Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
77 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Merrick Garland - do you non-lefties now view this as a huge strategic blunder? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Outside of a yuuuuuge October surprise, Hillary seems like a lock now. She'll probably appoint people younger and/or more liberal than Merrick.

Polls also show that Americans have a more negative view of the GOP, and an overwhelming majority think the Senate should vote on Garland.

So bad press for the GOP, yet another issue where they are out of step with most Americans, and for their trouble they will likely end up with a SCOTUS judge who will be on the bench 10+ more years and will likely be more liberal.

Do you still support the Senate's decision? Or do you think this will be a huge blunder?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Never supported this move to start with. The Senate should do its job. And like most other things it has tried, the GOP leadership has only one arrow in its quiver, to obstruct anything and everything, and that arrow ain't flying straight. Sadly, the party will once again complain that the reason it failed is that it wasn't conservative enough! Of course, that mantra four years ago got us Donald Trump today. When they try that mantra now, who will we get four years down the road... Vince McMahon?
31 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
And like most other things it has tried, the GOP leadership has only one arrow in its quiver, to obstruct anything and everything, and that arrow ain't flying straight.


If more Republicans believed this, you could fix your party in a jiff.

At least the Republicans of yore TRIED things and occasionally compromised to make the country better. Some were terrible ideas, but they were able to do something besides say over and over again "Government bad. Democrats bad." on Fox News.

Honestly sick of the partisanship on both sides.
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
And like most other things it has tried, the GOP leadership has only one arrow in its quiver, to obstruct anything and everything, and that arrow ain't flying straight.


If more Republicans believed this, you could fix your party in a jiff.


The fact is, too many Republicans believe the opposite. Just look at the narrative that the Order Of The Super-Dooper-Truest-Of-Truly-True Conservatives here will spin:

Back when Obamacare was being debated and crafted, there were filibusters and the debt ceiling was being held hostage. Everything possible was being tried to stop it and people were saying "Of course these tactics are fine... we're trying to stop something pernicious." But once the tactics failed and Obamacare passed, we now see people saying that the GOP just rolled over and what we needed were people who were willing to stand up against it. In other words... we failed because we just weren't obstructionist enough. Next time, we'll obstruction even more harder.

I hate it. Absolutely hate it.
29 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oldies but Goodies ... Avalon Hill and
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
We've got a nice, cushy spot for you over here in Democratland. You can brag that the crew of Good Ship Republican pushed you overboard right before it capsized and sank. With enough moderates abandoning the Republican Party, we can also avoid embarrassments like Bernie in the future. It's win-win.

kiss

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SPIGuy wrote:
We've got a nice, cushy spot for you over here in Democratland. You can brag that the crew of Good Ship Republican pushed you overboard right before it capsized and sank. With enough moderates abandoning the Republican Party, we can also avoid embarrassments like Bernie in the future. It's win-win.

kiss



So because I find the leadership of one party distasteful, I somehow suddenly like the core values of the guys on the other side? Uhhhh... no. And sorry, but Hillary is as much an embarrassment as Bernie. We have a really good chance of giving Harding a run for his money in the next four* years.







* I really hate to say it but it's looking like eight. Thanks, partywide dysfunction!
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How was Sanders an embarrassment?
9 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oldies but Goodies ... Avalon Hill and
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Angry old socialist who wants to give away lots of free stuff? He's like the caricature of Democrats that conservatives are always throwing darts at.

----------------------------------

He talks and talks about squeezing "Wall Street speculators" until the pips squeak, apparently without realizing that the middle class will end up paying a hefty portion of the taxes he's directing at Wall Street.

He wants free college for anyone and everyone, apparently without realizing that savvy university administrations will direct a hefty portion of that government money into their own pockets.

He frankly admits that in addition to the unforeseen consequences of the above two policies, he wants to raise taxes on the middle class directly in order to pay for universal health care and infrastructure improvements.

He wants to close off avenues for foreign trade and bring the investment money home, apparently without realizing that the great sucking sound he will hear is investment dollars fleeing for foreign shores in order to avoid the taxes and regulations he'd put in place.

