Ginsburg misses Supreme Court arguments for the 1st time

[spookyturtle 9,465]

On 1/8/2019 at 8:53 AM, jg121783 said:

Not sure about the second part but it's possible. Unless something drastically changes the first part is probably true. All the candidates the democrats have proposed so far don't stand a chance against Trump. Not only that but people are going to be upset with the democrats after the next two years of lunacy from the Congress. I predict a clean sweep for republicans in 2020. In the mean time we can kick back and be entertained by the incompetent Democrat run Congress. Bring on the phony impeachment proceedings. Should be lots of fun to watch.

The competent Republican Congress did a bang up job the past two years didn’t they? 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

46 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

The competent Republican Congress did a bang up job the past two years didn’t they? 

 

   People who give it any thought would tend to hold the incumbent party responsible for failure to accomplish what they promised to do. No doubt this was a factor in the Democrat losses in 2016. Human nature being what it is, I doubt it's going to flip from the historical norm next time around. If the Republicans fail to get things done, it is apparent who failed. To remain the incumbent party, it is incumbent upon them to get things done.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   People who give it any thought would tend to hold the incumbent party responsible for failure to accomplish what they promised to do. No doubt this was a factor in the Democrat losses in 2016. Human nature being what it is, I doubt it's going to flip from the historical norm next time around. If the Republicans fail to get things done, it is apparent who failed. To remain the incumbent party, it is incumbent upon them to get things done.

and that is why we keep flipping parties hoping the norm will go away. Sadly Note the middle is blocked

 

[refugee 169]

On 1/8/2019 at 6:59 AM, Cyberfx1024 said:

I was thinking of this one right here. Amy Coney Barrett

I think this is where Trump missed the boat from the standpoint of appointing a cultural conservative. Amy would have been closer to a true Conservative and is younger ( and women live longer) so would have had more years on the bench. Hugh Hewitt calls Kavanaugh "John Roberts 2.0"

Personally I am fine that as I want to see a moderate court, setting aside that I don't think we got to the whole truth around his personal behavior.   

 

It just highlights that Trump is not a conservative, but a elitist wearing populist trappings  trying to starve all the oxygen from the room. 

Edited January 10, 2019 by refugee

[TBoneTX 43,019]

7 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

To remain the incumbent party, it is incumbent upon them to get things done.

And it is recumbent upon us to keep on taking these things lying down!

(Couldn't resist)

[Dashinka 23,199]

11 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   People who give it any thought would tend to hold the incumbent party responsible for failure to accomplish what they promised to do. No doubt this was a factor in the Democrat losses in 2016. Human nature being what it is, I doubt it's going to flip from the historical norm next time around. If the Republicans fail to get things done, it is apparent who failed. To remain the incumbent party, it is incumbent upon them to get things done.

Isn't that what happened in 2018, and pretty much happens with any president in their first mid-term particularly with the House?  I imagine the same would have happened with the Senate in 2018 except for the sheer number of seats the Democrats had to defend.  For me, I am all about term limiting incumbents at the ballot box, no one should be a career politician.

[Dashinka 23,199]

9 hours ago, refugee said:

I think this is where Trump missed the boat from the standpoint of appointing a cultural conservative. Amy would have been closer to a true Conservative and is younger ( and women live longer) so would have had more years on the bench. Hugh Hewitt calls Kavanaugh "John Roberts 2.0"

Personally I am fine that as I want to see a moderate court, setting aside that I don't think we got to the whole truth around his personal behavior.   

 

It just highlights that Trump is not a conservative, but a elitist wearing populist trappings  trying to starve all the oxygen from the room. 

So you are just fine with the political shenanigans of the Democrats during Kavanaugh's hearing?

 

Btw, President Trump is not a conservative, that fact was clear from day one, but he is also not a socialist which is a big one in my book.  The fact that he is actually more centrist, and in some cases an East Coast liberal makes me wonder why the stonewalling from the Dems.  I guess it is all political for them since they would prefer to move even further to the Left.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Bill & Katya

[refugee 169]

25 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So you are just fine with the political shenanigans of the Democrats during Kavanaugh's hearing?

 

.

Is that a statement or question? I commented we did not get to the truth.

[Dashinka 23,199]

3 minutes ago, refugee said:

Is that a statement or question? I commented we did not get to the truth.

And my comment was similar in that I did not trust the political theatre the Democrats created to crater the nomination at the last minute.  As to the entire story about Kavanaugh, I think it was thoroughly investigated, and many of the accusations were determined to be false, and as far as Blasey Ford, there was also a lot of evidence that showed this was a manufactured political issue.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

And my comment was similar in that I did not trust the political theatre the Democrats created to crater the nomination at the last minute.  As to the entire story about Kavanaugh, I think it was thoroughly investigated, and many of the accusations were determined to be false, and as far as Blasey Ford, there was also a lot of evidence that showed this was a manufactured political issue.

God, lets not get into that circus again on here. 

[refugee 169]

1 minute ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

God, lets not get into that circus again on here. 

Agreed, let's move on 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Isn't that what happened in 2018, and pretty much happens with any president in their first mid-term particularly with the House?  I imagine the same would have happened with the Senate in 2018 except for the sheer number of seats the Democrats had to defend.  For me, I am all about term limiting incumbents at the ballot box, no one should be a career politician.

 

  For the senate and house, I would like to see limits to 2 consecutive terms. I would be OK with them running again after taking a term off. Limits voting for the incumbent, but also allows good ones to get back in, and (theoretically) weeds the bad ones out.

[Dashinka 23,199]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  For the senate and house, I would like to see limits to 2 consecutive terms. I would be OK with them running again after taking a term off. Limits voting for the incumbent, but also allows good ones to get back in, and (theoretically) weeds the bad ones out.

I am fine with that as well although I would allow the House to serve 3 consecutive terms, but I would not let them back in with the exception of moving from the House to the Senate or visa versa.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, refugee said:

Is that a statement or question? I commented we did not get to the truth.

How could we possibly have, when Ford’s testimony was so obviously scripted, and facts didn’t line up?

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

and no office jumping mid-term, house to senate ... finish what you were elected to do