Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He is quite accomplished at that. He relies heavily on the fact that most readers will not go back and verify that his claims are idiotic.LOLThat would be the point sailing clear above your head.Trump has no chance at becoming president.
He already did. Please do keep up.
Nah, that would be me tweaking you by reminding you that Trump defeated Hillary.
How does you posting like an idiot “tweak” me? It only makes me feel sorry for you because you prove to be too stupid to follow a discussion.
Wow, a juvenile insult. My day is complete.
When you pointed out a difference between Bush41 and Obama being that Obama could not be re-elected.Show where I agreed with your opinion.LOLOLYou lie and twist so well you should be a politician.Imbecile... Garland was nominated in March, 2016. That has nothing to do with Obama’s ineligibility to be re-elected. Still, the Republican Senate said he would never get a confirmation hearing for his nominees whoever they were. Biden never said that.But Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland would not have happened because that asshole was in the last year of his second (and thankfully last) term. He could not have been re-elected.No, you ignorant buffoon....
"— and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
.... was Biden suggesting the president should wait until after the election to nominate a USSC replacement.
”action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over
... was Biden saying the Senate should not hold a confirmation hearing until after the election should Bush nominate someone anyway prior to the election.
Either way, whether Bush were to wait until after the election to nominate a replacement; or if the Senate would hold off on confirmation hearings until after the election had Bush nominated someone before it — Bush’s nominee would still get a confirmation hearing.
What fucking language do you speak that you can’t understand that??
You are a dense liberal. You remind me a lot of Maxine Waters...dense and stupid.
You unwittingly agreed with my position yet you’re calling me “dense.”
This is why it’s hard to feel anything but pity for you.
You’re welcome to try your best...He is quite accomplished at that. He relies heavily on the fact that most readers will not go back and verify that his claims are idiotic.LOLThat would be the point sailing clear above your head.He already did. Please do keep up.
Nah, that would be me tweaking you by reminding you that Trump defeated Hillary.
How does you posting like an idiot “tweak” me? It only makes me feel sorry for you because you prove to be too stupid to follow a discussion.
Wow, a juvenile insult. My day is complete.
Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?
And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.
That does not imply any agreement with you. Bush 41 could have been re-elected, Obama could not. That is all.When you pointed out a difference between Bush41 and Obama being that Obama could not be re-elected.Show where I agreed with your opinion.LOLOLYou lie and twist so well you should be a politician.Imbecile... Garland was nominated in March, 2016. That has nothing to do with Obama’s ineligibility to be re-elected. Still, the Republican Senate said he would never get a confirmation hearing for his nominees whoever they were. Biden never said that.But Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland would not have happened because that asshole was in the last year of his second (and thankfully last) term. He could not have been re-elected.
You are a dense liberal. You remind me a lot of Maxine Waters...dense and stupid.
You unwittingly agreed with my position yet you’re calling me “dense.”
This is why it’s hard to feel anything but pity for you.
He is quite accomplished at that. He relies heavily on the fact that most readers will not go back and verify that his claims are idiotic.LOLThat would be the point sailing clear above your head.He already did. Please do keep up.
Nah, that would be me tweaking you by reminding you that Trump defeated Hillary.
How does you posting like an idiot “tweak” me? It only makes me feel sorry for you because you prove to be too stupid to follow a discussion.
Wow, a juvenile insult. My day is complete.
Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?
And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.
When the GOP hijacked the process...the people had spoken. Obama was president. So why did you hold it up?
Exactly.... that’s yet another difference which demonstrates the McConnell rule is not based on the Biden rule ... which is what I said ... with which you just agreed.That does not imply any agreement with you. Bush 41 could have been re-elected, Obama could not. That is all.When you pointed out a difference between Bush41 and Obama being that Obama could not be re-elected.Show where I agreed with your opinion.LOLOLYou lie and twist so well you should be a politician.Imbecile... Garland was nominated in March, 2016. That has nothing to do with Obama’s ineligibility to be re-elected. Still, the Republican Senate said he would never get a confirmation hearing for his nominees whoever they were. Biden never said that.
You unwittingly agreed with my position yet you’re calling me “dense.”
This is why it’s hard to feel anything but pity for you.
You dummy! The Biden standard dictated that no SCOTUS nominee should be considered in a Presidential election year. That was in 1992 when GHWB was in the last year of his first term. He could have been re-elected but was not.Exactly.... that’s yet another difference which demonstrates the McConnell rule is not based on the Biden rule ... which is what I said ... with which you just agreed.That does not imply any agreement with you. Bush 41 could have been re-elected, Obama could not. That is all.When you pointed out a difference between Bush41 and Obama being that Obama could not be re-elected.Show where I agreed with your opinion.LOLOLYou lie and twist so well you should be a politician.
You unwittingly agreed with my position yet you’re calling me “dense.”
This is why it’s hard to feel anything but pity for you.
