One party rule

[HDRider]

It's more of a desire to take a broader view of the issues

The broader view is the Democrats sent up a trial balloon. They want to see how it polls.

Biden stared a commission with everyone, but you understanding its forgone conclusion. Once the commission publishes it propaganda Pelosi will introduce the bill.

Desire on that.

 

[Ky hills]

I can only take them at their word.

Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) took to Twitter to addressed the death of 20-year old Daune Wright Tuesday calling for an 'end of policing, incarceration and militarization."

The Congresswoman wrote that policing in the U.S. is "inherently and intentionally racist" and that it "cannot be reformed.


"It wasn't an accident," tweeted Tlaib. "Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist. Daunte Wright was met with aggression and violence."

You are correct you can likely take as t their word that individuals of that faction within the Democratic Party hold those

The broader view is the Democrats sent up a trial balloon. They want to see how it polls.

Biden stared a commission with everyone, but you understanding its forgone conclusion. Once the commission publishes it propaganda Pelosi will introduce the bill.

Desire on that.

I don't see it as a foregone conclusion. It could turn out that way, but I still think it is unlikely. What I do see is that there are some elected to offices that are very far to the left. And yes at least some of those individuals do support several of the things you mentioned in the op. My point in responding to that is that those are not representative of everyone in the party. Granted their influence is growing and will likely be more influential in the future. The same is happening in the opposite side of the aisle as well. It's a political campaign policy employed by both sides to try and portray all members of the other party as one and the same with those far out on the respective wings. A lot of what we hear is political spin on the issues at hand as well.

 

[sstterry]

Who ended the filibuster on naming judges? Who is trying to end the filibuster on passing legislation?

Name one thing Republicans have done to negate two party rule.

I named many that Democrats are working on to become the single party system.

McConnell stated publically in 2013 that he, as the minority leader would not allow Obama to appoint any judges, period (Which was wrong). In retaliation, Reid and the Democrats ended the filibuster on all judges, except the Supreme Court (which was also wrong). In 2016 Scalia dies in Feburary. Obama nominates Garland Merrick and Mitch McConnel says that he will not let a vote be held. His excuse was that it was an election year and no party should appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election year( an argument first made by Biden in 1992 for a June confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice in an election year). He and almost every single Republican at that time gave their word that was the new rule that no Supreme Court vacancy would be filled during an election year and everyone should abide by it. Mcconnell ended the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees in 2017.

Ginsberg dies in September less than two months before an election that most people in Washington knew that Trump was going to lose. McConnell, also knowing that his Senate majority was in danger, said forget what I promised, we are going to jam through Barrett who had zero experience when she was appointed to the Circuit Court and had only been on the Appellate Court for three years.

You can understand why this has become such a mess, but to say either party is totally responsible is simply wrong and ignorant of the facts. There are enough moderate Democrats in the Senate that there will be no Supreme Court-packing. The bi-partisan Commission appointed by Biden simply is to study the Court system as a whole (they are not even directed to make any recommendations). Biden is not in favor of packing the Court and it will not happen. The appointment of the Commission is to appease the more liberal wing of his party (sort of like when you hear about a bill being sent to a "summer study committee", it is usually a place where it quietly dies.) It is a dog whistle for both sides to campaign on.

With all that said, expect Breyer to retire and Biden's nominee to be jammed through because that is the new normal. I don't believe that this Court is quite as Conservative as most think. Kavanaugh was Kennedy's hand-picked successor (which is also wrong but that is what happened). Thus far Kavanaugh has proven to be more of a moderate vote than most expected. It is too early to tell about Barret because she has no track record yet.

 

[D2Cat]

McConnell stated publically in 2013 that he, as the minority leader would not allow Obama to appoint any judges, period (Which was wrong). In retaliation, Reid and the Democrats ended the filibuster on all judges, except the Supreme Court (which was also wrong). In 2016 Scalia dies in Feburary. Obama nominates Garland Merrick and Mitch McConnel says that he will not let a vote be held. His excuse was that it was an election year and no party should appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election year( an argument first made by Biden in 1992 for a June confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice in an election year). He and almost every single Republican at that time gave their word that was the new rule that no Supreme Court vacancy would be filled during an election year and everyone should abide by it. Mcconnell ended the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees in 2017.

Ginsberg dies in September less than two months before an election that most people in Washington knew that Trump was going to lose. McConnell, also knowing that his Senate majority was in danger, said forget what I promised, we are going to jam through Barrett who had zero experience when she was appointed to the Circuit Court and had only been on the Appellate Court for three years.

