America will tilt left for years to come

I really try not to think about it. Too depressing. Also why I don't get deeply involved in political discussions here or elsewhere anymore. I definitely feel defeated...by the national Democratic Party and by our local Republican Party...neither of which represents me very well at all.

Merrick Garland ... why I have never voted for a democrat for president.

Not going to matter now.

:eek: What's wrong with Merrick Garland? He seems like a great choice to me. He's viewed as a moderate, not a liberal firebrand.
 
Firstly, dems would like people to think it's just angry white guys but it's not. Discontent with the economy cuts across all demographics. There are far more women who don't care about politics but care very much for their families and kids job prospects.
This is very much a pocketbook election and that drives the mushy middle like nothing else.

I remember the first Clinton campaign and the slogan was "It's the economy, stupid."

What I don't remember is any election when the economy didn't play a prominent role.
 
Overturn Citizens United and replace it with what?? The idea is there is no Constitutional limit on political speech.
Time after time Congress continues to try to find one,and time after time it's ruled restrictive to political speech..

So where is this magic red line?
 
:eek: What's wrong with Merrick Garland? He seems like a great choice to me. He's viewed as a moderate, not a liberal firebrand.
I don't think they are gonna be too happy with an appellate judge from the DC Courts of appeals....but I don't know anything about him
 
Overturn Citizens United and replace it with what?? The idea is there is no Constitutional limit on political speech.
Time after time Congress continues to try to find one,and time after time it's ruled restrictive to political speech..

So where is this magic red line?

We lived without such a law for over 200 years.
 
W had terrorism at the top of the order. BO had "change".
$ is now 1st 2nd and 3rd

I don't just mean in the sense of using the economy in a slogan. Both of those guys pushed economic reform.

bush in 2000 - Economy: Bush promised tax breaks for all,[SUP][2][/SUP] sometimes using the slogan "Whoever pays taxes gets a tax break." The rich pay the most taxes, and the current system weighs the income tax against the upper income brackets. Bush also supported raising the Earned Income Tax Credit, which would primarily benefit the lower brackets of income-tax-affected citizens.

bush in 2004 -Bush supported making the tax cuts passed during his first term permanent; he maintained that the tax cuts made the recent recession shallower and shorter than it would otherwise have been.[SUP][1][/SUP]He supported job creation, by tax loopholes to invest in more higher job creation to "state and local control" than the federal government.

Obama in 2008 - Sen. Barack Obama on Monday detailed what his campaign called a four-part "economic rescue plan" for the middle class. "I'm proposing a number of steps that we should take immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities, and help struggling homeowners," Obama said at a campaign event in Toledo, Ohio. "It's a plan that begins with one word that's on everyone's mind, and it's easy to spell: J-O-B-S."

Obama in 2012 - No matter how one looks at it, the 2012 presidential election will be a referendum on the economic policies of the Obama administration.
 
Funny...Republicans gave Garland a hard time the last time he was under review...


Judge Garland persevered through a lengthy political battle in the mid-1990s that delayed his own confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by more than a year. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, argued at the time that the vacancy should not be filled.

Garland was confirmed to his current post in 1997 with the support of seven sitting Republicans: Senators Dan Coats of Indiana, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, John McCain of Arizona, Pat Roberts of Kansas.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0

Twenty years later, Mr. Grassley and other Republicans are again standing in the way of Judge Garland’s appointment.
 
I don't think they are gonna be too happy with an appellate judge from the DC Courts of appeals....but I don't know anything about him

He is probably the best Obama will offer the Republicans. I strategy I read today is they hold off a vote until after the election. If Hillary wins they appoint this guy. If Trump wins they wait for him to make the pick. (of course who knows who Trump would pick)
 
W had terrorism at the top of the order. BO had "change". $ is now 1st 2nd and 3rd

I guess Judge Garland went after the wrong kind of terrorists...


The Oklahoma City bombing case in 1995 helped shape Judge Garland’s professional life. He coordinated the Justice Department’s response, starting the case against the bombers and eventually supervising their prosecution.

Judge Garland insisted on being sent to the scene even as bodies were being pulled out of the wreckage, said Jamie S. Gorelick, then the deputy attorney general.

“At the time, he said to me the equivalent of ‘Send me in, coach,’” Ms. Gorelick said. “He worked around the clock, and he was flawless.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0
 
He is probably the best Obama will offer the Republicans. I strategy I read today is they hold off a vote until after the election. If Hillary wins they appoint this guy. If Trump wins they wait for him to make the pick. (of course who knows who Trump would pick)

If they won't vote on him now you think they will if Hil wins the election? I think this could come back to bite the GOP big time.
 
Back
Top