|
|
What about exposing McCain, Romney, and Kasich? You okay with those RINOs being exposed?Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Cruz and Rubio were both about as conservative as the GOP got pre-Trump. Graham and many others have moved right because they see how off they were pre-Trump. My favorite, Rand Paul, is the only one who has remained true to his colors throughout.
Yep! Trump has led the way for those who WANTED to be conservative but who were afraid to be standing alone, getting beat up by the leftist media and the RINOs, like McCain. So they just went along to get along. Then here comes Trump who doesn't give a rat's ass about the media or trying to please fellow Swampers just so you can get invited to a cocktail party in DC, and Bam! now we see some other conservatives, like Graham and Cruz and others, bold enough to stand up. Hypocrites? That's a stretch insomuch as they have always been conservative just now they see they have support.
Just look at this forum as an example. We have lefties who tout commie doctrine, and that is understandable given who they are...it's like an LSU grad rooting for the tiggers on Saturdays, understandable...and we have some who claim to be conservative who do nothing but bash everything conservative, including Trump, and sing the praises all of things commie...like BLM/Antifa and their career criminal thugs they cast as martyrs to their cause. Little wonder, prior to Trump showing them the way, many conservatives were shy about revealing their true selves. They got beat up from every direction.
I guess Fox isn’t covering what Cruz and Co said in 2016. It’s textbook hypocrisy. They were trying to church up their no vote on Garland. They should’ve just been honest...
I was against Garland too, and the only reason I needed was obummer nominated him. Of course I took some time to learn a little about Garland and found it confirmed what I had thought. So, why were Cruz & Co. suppose to support Garland's nomination??? They should have been opposed to Garland and still should be, given how libtard he is.
They weren’t! They should’ve just said they wouldn’t vote because they didn’t have to. Instead, they bumped their gums about SCOTUS nominees in election years...especially Lindsay “please hold it against me” Graham.
All hypocrisy aside (both sides), does anyone think that the Dems would wait until after the election to nominate someone for the SC if they controlled the Senate and presidency?
They tried when they didn’t have the Senate, so why would they not try if they did have the Senate?
You continue to toil under the delusion that the GOP could organize a bar-be-cue...they can't. And yet, you advocate for Trump to stop impeding this wonderful Grand Ole Party. No thanks...I'll take Trump stomping The Swamp's ass.
Amen!
Now...let's all take a deep breath. Just a couple of years ago Judge Barrett was confirmed by the Senate, 55-43, for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Diane Finestein expressed deep "concerns" that Barrett held religious beliefs, "dogma," she called it. Okay. The atheist baby-killers grilled Barrett at that hearing. They asked all their questions, they brought up all their reasons for opposition. They had Barrett investigated, her past vetted. So, seems to me all anyone has to do is look at her record since being on the 7th Circuit and...that should be it. Point is, there is no excuse for this to drag out.
Of course, now I see some idiots questioning if her adoption of those two kids from Haiti was legal. I believe both adoptions occurred in 2010, so I have to think it has already been investigated prior to her Senate hearing for the 7th. As someone who has completed an international adoption...our daughter from Russia in 1997...I can tell you we were put under a frickin' microscope, including by the FBI, and we were grilled by an army of "social workers" concerned we were right for such an adoption, etc...We used World Child, which is a subsidiary of the Frank Foundation, a worldwide adoption agency operating in Europe, China, and South America. Given the mountain of paperwork, we couldn't have done it on our own. I am guessing the Barretts also used a reputable agency to help them in the process.
BTW, as an aside, some of you remember I posted about my Russian-born daughter's ordeal seeking employment in the DHS. Well, she has been approached by some higher-ups asking if she is interested in pursuing a career path that requires being fluent in Russian. They need translators/interpreters in Russian. She has agreed to consider it and has begun brushing up on her Russian. When she said she was interested...guess what! the FBI contacted her and said she will have to complete a more intensive vetting than before. Egad!
Democrats are going to go after her nomination over her comments on the constitutionality of the ACA. Pretty sure that will be the focus as it plays into politics where Democrats have the most widespread support outside their party.
I'll play along, since I am not as well-schooled on the "constitutionality" of anything related to health care insurance/coverage...
I may be in error, and if so, I know I can count on you to point that out, but I don't recall healthcare being mentioned in the Constitution. I know the "right to bear arms" is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, yet libs like to challenge my right to own a gun. Perhaps you can post what article/amendment states we have the "right to have healthcare."
Thanks.
And Republicans have kind of painted themselves in a corner on this - if you want both (1) pre-existing conditions to be uncovered, and (2) Obamacare to be unconstitutional, you have locked yourself out of any good options other than passing some form on Universal health care.
How about this...NO FEDERAL LAWS whatsoever re: healthcare. Leave it up to the states to pass whatever laws they wish. Also, we should be able to buy healthcare across state lines like we can for all other forms of insurance.
In other forms of insurance states agree to recognize each others' laws, with some tweaks as to how lawsuits are litigated, state to state. I suppose my auto insurance is "Texas-based" since my carrier is USAA, HQed in San Antonio, Texas. They apply Louisiana law to all my coverages, auto, homeowners', etc...but when driving in Montana, and there is an accident, the state of Montana recognizes that my insurance, for a Louisiana resident, from a Texas company, is valid.
The ONLY reason healthcare is not treated the same way is POWER!!! plain and simple. The Swampers, the Deep Staters, know one way they can control the masses is to dangle healthcare out there as a carrot.
We had the "no pre-existing conditions" clause LONG before Obamacare. It remains our best option even though PPACA screwed it up. Do you know what option I'm talking about? Knowing your sources of information, I doubt you do.
BTW, there is NOTHING affordable about ACA.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
