Cruz As Attorney General?

[Reagan]

Well, this is interesting!  I didn't see this coming.  I would prefer Trump nominate Cruz to the Supreme Court.      

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

11 hours ago, Reagan said:

Well, this is interesting!  I didn't see this coming.  I would prefer Trump nominate Cruz to the Supreme Court.      

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

That would certainly be a good choice for us conservatives.

He could probably sit next to Clarence Thomas and they could compare conservative notes which never waiver. 

[Hagar]

I'd prefer the Supreme Court, but I have a friend who'll have a coronary.

[nappyroots]

If Ted was so great, why couldn't he compete with Trump. And why did Texas go so blue in this election.

[Englebert]

6 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

If Ted was so great, why couldn't he compete with Trump. And why did Texas go so blue in this election.

All the Liberals from California had to flee to somewhere after they destroyed their state.

[tvc184]

21 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

If Ted was so great, why couldn't he compete with Trump. And why did Texas go so blue in this election.

 By that rationale, why couldn't Hillary Clinton compete so well against Donald Trump?  Is your question about Ted Cruz an admission that Hillary Clinton was no good? 

[Reagan]

3 hours ago, nappyroots said:

If Ted was so great, why couldn't he compete with Trump. And why did Texas go so blue in this election.

There's a reason for everything!

[BS Wildcats]

5 hours ago, nappyroots said:

If Ted was so great, why couldn't he compete with Trump. And why did Texas go so blue in this election.

Blue, I believe Trump won.  It was blue where you would expect, the large cities and the border.

[Big girl]

8 hours ago, tvc184 said:

 By that rationale, why couldn't Hillary Clinton compete so well against Donald Trump?  Is your question about Ted Cruz an admission that Hillary Clinton was no good? 

She is winning the popular vote by 7 figures

[Reagan]

39 minutes ago, Big girl said:

She is winning the popular vote by 7 figures

Again -- So?

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, Big girl said:

She is winning the popular vote by 7 figures

Oh!! I didn't know that!!

Thanks for the meaningless info.

To get back to the point, Hillary had a lock on the presidency. Even the liberal pundits were making jokes (as some people on here) about not being close and a landslide for the Dems. 

She was such a lousy candidate that she could not win against a buffoon reality tv star with no political experience. Trump trumped everyone. He is not my choice as he is at the bottom of the 17 Republicans that ran but he won by the rules and that includes beating the practically unbeatable Hillary. 

In my opinion had it not been for her name and her gender and considering her background, she would have never made it out of the primary on the Democratic ticket, much less the presidency. Even a guy that was practically unelectable like Trump beat her in the final show. 

Therein lies my response to nappy. His criticism that is that Cruz could not beat Trump. Hmmm.... neither did the darling of the left. 

[BS Wildcats]

3 hours ago, Big girl said:

She is winning the popular vote by 7 figures

And any other candidate besides Trump, it wouldn't be close.  Hillary just more flawed than Trump.

[TxHoops]

On 11/17/2016 at 10:37 PM, REBgp said:

I'd prefer the Supreme Court, but I have a friend who'll have a coronary.

Haha!  You have to learn from who beat you.   Although I wholeheartedly disagree with what the pubs did, I guess in a way they drew the line.  I say 4-8 years worth of filibusters sounds about right.  The sitting 8 will do just fine.  Just hope the old bird can hang on that long...

[Englebert]

56 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Haha!  You have to learn from who beat you.   Although I wholeheartedly disagree with what the pubs did, I guess in a way they drew the line.  I say 4-8 years worth of filibusters sounds about right.  The sitting 8 will do just fine.  Just hope the old bird can hang on that long...

Harry Reid opened the floodgates for the use of the nuclear option...51 is all that is needed in the Senate. I hope the Republicans return the favor and abuse that power to its fullest extent.

And how long do we have to wait before we can start calling the Democrats obstructionists? I have a feeling we will no longer be hearing new tobie and nappyroots screaming for the Congress to do their jobs.

