I have, too - he’s incredibly bright and an enormous history buff.
Sure, I give plenty of credit, even to those who disagree with me.
Well, he was a good guy to copy and I miss reading his posts. He could have fun while still staying on topic and not getting nasty…unlike the rest of us.
He and I had a chat about Romney picking Rubio as VP in 2012. We both agreed that if he didn’t pick Rubio that he would lose. But, looking back I’m not sure he would have won even if he did pick Rubio. Romney ran a horrible campaign.
Back to the Garland issue, where did you get your information regarding his ruling on the case you sited?
Do me a favor, sit down and actually think about the ramifications to the House and Senate if Trump is elected. Think about what will happen if Clinton inherits a recession after incredibly slow growth under Obama. Think about how many times a party has maintained the White House for 16 years.
If Trump is elected you might get 4-8 years, but probably 4, and you lose the Senate and maybe the house, IMO. Then you will get Elizabeth Warren with at least one, but probably both houses.
If Clinton gets’s elected you get 4 years, with a Republican Majority in both house. They, IMO, retain control of both gridlock her for her entire term. Even if she’s healthy enough I seriously doubt such a weak candidate retains the White House.
They shouldn’t because I’ve been explicit. I do not support Hillary Clinton.
No, because there were 16 (or so) other GOP choices until very recently and anyone one of them could have been the nominee and I would have more than likely voted for anyone of them over Hillary. So now I’m voting 3rd party over Hillary and the GOP.
1 Like
how do you know there will continue to be a republican majority?
I understand and never questioned the fact that you would vote third party. Nor, do I question the fact that you would have supported any one of the other 16 republicans. But all I see is you bashing Trump and all that does is help Hillary who in my opinion would be worse than Trump.
From reading the opinion itself.
1 Like
Let’s hear it. Time’s wasting.
What exactly do you want to hear I am not going to take the time to read that decision. Suffice it to say that Garland is not pro gun I even think that you admitted that yourself. What’s the debate about? That he is not really, really horrible? Does that even matter? A vote is a vote whether he really means it and writes a 50 page brief, or he just tips that way.
Nope. You said it was clear - he had four decisions, and he officially got them “wrong” and took “anti-gun” positions. Your words.
Now back those words up - I can quote you in the event you conveniently forgot them - or concede you were peddling misinformation in using those words.
Let’s hear it.
Here you go. Let’s hear it. Or concede.
Here’s another. Let’s go. Time’s wasting.
It is clear he got it wrong four times if I am wrong about that I’m in pretty good company. But to the larger point Garland is no conservative and would be horrible not just on gun rights but on other issues as well. For you to even think that Garland is anywhere near conservative is just nutty. Obama picked him for a reason.
Well where’s the response time’s wasting.
(Not really I don’t have a lot to do for at least 30 minutes)
How so? How did he get it wrong in the case I discussed above? You keep saying he did - well, what’s your reason for repeating this claim?
Here’s another one for you if you care to read it
Now you should like the National Review they, like you, hate Donald Trump.
Merrick Garland is NOT a conservative. And was picked by Obama for a reason. Was it to support the 2nd amendment, or to tear it down?
You be the Judge.
Well did you read it my gosh I only have another 23 minutes.
(You made it fashionable to time shame)
Now I only have 22 minutes