Don't forget, "there is a special place in hell, for women that don't vote for hrc"
The party of PhDs?
- Thread starter WATU2
- Start date
All those highly intelligent Democrats drank the cool aid; accepting all the misinformation and lies bho told about obamacare.
So I will be responsible for both major parties nominating terrible human beings, resulting in one becoming president, despite the fact that I voted for neither of them in the primaries or the general election?
WATU who is the strong advocate on no argumentum ad hominem first labels me a denier, then holds Redskin in need of absolution for the horrible candidates for president. Meanwhile, Eastcane accuses Junkie of being a Republican and WATU likes the post.
Are we going to conduct our posts on the basis of facts and principles or are we going to make accusations about other posters? We can't have it one way for one side and another way for the other.
Are we going to conduct our posts on the basis of facts and principles or are we going to make accusations about other posters? We can't have it one way for one side and another way for the other.
I'm not really sure who will be worse. Hillary certainly has a smaller standard deviation of terrible. You pretty much know what you're getting(and it's bad). With Trump it's a wide range. There's a small possibility he'll delegate a lot and won't be terrible. However, he's also unstable and ignorant of virtually every aspect of the job so there's also the possibility that he'll do damage far beyond what Clinton would do. Either way, it's not my fault both parties nominated someone I'd be embarrassed to vote for.
The fact that either one of them would be the best option is utterly ridiculous.
My hope is Hillary gets in: she garners the first sign post of being a female president, doesn't do a whole bunch of irreparable damage,(other than upsetting the balance of the Supreme Court, which is unavoidable) and Kasich defeats her bid for a second term off of the rep he started building in the latter stages of the primaries in this election.
(Oh and one more thing, that I never have to see Trumps face again, which probably won't happen. Lord don't fail me now!)
Republicans could restore respect for the Senate and the Supreme Court by interviewing and voting on Obama's Supreme Court nominee who would muster enough votes easily. But that would make way too much sense. HRC will nominate someone much less "balanced".
Sometimes WATU gets one right! After Trump crashes and burns were not going to get a better deal .
Last edited:
Exactly. So why was the guy Obama chose a bad deal when by all standards he was rather moderate. If Hillary wins, the Republicans will probably wish they could get Obama's nominee back.
Respect for the Supreme Court will be diminished for some time. Doesn't matter who gets nominated, people no longer respect its authority.
Recent comments by former sc justice
Gins berg that we should revisit the second amendment as written by the authors.
Should also include the 14th, because it is totally misused today, from its original intent.
Gins berg that we should revisit the second amendment as written by the authors.
Should also include the 14th, because it is totally misused today, from its original intent.
More than rather moderate. He was lauded by Ted Cruz during his appointment to the DC Court and was approved without dissent by the Senate. Having someone other than a predictable vote on the court would restore public confidence in the court.
