Democrats want voters in the dark with this version of 'Truman Show'

It is not clear to me that they delete such posts but it is a fact they do give out points for derailing threads.

Rule 5 of the rules is about derailing threads. Check out the rules.

 

Agreed, but most people don't understand what is meant by that unfortunate choice of phrase. No one of any seriousness wants fewerr police, they just want more money going towards inclusion of mental health professionals, social workers, and other counselors in community policing, and less money for humvees and such.

 

I will say this, under the rules prior to the Reid change she could be stopped. But D Sen Reid (retired now) changed the rules so if you are able to stop Amy Garrett, have at it. Can you stop her?

 

The right in incapable of seeing their own hypocrisy, much less admitting to it.

 

This is about what Biden does. Biden is the topic and he refuses to give a clear answer. Many of us believe he has intentions to pack the highest court with his sycophants.I am not fearful though. I believe Trump is the man for the job and the public and EC will keep him in the White House.

 

What Democrats refuse to face is that Garland was effectually turned down by the Senate.

 

No. Packing is loading the court with justices who share your views, either conservative or liberal.

I wouldn't have a problem with another Trump nominee if it weren't blatantly and glaringly hypocritical on the part of the Republican Party.

 

Garland was not rejected. He was refused a single hearing. You can't reject a nominee to the court until and unless you hold a hearing and a vote.

Four years ago, the GOP jumped up and down, pounding on tables, yelling that "the people must be allowed to choose!" Four years later, where is that sentiment? Gone, in the name of PACKING the court prior to this election with THEIR choice.

 

Over his own intelligence professionals? Nope, sorry, your whataboutism is an epic fail.

 

No go ahead..I would love to know why she MUST be appointed but on Garland it was just purely optional in filling that seat for over a year when both were election years..please..enlighten me

Ive seen argument that we must get a replacement for the upcoming election but somehow that wasnt a concern in 2016...seems a bit...whats the word..oh ya..hypocritical

 

Since you failed utterly to answer my question, I'll ask once again: can you tell us which rule?

And can you prove there is a derailment here? I don't see one. I just see that you don't much like civil disagreement with your views. So please, go ahead, report.

 

That did not in any way answer the question @LogicalParty asked.

 

Moronic question since the President has no power on the number of Supreme Court Justices. That is left up to Congress.

 

You're the one who used the phrase "clear response."

If you don't like administrations packing top jobs with sycophants, why do you support Trump? No one has more "acting" heads of organizations, the reason being that he knows that his appointees are incompetent money donors and other supporters and would not stand up to even the Senate Republicans' scrutiny.

 

Can you acknowledge their reasons for not giving Garland a hearing? Can you acknowledge that the reasons they clearly stated four years ago makes what they are doing now blatantly hypocritical?

 

huh? of course he does...he appoints them.

and Harris is in Congress!!

 

THIS is all Biden has to say...why should he answer it..its not soley up to him as if he could just go..ok we have 2 new openings..lets get 2 people in there asap

 

A President can't add extra Justices to the Court - that is strictly left to Congress.

 

"... packed in dirt" -- how rude and disrespectful of a woman who lived her life with honor and courage. Shame on you.

You still fail to answer the question, put to you here by several users in different words: why is it imperative to fill Ginsberg's seat ASAP, but four years ago, it was every bit as imperative that the Senate not fill Scalia's seat?

 

Presidents can’t add extra seats to Supreme Court...that is up to Congress to do. You should know this.

 

he can certainly sign the bill making it a law and nominate people to fill the seats

 

the president signs bills to make them law...you should know this

 

Sigh...it has to pass in congress for it to get to the point of being signed off by president. You DO understand that much, right?

 

i do, hence why i am concerned with Biden’s view on the issue. Him and Harris telling me it’s none of my business when they essentially have the last word on the matter is insulting