or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Ted Cruz Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Ted Cruz Thread - Page 47

post #691 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


Saying no in February gets the nomination out of the news fast. Confirmation hearings would give the Democrats a months-long platform to call the Republicans all the usual things you'd expect for opposing The First Openly Gay Black Hispanic Illegal Immigrant From a Swing State nominee.

 

We'll see.  I think they'll just keep hammering it.

post #692 of 1000
Yeah, we'll see. It seems highly suspect to come out against any candidate reflexively (and especially within hours of Scalia's death). Why not at least wait a couple weeks then started a low key character assassination and stalling effort like everybody would expect from the get-go? Just seems like they out-kicked their coverage by coming out the way they did.


And Obama is currently vetting Brian Sandoval, the Republican governor of Nevada (and former federal judge). It's going to be interesting watching the reactions there. He's certainly not a conservative (pro-choice), and perhaps not the best qualified in judicial terms. But rejecting a Republican? Good political play from Obama if they go through with it, especially with Nevada being a swing state.
post #693 of 1000
Oh, come on. Obama has proven time and time again that he's a determined left-wing ideologue. He won't nominate anyone who isn't And it's not like the bench and bar aren't loaded with left-wingers already. Even most "conservative" judges have personal politics that are in line with the left. They just happen to think left-wing politics are a good idea instead of required by the Constitution.

The only thing Obama seems to care about as much is tokenism and cynical, divisive politics. Expect The First Disabled Transexual Black Female Hispanic Muslim any day now.

His people probably told him that "vetting" a Republican would keep the story in the news.

Also, having the GOP leadership come out against any confirmations this year lets any individual Republican blame them if, for some highly unlikely reason, it's in his interest to do so.
post #694 of 1000
UTLttnx.gif
post #695 of 1000

post #696 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Yeah, we'll see. It seems highly suspect to come out against any candidate reflexively (and especially within hours of Scalia's death). Why not at least wait a couple weeks then started a low key character assassination and stalling effort like everybody would expect from the get-go? Just seems like they out-kicked their coverage by coming out the way they did.


And Obama is currently vetting Brian Sandoval, the Republican governor of Nevada (and former federal judge). It's going to be interesting watching the reactions there. He's certainly not a conservative (pro-choice), and perhaps not the best qualified in judicial terms. But rejecting a Republican? Good political play from Obama if they go through with it, especially with Nevada being a swing state.


At this point though, don't they need to stick to their guns.  I wouldn't have gone down this road; however, they're already down the road.  If they back out now, don't they lose any possible advantage?  It will certainly piss off a subsection of their base.  I mean, there are already people looking to primary Speaker Ryan because he tried negotiating with the President immediately upon becoming speaker, and now they feel betrayed.

post #697 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

So in the framing documents of the US does it say somewhere that if the POTUS is "shoddy" these rules do not apply? confused.gif

I understand the law. I also understand outrage. The law also says any nominee can be denied. So, when you create outrage isn't it ridiculous to even think of nominating someone when your term is almost over? And, wouldn't that be part of the outrage? We're not in Canada. We did kick the British throne out. There is a lot more to our laws than words.
post #698 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post



Skipping the words there is some truth to that.
If he had been guided a different way....
post #699 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by greger View Post

isn't it ridiculous to even think of nominating someone when your term is almost over? 


1 year left is almost over? ~25% of his term is left.

post #700 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

are you asking me to prove a negative here?

What do you think trickle down economics is?

I think the end goal of trickle down economics is running out of workers. If you want to make more money, then you have to hire more people. In order to lure people to come work for you it is done by offering them higher wages than they are making somewhere else when everyone is employed. This was actually happening where I live until Bush senior signed the democrats tax. After that businesses were laying people off and going out of business. It wasn't a nice recession. The democrats have done these kinds of taxes many times with bad results. Recessions are for other reasons to. Sometimes the market gets worn out. Something new needs to excite the market. When this happens, of course, the market flounders, until something comes along to jump start it. Anyway, there are many reasons why markets do what they do. ....
post #701 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post


1 year left is almost over? ~25% of his term is left.

7 years of outrage?! You think the Republicans stand for nothing?! The Declaration Of Independence is disappearing because of the democrats. You might as well not call America America the way it's going.
post #702 of 1000
Thread Starter 

This fuckin' guy. 

post #703 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


At this point though, don't they need to stick to their guns.  I wouldn't have gone down this road; however, they're already down the road.  If they back out now, don't they lose any possible advantage?  It will certainly piss off a subsection of their base.  I mean, there are already people looking to primary Speaker Ryan because he tried negotiating with the President immediately upon becoming speaker, and now they feel betrayed.

We'll see, I suppose.

Usually the Senate tends to be more moderated because they're all elected statewide. It's harder to be extreme when you have to face the whole state instead of one gerrymandered district. Lord knows right now.
post #704 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by greger View Post


 The Declaration Of Independence is disappearing because of the democrats. 


Declaration of independence is disappearing? Does that mean the British are going to rule us again?!

post #705 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by greger View Post

I understand the law. I also understand outrage. The law also says any nominee can be denied. So, when you create outrage isn't it ridiculous to even think of nominating someone when your term is almost over? And, wouldn't that be part of the outrage? We're not in Canada. We did kick the British throne out. There is a lot more to our laws than words.

Where Cruz was born?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Ted Cruz Thread