It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lame Duck Prez. Does it Matter who Wins?

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

Let me ask YOU a question. Is there a problem with dealing with reality? Do we need made up scenarios? I don't obviously.




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

There is no way in Hell Clinton nominates Obama to the high court. He is in no way qualified. ...and don't forget, the GOP will, in all likelihood, be in control of the Senate, and at the least, be a very strong minority in the House.

Then there's the little issue of the Clinton's don't like him. Not even a little bit. The possibility of a cabinet seat exists...but I doubt it, don't no where they'd put him. He'll, like all other Presidents before him, other than William Howard Taft, set off into the sunset into private life. Taft was, indeed, placed on the Supreme court.

The differences between him and Obama is this: He was qualified.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Explain carefully. This is politics, unlikely things have happened before... Though this is damned near impossible.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
You see I have a moral compass and am willing to discuss voter fraud regardless of whether it benefits my candidate....

Democrats are incapable of criticizing obama or hillary and thanks for reaffirming this belief...

Long live the Infallible Queen and forever may She reign in perfection in all She does..

-Christosterone



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Christosterone

There is no way in Hell Clinton nominates Obama to the high court. He is in no way qualified. ...and don't forget, the GOP will, in all likelihood, be in control of the Senate, and at the least, be a very strong minority in the House.

Then there's the little issue of the Clinton's don't like him. Not even a little bit. The possibility of a cabinet seat exists...but I doubt it, don't no where they'd put him. He'll, like all other Presidents before him, other than William Howard Taft, set off into the sunset into private life. Taft was, indeed, placed on the Supreme court.

The differences between him and Obama is this: He was qualified.



I disagree...Obama is a megalomaniac who has a very questionable work ethic...

What better qualifications for a Supreme Court justice could one have???

-Chris



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
No, but I'd rather risk his SCOTUS appointees than hers.


Correct!

Voting Trump is voting Gridlock. Voting Hillary means Globalism marches on. I would rather see a completely ineffective 4 years of nothing than the negative march towards globalism and loss of rights.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

With Clinton it's not about qualified, it's about who paid to play.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone
a reply to: ketsuko

Who is going to nominate him?

Clinton? She despises him, there is no way she is going to have him on the court second guessing her.

Trump? Not happening there, either.

...and even if he is nominated, he ain't gettin' through Congress. He's just not. So, relax.
edit on 9/25/2016 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Christosterone
a reply to: ketsuko

Who is going to nominate him?

Clinton? She despises him, there is no way she is going to have him on the court second guessing her.

Trump? Not happening there, either.

...and even if he is nominated, he ain't gettin' through Congress. He's just not. So, relax.


Clinton may despise him, but who is likely still covering for her and ordering the government to cover for her to get her through this election? Who has likely benefited from the pay to play scam that is the Foundation?

If he bought her, she will repay him, personal feelings aside, the same way he bought her by giving her Sec. State.

I don't see Trump nominating him which is why I won't vote for Hillary, she might and would certainly have other nominees that would be disasters.

And should he be nominated, you are asking me to believe that the same Congress that hasn't done much of anything to stop Obama would thwart both the historic first woman president after all the fuss being made to deny Obama his third pick on the basis that the people will decide would then back her first nominee even if it happened to be Obama, no matter how unqualified he might be?
edit on 25-9-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Congress has forgotten about EOs for Obama? I think that you and Chris might need to take a look at the actual statistics on EOs.

Obama - 252
Bush 43 - 291
Clinton - 364
Bush 41 - 166 (for one term, at that rate, it would have been 332 for two terms)
Reagan - 381
Carter - 320 (another one termer of course, so wow)
Ford - 169 (2.45 years in office)
Nixon - 346 (5.55 years in office)

and so on. Correct me if I'm wrong here but you'd have to go back to Grover Cleveland to find a President who signed EOs at a lower rate.
edit on 2016-9-25 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join