The more correct analogy would be, don't even utter an offering price. Or, in some strange reality that people actually live in, nutty enough to think someone with a net worth of 10K can offer 500K.
I mean, are you REALLY trying to suggest that Garland is as moderate as Kennedy? You are making a false equivalency here that's kind of funny and kind of sad at the same time. The reason Kennedy got votes from Democrats was because he's a true swing vote on the bench. He's as likely to vote with the left as he is the right....and in recent years he's more likely to vote with the left than the right. The Kennedy nomination was an example of a politician making legitimate concessions to a congress controlled by the other party in order to get his pick on the bench. Maybe you are so left leaning as to think Garland is the same thing....LOL but that's just not reality. Even if we believe they are a bit off the mark here for the sake of conversation, he's absolutely not a Justice Kennedy type.
But Obama did make an offer, he offered Garland. Now sure, maybe Obama only has a net worth of 10K so there's no way he can make a legitimate offer.....but wouldn't that make the Congress right when they told him not to waste his time?
Well, that's a wrap. Won't derail anymore. Back to 1st debate, which Bobby isn't very interested in. But it's just words.
Just want to say my piece on the whole moderation thing. In a perfect world a moderator would check facts for both candidates but the problem is this. No moderator is going to be privy to every subject that comes up to be able to fact check it instantly, now it is 2016 so there could be staff researching and telling the moderation in their ear that someone lied but that just destroys the flow of a debate. Also must realize that everyone is biased, some people just admit to it and others do not. A conservative moderator will be more eager to correct Clinton for instance and vice versa. With all that said it is probably better for the Moderator to just focus on controlling the discussion and making sure they each have their shot at rebutting the opponent and that they each get their proper time. You have a moderator interjecting constantly into a debate and then they start to become part of a debate, not so sure we want that. It would be nice if the american public would be wise enough to do their own research on these things and to not just take politicians for their word regarding anything.
"After viewing the instant reply, the statement on the stage has been overruled. Return the question to the 20-yard-line and repeat the candidate's first down."
Whenever I glance at the news today it's all about KellyAnne Conway on this show or that show, trying to get everyone to believe everyone has it out for her client. I'll admit she'll get to raise her consulting fees significantly in the future but there is a special place in hell for carbon-based forms of life that choose her profession.
Then they should vote to reject. I have no issue with the Senate rejecting Garland if they feel he is too liberal or whatever. I have an issue with taking no action for months.
It's the same thing and it's done all the time when it comes to bills and other things that never end up coming up for a vote. A different nominee might not have gotten pigeonholed, but we'll never know. The congress has as much right to pigeonhole a bill or a nomination as the president does to veto bipartisan legislation.
Hello and good evening, I'm Lester Holt, and welcome to the first 2016 presidential debate, being hosted tonight at You-Can't-Afford-to-Send-Your-Children-Here University...
If only we could make both of these candidates like Pinocchio for each of these debates so we could simply measure their noses to find a winner.
Just have a screen below each of the candidates podiums with a live count of how many lies each candidate has made.
