Just cheery picked data that ignores all the bonehead mistakes and lies Obama has made and said...

I could do the EXACT same thing with Trump if I thought it had any real meaning...

Michale

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

JL

The problem with that theory is what you call Obama "successes" are actually rank failures..

TrainWreckCare is a perfect example...

Michale

Do I have to break out your Michael Jordan quote again!?? :D

Michale

:D

Michale

you mean like trump airlines, trump vodka, trump steaks, trump university, trump mortgage, trump's first two bankruptcies, trump's first two marriages, trump the board game, trump casinos (bankruptcy #3), trump magazine, gotrump (got rump?) dot com, trumpnet, trump tower tampa, trump bottled water, trump cologne, trump menswear, trump mattresses...

and that's just the short list. comparatively speaking, obama's batting average for success is practically stratospheric.

JL

Trump has the advantage of actually being SUCCESSFUL at creating businesses and such that actually put people to work and such...

At this stage in the 2008 election, Obama hadn't done diddley squat..

And it shows...

I know you won't agree, but there it is...

and could wax lyrical on them with anyone, at anytime.

Yea, Obama could spin a good yarn, that much is true..

But when it comes to putting his ideas into practice??

He completely and unequivocally failed...

Michale

Trump? Well, not even in the same league.

I respect your opinion but must point out that, at this stage of the game in 2008, Obama was a similar "know nothing"...

We all know how THAT worked out.. :D

Michale

Not so... Policy wise, Trump is as much Democrat as he is Republican...

That's the part ya'all overlook...

Trump is a political agnostics' wet dream... :D

Michale

Here is what post #181 should look like ...

Careful, Michale ... your true colours are showing. Keep that up and we'll have to start putting a big ole 'R' after your name! :)

...well, without the bold face. Heh.

Careful, Michale ... you're true political colours are showing. Keep that up and we'll have to start putting a big ole 'R' after your name! :)

Now, if I can just get Trump to agree to release all classified information on UFOs and ETs, he would be a dream come true for me!! :D

Michale

That and Trump promises to prosecute Clinton if Lynch shirks her duty... :D

I am also constrained to point out that Obama ran the same sort of campaign, stirred the same sorts of feelings by scapegoating people and had the same sort of passion in his supporters that Trump has in his..

Ya'all have had your chance with a noob with no practical political experience...

Now, it's our turn.. :D

Michale

Is that why you support Trump?

Why is it that we are hearing a LOT about fed-up Democrats moving to Trump, but not so much fed-up Republicans moving to Bernie??

There is a reason for that...

Michale

Perish the thought.. :D

But I DO speak for the vast majority of Americans when I say that we are all sick and tired of Political Correctness and sick and tired of leaders who look to their own agenda first and to hell with the American people..

We're mad as hell and we ain't gonna take it anymore! :D

Michale

I am bigoted against terrorists, child molesters and politicians.. Just as the vast majority of Americans are...

And I am proud of that bigotry..

Michale

In other words, you'll like them just fine as long as they toe YOUR line.. :D

Let me put it in a different context..

"I'll like gay people just fine as long as they start having sex with the opposite sex, as god intended"
-Joe Redneck

Bigoted or not??

Michale

thank you for encouraging us to familiarize ourselves with biden's record; i'm really starting to understand why you like the guy so much.

Thanks, I really appreciate that.

Truth be known, the reason I started commenting on blogs (Bill Maher's old blog site, HuffPost, and CW.com) at all is because I wanted to do just that when Biden began his final presidential run circa 2005 - let people know who the real Biden really was and not the media-created caricature of him.

During his Senate years, when I needed to know more about a foreign policy issue, the first place I would go would be to one of his speeches on the subject and/or one of his full Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings, including testimony and Q&A.

If more people had been familiar with Biden's vast and informative record by the time of the 2008 Iowa caucuses, I think he would have garnered a higher share of the vote than less than one percent. Sigh.

also not true. find me a republican who supports abortion rights, progressive taxation and the right to unionize, and we'll line up right behind them.

JL

And you believe him...

Because he is a Democrat and is in keeping with his (and your) agenda...

your continued insistence that it was his intention

He's a politician.. That right there loses him nearly every ounce of credibility..

We all have our bigotries...

I am bigoted against ALL politicians..

Ya'all are just bigoted against Republicans...

And so it goes and so it goes...

Michale

yes, that was the theme of the entire speech. it really was a brilliant bit of oratory from a great statesman. thank you for encouraging us to familiarize ourselves with biden's record; i'm really starting to understand why you like the guy so much.

