Ineffective social programs perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Printable View
Ineffective social programs perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
NonsenseQuote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Then he certainly should not have had such claims printed. Wouldn't you agree?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Support of Dems equates to support of Antifa, et al. Anti American is what the Dem Party has become. The Party of anarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Your opinion or can you prove your claim to be fact?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Proven fact, Jack.Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sea...-zone/%3famp=1
Yes! it's true, all damage and looting done by BLM and Antifa is faked. There is ZERO damage in Portland, Seattle, wherever! Nothing has been happening...nothing at all. It's that movie special effects stuff...CGI.
In other news, the Portland mayor isn't really moving because of the riots either. And the Michigan governor (who is against walls) is building an electric fence around HER house to protect her against the BLM IDIOTS.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Oh wait....how will the morons explain that one away?
I never realized TDS and syphillis were so similar. Left untreated they both can cause serious brain damage. Goober is living proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Welp Gov Newsome, Biden, Obama, have all blamed the hurricanes and wildfires on.... wait for it.. climate change..
For a political party who claims to be all about science, they do not follow recommended science. California has banned any type of underbrush or forest management for decades.. so when you allow all of the underbrush to grow untouched, you have massive amounts of fuel for wildfires. My brother in law is a forrester (Tech Grad), has said their policies are the result of massive wildfires. He also said, it you noticed, you rarely see those types of fires in other parts of the country. Even believing in climate change, has no bearing on the lack of forest management.
Can’t really compare the forests of the Sierras to other forests. No other forests deal with the strong dry Santa Ana winds. Mix that with higher temperatures and less snow to keep things wet with runoff this time of year and you have a recipe for disaster.
As far as forest clearing... well, 60 percent of their forests are on federal lands managed by the USDA Forest service that is ultimately accountable to.....the one and only Donald Trump.
And can you imagine the outcry if the one and only Donald Trump ordered all those USDA forests clearcut! I for one would join in the chorus of saying, that ain't a good idea, but probably not for the same reasons the lefty wackos would be screaming. Of course, since we have to play the same old tired...WHAT A SHOCK!!!...let's blame President Trump :shocked2: it should be pointed out that the fire danger out west, and specifically in California, is a direct result of years, decades really, of mismanagement. I worked out west, I am a professional forester by training and trade, and I can tell anyone willing to listen, it is just plain STUPID out there! And it's been plain stupid dating back to the mid-70's for sure, and prior to that, although my personal experiences only date back to 1977.
But yeah, it's all Trump's fault. Just STFU Goosey. You are boring.
I never said that there wouldn't be forest fires, the problem is how bad they are.. and that is due to the lack of forest management.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Yet now you expect California to manage forests on federal lands. You must have slept through your forestry classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
No it isn’t. It is due to how dry it is and how strong the winds are. Management is an aggravating factor, but it is not the major one. This isn’t like your Louisiana forests.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Dang more foreign illegal money going to Biden. Yep probably America hating Russia, China or some Muslim country sending $millions to socialist and fascist loving Biden/Harris.Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
Published 13 hours ago
Exclusive: Data shows that half of 2019 donations to ActBlue came from untraceable 'unemployed' donors.
A Take Back Action Fund analysis of $400M in donations to liberal causes raises red flags of possible foreign involvement
EXCLUSIVE: Less than two months ahead of the presidential election – with concerns of foreign interference again at the forefront – a conservative political group is raising "serious concerns" about millions of donations reported by a major Democratic fundraising platform.
A preliminary computer analysis by the Take Back Action Fund, obtained exclusively by Fox News, has found that nearly half of all 2019 donations to ActBlue were made by people claiming to be unemployed.
Action Fund President John Pudner questioned the veracity of those donations and called it a loophole that must be closed for the sake of election integrity.
"After downloading hundreds of millions of [dollars in] donations to the Take Back Action Fund servers, we were shocked to see that almost half of the donations to ActBlue in 2019 claimed to be unemployed individuals," he said. "The name of employers must be disclosed when making political donations, but more than 4.7 million donations came from people who claimed they did not have an employer. Those 4.7 million donations totaled $346 million ActBlue raised and sent to liberal causes."
