RIP RBG

[Jdsizzleslice]

Regarding all the other stuff... if you can’t recognize what the Republicans are doing as hypocritical I can’t help you. I’m not saying the Democrats wouldn’t do the same if the situation was reversed, they very well might. That’s not the question Right Now... the question Right Now is about the Party in power. The Republicans are abusing their power and it’s all to the benefit of their Party and not the the benefit of the Country.

Right, because you want me to understand your position without you having to explain yourself. Consider the pixie magic attempt a failure, Jim.

[saxitoxin]

I’m definitely not defending the Democrats...

LOL?

I’m not defending the Democrats. I’m criticizing the Republicans.

[jimboston]

I’m definitely not defending the Democrats...

LOL?

I’m not defending the Democrats. I’m criticizing the Republicans.

Another “NO RESPONSE” from Saxi.
This one was almost funny.

[jimboston]

Regarding all the other stuff... if you can’t recognize what the Republicans are doing as hypocritical I can’t help you. I’m not saying the Democrats wouldn’t do the same if the situation was reversed, they very well might. That’s not the question Right Now... the question Right Now is about the Party in power. The Republicans are abusing their power and it’s all to the benefit of their Party and not the the benefit of the Country.

Right, because you want me to understand your position without you having to explain yourself. Consider the pixie magic attempt a failure, Jim.

No... because you fail to admit facts are facts.

I can’t have a civil conversation with someone who ignores facts and has no common sense.

I’m not prepared to deal with Kindergarten Level brains.

[saxitoxin]

I’m definitely not defending the Democrats...

LOL?

I’m not defending the Democrats. I’m criticizing the Republicans.

Another “NO RESPONSE” from Saxi.
This one was almost funny.

Sorry, but I can’t have a civil conversation with someone who ignores facts and has no common sense.

[saxitoxin]

dude got a quick work-out in while visiting the box Democrats have been carting Ginsburg's body around in

[jonesthecurl]

I’m definitely not defending the Democrats...

LOL?

I’m not defending the Democrats. I’m criticizing the Republicans.

Another “NO RESPONSE” from Saxi.
This one was almost funny.

Sorry, but I can’t have a civil conversation with someone who ignores facts and has no common sense.

SO even you can't talk to Mr Trump?

[Jdsizzleslice]

No... because you fail to admit facts are facts.

I can’t have a civil conversation with someone who ignores facts and has no common sense.

I’m not prepared to deal with Kindergarten Level brains.

Incorrect. Civil discourse happens when people do not insult each other or are not violent towards each other. And seriously, more insults Jim? You do realize that kids throw insults (these are called temper-tantrums) when they don't have a proper response and know they are wrong. And this is what you do in conversations. Always. Say I'm stupid and can't possibly understand your viewpoint but you never actually make the argument for your viewpoint.

Let's start over. No insults, Jim. Do you think you can be man enough to have a civil discourse without the use of petty insults that are merely imbecilic in use?

Answer this question for me. What do I fail to admit is a fact in regards to this Supreme Court nomination by President Trump in September, 2020 versus Obama's in February, 2016?

In order to progress in this conversation, you should not use the following as a response to my question:

• "You're ignoring the facts." (or any variant regarding my intent to not read your statements for what they are)
• "You're an idiot." (or any variant referring to me as stupid, idiotic, retarded, etc. thrown as an insult)
• "You're boring." (or any variant referring to your lack of interest in continuing this conversation)
• "I can't be bothered to explain this to you." (or any variant referring in your inability to explain your own ideas)
• "You're a racist." (or any variant referring to me as xenophobic, islamophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, etc.)
• "You're not worth responding to." (or any variant referring to my material value as a human being)
• "I have already explained my position." (or any variant referring to you thinking you have made a concrete argument)

I look forward to reading a non-insulting response from you.

[jimboston]

No... because you fail to admit facts are facts.

I can’t have a civil conversation with someone who ignores facts and has no common sense.

I’m not prepared to deal with Kindergarten Level brains.

Incorrect. Civil discourse happens when people do not insult each other or are not violent towards each other. And seriously, more insults Jim? You do realize that kids throw insults (these are called temper-tantrums) when they don't have a proper response and know they are wrong. And this is what you do in conversations. Always. Say I'm stupid and can't possibly understand your viewpoint but you never actually make the argument for your viewpoint.

