Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So what great dangers did he pose to the public simply by getting elected, because he wasn't one of them? Them is who we need to get rid of in Washington. You just can't admit it's all about politics and nothing else. The funny thing is that everything they've tried hasn't worked, and all they're really doing is pissing off voters.
He is a overall danger to our republic. And you have missed the consistent examples he shows of why. You claim everything that has been tried has not worked. You are wrong. Trump has obstructed justice by using the courts to litigate anything or any legal process against him because he knows courts do not work fast.
Impeachment is for violations of high crime and misdemeanors, not because you don't like the guy. That's a dictatorship which apparently, the communists are now turning to.
Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. The dictator thinks he is above the law so he obstructs the law. And that is what Trump is doing.
Yes, you lie under oath to a judge, that's a felony called perjury.
And when you refuse and have others refuse subpoenas from the congress that's called an impeachable offense.
Imecile, you didn't follow Biden's lead. You didn't support holding off on confirmation hearing for s few months until after the election.... you supported cancelling the president's Constitutional obligation of appointing a replacement for nearly the entire last year of his term. That denied the will of the voters, who you only care about now, for their choice of president to appoint a replacement for up to four years of his term, not three. And for no rational reason.LMAO Joe Biden invented the idea of delaying SCOTUS nominations until after the upcoming elections then you people bitch when we follow your lead. RIGGING the SCOTUS is entirely another matter. Its not our fault you idiots ran Hillary and lost. So you suffer the consequences. If you are committed to RIG the SCOTUS then Trump should go ahead and nominate another 10 SCOTUS justices now and confirm 10 hard core conservatives to the court. After all you are okay with RIGGING the SCOTUS right? Or are only Dem's allowed to RIG it.
So now that the right has stopped to that level to stack that court, the left can too.
A few months? Biden said a few seasons.
Liar. It was 4 months before the election, one of which, Congress was on recess. And he suggested the Senate wait until after the election to convene confirmation hearings. That's 3 months the Senate would wait. WTF did you hear putting off hearings for a few "seasons?"
From his mouth. He said the preceding fall and summer.
He said no such thing. You're fucking crazy.
On September 25, 1992, little more than 4 months before the election, Biden suggested the president hold off nominating a replacement until after the election. That's the following 4 months, not the preceding fall and summer. Emphasis mine...
"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.
"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed." ~ Joe Biden, 9.25.1992
So unlike Republicans in 2016 who denied the sitting president confirmation hearings, Biden suggested the president wait to nominate someone.
Unlike Republicans in 2016 who held up a replacement for nearly all of Obama's final year, Biden suggested waiting 4 months.
Unlike Republicans in 2016 who said Obama would not get to appoint another replacement, Biden suggested Bush would get to nominate someone the Senate would consider.
Unlike Republicans in 2016 who actually did deny a sitting president nearly 25% of his term to appoint a USSC justice, Biden spoke only of a hypothetical which never actually happened.
"It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9"Like Republicans. Why do you think it's ok for Republicans to stack the Supreme Court but not ok for Democrats to do that?They might. But that's the Democrat motto: If you can't win, cheat.
Because the Republicans are not changing anything about the court. They simply waited until they had the opportunity. Democrats want to change the court by changing the amount of people on it.
View attachment 284988
If we need to expand the SCOTUS Trump should do so now and nominate 3-4 new SCOTUS justices. Right libs? Watch them shit themselves.
It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9.
Democrats love when its their turn to win, but have a huge problem when the opponents win at the same game. When Democrats lose, it's time to change the game entirely.
It happened during the Bush/ Gore race where nearly the entire country had to spend God knows how many millions by replacing punch card machines with electronic. Then when Kerry lost, they blamed it on the Diebold company because Bush had associations with them. So once again, we had to spend God knows how many millions to replace the Diebold machines, even though it was proven those machines had nothing to do with the outcome.
They based it on exit polls, which clearly showed Kerry beating Trump. So then they wanted to have us count votes by using exit polling.
