Kansas Crimson

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:48 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:16 pm she was pronounced dead at 7:28pm.

Mitch announced he would confirm a Trump appointee at 8:51pm.

almost an hour and a half. surprising he even waited that long.

That is so disrepectful. Even if he thought it, there was no reason to say it.

I probably hate Mitch even more than Trump....and that is saying a lot. How those 2 are in positions of power in our country is sad as fuck.

I mean, his call to fill the seat came in the same fucking statement as the thoughts and prayers!

And, in the same fucking statement, he points to the fact it takes an average of 71 days to fill a seat, and presents that as rationale to fill a seat 45 days before an election.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:25 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:48 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:16 pm she was pronounced dead at 7:28pm.

Mitch announced he would confirm a Trump appointee at 8:51pm.

almost an hour and a half. surprising he even waited that long.

That is so disrepectful. Even if he thought it, there was no reason to say it.

I probably hate Mitch even more than Trump....and that is saying a lot. How those 2 are in positions of power in our country is sad as fuck.

I mean, his call to fill the seat came in the same fucking statement as the thoughts and prayers!

And, in the same fucking statement, he points to the fact it takes an average of 71 days to fill a seat, and presents that as rationale to fill a seat 45 days before an election.

Ya. Mitch is the worst.

But it is all irrelevant if trump wins again. Which is a definite possibility.

I will be curious to see if the election results are accepted by dems if he wins, just as i will be curious to see if the election results are accepted by repubs if he doesn't win. Going to be a shit show either way.

Is it?

Well, if Trump wins and Mitch looses, Trump won’t have Mitch around to bury heads in sand and enable his bullshit.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:48 am Well, if Trump wins and Mitch looses, Trump won’t have Mitch around to bury heads in sand and enable his bullshit.

That too.

Maybe the do nothing Democrats will finally be able to do something!

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:28 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:17 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:45 am You are so dramatic.

But have no problem with the comment "dems should just expand the court to 15 so they can add 6"?

Would you feel similar if it was republicans adding 6 seats? Doubt it.

Who are the four Republican senators who have stated that they will not vote on confirmation before the election?

Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, Chuck Grassley, and potentially Lindsay Graham (although his comments came in 2018, and there have been statements made since the Kavanaugh drama that muddy his stance a bit...and now Romney's camp isn't really saying 1 way or the other this morning, but that feels like a calculated move to not show their hand too early).


Also, not surprised you chose not to answer the question about adding more seats.

Only Murkowski and Collins have made those declarations since RBG died. The rest are speculation based on previous statements.

We all know how “you can hold me to it” pledge from Lindsey Graham turned out, or what his pledge is actually worth.

I’m sure others have a similar lack of integrity.

Check out the latest Lincoln Project ad re. Graham

It'll come down to Romney and possibly Mark Kelly

Mjl wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:52 pm It'll come down to Romney and possibly Mark Kelly

It would be a huge game changer if Kelly is allowed to fill McCain's set earlier than January. I saw some reports that if he wins, he might be able to join by the end of November. That would be huge.

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:37 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:52 pm It'll come down to Romney and possibly Mark Kelly

It would be a huge game changer if Kelly is allowed to fill McCain's set earlier than January. I saw some reports that if he wins, he might be able to join by the end of November. That would be huge.

It's not just some reports, it is fact.

That said, I could see getting nobody else, even Romney. Think about it from their perspective. If you consider life to begin at conception, then getting conservatives on the court increases the chance you will save, in your mind, countless lives. That seems more important than demonstrating integrity and principles within the Senate.

Mjl wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:57 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:37 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:52 pm It'll come down to Romney and possibly Mark Kelly

It would be a huge game changer if Kelly is allowed to fill McCain's set earlier than January. I saw some reports that if he wins, he might be able to join by the end of November. That would be huge.

It's not just some reports, it is fact.

That said, I could see getting nobody else, even Romney. Think about it from their perspective. If you consider life to begin at conception, then getting conservatives on the court increases the chance you will save, in your mind, countless lives. That seems more important than demonstrating integrity and principles within the Senate.

I think decisions will be made purely on the potential impact to a senator's next reelection efforts.

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:44 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:57 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:37 pm

It would be a huge game changer if Kelly is allowed to fill McCain's set earlier than January. I saw some reports that if he wins, he might be able to join by the end of November. That would be huge.

It's not just some reports, it is fact.

That said, I could see getting nobody else, even Romney. Think about it from their perspective. If you consider life to begin at conception, then getting conservatives on the court increases the chance you will save, in your mind, countless lives. That seems more important than demonstrating integrity and principles within the Senate.

I think decisions will be made purely on the potential impact to a senator's next reelection efforts.

Not with Romney, who is probably the deciding vote

I think putting a nominee forward prior to the election could be unhelpful for the GOP. It’s a losing issue. Given the particular circumstances, it could result in suburban white women flipping, and that would be disastrous.

I agree with this.

You are a mom in a relatively well-to-do household, and your sexually-active daughter (the daughter isn't fooling anyone) goes to Blue Valley West or Shawnee Mission East or Lawrence Free State or the rich Wichita high school or Salina South or Hays High or the equivalent in the swing states.

Why would a mom in those Kansas areas allow some folks from Scott City dictate what happens to her daughter?

This reminds me of the movie Footloose.

Trump is going to overplay his hand.

man, you guys have more faith than I do that Mericans will suddenly not vote against their own interests again.

and for what it’s worth, perhaps “when some Mericans have already voted” is a good metric of whether it’s too late to fill a seat

but let’s not act like this is anything less than a shameless power trip, both by lawmakers and voters. #maga

Could this backfire the other way?

the gop rams through an appointee, the dems do everything they can to stall, and the pro-life crowd (who may have otherwise finally soured on Trump’s scumbaggery) suddenly panics at the thought of someone on the Supreme Court who might be something as evil as, pro-choice...

Are there any public statements or reason to believe that ANY of the current sitting conservative justices want to overturn roe v wade like so many of you seem to be worried about?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:19 am Could this backfire the other way?

the gop rams through an appointee, the dems do everything they can to stall, and the pro-life crowd (who may have otherwise finally soured on Trump’s scumbaggery) suddenly panics at the thought of someone on the Supreme Court who might be something as evil as, pro-choice...

Is it possible to be both pro-life and pro-choice?

Personally i do not think my wife and i would ever choose to have an abortion except in extreme situations such as the baby wouldn't survive birth and would experience pain.....but i think women should have the right to choose if they want an abortion.

Is that an example of being pro-life AND pro-choice? Or is it just pro-choice becuase i am having the option but would choose NOT to have an abortion.

That’s pro choice.

we could have left it at “if you dont want one don’t get one,” but pro life conservatives wanna ram their laws up vaginas instead.