Pudner said the large number is a red flag that some donations may be illicit contributions from foreign interests attempting to impact U.S. elections.
"It is hard to believe that at a time when the U.S. unemployment rate was less than 4 percent, that unemployed people had $346 million dollars to send to ActBlue for liberal causes," Pudner said, adding that "4.7 million donations from people without a job ... raised serious concerns."
More
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/exc...mployed-donors
100% correct imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Donald Trump Responds to Western Wildfires: ‘It’s About Forest Management
President Donald Trump spoke about the wildfires savaging Western states on Saturday, urging Democrat states to properly manage their forests.
“You know it is about forest management. Please remember the words, very simple: forest management. Please remember that,” he said at a campaign rally in Minden, Nevada on Saturday night.
“Tonight our hearts are with all of the communities in the West battling devastating wildfires,” Trump said.
The massive wildfires have burned millions of acres of land in California, Oregon, and Washington, as hundreds of thousands of residents have been forced to evacuate.
The president praised the over 28,000 firefighters and first responders fighting the fires.
“They are fighting, and it’s dangerous,” he said.
President Trump has frequently blamed poor forest management for the fires that keep ravaging the West, while the left blames climate change.
“You got to clean your forests … they have many, many years of leaves and broken trees. And they’re like, so flammable. You touch them and it goes up,” Trump said in August at a rally in Pennsylvania. “I’ve been telling them this now for three years, but they don’t want to listen.”
More
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...st-management/
It is NOT just USFS lands involved. In fact, the recent fires, and the ones last year or two years ago that destroyed that town, started on private land, state land...oh! imagine that, and, most importantly, gathered momentum on lands other than USFS lands. BUT! and this why you are just so effing stupid! And BTW...don't you ever question my knowledge of forestry you sorry piece of shit...I have forgotten more than you will ever know. There is NOT a federal policy against practicing sound forest management on USFS land. They do hazard reduction burns in Kisatchie all the time, and other national forests across the country. Nope! this is just a stupid lefty west coast policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Under https://wildlife.ca.gov/portals/0/Im...indow-icon.gifCalifornia Penal Code Section 384a a person shall not willfully or negligently cut, destroy, mutilate, or remove plant material that is growing upon state or county highway rights-of-way. In addition, a person shall not willfully or negligently cut, destroy, mutilate, or remove plant material that is growing upon public land or upon land that is not his or hers without a written permit from the owner of the land, signed by the owner of the land or the owner’s authorized agent. In addition, removing or damaging plants from property that a person does not own without permission may constitute trespass and/or petty theft.
To biologists, vulnerable plants are canaries in the coal mine of climate change. Limited to certain soils or weather conditions, few in number because they have specialized habitat requirements or have been uprooted by California’s large human population, these rarities will be among the most challenging to preserve over the long run.
The complications of climate change
“The concern is with climate change, plants with more restricted ranges have narrower climatic tolerances and therefore may be more prone to habitat loss or local extinctions,” says lead author Erin Riordan. Riordan conducted the research as a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Some 5,300 plant species are native to California—more than any other state. About a third are considered rare, threatened, or endangered by the California Native Plant Society.
Sensitive plants “make up so much of our biodiversity, that if they’re not doing well, we’ll be losing a lot,” Riordan says.
Riordan used sophisticated climate models to determine whether sensitive plants currently found at NRS reserves are likely to survive there in the future. She came to this work after completing her PhD at UC Los Angeles. For her dissertation, she modeled how climate change will affect the plants of southern California’s coastal sage scrub.
Johnson grass and thistle deem protection in California.
Yep! it is so simple too. Practice good forest management and the risks of large fires is greatly reduced. The science is known as silvics and the art is silviculture. In higher risk regions, like the arid west, it is even MORE important to manage fire risk, yet they do the exact opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
We have the perfect lab setting to study and compare good forest management vs. no management right here in Louisiana. That sector of the Kisatchie National Forest in Natchitoches Parish which contains the Red Dirt National Wilderness Area, some stupid concept of doing nothing to the forest. About 5 years ago or so a fire started in that sector and the contrasts between the different areas was stark. In the managed areas of the NF, the fire moved slowly, flames never getting above knee-high, and was easily contained by fire crews. But in the Wilderness Area, which was allowed to just remain wild, the fire roared, crowned-out and gathered so much momentum it created a firestorm and the fire jumped onto private property, and it hit some of the managed areas of the NF which had not had its routine hazard reduction controlled burns yet in the rotation cycle and caused some damage, although 90% of the trees survived. The smoke was so bad from the inferno raging in the wilderness area that I-49 had to be closed for period of time.
