Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain said Donald Trump is not necessarily a better candidate than Hillary Clinton when it comes to appointing Supreme Court justices and said Republicans wouldn't approve any Clinton nominee to the Supreme Court. "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said Monday. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority." McCain said he didn't know if Trump would be the advocate conservative voters need to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia's empty seat on the court. "I don't know because I hear [Trump] saying a lot of different things," McCain said.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

In other words nothing will change?

#1 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016-10-17 07:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Actually, it's a little worse than that. What McCain is saying is that the GOP will do it's best to destroy the Supreme Court unless they feel they can control it.

#2 | Posted by moder8 at 2016-10-17 07:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

go away McPunk.

#3 | Posted by ichiro at 2016-10-17 07:46 PM | Reply

In other words party before country. McCain deserves to lose his reelection. What a piece of garbage.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-17 08:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sounds like desperate pandering to the base. McCain blew his credibility years ago, so whatever. This story is newsworthy enough without having to inject hyperbole into the headline and changing the Presidential candidate's name into something it's not.

#5 | Posted by sentinel at 2016-10-17 09:42 PM | Reply

He's already backing off it. Wimp.

#6 | Posted by sentinel at 2016-10-17 10:03 PM | Reply

McCain's office issued a statement Monday afternoon backing off his pledge of blanket opposition.

"Senator McCain believes you can only judge people by their record and Hillary Clinton has a clear record of supporting liberal judicial nominees," spokeswoman Rachel Dean said. "That being said, Senator McCain will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications as he has done throughout his career."

www.chicagotribune.com

He just got upset when he found out Clinton is about to spend 2 million dollars there and send Michelle and Bernie to Az to try to knock him out of a tough race and take his Senate seat. And put the fork into Donald.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-18 04:09 AM | Reply

They have been crapping on the Constitution since Nixon.

Nothing new.

It only kicked into overdrive when the "kenyan" was elected. Twice.

#8 | Posted by 726 at 2016-10-18 06:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

What a damn fool. He should be working to keep Hillary out of the White House then he would not have to resort to such foolish things.

The Washington establishment (Dems, Repubs & Press) is so threatened by Trump that they have become unhinged.

#9 | Posted by sawdust at 2016-10-18 09:29 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Having so recently celebrated his eightieth birthday, I'd say John McCain's in a bit of a rut.

#10 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2016-10-18 10:08 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

He should be working to keep Hillary out of the White House

Would you work to elect a person who called you a loser because you were a POW in a war that his foot ouchie got him out of?

I wouldn't either.

The GOP will survive Hillary. It might not survive Trump.

#11 | Posted by 726 at 2016-10-18 01:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So the advise and consent rule in the constitution is still in force. It honestly depends upon who is nominated. As I remember the last POTUS to try to screw around with the court was FDR.(Pack the court with five additional justices). He was not successful. So a potential nominee gets BORKED, Payback is fair play.

#12 | Posted by docnjo at 2016-10-18 02:15 PM | Reply

The Washington establishment (Dems, Repubs & Press) is so threatened by Trump that they have become unhinged.

#9 | POSTED BY SAWDUST

Yeah, who'd guess they are threatened by an crazy, racist, xenophobic, sexist, ignorant, pedophile who wants to take out the press, launch nukes at our enemies, lock up political opponents and bang their underage daughters?

#13 | Posted by Sycophant at 2016-10-18 02:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#13 | Posted by Sycophant Bill Clinton isn't running.

#14 | Posted by docnjo at 2016-10-18 02:27 PM | Reply

You certainly can't say Bill Clinton is crazy, racist, xenophobic, or ignorant.

#15 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2016-10-18 02:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Republicans wouldn't approve any Clinton nominee to the Supreme Court."

I would not put it past the current crop of ------------ in the Senate to obstruct a SCOTUS for four years.

How sad would that be?

They would be pissing all over the will of the people despite their ------- claims to wanting the will of the voters be heard.

They are a joke.

#16 | Posted by 726 at 2016-10-18 03:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#15 | Posted by TFDNihilist How would you know? He is a proven lair. Disbarred for lying.

#17 | Posted by docnjo at 2016-10-18 03:48 PM | Reply

Ah yes the Constitution - so convenient when it works for you. But heaven forbid if it isn't working in your favor...

#18 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2016-10-18 04:36 PM | Reply

In about a week or so GOP senators will start sniffing around for a hearing for Merrick Garland, realizing (1) that Dumpster is going to lose bigly, and (2) that Garland might be much more moderate than anyone HRC might (yes, MIGHT) nominate. Garland could be on the bench before HRC and Bill walk back into the White House.

The GOP did a great job painting themselves into a corner on this one...

#19 | Posted by catdog at 2016-10-18 04:44 PM | Reply

Time to give McCain the boot.

#20 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-10-18 04:49 PM | Reply

Would you work to elect a person who called you a loser because you were a POW in a war that his foot ouchie got him out of?
#11 | Posted by 726

It looks like McCain and lots of other Rs would do exactly that. Sigh.

