Current Events > Democrats should forbid Trump from choosing Kennedy's replacement

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
HylianFox 06/27/18 2:15:56 PM #1:	Just like the GOP did Obama when Scalia died But they won't, because the Dems are a bunch of spineless nitwits --- I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my homosexuals FUH-LAMING! - Homer Simpson i.imgur.com/a2EzoIs.gif i.imgur.com/rPcGRiP.gif <cite>HylianFox posted [p:904066182] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>Just like the GOP did Obama when Scalia died But they won't, because the Dems are a bunch of spineless nitwits</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
frozenshock 06/27/18 2:16:19 PM #2:	The senate rules were changed last year. --- I don't hate people, people hate me. <cite>frozenshock posted [p:904066209] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>The senate rules were changed last year.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 06/27/18 2:17:07 PM #3:	Hell, if they think it's viable to drag the process out a couple years and some change, why not? <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:904066259] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>Hell, if they think it's viable to drag the process out a couple years and some change, why not?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#4	Post #4 was unavailable or deleted.
southcoast09 06/27/18 2:17:32 PM #5:	shockthemonkey posted... They absolutely should and better if theyre able to. They cant. --- Stand for the anthem or sit for the game! <cite>southcoast09 posted [p:904066279] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>shockthemonkey posted...</cite> <quote>They absolutely should and better if theyre able to.</quote> They cant.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hortanz 06/27/18 2:18:07 PM #6:	They should but they won't --- https://imgur.com/JFmtaHB <cite>hortanz posted [p:904066310] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>They should but they won't</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarthAragorn 06/27/18 2:18:21 PM #7:	no --- A thousand eyes, and one. <cite>DarthAragorn posted [p:904066322] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>no</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kingdrake2 06/27/18 2:18:37 PM #8:	DarthAragorn posted... no --- I'm pretty much Stu from Rugrats making pudding at 4 in morning because I've lost control of my life - Polycosm <cite>kingdrake2 posted [p:904066341] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarthAragorn posted...</cite> <quote>no</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
cjsdowg 06/27/18 2:21:28 PM #9:	They don't have the balls. They didn't have the balls to stand to the Republicans when they were blocking Obama. --- Bender: Well, everybody, I just saved a turtle. What have you done with your lives? <cite>cjsdowg posted [p:904066516] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>They don't have the balls. They didn't have the balls to stand to the Republicans when they were blocking Obama.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 06/27/18 2:22:08 PM #10:	They don't have the numbers, but I'm not convinced they would if they did --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:904066563] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>They don't have the numbers, but I'm not convinced they would if they did</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 06/27/18 2:23:29 PM #11:	Antifar posted... They don't have the numbers, but I'm not convinced they would if they did They do have enough numbers to cock-block each and every nominee. That's how it used to be done. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:904066656] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>They don't have the numbers, but I'm not convinced they would if they did</quote> They do have enough numbers to cock-block each and every nominee. That's how it used to be done.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
voldothegr8 06/27/18 2:25:09 PM #12:	Did we soon forget the nuclear option? They can't anymore. --- Oda break tracker 2018- 3 (2) \| THE Ohio State: 11-2 \| Oakland Raiders: 6-10 Super Mario Maker Profile: 1237-0000-0073-02FE <cite>voldothegr8 posted [p:904066781] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>Did we soon forget the nuclear option? They can't anymore.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Southernfatman 06/27/18 2:27:11 PM #13:	Democrats woudn't if they could because they would want to "take the high road". A lot of Democratic politicians will still benefit financially from a conservative Supreme Court because a lot of them are as dirty as Republicans. Then they also get more talking points to convince people to vote for them. "Vote for us and maybe one day we will help turn things back around in the right direction". --- https://imgur.com/hslUvRN When I sin I sin real good. <cite>Southernfatman posted [p:904066916] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>Democrats woudn't if they could because they would want to "take the high road". A lot of Democratic politicians will still benefit financially from a conservative Supreme Court because a lot of them are as dirty as Republicans. Then they also get more talking points to convince people to vote for them. "Vote for us and maybe one day we will help turn things back around in the right direction".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
