chicagodannyd said: "As to the Democratic party, I think I speak for most veterans in saying that we hold the leadership of this party with contempt.

You speak for no one, and certainly NOT for actual veterans such as myself.  YOU are beneath my contempt.

 

Former Sp-4, U.S. Army Chemical Corps, Veteran of the Viet Nam War

P.S. If you disagree with this post, that is fine. I risked my life for your rightto speak as you wish."

You lie.  

 

One need look no further in history than yesterday's Chuck Schumer speech to see why sensible people find the leadership of the Democrat party offensive.  The man (and much of his party) has no respect for the constitution (and no respect for the justice candidate that is as qualified as anyone on the planet to be a Supreme Court justice).  He blasts McConnell as if he himself would have held off on a Supreme Court justice confirmation had he been in McConnell's shoes.  The hypocrisy is stunning.  Yet another example of why sensible people who dislike either candidate will not vote for Biden - and Trump will win.

Pauly3 said: "One need look no further in history than yesterday's Chuck Schumer speech to see why sensible people find the leadership of the Democrat party offensive. The man (and much of his party) has no respect forthe constitution (and no respect for the justice candidate that is as qualified as anyone on the planet to be a Supreme Court justice). He blasts McConnell as if he himself would have held off on a Supreme Court justice confirmation had he been in McConnell's shoes. The hypocrisy is stunning. Yet another example of why sensible people who dislike either candidate will not vote for Biden - and Trump will win."


There’s  a very good reason why Schumer is blasting McConnell. When Obama was at the end of his second term, there was also a seat open on the SCOTUS bench. He had every right to fill it even though his term was almost up. However, the GOP said (and wrongfully may I add) that that couldn’t legally happen in an election year, and the Republicans would not confirm anyone Obama picked as a nominee. There was nothing unconstitutional about Obama putting someone on the bench. They just wanted to be able to do it themselves. 
 

Now, four years later, the same thing happens. Only this time it’s the Republicans in power. And, all of a sudden, as if by magic, what they claimed as wrong an unconstitutional is suddenly ok. McConnell Is a hypocritical ass.

 

And, Trump lost my the military vote when he said that those are who died in service to the country were cowards for having that happen.

Comparing what happened in 2016 to now is like comparing apples and oranges.  Today, the president shares the same party as the majority in the senate.  In 2016, that was not the case.  Yes, Obama had every right to make an appointment.  And the republican majority senate had every right not to confirm.  Schumer would have acted no differently had he been in the same situation as McConnell.  So it is Schumer that is the hypocrite as we know what Schumer would have done in both 2016 and 2020 had he the opportunity.

There is no credible evidence Trump disparaged soldiers that had died in war.  That rhetoric is yet another example why sensible people can't stand much of the Democrat party and will not vote for Biden - and Trump will win.

Pauly3 said: "[T]he republican majority senate had every right not to confirm."

There's McConnell's foul, right in your wording: not to confirm. Sure, a Republican majority could've voted against Garland, but they broke the process, decorum, and any semblance of respectability altogether by not even holding the hearings. Why? Putting Garland on TV would've demonstrated that he was a palatable choice to moderates in both parties and it would've put tremendous strain on vulnerable Senate Republicans to vote against him. Otherwise, sure have the hearings and vote him down in the traditional procedure. McConnell made this bed and pretty soon a Republican minority will have to sleep in it––I hope Democrats seize on the opportunity to play by the broken rules that all Republicans deem acceptable when they hold the reins of power. I won't even touch the "sucker and losers" story... it's reliably reported and many moderate Republicans believe it and it has swayed votes.

By the way, nice to disagree with you respectfully, Pauly. Much more pleasant than the Republican who told me to "F––– off" when I was phone banking last night.

 

I don't disagree McConnell went against the process and decorum in 2016.  I hold no praise for how that was handled by McConnell.  Would Schumer have acted differently?  I don't think so.  Would Schumer have acted differently this time around in 2020?  I definitely do not think so.

Regarding the "suckers and losers" comment, I disagree it was reliably reported.  The source is unknown, and many people (dozens?) who were present on that trip say they heard no such thing.  If someone actually heard the president say that, how likely is that he/she would not have commented to others on that trip about it?  Something like "wow, can you believe he said that?".  But no, no one is aware of the comment.  "Reliably reported" is way too optimistic.  It would surprise few if it turned out to be true, however it would also surprise few if the comment was manufactured maliciously.

Thank you too, PianoMann, for the civility.  It's rare, around here especially.

Pauly3 said: "I don't disagree McConnell went against the process and decorum in 2016. I hold no praise for how that was handled by McConnell. Would Schumer have acted differently? I don't think so. Would Schumer have acted differently this time around in 2020? I definitely do not think so."

I think Schumer's ineffectual opposition to Amy Coney Barrett proves he would've acted / would act differently. I know Republicans always had the votes for Barrett and there was little Senate Democrats could've done to prevent, postpone, or derail her confirmation, but Schumer never goes nuclear. Feinstein didn't go nuclear. Their idea of protest is boycotting the procedural vote out of the Judiciary Committee. These guys never play hardball, and they need to learn how like... yesterday. My point is Schumer would never not proceed with a hearing on a nominee because, until McConnell, it would seem unfathomable. The game has changed under McConnell's tenure and we better all be ready to play on that new turf.

We clearly won't agree on the military comments, so I'll just say two brief things: one, the fact that––as you say––few would be surprised Trump said it bodes very poorly for him holding onto and building on his military support from 2016; he's said and done enough that it doesn't take a leap to hear those comments in his voice in one's head; and two, the fact that John Kelly did not unequivocally deny Trump made the comments also speaks volumes, and he just recently called Trump "the most flawed person [he's] ever met." I'd think even if he wants to remain apolitical that he could set the record straight on Trump's comments if he never said them. It indicates to me he likely did.

