docyabut2 Posted January 10, 2017 #1 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Just because he said a joke about the KKK, the democrats are crucifying him and putting on such a display . In all the years of watching these sessions, the democrats sure are the nastiest. http://www.aol.com/article/2017/01/10/amid-protest-jeff-sessions-kicks-off-donald-trump-cabinet-nominee-hearings/21651872/ 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashotep Posted January 10, 2017 #2 Share Posted January 10, 2017 I listened to part of this hearing. Where were these people when Lynch was having a private meeting on the plane with Bill or when Hillary was being investigated. I'm glad Ted pointed out their hypocrisy to them. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashotep Posted January 10, 2017 #3 Share Posted January 10, 2017 WATCH: Ted Cruz BLASTS Democrats over blatant hypocrisy at Jeff Sessions confirmation hearing 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted January 10, 2017 #4 Share Posted January 10, 2017 http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/10/mtv-host-mocks-jeff-sessions-asian-grandchildren/ Quote Ira Madison III, an MTV News culture writer and host, mocked Sen. Jeff Sessions’ Asian-American grandchildren on Twitter Tuesday morning. Racism and Hatred are A-OK if your a uber Liberal Democrat Media Elitist... 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted January 10, 2017 #5 Share Posted January 10, 2017 35 minutes ago, DieChecker said: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/10/mtv-host-mocks-jeff-sessions-asian-grandchildren/ Racism and Hatred are A-OK if your a uber Liberal Democrat Media Elitist... What a grub. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aftermath Posted January 11, 2017 #6 Share Posted January 11, 2017 The Democrats are just being petulant children. Three years ago the Democrats changed the nomination rules so that nominees only need a majority vote to be confirmed (the previous rule was 60 votes). The Republicans have 52 votes, a clear majority, so most of Trump's nominations are "in the bag". Get over it and move along. Now, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) announced he will testify against Session's confirmation today. This is merely a ploy to get him into the national spotlight. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/unprecedented-move-sen-cory-booker-testify-jeff-sessions/story?id=44679221 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranormal Panther Posted January 12, 2017 #7 Share Posted January 12, 2017 He's a White man with a Southern accent. That's enough to condemn him, as a racist, in the minds of Marxists. His dishonest, prejudiced Democrat opponents care not a whit for facts and truth in their show trials. This is the same crew that's fine with Ellison as head of the DNC, so "hypocrites" is too weak of a word. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted January 12, 2017 #8 Share Posted January 12, 2017 8 hours ago, Aftermath said: The Democrats are just being petulant children. Three years ago the Democrats changed the nomination rules so that nominees only need a majority vote to be confirmed (the previous rule was 60 votes). The Republicans have 52 votes, a clear majority, so most of Trump's nominations are "in the bag". Get over it and move along. Now, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) announced he will testify against Session's confirmation today. This is merely a ploy to get him into the national spotlight. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/unprecedented-move-sen-cory-booker-testify-jeff-sessions/story?id=44679221 I called this three years ago. Calling out the more liberal democrat members of the UM forums, and they said simply that a Republican wasn't going to win the Presidency anytime soon. Karma's a b**** people. I 100% say that the Republicans use this simple majority rule and get whomever they want put into office. Should have Harry Reid crying like a baby with what he did. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarakore Posted January 12, 2017 #9 Share Posted January 12, 2017 12 minutes ago, DieChecker said: I called this three years ago. Calling out the more liberal democrat members of the UM forums, and they said simply that a Republican wasn't going to win the Presidency anytime soon. Karma's a b**** people. I 100% say that the Republicans use this simple majority rule and get whomever they want put into office. Should have Harry Reid crying like a baby with what he did. Can you show us this "prediction"...? Or shall we just take your word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted January 12, 2017 #10 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Avatar Samantha Ai said: Can you show us this "prediction"...? Or shall we just take your word? It was three years ago, but I'll give it a Google Kung Fu try... EDIT: Here... In part. Read that whole thread. And here.... Edited January 12, 2017 by DieChecker 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarakore Posted January 12, 2017 #11 Share Posted January 12, 2017 3 hours ago, DieChecker said: It was three years ago, but I'll give it a Google Kung Fu try... EDIT: Here... In part. Read that whole thread. And here.... Those posts are in regards to eliminating filibusters but thank you. Now I do remember the first few pages of that thread. I was just hoping for an actual political prediction. The general gist is there but that is not the same thing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted January 12, 2017 #12 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Is there a single discussion on this board that doesn't descend into the collective partisanship brainwash? Democrats and Karl Marx need nothing to do with what we think of Sessions. Sessions is of the same ilk that made crack cocaine punishments 100x more severe than powdered cocaine. He's of the same ilk that has destroyed countless lives with mandatory minimum sentencing. He wants more marijuana prosecutions. Not enough real peoples' lives being destroyed over tired old white conservative redneck statist fear-BS about marijuana. He's fundamentally inconsistent. He calls for less federal intervention but not when it comes to "the War on Drugs." On foreign policy he's even more confused. He's a debt hawk and a war hawk at the same time. Another hypocritical lawyer who doesn't understand that war spending is debt spending. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted January 12, 2017 #13 Share Posted January 12, 2017 4 hours ago, Yamato said: He's fundamentally inconsistent. And a liar. Quote In the questionnaire he filed recently with the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sessions, R-Ala., listed four civil rights cases among the 10 most significant that he litigated "personally" as the U.S. attorney for Alabama during the 1980s. Three involved voting rights, while the fourth was a school desegregation case. Following criticism for exaggerating his role, he then claimed that he provided "assistance and guidance" on these cases. We worked in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which brought those lawsuits; we handled three of the four ourselves. We can state categorically that Sessions had no substantive involvement in any of them. He did what any U.S. attorney would have had to do: He signed his name on the complaint, and we added his name on any motions or briefs. That's it. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-jeff-sessions-race-civil-rights-20170105-story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted January 12, 2017 #14 Share Posted January 12, 2017 13 hours ago, Avatar Samantha Ai said: Those posts are in regards to eliminating filibusters but thank you. Now I do remember the first few pages of that thread. I was just hoping for an actual political prediction. The general gist is there but that is not the same thing. Seems the same thing to me. The thread was about changing the rule about the Filibuster to allow Confirmation of Obama nominees with only 51 Senate votes. The current Confirmations would have been able to be stopped by Filibuster if this rule hadn't changed. Now with a simple majority filibusters can be ignored, and Confirmations put through. Where previously it took 60 votes to eliminate the filibuster. Otherwise politicians can try to filibuster a Hearing and stretch out the vote for weeks, or months. It was a short sighted fix by Reid, which doubtless he regrets today. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted January 12, 2017 #15 Share Posted January 12, 2017 19 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said: And a liar. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-jeff-sessions-race-civil-rights-20170105-story.html He's a lawyer LG. He's a professional liar. Now he's trying to become the most powerful lawyer in the world. The Constitution...oh wait. I can't talk about health because I'm not a doctor, so I probably can't talk about the law either because I'm not a lawyer. Speaking of powerful lawyers, here's a trivia question I don't know the answer to: How many of our elected officials are lawyers? How many are Harvard lawyers? Not to make Sessions worse than average either, because there's sweet little lies we can dig up on pretty much any public figure who's been out there for long enough. He seems like a nice guy as people go, but his policies sound like nightmares. At the end of the day, that he can make so many people suffer or die needlessly and not feel there's a problem with it, that he can be so hypocritical with the peoples' money, the big ticket items like military particularly, there is no lack of little lies he's told in his life that could relieve him of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarakore Posted January 12, 2017 #16 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 36 minutes ago, DieChecker said: Seems the same thing to me. The thread was about changing the rule about the Filibuster to allow Confirmation of Obama nominees with only 51 Senate votes. The current Confirmations would have been able to be stopped by Filibuster if this rule hadn't changed. Now with a simple majority filibusters can be ignored, and Confirmations put through. Where previously it took 60 votes to eliminate the filibuster. Otherwise politicians can try to filibuster a Hearing and stretch out the vote for weeks, or months. It was a short sighted fix by Reid, which doubtless he regrets today. Thanks for explaining a bit more even though I had to research further to figure it out. Your prediction was accurate. Although when Frist attempted to do the same in the 2000s it might have been more appealing for you. Then it was only for the bipartisan Gang of 14 in 2005 that delayed the nuclear option. In all likelihood it would have eventually happened and it seems a toss of the coin as to which party would be in that position to realize it. Since the spirit of bipartisanship has been greatly suppressed as time goes on it seems better to have it as is. No worries, it will flip back again where Democrats or some better progressive party will be making the nominees. Although I am glad the older 60 votes remains for Supreme Court Justices. Edited January 12, 2017 by Avatar Samantha Ai 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz Dane Posted January 12, 2017 #17 Share Posted January 12, 2017 14 minutes ago, Yamato said: Speaking of powerful lawyers, here's a trivia question I don't know the answer to: How many of our elected officials are lawyers? How many are Harvard lawyers? This may help a little perhaps... January 20, 2016 - "Today, 1 out of every 6,000 lawyers is a current member of Congress, Robinson says. In 1890, about 1 out of every 265 lawyers was a current member of Congress." - "In the current Congress, the best represented law schools are Harvard (19 members)..." http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/lawyers_no_longer_dominate_congress_is_commercialization_of_profession_to_b 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted January 12, 2017 #18 Share Posted January 12, 2017 29 minutes ago, Yamato said: Not to make Sessions worse than average