Now that Trump lost the popular vote, a few states changed their electoral college system to winner takes all, that is to say, make the popular vote manipulate the electoral college vote.
Democrats are the sorest losers we have in this country. It's not a wonder why liberal schools stopped keeping scores in sporting events, and got rid of dodge ball in gym class.
No? It's nothing like that. That would be against the rules. Adding seats to the Supreme Court is not against the rules.
So? Both are methods of stacking the court. It matters not that one changes the number of justices while the other doesn't. The end game is still the same. And there's certainly nothing etched in stone that we have to have 9 justices. We've had other numbers over the years.Like Republicans. Why do you think it's ok for Republicans to stack the Supreme Court but not ok for Democrats to do that?And Democrats will at some point get the opportunity to repay the favor by adding seats to that bench. That's my point.Fine we cheated Dems out of a SCOTUS nomination, sucks to be you. lol
They might. But that's the Democrat motto: If you can't win, cheat.
Because the Republicans are not changing anything about the court. They simply waited until they had the opportunity. Democrats want to change the court by changing the amount of people on it.
View attachment 284988
What's good for Republicans is good for Democrats.
The US constitution says impeachment is preformed in "the house of representatives"...not by 4 angry democrats in secret meetings.
For the same reason Republicans denied Obama his Constitutional privilege of appointing a justice, to stack the court. I never gave any other reason. I'm still baffled why you think it's ok for Republicans to stack the court but then you cry like a little girl at the notion of Democrats doing it?"It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9"Like Republicans. Why do you think it's ok for Republicans to stack the Supreme Court but not ok for Democrats to do that?
Because the Republicans are not changing anything about the court. They simply waited until they had the opportunity. Democrats want to change the court by changing the amount of people on it.
View attachment 284988
If we need to expand the SCOTUS Trump should do so now and nominate 3-4 new SCOTUS justices. Right libs? Watch them shit themselves.
It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9.
Democrats love when its their turn to win, but have a huge problem when the opponents win at the same game. When Democrats lose, it's time to change the game entirely.
It happened during the Bush/ Gore race where nearly the entire country had to spend God knows how many millions by replacing punch card machines with electronic. Then when Kerry lost, they blamed it on the Diebold company because Bush had associations with them. So once again, we had to spend God knows how many millions to replace the Diebold machines, even though it was proven those machines had nothing to do with the outcome.
They based it on exit polls, which clearly showed Kerry beating Trump. So then they wanted to have us count votes by using exit polling.
Now that Trump lost the popular vote, a few states changed their electoral college system to winner takes all, that is to say, make the popular vote manipulate the electoral college vote.
Democrats are the sorest losers we have in this country. It's not a wonder why liberal schools stopped keeping scores in sporting events, and got rid of dodge ball in gym class.
No? It's nothing like that. That would be against the rules. Adding seats to the Supreme Court is not against the rules.
Really? So why would the Democrats want to do that? Can you give us the reason if not because of power loss?
You must have a reading disorder. I said Democrats can do it next time they control the Executive branch and the Congress. Where exactly do you see trump fitting into that picture?So? Both are methods of stacking the court. It matters not that one changes the number of justices while the other doesn't. The end game is still the same. And there's certainly nothing etched in stone that we have to have 9 justices. We've had other numbers over the years.Like Republicans. Why do you think it's ok for Republicans to stack the Supreme Court but not ok for Democrats to do that?And Democrats will at some point get the opportunity to repay the favor by adding seats to that bench. That's my point.
They might. But that's the Democrat motto: If you can't win, cheat.
Because the Republicans are not changing anything about the court. They simply waited until they had the opportunity. Democrats want to change the court by changing the amount of people on it.
View attachment 284988
What's good for Republicans is good for Democrats.
Fine, then write to your commie friends and tell them to pass that in the House. Then Trump will nominate several conservative judges, and then you'll be happy.
