The 2020 Presidential Race

[dbroncos78087]

Im honestly starting to think that you're Nancy's PSD account.

How do you find those tactics appropriate? Creating situations where there are long waiting lines, limiting the places people can drop off their ballots, and (which I didn't mention last time) doing voter roll purges where they get it wrong 20% of the time.

[dbroncsinmo]

How do you find those tactics appropriate? Creating situations where there are long waiting lines, limiting the places people can drop off their ballots, and (which I didn't mention last time) doing voter roll purges where they get it wrong 20% of the time.

It happens every ****ing election dude regardless of candidate. You just like to jump in here and pretend that it's the first of its kind.

[ewing]

It happens every ****ing election dude regardless of candidate. You just like to jump in here and pretend that it's the first of its kind.

happening before makes it ok?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dbroncsinmo]

happening before makes it ok?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't think he was whining about that.

[valade16]

I would hope everyone would agree that counties with hundreds of thousands of people should have more than a single polling location.

[browski234]

I would hope everyone would agree that counties with hundreds of thousands of people should have more than a single polling location.

Not everyone does, though. The GOP has said multiple times they favor voter oppression and manipulating minority voters to low turn out. It’s literally a strategy they endorse lol

Which says a lot about the people who continue to support them.

[joeyc77]

I'm glad you have this sentiment. But you're asking Democrats to stand by and do nothing while the Republicans enjoy the advantage of doing something wrong twice. Awfully convenient that the cycle needs to be broken after Republicans get what they want.

Why couldn't we break the cycle after Democrats expand the SC?

Expanding the court is different than nominating an SC judge. It’s like losing in a football game because the other team played dirty so during the game, you change the rules to add additional time to the game. What the Republicans did was dirty. Similarly, the democrats have acted dirty in their treatment of Trump and his SC noms. I expect both sides to act dirty within the game. I don’t expect either side to change the game. Stacking the courts is too far. If it happens, so be it. You just can’t complain when the pendulum swings back.

[nastynice]

Expanding the court is different than nominating an SC judge. It’s like losing in a football game because the other team played dirty so during the game, you change the rules to add additional time to the game. What the Republicans did was dirty. Similarly, the democrats have acted dirty in their treatment of Trump and his SC noms. I expect both sides to act dirty within the game. I don’t expect either side to change the game. Stacking the courts is too far. If it happens, so be it. You just can’t complain when the pendulum swings back.

Why is packing the courts too far?

Why isn't denying a sitting presidents (obama) nominee not too far?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[joeyc77]

Why is packing the courts too far?

Why isn't denying a sitting presidents (obama) nominee not too far?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

In the 2004, NFC championship game, a panthers player went offsides and had a free hit at eagles QB Donavon McNabb. The player hit mcnabb injuring him for the rest of the game. The Panthers went to the SB because of a cheap hit. The player didn’t have to hit mcnabb but as Eagles fans, we had to live with it. If during that game, the Eagles passed a rule that stated FGs are worth 20 points instead of 3, would that be too far?

I could literally give dozens of these types of examples. One is a “cheap hit.” Denying Obama his right to name a SC nominee was a cheap hit. Stacking the court is changing the game to fit your needs. Personally, I don’t care because the SC doesn’t matter to me. But remember, these things tend to run in cycles and eventually, the Republicans, will have the senate, congress and president. Will you be ok when they act as fascists too?

[ewing]

In the 2004, NFC championship game, a panthers player went offsides and had a free hit at eagles QB Donavon McNabb. The player hit mcnabb injuring him for the rest of the game. The Panthers went to the SB because of a cheap hit. The player didn’t have to hit mcnabb but as Eagles fans, we had to live with it. If during that game, the Eagles passed a rule that stated FGs are worth 20 points instead of 3, would that be too far?

I could literally give dozens of these types of examples. One is a “cheap hit.” Denying Obama his right to name a SC nominee was a cheap hit. Stacking the court is changing the game to fit your needs. Personally, I don’t care because the SC doesn’t matter to me. But remember, these things tend to run in cycles and eventually, the Republicans, will have the senate, congress and president. Will you be ok when they act as fascists too?

Unsurprisingly you don’t know what fascists mean

Why doesn’t Trump just dominate Merrick Garland? Would you be happy if he did?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ewing]

Don't think he was whining about that.

He whining about it happening now. Why does it matter if it happened before?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Walter_White]

Wouldn't be too sure about that.

These are heavily black urban areas in Atlanta. LOL. You guys are so deluded.

[Walter_White]

It happens every ****ing election dude regardless of candidate. You just like to jump in here and pretend that it's the first of its kind.

Yeah they happen every election HERE, in the U.S., in competitive states controlled by Republicans, and it is intentional. Other 1st world countries, you’re in and out of the polling booth in 20 minutes. American democracy is a joke.

[brett05]

Neither. I'm using your own logic against you. Look we all know the reason Republicans blocked Obama's SC nominee was because they could. We all know the reason they are pushing through Amy now is because they can. And if the Democrats expand the court they will do it because they can.

So... what's the difference? Both sides are doing it simply because they can.

Doing an action because you can DOES NOT change word meanings. Increasing the seats is court packing.

[brett05]

Cool. I don’t care what it’s called. I call it turn about is fair play.

Your TDS is so deep. At least you admit it even if you are unaware that you are.