Current Events > Trump booed while pretending to care for woman whose dying wish he ignored

(+) Yeah! (+)

DD Divine posted...

you serious? Obama appointed someone and Mitch and the senate wouldnt let it pass. Saying no picks in an election year. Obama had 10 plus months compared to Trunps 45 days

Again, what does this have to do with her dying wish? Nothing.

DD Divine posted...

you serious? Obama appointed someone and Mitch and the senate wouldnt let it pass. Saying no picks in an election year. Obama had 10 plus months compared to Trunps 45 days

the complaint about garland is more that mcconnell wouldn't even allow a vote on the subject so that republicans could be held responsible for their positions

---

Good. Now if only that actually harmed him somehow.
---

ohiostate124 posted...

Again, what does this have to do with her dying wish? Nothing.

Right, and I didn't ask about her dying wish. You responded to my question by immediately switching goalposts, painfully disingenuous.

Guide posted...

What happened when there was a vacant seat in 2016?

---

Chadwick69 posted...

Why the fat shaming?

Why defend a racist piece of shit?
He's objectively fat. That's not "shaming", it's an observation. It's 70 degrees out and Donald Trump is fucking FAT.

---

Imagine responding to ohiostate

If nothing else, this man should be booed every moment of his waking existence.

---

Guide posted...

What happened when there was a vacant seat in 2016?

Ruth Vader Ginsberg said they should appoint someone and it is stupid to ignore a presidential power solely becausee it is in their last year of office?

CyricZ posted...

If nothing else, this man should be booed every moment of his waking existence.

It's funny, he stays so isolated in his safe space cult meetings (rallies) that he doesn't actually realize how much the country HATES him. He's panicking too because even his internal polls show him losing heavily to Biden. So now he's trying to subvert the election itself.

Lysandear posted...

god he's just so fucking fat. i cant believe republicans chose a heaving lardass to lionize. it makes no sense, like he actually looks like mashed potatoes in a garbage bag

Thats disrespectful to mashed potatoes and garbage bags.

---

Bluebomber182 posted...

rbg deserves respect. trump doesnt

It's disrespectful to RBG. This is equivalent to interrupting a funeral because a family member you don't like attended.

---

The_Ivory_Man posted...

Ruth Vader Ginsberg

Can't tell if typo or some kind of attack

BunkerBoy posted...

Can't tell if typo or some kind of attack

Typo obviously

B and v are right next to each other on the keyboard.

i feel like disrupting her own funeral to take a stand against policy she opposes is very much something RBG would do

---

Sackgurl posted...

i feel like disrupting her own funeral to take a stand against policy she opposes is very much something RBG would do

Yeah, this is not disrespectful to RBG in any way

the only disrespect happening here is trumps continued existence

---

What was the woman's dying wish? And why did she ask the president to do it?

---

Houston posted...

It's disrespectful to RBG. This is equivalent to interrupting a funeral because a family member you don't like attended.

A family member that the deceased despised and who is using her funeral as a photo op is a more apt comparison.

---

Sackgurl posted...

let's be real: of course the judges selected will be partisan

there is no reason to select a judge whose ruling history is in the center unless you're trying to compromise with the other party

if democrats are still trying to compromise with republicans than they have learned nothing. the modern system is to win a razor-thin majority, whip dissenters into line and pass all legislation/appointments with no support from the opposing party. those who try anything else are punished as democrats were in 2010.

sure there is a reason to pick someone centrist. if you believe the court would make better decisions overall because of the balance, and a swing vote, then you should do that.

i personally believe the court is best served by having balance on both sides, which is why a liberal replacing a strong liberal voice on a conservative leaning court would be good for the country.

of course, if you are simple minded and only think about "winning", then yes you should pick the more extreme judge on your side whenever you can

Prismsblade posted...

What was the woman's dying wish? And why did she ask the president to do it?

The woman was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The dying wish was that a new Supreme Court Justice not be voted upon prior to the election.

---

Houston posted...

It's disrespectful to RBG. This is equivalent to interrupting a funeral because a family member you don't like attended.

Nobody actually believes you give a shit about RBG.

You're just whining that the fat fuck President is getting treated like he deserves.

---

Fam_Fam posted...

sure there is a reason to pick someone centrist. if you believe the court would make better decisions overall because of the balance, and a swing vote, then you should do that.

i personally believe the court is best served by having balance on both sides, which is why a liberal replacing a strong liberal voice on a conservative leaning court would be good for the country.

of course, if you are simple minded and only think about "winning", then yes you should pick the more extreme judge on your side whenever you can

The thing is, you used to have to somewhat amicable to the other side because you needed 60 votes to confirm an appointment. Republicans blew the nuclear option in 2017 so it just requires a majority. This is why there's a huge difference between Garland, a choice to abide by the supermajority rule, and where we're at now.
Check out how nonpartisan past selections were: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

---

RBG's dying wish has no political power or authority.

---

Nice

---

superXY posted...

RBG's dying wish has no political power or authority.

If Trump doesn't come, they gonna say Trump doesn't pay respect for her. Either way, he has no choice lmao.

---

They're saying boo urns

CyricZ posted...

The woman was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The dying wish was that a new Supreme Court Justice not be voted upon prior to the election.

This is interesting. So I guess peoples dying wishes now are a means of manipulating political decisions now.

Clever and insidious I must admit.


---

Prismsblade posted...

This is interesting. So I guess peoples dying wishes now are a means of manipulating political decisions now.

Clever and insidious I must admit.

No one's suggesting that a person's dying wishes should be written into law.

Just that humans act human for once in their fucking lives.

---

Chadwick69 posted...

Why the fat shaming?

Because he's a fat fuck.

CyricZ posted...

No one's suggesting that a person's dying wishes should be written into law.

Just that humans act human for once in their fucking lives.

Write a law? No. help persuade in regards to political decision making? Yes. That seems to the implicstion here at least but imcno expert on the matter. But if so its pretty messed up in my opinion.

And acting human could mean a endless number of things. Even the opposite of however you believe Trump should be behaving now. There's no one way to act human the same as there being no one way to live life.

---

CyricZ posted...

No one's suggesting that a person's dying wishes should be written into law.

Just that humans act human for once in their fucking lives.

they dont understand that concept. Acting human is contradictory to making money.


---

Little Donnie looking feeble with that mask on

ChocoboMogALT posted...

The thing is, you used to have to somewhat amicable to the other side because you needed 60 votes to confirm an appointment. Republicans blew the nuclear option in 2017 so it just requires a majority. This is why there's a huge difference between Garland, a choice to abide by the supermajority rule, and where we're at now.
Check out how nonpartisan past selections were: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

Democrats changed the voting threshold rules for appointees under Obama, Republicans were just the first ones to apply it to the Supreme Court.

That whole process was a big mistake and it's just going to lead to increasing politicization of the court instead of picking generally agreeable candidates.

Houston posted...

Wow, extremely disrespectful. This is supposed to be a solemn and peaceful moment, regardless of what you think about the president.

Concern

---

The_Ivory_Man posted...

Democrats changed the voting threshold rules for appointees under Obama, Republicans were just the first ones to apply it to the Supreme Court.

That whole process was a big mistake and it's just going to lead to increasing politicization of the court instead of picking generally agreeable candidates.

you could, as president, also make good, reasonable picks regardless of the rules