Trump lies, post them here

[RochesterRob]

  Looks like our resident Lefties have found a little play pen to hang out in.  Too bad they are treating it more like a pig pen.  BTW Big McD really needs to see a doctor about whatever is growing on his feet.  

[Q-baby!]

9 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  Looks like our resident Lefties have found a little play pen to hang out in.  Too bad they are treating it more like a pig pen.  BTW Big McD really needs to see a doctor about whatever is growing on his feet.  

You are either a 12 year old girl or Donald Trump. Which one? 

[RochesterRob]

37 minutes ago, Q-baby! said:

You are either a 12 year old girl or Donald Trump. Which one? 

  Interesting that you have 12 year old girls on your mind.

[Q-baby!]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  Interesting that you have 12 year old girls on your mind.

Wow, you are so clever. Trump it is! 

[RochesterRob]

13 minutes ago, Q-baby! said:

Wow, you are so clever. Trump it is! 

  They say when a person is ultra obsessed with a person it is a sign that they actually admire that person.  I think that you are infatuated with Trump due to his wealth and power.  That is when you are not thinking about 12 year old girls.  

[Q-baby!]

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  They say when a person is ultra obsessed with a person it is a sign that they actually admire that person.  I think that you are infatuated with Trump due to his wealth and power.  That is when you are not thinking about 12 year old girls.  

Hey *****tard. I asked if you were a 12 year old girl because of your stupid responses. That does not mean I have 12 year old girls on my mind, so go ***** yourself sicko. Hey wait....are you Boyst? 

[McGee Return TD]

4 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  They say when a person is ultra obsessed with a person it is a sign that they actually admire that person.

 

Must be why the QANON crowd can't shut up about Hillary more than 2 years after she was defeated at the polls. 

[RochesterRob]

7 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

Must be why the QANON crowd can't shut up about Hillary more than 2 years after she was defeated at the polls. 

  If it helps you sleep at night.................But no, Hillary is guilty of a crime and many would like to see her brought to justice if you must know.

11 minutes ago, Q-baby! said:

Hey *****tard. I asked if you were a 12 year old girl because of your stupid responses. That does not mean I have 12 year old girls on my mind, so go ***** yourself sicko. Hey wait....are you Boyst? 

  You are saying that all 12 year old girls are stupid?  Warren, Clinton, Gillibrand, etc. are having your walking papers away from the Democratic Party typed up as we speak for that slander.  What will you ever do?  

[McGee Return TD]

10 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  If it helps you sleep at night.................But no, Hillary is guilty of a crime and many would like to see her brought to justice if you must know.

  You are saying that all 12 year old girls are stupid?  Warren, Clinton, Gillibrand, etc. are having your walking papers away from the Democratic Party typed up as we speak for that slander.  What will you ever do?  

 

 

LOL - You must really admire Hillary. Just can't get her off your mind.

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

 

LOL - You must really admire Hillary. Just can't get her off your mind.

  Um no........Just want to see Hillary go to Leavenworth permanently.  That's a federal prison by the way.  So, no admiration by me.  Admiration by Big McD or whatever he changes his name to does not equal me or any other person admiring Hillary.  Two different people and two different thought processes (Thankfully).

[Koko78]

37 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

   You are saying that all 12 year old girls are stupid?  Warren, Clinton, Gillibrand, etc. are having your walking papers away from the Democratic Party typed up as we speak for that slander.  What will you ever do?  

 

Rob, while I appreciate you batting that little dipschiff around like a cat toying with an extremely re.tarded mouse, would you please do me (and the rest of us, I suspect) a favor and stop quoting him when you do it?

Edited June 1, 2019 by Koko78

[Q-baby!]

31 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Rob, while I appreciate you batting that little dipschiff around like a cat toying with an extremely re.tarded mouse, would you please do me (and the rest of us, I suspect) a favor and stop quoting him when you do it?

Zip it ape. 