#21 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2016-10-18 05:14 PM | Reply

McCain says he is not voting for Trump. He said he might vote for Lindsey Graham. Because for some strange reason Lindsey Graham was the only name McCain could think of when he was asked.

#22 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016-10-18 05:31 PM | Reply

I would not put it past the current crop of ------------ in the Senate to obstruct a SCOTUS for four years.

The dems would invoke the nuclear option if they thought that was going to happen. The senate should abandon the filibuster and some of its other arcane rules to avoid the dysfunction of the past. Individual senators can gum up the normal workings of the whole nation and that should not be allowed to happen.

#23 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2016-10-18 05:44 PM | Reply

"Up Or Down Vote"

Sincerely

The "constitutionalist" Deplorable, when the president wasn't black.

#24 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2016-10-18 06:01 PM | Reply

"Garland could be on the bench before HRC and Bill walk back into the White House."

If he had any pride at all he would ask to have his name removed from consideration. To let these douche bag Republicans use him as a pawn just to humiliate the man that nominated him and then to let those same scum bags vote you in out of fear of who Hillary Clinton will appoint would be a sad display of ambition at any cost.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-18 06:15 PM | Reply

It's not Garland's fault he's being jerked around.

This is probably a lifelong dream of his.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:24 PM | Reply

I did recently consider the possibility that the GOP would rush his nomination through during the lame duck period if Clinton wins. That would be brilliant politics, but overall pretty crappy ethics.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:25 PM | Reply

That would be brilliant politics, but overall pretty crappy ethics.

Sounds like you just came up with an excellent motto for the new Republican party that soon will rise from the ashes of the Trump Disaster.

"Crappy ethics but brilliant politics!"

#28 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016-10-18 06:29 PM | Reply

"brilliant politics, but overall pretty crappy ethics."

There's your current Republican Party in a nutshell.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-10-18 06:33 PM | Reply

McCain, hurry up and die of a stroke already, unAmerican puke.

#30 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2016-10-18 07:21 PM | Reply

McCain, hurry up and die of a stroke already, unAmerican puke.

#30 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2016-1

No comment....just saving it for when you lecture about civility and being rude and crass over the illness, near death or death of someone who we on the right have a difference of opinion..

#31 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2016-10-18 08:18 PM | Reply

and "you people" don't have to get upset over this...he's a gop establishment leader....as they've done all along cowering in fear of the lying potus, he's a political coward.....

so not to worry....

#32 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2016-10-18 08:19 PM | Reply

so not to worry....

#32 | Posted by afkabl2

lol

We are not worried about Mr Magoo.

#33 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016-10-18 08:29 PM | Reply

"It's not Garland's fault he's being jerked around. "

I agree, but if it were me, I wouldn't let the GOP gain, what they think would be a more conservative member of the SC, by playing the games they have. I'd tell Hillary Clinton that you can nominate anyone you want after she wins the Presidency and let the GOP retrobates deal with that. And I've read in this thread or possible another that the Dems will probably exercise the nuclear option if they win the Senate, I don't care what you believe, you can't blame them if they do. It's finally time, the GOP has been the most obstructionist majority in history, they need to have their obstructionist power taken away.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-18 08:30 PM | Reply

I agree, but if it were me, I wouldn't let the GOP gain,

But it's not you and that was my whole point.

they need to have their obstructionist power taken away.

Beat them at the ballot box. If you can't then the majority of people in this country don't hold the same negative view of their 'obstructionism' that you do.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:33 PM | Reply

"Beat them at the ballot box."

We did, we will in 2016 but they are saying that doesn't matter. We'll still obstruct the new President on every SC nomination. Show me any time in our history when the opposition was so obstructionist. The Constitutional duty of the Senate is to "advise and consent" not to obstruct. McCain comes right out and says it before she's even elected that the GOP will obstruct every appointment to the SC she makes, sorry the Republican are crossing over into an unAmerican, anti-constitutuional land of people who can't admit they lost an election, that's what destroys democracies. When we can't have a peaceful change of power we will no longer be a democratic nation, they are playing dangerous games here and every Republican who believes in the peaceful exchange of power after an election should be standing up to Trump and his thugs.
What we are literally talking about is the destruction of real democracy in America. When the losing side won't accept defeat in an election and consider "other actions" it's time to realize that no legitimate politician in America can remain legitimate after, ever once, encouraging that idea.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-18 08:44 PM | Reply

Danni,

Chill out. McCain is feeding meat to his base - Prominent Democrats made identical threats when a Republican was in the WH.

This Garland thing is mostly payback for Dems going nuclear on the filibuster for ALL nominees except for SCOTUS nominees. The GOP flirted with it during the Bush years but the gang-of-14 thwarted it. I don't agree with what the GOP is doing and I think it sets a terrible precedent. But politically they are making the Democrats pay a price for going nuclear. Payback is a bitch.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:48 PM | Reply

Jeff, you are ignoring the fact that we did defeat them in 2008 and again in 2012 and that the President had the right, Constitutionally, to appoint a SC replacement for Scalia. The Republicans just ignored him, that's unconstitutional, the fact that there is no time limit on their consideration of his appoinment asside, McConnell came right out and admitted he was going to ignore the Constitution. How can you defend these anti-Constitutional political hacks? WEre it me? I'd be leaving the Republican Party, they are completely without ethics, honesty, respect for the Constitution, duty to their constituents (Christie with the bridge). They are power hungry, thieving reprobates and you are actually better than them, I don't see how you can remain in their camp.

