2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

Canada, Mexico and US borders to stay closed to non-essential travel until Nov. 21

[homer]

1 minute ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

Canada, Mexico and US borders to stay closed to non-essential travel until Nov. 21

Is it your opinion they should be open?

[SIOUXFAN97]

15 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

Really?

Quit playing the "I'm even handed" bull$hit. 

The FBI is investigating the laptop story only as it relates to Russian interference in our election.  Not because anything is factual about Rudy the Stooge's BS. 

You cultists are so effing desperate and gullible you'll make flipping the Senate easy not to mention POTUS.

Here comes:

1. Eleven US Supreme Court Justices

2. The New states of DC and Puerto Rico.

The above will be Dear Leader's legacy. 

 

why stop at 11?

[Hayduke1]

10 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:

man you are in de nile.

 

And you are in de cult 

[Bison06]

4 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

why stop at 11?

This isn't a smart precedent to set. Every time the same party has the presidency and the senate they'll just up in again. 

[SIOUXFAN97]

3 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

This isn't a smart precedent to set. Every time the same party has the presidency and the senate they'll just up in again. 

exactly....surprised heydouche doesn't realize that 300>11

[Hayduke1]

6 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

This isn't a smart precedent to set. Every time the same party has the presidency and the senate they'll just up in again. 

I happen to agree.

I believe the threat has an outside chance of getting enough Republican senators to vote no on this nominee.  Only two more are needed.  Sasse and Romney?   The claim would be that it is too close to an election, ala 2016. 

A chance, but a slight one. 

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

13 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

This isn't a smart precedent to set. Every time the same party has the presidency and the senate they'll just up in again. 

So the next time a Justice leaves the Supreme Court with (let's say) 2 years of a presidential term left, and the opposite party has controll of the Senate, they pull a McConnell?  He already blocked P Obama's Supreme Court nomination when the justice died with about a year left of the Presidency. How far this go, the R played their "because we can" game.
Payback will arrive.

[petey23]

1 hour ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

Things go from bad to worse for Giuliani's anti-Biden gambit
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/maddow-blog-things-go-from-bad-to-worse-for-giuliani-s-anti-biden-gambit/ar-BB1aaUBr?ocid=msedgdhp

The New York Post ran an anti-Biden story last week that was literally unbelievable. The article, which had the superficial appearance of an "October Surprise," was filled with convoluted details involving Hunter Biden, a Ukrainian gas company, an alleged laptop, some alleged emails, and an unnamed shop owner in Delaware. The conservative tabloid was apparently handed the story by Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon.

At face value, one of the problems with the story was that the underlying premise of the allegations were discredited quite a while ago, which is why most major news organizations had the good sense to steer clear of the Post's reporting.

The New York Post's front-page article about Hunter Biden on Wednesday was written mostly by a staff reporter who refused to put his name on it, two Post employees said. Bruce Golding, a reporter at the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid since 2007, did not allow his byline to be used because he had concerns over the article's credibility, the two Post employees said, speaking on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation.

As a rule, when a reporter writes most of a story, but has so little faith in it that he doesn't want to be associated with it, that's a bad sign.

But that's really just the start. The New York Times' reporting on what transpired at the New York Post went on to note that "many" of the tabloid's staff raised concerns about the integrity of the anti-Biden smear. Editors felt compelled to press staffers to add their bylines, and at least two reporters refused.


Donald Trump is nevertheless promoting the New York Post article, even posing with the anti-Biden smear article in the Oval Office.
Giuliani's daughter has her own October surprise, neutralize her dad's vote.

Marching orders.

Deflect, Dodge, Distract....but be very careful with your wording if you are going to Deny.

[Bison06]

Just now, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

So the next time a Justice leaves the Supreme Court with (lets say) 2 years of a presidential term left, and the opposite party has controll of the Senate, they pull a McConnell?  He already blocked P Obama's Supreme Court nomination when the justice died with about a year left of the Presidency. How far this go, the R played their "because we can" game.

Look into the history, what is happening now is exactly what the precedent has always been. If you have the presidency and control of the senate and election year nomination and confirmation hasn't been an issue historically.

 

[Hayduke1]

3 minutes ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

How far this go, the R played their "because we can" game.
Payback will arrive.

Point taken. 

The claim that the Republicans make on SCOTUS so close to election this time is because according to the constitution, "we can".

Well, the sane could work for expansion of SCOTUS.  Because, "they can". 

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

Just now, Bison06 said:

Look into the history, what is happening now is exactly what the precedent has always been. If you have the presidency and control of the senate and election year nomination and confirmation hasn't been an issue historically.

 

So you do it with 2 years left of a P term, oh wait. We have "because we can" so we can stop a justice for 3 or 4 years?

[Bison06]

Just now, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

So you do it with 2 years left of a P term, oh wait. We have "because we can" so we can stop a justice for 3 or 4 years?

The senate can vote however it likes on any given issue. There are repercussions for being unreasonable, but yeah, refusing to confirm a justice because he/she was nominated by a president from the opposing party is technically within their right any time during a presidency.

I would hope it doesn't come to that, but politics is a dirty game and these a holes will use any leverage they have to their advantage on both sides of the aisle. Which I hate, btw.

[Hayduke1]

2 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

Look into the history, what is happening now is exactly what the precedent has always been. If you have the presidency and control of the senate and election year nomination and confirmation hasn't been an issue historically.

