First he has to be approved, and then.. even if he is the tie-breaker.. Some of the other conservative judges may still think this is something they just don't want to muddy their hands on and choose not to hear.
I'm sure you would be thrilled if it was the other way around. Party before country.LOL Trump is appointing the judge to give him the majority in the court. Gotta admit it was a brilliant strategy by Republicans to stave of Barack Husseins pick!
That's not exactly a fair assessment is it? The republican party is acting on what it believes will be in the best interests for the country. You can call it a dirty move sure, in fact it is but I'll also say it was effective.I'm sure you would be thrilled if it was the other way around. Party before country.
A lot of actions are done with "good intentions."That's not exactly a fair assessment is it? The republican party is acting on what it believes will be in the best interests for the country. You can call it a dirty move sure, in fact it is but I'll also say it was effective.
A lot of actions are done with "good intentions."
Can you imagine if the reverse ever happens and Democrats decide to not even consider a Republican appointee? The "brilliant strategy" would enrage conservatives, and rightly so. I hate hypocrites.
You genuinely believe only Democrats can be hypocrites? Both sides are more than capable. You are so far gone I feel sorry for you.Hypocrisy is now bound to one party: https://www.google.com/amp/dailysig...esidents-judicial-nominees/amp/?client=safari
True but I was talking directly about your assessment of the issue. You implied that the choice was made to hurt the country in some way.A lot of actions are done with "good intentions."
Can you imagine if the reverse ever happens and Democrats decide to not even consider a Republican appointee? The "brilliant strategy" would enrage conservatives, and rightly so. I hate hypocrites.
No, I did not. I said that the decision was made to get a win for their party at any cost.True but I was talking directly about your assessment of the issue. You implied that the choice was made to hurt the country in some way.
Your exact words.No, I did not. I said that the decision was made to get a win for their party at any cost.
I'm sure you would be thrilled if it was the other way around. Party before country.
You've lost me entirely. The quote you referenced is me pointing out hypocrisy of citizens praising shady tactics when it is a win for their team. What does that have to do with Republican politician motivations?Your exact words.
You genuinely believe only Democrats can be hypocrites? Both sides are more than capable. You are so far gone I feel sorry for you.
It is. Everything he has done so far has to hurt the country and line his own pocket.
And we may or may not need Saudi's oil.....Except none of those countries have any indication of terrorism. In fact the one we do know (and even then I won't go *EXTREME VETTING* on cause that makes no fucking sense) is one of the ones NOT on the list.. because -he- has businesses there.
Except none of those countries have any indication of terrorism. In fact the one we do know (and even then I won't go *EXTREME VETTING* on cause that makes no fucking sense) is one of the ones NOT on the list.. because -he- has businesses there.
The words "Party before Country" made it seem like you were implying these people saw their political party as more important than their country. As in they would let something directly hurt the country before they'd let anything happen to their party.You've lost me entirely. The quote you referenced is me pointing out hypocrisy of citizens praising shady tactics when it is a win for their team. What does that have to do with Republican politician motivations?