I have been on the fire line of major "project" fires. One was near Klamath Falls in southern Oregon. Our crew was out there for 10 days, sleeping on the ground between 16-hour shifts on the line. Enjoying MREs supplied by the national guard most of the time, and on occasion being able to rotate back to base camp to get a shower and some real food courtesy of the guard which had a kitchen set up. I was also "fire boss" for a spell on a project fire in Louisiana, Grant Parish, the Black Creek Fire, which started on private property above Iatt Lake and roared through unmanaged forests. We were able to contain it by establishing our defensive lines on company lands, like International Paper's land, and using Black Creek itself as a barrier.
Like everything else in the universe, the forest does just fine when sound, conservative principles are applied, and it suffers mightily when subjected to libtard policies.
Completely agree...Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Doesn’t apply to federal lands. Federal preemption.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
The ones last year started on federal lands (the Camp Fire that was started by PG&E transmission equipment originated near the Poe Dam at the at the Tahoe National Forest). At least one of this years started in the Angeles National Forest.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
You should get your facts straight.
If you knew anything about forestry you would know that national forests are not managed by the state. They are managed by the US forest service of the US Department of Agriculture.
No reason to call me names just because you are slipping.
Kisatchie doesn’t have to deal with 35 mph winds that have been dried going over desert.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Apples and oranges.
Exactly my point, which I clearly said. There is no reason, except....[drum roll please]....for the lefty politicians of the Left Coast. IF...and try to pay attention this time...it was FEDERAL policy on USFS lands to NOT practice sound forest management it would apply to all NFs including Kisatchie. But, that is not true, now is it? FEDERAL POLICY would apply to ALL FEDERAL lands, right? Wouldn't it? That would mean we'd be seeing out-of-control wildfire sweeping across the South...but, we don't, oh, except for Red Dirt as I mentioned because it has the same restrictions as ALL NFs on the Left Coast. So...why do you think we see different policies in the different regions? Hmmm? Anyone? Buehler?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
BINGO!!!!!!!! which is why I said it is even MORE important to practice preventive forest management, i.e. hazard reduction, in the arid west. It can be done. As...need another drum roll....private companies have demonstrated, even though they have to fight the stupid-azz bureaucracy of California et al out there. Oh, they say, you can't burn off very dangerous debris...you need a permit. Okay, how do we secure a permit? Well, just fill out this 100-page application and mail it in...someone will get back to you. When? When someone gets to it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
When I worked for the USFS in Oregon the difference between the NF and lands owned by private entities, the largest of which where I was was Weyerhaeuser, in south-central Oregon, was stark. Amazing they could conduct HR burns safely, on exactly the same types of lands...mostly Ponderosa and Lodgepole Pine stands, very hilly and just as dry. Also amazing to see...the 35 mph winds didn't know to stop when they reached a property line, just blew right across from USFS to private land, back to USFS, back to private land...silly wind.
The South doesn’t have deserts. Are you saying California can manage the National Forests in its state? It is the same forest service that manages Kisatche and the ones in California.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Bad Orange Man with all his drilling an fracking caused the fires on the left coast. There would have never been fires hat Clinton won.
I don’t think anyone has blamed Trump, have they? Only you guys have indirectly done that in blaming forest management.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Oh, it's his fault somehow. Everything is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Not forest management, but global warming nerds who would rather protect some meaningless plant life over the lives and lively hood of tens of thousands. California keeps on electing these decision makers.
