Kamala Harris’s Dishonesty on Abe Lincoln

[Nostra]

 

[gmeyers1944]

Harris depends on the historical illiterates that make up her base to not check her story out.
Kamala Harris...... making up shit as she goes along.

I heard what she said. And she was technically correct. Lincoln did say let the People decide. His wish was to wait until AFTER the election. It doesn't matter if Congress was at recess or not. He said it and it went that way just like it's done ever since until now.

President Lincoln sent the nomination to the Senate at the earliest possible time. That was in December because the Senate was out of session until December.

Can you prove me wrong? Or do you just make up history to suit your own narrative. Now it's up to you to prove to me that they were out of session until December. Tag, her it.

U.S. Senate: Dates of Sessions of the Congress

www.senate.gov

Scroll down to 38th Congress. Here is proof that the Senate had adjourned one session on July 4, 1864. The next session did not start until December 5, 1864.

 

[tycho1572]

Democrats have never concerned themselves with the accuracy of the crap spew. Never.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Someone might want to tell Kamala Harris that she needs to get her American history straight. During her debate with Mike Pence, she claimed that Abraham Lincoln said it would be wrong to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that opened up 27 days before the 1864 election.

First of all, Lincoln said no such thing.

Second, back then, Congress was in recess from July 4 until December 5, i.e., until after the election--so there would have been no point in nominating anyone to fill the vacancy before the election.

Third, Lincoln submitted his nominee on December 6, the day after Congress returned. He did not wait for the new Congress to take office (which, back then, did not happen until March).

Very interesting. I want very much to give your post a thumbs up, however you site no authoritative source for the information you supplied. Any chance of getting a link so I can confirm the validity of what you say? Thanks

You could try senate.gov. Their history section has a listing of the opening and ending dates of every session of the Senate. It will tell you when the Senate session closed that year.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Point was, he didn't try to Ram one through before an election, Axis Mikey.

Dopey...

At that time in our history the congress was in session into march before the newly elected one was seated. Lincoln put his nomination through the moment that congress came into session...

The left is historically challenged...

I'm pretty sure Kamala Harris and other Democrat politicians are counting on their base being historically challenged and ASSuming that the way things are now is the way they always have been.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Point was, he didn't try to Ram one through before an election, Axis Mikey.

Point is, you would excuse anything and everything said or done by anyone you support because you are a sheep.

Given all that Trump has said and done, and how many people are dead as a result, you might want to look at that post and realize that you have just described yourself. You're willing to support the lies, the disease, the death, the corruption and the abuse of power.

Pot, kettle, black.

No, I'm pretty sure no one in the world is going to do any introspection and soul-searching on the basis of your childish, ignorant rant about "Anyone who dies during Trump's administration is automatically Trump's fault, because I HATE HIM!!!"

You could save so much time and screen space if you would just recognize what an incredible joke you actually are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Point was, he didn't try to Ram one through before an election, Axis Mikey.

Point is, you would excuse anything and everything said or done by anyone you support because you are a sheep.

Given all that Trump has said and done, and how many people are dead as a result, you might want to look at that post and realize that you have just described yourself. You're willing to support the lies, the disease, the death, the corruption and the abuse of power.

Pot, kettle, black.

Not a Trump thread, Chowderhead.

Who is responsible for the Supreme Court nomination? Who is pushing the Senate to get her approved before the election? Who is driving everything that is happening around that nominations. Any discussions of the Supreme Court nomination that ignores Trump and his role in this fiasco, won't have much to say.

Trump drives everything that is happening in this matter. Given your total dearth of critical thinking skills, I don't expect you to understand that. Chowderhead. One of the sports New England area teams fans call themselves "chowderheads". You can't even insult someone effectively.

"Trump is President of a country I'm not in, and I hate it, so that makes it okay for me to spew my useless nonsense in every thread!!! Everything is about how much I hate Trump, and how sure I am that people care!!!"

As far as I'm concerned, LizardBitch, the fact that your only defense of Kamala "I'm a Lying Whore" Harris is "Well, Trump sucks and you should believe you're a bad person for voting for him!" is just another way of saying you know we're right. Or, at least, it would be if you were a real poster who had something to say that mattered about issues that are actually any of your fucking business.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Point was, he didn't try to Ram one through before an election, Axis Mikey.

Point is, you would excuse anything and everything said or done by anyone you support because you are a sheep.