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  If it helps you sleep at night.................But no, Hillary is guilty of a crime and many would like to see her brought to justice if you must know.

  You are saying that all 12 year old girls are stupid?  Warren, Clinton, Gillibrand, etc. are having your walking papers away from the Democratic Party typed up as we speak for that slander.  What will you ever do?  

Yes I am. So are all those women you mentioned.

[Chef Jim]

This place shows me what I missed by having teenage boys. 

 

“Hey honey??  Have I thanked you recently for not wanting to have kids?!?!”

[Q-baby!]

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

This place shows me what I missed by having teenage boys. 

 

“Hey honey??  Have I thanked you recently for not wanting to have kids?!?!”

Sure, that’s why you didn’t have kids. ?

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

Must be why the QANON crowd can't shut up about Hillary more than 2 years after she was defeated at the polls. 

 

Excluding right-wing sites like National Review, there are seven different stories about her in the news today.  

 

"The QANON crowd" aren't the people hung up on her.

[Cinga]

2 hours ago, Q-baby! said:

Hey *****tard. I asked if you were a 12 year old girl because of your stupid responses. That does not mean I have 12 year old girls on my mind, so go ***** yourself sicko. Hey wait....are you Boyst? 

 

54 minutes ago, Q-baby! said:

Yes I am. So are all those women you mentioned.

Your about a sexist POS aren't you? It's obvious that in your juvenile mind, all women from 12 years old and on, are  stupid... 

 

WOW! just wow.... smdh

[Q-baby!]

1 minute ago, Cinga said:

 

Your about a sexist POS aren't you? It's obvious that in your juvenile mind, all women from 12 years old and on, are  stupid... 

 

WOW! just wow.... smdh

Didn’t say that moron.

[Cinga]

3 minutes ago, Q-baby! said:

Didn’t say that moron.

Names don't bother me pigface, I've lived long and even deserved most of the ones I've been called. I take a lot of pride in the fact I have achieved the level of Perfect A55hole.

 

But you did say that, I quoted your EXACT words above

[Q-baby!]

Just now, Cinga said:

Names don't bother me pigface, I've lived long and even deserved most of the ones I've been called. I take a lot of pride in the fact I have achieved the level of Perfect A55hole.

 

But you did say that, I quoted your EXACT words above

Wrong. Where did I say all women? 

[Cinga]

4 minutes ago, Q-baby! said:

Wrong. Where did I say all women? 

  2 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  If it helps you sleep at night.................But no, Hillary is guilty of a crime and many would like to see her brought to justice if you must know.

  You are saying that all 12 year old girls are stupid?  Warren, Clinton, Gillibrand, etc. are having your walking papers away from the Democratic Party typed up as we speak for that slander.  What will you ever do?  

Yes I am. So are all those women you mentioned. (your words)

Edited June 1, 2019 by Cinga

[Q-baby!]

2 minutes ago, Cinga said:

  2 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  If it helps you sleep at night.................But no, Hillary is guilty of a crime and many would like to see her brought to justice if you must know.

  You are saying that all 12 year old girls are stupid?  Warren, Clinton, Gillibrand, etc. are having your walking papers away from the Democratic Party typed up as we speak for that slander.  What will you ever do?  

Yes I am. So are all those women you mentioned. (your words)

All 3 of them means all women? 

[Albwan]

19 hours ago, Nanker said:

You are a worthless piece of human excrement in shoes. And you’re probably not wearing shoes. You draw breath, but you’re really a dead soul with no purpose in life but to run around naked so you can show off the feces that you cover yourself with. Your mouth is an anus. 

I'm guessing sandals or flip flops

[Cinga]

36 minutes ago, Q-baby! said:

All 3 of them means all women? 

Ignoring the "etc" at the end are we?

[Q-baby!]

Just now, Cinga said:

Ignoring the "etc" at the end are we?

You really are stupid. How many women did he mention? 3 is the answer. So etc means every other woman in the world? 

