Most don't seem so concerned with the that. Sure they want to to repeal it but I think they know it's not likely to happen.

Most of the pro-lifers I know tend to be women, not men.

:rolleyes:

Trumps attitude towards women is only going to create a spike of sexual assault among his supporters, no doubt.

As absurd as it is to think, I can now imagine Trump supporting women willingly being grabbed by the pussy at rallies, just to make a point(?). No hope for these morons. And the pro repeal the 19th women.... ffs.

and this insanity. What the hell is wrong with these people

Trump Supporters Standing by Their Man - YouTube

I should write a book called, "All the Things Michele Bachmann Has (and Continues to be) Wrong About". But I really don't want to spend the next three years of my life thinking about her. :)

Well yeah, because Trump will have more time on his hands.

Her personality is either totally made up, or she's insane.

Asking here as well.

Well I don't know about Schumer, but Joe Biden is one that's been brought up recently by Republicans:

Log In - The New York Times

A lot of democrats wanted to filibuster Alito but in the end didn't have enough party support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel...ion#Filibuster

Because they *aren't* being held to the same standard.

Schumer said in 2007 that the Senate shouldn't confirm another Supreme Court justice, absolutely. That is on the public record. But you know what? It never came up. We never found out whether Schumer would have tried to do what McConnell has done, or if it would ultimately have been a lot of hot air.

Even if there HAD been a third vacancy for George W. Bush to fill, just because McConnell has gone full "nope" doesn't mean that the Senate would have sat on the nomination. Remember, Robert Bork, whose nomination was so vociferously opposed by Senate Democrats that he eventually lost his confirmation vote and saw his last name turned into a verb, still got that vote. He had hearings. He had the whole nine yards. Garland hasn't even had that.

That's the problem. People saying "why aren't we holding Democrats to the same standard" conveniently ignore the part where they're holding things a Democrat may have said to the same standard as what McConnell is actually doing. "Joe Biden said a thing therefore it's okay for McConnell to refuse to allow the Senate to act in any way upon the nomination."

And there's no reason for him to act this way in the first place. It's not like the Republicans are in the minority and threatening to filibuster every piece of legislation (which is basically how they handled the first six years but whatever) unless his nomination is withdrawn. They're not opposing Garland on procedural grounds. They're flat refusing to act because Barack Obama is the President.

So...why? Why do that? Republicans hold the majority in the Senate. It's not like Democrats can pull a super secret magic trick and presto Garland occupies the Scalia seat courtesy of minority vote. There are precisely three reasons to behave this way instead of granting hearings and a vote:

1) He doesn't think his caucus would hold up in the face of public opinion, resulting in a Garland confirmation and the Scalia seat sliding from conservative to moderate;

2) he's looking to undermine the independence of the third branch of government by allowing the Supreme Court to be used as a political football between the executive and legislative branches;

or 3) because he knows there's a loophole in the Constitution: members of Congress cannot be arrested in the course of acting as members of Congress, which means even if the Supreme Court were to rule that McConnell's actions are unconstitutional, they have no way to actually compel him to obey a Court order. The Executive branch couldn't arrest McConnell for contempt, because he's acting as the Senate Majority Leader, not as a private citizen. So he'll burn it down on the off chance he might be able to "save" the Scalia seat for a conservative.

It's not the same standard. Not at all. This isn't speech vs. speech or action vs. action. It's "they said a thing so even though they never did the thing we're totally cool to do the thing."

They need to agree on some kind of time limit for a Supreme Court nominee hearing being started. But that means working together and compromising, so I'm not holding my breath.

If Hillary wins and the Dems flip the Senate, McConnell will backtrack and say, "The people have spoken and they've told us want us to confirm Merrick Garland as quickly as possible, so that's what we intend to do."

What I wonder is if Obama would be vindictive enough to say "no, motherfuckers, you made this bed, now lie in it" and withdraw Garland's nomination and let Clinton nominate her own candidate, as McConnell has been demanding.

I mean, *I* would be, but I can see Obama going along with a lame duck confirmation if for no other reason than to ensure Republicans don't try to seek payback for being held to their own statements a cycle or three down the line.

Yeah, that's always been my question during his presidency: he seems to act more centrist than would be his natural inclination because he's aware of the backlash it would cause, so how far into lame duck status would he have to be to revert back?

Woof, Honey Obama don't give no fucks about the GOP trying to distance themselves from Trump: (video in tweet)

All In w/Chris Hayes on Twitter: ".@POTUS to GOP: "You claim the mantle of the party of family values, and this is the guy you nominate?" #inners https://t.co/mouV1hFbIL"

Cant wait for the awesome stuff Michelle Obama is going to be saying on the trail in the coming weeks.

She had a pretty powerful speech today in New Hampshire. Here's what Dan Rather had to say about it:


edit: just saw that Trump is within the margin of error for a poll in TEXAS. Wow.

Looks like the slimy apple doesn't fall from the slimeball tree:

A host interjected that women “complain, ‘it’s harassment’ — that’s why we hate having them around. They stop us from doing what we want to do.”

“I’m of that mindset — and I’ll get into trouble, I’m sure I’ll get myself in trouble one of these days,” Trump began, “if you can’t handle some of the basic stuff that’s become a problem in the workforce today, then you don’t belong in the workforce. Like, you should go maybe teach kindergarten. I think it’s a respectable position.

(2013 interview with Opie and Anthony.. I guess since Trump Jr is a knock off of dear old dad, he goes to a knock off show of the one dad goes to ;))

It really was. Miss that show.

Here is Michelle's speech--an expression of moral clarity that I hope will someday be looked back upon as one of those turning points where a dark part of ourselves was named and brought out into the light:

First Lady Michelle Obama live in Manchester, New Hampshire | Hillary Clinton - YouTube

Aren't we all just like Ken Bone

Ken Bone Forgot to Delete His Reddit Porn Comments, Said Travon Martin Killing Was 'Justified'

I had him picked out as a boss the second I saw him in the background. I told my wife to keep an eye on the guy in red cable knit, because he knows what's up.

I'll go find a link, but I suspect that you may have missed a post that I made earlier about reformed vs. dispensational theology perhaps being a massive difference-maker in our circles.

At any rate, Erick Erickson brought down the HAMMER early this morning. Couldn't be prouder of him.

An Open Letter to the Christian Right | The Resurgent

Ah...here it is:

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

So pretty likely Trump creates his own news network once the election is over, right?

Some Trump supporter should just not say anything, especially on TV. I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt that he was not prepared and just spouting out stuff to try explain Trump ... at worst he's got some strange urges.

Curt Schilling Says Trump Eyeing A 10-Year-Old Was Totally Normal | Huffington Post

Definitely feels like many Christians have sold their souls to the devil to win now.


Curt Schilling is one of the greatest pitchers in MLB history, and a piece of shit human being.

Religion should not be a part of the equation at all. It is, but it shouldn't be. I can practice religion just fine no matter who is in charge and no matter what laws are on the books. Pro-choice? Go for it. My convictions are mine and mine alone. Gay marriage? Same. Who am I to judge others? Who is America to judge others? As far as I know, we all meet God for judgement on an individual basis.

So, should I go to hell for voting for Clinton? For Trump? Or Rubio if I choose to write in a throw away protest vote? It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to my individual relationship with God. As it notes in the letter Ben posted, God is not partisan.

That's a ridiculous assertion by that guy and totally ignores the chain of events that lead to his nomination.

1. He was nominated by the people who voted in the Republican Primaries, not the GOP.

2. The GOP political 'movers and shakers' have always been 'anyone except Trump'.

3. The people who voted for Trump in the primaries didn't necessarily vote for Trump because he was their ideal option, but rather because the GOP had so many ridiculously poor candidates, they voted for Trump to stick a finger in the eye of the GOP establishment.

4. Similarly, the people who now support Trump despite all of his missteps are the same people who see another Clinton on the Democrat ballot and say, "They're just as bad as the Republicans."

Most people aren't voting for Trump. They're voting a protest vote against all the stupid things going on in the two major parties. In the past, those protest votes often went to a third party, so no one cared. Now, in an election year that defies all belief, people are voting Republican in a form of protest despite the crazy nature of it all. Regardless of the end result, the political parties will have to do some major rewriting of their playbooks after this election. Anyone who doesn't will be left behind in 2018 and 2020.

So even if/when Trump loses, he obviously runs a spoiler campaign in 2020 as an independent, right? Dems better focus on the House the next two cycles if they want to keep the house from deciding the 2020 presidency.

Interesting thought, but I'm having a hard time imagining him setting himself up to lose again.

Beyond that, I really don't know what to expect from Trump supporters on November 9th and beyond. It could get, um, interesting.

Speaking to a different audience and in a different language, Erickson wrote a piece in the NYT this morning, on the same topic, that I found thoughtful:

Log In - The New York Times

Even after the last ten days Trump's favorability rating among GOP voters is over 70%. Look at the admittedly limited polling on GOP candidates that renounced Trump and you'll see a pattern of falling support among GOP voters. Trump voters have generally had a higher enthusiasm about Trump than Clinton voters have had for Clinton.

Do you have any data to prove your contention?

Too damn old. I can't even imagine what he'll look like/health in four years. No amount of orange spray can take care of some things.

via GIPHY

They're no different than me. I'm just glad we have something other than a rehash of the same old thing. Those same people are also thrilled to see all these GOP establishment people saying they won't support him, saying that he's way out of line, etc. The GOP needed to be dumped on its head and the disenfranchised conservative voters (myself included) find all the whining and complaining by McConnell, Ryan, etc. to be hilarious. Trump's an asshole, but everyone knew that before he was even in the primaries. People continue to support him because the GOP is so out of touch with their core voters and they want to dump the party on its head, even if that means supporting this guy and losing the election to a Clinton.

I'm probably a Johnson voter at this point, but I'm thrilled that I voted for Trump and helped make a mockery of the GOP power players. They look like idiots right now and it couldn't have happened to a better group of people.

Election was stolen. GOP conspired against me. The country is still in the toilet. White people are out of work. Etc etc. maybe he starts his own party?

Polls are skewed.

And if that's the rhetoric, do you really think that his die-hard grass-roots supporters will be wiling to wait four years under Crooked Hillary? I say again:

Dola-there's still room for a white nationalist anti-woman party in America apparently.

True. I would imagine there will be some serious threats against her.

Fixed that for you to align with my thinking. Hope I'm wrong.

So Trump voters are representative of the GOP base, just like Obama said.

While it's not quite the same, the Mole has spawned, versions in many countries-you should look on You Tube for them. The majority of them have subtitles, so at least you can follow along. Nobody quite is up to our boy Anderson though :)

Which is ridiculous as well. The media goes out of its way to put the video/pics out there of the rednecks that support Trump. That's fine and it suits the narrative, but there's plenty of people supporting him that don't fit the narrative at all.

The uneducated angry redneck Trump supporter narrative is nearly as bad as the narrative where people show uneducated BLM people spewing hatred and inciting violence. Meanwhile, the vast majority of us who have common sense are left seeing these two narratives and throwing our hands up knowing full-well that neither help fix the core problems in our government.

It's obnoxious.

.

Leave it to Obama to fit it to his narrative. As I clearly stated, most people who voted for Trump are not voting for Trump. They're voting to give the finger to the GOP. They really don't care if he loses or wins the election.

I would be very surprised if you could show any data proving that. Look at Trump's positions and the positions of his voters and it's pretty clear the vast majority support what Trump is selling.

Well at least his burgeoning political career was cut short...

I'll add that an interview I saw with Newt Gingrich somewhat confirmed most people's feelings on it. He said that if people don't vote for Trump, they should join the Democratic Party. His complaints were:

-Hillary will take away the right to bear arms.
-Hillary will put radical justices on the Supreme Court
-Hillary will allow religious prosecution.

Now I hear all that, and I'm honestly excited about it. I'm definitely a fiscal conservative, but I see this fear-mongering and I know....

-Hillary's not going to take away right to carry. She might take away some types of guns, but I will still be able to open carry in four years without question.
-The justices she puts in will still have to justify their findings. If he's trying to say that gays might get more rights, abortion will remain legal, churches may lose tax-free status, etc., I'm not worried in the least about these 'radical' changes.
-Hillary isn't going to persecute religions. Christian conservatives are whining because they aren't able to control the narrative nearly as much as they used to be able to do so. In my mind, that's fantastic. They should spend more time doing what churches should do and less time trying to tell me how I should live my life or how my government should be run.