 

According to McConnell in 2016, they can't do a confirmation in an election year because historically is isn't done that way.  That is BS then as it is now. 

The US Constitution says you can expand SCOTUS.  So, historically it has happened before.  Not saying they should, but they sure can. It also has happened. 

[Bison06]

Just now, Hayduke1 said:

According to McConnell in 2016, they can't do a confirmation in an election year because historically is isn't done that way.  That is BS then as it is now. 

The US Constitution says you can expand SCOTUS.  So, historically it has happened before.  Not saying they should, but they sure can. It also has happened. 

And according to the Dems from 2016 you CAN do a confirmation in an election year. So who's the bigger hypocrite in 2020? They all suck.

[SIOUXFAN97]

12 minutes ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

So the next time a Justice leaves the Supreme Court with (let's say) 2 years of a presidential term left, and the opposite party has controll of the Senate, they pull a McConnell?  He already blocked P Obama's Supreme Court nomination when the justice died with about a year left of the Presidency. How far this go, the R played their "because we can" game.
Payback will arrive.

if merrit was put to a vote....what would that vote have been?

[MrEdway]

2 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

And according to the Dems from 2016 you CAN do a confirmation in an election year. So who's the bigger hypocrite in 2020? They all suck.

If it wasn't for Dirty Harry Reid none of this would be happening. Paybacks a bitch. Thanks Harry!

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

1 minute ago, Bison06 said:

And according to the Dems from 2016 you CAN do a confirmation in an election year. So who's the bigger hypocrite in 2020? They all suck.

McConnell also refused Fed Judges accross the country when Obama was P.       Payback is on the way.

 

A clip went viral on social media of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., taking credit for federal judicial vacancies left open at the end of the Obama administration, in which he says there were so many because “I’ll tell you why. [It’s] because I was in charge of what we did in the last two years of the Obama administration.”
https://www.king5.com/article/news/verify/mitch-mcconnell-obama-court-nomination-interview/507-4362fe4e-790e-4711-b945-ad3e08f6dcd5

[Bison06]

1 minute ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

McConnell also refused Fed Judges accross the country when Obama was P.       Payback is on the way.

 

A clip went viral on social media of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., taking credit for federal judicial vacancies left open at the end of the Obama administration, in which he says there were so many because “I’ll tell you why. [It’s] because I was in charge of what we did in the last two years of the Obama administration.”
https://www.king5.com/article/news/verify/mitch-mcconnell-obama-court-nomination-interview/507-4362fe4e-790e-4711-b945-ad3e08f6dcd5

Don't take it personally, the Dems would do the same if they had the opportunity. Elections have consequences as they say, power is going to be wielded. 

[Frozen4sioux]

[SIOUXFAN97]

10 minutes ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

McConnell also refused Fed Judges accross the country when Obama was P.       Payback is on the way.

 

A clip went viral on social media of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., taking credit for federal judicial vacancies left open at the end of the Obama administration, in which he says there were so many because “I’ll tell you why. [It’s] because I was in charge of what we did in the last two years of the Obama administration.”
https://www.king5.com/article/news/verify/mitch-mcconnell-obama-court-nomination-interview/507-4362fe4e-790e-4711-b945-ad3e08f6dcd5

don't f with a guy with the nickname of "cocaine"...

[Hayduke1]

16 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

And according to the Dems from 2016 you CAN do a confirmation in an election year. So who's the bigger hypocrite in 2020? They all suck.

Well, it was what McConnell said in 2016.  Lindsey Graham went as far as to say hold him accountable in 2020 if the same thing happens.  It did.  And, the Democrats are.  

I think in this situation it is easy to say the GOP has been proven to be the bigger hypocrites. 

[JohnboyND7]

53 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

Really?

Quit playing the "I'm even handed" bull$hit. 

The FBI is investigating the laptop story only as it relates to Russian interference in our election.  Not because anything is factual about Rudy the Stooge's BS. 

You cultists are so effing desperate and gullible you'll make flipping the Senate easy not to mention POTUS.

Here comes:

1. Eleven US Supreme Court Justices

2. The New states of DC and Puerto Rico.

The above will be Dear Leader's legacy. 

 

I think Puerto Rico has generally resisted statehood and Im pretty sure we can't thrust it upon them, maybe wrong though.

Regarding DC, I'd be very interested to see what would happen. The land technically belongs to Maryland I think, so if it's not a part of the Federal District I wonder if it would have to be returned to Maryland. Further, I'd be interested to see if it would result in a SCOTUS challenge.

My limited understanding of the creation of DC was to prevent a state from having some sort of undue influence over the Federal government. Because DC is both the de facto and de jure home of the Feds, I would be interested to see how SCOTUS would view that. 

Again, there is no valid argument that would support a larger SCOTUS. Enlarging it to 11 or 13 or whatever just invites whichever party holds the Senate/Executive to add seats in order to further their political goals. Im not sure you want a Supreme Court that is overruling its determinations every 4-8 years. 

[Hayduke1]

6 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:

Was your wife doing lines with Hunter Biden while she was "heels up " this past weekend? 

Keep the paranoia going, Husband of Frigid Sue. 

[The Sicatoka]

Like I said, ... 

I can't wait for those SCOTUS split 923 to 922 decisions in a few years.