Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

There shall be no celebrating! We are not leftists.

sounds like a bunch of nazis branding anyone with different politics like that. Anyone who says "leftists" like that is a moron. we don't eat babies like those leftists do, do we?

They are just making fun of people like you, but go ahead and keep crying.
But no, we don't eat babies, support pedos, or take over racial equality movements as an excuse to burn cities either.

General destruction of welfare, Roy Moore just as an immediate and recent example, all/blue lives matter and related horseshit. Pull the other one, primary source of U.S. domestic terrorism

[Starver]

But no, we don't eat babies, support pedos, or take over racial equality movements as an excuse to burn cities either.

One could say 'you' do. Lack of post-natal support, a 'fair' share of creepy-type people and plenty of evidence of agents provocateur lighting the touchpaper.

I've got no direct skin in this game, I'm viewing this from the sidelines and though the US doesn't have much of a Political Left (no, not even Sanders) from my perspective I gotta say that the Lincolnian "of the people, by the people, for the people" isn't getting much more than lip-service in some quarters (and barely more than that in others, but with clear air between those and othe first lot).

And everyone's going to claim that they are the ones on the true path. And most are therefore fooling themselves

[MasterFancyPants]

No one who supports him is gonna complain about it.

And if that doesn't bother you, guess what -- you're part of the problem.

I think what you mean is that anyone who doesn't agree with or submit to you is 'part of the problem'
If the situation was reversed. Clinton as president, Dem controlled senate. Would you be advocating to hold off right now?

In my workplace, there are two Republican voters I’m aware of that appear to think Democrats want to tear newborns from their mothers’ arms and ritually sacrifice them in the name of pro-choice legislation.

On the one hand, I want to challenge them on this to see what they say (by asking them to name one politician who has said late-term abortion should be the law) but on the other hand, ignorance is bliss.

Kathy Tran

There shall be no celebrating! We are not leftists.

sounds like a bunch of nazis branding anyone with different politics like that. Anyone who says "leftists" like that is a moron. we don't eat babies like those leftists do, do we?

They are just making fun of people like you, but go ahead and keep crying.
But no, we don't eat babies, support pedos, or take over racial equality movements as an excuse to burn cities either.

You're pretty close to a QAnon, i can't take it seriously XD

Maybe you're one rung above those people who actually believe the hoax stories about Antifa starting the wildfires.

Haven't really followed the wild fires, but how exactly do you explain this? Guy claims to be affiliated with those groups and gets arrested for starting fires.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGLep-1ky8I&ab_channel=KING5

[RedKing]

No one who supports him is gonna complain about it.

And if that doesn't bother you, guess what -- you're part of the problem.

I think what you mean is that anyone who doesn't agree with or submit to you is 'part of the problem'

I think you can take your words out of my mouth and shove them up your ass.

If the situation was reversed. Clinton as president, Dem controlled senate. Would you be advocating to hold off right now?

If the Merrick Garland thing had never happened, no. But once you've set a precedent, you can't just ignore it the next time it comes up because it's inconvenient for you without being a HUGE hypocritical piece of shit. And if you're okay with your side being huge hypocritical pieces of shit because you like the payoff, then yes -- you are part of the problem and also a hypocritical piece of shit.


And to clarify, if McConnell hadn't been a total cuntwaffle in 2016 and had allowed the nomination to go forward, then I'd absolutely oppose Democrats trying to stall to keep Trump from making a selection. Even though the Garland nomination came up 11 MONTHS prior to election day, and this is 45 DAYS out.

[MasterFancyPants]

I think you can take your words out of my mouth and shove them up your ass.

Little too close to home?

If the Merrick Garland thing had never happened, no. But once you've set a precedent, you can't just ignore it the next time it comes up because it's inconvenient for you without being a HUGE hypocritical piece of shit. And if you're okay with your side being huge hypocritical pieces of shit because you like the payoff, then yes -- you are part of the problem and also a hypocritical piece of shit.

A "no" would have sufficed.

Anyway I'm out, you guys can go back to circle jerking now.

Final word, don't hate on RGB cause she did what she thought was best.

[RedKing]

I think you can take your words out of my mouth and shove them up your ass.

Little too close to home?

No, I just intensely dislike smarmy jackasses projecting what they think onto what I've said.

If the Merrick Garland thing had never happened, no. But once you've set a precedent, you can't just ignore it the next time it comes up because it's inconvenient for you without being a HUGE hypocritical piece of shit. And if you're okay with your side being huge hypocritical pieces of shit because you like the payoff, then yes -- you are part of the problem and also a hypocritical piece of shit.

A "no" would have sufficed.

I know it's a difficult concept for you, but context is important.

Anyway I'm out, you guys can go back to circle jerking now.

Cool. Have fun playing in traffic.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Have fun being hunted for sport in the ecocide!

[Reelya]

As an interesting note, the attorney who gave Epstein an out on prosecution back in 2008 was also Trump's secretary for labor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Acosta

[RedKing]

Have fun being hunted for sport in the ecocide!

Hey now, I don't hunt for sport. I'll be sure to use all the parts, just like the Native Americans. If CataclysmDDA and DF taught me anything, it's 101 uses for a corpse.

EDIT: No, Acosta *was* SecLabor. He resigned last year (precisely because of what you're pointing out). Eugene Scalia (son of former Justice Antonin Scalia) is the guy in there now.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As an interesting note, the attorney who gave Epstein an out on prosecution back in 2008 is now Trump's secretary for labor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Acosta

He resigned 2 months ago, I guess having that guy on board going into an election would have been bad.

yes

almost as bad as if the candidate were in Epstein's black book and a long time associate on camera of both him and Maxwell, and also said on the radio that he likes his girls almost as young as Epstein

But you know how it is, Dems gonna Dem...

[Dostoevsky]

Not surprised to hear that some Republicans (those up for reelection and in tight races, for sure) are saying they won't vote before the election. While McConnell had already made it clear months/years ago that he wouldn't hold off in this scenario, individual Republicans hadn't necessarily done so. A Gardner, Collins, etc. or the like.

Of course, lame duck is likely another story. If they win they'll get 6 years for people to forget about the flip, if they lose then they have relatively little to lose.

Regardless, I believe we're at a point where it'd have to be the fastest nomination process in history in order to get a vote before the election.


And MSH, on the Gorsuch bit you mentioned, Obama couldn't really have pressed the issue any more than he did. There was literally nothing (legal) he could do to make them process the nomination further, I'm pretty sure. It's not like other types of nominations where presidents can get cheeky with 'acting' or temporary shenanigans.

Haven't really followed the wild fires, but how exactly do you explain this? Guy claims to be affiliated with those groups and gets arrested for starting fires.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGLep-1ky8I&ab_channel=KING5

The video here doesn't say anything about the person's potential affiliations/reasons. Do you have a source for the further bit? (And no, I'm not going to count random Youtube comments as a source, anymore than I would ever rely on them.)

[Reelya]

Sorry got the date wrong, was Jul 2019 not Jul 2020, but still i'm kinda sure it's the the sort of thing that would be a smoking gun to anyone on the 'Q' end of the spectrum.

[RedKing]

Not surprised to hear that some Republicans (those up for reelection and in tight races, for sure) are saying they won't vote before the election. While McConnell had already made it clear months/years ago that he wouldn't hold off in this scenario, individual Republicans hadn't necessarily done so. A Gardner, Collins, etc. or the like.

Of course, lame duck is likely another story. If they win they'll get 6 years for people to forget about the flip, if they lose then they have relatively little to lose.

Regardless, I believe we're at a point where it'd have to be the fastest nomination process in history in order to get a vote before the election.

I believe Murkowski (R-AK) is one of the ones who's saying she won't vote for a nominee prior to the election. Though as you said, there's a big difference between "before the election" and "before Inauguration". Though McConnell would have a much harder time justifying his already-shit argument if Biden won and/or the Dems flip the Senate. But still he'll try. Chuck Grassley is the other.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/08/supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg-mcconnell-murkowski-grassley.html

Though it's also worth noting that this was 6 weeks ago, when it was a hypothetical. Now that it's a reality, will they stand up to the immense pressure that will be coming their way? And more importantly, will two more join them? Susan Collins will probably pull a Susan Collins (i.e. hem and haw and say she has serious concerns about it and then cave and vote yes anyways) so I wouldn't count on her.

[Maximum Spin]

It's hilarious to me that people still have enough wishful thinking to believe that "America is in decline".

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And MSH, on the Gorsuch bit you mentioned, Obama couldn't really have pressed the issue any more than he did. There was literally nothing (legal) he could do to make them process the nomination further, I'm pretty sure. It's not like other types of nominations where presidents can get cheeky with 'acting' or temporary shenanigans.

Things that Obama could have done:

- Not listen to Biden's stupid fucking advice on trying to appease a death cult capitalist with Gorsuch and spend time on more productive things

- Hold a speech every day calling McConnell a criminal for not doing his job as Senate Leader

- Send nominee after nominee while doing this, refuse to let it leave the news cycle

- Refuse to sign any bills until the most pressing business of filling the Supreme Court vacancy is dealt with

- Actually charge McConnell with any of the many crimes he has surely committed in his role and remove him

- Call upon the states for an Article V Convention to amend the Constitution to force McConnell to do his job or preferably not involve him making any decisions

- Illegally appoint a Justice anyway under the Unitary Executive Theory the GOP likes so much, because McConnell has chosen to not offer the "advice and consent" of the Senate and thus given up the Senate's ability to block the nominee.


Come to think of it, I will also now be blaming Obama for not having Trump arrested when he was still a private citizen.