#38 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-18 08:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danni,

What they are doing is NOT unconstitutional. It's unethical as hell. I think they are wrong for doing it. I think Garland deserves to go through the process. This is purely political and it sets a terrible precedent that will likely come back to haunt them at some point in the future. Like I said, it's mostly payback for going nuclear but it's also payback for Bork.

The real blame is eschewing original intent in favor of legislating from the bench. The court has assumed unprecedented powers that granted by the Constitution. That's why this process has become so contentious.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 09:04 PM | Reply

REad the Constitution, what they are doing is not doing their obligations in the Constitution. They are certainly acting unconstitutional.

"The real blame is eschewing original intent in favor of legislating from the bench."

That's baloney. The Court is Constitutionally appointed with "advise and consent" from the Senate, it was not intended to be a political weapon or an ideological tool, I don't think there is even an intelligent argument for that point of view. The Founders wanted the Senate to approve an appointee based on judicial qualifications, character, etc. but not party. McCain's threats are the most extreme threats against Constitutional government in my lifetime expressed by a Senator I used to view as, at least, reasonable. Now I see him as an ideologue who views the Constitution as an impediment to him achieving his goals. That's just sad and dangerous for our democracy. When you prevent the majority from achieving their goals through efforts to counteract democracy, democracy itself becomes in danger. Why would anyone respect or defend a "democracy" if it isn't really a democracy?

#40 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-18 09:24 PM | Reply

REad the Constitution, what they are doing is not doing their obligations in the Constitution. They are certainly acting unconstitutional.

I have 2 very nice copies of it and have read it to both of my kids as well as reading it myself and referring to it frequently. What they are doing falls into the general parameter of 'advise and consent'. In this case, they are NOT giving consent. I agree with you that it's wrong on many levels, but it's not unconstitutional. I believe that Obama is going to issue a mass pardon to all illegal aliens currently residing in this country in the waning days of his presidency. if/when he does, it will be wrong on many levels but it won't be unconstitutional.

Are you aware that Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer made identical threats when the GOP occupied the WH?

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 09:32 PM | Reply

"The real blame is eschewing original intent in favor of legislating from the bench. The court has assumed unprecedented powers that granted by the Constitution. That's why this process has become so contentious."

They assumed powers in Madisn vs Marlbury, the rest is just history. The SC was never intended, by the founders, to have such power. They assumed it and much of what is wrong with America is based in us having a court of 9 people, appointed for life, with the power to overrule Congress and the President. The court was intended to rule on cases not to overrule
Congress. I recognize that they have assumed powers they were never intended to have but I will never pretend it is right. The most powerful part of our government was intended to be Congress, by the founders, deny that and get laughed at. They never considered letting 9, nonelected members for life, overrule the people, and it is a travesty that they are still able to overrule Congress to this day.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-18 09:39 PM | Reply

"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," the conservative leader said in a statement following the news of Clinton's inauguration. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."
~Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, January 21, 2017

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-10-18 09:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#42

I agree with you 90%.

Where I disagree is that it's not a travesty that they can overrule congress, or the executive, for that matter. If congress or the executive acts in an unconstitutional manner, then the court CAN (and should) overrule. But it should only do so when suit is brought - not via judicial review.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 09:42 PM | Reply

"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," the conservative leader said in a statement following the news of Clinton's inauguration. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." *
~Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, January 21, 2017

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-10-18 09:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

* from our party

#45 | Posted by cbob at 2016-10-18 09:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If congress or the executive acts in an unconstitutional manner, then the court CAN (and should) overrule."

We have too many examples of the Court overruling laws that were later found to be completely Constitutional. The SC shoudl be the highest appeals court but it should not have the power to negate acts of Congress which is the real representative of the people and which should be the most powerful part of our gorvernment. Appointees with a lifetime appointment or representatives with a 2 year term before they face reelection. Which do you think should be the most powerful body? I choose the House of Representatives. If we want to be a democracy then it is a no-brainer.

#46 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-18 09:50 PM | Reply

"Where I disagree is that it's not a travesty that they can overrule congress, or the executive, for that matter. If congress or the executive acts in an unconstitutional manner, then the court CAN (and should) overrule."

But you're giving this power to a group of 9 people appointed for life. It's ridiculous.

#47 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-18 09:52 PM | Reply

BTW, the founders agreed with me.

#48 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-18 09:53 PM | Reply

But you're giving this power to a group of 9 people appointed for life. It's ridiculous.

#47 | POSTED BY DANNI

No it isn't.

A recent example: Obama deemed the Senate to be in recess, even though it wasn't, and made recess appointments. SCOTUS rightly struck it down scathingly.

An older example: Jim Crow laws were blatantly unconstitutional and SCOTUS struck them down.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 09:58 PM | Reply

it should not have the power to negate acts of Congress

Brown vs Board of Education

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 09:59 PM | Reply

"But you're giving this power to a group of 9 8 people appointed for life."

