RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

I have issue with her or anyone else. As long as they vote the law and the constitution

---

Believe you meant to put NO before issue. If I am wrong, please correct me. Knowing you as long as I have, I'm betting you just left out NO by mistake.

---

I did. Will go back and edit

Civilized said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

Because politics? I'm sure they would use the front of Garland, the hypocrisy of this new justice, and workload increase in the last 150+ years.

---

Noooo

I don't agree with filling the seat now, but two wrongs do not make a right. Court packing will make 50% of the country no longer see it as legitimate. Despite everything we've seen the past few years the court still has the trust of the public at large, at least compared to any other branch of government.

---

This is where I am. I dont agree with filling the seat, but the Republicans arent breaking any rules or procedures. Its WAY more concerning to me that the Liberals are openly talking about stacking the court. Talk about escalating politics. The court will be at 97 justices before you know it, because itll get stacked every time there is a change of power, rendering it a useless branch of government.

---

Here's a concerning note putting aside that GOP is following the constitution which really no more needs to be said. But...on top of that democrats have said outright that this election is going to be fraudulent and they will not accept the results on election night under ANY circumstance. I'm not making this up.. Biden camp has 600 lawyers ready to roll and they plan to take this election into the courts. They may even try to tie it up past inauguration. Whatever they're doing it's nefarious. Now imagine the supreme court gets involved... but out of politeness we waited. Now there's 8 justices to potentially decide election results that could change America forever. You better fill the seat now.

---

Stop with the "democrats have said [insert crazy saying here]."

What democrats? On what basis? Where? How many?

Ironically, it's Trump that has most frequently called into question the potential election result with all this voter fraud BS but no democrats or republicans I know really think Trump is going to thumb his nose at the election if he loses, squat in the White House, and need to get removed by the military.

I don't like it when either side does this, it's not real. It's making up something to rage against.

C'mon man.

---

Just because I like to argue with you:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156

https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/18/nearly-half-democrats-think-election-rigged/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/07/02/biden-campaign-deploys-600-lawyers-so-trump-cant-steal-this-election/#4893f60f1e00

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/07/02/joe-biden-600-lawyers-ready-battle-trump-election-chicanery/5362546002/

https://www.axios.com/schiff-trump-impeachment-election-a5162595-dea0-404d-b099-582ae7e51b78.html

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/23/headlines/democrats_accuse_trump_of_trying_to_cheat_upcoming_election


I could keep going....but do i really need to?


I have also been looking for a reason to include this...but haven't found the right time....guess this is just as good as any

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/biden-the-riots-will-continue-unless-you-vote-democrat/

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

Because politics? I'm sure they would use the front of Garland, the hypocrisy of this new justice, and workload increase in the last 150+ years.

---

Noooo

I don't agree with filling the seat now, but two wrongs do not make a right. Court packing will make 50% of the country no longer see it as legitimate. Despite everything we've seen the past few years the court still has the trust of the public at large, at least compared to any other branch of government.

---

This is where I am. I dont agree with filling the seat, but the Republicans arent breaking any rules or procedures. Its WAY more concerning to me that the Liberals are openly talking about stacking the court. Talk about escalating politics. The court will be at 97 justices before you know it, because itll get stacked every time there is a change of power, rendering it a useless branch of government.

---

Here's a concerning note putting aside that GOP is following the constitution which really no more needs to be said. But...on top of that democrats have said outright that this election is going to be fraudulent and they will not accept the results on election night under ANY circumstance. I'm not making this up.. Biden camp has 600 lawyers ready to roll and they plan to take this election into the courts. They may even try to tie it up past inauguration. Whatever they're doing it's nefarious. Now imagine the supreme court gets involved... but out of politeness we waited. Now there's 8 justices to potentially decide election results that could change America forever. You better fill the seat now.

---

Stop with the "democrats have said [insert crazy saying here]."

What democrats? On what basis? Where? How many?

Ironically, it's Trump that has most frequently called into question the potential election result with all this voter fraud BS but no democrats or republicans I know really think Trump is going to thumb his nose at the election if he loses, squat in the White House, and need to get removed by the military.

I don't like it when either side does this, it's not real. It's making up something to rage against.

C'mon man.

