Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
The Sandbox - AustinThe Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here. If it's NOT an adult-themed topic, then it belongs here
No Fire, you can't talk to a door knob. Obviously, you have absolutely no business sense. There is a give and take - but in your case - it's --"I am right and I don't want to hear anything you have to say - and I'll insult you along the way"
Perhaps you can take some on-line educational classes in business and you would learn a few things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirePhoenix
Ellen=Polly the Parrot. Enough said. BTW, it was originally a Republican idea of Obama Care and then they blocked every way to fix it. You blocked your own ideas and made the system worse because NO action could be taken. Have you even taken a look at the benefit plans of trumps business hiring since the 80s? Well you can't talk to a doorknob and I should know this lesson but apparently I needed to learn it again. Lesson learned.
Whoa whoa whoa. So you don't think it will happen? Then why did you initial (sic) respond to me telling me what's good for the goose is good for the gander? When in the comment you responded to, I said I don't think they will do it.
Go back and re-read all my posts. I originally referred to keeping Harry Reid's rules in place, not extending them by nuking the filibuster on SCOTUS votes. “What's good for the goose is good for the gander” means Republicans should play by the same rulebook the Dems did when they were in the Senate majority in 2013 and decided it was a good idea to nuke the filibuster for all OTHER Presidential appointments.
Get it now? Or are you just being argumentative by making me explain again what you already know?
Also I love how almost every one of your responses has a get it now, you're confused, etc. Like you are teaching me something.
I can't decide if you're smart enough to pass my tutorial or not.
I know Scalia died less than a year ago but the Republicans preventing a hearing on the nominee gave us one of the longest periods with an empty seat on the Court. It also forced the Court to avoid taking certain cases in fear of a party 4-4 vote. So Republicans decided to take when Biden talking about a hypothetical vacancy said the President should not name a nominee until after the election, correct. But then they ignored his statement in the same speech where he pledged to consider a nominee if President consulted with Congress. So seems like they ignored a key part of the "Biden Rule". The whole considering the nominee part. A nominee that they were praising before since he's a moderate. But now they want to get back to doing things they are swore to do. Yeah what's good for the goose is good for the gander though so I'm all for blocking the nominations since it was ok to do it for 11 months. What's another 23 or so.
You're being facetious, right? Did Obama consult with Mitch McConnell before nominating Garland? Of course not.
Now you're suggesting the Dems should use the filibuster to block ALL Supreme Court nominees indefinitely. In other words, they should grossly abuse it. That would be suicidal. Blocking one nominee may work, but if they block every nominee put forward by Trump over the next two years, it will most assuredly backfire on them.
I will say it again, slowly this time - “they... would... be... doing... exactly... what... you... admonish... the...... Republicans... NOT... to... do... setting a terrible new precedent that would boomerang against them later.” Importantly, they would also be handing Republicans a potent issue with which to hammer them in the 2018 Senate races.
And I think you are missing the point. If the Democrats win the Senate in 2018, the Republicans want to be able to filibuster. The only way they don't have a need for it is if the Democrats gain a ridiculous amount of seats.
No! SCOTUS nominees require only a simple majority for approval in the Senate, not 60 votes, so if the Dems are in the majority they could block any nominee without having to filibuster! Get it now?
They are at 48 (including independents), the odds are more likely that after midterms, the Democrats are closer to 52-54.
No... as I already explained, the Dems have THREE TIMES as many Senate seats up for grabs in 2018 as the Republicans do. No way will they gain a net 4-6 seats. Even if they miraculously keep all 25 of their own seats, they also need to win at least half of the 8 Republican seats in play. Ain't gonna happen!
So they won't have the number of seats needed to stop it all together, unless the Republicans nuke the filibuster. Get it now?
No! Re-read what I just said about SCOTUS votes needing only a simple majority.
You're trying my patience. My point is not partisan, it works both ways. I thought you were smart enough to understand this, am I wrong?
Again I ask, why are you talking about how it's academic and not going to happen with me when I said in my original post that it's not going to happen?
See above - already asked and answered.
As for the seats up for grabs, 23 are Democratic seats yes. If you look at the seats up for the taking, the ones held by Democrats were mostly won with over 50% of the vote. While some of the Republicans were won with 49% of the vote. So yeah there is a good chance they win the Senate.
You're either engaging in wishful thinking or nuts. I'll give you 4:1 odds they don't win the Senate.
Also I would say look at what happened this past election. You normally see the party of a president winning office for the first time getting a bump in Congress. But you didn't really get that this past election. Republicans lost 2 seats in the Senate and some in the House.
This past election proves my point, not yours! Of the 34 Senate seats at stake, 24 were held by Republicans – almost the same arithmetic Democrats will face in 2018. Given this arithmetic, everyone expected the GOP to lose control of the Senate no matter who was at the top of the ticket in 2016. With Trump at the top of the ticket, it was supposed to be a slam dunk for the Dems. So the fact that Republicans only lost 2 seats and kept control of the Senate was little short of an electoral miracle.
So with 2018, the Democrats are in a better position than they should be to take control of Congress. You could see a Presidential Referendum in the midterms in 2018. Similar to what happened with the Tea Party when they help the Republicans take Congress. And judging from the rallies this weekend, there is a base to start that push for the midterms.
Yeah, keep up those rallies! Every time people like this show up, another blue county turns red.
Ok Trump lost a majority of the African American vote, so does that mean they shouldn't trust him to do work for them? My point was that one base, one office, one solider, one unit, etc. doesn't represent how the military or any demographic feels/thinks.
Yeah, keep up those rallies! Every time people like this show up, another blue county turns red.
Yeah I don't have the time to go through every argument you made. I will just end the whole discuss with this. I will take your 4:1 odds that the Democrats take the Senate in 2018. This past election doesn't prove your point. If you were smart you would equate what you've said, Republicans having 24 seats and lose 2 with what I said about a presidential push. They were suppose to get a bump and lost seats, in 2018 they get no bump in races that are strong and leaning Democrat. So yeah I will take your bet. Easy for me. I'm gonna end the back and forward with you. There's nothing being accomplished. I will pass on your tutorial. You probably don't meet the standards of the professors I've had. Maybe someone else will sign up and you can try getting them to believe your statements. Good day.
Yeah I don't have the time to go through every argument you made. I will just end the whole discuss (sic) with this. I will take your 4:1 odds that the Democrats take the Senate in 2018. This past election doesn't prove your point. If you were smart you would equate what you've said, Republicans having 24 seats and lose 2 with what I said about a presidential push. They were suppose (sic) to get a bump and lost seats, in 2018 they get no bump in races that are strong and leaning Democrat. So yeah I will take your bet. Easy for me. I'm gonna end the back and forward (sic) with you. There's nothing being accomplished. I will pass on your tutorial. You probably don't meet the standards of the professors I've had. Maybe someone else will sign up and you can try getting them to believe your statements. Good day.
Gee, I'm truly sorry if you can't even grasp the simple fact that a filibuster is only useful if you are in the minority, and is of no value when you're in the majority. I guess that's way too difficult a concept for an over-educated student of government like you to figure out, right millsy?
And yes, this past election does prove my point. Nobody expected Republicans to "get a bump" in 2016. To the contrary, everyone expected them to lose the Senate. Democrats will be very lucky in 2018 if they even match what happened to Republicans and only lose 2 Senate seats, given the simple fact that they will have THREE TIMES AS MANY INCUMBENTS AT RISK as the Republicans will in 2018. But go ahead and pretend you're not worried, millsy.
Oh, and don't forget the pattern is for Republicans to turn out in much higher numbers for midterms than Democrats, many of whom stay home and only vote in Presidential election years. That's why the Dems took a "shellacking" (odumbo's word, not mine) both in 2010 and 2014. Good luck changing that, millsy.
And welcome to "fake news and facts". Such a shame for Americans. You do understand that most of those so-called articles were written from Russia and China.
Ok Trump lost a majority of the African American vote, so does that mean they shouldn't trust him to do work for them? My point was that one base, one office, one solider, one unit, etc. doesn't represent how the military or any demographic feels/thinks.
WTF???
No one said Trump enjoys 100% approval among veterans - that's a straw man. But hey, given the fact that 2 out of 3 vets voted for him, almost everyone (except millsy) would agree he is far more popular within this demographic than his opponent.
You and Herr Twitler need to get the fuck over it.
Of course, it also could be said that Herr Twitler has about 250 million opponents, and recruiting more with each "FUCK YOU" he issues with his small, dickless hand sized pen.
You and Herr Twitler need to get the fuck over it.
Of course, it also could be said that Herr Twitler has about 250 million opponents, and recruiting more with each "FUCK YOU" he issues with his small, dickless hand sized pen.
I have to say, I like your Statue of Liberty - I'll save that one for when you liberals completely destroy the country.
I'm thinking Trump should do his thing and declare victory after 4 years and let someone else run, assuming he doesn't become the dictator you all fear, and suspend elections. If he does become a dictator, he will probably remember all the insults you people have posted, and act accordingly. Hopefully, he will show you some compassion for understanding all the fuck you orders he is signing. Since the country is so bad, why don't you just leave while you still can?
I won't be there to save you. I hate you and all other liberals, but I feel you hated me first for being a white conservative.
You and Herr Twitler need to get the fuck over it.
Of course, it also could be said that Herr Twitler has about 250 million opponents, and recruiting more with each "FUCK YOU" he issues with his small, dickless hand sized pen.
Ok for what ever reason we have a dangerous person in the oval office. This is proven by recent events. Taking credit for saving job that he had nothing to do with, dwelling on voter fraud when he won, worrying about attendance at the swearing in, restricting the media. All that in less than a weak. Are we head for state run media. By the end of this year supporterz like Austin Ellen will start see the real Donald trump and leaving him. Just wait, it is too late
My Bio Page - Texas - Austin