John_Galt 06/27/18 2:27:48 PM #14:	Not going to happen. Deal with it. --- Who is John Galt? <cite>John_Galt posted [p:904066954] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>Not going to happen. Deal with it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
creativerealms 06/27/18 2:30:53 PM #15:	They wont, for one thing they won't have the "election year excuse" and second the Democrats are incompetent. --- No sig. <cite>creativerealms posted [p:904067134] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>They wont, for one thing they won't have the "election year excuse" and second the Democrats are incompetent.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
J E S U S 06/27/18 2:31:36 PM #16:	Was it worth it to go all in on Hillary? --- imaginary <cite>J E S U S posted [p:904067174] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>Was it worth it to go all in on Hillary?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DundiesAward 06/27/18 2:32:51 PM #17:	John_Galt posted... Not going to happen. Deal with it. --- Black Pope <cite>DundiesAward posted [p:904067263] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>John_Galt posted...</cite> <quote>Not going to happen. Deal with it.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 06/27/18 2:33:36 PM #18:	It just blows my mind that there will never be any kind of ramifications for the Republicans ignoring Merrick Garland. They took a shit on their constitutional duties and are being rewarded for it more than they could have ever imagined. --- https://imgur.com/VeNBg https://imgur.com/gd5jC8q https://imgur.com/PKIy7 https://imgur.com/3p29JqP <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:904067313] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>It just blows my mind that there will never be any kind of ramifications for the Republicans ignoring Merrick Garland. They took a shit on their constitutional duties and are being rewarded for it more than they could have ever imagined.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AlephZero 06/27/18 2:35:35 PM #19:	does everyone on CE have a middle school understanding of american government --- "There is value in segregation." - qwertyman2002 01001100 01010101 01000101 00100000 00110100 00110000 00110010 <cite>AlephZero posted [p:904067452] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>does everyone on CE have a middle school understanding of american government</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#20	Post #20 was unavailable or deleted.
Darkman124 06/27/18 6:48:00 PM #21:	shockthemonkey posted... UnholyMudcrab posted... It just blows my mind that there will never be any kind of ramifications for the Republicans ignoring Merrick Garland. They took a shit on their constitutional duties and are being rewarded for it more than they could have ever imagined. Right? Its so fucking pathetic that they got fucking rewarded for that. blame the american people. most didn't vote at all. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:904083584] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>shockthemonkey posted...</cite> <quote><cite>UnholyMudcrab posted...</cite> <quote>It just blows my mind that there will never be any kind of ramifications for the Republicans ignoring Merrick Garland. They took a shit on their constitutional duties and are being rewarded for it more than they could have ever imagined.</quote> Right? Its so fucking pathetic that they got fucking rewarded for that.</quote> blame the american people. most didn't vote at all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BLAKUboy 06/27/18 6:51:44 PM #22:	creativerealms posted... They wont, for one thing they won't have the "election year excuse" It is an election year, though. --- Aeris dies if she takes more damage than her current HP - Panthera https://signavatar.com/26999_s.png <cite>BLAKUboy posted [p:904083828] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>creativerealms posted...