Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Good grief, Lad. Step back. Have you no decency?

---

No, he doesn't.

---

I hadn't heard the sad news when I checked in here. My second thought was that Yogi was going to be absolutely giddy. I wish he could at least show some respect for the dead.

I'll await his reply about what saps we all are.

---

"I attack ideas, I don't attack people - and some very good people have some very bad ideas." -- SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia

*Quoted by Justice RBG at memorial services for Justice Scalia (2016).

Golden One said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

The precedent is that no Senate majority has confirmed a Supreme Court nominee in the last year of a Senate minority party's lame duck presidential term.

There have been other nominations and appointments in the last year from presidents of the same party as the Senate majority

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

The only way Trump will get to pick a new justice is if it's after the election. And I wouldn't call it a solid conservative majority, even if he gets one. Roberts is very moderate and can go either way quite often.

---

So which is it?

OaktownBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Bears2thDoc said:

---

Golden One said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

RIP RBG. Although socially moderate and fiscally conservative, I always found her to be one of the good ones in
DC. A total class act. You do not have to agree to respect. RIP

---

Socially moderate? Are you kidding. She was the most liberal justice, socially and fiscally on the entire Court. She might have been more moderate than Bernie, but not by much.

---

Perhaps you might want to read that again...slowly.
Clearly, OB66 is stating HE'S socially moderate and fiscally conservative, NOT RBG.

RIP RBG

---

I don't think so.

---

He can correct you himself, but read it again again. Think of his posting history. It goes without saying she is liberal. He is saying that he respected her despite the fact that he differs politically.

It was one of unfortunately too few decent posts on here.

---

This is peak Golden One. Completely fails to understand someone's statement and then when called on it he will fight to the death justifying an obviously wrong position. This is moops from Seinfeld if the card was actually correct but misread. This is yet another reason why G1 has no credibility.

---

Why are you so sure you're correct in your interpretation? Is it just your incredible arrogance that's showing through once again? You're just incredible.

---

Because it's obvious. If you are so sure, let's make a friendly wager. Whoever is wrong will stop posting here until after the election.

You can accept the wager or admit you are full of it. I'm not worried about losing.

---

I don't make wagers. I'm willing to admit that my interpretation may be wrong, which is m ore than can be said for you.

---

As they say in Texas, you are all hat and no cattle. You know you are wrong but are too feckless to admit it. If you believed you were right, it was an almost meaningless wager.

bearlyamazing said:

---

Zero chance someone is appointed before the election

---

Edited due to Trump action.

wifeisafurd said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

Zero chance someone is appointed before the election

---

Edited due to Trump action.

---

Republicans show once again that hypocrisy is core value.

smh said:

---

OB66 - any #45 SC nominee can> will be confirmed by R senate at lame duck's first convenience <full stop>

---

Thank you. I was not up on the fact that all that is needed is Senate and Executive at the time I posted. My bad.

Golden One said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

RIP RBG. Although socially moderate and fiscally conservative, I always found her to be one of the good ones in
DC. A total class act. You do not have to agree to respect. RIP

---

Socially moderate? Are you kidding. She was the most liberal justice, socially and fiscally on the entire Court. She might have been more moderate than Bernie, but not by much.

---

The "socially moderate and fiscally conservative" was in reference to myself, not Justice Ginsberg. Sorry about that.

I guess some find no life outside of political opinion. Although I disagreed with much of what I considered her opinion she was one of the true good ones in DC.

McConnell is driving this bus not Trump. If he has 50 votes they will do this as soon as possible. He gains nothing by waiting and cements his legacy which is a "transformative " (in a bat s$it crazy way) judiciary. I don't think he cares about Trump that much.

Anarchistbear said:

---

McConnell is driving this bus not Trump. If he has 50 votes they will do this as soon as possible. He gains nothing by waiting and cements his legacy which is a "transformative " (in a bat s$it crazy way) judiciary. I don't think he cares about Trump that much.

---

If Trump doesn't make a nomination, the Senate can't do anything. So Trump is ultimately the first person driving the bus.

Bad for Trump but good for the country's future.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

The precedent is that no Senate majority has confirmed a Supreme Court nominee in the last year of a Senate minority party's lame duck presidential term.