He wants to invest in "clean, sustainable" energy, apparently without realizing with the full realization that the energy we'll be buying today and tomorrow while we wait for his "clean, sustainable" sources will be much more expensive due to carbon taxes and severe restrictions on domestic drilling. How expensive will it be? So expensive that he also needs a plan to protect "low income" and "vulnerable communities" impacted by "the transformation of our energy system."

He claims that all of this will be paid for by taxing carbon polluters and fossil fuel producers, apparently without realizing that his policies will make domestic production so expensive and so wrapped up in regulation and red tape that it will simply cease long before his "clean, sustainable" alternatives are in place.

He likens climate change deniers to criminals and looks forward to the day they can be "brought to justice." Yes. He really says that, and it's still up at his campaign website.

----------------------------------

As one who would have to be described as a conservative Democrat, I'm embarrassed - and very, very, very pleased that he's back in his Senate office, only one of a hundred rather than President of the United States.

9 
 Thumb up
0.56
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
whac3 wrote:
How was Sanders an embarrassment?

Well, if I was a troll or in tank for the Repud Party, I could say Sanders was an embarrassment because he was an Independent before he announced and returned to being one after he bowed out of the race.

But, since I'm in the tank for the Democratic Party [note the "ic" there on the end], I'll say that it just shows the "big tent" nature and inclusiveness of the Democratic Party.

1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walking on eggshells is not my style
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Wait? Trump died?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SPIGuy wrote:
He talks and talks about squeezing "Wall Street speculators" until the pips squeak, apparently without realizing that the middle class will end up paying a hefty portion of the taxes he's directing at Wall Street.
Speculators or Investors? There is a big difference. One's pain passes on to consumers and the other's doesn't. Also, you leave out his Wall Street reform which would change the landscape anyway, protecting consumers from the speculation that costs them far more.
SPIGuy wrote:
He wants free college for anyone and everyone, apparently without realizing that savvy university administrations will direct a hefty portion of that government money into their own pockets.
Hate or love it, implemented with proper oversight this can be contained. A running theme with your criticisms is that you think he is just going to do what his sound bites say and that's it. Each proposal would actually be part of a complex set of changes. Dismissing them at this shallow level is convenient but disingenuous.
SPIGuy wrote:
He frankly admits that in addition to the unforeseen consequences of the above two policies, he wants to raise taxes on the middle class directly in order to pay for universal health care and infrastructure improvements.
Of course, much of the money that the middle class pays into Health Insurance now would have to be redirected into Universal Healthcare in the form of taxes. With the hope that as time goes on, costs will drop and the amount you pay will be less than what you do now. Unlike your characterization, he isn't offering "free" anything, he is instead restructuring the dollar paths to more efficient and better delivery of cheaper service. If you want to argue the merits of that theory, then that would be an honest discussion.
SPIGuy wrote:
He wants to close off avenues for foreign trade and bring the investment money home, apparently without realizing that the great sucking sound he will hear is investment dollars fleeing for foreign shores in order to avoid the taxes and regulations he'd put in place.
And abandoning one of the largest markets on the planet? Now you are just fear mongering. Yes, individuals might hide investment money overseas, but if you want access to U.S. consumers you will have to play by U.S. rules, just like we haphazardly do to foreign companies now.
SPIGuy wrote:
He wants to invest in "clean, sustainable" energy, apparently without realizing with the full realization that the energy we'll be buying today and tomorrow while we wait for his "clean, sustainable" sources will be much more expensive due to carbon taxes and severe restrictions on domestic drilling. How expensive will it be? So expensive that he also needs a plan to protect "low income" and "vulnerable communities" impacted by "the transformation of our energy system."
Do you have a better way for the market to truly reflect the external costs of energy usage? Those external costs get higher and higher and get paid with taxes, not by the people who use the energy, so proportionate costs aren't paid by the real consumer, but spread out over all of us. Higher taxes in the long run. Cleaning up after dirty power is going to be much more expensive than paying higher prices for cleaner power.
SPIGuy wrote:
He claims that all of this will be paid for by taxing carbon polluters and fossil fuel producers, apparently without realizing that his policies will make domestic production so expensive and so wrapped up in regulation and red tape that it will simply cease long before his "clean, sustainable" alternatives are in place.
Supply and demand doesn't work that way. Once the price levels reach a certain point, the clean sources become more economical, get more investment and then get cheaper as economy of scale increases. The tax/regulation schedule can be implemented in a phased approach in order to ease the shock on the economy. Coal plants won't be immediately abandoned within the first week after inauguration. I know it sounds better and easier to dismiss it with doomsday speak, but leave that to the GOP, they have been doing it much longer and are much better at it than you.
SPIGuy wrote:
He likens climate change deniers to criminals and looks forward to the day they can be "brought to justice." Yes. He really says that, and it's still up at his campaign website.
Of course you aren't so dense as to not know of whom he is speaking of... the industry disinformation campaign puppet masters, not the unthinking rubes who fall for it. Just like the Tobacco companies had to be brought to justice. I know it makes for more convenient fear speak, but try some critical analysis at least.
SPIGuy wrote:
As one who would have to be described as a conservative Democrat, I'm embarrassed - and very, very, very pleased that he's back in his Senate office, only one of a hundred rather than President of the United States.
Which brings us to the end point, his run was like Nader's. He knew he couldn't win the White House, he was acting out a part to drive the Democrats to the left. All of his policies seem harsh and revolutionary, but in actual practice would actually be long term goals of gradual change. His intent is to make them the goals, instead of just treading water in the cesspool where we find ourselves. Hopefully your brand of conservative "democrat" will become a quaint anachronism within 20 years.

