From The Archives -- Obama Should Call GOP's Bluff
[Program Note: I was too busy today to write a new column, mostly because I was dealing with preparations for the upcoming Democratic National Convention (so it was "work-related," at least). And because we're at the end of "Supreme Court decision" season (with a court of only eight justices), I thought the following column would be appropriate to run again. It only appeared a few months ago, but I still think the idea is a dandy one. The only change in my thinking now is that President Obama might not want to telegraph his move in advance -- it might be even more effective if it were announced the day after Hillary Clinton's election victory, in other words. But whether he announces the move now or right after the election, I still think the following course of action is the right one for the president to take, which is why I'm decided to run it again today. Oh, and one final technical note, the bit about "Leprechaun-poop" was included because of the auspicious date it originally ran on.]
Originally published March 17, 2016
George Orwell would be proud of Senate Republicans. Or maybe he wouldn't be "proud," but he certainly wouldn't be surprised. This is because he coined the word "doublethink," which is precisely what these Republicans are now revealing to the world. In fact, the Republican position is fast becoming "triplethink," an even more jaw-dropping feat of mental contortion.
Doublethink was defined, of course, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the ability to hold two completely contradictory ideas in your head and believe them both simultaneously, without blowing any intellectual fuses. War is peace? No problem.
When Antonin Scalia unexpectedly dropped dead, the doublethinking began in earnest. Conservatives who swear fealty to the United States Constitution immediately called on President Barack Obama to not perform his duties that same Constitution requires, and refuse to name anyone to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court. Scalia's body wasn't even cold before this chorus began, in fact.
Later, when it became obvious that Obama would, in fact, be fulfilling his constitutional duty to nominate someone to the highest court in the land, the Republicans came up with an even more bizarre interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended. The Senate should not act on Obama's nominee, they said, because "The People" [pause for genuflection] should have a say in the matter, through their presidential vote.
This was accompanied by doublethink of the purest sort. Republicans had the gall to claim that Obama making a nomination now would "politicize the process," and instead we should all just wait until after the election to replace Scalia. This is nonsense even the Blarney Stone would blush at, since throwing a Supreme Court pick into the mix of the presidential election is the very definition of "politicizing" the pick. Avoiding such politicization would require voting on Obama's nominee as soon as possible, to remove it from the seething cauldron of politics, not the other way around. As I said, some primo doublethink, there.
But now we're moving into the realm -- unforeseen by even Orwell -- of "triplethink." Doublethink isn't enough, in this day and age, it seems. We've got to hold three contradictory positions in our minds -- and believe them all simultaneously -- according to Senate Republicans. Because some of them have realized that the election might just not work out the way they hope it will, meaning President-Elect Hillary Clinton could be the one replacing Barack Obama. Now that Obama has named a consummate jurist who (at any other point in time) would be the best Republicans could possibly imagine from a Democratic president, Republicans are realizing that if Hillary Clinton gets sworn in next January, she might pick someone else -- someone a lot younger and a lot more liberal. And she just might have a Democratic Senate to confirm her pick. Oh, the horror!
So triplethink was the only answer, it seems. Some Republicans are now openly floating an idea that they think is a brilliant one. They'll refuse to vote on Obama's pick until after the election. But then if Hillary Clinton wins, then they'll quickly confirm Obama's nominee in the lame-duck period at the end of the calendar year.
Let's review the spiral down into irony of the Senate Republicans' thinking. The Constitution is not a "living document" and must be obeyed to the letter. Except, of course, when a Democrat is in the White House. Then you can just start making stuff up. Like inventing a "tradition" that has never existed -- presidents aren't allowed to nominate Supreme Court justices in their final year of office (even though over a dozen out of 44 of them have done so in the past). Furthermore, The People should have a say in the selection -- even though the Constitution was written to take this choice as far away from the popular vote as possible. Judicial appointments were to be made with several buffer layers erected in place of The People ever "having a say" in the process. The Electoral College, the fact that the senators were not originally elected by popular vote -- there are many barriers between the popular vote and judicial appointments in the very same document conservatives are supposed to revere. But none of that matters, because a Democrat is in the White House. A tradition that never was of letting The People have their say (even though the Constitution is designed to prevent this) will avoid "politicization" of the selection, by placing it squarely in the midst of the most political event Americans experience (a presidential election). But now, sensing that the next president might also be a Democrat, Republicans are conceding that they're just hypocritical con-men peddling pure Leprechaun-poop about The People, because if The People elect someone Republicans don't like, then they will ignore The People entirely and just go ahead and confirm Obama's nominee after The People have spoken. Some Republicans in the Senate might have lost their jobs by that point, so they would be voting in direct opposition to their own constituents' wishes.