No one has blamed that on Trump. He might not be helping, but he didn’t cause it. You are just drama queening.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
From the queen of drama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Anyone? Buehler? Buehler? :icon_roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Selective harvesting, thinning treatments, brush removal, and pruning are practices used by foresters to thin out forests crowded with too many trees, branches, and undergrowth. ... All of these active fire management tools can make forest fires more manageable and reduce smoke emissions during burning. Works anywhere.
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue: "We've got great people at the Forest Service and great procedures and processes in place…but if we don't have a dependable funding source in place, then we'll never get ahead of the curve on fighting fires."Quote:
Originally Posted by tech70
And you once pretended to be a Libertarian! That is comical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The Pentagon is saying they need more money! President Trump has been rebuilding the depleted military, pouring $billions into it and yet it is still not enough. So, I wouldn't pay attention to any bureaucratic secretary of any agency. Just look at the "leadership" of the USFS...it's just another wussy libtard agency, presently led by a bunch of females. But, even prior to this bunch, out west they adhered to the wackos screaming about owls and wildflowers. Of course these big wildfires kill way more owls and wildflowers than good forest management ever would.
It's all typical libtard BS. Give us more money, just so we can eff up even more.
It isn’t something I am advocating for, I am just quoting Trump’s appointee who is also the former Republican governor of Georgia.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Not much the state of California can do when fires start on federal lands. With the super dry conditions and 35 mph winds, the fires jump roads and from building to building.
Anyway, for the rest of you, I can tell you that with proper forest management on ALL lands out west, such catastrophic fires can be greatly reduced.
Yep.. science agrees with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
you people are so predictable. I knew you would end up blaming it on climate change, which is what I posted yesterday. Turns out that is exactly what the rest of your leftist brothers are doing today… Climate change is bad orange man‘s fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Climate change has something to do with it. Science agrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Sure it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The climate has been changing since the dawn of time. Tell us something new.
The Earth experienced a min-ice age, primarily between the years 1650-1715, with lingering aspects/effects until close to 1850. Since then the planet has been warming up, gradually, year after year because!!! for an ice age to end...[drum roll, please]...the planet has to warm up! A real ice age created the Great Lakes and pushed as far south as Arkansas, thus forming the mountains there. The sheet of ice was one mile thick! That's a lot of ice. Where did it all go? Maybe the Earth warmed up and the ice melted...ya think?
Where's ole Gretta whatshername when you need her?
Grettaslapp???Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
How dare you!
Great Lakes, yes. Arkansas mountains, no. Plate tectonics.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
You’re right, though. Climate has changed again and again throughout the record. And the planet has been warming consistently since the Pleistocene. We’ve been living in a Goldilocks time.
Thing is, it’s happening rather quickly right now. Whether it’s anthropogenic in nature, it doesn’t really matter at the end of the day...it’s happening.
World climates have changed throughout time because that’s the way God created it. And it is proven in the rock record. Period! End of story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
So predictable. You people are like a machine.
I just find it odd that you want to put the blame on Trump on this issue rather than all the major things he has done wrong. I mean, if us true that he has had 4 years to clean up 60 percent of California’s forests, but no intelligent person thumbnail that forest management would have prevented the fires we are seeing now.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
The Harris/Biden ticket is blaming him for the fires and the hurricanes. I told you it was coming. You denied and continue to deny your party is a bunch of idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I realize it is pointless to continue to TRY to explain this to you...but, what the heck! They do NOT practice forest management on the left coast, including on USFS, BLM (that's Bureau of Land Management, not the organization you adore), federal lands, NOT because it is national policy, but to appease the wackos out there. It was tried, back in the '70's and into the early '80's, and the protests and unrest it caused was more than the Feds were willing to endure. Kind of like we see in Portland with the riots. So! the USFS adopted a hands-off policy out west, no POTUS has even tried to change it...although a re-elected Trump might...and why? Because no POTUS would have the support of the left coast congressional contingent, because they are wackos too, and just want to get re-elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Now...go see if you can track down Ferris, roaming the streets of Chicago....