11 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
And like most other things it has tried, the GOP leadership has only one arrow in its quiver, to obstruct anything and everything, and that arrow ain't flying straight.


If more Republicans believed this, you could fix your party in a jiff.

At least the Republicans of yore TRIED things and occasionally compromised to make the country better. Some were terrible ideas, but they were able to do something besides say over and over again "Government bad. Democrats bad." on Fox News.

Honestly sick of the partisanship on both sides.


Yet another example of false equivalency on RSP.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
Which brings us to the end point, his run was like Nader's. He knew he couldn't win the White House, he was acting out a part to drive the Democrats to the left. All of his policies seem harsh and revolutionary, but in actual practice would actually be long term goals of gradual change. His intent is to make them the goals, instead of just treading water in the cesspool where we find ourselves. Hopefully your brand of conservative "democrat" will become a quaint anachronism within 20 years.



Similar to Nader, except Nader used a completely different process that led to 8 years of George W. Bush.
1 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Wait? Trump died?


Your Buden thing is not going well, trying for a Trump thing next?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
actuaryesquire wrote:
Similar to Nader, except Nader used a completely different process that led to 8 years of George W. Bush.
But he didn't. You might have missed the numbers discussion we have had in the past. More Democrats in Florida voted for George W then they did Nader, by a large margin. Nader was not the reason Gore lost. Gore's incompetent campaign was. If he had even won his home state, the Democrat Bush voters wouldn't have mattered. That some people voted for Nader is far down the list of "what if?s" necessary for Gore to pull out a win. Yet, Democrats skip down the whole list to target Nader so as to demonize and marginalize the left as obstructionist so they can protect the status quo establishment. The Party tells the faithful it was Nader's fault and they believe. Just like the fossil fuel companies deny climate change and their puppets believe.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Wait? Trump died?


Your Buden thing is not going well, trying for a Trump thing next?


Wait a minute !! Hillary will still go to jail and Biden will step in ( or so Koldie thinks LOL )
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Foy
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
actuaryesquire wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
Which brings us to the end point, his run was like Nader's. He knew he couldn't win the White House, he was acting out a part to drive the Democrats to the left. All of his policies seem harsh and revolutionary, but in actual practice would actually be long term goals of gradual change. His intent is to make them the goals, instead of just treading water in the cesspool where we find ourselves. Hopefully your brand of conservative "democrat" will become a quaint anachronism within 20 years.



Similar to Nader, except Nader used a completely different process that led to 8 years of George W. Bush.


