I agree with all of that. So you are thinking that Kennedy is looking to spur the moderate democrats? It still would appear that the fringe is going to fuck that up by being so hostile and vitriolic that it will have an opposite effect.Okeefenokee wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:36 pm
If it had dropped in the middle of the immigration scuffle, I wouldn't think much of it, but it coming right after their immigration scuffle failure says to me it's their next play.
I think the reason they are lagging in polls is because a lot of regular people who happen to be democrats are getting turned off by the nutters. The type of democrat voters who aren't muslim appologists or marxists. The type of people who have jobs and a connection to reality, and can see their hysteria and bullshit for what it is. They probably don't like Trump, but they can see clearly that the DNC and MSM have lost their fucking minds.
They'll see this hysteria for what it is.
Trump's SCOTUS
-
- Posts: 4149
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:48 am
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
-
- Posts: 12950
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:27 pm
- Location: The Great Place
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
It's just my initial impression watching their reaction. The people thinking Trump is shoving Mexicans into ovens are losing it. Kennedy announcing retirement now might be aimed at getting their lagging numbers up.Haumana wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:43 pmI agree with all of that. So you are thinking that Kennedy is looking to spur the moderate democrats? It still would appear that the fringe is going to fuck that up by being so hostile and vitriolic that it will have an opposite effect.Okeefenokee wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:36 pm
If it had dropped in the middle of the immigration scuffle, I wouldn't think much of it, but it coming right after their immigration scuffle failure says to me it's their next play.
I think the reason they are lagging in polls is because a lot of regular people who happen to be democrats are getting turned off by the nutters. The type of democrat voters who aren't muslim appologists or marxists. The type of people who have jobs and a connection to reality, and can see their hysteria and bullshit for what it is. They probably don't like Trump, but they can see clearly that the DNC and MSM have lost their fucking minds.
They'll see this hysteria for what it is.
The problem I see with their plan, if that's what it is, is that their numbers are lagging with moderates, I think anyway. There's no way they are lagging with radicals. They are lagging with moderates, not because of Trump, but because of the radicals.
Those moderates aren't drinking the kool-aid. They see the left going ape shit every day, but the world keeps turning, and they figure shit ain't as bad as the radicals say it is.
Remember, they also saw the left go ape shit over Gorsuch, and everyone saw how that turned out. So trying the same play again now doesn't look like it's gonna work.
What they have planned for October is probably much more access hollywood, and a lot less RIP Scalia.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751
-
- Posts: 15157
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
To the extent his recent 5th Circuit appointment is relevant, it helps him, at least on Carlus' wish-list items.
Recent Senate confirmation; no long-term dead-behind-the-eyes federal Black-Dress fever. He's definitely not a silver-spoon Ivy League shit. And his age is just perfect.
-
- Posts: 4149
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:48 am
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
That's the thing. I don't think the moderates are buying this fringe hysteria. Heading into my 9th month living here in the country I have heard the word Trump exactly twice and they were both when I went back to the Bay Area to visit family. All this "hair on fire" bullshit ain't playing with regular folk who are just going along living life outside of those bubbles. Anything Hollywood is a loser, imo.Okeefenokee wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:59 pm
It's just my initial impression watching their reaction. The people thinking Trump is shoving Mexicans into ovens are losing it. Kennedy announcing retirement now might be aimed at getting their lagging numbers up.
The problem I see with their plan, if that's what it is, is that their numbers are lagging with moderates, I think anyway. There's no way they are lagging with radicals. They are lagging with moderates, not because of Trump, but because of the radicals.
Those moderates aren't drinking the kool-aid. They see the left going ape shit every day, but the world keeps turning, and they figure shit ain't as bad as the radicals say it is.
Remember, they also saw the left go ape shit over Gorsuch, and everyone saw how that turned out. So trying the same play again now doesn't look like it's gonna work.
What they have planned for October is probably much more access hollywood, and a lot less RIP Scalia.
-
- Posts: 7978
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:47 pm
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Nah, if he wanted that he would wait for 2020. Make the Garland argument. I convinced some dems of this on Twitter, just game this out. How does this vecoma a win for them? Trump makes an appointment before midterms he'll make the same appointment after. Even if the D take control of the Senate, that is a big ask even at the height of the blue wave, they are going to deny a vote and hearing for 2 full years? SCOTUS and judicial appointments have always been an issue that motivates conservative voters, liberals not so much. They are relying on the percieved enthusiasm gap why would they tread on a known accelerant for that you want to keep depressed?Okeefenokee wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:22 pmThis looks like a move by Kennedy to sweeten the pot. Something to get dems out to vote. Maybe they think their lagging numbers are due to a large contingent of radicals who aren't fired up yet.
