(03-02-2016 02:16 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Is it not always the goal to make the opposition one term? Isn't winning the point? Seriously, that people keep going back to this like it's actually some kind of gotcha is asinine.

Yes, but that's not what anyone is saying. This is used because the Republicans like to pretend that they would work with him and compromise if he would, when they clearly never had any intention to do so.

(03-02-2016 02:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 02:16 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Is it not always the goal to make the opposition one term? Isn't winning the point? Seriously, that people keep going back to this like it's actually some kind of gotcha is asinine.

Yes, but that's not what anyone is saying. This is used because the Republicans like to pretend that they would work him and compromise if he would, when they clearly never had any intention to do so.

everytime i hear the cons complain that Obama/dems are the ones refusing to cooperate/act in good faith, it just reaffirms how much denial/brainwashing goes in in that demographic.

(03-02-2016 02:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 02:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 02:16 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Is it not always the goal to make the opposition one term? Isn't winning the point? Seriously, that people keep going back to this like it's actually some kind of gotcha is asinine.

Yes, but that's not what anyone is saying. This is used because the Republicans like to pretend that they would work him and compromise if he would, when they clearly never had any intention to do so.

everytime i hear the cons complain that Obama/dems are the ones refusing to cooperate/act in good faith, it just reaffirms how much denial/brainwashing goes in in that demographic.

Proof that Dems are brain dead.

And FTR, no, I don't think that Obama did all he could in reaching out to the Republicans.

(03-02-2016 02:56 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 02:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 02:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 02:16 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Is it not always the goal to make the opposition one term? Isn't winning the point? Seriously, that people keep going back to this like it's actually some kind of gotcha is asinine.

Yes, but that's not what anyone is saying. This is used because the Republicans like to pretend that they would work him and compromise if he would, when they clearly never had any intention to do so.

everytime i hear the cons complain that Obama/dems are the ones refusing to cooperate/act in good faith, it just reaffirms how much denial/brainwashing goes in in that demographic.

Proof that Dems are brain dead.

Proof that you're incapable of anything other than pro-Republican partisan rhetoric.

You wound me.

(03-01-2016 05:18 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  If Obama nominates a liberal, he's a fool. He puts up a centrist and it puts a ton of pressure on the senators in tight races to do the right thing and actually vote on the candidate. And then if they don't conduct a vote, it will clinch the November elections for the Democrats. Win-win.

that's a blunderbuss catch-22......

he doesn't have that capacity.....however, he knows if he stumbled in that direction, the right would approve.....

only someone with balls would do something like that....

(03-02-2016 12:02 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 10:32 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 09:27 PM)miko33 Wrote:  LOL for anyone believing that voters want to see more Obama influence in our country. Obama is a washed up loser that the majority of people cannot stand anymore. is the twice elected President of these United States It's likely that he goes down in history as the most worthless president we ever had. Pathetic. Bush ensured that could NEVER happen, lol

Hopefully the winner of the election in the fall can start Dec 1 so we can turn the page on that worthless ass. Hilldawg will replace both Scalia and RBG

If you want to argue that Obama is the tallest midget, then be my guest. At the end of the day, he's still a midget...

post of the day....

(03-02-2016 02:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 02:11 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 01:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 01:29 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And since Day 1, when has anyone in the GOP ever even hinted at the fact that they'd be interested in an honest negotiation?

Since day 1, Obama told the GOP in congress that they were not needed. The Dems had both houses under their control and he had plenty of opportunities to get as much done as he wanted to during that time. He told the GOP to pound sand and did not care about their views. When the Dems lost the house, Obama flipped the script.

Your statement is a strawman.

Oh c'mon man. What do you call this?





And Obama didn't have a filibuster proof majority for as long as you're letting on. Regardless, to pretend like the Republicans are the "aw shucks" good guys in all this is ridiculous.

How do you suppose you would react when the newly elected President of the other party announces: "Elections have consequences. The Republicans can ride in the back of the bus."

In other words - if you don't have a "D" next to your name, I'm not interested.

As soon as the House was lost, scumbag Harry Reid blocked any legislation from going to Obama's desk protecting him from becoming known as an even bigger loser president than he already is known as.

The actual quote, "We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.” was said in October of 2010, nearly two years into his presidency.

Like it or not, the president still gets to drive the car. Sorry.

naw....you/he/she doesn't understand the meaning of sorry unless arse is included....

