Challenge to redietz. We bet every NFL regular season game. You make the picks. If you lay the fav I get 2 extra points. If you take the dog I get a 2 point discount. Easy pickings for you.
Hey, sling. Notice the date in this vid. It's Obama nominating Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court in an election year, 2016. Look who is standing beside him, China Joe Biden. If the Dems dont' believe in putting someone on the SCOTUS in an election year then what the fuck were they doing trying to put someone on the SCOTUS in an election year?
Explain it to us like we are 3rd graders.
Challenge to redietz. We bet every NFL regular season game. You make the picks. If you lay the fav I get 2 extra points. If you take the dog I get a 2 point discount. Easy pickings for you.
This is what anyone who votes for and supports liberals deserves in their neighborhood.
Liberals have proven to be dumber than dirty socks. Every time they think they're being smart by pulling one of their dirty tricks, it comes back to bite them.
Harry Reid and the fillibuster. Who's crying now.
Obama and his snide/arrogant proclamation that "election's have consequences". People "elected" the Senate when Garland was nominated. That Senate chose to wait until the election before confirming. Tough love, whining democrats.
Democrats in the Senate chose to lie about and smear Bret Kavanaugh instead of acting respectfully towards a highly regarded judge and human being. And as they AGAIN learned the hard way....actions have consequences. Not only was all that despicable BS meaningless in the end as we now have JUSTICE Kavanaugh---Trump and Senate Republicans are now making those idiots pay dearly for their disgusting behavior by getting ACB confirmed close to an election---which is entirely legal per the Constitution by the way.
So sweet.....
So sling----as a confused Never-Trumper, tell us what your ilk will actually do if Trump wins on Nov. 3rd? I mean, you people should be used to the many Trump beatdowns by now, correct? Will their be crocodile tears? How about minds coming apart at the seams? You leaving the country for "greener pastures"? Or will it just be the easy way out--suicide?
Sling, you're wasting your time. I know everything that was said by both sides in 2016 and everything said in 2020 on Supreme Court nominations.
The Dems (all of them) demanded Garland to be confirmed in 2016, an election year. But they didn't have the votes. The republicans controlled the senate so the effort failed.
In 2020 the Dems are doing just the opposite. They are demanding the appointment be postponed until after the election. But once again they don't have the votes to get their way. The republicans hold the majority and will confirm Barret this coming week.
The whole thing boils down to political power. If dems had the power in 2016 they would have confirmed Garland in an election year. If they had the political power in 2020 they would stop the confirmation of Barret in an election year.
So quit whining about it.
Challenge to redietz. We bet every NFL regular season game. You make the picks. If you lay the fav I get 2 extra points. If you take the dog I get a 2 point discount. Easy pickings for you.
I'm trying to figure out how to explain it, but it seems like a waste of time. Just because you guys want to think this was some big favor to Biden, doesn't make it so. No one else thinks there was corruption there outside of the fact that companies hire the children of big politicians. That is an unfortunate side effect of representative democracies.
In the world of you and Dickey, because these dots can be connected, they are connected.
Forget about connecting dots and forget about trying to explain.
You said,
It is only 'QUID PRO QUO' if there is a favor given. That is the part of logic that is skipped here and where you are clearly confused.
Quid Pro Quo literally means Something for Something, or This For That
Forget about "favors", If there was a quid pro quo, firing the prosecutor to get the money constituted one.
I am not sure what to tell you. There is a dictionary definition and a legal definition. Yes, there was a negotiation going on there with the withholding of aid and so therefore there will always be "QUID PRO QUO".
This will be true for all government negotiations.
If there is any merit to this what so ever, you should at least be able to say a few sentences about what the corruption is.
You bothered to highlight my claim otherwise but when pressed you don't have shit to say on the subject.
Thats because no one has told you what to think on the subject.
I gave you the literal latin meaning of quid pro quo. Not my standard. LOl.
Because you want to obfuscate by bringing Hunter questions into it and calling it the CORE of the matter, sorry i'm not falling for it. I never even hinted that there was an accusation against Hunter as it relates to Burisma, other than being on the board because of his last name.
Maybe if Shokin was able to interview Hunter like he wanted to we'd know more. But he was fired for corruption. Go figure.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)