Dear Protesting Liberals In America

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: shooterbrody

he's being deliberately obtuse, there is no doubt the new age progressive ideology has been wholesale rejected and he can't deal with it, he truly believes with every inch of his body that he's right and anyone who doesn't think like him is stupid.

I'm not being obtuse. You claimed that this election was proof that progressive ideology was rejected by the people, but Trump did not get the majority vote.

Your assertion is easily proven false.

originally posted by: Darkphoenix77

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.

I think they should exercise their right if that's what they choose.

No matter what, the Right Wing will think they are just making themselves look like fools. The Left could also say that the fact Trump won this election means half the nation are fools.

a reply to: introvert

ok lets see, can you show me one part of our government structure that is now not controlled by republicans/conservatives?

a reply to: kaylaluv

No, through a motion to discharge, for one. Although, IIRC, there were a few ways they could have tried to force a vote.

The two parties pretty much make up the entirety of Congress. Blame them both and Obama for not working together.

Or stick to your partisan guns, I don't care.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: introvert

ok lets see, can you show me one part of our government structure that is now not controlled by republicans/conservatives?

Irrelevant. The majority of people in this country did not vote Republican.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yet calls to honor the tradition of high-court nominations were batted down almost immediately by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who indicated he has no plans to start up the confirmation process on his panel.

By using his power as chairman to block a vote in committee, Grassley can box out Reid or other Democrats from trying to call up a nomination on the Senate floor, as Reid threatened to do when Loretta Lynch was a nominee to be attorney general. And McConnell can stop Obama from recess appointments by scheduling pro forma sessions of the Senate.

www.politico.com...

You cannot force a vote when all your routes are blocked.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I'll see your Politico article from February 2016, and raise you one from March.

How Democrats could force a Supreme Court vote

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are absolutely right I think... if the president had fought day in and day out trying to get the nomination taken care of, come election time it could have been used by every candidate on the democratic ticket to bludgeon their opponent with.

I see so many democrats saying... well now we will do what the republicans did and block everything.. (stupid stupid move)

Instead of working to get policies through that are middle of the road, and benefit their constituents.. so at the next election they can go see we tried to work with them and we got X,Y and Z done but they blocked us on A,B,C... you know run on what you did instead of I said no to trump...

Its mind boggling... they should have taken the house,senate, and Presidency... instead they took squat...

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Can the Democrats use a procedural maneuver to force an up or down vote on Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court? Politico digs through the dumpster behind Robert’s Rules of Order and determines that the answer is… maybe. Sort of. Possibly. But not quite.

If Harry Reid launched such a procedure he could indeed call for the nomination to move out of committee during an executive session. But as soon as it was up for consideration, Mitch McConnell (who has at least thus far not shown any signs of caving) could object and call for the motion to be tabled. That only requires a simple majority vote on the floor, so unless the Democrats could come up with five Republicans to go along with them, the motion would essentially be dead on arrival. And even if McConnell failed to have it tabled, the final motion to discharge would still require sixty votes to pass.

hotair.com...

Reid already considered it. Not as easy peasy as you would claim.

a reply to: Irishhaf

The only way the President could have personally fought it is if he had brought a gun and shot certain members of the Senate.

a reply to: introvert

how is it irrelevant, literally no progressive controls # anymore, are you suggesting republicans/conservatives stole the country?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Can the Democrats use a procedural maneuver to force an up or down vote on Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court? Politico digs through the dumpster behind Robert’s Rules of Order and determines that the answer is… maybe. Sort of. Possibly. But not quite.

If Harry Reid launched such a procedure he could indeed call for the nomination to move out of committee during an executive session. But as soon as it was up for consideration, Mitch McConnell (who has at least thus far not shown any signs of caving) could object and call for the motion to be tabled. That only requires a simple majority vote on the floor, so unless the Democrats could come up with five Republicans to go along with them, the motion would essentially be dead on arrival. And even if McConnell failed to have it tabled, the final motion to discharge would still require sixty votes to pass.

hotair.com...

Reid already considered it. Not as easy peasy as you would claim.

Show me where I said it would be easy peasy and not a "fight?"

(Hint: I didn't, so don't spend all afternoon looking for it.)

ETA: And isn't nominating a pro-choice justice important enough to fight for?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Regardless, this was in the hands of Congress, NOT Obama. So to go back to your original point, no, Obama working his butt off would not have affected this situation in any way.

a reply to: kaylaluv

You force the Republicans to take as many public stances against it as possible, the American people have a short memory... so the fact they said never one time just wasnt enough, you had to make them do it repeatedly.

He didnt and I think it hurt them...

Just like I think it will hurt them to try and be as retarded as the republicans were this time around... we need to stop the schoolyard tit for tat BS that has turned congress into a useless waste of space.

Where actively and publicly working to get things done will benefit them in the mid-terms... I just dont think the democrat leadership is smart enough to do this.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Well, if the American people are too retarded do their research and find out why a supreme court justice wasn't placed... they deserve the crap politicians that they get.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Ah, so the President is not expected to work with Congress...especially members of his own party. Got it.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I am not proud of the fact, but its well known that the average american is more worried about keeping a roof over their head food on the table and clothes on their backs... So they kind of have the attention span of a hummingbird when it comes to politics.

It can be time consuming to do the research, and if someone is doing 60+ hour work weeks to make ends meet they may not feel they have the time, when their options are spend time with kids, decompress... or read up on politicians in DC.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: introvert

are you suggesting republicans/conservatives stole the country?

Considering how Republicans have gerrymandered districts and are still able to control congress, while Democrats continue to receive millions more votes, some may believe they are stealing elections.

a reply to: introvert

sounds like you are whats known as a

wait for it....


sore loser

a reply to: introvert

You realize democrats receive more votes in heavily populated areas that are dumps because of the progressive failed policies that essentially nanny the less fortunate while keeping them in a ever cycle of downtrodden and despair- never truly helping them get out of the ghettos.

The country as a whole voted out progressives because they have failed us in every single way, time for a change and change is coming