Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

Re: information, you don't have to know what you're talking about these days, you just have to be confident in sounding like you do. Arrogance over intelligence. Now that I think of it, Rick and Trump are very similar.

 

If you can't Google it, it's not a fact.

 

Rick, the Republican abstainees in the Marist poll (consistently more Dem this cycle than the average, just as Quinnipiac has had stronger Republican numbers than the average) are surely not the social conservatives who care about the Supreme Court. They're all in as they have no place to go but Trump. They are much more likely to be Republicans like other members of my family, who believe in low taxes and who don't gave a damn about the social stuff, but who also have a lot of the Bloomberg-Buffett disdain for Trump as a fake businessman.

 

Rawr.

 

Sounds like he'd make a great student body president, though.

 

They're getting awefully close to the point where they can say they are allowing Garland because they have no confidence Trump will win and are scared who Hillary will nominate instead. It will be the ultimate out for them among their constituencies: We did it before the election because we wanted to show we cannot support Trump but wanted to make it clear we don't endorse Hillary either.

We saw in 2010 what Congress can get done when everyone is scared about who is slated to join them in Washington.

 

Back to Wisconsin and Minnesota for a moment..

They do share some common ground at the football HoF:



Brett Favre's Hall of Fame locker has 2 jerseys: Vikings and Packers

Carry on with the election insanity.

 

Why assume he'll give Clinton nominees a fair shake? Even if she wins big in the electoral college she probably won't clear 47-48 percent in the popular vote. McConnell will claim he's upholding the will of the majority by blocking/filibustering all her nominees.

 

Let's start a pool. On what date and at what time will this thread cross 2000 pages?

 

I see no reason to believe they'll move on Garland at all, or on anyone Clinton nominates. We saw from how well they adopted the 2012 post-mortem what kind of interest the GOP has in re-casting its image to a broader cross-section. No, they don't care about that, and they'll spend eight years filibustering if they can.

 

It seems like insanity for us to just continue having 8 justices. But no less insane that anything else I guess.

 

Congress will have spend a year not doing its job on this issue. As stubborn as the republicans are on this issue, they'll have no choice but to confirm qualified nominees.