Let's start over. No insults, Jim. Do you think you can be man enough to have a civil discourse without the use of petty insults that are merely imbecilic in use?

If you can agree to basic facts and we use a common language and avoid extreme statements.

Answer this question for me. What do I fail to admit is a fact in regards to this Supreme Court nomination by President Trump in September, 2020 versus Obama's in February, 2016?

You are asking a question unrelated to my complaint.
My complaint about your post was the use of the word “extremely” to describe how these two situations differ. I proposed the word “materially different” (instead of “extremely different”) as you can at least make an argument that the differences are sufficient to warrant a different action.

I would disagree with that point... but that is where the debate lies.

If someone starts the discussion with adjectives like “extremely” where they unwarranted then you’ve already positioned yourself such that you’ve left no room for a conversation. Do you ‘cede that the situations are differently, possibly material, but not extremely so?

In order to progress in this conversation, you should not use the following as a response to my question:

• "You're ignoring the facts." (or any variant regarding my intent to not read your statements for what they are)
• "You're an idiot." (or any variant referring to me as stupid, idiotic, retarded, etc. thrown as an insult)
• "You're boring." (or any variant referring to your lack of interest in continuing this conversation)
• "I can't be bothered to explain this to you." (or any variant referring in your inability to explain your own ideas)
• "You're a racist." (or any variant referring to me as xenophobic, islamophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, etc.)
• "You're not worth responding to." (or any variant referring to my material value as a human being)
• "I have already explained my position." (or any variant referring to you thinking you have made a concrete argument)

I look forward to reading a non-insulting response from you.

I’ve replied with proper etiquette as requested in an attempt to start over.

[Jdsizzleslice]

I’ve replied with proper etiquette as requested in an attempt to start over.

Thank you for mostly being civil. We are headed in the right direction, for sure.

If you can agree to basic facts and we use a common language and avoid extreme statements.

Sure, we both speak English and I don't make extreme statements without providing an explanation.

You are asking a question unrelated to my complaint.

Aside from all of the insults, your statement "No... because you fail to admit facts are facts." was your complaint, no? Your below response doesn't address which "facts" you are claiming I ignore.

My complaint about your post was the use of the word “extremely” to describe how these two situations differ. I proposed the word “materially different” (instead of “extremely different”) as you can at least make an argument that the differences are sufficient to warrant a different action.

I would disagree with that point... but that is where the debate lies.

If someone starts the discussion with adjectives like “extremely” where they unwarranted then you’ve already positioned yourself such that you’ve left no room for a conversation. Do you ‘cede that the situations are differently, possibly material, but not extremely so?

You're hung up on the word "extremely" I used? (Adverb, btw)

I mean, choose from any of the list below to best help you understand what I was trying to say:

• very
• awfully
• morbidly
• severely
• extraordinarily
• hugely
• highly
• drastically

Or you could look up extremely in the thesaurus, some of the above words should show up in there.

If you're hung up because I am using the words "extremely different" versus "somewhat different" then you are playing a semantics game with yourself, and I don't think I can help you with that but by only trying to help you see my idea either better or in a different way.

Since you don't accept me repeating Saxi's viewpoint, even though I completely agree with him, I will give you my analysis on the situation we currently have, and why i chose to use the word extremely.

THE FOUR PARAMETERS OF A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE NOMINATION:

1. Which person is being nominated to the Supreme Court?

This factor will, for the most part, never be the same. In 2016, Merrick Garland was nominated, and in 2020, Amy Coney Barrett is being nominated. This factor is also the least relevant in regards to our discussion. VERY DIFFERENT, BUT NOT VERY RELEVANT.

2. Who is the current President?

This factor is very important. In 2016, Barrack Obama (Democrat) was the sitting President, in the last year of his term. In 2020, Donald Trump (Republican) is the sitting President, and is in the last year of his first term, seeking re-election. VERY DIFFERENT.

3. Which parties are in the majority in the Senate?

This factor is the most important and the most intricate. In 2016, Republicans controlled the Senate after flipping in the mid-term election from the Democrats in 2014. They have controlled the Senate since this point, and in 2020, they still hold the Senate majority. In 2016, the President and the Senate were divided (a.k.a., did not belong to the same party). In 2020, the President and the Senate are not divided. DIFFERENT.