There have been other nominations and appointments in the last year from presidents of the same party as the Senate majority

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

The only way Trump will get to pick a new justice is if it's after the election. And I wouldn't call it a solid conservative majority, even if he gets one. Roberts is very moderate and can go either way quite often.

---

So which is it?

OaktownBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Bears2thDoc said:

---

Golden One said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

RIP RBG. Although socially moderate and fiscally conservative, I always found her to be one of the good ones in
DC. A total class act. You do not have to agree to respect. RIP

---

Socially moderate? Are you kidding. She was the most liberal justice, socially and fiscally on the entire Court. She might have been more moderate than Bernie, but not by much.

---

Perhaps you might want to read that again...slowly.
Clearly, OB66 is stating HE'S socially moderate and fiscally conservative, NOT RBG.

RIP RBG

---

I don't think so.

---

He can correct you himself, but read it again again. Think of his posting history. It goes without saying she is liberal. He is saying that he respected her despite the fact that he differs politically.

It was one of unfortunately too few decent posts on here.

---

This is peak Golden One. Completely fails to understand someone's statement and then when called on it he will fight to the death justifying an obviously wrong position. This is moops from Seinfeld if the card was actually correct but misread. This is yet another reason why G1 has no credibility.

---

Why are you so sure you're correct in your interpretation? Is it just your incredible arrogance that's showing through once again? You're just incredible.

---

Because it's obvious. If you are so sure, let's make a friendly wager. Whoever is wrong will stop posting here until after the election.

You can accept the wager or admit you are full of it. I'm not worried about losing.

---

I don't make wagers. I'm willing to admit that my interpretation may be wrong, which is m ore than can be said for you.

---

As they say in Texas, you are all hat and no cattle. You know you are wrong but are too feckless to admit it. If you believed you were right, it was an almost meaningless wager.

---

Well, at least I have a hat. You have neither a hat nor cattle.

Golden One said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

The precedent is that no Senate majority has confirmed a Supreme Court nominee in the last year of a Senate minority party's lame duck presidential term.

There have been other nominations and appointments in the last year from presidents of the same party as the Senate majority

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

The only way Trump will get to pick a new justice is if it's after the election. And I wouldn't call it a solid conservative majority, even if he gets one. Roberts is very moderate and can go either way quite often.

---

So which is it?

OaktownBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Bears2thDoc said:

---

Golden One said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

RIP RBG. Although socially moderate and fiscally conservative, I always found her to be one of the good ones in
DC. A total class act. You do not have to agree to respect. RIP

---

Socially moderate? Are you kidding. She was the most liberal justice, socially and fiscally on the entire Court. She might have been more moderate than Bernie, but not by much.

---

Perhaps you might want to read that again...slowly.
Clearly, OB66 is stating HE'S socially moderate and fiscally conservative, NOT RBG.

RIP RBG

---

I don't think so.

---

He can correct you himself, but read it again again. Think of his posting history. It goes without saying she is liberal. He is saying that he respected her despite the fact that he differs politically.

It was one of unfortunately too few decent posts on here.

---

This is peak Golden One. Completely fails to understand someone's statement and then when called on it he will fight to the death justifying an obviously wrong position. This is moops from Seinfeld if the card was actually correct but misread. This is yet another reason why G1 has no credibility.

---

Why are you so sure you're correct in your interpretation? Is it just your incredible arrogance that's showing through once again? You're just incredible.

---

Because it's obvious. If you are so sure, let's make a friendly wager. Whoever is wrong will stop posting here until after the election.

You can accept the wager or admit you are full of it. I'm not worried about losing.

---

I don't make wagers. I'm willing to admit that my interpretation may be wrong, which is m ore than can be said for you.

---

As they say in Texas, you are all hat and no cattle. You know you are wrong but are too feckless to admit it. If you believed you were right, it was an almost meaningless wager.

---

Well, at least I have a hat. You have neither a hat nor cattle.

---

And it's a very nice hat...

Golden One said:

---

Big C said:

---

Hey, I just had an idea...

What do you think the chances are that Trump will strike a blow for fairness and nominate Merrick Garland?

---

Zero!

---

Crazy idea: Trump realizes that he's spent lots of effort energizing his base. but that's not going to win him the election. Ever the pragmatist when it comes to furthering his own interests, he understands that lots of Americans in the center are sick and tired of all the bullshyte in Congress (not passing a new COVID relief bill just the latest example)...