@michale,

liz and i have read the entire speech, understand the overall meaning, and are able to put the paragraph in a more accurate context, i.e. the whole speech is about trying to make the confirmation process less political.

have you read the entire speech yet? because every time you repeat the same inaccurate talking point about biden, it will continue to be inaccurate. as you said yourself, you cherry-picked only a small piece of biden's speech and inferred an intent to put off any potential nomination to the next president, based solely on that.

I always do.. With or without your permission. :D

this i well know. notwithstanding biden's categorical denial of such an intention at the time, your continued insistence that it was his intention

- and therefore that mcconnell and grassley are fully entitled to attempt what biden specifically said he wouldn't -

is tiresome but fully expected.

JL

wonderful, now you know how the rest of us feel about you.

but feel free to continue.

I always do.. With or without your permission. :D

Liz,

No one here has ever said anything remotely like that. Well, except for you ... hmmmm ...

Ya'all say it every time you give the Democrats a pass for the same actions you castigate the Republicans for...

Actually, Biden thought no such thing, as he made amply clear in his speech on the Senate floor.

Once again, you take a Democrats word at face value. Would you do the same with a Republican? Of course not.. Hence the claim that ya'all think Democrats are pure at heart and Republicans are evil incarnate..

Biden SAID that in his speech. You don't know what he actually thought...

But it's a funny coincidence that the speech happened RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME there was a rumor floating around that a Justice was about to retire...

Funny coincidence, eh?? :D

Michale

But the simple fact is, had there been an opening in 1992 as Biden thought ...

Actually, Biden thought no such thing, as he made amply clear in his speech on the Senate floor.

Biden was making a kind of proactive speech in advocating for a less politicized confirmation process going forward.

Yes.. Democrats are as pure as the driven snow..
Republicans are evil incarnate.

Why do you always resort to this silliness whenever anyone says that there are fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats, particularly from a policy perspective?

No one here has ever said anything remotely like that. Well, except for you ... hmmmm ...

wonderful, now you know how the rest of us feel about you.

but feel free to continue.

About as clear as "If you like your healthcare plan, you can KEEP your healthcare plan."

Biden is JUST as clear when he said this:

As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

That's pretty clear too, JL...

you're still wrong about biden, still ignoring that fact, rinsing and repeating ad nauseum,

Yea, you keep saying that. But your rinsing and repeating ad nauseum simply does not make it so... :D

I get it, I really do.. Democrats can do no wrong. Everything they do is pure and good.. I get it..

"I GET IT!! I get the concept.."
-Hades HERCULES

:D

But the simple fact is, had there been an opening in 1992 as Biden thought, then the Democrats would be acting EXACTLY like the Republicans are acting now...

You can deny it all you like.. But you know and I know and everyone here knows that it would be true..

Because, when it comes down to it, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both will push their agenda to the exclusion of ALL else..

Anyone who says different is just displaying rank bigotry...

Michale

how much clearer could biden have been than "that would not be our intention"

that's not spin, it's just what was said by the same man in the same segment of the same speech, specifically about trying to delay a nominee until the next president takes office, which is mcconnell's and grassley's explicit goal. mcconnell and grassley say they want to delay the nomination until the next president takes office, biden said he didn't.

you're still wrong about biden, still ignoring that fact, rinsing and repeating ad nauseum, but feel free to continue.

JL

Yea, sure he did.. Garland supports gutting the 2nd Amendment..

On what PLANET, in what GALAXY would that be amenable to Republicans??

Because it sure as hell ain't on THIS planet, in THIS galaxy... :D

Michale

Text book definition of bigotry....

Michale

Well, the record shows that that is essentially what President Obama did.

Of course that's what he did.. :^/

A more accurate statement would be that some people choose to believe that there are no fundamental differences between the Democrats and Republicans when, indeed, there are, particularly from a policy perspective.

Yes.. Democrats are as pure as the driven snow..

Republicans are evil incarnate.

I get it. I know that's what ya'all think..

But the reality is vastly difference...

Michale

liz and i have neither hidden, ignored nor obscured the paragraph you repeatedly quote. we have clarified its true meaning by adding additional true evidence and context

No.. You have spun the "true meaning" to fit your partisan agenda...

There's the difference..

you are correct that the strategy you have used is called cherry picking, but you're the only one who's been doing it. everybody else has added additional true information, while you have not.

Like I said, I am the only one being honest about using it.

other than correctly naming (although repeatedly misspelling) your own practice of cherry-picking data,

I wasn't misspelling it. I simply am happy because the excerpts I am posting prove my case beyond any doubt.. :D

Michale

the difference between cherry-picking (or other logical fallacies of incomplete evidence) and making a valid logical argument is that the former hides or ignores evidence to the contrary, while the latter acknowledges it.

liz and i have neither hidden, ignored nor obscured the paragraph you repeatedly quote. we have clarified its true meaning by adding additional true evidence and context, not hiding, failing to acknowledge or otherwise subtracting from the body of fact.

you are correct that the strategy you have used is called cherry picking, but you're the only one who's been doing it. everybody else has added additional true information, while you have not.

other than correctly naming (although repeatedly misspelling) your own practice of cherry-picking data, you've proven yourself wrong, ignored it, rinsed and repeated.
But feel free to continue.

