• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

RBG dead at 87

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
64
Points
630
Remius said:
I think in this post you state there is no hypocrisy and the a few posts later you say there is hypocrisy on both sides.

S/he said,

QV said:
I agree there is hypocrisy on both sides, but there are degrees and one side is by far more than the other. One side wants to preserve the Republic, the other wants to dismantle it.
 

Donald H

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
mariomike said:
S/he said,

Seriously mariomike, which side is which. Both sides will strongly maintain they are trying to save the Republic. Only one is intent on turninig it into a fascist republic.

Don't answer that, I know your opinion already.
 

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Remius said:
Nope.  Sorry QV.  I think in this post you state there is no hypocrisy and the a few posts later you say there is hypocrisy on both sides.  Pick one or the other. Or be consistant with your arguments.

There is hypocrisy, if you can’t see that you are the one with very little understanding with what is going on.

I never once said they were wrong one way or another even back then. Read what actually said.  I support the POTUS and the senate naming a SC seat.  It’s what they are actually supposed to do and they have the conch right now. 

It’s the justification they are using to contradict what they were espousing back then about the American people choosing etc etc.  It was all BS.  Now it’s all about who controls the senate and what and who is president blah blah. 

It’s about control.  They had it then, they have it now.  Stop making excuses for that.  It’s not hard to see it for what it is. 

And yes, they are reaping what they sowed.  They set the precedent for shenanigans back in 2016. 

Remember when you said all indicators show that Trump will win by a landslide?  Hurrying up to get a nominee is hardly an indicator of that.  If anything it’s “we might actually lose so we better get our guy in ASAP”.  It’s an indicator of a much tighter race than you are ready to admit.

What can I say Remius?  Between then and now Brad Sallows convinced me, are we not allowed to modify our opinion? 

And Remius, I can’t figure out why you’re surprised a republican majority in the senate wouldn’t confirm a left leaning justice nominated by a democrat but will confirm one their party chooses?  That’s not hypocrisy.
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
101
Points
630
QV said:
What can I say Remius?  Between then and now Brad Sallows convinced me, are we not allowed to modify our opinion? 

And Remius, I can’t figure out why you’re surprised a republican majority in the senate wouldn’t confirm a left leaning justice nominated by a democrat but will confirm one their party chooses?  That’s not hypocrisy.

You are free to change, modify and go back to whatever opinion you want.  I’m responding to your assertion that because I believe hypocrisy is at play that somehow I have very little understanding of what is going on.

Why do you think I surprised?  I’m actually not surprised at all.  I suggest you read what I wrote about this.  I’m not sure you are  understanding what I defined as the hypocrisy of the situation.  I’ll put it in point form and highlight what I have been saying.

1. The POTUS can and should appoint a SC nominee as soon as he can
2. The senate should help enable that.
3. The hypocrisy is trying to dress this up as somehow different than in 2016 because “reasons”

They justified it last time by telling everyone that it was about Americans being the ones who should make that choice in an election year.  Now they are back tracking on that being on the other side of that decision with a very lame justification. That is the hypocrisy. 

I’m not sure how I can explain this any better but you keep arguing points I have not brought up.

:dunno:

 

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Remius said:
You are free to change, modify and go back to whatever opinion you want.  I’m responding to your assertion that because I believe hypocrisy is at play that somehow I have very little understanding of what is going on.

Why do you think I surprised?  I’m actually not surprised at all.  I suggest you read what I wrote about this.  I’m not sure you are  understanding what I defined as the hypocrisy of the situation.  I’ll put it in point form and highlight what I have been saying.

1. The POTUS can and should appoint a SC nominee as soon as he can
2. The senate should help enable that.
3. The hypocrisy is trying to dress this up as somehow different than in 2016 because “reasons”

They justified it last time by telling everyone that it was about Americans being the ones who should make that choice in an election year.  Now they are back tracking on that being on the other side of that decision with a very lame justification. That is the hypocrisy. 

I’m not sure how I can explain this any better but you keep arguing points I have not brought up.

:dunno:

My understanding is this: In 2016 Obama nominated someone the republican senate majority didn’t want. What  makes it different now is Trump will nominate someone the republican senate majority will want. Those are “reasons” enough I’d think.  I maintain that is not hypocrisy.
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
101
Points
630
Then they should have stated that back then.  Not the bs they spewed back then.

I maintain that you are still arguing a point that I have not brought up.  You are missing the point of what I am stating is the hypocrisy.  The action of appointing an SC nominee whether in power or not as a senate is not what I am pointing out.  It’s the argument they are making in light of their previous stand on it.  I get that you are on TEAM Red but come on. 

Here read their comments from 2016 about Americans being the ones who should choose when it’s an election year.  Pay close attention to what Graham said about it and encouraging people to use his own words against him if the situation were reversed in 2020.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/obama-mcconnell-ruth-bader-ginsburg-scalia-supreme-court-b491539.html

If you can’t see the hypocrisy in that then I’m not sure you know what that word means.

 

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Ha ok, yes, there is some hypocrisy there in those statements in how they are justifying not supporting Obama’s pick. And it’s also irrelevant. Bottom line, they didn’t want Obama’s guy, but they will want Trump’s. They had the power then, they have the power now.

We’re talking in circles, fly shit and pepper.
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
101
Points
630
QV said:
Ha ok, yes, there is some hypocrisy there in those statements in how they are justifying not supporting Obama’s pick. And it’s also irrelevant. Bottom line, they didn’t want Obama’s guy, but they will want Trump’s. They had the power then, they have the power now.

We’re talking in circles, fly crap and pepper.

Close enough for me.  Have a good one.
 

Donald H

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I don't recommend anybody spend time watching this. I've only posted it here because Joe states that 75% of Americans don't want Roe vs. Wade overturned.

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/is-there-no-winning-hand-for-republicans-in-scotus-fight-92200517991

But a good question: Is that where Trump is going to try to go when he fills the vacan seat?
 
Top