He nominates Merrick Garland to show that he's a President for All the People and to (supposedly) stick it to Congress and their silly games. Basically, he throws Mitch McConnell and everybody in Congress under the bus.

Would he do this if he thought it might be the Hail Mary move that could get him reelected?


Answer: LOL, almost certainly not. But "zero" percent chance? How about .001%

A black or Hispanic gay woman is more likely.

Big C said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Big C said:

---

Hey, I just had an idea...

What do you think the chances are that Trump will strike a blow for fairness and nominate Merrick Garland?

---

Zero!

---

Crazy idea: Trump realizes that he's spent lots of effort energizing his base. but that's not going to win him the election. Ever the pragmatist when it comes to furthering his own interests, he understands that lots of Americans in the center are sick and tired of all the bullshyte in Congress (not passing a new COVID relief bill just the latest example)...

He nominates Merrick Garland to show that he's a President for All the People and to (supposedly) stick it to Congress and their silly games. Basically, he throws Mitch McConnell under the bus.

Would he do this if he thought it might be the Hail Mary move that could get him reelected?


Answer: LOL, almost certainly not. But "zero" percent chance? How about .001%

---

Big C, I'm not sure Trump needs a Hail Mary.

Anarchistbear said:

---

A black or Hispanic gay woman is more likely.

---

I'm not sure about black or gay, but his nominee is virtually certain to be a woman. If she were black or gay, the Dems would have a helluva hard time opposing her.

Golden One said:

---

Big C said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Big C said:

---

Hey, I just had an idea...

What do you think the chances are that Trump will strike a blow for fairness and nominate Merrick Garland?

---

Zero!

---

Crazy idea: Trump realizes that he's spent lots of effort energizing his base. but that's not going to win him the election. Ever the pragmatist when it comes to furthering his own interests, he understands that lots of Americans in the center are sick and tired of all the bullshyte in Congress (not passing a new COVID relief bill just the latest example)...

He nominates Merrick Garland to show that he's a President for All the People and to (supposedly) stick it to Congress and their silly games. Basically, he throws Mitch McConnell under the bus.

Would he do this if he thought it might be the Hail Mary move that could get him reelected?


Answer: LOL, almost certainly not. But "zero" percent chance? How about .001%

---

Big C, I'm not sure Trump needs a Hail Mary.

---

I don't know... He's down in the aggregated polls and there are very few undecided voters left to sway. People don't seem to have a natural dislike for Biden like they did for Mrs. Clinton. There was a hope that Biden would appear senile in his acceptance speech at the convention, but -- teleprompter or no -- he looked fine. The past few weeks, every time Trump had an opportunity to create a narrative, it was derailed by the latest tell-all book or revelation about something he said. Or, he just said something dumb on his own ("herd mentality", anyone?)

I'm a never-Trumper, but there are real arguments for why someone might vote for him. However, "Biden's going to get rid of suburbs" isn't going to get any traction. If Trump doesn't score decisively in the first debate, he needs something dramatic.

It's really outrageous, though, that 2 Supreme Court judges have died in a 5-year span. Yet Trump gets to pick their 2 successors with only one 4-year term.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/rbg-vacant-seat-merrick-garland-mcconnell-principles.html

" Would he do this if he thought it might be the Hail Mary move that could get him reelected?"

tRump only has one priority in life. He would appoint AOC if he felt he needed to in order to win. The problem is Putin has this election "delivered" easily. DeSantis will apply the icing on the cake by Jeb Bushing Florida.

^^^ This ^^^ is why Trump needs to nominate Merrick Garland, to right the wrong that Mitch McConnell "invented" in 2016... even if running roughshod over an unpopular Congress helps him get reelected.

Big C said:

---

^^^ This ^^^ is why Trump needs to nominate Merrick Garland, to right the wrong that Mitch McConnell "invented" in 2016... even if running roughshod over an unpopular Congress helps him get reelected.

---

A recent poll said that 50% of Americans couldn't name one Supreme Court Justice. Nobody knows who Merrick Garland is. This whole nomination is strictly a base turn out issue- probably helps both- but the people who decide this election have much more pressing issues than this hyper partisan war.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Good grief, Lad. Step back. Have you no decency?