My partner is a veteran. We know a lot of veterans. this take is merde.

I don't think there is anything close to proof that would indicate Schumer would not have done exactly as McConnell if the opportunity had been there.  I recognize my own bias toward Schumer, so perhaps I'm wrong and he would not have proceeded in the same way had he the opportunity.  But again, his ineffectual opposition proves nothing other than it confirmed his lack of options to do anything impactful.  His comments on the senate floor yesterday were laughable.  But again, I recognize my own bias.  Regarding the way the game is played, Schumer has set some rules of his own.  There is plenty of blame to go around for the way the game is now and will be played.

Regarding Kelly's comments on Trump - and the lack of a confirming comment about what Trump did or did not say about the military, say nothing to reveal the truth.  If he was so willing to publicly call Trump the most flawed person he's ever met, there's little reason to believe he would not reveal his first hand knowledge of evidence demonstrating Trump's flaw and confirm the story of what Trump supposedly said about military men who had died.  I think this suggests Kelly did not hear the supposed comment.  That few would be surprised if Trump actually said what is claimed does indeed not bode well for him.  But there is some missing nuance here in that much of the reason for the lack of surprise is the way the media and all who oppose Trump have treated him for his entire presidency.  I'm not saying Trump isn't blameless.  There is much to criticize Trump for, of which no one but himself is to blame.

Pauly3 said: "I'm not saying Trump isn't blameless. There is much to criticize Trump for, of which no one but himself is to blame."

On that point, I think we share major common ground! haha

 

Islander_fan, that no one was or is now willing to corroborate the story is telling.  Few people are afraid of criticizing Trump, so the silence of these supposed mystery witnesses is very telling.  John Bolton, who is a major critic of Trump, wrote in his book that the Marine One helicopter option was cancelled due to weather, and he further wrote that the car option would take 90 minutes or more each way which was an unacceptable risk.  Additionally, Bolton stated it was a straightforward decision to cancel the visit to the military cemetery.  Seems like Bolton debunked the Atlantic article's claim regarding why the trip was cancelled.  The Atlantic article doesn't seem reputable given what Bolton had to say and given the lack of any source willing to identify him or herself.  And no reasonable person would be surprised if the New York Times or Washington Post wrote similar articles lacking the same repute.

Bolton has no reason to lie about this.  That would be one reason to believe him.  And yes, Kelly's refusal to refute (or confirm) the statements speaks volumes.  The fact he hasn't confirmed the story is a piece of the puzzle you seem to have ignored.

Schumer is one vile p.o.s. He threatened physical violence against Supreme Court Justices who did not vote the way he wanted . The silence from the media speaks volumes as to who they want to win. There is silence about what they know about Biden and will not report on. Socialism is bad. Imposing it coming out of a recession is suicidal. Remember under socialism your personal property now belongs to the state. Never thought I would live under socialist rule.

Feel sorry for the young who will live under it. There is a saying "Be careful what you wish for You May get it.
By the way I am a vet and Dems do not think highly of vets.

Mr Roxy said: "Schumer is one vile p.o.s. He threatened physical violence against Supreme Court Justices who did not vote the way he wanted . The silence from the media speaks volumes as to who they want to win. There is silence about what they know about Biden and will not report on. Socialism is bad. Imposing it coming out of a recession is suicidal. Remember under socialism your personal property now belongs to the state. Never thought I would live under socialist rule.

Feel sorry for the young who will live under it. There is a saying "Be careful what you wish for You May get it.
By the way I am a vet and Dems do not think highly of vets."

 

To quote Joseph R. Biden, Jr., soon to be elected President of the United States:   MALARKEY   !!

 

>Socialism is bad. Imposing it coming out of a recession is suicidal. Remember under socialism your personal property now belongs to the state. Never thought I would live under socialist rule.

You are psychotic to think "Socialism" is just something you turn a ****ing switch on and you clearly have no idea what Democrats propose. Go keep your old ass at the Olive Garden and stop trying to make sure the world is still **** after you're gone.

Pauly3 said: "Islander_fan, that no one was or is now willing to corroborate the story is telling. Few people are afraid of criticizingTrump,so the silence of these supposed mystery witnesses is very telling. John Bolton, who is a major critic of Trump, wrote in his book that the Marine One helicopter option was cancelled due to weather, and he further wrote that the car option would take 90 minutes or more each way which was an unacceptable risk. Additionally, Bolton stated it was a straightforward decision to cancel the visit to the military cemetery. Seems like Bolton debunkedthe Atlantic article's claim regarding why the trip was cancelled. The Atlantic article doesn't seem reputable given what Bolton had to say and given the lack of any source willing to identify him or herself. And no reasonable person would be surprised if the New York Times or Washington Post wrote similar articles lacking the same repute."

There’s an interesting article in Time Magazine that I read that was talking about how many are speaking out against the president. Now, one did use his name and was getting threatening phone calls after having done so.

Whereas another one said he was scared to use his name stating that between the Boogaloo Boys and the Q-Anon supporters who both have committed political acts of violence based on their support for trump he was scared to find out what would happen if he did. 

 

With groups threatening the lives of those who speak out against Trump, might you be able to understand that there may be good reason for people not using their names in articles? It’s not telling of anything negative as you hav said. It is, however,  telling regarding what’s going on in the world that it is a very smart and safe things for people to not use their name in the press. 

https://time.com/5892948/trump-former-officials-speak-out/