After Mitch |McConnell used the excuse of not choosing a Supreme Court Justice during an election year, now says he would fill one if it became vacant in 2020. Having not let Obama's choice to fill Scalia's vacant seat, he now shows his true colors. What a weasel!
That is two-faced of him, absolutely. If the seat became vacant in January, maybe. But Garland was nominated by Obama in mid March I think, so after January would be hypocritical IMO.
What? No right wingers are gonna chime in and make excuses for Ole Mitch? He's turned himself upside down and inside out to be purely partisan as far as SCOTUS nominations are concerned. A two-faced scoundrel he is.
Politicians being partisan and conniving about Supreme Court justices.
Well, that's quite the shock.
What I understand is they all never fail to disappoint.
I'm curious. Putting aside what "all" other politicians do. Taking this decision, on it's own, do you think this is a morally just thing to do on Mitch's part? Should this impact how voters feel about Mitch?
Certainly it is hypocritical and wrong. But, I think the right is disappointed in kavanaugh and chomping at the bit to pack one more on.
Wrong. Yes. Different from what his opponents would do? I doubt it.
Someone has to be the first to lower the bar of reasonable conduct for an elected official. We've got a lot of that going on lately. Mitch and Trump, between just the two of them, have sunk so low and dwelt so long in the gutter, the stink will never come off. And they've dragged a lot of formerly decent people right down with them. It's scary.
I though you were of those on the right wanting everyone to "move on." Still after Hillary I see.
And the stench will be nothing compared to the stain left behind by Donnie and his offspring.
Hey. I don't think much, if anything, of Trump on a personal level. He seems no less swampy than the rest. But, the economy is good, I just got a promotion double my previous salary, he's trying to address issues I feel need to be addressed (like immigration) so, all in all I've no where near the complaints I can imagine I might have had with the alternative.
Ok. Maybe one complaint. I doubt previously reasonable people would have been as irrationally unreasonable had the alternative taken office.
I could have abided any other candidate on the Republican side, but Trump was over the line. I thought Dubya was bad--and he did stay out of sight for Obama's two terms--but now he knows he wasn't such a bad POTUS compared to Trump and is out and about.
I was shocked Trump got the nomination. There was only one candidate I could stomach. I would have never believed I'd vote for such a man as Trump.
But the alternative was too much to bear.
Possibly what was sown grew into something much less ominous and terrifying than what the other seed would have sprouted into. Possibly not, but I wasn't willing to take that chance.
They just can't leave Hillary alone although she's not the subject of this forum. They always have to use her as a smokescreen to try to cover up the mess they've put in the White House.
Hillary has been a punching bag for the right for over a decade, Miz. They've always been frightened of her...
Hillary is not a smoke screen. Hillary was the only alternative we had to vote for in that election. Had Donald not won, Hillary would be president. So, really, his presence in the Oval office boils down to her failures.
Lol, there you go again. Donnie occupies the White House because of the voters who put him there. First, Republicans thought he was the best candidate on the ballot and chose him as their candidate. Then, a minority of general election voters in key states decided he was qualified and suitable to lead this country, handing him the electoral college.
Who is responsible for Donnie's presence in the Oval Office? Those who voted for him.
After all, that is how elections work.
Yes. I voted for him. I helped put him into office. I think you've missed the entire point of my comment, which is not surprising.
Yes, I get it. It's Hillary's fault that millions of people thought a lying, bullying con man and self-admitted sexual predator was acceptable to occupy the oval office.
Here is a Trump supporter I can respect:
"Fool me once, sham on you, fool me twice shame on me. That's What I think of Trump."
"He came through here like the businessman he was and the salesman he was, and he sold us on things he knew wasn't going to make true, and we fell for it."
No excuses, just taking responsibility.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 … -politics/
Well, if we are going to lay blame, maybe it needs to go to democrats for offering up such a corrupt candidate.
Think about it. She couldn't beat the worst possible candidate the Republican party could put forth.
I hope you guys learned your lesson, don't let your primaries be so corrupt and do a better job next time.
I'm not "blaming" anyone. I'm just questioning your need to abdicate responsibility for your vote by blaming Hillary and now the Democrats. He was the Republicans' choice, and still is, judging by his high approval ratings among Republicans.
It makes no sense to blame those who didn't vote for Trump for his elevation to the highest office in the land.
No one is abdicating responsibility, you appear to always lay blame and this makes no sense.
If you offer me corn or brussel sprouts I'll always take corn. I don't like brussel sprouts. That is the extent of it. You can put a tasty sauce on it, give it a different name, I still won't eat it. You can tell me you think it's good for me. I won't eat it. If at home, I will tick off a litany of negative statements about those sprouts. I could, foreseeably, turn any child against brussel sprouts by my descriptions. I could relish my accomplishment thinking that, when they grow up and we eat together, there will be no brussel sprouts on the table.
But, the office of the President is not a vegetable. Whatever you think of Trump, you do a disservice to the next generation by a lack of respect for the office. Heck, you do a disservice to the next president. I'm certain worse will be said and done. You guys aren't lowering the bar, you are shoving it down into the mud.