---

Decency? This is OT not Growls.

---

Is that why you post so antagonistically, the difference is Cal and/or sports vs not Cal, not sports. It's not decency vs indecency.

---

The answer won't be interesting to you as much as my question will be.
Why ask me and not the others like yourself?

---

Evidence?

---

Pick a thread.

---

Whichever you find easiest

---

Here's the first one I saw today at the top.:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/97677/1

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Good grief, Lad. Step back. Have you no decency?

---

Decency? This is OT not Growls.

---

Is that why you post so antagonistically, the difference is Cal and/or sports vs not Cal, not sports. It's not decency vs indecency.

---

The answer won't be interesting to you as much as my question will be.
Why ask me and not the others like yourself?

---

Evidence?

---

Pick a thread.

---

Whichever you find easiest

---

Here's the first one I saw today at the top.:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/97677/1

---

Thats not my post

Big C said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Big C said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Big C said:

---

Hey, I just had an idea...

What do you think the chances are that Trump will strike a blow for fairness and nominate Merrick Garland?

---

Zero!

---

Crazy idea: Trump realizes that he's spent lots of effort energizing his base. but that's not going to win him the election. Ever the pragmatist when it comes to furthering his own interests, he understands that lots of Americans in the center are sick and tired of all the bullshyte in Congress (not passing a new COVID relief bill just the latest example)...

He nominates Merrick Garland to show that he's a President for All the People and to (supposedly) stick it to Congress and their silly games. Basically, he throws Mitch McConnell under the bus.

Would he do this if he thought it might be the Hail Mary move that could get him reelected?


Answer: LOL, almost certainly not. But "zero" percent chance? How about .001%

---

Big C, I'm not sure Trump needs a Hail Mary.

---

I don't know... He's down in the aggregated polls and there are very few undecided voters left to sway. People don't seem to have a natural dislike for Biden like they did for Mrs. Clinton. There was a hope that Biden would appear senile in his acceptance speech at the convention, but -- teleprompter or no -- he looked fine. The past few weeks, every time Trump had an opportunity to create a narrative, it was derailed by the latest tell-all book or revelation about something he said. Or, he just said something dumb on his own ("herd mentality", anyone?)

I'm a never-Trumper, but there are real arguments for why someone might vote for him. However, "Biden's going to get rid of suburbs" isn't going to get any traction. If Trump doesn't score decisively in the first debate, he needs something dramatic.

---

The debates could be Biden's undoing, if his Stage 3 dementia shows itself.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Good grief, Lad. Step back. Have you no decency?

---

Decency? This is OT not Growls.

---

Is that why you post so antagonistically, the difference is Cal and/or sports vs not Cal, not sports. It's not decency vs indecency.

---

The answer won't be interesting to you as much as my question will be.
Why ask me and not the others like yourself?

---

Evidence?

---

Pick a thread.

---

Whichever you find easiest

---

Here's the first one I saw today at the top.:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/97677/1

---

Thats not my post

---

Obviously, but I have yet to see you complain towards others who share similar political views with you.

Golden One said:

---

Big C said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Big C said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Big C said:

---

Hey, I just had an idea...

What do you think the chances are that Trump will strike a blow for fairness and nominate Merrick Garland?

---

Zero!

---

Crazy idea: Trump realizes that he's spent lots of effort energizing his base. but that's not going to win him the election. Ever the pragmatist when it comes to furthering his own interests, he understands that lots of Americans in the center are sick and tired of all the bullshyte in Congress (not passing a new COVID relief bill just the latest example)...

He nominates Merrick Garland to show that he's a President for All the People and to (supposedly) stick it to Congress and their silly games. Basically, he throws Mitch McConnell under the bus.

Would he do this if he thought it might be the Hail Mary move that could get him reelected?


Answer: LOL, almost certainly not. But "zero" percent chance? How about .001%

---

Big C, I'm not sure Trump needs a Hail Mary.

---

I don't know... He's down in the aggregated polls and there are very few undecided voters left to sway. People don't seem to have a natural dislike for Biden like they did for Mrs. Clinton. There was a hope that Biden would appear senile in his acceptance speech at the convention, but -- teleprompter or no -- he looked fine. The past few weeks, every time Trump had an opportunity to create a narrative, it was derailed by the latest tell-all book or revelation about something he said. Or, he just said something dumb on his own ("herd mentality", anyone?)