USFS doesn’t answer to California or their local politics. Try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Ah, yeah...Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
On Monday, Democratic nominee Joe Biden condemned President Donald Trump as a "climate arsonist," predicting that if the president wins reelection in November, America will witness more "hellish" events like fires in the West, flooding in the Midwest, and hurricanes on the East Coast. He effectively promised that if he wins, America will suffer from fewer fires, fewer floods, and fewer hurricanes.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/poli...y-bin/2618181/
Nothing to worry about here folks...I'm sure this will be completely resolved by Nov. :icon_roll:
I'm all for fewer natural disasters...Wow! Biden is amazing he can stop such things. Only...he didn't when he had a chance previously, for 8 years. Not to mention 50 years being in DC. Would have been nice if he had spun some of his magic to stop other disasters. But, while I agree that stopping natural disasters would be great and all of that, I am not in favor of having a national disaster, which will definitely happen with a Biden win.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
You are such a drama queen.:laugh:
What????!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
I remember the day Obama/Biden were sworn in as the day the oceans stopped rising the the Earth began to heal. Was all that just political theatre and lies?
Consider me disillusioned.
Yup. Where DID it go? Sea level rose as an obvious response to melting glacial ice. Happened time and time before, and it’s happening pretty quickly right now...Anthropogenic causation or not....Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Missed the point...I swear, you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, with a shotgun, standing 5 feet away.Quote:
Originally Posted by turbodawg
This is sad. Joe goes unscripted off teleprompter when taking questions.
At 1:50 mark.. "The reason I was able to stay home is that a black woman was stocking the grocery shelves."
There will be no debates..democrats will not allow him to go answer questions without a teleprompter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sExGofYTfuI&feature=youtu.be
Did you watch the pres last night? Very interesting. He's just as susceptible to mind wandering as anybody else.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
No I missed it. Didn't know it was on.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Yep....ABC town hall. He offered plenty of ammo to his opponents, but I'll give him this, he's much better in that setting than he is at rallies or debates. Not that he'd take my advice, but I'd say the more things like that he can do, the better. Be a human, not an alt-right, conspiracy theory cheer leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Again, not having watched it, on the surface, I would say kudos to him for even doing it. George S. is a Clintonite first and foremost, and I would say it is like going into the lions den. There is no way, Joe or Kamala would EVER consider doing a townhall on FOX with Hannity or Laura Inghram as the "moderator" and have it filled with "undecided" voters. I would wager that there was no one in that audience that was "undecided"Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
You'd be wrong. You should check it out. He actually got quite a few friendly questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
This person is a true hero.. not NFL, NBA, or other over paid athletes...
https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net...40&oe=5F874F21
Meet Ashli Blain - a 19-year old - flying a CH-47D Chinook fire-fighting chopper for Billings Flying Service - keyword being fire-fighting. I mean there is flying, and there is fire-fighting flying - No one gets into fire-fighting for the fun or glamor of it - one needs passion, loads of commitment and understanding of the risks involved. Then there is flying and helicopter flying. She got type-rated on UH-60A Utility Hawks last year when she was 18, and probably got her flying license before that - and this year she is flying a Chinook no less. Looking at other 19-year olds and looking at her - I appreciate the maturity she has got at this age to pilot the mighty Chinook into a fire, and her parents for supporting her career. She can be a role-model to so many other folks in these times irrespective of age, and gender to follow their passion - Hats off!!
I’m pretty okay with a shotgun, but I’m often guilty of missing a point. I’m slow on the uptake, sometimes. What’d I miss?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Ice melts, sea level rises. Regardless of causation, it’s happening rapidly.
I'm no sciencest (sic) but, if you fill a container with water, mark the level, then melt it, it will not reach the level when frozen.Quote:
Originally Posted by turbodawg
The ice melting into the ocean is also coming off of land masses like Greenland. They aren’t displacing ocean water until they melt.Quote:
Originally Posted by BullPupN'46
With the passing of RGB, if no replacement were chosen, how would the vacancy impact a court decision on the election?
You can count on Mitch McConnell to flip flop on his view on Garland (let the election decide) and confirm Trumps pick even if Trump is a lame duck.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
The election has gotten even more important.
