2020 US Senatorial elections

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
3,957
Reaction score
1,359
Points
113
Want to bet that Daines won't win by 9? Also, the Michigan Senate seat is not in danger. Your guy already lost in 2018 and he's not going to outrun Trump by the 5-8% necessary to win Michigan.
Lyin Howie

1602189617805.png1602189696693.png
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,946
Reaction score
2,139
Points
113
You're such an embarrassing phony.


I said Graham is the only one that said that he wouldn’t confirm a Justice in 2020 if given the situation.

You got me on Rubio. I never heard that quote. Dumb for him to say it.

As far as the rest of those Republican Senators, none said that they wouldn’t do it if it was a Republican. That was what was in dispute.

I never said that Republican Senators said they wouldn’t confirm Obama’s pick in the year of an election. Obviously, they wouldn’t vote to confirm.

B/C THE REPUBLICANS HELD THE MAJORITY IN THE SENATE. AND THE DEMOCRATS DON’T.

PRECEDENT!!!!
 
Last edited:

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,946
Reaction score
2,139
Points
113
Want to bet that Daines won't win by 9? Also, the Michigan Senate seat is not in danger. Your guy already lost in 2018 and he's not going to outrun Trump by the 5-8% necessary to win Michigan.
I didn’t say he’d win by 9% idiot. But he will win and I’m willing to bet to shut your mouth.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
20,262
Reaction score
1,642
Points
113
I said Graham is the only one that said that he wouldn’t confirm a Justice in 2020 if given the situation.

You got me on Rubio. I never heard that quote. Dumb for him to say it.

As far as the rest of those Republican Senators, none said that they wouldn’t do it if it was a Republican. That was what was in dispute.

I never said that Republican Senators said they wouldn’t confirm Obama’s pick in the year of an election. Obviously, they wouldn’t vote to confirm.

B/C THE REPUBLICANS HELD THE MAJORITY IN THE SENATE. AND THE DEMOCRATS DON’T.

PRECEDENT!!!!
That was the point of my second post. It had ZERO to do with any previous precedent. All of those HYPOCRITES said it was because it was an election year. They all said that the voters should have a say with the election.

Not the case anymore. They've all changed their minds on that. All hypocrites. The right is the party of hypocrites.

As I said before. Anyone up for the senate....regardless of their thoughts on expanding the Supreme Court or extending statehood to D.C. and PR should say little on the topic. The phony a$$ repubs like you won't have a leg to stand on if they go through with those moves.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,946
Reaction score
2,139
Points
113
That was the point of my second post. It had ZERO to do with any previous precedent. All of those HYPOCRITES said it was because it was an election year. They all said that the voters should have a say with the election.

Not the case anymore. They've all changed their minds on that. All hypocrites. The right is the party of hypocrites.

As I said before. Anyone up for the senate....regardless of their thoughts on expanding the Supreme Court or extending statehood to D.C. and PR should say little on the topic. The phony a$$ repubs like you won't have a leg to stand on if they go through with those moves.
It was an election year WITH DIVIDED POWER, not with majority power as this year is.

We’ve been over this ad nauseam. I conceded your example of Rubio. Good work!

Democrats would do exactly the same thing b/c it is constitutional and with a lot of precedent.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
46,506
Reaction score
4,308
Points
113
It was an election year WITH DIVIDED POWER, not with majority power as this year is.
None of them mentioned DIVIDED POWER when they were excusing their actions in 2016. It was all about not confirming any justice in an election year. PERIOD. That's what makes them all HYPOCRITES including you.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
20,262
Reaction score
1,642
Points
113
It was an election year WITH DIVIDED POWER, not with majority power as this year is.

We’ve been over this ad nauseam. I conceded your example of Rubio. Good work!

Democrats would do exactly the same thing b/c it is constitutional and with a lot of precedent.
Yes. "DIVIDED POWER!" That is the excuse NOW. Notice how NONE of those senators said anything about divided power. Only about allowing Americans to make a choice in an election year.

Of course they were going to have to come up with excuses to make the hypocrisy a little less potent. Nobody buys their change of tune except dotards like you. Good thing the lies and the hypocrisy comes back around. And when the democrats are back in power in short term....your cries of righteousness will be a nice joke.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
46,506
Reaction score
4,308
Points
113
Congrats to Republicans on being within the margin of error in a Republican poll in that Marxist bastion of Kansas
Always a sign it's going well for R's when they're citing the margin of error in Kansas. But Trump's going to turn the tables on the Dems in New York...
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
20,262
Reaction score
1,642
Points
113
None of them mentioned DIVIDED POWER when they were excusing their actions in 2016. It was all about not confirming any justice in an election year. PERIOD. That's what makes them all HYPOCRITES including you.
Yup. That's just the new excuse that they are now rolling with. The shilliest of shills think that people don't notice the hypocrisy.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,946
Reaction score
2,139
Points
113
Yes. "DIVIDED POWER!" That is the excuse NOW. Notice how NONE of those senators said anything about divided power. Only about allowing Americans to make a choice in an election year.

Of course they were going to have to come up with excuses to make the hypocrisy a little less potent. Nobody buys their change of tune except dotards like you. Good thing the lies and the hypocrisy comes back around. And when the democrats are back in power in short term....your cries of righteousness will be a nice joke.
It’s not an “excuse”. It’s precedent. It has always been precedent whether they bothered to mention it or not.

If it wasn’t precedent, you’d have a point. Unfortunately for you, it is.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
20,262
Reaction score
1,642
Points
113
It’s not an “excuse”. It’s precedent. It has always been precedent whether they bothered to mention it or not.