(03-02-2016 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And FTR, no, I don't think that Obama did all he could in reaching out to the Republicans.

I know FDR.....is your's fk the righty too???

(03-02-2016 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 12:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 10:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Back to the original topic. Word is that Obama asked the Republican senators for whom he should nominate to fill the vacancy, and they had no answer. Tells you all you need to know about what they think of the Constitution. Advice and Consent my ass!

Obama never negotiated in good faith with the GOP. No surprise now why they would bother to answer him seriously. If they did answer seriously, would it change anything given how the previous 7 years went? Absolutely not. The only thing Obama is doing is politicking. He doesn't care if he can nominate someone or not. All he cares about is electioneering. We all know it. So do you. LOL at the feigned outrage unless...you actually believe that any of our career politicians actually cares about the country.

And since Day 1, when has anyone in the GOP ever even hinted at the fact that they'd be interested in an honest negotiation?

And there folks is the very definition of leftist "leadership". Why the eff did he run for the office in the first place then?

(03-02-2016 01:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 01:29 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 12:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 10:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Back to the original topic. Word is that Obama asked the Republican senators for whom he should nominate to fill the vacancy, and they had no answer. Tells you all you need to know about what they think of the Constitution. Advice and Consent my ass!

Obama never negotiated in good faith with the GOP. No surprise now why they would bother to answer him seriously. If they did answer seriously, would it change anything given how the previous 7 years went? Absolutely not. The only thing Obama is doing is politicking. He doesn't care if he can nominate someone or not. All he cares about is electioneering. We all know it. So do you. LOL at the feigned outrage unless...you actually believe that any of our career politicians actually cares about the country.

And since Day 1, when has anyone in the GOP ever even hinted at the fact that they'd be interested in an honest negotiation?

Since day 1, Obama told the GOP in congress that they were not needed. The Dems had both houses under their control and he had plenty of opportunities to get as much done as he wanted to during that time. He told the GOP to pound sand and did not care about their views. When the Dems lost the house, Obama flipped the script.

Your statement is a strawman.

Oh c'mon man. What do you call this?





And Obama didn't have a filibuster proof majority for as long as you're letting on. Regardless, to pretend like the Republicans are the "aw shucks" good guys in all this is ridiculous.

I'd call that the EXACT same thing that has been going on since the day Washington stepped down from his second term. Silly argument.

(03-02-2016 10:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 09:20 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 06:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 05:39 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 05:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  That's not what the polls say in several swing states. And it's not about who Obama nominates. It's the process...the obstructionism...that the liberals and a large majority of independents are objecting to. This is enough to swing the senate...and it's certainly enough to worry quite a few senators up for election.

Kelly Ayotte, Ron Johnson Hurt Reelection Prospects with Supreme Court Stance

Like I said previously...only liberals are saying this. The PPP is a liberal polling and analysis firm.

Is Quinnipiac also liberal?

Quote:The new warning sign for Portman comes in the question the survey asked on whether the Senate should "consider a candidate nominated by the president to fill the vacant seat," or "delay action on a Supreme Court nominee until there's a new president."

The poll found that 56 percent of Ohio voters want the Senate to weigh a nominee -- including 58 percent of women and independents. That's against just 41 percent who said they want to delay. Portman has sided with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in saying the Senate should not act.

The survey was done from Feb. 16 to 20, calling 1,539 registered voters on cell phones and landlines. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Poll Signals Trouble For GOP In Blockading Supreme Court
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-event...aseID=2326

Not saying it's a sure thing or that voting out incumbent Republicans will be easy...especially since November is away off, but the candidates are concerned...so the GOP would be wise to be as well. And trust me, they are.

Yes, very much so.

And your explanation of this from the exact same poll is what exactly?

Quote:Gov. John Kasich is the strong favorite in November presidential matchups in Ohio, thumping former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by 17 percentage points and burning Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont by 19 points, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Kasich tops Clinton 54 - 37 percent, including 57 - 27 percent among independent voters in Ohio, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds. The native son governor leads Sanders 54 - 35 percent, including 51 - 33 percent among independent voters.

Thought so.

I know they're a liberal outfit based on their behavior in the last 2 Governor's races and last 2 Senate races here in CT.