#51 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-10-18 10:01 PM | Reply

so not to worry....

#32 | Posted by afkabl2

lol

We are not worried about Mr Magoo.

#33 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016

oh I'm sure you're not...and if he were a threat, the dnc and media would lie...leftists would suck it all up and then others would just wish he had a stroke...

'the only real transparency of the leftists radical is their transparencies...hypocrisy, lies , deceit and fraud...

and even with all that ....the difference is I and others understand the constitutional duties of the senate, and

it's not to perpetually block appointees of the potus...even if the liar in chief, his stooges in the media and

others of that ilk have aborted said document...

#52 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2016-10-18 10:41 PM | Reply

carpe diem

Amerika Prvi

#53 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2016-10-18 10:42 PM | Reply

oops...addendum...

article 5 of THE CONSTITUTION...convention of states...one proposal that has passed most states already signed on, or at least agreed to in principle... is to create a proposed amendment to take away the lifetime appointments of the supreme court....

again, the convention of states as outlined in article 5....this thing called the constitution..

#54 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2016-10-18 10:46 PM | Reply

Amerika Prvi

#55 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2016-10-18 10:47 PM | Reply

"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," the conservative leader said in a statement following the news of Trump's inauguration. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."
~Minority Leader Chuck Shumer, January 21, 2017

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-10-19 12:45 AM | Reply

go away McPunk.

#3 | POSTED BY ICHIRO AT 2016-10-17 07:46 PM | FLAG:

and go away Hillary
go away DNC
Go away RNC
Go away Tea Party
Go away Ruling Esablishnment
Go away Big Government

We don't need them at all.....

The average American needs to begin to enlighten themselves on exactly what the ---- these people and organizations are doing to us. We do not need to be manipulated. We don't need to be controlled. We don't need ACA. We don't need a defense sector thats capable of invading govern nations for the purpose of looting natural resources or controlling the world.

What we need is a government controlled by its people. and we need a defense sector that can control our borders and protect us from attack.

Our government is out of check.
Our money is worthless.
The banks are screwing us - no lube, no kiss, just a dry hard rape.

people need to wake up before its to late - if its not already to late....

#57 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 12:47 AM | Reply

"The SC shoudl be the highest appeals court but it should not have the power to negate acts of Congress which is the real representative of the people and which should be the most powerful part of our gorvernment."

What horrific nonsense. You're suggesting Congress could/would/should enact laws out of the reach of judicial scrutiny.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-10-19 12:48 AM | Reply

govern = sovereign

#59 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 12:48 AM | Reply

#57 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Amen!

#58 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Amen!

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 12:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#57 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS
Amen!

Oops! Sorry about that.

Amn! :-)

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 12:50 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"it should not have the power to negate acts of Congress"

All the SC is saying is, if that's what you want, write the law to say as much.

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-10-19 12:53 AM | Reply

Amn!

Gesundheit

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-10-19 12:55 AM | Reply

#60

Call me crazy, but I've actually come to believe with all of me that our government is our biggest enemy.
Its not the boogie man terrorist they keep telling us they are protecting us from.

for many years now, our government has grown into the monstrosity it is by creating problems then growing its self to undo the problem it created to begin with.

This country is on the cusp of catastrophic failure.

#64 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 12:55 AM | Reply

#64 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

I agree with everything in your post except for the last sentence. It's not quite that bad IMO.

Gesundheit

#63 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

No vowels. That is the joke. I once asked LFTHNDTHRDS about an allegy to nouns. This was the answer I received: fck y

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 01:00 AM | Reply

"Call me crazy, but I've actually come to believe with all of me that our government is our biggest enemy."

Then why vote for the party dead set to prove your hypothesis true?

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-10-19 01:01 AM | Reply

This was the answer I received: fck y
#65 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2016-10-19 01:00 AM | FLAG:

LOL Thats what Rogers told me!

#67 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 01:04 AM | Reply

Danforth,

I don't get the impression that LFTHNDTHRDS has ever voted Republican. In many ways the Democratic Party is even worse, at least as it pertains to some of our personal liberties.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 01:05 AM | Reply

Then why vote for the party dead set to prove your hypothesis true?

#66 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2016-10-19 01:01 AM | FLAG:

I won't be a part of the problem anymore. In the past, I have voted pretty strong along partisan lines with Democrats. Anyone reading me on here for over 10 years knows that. But lately, because I refuse to support Hillary Im called a winger.

I do not support Hillary or The Donald and I refuse to vote for either them.

I admit that i do get carried away form time to time but I truly believe that this country is deeper in ---- that the average person really knows. Are going to collapse tomorrow? no I don't think we are.

Are we going to collapse financially if we continue the pattern we're in? Yes I absolutely believe that - but i don't know when.

#69 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 01:10 AM | Reply

I truly believe that this country is deeper in ---- that the average person really knows. Are going to collapse tomorrow? no I don't think we are.
Are we going to collapse financially if we continue the pattern we're in? Yes I absolutely believe that

This!