Given all that Trump has said and done, and how many people are dead as a result, you might want to look at that post and realize that you have just described yourself. You're willing to support the lies, the disease, the death, the corruption and the abuse of power.

Pot, kettle, black.

Not a Trump thread, Chowderhead.

Who is responsible for the Supreme Court nomination? Who is pushing the Senate to get her approved before the election? Who is driving everything that is happening around that nominations. Any discussions of the Supreme Court nomination that ignores Trump and his role in this fiasco, won't have much to say.

Trump drives everything that is happening in this matter. Given your total dearth of critical thinking skills, I don't expect you to understand that. Chowderhead. One of the sports New England area teams fans call themselves "chowderheads". You can't even insult someone effectively.

1. Still not a Trump thread.
2. Trump is fulfilling his Constitutional duties. But I wouldn't expect a single digit IQ Canuck to know squat about our Constitution.

Not true. either of it. Trump's "Constitutional duty" is " I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same".

Trump isn't "defending the Constitution" by slamming through a SC judge to decide the election if he loses the popular vote AGAIN. He's not "defending the Constitution" be forcing people to go back to work and endangering their lives in the middle of pandemic. He's not "defending the Constitution" when he allows Putin to put a bounty on US Soldiers with impunity.

Or when he attacks state governors and encourages militia groups to attack the duly elected State government.
As for your "insults" and "zingers". Weak and flaccid. My 13 year old grandson gets off better zingers than you do. "My grandmother is so old, she played with dinosaurs."

Who are you to lecture us about what is and isn't "defending the Constitution" of OUR nation? The only "knowledge" you have about OUR Constitution is what your lame-ass media tells you you should think about it.

Our country, not yours. Our Constitution, not yours. Take your lectures to Americans about what's "really" Constitutional and shove them right up your wrinkled, ignorant bunghole.

 

[toobfreak]

Someone might want to tell Kamala Harris that she needs to get her American history straight. During her debate with Mike Pence, she claimed that Abraham Lincoln said it would be wrong to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that opened up 27 days before the 1864 election.

First of all, Lincoln said no such thing.

Second, back then, Congress was in recess from July 4 until December 5, i.e., until after the election--so there would have been no point in nominating anyone to fill the vacancy before the election.

Third, Lincoln submitted his nominee on December 6, the day after Congress returned. He did not wait for the new Congress to take office (which, back then, did not happen until March).

Why should we be surprised that another thing Harris said is false? The reason why I feel these debates ought to have one legal and constitutional scholar and a moderator familiar with the candidates to cry FOUL when they lie and correct the record.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Point was, he didn't try to Ram one through before an election, Axis Mikey.

Point is, you would excuse anything and everything said or done by anyone you support because you are a sheep.

Given all that Trump has said and done, and how many people are dead as a result, you might want to look at that post and realize that you have just described yourself. You're willing to support the lies, the disease, the death, the corruption and the abuse of power.

Pot, kettle, black.

Not a Trump thread, Chowderhead.

Who is responsible for the Supreme Court nomination? Who is pushing the Senate to get her approved before the election? Who is driving everything that is happening around that nominations. Any discussions of the Supreme Court nomination that ignores Trump and his role in this fiasco, won't have much to say.

Trump drives everything that is happening in this matter. Given your total dearth of critical thinking skills, I don't expect you to understand that. Chowderhead. One of the sports New England area teams fans call themselves "chowderheads". You can't even insult someone effectively.

Uh... you realize that numerous SCOTUS appointments happened in the last year of a President?
Right? But I get it. It only matters to you now... well.. because Orange man bad.
I 100% guarantee if Hillary would have won instead... you would be saying precisely the opposite. Of that, there is no doubt. Because you are a sheep.

Not after the campaigns started. No President has EVER tried to push through a nominee in the middle of Presidential election campaign.

Trump keeps trying to normalize all of the unprecedented crap he tries to pull. Obama separated children so he's just doing what Obama did. Obama didn't take babies away or lose them. Nor did he lock them up for years in dirty and unsafe conditions.

No President has even done the things that Trump has attempted to do and stuff he is now trying to do, like overthrow the election if he loses. He will be going to jail for many of the corrupt and illegal things he's done. That's why he's desperate to get this judge appointed. He things she'll hand the election to him, even though, with a Republican majority on the Bench, Trump has yet to win a single case on his taxes or his administration that has gone to the SC.

