Sen. Blumenthal makes threats on Senate floor if ACB is confirmed to SC.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,238
Reaction score
12,255
Points
2,210
I
STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Elections have consequences.
Yes. One of those consequences is the president nominates Supreme Court justices.
Another consequence is that the senate confirms the nominee.
Well...you know, when you change the norms and rules, there will be consequences.

If the Dems get the Senate and Executive, why shouldn't they take a page from your playbook and add justices? Any good reason not to now that you've set precedents?
Republicans didn't add justices, they filled open seats. If dems regain control I support them filling any open seats that come available. But ADDING seats? Oh hell no.

And if you want to start that game, when republicans regain control they'll stack the court again.
Democrats will fill open seats that were created by a Constitutionally elected Congress

Who could object to Congress doing its job?
Run it up to 15 seats and enjoy your 9-6 Libtard majority.

Once Republicans get control there is nothing preventing them from running it down to 6 and throwing all 9 libs off the court.

6-0 Majority.

:oops8:
LOLOL

You're such a fucking imbecile, putz ... the Constitution is preventing them, ya moron, which only allows for impeachment to remove a SC justice.
Impeach them. We are in power, Putz.

Nwxt?
LOLOL

You think you control the House???

What part of “ once Republicans get control” is confusing to you, Simpleton?
Good Lord, you have the reading comprehension skills of a box of retarded hair.
Putz, your words, "Impeach them. We are in power, Putz."

Are you ever not a flaming imbecile?

Ever??
Yep, that was the scenario we were talking about.

Learn to read for comprehension you blithering idiot. Try to follow a conversation for once in your life, Ignoramus.
Yeah, "we are in power" is present tense. Guess what, Spunky, you are not in power of the House.
Yep, present tense in the context of the conversation we were having before you butted in to make a fool of yourself.

Your colossal inability to follow the simplest of conversations is astounding.......until one realized what a complete moron you are.
LOLOL

Suuure, Spunky. Uh-huh...

Nope. Never used the word "mortality", idiot.​
Quote my post using "mortality", or admit you can't read on a second grade level.​
My G-d, you're even more rightarded than I ever gave you credit for....​
Mortality rate we are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the list, Dummy.
[emphasis added to highlight Nostra's dementia]

G'head, talk to me about following a conversation.​
:abgg2q.jpg:
:a​
Let me help you out, lil fella.....

I was talking about what the Republican response to Dimwingers packing the S.C. could be........so tell all of us how that could possibly be referencing the “present”, you raving lunatic.
Learn English, Spunky. Proper English is, "once Republicans get control ... we will be in power," not, "once Republicans get control ... we are in power." You prove to be too big of an idiot to play with tenses like that. Once you figure that out, see if you can find a legitimate reason for impeaching 9 Liberal justices. When you get past that hurdle, spend some time to understand you actually did talk about "mortality rate," despite your nutty denial to the contrary.

:abgg2q.jpg:
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,238
Reaction score
12,255
Points
2,210
If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?
Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress

Only twice of 20 occasions has an opposition party confirmed a justice, that's wasn't living in the present, it was following historical norms. That seems to be something you commies know very little about.

.
Oh? How many of them were denied a hearing with almost a year left in a president's term?

Almost only counts in hand grenades, horseshoes and atom bombs child. Opposition senates don't tend to confirm justices in the last year of a presidents term.

.
No worries. Now it can be all 4 years of a president's term thanks to the McConnell rule.
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
67,894
Reaction score
10,712
Points
2,030
Elections have consequences.
If Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the Senate we can pack the court and Dems won't oppose it?
They will need the House also

If Dems take all three, why should they not use their power?
Because it would be stupid and appear to the centrists to be a open move to grasp political power at any cost. That would cost the Democrats in the next election in 2022.
You think appointing Barrett doesn't look like an open move to grasp political power?
It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me! :eusa_dance:
Sure, but you are a crazy Trump supporter, and not a centrist.
 

CowboyTed

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
9,259
Reaction score
2,423
Points
290
Location
Ireland
STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Elections have consequences.
Yes. One of those consequences is the president nominates Supreme Court justices.
Another consequence is that the senate confirms the nominee.
The last three senate election have been won by 55% to Democrats and 44% to Republicans...

No matter how you look at that, it is highly undemocratic...

Probably should get rid of the filibuster...

Think Washing DC and Puerto Rico deserve full statehood

Also the workload on the SC has increased a lot... There needs to be a review... Think they need more judges to help try cases... This already happens in the appeals court...

They will be the consequences....
 

Beef_Supreme

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
1,334
Reaction score
1,575
Points
1,908
STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
Now apply that to the way Republicans behaved with Garland. Oh wait. You can’t. Your a fucking hypocrite.

There is nothing unconstitutional about changing the size of the Supreme Court. Dems have the same righteous justifications as the Republicans.


However, just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

Apply it.
That’s exactly what I’m telling you. It was a mistake for the democrats to end the filibuster.
It will be a mistake To pack the court.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,615
Reaction score
23,607
Points
2,180
Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans
We aren't foolish enough to believe that they won't do it anyway if they get half a chance.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
29,078
Reaction score
7,745
Points
290
STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
Now apply that to the way Republicans behaved with Garland. Oh wait. You can’t. Your a fucking hypocrite.

There is nothing unconstitutional about changing the size of the Supreme Court. Dems have the same righteous justifications as the Republicans.


However, just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

Apply it.
That’s exactly what I’m telling you. It was a mistake for the democrats to end the filibuster.
It will be a mistake To pack the court.
Like I said, the dems keep coming up with stupid "trick plays" then get mad when used in a manner they didn't want.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,615
Reaction score
23,607
Points
2,180
STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
Now apply that to the way Republicans behaved with Garland. Oh wait. You can’t. Your a fucking hypocrite.

There is nothing unconstitutional about changing the size of the Supreme Court. Dems have the same righteous justifications as the Republicans.


However, just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

Apply it.
That’s exactly what I’m telling you. It was a mistake for the democrats to end the filibuster.
It will be a mistake To pack the court.
Yep, just like the Russian Revolution was a mistake, and so was voting for Hitler.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
29,078
Reaction score
7,745
Points
290
Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans
We aren't foolish enough to believe that they won't do it anyway if they get half a chance.
You know, damn well they would. All this HYPOCRITE shit is on them because they would do exactly what the Rs are doing.

Ask Coyote n others that they never reply and divert.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,420
Reaction score
40,291
Points
2,190
If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?
Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress
It's not a new rule. In hte entire history of out country there have been only ten nominations when control of the Senate and White House were split during an election year and eight of those ten failed to be confirmed. The first nomination not to be confirmed under these circumstances happened in 1828.
Tell the rest of the story

Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?
Nope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.

He nominated.
He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a year

That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court
Obama had the ability to nominate any number of potential justices until he found one that was an acceptable compromise with the Senate. He simply chose not to do that. He's the one who left the seat open for nearly a year.
You might actually have a point if that is what happened

Mitch McConnell proclaimed he would not allow Obama to fill that seat before Scalias body was even cold
Because Obama wanted to change the "polarity" of the seat. Up until that point there had been a gentlemen's agreement to keep the court balanced to reduce the politicicalization of the court. That's why most justices were easily confirmed with near unanimity before the Democrats decided to legislate from the bench.
So it's ok for Republicans to flip the "polarity" of a seat, but not for Democrats?
What goes around comes around. You guys broke the gentleman's agreement, why should we be bound by it any more? You guys wanted bare-knuckle politics when you held all the House, Senate and Presidency, you can't complain when we play by your rules.
Great, then you'll be onboard when Democrats #PackTheCourt.
I can’t stress enough how bad of an idea it is to go down this path.
Republicans wanted to politicize that bench, now the toothpaste is out of the tube.

#PackTheCourt
all because the position should be filled by now. so revert back to kindergarten and waa--waaa--waaaa
Nope, now thanks to McConnell, there is no rush to fill a vacancy. The Senate can now even tell a president they will never fill a vacancy. Meaning if Democrats win the Senate and Impeached Trump wins the presidency and yet another SC seat opens up in January, 2021, Democrats can tell him to fuck off and leave the seat open for 4 years until the next president is seated.
The McConnell Rule now says that an opposition Senate will not fill SCOTUS seats
What RULE are you blabbing about---there is no RULE just laws in congress.
The Senate exits on rules, protocol and precedents.

McConnell was willing to discard them all to obtain Conservative control of the courts.

His only guideline was......He who has the power makes the rules.
That is why Garland did not get a seat and Barrett did.

What Blumenthal is reminding him is that if that is how he is going to play, then Democrats will make their own rules
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
32,199
Reaction score
16,441
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
Now apply that to the way Republicans behaved with Garland. Oh wait. You can’t. Your a fucking hypocrite.

There is nothing unconstitutional about changing the size of the Supreme Court. Dems have the same righteous justifications as the Republicans.


However, just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

Apply it.
That’s exactly what I’m telling you. It was a mistake for the democrats to end the filibuster.
It will be a mistake To pack the court.
Like I said, the dems keep coming up with stupid "trick plays" then get mad when used in a manner they didn't want.
We can pretty much thank Nancy for ALL of it, too.
PelosiInFace.gif
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,420
Reaction score
40,291
Points
2,190
Elections have consequences.
If Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the Senate we can pack the court and Dems won't oppose it?
They will need the House also

If Dems take all three, why should they not use their power?
Because it would be stupid and appear to the centrists to be a open move to grasp political power at any cost. That would cost the Democrats in the next election in 2022.
You think appointing Barrett doesn't look like an open move to grasp political power?
It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me! :eusa_dance:
What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,615
Reaction score
23,607
Points
2,180
STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
Now apply that to the way Republicans behaved with Garland. Oh wait. You can’t. Your a fucking hypocrite.

There is nothing unconstitutional about changing the size of the Supreme Court. Dems have the same righteous justifications as the Republicans.


However, just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

Apply it.
That’s exactly what I’m telling you. It was a mistake for the democrats to end the filibuster.
It will be a mistake To pack the court.
Like I said, the dems keep coming up with stupid "trick plays" then get mad when used in a manner they didn't want.
That's because they can't see beyond the end of their noses.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,615
Reaction score
23,607
Points
2,180
If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?
Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress
It's not a new rule. In hte entire history of out country there have been only ten nominations when control of the Senate and White House were split during an election year and eight of those ten failed to be confirmed. The first nomination not to be confirmed under these circumstances happened in 1828.
Tell the rest of the story

Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?
Nope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.

He nominated.
He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a year

That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court
Obama had the ability to nominate any number of potential justices until he found one that was an acceptable compromise with the Senate. He simply chose not to do that. He's the one who left the seat open for nearly a year.
You might actually have a point if that is what happened

Mitch McConnell proclaimed he would not allow Obama to fill that seat before Scalias body was even cold
Because Obama wanted to change the "polarity" of the seat. Up until that point there had been a gentlemen's agreement to keep the court balanced to reduce the politicicalization of the court. That's why most justices were easily confirmed with near unanimity before the Democrats decided to legislate from the bench.
So it's ok for Republicans to flip the "polarity" of a seat, but not for Democrats?
What goes around comes around. You guys broke the gentleman's agreement, why should we be bound by it any more? You guys wanted bare-knuckle politics when you held all the House, Senate and Presidency, you can't complain when we play by your rules.
Great, then you'll be onboard when Democrats #PackTheCourt.
I can’t stress enough how bad of an idea it is to go down this path.
Republicans wanted to politicize that bench, now the toothpaste is out of the tube.

#PackTheCourt
all because the position should be filled by now. so revert back to kindergarten and waa--waaa--waaaa
Nope, now thanks to McConnell, there is no rush to fill a vacancy. The Senate can now even tell a president they will never fill a vacancy. Meaning if Democrats win the Senate and Impeached Trump wins the presidency and yet another SC seat opens up in January, 2021, Democrats can tell him to fuck off and leave the seat open for 4 years until the next president is seated.
The McConnell Rule now says that an opposition Senate will not fill SCOTUS seats
What RULE are you blabbing about---there is no RULE just laws in congress.
The Senate exits on rules, protocol and precedents.

McConnell was willing to discard them all to obtain Conservative control of the courts.

His only guideline was......He who has the power makes the rules.
That is why Garland did not get a seat and Barrett did.

What Blumenthal is reminding him is that if that is how he is going to play, then Democrats will make their own rules
You're confused about who discarded the rules. It was Schumer.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
50,521
Reaction score
9,761
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?
Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress

Only twice of 20 occasions has an opposition party confirmed a justice, that's wasn't living in the present, it was following historical norms. That seems to be something you commies know very little about.

.
Oh? How many of them were denied a hearing with almost a year left in a president's term?

Almost only counts in hand grenades, horseshoes and atom bombs child. Opposition senates don't tend to confirm justices in the last year of a presidents term.

.
No worries. Now it can be all 4 years of a president's term thanks to the McConnell rule.

Really, do tell. LMAO

.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
29,078
Reaction score
7,745
Points
290
Elections have consequences.
If Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the Senate we can pack the court and Dems won't oppose it?
They will need the House also

If Dems take all three, why should they not use their power?
Because it would be stupid and appear to the centrists to be a open move to grasp political power at any cost. That would cost the Democrats in the next election in 2022.
You think appointing Barrett doesn't look like an open move to grasp political power?
It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me! :eusa_dance:
What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives
Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.
 

LeftofLeft

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
12,950
Reaction score
4,587
Points
350
Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans
You people never had cooperation with Republicans. Blumenthal never had any consequences for lying like a pussy that he served in Vietnam.
Blumenthal served his country

What Trump likes to call a loser and sucker
Blumenthal lied about his service. Trump was right about Blumenthal.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,238
Reaction score
12,255
Points
2,210
If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?
Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress

Only twice of 20 occasions has an opposition party confirmed a justice, that's wasn't living in the present, it was following historical norms. That seems to be something you commies know very little about.

.
Oh? How many of them were denied a hearing with almost a year left in a president's term?

Almost only counts in hand grenades, horseshoes and atom bombs child. Opposition senates don't tend to confirm justices in the last year of a presidents term.

.
No worries. Now it can be all 4 years of a president's term thanks to the McConnell rule.

Really, do tell. LMAO

.
The McConnell rule ... the Constitution doesn't specify any time frame to hold a confirmation hearing. He held it for a record 11 months. Democrats can now break that record with 4 years.
 

LeftofLeft

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
12,950
Reaction score
4,587
Points
350
Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans
You people never had cooperation with Republicans. Blumenthal never had any consequences for lying like a pussy that he served in Vietnam.
Blumenthal served his country

What Trump likes to call a loser and sucker
He is a stolen valor fuckwit.
He said he was a Vietnam vet instead of a Vietnam Era Vet.

Fat Donnie had Bone Spurs
Blumenthal lied about serving in Vietnam and tried to back track with the Vietnam era play. He’s in no position to criticize.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top