Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 68,338
- 17,521
- 2,190
I’m sorry do I need to break Graham’s quote down for you? It’s quite simple. He said if Trump is elected and a vacancy occurs in the last year of his FIRST term then the next president should get that nomination. Are you not understanding basic English?Really? How is this situation different that what Graham’s comments say? There are dozens of other examplesNo two situations are the same but these two are similar enough to show the blatant hypocrisy of both parties. More so from the GOP as the Dems can claim the move to successfully block Garland set a precedentThe senate GOP is saying they had a mandate to block Obama’s pick and this time they have a mandate to select Trumps. It has to do with the Party in power. Each one of those senators and Trump have recordings of them directly contradicting themselves between then and now. This new spin of theirs is not adequate. None of them including Trump should ever be believed, they are all political hacks. But most of us already knew that.As usual, ignoring the time restraints and attempting to shove his selection down our throats. Why wasn't there enough time in '16, but there is enough time now? What's the SPIN on that one? I say, Dems walk out. Deny them a quorum. Don't participate in this farce at all.RBG herself declared in 2016 that it is a PRESIDENT'S right and duty to fill vacancies, that a President does not stop being a President in his last year.If the Republicans attempt to short circuit the confirmation process, the Democrats should walk out and deny them a quorum. If Scalia dying in Feb. of an election year was too close to the election, then RBG's death in Sept. should be even more so, unless you're a total hypocrite.
Barry declared if he had the opportunity to fill a vacancy his last year he would, and Democrats su]ported him.
Hypocrite? STFU! The Democrats are the living embodiment of the word. Stop you crying and temper tantrum.
You mean each of the Democrat Senators, of course.
The situation is not the same - you won't admit that, and that's okay.
Each involves filling an empty seat
Other than that nothing similar.
I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination," Graham said
You realize that in 2016 the sitting President was term limited out of office and now he is not, yes?
You do understand that in 2016 the WH and The Senate were controlled by different parties
and today they are controlled by the same party, yes?
If either party controlled each of those - the nomination would be expected to and would go forward.
Plenty of precedent for that.