Got all that? Triplethink! Irony is dead! Hypocrisy is noble! Ignorance is bliss! We're into such uncharted territory that the only way out is a grand gesture to counteract the free-flowing idiocy erupting from the other side.
President Obama should now back the Senate Republicans into an even tighter corner than they've already painted for themselves. He should do so by calling their bluff. Obama should announce that his nomination for the Supreme Court will remain open right up to Election Day -- but that the day after, it will be withdrawn no matter who wins. The Senate Republicans are telling anyone who will listen right now that they are nobly going to listen to what The People have to say, so they're going to have to live with the result -- no matter what The People actually say.
This removes the hypocritical "Plan B" that Republicans seem to now be contemplating. There will be no lame-duck confirmation, Obama should announce, because there will be no Obama nomination after the election -- it'll disappear the moment the winner is called by the networks. Republicans will not be able to have it both ways on what The People have to say, since they obviously can't recognize their own hypocrisy in even contemplating such a course of action after all the sweeping statements they've made about The People.
This would leave the Republicans with some very hard choices. Even if they win the election, would a Donald Trump appointee be better or worse than the man Obama has nominated? Trump might just go ahead an appoint his sister to the job (this isn't as far-fetched as it sounds, as Trump's sister is already a federal appellate court judge -- and a fairly liberal one). If that's not frightening enough for Republicans to contemplate, the only other option is a Hillary Clinton nominee. Possibly with a Democratically-controlled Senate to confirm her choice.
Those two options would have to be weighed against the fairly moderate jurist Obama has just put forth. But with the pronouncement that confirmation in the lame-duck session is completely off the table, Republicans would have to decide to act before the election. This is a lose-lose scenario for them. If a Republican Senate confirmed an Obama nominee, Republican base voters are going to be downright incensed. If the Senate does nothing and they let slip the chance to confirm a moderate on the court, thus giving Hillary Clinton a very young, very liberal pick on her first day in office, the Republican base voters are also going to be incensed. It'll just happen a few months later, that's all.
Which is precisely why Obama should call their bluff. He'd be playing off their own twisted logic, by doing so. If The People are supposed to be a part of the process, after all, then the Senate should not have the option of ignoring what The People say in the election. You can't have it both ways. Put up, or shut up.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I missed this article the first time it was out... so it was a new idea to me.
And it's a great idea.
I was a staunch supporter of President Obama in both elections; however, my only complaint is that he has been too nice... too civilized, considering the foaming at the mouth opposition he has faced every step of the way.
I hope he'll follow Mr. Weigant's suggestion on this one. After all, what has he got to lose?
CW
I think it would be better for Obama to withdraw his nomination one day before election day. That way, it would really indicate the true level of faith that the GOP has in their candidate for everyone to see before they go and vote. It would really back the Republicans into an even tighter corner.
@russ,
That might backfire. i think drawing such stark attention to the court right before the election would mobilize republicans more than democrats. AFTER the election, if hillary wins, would be the time to withdraw the nomination and immediately nominate a liberal firebrand. obama could expect a rejection, but if so the over-ask would still prime the senate for a quick confirmation when clinton picks a more mainstream liberal.
JL
nypoet22
I thought about that, but I questioned whether someone who didn't plan on voting would really be following the political news that closely to be motivated to go vote. But I concede that it is possible, so maybe Obama waits until the winner is announced,
I don't think Obama will ever drop support for Garland. That just isn't who he is.
it might be even more effective if it were announced the day after Hillary Clinton's election victory, in other words.
Assuming there IS a Clinton victory...
Considering all that has happened, the BREXIT win, the rise of populism and the rapid decline of globalism and corporatism, PLUS the imminent indictment announcement, it's all but assured that Clinton will lose..
It's ironicus extremus that the POPULIST mantra is on the GOP candidate.. :D
"Ooooooo, that's gotta hurt!!"
-Jim Carrey, THE MASK
:D
As to the commentary itself??
Throwing Garland under the bus for to serve his political agenda??
Yep.. That's EXACTLY who Hussein Obama is...
Michale
it might be even more effective if it were announced the day after Hillary Clinton's election victory, in other words.
Assuming there IS a Clinton victory...
