MajarTheLion

7 hours ago, Silurian said:

Pence's misogynistic lack of respect for the female moderator by incessantly talking past his allotted time certainly didn't help him win the coveted suburban woman voter. Most polls have either a tie or Harris winning the debate.

 

Interestingly, this vice presidential debate was the second highest viewed only being topped by the Biden/Palin debate in 2008.

 

Who Won The Vice Presidential Debate?

 

 

 

Why do you think misogyny has anything to do with it? Do you really think Pence wouldn't have gone over his time if a man were moderating? If so, what is your basis for thinking that?

8 hours ago, riclag said:

This was the first time harris was challenged by a political opponent  face to face in 8 weeks ! In front of 10's of millions!

Pence exposed the moderator ,the media, her , and the riots!

Its been reported this is bidens successor!

On a abc debate poll  most people haven't changed  their opinion of harris and pence because of the debate!

 

Pence got a high percentage over harris for getting his point across

https://abc7ny.com/who-won-vice-presidential-debate-winner-is-winning-the-mike-pence/6852875/

 

Most interesting of the poll, was this imop 

Trump/Pence forty eight percent

biden/harris   fifty one     

 

  https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/08/why-biden-picked-harris/615100/

 

https://abc7news.com/vp-debate-who-won-kamala-harris-mike-pence-poll/6821855/

 

I voted for Pence in the debate poll!  My wife likes him very much,she thinks he's nalak

Honestly, after watching her performance, I can see why she doesn't generally take questions from reporters. She spouted numerous lies and clearly has trouble with being challenged. Also, when leftist's biggest crowing is about how a fly landed on Pence, that's pretty much an admission they know she lost.

Ouch... those high ratings are bad news for Democrats. Pence cleaned the floor with Kamala Harris.

I wonder why Joe Biden is afraid to debate in person.

On 9/25/2020 at 4:02 AM, Morch said:

 

So, tradition and the constitution are important when it suits, but a 'deflection' when it doesn't? Who was denying Trump's right to nominate? He's got the right - whether it's proper to go ahead with it can be argued about. The only one deflecting here is you.

The Senate majority, elected by the people of the United States of America, decides what's proper and makes the rules.

On 9/21/2020 at 1:45 PM, heybruce said:

You answered one question, and ignored the most important question.

 

So I'll answer that one for you:  In the last 100 years there have only been three Supreme Court Justice confirmations during an election year, and all three took place in January or February. 

 

A confirmation hearing less than two months before a Presidential election is unprecedented, violates the "McConnell rule" (no confirmation hearings during an election year), the "Biden rule" (no confirmation hearings once the campaign season has begun) and is wrong.

Elections have consequences. Rules changing is one of those consequences.  ACB will make a fine Supreme Court Justice.

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Has my position changed?  No.   I expect the Senate Majority Leader to be consistent in the application of the rules he chooses to impose on the Senate during his tenure.

Fair enough. As long as you understand McConnell is under no obligation to do so. And of course, expecting McConnell to maintain the same position while giving Biden a free pass on doing the same flip flop is not logical. It's partisan.

Just now, heybruce said:

Expecting McConnell to live up to his words and play by consistent rules is not flip-flopping.

I agree, expecting McConnell to live up to his words and play by consistent rules is not flip-flopping. But that is not why I am making the flip flop accusation. I am making it because Joe Biden was for seating a SCOTUS judge in year four of a presidency in 2016 but against it in 2020.

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

All your rationales applied in 2016.  I'm sure you were outraged that McConnell refused to let the Senate perform its constitutional duties then, weren't you?

No. Because like everyone else in DC, I flip flop to suit my political purposes. But then that begs the question of you. Has YOUR position on the issue changed between 2016 and now? Can I assume that you were outraged in 2016 as well as 2020 over this issue?

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

You want a timeline?

 

Your quote is from an interview of Justice Ginsburg published in July 2016. 

 

Ginsburg made it clear days before dying that she didn't want her replacement appointed until after the election.

 

Is that timeline clear enough for you?

No, that's not clear enough. You made a claim about when she made the decision she announced in 2016. But thanks for pointing out even RBG herself flip-flopped on the issue. The list continues to grow.

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

McConnell invented the precedent of not approving a Supreme Court Justice nomination during an election year in order to avoid stating the obvious fact that he was playing partisan politics and neglecting his constitutional responsibility to consider legitimate nominees.  Now he is ignoring his own precedent.