4. At which time during the current President's Administration does the nomination take place?

This factor is also not very relevant. In 2016, Obama nominated in February/March during his last year, and Trump has nominated in September during the last year in his first term. The only similarity here is that both Presidents made nominations in an election year. Time at which a Supreme Court nomination occurs is mostly irrelevant because historical precedent is that nominees have been confirmed at any stage of a President's Administration. SOMEWHAT SIMILAR, BUT NOT VERY RELEVANT.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN:

The two most important factors are the President and the Senate. All three branches of government are there to keep each other in balance and in check. When the 2014 mid-term elections happened, the American Public voted to change the Senate to a Republican majority. Thus, the American Public wanted a check and balance to Obama. This is ultimately what Mitch McConnel said. He said there would be no confirmation hearings until the new President had been elected (this seems to imply that confirmation hearings would continue after a new President was elected, regardless of which political party they were a part of). He said this in February/March. The government was divided and the current President was on his way out.

Right now, the American Public voted in 2018 mid-term elections to keep the Republicans in the Senate majority. The American Public voted to keep the Senate and the President in alignment. The government is not divided currently and the current President is seeking re-election.

Because the 2016 nomination and the 2020 nomination do not have a lot in common, the phrase extremely different applies here.

[jimboston]

You're hung up on the word "extremely" I used? (Adverb, btw)

I mean, choose from any of the list below to best help you understand what I was trying to say:

• very
• awfully
• morbidly
• severely
• extraordinarily
• hugely
• highly
• drastically

Or you could look up extremely in the thesaurus, some of the above words should show up in there.

Yes. Because if you frame the situation as “extremely” different that you are already locked into a position and view that allows very little room for negotiation and discussion. None of the adjectives are applicable either.

If you're hung up because I am using the words "extremely different" versus "somewhat different" then you are playing a semantics game with yourself, and I don't think I can help you with that but by only trying to help you see my idea either better or in a different way.

That’s not how I see it. Language is very important. If I accept the situations are extremely different, then why even discuss how they are similar? If the situations weren’t similar then there wouldn’t even be a debate or a point of contention. You can have a discussion like this if the situations are similar but not identical, or if they’re materially different... but if they’re extremely different then the debate is over and you’ve proven your point. It wouldn’t even be worth acknowledging there was a debate to begin with because the debate ‘solution’ would be clear.

Since you don't accept me repeating Saxi's viewpoint, even though I completely agree with him, I will give you my analysis on the situation we currently have, and why i chose to use the word extremely.

THE FOUR PARAMETERS OF A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE NOMINATION:

1. Which person is being nominated to the Supreme Court?

This factor will, for the most part, never be the same. In 2016, Merrick Garland was nominated, and in 2020, Amy Coney Barrett is being nominated. This factor is also the least relevant in regards to our discussion. VERY DIFFERENT, BUT NOT VERY RELEVANT.

This is only a parameter if the Nominee gets a chance to get an up/down vote in the Senate

2. Who is the current President?

This factor is very important. In 2016, Barrack Obama (Democrat) was the sitting President, in the last year of his term. In 2020, Donald Trump (Republican) is the sitting President, and is in the last year of his first term, seeking re-election. VERY DIFFERENT.

There’s another difference... Obama had 9 months in office. Trump has less than 2 months before the election.

You can contend that the possibility of re-election is material. I would contend it is not. The WHOLE Republican argument in 2016 was that the Senate should hold the sitting President’s nominee because ‘the election is soon and we should LET THE PEOPLE HAVE A VOICE’. Now the election. is even closer and the DON’T want to wait to allow THE PEOPLE to have a voice.

3. Which parties are in the majority in the Senate?

This factor is the most important and the most intricate. In 2016, Republicans controlled the Senate after flipping in the mid-term election from the Democrats in 2014. They have controlled the Senate since this point, and in 2020, they still hold the Senate majority. In 2016, the President and the Senate were divided (a.k.a., did not belong to the same party). In 2020, the President and the Senate are not divided. DIFFERENT.

Point?

4. At which time during the current President's Administration does the nomination take place?

This factor is also not very relevant. In 2016, Obama nominated in February/March during his last year, and Trump has nominated in September during the last year in his first term. The only similarity here is that both Presidents made nominations in an election year. Time at which a Supreme Court nomination occurs is mostly irrelevant because historical precedent is that nominees have been confirmed at any stage of a President's Administration. SOMEWHAT SIMILAR, BUT NOT VERY RELEVANT.