You can understand why this has become such a mess, but to say either party is totally responsible is simply wrong and ignorant of the facts. There are enough moderate Democrats in the Senate that there will be no Supreme Court-packing. The bi-partisan Commission appointed by Biden simply is to study the Court system as a whole (they are not even directed to make any recommendations). Biden is not in favor of packing the Court and it will not happen. The appointment of the Commission is to appease the more liberal wing of his party (sort of like when you hear about a bill being sent to a "summer study committee", it is usually a place where it quietly dies.) It is a dog whistle for both sides to campaign on.

With all that said, expect Breyer to retire and Biden's nominee to be jammed through because that is the new normal. I don't believe that this Court is quite as Conservative as most think. Kavanaugh was Kennedy's hand-picked successor (which is also wrong but that is what happened). Thus far Kavanaugh has proven to be more of a moderate vote than most expected. It is too early to tell about Barret because she has no track record yet.

What I highlighted can only be a opinion. Biden couldn't gather a crowd to listen to him campaign, yet when the votes were tallied he had more votes then Obama had received. The 30K folks that would gather to hear Trump in 25 deg weather indicated his popularity, so how did most of the people in Washington know Biden was going to win?

 

[HDRider]

Buy votes - Think Universal Basic Income

 

[HDRider]

McConnell stated publicly in 2013 that he, as the minority leader would not allow Obama to appoint any judges, period (Which was wrong). In retaliation, Reid and the Democrats ended the filibuster on all judges, except the Supreme Court (which was also wrong).

Can you show that direct quote?

Do you support radical court rules we see so often from the 9th Circuit such as:

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that there is no right to carry a gun in public.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 7-4 ruling rejected a challenge to Hawaii's requirement that residents must pass an application to have weapons outside the home."

 

[3waycross]

McConnell stated publically in 2013 that he, as the minority leader would not allow Obama to appoint any judges, period (Which was wrong). In retaliation, Reid and the Democrats ended the filibuster on all judges, except the Supreme Court (which was also wrong). In 2016 Scalia dies in Feburary. Obama nominates Garland Merrick and Mitch McConnel says that he will not let a vote be held. His excuse was that it was an election year and no party should appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election year( an argument first made by Biden in 1992 for a June confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice in an election year). He and almost every single Republican at that time gave their word that was the new rule that no Supreme Court vacancy would be filled during an election year and everyone should abide by it. Mcconnell ended the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees in 2017.

Ginsberg dies in September less than two months before an election that most people in Washington knew that Trump was going to lose. McConnell, also knowing that his Senate majority was in danger, said forget what I promised, we are going to jam through Barrett who had zero experience when she was appointed to the Circuit Court and had only been on the Appellate Court for three years.

You can understand why this has become such a mess, but to say either party is totally responsible is simply wrong and ignorant of the facts. There are enough moderate Democrats in the Senate that there will be no Supreme Court-packing. The bi-partisan Commission appointed by Biden simply is to study the Court system as a whole (they are not even directed to make any recommendations). Biden is not in favor of packing the Court and it will not happen. The appointment of the Commission is to appease the more liberal wing of his party (sort of like when you hear about a bill being sent to a "summer study committee", it is usually a place where it quietly dies.) It is a dog whistle for both sides to campaign on.

With all that said, expect Breyer to retire and Biden's nominee to be jammed through because that is the new normal. I don't believe that this Court is quite as Conservative as most think. Kavanaugh was Kennedy's hand-picked successor (which is also wrong but that is what happened). Thus far Kavanaugh has proven to be more of a moderate vote than most expected. It is too early to tell about Barret because she has no track record yet.

and there lies the lie and the irony.....the lie that Kavanaugh was satan by the long dem knives and the irony that they are once again exposed for their hypocrisy...btw if you're going to quote me don't massage my words or delete them to suit your purpose

 

[alacowman1]

I can only take them at their word.

Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) took to Twitter to addressed the death of 20-year old Daune Wright Tuesday calling for an 'end of policing, incarceration and militarization."

The Congresswoman wrote that policing in the U.S. is "inherently and intentionally racist" and that it "cannot be reformed.


"It wasn't an accident," tweeted Tlaib. "Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist. Daunte Wright was met with aggression and violence."

Actually He was met with law inforcement..and didn't want to be law unforced..and the freedom to live the thug life he became fond of..

 

[sstterry]

and there lies the lie and the irony.....the lie that Kavanaugh was satan by the long dem knives and the irony that they are once again exposed for their hypocrisy...btw if you're going to quote me don't massage my words or delete them to suit your purpose

I don't see anywhere above that I did quote you at all?

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

I did and in the old days you would have been banned for that.