Do you know why that is, oh vaunted scholar of the history of countries you don't belong to?

Because until the 1940s, the Senate was almost never in session after September. After that, it simply didn't come up.

Leftists keep trying to lecture everyone about the misconceptions they're just sure are facts. Do the world a favor, LizardBitch, and hold your breath until reality is what your diseased, senile mind imagines it to be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Someone might want to tell Kamala Harris that she needs to get her American history straight. During her debate with Mike Pence, she claimed that Abraham Lincoln said it would be wrong to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that opened up 27 days before the 1864 election.

First of all, Lincoln said no such thing.

Second, back then, Congress was in recess from July 4 until December 5, i.e., until after the election--so there would have been no point in nominating anyone to fill the vacancy before the election.

Third, Lincoln submitted his nominee on December 6, the day after Congress returned. He did not wait for the new Congress to take office (which, back then, did not happen until March).

Very interesting. I want very much to give your post a thumbs up, however you site no authoritative source for the information you supplied. Any chance of getting a link so I can confirm the validity of what you say? Thanks

Did Lincoln Refuse to Fill a Supreme Court Vacancy Before an Election?

Lincoln was not above using the enticement of a Supreme Court seat to encourage campaigning on his behalf.

www.snopes.com

" Although Lincoln could have named a nominee prior to the 1864 election, he could not have filled the open Supreme Court seat prior to that event. When Taney died, Congress had been in recess since July 4, and would not reconvene until Dec. 5, so Lincoln had no opportunity to designate a successor and have that person confirmed by the Senate prior to the Nov. 8 presidential election. "

".......he could not have filled the open Supreme Court seat prior to that event."......"so Lincoln had no opportunity to designate a successor and have that person confirmed by the Senate prior to the Nov. 8 presidential election. "

That is not necessarily true. According to the Constitution, Article II, Section 3, the President of the United States has the power to "on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses or either of them."

President Lincoln could have called the Senate back to act on his nominee if he had chosen to make one. Given he was in the fight of his life for reelection and in the middle of a little conflict known as the Civil War, I think he just had more pressing things than nominating a Supreme Court Justice at that time.

Or maybe it didn't meet the definition of "extraordinary occasions".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Our Canadian guest sounds amazingly like Joy Behar! Yes?

Why wouldn't she? All the "facts" she keeps arrogantly lecturing us about come directly from the media programming her otherwise vacuous skull with them.

 

[miketx]

Kamala Harris’s Dishonesty on Abe Lincoln​

Kamala Harris’s Dishonesty on Abe Lincoln | National Review

Harris refused to answer questions about plans to expand the Supreme Court. But she also misrepresented history.

www.nationalreview.com

8 Oct 2020 ~ By Dan McLaughlin

Lincoln, of course, said no such thing. He sent no nominee to the Senate in October 1864 because the Senate was out of session until December. He sent a nominee the day after the session began, and Salmon P. Chase was confirmed the same day. And Lincoln wanted to dangle the nomination before Chase and several other potential candidates because he wanted them to campaign for him. Lincoln’s priority was winning the election, which was necessary to win the war — and he filled the vacancy at the first possible instant.
Kamala Harris is simply inventing history.


Comment:
Fact: Salmon P. Chase was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by Abraham Lincoln on Dec. 6, 1864 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on the same day.

Today in History, December 6, 1865: 13th Amendment abolishing slavery was ratified

On Dec. 6, 1865, the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, abolishing slavery, was ratified as Georgia became the 27th state to endorse it.

www.cincinnati.com

Her story as usual was Bovine Scat just like everything else that came out of Kamala's mouth tonight.
Like all Pogressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat Leftists, both China Joe and round heeled Kamala have an utter lack of integrity and remorseless dishonesty.

************
​

Mike Pence slams Kamala Harris for her racial disparities as prosecutor

Vice President Mike Pence slammed his Democratic challenger, Sen. Kamala Harris, at the Wednesday vice presidential debate over racial disparities during her time as a prosecutor. “When you w…

nypost.com

Kamala said, " You respect the people when they tell you the Truth." Well Kamala you did not tell the truth during the Debate.
I await the Leftists on this board to dispute the above facts....

I wonder in Harris chopped down a cherry tree.

