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.

 

Dear Protesting Liberals In America

page: 6
44
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Flatfish




Now is the perfect time to apply Michelle Obama's policy of "when they go low, we go high."


Were she really a voice of the dems that phrase would carry some weight. See any dems advocating her policy? Neither have I.


You may have missed it, but I just did.




posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think he handled it the only way he could have. I think Congress didn't handle it correctly. It shouldn't have mattered how much longer Obama had in office - as long as he was President, his nominee should have been considered - it wasn't considered. Obama spent a lot of time criticizing Congress for that, but in the end, he can't force them to do anything.

Obama is not the villain here! Congress is! Obama did what he was supposed to do. Congress refused to do what they were supposed to do. They did not advise and consent. They flat out refused to do their job.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think he handled it the only way he could have. I think Congress didn't handle it correctly. It shouldn't have mattered how much longer Obama had in office - as long as he was President, his nominee should have been considered - it wasn't considered. Obama spent a lot of time criticizing Congress for that, but in the end, he can't force them to do anything.

Obama is not the villain here! Congress is! Obama did what he was supposed to do. Congress refused to do what they were supposed to do. They did not advise and consent. They flat out refused to do their job.


Of course. Far be it from me as an independent to step into the middle of a fun bout of useless partisan fingerpointing.

And, BTW, the so-called Biden rule referred to SCOTUS vacancies in the summer and fall of an election year -- and it's no real rule, at all. Obama didn't fight for jack and he could have. He was extremely weak and reckless when he could have put up a fight.

But, not putting any pressure or blame on him is the best position to take...cause partisan fingerpointing is way better.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Not putting any pressure or blame on Congress makes sense because......?

Fact: Obama's job was to nominate a Supreme Court justice nominee - he did his job. If Congress had refused based on ideology or other qualifications of that particular nominee, then his job would have been to submit another nominee.

Fact: Congress is supposed to advise and consent on that nominee - they refused due to the length of time Obama had left. They did not do their jobs.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Not putting any pressure or blame on Congress makes sense because......?

Fact: Obama's job was to nominate a Supreme Court justice nominee - he did his job. If Congress had refused based on ideology or other qualifications of that particular nominee, then his job would have been to submit another nominee.

Fact: Congress is supposed to advise and consent on that nominee - they refused due to the length of time Obama had left. They did not do their jobs.


I said he had a fight on his hands. How is that not putting blame on Congress?

I said he needed to work WITH Congress. How is that I am not putting the burden and pressure on both branches to work together?

I am just sick and tired of the excuse that one party is always completely to blame.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

And Congress has to work WITH Obama. They refused. They refused to advise and consent on the nominee. They refused to comment on this nominee's qualifications. They refused to even review the nominee's qualifications. They refused to review the qualification of ANY Obama nominee at this point. That is a fact. His only option to get his nominee in would have been to bypass Congress. And that, my dear, is unconstitutional.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: FauxMulder



it sure looks like you are trying to justify what they are doing.


The Constitution justifies what they are doing. They have a right to speak out, regardless of the reason for doing so.



I gave you a star for this post, you are correct in that the freedom of speech gives them that right to protest.

I would add however that just because they have that right does not mean they should exercise it because all they are accomplishing is making themselves look like self entitled spoiled delusional fools to the majority of the people.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Oh, please...Senate Democrats could have tried to force a vote.

ETA: My, dear.



edit on 10-11-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Read your post then scrolled left to see. Oh yep explains it. Let me guess you wanted Hilary in office? Yeah that would have been perfect. Using her foundation so sell off the rest of the country. Pay to play to a whole new level as potus.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
I don't think you guys understand what is going on here. We just elected a man who's campaign tactic and style was similar to that of George Wallace and made promises to build a wall, round people up, ban Muslims and is in a position in which he could appoint SCOTUS justices that may overturn a ruling that gave women the freedom to do with their bodies as they choose.

