Page 6872 of 6983 FirstFirst ... 58726372677268226862686868696870687168726873687468756876688269226972 ... LastLast
Results 103,066 to 103,080 of 104733
  1. #103066
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,745

    Default

    Democratic Senator Doug Jones Says He Is “Open to Voting Yes” on Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee
    https://www.vogue.com/article/doug-j...-court-nominee


    Alabama Democrat Doug Jones says he could vote either way on Trump's SCOTUS pick
    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/08/p...ntv/index.html


    Is Doug Jones really planning to vote for Trump's SCOTUS nominee, even though this year's election is not his re-election? I wonder if Senator Jones will represent the interests of his party? Or will he represent the interests of the people of Alabama who voted for Trump?

    I thought U.S. senators were elected by the people of their home states to represent the interests of their home states in the Senate?

  2. #103067
    Postin' since Aug '05 Dalak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Ferro View Post
    https://screenshotscdn.firefoxusercontent.com/images/d9525f36-2b58-4544-92e5-41ed20d9e971.png
    Sorry not-sorry, but I don't 100% trust someone who's tweeting guesses and has worked in the middle of the housing crisis for a particularly nasty bank, no matter if they're on my side of politics or not. If she wants to put this to bed post facts and not just words on twitter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Ferro View Post
    The media continues to believe in this and each time it turns out false. This only helps Trump in the end.
    So how do you feel about the Russia story and all the guilty pleas connected to it?

  3. #103068
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zetsubou View Post
    Democratic Senator Doug Jones Says He Is “Open to Voting Yes” on Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee
    https://www.vogue.com/article/doug-j...-court-nominee


    Alabama Democrat Doug Jones says he could vote either way on Trump's SCOTUS pick
    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/08/p...ntv/index.html


    Is Doug Jones really planning to vote for Trump's SCOTUS nominee, even though this year's election is not his re-election? I wonder if Senator Jones will represent the interests of his party? Or will he represent the interests of the people of Alabama who voted for Trump?

    I thought U.S. senators were elected by the people of their home states to represent the interests of their home states in the Senate?
    I'm glad Jones won but he feels not far from being a republican.

  4. #103069
    Postin' since Aug '05 Dalak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieHavoc View Post
    I'm glad Jones won but he feels not far from being a republican.
    Ironically, not a very manly chin even if he seems to fit the Manchin mold.

  5. #103070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ed2962 View Post
    Good. Cuz you know it didn't make sense when you wrote it.

    Now, if you don't want to sing Abba with me, how about Black Sabbath? I like a lot of the Ozzy stuff and the first record with Ronnie James Dio. We're all comics fans right? The Jeff Lemire Black Hammer comic has a Deadman parody character named "Jack Sabbath" and a bartender named "Lonnie James".

    Cry out legions of the brave...
    "Ain't That a Shame" would seem more appropriate, because then we can each mean different things when we sing it.

  6. #103071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    It's not that the lies are equal, but that at a certain point a threshold is crossed and the argument isn't about Trump VS an honest person, but about the Republican VS The Democrat.

    The issue with Warren isn't the insult, but that she claims something about her background that isn't true, despite evidence to the contrary.

    With the immigration argument, "Abolish ICE" is a policy position, and its relevance should be considered.

    With the separated children, there is no good option. There is a law limiting the amount of time children can be held in custody. If the children were released with their parents, that would incentivize more parents to put their kids at risk crossing the border in the future (The family crossings have become a bigger problem recently.) They could just automatically evict anyone who makes an asylum claim in the wrong place (the overwhelming majority of asylum claims from Central America are rejected), although that's not a great choice either. Trump's Executive order is a temporary fix, and may very well be thrown out by a judge.

    It's going to be difficult to come up with a bipartisan solution when one of the top-ranking Democrats went around with a T-shirt announcing that he doesn't believe in borders.

    https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/0...neapolis-rally
    There was recent discussion about Trump's dad's arrest in the 1920s.