JL

Fundamentally, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans..

A more accurate statement would be that some people choose to believe that there are no fundamental differences between the Democrats and Republicans when, indeed, there are, particularly from a policy perspective.

Well, the record shows that that is essentially what President Obama did. Not sure what refreshments were served. In any event, he chose a nominee that he knew would be amenable to Republicans. Senator Orrin Hatch even suggested that Obama should nominate Garland and then speculated that Obama would never do that!

President Obama chose compromise and consultation and moderation - some might even say, to a fault.

And, yet, Republicans still choose to obstruct.

Ya see, this is the fact that NONE of ya'all can grasp...

Fundamentally, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans..

They both utilize the same methods to achieve the same goals..

But ya'all are stuck in this fantasy world where you believe that Democrats are good and true and Republicans are the Devil's spawn...

As such, it's no different than religion...

And then there are the agnostics like me... The ones who KNOW that BOTH Partys are frak'ed up beyond recognition...

Michale

Ya'all ARE doing the same...

Yes, ya'all have claimed to have read the whole thing..

But ALL your comments cheery pick just the parts that support your agenda..

Have you quoted any parts that DON'T support your agenda?? Of course not.. Why should you??

But the fact is ya'all are doing the EXACT same thing that I am doing..

Ya'all just can't admit it..

Which clearly shows who is the honest one here and who is not..

Michale

Which is what I am doing.

given that cherry-picking selected bits and pieces is your professed manner of supporting your assertions, it's understandable that you might believe others must be doing the same, and that claims to the contrary are dishonest.

however, in this case your belief is mistaken. liz and i have read the entire, outstanding document and know what it means, both in terms of the clarence thomas nomination and the political climate on june 25, 1992. perhaps you don't know or care what then senator biden was talking about, only whether or not it supports your false conclusion. perhaps not, but either way, if you can't be bothered to scroll up and click, that's on you.

in this case you've proven yourself wrong, ignored it, rinsed and repeated.
But feel free to continue.

I think that President Obama and the Senate should sit down and hash out the best choice over beers..

How it WILL be handled??

Obama pushes his agenda, Democrats push their agenda and Republicans push their agenda.. And everyone demonizes the other..

And so it goes and so it goes...

Michale

How do you think the sudden vacancy of the Supreme Court should be handled ... by President Obama and by the Senate?

If you want to address something I have said, then yer going to have to quote it..

Michale

Political promises are like political lies..

We've seen how Democrats keep their promises..

you keep being proven wrong, ignore it, rinse and repeat.

No, you keep THINKING I am being proven wrong, but it's nothing more than cheery picking Biden excerpts to make your case..

Which is what I am doing.

The only difference between ya'all and me is that I am honest about what I am doing...

Come ta think of it, that's the difference between us a LOT of times.. :D

Michale

agree completely. biden's speech in its entirety was a brilliant and principled stand on cooperation and moderation in nomination battles.

@paula,

as you say, they got nothing, so they're manufacturing what they can. "A for effort," and at least the equal of most twelve year-olds.

@gt,

good luck on that. as trump himself said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," and michale seems to be of that bent regarding all his positions.

@michale,

RE: [137] see [142:2-4]
RE: [138] not what i wrote.

biden uses the words "consult" or "consultation" 5 times, and "moderates his selections/choices" twice, and he promises his support on either condition, not "free and clear."

RE: [147] zero implication of refusing to vote or hold hearings. key word is "reject" which is a category of vote [142:4]. Also explicit denial that a delay from june to november would be used to give the nominee to the next president [142:2].

JL

also see: [136]
you keep being proven wrong, ignore it, rinse and repeat.
But feel free to continue.

Put another way, if the President does not restore the historical tradition of genuine consultation between the White House and the Senate on the Supreme Court
nomination, or instead restore the common practice of Presidents who chose nominees who strode the middle ground between the divided political branches, then I shall oppose his future nominees immediately upon their nomination.

This is not a request that the President relinquish any power to the Senate, or that he refrain from exercising any prerogatives he has as President. Rather, it is my statement that unless the President chooses to do so, I will not lend the power that I have in this process to support the confirmation of his selection.

To take a common example, the President is free to submit to Congress any budget that he so chooses. He can submit one that reflects his conservative philosophy or one that straddles the differences between his views and ours. That is his choice. But when the President has taken the former course, no one has been surprised or outraged when Democrats like myself have responded by rejecting the President's budget outright.