I'm a never-Trumper, but there are real arguments for why someone might vote for him. However, "Biden's going to get rid of suburbs" isn't going to get any traction. If Trump doesn't score decisively in the first debate, he needs something dramatic.

---

The debates could be Biden's undoing, if his Stage 3 dementia shows itself.

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Good grief, Lad. Step back. Have you no decency?

---

Decency? This is OT not Growls.

---

Is that why you post so antagonistically, the difference is Cal and/or sports vs not Cal, not sports. It's not decency vs indecency.

---

The answer won't be interesting to you as much as my question will be.
Why ask me and not the others like yourself?

---

Evidence?

---

Pick a thread.

---

Whichever you find easiest

---

Here's the first one I saw today at the top.:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/97677/1

---

Thats not my post

---

Obviously, but I have yet to see you complain towards others who share similar political views with you.

---

I thought we were talking about decency

Anarchistbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ This ^^^ is why Trump needs to nominate Merrick Garland, to right the wrong that Mitch McConnell "invented" in 2016... even if running roughshod over an unpopular Congress helps him get reelected.

---

A recent poll said that 50% of Americans couldn't name one Supreme Court Justice. Nobody knows who Merrick Garland is. This whole nomination is strictly a base turn out issue- probably helps both- but the people who decide this election have much more pressing issues than this hyper partisan war.

---

First of all, I totally acknowledge that the chances of Trump nominating Garland are less than the chances of Cal getting to both the Rose Bowl and the Final Four. I'm just messing around with the possible scenarios...

But to do it, it wouldn't be because there are swing voters out there who are big Merrick Garland fans. It would be because Trump senses that a lot of people are fed up with partisan games in Congress and, with one move, he could suddenly be a uniter-not-a-divider, the President of the People who sticks it to Congress.

Outside of fixing the election, he needs a bold move right now and only tossing red meat to his base keeps him around 40%.

Big C said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ This ^^^ is why Trump needs to nominate Merrick Garland, to right the wrong that Mitch McConnell "invented" in 2016... even if running roughshod over an unpopular Congress helps him get reelected.

---

A recent poll said that 50% of Americans couldn't name one Supreme Court Justice. Nobody knows who Merrick Garland is. This whole nomination is strictly a base turn out issue- probably helps both- but the people who decide this election have much more pressing issues than this hyper partisan war.

---

First of all, I totally acknowledge that the chances of Trump nominating Garland are less than the chances of Cal getting to both the Rose Bowl and the Final Four. I'm just messing around with the possible scenarios...

But to do it, it wouldn't be because there are swing voters out there who are big Merrick Garland fans. It would be because Trump senses that a lot of people are fed up with partisan games in Congress and, with one move, he could suddenly be a uniter-not-a-divider, the President of the People who sticks it to Congress.

Outside of fixing the election, he needs a bold move right now and only tossing red meat to his base keeps him around 40%.

---

What at this point would remotely lead you to believe that he has any desire to expand his base?

Big C said:

---

First of all, I totally acknowledge that the chances of Trump nominating Garland are less than the chances of Cal getting to both the Rose Bowl and the Final Four. I'm just messing around with the possible scenarios...

But to do it, it wouldn't be because there are swing voters out there who are big Merrick Garland fans. It would be because Trump senses that a lot of people are fed up with partisan games in Congress and, with one move, he could suddenly be a uniter-not-a-divider, the President of the People who sticks it to Congress.

Outside of fixing the election, he needs a bold move right now and only tossing red meat to his base keeps him around 40%.

---

A unifier and not a divider? Trump can select a far left justice or bring peace to the middle east. The media and the Democrats will not give him any brownie points. If you're waiting to feel unified, wait longer.

As far fixing the election, it's the Democrats that are mailing out unsolicited ballots. If I was a Democrat, I'd try to get as many early votes in as possible before Biden/Harris say or do something that will hurt them before November.

Big C said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ This ^^^ is why Trump needs to nominate Merrick Garland, to right the wrong that Mitch McConnell "invented" in 2016... even if running roughshod over an unpopular Congress helps him get reelected.

