(09-28-2020, 03:10 PM)jj22 Wrote: https://www.newsweek.com/resurfaced-clip-amy-coney-barrett-says-it-wouldve-been-inappropriate-obama-nominate-scotus-1533913

If she's an honorable women, I'd expect her to decline the nomination based of off her past belief, statements, and approval of Obama being robbed of a SCOTUS seat in broad daylight.

If not, then she lacks the character and credibility needed to hold a position at the highest court of our land.

Agree? Or is character just not all that important anymore.

(09-28-2020, 03:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's countless other threads to discuss Trump. Let's try to keep this about the nomination of Amy Coney Barret

(09-28-2020, 03:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's countless other threads to discuss Trump. Let's try to keep this about the nomination of Amy Coney Barret

(09-28-2020, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not a fan of the pick for several reasons.  She's a much more difficult confirmation than Lagoa would have been.  She's got some extreme religious beliefs, and you know I'm not a fan of that.  She's also much more corporate friendly than I'd prefer.  I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, she was the first person I thought of when Ginsburg passed, but Lagoa really struck me as the smart choice.

The only plus for me re. Barrett versus Lagoa is that Barret is much more openly 2A friendly.

(09-28-2020, 05:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps in more nonpartisan times. But there's actually no reason to look for a candidate than the Dems would like better

(09-28-2020, 03:10 PM)jj22 Wrote: https://www.newsweek.com/resurfaced-clip-amy-coney-barrett-says-it-wouldve-been-inappropriate-obama-nominate-scotus-1533913

If she's an honorable women, I'd expect her to decline the nomination based of off her past belief, statements, and approval of Obama being robbed of a SCOTUS seat in broad daylight.

If not, then she lacks the character and credibility needed to hold a position at the highest court of our land.

Agree? Or is character just not all that important anymore.

(09-28-2020, 05:49 PM)jj22 Wrote: Right, when you steal a SCOTUS seat and get busted for hypocrisy knowing you won't be held accountable by your base (those defenders and those nondefendersupportervoterdefenders) you might as well go all in.

(09-28-2020, 05:53 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Are people not allowed to change their minds or opinions on specific topics? So you're fine if I bring up old Joe Biden quotes and point out his segregationist past?

(09-28-2020, 05:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You never showed me where Coney Barrett said Obama should nominate in his last year. Do you want to retract, show, or just leave the accusation out there. You know, Liberal decency and all.

I do agree that Biden is hypocritical in this as opposed to 2016, but I'm sure the decent Liberals will hold him accountable. Because they're just better all around people. 

(09-28-2020, 05:56 PM)jj22 Wrote: I don't get the lame Trump nonsupporterdefendersvotersdefenderssupporters argument in 2016 trying to turn it around on Dems. Democrats have all acknowledge they were fine with the POTUS nominating someone for SCOTUS in an election year (especially 10 months ahead of election) but Republican's changed the rules and now we should abide by them. Or at least those who changed them should. That's not a good argument as Democrats have already responded and 78% of Americans agree.

I've already sent the link and there are plenty discussions on her flip flop.

(09-28-2020, 05:56 PM)jj22 Wrote: I don't get the lame Trump nonsupporterdefendersvotersdefenderssupporters argument in 2016 trying to turn it around on Dems. Democrats have all acknowledge they were fine with the POTUS nominating someone for SCOTUS in an election year (especially 10 months ahead of election) but Republican's changed the rules and now we should abide by them. Or at least those who changed them should. That's not a good argument as Democrats have already responded and 78% of Americans agree.

I've already sent the link and there are plenty discussions on her flip flop.

(09-28-2020, 06:00 PM)jj22 Wrote: Yes, I'm fine debating anything Politics related. Just come spinless.

(09-28-2020, 06:09 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Why are you allowed to spin but not me?

(09-28-2020, 06:09 PM)PhilHos Wrote: 2) Calling people things like "nonsupporterdefendersvotersdefenderssupporters" is, in my non-moderator opinion, a violation of the CoC because it's a personal attack, name calling, and calling people liars. I'm not a moderator and I'm not going to report you for something that may only be just my opinion, but I'd suggest not doing it. 

(09-28-2020, 06:17 PM)jj22 Wrote: I speak the truth. Always have. As an Independent I'm afforded that freedom.

(09-28-2020, 06:17 PM)jj22 Wrote: You think attacking those who felt the POTUS should be able to get their SCOTUS pick voted on and argued it until they lost the argument and now say the standard is set is the same as those who argued against it now being doing it?

(09-28-2020, 06:22 PM)jj22 Wrote: A personal attack? I'm speaking of a specific group of people who have no affiliation and claim to not be pro Trump but.... well I can't say defend him because they claim that's not true, can't say the support him because they claim that isn't true, can't say vote for him because they claim that isn't true...…  

Find a better name for this new political group and I'll call them that. But I'd like to speak directly to them, and not misrepresent them in a way that isn't insulting to them by associating and mistaking them with/for Trump voters.

A personal attack would be me calling you specifically hateful in a post directed to you personally. But I wouldn't report that because I have thick skin. Thin skinned egomaniac isn't apart of my character, one of the reasons Trump doesn't represent my values.