So, basically, what Biden is saying is that, if the President won't choose a nominee that is acceptable to Democrats, then Biden will refuse to process the nominee...

Oookaayy.. While not exactly analogous to the current situation, it really boils down to the same thing...

Democrats using the rules of the Senate to push their own agenda..

Which is EXACTLY what Republicans are doing in the here and now..

Thank you. You proved my point for me...

Michale

These are the facts of the case.. And they are undisputed.

Michale

So, ya'all cheery pick your Biden quotes to "prove" your case..

And I cheery pick Biden quotes to prove my case.

And, somehow, YA'LL are right and I am wrong??

How does that work, exactly?? :D

Gotcha... heh

Like I said above. It doesn't matter what you or I think..

The Republicans are not going to process Obama's nomination until after the election. THIS IS FACT...

As an aside, comment #137 was ignored.. Gee.. I wonder why?? :D

Michale

Of course, I knew that all along ... :)

MY position comes from Bidens EXACT words..

So... one of three things is going on here.

A) You still have not read the entire speech, but have simply click bated your research on it to appear as if you had.

B) You are under the impression that somehow the congressional record has been falsified and we are not using Biden's EXACT words when questioning the justification of the so called "Biden Rule". (which under your dear leader McConnell doctrine makes the existence of said rule impossible, we have done the research!)

C) You think we are lying, or mistaken in how the english language is applied and we are all using an alternative left wing pokery jiggery secret dictionary.

Personally option C is a little far fetched even for you....maybe. Now, lets pick up some highlights here.

Those are BIDEN's OWN WORDS...
But USE words *FROM* 1992 to make that case..
Comment 86

But you simply can't escape Biden's own words...
It's really THAT simple...
comment 113

EXACT words... No spin required...
MY position comes from Bidens EXACT words..
comment 134

All I have to do is use Biden's EXACT words to refute the spin...
comment 135

We can go round and round and it STILL won't change Biden's EXACT words..
comment 138

Soooooo... glad to see we agree on something REPEATEDLY. Exact words are good.So now AGAIN for some EXACT words from Biden in the same speech as copied from the document YOU posted from the GRASSLEY senate website..... Again, EXACT words...

Put another way, if the President does not restore the historical tradition of genuine consultation between the White House and the Senate on the Supreme Court
nomination, or instead restore the common practice of Presidents who chose nominees who strode the middle ground between the divided political branches, then I shall oppose his future nominees immediately upon their nomination.
This is not a request that the President relinquish any power to the Senate, or that he refrain from exercising any prerogatives he has as President. Rather, it is my statement that unless the President chooses to do so, I will not lend the power that I have in this process to support the confirmation of his selection.

As I noted before, the practice of many Presidents throughout our history supports my call for more Executive-Senate consultations. More fundamentally, the text of the Constitution itself, its use of the phrase `advice and consent' to describe the Senate's role in appointments demands greater inclusion of our views in this process. While this
position may seem contentious, I believe it is nothing more than a justified response to the politicizing of the nomination process.
To take a common example, the President is free to submit to Congress any budget that he so chooses. He can submit one that reflects his conservative philosophy or one that straddles the differences between his views and ours. That is his choice. But when the President has taken the former course, no one has been surprised or outraged when Democrats like myself have responded by rejecting the President's budget outright.

What was it you said?.....

We can go round and round and it STILL won't change Biden's EXACT words..

The debate is over!! :D

Could not have said it better myself....Glad to see you agree.

EXACT words... No spin required... wonderful thing...

1.

"I will say the same thing to Bill Clinton: In a divided Government, he must seek the advice of the Republican Senate and compromise. Otherwise, this Republican Senate would be totally entitled to say we reject the nominees of a Democratic President who is attempting to remake the Court in a way with which we disagree."

So since when do Repubs do what Dems supposedly-but-not-actually recommend? Since when do they do something because Joe Biden supposedly-but-not-actually recommended it? Since when do they need to use Dem approval for anything? They are using this fake-argument because they got nothin. Nothing. They know it's bullshit, but figure they can fool their water-carriers by proclaiming "the Dems said so!" 20 years ago. Not because it's a real support for their utter stonewalling, but because it's as good a fake tit for tat as any other juvenile tit for tat in their toolbox.

A bunch of seven-year-olds in suits.

Really!???

Biden said he would vote to approve ANYONE that Bush nominated free and clear???

Now I *KNOW* yer full of carp! :D

We can go round and round and it STILL won't change Biden's EXACT words..

Biden said it, I believe it, that settles it..

The debate is over!! :D

Annoying that is, iddn't it... :D

Michale

The imputes for Biden's speech on these Judiciary Rules was the rumor that SCOTUS Justice would soon be retiring..

