User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 9:57:12 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. Now they have backed themselves into a corner and will be painted as obstructionist...that's fine for a Primary but there is a general election forthcoming......checkers not chess and coming out hrs within the mans death and laying out a public strategy was a huge mistep Nailed it |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:02:04 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CRUZ is the constitutionalist. Would make wiser pics. Trump is a liberal live wire. Might as well let obongo do it if you're thinking the liberal democrat from NY will do any better  Trump already suggested his liberal judge sister! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:02:38 AM EDT
[#3]
Based on the article, what I got out of it was "we are going to wait and see who he picks because we obviously can't block them until that is done."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:03:47 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd like to know how letting the Constitution work as intended is "caving." Has it been done before? As I understand it, yes. It doesn't make it right though, by either side. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not like it hasn't been done before. The GOP needs to start acting like the dems and quit caving. They are the majority party and were elected by the people to do a job. Instead they give the limbs whatever they want. I'd like to know how letting the Constitution work as intended is "caving." Has it been done before? As I understand it, yes. It doesn't make it right though, by either side. Your comments make no sense. The constitution gives the president the power to *nominate* the congress has the power to *place* that nominee on the bench or not on whatever criteria they determine. Co-equal branches, each with a key to the missile. NEITHER of them are obligated to oblige the other's wishes. That is the god damned point of the arrangement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:07:56 AM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:10:03 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obama has the power to nominate. Senate has the power to confirm or not. I'd prefer they all act like professionals, let dear leader make his nomination, vet that nomination, and either confirm or deny. This |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:10:07 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wouldn't call that caving just yet. It won't surprise me when they do though. We will see. It's the first signs of caving, those RINO fucktards on Capitol Hill have ZERO testicular fortitude and need to treated as traitors, every opportunity afforded them by a) being voted into control on promises of keeping Obama in check b) the "majority" control in both the HOR and Senate, they cave immediately under the pressure of the jug eared, pencil necked whiny fuckstain and his media attack dogs. FUCK THE RINO'S and FUCK OBAMA |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:10:21 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And we'd be no worse off than we are if 0 gets someone confirmed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. no kidding. f'ing retarded. Although I understand............so what.............be fucking men and just say NO AND STICK WITH IT for god's sake. Should be as easy as tying their shoes. Fuck what any filthy commie democrat says about it. fine, except for the need to manipulate enough moron voters into hitting the R button this fall to keep a grasp on congress and win the white house. if they don't win the white house, stalling obama's appointment will do nothing because bernie will just make the next one. And we'd be no worse off than we are if 0 gets someone confirmed. What's your point? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:11:41 AM EDT
[#9]
not the same but look how long harry kept anything from a vote, rammed o-care without a r vote.
D's have gone unapposed mostly, it cost r incumbents acrossed the country. With the renewed majority numbers and power given them from r voters that message seems to say it's past time to represent be damned. Maybe they are just pulling back on the tough talk to not get so much heat for delaying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:18:43 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nailed it Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. Now they have backed themselves into a corner and will be painted as obstructionist...that's fine for a Primary but there is a general election forthcoming......checkers not chess and coming out hrs within the mans death and laying out a public strategy was a huge mistep Nailed it A-freaking-men. That was straight-up retarded. Or they set this up intentionally so they have an excuse as to why they just had to let Obama get his way again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:22:42 AM EDT
[#11]
Just loop the speeches of Schumer, Obama, et al. when they were blocking Bush's nominee on CSPAN until he leaves office.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:23:05 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They will cave. They always have and there is no evidence this will be any different............ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:25:24 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. Now they have backed themselves into a corner and will be painted as obstructionist...that's fine for a Primary but there is a general election forthcoming......checkers not chess and coming out hrs within the mans death and laying out a public strategy was a huge mistep All government leaders and most employees, are C- students anyway. The best and brightest go into personal business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:31:35 AM EDT