[TxHoops]

33 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Harry Reid opened the floodgates for the use of the nuclear option...51 is all that is needed in the Senate. I hope the Republicans return the favor and abuse that power to its fullest extent.

And how long do we have to wait before we can start calling the Democrats obstructionists? I have a feeling we will no longer be hearing new tobie and nappyroots screaming for the Congress to do their jobs.

But how many does it take to bust a filibuster short of the "nuclear option"?  The answer is likely 8 more votes than the seats they hold.  

The nuclear option has never been used for high court nominations (and would go against Senate precedent) but is certainly a possibility and could also result in litigation.  

[TxHoops]

Or Obama just puts Garland on the Court on January 3 which would be good until the end of next year.  I mean that would relieve the Senate of having to do a job they've obviously been too busy to do.  Then, of course, a year of filibustering and delays and then see what happens with the midterms.  With Trump at the helm, what could possibly go wrong right?

[TxHoops]

36 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Harry Reid opened the floodgates for the use of the nuclear option...51 is all that is needed in the Senate. I hope the Republicans return the favor and abuse that power to its fullest extent.

And how long do we have to wait before we can start calling the Democrats obstructionists? I have a feeling we will no longer be hearing new tobie and nappyroots screaming for the Congress to do their jobs.

And likewise I am sure you guys will have no problem with the Dems trying to block Trump appointments, etc  

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

And likewise I am sure you guys will have no problem with the Dems trying to block Trump appointments, etc  

Now I'll be the one screaming for Congress to do their jobs and lamenting on how obstructionist the Democrats are. Unlike the others mentioned, I'll try to give a reason for my disdain.

[Englebert]

2 hours ago, TxHoops said:

But how many does it take to bust a filibuster short of the "nuclear option"?  The answer is likely 8 more votes than the seats they hold.  

The nuclear option has never been used for high court nominations (and would go against Senate precedent) but is certainly a possibility and could also result in litigation.  

This current soon-to-be past administration did many things that went against precedent. So did Harry Reid when he controlled the Senate, so I'm not too concerned about precedent. If it takes the nuclear option to pass anything, I say use it and announce "This is for you Harry!".

[TxHoops]

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

Now I'll be the one screaming for Congress to do their jobs and lamenting on how obstructionist the Democrats are. Unlike the others mentioned, I'll try to give a reason for my disdain.

 

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

This current soon-to-be past administration did many things that went against precedent. So did Harry Reid when he controlled the Senate, so I'm not too concerned about precedent. If it takes the nuclear option to pass anything, I say use it and announce "This is for you Harry!".

It's all bulls..., from both sides.  The problem is some of us recognize the hypocrisy, others even on this board complain about what the other side is doing, but have no problem when the party they support is doing it.  And we wonder how we ended up with Mr Terrific in the White House. 

Again, I hope many of us are pleasantly surprised.  But he runs the country based upon his experiences and philosophies, spending will continue at a very high rate (not sure anyone loves to spend money more than the Donald - and as I have been told several times here by a conservative or two, most of the time his own money is not involved).  And two, if he has played fast and loose with the truth as much as Cruz, Romney, Ryan claim he has, we will see how conservative his appointments are.  If anyone believes he is morally aligned with the religious right, I got some swamp land over here off the Sabine Lake I'd like to sell you...

[stevenash]

46 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

 

It's all bulls..., from both sides.  The problem is some of us recognize the hypocrisy, others even on this board complain about what the other side is doing, but have no problem when the party they support is doing it.  And we wonder how we ended up with Mr Terrific in the White House. 

Again, I hope many of us are pleasantly surprised.  But he runs the country based upon his experiences and philosophies, spending will continue at a very high rate (not sure anyone loves to spend money more than the Donald - and as I have been told several times here by a conservative or two, most of the time his own money is not involved).  And two, if he has played fast and loose with the truth as much as Cruz, Romney, Ryan claim he has, we will see how conservative his appointments are.  If anyone believes he is morally aligned with the religious right, I got some swamp land over here off the Sabine Lake I'd like to sell you...