</cite> <quote>They wont, for one thing they won't have the "election year excuse"</quote> It is an election year, though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ray_Dorset 06/27/18 6:53:32 PM #23:	There are other ways to regain a left-leaning majority on the court. There is no set limit on how many justices can be on the supreme court, so it's possible that a democratic president and senate could nominate and confirm additional justices. --- Owner of https://imgtc.com/ <cite>Ray_Dorset posted [p:904083940] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>There are other ways to regain a left-leaning majority on the court. There is no set limit on how many justices can be on the supreme court, so it's possible that a democratic president and senate could nominate and confirm additional justices.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tropicalwood 06/27/18 6:53:49 PM #24:	@UnholyMudcrab posted... It just blows my mind that there will never be any kind of ramifications for the Republicans ignoring Merrick Garland. They took a shit on their constitutional duties and are being rewarded for it more than they could have ever imagined. They have a duty to uphold the Constitution, which you and the rest of the Democrats refuse to do with all your repeal the second amendment talk and censorship. If the supreme court had been a democrat majority you know damn well they wouldn't acknowledge the right to bear. --- ayy lmao ayy lmao \|\| oaml oaml yya yya ayy lmao ayy lmao \|\| oaml oaml yya yya <cite>Tropicalwood posted [p:904083959] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>@UnholyMudcrab posted...</cite> <quote>It just blows my mind that there will never be any kind of ramifications for the Republicans ignoring Merrick Garland. They took a shit on their constitutional duties and are being rewarded for it more than they could have ever imagined.</quote> They have a duty to uphold the Constitution, which you and the rest of the Democrats refuse to do with all your repeal the second amendment talk and censorship. If the supreme court had been a democrat majority you know damn well they wouldn't acknowledge the right to bear.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ray_Dorset 06/27/18 6:54:45 PM #25:	Tropicalwood posted... @UnholyMudcrab posted... It just blows my mind that there will never be any kind of ramifications for the Republicans ignoring Merrick Garland. They took a shit on their constitutional duties and are being rewarded for it more than they could have ever imagined. They have a duty to uphold the Constitution, which you and the rest of the Democrats refuse to do with all your repeal the second amendment talk and censorship. Repealing the second amendment, that's a good one. --- Owner of https://imgtc.com/ <cite>Ray_Dorset posted [p:904084025] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tropicalwood posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@UnholyMudcrab posted...</cite> <quote>It just blows my mind that there will never be any kind of ramifications for the Republicans ignoring Merrick Garland. They took a shit on their constitutional duties and are being rewarded for it more than they could have ever imagined.</quote> They have a duty to uphold the Constitution, which you and the rest of the Democrats refuse to do with all your repeal the second amendment talk and censorship.</quote> Repealing the second amendment, that's a good one.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kazi1212 06/27/18 6:55:27 PM #26:	Judges, as opposed to almost all other political office, doesnt consistently vote based on partisan lines as much, theyre a bit more honorable and unbiased in doing their jobs, granted thats their job requirement. Lets hope thats true for whoever Trump nominates,its not like he would be beholden to Trump because judges have the job secured for life. --- I don't know my gimmick "Does that sound reasonable to you?" <cite>Kazi1212 posted [p:904084074] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>Judges, as opposed to almost all other political office, doesnt consistently vote based on partisan lines as much, theyre a bit more honorable and unbiased in doing their jobs, granted thats their job requirement. Lets hope thats true for whoever Trump nominates,its not like he would be beholden to Trump because judges have the job secured for life.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 06/27/18 7:03:01 PM #27:	Literally all this guy does is post conspiracy theories and vomit up irrelevant nonsense --- https://imgur.com/VeNBg https://imgur.com/gd5jC8q https://imgur.com/PKIy7 https://imgur.com/3p29JqP <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:904084509] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>Literally all this guy does is post conspiracy theories and vomit up irrelevant nonsense</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
