seats. That is their constitutional duty. And the Senate is to provide advice and consent. There is not some Democratic Norm Rule that says that the left wing of this nation is guaranteed 4 seats on the Supreme Court, nor do outgoing Justices get any real say on whom or when their seat is filled. The Republicans are currently following the rules. You want to be pissed over Garland, have at it. We have had candidates Borked and Kavanaughed so getting lectured about gentlemanly behavior is ****ing laughable.

Now, you want to talk about breaking norms? Packing the court because you lost elections is breaking norms. Packing a court because an 80+ year old jurist, who could have retired when a Democrat would pick her replacement, rolled the dice and lost. Adding states to try and have additional Senators for team blue. That is breaking norms when you intend to do it by simple majority rule by ending the filibuster.

Don't put your willingness to start fudging rules because you cannot win enough elections on us. When rulings went against the right, they dug in for a decades long process to get to this point. You want abortion? Go vote on it in Congress like laws are supposed to be done. You know, the Democratic Norms you are bitching about.

Adding states and packing the court is what is outside the norms. You do that you might as well just split the country up now.

While I don’t agree with what happened with Kavanaugh, it’s not even in the same stratosphere as Garland. The proof is that Justice Kavanaugh sits on the SCOTUS.

You are really devaluing how devastating McConnell’s 2016 action was. Everything you are fearing will happen would only come to fruition because of that. The Ds are going to start playing like your party. You bought the ticket so take the ride.

Edit to add French tweet. Statehood is not radical and it’s Constitutional.

 
Last edited:
What Democratic norms are being violated? There have been instances in the past where Presidents in this exact position filled Supreme Court seats. That is their constitutional duty. And the Senate is to provide advice and consent. There is not some Democratic Norm Rule that says that the left wing of this nation is guaranteed 4 seats on the Supreme Court, nor do outgoing Justices get any real say on whom or when their seat is filled. The Republicans are currently following the rules. You want to be pissed over Garland, have at it. We have had candidates Borked and Kavanaughed so getting lectured about gentlemanly behavior is ****ing laughable.

Now, you want to talk about breaking norms? Packing the court because you lost elections is breaking norms. Packing a court because an 80+ year old jurist, who could have retired when a Democrat would pick her replacement, rolled the dice and lost. Adding states to try and have additional Senators for team blue. That is breaking norms when you intend to do it by simple majority rule by ending the filibuster.

Don't put your willingness to start fudging rules because you cannot win enough elections on us. When rulings went against the right, they dug in for a decades long process to get to this point. You want abortion? Go vote on it in Congress like laws are supposed to be done. You know, the Democratic Norms you are bitching about.

Adding states and packing the court is what is outside the norms. You do that you might as well just split the country up now.

Comparing Garland to Kavanaugh and Bork is apples to oranges. Kavanaugh was confirmed and Reagan still was able to get a pick on the court. Garland wasn’t even brought up for a vote. Mitch and his cohorts said 8 months was too close to the election. Now six weeks is fine. Many of them said they would feel the same way if a Republican was in power. All of them, McConnell included, framed it as letting the people decide. They are the ones changing the norm. Own it.

And DC statehood shouldn’t be political. They deserve the same rights as any other citizens. It is the Republicans who make that a political issue because they don’t want more Democratic senators.
 
What Democratic norms are being violated? There have been instances in the past where Presidents in this exact position filled Supreme Court seats. That is their constitutional duty. And the Senate is to provide advice and consent. There is not some Democratic Norm Rule that says that the left wing of this nation is guaranteed 4 seats on the Supreme Court, nor do outgoing Justices get any real say on whom or when their seat is filled. The Republicans are currently following the rules. You want to be pissed over Garland, have at it. We have had candidates Borked and Kavanaughed so getting lectured about gentlemanly behavior is ****ing laughable.

Now, you want to talk about breaking norms? Packing the court because you lost elections is breaking norms. Packing a court because an 80+ year old jurist, who could have retired when a Democrat would pick her replacement, rolled the dice and lost. Adding states to try and have additional Senators for team blue. That is breaking norms when you intend to do it by simple majority rule by ending the filibuster.

Don't put your willingness to start fudging rules because you cannot win enough elections on us. When rulings went against the right, they dug in for a decades long process to get to this point. You want abortion? Go vote on it in Congress like laws are supposed to be done. You know, the Democratic Norms you are bitching about.

Adding states and packing the court is what is outside the norms. You do that you might as well just split the country up now.


1) The GOP changed the rules for SCOTUS nominees to a simple majority in 2017 (after Reid had changed it for lower court appointments.) All of these changes were required once the judiciary become so hyper- politicized over the last 20-30 years.

2) The Senate cloture rule is a mess, and only exists because of some obscure compromises made about 100 years ago. It was never used much until very recent times. It's a fairly undemocratic mechanism in its current form and is likely to soon die due to its constant abuse.

3) The "rules" are whatever the majority wants them to be. That includes the number of SC justices.



You're as hyperbolic as those you criticize.
 
1) The GOP changed the rules for SCOTUS nominees to a simple majority in 2017 (after Reid had changed it for lower court appointments.) All of these changes were required once the judiciary become so hyper- politicized over the last 20-30 years.

2) The Senate cloture rule is a mess, and only exists because of some obscure compromises made about 100 years ago. It was never used much until very recent times. It's a fairly undemocratic mechanism in its current form and is likely to soon die due to its constant abuse.