Add to that the fact that the Reps control congress and we find ourselves in a bad position where we could take a huge step backwards in regards to personal liberty and constitutional protections. And we have yet to discuss the ramifications of his economic/tax ideas.

So I can understand why a lot of people are concerned. We've put ourselves in a terrible spot if Trump does achieve even a small bit of what he promised.


And what I KNOW you don't understand is that the democratic process used to elect a leader, just voted Donald J. Trump as president Elect of the United States. Apparently, this is what the people wanted. I think it's time for you to accept this and realize it's how things are going to be for the next 4 years. Suck it up.


Suck it up? It's been almost 8 years of Conservatives attacking Obama every day. Even on ATS there is some BS thread about something he said years ago. Trump followers may have to suck it up now. Daily.


Oh sweetie, you misunderstand. You are free to shed as many tears as you like over the way things are and how they are run. I fully support that and would expect no less. As you said, we all had 8 years of complaining how inept and sad Obama was as a leader. What you can't do anymore is whine about Hillary not winning. She lost, that part is over. I mean, you can complain, but it's a bit pointless. So when I say "suck it up", I am referring to the slot of president elect. That ship has already set sail.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Yes you did.
I think we could all use the advice she put forth.

I just dont see many from her side that have or will.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

why don't you write a heart felt letter to Donald Trump explaining your views on Abortion. let him know where you stand and see if he might come to your way of thinking. It may not work, but then, nether will you appeals to emotion.

Abortion will always be a polarizing issue. It's murder. And I have the right to believe that. I feel I also don't have the right to dictate to you what sins you are allowed to commit and which one's you can't do. That is between you and your God if you have one. But I don't make policy or decisions. All I can do is go the polls and vote the way I see fit.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Hell I am not even pro-trump and I understand the clear insanity that is being spewed forth by these Soros indoctrinated fools!



Right. I didnt vote for Trump or Clinton. The amount of psychological pavlovian conditioning the left is showing is mindblowing. Really, protesting that you lost? They talk big about democracy except when they lose. Then its to hell with democracy, lets burn down the country. A bunch of addled, mass controlled hypocrites.

Im not sure if trump will be good or a disaster, but thats the guy that was elected.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

It's against the law to nominate a justice in an election year. A law written and passed by Democrats.

Simple as that



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Someone might be worried about not getting a replacement for their Obama phone.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: mikell

Can you link that law please?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikell
a reply to: kaylaluv

It's against the law to nominate a justice in an election year. A law written and passed by Democrats.

Simple as that


It's not a law and it's not even really a rule. It comes from some speeches stupid Biden made in 1992 about nominating justices when there is a vacancy in the FALL OR SUMMER of an election year.

And Democrats were happy to roll over and cave because, let's be honest, they thought they could hold the women-vote hostage with that vacancy.

But a lot of women and minorities, like me, are absolutely sick & tired of being political pawns.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Crumbles
a reply to: kaylaluv

Read your post then scrolled left to see. Oh yep explains it. Let me guess you wanted Hilary in office? Yeah that would have been perfect. Using her foundation so sell off the rest of the country. Pay to play to a whole new level as potus.


I didn't want Hillary in office, but I did want more moderates in the Supreme Court, and I do want amnesty for undocumented immigrants who are already here, as long as they are working hard and not hurting anyone, and many other policies that Trump promised to get rid of. I voted based on policy.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: kaylaluv

Oh, please...Senate Democrats could have tried to force a vote.




And how could they have done that? By holding some other piece of legislation hostage? Some other equally legal but "nasty" tactic? How do you know they didn't try that and failed?

You can blame the democrats all you like, but the fact is, Congress refused to play ball.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

did trump not win the majority of voters in the system we have?

your cries of majority of the peoples votes disappear when the results of the house and senate are added

if the majority didnt want trump how did we get a gop house and gop senate again?


No, he did not win the majority of the votes. Clinton did. Trump won the electoral votes.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join