I think they are right that their numbers are lagging because of a large number of dems are not enthusiastic about voting for them right now. I think they are clueless as to why that is.
-
- Posts: 7978
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:47 pm
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Maybe they could even skip the hearing just put a vote straight to the floor. Naw if you want that stuff go with Mike Lee.Fife wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:05 pmTo the extent his recent 5th Circuit appointment is relevant, it helps him, at least on Carlus' wish-list items.
Recent Senate confirmation; no long-term dead-behind-the-eyes federal Black-Dress fever. He's definitely not a silver-spoon Ivy League shit. And his age is just perfect.
-
- Posts: 7978
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:47 pm
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
There is no plan, there is no design. This is a party without a rudder, the establishment is just trying to hold and ride their base to power or survival. Much like the GOP in 2010. Unlike 2010 the media has taken over the party for the sake of ratings and they are floating the outrage barrel from "crisis" to "crisis" with no agenda or ideas. If their was an October surprise we would see it right now, it's a midterm election unless they have 460 October surprises I don't see to much of an effect.Haumana wrote:That's the thing. I don't think the moderates are buying this fringe hysteria. Heading into my 9th month living here in the country I have heard the word Trump exactly twice and they were both when I went back to the Bay Area to visit family. All this "hair on fire" bullshit ain't playing with regular folk who are just going along living life outside of those bubbles. Anything Hollywood is a loser, imo.Okeefenokee wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:59 pm
It's just my initial impression watching their reaction. The people thinking Trump is shoving Mexicans into ovens are losing it. Kennedy announcing retirement now might be aimed at getting their lagging numbers up.
The problem I see with their plan, if that's what it is, is that their numbers are lagging with moderates, I think anyway. There's no way they are lagging with radicals. They are lagging with moderates, not because of Trump, but because of the radicals.
Those moderates aren't drinking the kool-aid. They see the left going ape shit every day, but the world keeps turning, and they figure shit ain't as bad as the radicals say it is.
Remember, they also saw the left go ape shit over Gorsuch, and everyone saw how that turned out. So trying the same play again now doesn't look like it's gonna work.
What they have planned for October is probably much more access hollywood, and a lot less RIP Scalia.
-
- Posts: 28305
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:48 pm
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Trump should put Merrick Garland on his list of 25 and vet him. Just to fuck with em.
@Okee, +1 nice out of the box thinking. Learn to see around corners and you won't get ambushed.
@Okee, +1 nice out of the box thinking. Learn to see around corners and you won't get ambushed.
PLATA O PLOMO
Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience
Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience
-
- Posts: 15157
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
I agree with the concept. IRL, it's just coincidence. Wednesday was the last day of their term for the year, and is traditionally the day when they announce retirement. Kennedy really is a non-partisan.
-
- Posts: 15157
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Just for the LULZ. But dem LULZ is sweet.
The Right Has Won the Supreme Court. Now What?
The Right Has Won the Supreme Court. Now What?
Can you believe that rotten nigger Thomas stole our seat through such underhanded nigger tricks?If you’ve been spending the past few days pondering some Supreme Court-related historical what-if’s, then try this one on for size. Thurgood Marshall, the court’s first African-American justice, announced his retirement on June 27, 1991. That was, of course, smack in the middle of a Republican presidency — that of George H. W. Bush.
Mr. Bush, a one-term president, had already made one appointment to the court, David Souter, so Justice Marshall’s retirement was — and indeed was seen as — a gift to the president. He was in his 80s, and he felt increasingly isolated on the court, but it’s also the case that politically, Supreme Court succession wasn’t a life-or-death matter in those days.
In our time, Justice Marshall would surely have held on, hoping for the possibility of a Democrat winning the presidency in 1992. And as we know, that happened. Bill Clinton won. And here’s where fate’s heavy hand figures in: Mr. Marshall died on Jan. 24, 1993 — Bill Clinton’s third full day as president.
Had Justice Marshall stuck by his original intention not to retire, Mr. Clinton would have delivered his funeral oration and replaced him. Clarence Thomas would never have been on the court, and we presumably would have had a 5-4 liberal majority rather than a conservative one all these years. No Citizens United, no Hobby Lobby decision, none of the bleak outcomes we’ve been battered with in these past few days.