Ya know, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, I think it's sad...well, disgusting really...that such important matters as filling a SC seat is so political. I don't mean that both sides want to win the WH and Senate to get to appoint judges friendly to their political philosophies, that's understandable. No, I mean that such things as close Senate races are given as a reason not to move forward with expediting filling the seat. Senator Collins of Maine is in a close tough race, so pundits are already saying it would be dangerous to her re-election bid to force her to vote on a nominee prior to November 3rd. I hope Collins wins in Maine, but how is HER personal career considerations more important than the Senate meeting its Constitutional duty?
And of course, there is already concerns being expressed about leftist violence destroying more cities if Trump nominates a replacement and the Senate tries to move forward. How sick has it become that thugs on the streets are influencing the Constitutional processes and protocols! Send in the troops.
One thing is for sure, if the next nominee waits until the next POTUS is sworn in in January, then both bases will be motivated to turn out. Which of course means the Dems will be cheating like the dickens engaged in voter fraud. The dead will be bothered multiple times to complete ballots....
More concerning is how the court might deal with Trump contesting an election result. Roberts can be relied on to uphold the law, but the country is going to need Gorsuch to do the right thing.
More concerning is how the court might deal with Biden contesting an election result, and all the lawsuits of Dems wanting their cheating to be rubber-stamped by the SC.
You mean which justices will help the dems cheat? Which ones will deal properly with Biden contesting the election result (keep filling them out and counting them until you win, the Franken rule).Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
How many vote "counters" will they be able to recruit that can read the millions of Biden ballots that are submitted using Engrish?
You, Hillary and the democrats have been contesting the election results for 4 years.. What would Gorsuch need to do that is the "right thing"?? Declare Biden the winner even if he is not? You already know as do many others who follow politics that it is expected that the democrats are going to find literally truck loads of "mail in ballots" weeks after the election is over, to try to flip the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You’ve learned well comrade. Projecting onto Trump what Democrats have already done and promised to do again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Good observation. I think 80 and I were agreeing that when water ice bound in glaciers melts, sea level rises. Happened plenty times before.Quote:
Originally Posted by BullPupN'46
I’m naive enough to believe the Court will do its job, should that be the case. It’s very unfortunate that Trump has set the table for an unsubstantiated excuse of voter fraud, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Yes. President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the US Senate floor. You do realize that the Republicans still control the senate, don't you. That was your hero's problem when he nominated Garland. The Democrat Party had lost control of the senate by the end on Obama's second term and he couldn't get his nominee confirmed. That won't be the case with President Trumps third US Supreme Court appointee. I give the glory to God Almighty himself. I truly believe that Devine Intervention is in play here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
That's the way it works...the POTUS nominates someone to the SC and the Senate decides to confirm or not. Of course the ever-dangerous Krooked Killary is screaming for Senate Dems to block the nominee...no matter what. Killary has also advised Biden to not concede...ever! That bitch needs to just go away.
As for RBG. I posted months ago she should retire and enjoy her grandchildren and great grands and just enjoy the rest of her life. Instead, she vowed to stay on to prevent the bad orange man from replacing her. Oh well, Ruthie, so sorry, so sad for you.
Democrats on Reddit and Dem underground are in nuclear meltdown.. Quite a few of them are very ticked off at RGB saying she should have resigned during Obama's admin so he could have picked her successor, now Trump gets to pick one. I hope Trump picks Amy Coney Barrett.. Good Catholic Louisiana woman, Constitutional Conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
She sounds good to me. Of course, the Left would go bonkers if a Catholic is nominated for the SC. The Left is engaged in terrorism now against the Catholic Church, you can just imagine how that would ramp up.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Here's my view of the SC...it seems to me that both sides (maybe I should say ALL sides) would want justices who uphold the law, not make it. At times the Dems have control of Congress and pass all kinds of goofy lefty laws. You would think they, as legislators, would not want the SC overturning those laws, and worse, making new laws in lieu of them. In other words, any and all legislators SHOULD want a "conservative" SC, one that would uphold and defend the legislative process. Even if the SC rules some law is unconstitutional the proper process is to send it back to that legislative body and advise them to "fix it." At least that body, duly elected, has the opportunity to write the revision and still have control of the law-making aspect of the separation of powers. BUT! libtards want to abdicate that power and turn it over to a group of unelected (by the people) judges.
