ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
55945011_807070866320064_503710504594702336_n.jpg
That blank check you “red staters” constantly want to write to Israel allows them to have the US pay for their defense while they offer basically free universal health care and higher education to their citizens. But I guess that’s okay because we can’t turn our backs on keeping God’s chosen people educated and healthy, right?
 
Promoting liberalism in Kentucky is a losing proposition. From the article, not only did MJ's group fail but virtually every politician associated with it failed to get elected to any office as well.
 
Politics and business don't mix...despite a lifelong business conman being president right now.

:grimace:
 
https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article228693464.html

Two years ago Matt Jones and Adam Edlen, who is currently running for Governor as a Democrat started a political group in Kentucky which was designed to "save politics in Kentucky." It has now dissolved. Matt has a lot going for him as one of the most visible leaders of Big Blue Nation. He has parlayed fan interest in UK sports into a very lucrative career. However, as a general rule business and politics don't mix well together. They both often wind up suffering because of the mix. I've never met Matt Jones but my unsolicited advice would be to dump poltics and stick with what has made you successful. Kentucky is much too of a conservative state for you to have a reasonable chance of statewide election or even a Congressional election.
Was wondering what happened to that...
 
He has my vote.......
Which proves a point..... no matter how poorly a candidate is qualified.......if he is a Dem they will vote them into office........Look at some of the crazy F'ing crack pots that are freshmen congresspeople.........Yep, a 29 yr old bartender is congressional material.....F'ing stupid is what she is........"zeros don't count for anything....so you just take those zeros off of a billion and it is a million......"? She has a degree in economics from some where....(Boston U.) she graduated with honors?
 
States don’t vote. People do. If it were reversed Repubs would be doing the same thing
No. They wouldn't.

(Most) Conservatives actually respect the Constitution.

21st century "Democrats" are nothing more than communists and their only God is power, and they'll do anything to get it.

Shredding the Constitution is no big deal to libtards.

Import the foreign mob and support rule by mob. Mexifornia is example 1A.
 
Which proves a point..... no matter how poorly a candidate is qualified.......if he is a Dem they will vote them into office........Look at some of the crazy F'ing crack pots that are freshmen congresspeople.........Yep, a 29 yr old bartender is congressional material.....F'ing stupid is what she is........"zeros don't count for anything....so you just take those zeros off of a billion and it is a million......"? She has a degree in economics from some where....(Boston U.) she graduated with honors?

Ocasio-Cortez majored in international relations and economics at Boston University, graduating cum laude in 2011.
 
You need to give some more thought to which side the fascists are on in this country.

A review of what happened in Charlottesville, and the aftermath, would be a good place to start.
Oh you mean the antifa mob (the left's brown shirts) who initiated the confrontation and violence?

D-ass.

The anti-statue removal groups had a permit.

Do you understand how freedom of assembly works, dopey?
 
No. They wouldn't.

(Most) Conservatives actually respect the Constitution.

On February 13, 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died.[71] Later that day, Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement that they would not consider any nominee put forth by Obama, and that a Supreme Court nomination should be left to the next President of the United States.[72][73][74]


21st century "Democrats" are nothing more than communists and their only God is power, and they'll do anything to get it.

Shredding the Constitution is no big deal to libtards.

Import the foreign mob and support rule by mob. Mexifornia is example 1A.


Someone needs to get back on his meds.
 
On February 13, 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died.[71] Later that day, Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement that they would not consider any nominee put forth by Obama, and that a Supreme Court nomination should be left to the next President of the United States.[72][73][74]





Someone needs to get back on his meds.
You mean the Biden rule?

Leftists are so dumb and SO indoctrinated. Scary mob.
 
Save politics in Kentucky from what? It's the height of arrogance if he believes it's in trouble simply because he doesn't agree with the outcomes. That's like national Democrats wanting to do away with the Electorial college simple because 40 of the 50 states will never vote for them. If the issue is people won't vote for what you want then the issue is you not politics in general.

Didn't we just have a guy get elected with the slogan Make America Great Again?

How is that not the exact same arrogance?
 
On February 13, 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died.[71] Later that day, Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement that they would not consider any nominee put forth by Obama, and that a Supreme Court nomination should be left to the next President of the United States.[72][73][74]





Someone needs to get back on his meds.
Not sure what this has to do with not respecting the constitution. What McConnell did is constitutional. The Senate has the right to confirm, reject or not vote on nominees as they see fit. Also there is precedence of both parties playing that game. Democrats sat on Bush's nominees for 8 years, not just a few months.
 
Which proves a point..... no matter how poorly a candidate is qualified.......if he is a Dem they will vote them into office........Look at some of the crazy F'ing crack pots that are freshmen congresspeople.........Yep, a 29 yr old bartender is congressional material.....F'ing stupid is what she is........"zeros don't count for anything....so you just take those zeros off of a billion and it is a million......"? She has a degree in economics from some where....(Boston U.) she graduated with honors?
Yeah, only Democrats do that...
 
