The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

There have been 29 times that there has been an open Supreme Court seat during an election year or before an inauguration, and every single time a sitting President has made a nomination

So what, johnny? You dug up another meaningless factoid.

Do you ever have a point?

NO ONE said Trump shouldn't nominate someone to fill the seat, did they. Your dimwitted comment could have been mentioned on RealTool's thread about Trump nominating a Justice, couldn't it.

Instead, you start another pointless and redundant thread to junk up the board.

Why yes, yes I do.

My general point here is that, on this sparkling early autumn day, I rose early, did my first sets of situps and arm exercises, and then researched this historical point.

Then I circulated the historical truth on the Interwebs for Clowntoker to learn from.

You're welcome.

NO ONE said Trump shouldn't nominate someone to fill the seat, did they

Only every Democrat

So you should have no trouble providing a quotation backing up your made up stupid shit, right sillydummy?

"NY Times (Washington, September 20): Today, every Democrat in the House of Representatives responded to a survey that President Trump should defer appointment of a replacement for Justice Ginsburg until after the first of January 2021. These legislators were joined in this cause by every Democrat in the United States Senate, according to highly placed sources who spoke to this reporter this morning."

See, sillydummy? johnforbes provided a quotation backing me up saying that no one said Trump shouldn't nominate someone.

In fact, his quotation says "every Democrat" actually said the opposite, that he SHOULD nominate someone in January.


As your pal RealTool would say, "Now doesn't johnforbes feel stupid?"....or something like that....

An AOC quote...

"...“With an early appointment, all of our rights… that so many people died for — voting rights, reproductive rights, health care rights all of those rights are at risk with this appointment,” she said. “So we need to make sure that we mobilize on an unprecedented scale to ensure that this vacancy is reserved for the next president...."

The Next President She Said..

https://1010wcsi.com/fox-politics/sch ... ominee/

Why did you post that quotation, silly?

It says nothing about not allowing Trump to nominate someone.

You need to provide a quotatioon from "all Democrats" saying Trump shouldn't nominate someone for the position.

Otherwise, you just made up some stupid shit, as all Republicans do.

29 times each and every day, I keep hoping Clown will post a rational point.

I understand that you see no point in refuting people's posts, johnny. Since you can't ever refute anything I say, you make impotent posts without any points.

My point here was to demonstrate that you clowns are lying when you say Democrats said Trump shouldn't nominate someone to fill Ginsburg's vacant seat.

That is the rational point of my posts on this thread. And you unwittingly (as always) proved my rational point for me.

If you want to read a rational post from me, you have to learn how to read first, dimwit.

Why is Pelosi considering something like another impeachment to gum up the works if she is pleased that Trump will make a nomination?

Of course, Dems don't want Trump to nominate.

And McConnell prevented Obama from nominating as well.

So what's your point Johnnie?

That McConnell is a hypocrite?

Elk, it's not McConnell.s fault,
Obama and his band of fools couldn't come up with a plan to get their nominee in place...

Trump is loving watching the liberals melt down because they know there's not a damn thing they can do to stop him appointing the next Supreme Court Justice.

When I hear all the arguments of why Trump should wait until after the elections...I just giggle.

That's our hypocritical RealTool.

He tells us Republican's won't vote for a politician who lie to them, and then he simply giggles like a teenaged girl when they do and he votes for them again.

Those pack of lies by all Senate Republicans about why they shouldn't consent to Obama's Supreme Court nomination in 2016 were almost as bad as Trump's lies.

Obama was a Democrat, but the Senate was in Repub control back then.

The situation was entirely different, and even people in the media know that, although it doesn't prevent their dishonesty.

And Trump is a Republican and a Democrat could win the election, replacing the Republican.

It's the same as a Democrat being in office last time and he might be replaced with a Republican. Or it could easily have stayed in Democrat hands.

It's exactly the same situation. The possibility of a President of a different party being elected was the hypocritical Republican's argument. Now they say their own arguments for delay were all bullshit.

And the fact that the Senate is currently in Republican hands is irrelevant. The Senate could also flip party control with this election, even if Trump wins.

Even hypocrite johnforbes knows these things, although it doesn't prevent his dishonesty.

If Biden wins, then Cumela Harris will have 4 years to nominate as many anti-American Marxists as possible.

And, like FDR, try to pack the court.

john, do you ever hear yourself? or are you just so enamored with mass ave you tell any lie.
two words merrick garland. a real choice middle of the road guy openly immorally rejected, for a political hack, in robes.