If it wasn’t precedent, you’d have a point. Unfortunately for you, it is.
No. It has never been a "precedent". You're just too big of a shill to admit otherwise.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,946
Reaction score
2,139
Points
113
No. It has never been a "precedent". You're just too big of a shill to admit otherwise.
I literally posted about this the night RBG died and the day after. Stop making yourself look like a total moron.

1DEB66B3-0C77-44C0-8190-FF09BFE484FF.jpeg



A posted this article on the precedent from August 2020, before RBG died:

 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
20,262
Reaction score
1,642
Points
113
I literally posted about this the night RBG died and the day after. Stop making yourself look like a total moron.

View attachment 9637



A posted this article on the precedent from August 2020, before RBG died:


You truly are stupid beyond reproach. Want to explain which $hithead right wing trash can you got your information from? There have been eleven rejections to the Supreme Court in the HISTORY of the United States. And in almost every one of those cases....the President confirmed another nomination.


So let's hear about those nine rejections.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,946
Reaction score
2,139
Points
113
You truly are stupid beyond reproach. Want to explain which $hithead right wing trash can you got your information from? There have been eleven rejections to the Supreme Court in the HISTORY of the United States. And in almost every one of those cases....the President confirmed another nomination.


So let's hear about those nine rejections.
Did you read the article? It’s history. It’s fact. If McConnell‘s Senate had confirmed Garland, it would’ve been an exception to precedent.

This chart summarized the outcomes of presidential SC nominations made in the last year of the president’s term when the Senate Majority is the opposition party of the president. Note the number of “Lose” outcomes.
F0D95CCD-4C98-45D6-B2FC-56A7AF8CD040.jpeg

This is a Senate Election thread. We’re done here.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
20,262
Reaction score
1,642
Points
113
Did you read the article? It’s history. It’s fact. If McConnell‘s Senate had confirmed Garland, it would’ve been an exception to precedent.

This chart summarized the outcomes of presidential SC nominations made in the last year of the president’s term when the Senate Majority is the opposition party of the president. Note the number of “Lose” outcomes.
View attachment 9638

This is a Senate Election thread. We’re done here.
Confirmed. You are a total shill, a failure, and a liar. And just as I thought....you pulled this chart from another dotard like yourself. Which trash can righty website?

A BUNCH of those "losses"....were withdrawn nominations. Lol....four of them were for the same two nominations by the SAME President (Tyler)....who ended up getting a nomination through anyways.


So no....it never has been a precedent. Even if your chart wasn't full of $hit....you still are. Refusing to even hold a vote has NEVER been a precedent. Only in your pea brain.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
46,506
Reaction score
4,308
Points
113
Confirmed. You are a total shill, a failure, and a liar. And just as I thought....you pulled this chart from another dotard like yourself. Which trash can righty website?

A BUNCH of those "losses"....were withdrawn nominations. Lol....four of them were for the same two nominations by the SAME President (Tyler)....who ended up getting a nomination through anyways.


So no....it never has been a precedent. Even if your chart wasn't full of $hit....you still are. Refusing to even hold a vote has NEVER been a precedent. Only in your pea brain.
And all his non-Trump examples are from the 1800's except one. "It's about the precedent!" Lol. So pathetic.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
20,262
Reaction score
1,642
Points
113
And all his non-Trump examples are from the 1800's except one. "It's about the precedent!" Lol. So pathetic.
And even if his "facts" weren't wrong (they are)....it wouldn't change the fact that at least some of those came to a vote. Refusing to even put a nominee up for a vote is NOWHERE close to being a "precedent".

Maybe less time with the propaganda....and more time doing something constructive....would be good for KFC.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
46,506
Reaction score
4,308
Points
113
And even if his "facts" weren't wrong (they are)....it wouldn't change the fact that at least some of those came to a vote. Refusing to even put a nominee up for a vote is NOWHERE close to being a "precedent".

Maybe less time with the propaganda....and more time doing something constructive....would be good for KFC.
But then who would defend the honor of the Whig Party and their principles and precedents? The modern GOP is about to follow them into the graveyard of history. KGF will go down with the ship.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,946
Reaction score
2,139
Points
113
Confirmed. You are a total shill, a failure, and a liar. And just as I thought....you pulled this chart from another dotard like yourself. Which trash can righty website?

A BUNCH of those "losses"....were withdrawn nominations. Lol....four of them were for the same two nominations by the SAME President (Tyler)....who ended up getting a nomination through anyways.


So no....it never has been a precedent. Even if your chart wasn't full of $hit....you still are. Refusing to even hold a vote has NEVER been a precedent. Only in your pea brain.
For the record, I never said refusing a vote was a precedent. I said confirming a nominee made by the opposition party president was precedent.

If you don’t understand the argument that you’re having, it’s difficult for you and me. I’m sorry for you.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,946
Reaction score
2,139
Points
113
But then who would defend the honor of the Whig Party and their principles and precedents? The modern GOP is about to follow them into the graveyard of history. KGF will go down with the ship.
Don’t be as stupid as stocker. It’s not a good look, even for you.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
20,262
Reaction score
1,642
Points
113
For the record, I never said refusing a vote was a precedent. I said confirming a nominee made by the opposition party president was precedent.

If you don’t understand the argument that you’re having, it’s difficult for you and me. I’m sorry for you.
Well I already proved that your chart was a joke and that a lot of those "losses" were not actually votes...but withdrawls.

And YOU'VE continued to say that they were just following the precedent.

And now you have your foot fully jammed in your mouth. It's never been a precedent to refuse to take a vote.

FAIL!
 
Top Bottom