Considering he has faced an obstructionist Republican party for his entire term he's actually doing better than most of our recent President's.
Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House, 1/4/07 - 1/3/11) and Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader, 1/4/07 - 1/3/15) just shed a tear over your ignorance about their reign - as Democrats - over Congress. Let's not forget the first couple of years that President Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in Congress...
Joe Biden said this was decorum, it's what should be done. No SC nominations in an election year. He also made the point that it was what the majority of prior Presidents had done. Perhaps President Obama should have considered the counsel of his VP first?
Cool. So now the American public have handed the Senate to the GOP, does that mean the President should still get to put anyone on the bench that he likes? Without the advise and consent of the Senate? Perhaps he should nominate someone who would have a great chance of appealing to the GOP, rather than someone squishy on the 2nd Amendment and who trends pretty left.
Hillary also only has one person to run against; the fact there were four candidates in the GOP primaries up through the latest round doesn't sway things? Oh, and Trump was winning prior to March 15th - and those were ALL proportional primaries.
Nice. So - you condemn Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid for not creating budgets, even when they had majorities and a President of the same party? Simple yes or no answer needed, it will speak volumes about your partisanship (or lack thereof).
Correct. And there's no requirement in the Constitution that the Senate debate or vote to approve/not approve a Presidential appointee. So I'm not sure I see the problem. If we bitch about one, then we need to bitch about the other - for logic's sake.
Biden simply said it shouldn't be done - like the majority of Presidents prior to GHW Bush had done. Don't nominate open Supreme Court seats in an election year. Did he not?
We absolutely did! And in 2014 the American people handed the Senate to the Republicans. Since they're to advise and consent to any nominee - they are actually in control, based on the decision we had in 2014.
You mean Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refused to recognize President Obama as President? Especially the first two years when Harry had a filibuster-proof majority?
That video IS edited, it's cut off before Biden finishes his remarks. Later he states that since the American people have split the government between the parties, "Compromise is the responsible course, both between the White House and the Senate..." The clip of his continued remarks is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This was pretty well known as soon as the first set of remarks were brought up in the news in the last couple of days. That second clip took me all of ten seconds to find, the AC political shills here can do better...
So - the Government was split then - like it is now. And how is this different?
Yes, because they always look to Biden for guidance in every decision they make. He's a sort of god to them. The plain fact is that Rs believe that no D POTUS should appoint a SCOTUS judge during the last 8 years of their presidency especially if they happen to hate him/her,
Absolutely! It's why President Obama didn't nominate Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Kagan to the bench, right? I mean, no SC justices ever for Obama!
He's won 20 of 33, 60% of the elections. Hillary has won 17 of 27, 63%. He's neck-and-neck, in terms of States won against other candidates, with Hillary.
I'm sure you held the same position when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refused to write and pass a budget. Right? Toss the bums out for not doing their job?
Just following the Joe Biden Rules. You know, those that Joe Biden justified as what the majority of all preceding Presidents had done - holding off on nominating a SC judge in an election year. Why shouldn't we listen to good ol' Joe?
Rules governing SBU material - Sensitive but Unclassified. Originally started under President Carter, expanded by President Clinton. Hillary broke multiple rules regarding SBU material - let alone classified, secret, and higher information. SBU material isn't even marked. Now, I guess you can contend that she never received anything sensitive via e-mail, but then that raises the question surrounding her competency and role as SecState if she wasn't even aware of what was going on, if she was so kept out of the loop regarding SBU-level information.
You're closer to the truth than most would admit. The problem with our fires is the decades of aggressive fire fighting - it's allowed a massive amount of fuel (dead and dry material) to build up in the forests, so any small fire becomes a major one. We should let them burn a lot more than we do... But then, that releases soot and CO2 and we can't have that, can we?
Yes but at a sea level rise rate of 2-4mm/year, I think that people will have time to adjust!!
Well, yeah. Sortakinda. Adjusting can mean everything from moving to drowning and there ya go.
Sounds so benign, so manageable. Next thing ya know, its 2100, and the levels have risen by 3 feet (conservative) to possibly 6 feet. That is death for places like Miami.
Now, my math may be rusty but 2-4mm/year over the next 84 years (to the year 2100) says 168mm to 336mm. Which is around 6.6 inches to 13 inches. Or - at the upper end - about one foot. So not sure where you get the "3 feet (conservative) to possibly 6 feet". A bit of exaggeration, perhaps? For effect?
Slashdot Mirror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
Considering he has faced an obstructionist Republican party for his entire term he's actually doing better than most of our recent President's.
Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House, 1/4/07 - 1/3/11) and Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader, 1/4/07 - 1/3/15) just shed a tear over your ignorance about their reign - as Democrats - over Congress. Let's not forget the first couple of years that President Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in Congress...