This isn’t an issue as far as the Constitution is concerned.

You say it’s not relevant... but it’s the Main Argument for why the Republicans blocked Obama, and it’s also the Primary reason they want to RUSH Trump’s nominee.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN:

The two most important factors are the President and the Senate. All three branches of government are there to keep each other in balance and in check. When the 2014 mid-term elections happened, the American Public voted to change the Senate to a Republican majority. Thus, the American Public wanted a check and balance to Obama. This is ultimately what Mitch McConnel said. He said there would be no confirmation hearings until the new President had been elected (this seems to imply that confirmation hearings would continue after a new President was elected, regardless of which political party they were a part of). He said this in February/March. The government was divided and the current President was on his way out.

Right now, the American Public voted in 2018 mid-term elections to keep the Republicans in the Senate majority. The American Public voted to keep the Senate and the President in alignment. The government is not divided currently and the current President is seeking re-election.

Because the 2016 nomination and the 2020 nomination do not have a lot in common, the phrase extremely different applies here.

You make no sense... and we both know that the ONLY THINGS that mattered to McConnel... in 2016 is that it’s that he had the power to stop Obama’s nominee; and in 2020 he. has the power to rush Trump’s.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Yes. Because if you frame the situation as “extremely” different that you are already locked into a position and view that allows very little room for negotiation and discussion.

Only an assumption.

None of the adjectives are applicable either.

Subjective opinion.

That’s not how I see it. Language is very important. If I accept the situations are extremely different, then why even discuss how they are similar? If the situations weren’t similar then there wouldn’t even be a debate or a point of contention. You can have a discussion like this if the situations are similar but not identical, or if they’re materially different... but if they’re extremely different then the debate is over and you’ve proven your point. It wouldn’t even be worth acknowledging there was a debate to begin with because the debate ‘solution’ would be clear.

Can't help you with your own internal semantics, Jim.

This is only a parameter if the Nominee gets a chance to get an up/down vote in the Senate

Then we agree that the nominee themselves is pretty moot point in this discussion.

There’s another difference... Obama had 9 months in office. Trump has less than 2 months before the election.

This falls under Point 4: that the time in which a nomination occurs has little relevance in this discussion. Also if we keep adding differences, then I will have to change extremely to very extremely.

You can contend that the possibility of re-election is material. I would contend it is not. The WHOLE Republican argument in 2016 was that the Senate should hold the sitting President’s nominee because ‘the election is soon and we should LET THE PEOPLE HAVE A VOICE’. Now the election. is even closer and the DON’T want to wait to allow THE PEOPLE to have a voice.

The American people did have a voice in the 2014 mid-term elections, and chose to elect a Republican majority Senate to place a check-and-balance on Obama. In the 2018 mid-term elections, the American people voted to keep the Republican majority in the Senate, and therefore allow Trump and the Senate to not be divided. The Senate has allowed for the American people to have their voice. If the Senate was a Democrat majority right now, and they held until after the election to have hearings for SC nominees, I would not complain. That would be letting the American people have a voice. Your notion that the American people have not had their chance to have their voice heard is incorrect, because if they disapproved of what Trump was doing, they would have elected more Democrat Senate representatives to have checks-and-balances.

Point?

That the situations involving the Senate are different in both scenarios.

This isn’t an issue as far as the Constitution is concerned.

You say it’s not relevant... but it’s the Main Argument for why the Republicans blocked Obama, and it’s also the Primary reason they want to RUSH Trump’s nominee.

No. The reason why there is a difference here is because of a divided government, not time. Again, historical precedent backs me up here regarding when a President nominates someone.

You make no sense... and we both know that the ONLY THINGS that mattered to McConnel... in 2016 is that it’s that he had the power to stop Obama’s nominee; and in 2020 he. has the power to rush Trump’s.

Incorrect. Voices have been heard, the government has been elected, both with the President and with the 2018 midterm elections, to keep the Republicans in the majority in both offices. It's a big difference. One could even argue, extreme.

[jimboston]

Your views are extreme... that’s about it.

You can’t even acknowledge that it’s political gamesmanship.
It’s so obviously hypocritical.

I am ignoring you.

