What was being set up was her naming her own successor.

The movie.

The press.

The drama.

It was all being prepared, but with The Don it ain't happening.

Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

If you mean a moderate conservative like an Alito....

Otherwise, you can take that suggestion where the sun don't shine.

The solution will be something with the dreamers and some additional federal spending somewhere else.

But Pelosi is painting herself in a corner making this a longer shutdown than it need be with her morality nonsense.

Trump will get money for the wall. The Democrats aren't even naming a price yet.

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

Yes

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

you guys really don't get it......

your party picked the wrong mf'r and time frame to play politics over something so trivial by shutting down the gov't by not funding the wall.....

I have zero sympathy what the left thinks about the next nominee....

rest assured, it won't be a ginsburg clone....

(01-11-2019 12:09 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

Yes

No. SCJ for the Wall? Why? You have the confirmation votes in the Senate now for your SCJ and you don't even have to have a moderate. One more SCJ and getting a ruling that the wall is an emergency gives you both the Wall and the SCJ. It's absolutely a fail to negotiate on the Supreme Court Justice when gaining that essentially gives you the wall, if not now, soon.

And that's even if the Emergency Funding for the wall needs a ruling and I don't think it does.

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

Describe a "moderate" today. Esp for a lifetime SC appointment.

Are there any pelosi/schmucky moderates that would be candidates?

Have they ever had a beer?

(01-11-2019 02:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 12:09 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

Yes

No. SCJ for the Wall? Why? You have the confirmation votes in the Senate now for your SCJ and you don't even have to have a moderate. One more SCJ and getting a ruling that the wall is an emergency gives you both the Wall and the SCJ. It's absolutely a fail to negotiate on the Supreme Court Justice when gaining that essentially gives you the wall, if not now, soon.

And that's even if the Emergency Funding for the wall needs a ruling and I don't think it does.

For the good of the country, I don’t think an overly partisan court in either direction is a good thing. Someone pro-gun for sure, to lock that issue down for generations.

For the sanity of the left. They are teetering right now, and if they lose RBG for ACB, I think terrorism is an actual concern.

Shaking hands on a deal instead of ramming it through via national emergency (and setting the precedent for the dems) would also bump Trump’s approval rating and his chances in 2020.

Another Kavanaugh and a wall? I take that deal.

(01-11-2019 12:09 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

Yes

ONLY, and ONLY

if the funding is there, approved, passed and signed prior.

We've seen this sleight of hand more than once before from the "loyal" opposition (otherwise known as the leftist liars), lets see this legislatively approved funding now.

Offer Murdock or whatever his name was for consideration in return.

Taking all bettors on that one...


*yea, I no longer bet

Merrick is what he's called, and Garland the last name. Escaped me for a moment

(01-11-2019 02:31 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 02:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 12:09 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

Yes

No. SCJ for the Wall? Why? You have the confirmation votes in the Senate now for your SCJ and you don't even have to have a moderate. One more SCJ and getting a ruling that the wall is an emergency gives you both the Wall and the SCJ. It's absolutely a fail to negotiate on the Supreme Court Justice when gaining that essentially gives you the wall, if not now, soon.

And that's even if the Emergency Funding for the wall needs a ruling and I don't think it does.

For the good of the country, I don’t think an overly partisan court in either direction is a good thing. Someone pro-gun for sure, to lock that issue down for generations.

For the sanity of the left. They are teetering right now, and if they lose RBG for ACB, I think terrorism is an actual concern.

Shaking hands on a deal instead of ramming it through via national emergency (and setting the precedent for the dems) would also bump Trump’s approval rating and his chances in 2020.

Another Kavanaugh and a wall? I take that deal.

The point is we don't have to make a deal at all. They were given their chance for a deal. There is a much needed lesson in it for all of them. If we could get another Kavanaugh then let's get him or her. But we don't need to deal to do it. It would be a sign of weakness.

And quite frankly they need to know that as long as extremists drive their agenda Americans can have no compromise with them.

And one more thing, as long as they have Kagan and Sotomayor they have 1 too many.

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

You mean, like the kind of deal that Tip O'Neill and the democrats welshed on with Reagan?

I think that's really the problem here. Neither side trusts the other on this issue after that, and I don't know how one negotiates with someone whom he/she doesn't trust.

I don't really think much of the wall, so that's not a trade I would make. I would counter with how about we drop the wall, we enact a merit-based comprehensive immigration system (hell, for all the finger-pointing young Trudeau has done, I'd take Canada's law over ours in a heartbeat), and I get to appoint whomever I want to the SCt. At this point, probably the biggest positives I see from Trump are the corporate tax cut (not a fan of the personal tax changes) and SCt nominees, and the biggest negatives are the wall and tariffs, so I definitely would not favor giving up a positive to get a negative.