Yes. Absolutely. We are on a path toward financial ruin. It's fueled partially by our debt and projected deficits but the real driver is our unfunded liabilities (SS+Medicare+Medicaid). It is actuarially and economically impossible to cover the unfunded liabilities through growth and tax increases alone. In fact, just addressing the spending side doesn't even come remotely close. Say what you want about his proposed solutions, but Paul Ryan has been sounding this alarm for more than 10 years. While they disagree on the proposed solutions, Ron Wyden (D) has also been sounding the alarm.

I can cite many issues where Republicans trump Democrats in terms of being full of it - abortion, anyone? But on this particular issue the Democrats are WAY -------- than Republicans. It's not even close.

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 01:21 AM | Reply

"I don't get the impression that LFTHNDTHRDS has ever voted Republican"
~Jeff

Yes I admit I have and just like the buyers remorse i received from voting (D) I got form those clowns too.

I voted GHW Bush in '88
I voted for Jindal in his second run for Governor of Louisiana
I voted for Trent Lott for Congress once when i was younger and happened to be living in Mississippi.
I've voted for numerous locals that were affiliated with the Republican party along the way.

Ive always leaned more to the Democrat side, I admit but in the last few years Ive changed dramatically.

people tend to label me a Liberal because of a couple of issues

I believe in responsible gun ownership
I believe a woman has a right to choose what she does with her body
I believe gays pay taxes and have a right to marry if they want - and adopt kids. I don't say that blindly because I have a sister who's very close to me and she's gay. her relationship has lasted longer that my marriage and they are loving, very good people, very loving and have a strong relationship. They've raised a son that doesn't belong to them and never asked the parents for a dime.

If you take those things out of the equation people would tell you I'm politically neutral.

also, I don't do political rants on social media. I don't put signs in my yard. I don't do bumper stickers.
theres a time and place for all that and i feel everyone is entitled to do it whenever they want but i govern myself differently.

#71 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 01:22 AM | Reply

But on this particular issue

If you mean screaming "unfunded liabilities" then the GOP is better.
If you mean doing anything about it, they're probably worse.
Our last President who cut taxes during war being Exhibit A. Or, just go have some water in Flint.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 01:24 AM | Reply

JeffJ are future VA health care costs from OIF/OEF funded or unfunded liabilities?
Because if they're unfunded, you should roll them into your shtick.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 01:26 AM | Reply

#71

On the issues you cited I am in agreement.

As of the other stuff, I am not on social media and I don't do bumper stickers. I've never put up a yard sign but have allowed a couple of friends who were running for local positions to put their signs on my property (I live on a corner lot).

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 01:27 AM | Reply

you should roll them into your shtick.

#73 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

It's not a "shtick".

It's actuarial math. The current trajectory is impossible to sustain. That is reality. You pretend otherwise. You are part of the problem.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 01:29 AM | Reply

"It's fueled partially by our debt and projected deficits but the real driver is our unfunded liabilities"
~jeff

Absolutely.

And its time for everyone to take responsibility for their stupid decisions.

Of course W did spend like a drunk sailor in a ----- bar. But Obama went down the road of doubling that.
We can't keep blaming Bush for the stupidity when the current president took that debt left behind and sprinkled it with steroids.

The time is coming when the $ is going to be worthless. Its only value right now is that you and I agree that it has value. Nothing else. when you and i don't agree anymore that it has value and refuse to trade goods/services for it is when the ---- hits the proverbial fan.

#76 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 01:30 AM | Reply

If you mean screaming "unfunded liabilities" then the GOP is better.
If you mean doing anything about it, they're probably worse

The GOP House passed a budget that attacked the cost-curve. Disagree with it all you want but it's a HELL of a lot more than what Democrats have offered. Democrats deny the actuarial math. So do you.

#77 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 01:30 AM | Reply

#76

Yep.

In a time when we desperately need the adults to be responsible our 2 major parties give us the choice of Trump and Hillary. How incredibly disheartening.

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 01:32 AM | Reply

Some seem to see the issue of the US debt as complex but if you scale it down its actually very simple.

If you or I ran our household budget the way the United States runs their budget, we would be in deep dodo.

its called bankruptcy.

#79 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 01:37 AM | Reply

#79

Absolutely. Many on the left want tax increases. I do too. I want Joe Six-pack and everybody else to pay the appropriate level of taxes necessary to fund this monstrosity. I want everyone to receive a schedule of tax increases that will be heaped upon them year after year, ad infinitum in order to try to cover at least some of the unfunded liabilities. Maybe if people truly felt government spending via their pocketbook they may begin to care about what our government spends money on - debt, deficits, unfunded liabilities, etc. We need to fully fund our government. It's only when that happens and people feel the pain, that change will actually happen.

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 01:42 AM | Reply

Or, just go have some water in Flint.

#72 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2016-10-19 01:24 AM | FLAG:

Snoofy, your pseudo outrage is amusing. I say that because you'll back a candidate that is in fact responsible for killing more people than the water crisis in Flint will ever kill.