For the same reason Republicans denied Obama his Constitutional privilege of appointing a justice, to stack the court. I never gave any other reason. I'm still baffled why you think it's ok for Republicans to stack the court but then you cry like a little girl at the notion of Democrats doing it?"It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9"Because the Republicans are not changing anything about the court. They simply waited until they had the opportunity. Democrats want to change the court by changing the amount of people on it.
View attachment 284988
If we need to expand the SCOTUS Trump should do so now and nominate 3-4 new SCOTUS justices. Right libs? Watch them shit themselves.
It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9.
Democrats love when its their turn to win, but have a huge problem when the opponents win at the same game. When Democrats lose, it's time to change the game entirely.
It happened during the Bush/ Gore race where nearly the entire country had to spend God knows how many millions by replacing punch card machines with electronic. Then when Kerry lost, they blamed it on the Diebold company because Bush had associations with them. So once again, we had to spend God knows how many millions to replace the Diebold machines, even though it was proven those machines had nothing to do with the outcome.
They based it on exit polls, which clearly showed Kerry beating Trump. So then they wanted to have us count votes by using exit polling.
Now that Trump lost the popular vote, a few states changed their electoral college system to winner takes all, that is to say, make the popular vote manipulate the electoral college vote.
Democrats are the sorest losers we have in this country. It's not a wonder why liberal schools stopped keeping scores in sporting events, and got rid of dodge ball in gym class.
No? It's nothing like that. That would be against the rules. Adding seats to the Supreme Court is not against the rules.
Really? So why would the Democrats want to do that? Can you give us the reason if not because of power loss?
Imecile, you didn't follow Biden's lead. You didn't support holding off on confirmation hearing for s few months until after the election.... you supported cancelling the president's Constitutional obligation of appointing a replacement for nearly the entire last year of his term. That denied the will of the voters, who you only care about now, for their choice of president to appoint a replacement for up to four years of his term, not three. And for no rational reason.LMAO Joe Biden invented the idea of delaying SCOTUS nominations until after the upcoming elections then you people bitch when we follow your lead. RIGGING the SCOTUS is entirely another matter. Its not our fault you idiots ran Hillary and lost. So you suffer the consequences. If you are committed to RIG the SCOTUS then Trump should go ahead and nominate another 10 SCOTUS justices now and confirm 10 hard core conservatives to the court. After all you are okay with RIGGING the SCOTUS right? Or are only Dem's allowed to RIG it.
So now that the right has stopped to that level to stack that court, the left can too.
A few months? Biden said a few seasons.
Liar. It was 4 months before the election, one of which, Congress was on recess. And he suggested the Senate wait until after the election to convene confirmation hearings. That's 3 months the Senate would wait. WTF did you hear putting off hearings for a few "seasons?"
From his mouth. He said the preceding fall and summer.
He said no such thing. You're fucking crazy.
On September 25, 1992, little more than 4 months before the election, Biden suggested the president hold off nominating a replacement until after the election. That's the following 4 months, not the preceding fall and summer. Emphasis mine...
"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.
"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed." ~ Joe Biden, 9.25.1992
So unlike Republicans in 2016 who denied the sitting president confirmation hearings, Biden suggested the president wait to nominate someone.
Unlike Republicans in 2016 who held up a replacement for nearly all of Obama's final year, Biden suggested waiting 4 months.
Unlike Republicans in 2016 who said Obama would not get to appoint another replacement, Biden suggested Bush would get to nominate someone the Senate would consider.
Unlike Republicans in 2016 who actually did deny a sitting president nearly 25% of his term to appoint a USSC justice, Biden spoke only of a hypothetical which never actually happened.
You must have a reading disorder. I said Democrats can do it next time they control the Executive branch and the Congress. Where exactly do you see trump fitting into that picture?So? Both are methods of stacking the court. It matters not that one changes the number of justices while the other doesn't. The end game is still the same. And there's certainly nothing etched in stone that we have to have 9 justices. We've had other numbers over the years.Like Republicans. Why do you think it's ok for Republicans to stack the Supreme Court but not ok for Democrats to do that?They might. But that's the Democrat motto: If you can't win, cheat.
