Vice Presidential Debate 2020

#827
#827
NorthDallas40 said:
Your original reply was do I think it’s fair to replace her. Yes it is. This dialog is not related to the original discussion point.
Click to expand...

True, but I was replying to a comment you made to the effect of "if you expect something to happen why be upset by it." I gave you an example of being reasonably upset by something expected.
 
#829
#829
Wafflestomper said:
True, but I was replying to a comment you made to the effect of "if you expect something to happen why be upset by it." I gave you an example of being reasonably upset by something expected.
Click to expand...
Ok. But I’d guess you’re more upset that RBG is going to be replaced by a conservative justice than her passing. And that’s on her.

I’m not “upset” she died. She was very accomplished and led a very full life. That should be celebrated. But she absolutely stayed on the court too long and her replacement by a conservative is a direct result of her choice. So I’d submit if you’re gonna be upset with anybody it should be RBG
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol
#831
#831
NorthDallas40 said:
Ok. But I’d guess you’re more upset that RBG is going to be replaced by a conservative justice than her passing. And that’s on her.

I’m not “upset” she died. She was very accomplished and led a very full life. That should be celebrated. But she absolutely stayed on the court too long and her replacement by a conservative is a direct result of her choice. So I’d submit if you’re gonna be upset with anybody it should be RBG
Click to expand...

No, I'm not upset about that. It's that they are replacing her after saying we shouldn't do that four years ago, and now we can expect democrats to reciprocate once they have the opportunity to do so. Anyone who cares about the country ought to be concerned by this back and forth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85 and Rifleman
#833
#833
Wafflestomper said:
No, I'm not upset about that. It's that they are replacing her after saying we shouldn't do that four years ago, and now we can expect democrats to reciprocate once they have the opportunity to do so. Anyone who cares about the country ought to be concerned by this back and forth.
Click to expand...
Why does Biden not name a list of replacements for RBG; if they think the nomination should wait until after the election?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Y9 Vol and hog88
#834
#834
Wafflestomper said:
No, I'm not upset about that. It's that they are replacing her after saying we shouldn't do that four years ago, and now we can expect democrats to reciprocate once they have the opportunity to do so. Anyone who cares about the country ought to be concerned by this back and forth.
Click to expand...
Clarence Thomas should probably have stepped down this year, just in case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, Y9 Vol and hog88
#835
#835
UT_VOLS13 said:
Why does Biden not name a list of replacements for RBG; if they think the nomination should wait until after the election?
Click to expand...

He won't name potential replacements because he knows he has to go left of RBG or it will piss off the far left wing of his supporters and naming that person would scare the moderates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, Y9 Vol, volfanjustin and 1 other person
#836
#836
volfanjustin said:
Reading the tweet above made me think about this and raises a question, if blacks in this country are so oppressed why do so many people who are half back, who have a small percentage of black or not black at all, say they are black?
Click to expand...
It’s called pandering. The left does it better than anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, NorthDallas40, MR_VOL and 2 others
#838
#838
UT_VOLS13 said:
Why does Biden not name a list of replacements for RBG; if they think the nomination should wait until after the election?
Click to expand...

I assume he knows her replacement will be appointed by Trump? To my knowledge there isn't really anything the democrats can do to stop it at this point. If the vote is held sometime after the election then I assume you'll see his list if he wins.
 
#839
#839
Wafflestomper said:
No, I'm not upset about that. It's that they are replacing her after saying we shouldn't do that four years ago, and now we can expect democrats to reciprocate once they have the opportunity to do so. Anyone who cares about the country ought to be concerned by this back and forth.
Click to expand...
Again. Precedent. Never in the history of our country has that happened with an aligned WH and Senate. What you’re asking for is unprecedented thus it’s irrational to be upset if you don’t get it. I fully expect the Dems to behave just as the Repubs are now. It’s the historical norm
 
#840
#840
hog88 said:
No, but one of them will have the job and most likely one of their VPs will inherit it.
Click to expand...
If Trump wins, I would give him even odds of surviving 4 more years (though he could get evicted if the Dems control the Senate). Biden however, is not nearly as likely to make it through 4 years even if he wanted to. Should Biden win and remain physically and mentally capable, I predict he will be pushed aside in less than 3 years whether he likes it or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#845
#845
Hey guys, I was able to get a zoomed in pic and it all makes sense now
EjzLZBPVgAAupun
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, TrumpedUpVol, AirVol and 8 others
#846
#846
Wafflestomper said:
No, I'm not upset about that. It's that they are replacing her after saying we shouldn't do that four years ago, and now we can expect democrats to reciprocate once they have the opportunity to do so. Anyone who cares about the country ought to be concerned by this back and forth.
Click to expand...
Except they already have. 4 years ago it was the president should find someone. Now its they shouldnt. It's literally impossible to point at just the Rs here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#848
#848
Wafflestomper said:
No, I'm not upset about that. It's that they are replacing her after saying we shouldn't do that four years ago, and now we can expect democrats to reciprocate once they have the opportunity to do so. Anyone who cares about the country ought to be concerned by this back and forth.
Click to expand...

Supreme Court shouldn't be a political football, and Democrats shouldn't add more justices simply to counterbalance unless the Supreme Court really oversteps its Constitutional role and basically starts acting as a veto on their legislation. Even then it should be done with equal numbers from both sides of the aisle.

If SCOTUS overrules their own prior precedents, like Obergefell and Rowe, that would not fit the bill and such instances should be addressed legislatively at the state and federal level. This would also allow Democrats to make their case to their voters that a conservative court needs to be balanced by the other branches.

Having said that, I am for expanding the number of justices so important issues don't get left to lower and far more left/right partisan courts. I'd go to 27 or 45 if it could be done with bi-partisan support. But since that can't be done in this divisive moment, it should wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#850
#850
NorthDallas40 said:
Again. Precedent. Never in the history of our country has that happened with an aligned WH and Senate. What you’re asking for is unprecedented thus it’s irrational to be upset if you don’t get it
Click to expand...

Precedent is irrelevant to whether something is rational or not. However, I think republicans would normally be well within their right to replace RBG. But they refused to even hold a vote for a SCOTUS nominee four years ago, citing that a supreme court appointment shouldn't happen during an election year. What happened to letting the American people decide by electing the president?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top