---

Just because I like to argue with you:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156

https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/18/nearly-half-democrats-think-election-rigged/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/07/02/biden-campaign-deploys-600-lawyers-so-trump-cant-steal-this-election/#4893f60f1e00

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/07/02/joe-biden-600-lawyers-ready-battle-trump-election-chicanery/5362546002/

https://www.axios.com/schiff-trump-impeachment-election-a5162595-dea0-404d-b099-582ae7e51b78.html

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/23/headlines/democrats_accuse_trump_of_trying_to_cheat_upcoming_election


I could keep going....but do i really need to?


I have also been looking for a reason to include this...but haven't found the right time....guess this is just as good as any

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/biden-the-riots-will-continue-unless-you-vote-democrat/

---

I'm responding to ncsualum05's remark that dems think "that this election is going to be fraudulent and they will not accept the results on election night under ANY circumstance. I'm not making this up.. Biden camp has 600 lawyers ready to roll and they plan to take this election into the courts."

That's a terrible conflation of a several different MSM talking points, not an accurate assessment of what "dems think."

Although I'm temped to go point-by-point on your links because I like arguing with you too , I'll refrain.

I'll simply say that none of the links demonstrate that "dems think" "this election is going to be fraudulent and they will not accept the results on election night under ANY circumstance" and that "Biden's camp has 600 lawyers ready to roll and they plan to take this election into the courts."

People said the same thing about Trump in 2016. It was all to get voters into the booth then, and its the same thing here. A definitive result either way and nothing changes. A 2000 Florida on the other hand, well, it would fit this years theme

Even Romney agrees with nominating a Justice. Wow.

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

Because politics? I'm sure they would use the front of Garland, the hypocrisy of this new justice, and workload increase in the last 150+ years.

---

Noooo

I don't agree with filling the seat now, but two wrongs do not make a right. Court packing will make 50% of the country no longer see it as legitimate. Despite everything we've seen the past few years the court still has the trust of the public at large, at least compared to any other branch of government.

---

This is where I am. I dont agree with filling the seat, but the Republicans arent breaking any rules or procedures. Its WAY more concerning to me that the Liberals are openly talking about stacking the court. Talk about escalating politics. The court will be at 97 justices before you know it, because itll get stacked every time there is a change of power, rendering it a useless branch of government.

---

Here's a concerning note putting aside that GOP is following the constitution which really no more needs to be said. But...on top of that democrats have said outright that this election is going to be fraudulent and they will not accept the results on election night under ANY circumstance. I'm not making this up.. Biden camp has 600 lawyers ready to roll and they plan to take this election into the courts. They may even try to tie it up past inauguration. Whatever they're doing it's nefarious. Now imagine the supreme court gets involved... but out of politeness we waited. Now there's 8 justices to potentially decide election results that could change America forever. You better fill the seat now.

---

Stop with the "democrats have said [insert crazy saying here]."

What democrats? On what basis? Where? How many?

Ironically, it's Trump that has most frequently called into question the potential election result with all this voter fraud BS but no democrats or republicans I know really think Trump is going to thumb his nose at the election if he loses, squat in the White House, and need to get removed by the military.

I don't like it when either side does this, it's not real. It's making up something to rage against.

C'mon man.

---

Just because I like to argue with you:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156

https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/18/nearly-half-democrats-think-election-rigged/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/07/02/biden-campaign-deploys-600-lawyers-so-trump-cant-steal-this-election/#4893f60f1e00

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/07/02/joe-biden-600-lawyers-ready-battle-trump-election-chicanery/5362546002/

https://www.axios.com/schiff-trump-impeachment-election-a5162595-dea0-404d-b099-582ae7e51b78.html

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/23/headlines/democrats_accuse_trump_of_trying_to_cheat_upcoming_election


I could keep going....but do i really need to?


I have also been looking for a reason to include this...but haven't found the right time....guess this is just as good as any

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/biden-the-riots-will-continue-unless-you-vote-democrat/

---

I'm responding to ncsualum05's remark that dems think "that this election is going to be fraudulent and they will not accept the results on election night under ANY circumstance. I'm not making this up.. Biden camp has 600 lawyers ready to roll and they plan to take this election into the courts."

