Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says American People Should "Have a Voice"

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

If you say so. outside of polls, which can be tailored, look at the numbers.
NH primary turn out numbers to be exact.
Highest turnout for the R side of the house in a long time.

Yes...He is turning out a high percentage of Rs to vote and will do so...in the form of new voters etc. BUT..the rub is that he is doing it by severely polarizing voters. He has the disenfranchised, frustrated GOP back in the game...but at the expense of alienating the establishment and the middle of the road GOP...plus all minorities etc. etc. He is uniquely qualified to unite those who are unhappy amongst the GOP...but at the same time completely alienating...offending...attacking the voters he will 110% need for any chance to win a general election. You can't walk back some of the crap he has said...Political attack advertisers will be in heaven...he has done everything but punch a baby on national television.

Speaking of...

a reply to: Gryphon66



S.1770 was a ruse to scare Democrats. It worked.

It never got out of Committee.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

S.1770 was a ruse to scare Democrats. It worked.

It never got out of Committee.

Maybe, maybe not.

But, it is proposed law and it does include Heritage's Individual Mandate ... and there are other examples that also include the Mandate.

But, you know that, I'd wager.

Well, as much as people like to point out that Obama is president, they forget that the majority very clearly doesn't really like Obama very much, as we had a much more decisive election than "Obama vs Romney" more recently and the Republicans won that pretty handily.

Obama has repeatedly chosen not to care if Republican and libertarian voters disagree with his policies and does not given them one single inch when he has anything to say about it. A president who doesn't care what I think won't get any sympathy from me if the Republicans won't give him what he wants.

a reply to: stevieray
I am not saying just the Republicans are bad, I am saying that both political parties, both the republicans and the democrats are equally guilty in the mess in DC.

And it is not getting better but worse and worse, just seems like every time one party is in power, the rest of the country suffers for it, especially when the President is of the opposite party.

It should be noted that the Heritage Foundation only came up with the idea of a mandate as a thought experiment, not as a measure of actual policy. The Foundation put forward the idea as a means to achieve the goal, while at the same time saying that such a goal was unconstitutional. It is therefore disingenuous to say that the mandate was Heritage's idea as a segue-way to say that Heritage promoted the idea. Not that such truths will get rid of liberal distortions, mind you.

www.americanthinker.com...

The next time you hear or read someone mention that the Heritage Foundation conceived of the "individual mandate," one should reflect a bit, not on what is being said, but on what is being left out. We need to recognize that the Heritage Foundation:

1) Did not propose a mandate for routine health care.

2) Later withdrew all support of any type of a mandate.

3) Recognized that any such mandate is unconstitutional.

4) Argued to the Supreme Court (via briefs) that any such mandate was at odds with individual liberty.

Yet, just as Professor Pappe does not care if what he claims has any basis of truth to it, we will hear time and again the left's distortion of reality by repeating the simplistic claim that the "individual mandate was originated by the Heritage Foundation."

Those making this statement are relying on the reader to not having all the facts. After all, if deception advances the cause, why let the truth get in the way of that noble goal?

Back to original topic. I look forward to seeing who Obama will eventually nominate. It will be interesting to see how Rubio and Cruz interview the candidate.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
It should be noted that the Heritage Foundation only came up with the idea of a mandate as a thought experiment, not as a measure of actual policy. The Foundation put forward the idea as a means to achieve the goal, while at the same time saying that such a goal was unconstitutional. It is therefore disingenuous to say that the mandate was Heritage's idea as a segue-way to say that Heritage promoted the idea. Not that such truths will get rid of liberal distortions, mind you.

American Thinker is hardly an unbiased source.

I'd need cross references before I took anything straight from this conservative (top 10) site.

Typical Right Wing nonsense from the editor/publisher of American Thinker:

I have not read the entire decision but wonder if there are any grounds in it on which polygamy can be ruled anything other than a fundamental right. And after that, incest and every other marriage taboo. Oncemarriage becomes a matter of personal gratification, the doors seem wide open.

