Gold Supporting Member
- Apr 17, 2009
- Reaction score
- in between
Saying and doing are two different things. Doing away with the filibuster means when one's own party is no longer in power...well you get the picture. Stacking the court lacks support in his own party. Unlikely. Words are not actions. Unlike McConnell."So....should the Democrats then do what I mentioned, should they gain majority?"Keep on with the excuses.kaz: I drove through a green light, you would have done the sameWhat does that even mean? Why would Republicans need "excuses" to use their own power under the Constitution.They never have before. The only thing you can say for sure, is the Republicans did, and now have a thousand excuses.There is no doubt that Democrats would have blocked a Republican Garland during that election and that Democrats would forward and immediately confirm their own pick now. She's perfectly well aware of her hypocrisy. She just doesn't care, she wants her wayand i would call it a FACT that if the democrats could do it, they would and taunt it over the right that this is all legal and part of their rights.So 100% of the time Democrats have acted in your own self interestGood for him. He is doing exactly what the Constitution says. You know. Like you guys did in 2016. Advise and Consent.Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.
WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud
100% of the time Republicans have acted in their own self interest
You keep calling them hypocrites, which is actually your own hypocrisy
That is the issue
the hypocrisy is off the charts.
Biden said that he wouldn't have had hearings for a Republican nominee in 1992 when Democrats had the Senate.
I wasn't a liar like Democrats are, so I didn't claim he meant that he wouldn't have confirmed a Democrat nominee, obviously he didn't mean that.
It's Democrats making excuses for your lame shit you just want Republicans to give you something you aren't entitled to under the Constitution.
OBVIOUSLY Democrats would have not confirmed a Republican Garland at that time. OBVIOUSLY you would confirm a Democrat nominee now. The rest are lies and excuses
There is no doubt that Democrats would have blocked a Republican Garland during that election and that Democrats would forward and immediately confirm their own pick now.
Any more non-excuse excuses?
Coyote: OMG, any more excuses, kaz?
As stupid as it sounds. You have a serious issue with honesty.
I never said Biden meant in 1992 that he wouldn't have confirmed a Democrat nominee because I knew he didn't mean that. But I don't have issues with honesty like you do
So....should the Democrats then do what I mentioned, should they gain majority?
Schummer already said he was going to end the filibuster and stack the court.
Words aren't actions and you and I both know that 75% of political rhetoric is just that...words.Here's the thing with threats. You have to make them BEFORE you decide you're already going to do them. See how that works? Pelosi already even stated the number. 15. So why would Republicans cave over something you're ALREADY GOING TO DO?
Which is what I said (and no not a nice solution).Then when Republicans get power back they will increase it to 21. And so on. Nice solution
So, after all this - do you think the Democrats SHOULD do this?