Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
This is just an fyi. Supposedly though the original list came out of the Federalist or whoever ran it, Kavanaugh cane after that and both were vetted through Don McGahn and his law firm - and McGHn is long gone and the campaign just fired the law firm since McGahn cooperated with law enforcement in their investigation. So basically the team Trump used for those pucks is long gone.
Ah, that's unfortunate. I would, however, imagine the Republicans in the Senate would play a large role in the selection of the justices, should that come to pass.
He's not only far better than Trump; I think a pragmatic centrist should consider him comfortably better than the median Democrat in the race. My main issue with him is his age: he's only three years younger than Biden.
I reacted "thinking" because I think I agree with the statement about the median Democrat.
At first these two comments seemed a little contradictory to me, because I read the first as saying you don't trust Weld to pick similar justices as Trump. And I read the second as saying the President would rely on the Senate to help nominate SC judges, in which case I was thinking, you're likely to get similar judges regardless of whether it's Trump or Weld. But maybe I didn't quite interpret one or both correctly.
You know, I read this last night but couldn't appropriately respond on my phone while watching the draft. I don't think the comments are contradictory. There's absolutely no guarantee that Weld would be just as effective, even given Senate influence, as Trump was in selecting judges I want. Trump scored solid points with this voter, Kavanaugh's views on privacy and the Fourth Amendment notwithstanding and troubling. The statements about the Senate and its influence aren't contradictory because Weld has final say regarding any appointments and need merely informally and then formally consult the Senate and its Judiciary Committee. He may decide, given his moderate stance, to reach across the aisle and appoint a moderate judge, something Bush the Elder did with Souter. We saw how that turned out with respect to Court dynamics and Court politics. Trump has shown, at the very least, a surface willingness to consult the Senate and those in the know prior to his selection of justices and judges. That we know. We do not know what Weld will do.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
That's completely not the crux of the article and it was headlined by a Politico writer or staffer. Holy crap, Trump is ahead 72-17 in New Hampshire. That's an utter landslide. He's probably up similarly in Massachusetts.
Weld was never in the party, really. He was as close as you could get to an electable Republican in Massachusetts at the time. It's still sad to see Lying Lizzie unseat a good man in Scott Brown.
What does he have against scotch? What is he, some sort of Ex-patriot Brit hiding away in Africa or India in the 19th century?
Well all right then. I mean if gin-soaked was just an expression and not a life choice exclusive of brown liquor.
Which is exactly why the GOP will neuter him. No way they let Trump get on a stage with this guy.
Low energy Jeb looks like the energizer bunny compared to Weld. Don’t think anyone is worried
Probably also fair to say that if Kasich doesn't run then Weld would get those votes. - Obviously Weld isn't beating Trump but 30% looking or wanting other GOP candidates is pretty significant.
It's New Hampshire. That's a different breed. I think even W picked up a lower % there in his re-election bid, though I can't find the number.
Oh, absolutely. Sorry. I meant lower compared to what one would expect of an incumbent. I was using the word "lower" in that sense. Thanks for finding the percentage, though. I couldn't find the exact number. It better puts Saints's point into context. Trump is a good ways from 80%.