---

A recent poll said that 50% of Americans couldn't name one Supreme Court Justice. Nobody knows who Merrick Garland is. This whole nomination is strictly a base turn out issue- probably helps both- but the people who decide this election have much more pressing issues than this hyper partisan war.

---

First of all, I totally acknowledge that the chances of Trump nominating Garland are less than the chances of Cal getting to both the Rose Bowl and the Final Four. I'm just messing around with the possible scenarios...

But to do it, it wouldn't be because there are swing voters out there who are big Merrick Garland fans. It would be because Trump senses that a lot of people are fed up with partisan games in Congress and, with one move, he could suddenly be a uniter-not-a-divider, the President of the People who sticks it to Congress.

Outside of fixing the election, he needs a bold move right now and only tossing red meat to his base keeps him around 40%.

---

Jared: We think it should be Garland.
Trump; Who's Garland?
Jared: The one Obama nominated
Trump: The loser that loser Obama nominated. F$ck no
Jared: That's it. You do what he couldn't. Make Garland a Supreme Court Judge
Trump; And now he's a winner!
Jared: Exactly!

Anarchistbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ This ^^^ is why Trump needs to nominate Merrick Garland, to right the wrong that Mitch McConnell "invented" in 2016... even if running roughshod over an unpopular Congress helps him get reelected.

---

A recent poll said that 50% of Americans couldn't name one Supreme Court Justice. Nobody knows who Merrick Garland is. This whole nomination is strictly a base turn out issue- probably helps both- but the people who decide this election have much more pressing issues than this hyper partisan war.

---

1. A majority of Americans cannot name a single branch of government or explain what the Bill of Rights is;

2. 24% can't name the country that the U.S. fought in the Revolutionary War;

3. 2/3 don't know what the holding of Roe v. Wade is;

4. 2/3 don't know what the Food and Drug Administration does;

5. 50% don't know each state has two senators;

6. More than 50% can't name their congressman;

7. The average voter thinks 24% of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid (less than 1% does);

8. 18% thinks the sun revolves around the earth;

9. 50% don't know that Judaism predates Christianity


...and that boys and girls, is how a failed businessman and game show host became POTUS (well, that and Putin).

bearister said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ This ^^^ is why Trump needs to nominate Merrick Garland, to right the wrong that Mitch McConnell "invented" in 2016... even if running roughshod over an unpopular Congress helps him get reelected.

---

A recent poll said that 50% of Americans couldn't name one Supreme Court Justice. Nobody knows who Merrick Garland is. This whole nomination is strictly a base turn out issue- probably helps both- but the people who decide this election have much more pressing issues than this hyper partisan war.

---

1. A majority of Americans cannot name a single branch of government or explain what the Bill of Rights is;

2. 24% can't name the country that the U.S. fought in the Revolutionary War;

3. 2/3 don't know what the holding of Roe v. Wade is;

4. 2/3 don't know what the Food and Drug Administration does;

5. 50% don't know each state has two senators;

6. More than 50% can't name their congressman;

7. The average voter thinks 24% of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid (less than 1% does);

8. 18% thinks the sun revolves around the earth;

9. 50% don't know that Judaism predates Christianity


...and that boys and girls, is how a failed businessman and game show host became POTUS (well, that and Putin).

---

But Hillary won the popular vote.

BearForce2 said:

---

Big C said:

---

First of all, I totally acknowledge that the chances of Trump nominating Garland are less than the chances of Cal getting to both the Rose Bowl and the Final Four. I'm just messing around with the possible scenarios...

But to do it, it wouldn't be because there are swing voters out there who are big Merrick Garland fans. It would be because Trump senses that a lot of people are fed up with partisan games in Congress and, with one move, he could suddenly be a uniter-not-a-divider, the President of the People who sticks it to Congress.

Outside of fixing the election, he needs a bold move right now and only tossing red meat to his base keeps him around 40%.

---

A unifier and not a divider? Trump can select a far left justice or bring peace to the middle east. The media and the Democrats will not give him any brownie points. If you're waiting to feel unified, wait longer.

As far fixing the election, it's the Democrats that are mailing out unsolicited ballots. If I was a Democrat, I'd try to get as many early votes in as possible before Biden/Harris say or do something that will hurt them before November.

---

Sounds like you've already given up and are trying on various excuses. Hope you're right!