That's a terrible conflation of a several different MSM talking points, not an accurate assessment of what "dems think."

Although I'm temped to go point-by-point on your links because I like arguing with you too , I'll refrain.

I'll simply say that none of the links demonstrate that "dems think" "this election is going to be fraudulent and they will not accept the results on election night under ANY circumstance" and that "Biden's camp has 600 lawyers ready to roll and they plan to take this election into the courts."

---

Thanks for the links. I don't have time to do that kind of stuff. I'm sorry to say it is real. I don't want to get into an argument about it. If you don't want people thinking that then don't go on TV spouting that rhetoric. I'm talking to Bernie, Kamala, Joe, AOC, Talib, Nancy, Chuck and the rest of them.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/16/biden-attorney-legal-fight-election

There's one link about the fight prep. It doesn't say 600 but an army. I've heard that number before. Whatever you get the point. I don't agree with that articles premise either but the point remains that democrats pushed hard for non restricted mass mail in voting all while forming a conspiracy about the postal service. Trump of course has been railing against this and muddying the waters further. So now everyone is prepping for legal issues. It all could've been avoided if democrats hadn't pushed for this. You can vote without getting sick... go early and get your picks ready ahead of time. It only takes 5 minutes to fill in the circles and you can wear your mask. None of this had to be difficult.

ncsualum05 said:

---

Thanks for the links. I don't have time to do that kind of stuff. I'm sorry to say it is real. I don't want to get into an argument about it. If you don't want people thinking that then don't go on TV spouting that rhetoric. I'm talking to Bernie, Kamala, Joe, AOC, Talib, Nancy, Chuck and the rest of them.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/16/biden-attorney-legal-fight-election

There's one link about the fight prep. It doesn't say 600 but an army. I've heard that number before. Whatever you get the point. I don't agree with that articles premise either but the point remains that democrats pushed hard for non restricted mass mail in voting all while forming a conspiracy about the postal service. Trump of course has been railing against this and muddying the waters further. So now everyone is prepping for legal issues. It all could've been avoided if democrats hadn't pushed for this. You can vote without getting sick... go early and get your picks ready ahead of time. It only takes 5 minutes to fill in the circles and you can wear your mask. None of this had to be difficult.

---

Yeah I hear you. It almost goes without saying at this point that whatever issue we're talking about doesn't have to be as politicized as it likely is.

Dems generally are for removing barriers to voting, especially regressive barriers that impact the margins disproportionately.

Voter ID laws and mail-in voting have that in common, they increase turnout and broaden democratic process access to the margins. Able bodied middle-class Americans push back in the exact same way about Voter ID laws as they do about mail-in voting - "Who doesn't have an ID?? Everyone I know has a driver's license! Reduce the capacity for fraud and require ID!!"

Problem is, the people that don't have ID (almost always a driver's license) are disproportionately low-income, minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities. The expense, know-how, time, and travel required to get a government-issue photo ID isn't onerous for the middle class so we gloss over the challenges it poses to some Americans. 10% of Americans don't have government-issued photo ID.

Pubs push back against mail-in voting and voter ID laws because of the perception of increased fraud possibilities, but there is no evidence that the benefits of increasing voting access to more Americans commensurately increases fraud. There are barriers in place to prevent fraud, and they work.

If a foreign superpower rival again meddles in our democratic process in a way that's impactful, will Dems push back on that? Of course, and they should. It's ridiculous that Russia is intentionally and maliciously sowing discord in this country and impacting presidential elections.

Given the time it will take to count votes this year given the increase in mail-in votes, would it be premature to declare a winner (and for one candidate to concede) on election night? Yes, those things would likely be premature unless it's a landslide. Given that it appears right now that a landslide Trump win is unlikely there's likely no reason for Biden to concede a close race on election night with votes uncounted.

I don't think under any circumstances though that Biden would fail to concede once it's appropriately demonstrated he's the loser.

Pacfanweb said:

---

Funny how the Dems are crying about the SC at this point, when in 2016 they were trying to do the same thing, and were crying about the Pubs not allowing it.

Let's face it, if the roles were reverse, everything would be the exact same. Dems would be nominating and Pubs would be crying about it.