[#14]
They just wised up and said they would judge Obama's nominee based on merits instead of looking like petulant assholes by stating that wouldn't consider anyone put forth no matter what, which was a stupid move from the start.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:33:55 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where in the Constitution does it say "the President should wait to confirm who runs the highest court in the land until the other side gets what they want?" Oh wait, it doesn't. President doesn't confirm, president nominates. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:44:04 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not saying that it does, but "we're going to block who you pick until if/when our guy gets in office" is bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where in the Constitution does it say "the President should wait to confirm who runs the highest court in the land until the other side gets what they want?" Oh wait, it doesn't.  so now the constitution has meaning to the demsI'm not saying that it does, but "we're going to block who you pick until if/when our guy gets in office" is bullshit. The democrats have a long history of playing games like this. How long did they deny Bush appointments and how many did they refuse to affirm? Quite a few. Fuck 'em it''s politics. If Obama doesn't like it his side can win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:46:33 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not saying that it does, but "we're going to block who you pick until if/when our guy gets in office" is bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where in the Constitution does it say "the President should wait to confirm who runs the highest court in the land until the other side gets what they want?" Oh wait, it doesn't. so now the constitution has meaning to the demsI'm not saying that it does, but "we're going to block who you pick until if/when our guy gets in office" is bullshit. Then you do not understand the gravity of this process, at this juncture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:49:43 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. Now they have backed themselves into a corner and will be painted as obstructionist...that's fine for a Primary but there is a general election forthcoming......checkers not chess and coming out hrs within the mans death and laying out a public strategy was a huge mistep Yep. And then they will make a show of obstructing the nomination, alienating half the population, and then cave on it at the last minute, alienating the other half. It's amazing the Republican Party still exists. Those fuckers play to lose like champions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:53:42 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They will cave. They always have and there is no evidence this will be any different............ Truth Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:56:04 AM EDT
[#20]
This sort of nonsense demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the SC.
I mean, really, out of the possible picks from Obama some are politicians instead of judges? That's supposed to be right? And the very notion of partisan judges from one party or the other, that's what the court was supposed to be? Nonsense, I say, nonsense. 5-4 or 4-5 rulings, split along party lines, mean the court is just a small legislative body appointed for life by the executive. They are supposed to decide on the constitutionality of laws, and should be ruling 9-0 or 0-9 most of the time, with exceptional 8-1s when an illiterate gets through the nomination, and the odd 6-3 or 7-2 in rare cases of disagreement. But all we have, and people seem to want, is just a third legislative branch with more power than the other two. Just as folks seem to want a King to rule, rather a President to preside. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:57:48 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A-freaking-men. That was straight-up retarded. Or they set this up intentionally so they have an excuse as to why they just had to let Obama get his way again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. Now they have backed themselves into a corner and will be painted as obstructionist...that's fine for a Primary but there is a general election forthcoming......checkers not chess and coming out hrs within the mans death and laying out a public strategy was a huge mistep Nailed it A-freaking-men. That was straight-up retarded. Or they set this up intentionally so they have an excuse as to why they just had to let Obama get his way again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:58:16 AM EDT
[#22]
They have every right to hold hearings to interview Obama's candidate, hold a vote, reject the candidate, and the process starts over