By the way, define "moderate." Merrick Garland is not a moderate. His views on gun control, among others, rule that out. I would have agreed to nominate a moderate, even Garland specifically, to replace RBG or whoever was the first liberal to go, in exchange for agreement to end the character assassination process for Kavanaugh. Garland for any of Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, or Breyer would move the court to the right. But now that democrats went there, nope.

(01-11-2019 03:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

You mean, like the kind of deal that Tip O'Neill and the democrats welshed on with Reagan?

I think that's really the problem here. Neither side trusts the other on this issue after that, and I don't know how one negotiates with someone whom he/she doesn't trust.

I don't really think much of the wall, so that's not a trade I would make. I would counter with how about we drop the wall, we enact a merit-based comprehensive immigration system (hell, for all the finger-pointing young Trudeau has done, I'd take Canada's law over ours in a heartbeat), and I get to appoint whomever I want to the SCt. At this point, probably the biggest positives I see from Trump are the corporate tax cut (not a fan of the personal tax changes) and SCt nominees, and the biggest negatives are the wall and tariffs, so I definitely would not favor giving up a positive to get a negative.

By the way, define "moderate." Merrick Garland is not a moderate. His views on gun control, among others, rule that out. I would have agreed to nominate a moderate, even Garland specifically, to replace RBG or whoever was the first liberal to go, in exchange for agreement to end the character assassination process for Kavanaugh. Garland for any of Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, or Breyer would move the court to the right. But now that democrats went there, nope.

The way the ultra left blue States are headed and with more conservative Boomers phasing out, we need every conservative or right leaning moderate we can get on the court if our grandchildren are to have anything to hang onto for the future.

The balance cannot be measured in terms of the Supreme Court only. The Supreme Court has to be held in equilibrium with the Executive and Legislative branches. Once Trump fills a second term it may be very difficult to rely upon regaining the house, especially with some former red areas of Texas turning blue and with Virginia looking like it has been flipped just enough to keep it blue.

So my point is the Court may be the only line of defense against what the media and the left are seeking to accomplish. Therefore, any compromise on the SCourt jeopardizes the balance because it may be the only one of the 3 branches safeguarding our rights for the next few decades until the utter nonsense that threatens our nation today has run its course as the young grow older and wiser.

So I just can't see where any compromise on the Supreme Court nominees can be an acceptable strategy for conservatives. We should replace RBG with another conservative while we have the chance, and possibly replace one of the older justices with a younger conservative while we have the chance. If in 2020 the Republicans lose seats in the Senate, and fail to regain a majority in the House, we might find ourselves in tough times trying to keep the Court as a counterbalance to the other lunacy.

I would define a moderate as someone who wouldn't overturn Roe vs Wade.

(01-11-2019 06:44 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I would define a moderate as someone who wouldn't overturn Roe vs Wade.

The Democrats don’t trust the Republicans to nominate a “moderate” and the Republicans don’t trust the Democrats to confirm a “moderate.”

So, the “moderate” nominee would have to be specified and agreed to by all parties ahead of time.

I would probably consider Joan Larsen, the 6th App. judge from Michigan who was confirmed 60-38 to her current position in 2017.

Eff Schumer and Pelosi. No deal for a Supreme Court nominee. Thats weak. Call the emergency, build the wall and nominate who trump wants. Democrats are only in control of one half of one third of government. No need to give them more power than they have. They are gonna go two years and get absolutely nothing done except go after the President and make fools of themselves. Let them.

(01-11-2019 02:46 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 12:09 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

Yes

ONLY, and ONLY

if the funding is there, approved, passed and signed prior.

We've seen this sleight of hand more than once before from the "loyal" opposition (otherwise known as the leftist liars), lets see this legislatively approved funding now.

Offer Murdock or whatever his name was for consideration in return.

Taking all bettors on that one...


*yea, I no longer bet

Merrick is what he's called, and Garland the last name. Escaped me for a moment

Take a page from the lefts book. Say yes. Take the money now. Nominate whoever he wants later. Simple as that.

(01-11-2019 03:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

You mean, like the kind of deal that Tip O'Neill and the democrats welshed on with Reagan?

I think that's really the problem here. Neither side trusts the other on this issue after that, and I don't know how one negotiates with someone whom he/she doesn't trust.

I don't really think much of the wall, so that's not a trade I would make. I would counter with how about we drop the wall, we enact a merit-based comprehensive immigration system (hell, for all the finger-pointing young Trudeau has done, I'd take Canada's law over ours in a heartbeat), and I get to appoint whomever I want to the SCt. At this point, probably the biggest positives I see from Trump are the corporate tax cut (not a fan of the personal tax changes) and SCt nominees, and the biggest negatives are the wall and tariffs, so I definitely would not favor giving up a positive to get a negative.

By the way, define "moderate." Merrick Garland is not a moderate. His views on gun control, among others, rule that out. I would have agreed to nominate a moderate, even Garland specifically, to replace RBG or whoever was the first liberal to go, in exchange for agreement to end the character assassination process for Kavanaugh. Garland for any of Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, or Breyer would move the court to the right. But now that democrats went there, nope.