Politics is all a bunch of damn children squabbling.

---

100%

Related:

PackBacker07 said:

---

Related:

---

Yeah.....excuse me if i don't believe anything that the Atlantic publishes after the stunt they pulled a few weeks ago with their "anonymous" sources.

PackBacker07 said:

---

Related:

---

Whatever lawyer said that is an idiot. That's just as bad as the crap the democrats are screaming. There's no way Trump is going to find electors that are faithless to the vote. It...will...never...happen. Vote fraud does and can happen. Especially in absentee and mail-in. That is a legitimate concern. Buying off electors? Yeah... no that is not a concern. No one would ever accept that.

PackBacker07 said:

---

Related:

---

Yea, Im gonna call BS on this one. The Atlantic is right up there with Breitbart for me.

ncsualum05 said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

Related:

---

Whatever lawyer said that is an idiot. That's just as bad as the crap the democrats are screaming. There's no way Trump is going to find electors that are faithless to the vote. It...will...never...happen. Vote fraud does and can happen. Especially in absentee and mail-in. That is a legitimate concern. Buying off electors? Yeah... no that is not a concern. No one would ever accept that.

---

Trump does not need to find faithless electors, Too many people have a childlike understanding of our Constitution and how much is tradition versus law. State's have total authority over how electors are chosen, You vote for electors, not a President because the State ALLOWS you to vote. Any State with all three branches of government in the same hands can name who they want as electors. Many States are set up to allow the Governor or the Secretary of State to make a defacto selection of electors.

Nothing has changed since the 1876 election and the deal between Hayes and Tilden, except today no deals are possible because the parties are in complete ideological opposition. Most of our patterns and practices have been set by actions of people like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, as well as electoral losers like Bryan and Gore.

Trump does not accept American social, political, and cultural norms over his own personal benefit. He is in it only for himself and his family. A person who does not accept the rules can;t be expected to play by rules, especially those that are informal.

PackBacker07 said:

---

Related:

---

LOL@ The Atlantic.

Pacfanweb said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

Related:

---

LOL@ The Atlantic.

---

This is the problem with the Atlantic and really most news outlets now. They have been so partisan and so wrong in so much coverage of a single political party that half of the country refused to believe anything that they may put out and the other half takes it all and believes it to be true.

Could the story be true....I dunno...

Anonymous sources that can't be backed up, stories that they have to back track on, the editorials that are treated as front page news, and the absolute willingness to completely ignore parts of a story that doesn't support their beliefs structure, of just ignoring stories completely that can be spun a certain way.

This is what we see on a daily basis in the media. Thomas Jefferson spoke of the media as the 5th estate that was there to hold all politicians from any party responsible for their words and actions...both good and bad. That just doesn't happen anymore in this country.

It's truly sad and disappointing.

Not directed at you specifically, but why do people only have a problem with political "anonymous sources," and why only in recent memory had a problem with said sources? Sources, by nature, don't want to be named. It's how journalism has worked forever. No one takes shots at sports journalists using the exact same model, for instance. People don't call Woj FAKE NEWS because they don't agree or want to hear what he has to say. But in politics they do.

Editorials, opinion pieces, etc I completely agree with. Folks are taking opinion as fact way too often. Cable news shows with talking heads telling their opinions have somehow become basis for "fact." Entertainment =/= journalism.

PackBacker07 said:

---

Not directed at you specifically, but why do people only have a problem with political "anonymous sources," and why only in recent memory had a problem with said sources? Sources, by nature, don't want to be named. It's how journalism has worked forever. No one takes shots at sports journalists using the exact same model, for instance. People don't call Woj FAKE NEWS because they don't agree or want to hear what he has to say. But in politics they do.

Editorials, opinion pieces, etc I completely agree with. Folks are taking opinion as fact way too often. Cable news shows with talking heads telling their opinions have somehow become basis for "fact." Entertainment =/= journalism.

---

Dont think this was towards me, but Ill answer anyway. The reason I distrust political anonymous sources is their track record, especially in the last 4-6 years is abysmal. There are numerous examples (the pee tape, email servers, etc) where anonymous "sources" were sure something was happening or happened, yet turned out to be nothing but drivel.