So, what we have is a contentious Presidential Election and let's postulate that a SCOTUS Justice *DID* in fact, retire..

Now, are ya'all telling me that, after making a 90 minute speech on why it's perfectly logical and rational to ignore a nominee during a Presidential Election, Senate Judiciary Chairman Biden would turn to Bush and say:

"Why yes, Mr President. Go ahead and make your nominee.. We will process him or her with all the haste we can muster.. What?? No, we don't care that YOU get to choose the next SCOTUS Justice. Huh?? Oh, of course, we would prefer President CLINTON would choose HIS nominee, but the opportunity has come up in YOUR last year of office, so we'll be happy to process YOUR choice with haste and aplomb, with a song in our hearts and a smile on our lips... Please. Choose your nominee. We insist!!"

If ya'all REALLY believe that's how it would have gone done, then I have some REALLY awesome swampland in FL I wanna sell ya!

Of course, the reality is that, had there been an opening in the SCOTUS as was rumored in 1992, then the Democrat Senate would be doing EXACTLY as the Republican Senate is doing now...

Don't bother trying to deny it.. You can't...

Michale

Biden explicitly says he will NOT prevent hearings on a potential nominee by Bush, and will vote yes on Bush's nominee if the Senate is consulted, but that he advises it should happen after the first week of November, since it was already the last week of June. That's not spin, it's in the speech. There is no debate, you keep being proven wrong, ignore it, rinse and repeat.
But feel free to continue.

Ya'all have to "interpret" (ie spin) what Biden has said to fit the current political agenda/climate...

All I have to do is use Biden's EXACT words to refute the spin...

Credit where credit is due, however. Ya'all are making a valiant effort.. :D

Michale

No.. In the here and now, right at this moment.. It's a FACT...

that's not a fact, it's a prediction. if accurate, it doesn't bode well for republican senate hopes, which are already in deep trouble with a trump nomination.

yea, yea, yea.. Ya'all said the same thing about something or another during the 2014 Senate races...

"OOoooO!!!! Republicans gonna PAY!!!!!"

as liz and i demonstrated factually and you've already apparently forgotten, the "biden rule" if one existed, would be that SCOTUS openings during the second half of an election year be nominated and confirmed during the lame duck session.

That's ya'alls spin on the Biden Rule..

MY position comes from Bidens EXACT words..

As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

EXACT words... No spin required...

Michale

The GOP is using the Senate rules to push their agenda..

Just like Democrats used the Senate rules to push THEIR agenda when THEY had control..

Ya'all cheer on the Democrats when THEY do it and denigrate and castigate the Republicans when THEY do it..

Hoo-hum, same ol same ol...

Michale

As of right now, the GOP is not going to process the nominee... And their justification for it is the Biden Rule...

that's not a fact, it's a prediction. if accurate, it doesn't bode well for republican senate hopes, which are already in deep trouble with a trump nomination.

as liz and i demonstrated factually and you've already apparently forgotten, the "biden rule" if one existed, would be that SCOTUS openings during the second half of an election year be nominated and confirmed during the lame duck session.

JL

Yer welcome..

.most people I have discussions with just come out say what they are thinking vs trying to drag me into some other battle I have no part of...

Apparently, my point was clear enough.. :D

But I'll give you this.. You are partially correct..

The polls you cherry pick show what you claim..

Other polls show something different..

That's the danger of relying on polls to make your point. I have always said and this bears it out..

Polls show the biases of the poll TAKERS... And that's about it..

We can argue what the definition of 'is' until the cows come home...

But. regardless of all your polls, regardless of all your "facts"....

One FACT stands out above all else..

As of right now, the GOP is not going to process the nominee... And their justification for it is the Biden Rule...

"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed"

Michale

Now, GT... I am not going to accuse you of LYING.. Mainly because I said we would get away from false accusations of lying..

Thanks, Err... I think....most people I have discussions with just come out say what they are thinking vs trying to drag me into some other battle I have no part of...

But you must admit. Your claim of "FACT" is completely and unequivocally WRONG...

Unfortuntely, for you is is an actual and honest fact...let us look into some other polls, shall we ?

Monmouth University, should 69% should not 25%

CNN/ORC Should 64%, Should not 31%

ABC/ WP should 63%, should not 32%

Those three alone average out to around 64 percent. Now if your quibble is about the overall numbers go ahead and cherry pick all you want but overwhelmingly it is fact that the american populace want congress to do as I am asserting and fulfill their constitutional responsibilities by holding hearings and either consenting or not.

Let's keep looking at my "incorrect" fact, shall we?

In the latest iteration of the CBS poll, you are sighting. The numbers have become should 53% should not 42% and for the NBC poll should 48% should not 37%. I think I will go with numbers from March vs the February numbers you are presenting.