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 10:59:31 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The constitution does not mandate that the Senate consent to any appointment the President wishes to make. They can withhold or grant consent as they please, part of the system of checks and balances. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not like it hasn't been done before. The GOP needs to start acting like the dems and quit caving. They are the majority party and were elected by the people to do a job. Instead they give the limbs whatever they want. I'd like to know how letting the Constitution work as intended is "caving." Has it been done before? As I understand it, yes. It doesn't make it right though, by either side. The constitution does not mandate that the Senate consent to any appointment the President wishes to make. They can withhold or grant consent as they please, part of the system of checks and balances. Good, but they have to take their time about the whole process |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:00:20 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This sort of nonsense demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the SC. I mean, really, out of the possible picks from Obama some are politicians instead of judges? That's supposed to be right? And the very notion of partisan judges from one party or the other, that's what the court was supposed to be? Nonsense, I say, nonsense. 5-4 or 4-5 rulings, split along party lines, mean the court is just a small legislative body appointed for life by the executive. They are supposed to decide on the constitutionality of laws, and should be ruling 9-0 or 0-9 most of the time, with exceptional 8-1s when an illiterate gets through the nomination, and the odd 6-3 or 7-2 in rare cases of disagreement. But all we have, and people seem to want, is just a third legislative branch with more power than the other two. Just as folks seem to want a King to rule, rather a President to preside. Didn't Jefferson warn us about the courts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:01:21 AM EDT
[#25]
They didn't even make it 72 hours before the back pedaling began.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:02:11 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. Now they have backed themselves into a corner and will be painted as obstructionist...that's fine for a Primary but there is a general election forthcoming......checkers not chess and coming out hrs within the mans death and laying out a public strategy was a huge mistep Exactly. They should have just admitted/accepted that the Constitution prescribes exactly who gets to do what, that Obama certainly has every right to nominate a justice, and that the Senate has every right to provide advice and consent. Yada yada. They should have played it straight. Their knee-jerk reaction made them look stupid...again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:03:09 AM EDT
[#27]
I told everyone. Fuck the GOPe
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:03:58 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/16/gop-signs-back-down-vow-block-obama-scotus-nominee/ This is why Trump is 100% gonna be the Repubican Canidate. Fuck the GOPe |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:04:27 AM EDT
[#29]
If they confirm anyone who isn't NRA approved expect the dems to go full retard on gun control.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:04:42 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The mistake they (Mitch) made was coming out within hrs. and telling the world their strategy of blocking any nomination......it gained nothing....never ever tell anyone what your thinking strategically...wait on Obama to make the first move then block the nominee on personal merit. Now they have backed themselves into a corner and will be painted as obstructionist...that's fine for a Primary but there is a general election forthcoming......checkers not chess and coming out hrs within the mans death and laying out a public strategy was a huge mistep yeppers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:06:08 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump will lose to Sanders or Clinton, at least based on current polling. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/16/gop-signs-back-down-vow-block-obama-scotus-nominee/ This is why Trump is 100% gonna be the Repubican Canidate. Fuck the GOPe Yeah, but the Trumpsters will *feel* so much better about loosing this time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:06:31 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they confirm anyone who isn't NRA approved expect the dems to go full retard on gun control. If they confirm ANYBODY, expect the Republican voters to re-write the meaning of "full retard" come November. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:07:42 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This sort of nonsense demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the SC. I mean, really, out of the possible picks from Obama some are politicians instead of judges? That's supposed to be right? And the very notion of partisan judges from one party or the other, that's what the court was supposed to be? Nonsense, I say, nonsense. 5-4 or 4-5 rulings, split along party lines, mean the court is just a small legislative body appointed for life by the executive. They are supposed to decide on the constitutionality of laws, and should be ruling 9-0 or 0-9 most of the time, with exceptional 8-1s when an illiterate gets through the nomination, and the odd 6-3 or 7-2 in rare cases of disagreement. But all we have, and people seem to want, is just a third legislative branch with more power than the other two. Just as folks seem to want a King to rule, rather a President to preside. Well put. Then there is the reasonable argument that the Supreme Court has become too powerful - it has become the entity used to really form the legislation that the Legislative Branch doesn't want to fully address because of political fallout from issue controversy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:08:59 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump will lose to Sanders or Clinton, at least based on current polling. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/16/gop-signs-back-down-vow-block-obama-scotus-nominee/ This is why Trump is 100% gonna be the Repubican Canidate. Fuck the GOPe Too early for the current polling. The polls show Rubio having the best chance out of all the candidates but can you imagine how that would quickly change in the debates? Chris Christie of all people destroyed him in less than 2 minutes and had him stumbling all over himself. Imagine what Hillary would do to him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:09:07 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump will lose to Sanders or Clinton, at least based on current polling. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/16/gop-signs-back-down-vow-block-obama-scotus-nominee/ This is why Trump is 100% gonna be the Repubican Canidate. Fuck the GOPe He will bring out more "D" voters than Hillary or Sanders could muster on their own. I wish I could say the same for Sander and Clinton to whoever get's the GOP ticket, but our side is lazy and unorganized. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:10:41 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They have every right to hold hearings to interview Obama's candidate, hold a vote, reject the candidate, and the process starts over "Bork" should be the word of the day for every O candidate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:19:01 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's amazing the Republican Party still exists. There are millions of reasons why the party exists and why it will continue to exist. Providing the illusion of choice is just one of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:20:37 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They will cave for sure. Spineless fucks. Without any doubt. This is GOPe theatre. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:21:07 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump will lose to Sanders or Clinton, at least based on current polling. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/16/gop-signs-back-down-vow-block-obama-scotus-nominee/ This is why Trump is 100% gonna be the Repubican Canidate. Fuck the GOPe He is within striking distance unlike Cruz. Cruz is near 20 point deficit with either |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:24:40 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He is within striking distance unlike Cruz. Cruz is near 20 point deficit with either Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/16/gop-signs-back-down-vow-block-obama-scotus-nominee/ This is why Trump is 100% gonna be the Repubican Canidate. Fuck the GOPe He is within striking distance unlike Cruz. Cruz is near 20 point deficit with either |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:25:25 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He will bring out more "D" voters than Hillary or Sanders could muster on their own. I wish I could say the same for Sander and Clinton to whoever get's the GOP ticket, but our side is lazy and unorganized. Quote HistoryQuoted: He will bring out more "D" voters than Hillary or Sanders could muster on their own. I wish I could say the same for Sander and Clinton to whoever get's the GOP ticket, but our side is lazy and unorganized.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:25:41 AM EDT
[#42]
Based on past history, BHO will just evade the whole process and appoint a supreme court czar
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:28:45 AM EDT
[#43]
No they did not.
Whoever wrote that article is an idiot or trying to change public opinion. It is a hit piece against republican senators. Take a look at this quote and decide for yourself. “I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decision,” Mr. Grassley said Tuesday in a conference call with Iowa radio reporters. “In other words, take it a step at a time.” Asked whether he thought the controversy over filling the court vacancy might endanger his re-election chances this fall, Mr. Grassley said, “I think I have a responsibility to perform, and I can’t worry about the election. I’ve got to do my job as a senator, whatever it is. And there will be a lot of tough votes between now and the next election.” His comments appeared to be a softening from a statement shortly after Justice Scalia’s death, when Mr. Grassley said it was “standard practice” not to nominate or confirm candidates for the Supreme Court in an election year. “It only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice,” Mr. Grassley said in a statement Saturday. It is not a softening, it is chess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:29:30 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not saying that it does, but "we're going to block who you pick until if/when our guy gets in office" is bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where in the Constitution does it say "the President should wait to confirm who runs the highest court in the land until the other side gets what they want?" Oh wait, it doesn't. so now the constitution has meaning to the demsI'm not saying that it does, but "we're going to block who you pick until if/when our guy gets in office" is bullshit. You and the dems must be fairly certain a republican is going to win. The dems in general and 0 in particular have, IMO, turned the whole leadership thing into a political game...so let the games begin. If the republicans can stall/block until it's too late, well good on them...they're finally playing the game strategically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:29:51 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they confirm ANYBODY, expect the Republican voters to re-write the meaning of "full retard" come November. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If they confirm anyone who isn't NRA approved expect the dems to go full retard on gun control. If they confirm ANYBODY, expect the Republican voters to re-write the meaning of "full retard" come November. I wouldn't mind them confirming if we (meaning the R voters) approved of the nominee. Of course the chance of Obama actually nominating a Constitutional Originalist or even a non progressive is basically none. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:33:22 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No they did not. Whoever wrote that article is an idiot or trying to change public opinion. It is a hit piece against republican senators. Take a look at this quote and decide for yourself. It is not a softening, it is chess. Quote HistoryQuoted:
No they did not. Whoever wrote that article is an idiot or trying to change public opinion. It is a hit piece against republican senators. Take a look at this quote and decide for yourself. “I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decision,” Mr. Grassley said Tuesday in a conference call with Iowa radio reporters. “In other words, take it a step at a time.” Asked whether he thought the controversy over filling the court vacancy might endanger his re-election chances this fall, Mr. Grassley said, “I think I have a responsibility to perform, and I can’t worry about the election. I’ve got to do my job as a senator, whatever it is. And there will be a lot of tough votes between now and the next election.” His comments appeared to be a softening from a statement shortly after Justice Scalia’s death, when Mr. Grassley said it was “standard practice” not to nominate or confirm candidates for the Supreme Court in an election year. “It only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice,” Mr. Grassley said in a statement Saturday. It is not a softening, it is chess. And it will have the same outcome as the other games of chess they've played with Obama. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:33:30 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd like to know how letting the Constitution work as intended is "caving." Has it been done before? As I understand it, yes. It doesn't make it right though, by either side. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not like it hasn't been done before. The GOP needs to start acting like the dems and quit caving. They are the majority party and were elected by the people to do a job. Instead they give the limbs whatever they want. I'd like to know how letting the Constitution work as intended is "caving." Has it been done before? As I understand it, yes. It doesn't make it right though, by either side. Besides, it's not as if they SCOTUS is dysfunctional with only 8 judges. If there's a tie by chance, ruling of the junior court is upheld...big deal...things go on almost as usual. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:33:41 AM EDT
[#48]
Here's what the Republicans would do if they were smart. They'd state that because the country hasn't had a budget in 8 years, they'll only hold nomination hearings until after a budget has been signed into law. Since Obama will never agree to a competent budget, they'll just keep rejecting his budgets until the clock runs out. Then when Obama bitches about his "Constitutional rights" they can throw it right back in his face about his Constitutional duty to have a budget.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:35:21 AM EDT
[#49]
I guaran-fucking-tee the Rs will cave.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 11:37:15 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You think Democrats are going to cross party lines to vote for Trump? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He will bring out more "D" voters than Hillary or Sanders could muster on their own. I wish I could say the same for Sander and Clinton to whoever get's the GOP ticket, but our side is lazy and unorganized. You're not from the south. I know about 100 of them just in my town. These are people active in politics, and a handful have been democrat officeholders or state and county operatives. One guy , the owner of the local hardware store was on our city council, has been our mayor back in the 60s, has been a county councilman since the 1970s, all as a democrat. He's been a delegate to state and national conventions and headed steering committees for state reps that were all democrat. He went to the Trump rally, and is voting for Trump. He took his family, all democrats, all voting for Trump. Most of the people I'm talking about are active in town and county politics, so I've heard their opinions at town hall meetings , or from my best friend who's a councilman, and the mayor who I grew up with as well. NY Dems are communists, which are what you are used to. Down in the south and out in the other rural areas across the country, a large number of dems are just regular people that never left the party. The dems like we have here, most are republicans and just don't know it. Most of their views actually side with Republicans. It's just the Dem party has had a strong control over the south for over a century, and most people were told how to vote by their parents , or for women, their husbands. That's changing. Almost all the women I know other than black women in this town are openly republican now, most own guns and shoot and hunt. What Trump is doing, is giving democrats that aren't true socialists a way out of the party, the same way that Reagan did. You will see, and we are seeing, a large exodus from the democrat party, just like we saw in 1980. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