    Honestly, I hadn't considered that a backlash against Trump's Pocahontas comments might be informed by Trump's outrageous and ridiculous claims against Obama, in the sense that it makes his comments seem immediately suspect. There's no point to arguing from authority when it comes to Trump (IE- using the fact that he says something to justify its validity) so my understanding of Warren's background isn't based on that at all. It's based on the fact-checkers.
    The main difference is that whereas Trump didn't really know or care about Obama's heritage, he had apparently been correctly informed that she was not a real Native American, which is why the "Pocahontas" remark is most likely meant as sarcasm, rather than a racial aspersion.

  7. #103072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    "FACT CHECK OF THE DAY"

    "No, Democrats Don’t Want ‘Open Borders’"

    President Trump has falsely claimed at least two dozen times since taking office that Democrats want to open American borders. But legislation shows that Democrats support border security measures, though not the border wall he wants to build.

    “The Democrats want open borders. They want anybody they wanted, including MS-13, pouring into the country.”

    — President Trump, speaking on Monday at a campaign rally in South Carolina

    THE FACTS

    False.
    Democrats have argued that building a wall on the southwestern border is ineffective and a waste of resources, and rejected hard-line proposals to limit legal immigration. But Mr. Trump is grossly exaggerating Democrats’ positions when he conflates their opposition to his signature campaign promise and immigration priorities as “open borders.” And there is no evidence that they “want anybody,” including MS-13, to enter the United States freely.

    While criticizing Mr. Trump’s immigration policies, the Democratic National Committee has committed to improving border security.

    Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leaders, have rebutted the president’s charges. Additionally, their aides cited several examples of legislation that are supported by Democrats and would have provided border security funding.

    Responding last week to Mr. Trump’s earlier claims, Ms. Pelosi said, “No, we do care about the border.”

    “We care about protecting our country, but we don’t think we need to protect the border by putting children in cages,” Ms. Pelosi said. “We want to be smart and strong — not reckless, rash and ruthless in this case.”

    Thirty Democrats in the House have sponsored a bipartisan immigration bill this year that gives the young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers a pathway to citizenship. It also enhances technology used to monitor the border, and provides $110 million in grants annually for collaboration between local law enforcement and Border Patrol agents.

    All 193 Democrats in the House and 23 moderate Republicans have signed a “discharge” petition to force a vote on that bill and other immigration proposals.

    In the Senate, all but one Democrat voted for similar immigration legislation sponsored by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware.

    And all but three Democrats voted for yet another bipartisan proposal to provide a pathway to citizenship to Dreamers, authorize $25 billion to build barriers and hire personnel at the border over the next decade. It would also prohibit green-card holders from sponsoring adult children..."


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/u...n-borders.html
    "Several examples of legislation" is somewhat vague. What specific measures did Democrats support during Obama's two terms, beyond Obama's "deporter-in-chief" stance?

  8. #103073
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouroboros View Post
    "Several examples of legislation" is somewhat vague. What specific measures did Democrats support during Obama's two terms, beyond Obama's "deporter-in-chief" stance?
    Once again, you make the mistake of assuming the (House) Republicans ever intended to work across the aisle on said issue -- the Senate reached a bipartisan solution but the House refused to even vote on it.

    Just like with Garland -- there was no "bipartisanship" because they wouldn't even have a vote under Obama.

    -------
    "The Senate on Thursday passed the most monumental overhaul of U.S. immigration laws in a generation, which would clear the way for millions of undocumented residents to have a chance at citizenship, attract workers from all over the world and devote unprecedented resources for security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

    The vote was 68-32. Fourteen Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with all Democrats in favor. Thursday’s vote now puts the onus of immigration reform on the Republican-led House, where leaders have been resistant to the Senate legislation.

    “The strong bipartisan vote we took is going to send a message across the country, it’s going to send a message to the other end of the Capitol as well,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the leader of the so-called Gang of Eight. “The bill has generated a level of support that we believe will be impossible for the House to ignore..."


    "Boehner: No vote on Senate immigration bill"

    "House Speaker John Boehner is sticking to his position: The House will not vote on the Senate-passed immigration bill.

    “I’ve made it clear and I’ll make it clear again, the House does not intend to take up the Senate bill,” Boehner said Monday. “The House is going to do its own job in developing an immigration bill.”

