Slightly more troubling is the particular way mcconnell is trying to get out of the hypocrisy. He seems to be telling people not to believe what they are told about what went down in 2016. To ignore reality, mistrust the facts, and choose to believe what they'd like to believe.
AP dead or Obi dead?
yeah hypocrisy is to be expected. but with stakes this high there's also going to be more scrutiny of (and perhaps more accountability for) that hypocrisy.Slightly more troubling is the particular way mcconnell is trying to get out of the hypocrisy. He seems to be telling people not to believe what they are told about what went down in 2016. To ignore reality, mistrust the facts, and choose to believe what they'd like to believe.
Yet you are silent about the equal and opposite hypocrisy on the other side. Shocker.
which hypocrisy? Pelosi getting her hair washed without a mask? (which, btw, I wasn't silent about )
It's amazing how little McConnell said about the fact that the senate was controlled by one party and the presidency by another. It's almost like that had nothing to do with it.
About how those who were saying that there is a duty to have a vote are now saying not to.
of course the difference is that precedent was in fact established, with significantly more time before the election, in 2016.
of course the difference is that precedent was in fact established, with significantly more time before the election, in 1992
Trump nominating someone now is NOT the same thing as four years ago. Right now, Trump may still win the election, and is therefore NOT a lame duck president. If he LOSES the election, and THEN nominates someone, THAT would be comparable to what happened four years ago.Right now Trump is not for sure in his last year of presidency. Thus, he has every right to nominate someone should the need arise.
See attached picture.
Why won't Senate confirm the nominee of a lame duck president? Because he is no longer relevant. He's just setting policy for his successor. But when someone still have a 50/50 chance of remaining in office, why in the world shouldn't they be able to nominate someone??
After he loses, he shouldn't be making those decisions. But until then, he is fully allowed to.Otherwise, maybe we shouldn't let a president make decisions in his 3rd year also? Maybe also in his 2nd year?
Indeed. But Senate - who was also voted in - decided that he shouldn't be allowed to.My point only was that there is a tremendous distinction between what happened four years ago and a theoretical nomination before the election, and McConnell is NOT a hypocrite if he confirms said theoretical nomination.Whether it was the right decision four years ago is not my point. I'm honestly not sure about that. I personally think that there should be some measures to ensure a more balanced decision, like a mandated 60 votes (I don't like that Republicans abolished that). I think Garland may have been a great Justice.
Let me make this simple. Whoever is the president makes the decision. Bake the pretzel whatever way you want.The senate does not represent the voice of the people.
On the subject of DC statehood, I had a question:What's better, North Texas and South Texas, or East Texas and West Texas?Answer: All of the above! And also, North, South, and Central Wyoming.
Don't forget North CA and upstate NY
And also, North, South, and Central Wyoming.
