Click for lulz
http://www.jebbush.com
http://tedcruzforamerica.com/
Random Politics & Religion #00
Random Politics & Religion #00
Altimaomega said: »
Unfamiliar with that term.
Alexander Hamilton wasn't born here, and the common misconception is that he wouldn't have been eligible to be President, that the clause was some kind of spite in his direction.
(It's not true, though; he would have been grandfathered into eligibility, had he not been, you know, shot.)
[+]
Drama Torama said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Why exactly does the President have to be born from an American Citizen?
To freeze out Hamilton, actually
I actually don't think thats true, while he was well hated, he was a citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, so he was eligible, despite being a ***.
[+]
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
I actually don't think thats true, while he was well hated, he was a citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, so he was eligible, despite being a ***.
Yeah, was an attempt at a joke. Too subtle, I guess
/back to the drawing board
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Been that way for months. It is hilarious though...
Altimaomega said: »
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Well then stop complaining about the president already.
You realize I am only pointing out why everyone here is wrong? The President even came out and said that it is Congresses job to accept or deny his appointment.
As in they are allowed to refuse consent but most of them are saying they will will refuse to even consider.
But Obama could so apply pressure by making a recess appointment of a distinguished retired screamingly liberal judge and offering up the well accepted Hindu dude you say shouldn't even be eligible.
Then again Obama isn't one to apply that kind of pressure. If only he had had the cojones of LBJ....
Fairly certain I have said multiple times that both sides are being stupid about the whole thing.
At least you understand this part. /clap
He already said on live TV he wasn't even considering this. He could be lying.. Wouldn't be the first or even tenth time..
Garuda.Chanti said: »
As in they are allowed to refuse consent
Garuda.Chanti said: »
But Obama could so apply pressure by making a recess appointment
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Obama is just as obstructionist because he doesn't want to nominate a hardcore conservative.
Is the plan to stall the nomination for after Trump is sworn in? Because it might be hard to draw this out until hell freezes over.
You're indeed pretty ignorant then. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised, you think racism and bigotry only flow one way, why wouldn't you think that only republicans can obstruct Obama's goals instead of Obama obstructing republican goals?
As for stalling, please show me where in the rules it says congress cannot refuse to consider a SJC nomination from the president for any set amount of time.
As I said, as recent as 2007 Chuck Schumer suggested that dems refuse to consider Bush's potential nominations for over a year.
"Rules for thee, not for me" Is entirely your motto.
Why was it ok for Obama and democrats to fillabuster Bush's pick for SCJ but if Republicans even talk about it its OMFG the hate the US. Hypocrisy by some of the people here is amazing.
Sorce: I know its Fox but was fact checked.
Obama Fillabuster
[+]
Altimaomega said: »
Fairly certain I have said multiple times that both sides are being stupid about the whole thing.
Garuda.Chanti said: »
But Obama could so apply pressure by making a recess appointment
Quote:
He already said on live TV he wasn't even considering this. He could be lying.. Wouldn't be the first or even tenth time..
You do understand the kind of pressure a screamingly liberal recess appointment would put on the GOP?
Not to mention making them seem weak and loosers when they capitulate and accept a centrist to get rid of the liberal.
Odin.Slore said: »
Why was it ok for Obama and democrats to fillabuster Bush's pick for SCJ but if Republicans even talk about it its OMFG the hate the US. Hypocrisy by some of the people here is amazing.
All this talk of republicans refusing to vote on Obamas nomination. I have yet to see anything of the sort. I'd ask for proof, but... lol.. like anyone would provide it..
Yes, I do. I really hope he does it. They don't need to do anything of the sort. They would let it ride out and use Obamas appointment to drum up vote for the upcoming election and have an even bigger voter turnout then what is already going to happen. Once the New president is elected they dump the liberal and appoint anyone they want.
Which is exactly why Obama is going to pick a moderate to start with. It is the only thing that can give him and the democrats any type of political victory if the Republicans deny it.
Garuda.Chanti said: »
You do understand the kind of pressure a screamingly liberal recess appointment would put on the GOP?
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Not to mention making them seem weak and loosers when they capitulate and accept a centrist to get rid of the liberal.
Which is exactly why Obama is going to pick a moderate to start with. It is the only thing that can give him and the democrats any type of political victory if the Republicans deny it.
Altimaomega said: »
All this talk of republicans refusing to vote on Obamas nomination. I have yet to see anything of the sort. I'd ask for proof, but... lol.. like anyone would provide it..
McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under Obama
The Senate majority leader's challenge to the president's nominating authority appears to be unprecedented.
Politico FOUR DAYS AGO.
Quote:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election
You realize that means they will vote to deny right?
Politico.. Then twists the meaning to what they want. Unsurprising.
So yeah.. When you find someone actually saying they will not vote on it let me know..
[+]
Last time the republicans we're "obstructionist" by shutting down the government, the voters voted them a clear majority in 2014.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Last time the republicans we're "obstructionist" by shutting down the government, the voters voted them a clear majority in 2014.
They have been obstructionist plenty of times since then, and again, you ignore the Senate map for your own agenda.
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
you ignore the Senate map for your own agenda.
What part didn't you understand?
Perhaps if you explain yourself better less confusion would arise? You know.. Do what you tell others to do..
I know what you mean though. What are you going to do when Republicans keep the majority or.. gasp! Add seats?
I'm sure you'll find something to be vague about.
I know what you mean though. What are you going to do when Republicans keep the majority or.. gasp! Add seats?
I'm sure you'll find something to be vague about.
There is pretty much no way they are going to add seats, the only Dem seat thats really close to being "up for grabs" is Harry Reid's, and thats cancelled out by Kirk's impending departure.
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
Kirk's impending departure.
Holy ***! The Enterprise is almost done?!?
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
There is pretty much no way they are going to add seats
I'm betting 51R/48D/1I
2016 senate
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
Why was it ok for Obama and democrats to fillabuster Bush's pick for SCJ but if Republicans even talk about it its OMFG the hate the US. Hypocrisy by some of the people here is amazing.
[+]
Bush didn't nominate anyone after 2006 tho, so that recommendation never came to fruition.
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
Bush didn't nominate anyone after 2006 tho, so that recommendation never came to fruition.
You mean like how Obama hasn't nominated anyone yet? Stop pretending that this isn't hypocrisy simply because of the (D) next to the name. You probably don't even know much about Schumer, so defending him just makes you look like a partisan hack.
[+]
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
Bush didn't nominate anyone after 2006 tho, so that recommendation never came to fruition.
WOW!
Feel The Bern!
I know in the age of thoughtless Facebook memes that no one would care to research the full statement but:
He objected to the poor vetting that happened with Roberts and Alito. No more justices unless that was improved. Nowhere is there the same blind rejection being served up by Senate Republicans right now.
Put forth an honest argument for once, please and thank you.
YouTube Video Placeholder
Quote:
We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts of Justice Ginsburg replaced by another Alito. Given the track of this President and the experience of obfuscation at hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.
Put forth an honest argument for once, please and thank you.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.