 

You are really trying too hard to put words in my mouth. Nice work Matlock! 

 

Dork! 

 

 

[transplantbillsfan]

On 5/30/2019 at 10:49 PM, Doc Brown said:

I guess McConnel's excuse is the difference between now and then is you currently have a Republican president with a Republican majority Senate.  Obama's last year you had a Democratic president with a Republican majority Senate and he ironically followed the "Biden" rule hypothetical.  It doesn't even matter as you're going to start seeing calls for increasing the number of Supreme Court judges anyways especially if you get a 6 to 3 majority in these circumstances.

 

And he STILL did something completely unprecedented, even unconstitutional.

 

The Biden rule hypothetical had to do with a Supreme Court Justice retiring in an effort of a kind of one to one replacement, not unexpectedly dying.

 

Besides, Biden also said:

“If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate [in naming a Supreme Court nominee], or moderates his selection absent consultation, then his nominee may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

 

13 Presidents have filled Supreme Court vacancies from Washington all the way to Reagan. 17 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed in a Presidential election year, including Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by a Republican President and unanimously confirmed by a Democratic Senate.

 

Garland was the first Supreme Court nominee to not even receive a hearing in over 100 years.

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

And he STILL did something completely unprecedented, even unconstitutional.

 

The Biden rule hypothetical had to do with a Supreme Court Justice retiring in an effort of a kind of one to one replacement, not unexpectedly dying.

 

Besides, Biden also said:

“If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate [in naming a Supreme Court nominee], or moderates his selection absent consultation, then his nominee may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

 

13 Presidents have filled Supreme Court vacancies from Washington all the way to Reagan. 17 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed in a Presidential election year, including Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by a Republican President and unanimously confirmed by a Democratic Senate.

 

Garland was the first Supreme Court nominee to not even receive a hearing in over 100 years.

 

Yeah, it wasn't unconstitutional, by any stretch.  "Advice and consent" begins when the nomination is received by the Senate chair.  Constitutionally, it does not require anything further than that.  So sayeth the Supreme Court.  

 

It was craven and childish, but not unconstitutional.

[Koko78]

15 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

And he STILL did something completely unprecedented, even unconstitutional.

 

Yeah, good thing you don't teach constitutional law.

[Doc Brown]

55 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

And he STILL did something completely unprecedented, even unconstitutional.

 

The Biden rule hypothetical had to do with a Supreme Court Justice retiring in an effort of a kind of one to one replacement, not unexpectedly dying.

 

Besides, Biden also said:

“If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate [in naming a Supreme Court nominee], or moderates his selection absent consultation, then his nominee may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

 

13 Presidents have filled Supreme Court vacancies from Washington all the way to Reagan. 17 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed in a Presidential election year, including Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by a Republican President and unanimously confirmed by a Democratic Senate.

 

Garland was the first Supreme Court nominee to not even receive a hearing in over 100 years.

I'm not defending him as it was unprecedented.  I'm just giving you his twisted argument.  It wasn't unconstitutional but the move pretty much guaranteed that future candidates will now run on packing the Supreme Court.

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

I'm not defending him as it was unprecedented.  I'm just giving you his twisted argument.  It wasn't unconstitutional but the move pretty much guaranteed that future candidates will now run on packing the Supreme Court.

 

2 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Yeah, good thing you don't teach constitutional law.

 

Article 2 section 2:

"The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law"

 

Letters and statements from those who DO teach constitutional law:

 

https://www.acslaw.org/press_release/top-constitutional-law-scholars-say-no-exception-to-the-rule-in-filling-supreme-court-vacancy-in-election-year/

"the Senate's constitutional duty to 'advise and consent'—the process that has come to include hearings, committee votes, and floor votes—has no exception for election years. In fact, over the course of American history, there have been 24 instances in which presidents in the last year of a term have nominated individuals for the Supreme Court and the Senate confirmed 21 of these nominees."