3) The "rules" are whatever the majority wants them to be. That includes the number of SC justices.



You're as hyperbolic as those you criticize.

Noted and so be it. You'll be one of the first ones they eat Mr. Investments. Good luck to you.
 
Comparing Garland to Kavanaugh and Bork is apples to oranges. Kavanaugh was confirmed and Reagan still was able to get a pick on the court. Garland wasn’t even brought up for a vote. Mitch and his cohorts said 8 months was too close to the election. Now six weeks is fine. Many of them said they would feel the same way if a Republican was in power. All of them, McConnell included, framed it as letting the people decide. They are the ones changing the norm. Own it.

And DC statehood shouldn’t be political. They deserve the same rights as any other citizens. It is the Republicans who make that a political issue because they don’t want more Democratic senators.

Garland got the advice and consent from the Senate. The advice was, we have an election coming and we are not letting you replace that juror. The President at the time asked for a favor and the Senate said no. Now the President is asking for a favor and the Senate says ok. In one case the President's Party did not control the Senate and in one it does. That's politics. Sorry that worked against you this time. Better luck down the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13
Garland got the advice and consent from the Senate. The advice was, we have an election coming and we are not letting you replace that juror. The President at the time asked for a favor and the Senate said no. Now the President is asking for a favor and the Senate says ok. In one case the President's Party did not control the Senate and in one it does. That's politics. Sorry that worked against you this time. Better luck down the road.

So you are all in on the GOP strategy that we do it because we can. Maybe the country would be a better place if you asked should we do it?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
And using the "we won. Deal with it." line. Karma is a bitch.

It may not happen with the RINO's, but if the Pubs get a nominee through, then too bad, so sad. Win the election (Senate) as O said.

As an aside, I hate how this is going down. But I hate abortion more, so I hope it happens to curb or eliminate elective abortions.

The Pro Life charade is the downfall of Republicanism. If conservatives would have budged on this issue after many decades, the party would be in considerably better shape and stronger.
 
Garland got the advice and consent from the Senate. The advice was, we have an election coming and we are not letting you replace that juror. The President at the time asked for a favor and the Senate said no. Now the President is asking for a favor and the Senate says ok. In one case the President's Party did not control the Senate and in one it does. That's politics. Sorry that worked against you this time. Better luck down the road.

Don’t think that’s what the founders meant by advise and consent but that isn’t how McConnell spun it at the time anyway. I guess you are ok with the lies? But if Democrats pack the courts in response, will your response still be “ That's politics. Sorry that worked against you this time. Better luck down the road“?

Personally, I would prefer we not go down that road. But it seems to be what Mitch wants
 
Biden getting elected will help. Abortion rates go down under Democratic leadership, up under Republicsn leadership.

Is this true about abortion rates?

Monica did not get pregnant in part because Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
 
Is this true about abortion rates?

Monica did not get pregnant in part because Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Republicans are against insurance covering birth control so I wouldn't be surprised if their legislation led to more abortions.
 
So you are all in on the GOP strategy that we do it because we can. Maybe the country would be a better place if you asked should we do it?

If the democrats did this, they would be up in arms. Hypocrites at their finest.
 
Comparing Garland to Kavanaugh and Bork is apples to oranges. Kavanaugh was confirmed and Reagan still was able to get a pick on the court. Garland wasn’t even brought up for a vote. Mitch and his cohorts said 8 months was too close to the election. Now six weeks is fine. Many of them said they would feel the same way if a Republican was in power. All of them, McConnell included, framed it as letting the people decide. They are the ones changing the norm. Own it.

And DC statehood shouldn’t be political. They deserve the same rights as any other citizens. It is the Republicans who make that a political issue because they don’t want more Democratic senators.
DC doesn't need to be a state, just make it part of Virginia and/or Maryland. Problem solved. Puerto Rico eventually should be a state, I think. California would be better as two or three states. I suspect Democrats would benefit from all this, most likely, but it might not be as drastically as making DC and PR states alone.
 
Keep in mind what PJ O'Rourke said:
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats".

At the core of conservatives is giving to the rich and tricking the poor, ignorant fools to vote for that to continue. That is why the uneducated, racist rednecks tend to vote republican. The brain dead can't even tell they are being fooled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosmickid
DC doesn't need to be a state, just make it part of Virginia and/or Maryland. Problem solved. Puerto Rico eventually should be a state, I think. California would be better as two or three states. I suspect Democrats would benefit from all this, most likely, but it might not be as drastically as making DC and PR states alone.

Democrats would not benefit from California turning into 3 states because some areas of California are republican. That is why republicans want the state split. The mac daddy of gerrymandering that republicans love to do in order to make sure they get re-elected.
 
Democrats would not benefit from California turning into 3 states because some areas of California are republican. That is why republicans want the state split. The mac daddy of gerrymandering that republicans love to do in order to make sure they get re-elected.
So bring in Democratic Puerto Rico and a Republican Northern California and we have classic American political compromise. Wouldn't that be nice?
 
Democrats would not benefit from California turning into 3 states because some areas of California are republican. That is why republicans want the state split. The mac daddy of gerrymandering that republicans love to do in order to make sure they get re-elected.
The Republicans are going to gerrymander California? I'll be damned
 
ADVERTISEMENT