spudger 06/27/18 7:05:24 PM #28:	frozenshock posted... The senate rules were changed last year. convenient --- -Only dead fish swim with the current http://error1355.com/ce/spudger.html <cite>spudger posted [p:904084634] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>frozenshock posted...</cite> <quote>The senate rules were changed last year.</quote> convenient</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tropicalwood 06/27/18 7:16:42 PM #29:	spudger posted... frozenshock posted... The senate rules were changed last year. convenient Chuck Schumer was going to nuke it like he did to the district judges anyways. --- ayy lmao ayy lmao \|\| oaml oaml yya yya ayy lmao ayy lmao \|\| oaml oaml yya yya <cite>Tropicalwood posted [p:904085286] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>spudger posted...</cite> <quote><cite>frozenshock posted...</cite> <quote>The senate rules were changed last year.</quote> convenient</quote> Chuck Schumer was going to nuke it like he did to the district judges anyways.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
foreverzero212 06/27/18 7:18:23 PM #30:	Democrats low key love everything Trump does and act like it's "taking the high road" when they don't block republican tactics, but it's actually called "taking the corporate bribes." Their sources of funding makes them appear spineless, but they're just actually ok with it. That's why the big networks attack Trump over saying naughty words instead of policy. Both sides want the same thing, but with their own tribe in charge. --- lions and panthers oh my <cite>foreverzero212 posted [p:904085381] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>Democrats low key love everything Trump does and act like it's "taking the high road" when they don't block republican tactics, but it's actually called "taking the corporate bribes." Their sources of funding makes them appear spineless, but they're just actually ok with it. That's why the big networks attack Trump over saying naughty words instead of policy. Both sides want the same thing, but with their own tribe in charge.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#31	Post #31 was unavailable or deleted.
#32	Post #32 was unavailable or deleted.
Anteaterking 06/28/18 1:21:01 AM #33:	Kazi1212 posted... Judges, as opposed to almost all other political office, doesnt consistently vote based on partisan lines as much, theyre a bit more honorable and unbiased in doing their jobs, granted thats their job requirement. Lets hope thats true for whoever Trump nominates,its not like he would be beholden to Trump because judges have the job secured for life. I mean that's the idea, but when he gets his nominees from a list prepared by the Heritage Foundation, partisan lines are hard to ignore. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:904104202] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kazi1212 posted...</cite> <quote>Judges, as opposed to almost all other political office, doesnt consistently vote based on partisan lines as much, theyre a bit more honorable and unbiased in doing their jobs, granted thats their job requirement. Lets hope thats true for whoever Trump nominates,its not like he would be beholden to Trump because judges have the job secured for life.</quote> I mean that's the idea, but when he gets his nominees from a list prepared by the Heritage Foundation, partisan lines are hard to ignore.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BWLurker 06/28/18 1:21:10 AM #34:	GregShmedley posted... spudger posted... frozenshock posted... The senate rules were changed last year. convenient What Senate rules? They nuked the filibuster <cite>BWLurker posted [p:904104211] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>GregShmedley posted...</cite> <quote><cite>spudger posted...</cite> <quote><cite>frozenshock posted...</cite> <quote>The senate rules were changed last year.</quote> convenient</quote> What Senate rules?</quote> They nuked the filibuster</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SideshowBob311 06/28/18 1:22:57 AM #35:	This is the fourth or fifth time I've heard this today, and I still don't understand it. How do people expect congressional democrats to "forbid" anything? They're a minority in both houses. Unless they're going to filibuster for 8 months straight, there's not a damn thing they can do. --- "Whether or not you can handle it, you have just heard another statement of the TRUTH." [WoT] - [Evil Republican] <cite>SideshowBob311 posted [p:904104275] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>This is the fourth or fifth time I've heard this today, and I still don't understand it. How do people expect congressional democrats to "forbid" anything? They're a minority in both houses. Unless they're going to filibuster for 8 months straight, there's not a damn thing they can do.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#36	Post #36 was unavailable or deleted.