Since it hurts your feelings I won’t call you dumb... you likely aren’t dumb, you know a]exactly the position... but you refuse to acknowledge the basic premise. There’s no ‘give’ and so there’s no sense talking to you.

[jimboston]

Bottom line...

In 2016, with a Democratic President, the Republicans felt it was appropriate to wait nine months for a new election.
Thereby leaving the Supreme Court seat vacant for over a year.

Now in 2020, with a Republican President, the Republican feel there is no need to wait and let the people have a voice. Instead they feel it is more appropriate to rush in a new Justice because the seat needs to be filled ASAP.

All the other details you point to are minor and irrelevant to the FACT that the Republicans are singing a different tune and changing their logic and reasoning to suit their political agenda.

This is hypocrisy.

Admit it... and say it’s “OK because they’re in power and what they are doing is legal within the bonds of the Constitution and the Rules of the Senate. Instead you (and the Republicans) find minor details to use to muddy the water and try to justify their hypocrisy.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Not so fast Jim. You broke several rules we established before re-starting this discussion. You couldn't last more than one post! The following rules were broken:

• "You're ignoring the facts." (or any variant regarding my intent to not read your statements for what they are)
  

  but you refuse to acknowledge the basic premise.

  
  

  You can’t even acknowledge that it’s political gamesmanship.

  
  
• "You're an idiot." (or any variant referring to me as stupid, idiotic, retarded, etc. thrown as an insult)
  

  It’s so obviously hypocritical.

  
  
• "I can't be bothered to explain this to you." (or any variant referring in your inability to explain your own ideas)
  

  There’s no ‘give’ and so there’s no sense talking to you.

  
  
• "You're not worth responding to." (or any variant referring to my material value as a human being)
  

  I am ignoring you.

Basically everything short of calling me boring and racist. I would suggest trying new trolling tactics or changing your mindset in order to have a reasonable discussion (which you voided after just 1 post).

In 2016, with a Democratic President, the Republicans felt it was appropriate to wait nine months for a new election.
Thereby leaving the Supreme Court seat vacant for over a year.

Correct. Because the American Public wanted a checks-and-balances on Obama. Their voices were heard.

Now in 2020, with a Republican President, the Republican feel there is no need to wait and let the people have a voice. Instead they feel it is more appropriate to rush in a new Justice because the seat needs to be filled ASAP.

Incorrect. The Senate is listening to the voices of the American Public by filling a Supreme Court seat in a non-divided government. Historical Precedent backs me up on this one.

All the other details you point to are minor and irrelevant to the FACT that the Republicans are singing a different tune and changing their logic and reasoning to suit their political agenda.

Incorrect. The logic from the Republicans has not changed, and all of the facts I presented a few post ago show how the two situations are extremely different.

This is hypocrisy.

Incorrect.

Admit it... and say it’s “OK because they’re in power and what they are doing is legal within the bonds of the Constitution and the Rules of the Senate. Instead you (and the Republicans) find minor details to use to muddy the water and try to justify their hypocrisy.

The Senate has the legal power to confirm a Supreme Court nominee to the Supreme Court. Not sure what's "muddy" about that.

Respond if you want, but now since you have broken the rules, I must add a few more:

• "You're ignoring the facts." (or any variant regarding my intent to not read your statements for what they are)
• "You're an idiot." (or any variant referring to me as stupid, idiotic, retarded, etc. thrown as an insult)
• "You're boring." (or any variant referring to your lack of interest in continuing this conversation)
• "You're a hypocrite." (or any variant referring to my statements not being held to the same standard)
• "I can't be bothered to explain this to you." (or any variant referring in your inability to explain your own ideas)
• "You're a racist." (or any variant referring to me as xenophobic, islamophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, etc.)
• "You're not worth responding to." (or any variant referring to my material value as a human being)
• "Your views are extreme." (or any variant referring to my viewpoint as outlandish)
• "I have already explained my position." (or any variant referring to you thinking you have made a concrete argument)

I look forward to reading a non-insulting response from you.

[jimboston]

I didn’t break rules “we established”.

You asked me to not insult you personally and I avoided doing this.

Now you take personal offense when I point out you ignoring something, or point out how something (not you) is obviously hypocritical.

You seem to take offense and easy.

It’s moot though because you’ve clearly bought into the total Party Line of the Republicans and have closed your mind to any other views.
So bye.
Idiot.