Considering all that has happened, the BREXIT win, the rise of populism and the rapid decline of globalism and corporatism, PLUS the imminent indictment announcement, it's all but assured that Clinton will lose..
It's ironicus extremus that the POPULIST mantra is on the GOP candidate.. :D
"Ooooooo, that's gotta hurt!!"
-Jim Carrey, THE MASK
:D
As to the commentary itself??
Throwing Garland under the bus for to serve his political agenda??
Yep.. That's EXACTLY who Hussein Obama is...
Michale
it might be even more effective if it were announced the day after Hillary Clinton's election victory, in other words.
Assuming there IS a Clinton victory...
Considering all that has happened, the BREXIT win, the rise of populism and the rapid decline of globalism and corporatism, PLUS the imminent indictment announcement, it's all but assured that Clinton will lose..
It's ironicus extremus that the POPULIST mantra is on the GOP candidate.. :D
"Ooooooo, that's gotta hurt!!"
-Jim Carrey, THE MASK
:D
As to the commentary itself??
Throwing Garland under the bus for to serve his political agenda??
Yep.. That's EXACTLY who Hussein Obama is...
Michale
Apologies for the recent spate of double and triple taps..
My trackball button has been twitchy of late...
Michale
I was a staunch supporter of President Obama in both elections; however, my only complaint is that he has been too nice... too civilized, considering the foaming at the mouth opposition he has faced every step of the way.
Yea, Bush was the same way when faced with the same foaming at the mouth opposition...
I hope he'll follow Mr. Weigant's suggestion on this one. After all, what has he got to lose?
His integrity???
Oh, that's right.. He has none... Silly me..
Michale
Yea, Bush was the same way when faced with the same foaming at the mouth opposition...
When did Bush face a Democratic Party that voted against legislation that they, themselves, had introduced -- but only AFTER Bush signaled he supported the legislation -- simply to prevent him from getting credit for signing it into law? When did Democrats ever decide that they would not agree to any bi-partisan legislation without even knowing what the legislation was? Democrats never pre-determined at the beginning of Bush's presidential term how they would vote on all legislation that Bush would support throughout his presidency.
And if you believed that Democrats were attacking Bush with foaming at the mouth aggression , then why would you vote for Obama over McCain in 2008? That line of thinking seems to be at odds with the decision to vote for Obama or any Democrat.
When did Bush face a Democratic Party that voted against legislation that they, themselves, had introduced -- but only AFTER Bush signaled he supported the legislation -- simply to prevent him from getting credit for signing it into law?
Except on Tuesdays during a full moon..
Yea, if you get down to the nitty gritty details, you can find all sorts of differences..
But the fact is, Democrats and the Left Wingery were harder on Bush than Obama has EVER had to deal with..
The Left made a movie about a Bush ASSASSINATION, fer christ's sake...
The Democrats sided with Al Qaeda AGAINST Bush, SOLELY for political and partisan reasons..
And if you believed that Democrats were attacking Bush with foaming at the mouth aggression , then why would you vote for Obama over McCain in 2008?
Simple... At the time, I thought Obama was our best hope..
I vote for PEOPLE... Not PARTY... In that, I am unique amongst all the Weigantians...
Michale
I vote for PEOPLE... Not PARTY... In that, I am unique amongst all the Weigantians...
If ya'all adapted that stance and was able to rise above Party slavery, you would see that Trump is actually to the LEFT of Hillary on many issues ya'all CLAIM to support...
But Trump has a -R and Hillary has a -D so your for Hillary no matter how crooked and dishonest and war-mongering she is...
Ya'all would vote for Hitler, if he had a -D after his name... :^/
Because the ONLY thing that matters is Party Loyalty..
Michale
Michale wrote:
"I vote for PEOPLE... Not PARTY... In that, I am unique amongst all the Weigantians..."
Hardly unique Michale. If you will remember, I told you in a post quite a while ago that I voted for Reagan twice, as well as the first Bush. I have voted for Obama, Gore, Kerry and Clinton since then because I thought the Republicans have completely gone off the deep end and are so terrible. If Trump were running as a Democrat instead of a Republican I would be voting for John Kasich, if he were the Republican candidate. But generally speaking, in terms of Congress, with the Republicans captured by the Tea Party and Far Right Fundamentalist Christians, yes I favor the Democrats as a whole as a party over the Republicans, for control of Congress.
The Left made a movie about a Bush ASSASSINATION, fer christ's sake...
Replaced your wide brush for an even wider brush? We are now responsible for the British left as well? Which parties are covered? How about countries that their right wing is to the left of our left wing...how about a guide of some sort?
