McConnell vows Trump's nominee to replace Ginsburg will get Senate vote, setting up historic fight

Fine, but that is still projection or speculation, not fact. I understand the sentiment, but until it happens, it is not fact.

 

He must be for it if he doesn't denounce it--right? That's why @rkhames says.

 

I asked you, is a President supposed to sit in the oval office and spend the day denouncing things in news all day? Did Obama denounce it everytime a black athlete was charged with misbehavior? And what exactly is supposed to be denounced here that is any of our business?

 

Apparently, @rkhames thinks so.

Does Trump denounce white athletes?

Ask your pal @rkhames.

 

No, it never happened. Republicans avoided having to go on the record.

 

Further proof that you know you cannot (honestly) disagree with my statement.

 

Apparently Senator Graham is still mad about Justice Kavanaugh's mistreatment:



"after the treatment of Justice Kavanaugh I now have a different view of the judicial-confirmation process .... I am certain if the shoe were on the other foot, you would do the same."

LOL!

 

Is there no pleasing some people:

 

And rightfully so.

 

(Emphases is what Langlyman used in his post ot Bluesguy.)

LanglyMan, you have either misunderstood what I posted, or you are intentionally convoluting what I posted. I never said that anyone is sitting around denouncing things in the news all day.

You challenged my statement that Democrats had threatened to burn down Washington DC if the President appointed a Judge to replace Ginsburg. You began by convoluting that statement by claiming that it only referred to elected Democrats. Later you claimed it referred to elected or prominent Democrats. As I pointed out, my statement referred to Democrats in General I also stated that unless Democrat denounced the call for arson, then they must support it. Remember, these calls for arson were specifically made to back the Democrats stated position that has no Constitutional backing, and is solely based on a substantiated claim of hypocrisy. (I say "substantiated" because the GOP did block the Obama Administration from appointing a successor for Scalia. But then the DNC is guilty of the same thing, because they want to block President Trump from replacing Ginsburg. In case you want to know, I am just as guilty of hypocrisy in this case as the next person.)

You also completely ignored the statement that Pelosi made about attempting to use Impeachment in order to stop the President from doing what is Constitutional. The big difference here, is that nothing the GOP did in 2016 was unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution states a timeframe for the Senate to confirm a SCOTUS Nominee, but the Constitution does say that the President can make the appointment of an open SCOTUS seat. The DNC is looking to use unconstitutional methods to stop the President from doing what he is clearly allowed to do. The key point here is the Constitutionality of the actions.

So, do not take my words out of context. Thank you.

 

I see. Just Democrats, especially Joe Biden, are supposed to keep their eyes peeled for arsonists, looters, and rioters.

It's BS, period. Democrats are no more obliged to keep their eyes peeled to denounce looters and arsonists than Republicans are supposed to denounce white supremacists.

Yes, that's the BS.

She didn't say she would or should.

There's nothing unconstitutional about impeaching Trump, either.

As I said, there's nothing unconstitutional about impeaching Trump.

I took your words at face value. My bad.

 

If your campaign is providing funds to a fund that is bailing out the terrorists that are plaguing the country right now, then you better take an interest. Biden issued a weak statement denouncing the violence while the Harris staff is funding the Minnesota Freedom Fund. That fund is bailing out the terrorists.

These riots are happening mostly in Democrat controlled cities and states. You do not think the party should take notice and denounce them.

How many times has President Trump been called a racist because he has not specifically denounced white supremist groups. The President made a statement pointing out that the so-called white supremist group at the rally in Charlottesville, VA were not the only one committing violence, and they called him a racist. That fact is the President was right. ANTIFA and BLM were there specifically to cause trouble.

More recently, the President denounced his former campaign staff member Steve Bannon who was indicted for his fake charity to build a section of the border wall. You see, Republicans do take notice of what is happening around them, and denounce what they feel is wrong. The media ensures that they issue statements. Because it will be brought up at every opportunity.

You may want to call it BS, but I doubt that you would if the tables were turned. If a white supremist group went on a violent rampage like ANTIFA and BLM is doing and the President did not denounce it, you would be yelling foul from the roof tops. If they threatened to burn down Washington, DC, you would be the first to claim that the President supported them. But you have a group that is supporting the DNC's efforts to stop the President from using his Constitutional authority, and claiming that they will burn the place down. You actually thing the DNC should not issue a statement calling for peaceful protests, and denouncing violence. If that is your stance, we have nothing more to talk about. You are far to gone to have a reasonable conversation with.

 

So, if the police accuse you of a crime and you're poor, you shouldn't get bail?

https://mnfreedomfund.org/

What about states controlled by Republicans?

In your world, he should be denounced for that reason.

No, he said the white supremacists were good folks, too. They aren't.

Denounced Bannon--his former campaign chair.

How about not sliming us with your condemning BLM with the same vehemence you do Antifa?

Threaten to burn down DC?

 

That's not accurate. President Trump said:

“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html

 

Trump revisionism. We heard what he said.

 

You clearly didn't hear what he said. You've made that obvious by perpetuating a mischaracterization of his remarks.

 

I heard it with my own ears.

 

Voices in your head now? President Trump NEVER said that white supremacists were "very fine people". Any claim to the contrary is an out-and-out lie.

 

You're uninformed. Start about one minute into the video.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...cans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/

It surprised me to learn that the National Review so blatantly lied in this article.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren#Retirement

In 1968, D controlled the House, Senate and the Presidency and Earl Warren submitted his resignation to LBJ specifically to insure that his replacement would not be determined by Nixon.