Not sure what this has to do with not respecting the constitution. What McConnell did is constitutional. The Senate has the right to confirm, reject or not vote on nominees as they see fit. Also there is precedence of both parties playing that game. Democrats sat on Bush's nominees for 8 years, not just a few months.

There have been 103 prior cases in which — like the case of President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland — an elected President has faced an actual vacancy on the Supreme Court and began an appointment process prior to the election of a successor. In all 103 cases, the President was able to both nominate and appoint a replacement Justice, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. This is true even of all eight such cases where the nomination process began during an election year. By contrast, there have been only six prior cases in which the Senate pursued a course of action that — like the current Republican Plan — deliberately sought to transfer a sitting President’s Supreme Court appointment power to a successor. In all six such cases, there were, however, contemporaneous questions, not present here, about the status of the nominating President as the most recently elected President. The historical rule that best accounts for senatorial practices over the entirety of U.S. history is thus the following: While the Senate has the constitutional power to provide advice and consent with respect to particular Supreme Court nominees and reject (or resist) particular candidates on a broad range of grounds, the Senate may only use this power to deliberately transfer a sitting President’s Supreme Court appointment powers to a successor in the highly unusual circumstance where the President’s status as the most recently elected President is in doubt.

Given this more than two-century long tradition, the Senate Republicans’ current plan marks a much greater departure from historical precedent than has thus far been recognized. There is, however, still a further question whether the historical rule we uncover reflects a mere senatorial tradition, which should govern internal senatorial practices of fair dealing, or has further ripened into a constitutional rule that should inform the best interpretation of constitutional text and structure. In either case, the consequences of the plan are far more serious than its architects could have originally understood. After describing both possibilities, we suggest that Senate Republicans should rethink their plan so as to avoid these newly exposed historical, pragmatic and constitutional risks. Instead of continuing forward, the Senate should do what it has always done in similar past circumstances. It should proceed to full Senate consideration of Judge Garland or any other nominees that President Obama submits in a timely manner.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2752287
 
There have been 103 prior cases in which — like the case of President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland — an elected President has faced an actual vacancy on the Supreme Court and began an appointment process prior to the election of a successor. In all 103 cases, the President was able to both nominate and appoint a replacement Justice, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. This is true even of all eight such cases where the nomination process began during an election year. By contrast, there have been only six prior cases in which the Senate pursued a course of action that — like the current Republican Plan — deliberately sought to transfer a sitting President’s Supreme Court appointment power to a successor. In all six such cases, there were, however, contemporaneous questions, not present here, about the status of the nominating President as the most recently elected President. The historical rule that best accounts for senatorial practices over the entirety of U.S. history is thus the following: While the Senate has the constitutional power to provide advice and consent with respect to particular Supreme Court nominees and reject (or resist) particular candidates on a broad range of grounds, the Senate may only use this power to deliberately transfer a sitting President’s Supreme Court appointment powers to a successor in the highly unusual circumstance where the President’s status as the most recently elected President is in doubt.

Given this more than two-century long tradition, the Senate Republicans’ current plan marks a much greater departure from historical precedent than has thus far been recognized. There is, however, still a further question whether the historical rule we uncover reflects a mere senatorial tradition, which should govern internal senatorial practices of fair dealing, or has further ripened into a constitutional rule that should inform the best interpretation of constitutional text and structure. In either case, the consequences of the plan are far more serious than its architects could have originally understood. After describing both possibilities, we suggest that Senate Republicans should rethink their plan so as to avoid these newly exposed historical, pragmatic and constitutional risks. Instead of continuing forward, the Senate should do what it has always done in similar past circumstances. It should proceed to full Senate consideration of Judge Garland or any other nominees that President Obama submits in a timely manner.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2752287
Go complain to that creep who enjoys swimming nude in front of female secret service agents and molesting little girls.
 
Which proves a point..... no matter how poorly a candidate is qualified.......if he is a Dem they will vote them into office........Look at some of the crazy F'ing crack pots that are freshmen congresspeople.........Yep, a 29 yr old bartender is congressional material.....F'ing stupid is what she is........"zeros don't count for anything....so you just take those zeros off of a billion and it is a million......"? She has a degree in economics from some where....(Boston U.) she graduated with honors?
And likewise with GOP candidates. If Adolph Hitler ran as a GOP candidate 95% of Republicans would vote for him and if you say otherwise then you know you're a liar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bushrod1965
Freedom of speech and college should not be used in the same sentence. There is no such thing as freedom of speech for certain people in our society.

I’m still looking for some examples of this. Exactly how have conservatives been silenced at colleges? Don’t most of them have some extension of the “Young Republicans” clubs that exist in high schools? Are they banned from speaking their minds on campus? I need some facts, bro.

Also....

Did you guys miss me?

MODS - I promise I won’t bring up anything about our sports teams on here anymore. Let me stick around this time so I can offer up some....you know....DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT! Thank you in advance. I missed this place.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT