SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
And Rome.Not to mention those dudes in Greece a couple of thousand years ago.
And Rome.Not to mention those dudes in Greece a couple of thousand years ago.
I've been reading posts by Trump supporters for months, my joke meter is broken.You guys didn't get the joke.
I love that kasich is still hanging in there. So good.
He's sticking around to be the establishment track front runner in 2020I love that kasich is still hanging in there. So good.
May...but I know who it is not going to be.........F**king Ted Cruz........Holy ####! Go to tedcruz.com
That's gotta be a hack. Even Cruz isn't that crusty...or is he?Holy ####! Go to tedcruz.com
Ted's official site is www.tedcruz.org.That's gotta be a hack. Even Cruz isn't that crusty...or is he?
Going to be a VERY long 6 months :XBut I think one of my strengths is going — one of my really great strengths will be the military, will be getting us out and winning and getting us out of the mess we’re in, in the Middle East.”
As far as I'm concerned it's been a heaping pile of s**t sandwiches for 12 years now from both parties.And here I thought the Repubs wouldn't be able to top themselves after giving us Sarah P 8 years ago.
Boy was I wrong.
been waiting for that.. They can either confirm someone most on the right supported a couple years back..
Why?It's absurd that they haven't already...though, I doubt Hillary is capable of going much more "liberal" than Garland.
It's not a reflection on the nominee rather the person nominatingWhy?It's absurd that they haven't already...though, I doubt Hillary is capable of going much more "liberal" than Garland.
I thought the reason he got the nomination is that he was pretty middle-of-the-road and would be nearly impossible to deny, no?
The Red State rationale was partially that she could go more liberal but also younger, which seemed to be the bigger concern. Someone liberal who would be on the court for 20-30 years vs. 10-15.It's absurd that they haven't already...though, I doubt Hillary is capable of going much more "liberal" than Garland.
While that's true, there's a big difference between disappointing politicians, and people that have absolutely no experience or knowledge of the job they are running for.As far as I'm concerned it's been a heaping pile of s**t sandwiches for 12 years now from both parties.
That's what I was thinking when I originally read it, thanks for clarifying.It's not a reflection on the nominee rather the person nominating
They should.
Bill Clinton nominated Ginsburg and Breyer. I don't think Hillary is to the right of Bill.
You guys make good points. Hadn't thought about them. I guess time will tell. I'll be shocked if her first nomination is close to actual liberal though....maybe her 2nd or 3rd try?Bill Clinton nominated Ginsburg and Breyer. I don't think Hillary is to the right of Bill.
While she certainly won't want to upset her own apple cart in any way at all, I kind of doubt she cares all that much about potentially closing off the trough for the next generations coming down the pipeline.
My understanding is that the gun cases you're talking about were pre-Heller and he was just following the law as it existed at the time.As long as there's a gun lobby I don't see Garland getting nominated. He is so overwhelmingly anti-gun that the Democrat media is circling the wagons writing stories about how disappointed they are that Obama nominated such a moderate.
I especially get a kick out of the articles that purport that his liberal positions are "myths". There are actual cases that can be pointed to that highlight how far to the left he is (especially with regards to the second amendment.)
Our 9th justice should probably be a big roulette wheel with "for" or "against" tabs. Let fate decide, baby.
Who would vote for a quitter/loser?.....other quitter/losers.
This doesn't make sense to me. Just vote Hilary. Same outcome, better drama.Really hoping the rumors of the GOP putting together a viable 3rd party candidate comes true... sure it will pretty well guarantee a Hillary presidency but, depending on who they choose, many of us will actually have someone to vote for in the presidency race other than "none of the above"..
I refuse to vote for either of the idiots the two parties are putting forth. At this point, if a legitimate 3rd party candidate doesn't present themselves, I may just write in "none of the above"...This doesn't make sense to me. Just vote Hilary. Same outcome, better drama.
there is a legitimate 3rd party candidateI refuse to vote for either of the idiots the two parties are putting forth. At this point, if a legitimate 3rd party candidate doesn't present themselves, I may just write in "none of the above"...
The GOP would rather lose than win? All they have to do is fully support Trump and they destroy Hilary. So dumb of them IMOReally hoping the rumors of the GOP putting together a viable 3rd party candidate comes true... sure it will pretty well guarantee a Hillary presidency but, depending on who they choose, many of us will actually have someone to vote for in the presidency race other than "none of the above"..
Based on what?The GOP would rather lose than win? All they have to do is fully support Trump and they destroy Hilary. So dumb of them IMO