Hmmm... How many tropical cyclones landed in Florida, since 2006? Zero, you say? I rest my case.
Joe Biden said this was decorum, it's what should be done. No SC nominations in an election year. He also made the point that it was what the majority of prior Presidents had done. Perhaps President Obama should have considered the counsel of his VP first?
Cool. So now the American public have handed the Senate to the GOP, does that mean the President should still get to put anyone on the bench that he likes? Without the advise and consent of the Senate? Perhaps he should nominate someone who would have a great chance of appealing to the GOP, rather than someone squishy on the 2nd Amendment and who trends pretty left.
Hillary also only has one person to run against; the fact there were four candidates in the GOP primaries up through the latest round doesn't sway things? Oh, and Trump was winning prior to March 15th - and those were ALL proportional primaries.
Nice. So - you condemn Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid for not creating budgets, even when they had majorities and a President of the same party? Simple yes or no answer needed, it will speak volumes about your partisanship (or lack thereof).
Correct. And there's no requirement in the Constitution that the Senate debate or vote to approve/not approve a Presidential appointee. So I'm not sure I see the problem. If we bitch about one, then we need to bitch about the other - for logic's sake.
Biden simply said it shouldn't be done - like the majority of Presidents prior to GHW Bush had done. Don't nominate open Supreme Court seats in an election year. Did he not?
Doesn't Obama know only white presidents get to nominate supreme court justices?
Explain Kagan and Sotomayor. Idiot - what a waste of a 5 digit ID.
We absolutely did! And in 2014 the American people handed the Senate to the Republicans. Since they're to advise and consent to any nominee - they are actually in control, based on the decision we had in 2014.
You mean Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refused to recognize President Obama as President? Especially the first two years when Harry had a filibuster-proof majority?
That video IS edited, it's cut off before Biden finishes his remarks. Later he states that since the American people have split the government between the parties, "Compromise is the responsible course, both between the White House and the Senate..." The clip of his continued remarks is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?... This was pretty well known as soon as the first set of remarks were brought up in the news in the last couple of days. That second clip took me all of ten seconds to find, the AC political shills here can do better...
So - the Government was split then - like it is now. And how is this different?
Yes, because they always look to Biden for guidance in every decision they make. He's a sort of god to them. The plain fact is that Rs believe that no D POTUS should appoint a SCOTUS judge during the last 8 years of their presidency especially if they happen to hate him/her,
Absolutely! It's why President Obama didn't nominate Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Kagan to the bench, right? I mean, no SC justices ever for Obama!
He's won 20 of 33, 60% of the elections. Hillary has won 17 of 27, 63%. He's neck-and-neck, in terms of States won against other candidates, with Hillary.
I'm sure you held the same position when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refused to write and pass a budget. Right? Toss the bums out for not doing their job?
Just following the Joe Biden Rules. You know, those that Joe Biden justified as what the majority of all preceding Presidents had done - holding off on nominating a SC judge in an election year. Why shouldn't we listen to good ol' Joe?
Storm != Hurricane. The last hurricane in Florida was over 10 years ago.
Rules governing SBU material - Sensitive but Unclassified. Originally started under President Carter, expanded by President Clinton. Hillary broke multiple rules regarding SBU material - let alone classified, secret, and higher information. SBU material isn't even marked. Now, I guess you can contend that she never received anything sensitive via e-mail, but then that raises the question surrounding her competency and role as SecState if she wasn't even aware of what was going on, if she was so kept out of the loop regarding SBU-level information.
You and I know that, but Treehuggers think otherwise...
You're closer to the truth than most would admit. The problem with our fires is the decades of aggressive fire fighting - it's allowed a massive amount of fuel (dead and dry material) to build up in the forests, so any small fire becomes a major one. We should let them burn a lot more than we do... But then, that releases soot and CO2 and we can't have that, can we?
On the backs of the hippopotamuses. Duh.
Is it obstructionist? Where do bills originate? It's not the President's office...
So the rate of sea level change is 80mm per year?
Yes but at a sea level rise rate of 2-4mm/year, I think that people will have time to adjust!!
Well, yeah. Sortakinda. Adjusting can mean everything from moving to drowning and there ya go.
Sounds so benign, so manageable. Next thing ya know, its 2100, and the levels have risen by 3 feet (conservative) to possibly 6 feet. That is death for places like Miami.
Now, my math may be rusty but 2-4mm/year over the next 84 years (to the year 2100) says 168mm to 336mm. Which is around 6.6 inches to 13 inches. Or - at the upper end - about one foot. So not sure where you get the "3 feet (conservative) to possibly 6 feet". A bit of exaggeration, perhaps? For effect?
The Dutch don't get hurricanes almost every year though.
Neither do Floridians.