The problem with laws over physical barriers is decades or maybe even years from now the enforcement becomes selective. The I-9 law for example: that was supposed to keep ILLEGALS from working in the US. The problem just a decade or so after that passed enforcement became lax and penalties for failure to comply are not punitive enough to discourage violators. If I-9 were strictly enforced and harsh penalties levied for failure to comply we'd have very few illegals coming to the US.

Walls are effective for stopping mass incursion but do not address the underlying issue, bringing US immigration law into the 21st century. We must decide how many legal immigrants can be effectively integrated into the US each year on hold to that. Finally neither party wants to solve the, the GOP doesn't since illegals are a source of cheap labor for donors, the democrats don't since they view illegals as another demographic they can exploit using politics of fear.

(01-11-2019 08:40 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 03:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

You mean, like the kind of deal that Tip O'Neill and the democrats welshed on with Reagan?

I think that's really the problem here. Neither side trusts the other on this issue after that, and I don't know how one negotiates with someone whom he/she doesn't trust.

I don't really think much of the wall, so that's not a trade I would make. I would counter with how about we drop the wall, we enact a merit-based comprehensive immigration system (hell, for all the finger-pointing young Trudeau has done, I'd take Canada's law over ours in a heartbeat), and I get to appoint whomever I want to the SCt. At this point, probably the biggest positives I see from Trump are the corporate tax cut (not a fan of the personal tax changes) and SCt nominees, and the biggest negatives are the wall and tariffs, so I definitely would not favor giving up a positive to get a negative.

By the way, define "moderate." Merrick Garland is not a moderate. His views on gun control, among others, rule that out. I would have agreed to nominate a moderate, even Garland specifically, to replace RBG or whoever was the first liberal to go, in exchange for agreement to end the character assassination process for Kavanaugh. Garland for any of Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, or Breyer would move the court to the right. But now that democrats went there, nope.

The problem with laws over physical barriers is decades or maybe even years from now the enforcement becomes selective. The I-9 law for example: that was supposed to keep ILLEGALS from working in the US. The problem just a decade or so after that passed enforcement became lax and penalties for failure to comply are not punitive enough to discourage violators. If I-9 were strictly enforced and harsh penalties levied for failure to comply we'd have very few illegals coming to the US.

Walls are effective for stopping mass incursion but do not address the underlying issue, bringing US immigration law into the 21st century. We must decide how many legal immigrants can be effectively integrated into the US each year on hold to that. Finally neither party wants to solve the, the GOP doesn't since illegals are a source of cheap labor for donors, the democrats don't since they view illegals as another demographic they can exploit using politics of fear.

You are mostly right. However the failure of the past was not securing the border first. If that is not done, none of the other matters as the recent past proves.

(01-11-2019 08:46 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 08:40 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 03:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

You mean, like the kind of deal that Tip O'Neill and the democrats welshed on with Reagan?

I think that's really the problem here. Neither side trusts the other on this issue after that, and I don't know how one negotiates with someone whom he/she doesn't trust.

I don't really think much of the wall, so that's not a trade I would make. I would counter with how about we drop the wall, we enact a merit-based comprehensive immigration system (hell, for all the finger-pointing young Trudeau has done, I'd take Canada's law over ours in a heartbeat), and I get to appoint whomever I want to the SCt. At this point, probably the biggest positives I see from Trump are the corporate tax cut (not a fan of the personal tax changes) and SCt nominees, and the biggest negatives are the wall and tariffs, so I definitely would not favor giving up a positive to get a negative.

By the way, define "moderate." Merrick Garland is not a moderate. His views on gun control, among others, rule that out. I would have agreed to nominate a moderate, even Garland specifically, to replace RBG or whoever was the first liberal to go, in exchange for agreement to end the character assassination process for Kavanaugh. Garland for any of Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, or Breyer would move the court to the right. But now that democrats went there, nope.

The problem with laws over physical barriers is decades or maybe even years from now the enforcement becomes selective. The I-9 law for example: that was supposed to keep ILLEGALS from working in the US. The problem just a decade or so after that passed enforcement became lax and penalties for failure to comply are not punitive enough to discourage violators. If I-9 were strictly enforced and harsh penalties levied for failure to comply we'd have very few illegals coming to the US.

Walls are effective for stopping mass incursion but do not address the underlying issue, bringing US immigration law into the 21st century. We must decide how many legal immigrants can be effectively integrated into the US each year on hold to that. Finally neither party wants to solve the, the GOP doesn't since illegals are a source of cheap labor for donors, the democrats don't since they view illegals as another demographic they can exploit using politics of fear.

You are mostly right. However the failure of the past was not securing the border first. If that is not done, none of the other matters as the recent past proves.

or better yet, if the wall would've been in place back then, we wouldn't be having this conversation today....