 

'nuff said.

Yep. And of course, let's not forget Joe Biden has also flip-flopped on the position he held in 2016. There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around in DC.

Just now, heybruce said:

After McConnell succeeded in blocking Merrick Garland's nomination for 11 months she decided that the same rule should be applied to Republican nominees.  Why is that difficult to understand?

Why do you think she only came to the realization a president is president for four years only after observing some partisan squabbling? Do you have any evidence to suggest when the actual decision was made? You made a timeline claim on when she made her decision. Now let's see you back up your claim.

Ruth Ginsberg herself says there's no reason the president shouldn't nominate someone for SCOTUS during an election year.

She lamented the Republican-majority Senate’s continued blocking of Garland from consideration, and its insistence that the next President, to be elected in November, should be the one to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

“That’s their job,” Ginsburg said, when asked whether the Senate should give the 63-year-old judge a fair hearing. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”

https://time.com/4400491/ruth-bader-ginsburg-interview-donald-trump-merrick-garland-abortion/?iid=sr-link7

If it's good enough for her, it's good enough for me.

12 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Yeas, you are right. But only because they have always been there and know exactly that they are putting themselves in a very good position of power. What if the world re-think and take that power away from them? Still only 350 million people, as you say now the center of the world. They are just in the position they are, because the rest of the world has been fools for too long time and allowed that to happen.

I agree with your statement that much of the rest of the world have been fools.

2 hours ago, candide said:

All GOP leaders opposed her POW! ????

So according to you, they were wrong?

They were being the partisan hacks we expected them to be. But honestly, now that the circumstances are in my hacks' favor, I can now take a moral stand and declare these delaying tactics wrong. And that right there is the most honesty you'll get here all day.  ????

Here is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself said (just a few years ago) about presidents nominating Supreme Court Justices in their last year of office:

"She lamented the Republican-majority Senate’s continued blocking of Garland from consideration, and its insistence that the next President, to be elected in November, should be the one to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

“That’s their job,” Ginsburg said, when asked whether the Senate should give the 63-year-old judge a fair hearing. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”'

https://time.com/4400491/ruth-bader-ginsburg-interview-donald-trump-merrick-garland-abortion/?iid=sr-link7

Can anyone put forth an argument as to why such a brilliant and legendary Justice shouldn't be listened to?

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Let's try again - was this ever a thing with other candidates? Or is this an ad hoc 'issue' ?

No, let's stick to the subject. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. Her death has been expected for well over a year. There are two people running to be president. One of them has apparently not thought about who will replace her. I am glad at least one has.

Furthermore, the logic you presented in another post about Biden not needing to do so because he's not president crumbles under the weight of even minor scrutiny. Since Biden isn't president yet, he shouldn't need to reveal any plans he would implement as president. After all, he's not president yet. Your logic.

On 9/19/2020 at 7:08 AM, cmarshall said:

Looks like the October Surprise is going to be war with Iran once the US starts seizing Iranian ships on the high seas.

Doubtful, given Trump is the only president in the past 40 years to not get us into new wars.

17 minutes ago, dexterm said:

European leaders warn US move to reimpose Iran sanctions is legally void

European leaders have warned the US that its claim to have the authority to reimpose sweeping UN-mandated sanctions on Iran has no effect in law, setting up a major legal clash that could lead to Washington imposing sanctions on its European allies.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/20/iran-says-us-move-to-reimpose-snapback-sanctions-is-a-false-claim

 

So the USA prefers sanctions against its US European allies rather than admit that it was wrong to ditch an anti nuclear weapons deal that was actually working.
Bizarre times. Bizarre POTUS.

I believe you've made quite a jump there. Some European leaders have said ".... that could lead to Washington imposing sanctions on its European allies". The thing is, that is anonymous speculation by foreigners of what may happen in the future. The problem is, you have attributed as USA's desire. It does not make logical sense. Are there perhaps a few dots you've omitted that can help the readers understand your claim?

On 9/18/2020 at 3:05 AM, wombat said:

confused asks....The United States abandoned the nuclear deal in May 2018 so how can they trigger a "snap back"?
what finer point am i missing?

Decent question. My guess is that the US can pursue our interests without a deal or agreement with Iran. But there's not information for any claims to be made.