LOLYou dummy! The Biden standard dictated that no SCOTUS nominee should be considered in a Presidential election year. That was in 1992 when GHWB was in the last year of his first term. He could have been re-elected but was not.Exactly.... that’s yet another difference which demonstrates the McConnell rule is not based on the Biden rule ... which is what I said ... with which you just agreed.That does not imply any agreement with you. Bush 41 could have been re-elected, Obama could not. That is all.When you pointed out a difference between Bush41 and Obama being that Obama could not be re-elected.Show where I agreed with your opinion.LOLOL
You unwittingly agreed with my position yet you’re calling me “dense.”
This is why it’s hard to feel anything but pity for you.
McConnell exercised the Biden standard in the last year of Obubba's last term for the same reason except that it was guaranteed that there would be a different President after the election because the mulatto Muslim messiah could not run for a third term.
This being true, the use of the Biden standard was more appropriate than in 1992 when GHWB could possibly have been re-elected.
You remind me of a Christmas Turkey.
Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992
Play the video, dufus!
LOLYou dummy! The Biden standard dictated that no SCOTUS nominee should be considered in a Presidential election year. That was in 1992 when GHWB was in the last year of his first term. He could have been re-elected but was not.Exactly.... that’s yet another difference which demonstrates the McConnell rule is not based on the Biden rule ... which is what I said ... with which you just agreed.That does not imply any agreement with you. Bush 41 could have been re-elected, Obama could not. That is all.When you pointed out a difference between Bush41 and Obama being that Obama could not be re-elected.Show where I agreed with your opinion.
McConnell exercised the Biden standard in the last year of Obubba's last term for the same reason except that it was guaranteed that there would be a different President after the election because the mulatto Muslim messiah could not run for a third term.
This being true, the use of the Biden standard was more appropriate than in 1992 when GHWB could possibly have been re-elected.
You remind me of a Christmas Turkey.
Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992
Play the video, dufus!
Damn, you rightwing freaks are fucking ignorant. Biden never said a president shouldn’t get to replace a Supreme Court Justice in a presidential election year.
LOLLOLYou dummy! The Biden standard dictated that no SCOTUS nominee should be considered in a Presidential election year. That was in 1992 when GHWB was in the last year of his first term. He could have been re-elected but was not.Exactly.... that’s yet another difference which demonstrates the McConnell rule is not based on the Biden rule ... which is what I said ... with which you just agreed.That does not imply any agreement with you. Bush 41 could have been re-elected, Obama could not. That is all.When you pointed out a difference between Bush41 and Obama being that Obama could not be re-elected.
McConnell exercised the Biden standard in the last year of Obubba's last term for the same reason except that it was guaranteed that there would be a different President after the election because the mulatto Muslim messiah could not run for a third term.
This being true, the use of the Biden standard was more appropriate than in 1992 when GHWB could possibly have been re-elected.
You remind me of a Christmas Turkey.
Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992
Play the video, dufus!
Damn, you rightwing freaks are fucking ignorant. Biden never said a president shouldn’t get to replace a Supreme Court Justice in a presidential election year.
Ooh, word-parsing. The last refuge of someone who knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
LOLLOLYou dummy! The Biden standard dictated that no SCOTUS nominee should be considered in a Presidential election year. That was in 1992 when GHWB was in the last year of his first term. He could have been re-elected but was not.Exactly.... that’s yet another difference which demonstrates the McConnell rule is not based on the Biden rule ... which is what I said ... with which you just agreed.That does not imply any agreement with you. Bush 41 could have been re-elected, Obama could not. That is all.
McConnell exercised the Biden standard in the last year of Obubba's last term for the same reason except that it was guaranteed that there would be a different President after the election because the mulatto Muslim messiah could not run for a third term.
This being true, the use of the Biden standard was more appropriate than in 1992 when GHWB could possibly have been re-elected.
You remind me of a Christmas Turkey.
Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992
Play the video, dufus!
Damn, you rightwing freaks are fucking ignorant. Biden never said a president shouldn’t get to replace a Supreme Court Justice in a presidential election year.
Ooh, word-parsing. The last refuge of someone who knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Sure, when two things have different meanings, I can see where an idiot might call it, “word parsing.”
No, you dumbfuck. It’s different because one president was told he would not be allowed to replace a Supreme Court Justice while the other one was not told that.LOLLOLYou dummy! The Biden standard dictated that no SCOTUS nominee should be considered in a Presidential election year. That was in 1992 when GHWB was in the last year of his first term. He could have been re-elected but was not.Exactly.... that’s yet another difference which demonstrates the McConnell rule is not based on the Biden rule ... which is what I said ... with which you just agreed.
McConnell exercised the Biden standard in the last year of Obubba's last term for the same reason except that it was guaranteed that there would be a different President after the election because the mulatto Muslim messiah could not run for a third term.
This being true, the use of the Biden standard was more appropriate than in 1992 when GHWB could possibly have been re-elected.
You remind me of a Christmas Turkey.
Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992
Play the video, dufus!
Damn, you rightwing freaks are fucking ignorant. Biden never said a president shouldn’t get to replace a Supreme Court Justice in a presidential election year.
Ooh, word-parsing. The last refuge of someone who knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Sure, when two things have different meanings, I can see where an idiot might call it, “word parsing.”
And when government control isn't working in favor of Democrats, I can see where a liar might insist that "It's DIFFERENT when it's not us!"
