The ****ing irony coming from McConnell

I was very open minded about the supreme court thing. I honestly thought the pubs were in a bit of a pickle here. But then Biden just went and ruined it for the dems due to his past statements. The Biden Rule is actually a pretty strong argument for the pubs. I just don't think there is the fervor from the left that I anticipated when the pubs would ultimately ignore the nomination. I've heard grumps from the usual folks, but other than that it's been kind of meh. I don't think there's a strong enough push for the pubs to need to make a move.
 
Do people purposely ignore what Biden said after he said what everyone brings up? And do they forget he actually confirmed and voted afterwards?
 
The Don said:
Do people purposely ignore what Biden said after he said what everyone brings up? And do they forget he actually confirmed and voted afterwards?
Click to expand...

It's the trump rule

Doesn't matter if it is factual or if there is evidence against said position. It doesn't matter

The "Biden rule" could be the dumbest "excuse" or "explanation" for this bs process ever
 
weso1 said:
I was very open minded about the supreme court thing. I honestly thought the pubs were in a bit of a pickle here. But then Biden just went and ruined it for the dems due to his past statements. The Biden Rule is actually a pretty strong argument for the pubs. I just don't think there is the fervor from the left that I anticipated when the pubs would ultimately ignore the nomination. I've heard grumps from the usual folks, but other than that it's been kind of meh. I don't think there's a strong enough push for the pubs to need to make a move.
Click to expand...

It's important to note that Biden did not prevail in his argument and that no nomination was pending when he made the remarks.

Biden's career has been marked by importune comments and massages. I don't view the Constitution as unmalleable public Scripture, but one shouldn't needlessly play around with it either and Biden was certainly guilty of that with his remarks.

I don't know who, if anyone, pays politically. That will likely play out in the campaign. If it starts to look like a drag on Republican Senators up for election in swing states that could possibly flip the Senate, my guess is McConnell will move on the nomination. Obama nomination of Garland was pretty much what I expected: moderate, white (though Jewish) male who would nonetheless "flip" the court on some issues and ensure the current position on some hot-button issues.
 
The Don said:
Do people purposely ignore what Biden said after he said what everyone brings up? And do they forget he actually confirmed and voted afterwards?
Click to expand...

What he said afterward didn't really contradict the portion of his statement that is currently being used by the GOP. I'm confused by your last point as to my knowledge there hasn't been an election year supreme court vacancy since Biden made that comment, but maybe I'm wrong on that.

Look, those of us who follow politics know what this is. If the situation was reversed the pubs would nominate a guy and the liberals wouldn't vote on it and the pubs would be crying instead of the dems.

But it's clear that Biden's comments have given the pubs in important weapon in this fight to use to convince the social media public that maybe it's ok for the pubs to block the nominee.

I'm just surprised that the general public seems to be pretty meh on this one. I can taste sav's and gold's salty tears on this one, but I just haven't seen much interest from more moderate folks. I think there's just an general meh attitude on this. Maybe I'm reading it wrong though.
 
weso1 said:
What he said afterward didn't really contradict the portion of his statement that is currently being used by the GOP. I'm confused by your last point as to my knowledge there hasn't been an election year supreme court vacancy since Biden made that comment, but maybe I'm wrong on that.

Look, those of us who follow politics know what this is. If the situation was reversed the pubs would nominate a guy and the liberals wouldn't vote on it and the pubs would be crying instead of the dems.

But it's clear that Biden's comments have given the pubs in important weapon in this fight to use to convince the social media public that maybe it's ok for the pubs to block the nominee.

I'm just surprised that the general public seems to be pretty meh on this one. I can taste sav's and gold's salty tears on this one, but I just haven't seen much interest from more moderate folks. I think there's just an general meh attitude on this. Maybe I'm reading it wrong though.
Click to expand...

I think initially it gives them something, but in the long run, it probably won't make much of a difference if you see a bunch of swing-state Republicans get nervous. Kirk in Illinois has already struck a moderate tone. if others like Ayotte in NH and Johnson in Wisconsin (rhymes!) start feeling some heat, they may urge action as well.
 
Republicans have played this wrong from the beginning. They should have used the Constitution as a hammer. The Constitution says the "advice and consent of the Senate". People ignore the Advice part and focus only on Consent. McConnell should have submitted a list of names to the President saying that was the Senate's advice and that those names would get confirmation hearings. If Obama picks someone else you claim it's Obama that's ignoring the Constitution by ignoring the advice of the Senate.

It's a complete crap argument but it at least throws enough mud in the water to keep things obscured.
 
MCCONNELL: Yes. I can't imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm in a lame duck session a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top