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/03/10/letter-experts-president-supreme-court-nominee

"It is technically in the power of the Senate to engage in aggressive denial on presidential nominations. But we believe that the Framers' construction of the process of nominations and confirmation to federal courts, including the Senate's power of "advice and consent," does not anticipate or countenance an obdurate refusal by the body to acknowledge or consider a president's nominee, especially to the highest court in the land. The refusal to hold hearings and deliberate on a nominee at this level is truly unprecedented and, in our view, dangerous ... 
The Constitution gives the Senate every right to deny confirmation to a presidential nomination. But denial should come after the Senate deliberates over the nomination, which in contemporary times includes hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and full debate and votes on the Senate floor. Anything less than that, in our view, is a serious and, indeed, unprecedented breach of the Senate's best practices and noblest traditions for much of our nation's history"

 

https://www.afj.org/press-room/press-releases/over-350-law-professors-urge-senators-to-fulfill-their-constitutional-duty

"fulfill your constitutional duty to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a prompt and fair hearing and a timely vote."

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

Article 2 section 2:

"The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law"

 

Letters and statements from those who DO teach constitutional law:

 

https://www.acslaw.org/press_release/top-constitutional-law-scholars-say-no-exception-to-the-rule-in-filling-supreme-court-vacancy-in-election-year/

"the Senate's constitutional duty to 'advise and consent'—the process that has come to include hearings, committee votes, and floor votes—has no exception for election years. In fact, over the course of American history, there have been 24 instances in which presidents in the last year of a term have nominated individuals for the Supreme Court and the Senate confirmed 21 of these nominees."

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/03/10/letter-experts-president-supreme-court-nominee

"It is technically in the power of the Senate to engage in aggressive denial on presidential nominations. But we believe that the Framers' construction of the process of nominations and confirmation to federal courts, including the Senate's power of "advice and consent," does not anticipate or countenance an obdurate refusal by the body to acknowledge or consider a president's nominee, especially to the highest court in the land. The refusal to hold hearings and deliberate on a nominee at this level is truly unprecedented and, in our view, dangerous ... 
The Constitution gives the Senate every right to deny confirmation to a presidential nomination. But denial should come after the Senate deliberates over the nomination, which in contemporary times includes hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and full debate and votes on the Senate floor. Anything less than that, in our view, is a serious and, indeed, unprecedented breach of the Senate's best practices and noblest traditions for much of our nation's history"

 

https://www.afj.org/press-room/press-releases/over-350-law-professors-urge-senators-to-fulfill-their-constitutional-duty

"fulfill your constitutional duty to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a prompt and fair hearing and a timely vote."

 

They're all wrong. 

 

The Constitution specifies that once the Senate receives the nomination, the rules governing "advice and consent" are solely at the discretion of the Senate.  The Supreme Court has upheld this multiple times.  And nowhere in the Senate bylaws does it say that the nomination must get an up-and-down vote.  

 

Someone quote me, so this racist (*^*&%^$^#can see it.  He's got me blocked.

[/dev/null]

37 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

They're all wrong. 

 

The Constitution specifies that once the Senate receives the nomination, the rules governing "advice and consent" are solely at the discretion of the Senate.  The Supreme Court has upheld this multiple times.  And nowhere in the Senate bylaws does it say that the nomination must get an up-and-down vote.  

 

Someone quote me, so this racist (*^*&%^$^#can see it.  He's got me blocked.

 

[Koko78]

58 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

Article 2 section 2:

"The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law"

 

Letters and statements from those who DO teach constitutional law:

 

https://www.acslaw.org/press_release/top-constitutional-law-scholars-say-no-exception-to-the-rule-in-filling-supreme-court-vacancy-in-election-year/

"the Senate's constitutional duty to 'advise and consent'—the process that has come to include hearings, committee votes, and floor votes—has no exception for election years. In fact, over the course of American history, there have been 24 instances in which presidents in the last year of a term have nominated individuals for the Supreme Court and the Senate confirmed 21 of these nominees."