I think Mr. Trump won because for a couple of reasons 1.  Calling/labeling everyone who disagrees with you a racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe,( and don't forget deplorable) yada yada yada no longer is as effective as it once was

2.  In our zeal to make sure that life is better for minorities, gays, and transgenders, the average Joe felt besmirched and voted accordingly.

I further believe that the same average Joe was saying " slow down with the transgender bathrooms, confederate flag removals, and changing the name of an NFL football team efforts and devote some of those energies to more urgent issues  I also might add that personally, I don't believe the answer for the left is to move further left.

[Hagar]

6 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Haha!  You have to learn from who beat you.   Although I wholeheartedly disagree with what the pubs did, I guess in a way they drew the line.  I say 4-8 years worth of filibusters sounds about right.  The sitting 8 will do just fine.  Just hope the old bird can hang on that long...

Lol, the old bird has recently had to make two apologies, which about equals the number of apologies I've heard from the Court in the last decade (although one of the statements I agreed with, and the other I may agree with before its all over lol).  I'm aware she's having Senior moments.  Have'em myself, and to her credit she's infinitely older than me.  That's why if they ever makes a new video of Jim Stafford's, Blackwater Hattie, she'd be perfect for the part.

Now, to the Court.  I find it strange that the media refers to the Court as split, with 4 leaning left and 4-right.  Prior to Scalias death, the court was 4/4 with Justice Kennedy being the one moderate, and arguably one of the most powerful persons in the country.  So now, based on previous observations, the Court is actually 3-right and 4-left, and 1-moderate.  I hope Trump nominates a staunch conservative, but I wouldn't bet the house.

One other thing, if your new business venture turns out as well as I'm afraid it will, and me living on a fixed income, I'd love to become a salesperson for you in that swamp selling business  

[TxHoops]

10 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Lol, the old bird has recently had to make two apologies, which about equals the number of apologies I've heard from the Court in the last decade (although one of the statements I agreed with, and the other I may agree with before its all over lol).  I'm aware she's having Senior moments.  Have'em myself, and to her credit she's infinitely older than me. That's why if they ever makes a new video of Jim Stafford's, Blackwater Hattie, she'd be perfect for the part.

Now, to the Court.  I find it strange that the media refers to the Court as split, with 4 leaning left and 4-right.  Prior to Scalias death, the court was 4/4 with Justice Kennedy being the one moderate, and arguably one of the most powerful persons in the country.  So now, based on previous observations, the Court is actually 3-right and 4-left, and 1-moderate.  I hope Trump nominates a staunch conservative, but I wouldn't bet the house.

One other thing, if your new business venture turns out as well as I'm afraid it will, and me living on a fixed income, I'd love to become a salesperson for you in that swamp selling business  

Are we sure about that???

 

 

Oh, and you're hired!

[Hagar]

6 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Are we sure about that???

Lol, absolutely.  I was born shortly after Lee would have rather faced a thousand deaths, while during the war of 1812, she was already 15 years old, and a spy for the British.  I found it on the Internet.  What a wonderful tool.

PS;  what's sad, to many would believe it if it was there.

[baddog]

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

I think Mr. Trump won because for a couple of reasons 1.  Calling/labeling everyone who disagrees with you a racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe,( and don't forget deplorable) yada yada yada no longer is as effective as it once was

2.  In our zeal to make sure that life is better for minorities, gays, and transgenders, the average Joe felt besmirched and voted accordingly.

I further believe that the same average Joe was saying " slow down with the transgender bathrooms, confederate flag removals, and changing the name of an NFL football team efforts and devote some of those energies to more urgent issues  I also might add that personally, I don't believe the answer for the left is to move further left.

Excellent post that I totally agree with.