 

[Auld Phart]

Kamala Harris’s Dishonesty on Abe Lincoln​

Kamala Harris’s Dishonesty on Abe Lincoln | National Review

Harris refused to answer questions about plans to expand the Supreme Court. But she also misrepresented history.

www.nationalreview.com

8 Oct 2020 ~ By Dan McLaughlin

Lincoln, of course, said no such thing. He sent no nominee to the Senate in October 1864 because the Senate was out of session until December. He sent a nominee the day after the session began, and Salmon P. Chase was confirmed the same day. And Lincoln wanted to dangle the nomination before Chase and several other potential candidates because he wanted them to campaign for him. Lincoln’s priority was winning the election, which was necessary to win the war — and he filled the vacancy at the first possible instant.
Kamala Harris is simply inventing history.


Comment:
Fact: Salmon P. Chase was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by Abraham Lincoln on Dec. 6, 1864 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on the same day.

Today in History, December 6, 1865: 13th Amendment abolishing slavery was ratified

On Dec. 6, 1865, the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, abolishing slavery, was ratified as Georgia became the 27th state to endorse it.

www.cincinnati.com

Her story as usual was Bovine Scat just like everything else that came out of Kamala's mouth tonight.
Like all Pogressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat Leftists, both China Joe and round heeled Kamala have an utter lack of integrity and remorseless dishonesty.

************
​

Mike Pence slams Kamala Harris for her racial disparities as prosecutor

Vice President Mike Pence slammed his Democratic challenger, Sen. Kamala Harris, at the Wednesday vice presidential debate over racial disparities during her time as a prosecutor. “When you w…

nypost.com

Kamala said, " You respect the people when they tell you the Truth." Well Kamala you did not tell the truth during the Debate.
I await the Leftists on this board to dispute the above facts....

I wonder in Harris chopped down a cherry tree.

Chop?

no.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Someone might want to tell Kamala Harris that she needs to get her American history straight. During her debate with Mike Pence, she claimed that Abraham Lincoln said it would be wrong to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that opened up 27 days before the 1864 election.

First of all, Lincoln said no such thing.

Second, back then, Congress was in recess from July 4 until December 5, i.e., until after the election--so there would have been no point in nominating anyone to fill the vacancy before the election.

Third, Lincoln submitted his nominee on December 6, the day after Congress returned. He did not wait for the new Congress to take office (which, back then, did not happen until March).

Why should we be surprised that another thing Harris said is false? The reason why I feel these debates ought to have one legal and constitutional scholar and a moderator familiar with the candidates to cry FOUL when they lie and correct the record.

I personally feel that people who are going to vote should be engaged enough to look it up themselves. Anyone who's dumb enough to just take politicians at face value has no business voting.

 

[miketx]

Someone might want to tell Kamala Harris that she needs to get her American history straight. During her debate with Mike Pence, she claimed that Abraham Lincoln said it would be wrong to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that opened up 27 days before the 1864 election.

First of all, Lincoln said no such thing.

Second, back then, Congress was in recess from July 4 until December 5, i.e., until after the election--so there would have been no point in nominating anyone to fill the vacancy before the election.

Third, Lincoln submitted his nominee on December 6, the day after Congress returned. He did not wait for the new Congress to take office (which, back then, did not happen until March).

Why should we be surprised that another thing Harris said is false? The reason why I feel these debates ought to have one legal and constitutional scholar and a moderator familiar with the candidates to cry FOUL when they lie and correct the record.

I personally feel that people who are going to vote should be engaged enough to look it up themselves. Anyone who's dumb enough to just take politicians at face value has no business voting.

Add to that voting for person just because they are a certain thing.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Harris depends on the historical illiterates that make up her base to not check her story out.
Kamala Harris...... making up shit as she goes along.

I heard what she said. And she was technically correct. Lincoln did say let the People decide. His wish was to wait until AFTER the election. It doesn't matter if Congress was at recess or not. He said it and it went that way just like it's done ever since until now.

President Lincoln sent the nomination to the Senate at the earliest possible time. That was in December because the Senate was out of session until December.

Can you prove me wrong? Or do you just make up history to suit your own narrative. Now it's up to you to prove to me that they were out of session until December. Tag, her it.

U.S. Senate: Dates of Sessions of the Congress

www.senate.gov

Scroll down to 38th Congress. Here is proof that the Senate had adjourned one session on July 4, 1864. The next session did not start until December 5, 1864.

