- Moderator
- #61
"So....should the Democrats then do what I mentioned, should they gain majority?"and 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.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
Good for him. He is doing exactly what the Constitution says. You know. Like you guys did in 2016. Advise and Consent.
So 100% of the time Democrats have acted in your own self interest
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.
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 way
They never have before. The only thing you can say for sure, is the Republicans did, and now have a thousand excuses.
What does that even mean? Why would Republicans need "excuses" to use their own power under the Constitution.
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
You:
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?
kaz: I drove through a green light, you would have done the same
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
Keep on with the excuses.
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.
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.
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?
Words aren't actions and you and I both know that 75% of political rhetoric is just that...words.
Then when Republicans get power back they will increase it to 21. And so on. Nice solution
Which is what I said (and no not a nice solution).
So, after all this - do you think the Democrats SHOULD do this?