[mookiemcgee]

Bottom line...

In 2016, with a Democratic President, the Republicans felt it was appropriate to wait nine months for a new election.
Thereby leaving the Supreme Court seat vacant for over a year.

Now in 2020, with a Republican President, the Republican feel there is no need to wait and let the people have a voice. Instead they feel it is more appropriate to rush in a new Justice because the seat needs to be filled ASAP.

All the other details you point to are minor and irrelevant to the FACT that the Republicans are singing a different tune and changing their logic and reasoning to suit their political agenda.

This is hypocrisy.

Admit it... and say it’s “OK because they’re in power and what they are doing is legal within the bonds of the Constitution and the Rules of the Senate. Instead you (and the Republicans) find minor details to use to muddy the water and try to justify their hypocrisy.

My personal opinion is that Merrick Garland was the 'wrong' behavior and the outlier. Trump getting to appt someone now and quickly is the 'norm' and really wouldn't even be a thing had republicans not lost integrity on this subject back in 2016 with refusing to allow a vote on a confirm-able judge. Yes that still means Mitch McConnell is a giant hypocrite but what happening now is really how the system is supposed to work.

[Jdsizzleslice]

I didn’t break rules “we established”.

I’ve replied with proper etiquette as requested in an attempt to start over.

Confirmation that you agreed to the rules proposed. Then you trashed the agreement after one of your posts when you decided to mudsling.

You asked me to not insult you personally and I avoided doing this.

You did not insult me in only one post. Every other post, you have thrown insults.

Now you take personal offense when I point out you ignoring something, or point out how something (not you) is obviously hypocritical.

I don't take personal offense with your opinion. I think your opinion is wrong, but that doesn't mean I am offended.

You seem to take offense and easy.

Quite the contrary. You seem to think that hurling insults makes you intellectually superior. That is what I take offense with. Children hurl insults in conversations they don't want to make an attempt to have. Your attitude is the attitude of adolescence.

It’s moot though because you’ve clearly bought into the total Party Line of the Republicans and have closed your mind to any other views.

Yeah, it's really tough to hear opposing viewpoints from someone who yells "Agree with me, or you're an idiot." I was hopeful to understand your perspective, but you never really explained what that stance really was besides crying hypocrisy. You do understand that mookie and myself could have a calm, rational discussion about this AND understand other people's perspectives. You don't really want to understand other people's perspectives, do you? Do you just want to be "right" all of the time?

So bye.
Idiot.

Isn't this the second time you've said bye, unwilling to talk to me? Which is it, Jim?

[saxitoxin]

I look forward to reading a non-insulting response from you.

Idiot.

That's Democratspeak for "keep looking!"

[mrswdk]

Is anyone surprised that 'Ruth Bader Ginsberg' is an anagram of 'barbered thug grins'?

I know I'm not!

[jimboston]

Bottom line...

In 2016, with a Democratic President, the Republicans felt it was appropriate to wait nine months for a new election.
Thereby leaving the Supreme Court seat vacant for over a year.

Now in 2020, with a Republican President, the Republican feel there is no need to wait and let the people have a voice. Instead they feel it is more appropriate to rush in a new Justice because the seat needs to be filled ASAP.

All the other details you point to are minor and irrelevant to the FACT that the Republicans are singing a different tune and changing their logic and reasoning to suit their political agenda.

This is hypocrisy.

Admit it... and say it’s “OK because they’re in power and what they are doing is legal within the bonds of the Constitution and the Rules of the Senate. Instead you (and the Republicans) find minor details to use to muddy the water and try to justify their hypocrisy.

My personal opinion is that Merrick Garland was the 'wrong' behavior and the outlier. Trump getting to appt someone now and quickly is the 'norm' and really wouldn't even be a thing had republicans not lost integrity on this subject back in 2016 with refusing to allow a vote on a confirm-able judge. Yes that still means Mitch McConnell is a giant hypocrite but what happening now is really how the system is supposed to work.

I’m not disagreeing with this... because you recognize that the Republicans are hypocrites (in this case).

I’m sure we can find many ways where the Dems were hypocrites too.

[jimboston]

blah blah blah

Idiot

[jimboston]

Is anyone surprised that 'Ruth Bader Ginsberg' is an anagram of 'barbered thug grins'?

I know I'm not!

Donald and Melania Trump = Dull primate and madonna.