Paying My Respects to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15121500
SpecialOlympian wrote:What in the fuck are you talking about, you brainwashed fool? Trump is actively sabotaging the USPS and is actively killing people who depend on it for medication, all while spastically trying to delegitimize voting by mail.

How did you end up as the person you are? What is wrong with you?


Breathe in a paper bag or something its going to be ok.
#15121502
If you can't answer me that's fine, Finfinder. I know you have to go to your safe space when people break your bubble by pointing out the obvious.

Don't worry, you'll work yourself up into an ecstatic fugue state again. Don't even think about it. Thinking didn't get you to where you are today, so why start now?
#15121504
B0ycey wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1307321159113936896

McConnells comments was to echo Trumps tweet @JohnRawls.


Will see, it is a suicide move for the election of sorts.

This might have even worse implications for the republican party long term.
#15121506
SpecialOlympian wrote:If you can't answer me that's fine, Finfinder. I know you have to go to your safe space when people break your bubble by pointing out the obvious.

Don't worry, you'll work yourself up into an ecstatic fugue state again. Don't even think about it. Thinking didn't get you to where you are today, so why start now?



It's good see you posting again the forum has been missing your personal attacks.

I'd like to play some poker with you. Yours tells are like reading a teleprompter.

BTW did you get any sleep last nite? :lol:
#15121508
JohnRawls wrote:Will see, it is a suicide move for the election of sorts.

This might have even worse implications for the republican party long term.


I doubt it has any implications except make voters on both sides more secure. Although McConnell blocked Obama's pick is the same reason he backs Trump today. That is the GOP will now have the Supreme Court for decades to come and not just for 4 years in any case.
#15121513
blackjack21 wrote:Frankly, I think RBG was a danger to the constitution and to freedom generally.


It is crazy that she thought the government has the right to force people to buy defective products from private corporations. That one alone should have disqualified her from even sweeping the floors in the halls of justice but it made her a hero with liberals because liberals really get off on forcing people into compliance with fucked up mandates.
#15121515
B0ycey wrote:the GOP will now have the Supreme Court for decades to come and not just for 4 years in any case.

Not a good move on the part of the Republicans. The composition of the court and how many sit is entirely within the purview of Congress. There is nothing to stop the Democrats packing the Court with however many sympathetic Justices they please when they have the numbers. No need for a super majority in the Senate now, a simple majority will do.


:lol:
#15121549
B0ycey wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/danpfeiffer/status/1307103075493130240

How times have changed. One would believe in 2020 the electorate shouldn't have their voice heard :?:

You mean like Biden, who claimed in 2016 that there was no such thing as a "Biden Rule," and that Garland's Supreme Court nomination should proceed even though the presidency and Senate were held by different parties? Or like McConnell, who always predicated the refusal to confirm Garland on exactly the point that the Senate and presidency were held by different parties, as he pointed out during an interview on CBS News' "Face the Nation": "You have to go back to 1880 to find the last time a Senate controlled by a different party from the president confirmed a Supreme Court justice to a vacancy created in the middle of a presidential election." So according to Biden the "Biden Rule" doesn't exist, and according to McConnell it doesn't apply to the current situation. Either way, there's no hypocrisy involved in moving forward--naked partisan politics, perhaps, but not hypocrisy.

SpecialOlympian wrote:[@Finfinder]
You should look up the popular vote results of the last presidential election.

The results of the last presidential election? Trump won majorities in thirty out of fifty states for a total Electoral College result of 304 to Clinton's 227. Though now, Trump might be the second president to win re-election with a lower percentage of the electoral vote count than his first one (Obama was the first to do so, I believe).
#15121550
I should have said boys and girls.

Our system is completely dead and gone, pour out a beer for it.

And I called this exact scenario. I might not have called it here. I called it on a chatroom and in a conversation. I essentially described this exact situation, but you also don't have to be a weather man to know which way the wind is blowing.

McConnel insisted that no votes can be had for Obama's pick because it was an election year, and the seat must be open for a year, almost.

This time around, the argument runs, because it is an election year, we must confirm someone as soon as possible.

Fuck Trump and fuck the turtle.
Last edited by Crantag on 20 Sep 2020 03:05, edited 2 times in total.
#15121552
Doug64 wrote:You mean like Biden, who claimed in 2016 that there was no such thing as a "Biden Rule," and that Garland's Supreme Court nomination should proceed even though the presidency and Senate were held by different parties? Or like McConnell, who always predicated the refusal to confirm Garland on exactly the point that the Senate and presidency were held by different parties, as he pointed out during an interview on CBS News' "Face the Nation": "You have to go back to 1880 to find the last time a Senate controlled by a different party from the president confirmed a Supreme Court justice to a vacancy created in the middle of a presidential election." So according to Biden the "Biden Rule" doesn't exist, and according to McConnell it doesn't apply to the current situation. Either way, there's no hypocrisy involved in moving forward--naked partisan politics, perhaps, but not hypocrisy.


The results of the last presidential election? Trump won majorities in thirty out of fifty states for a total Electoral College result of 304 to Clinton's 227. Though now, Trump might be the second president to win re-election with a lower percentage of the electoral vote count than his first one (Obama was the first to do so, I believe).

Fuck you, death cultist.

I read none of this. I didn't even read the first word. I started to read the first word, and then I pulled back. You are most assuredly spouting off with your normal utter bullshit. Go get shit on by a bird, shit stain.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 25
Biden breaks his foot

From the article you choose to ignore: Muell[…]

Rethinking the Electoral College

All it means is that the GOP will have to adjust […]

If God exists, who created God?

God by definition Is self-existent, self-subsisten[…]

Election 2020

The Electoral College's perceived flaws come down […]