Will Mitch follow his own standards?

In short, your argument is based around the desire for California, Florida, and New York to be in control over who becomes President.

It would’ve been more honest for you to just say that you don’t want people from Wyoming to have representation in who their President is.

Thank you for proving why the Electoral College was the right decision.



twisting my words does not change their meaning, it only exposes your dishonesty.

This is getting more and more interesting by the minute. I’m glad I voted for Trump. lol

No. It isn’t.

If the Senate were democrate controlled then he’d be a hypocrite.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

“The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be.”

You clearly don’t understand my argument.

You are going back to states again. I thought we had an understanding.

Under a popular vote each Wyoming citizens would have their vote count. Dem or Republican.

Huh? Was Mitch the majority leader in 2016? Is he now?

1 Like

How did I twist your words?

Unpopularity got Trump elected? Or it didn’t? Just going by what you said.

Ah. Good old ad hominem. We all knew it wouldn’t take long.

What argument is dumb is that California gets to rule the rest of the country. They get the largest proportion of electoral college votes of any states already based on their population. They already impact the presidential election more than any other state. That does not mean that Californians get to rule the rest of the country. 49 states voting in the popular vote for One candidate does not need to cancel out the rest of the country because one state votes overwhelmingly for another candidate.

1 Like

“Now I’ll tell you this. This may make you feel better but I really don’t care. If an opening comes in the last year of president Trump’s term and the primary process is started, we will wait to the next election. And I’ve got a pretty good chance of being the judiciary –”

“And you’re on the record?” asked Mr Goldberg.

“Hold the tape,” Mr Graham replied.

1 Like

Yes, I went back to using the analogy after I had to barney down the meaning. And here you are getting stuck on that again in order to wiggle around the fact that your argument seeks to disenfranchise minority states while giving control to the populations of three states.

Perhaps it’s you that doesn’t understand your own argument, on purpose at that. :man_shrugging:

1 Like

The young have been indoctrinated since birth to hate rich white Republicans, because they are taking away what the young have been brainwashed into thinking is all of the free stuff they are entitled to. Most know little to nothing about this country and I seriously doubt most have even heard of RGB or what is being played out with her death.

In terms of expanding the SCOTUS, that will happen regardless of how this plays out if DEMs win the WH and Senate. The only difference will be how many will be added. If DEMs were to get their way with no confirmation vote, they would only need to expand SCOTUS by 2. If the GOP gets their way, DEMs would need to expand SCOTUS by 4. Either way they will get their majority.

In regards to Trump, if he wins he would replace RGB with a conservative. Whether he does it now or in his next term doesn’t really matter one way or another.

So bottom line, if Trump wins reelection (highly unlikely with mail-in voting) SCOTUS remains conservative. If Trump loses (highly likely with mail-in voting) SCOTUS will be liberal. The only question would be how many justices make up the SCOTUS - 11 or 13.

odd that you chose not to include the post I was responding to… odd indeed. Since I was responding to your claim that Garlands nomination failure was “unpopular” and led to liberal gains, its obvious that you know exactly what I was talking about and chose to take it out of context to make some irrelevant point about something I didn’t say.

Are people who live in California forced to vote for Democrats?

What’s a “minority” state?

1 Like

In the past few elections I voted in Texas. I’m pretty confident my vote was tabulated correctly. I’ve since moved to a blue state following my retirement to be with family. If I vote it would be by mail. I have absolutely no confidence about the disposition of my mail in ballot. I am 100 percent certain, all key races will go to the DEM on the ticket. For that reason, I seriously doubt I will waste my time.

Ok, then I expect Kelly in Arizona, all the other Democratic candidates to campaign on expanding the court. They need to campaign on expanding the court. If that is the threat, campaign on that threat. Biden, give us your list of radical leftists for the Supreme Court if you think that will be so popular. Lets get the Lincoln Project start running commercials for Supreme Court nominees that support illegals who kill/rape/drive drunk & kill people unable to be deported, undo the second amendment, take away religious liberty like Biden is pushing, they need to run commercials for that because you apparently think that is popular. i expect those commercials to come out quickly since apparently think that it popular.

1 Like

Goalposts shifting again. Don’t feel bad, you’re not the first to fail at the argument for three states (worth of people) controlling who the President is.

The constitution clearly lays out the process for electing a President. Thankfully, this fantasy of three states (worth of people) deciding for the rest of us is just that.

McConnell Rule:

If the President is a democrat and the Senate is republican or vice versa then the nomination is held until after the election when in an election year.

When both are of the same party it is not.

that would be in keeping wit precedent