22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

27 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So if you create an unprincipled rule to favour your party you should then have the principles to be consistent in applying your unprincipled rule?  Since everyone is willing to be unprincipled then maybe it's all just politics?

Yes, McConnell should apply the same rule to his party that he applied to Obama's party.  That isn't so difficult, is it?

Pure politics has FA to do with any noble characteristics humans may possess.  Pure politics is in play here on both sides.  That isn't so difficult, is it?

12 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Do u understand it is a jury that decides guilt, not a prosecutor.

Sure, corrupt prosecutors are an impossibility.  Everyone knows that.

41 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

The entire Reid episode was beyond fabricated. Anyone who thinks Biden pinned her up against a wall, in the very public halls of congress, needs to stop drinking the kool aid, and get some therapy immediately.

 

 

Why does Mrs. Harris support fabricated episodes? She spoke the words, said what she said. She accused Biden based on fabrication, hmm, begs the question, how many criminal convictions based on fabrication. She should answer the question (among others), explain her position, like then and now. Clear the record.

8 minutes ago, xofswen said:

Not fake news, mangled post-- what is it?

I think in June 1992 and again now in Sept 2020 Biden argued the nomination and senate vote for a new SCotus should take place post election but in 2016 for the Garland selection he argued opposite, the Scotus vacancy should be filled immediately, even a few months ahead of the election.

“I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with a confirmation process as [Senate Judiciary] chairman, even a few months before a presidential election if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires.”

Which republicans did not agree with. Get it?

35 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

From that article:

 

"She faced questions about some of her policies and prosecutions, including an anti-truancy program that threatened parents of children who skipped school with prosecution and her handling of claims from men of color who had been wrongfully convicted of criminal charges."

 

Go right ahead and believe that the whole and only truth was that Harris simply "did her job as a prosecutor."  Nothing more to it.  

Oh my, she faced questions?  Horrors!

 

Do you understand that prosecutors make enemies, and that anyone with a history of substantive accomplishments can be second guessed  in hindsight?

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Which republicans did not agree with. Get it?

ha ha ha, i guess I missed it.

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Pure politics has FA to do with any noble characteristics humans may possess.  Pure politics is in play here on both sides.  That isn't so difficult, is it?

No both sides about. Its only replicans side. They set the rules then disregard them when it suits.

 

When did dems set those rules?

14 minutes ago, xofswen said:

Not fake news, mangled post-- what is it?

I think in June 1992 and again now in Sept 2020 Biden argued the nomination and senate vote for a new SCotus should take place post election but in 2016 for the Garland selection he argued opposite, the Scotus vacancy should be filled immediately, even a few months ahead of the election.

“I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with a confirmation process as [Senate Judiciary] chairman, even a few months before a presidential election if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires.”

He argued that nominations should not be considered during election campaigns.  Merrick Garland's nomination could have been dealt with before any significant campaigning began.

9 minutes ago, xofswen said:

Why does Mrs. Harris support fabricated episodes? She spoke the words, said what she said. She should answer the question (among others), explain her position, like then and now. Got a few more questions for her too.

A prosecutor prosecutes, thats her job, a jury decides guilt.

Email her any questions you like, im sure she is interested in you.

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Pure politics has FA to do with any noble characteristics humans may possess.  Pure politics is in play here on both sides.  That isn't so difficult, is it?

Politics is obviously in play.  However in this case the Democrats definitely have the high ground; it is McConnell and the Republicans who are being blatant hypocrites.

2 minutes ago, xofswen said:

ha ha ha, i guess I missed it.

How, its all over the news, in these threads, how could you possibly miss their stance.

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

31 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

From that article:

 

"She faced questions about some of her policies and prosecutions, including an anti-truancy program that threatened parents of children who skipped school with prosecution and her handling of claims from men of color who had been wrongfully convicted of criminal charges."

 

Go right ahead and believe that the whole and only truth was that Harris simply "did her job as a prosecutor."  Nothing more to it.  

Oh my, she faced questions?  Horrors!

 

Do you understand that prosecutors make enemies, and that anyone with a history of substantive accomplishments can be second guessed  in hindsight, don't you?

There's another possibility that you seem to not want to face at any cost . . . that she may actually have been corrupt.  Horrors!

28 minutes ago, Sujo said:

How, its all over the news, in these threads, how could you possibly miss their stance.

what stance? I forgot what is going on here. Have a link? ah, never mind, I will go do something else, wash the other half of my car I started yesterday.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

There's another possibility that you seem to not want to face at any cost . . . that she may actually have been corrupt.  Horrors!

Proof? Please.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking on your part

 

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Poor choices indeed but Biden is still the right choice for USA. 

Clearly, he's also just announced that 200 million have died from the virus. So clearly sharp and on the ball.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say Biden is literally insane, but to claim 200 million people have died from Covid 19 shows he's maybe not the right choice to lead the country.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8754233/Joe-Biden-makes-gaffe-saying-200-million-Americans-died-COVID-19.html

10 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Out of respect for RBG, the right thing to do is honor her opinion on the matter and seat a new judge. Even Joe Biden agrees. Well, that was his position in 2016. @stevenl, I hereby and graciously extend you an invitation to continue your talk about politicians and hypocrisy. I gladly concede I am sometimes a hypocrite who will cherry pick facts to suit my political agenda. How about you?