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/03/10/letter-experts-president-supreme-court-nominee

"It is technically in the power of the Senate to engage in aggressive denial on presidential nominations. But we believe that the Framers' construction of the process of nominations and confirmation to federal courts, including the Senate's power of "advice and consent," does not anticipate or countenance an obdurate refusal by the body to acknowledge or consider a president's nominee, especially to the highest court in the land. The refusal to hold hearings and deliberate on a nominee at this level is truly unprecedented and, in our view, dangerous ... 
The Constitution gives the Senate every right to deny confirmation to a presidential nomination. But denial should come after the Senate deliberates over the nomination, which in contemporary times includes hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and full debate and votes on the Senate floor. Anything less than that, in our view, is a serious and, indeed, unprecedented breach of the Senate's best practices and noblest traditions for much of our nation's history"

 

https://www.afj.org/press-room/press-releases/over-350-law-professors-urge-senators-to-fulfill-their-constitutional-duty

"fulfill your constitutional duty to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a prompt and fair hearing and a timely vote."

 

You're a dumbass. The Senate did NOT consent to Garland being on the Supreme Court. The Senate fulfilled its constitutional duty.

 

As for your links quoting "law professors"... as the saying goes: 'those who can, do; those who can't, teach'. Ain't that right, teach?

[transplantbillsfan]

Yeah... let's not listen to over 400 lawyers and law professors... let's instead listen to the old racist curmudgeon.

 

His thoughts on constitutional law are clearly more important and credible than the 400+ professionals who study the ins and outs of the constitution.

[Koko78]

2 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Yeah... let's not listen to over 400 lawyers and law professors... let's instead listen to the old racist curmudgeon.

 

His thoughts on constitutional law are clearly more important and credible than the 400+ professionals who study the ins and outs of the constitution.

 

I'd wager heavily that I've practiced more constitutional law than they have, chief.

[3rdnlng]

4 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Yeah, good thing you don't teach constitutional law.

He teaches 2nd graders and some have been accepted into Harvard instead of 3rd grade.

[Cinga]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

They're all wrong. 

 

The Constitution specifies that once the Senate receives the nomination, the rules governing "advice and consent" are solely at the discretion of the Senate.  The Supreme Court has upheld this multiple times.  And nowhere in the Senate bylaws does it say that the nomination must get an up-and-down vote.  

 

Someone quote me, so this racist (*^*&%^$^#can see it.  He's got me blocked.

With pleasure.... 

[Doc Brown]

19 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Yeah... let's not listen to over 400 lawyers and law professors... let's instead listen to the old racist curmudgeon.

 

His thoughts on constitutional law are clearly more important and credible than the 400+ professionals who study the ins and outs of the constitution.

Just common sense wise.  If it was unconstitutional do you really think McConnell would’ve blocked a vote on Garland?

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, Koko78 said:

 

You're a dumbass. The Senate did NOT consent to Garland being on the Supreme Court. The Senate fulfilled its constitutional duty.

 

As for your links quoting "law professors"... as the saying goes: 'those who can, do; those who can't, teach'. Ain't that right, teach?

 

Dumbass?

 

You're a real piece of work.

 

Way to prove that this place is just a cesspool.

 

You should probably get back to your InfoWars.

1 hour ago, Koko78 said:

 

I'd wager heavily that I've practiced more constitutional law than they have, chief.

 

So you're a lawyer then?

Edited June 2, 2019 by transplantbillsfan

[Koko78]

11 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Way to prove that this place is just a cesspool.

 

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 let's instead listen to the old racist curmudgeon.

 

Yep, it's the rest of us that make this place a "cesspool".

[transplantbillsfan]

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

 

Yep, it's the rest of us that make this place a "cesspool".

 

So are you a lawyer?