Read more: www.americanthinker.com...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

originally posted by: Granite
a reply to: xuenchen

He says today in "honor" of Scalia.

But in four months he be making concessions to Obama like he ALWAYS does...

As a Kentuckian, I have to agree. Mitch McConnell is just a miserable thing all around. I don't know how he keeps his seat, I don't know anyone who likes him.

a reply to: Gryphon66

They didn't create it as legislation from what I recall reading on it many years back. They thought it up, and political members used it as such.

That's my point.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Semantics.....
Just because they didn't "create" the law, doesn't mean that can't legislate from the bench.
Many judges have been quoted as stating the law, letter of the law, means "A", but that since society (local/state/etc) has morphed, their ruling is changed not to reflect the law. This create Case Law, which creates a new standard for that law from a single ruling. SO yes.....legislating from the bench.

a reply to: Indigo5

Again, we will see.

Polarized or not, he is drawing crowds, massive crowds.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Again, we will see.

Polarized or not, he is drawing crowds, massive crowds.

Agreed ...we will see...

But I still argue he is the ultimate example of pandering to the far right at the expense of losing the middle.

Romney pandered to the far right just enough to get the Nomination...and even that relatively small time spent on the far right during nominations hobbled him from returning to the center quickly enough for the general election.

Trump seems completely unaware he will even need to pivot to center for a general election...and frankly...you can't take back some of the stuff he has said, so a pivot to center appears impossible for him.

This next part is not partisan...it holds for the far reaches of both the left and right...The far right often gets confused, thinking because they love someone, the general population feels the same way. People on the far right and far left do not always recognize that they do not represent the mainstream...Thus the "Bubble"...and election day shock..

At least Mainstream republicans (establishment) recognize that a far-right policy platform terrifies the majority of the country.

a reply to: Indigo5

If that's what your tea leaves tell you......

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

If that's what your tea leaves tell you......

Admittedly...he is a "wild-card"...but my tea-leaves are usually good when it comes to politics.

a reply to: Indigo5

If you are that good, you would be paid for your services.

But hey, when he gets elected, you and I will be on the same side asking why oh why did this happen.

We can sulk together.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

If you are that good, you would be paid for your services.

I get paid more for what I do now...plus I'd have to work for a-holes...I work for myself now...and ya, I know, I'll beat you to the punchline...I already work for an a-hole.

But hey, when he gets elected, you and I will be on the same side asking why oh why did this happen.

We can sulk together.

If he gets elected it will be bad for the world at large. I also don't think he would last 48 months before being impeached, he seems to believe he can get away with anything. Day one he would put one of his infamous "TRUMP" signs above the white-house.

a reply to: Indigo5

Impeached??? Nah. Nothing that Bush or 0bama didn't do and get away with.


As for working...yep, I am in the same boats.
I work a day job still, network engineering and my personal business. About 60-90 days out from full time with my business.

Can't wait to tell that owner to stick it up his butt......oh wait.that would be meeeeeeeeee.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Impeached??? Nah. Nothing that Bush or 0bama didn't do and get away with.

If I was to give you that either did impeachable offenses...I would answer that both had the establishment on their side..

Trump will have everyone in DC calling for his head before he even puts his hand on the bible..

that combined with his...ahem..reckless and aggressive capitalistic nature?...I picture him impeached for some scheme within 48 months at the maximum...and it wont be slight.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So now Madison DID Have something to do with the Bill of Rights? Okay, that's not what you claimed previously.

You seem confused.

Madison wrote the Constitution. It did not have a Bill of Rights. Madison obviously thought the Bill of Rights was already contained in the Constitution. Madison wanted the Constitution ratified, so probably he was extremely helpful as far as the Bill of Rights.

The "miserable failure" of the Articles of Confederation is Leftist propaganda.

The confusion continues I see.

Actually, no, the Constitutional Convention(1787) "wrote" (i.e. drafted) the Constitution.

No, neither James Madison nor anyone else thought the "Bill of Rights" was already within the Constitution.