    He added, “It is time for Congress to act. But I believe the House has its job to do, and we will do our job.”



    https://www.politico.com/story/2013/...on-vote-093845
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 07-10-2018 at 02:20 PM.

  9. #103074

    Default

    I still liked the Kennedy/McCain immigration bill from 2005 that never got a vote. That version of John McCain would never have won a GOP Primary, but would have been a damned fine president.
    X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.

  10. #103075

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    Once again, you make the mistake of assuming the (House) Republicans ever intended to work across the aisle on said issue -- the Senate reached a bipartisan solution but the House refused to even vote on it.

    Just like with Garland -- there was no "bipartisanship" because they wouldn't even have a vote under Obama.

    -------
    "The Senate on Thursday passed the most monumental overhaul of U.S. immigration laws in a generation, which would clear the way for millions of undocumented residents to have a chance at citizenship, attract workers from all over the world and devote unprecedented resources for security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

    The vote was 68-32. Fourteen Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with all Democrats in favor. Thursday’s vote now puts the onus of immigration reform on the Republican-led House, where leaders have been resistant to the Senate legislation.

    “The strong bipartisan vote we took is going to send a message across the country, it’s going to send a message to the other end of the Capitol as well,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the leader of the so-called Gang of Eight. “The bill has generated a level of support that we believe will be impossible for the House to ignore..."


    "Boehner: No vote on Senate immigration bill"

    "House Speaker John Boehner is sticking to his position: The House will not vote on the Senate-passed immigration bill.

    “I’ve made it clear and I’ll make it clear again, the House does not intend to take up the Senate bill,” Boehner said Monday. “The House is going to do its own job in developing an immigration bill.”

    He added, “It is time for Congress to act. But I believe the House has its job to do, and we will do our job.”



    https://www.politico.com/story/2013/...on-vote-093845
    I didn't say anything recently about the cooperation of the Republicans, I only asked to know what specific measures the Dems were supporting.

    Though I can think of a lot of situations in which the GOP merely blocked for the sake of blocking, I would think that two of the cited provisos-- giving more citizenship opportunities to the undocumented and attracting more foreign workers to enter the American market-- would be non-starters from the get-go, even if the legislation did devote more dough to border security.

  11. #103076
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouroboros View Post
    I didn't say anything recently about the cooperation of the Republicans, I only asked to know what specific measures the Dems were supporting.
    And I didn't answer because I know you can find them online... if you want to -- if you can find random blogs about Black Panther that suit your agenda, I'm sure you can do the same with Democratic policies and measures.

    My point was that it didn't matter what the Democrats did -- the Republicans wouldn't even vote on a bipartisan bill from the Senate.



    Boehner said the "House would do it's job" -- and their job was to obstruct Obama by any means necessary.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 07-10-2018 at 03:15 PM.

  12. #103077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Yes. They used their majority to give us health care on a bill that there is zero way would've gotten any real Republican response because you know that the conservative position on health care was born out of their goal to make Obama a one term president. I guess starting with the RomneyCare, Heritage Foundation plan wasn't enough of an olive branch for conservatives.



    A T-shirt by an unelected official is not a political position for the party or for the elected officials or a bill in the House and Senate and no bill ever considered, many of which nearly did pass during the Obama years and were often left to die in the Senate under McConnel's 'leadership' reflected an open border position.



    Oh for pete's sake.



    This is abject nonsense.



    Garland was /widely praised/ by conservative senators. He was exactly the kind of moderate, compromise pick you'd expect a liberal justice facing a conservative Senate to pick. They didn't have to accept him. They could have rejected him with an actual frigging vote, but instead, they simply refused to do their own side of the job all together. Pretending that this is simply 'hardball' mischaracterizes the extent and intent of the malfeasance and now you're going to get what you wanted out of this, a 5-4 Federalist Society Supreme Court, so I guess the rest is explainable in some way that keeps it palatable to you, so long as you can characterize the Democrats as being at fault.



    My eyes are rolling out of my head at this point.
    The Deputy Chair of the DNC received major support from the members of the DNC, so it was a vote within that group. He is also an elected member of Congress, and Vice-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    This whole post makes me wonder why you even come into this thread.
    Exposure to different arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mecegirl View Post
    Your, or anyone's, understanding of Warren's background ain't got nothing to do with her policies tho. It also doesn't explain why Trump keeps bringing it up instead of what he doesn't like about her policy positions.