Because the Republicans are not changing anything about the court. They simply waited until they had the opportunity. Democrats want to change the court by changing the amount of people on it.
View attachment 284988
What's good for Republicans is good for Democrats.
Fine, then write to your commie friends and tell them to pass that in the House. Then Trump will nominate several conservative judges, and then you'll be happy.
Oh, so now Mr. "Stack the deck" wants to wait unit there is a Democrat President do expand the Supreme Court? How utterly fair of you.
Well I'll tell you what: let Congress pass it now, and our President will allow the expansion. Oh......you can't do that...right? Because it has nothing to do with having more justices, it has to do with having more commie justices.
For the same reason Republicans denied Obama his Constitutional privilege of appointing a justice, to stack the court. I never gave any other reason. I'm still baffled why you think it's ok for Republicans to stack the court but then you cry like a little girl at the notion of Democrats doing it?"It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9"Because the Republicans are not changing anything about the court. They simply waited until they had the opportunity. Democrats want to change the court by changing the amount of people on it.
View attachment 284988
If we need to expand the SCOTUS Trump should do so now and nominate 3-4 new SCOTUS justices. Right libs? Watch them shit themselves.
It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9.
Democrats love when its their turn to win, but have a huge problem when the opponents win at the same game. When Democrats lose, it's time to change the game entirely.
It happened during the Bush/ Gore race where nearly the entire country had to spend God knows how many millions by replacing punch card machines with electronic. Then when Kerry lost, they blamed it on the Diebold company because Bush had associations with them. So once again, we had to spend God knows how many millions to replace the Diebold machines, even though it was proven those machines had nothing to do with the outcome.
They based it on exit polls, which clearly showed Kerry beating Trump. So then they wanted to have us count votes by using exit polling.
Now that Trump lost the popular vote, a few states changed their electoral college system to winner takes all, that is to say, make the popular vote manipulate the electoral college vote.
Democrats are the sorest losers we have in this country. It's not a wonder why liberal schools stopped keeping scores in sporting events, and got rid of dodge ball in gym class.
No? It's nothing like that. That would be against the rules. Adding seats to the Supreme Court is not against the rules.
Really? So why would the Democrats want to do that? Can you give us the reason if not because of power loss?
The US constitution says impeachment is preformed in "the house of representatives"...not by 4 angry democrats in secret meetings.
Exactly
Democrats are losing fast
Let him try.For the same reason Republicans denied Obama his Constitutional privilege of appointing a justice, to stack the court. I never gave any other reason. I'm still baffled why you think it's ok for Republicans to stack the court but then you cry like a little girl at the notion of Democrats doing it?"It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9"If we need to expand the SCOTUS Trump should do so now and nominate 3-4 new SCOTUS justices. Right libs? Watch them shit themselves.
It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9.
Democrats love when its their turn to win, but have a huge problem when the opponents win at the same game. When Democrats lose, it's time to change the game entirely.
It happened during the Bush/ Gore race where nearly the entire country had to spend God knows how many millions by replacing punch card machines with electronic. Then when Kerry lost, they blamed it on the Diebold company because Bush had associations with them. So once again, we had to spend God knows how many millions to replace the Diebold machines, even though it was proven those machines had nothing to do with the outcome.
They based it on exit polls, which clearly showed Kerry beating Trump. So then they wanted to have us count votes by using exit polling.
Now that Trump lost the popular vote, a few states changed their electoral college system to winner takes all, that is to say, make the popular vote manipulate the electoral college vote.
Democrats are the sorest losers we have in this country. It's not a wonder why liberal schools stopped keeping scores in sporting events, and got rid of dodge ball in gym class.
No? It's nothing like that. That would be against the rules. Adding seats to the Supreme Court is not against the rules.
Really? So why would the Democrats want to do that? Can you give us the reason if not because of power loss?
So what you are saying is Trump should add 4 more justices to the SCOTUS now and fill the spots with conservatives. I mean you Dem's keep threatening to do it so you must be okay if Trump does it right.
Imecile, you didn't follow Biden's lead. You didn't support holding off on confirmation hearing for s few months until after the election.... you supported cancelling the president's Constitutional obligation of appointing a replacement for nearly the entire last year of his term. That denied the will of the voters, who you only care about now, for their choice of president to appoint a replacement for up to four years of his term, not three. And for no rational reason.
So now that the right has stopped to that level to stack that court, the left can too.
A few months? Biden said a few seasons.
Liar. It was 4 months before the election, one of which, Congress was on recess. And he suggested the Senate wait until after the election to convene confirmation hearings. That's 3 months the Senate would wait. WTF did you hear putting off hearings for a few "seasons?"
From his mouth. He said the preceding fall and summer.
He said no such thing. You're fucking crazy.
On September 25, 1992, little more than 4 months before the election, Biden suggested the president hold off nominating a replacement until after the election. That's the following 4 months, not the preceding fall and summer. Emphasis mine...
"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.
"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed." ~ Joe Biden, 9.25.1992
So unlike Republicans in 2016 who denied the sitting president confirmation hearings, Biden suggested the president wait to nominate someone.
Unlike Republicans in 2016 who held up a replacement for nearly all of Obama's final year, Biden suggested waiting 4 months.
Unlike Republicans in 2016 who said Obama would not get to appoint another replacement, Biden suggested Bush would get to nominate someone the Senate would consider.
Unlike Republicans in 2016 who actually did deny a sitting president nearly 25% of his term to appoint a USSC justice, Biden spoke only of a hypothetical which never actually happened.
First off, sleepy Joe said "in an election year" which it was. Secondly, he said the "beginning of summer" in that instance, which officially, starts June 20th. Ears nominated Garland in late February. That means the Republicans didn't entertain his nominee only four months (March, April, May, June) more than sleepy Joe outlined.
Secondly, the Republicans didn't have to confirm anybody. They can refuse to confirm a nominee eight months or three years if they wanted. According to Mitch, it would have been nothing but a waste of time going through the procedure that would have put the nominee in the same position, which the Senate has every right to do.
Of course I do. Just how rightarded arecyoubto think I want more justices under a Republican president?You must have a reading disorder. I said Democrats can do it next time they control the Executive branch and the Congress. Where exactly do you see trump fitting into that picture?So? Both are methods of stacking the court. It matters not that one changes the number of justices while the other doesn't. The end game is still the same. And there's certainly nothing etched in stone that we have to have 9 justices. We've had other numbers over the years.Like Republicans. Why do you think it's ok for Republicans to stack the Supreme Court but not ok for Democrats to do that?
Because the Republicans are not changing anything about the court. They simply waited until they had the opportunity. Democrats want to change the court by changing the amount of people on it.
View attachment 284988
What's good for Republicans is good for Democrats.
Fine, then write to your commie friends and tell them to pass that in the House. Then Trump will nominate several conservative judges, and then you'll be happy.
Oh, so now Mr. "Stack the deck" wants to wait unit there is a Democrat President do expand the Supreme Court? How utterly fair of you.
Well I'll tell you what: let Congress pass it now, and our President will allow the expansion. Oh......you can't do that...right? Because it has nothing to do with having more justices, it has to do with having more commie justices.
It's not changing any rules. There's nothing in the Constitution that stipulates the Supreme Court has to have nine justices. There were times we had less and to.es we had more. It's up to Congress to decide.For the same reason Republicans denied Obama his Constitutional privilege of appointing a justice, to stack the court. I never gave any other reason. I'm still baffled why you think it's ok for Republicans to stack the court but then you cry like a little girl at the notion of Democrats doing it?"It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9"If we need to expand the SCOTUS Trump should do so now and nominate 3-4 new SCOTUS justices. Right libs? Watch them shit themselves.