Anyway, do you have anything to back up that this British film was from the "left wing"?
Hardly unique Michale. If you will remember, I told you in a post quite a while ago that I voted for Reagan twice, as well as the first Bush.
Fair enough.. I'll make note of that in any future conversations..
My mistake. I apologize.. (BLUE MOON!!!)
Michale
If ya'all adapted that stance and was able to rise above Party slavery, you would see that Trump is actually to the LEFT of Hillary on many issues ya'all CLAIM to support...
Would that be the morning policy, the afternoon walk back or the next day complete filp flop?
BashiBazouk,
Well said!
Michael,
As for voting for the person over the party, who doesn't do that? I had always considered myself a Republican prior to the 2008 election. I got sick of being lied to by the GOP. It got to the point that they didn't even try to hide the fact that they were lying, and obviously considered their voting base too stupid to realize they were being lied to.
But it was McCain's switching his stance on almost every issue once he won the nomination -- going from being more of a moderate to becoming an ultra-conservative -- and picking Palin as a running mate -- that caused me to finally say, "No More!"
The Republicans chose to go with a game plan where they refused to share the same position with Democrats regardless of the issue. That way their voting base would only hear how everything the Democrats supported was "BAD" over and over. The more a person hears something stated, the more likely that they come to accept that statement as being factual. It's a simple propaganda trick, but it works amazingly well.
Trump gave an interview where he was quite honest that he bases what he says at rallies on how the crowd responds. He will say whatever he believes will get the biggest response. So I have no idea exactly where he stands on any issue, because he hasn't stood his ground on any position that didn't get the crowds cheering! He is a thin-skinned, angry and vindictive little man who cannot handle criticism, which are not characteristics that a President can have.
I got sick of being lied to by the GOP.
And so you choose HILLARY!!???
Yea... Good call.. :^/
Michale
Would that be the morning policy, the afternoon walk back or the next day complete filp flop?
You mean, as opposed to Hillary saying that the TPP is the "Gold Standard" and then coming out against it..???
You mean, like that???
Michale
Everything ya'all accuse Trump of is epitomized in Hillary..
Ergo, the ONLY reason you choose Hillary is because of the -D after her name..
"Simple logic.."
-Admiral James T Kirk
Michale
More Americans trust Trump than Hillary over the economy...
More Americans trust Trump than Hillary over creating jobs..
More Americans trust Trump than Hillary over dealing with terrorism...
The *ONLY* think Hillary has going for her is her vagina....
That's it...
Michale
Facts got yer tongues?? :D
Michale
Hillary is polling quite a bit higher than trump on the trust to deal with terrorism question at the moment...
The *ONLY* think Hillary has going for her is her vagina....
Facts got yer tongues?? :D
Misogyny got yours?
Hillary is polling quite a bit higher than trump on the trust to deal with terrorism question at the moment...
Of course, you can PROVE that, right??
Oh geeze... Look who I am asking...???
Don't tell me, let me guess..
You posted it already and you are not going to post it again... Right?? :^/
Over 70% of Americans think LIAR is the best word to describe Hillary..
"TRUST" and HILLARY are NEVER meant to be in the same sentence, let alone on the same planet...
But, I get it. She's yer candidate because she has a vagina and a -D after her name...
I understand...
Michale
I am going to be one happy camper around here when Hillary is indicted.. :D
Michale
Poll: Trump Beats Clinton on Economy and Terrorism
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/poll-trump-beats-clinton-economy-and-terrorism
Of course, you won't accept that poll because it doesn't say what you want it to say... :D
You guys are so easy to predict.. :D
Michale
“I’ve lost elections before. I know how bad that feels. But I’ve never worked a race where I’ve spent more nights sitting awake, stressed about the implications of what losing might mean."
-Clinton Campaign Manager
The guy who KNOWS never spent more nights awake stressing about Clinton losing to Donald Trump...
Face it, people..
This election is about one thing and one thing only..
ESTABLISHMENT vs POPULIST...
Ya'all are on the side of the ESTABLISHMENT..
The vast majority of Americans, upwards of 70%, are on the side of the POPULIST.....
Hillary?? Yer gonna lose...
"Nobody likes you. Everyone hates you. Yer gonna lose... Smile, ya fuck!"
-Joe Hallenbeck, THE LAST BOY SCOUT
:D
Michale
Here you go...
The washington post thinks otherwise.
The washington post thinks otherwise.