Stop blaming Nader. Gore ran a crappy campaign. All he had to do is ride Clinton's coat-tails. It became obvious that Gore didn't like Clinton much.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
TheChin! wrote:
SPIGuy wrote:
He talks and talks about squeezing "Wall Street speculators" until the pips squeak, apparently without realizing that the middle class will end up paying a hefty portion of the taxes he's directing at Wall Street.
Speculators or Investors? There is a big difference. One's pain passes on to consumers and the other's doesn't. Also, you leave out his Wall Street reform which would change the landscape anyway, protecting consumers from the speculation that costs them far more.
SPIGuy wrote:
He wants free college for anyone and everyone, apparently without realizing that savvy university administrations will direct a hefty portion of that government money into their own pockets.
Hate or love it, implemented with proper oversight this can be contained. A running theme with your criticisms is that you think he is just going to do what his sound bites say and that's it. Each proposal would actually be part of a complex set of changes. Dismissing them at this shallow level is convenient but disingenuous.
SPIGuy wrote:
He frankly admits that in addition to the unforeseen consequences of the above two policies, he wants to raise taxes on the middle class directly in order to pay for universal health care and infrastructure improvements.
Of course, much of the money that the middle class pays into Health Insurance now would have to be redirected into Universal Healthcare in the form of taxes. With the hope that as time goes on, costs will drop and the amount you pay will be less than what you do now. Unlike your characterization, he isn't offering "free" anything, he is instead restructuring the dollar paths to more efficient and better delivery of cheaper service. If you want to argue the merits of that theory, then that would be an honest discussion.
SPIGuy wrote:
He wants to close off avenues for foreign trade and bring the investment money home, apparently without realizing that the great sucking sound he will hear is investment dollars fleeing for foreign shores in order to avoid the taxes and regulations he'd put in place.
And abandoning one of the largest markets on the planet? Now you are just fear mongering. Yes, individuals might hide investment money overseas, but if you want access to U.S. consumers you will have to play by U.S. rules, just like we haphazardly do to foreign companies now.
SPIGuy wrote:
He wants to invest in "clean, sustainable" energy, apparently without realizing with the full realization that the energy we'll be buying today and tomorrow while we wait for his "clean, sustainable" sources will be much more expensive due to carbon taxes and severe restrictions on domestic drilling. How expensive will it be? So expensive that he also needs a plan to protect "low income" and "vulnerable communities" impacted by "the transformation of our energy system."
Do you have a better way for the market to truly reflect the external costs of energy usage? Those external costs get higher and higher and get paid with taxes, not by the people who use the energy, so proportionate costs aren't paid by the real consumer, but spread out over all of us. Higher taxes in the long run. Cleaning up after dirty power is going to be much more expensive than paying higher prices for cleaner power.
SPIGuy wrote:
He claims that all of this will be paid for by taxing carbon polluters and fossil fuel producers, apparently without realizing that his policies will make domestic production so expensive and so wrapped up in regulation and red tape that it will simply cease long before his "clean, sustainable" alternatives are in place.
Supply and demand doesn't work that way. Once the price levels reach a certain point, the clean sources become more economical, get more investment and then get cheaper as economy of scale increases. The tax/regulation schedule can be implemented in a phased approach in order to ease the shock on the economy. Coal plants won't be immediately abandoned within the first week after inauguration. I know it sounds better and easier to dismiss it with doomsday speak, but leave that to the GOP, they have been doing it much longer and are much better at it than you.
SPIGuy wrote:
He likens climate change deniers to criminals and looks forward to the day they can be "brought to justice." Yes. He really says that, and it's still up at his campaign website.
Of course you aren't so dense as to not know of whom he is speaking of... the industry disinformation campaign puppet masters, not the unthinking rubes who fall for it. Just like the Tobacco companies had to be brought to justice. I know it makes for more convenient fear speak, but try some critical analysis at least.
SPIGuy wrote:
As one who would have to be described as a conservative Democrat, I'm embarrassed - and very, very, very pleased that he's back in his Senate office, only one of a hundred rather than President of the United States.
Which brings us to the end point, his run was like Nader's. He knew he couldn't win the White House, he was acting out a part to drive the Democrats to the left. All of his policies seem harsh and revolutionary, but in actual practice would actually be long term goals of gradual change. His intent is to make them the goals, instead of just treading water in the cesspool where we find ourselves. Hopefully your brand of conservative "democrat" will become a quaint anachronism within 20 years.