Ill compare it to the sports world. I love CFB and one of my favorite time of the year is the CFB coaching carousel, usually because its full of stupid. One of the few sources I check is FootballScoop's twitter. Why? Even though I dont know the people that manage the account/site, their information always seems to be genuine and fairly accurate. Do they get stories wrong? Sure, but they are more than often in the right. Can you say the same for political outlets like The Athletic or Breitbart? I cant

Ruth B. Ginsburg, John G. Roberts Jr., Earl Warren, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, Sam J. Ervin Jr., Ted Kennedy (probably made a terrible mistake at Chappaquiddick and it made him a better Senator), John McCain, Lindsey Graham used to be great, John Lewis, Richard Lugar, Olympia J. Snowe, Kent Conrad, Amy Klobuchar, Howard Baker...

Cool, thanks for a genuine answer. Yeah, not directed at anyone in particular, just a question I keep coming back to these last few months.

PackBacker07 said:

---

Cool, thanks for a genuine answer. Yeah, not directed at anyone in particular, just a question I keep coming back to these last few months.

---

I was going to answer but the last comment is pretty close to what I would of said...

packgrad said:

---

I think a better question in regards to political reporting, on the president in particular, is why would you believe the anonymous sources? How many times does it need to be proven wrong until you realize these media outlets are promoting an agenda, not news?

---

How many times do we believe Trump when he says someone came up to him and said "Sir" ?

packgrad said:

---

I think a better question in regards to political reporting, on the president in particular, is why would you believe the anonymous sources? How many times does it need to be proven wrong until you realize these media outlets are promoting an agenda, not news?

---

Apparently there is no limit.

Civilized said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

Funny how the Dems are crying about the SC at this point, when in 2016 they were trying to do the same thing, and were crying about the Pubs not allowing it.

Let's face it, if the roles were reverse, everything would be the exact same. Dems would be nominating and Pubs would be crying about it.

Politics is all a bunch of damn children squabbling.

---

100%

---

I am a constitutionalist and side closer to the Republican Party; however, I agree with this statement. Both parties get outraged about stupid stuff.

Now, when it comes to this seat, I agree with the Republicans. When it came to the Garland appointment, I agree with that decision they made. Our Constitution was written to make change extremely hard. So, the more you win House and Senate seats along with the Presidency, the easier change in laws can happen.

If the Garland seat had come up earlier in the Obama administration, the Republicans would have looked stupid about what they did. Also, a number of Republicans voted in support of previous Obama nominees. Lindsey Graham stated (I paraphrase): it was the President's nominee, I didn't agree with the Judicial philosophy; however, the appointee was certainly qualified.

I wish we had more representatives more willing to say and do things like that!!!

PackBacker07 said:

---

Not directed at you specifically, but why do people only have a problem with political "anonymous sources," and why only in recent memory had a problem with said sources? Sources, by nature, don't want to be named. It's how journalism has worked forever. No one takes shots at sports journalists using the exact same model, for instance. People don't call Woj FAKE NEWS because they don't agree or want to hear what he has to say. But in politics they do.

Editorials, opinion pieces, etc I completely agree with. Folks are taking opinion as fact way too often. Cable news shows with talking heads telling their opinions have somehow become basis for "fact." Entertainment =/= journalism.

---

Because the number one graduating major in Chapel Hill is journalism!!!! We hate them so bad!!!

PackBacker07 said:

---

Cool, thanks for a genuine answer. Yeah, not directed at anyone in particular, just a question I keep coming back to these last few months.

---

The other thing with this is consider the source. The Atlantic, The Hill, Breitbart, and Daily Wire all have unapologetic leanings. They dont even remotely try to hide it.

Sadly, this is one of the reasons I generally try to get a foreign source for a big political news story, as its most likely to actually present the facts without bias.

Apparently the game plan has been decided for ACB. Illegally adopting her children. The disgusting behavior continues from the left.

Judge Bork, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh.

Democrats are always ready to destroy the character and the life of anyone that they think stands in their way (we've seen that like never before over the last four years). But they have done some of their most extra special work when it comes to Supreme Court Justices.

They WILL try to destroy her.

I don't think you should be holding up Lindsey Graham as the gold standard of virtue.