To further support my assertion that the American public wants to see the Senate perform their job lets look at some other questions asked.....

Bloomberg politics poll asked Turning now to some judicial issues, President Obama has nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to the Supreme Court to fill the current vacancy. Do you think Republicans in the U.S. Senate are right or wrong to refuse to hold confirmation hearings on any Obama nominee, no matter the person or qualifications?",

Right 27%, Wrong 62%, Unsure 11%

CBS/NYT asks, As you may know, Senate Republican leaders have said they will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court justice nominated by Barack Obama because they want to wait until the next president is in office. Do you think Senate Republican leaders are doing this mostly for political reasons or mostly because they think it is the best thing for the country?"

Political reasons 73%, It's best for the country 23% unsure 3%

or...Hows about NBC/WSJ which asks, The U.S. Constitution requires the president to nominate a candidate to fill an opening on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Senate has the responsibility to confirm or reject a nominee. Republicans who control the Senate say they will not hold confirmation hearings and have no plans to consider a nominee put forward by President Obama. Do you approve or disapprove of this decision not to consider President Obama's nominee, or do you not have an opinion one way or the other?"

approve 28% disapprove 55% and 16% no opinion, 1% unsure.

I probably need to keep going but....I gotta get on a plane and go talk to some bad people who got caught doing some bad things ....

In closing, Dude, no matter how you slice it my fact is correct, a clear majority of Americans want the senate to do their job....or in other words follow the constitution.

Before you put on your butt hurt undies and break out that tired old "will of the people only matters argument of yours"...again...consider that there are even questions that indicate no matter which party is in charge the answer is hold the frigging hearings.

Now what happens once they hold hearings is an entirely different discussion...assuming the arseholes in Washington grow up and hold the hearings

Yes, Politifact does a pretty good job giving cover to the Left Wingery..

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

, while trump leads the pack by a mile with 22. ted cruz runs a far distant second with 7, while kasich has 3 and hillary has 2.

A perfect case in point..

Michale

JL

It wasn't a Weigantian and why should that matter?? Isn't lying lying??

Are Weigantians held to a higher standard than Democrat Party leaders??

But to be fair, you (and a couple others) have been known to condemn the liars of our group. JFC for one.. A few others that are no longer with us.. So, Kudos To That, Credit Where Credit Is Due, blaa blaaa blaaa...

Having said that, GT's recent foray into "FACTS" that weren't really facts certainly could qualify. At least using the definition that you seem to go by ie MISTAKE=LIE

But irregardless of all that, when I made the claim I wasn't referring to Weigantians but rather Democrat Party (so-called) Leadership...

Now, if you want to make one standard for Democrats, another standard for Republicans, a third standard for Weigantians and a fourth sub-standard for Weigantians Who Don't Toe The Ideological Slave line, then I guess we can do that. Just make sure you issue the proper proclamations so I can follow the rules..

:D

Michale

what other weigantian has wittingly expounded multiple falsehoods recently, and what were they? show me who and when, and i'll be happy to condemn that too.

JL

OK, the fact is, I thought I had read all of the document. I guess I should have made SURE I had read it all before I made the claim..

So, mea culpa...

In my defense, I DID ask several times for the transcript so I could confirm I had read all of the document.

My bust that I didn't wait..

Sue me.. :D

MY point is still valid.. Ya'all are so quick to scream "LIE LIE!!!" but when it's one of yer own who is doing the lying, things are quite muted...

In other words, I would be more willing to accept the accusations of LYING if it wasn't applied solely and completely based on partisan ideology...

Michale....

Michale

"mistake" my left butt cheek, you're compounding one fib with another. even if you hadn't known before, which is doubtful, you knew there was a "rest of the speech" because i told you there was, and you quoted it [71]. if, even after quoting my post that told you about it, for some reason you still really didn't believe that it existed, your response wouldn't have been that you'd read it.

it's no big deal really, not as if anyone got hurt, so man up and admit that you got caught claiming to have done something you knew you hadn't.

JL

p.s. two quotes from will rogers:

-If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

-There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading.
The few who learn by observation.
The rest of them have to touch an electric fence.

GT,

FACT: Over 64 percent of the american public wants a hearing on the nominee. Please note that is not "wants the nominee confirmed".

Really?? That's a "fact"... Well, that seems strange because I found two polls that put your "fact" into question..

Would you like to see the next Supreme Court justice appointed by President Obama before the election in November or appointed by the president who will be elected in November?

Appointed by President elected in 2016: 46%
-CBS News Poll

Would you prefer the U.S. Senate vote this year on the replacement nominated by President Obama or leave the position vacant and wait to vote next year on the replacement nominated by the new president?