The Constitution was finished without the Bill of Rights. Obviously the COTUS was intended by its authors to be interpreted in such a way that the Bill of Rights was not needed.

The Bill of Rights limited rights by listing some when all were to be kept except those specifically written in the Constitution.

I would agree with you that our Founders held philosophies that would be called "leftist" today, however, your statement is utterly belied bythe facts.

The knowest-better-than-thou self-ordained-of-the-divine-government lefties, who are typically megalomaniacal treasury selling pseudo-psychological pendants, were not the majority of the Founding Fathers. Only a welfare whore would think that. The subset of the Founders who had power and wanted more power were the lefties.

The Federalist Pro Constitution Founders were Hamiltonian collectivists. The Anti-Federalist Anti Constitution Founders were Jeffersonian Individualists.

John Adams was elected to One Term on his own personal history. The Federalist Constitution mongers of 1787 are the same class as the oligarchs of today. Why was it that the party that finagled in the COTUS never really got elected to the Presidency?

Larger Election Record Graphic

Because the majority did not want a strong central government, that is, the majority were not lefties.

Speaking of which, please allow me to quote from the opening remarks made by Edmund Randolph of Virginia from James Madison's "Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1787""


"Mr. Randolph then opened the main business.

He expressed his regret, that it should fall to him, rather than those, who were of longer standing in life and political experience, to open the great subject of their mission. But, as the convention had originated from Virginia, and his colleagues supposed that some proposition was expected from them, they had imposed this task on him.

He then commented on the difficulty of the crisis, and the necessity of preventing the fulfilment of the prophecies of the American downfal.

He observed that in revising the fœderal system we ought to inquire 1. into the properties, which such a government ought to possess, 2. the defects of the confederation, 3. the danger of our situation & 4. the remedy.

1. The Character of such a government ought to secure 1. against foreign invasion: 2. against dissensions between members of the Union, or seditions in particular States: 3. to procure to the several States various blessings, of which an isolated situation was incapable: 4. to be able to defend itself against encroachment: & 5. to be paramount to the state constitutions.

2. In speaking of the defects of the confederation he professed a high respect for its authors, and considered them as having done all that patriots could do, in the then infancy of the science, of constitutions, & of confederacies,—when the inefficiency of requisitions was unknown—no commercial discord had arisen among any States—no rebellion had appeared as in Massts—foreign debts had not become urgent—the havoc of paper money had not been foreseen—treaties had not been violated—and perhaps nothing better could be obtained from the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.
"

The Oligarchs that wanted a new central government met to make the Constitution. That letter was a message to the choir of big government, after the henchmen had assembled.

It was not a statement of fact concerning the actual economy of the Thirteen Colonies.

So, it seems once again, actual historical facts do not agree with your opinion.

Facts have meaning in context.

The politicians and lobbyists that contrived the Constitution did it to increase the leverage of the few over the many.

The Anti-Federalists said the coalescence of power was just a matter of time.

And, Glenn Beck speaks....

Glenn Beck: God took Scalia to give America Ted Cruz as president
CNN Digital Expansion 2015 Dylan Byers

By Dylan Byers, CNN

Updated 12:02 PM ET, Thu February 18, 2016 | Video Source: CNN




"I couldn't help, but wonder, why? Why now? Why did you have to take Antonin now?" Beck's co-host Pat Gray asked on the broadcast.

Beck, calling into the show from outside a church in Boston, said: "You know, I was listening to you guys, and I just want to say, Pat, I think I have an answer for you on that."

Beck then took on the voice of the Lord: "I just woke the American people up. I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, 'Look how close your liberty is to being lost,'" he said.

"The Constitution is hanging by a thread. That thread has just been cut. And the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist (as president)," Beck said.

www.cnn.com...

so, now we have it, God took the justice from us, at this time, so the republicans in congress can bs around and use the seat for political leverage and get his destined to be president candidate into office.
does that mean that his destined to be president wouldn't have made it without the empty seat? I guess so, since well, if he was indeed destined, then well why not wait and take the justice after the election? and why such a conservative judge, one that seems to have the same viewpoints? don't know...