Trump Nominates Merrick Garland for SCOTUS!

Standard

In an attempt to extend an olive branch to the Democrats in a biparisan move, President Trump wants to nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.  Trump is said to have quoted himself as saying “better late than never”, a saying he just made up.

A furious Mitch McConnel has been quoted as saying that no such thing will happen in HIS Senate.  He and the Republican majority has been bought and paid for by Mr. Putin, and they will not go back on their word.

Democrats are suspicious and therefore are taking no action to move the nomination forward.

FOX pundits are reviewing their scripts from Sinclair Broadcasting to determine if last minute changes have been made.

NPR is reporting that the President will be making a nomination for the Supreme Court.

Trumpsters are jubilant with the news that President Trump will be able to hold up yet another piece of paper which he has signed with his crayon/marker thereby proving that he is doing something.

WallStreet is looking to make even more money in the whipsaw climate of the Trump Administration.

Evangelicals are chanting AMEN from the pulpet and on television but declining to say what they are amening about.  However, they are sure that God will forgive the President for his repeated unchristian acts.  Mass burnings of the heretical WWJD posters, bracelets, pins and hats are being planed.  In heaven, God hides his head in shame.

The 98% are quietly sewing patches on their clothes and planning tasty meals around Ramen Noodles.

 

Advertisements

The Easiest Political Lie

Standard

When a politician says that people want…, you need to ask which people he is referring to.

Is he referring to all the people (which he is implying)?

Is he referring to the people in his district or state?

OR

Is he referring to his campaign contributors (most likely)?

On what data is he basing his opinion (polls, letters, phone calls, emails)?

If he chooses to follow the people, how does he explain his votes which are contrary to non-partisan polls?

WHY ISN’T THE MEDIA ASKING THESE QUESTIONS?

Riddle Me This, SCOTUS

Standard

The usual explanation of the extent of a person’s individual rights is that your rights extend to the point where they interfere with another’s rights.

So, if in Richnond, California, the Chevron corporation buys up all the billboards and air time on radio, television and other media to support candidates who will be friendly to them; are they not infringing on the free speech rights of the other candidates who will be unable to advertise no matter how much money they have?

Just asking.