Leave vacant and wait: 42%
-NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll

Now, GT... I am not going to accuse you of LYING.. Mainly because I said we would get away from false accusations of lying..

But you must admit. Your claim of "FACT" is completely and unequivocally WRONG...

I won't even bother re-iterating how funny it is that the will of the people ONLY matters to ya'all when that will goes yer way...

That would be redumbnant.. :D

Michale...

Actually, that's a lie..

I was being facetious...

What you posted was not a lie, but rather you were just mistaken..

You see, *I* can tell the difference... :^/

But it's not fun, falsely being accused of lying.. Is it? :^/

Michale

Actually, that's a lie..

At the time I wrote that, you had not posted the full transcript of the speech.. So when I said I had read the rest of the speech, I didn't know at the time that there was a "rest of the speech" I hadn't read. At the time I made the statement I had thought that what I read was all there is.. It was only seeing your transcript did I realize I hadn't read the entire speech..

So, I wasn't lying.. I was simply mistaken..

You see, that's what's wrong with the Left Wingery.. Ya'all get all hysterical about "lies" that are not, in fact lies, but rather mistakes...

But, gods forbid, when a Left Winger actually and KNOWINGLY lies...

Ya'all ignore it. Completely and unequivocally ignore it..

In short, YA'ALL are the *LAST* people on the planet that want to be pointing out other people's "lies"....

fini...

Michale

Oooo nice touch.. :^/

Michale

Because it didn't work out too well for Greg Brady... :^/

Michale

granted it's a small lie, a fib if you prefer, but still a statement of fact that was knowingly, demonstrably untrue. and about liz's favorite american politician to boot. *sigh* indeed.

So nit-picking is the standard now, eh? {{{siiighhh}} indeed...

Michale

Clinton email probe enters new phase as FBI interviews loom
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

The final step before an indictment is handed down..

Interviewing the suspects...

Ya'all better get yer donations and T-shirts ready... Clinton is going down!!

And, on that hallowed day, I will celebrate with a tall cold beer... :D

Michale

[71]have you read the rest of the speech?

And anyone else has??? :D

i.e. you wrote something in [71] that you knew not to be true, then acknowledged in [99] that what you had written was in fact not true, and that you had known it was not true.

granted it's a small lie, a fib if you prefer, but still a statement of fact that was knowingly, demonstrably untrue. and about liz's favorite american politician to boot. *sigh* indeed.

JL

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/SCOTUS,%2003-24-16,%201992%20Biden%20Speech.pdf

There's a PDF of the Biden Rule... Searchable and CnP-able...

Michale

also, biden said if the president did NOT seek advice and consent of the senate, he would "reject the nominees," NOT refuse to meet or allow hearings on them.

Semantics..

Liz,

The Biden Rule: A Democratic president must seek the advice and consent of a Republican Senate and compromise.

Fine. And the compromise is that Obama name his nominee and that the Senate won't consider that nominee until after the election.

The essence of compromise..

JL,

seeing as you already lied about having read it to begin with AND presumed a conclusion a priori, my present confidence in your objectivity in the matter is not very high.

I thought we have moved past these false accusations of "lying"... {{sssiiggghhhh}}

GT,

I see you conveniently ignore the paragraph directly above the one you highlighted. We wouldn't want you to be a slave to ideological views, unlike the rest of us simple Weigantians.

You mean the paragraph where Biden says ". But when the President continues to ignore this difference and to pick nominees with views at odds with the constituents who elected me with an even larger
margin than they elected him, then his nominees are not entitled to my support in any shape or form."

You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper. :D

The president has nominated a judge that strides"the middle ground" so much so that to the point he is neither liberal or conservative enough for either political ideology.

That's an opinion, not a fact..

FACT: Over 64 percent of the american public wants a hearing on the nominee. Please note that is not "wants the nominee confirmed".

And the vast majority of Americans opposed MANY of the projects of Obama and the Democrat Party. And they were ignored.. Funny how the will of the people is ONLY important to ya'all when it goes yer way, eh?? :D

FACT: The current GOP position is in direct oposition to the constitutional precepts that they claim to cherish more than the president currently does

Another opinion, not a fact...

Ya'all can spin it all you like.. Ya'all can dissect the meaning of 'is' until the cows come home..

But you simply can't escape Biden's own words...

It's really THAT simple...

There will not be a nomination process until AFTER the election.

Get used to it..

Michale

I see you conveniently ignore the paragraph directly above the one you highlighted. We wouldn't want you to be a slave to ideological views, unlike the rest of us simple Weigantians.

As Elizabeth so aptly points out the President has followed the so called "Biden Rule" in spades. but just in case you are failing to grasp the meaning of his words...please see below from the same section of the congressional record

(as an aside M-[61] the first time we discussed the "rule" which, under your dear leaders criterion, doesn't exist, the answer should be obvious... )

Now see below...

