SectionC3

I can’t read it, but I suspect she’s saying that confirming prior to the election is going to enrage the left and dampen enthusiasm amongst the right. Which is where I’m at on the deal. RBG messed up. She should have retired during Obama’s presidency. She didn’t, and now the seat is lost. Frankly I think this election is the most consequential in modern American history, so I’m less worried about a Republican Supreme Court for a minimum of the next 10 years and more concerned about reclaiming the presidency. I don’t think we can fight the confirmation process too hard because we don’t want to whack a hornets nest with moderates who probably will cross over and vote for Biden. So the trick is to fight just hard enough to keep our base from getting upset with us, let the Trumpublicans jam this thing through, and retaliate in kind when we take back the Senate for the next Congress. I used to believe that the “rules of the house” prevailed and that there was a decency between the parties. That belief is gone. The issue here isn’t filling the RBG seat; the Constitution empowers Trump and his cult senators to do so. The issue is the refusal to hold a vote for Garland. And, like Schumer says, every available option is on the table to address that issue in 2021.

Maybe you’re right. But every vote will count. And every little bit will help Trump. If he makes his nomination before the election, he takes away a significant reason for Bush republicans otherwise fed up with the current state of affairs to vote for him. DC knew that RBG’s death was imminent for about a week (it’s no accident that Trump released his list of potential nominees when he did). So maybe Trumpublicans polled the issue whether their based wanted a nomination before the election. But I kind of doubt it. He would be much better served to slow roll this thing and (try to) make the election a referendum on the open Supreme Court seat.

I speak the truth. People who speak the truth like me. Hoaxers like you don’t like me, because I tell the truth. If you don’t like it, then maybe you could start a “hoax only” sub forum. That might be a good plan. Rule #2, please. Thank you in advance.

Hoax. There is nothing vile about my posts.

He must be triGGered again because he’s saying nasty things. That’s too bad. I thought we were having a nice conversation in which he sets up a hoax and the rest of us knock it down. Yup. TriGGered.

Also, it’s either “discourage people from,” “caution people against,” or “warn people about.” If you’re going to be the intellectual standard bearer of the alt wrong, then it might be a good idea to at least try to sound like an intellectual standard bearer. And please don’t be triGGered by this point. I’m only trying to help you herd your flock. Carry on. Hoax. Rule #2 evidence, please.

Please comply with Rule #2. Thank you. Also, based on your “grave dancer” pejorative, you appear to have been triGGered. I’m sorry about that.

Nobody digs deeper and finds less.

Rule #2 on the first paragraph, hoaxmaster.

So not debunked. And, contrary to your representation, also a “study.” Just not a clinical trial of the spectrum-wide efficacy of HCQ, in part because it considered patients with poor clinical outlooks. Which, I note, is perfectly consistent with what Cavuto said. If you’re in a vulnerable population, this is a bad plan and based on nothing other than a Trump fiction which people like GG credit based on the identity of the speaker. Along those lines, your point about Africans and Asians not dying en masse from HCQ incorporates those outside of vulnerable populations into your group and overlooks the possibility that those in vulnerable populations did not fare well with the drug. So another GG hoax debunked. Happy Tuesday, hoaxer.

That’s not the way it works, hoaxmaster. You said the VA study has been “debunked.” Let’s start there. Rule #2 evidence with respect to the “debunking,” please.

I’ll take that as a no. Sad.

Hoax. You took the Cavuto quote out of context. Which is SOP for you, because you’re a known hoaxer.

What are your questions again?

Hoax. Have you read Abood yet, hoaxer?

Your post is a hoax. You’ve taken the Cavuto quote out of context. Which, of course, is unsurprising considering that you’re a known and hopeless hoaxer. Cavuto actually said that if you’re in a vulnerable population, and if you take HCQ as a preventative measure, then you will die. Hyperbole? Perhaps, but there is a study of VA patients indicating that preventative HCQ in a vulnerable population does more harm than good. Bottom line, another failed GG hoax. I’m sure this will upset you, so I’ll note in advance that you can’t spell triGGered without “GG.” Happy Tuesday, hoaxer. https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-neil-cavuto-shocked-trump-hyroxychloroquine-announcement-video-2020-5

You have it right. He should nominate now and have the senate hold the vote after the election. It would be a way to save the Senate and turn the Tillis/Gardner/mcsally/graham seats into referenda on the justice. Even if we all know the confirmation will be made in december. Otherwise the Trumpublicans could lose the WH and the senate. of course, if the orange man is really smart he would withhold the nomination until after the election. Might get the “hold my nose” vote from bush Republicans that otherwise is probably lost.

Fingers crossed!

Not surprising you would buy that hoax considering how you fell for the voter fraud hoax. Keep on sniping at yourself, hoaxer.

Tell your dear leader to stop spouting off about hoaxes. If he does that, then maybe I’ll stop using it to characterize Trumpian tropes and lies. Until then, the PWU complaint is a hoax. Carry on.

Hoax. I’d like to have a conversation. You’re just obstinate. It’s sad, really, because that type of behavior is why people with different viewpoints can’t communicate in our society.

You assume that every member of the PWU supports Biden. Hoax.

Admit it. You just can't quit me. It's probably because you want to be my financial adviser. We'll have to see how that goes.

Hoax.

So was it a rule #2 request; yes or no?