[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?


  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Outstanding news. Looks like we're going to keep the white house, just need to take back congress, or at least the senate. Will have to exorcise that room he died in though.

Someone dies and that's oustanding news to you? Then you add insult to injury by further going on...I hope I confused your post but it doesn't seem like it. Also your subjective partial disposition is showing.
 
CNN just reported that Mitch McConnell will hold off of any confirmation vote in the senate until after the election.

CbIYaMiW4AIU4ZB.jpg

That's fighting talk. Is there actually a precedent for delaying a confirmation vote for that long because of an election?

Yeah, prioritized the text the way Christian fundamentalists prioritize Old Testament texts. Originalism is just one more baffling aspect of American thinking.

This is going to get messy ...
 
Last edited:
@LMSCorvetteGT2

You didn't confuse my post. I've been hoping for this for years. He was exceptionally hostile, antagonistic and disrespectful to human beings. His man's brand of conservatism brought demonstrable harm to many, many people over the years, from calling the Voting Rights Act "racial entitlement" to the countless nasty things he said about homosexuality during Lawrence v. Texas and on other occasions...
 
Please... Fox News has already gone through a list of people they think are "suitable replacements" for a republican controlled Senate/House, and presidency...

That is quite a bit different than calling it "outstanding news" in my opinion.
 
That's a shame. Scalia was always pretty entertaining, especially in his dissenting arguments or when he thought something was stupid.
 
That's fighting talk. Is there actually a precedent for delaying a confirmation vote for that long because of an election?

Not that I can remember, but I think Mitch can probably pull it off.

Yeah, prioritized the text the way Christian fundamentalists prioritize Old Testament texts. Originalism is just one more baffling aspect of American thinking.

Isn't that why there are more than one?
 
@LMSCorvetteGT2

You didn't confuse my post. I've been hoping for this for years. He was exceptionally hostile, antagonistic and disrespectful to human beings. His man's brand of conservatism brought demonstrable harm to many, many people over the years, from calling the Voting Rights Act "racial entitlement" to the countless nasty things he said about homosexuality during Lawrence v. Texas and on other occasions...
Please prove where he is wrong on the Voting Rights Act. The Federal Government shouldn't have the right to do a Governor's job and vetoing legislation on the grounds of race. The Justice Department's recent trend against Voter ID in Southern states in general proves that.

As for his homosexuality comments, he was raised a catholic, and that is all I am willing to say on the matter.
 
Have some bloody dignity man. A supreme court justice just died. Let the nation mourn a bit before you spout that garbage.

I know, sounds a bit harsh and probably too early, but people like him, Chaney, Limbaugh, Putin, Bin Laden, Trump, etc... provoke such passion. As someone (Twain I think) once said, "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure."
 
@LMSCorvetteGT2

You didn't confuse my post. I've been hoping for this for years. He was exceptionally hostile, antagonistic and disrespectful to human beings. His man's brand of conservatism brought demonstrable harm to many, many people over the years, from calling the Voting Rights Act "racial entitlement" to the countless nasty things he said about homosexuality during Lawrence v. Texas and on other occasions...

That's fine, but just due to that you find it appropriate to wish death upon them? How does that exhibit or bring about intellect and rationality? Each of the Supreme Court Justices have massive issues among them being judicial arms of the administration that put them in power rather than outright objective unbiased figures that uphold the constitution. Despite that and many other issues each have, I have never wished death upon them or anyone else in the same regard unless they actually broke some law or actively had a hand in massacre of masses.
 
Outstanding news. Looks like we're going to keep the white house, just need to take back congress, or at least the senate. Will have to exorcise that room he died in though.

I know, sounds a bit harsh and probably too early, but people like him, Chaney, Limbaugh, Putin, Bin Laden, Trump, etc... provoke such passion. As someone (Twain I think) once said, "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure."

That you'd put all of these people in with Bin Laden reveals an utter lack of character. Disgraceful.

Like him or not, Scalia was a great jurist.
 
I know, sounds a bit harsh and probably too early, but people like him, Chaney, Limbaugh, Putin, Bin Laden, Trump, etc... provoke such passion. As someone (Twain I think) once said, "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure."

I find there is a stark contrast in one not missing someone that has died, due to actions they took when living, but making comments in the same affect as if one is ticking their calendar and counting the days to someones demise...quite a difference.

The fact you think it's okay to wish death upon many in the same regard as a well known terrorist head and organizer that actually contributed and order the death of thousands of civilians...
 
I find there is a stark contrast in one not missing someone that has died, due to actions they took when living, but making comments in the same affect as if one is ticking their calendar and counting the days to someones demise...quite a difference.

The fact you think it's okay to wish death upon many in the same regard as a well known terrorist head and organizer that actually contributed and order the death of thousands of civilians...
I agree. I'm half tempted to report it, as it is against the AUP.

Acceptable Use Policy
You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.

Wishing harm upon those people certainly fits the bill, right?
 
That you'd put all of these people in with Bin Laden reveals an utter lack of character. Disgraceful.

Like him or not, Scalia was a great jurist.

Not sure a racist and a homophobe can be considered a great jurist, to be honest. Still, apologies to those that I offended in here. I'm sure his family is suffering right now.
 
Not that I can remember, but I think Mitch can probably pull it off.

Yup. Mitch ... Mr... Dynamo. ;)

Its seems like anticipating the next Supreme Court appointment has been a big concern for both liberals & conservatives for sometime. They had been looking towards the next Presidency though. This comes as a surprise because Scalia had not been ailing. As I said - this is going to get messy ...
 
I think the courts have had a bit more power than maybe intended, one crucial thing I look at is curbing the executive order as that in my mind is a clear go around our checks and balances.

Could just be me though :D
 
Well, the bit I saw got pretty ugly with Trump flat out calling Cruz a liar & Bush & Trump also going at it. I don't recall any other primaries getting this personal.

I think Trump has a lot of many skeletons in the closet that haven't been exposed yet - his history of questionable business dealings & his past association with Democratic politicians & policies. The other candidates have been biding their time before pulling out the negativity, but when things start to tighten up in the race, the gloves will come off.
 
Or, he actually did more than imply that Jeb cannot deal with any of those without the help of his mother.

It is very poor form but so is your spin :lol:
 
There was once a 363 day vacancy on the court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../13/on-election-year-supreme-court-vacancies/
When Justice Fortas stepped down in May 1969, it would be a full year (well, 363 days to be precise) before his successor was confirmed. One reason it took so long to fill the Fortas seat is because the Senate rejected President Nixon’s first two nominees for the seat — Clement Haynesworth and Harold Carswell — before confirming Harry Blackman. The Court did its work with only eight justices in the interim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back