Dan's article in the National Review would have had a stronger impact if he had cited what was actually a historical precedent of staggering incompetence by the Ds.

Ds had enough seats in the Senate to end the Filibuster and failed to do so thereby passing the nomination to Nixon.

There are several other points that article gets wrong and makes sweepingly dramatic claims upon.

There is no chain of historical precedent to support Dan's hyperbolic claims about partisan strategies affecting vacancies on the court going back to the beginning of the Republic.

Senators weren't even elected until 1918:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And the Senate didn't have formal party leadership positions until Ds started it in 1920 followed by the Rs in 1925.

Then there was Anthony Kennedy, an R nominee, was confirmed by a D Senate on Feb 3, 1988 - a Presidential election year.

The Scalia vacancy at about 422 days was the longest vacancy since the Civil War.

He's not called Moscow Mitch for nothing.

Putin smiles upon him, and his mushroom dick yeti pube daddy the Dirty Donald.

 

You realize your post disproves everything you have posted on the subject. Trump denounces things, and support things daily (as does the rest of the GOP), but the DNC is conviently quiet about a huge problem plaguing the cities. Do you realize that these protests are going in mainly in Democrat controlled cities and states? What does that tell you? It tells me that they know where the country is the weakest, and where nothing will be done to them, Yet, the DNC is silent? Why?

Three additional points: (1) Reza Aslan tweeted: ""If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f-----g thing down," Now, I have seen "the entire F-----g thing down" defined as Congress, SCOTUS and Washington, DC. Since, I can find no quote where he explained what he meant, it is my opinion that he the entire _____ thing is Washington, DC. Again "Washington, DC" could actually mean of federal government buildings which could include the Whitehouse, Capital Building and the SCOTUS.

(2) To respond to your first point. Terrorists should never be given bail. The BLM and ANTIFA violent protesters are noting but terrorists. They should rot in jail until they die. Therefore, no one should be bailing them out, much less a Presidential Candidate's staff.

(3) BLM does not care about Black Lives. They only have a hatred for the police that stops their criminal activities. If they cared about Black Lives as they claim, then they would do something about Black Lives killed by Black people. I have shown on numerous threads the FBI statistics that shows that in 2018 there were 2925 African Americans murdered (including various forms of homicide). Of that number, 2600 were killed by other African-Americans. Yet, the BLM does not care, or do anything about that number. The only thing they do is attack the polices, and stage violent riots. Between 2016 and 2019, there were 3648 shootings by police in the US. Of that, 790 were African-Americans. That is a mere 22% of all police shootings within those years. So, the whole premise is a false narrative. If Black Lives Matter, then all Black live should matter. Including those killed by their fellow African-Americans. There is an old motto. If you want to clean up the world, start in your own backyard. Add in the fact that BLM is funded by Soros and that they openly admit to being Marxists (the liberal version of white nationalists), you have an out of control organization determined to bring down this country.

Liberal love to claim that ANTIFA is not an organization. Yet, somehow they are funded. Somehow, they get the word out on when and how to operate. Including a designated dress code. They claim to be anti-fascists, but they use fascists tactics and ideology. That means the anti-fascists are fascists themselves. What they really are is terrorists funded from outside the US. Their chosen narrative is anarchism. Another fringe liberal idea. The Trump Administration has branded them terrorists. Therefore, anyone supporting them are traitors to this country, BTW, that is based on the true definition of traitors contained in the US Statutes. That is someone providing aid and comfort to enemies of the country.

I know you said, " How about not sliming us with your condemning BLM with the same vehemence you do Antifa?" But as long as these terrorist organizations keep operating, I will denounce them with every fiber of my being. So, get over it. It is called the First Amendment right to Free Speach, and I will freely exercise it. So, get over it, move on, or block me. It does not matter, because I do not give a rats rear-end. (From Back to School): Got it! Get it! So, goose yourself!!!!!

 

You really need to do some fact checking before posting.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/26/cnn-tapper-trump-white-supremacist-nazis/

 

Trump makes a lot of contradictory statement, no doubt in an effort to "have it both ways."

In this country, large cities are where poor people live because better-off folks, mostly white, moved to the shiny new suburbs. So who looks after poor folks? Democrats.

People gather in their own neighborhoods, especially poor people who have limited transportation. Do you expect Democrats to grind down on poor people who vote for them?

How about white folks in the suburbs? There's as much dope in the 'burbs, but where is the enforcement of drug laws? Seems as though the "war on drugs" is a war on poor people using.

Geez, who the hell cares what a Muslim "scholar" says about burning down DC?

Only a handful of hundreds of BLM protests featured any violence. Calling BLM terrorists is propaganda. Antifa is another matter.

So, you would round up people accused of a crime and just lock them up?

They want to change the way law enforcement is done in their communities. I haven't heard them calling for the release of thugs.

Since the vast majority of protests are nonviolent, you're feeding off of TV instead of reality.

Deconstructing the propaganda you're spouting would do what? Get you to study and think through the problem? I doubt it.

Antifa are leftist ideologues who use violent leftists tactics.

No more than white nationalism is s fringe conservative idea.

Treason is defined in the Constitution. You can't just make up stuff about what it is.

BLM are not terrorists.

Too bad you don't know what you're talking about.

 

your video doesn’t support your claim

 

About the one minute mark...



So, who should be checking?