Between Hillary and Obama, they have continued the perpetual wars in the middle east. I voted for Obama the first time mainly because he ran on the platform that 1. he didn't vote for the stupid war in Iraq and 2. he would end the wars and bring our boys home.

He did neither. In fact, he let Hillary have the reigns as SOS and continue the slaughter. The government will never tell you how many civilians they've killed because they don't keep count - they don't even want to know.

On top of that, Obama and Hillary have continued arming Saudi Arabia even after admitting they funded 9/11. in Yemen just the other day the Saudis bombed a funeral killing 152 civilians and wounding over 500 more. Thats who they support and arm..

#81 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 01:51 AM | Reply

Snoofy, your pseudo outrage is amusing.

Snoofy goes to absurd lengths when trying to draw equivalence. It's so ridiculous that at times it's actually breathtaking.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 01:56 AM | Reply

JeffJ the shtick is not the actuarial reality. It's when you roll SSI, Medicare and Medicaid into one big bundle of unfunded liabilities, as though they can't be parted out.

Anyway, are the future VA costs for OIF/OEF in the "unfunded" pile or not?

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 01:57 AM | Reply

Flint will end up costing as mooch as our little adventure in Libya. Around a billion, give or take. Which is less than one percent of OIF and OEF.

To claim Clinton's misadventures cost as much as Bush's, in terms of blood or treasure, is nonsense.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 01:59 AM | Reply

Between Hillary and Obama, they have continued the perpetual wars in the middle east.

Yeah, well Trump wants to send 30,000 troops to attack ISIS, so that issue isn't really in play this election.

Clinton is on the less-warmongering side of the aisle... or perhaps she's simply not telegraphing her plan to send 30,000 troops to fight ISIS since that kind of gives them time to prepare. But I doubt it.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 02:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's when you roll SSI, Medicare and Medicaid into one big bundle of unfunded liabilities, as though they can't be parted out.

More straw. Jesus. This is growing tiresome.

How many times in a 24-hour period are you going to falsely assign a position to someone?

Of course proposed solutions can be parted out. I think they should be parted out as the root causes for the actuarial problems for each program are different. Where you fail is when you suggest that the cumulative unfunded liabilities can be funded via tax-hikes and economic growth alone.

Jesus.

I can't believe how disingenuous you are.

#86 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 02:17 AM | Reply

"Clinton is on the less-warmongering side of the aisle"

I don't see how you can actually believe that. A warmonger is a warmonger theres no such thing as less or more in terms of them being good.

"our little adventure in Libya"
For What? because Gaddafi wouldn't do business with the world bank?

#87 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 02:24 AM | Reply

"Clinton is on the less-warmongering side of the aisle"

I don't see how you can actually believe that. A warmonger is a warmonger theres no such thing as less or more in terms of them being good.

"our little adventure in Libya"
For What? because Gaddafi wouldn't do business with the world bank?

#88 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 02:24 AM | Reply

"Clinton is on the less-warmongering side of the aisle"

I don't see how you can actually believe that. A warmonger is a warmonger theres no such thing as less or more in terms of them being good.

"our little adventure in Libya"
For What? because Gaddafi wouldn't do business with the world bank?

#89 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 02:24 AM | Reply

"Clinton is on the less-warmongering side of the aisle"

I don't see how you can actually believe that. A warmonger is a warmonger theres no such thing as less or more in terms of them being good.

"our little adventure in Libya"
For What? because Gaddafi wouldn't do business with the world bank?

#90 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 02:24 AM | Reply

wow. four posts. thats a record. what the hell is going on with Rogers' site?!

#91 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 02:27 AM | Reply

wow. four posts. thats a record. what the hell is going on with Rogers' site?!

#91 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

It's a trap.

Rogers will probably consider it a dump and since you posted it 4 times....you just got put in jail! :-)

#92 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 02:35 AM | Reply

I don't see how you can actually believe that. A warmonger is a warmonger theres no such thing as less or more in terms of them being good.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly.
Trujillo and Duvalier were both dictators.
Would you rather be born Haitian or Dominican?

"our little adventure in Libya"
For What? because Gaddafi wouldn't do business with the world bank?

That's about as good a reason as changing the Flint water supply, right, something tied to finance?

I don't think Libya was a good play but it was no Iraq. It's not even close to being as bad as Iraq. A hundred Libyas wouldn't be as bad as Iraq, cost wise.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 02:38 AM | Reply

"Would you rather be born Haitian or Dominican"?

I would rather that we didn't go around the world starting wars and killing people that have done nothing to us. I would rather that we had an armed force that protected our boarders and defended us from attack.

"That's about as good a reason as changing the Flint water supply, right, something tied to finance"?

this is going to sound way out there but I'm beginning to believe theres a connection to Flint knowing full well that changing water supplies would cause corrosion of the lead pipes without adding some type of mitigation and the fact that the treatment drug for lead poisoning just went from about $950 to $27,500 dollars.

It kinda reminds me of the politicians who want to drug test welfare recipients and on the dark side they or their cronies own the testing labs.

I have nearly zero trust for my government anymore, to the point that i question even the smallest of things these days.