Of course it does... :D
Took ya long enough to find a poll that says what you want it to say... :D
Still doesn't change the fact that 70% of Americans think LIAR is the best word to describe Hillary Clinton and she IS going to be indicted for her national security crimes...
Michale
What a great day! My July 4th New Yorker Magazine has arrived!... The issue with Silly Walk off a Cliff by Barry Blitt on the cover. A nice rendering of a young and very flexible John Cleese (not credited) silly-walking over what seems to be the White Cliffs of Dover (also not credited). Pretty much sums up my take on the whole Brexit misadventure. I'm heading to the store to buy a frame ...before I scuzzy this issue with finger prints and/or a coffee cup imprint.
In case you haven't seen the cartoon:
http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CoverStory-BarryBlitt-SillyWalkOffaCliff-875x1200-1466799391.jpg
Still no response to #20....
Silence gives assent....
Clinton is as much of a flip-flopper as ya'all accuse Trump of being....
But she gets a pass because she has a -D after her name... :D
Michale
In case you haven't seen the cartoon:
http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CoverStory-BarryBlitt-SillyWalkOffaCliff-875x1200-1466799391.jpg
More fear-mongering from the globalists/corporatists/Weigantians...
YAAAWWNNNNNNN
Michale
What a great day!
Yea... Almost 50 dead in Istanbul from Hussein Odumbo's "JV" and "CONTAINED" terrorists...
Yea... "Great" day, Stig... :^/
Michale
Still no response to #20....
She said that before it was negotiated, then doesn't like the finished treaty. Not exactly a flip flop, no matter how much you want it to be...
Silence gives assent....
If that's what you need to appease your ego...
She said that before it was negotiated, then doesn't like the finished treaty. Not exactly a flip flop, no matter how much you want it to be...
Of course not..
And Hillary never lied about anything.. :D
You are so transparent...
If that's what you need to appease your ego...
The facts are all I need... :D
Michale
FiveThirtyEight's current prediction.
Not looking good for Trump, Hillary better keep kicking him while he's down.
Number ONE fact is that Trump never, thru his incompetence, NEVER got 4 good Americans killed, including our Ambassador...
Hillary Clinton cannot make the same claim..
And YA'ALL want her for POTUS!??
It boggles the mind...
Michale
FiveThirtyEight's current prediction.?
BBBWWWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Yea.. THAT's the same guy who predicted there was only a 5% chance that Trump would be the GOP Nominee..
And THAT is your source???
BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Michale
Ya'all have been wrong about Trump at EVERY turn...
EPIC-LY wrong...
Ya'all were wrong on BREXIT...
EPIC-LY wrong...
Ya'all were wrong on the Israeli elections..
EPIC-LY wrong...
Ya'all were wrong on the British elections...
EPIC-LY wrong...
Why on earth would you think that yer right now???
Michale
Judge Expands Investigation into Hillary Clinton’s Dealings with Foundation Donors
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437312/hillary-clinton-emails-secret-meetings-clinton-foundation-donors
:D
Michale
hehehehehehe
Obama goes on rant about populism and Donald Trump
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-donald-trump-populism-rant/
Odumbo is LOSING it.... :D
I guess the idea that Odumbo is the globalist corpratist elitist and Trump is the populist is pushing Odumbo over the edge.... :D
Michale
Clinton lied...
She claimed that the private insecure hacked bathroom closet email server was set up "for convenience"...
Hillary's main aide has just confirmed that the insecure hacked email server was set up because "DIDN'T WANT EMAILS ACCESSIBLE TO 'ANYBODY'.."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_EMAILS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-06-29-17-38-07
Confirmation that Hillary lied..
And the response from Weigantians...
{chirrrrppp} {{chirrrrpppppp}}
I get it... Lying is only a problem if the liar has a '-R' after their name....
There's a word for that...
It begins with 'H' and ends with 'ypocrite'!!
Ya'all can make it so much easier and just admit the partisan bias... LYING is perfectly acceptable to ya'all when a Democrat does it...
Michale
FOS Bashi,
Don't want to follow up on your Nate Silver prediction?? :D hehehehehehehehehehehe
"Kahn... I am LAUGHING at the superior intelluct..."
-Admiral James T Kirk, STAR TREK II, The Wrath Of Kahn
:D
Michale
Neilm[5]
Complete agreement from me.
General
Separating SC from the "people" was the best way those founders who felt a great need to protect us from the tyranny of the majority could accomplish that (in their thoughts, at least).
Speak2 [44]
There is a new podcast from the Radiolab guys - "More Perfect"
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolabmoreperfect
It is a deep dive into Supreme Court cases. In the most recent one they covered sodomy laws in Texas. The SC overturned the Texas Sodomy Law, but in the dissent Scalia said that the SC was being used to make law - that the SC should not be used where the people should decide. It was an interesting discussion.
Michael,
I bought a new TV and when anyone asks about it I tell them the reason I got it was because I needed one that would play nice with my entertainment center. I don't normally say that I also liked that this one is a plasma TV, where as my old one was LCD. I also got a bigger model than my old one. The fact that I don't list every single factor that motivated me to purchase this TV when asked about it doesn't mean that I am lying by simply giving my entertainment center answer. That was the main motivation behind the purchase!
You want Hillary to be a liar. I understand that. Her assistants testimony doesn't make Hillary a liar, unfortunately.
. I don't normally say that I also liked that this one is a plasma TV, where as my old one was LCD.
The thing about PLASMAs is that they have a sharper, brighter and more colorful picture than today's LCDs or even LEDs..
But the downside to PLASMAs is that they have a finite lifespan..8-10 years, if they are taken care of...
An LCD or LED will last 30 years or more if they are well maintained...
The fact that I don't list every single factor that motivated me to purchase this TV when asked about it doesn't mean that I am lying by simply giving my entertainment center answer. That was the main motivation behind the purchase!
If you were questioned under oath as to why you purchased the TV and you failed to disclose ALL the reasons why, then you would be lying...
If you were running for POTUS and you failed to disclose ALL the reasons why you purchased the TV, then 70% of Americans would conclude that LIAR is the best word to describe you..
You are comparing apples and orangutans...
You want Hillary to be a liar.
What I want is not relevant. The facts are the facts..
Crooked Hillary claimed that she set up the private, insecure, hacked, bathroom closet email server because of convenience..
Huma Abedin stated that Hillary set up the private, insecure, hacked, bathroom closet email server so that people wouldn't read her emails.
Hillary lied..
I know, I know.. Mitigation and obfuscation is the name of the game when the person has a -D after their name.. But you and I both know that there would be no M&O if the person in question had a -R after their name...
Michale
I know, I know.. Mitigation and obfuscation is the name of the game when the person has a -D after their name.. But you and I both know that there would be no M&O if the person in question had a -R after their name...
Where was the M&O when the Left Wingery made up that TOTALLY BS claim that Bush lied about the 2nd Iraq War???
You see my point?? M&O is only used by the Left Wingery to protect those with a -D after their name..
No other conclusion fits the facts...
Michale
Separating SC from the "people" was the best way those founders who felt a great need to protect us from the tyranny of the majority could accomplish that (in their thoughts, at least).
It's funny....
When Democrats had COMPLETE control of the entire government, they were all about the tyranny of the MINORITY..
Now that the American people have stuck Democrats to the minority, NOW Democrats are all about the tyranny of the MAJORITY...
In the dictionary, under HYPOCRITE, there is a picture of the Democrat Party... :D
Michale
Judge Expands Investigation into Hillary Clinton’s Dealings with Foundation Donors
http://tinyurl.com/jv8yx6z
And the hits just keep on coming.... :D
Michale
"In a country where honesty and integrity are valued, Hillary Clinton couldn't get elected dog catcher.."
-Michael Goodwin
It's ooohhh so true....
Michale
"In a country where honesty and integrity are valued, Hillary Clinton couldn't get elected dog catcher.."
-Michael Goodwin
It's ooohhh so true....
Michale
Crooked Hillary lied again...
Clinton stated that she had turned over ALL her work-related emails to the State Department..
Clinton also stated that she only deleted personal emails and that no work-related emails were deleted..
The AP reports that 165 work-related emails have just recently been released including several that Clinton deleted..
Crooked Hillary lied again.. And again...
Ya'all might as well admit the obvious... Hillary lied about her email server and ya'all don't CARE that she lies because she has a -D after her name...
No other possible conclusion fits all the facts...
Hell, even Hussein Odumbo stated as fact that Hillary used bad judgement..
Michale
Ya'all want to talk about polls??
The tables have turned in this week’s White House Watch. After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch
Of course any polls this far out are all but meaningless.... A point ya'all agree with, when the polls don't say what ya'all want them to say... :D
Michale
Apparently no one wants to talk about Polls when the Polls say something ya'all don't want to hear.. :D
Michale