Biden’s contempt for the average American voter knows no bounds

Oct 1, 2012
17,724
18,452
113
Greatest con the dems have ever pulled is fooling the sheep into thinking they are the party of 'the little guy'. They view everyday Americans as trash that are like ants under their feet.

The stupidity of Hiden here is that he's claiming if he answers then his answer will be all we will talk about. But now his NONANSWER is all we are talking about. And everyone knows he wants to pack the court, so now we are talking about how he won't answer the question and how he ISN'T BEING HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

He should just own it. Say he wants 30 on the court and screw you if you disagree. Won't lose him any votes and will actually pick him some up from radicals that are probably planning on doing a write in vote for AOC or Bernie. Or Stalin. Or Hitler.
 

ukalum1988

Rowdy Reptile
Dec 21, 2014
2,251
3,430
113
Evansville IN
Maybe he should lie just like Trump did about releasing his tax returns.
False. While Trump’s foot-dragging on his tax returns, due to legitimate reasons or not, may not be the model of transparency, does not impact the separation of powers and fundamental structures of our constitutional government like Biden’s in-your-face, “**** you” kind of response about this important issue.
 

BSC911

Bull Gator
Apr 18, 2018
5,732
1,539
113
Foot dragging? Legitimate reasons? LOL.Thats hilarious. He lied, plain and simple.

The pubs have turned SC nominations into a partisan ruse. It would serve them right for what MM started.
 

Sawnee Cat

Baby Gator
Aug 18, 2007
15
53
13
Greatest con the dems have ever pulled is fooling the sheep into thinking they are the party of 'the little guy'. They view everyday Americans as trash that are like ants under their feet.

The stupidity of Hiden here is that he's claiming if he answers then his answer will be all we will talk about. But now his NONANSWER is all we are talking about. And everyone knows he wants to pack the court, so now we are talking about how he won't answer the question and how he ISN'T BEING HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

He should just own it. Say he wants 30 on the court and screw you if you disagree. Won't lose him any votes and will actually pick him some up from radicals that are probably planning on doing a write in vote for AOC or Bernie. Or Stalin. Or Hitler.
^^^^^This

We are only weeks away from the election and we still do not know the policy position of Harris/Hiden. They refuse to answer most questions on policy and those that they do, change their mind before sundown.

The only policy we know that will not change is we are all racist. What a joke they are.
 
Oct 1, 2012
17,724
18,452
113
Foot dragging? Legitimate reasons? LOL.Thats hilarious. He lied, plain and simple.

The pubs have turned SC nominations into a partisan ruse. It would serve them right for what MM started.
Trump is doing the same thing in 2020 that obama did in 2016. Besides Merrick Garland was a shitty pick, be grateful we replaced him with a real judge.
 

ukalum1988

Rowdy Reptile
Dec 21, 2014
2,251
3,430
113
Evansville IN
Foot dragging? Legitimate reasons? LOL.Thats hilarious. He lied, plain and simple.

The pubs have turned SC nominations into a partisan ruse. It would serve them right for what MM started.
LOL false again. I wasn’t defending Trump on his tax returns at all. I was simply pointing out that what Biden is doing is much worse to our body politic. He’s demonstrating his disdain for the American people, but as usual you gaslight and deflect.

As to your second point, the Dims are the ones to corrupt the SC confirmation process. They’re the ones who make “Borking” into a verb and slandered Kavanaugh as a rapist. Finally, MM wouldn’t be in a position to be doing what he’s doing if Harry Reid hadn’t blown up the judicial filibuster.
 

Uniformed_ReRe

Gator Great
Nov 5, 2011
3,306
1,035
113
Parts Unknown
Yeah, i don’t understand their strategy of blatantly dodging this question. Everyone knows that the answer is either “yes” or “maybe” (not “no”) so why not just be honest? Repeatedly dodging the question just comes across as lame attempts at Jedi Mind Tricks and gives Trump something to hammer them with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom

Uniformed_ReRe

Gator Great
Nov 5, 2011
3,306
1,035
113
Parts Unknown
It was actually Bill Frist who tried to remove filibustering for nominees. But, yes, ultimately the Democrats are the ones who opened that pandora’s box.

Democrats were foolish to do it because the senate tends leans slightly conservative due to small states having the same number of senators as big states. They are now being hoisted by their own petard.

Packing the court is also stupid for the same reason. The Democrats should be looking for ways to weaken the senate and strengthen the house. Packing the court would give the senate a huge amount of power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom

gator1776

Bull Gator
Gold Member
Jan 19, 2011
34,187
53,395
113
LMAO, the pubs did that, eh?