BWLurker 06/28/18 1:26:09 AM #37:	Anteaterking posted... Kazi1212 posted... Judges, as opposed to almost all other political office, doesnt consistently vote based on partisan lines as much, theyre a bit more honorable and unbiased in doing their jobs, granted thats their job requirement. Lets hope thats true for whoever Trump nominates,its not like he would be beholden to Trump because judges have the job secured for life. I mean that's the idea, but when he gets his nominees from a list prepared by the Heritage Foundation, partisan lines are hard to ignore. The leading candidate Hardiman, actually seems like a reasonable pick. He's relatively conservative, but not a religious nut or a whackjob like Pryor. He's a much, much better pick than Gorsuch. <cite>BWLurker posted [p:904104393] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kazi1212 posted...</cite> <quote>Judges, as opposed to almost all other political office, doesnt consistently vote based on partisan lines as much, theyre a bit more honorable and unbiased in doing their jobs, granted thats their job requirement. Lets hope thats true for whoever Trump nominates,its not like he would be beholden to Trump because judges have the job secured for life.</quote> I mean that's the idea, but when he gets his nominees from a list prepared by the Heritage Foundation, partisan lines are hard to ignore.</quote> The leading candidate Hardiman, actually seems like a reasonable pick. He's relatively conservative, but not a religious nut or a whackjob like Pryor. He's a much, much better pick than Gorsuch.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 06/28/18 8:13:53 AM #38:	GregShmedley posted... But that was changed in 2013 by Democrats. only for district judges. it was then changed in 2017 by republicans for the supreme court and all other nominations. and in 2020, democrats will probably finish the process and change it for all laws so we can start the process of each new administration undoing everything every previous administration did trump has been chanting for the sitting GOP senate to do so, but they've resisted. they might not if they hold control in the election this fall --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:904114768] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>GregShmedley posted...</cite> <quote> But that was changed in 2013 by Democrats.</quote> only for district judges. it was then changed in 2017 by republicans for the supreme court and all other nominations. and in 2020, democrats will probably finish the process and change it for all laws so we can start the process of each new administration undoing everything every previous administration did trump has been chanting for the sitting GOP senate to do so, but they've resisted. they might not if they hold control in the election this fall</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Howl 06/28/18 8:23:27 AM #39:	Ray_Dorset posted... There are other ways to regain a left-leaning majority on the court. There is no set limit on how many justices can be on the supreme court, so it's possible that a democratic president and senate could nominate and confirm additional justices. This post is objectively false. Congress has to decide a set number of justices by law, and they decided on 9 in 1937. They would have to change that law to increase the number. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.5.1 <cite>Howl posted [p:904115032] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>Ray_Dorset posted...</cite> <quote>There are other ways to regain a left-leaning majority on the court. There is no set limit on how many justices can be on the supreme court, so it's possible that a democratic president and senate could nominate and confirm additional justices.</quote> This post is objectively false. Congress has to decide a set number of justices by law, and they decided on 9 in 1937. They would have to change that law to increase the number.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#40	Post #40 was unavailable or deleted.
Aloner 06/28/18 8:48:37 AM #41:	The ignorance ITT shows how we got into this mess. Everyone's got an opinion but barely anyone's informed. --- 1 line break(s), 160 characters allowed. <cite>Aloner posted [p:904115736] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>The ignorance ITT shows how we got into this mess. Everyone's got an opinion but barely anyone's informed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#42	Post #42 was unavailable or deleted.
