What would it take?

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The only difference between the Republicans last year, and the Democrats this time, is that during the election this was a major point for both parties, and the Republicans won. BUT, and this is the only time I will give credence to the popular vote, the fact that HC won the popular vote should have held some bearing on Trump's nominee. It clearly didn't as this was a pick to satisfy the strict conservative, and (hypocritical) Christian base. I understand why he had to make this pick, but if it was up to me, I would have gone with a choice that Democrats and Republicans (not the 1/3 of each party that's just rabid, but the sane ones) could come together on.



The problem with that, is a judge is basically either a "the constitution is what is", or a "the constitution is a living document" judge. That doesn't leave much in the way of compromise, but I would like to think that if you really looked you would find one.

Exactly this was a stick it to the right pick. And there was never an ounce of thought put into one that might help unify things. Trump is so hung up on his popularity that he is now in full battle mode with every action he takes. Has no intentions of unifying anybody. Good luck with that.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Exactly this was a stick it to the right pick. And there was never an ounce of thought put into one that might help unify things. Trump is so hung up on his popularity that he is now in full battle mode with every action he takes. Has no intentions of unifying anybody. Good luck with that.

To be fair, the democrats have no intention of unifying anyone, the republicans have no intention of unifying anyone, and if this division were more along the geographical divide, we probably would be closer to a civil war then any point since the 1850's. I keep picturing FarmersOnly.com tractors encircling every urban city and splashing mud on all them fancy city boys

[NC_Skins]

I can't get over this quote from the party of obstruction and do nothing.

“We did not inflict this kind of obstructionism on President Obama,” added Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), the only other senator in the room. He added that the Democrats were committing “a completely unprecedented level of obstruction. This is not what the American people expect of the United States Senate.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.20c86142d11a

The Republicans are a total shit show. Say what you want about Democrats, but Republicans have taken insanity and "alternative facts" to a new level. It's why I won't vote for them anymore. That party died two decades ago.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I can't get over this quote from the party of obstruction and do nothing.








https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.20c86142d11a

The Republicans are a total shit show. Say what you want about Democrats, but Republicans have taken insanity and "alternative facts" to a new level. It's why I won't vote for them anymore. That party died two decades ago.

this stuff usually happens...its typical nonsense, political bickering back and forth. 9.9 times out of 10 the picks go through. I blame both sides for committing the same type of acts...It just petty and really just waste time.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.20c86142d11a

...

They need to fire the proofreader for that article. Not saying anything about the actions - just the editing:

I know what the writer means, but the Post is supposed to be better than this

...
There is Democrats they can do to prevent final confirmation of any of Trump’s picks but the plan to focus
...

I didn't know the Democrats need 60 votes to block the confirmation. I was pretty sure they only needed 41. [/sarc]

...
Supreme Court was met with fierce resistance from some Democrats, though it’s unclear whether they will have the 60 votes needed to block his confirmation.
...

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

They need to fire the proofreader for that article. Not saying anything about the actions - just the editing:

I know what the writer means, but the Post is supposed to be better than this


I didn't know the Democrats need 60 votes to block the confirmation. I was pretty sure they only needed 41. [/sarc]

I have been very disappointed with the writing in the Post lately.