Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

For this entire campaign Trump has said outrageous bullshit. Then his various apologists have run out from the wings to mop up behind him and explain that he really didn't mean what he said, he really meant something that was less insane or offensive. I'm to the point that I don't believe them.

Dick, if you're still making a point of order about editing, I'll give that one to you. Regarding what was really going through Trump's brain, what he meant, you simply can't tell me. You're not a secondary source. You're purely speculating. I still maintain that the words of the guy who said them were what he was saying, not some nebulous "Well, he meant something altogether different."

 

I retract my sigh ...

 

This sounds an awful lot like "You are responding to an imaginary post".

 

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law ..."

The GOP is providing neither advice, nor consent. They are refusing to recognize the nominee put forth by the President of the United States. They are absolutely derelict in their Constitutional duty.

However, I think the Democrats have been so confident that Clinton will defeat the GOP nominee, they haven't bothered to fight to appoint a guy they probably think is a little too centrist for their tastes. Instead, they're hoping to win the Presidency and the Senate and push through one (and likely more) Justices more to their liking.

The GOP may regret not holding a vote on Garland.

 

No, it really isn't. I'm not saying I've never done it, but you have absolutely done it to me and others, particularly when you go into concern troll mode.

 

According to NOW in its defense of Bill Clinton, you're allowed a "first bite at the apple."

 

This is an example, Dickie. You made an assertion here that another member was posting things you don't like due to some personal issue on his end. That is absolutely an example of assigning a motive to someone else's actions.

 

What do you think Advice and Consent mean?

Hey, we now have two different "consent" debates going on simultaneously!!!

 

I don't know whose argument you're responding to. It's not mine.

 

Maybe they hacked into it and didn't find the criminal collaboration they've found in the DNC ones?

 

Hey, dumb dumb, that's what Rick says to others at times. I was being playful.

 

There is no obligation imposed upon the Senate in that passage.