You can say it's because you hate Trump. Fair enough, maybe. But he will be gone after a while and the damage you do to respect for the office will probably never be undone. The left is in jeopardy of completely demolishing our checks and balance system. The left is poised to completely demolish our electoral college. That, in and of itself, may rip this country apart.
Lol, the man occupying the office disrespects it every day. I respect the office, but not the man occupying it. You are conflating the two, just like Trump does.
The rest of your post is just lame rationalizing.
Now they're blaming Hillary for their voting for Trump? May as well, they've blamed her for everything else. I suppose she's the blame for the way the Oval Office has been desecrated by Trump as well?
If I thought either of you couldn't fathom a simple truth, I'd be worried. As it stands, I think you are both bsing.
An interesting read of research from a non-partisan on the issue...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018 … -for-trump
I feel the same about your opinion, LTL! Touché
What do you mean "she couldn't defeat the worst possible candidate..."? With his Russian help nobody could have defeated him. Seventeen U.S. intelligence organizations found evidence of Russian interference, according to Mueller's report.
Yes, Russia interfered, absolutely.
The issue with saying that Trump won because of the interference, is that there's no proof. To boot, Hillary in fact WON the popular vote! Did Russian interference change the way Florida voted, or Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina?
Our electoral system makes it difficult to impact our elections from outside.
So you think the millions of Russian based Ads targeted towards these states had no impact whatsoever on their voters?
One vote here, a couple there.
The Democratic and Republican parties have MASSIVE campaigns invading every area of our lives, including Facebook. Without concrete evidence that the Russian ads were particularly more effective than the Democratic or Republican ads that were placed by each party, both on and off Facebook, I can't see the Russian attempt as much more than disruptive.
And the Russians have already achieved a great deal even though they didn't pick the winner for us: they sowed incredible discord, so that going forward, virtually all of our election outcomes will be under a cloud of doubt.
Nothing I've said can be construed as implying that Russian interference is okay.
I wasn't saying you were. I was disagreeing with your opinion on the impact the Russians had on the election. You've seen how one fake video--Pelosi being drunk and slurring her words-- has been retweeted reposted so many times, even by the POTUS, so imagine a million or so such fakes against Hillary and the Democrats.
Yeah, I've heard that the video has been re-posted alot.
If Pelosi was currently running for re-election, I'd be interested in seeing the reaction by undecided voters. Still, her own re-election machine has incredible funding, backed by not only her donations, also money from the Democratic Party.
Taking into consideration the huge sums of money pumped out by both parties, for ads everywhere, including on Facebook, it's difficult for me to see any significant results from Russian interference.
Okay! I agree both sides have plenty of ads against each other, but the type of fake ads used by the Russians only helps Trump. I there's no impact on the outcome, I suppose other countries can get into the act as well. Do you think that wouldn't make any difference either?
All I'm saying Randy is that we don't have any evidence that the Russian attempts to influence this last election succeeded. To that point, claiming that Trump won or Hillary lost BECAUSE of Russian influence is a reach.
Though I have no concrete evidence, I'm of the thinking that James Comey's reopening the investigation MAY have had quite an impact on Clinton. Otherwise, she was just a poor candidate.
Historians will document that Trump is a corrupt, mentally ill, lying con man and that evidence of those facts was readily available before he was elected by a minority of Americans
True PP, but just because a small block of gullible racist cultish Americans with the "Sweeping and Systematic" assistance of our arch enemy embedded him in our oval office, that will NEVER exonerate him from his CRIMES and sooner or later he will pay the tremendous political and legal price: He's a short timer and everyone knows it and thank GOD for that:
by Denise 4 years ago
I used to be a Republican. Staunchly. But, the sensible and fiscally responsible Republican party of my youth has been hijacked by a bunch of hypocritical shirt sleeve Christians whose greed and envy drives their opinions. Who can't keep their own houses in order so they attempt to bemoan that by...
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
Today is the first day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice nominee, Brett Kavanaugh - and it's already a wild and crazy ride. At this early point in the hearing, reports are that 17 people have been removed for disrupting the proceedings, several Democrats forcibly interrupted...
by Sychophantastic 4 years ago
Donald Trump's modelling agency encouraged its models to violate immigration rules. In other words, it would appear that the use of illegal immigrants was a good thing when it was useful. If you support Donald Trump, does this bother you in any way?http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 …...
by JAKE Earthshine 22 months ago
Are you gonna' let this republican rigor mortis looking weirdo named "Granny" Mitch McConnell who presides over one of our most impoverished states called Kentucky, take away what you've earned over the course of your life ?? I mean seriously, you must have known this was coming right ?...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
It behooves me that those who claim to be pro-life are oftentimes pro-war and pro-death penalty. Also, these people who believe that any woman who becomes pregnant, should have the baby no matter what circumstances the mother is in. Furthermore, these prolifers are often...
by ga anderson 3 months ago
If you, (can), put aside all the political charges and machinations against her nomination, what is your opinion of the qualifications of our newest Supreme Court Justice? I think she is exactly the kind of person we should want to sit on our Supreme Court.To be clear, I strongly support her...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|