That's one way to make sure a President can't get his pick before an election. But that doesn't stop him from nominating. And Lincoln didn't nominate until AFTER the election regardless. You will counter with, it wouldn't have done him any good. And I will counter with, Lincoln can nominate any time he wishes. Had the Senate wanted it done they would have reconvened early enough to get the job done. Obviously, they agreed with him. The fact remains that the Senate does NOT have to be in session for the President to make the nomination. And there has been many times in history when the nomination didn't happen for as much as a year or more because there were other things to worry about. Or qualified or acceptable candidates weren't found.

 

[gmeyers1944]

Harris depends on the historical illiterates that make up her base to not check her story out.
Kamala Harris...... making up shit as she goes along.

I heard what she said. And she was technically correct. Lincoln did say let the People decide. His wish was to wait until AFTER the election. It doesn't matter if Congress was at recess or not. He said it and it went that way just like it's done ever since until now.

President Lincoln sent the nomination to the Senate at the earliest possible time. That was in December because the Senate was out of session until December.

Can you prove me wrong? Or do you just make up history to suit your own narrative. Now it's up to you to prove to me that they were out of session until December. Tag, her it.

U.S. Senate: Dates of Sessions of the Congress

www.senate.gov

Scroll down to 38th Congress. Here is proof that the Senate had adjourned one session on July 4, 1864. The next session did not start until December 5, 1864.

That's one way to make sure a President can't get his pick before an election. But that doesn't stop him from nominating. And Lincoln didn't nominate until AFTER the election regardless. You will counter with, it wouldn't have done him any good. And I will counter with, Lincoln can nominate any time he wishes. Had the Senate wanted it done they would have reconvened early enough to get the job done. Obviously, they agreed with him. The fact remains that the Senate does NOT have to be in session for the President to make the nomination. And there has been many times in history when the nomination didn't happen for as much as a year or more because there were other things to worry about. Or qualified or acceptable candidates weren't found.

There is one thing about politics at play here. Both Republicans and Democrats face this challenge. President Lincoln wanted to keep his coalition together so he would be re-elected.

 

[toobfreak]

I personally feel that people who are going to vote should be engaged enough to look it up themselves. Anyone who's dumb enough to just take politicians at face value has no business voting.

Unfortunately true, C, however the reality is that if you look at the millions spent on advertising, you will readily see the vast majority can't be bothered, are much too wrapped up in their own daily lives and almost find elections a nuisance they don't deal with until election day and go by superficial impressions and feelings. If you don't deliver the facts to them on a silver platter, you are leaving it up to a crap shoot with whoever spends the most on ads wins.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Harris depends on the historical illiterates that make up her base to not check her story out.
Kamala Harris...... making up shit as she goes along.

I heard what she said. And she was technically correct. Lincoln did say let the People decide. His wish was to wait until AFTER the election. It doesn't matter if Congress was at recess or not. He said it and it went that way just like it's done ever since until now.

President Lincoln sent the nomination to the Senate at the earliest possible time. That was in December because the Senate was out of session until December.

Can you prove me wrong? Or do you just make up history to suit your own narrative. Now it's up to you to prove to me that they were out of session until December. Tag, her it.

U.S. Senate: Dates of Sessions of the Congress

www.senate.gov

Scroll down to 38th Congress. Here is proof that the Senate had adjourned one session on July 4, 1864. The next session did not start until December 5, 1864.

That's one way to make sure a President can't get his pick before an election. But that doesn't stop him from nominating. And Lincoln didn't nominate until AFTER the election regardless. You will counter with, it wouldn't have done him any good. And I will counter with, Lincoln can nominate any time he wishes. Had the Senate wanted it done they would have reconvened early enough to get the job done. Obviously, they agreed with him. The fact remains that the Senate does NOT have to be in session for the President to make the nomination. And there has been many times in history when the nomination didn't happen for as much as a year or more because there were other things to worry about. Or qualified or acceptable candidates weren't found.

There is one thing about politics at play here. Both Republicans and Democrats face this challenge. President Lincoln wanted to keep his coalition together so he would be re-elected.

Well, Duh, There was a Civil War in progress. But the Senate didn't believe it was important enough to get a replacement enough to come back in session AND Lincoln didn't thing it was that important to force the action. And, yes, a President can force the issue if he feels the need and wants to alienate his supporters.