Doubt it Stan.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

McConnell stated publically in 2013 that he, as the minority leader would not allow Obama to appoint any judges, period (Which was wrong). In retaliation, Reid and the Democrats ended the filibuster on all judges, except the Supreme Court (which was also wrong). In 2016 Scalia dies in Feburary. Obama nominates Garland Merrick and Mitch McConnel says that he will not let a vote be held. His excuse was that it was an election year and no party should appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election year( an argument first made by Biden in 1992 for a June confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice in an election year). He and almost every single Republican at that time gave their word that was the new rule that no Supreme Court vacancy would be filled during an election year and everyone should abide by it. Mcconnell ended the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees in 2017.

Ginsberg dies in September less than two months before an election that most people in Washington knew that Trump was going to lose. McConnell, also knowing that his Senate majority was in danger, said forget what I promised, we are going to jam through Barrett who had zero experience when she was appointed to the Circuit Court and had only been on the Appellate Court for three years.

You can understand why this has become such a mess, but to say either party is totally responsible is simply wrong and ignorant of the facts. There are enough moderate Democrats in the Senate that there will be no Supreme Court-packing. The bi-partisan Commission appointed by Biden simply is to study the Court system as a whole (they are not even directed to make any recommendations). Biden is not in favor of packing the Court and it will not happen. The appointment of the Commission is to appease the more liberal wing of his party (sort of like when you hear about a bill being sent to a "summer study committee", it is usually a place where it quietly dies.) It is a dog whistle for both sides to campaign on.

With all that said, expect Breyer to retire and Biden's nominee to be jammed through because that is the new normal. I don't believe that this Court is quite as Conservative as most think. Kavanaugh was Kennedy's hand-picked successor (which is also wrong but that is what happened). Thus far Kavanaugh has proven to be more of a moderate vote than most expected. It is too early to tell about Barret because she has no track record yet.

Yup, you sound like a moderate Republican, lol.

 

[sstterry]

What I highlighted can only be a opinion. Biden couldn't gather a crowd to listen to him campaign, yet when the votes were tallied he had more votes then Obama had received. The 30K folks that would gather to hear Trump in 25 deg weather indicated his popularity, so how did most of the people in Washington know Biden was going to win?

The polls were pretty clear and Trump's approval numbers never got above 50%. For his four years, he has the lowest overall approval numbers in history. As to the crowds, that means very little in that we were in the middle of a pandemic and Biden did not have the "rallies" that Trump so loves. The pollsters totally missed it in 2016. But historically as a whole, they have been pretty accurate. I am just telling you the facts.

 

[sstterry]

Yup, you sound like a moderate Republican, lol.

What fact above is untrue and please provide a source. Your labels mean very little to me.

 

[callmefence]

Did you or did you not ask a Moderator to instruct me to stop calling you by your name?

That's hilarious and ironic....I'm surprised he hasn't requested this be deleted... erased for ever...lol

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

What fact above is untrue and please provide a source. Your labels mean very little to me.

You identified yourself as a Republican and time has shown that to be untrue.

 

[sstterry]

You identified yourself as a Republican and time has shown that to be untrue.

If a label is important to you that is fine. I was known as an East Tennessee moderate Republican but when Trump was elected I no longer identified as that. As you know, in Tennessee there is no party registration so it means very little. Call me what you will, it is just a label.

 

[D2Cat]

The polls were pretty clear and Trump's approval numbers never got above 50%. For his four years, he has the lowest overall approval numbers in history. As to the crowds, that means very little in that we were in the middle of a pandemic and Biden did not have the "rallies" that Trump so loves. The pollsters totally missed it in 2016. But historically as a whole, they have been pretty accurate. I am just telling you the facts.

At about 1:20 you can get in idea of how their predictions have been.

This is more entertaining. You can take it to the bank!

 

[sstterry]

At about 1:20 you can get in idea of how their predictions have been.

This is more entertaining. You can take it to the bank!

As I said, they totally missed it in 2016.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

If a label is important to you that is fine. I was known as an East Tennessee moderate Republican but when Trump was elected I no longer identified as that. As you know, in Tennessee there is no party registration so it means very little. Call me what you will, it is just a label.

Where do you stand on the issues and that will define you:
1) Open borders?
2) Abortion on demand?
3) Voter ID?
4) Amnesty for illegal aliens?
5) Packing the Supreme Court?
6) Abolishing the filibuster?
7) DC statehood?
8) Defending the Second Amendment?

This is a good start, I'll have more.

Answer truthfully if you're capable.

 

[greybeard]

Among the things 'they' totally missed was much of the nation's total disdain for HRC.