HOME | message board | videos | photos |

Reading all 70 messages in thread
message board home

9/25/2020 11:30:01 AM

Reply or ReplyNewSubject
Section 4: President & Congress
Subject: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Msg# 1098791

From:

Tom Hemmick Forum Leader

Joined 7/21/2005

To:

Jim Matthews (Read)

Joined 6/10/2008

Politicians change their arguments all the time. Big laugh to say politicians words are unconditional. So many flip flops.

For example --Biden is now alleging Trump did not start measures against Covid early enough and trying to assert he would have. Yet the facts show both Joe & many Dems were critical of Trump's early travel restrictions & his other actions. Some Biden comments about the travel ban, calling it Trump's-- "hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. . . . " Also Biden saying: "And now he's adding more countries to his list of who's not welcome in America. It's not who we are"

Then there's Nancy's China Towne remarks -- And DeBlasio's remarks "get out on the town . . ." All in defiance of Trump's urging staying at home.

Is Biden seeing fantasy land in his asserting he would have acted earlier. Sorry Joe, your filp flop doesn't fly. Its a prevarication to try & sell the idea you would act sooner.

Also any crystal ball or prediction that the Repubs would try stacking the Supreme Court is totally off base. Look up who's considering or threatening stacking. You find FDR's name historically and Chuck Schumer's name currently.

For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where:
Sorry that you missed when I answered your allegations of they are either hypocrites, or outright liars. Maybe you read that message, before I had completed some editing to it. Perhaps, take another look.

They did say, unconditionally, in 2016, that they would not put a Supreme Court nominee through in 2020, UNCONDITIONALLY! They did not adhere to that! So how is that not hypocritical or a lie?

They have the power now and the want to take advantage of it before they loose it (and the will loose it.) Pack the Supremes. If Trump looses, then he can contest it and his Supremes will rule in his favor.

Is that the crystal ball you are talking about? Let me know. It is not a crystal ball.

Trump has already stated publicly that he needs another justice on the SCOTUS in case the awful mail-in ballots cause him to lose the election. He thinks the "unfair" election might need to go to the SCOTUS in order to resolve the election fairly, in his favor.

message board home