    The idea that Trump's dad might be in the KKK isn't what I meant by heritage...But sure let's roll with it. Considering that Trump himself holds racist views,and those racist views do effect his policies, digging into what his father may have done would explain how he attained said racist views.
    Trump brings it up because this is useful to do so, both as an example of a character flaw of a major critic, as well as a clear-cut example of media bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    I had to single this out specifically -- the fact that you actually might believe something like this just further illuminates why our conversations are relatively useless in the end.

    Do you honestly think the modern Republican party would pick a Democratic justice under any circumstances? Really?

    You criticize Obama for allegedly "wanting to change the composition of the court" but remain hypocritically silent while Trump does exactly that as we speak -- where's your criticism when Republicans do the same -- or worse -- than the Democrats in matters of "bipartisanship" and integrity?

    Rarely if ever to be found -- which is why Trump is the perfect Republican president at this point.
    I wasn't criticizing Obama for wanting to change the composition of the court. I was just saying that it wasn't going to happen with a Republican Senate.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  13. #103078
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I wasn't criticizing Obama for wanting to change the composition of the court. I was just saying that it wasn't going to happen with a Republican Senate.
    Fair enough -- I apologize if I misinterpreted your comments.

    I know you are replying to a lot of different people at once and I respect that you make the effort to address people's arguments individually -- even if we don't always agree, at least you give other opinions some thought.

  14. #103079
    Guardian Empress of Earth Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Royal Castle of Atlantica, High Court of Terra
    Posts
    17,065

    Default

    Timeline: Trump’s Acts of Accommodation/Engagement with Russia, Nov. 2016-July 2018

    President Donald Trump’s comments and actions in relation to Russia – and especially toward President Vladimir Putin — are strikingly conciliatory considering Moscow’s documented attacks on America’s democracy and its repeated violations of international norms and repression at home. Certainly some U.S. measures under the Trump administration have been contrary to Russian interests if not punitive, including some implementation of sanctions legislation. But Trump signed the sanctions legislation reluctantly, and overall his comments and actions have demonstrated a desire to embrace Russia.

    In the past, Just Security published a timeline called, “Russian Provocations and Dangerous Acts since January 20, 2017.” The new timeline below, which now includes developments since early June and up until July 10, 2018, chronicles publicly reported Trump comments and actions toward Russia since the 2016 U.S. presidential election—whether accommodationist or adversarial or defying easy classification. Some may view certain steps as acts of rapprochement aimed at a more cooperative relationship with Russia to fight common enemies and avoid dangerous escalation. Other observers will see the acts as incriminating evidence of a quid pro quo or a dangerous appeasement to an adversary who attacked and continues to attack America’s democratic institutions.

    Are we missing anything? If so, tell us on Twitter at Just Security’s account.
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn or imaginatively created.
    DBM: Meagan/Cyanna/Dash/Mirror Mage

  15. #103080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    And I didn't answer because I know you can find them online... if you want to -- if you can find random blogs about Black Panther that suit your agenda, I'm sure you can do the same with Democratic policies and measures.

    My point was that it didn't matter what the Democrats did -- the Republicans wouldn't even vote on a bipartisan bill from the Senate.



    Boehner said the "House would do it's job" -- and their job was to obstruct Obama by any means necessary.
    You cited an article that made vague reference to Democrat immigration measures. If you don't want to be more explicit about those measures, and you want me to look 'em up myself, that's OK, but it seems to me that so far the board has not come close to elucidating what the Dems' immigration policies have been, except along the lines "whatever they were, they were BETTER THAN TRUMP'S."

    The fact that some Republicans signed onto the cited legislation doesn't in itself prove that it was a sound or reasonable compromise. Yes, the GOP blocked a lot of stuff for no good reason but obstructionism. But in this instance, it looks to me like we're dealing not just with casual,. Obama-blocking obstructionism, but with a contravention of positions that the GOP has held long before anyone knew Obama's name.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •