Four years isn’t a long term by any means and President Trump hasn’t been permitted anything like a real four year term. Fighting off multiple coups and monstrously bigoted media has hugely diluted what he would have achieved unimpeded.
Despite all that he’s accomplished so much more than the globalists ever wanted to.
Yeah, well McConnell was pretty steamed with the whole incident with Reid and "The Nuclear Option" and since Dems wanted to play politics instead of being fair McConnel played politics too. And he was better.
The Senate has to vote on the SCOTUS for a reason, and it’s to provide checks and balances. If Obama had done a better job the Senate would have been Democratic and he would have been able to push through his nominee.
But he did a poor job and the Senate was Republican....pretty sure House might have been too.
The argument at the time was that a supreme court justice could not be confirmed during an election year. We are in the same situation here. What arguments do we have against being hypocrites?
Hypocrisy? The Democrats changed the game in 2013 under Harry Reid. I remember when Bill Frist floated the nuclear option way back in 2003 or 2004 and the Left went nuts. They changed the rules, constantly shit on our history/traditions but now want to invoke some rule that is not actually a law? Gentleman's agreements only exist if both sides are Gentlemen.
President Trump has a duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. The Senate has a duty to vote on those nominees. As President Obama once said, "elections have consequences."
As mentioned below, the logic behind the rule is that the people vote specifically because of the supreme court. If there is a mismatch between president and senate in terms of not knowing what the political desire of the majority is, then you wait for the next election to see.
Eg. If the senate had flipped to democrats in 2018, you would wait to see if trump was rejected in 2020 by the voters too. But the republicans kept control of the senate, so there is no conflict.
Similarly, in the previous case, it was a democrat president but the senate had flipped to republican. So they waited to see the results in 2016. The people rejected the democrats.
I would like to see them ratify new amendments that puts in term limits for senators and congress, as well as upper bound age limits for all elected federal government roles. If you were to turn 80 or above while in office, you do not qualify
Yep.
It's a four year term for the President.
Not three. Not three and a half. Not three and three quarters.
Safely get fucked, including all you milquetoast cuckbeard Reddit refugees.
And Binders Mitt's face is on the box
It stays soft, spongy, and soggy even without milk! But it hardens up every 5 1/2 years.
Absolutely.
Four years isn’t a long term by any means and President Trump hasn’t been permitted anything like a real four year term. Fighting off multiple coups and monstrously bigoted media has hugely diluted what he would have achieved unimpeded.
Despite all that he’s accomplished so much more than the globalists ever wanted to.
Ummm...Merrick Garland ring a bell? I'm all for our team winning, but lets not forget the past of "its just politics"
Yeah, well McConnell was pretty steamed with the whole incident with Reid and "The Nuclear Option" and since Dems wanted to play politics instead of being fair McConnel played politics too. And he was better.
So? McConnell played politics last time and won.
The Senate has to vote on the SCOTUS for a reason, and it’s to provide checks and balances. If Obama had done a better job the Senate would have been Democratic and he would have been able to push through his nominee.
But he did a poor job and the Senate was Republican....pretty sure House might have been too.
The argument at the time was that a supreme court justice could not be confirmed during an election year. We are in the same situation here. What arguments do we have against being hypocrites?
*when the opposing party controls the Senate
Hypocrisy? The Democrats changed the game in 2013 under Harry Reid. I remember when Bill Frist floated the nuclear option way back in 2003 or 2004 and the Left went nuts. They changed the rules, constantly shit on our history/traditions but now want to invoke some rule that is not actually a law? Gentleman's agreements only exist if both sides are Gentlemen.
President Trump has a duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. The Senate has a duty to vote on those nominees. As President Obama once said, "elections have consequences."
As mentioned below, the logic behind the rule is that the people vote specifically because of the supreme court. If there is a mismatch between president and senate in terms of not knowing what the political desire of the majority is, then you wait for the next election to see.
Eg. If the senate had flipped to democrats in 2018, you would wait to see if trump was rejected in 2020 by the voters too. But the republicans kept control of the senate, so there is no conflict.
Similarly, in the previous case, it was a democrat president but the senate had flipped to republican. So they waited to see the results in 2016. The people rejected the democrats.
I would like to see them ratify new amendments that puts in term limits for senators and congress, as well as upper bound age limits for all elected federal government roles. If you were to turn 80 or above while in office, you do not qualify
None! I don’t disagree at all, it’s completely hypocritical.
But that’s politics and McConnell played the game properly. Those are the rules.
It would suck with the boot on the other foot, but I would expect nothing less from the opposite side.
Nobody cares, Captain Cuckbeard.
Slither back to your pathetic greasehole and do not speak unless spoken to.