It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9.
Democrats love when its their turn to win, but have a huge problem when the opponents win at the same game. When Democrats lose, it's time to change the game entirely.
It happened during the Bush/ Gore race where nearly the entire country had to spend God knows how many millions by replacing punch card machines with electronic. Then when Kerry lost, they blamed it on the Diebold company because Bush had associations with them. So once again, we had to spend God knows how many millions to replace the Diebold machines, even though it was proven those machines had nothing to do with the outcome.
They based it on exit polls, which clearly showed Kerry beating Trump. So then they wanted to have us count votes by using exit polling.
Now that Trump lost the popular vote, a few states changed their electoral college system to winner takes all, that is to say, make the popular vote manipulate the electoral college vote.
Democrats are the sorest losers we have in this country. It's not a wonder why liberal schools stopped keeping scores in sporting events, and got rid of dodge ball in gym class.
No? It's nothing like that. That would be against the rules. Adding seats to the Supreme Court is not against the rules.
Really? So why would the Democrats want to do that? Can you give us the reason if not because of power loss?
There is nothing to not understand. We won, you lost. Elections have consequences. That's all you have to understand, but like a typical leftist, refuse to accept.
We have every right to stack the court because we will be doing so under the same provisions we always had; not creating new ones to favor our side. Big difference.
And if the commies get the Senate and White House, they can do the same if the opportunity presents itself. Nothing wrong with that either.
What you want to do is change the rules of the game to favor your side, and that's now how our government works. There is absolutely no reason to expand the court other than your side getting power we voters didn't provide to you.
It's not changing any rules. There's nothing in the Constitution that stipulates the Supreme Court has to have nine justices. There were times we had less and to.es we had more. It's up to Congress to decide.For the same reason Republicans denied Obama his Constitutional privilege of appointing a justice, to stack the court. I never gave any other reason. I'm still baffled why you think it's ok for Republicans to stack the court but then you cry like a little girl at the notion of Democrats doing it?"It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9"It's like the losing baseball team insisting that the game have 14 innings instead of 9, because they can't win in 9.
Democrats love when its their turn to win, but have a huge problem when the opponents win at the same game. When Democrats lose, it's time to change the game entirely.
It happened during the Bush/ Gore race where nearly the entire country had to spend God knows how many millions by replacing punch card machines with electronic. Then when Kerry lost, they blamed it on the Diebold company because Bush had associations with them. So once again, we had to spend God knows how many millions to replace the Diebold machines, even though it was proven those machines had nothing to do with the outcome.
They based it on exit polls, which clearly showed Kerry beating Trump. So then they wanted to have us count votes by using exit polling.
Now that Trump lost the popular vote, a few states changed their electoral college system to winner takes all, that is to say, make the popular vote manipulate the electoral college vote.
Democrats are the sorest losers we have in this country. It's not a wonder why liberal schools stopped keeping scores in sporting events, and got rid of dodge ball in gym class.
No? It's nothing like that. That would be against the rules. Adding seats to the Supreme Court is not against the rules.
Really? So why would the Democrats want to do that? Can you give us the reason if not because of power loss?
There is nothing to not understand. We won, you lost. Elections have consequences. That's all you have to understand, but like a typical leftist, refuse to accept.
We have every right to stack the court because we will be doing so under the same provisions we always had; not creating new ones to favor our side. Big difference.
And if the commies get the Senate and White House, they can do the same if the opportunity presents itself. Nothing wrong with that either.
What you want to do is change the rules of the game to favor your side, and that's now how our government works. There is absolutely no reason to expand the court other than your side getting power we voters didn't provide to you.
Right now the court leans 5-4 in favor of conservatives. Next time Democrats control Congress and the Executive branch, there's nothing to stop them from adding 2 seats so the Democrat president can grant 2 life time appointments to two Liberals and tip the scale 6-5 in favor of Liberals.
If we're both still posting here at that time, I'll be sure to remind you how elections have consequences.