either, because there's sweet little lies we can dig up on pretty much any public figure who's been out there for long enough. Oh I agree. But we just went through an election where 'dishonesty' was (selectively of course) critical to people's fitness for office, so thought it deserved to be pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted January 12, 2017 #19 Share Posted January 12, 2017 2 hours ago, Lemieux said: This may help a little perhaps... January 20, 2016 - "Today, 1 out of every 6,000 lawyers is a current member of Congress, Robinson says. In 1890, about 1 out of every 265 lawyers was a current member of Congress." - "In the current Congress, the best represented law schools are Harvard (19 members)..." http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/lawyers_no_longer_dominate_congress_is_commercialization_of_profession_to_b That just tells me we have too many lawyers in the USA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted January 12, 2017 #20 Share Posted January 12, 2017 2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said: Oh I agree. But we just went through an election where 'dishonesty' was (selectively of course) critical to people's fitness for office, so thought it deserved to be pointed out. I don't disagree he's not the most honest person either. I don't see how dishonesty was a factor in this election though, maybe someone said it was? lol oh all the Hillary Clinton bits of course. But there's very little honesty in either ticket. Nobody really cared, man. The only good quality rebuttals I got for my criticism of Trump the past year has been "Oh he was just saying that." so when just talking bologna is the excuse they resort to again and again, how can one conclude that they care about honesty? When Trump lied, no one died, was the attitude. If we're going to get lies either way, might as well take the lies without the blood on their hands. "We're going to build a great wall." "Mexico's going to pay for it." "The military has been decimated." "We're going to rebuild the military greater than it's ever been before." Nobody cared about the accuracy of any of these yuuge statements, or the affordability of their price tags. They just loved the Gospel. Spell out why the wall is a stupid idea, and "he's just saying that, he's not REALLY going to do it." So he's a liar then, very well. If more than half the people voting for him believe in the lies, that was okay too. Because Hillary Clinton was a liar as well, so nobody here cared a drip about Trump's honesty. When lying is the excuse for whatever stupid thing he said, at least he didn't have to be stupid. With such low standards from we the people and our representatives, a slick lawyer like Sessions will have no problem greasing his way through. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted January 12, 2017 #21 Share Posted January 12, 2017 His views on marijuana and asset seizure caught my eye. The government is going to make a lot of money with Sessions as AG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted January 15, 2017 #22 Share Posted January 15, 2017 On 1/12/2017 at 4:59 PM, Gromdor said: His views on marijuana and asset seizure caught my eye. The government is going to make a lot of money with Sessions as AG. You may be correct but have you heard of this case he has decided to recuse himself from? http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/12/andrew-napolitano-why-criminal-investigation-hillary-clinton-is-back-to-front-and-center.html This is the first I'd heard of this new info on the Hildebeast ongoing saga. It will be interesting to see if Barry pardons her in the next few days. I'm praying for a perp walk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarakore Posted January 15, 2017 #23 Share Posted January 15, 2017 Trump is a liar with all those promises. As a business man he knew the cost and logistics of each of those projects but still decided to pull one over on his own supporters. To point out that Don the Con is a film flam man is quite accurate Yam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincennes Posted January 15, 2017 #24 Share Posted January 15, 2017 On 1/12/2017 at 1:50 PM, Yamato said: The Constitution...oh wait. I can't talk about health because I'm not a doctor, so I probably can't talk about the law either because I'm not a lawyer. Is there one more thing to add that you are not ? I remember back when I first came across your endless liberal message, your location was listed as Australia. When I pointed that out you quickly removed any location reference. Could that be the reason for the "oh wait" after the reference to the US constitution because another thing you are not is an American ? Because if not, I'm going to ask you the same question I did back then. Why all the interest and opinions in our affairs ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted January 15, 2017 #25 Share Posted January 15, 2017 26 minutes ago, Vincennes said: Is there one more thing to add that you are not ? I remember back when I first came across your endless liberal message, your location was listed as Australia. When I pointed that out you quickly removed any location reference. Could that be the reason for the "oh wait" after the reference to the US constitution because another thing you are not is an American ? Because if not, I'm going to ask you the same question I did back then. Why all the interest and opinions in our affairs ? Nope, because that wasn't me. Never listed a location or any other personal information. Other people may think that age, gender, politics, location, whatever demographic matters to what I say but I don't. I've disclosed a hundred times that I'm an American and more than a few times that I'm from Ohio born and raised. What other poster are you getting me mixed up with? psyche101 is Australian, has a lot of interest in our affairs and is very liberal on certain issues like guns. Maybe him? If there's anything you have to address I just said that doesn't have to do with me not being an American...what is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now