Those poor dems. They were playing nice but the pubs wouldn't have it.
Foot dragging? Legitimate reasons? LOL.Thats hilarious. He lied, plain and simple.

The pubs have turned SC nominations into a partisan ruse. It would serve them right for what MM started.
Harry Reid says hi
 

Sawnee Cat

Baby Gator
Aug 18, 2007
15
53
13
LOL false again. I wasn’t defending Trump on his tax returns at all. I was simply pointing out that what Biden is doing is much worse to our body politic. He’s demonstrating his disdain for the American people, but as usual you gaslight and deflect.

As to your second point, the Dims are the ones to corrupt the SC confirmation process. They’re the ones who make “Borking” into a verb and slandered Kavanaugh as a rapist. Finally, MM wouldn’t be in a position to be doing what he’s doing if Harry Reid hadn’t blown up the judicial filibuster.
Excellent post and something libs would like for us to forget. They trash every nominee and it began with Ted Kennedy and his borking agenda. But we will not forget.
 

Uniformed_ReRe

Gator Great
Nov 5, 2011
3,306
1,035
113
Parts Unknown
Can the SCOTUS itself block an expansion? I guess it’s technically not unconstitutional if the Constitution doesn’t state a number, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they assert that expansion goes against the original framers’ intent. When does it end? The smarter Dems have to realize that doing this will work against them over the long-run.

I suspect that the Democrats’ intention may be to use the threat of expansion as leverage when negotiating with the GOP. I don’t think the idea is popular with anyone other than the Far Left. It really doesn’t make sense as an election strategy. Personally, I want Trump gone, but I don’t want all three branches of the federal government to be controlled by Democrats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BamaFan1137

Uniformed_ReRe

Gator Great
Nov 5, 2011
3,306
1,035
113
Parts Unknown
Apparently, Biden went on the record as opposing expanding the SCOTUS during the primaries.

I think playing coy is an attempt to appease the Far Left. The Biden campaign is probably betting that moderates/independents are less interested in this issue and will not be concerned about it one way or the other. But I don't think this issue is going away.
 
Oct 1, 2012
17,724
18,452
113
Apparently, Biden went on the record as opposing expanding the SCOTUS during the primaries.

I think playing coy is an attempt to appease the Far Left. The Biden campaign is probably betting that moderates/independents are less interested in this issue and will not be concerned about it one way or the other. But I don't think this issue is going away.
Everything the dems do is about their donors. They could care less what the voters think.
 

BamaFan1137

Gator Great
Nov 5, 2001
3,035
4,306
113
Apparently, Biden went on the record as opposing expanding the SCOTUS during the primaries.

I think playing coy is an attempt to appease the Far Left. The Biden campaign is probably betting that moderates/independents are less interested in this issue and will not be concerned about it one way or the other. But I don't think this issue is going away.
Entirely possible and perhaps even likely. That's only one of the positions that they won't tell us about until after the election, however. At some point it's risk vs reward even if you really hate Trump.
 

ukalum1988

Rowdy Reptile
Dec 21, 2014
2,251
3,430
113
Evansville IN
Apparently, Biden went on the record as opposing expanding the SCOTUS during the primaries.

I think playing coy is an attempt to appease the Far Left. The Biden campaign is probably betting that moderates/independents are less interested in this issue and will not be concerned about it one way or the other. But I don't think this issue is going away.
Deep down I believe Biden knows that packing the court with additional justices is a horrible thing to do. However, his handlers and the super-progressive activists whose support he needs won't countenance such "nonsense".
 

fatman76

Swamp Thing
Jun 15, 2007
850
1,457
93
Foot dragging? Legitimate reasons? LOL.Thats hilarious. He lied, plain and simple.

The pubs have turned SC nominations into a partisan ruse. It would serve them right for what MM started.
1) I'm sorry his tax returns didn't show Putin owns him.

But he never built his tax returns for public consumption like a lifelong politician does - he built them for maximum profit/revenue.

But ultimately the fact that you're comparing that to someone permanently politicizing and fundamentally changing one of the three core branches of gov't are all I need to know about the strength of your argument.

And while it might seem awesome now, with Biden leading in the polls, the party in power always oscillates. You won't like it one bit when the shoe is on the other foot.

2) The Pubs turned it into a ruse? You mean the same republicans who - at the very last second - trotted out Ballsy Ford to do her scared college girl act with literally zero corroboration? Or the second girl who claimed rape trains, and later copped to making everything up?

The same repubes who came up with the Anita Hill BS and tried to ruin Clarence Thomas?

The Democrats have a pretty solid record of making these confirmation hearings complete theater, where truth doesn't matter at all...the only goal is to destroy the nominee that they fear will try to be an originalist.

The current placement, while unfortunate for Democrats, is supported by precedent.
 

fatman76

Swamp Thing
Jun 15, 2007
850
1,457
93
Deep down I believe Biden knows that packing the court with additional justices is a horrible thing to do. However, his handlers and the super-progressive activists whose support he needs won't countenance such "nonsense".
He's caught between a rock and a hard place on so many issues I actually feel sorry for him.
 

fatman76

Swamp Thing
Jun 15, 2007
850
1,457
93
Can the SCOTUS itself block an expansion? I guess it’s technically not unconstitutional if the Constitution doesn’t state a number, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they assert that expansion goes against the original framers’ intent. When does it end? The smarter Dems have to realize that doing this will work against them over the long-run.

I suspect that the Democrats’ intention may be to use the threat of expansion as leverage when negotiating with the GOP. I don’t think the idea is popular with anyone other than the Far Left. It really doesn’t make sense as an election strategy. Personally, I want Trump gone, but I don’t want all three branches of the federal government to be controlled by Democrats.
Once it starts it'll be a political tool used by each party moving forward. There's no telling how big the court might get...or how political it might get.

People get wrapped around the axle about who nominates SC justices, but if you look back many have moved their ideologies while on the bench. And they aren't supposed to be political - it's about whether you try to interpret the original intent of our founding documents or feel they need to be read with modern glasses and applied to today's environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BamaFan1137

BSC911

Bull Gator
Apr 18, 2018
5,732
1,539
113
1) I'm sorry his tax returns didn't show Putin owns him.

But he never built his tax returns for public consumption like a lifelong politician does - he built them for maximum profit/revenue.

But ultimately the fact that you're comparing that to someone permanently politicizing and fundamentally changing one of the three core branches of gov't are all I need to know about the strength of your argument.

And while it might seem awesome now, with Biden leading in the polls, the party in power always oscillates. You won't like it one bit when the shoe is on the other foot.

2) The Pubs turned it into a ruse? You mean the same republicans who - at the very last second - trotted out Ballsy Ford to do her scared college girl act with literally zero corroboration? Or the second girl who claimed rape trains, and later copped to making everything up?

The same repubes who came up with the Anita Hill BS and tried to ruin Clarence Thomas?

The Democrats have a pretty solid record of making these confirmation hearings complete theater, where truth doesn't matter at all...the only goal is to destroy the nominee that they fear will try to be an originalist.

The current placement, while unfortunate for Democrats, is supported by precedent.
At least he had a hearing.
 

Uniformed_ReRe

Gator Great
Nov 5, 2011
3,306
1,035
113
Parts Unknown
Even if the Democrats win the senate, they will only have 50, or 51, seats. That’s probably not going to be enough to expand the SCOTUS.

In general, senators are more moderate than congressmen because they have to carry an entire state. Radical polemicists, like AOC, can win in their little ultra partisan gerrymandered echo chambers, but winning statewide forces you to deal with broad swath of constituents.

It’s unlikely that guys like Joe Manchin are going along with expanding the SCOTUS. He voted to confirm Kavanaugh, after all.
 

fatman76

Swamp Thing
Jun 15, 2007
850
1,457
93
At least he had a hearing.
Obama didn't have the Senate. Why have a hearing when the outcome of the vote is already known?

The only reason Obama nominated Garland was to enable whining and cries about how unfair it was. He knows how the system works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gatordad3

BSC911

Bull Gator
Apr 18, 2018
5,732
1,539
113
Obama didn't have the Senate. Why have a hearing when the outcome of the vote is already known?

The only reason Obama nominated Garland was to enable whining and cries about how unfair it was. He knows how the system works.
Why would the vote already be known? Garland was a moderate. Are you saying Senators should only confirm nominees their own party nominates? That’s quite a change from tradition.

At least don’t lie about it and say “the American people” should have a say. I respect Cruz for admitting it’s now just a partisan game, rather than people like MM and Lindsey Graham who outright lied about it.
 

BSC911

Bull Gator
Apr 18, 2018
5,732
1,539
113
Why the deflection? Why can people never stay on the topic being discussed?
That’s pretty much all we do on here. It is a political message board after all.

The point is that all Politicians are liars and hypocrites. This is not news.