Obama wanted a radical leftist, of course, but sought to foist Garland on the Senate as a compromise in order to get something rather than nothing.

But the Court already has RINOs like Roberts.

The Senate was then controlled by Repubs, so the situation was entirely different than what faces Trump now.

Turn off the bozos of CNN and MSNBC.

Those pack of lies by all Senate Republicans about why they shouldn't consent to Obama's Supreme Court nomination in 2016 were almost as bad as Trump's lies.

So why didn't the pussy Democrats do something about it in 2016 in the conditions are the same? Republicans are saying screw you, we're not pussies, try and stop us

Clown, your pussy Democrats will once again fold, prepare yourself for it dude!

they may be bozo's indeed but your fox, oan, alex jones, epic times, are 75% lies and half truths. i ask for the umpteenth time; why do you need to be lied to to support them? why are the lies so endearing to you? why does fucking over the poor and the planet so appealing to you?

This is the 29th time we have all wondered what diver is drinking.

For myself, the strongest think I drink is orange juice.

However, it would appear that diver is as stoned as Clowntoker.

well thanks john i feel privileged to be linked into the intellect of one such as clown toked or not, but alas for me it's icy cold coke a cola and a book.
but again i see you have problems with any serious conduct beyond name calling and male bovine dung. so i'll ask again, maybe you missed the questions...

"why do you need to be lied to to support them? why are the lies so endearing to you? why does fucking over the poor and the planet so appealing to you?

Diver, thank you.

I own Coca Cola stock, but rarely drink soda pop.

KO has lost their fizz.

How have they performed against the S&P 500 over the past 2 decades?

Elkin is a genius at investing retrospectively.

So am I.

If you ask me how to invest in 1963, I can tell you with perfect accuracy.

However, I invest forward.

KO has not grown revenues in the past 5 years or 10 years and trades at 22x earnings.

Meanwhile you ridicule Mark Zuckerberg at FB but calling him a twit or whatever. So FB delivered a +50% annualized revenue growth rate over the past decade and trades at a depressed 23x earnings. This really isn't rocket science.

I'll take it in a fund, of course, but I don't understand the appeal of Facebook.

Nor do I understand people who stare at the their cell phone screen all day long, but I'll accept the 40 percent return on my one tech fund.

I use technology, but am not mesmerized by it. This is new tech to me:
https://www.facebook.com/mifflinburgbuggy/

Why people spend their time staring at their screens is a moot point. Facebook is an advertising platform with some 2.7 billion MAU. So what is that....1/3 of the population of the planet? And it's not as if some 2.7 billion users are just going to evaporate anytime soon becuase where else are they going

If you can't figure out that a platform with 1/3 of the planet is very valuable.....well then you should spend more time trying to figure out why...........

Isn't it just the modern version of TV addiction? You see people everywhere stuck like glue to a cell phone screen.

In 1999, I owned two tech funds, and one had a 93 percent return and the other over 100 percent. I didn't quite get out before the "tech wreck" of 2000 transpired, but mostly.

So I have tech funds, but generally don't try to pick the individual stocks myself in that space.

You know what I mean -- that Socrates was not the wisest man in Athens for knowing everything, but for knowing what he did not know.

You know there is an evolution of the means of communicating information over time.

Telegraph
Telephone
Broadcast TV
Cable TV
Internet - Desktop
and now
Internet Mobile

As I said before, this is not rocket science.

SaaS and cloudcomputing is the future. You go fishing where the fish are.......................

Was talking to a young relative early this year and she said I should buy Sea (Singapore).

At Christmas, I plan to give her a check for half the profit on that.

Conservatives gripe about facebook then go out and invest in facebook?

Go figure...................

A professor once told me that all culture is really hypocrisy.

THAT's your excuse for wholeheartedly embracing hypocrisy the way you do?

You're were brainwashed into thinking it's just a sign of being 'cultured'?

All humans are hypocrites, of course.

Just look at the shocking hypocrisy of the limousine liberals of the modern Left.

But what about Obama and Clinton? They did it too!!!

That's Johnnie's way of absolving Trump's malfeasance?

No, it is a subject we know as "history."

It provides context and meaning, perspective and rational focus.

This is the 29th time I've pointed this out.

Johnnie....you're not providing any historical content. It's called whataboutism.

Instead of discussing Trump's malfeasance you would rather point to Obama and claim that he did the same or something else similar.

I'm pretty sure that Obama didn't want to stop the voting in any of the states that he was leading?