Dude, if you're going full-on Shreve, you gotta throw in some pictures. All that gray copy ... yuck. How about some puppies, or kittens that swallow M&Ms?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
Dude, if you're going full-on Shreve, you gotta throw in some pictures. All that gray copy ... yuck. How about some puppies, or kittens that swallow M&Ms?
Truly I wish I had the fortitude and forum mastery to create the multimedia masterpieces that Shreve produces. He is a singular talent.

EDIT: Is that better?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
SPIGuy wrote:
We've got a nice, cushy spot for you over here in Democratland. You can brag that the crew of Good Ship Republican pushed you overboard right before it capsized and sank. With enough moderates abandoning the Republican Party, we can also avoid embarrassments like Bernie in the future. It's win-win.

kiss



So because I find the leadership of one party distasteful, I somehow suddenly like the core values of the guys on the other side? Uhhhh... no. And sorry, but Hillary is as much an embarrassment as Bernie. We have a really good chance of giving Harding a run for his money in the next four* years.

* I really hate to say it but it's looking like eight. Thanks, partywide dysfunction!


You make an excellent point. The democrats may be two far a leap.

I do fear the republicans have suffered a hostile takeover at this point (look how much of the leadership is being ignored and has withdrawn).

Have you tried hooking up with your local political party meetings? You might be able to find bonds with similar republicans or see that it's too late there.

The invitation was meant in a friendly way- and with the spirit of a more conservative democratic party as moderate republicans joined.

Personally, I'd prefer it to keep it's infinitesimal move to the left. It's still a very right wing party compared to most of the world.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:

Outside of a yuuuuuge October surprise, Hillary seems like a lock now.


I'm sure that's what the libs are telling themselves, but I view that as an invalid premise.

The Senate is right to reject any unqualified candidate. Garland is unqualified on many levels -- he should be rejected no matter how the election plays out.



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
actuaryesquire wrote:
Similar to Nader, except Nader used a completely different process that led to 8 years of George W. Bush.
But he didn't. You might have missed the numbers discussion we have had in the past. More Democrats in Florida voted for George W then they did Nader, by a large margin. Nader was not the reason Gore lost. Gore's incompetent campaign was. If he had even won his home state, the Democrat Bush voters wouldn't have mattered. That some people voted for Nader is far down the list of "what if?s" necessary for Gore to pull out a win. Yet, Democrats skip down the whole list to target Nader so as to demonize and marginalize the left as obstructionist so they can protect the status quo establishment. The Party tells the faithful it was Nader's fault and they believe. Just like the fossil fuel companies deny climate change and their puppets believe.


nader's run was sufficient to tip the scales.

While nader wasn't solely responsible, if nader hadn't run the numbers showed the likely democrat voters from nader's voters would have been sufficient to win florida for gore.

There were many 1+1+1+1+1=5 reasons and nader was one of those "1"s.

And it was obvious that he was and he chose to run anyway. And it lead to bush, trillions of dollars of wars based on lies, probably to the birth of ISIS, and a much more conservative supreme court.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:

Outside of a yuuuuuge October surprise, Hillary seems like a lock now.


I'm sure that's what the libs are telling themselves, but I view that as an invalid premise.

The Senate is right to reject any unqualified candidate. Garland is unqualified on many levels -- he should be rejected no matter how the election plays out.



Ferret

You may disagree with his political views, but that doesn't make him "unqualified".
19 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
[q="SPIGuy"]He talks ... find ourselves. Hopefully your brand of conservative "democrat" will become a quaint anachronism within 20 years.


Dude, if you're going full-on Shreve, you gotta throw in some pictures. All that gray copy ... yuck. How about some puppies, or kittens that swallow M&Ms?


Actually, I think it's rational lively discussion!

So I thumbed both of them.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:

Outside of a yuuuuuge October surprise, Hillary seems like a lock now.


I'm sure that's what the libs are telling themselves, but I view that as an invalid premise.

The Senate is right to reject any unqualified candidate. Garland is unqualified on many levels -- he should be rejected no matter how the election plays out.



Ferret


Other then you disagreeing with his leanings or previous decisions, how and why exactly do you consider him unqualified ? Could you be more specific ?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.