RBG said of Roe v. Wade she wished it had become law via the legislative process, and went as far to say she would have preferred all 50 states to pass it, or something similar, and NOT have the court, especially the SC, make it law. Of course, she never used her position on the SC to undo Roe v. Wade. She understood that when one leans on, depends on, a 9-member body to make a law you like, it could just as easily reverse itself.
That’s not what McConnell thought for Scalia’s replacement. Now, as I predicted, he flip flopped.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Quoting your hero, elections have consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
What do you think the democrats would do if the situation were reversed?
Puhleeze!! this is an easy one. McConnell was interviewed in 2016 and clearly said that in a POTUS election year when...now, Goosey pay attention...the party holding the WH and the party holding the Senate are DIFFERENT!! then he would not engage in the confirmation process. That was the case in 2016. Now, in 2020 the same party holds both the WH and the Senate. I know it can be confusing for you so maybe a chart will help...Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
2016 WH Dem Senate GOP
2020 WH GOP Senate GOP
Got it?
You mean like when Obama nominated Garland? Or when Reagan nominated Kennedy as a lame duck and a Democrat Senate confirmed?Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
Lately it is Republicans that only follow the Thurmond rule when it suits them politically.
McConnell didn’t draw the distinction based on the composition of the Senate in 2016. His argument was one on principle - that in an election year the voters should decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
We know the man has no principles, so I am not surprised. He has just again been exposed as the partisan political hack that he has always been putting party above country.
LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Your boy Joe Creepy Hiden was against it in 1992, for it in 2016, now against it again in 2020.
MORE....no one wants to see that travesty the Dems pulled off in the Kavanaugh hearing. That 21 Senator panel and all the lies and all the stories and all the showboating...OMG! Whatever the simplest, to the point Senate rules are, do just that. The Dems while the majority in the Senate changed some of the rules, 2013, and the GOP has slam-dunked them twice, hopefully, thrice since then. Do it again Mitch! Eff 'em! Play the same games the Left plays, only being much smarter, it's easy to beat them at their own games.
I guarantee the Leftist thugs will be bussed in, paid (Soros), and will be turned loose to riot and to burn and to cause all kinds of harm and folks like Goosey, and the other libtards here, will applaud it all, while at the same time blaming Trump for it. So, since we all know exactly what will happen, then just ram home a VERY conservative SC justice. That piece of slime Roberts, a Bush nominee...should have guessed it, straight from The Swamp, is a lefty. No moderates, none of that stupidness trying to appease the Left with a nominee even one Dem might like...eff 'em! You can't appease the evil Left. Stand up and fight 'em!
Wrong! he says it clearly in that recorded interview. I just saw it yesterday, I think it was Brett Bair doing the interview, and McConnell reiterated the difference between 2016 and 2020. It really is that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Besides, defeating the evil Left is putting the country first.
Well, you can bet that she will have been spotted by some dem operative holding a red solo cup next to a punch bowl at some frat party.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Makes me laugh that the left will now start pontificating about how it is morally imperative that we wait until Joe has a chance to work with the Chinese to steal the election. Where was that moral imperative when they decided to destroy a man's character in the name of politics (knowing that most of their policies come from their court appointees because Americans won't vote for them)?
Libs can save their moral whining for those with short memories. Name a successor ASAP!
I know that McConnell says that now. But that was not the argument he made back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
OMG! there is a taped interview from 2016 of him saying that. I know you are truth/facts deprived because you watch CNN, but it is out there to be seen. Now, some might still take exception with his position, but he did say it back in 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I said then, in 2016, the GOP Senate should have held hearings of Garland, and then voted him down!
Speaking of Obama, here’s what he said in October 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
“The need for a ninth Justice is undeniably clear.”
Actually, I haven’t seen any TV since RBG’s passing. I will watch some football today and tomorrow, but it is doubtful that I will see any TV news coverage of this for a few days. That isn’t where I get news anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
But, if McConnell said what you said he said in 2016, then I am wrong.
Well, if the Republicans do decide to flip the balance of power with a President that doesn’t even have support of the majority of the population, I would support expanding the court to flip it back.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47