(03-02-2016 10:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Back to the original topic. Word is that Obama asked the Republican senators for whom he should nominate to fill the vacancy, and they had no answer. Tells you all you need to know about what they think of the Constitution. Advice and Consent my ass!

wow....."word is"?

last time I checked out at the DG, I did glance at the oprah wide eyes mag rack and laughed out loud so people in line would know that I was a crazy white guy that laugh at those that buy into 'that word'

there are some that pointed out, 'not a chance in hades that libtard could push one through' this year....

what's 'telling' is his (dis)service coupled the populous who voted for that incompetent sac of smegma are worried right now....and their options are not too sporty...

....awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

(03-02-2016 08:11 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 10:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 09:20 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 06:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 05:39 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  Like I said previously...only liberals are saying this. The PPP is a liberal polling and analysis firm.

Is Quinnipiac also liberal?

Quote:The new warning sign for Portman comes in the question the survey asked on whether the Senate should "consider a candidate nominated by the president to fill the vacant seat," or "delay action on a Supreme Court nominee until there's a new president."

The poll found that 56 percent of Ohio voters want the Senate to weigh a nominee -- including 58 percent of women and independents. That's against just 41 percent who said they want to delay. Portman has sided with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in saying the Senate should not act.

The survey was done from Feb. 16 to 20, calling 1,539 registered voters on cell phones and landlines. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Poll Signals Trouble For GOP In Blockading Supreme Court
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-event...aseID=2326

Not saying it's a sure thing or that voting out incumbent Republicans will be easy...especially since November is away off, but the candidates are concerned...so the GOP would be wise to be as well. And trust me, they are.

Yes, very much so.

And your explanation of this from the exact same poll is what exactly?

Quote:Gov. John Kasich is the strong favorite in November presidential matchups in Ohio, thumping former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by 17 percentage points and burning Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont by 19 points, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Kasich tops Clinton 54 - 37 percent, including 57 - 27 percent among independent voters in Ohio, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds. The native son governor leads Sanders 54 - 35 percent, including 51 - 33 percent among independent voters.

Thought so.

I know they're a liberal outfit based on their behavior in the last 2 Governor's races and last 2 Senate races here in CT.

Which was?????

And I assume you can't explain why such a liberal polling firm would have Kasich with such a big lead then?

PPP finds more 4 more states where the block may be hurting Republicans. Add AZ, MO, NC and IA to the list.

Quote:It’s a 56/40 spread in favor of filling the seat in Iowa, 56/41 in Arizona and Missouri, and 55/41 in North Carolina. What’s particularly important in the numbers is the strong support for filling the seat among independents- it’s 60/38 in Missouri, 59/37 in Arizona, 58/38 in Iowa, and 55/38 in North Carolina. Independent voters will be key to determining whether these incumbents sink or swim this fall, and they want the vacancy filled.

Oh...and this nugget for DC1. Sorry about that.

Quote:While the PPP works with Democrats, their research is generally in line with non-partisan surveys, such as a recent Quinnipiac University poll in Ohio that found voters don't like the decision of Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to back the court blockade.

Polls Show The Supreme Court Blockade Is Hurting The GOP

Maybe after asking if they want the seat filled they should ask if they want it filled with a far left raving loon. See if the numbers remain the same. Bet you even know the answer to that Tom.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Maybe after asking if they want the seat filled they should ask if they want it filled with a far left raving loon. See if the numbers remain the same. Bet you even know the answer to that Tom.

But Obama is well aware of this...so he isn't going to nominate someone like that. He's going to nominate someone that at least one Republican on Judiciary has approved of before on previous nominations.

And if they still refuse to even hold hearings, I believe the public is going to become further frustrated with it.

If so, the Republicans could lose the senate over it.

We shall see.

(03-04-2016 10:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  PPP finds more 4 more states where the block may be hurting Republicans. Add AZ, MO, NC and IA to the list.

Quote:It’s a 56/40 spread in favor of filling the seat in Iowa, 56/41 in Arizona and Missouri, and 55/41 in North Carolina. What’s particularly important in the numbers is the strong support for filling the seat among independents- it’s 60/38 in Missouri, 59/37 in Arizona, 58/38 in Iowa, and 55/38 in North Carolina. Independent voters will be key to determining whether these incumbents sink or swim this fall, and they want the vacancy filled.

Oh...and this nugget for DC1. Sorry about that.

Quote:While the PPP works with Democrats, their research is generally in line with non-partisan surveys, such as a recent Quinnipiac University poll in Ohio that found voters don't like the decision of Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to back the court blockade.

Polls Show The Supreme Court Blockade Is Hurting The GOP

Quinnipiac? Non-partisan?