(03-15-2016 11:17 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:42 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If he doesn't get a hearing for 8 months, then the Dems should wait at least that long for the nominee that the Repubs come up with, if they win the presidency.

That makes no sense.

Revenge often isn't very fair or logical. Payback is hell.

That's not payback, that's petty.

Ha that is rich. Not holding hearings is petty. Giving them a dose of their own medicine is petty and it is payback.

And that's what the Republicans are doing. Taking Joe Biden's advice.

(03-15-2016 11:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 11:00 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  GOP may pay a price in the general if they don't hold hearings and vote up or down. A majority of folks want a hearing.

Red meat for a primary opponent.

Republicans probably need to start thinking about what their own primary voters think for a change and stop worrying about what "Candi the Millennial Girl" might think about them if they don't properly service Obama.

Winning the primary doesn't amount to much if you lose the general.

The people who are all-fired concerned about whether Obama gets his nominee a hearing....ain't gonna vote for you in the general anyway.

This is one of the major problems of Republican office-holders....they cave every time because they are worried about what the media and a bunch of liberal bloggers might say about them.

Got news for you....you can hold hearings for Obama's nominee....you can pass him unanimously.....you can kiss the hem of his robes and call him Jesus.....and the media and the liberal bloggers are still going to call you a racist Nazi Republican neanderthal hater tomorrow.

That is where Reagan would laugh and make a joke about giving them time to repaint the new Justice's office before holding a hearing or some such. But Republicans don't do that....they just cave.

Obama is going to put up a nominee that the Republicans could not object to. He is going to put their backs against the wall on this and make them look foolish. This is all designed to give Hillary a campaign issue that she will hammer the hell out of the GOP on. She already mentioned it yesterday and got a rousing round of cheers at her rally.

(03-16-2016 12:21 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 11:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 11:00 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  GOP may pay a price in the general if they don't hold hearings and vote up or down. A majority of folks want a hearing.

Red meat for a primary opponent.

Republicans probably need to start thinking about what their own primary voters think for a change and stop worrying about what "Candi the Millennial Girl" might think about them if they don't properly service Obama.

Winning the primary doesn't amount to much if you lose the general.

The people who are all-fired concerned about whether Obama gets his nominee a hearing....ain't gonna vote for you in the general anyway.

This is one of the major problems of Republican office-holders....they cave every time because they are worried about what the media and a bunch of liberal bloggers might say about them.

Got news for you....you can hold hearings for Obama's nominee....you can pass him unanimously.....you can kiss the hem of his robes and call him Jesus.....and the media and the liberal bloggers are still going to call you a racist Nazi Republican neanderthal hater tomorrow.

That is where Reagan would laugh and make a joke about giving them time to repaint the new Justice's office before holding a hearing or some such. But Republicans don't do that....they just cave.

I bet you actually believe that crazy ****

The choice is this or somebody that HRC picks. Your move.

I do not understand the end game for the GOP on this. There is just to much time left on the clock for President Obama to not nominate someone. IF President Obama nominates Judge Sri Srinivasan who just three years ago got 100% of the vote. As others have said it would be petty and will hurt the GOP election chances. I understand the base will be upset, but to win elections you need the middle on top of your base. So if the GOP stonewalls the nominee, I am afraid it will tilt the election to H Clinton.. who will go further to the left which is not what we need. IMO

(03-15-2016 11:17 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:42 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If he doesn't get a hearing for 8 months, then the Dems should wait at least that long for the nominee that the Repubs come up with, if they win the presidency.

That makes no sense.

Revenge often isn't very fair or logical. Payback is hell.

That's not payback, that's petty.

Ha that is rich. Not holding hearings is petty. Giving them a dose of their own medicine is petty and it is payback.

Letting the voters decide who gets to nominate isn't petty. Both parties hold the same position. Except Dems want to pretend otherwise at the moment.

(03-16-2016 07:16 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 11:17 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:42 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  That makes no sense.

Revenge often isn't very fair or logical. Payback is hell.

That's not payback, that's petty.

Ha that is rich. Not holding hearings is petty. Giving them a dose of their own medicine is petty and it is payback.

Letting the voters decide who gets to nominate isn't petty. Both parties hold the same position. Except Dems want to pretend otherwise at the moment.

The voters did decide who gets to nominate by electing a president. The voters also decided who's role it is to advise and consent (or withhold consent) to such nominee by electing senators. Those senators preemptively determining that they won't even entertain any motion to advise and consent to any nominee of the duly elected President of the United States is the issue.

BOTH sides have decided that at the end of a term we wait for elections.

(03-16-2016 07:28 AM)Paul M Wrote:  BOTH sides have decided that at the end of a term we wait for elections.

riiiiiight....

Right.

(03-16-2016 07:35 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Right.

it looks to me like one side has decided it's a perfect election issue 'drum' they can beat right up to the November elections...and the other side handed them that drum as a gift, and doesn't even see it.

but that's just me...see ya in November!

(03-16-2016 07:41 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:35 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Right.

it looks to me like one side has decided it's a perfect election issue 'drum' they can beat right up to the November elections...and the other side handed them that drum as a gift, and doesn't even see it.

but that's just me...see ya in November!

no shite sherlock....why do you think he announced making a decision yesterday

the bulbs are burnt when you buy 'em.....

(03-16-2016 07:16 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 11:17 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:42 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  That makes no sense.

Revenge often isn't very fair or logical. Payback is hell.

That's not payback, that's petty.

Ha that is rich. Not holding hearings is petty. Giving them a dose of their own medicine is petty and it is payback.

Letting the voters decide who gets to nominate isn't petty. Both parties hold the same position. Except Dems want to pretend otherwise at the moment.

The voters did decide.

It's going to be hard to stonewall somebody who you voted for just a few years ago. Especially after your best hope right now is a Trump victory.

Think we're still in the process of deciding.

If Dems hadn't held this same position, you all might have an argument.

Not approving Obammy's SCOTUS nominee will have a relative importance in the election of sin ╥.

The people who will be pissed off aren't going to vote for the Republican anyways. So let them waste their time whining about how those nasty Republicans won't vote on the nominee because yada, yada, yada.

(03-16-2016 07:52 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  It's going to be hard to stonewall somebody who you voted for just a few years ago. Especially after your best hope right now is a Trump victory.

Just because I'd be fine with someone driving the dog catchers truck around doesn't mean I'd vote for them for Mayor.

(03-15-2016 10:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If he doesn't get a hearing for 8 months, then the Dems should wait at least that long for the nominee that the Repubs come up with, if they win the presidency.

Dems delaying would require that the Dems hold the Senate.
(Psst they don't.)

And what would their reason for delaying be if there isn't an election within the next year?

(03-16-2016 07:58 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If he doesn't get a hearing for 8 months, then the Dems should wait at least that long for the nominee that the Repubs come up with, if they win the presidency.

Dems delaying would require that the Dems hold the Senate.
(Psst they don't.)

And what would their reason for delaying be if there isn't an election within the next year?

did you hear about that voting thing we do in November?