POLITICS 2020 Election

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by CardinalVol, Nov 7, 2018.

  1. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    You’re a dumbassed bigot.
     
    The Dooz likes this.
  2. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Bullshit.

    You’re inventing both halves of this, wholecloth.

    My statements on RGB are as consistently crystal clear as any I’ve publicly stated.

    The “expanded court” is utter delusional silliness, and has only become a thing since the libs lost the lock. It’s your gunman on the grassy knoll, and is bollocked gibberish.

    If the Dems attempt to expand and fill the court, things will speed up rather rapidly, and well beyond your ability to comprehend, much less foresee.

    Bookmark this post.
     
  3. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Silliness.
     
  4. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    "Things?" What "things?" And by speed up, you mean "inevitable" or "already in motion?"
     
  5. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    You can’t advocate for her retirement and truly believe this.

    Pick one.
     
  6. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Take it as you will.

    Things are things. When one side becomes certain that the other has no intention of following any rule or precedent that they simply don’t prefer, each become unnecessary to both.

    Immediate and irrevocable.
     
  7. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    But there is precedent. And it would be entirely constitutional.

    I think you were threatening physical violence.
     
  8. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    There is no constitutional limit on the number of justices appointed to SCOTUS.

    With the Senate’s advice and consent.

    I said no such thing. More fake news.
     
  9. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Right. So what would be the grounds for objection if the Senate did it?
     
  10. Butthole

    Butthole Chieftain

    Judging by election results, they're going further left as well.
     
  11. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Yep, being a centrist party wasn't accomplishing anything. Gonna be called leftists, might as well be leftists.
     
  12. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator

    I think that will play well in certain places, but will that win a national election.

    Obama played the centrist role and walked into office.
     
  13. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    I don't know. And it doesn't need to be a run to the extreme, but rather center-left. The days of complaining without proposing anything detailed or concrete must end. Because the lack of details allow for others to fill in the blanks.
     
  14. The Dooz

    The Dooz Super Moderator

    The Avenatti for President fan boys aren’t gong to like this:

     
  15. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Whew. Can't wait to hear more about this.
     
  16. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    Thought he was a crusader for women
     
  17. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

    How long before Trump takes a jab on twitter?
     
  18. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

    We know his defense -"She hit me first."
     
  19. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    I'm guessing he will claim nothing ever happened. And THEN it will get interesting.

    Which if you think about it, makes you wonder if it is all part of playing that angle on him after Kavanaugh.
     
  20. gcbvol

    gcbvol Fabulous Moderator

    Forecast says a massive hypocrisy storm on the way. Blowing from every direction.
     
    kmf600 likes this.

Share This Page