#94 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 02:57 AM | Reply

It doesn't sound way out there at all. Here in California we had a bond issue for schools. Those almost always pass, right? Who doesn't want better schools. Well, the whole thing was really just a way to make some financiers rich by fleecing the public. Oh, and you got some money for your schools, or whatever, I guess.

"For borrowing $105 million in 2011, taxpayers will end up paying investors more than $981 million by 2051, or almost 10 times what the district borrowed. That's wildly more expensive than a typical school bond, in which a district pays back two or maybe three times what it borrowed." www.voiceofsandiego.org

I don't know what to do about people who are rotten to the core and see politics as nothing more than a means to enrich themselves. How would they not be drawn to politics in the first place? To me that's the importance of things like releasing your tax returns, saying veterans are heroes, and generally adhering to a sense of decorum. So I'm voting for the one you call the warmonger, even as the other one asks why can't we just use nukes

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 03:29 AM | Reply

#31 | Posted by afkabl2

Please save it.

Republicans have held up a vote on a SC nominee for the better part of a year, claiming, very unpatriotically, that the pick should be for the next president to make.

Fine. If Clinton wins, they need to keep to what they said.

I'm so f*****g sick of Republican pukes like McCain and McConnell. I hope they both croak soon.

They're bad for America.

#96 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2016-10-19 03:32 AM | Reply

So I'm voting for the one you call the warmonger, even as the other one asks why can't we just use nukes

#95 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2016-10-19 03:29 AM | FLAG:

And thats your right that I in no way want to deprive you of.

Im voting with my conscience and I can't vote for Hillary or Trump.

I can't vote for hillary because its a well known fact that she will continue to build on the disaster Obama leaves behind, she has no conscience when it comes to war and she's a serial liar who will tell you anything to get elected and deliver on nothing - and thats Obama's words not mine. It would literally embarrass me to tell someone I was voting for her.

I can't vote for Trump because I don't really know what he stands for. He says a lot of things to stir up a bunch of low information voters like building a wall, keeping muslims out of the country, cutting taxes on the rich etc... i don't know if he really means that or not but where he begins to scare me is when he promotes things like "stop and frisk" because someone looks bad. And yes the Newklear bombs thing too. Donald is power trippin' and the highest office in the world has no place for people on a power trip.

That said, I would rather hand my vote to Jill Stein or some no namer who makes it on the ballot than vote for the lesser of evils. Because at the end of the day, if you get shot in the head, does the caliber size really matter?

#97 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 05:23 AM | Reply

Chill out. McCain is feeding meat to his base

If that's the case, then he has learned nothing from the rise of Donald Trump. The base is sick and tired of being lied to just so some politician can keep their job.

#98 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2016-10-19 09:41 AM | Reply

"It would literally embarrass me to tell someone I was voting for her."

I'd be embarrassed to say I wasn't voting for her but then the folks I know live in the real world and aren't desperately trying to massage their own egos. If it makes you feel special to throw away your vote then do so, just don't think most of us are impressed by it. I find it laughable.

#99 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-19 10:03 AM | Reply

"For What? because Gaddafi wouldn't do business with the world bank?"

Conspiracy theory nonsense. Ghadafi's son threatened "rivers of blood" and provoked Europeans and Americans into trying to prevent such horrors.

#100 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-19 10:08 AM | Reply

I find it laughable.

#99 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2016-10-19 10:03 AM | FLAG:

Of course you do, you're voting for Hillary.

"just don't think most of us are impressed by it"

Oh now you hit me where it hurts with that one.
Who is "us"? you, Doc, Corky and NG3???

#101 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 10:10 AM | Reply

"Of course you do, you're voting for Hillary."

Actually because I watched him threaten the Libyan people and, as I recall, we went in sort of reluctantly because we were asked to assist France and Great Britain who had assisted us in Afghanistan and thus we felt an obligation to assist them. But I know, it's much simpler to dis-remember history and just post conspiracy theories. And then pat yourself on the back and pretend you're a brilliant intellectual not hindered by the facts that limit the thinking of us "Hillary voters."

#102 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-19 10:35 AM | Reply

"Oh now you hit me where it hurts with that one."

Narcicists are rarely embarrassed by their foolishness.

#103 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-19 10:36 AM | Reply

Narcicists are rarely embarrassed by their foolishness.

#103 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2016-10-19 10:36 AM | FLAG:

Corky has you trained well.

#104 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-19 11:05 AM | Reply

I believe that Obama is going to issue a mass pardon to all illegal aliens currently residing in this country in the waning days of his presidency

How can that be? We've been told that being in the country illegally is not a crime. If that is so, how can Obama issue a pardon when no crime has been committed?

#105 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2016-10-19 11:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They never considered letting 9, nonelected members for life, overrule the people, and it is a travesty that they are still able to overrule Congress to this day.

I don't think the SCOTUS is overruling congress; they are just filling in the blanks. Congress writes their legislation with way to many gaps in it. As a result, the executive, charged with implementation and enforcement responsibility must fill in those gaps. And, the SCOTUS must take a position if/when that implementation/enforcement ruffles some feathers.

Congress could solve most of the problems associated with judicial overreach by writing better laws.

