Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck


Burgold

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I said it before during net neutrality, I'll say it again.  Our leaders don't care about us. 

 

I keep trying to point this out and just get a bunch of nonsense about botherism or whatever the current attempt at wit is. 

 

They won’t even what is right anymore. They base every decision off polling. It’s pathetic that our people allow such crap. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tshile said:

I keep trying to point this out and just get a bunch of nonsense about botherism or whatever the current attempt at wit is. 

 

They won’t even what is right anymore. They base every decision off polling. It’s pathetic that our people allow such crap. 

 

People don't want to admit to themselves that their elected officials, people that they voted for or look to for leadership are just ultimately pieces of ****.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

I keep trying to point this out and just get a bunch of nonsense about botherism or whatever the current attempt at wit is. 

 

They won’t even what is right anymore. They base every decision off polling. It’s pathetic that our people allow such crap. 

 

I think this was more true 10+ years ago. There are significantly more differences in policies and who benefits these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

People continue to elect privileged elite folks that won't relate whatsoever to 99% of society, to public office and then somehow expect them to represent their own values.  I don't get it.  

Because politics has ALWAYS been about money, ambition, and populism. There are also always exceptions of course throughout history. Abraham Lincoln probably being one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

People continue to elect privileged elite folks that won't relate whatsoever to 99% of society, to public office and then somehow expect them to represent their own values.  I don't get it.  

 

I kinda dont think it matters.  The system will corrupt anybody foolish enough to be a part of it. Eventually even the best wind up playing ball.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

Shouldn't matter.

 

I semi-agree. The problem, according to the investigator, is that the women kept changing her justification for not sharing it. She is talking about something that just happened. Hopefully the investigation there was all encompassing and if it needs a police investigation, that should happen too. Dems shouldn't shy away from that one bit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court,” North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr said in an audio recording of his meeting with GOP volunteers on Saturday. CNN obtained a copy of the audio.

 

GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Ted Cruz of Texas have also suggested blocking any Clinton nominees. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in a debate Monday night that he “can’t imagine” voting for any Clinton nominee though he stopped short of vowing to block a pick from a Democratic president.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court

 

“Democrats made it clear they would stop at nothing to block President Trump’s Supreme Court pick before Judge Kavanaugh was even chosen as the nominee,” Burr said. “President Trump has every right to nominate the individual of his choosing to the Supreme Court.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/richard-burr-committee-should-vote-on-kavanaugh-immediately-after-thursdays-hearing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Who is Heidi Heitkamp? Was that even a Yes-to-No flip or someone who was voting No anyway?

 

She's a dem senator from North Dakota.  She was an undecided (with her being from a conservative state and all).  Her no vote doesn't change the result but there were speculations that she might vote yes (which would either pad the margins or offset a GOP defection).

 

I think based on everything, Kavanaugh will be confirmed.  Murkowski may possible be a no due to her allegiance to Alaskan natives.  Dems will use the first opportunity after they win back either house to conduct investigation into the supplemental FBI investigation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Who is Heidi Heitkamp? Was that even a Yes-to-No flip or someone who was voting No anyway?

 

North Dakota Senator...There really should be a national debate as to why the Dakotas are two states instead of one. 

 

She is the Dem most likely to lose in the midterms. Might not be the only one, just the most likely. 

41 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

What if Sasse actually votes no? Will others follow?

 

I'd be stunned if he voted no. He will vote yes then give some blah speech about how messed up things are cause that's what he does. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

She's running in a tight election race and is voting against seating a liar on the Court. Good for her. She has guts.

 

It's really not that close now.

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/north-dakota/

 

Yesterday

    DATES POLLSTER SAMPLE RESULT NET RESULT
U.S. Senate
N.D.  
SEP 29-OCT 2
801 RV Heitkamp
41%
50%
Cramer Cramer +9
U.S. Senate
N.D.  
SEP 29-OCT 2
704 LV Heitkamp
41%
53%
Cramer Cramer +12

KEY

A = ADULTS

RV = REGISTERED VOTERS

V = VOTERS

LV = LIKELY VOTERS

Oct. 1, 2018

U.S. Senate
 
N.D.  
SEP 17-27
650 LV Heitkamp
41%
51%
Cramer Cramer +10

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

She's a dem senator from North Dakota.  She was an undecided (with her being from a conservative state and all).  Her no vote doesn't change the result but there were speculations that she might vote yes (which would either pad the margins or offset a GOP defection).

 

I think based on everything, Kavanaugh will be confirmed.  Murkowski may possible be a no due to her allegiance to Alaskan natives.  Dems will use the first opportunity after they win back either house to conduct investigation into the supplemental FBI investigation.

If we're being cynical, and we probably should be, Murkowski may be negotiating the opportunity to vote no. If it is clear that all the other Rs are a yes than she can make a "principled" stand.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...