Put another way, if the President does not restore the historical tradition of genuine consultation between the White House and the Senate on the Supreme Court nomination, or instead restore the common practice of Presidents who chose nominees who strode the middle ground between the divided political branches, then I shall oppose his future nominees immediately upon their nomination.

As I noted before, the practice of many Presidents throughout our history supports my call for more Executive-Senate consultations. More fundamentally, the text of the Constitution itself, its use of the phrase `advice and consent' to describe the Senate's role in appointments demands greater inclusion of our views in this process. While this position may seem contentious, I believe it is nothing more than a justified response to the politicizing of the nomination process.</br

FACT: The president has called the Senate Leadership to the WH to discuss the situation and the fact he was going to be nominating someone and who was on the list.

FACT: The president has nominated a judge that strides"the middle ground" so much so that to the point he is neither liberal or conservative enough for either political ideology.

FACT: The judicial nominee the president has put forward has the reputation and respect of both parties as being a balanced and fair judge (at least until he was nominated and then, boy howdy, were those comments walked back).

FACT: The constitution says "advise and consent" not "refuse to consider"...

FACT: Over 64 percent of the american public wants a hearing on the nominee. Please note that is not "wants the nominee confirmed".

FACT: The current GOP position is in direct oposition to the constitutional precepts that they claim to cherish more than the president currently does

As you are want to say....

"These are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed"

If the GOP wants to bring back the "thurmond rule" so be it, but put on the big boy pants and stand by that rule rather than taking one paragraph out of context.

Personally I side with the majority of Americans and belive that congress should do what we are paying them 170K plus to do, which is govern, they need to hold the damn hearings and if they don't like the guy they can refuse to "consent".

yeah, pretty much.

@michale,

But post the transcript and I'll show you why ya'all are wrong..

that should have read: "but post the transcript and i'll read through it to see whether y'all are right or wrong."

seeing as you already lied about having read it to begin with AND presumed a conclusion a priori, my present confidence in your objectivity in the matter is not very high.

JL

Indubitably, Michale. :)

Do you think that is what Republicans intend to do?

You actually highlighted the Biden Rule in your link above!

The Biden Rule: A Democratic president must seek the advice and consent of a Republican Senate and compromise.

Well, don't look now but, President Obama has followed the Biden Rule, in spades!

I'm afraid you are so focused on your extreme partisan agenda that you keep failing to see the forest for the trees.

You only see the words and you misunderstand the meaning and don't care a whit about context. That is a common failing of yours. It's easy enough to correct, though. But, it will entail a less partisan approach to politics and I'm not convinced that you will ever be open to that sort of discussion.

But GOOGLE DOCS won't let me COPY n PASTE, so I have to use a JPG...

http://sjfm.us/temp/biden1.jpg

What this says is that AFTER Bush is re-elected (or if Clinton is elected) then.. AND ONLY THEN will Biden give his consent for the normal Senate processing process to proceed...

So, yes.. Bide IS saying what Liz quoted above...

But he is saying that that SHOULD occur ONLY after Bush has been re-elected or Clinton has been elected..

Im other words, Biden is explicitly stating exactly what the Republicans are saying now..

Wait til AFTER the election for the process to move forward...

Sorry, peo.... Weigantians...

Yer wrong on this one...

Michale

link the article, i'll see if i can find it.

JL

Yea, GOOGLE DOC doesn't allow for searching, apparently..

I read an article that has EXACTLY what I am looking for.. I thought I saved it in my BOOKMARKS, but no luck... I'll dig around for it..

Michale

If Biden didn't truly say what ya'all claim he didn't say, then you would think the Left Wingery would be plastering it all over hell and back...

But we know he DID say:

As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

No one has denied that Biden said those words...

Michale

sorry, no. if you want to search the thing up directly, feel free, but it was a bit of a project even to get it into a google doc.

JL

And anyone else has??? :D

Michale

But could you get me a PDF that's searchable???

Michale

Now, our Democratic colleagues continually talk about the so-called Thurmond rule under which the Senate supposedly stops confirming judges in a Presidential election year. I am concerned that this seeming obsession with this supposed rule--which, by the way, doesn't exist; Senator Specter has researched that thoroughly and there is no such rule. Anyway, I am concerned that this seeming obsession with this rule that doesn't exist is just an excuse for our colleagues to run out the clock on qualified nominees who are urgently needed to fill vacancies.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mitch McConnel senate floor July 2008

I suppose "this is different" and absolutely, NO ideological slavery is taking place here....nothing to see, move along, we aren't screwing the american people by abdicating our constitutional duties.... move along.