Darkman124 06/28/18 10:42:36 AM #43:	GregShmedley posted... No, it was for all executive nominations, minus SC judges. The 2017 rule change eliminated the SC being the exception. appreciate the correction. know that i was aware dems had changed part of the rules. had forgotten it was also for all other executive nominations. trend remains towards a full removal of the filibuster next time the dems take congress. it's a good setup, too, because then the ping-pong "we invalidate everything you did!" practice can be blamed on democrats. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:904120453] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>GregShmedley posted...</cite> <quote>No, it was for all executive nominations, minus SC judges. The 2017 rule change eliminated the SC being the exception. </quote> appreciate the correction. know that i was aware dems had changed part of the rules. had forgotten it was also for all other executive nominations. trend remains towards a full removal of the filibuster next time the dems take congress. it's a good setup, too, because then the ping-pong "we invalidate everything you did!" practice can be blamed on democrats.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 06/28/18 11:13:57 AM #44:	Darkman124 posted... trend remains towards a full removal of the filibuster next time the dems take congress. Chuck Schumer says otherwise http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/schumer-is-secretly-sabotaging-the-next-democratic-president.html --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:904122035] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote>trend remains towards a full removal of the filibuster next time the dems take congress.</quote> Chuck Schumer says otherwise http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/schumer-is-secretly-sabotaging-the-next-democratic-president.html</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 06/28/18 11:17:03 AM #45:	Antifar posted... Darkman124 posted... trend remains towards a full removal of the filibuster next time the dems take congress. Chuck Schumer says otherwise http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/schumer-is-secretly-sabotaging-the-next-democratic-president.html he can say what he wants, the voters will be screaming for blood and he'll get primaried if he doesn't it's not like McConnell hasn't made deals and then immediately broken them after getting what he wanted. this would be no different --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:904122215] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote>trend remains towards a full removal of the filibuster next time the dems take congress.</quote> Chuck Schumer says otherwise http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/schumer-is-secretly-sabotaging-the-next-democratic-president.html</quote> he can say what he wants, the voters will be screaming for blood and he'll get primaried if he doesn't it's not like McConnell hasn't made deals and then immediately broken them after getting what he wanted. this would be no different</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 06/28/18 11:17:49 AM #46:	Schumer isn't up for re-election until 2022 --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:904122261] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>Schumer isn't up for re-election until 2022</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Coffeebeanz 06/28/18 11:18:14 AM #47:	Republicans did it for half a year Democrats would have to do it for two and a half years --- Physician [Internal Medicine] <cite>Coffeebeanz posted [p:904122288] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote>Republicans did it for half a year Democrats would have to do it for two and a half years</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 06/28/18 11:19:52 AM #48:	Antifar posted... Schumer isn't up for re-election until 2022 the dems won't take the senate until 2020 at the very earliest so that actually works --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:904122376] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>Schumer isn't up for re-election until 2022</quote> the dems won't take the senate until 2020 at the very earliest so that actually works</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 06/28/18 11:20:21 AM #49:	Coffeebeanz posted... Republicans did it for half a year Democrats would have to do it for two and a half years assuming they can somehow keep it from happening before they take office in jan, and assuming they get 51 seats, it's not exactly a problem the problem is getting the 51 seats Antifar posted... Schumer isn't up for re-election until 2022 i expect he's doing what is best for the party right now, and might do something entirely different in 2019. at this point i assume any promises being made are lies intended to screw anyone who is fronting their part of the deal this year --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:904122415] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>Republicans did it for half a year Democrats would have to do it for two and a half years</quote> assuming they can somehow keep it from happening before they take office in jan, and assuming they get 51 seats, it's not exactly a problem the problem is getting the 51 seats <cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>Schumer isn't up for re-election until 2022 </quote> i expect he's doing what is best for the party right now, and might do something entirely different in 2019. at this point i assume any promises being made are lies intended to screw anyone who is fronting their part of the deal this year</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SideshowBob311 06/28/18 12:30:59 PM #50:	Coffeebeanz posted... Republicans did it for half a year Democrats would have to do it for two and a half years They would have to literally filibuster for 8 months. While it's technically POSSIBLE, it would also grind the government to a halt, and earn them so much animosity it would be political suicide. --- "Whether or not you can handle it, you have just heard another statement of the TRUTH." [WoT] - [Evil Republican] <cite>SideshowBob311 posted [p:904126376] in Democrats ... [t:76755617]...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>Republicans did it for half a year Democrats would have to do it for two and a half years</quote> They would have to literally filibuster for 8 months. While it's technically POSSIBLE, it would also grind the government to a halt, and earn them so much animosity it would be political suicide.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > Democrats should forbid Trump from choosing Kennedy's replacement (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Democrats should forbid Trump from choosing Kennedy's replacement