RBG Dead

[ducks]

Yes, Clinton would've done better.

No question at all.

The first wave would be over by now and we would be ready for the second.

Yeah she kills people
Breaks laws flushes 33k emails after court not to with acid wash

[ducks]

Yes, Clinton would've done better.

No question at all.

The first wave would be over by now and we would be ready for the second.

Why do we need to have a second wave ?

We will have a vaccine thanks to Trump

[Trainwreck2100]

Atleast you learned from it
Hope nothing happens tell feb

It's a ACA plan i only brought up february because I imagine, by then, the ACA is overturned.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah she kills people
Breaks laws flushes 33k emails after court not to with acid wash

Trump killed 150k.

[ducks]

Trump killed 150k.

No he did not
CDC
Said only 6 percent of those were
From COVID


Those 150k would already be dead this year with other things

Less died from flu because of the shutdown this year

[ChumpDumper]

No he did not

Yes he did.

[RD2191]

Yes he did.

[weebo]

If Trump/R don't honor their own Biden-rule, and the D's take congress and the presidency, they can come back and pass a law giving them power to pack the court with D appointees....

[ducks]

Yes he did.

Did he ?
Did he shoot them ?

He offered zinc and a drug and it is proven it works
Doctors that used that never lost a patient
Drug companies refused to let dr say it is ok because $$

[Millennial_Messiah]

The selfish should have stepped down in 2013 if she was so worried about that.

speaking of 2013... the Dems have nary room to complain about the Merrick Garland/Scalia episode in early 2016.

McConnell is right... this is NOT the same or analogous to Garland/Scalia. The Republicans had the Senate in 2016 and by Cons utional law can accept or reject anyone. The House of Reps have zero say in SCOTUS. If Scalia died in 2013, you'd be damn sure Obama would have rammed a third Democrat down the GOP's throat and the GOP senate minority couldn't have done a damn thing about it.

[ChumpDumper]

Did he ?

Yes.

[Millennial_Messiah]

China killed millions.

fixed

[baseline bum]

Keep in mind, race probably won’t be decided until a few days after Election Day at the least. McConnell could easily hold a vote the day after Election Day before the race is decided but after all the ballots were cast.

True. He could ram it through on November 4th or 5th and say 'well it looked like Trump was going to win' since in such a scenario Trump will likely be ahead on the in-person voting. Does it bother you that you think like Mitch McConnell?

[Millennial_Messiah]

The vetting process generally takes at least 4-6 weeks, but that can easily be shortened. There’s theoretically nothing stopping it, the discussion is about whether they have the votes. Republicans up for re-election in tight races won’t want anything to do with a vote before Election Day.

NC/Tillis will vote in favor of and no reason that would hurt him. Only in Maine and Colorado but those are lost seats to begin with.

[ChumpDumper]

fixed

Yes, you have to believe Trump is blameless and holy.

[ducks]

Yes, you have to believe Trump is blameless and holy.

And you think he can do nothing right

[Will Hunting]

True. He could ram it through on November 4th or 5th and say 'well it looked like Trump was going to win' since in such a scenario Trump will likely be ahead on the in-person voting. Does it bother you that you think like Mitch McConnell?

Exactly. It would be egregious as but that’s never stopped McConnell before.

[Trainwreck2100]

speaking of 2013... the Dems have nary room to complain about the Merrick Garland/Scalia episode in early 2016.

McConnell is right... this is NOT the same or analogous to Garland/Scalia. The Republicans had the Senate in 2016 and by Cons utional law can accept or reject anyone. The House of Reps have zero say in SCOTUS. If Scalia died in 2013, you'd be damn sure Obama would have rammed a third Democrat down the GOP's throat and the GOP senate minority couldn't have done a damn thing about it.

If Scalia died in 2013 why wouldn't he have nominated someone, this "don't nominate anyone cause election" wasn't even a thing that existed in 2013, also doesn't matter because 2013 isn't even an election year

[Will Hunting]

speaking of 2013... the Dems have nary room to complain about the Merrick Garland/Scalia episode in early 2016.

McConnell is right... this is NOT the same or analogous to Garland/Scalia. The Republicans had the Senate in 2016 and by Cons utional law can accept or reject anyone. The House of Reps have zero say in SCOTUS. If Scalia died in 2013, you'd be damn sure Obama would have rammed a third Democrat down the GOP's throat and the GOP senate minority couldn't have done a damn thing about it.

McConnell said in 2016 that it’s an election year and voters should decide. He only started splitting hairs about a senate majority now to move the goal posts

Your 2013 comment is re ed since that wasn’t an election year, Obama had just gotten re-elected, as in the voters had just decided.

[Will Hunting]

If Scalia died in 2013 why wouldn't he have nominated someone, this "don't nominate anyone cause election" wasn't even a thing that existed in 2013, also doesn't matter because 2013 isn't even an election year

MM didnt have a father figure growing up so no one ever taught him how to think rationally.

[Millennial_Messiah]

If Scalia died in 2013 why wouldn't he have nominated someone, this "don't nominate anyone cause election" wasn't even a thing that existed in 2013, also doesn't matter because 2013 isn't even an election year

Election year is irrelevant. The Senate didn't confirm Garland in 2016 because they had the Cons utional right not to, since the GOP had the majority they said no to Garland. Theoretically they could have still said no to anyone Hillary picked if Hillary won but the GOP retained the Senate majority.

The difference is, from 2007-2014 the Dems had the Senate majority, so they were the gatekeepers for all SCOTUS picks. That was their window. Scalia died in the GOP's window. So the Dems can stop being butthurt and crying "election year" foul when the Garland non-confirmation had nothing to do with "election year" and everything to do with Senate majority and timing.

[Will Hunting]

If what McConnell meant back in 2016 was “ you I have the senate majority so I’m going to make sure your appointments don’t make it to the floor for a vote even if that means we go a whole year with 8 Supreme Court justices” then that’s what he should have said.

[Will Hunting]

Election year is irrelevant. The Senate didn't confirm Garland in 2016 because they had the Cons utional right not to, since the GOP had the majority they said no to Garland. Theoretically they could have still said no to anyone Hillary picked if Hillary won but the GOP retained the Senate majority.

The difference is, from 2007-2014 the Dems had the Senate majority, so they were the gatekeepers for all SCOTUS picks. That was their window. Scalia died in the GOP's window. So the Dems can stop being butthurt and crying "election year" foul when the Garland non-confirmation had nothing to do with "election year" and everything to do with Senate majority and timing.

McConnell said Garland’s non-confirmation was specifically because it was an election year. You’re revising history.

[Millennial_Messiah]

If what McConnell meant back in 2016 was “ you I have the senate majority so I’m going to make sure your appointments don’t make it to the floor for a vote” then that’s what he should have said.

Well, that was the truth. Poorly disguised, and, he (and MSM) opened up a bad can of worms/precedent by talking about "election year" when the real reason was "senate majority".

[Will Hunting]

Well, that was the truth. Poorly disguised, and, he (and MSM) opened up a bad can of worms/precedent by talking about "election year" when the real reason was "senate majority".

Now that can of worms is coming home to roost. It probably won’t even matter, but it’s a hypocrisy sandwich conservatives will have to eat.