It seems you are living up to your claim of cherry picking. Don't ethics and morality come into your way of thinking? It would appear not. But then that is sadly lacking in your leader's makeup.

8 minutes ago, Sujo said:

23 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Pure politics has FA to do with any noble characteristics humans may possess.  Pure politics is in play here on both sides.  That isn't so difficult, is it?

No both sides about. Its only replicans side. They set the rules then disregard them when it suits.

 

When did dems set those rules?

If McConnell unscrupulously created a bogus rule which the Constitution does not support for the sole purpose of benefiting his party then wouldn't the Dems, claiming to be high-principled, honorable, and moralistic, stick to their principle of returning to the Constitution and be in favour of nominating and confirming a Supreme Court justice immediately, just as the Constitution states?  Or is it all about winning by any means, principled or not?

27 minutes ago, heybruce said:

44 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Pure politics has FA to do with any noble characteristics humans may possess.  Pure politics is in play here on both sides.  That isn't so difficult, is it?

Politics is obviously in play.  However in this case the Democrats definitely have the high ground; it is McConnell and the Republicans who are being blatant hypocrites.

I agree.  Especially with your qualifier "in this case."  Of course the Dems are not immune from hypocrisy as they now favour delaying until after the election (as that would favour their party) when "in principle" they don't believe in or agree with the McConnell rule.  Playing politics then you win some and you lose some.  No need to cry when you lose.

29 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

There's another possibility that you seem to not want to face at any cost . . . that she may actually have been corrupt.  Horrors!

I think the chances of Trump being corrupt are far greater.  But if you have credible evidence Kamala Harris is corrupt, please share it.

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I agree.  Especially with your qualifier "in this case."  Of course the Dems are not immune from hypocrisy as they now favour delaying until after the election (as that would favour their party) when "in principle" they don't believe in or agree with the McConnell rule.  Playing politics then you win some and you lose some.  No need to cry when you lose.

You are much more consistent than McConnell.  You consistently dodge the issue of Senate rules being applied consistently.

 

Also, as other posters have noted, Biden has been consistent is stating that Supreme Court nominees should not be considered once campaigning for an election has begun.  That wasn't the case with the Merrick Garland nomination, but it is definitely the case now.

28 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

31 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

There's another possibility that you seem to not want to face at any cost . . . that she may actually have been corrupt.  Horrors!

Proof? Please.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking on your part

I qualified my statement with "she may."  So I don't need to prove anything.  I've read enough, though, which convinces me that it's not just wishful thinking on my part.

17 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Clearly, he's also just announced that 200 million have died from the virus. So clearly sharp and on the ball.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say Biden is literally insane, but to claim 200 million people have died from Covid 19 shows he's maybe not the right choice to lead the country.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8754233/Joe-Biden-makes-gaffe-saying-200-million-Americans-died-COVID-19.html

So he mistakenly said "millions" instead of thousands.  So what?  Are you claiming Trump has never covfefe'd?

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I qualified my statement with "she may."  So I don't need to prove anything.  I've read enough, though, which convinces me that it's not just wishful thinking on my part.

I see. So I can state Trump may be a vampire, or the anti-christ, or Hitler's love child, and don't need to provide any evidence.

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I think the chances of Trump being corrupt are far greater.  But if you have credible evidence Kamala Harris is corrupt, please share it.

It's called the Internet.  And research.

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I see. So I can state Trump may be a vampire, or the anti-christ, or Hitler's love child, and don't need to provide any evidence.

Yup.

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's called the Internet.  And research.

Right.  You won't defend your speculation, so it should be ignored.

 

Why did you waste time posting it?

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You are much more consistent than McConnell.  You consistently dodge the issue of Senate rules being applied consistently.

I think it was a bogus rule and the Constitution should be adhered to.  Hope that satisfies you and you won't pester me with "dodging the issue" any longer.

 

Now how about you?  Are you a constitutionalist or do you want to play by bogus Senate rules?

11 hours ago, J Town said:

RGB's dying words were to wait until the election was over to choose a new justice.

Total rubbish.

44 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Clearly, he's also just announced that 200 million have died from the virus. So clearly sharp and on the ball.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say Biden is literally insane, but to claim 200 million people have died from Covid 19 shows he's maybe not the right choice to lead the country.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8754233/Joe-Biden-makes-gaffe-saying-200-million-Americans-died-COVID-19.html

Don't you love it when Trump fans always pick up on the VERY FEW gaffes that Biden makes but conveniently ignore Trumps? I mean Trump can hardly get a coherant sentance together; gets simple words completely wrong (Thigh Land, Covfefe anyone?) and even Tweets with terrible grammar, spelling and comprehension. 

If the debate is about verbal dexterity may I suggest you stop bringing a dull knife to a gun fight? 

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I think it was a bogus rule and the Constitution should be adhered to.  Hope that satisfies you and you won't pester me with "dodging the issue" any longer.

 

Now how about you?  Are you a constitutionalist or do you want to play by bogus Senate rules?

I think that a bogus rule used to disadvantage the Democrats should be kept in place when it disadvantages the Republicans, especially when the Senate leader who made the bogus rule is still Senate leader.

 

I also think Biden got it right when he said Supreme Court nominations should not be considered when election campaigns are in full swing.  It might be allowed in the Constitution, but a lot of things are allowed that are a bad idea.