#106 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2016-10-19 11:26 AM | Reply

"I don't think the SCOTUS is overruling congress; they are just filling in the blanks."

And I believe in fairies.

#107 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-19 11:37 AM | Reply

The American people's voice was heard when they ELECTED OBAMA to a 2nd 4 year term. Not 3, not 3.5 4 years.

#108 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2016-10-19 11:51 AM | Reply

"Paul Ryan has been sounding this alarm for more than 10 years."

Trouble is, Paul Ryan's solution is to give more tax breaks to the wealthiest, while screwing over SS recipients.

#109 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-10-19 11:59 AM | Reply

Im voting with my conscience and I can't vote for Hillary or Trump.

That's funny, I'm voting with my conscience and I can only possibly vote for Clinton.

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 01:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They never considered letting 9, nonelected members for life, overrule the people, and it is a travesty that they are still able to overrule Congress to this day.

They didn't? Then why did they vest the Supreme Court with judicial power over constitutional and federal statutory cases and controversies? Do you think the fifty some odd lawyers who signed the constitution did not know what that meant?

Do you have a clue about "Congressional override of the Supreme Court?"

#111 | Posted by et_al at 2016-10-19 01:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

JeffJ please read:

The expense of caring for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is an unfunded budget liability for U.S. taxpayers that in years to come will rival the cost of entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, lawmakers will be told Thursday. www.washingtontimes.com

I will hammer you with this fact relentlessly unless you update your shtick to read
unfunded liabilities (SS+Medicare+Medicaid+OIF+OEF)
Or are those unfunded liabilities you support, because you love W's wars? Hmmm? :)

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 02:06 PM | Reply

Hilary needs to be able to appoint without question, her wisdom and intellect make her the perfect person to pick the right candidate. Her flawless character and never ending passion for telling the truth should also lend great insight as to the proper pick.

#113 | Posted by Kaikane at 2016-10-19 02:11 PM | Reply

As POTUS Hillary should call the Sergent at Arms in the Senate
and have McSame arrested for not fulfilling his sworn constitutional
duty as a Senator...

#114 | Posted by earthmuse at 2016-10-19 02:49 PM | Reply

#114

What "sworn constitutional duty?" Can you point to something in the constitution or Senate rules that spells out this duty?

#115 | Posted by et_al at 2016-10-19 03:26 PM | Reply

The Supreme Court is an American institution, not a Republican institution. It is not an invalid branch of government if Democrats appoint the majority of members. And besides, the Supreme Court has been dominated by Republican appointees for 40+ years (1974), did they really believe that their dominance would last forever? Losing the majority of the Supreme Court is a consequence of having lost 5 of the last 7 elections (I'm already putting 2016 in the books).

If the GOP are such constitutionalists, how come they always find a why to obscure constitutional requirements? And how come too many Republicans still have this arrogance like they're supposed to win the presidency? You would think that 2012 would have been their wake up call, but it wasn't. They ignored their own autopsy and are headed to yet another loss (and this could be a landslide with Hillary in the 375 electoral college range).

Republicans are going to have to wake up. Their dominance of the presidency ended decades ago. They have now lost 5 of the last 7 elections, tied 1, and won 1. When that happens, that's not a fluke, that's a trend.

#116 | Posted by Mr5Reasons1 at 2016-10-19 07:46 PM | Reply

If that is so, how can Obama issue a pardon when no crime has been committed?

#105 | POSTED BY FEDUPWITHPOLS

Well, the father of the Bestest War Preznet Evar and VP under the Bestest for Everything President Evar pardoned all the Irangate suspects before they were charged with anything. So I guess he was admitting that they, and Reagan did commit treason.

Using your logic and stuff...

#117 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-10-19 09:52 PM | Reply

At least Mr Magoo was not a crazy presidential candidate. Just a little bit senile.

Donald Trump is crazy. There is no other explanation for his behavior. He is either crazy or using powerful drugs.

You decide. Sniiffffffff!

#118 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016-10-20 12:33 AM | Reply

"Donald Trump is crazy. There is no other explanation for his behavior."

Sure there is: he is an arrogant, stubborn, morally repugnant human disaster and unrepentant in all of it. This is what is wrong with ableist language: to call Mr. Trump crazy is literally an insult to the mentally ill.

#119 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2016-10-20 01:21 AM | Reply

"Sure there is: he is an arrogant, stubborn, morally repugnant human disaster and unrepentant in all of it. This is what is wrong with ableist language: to call Mr. Trump crazy is literally an insult to the mentally ill."

All those things are a form of insanity.

It is not insulting to anyone to call a spade a spade. And it is plain to see that others affected by the same form of mental illness are proud to be represented by him.

#120 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016-10-20 12:01 PM | Reply

"All those things are a form of insanity."

Really? What chapter in the DSM-V covers them?

People with mental illness can't help having mental illness (apart perhaps from seeking and cooperating with treatment). Not so with Mr. Trump.

#121 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2016-10-20 08:22 PM | Reply

I'm not convinced that Trump isn't genuinely mentally ill. Not like it matters either way.

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-20 08:23 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort