Mitch McConnell must not be Senate Majority Leader after the midterms

[sneakypete]

I can't decide if Mitch is getting ready to retire or he's just a cranky old man and doesn't even care anymore, but either way his time has come and gone.

Having said that, Mitch McConnell is the reason why Merrick Garland is not a Supreme Court Justice, and we will always owe him for at least that much.

@Polly Ticks

Mitch,the Bitch may be a butthole,but he is not confused about anything. I suspect he is just facing up to the fact that his days are numbered,and cashing in on the time he has left is his main concern.

He may be registered as a Republican,but that is only because the title of "whore" wasn't available.

[sneakypete]

The reason Merrick Garland is not a Supreme Court Justice is because Obama was too lazy (and lacked the leadership ability) to fight for him.  If the Dems had put up a fight, Mitch would have folded.  But the Dems fully expected that Hillary would be the next President, so they left the seat open to her as a gift.

@Hoodat

I believe you are right.

[roamer_1]

Again.  Turtle didn't exactly apply rocket science is withholding that last Obama nomination of Obama (Garland) Any and every GOP majority leader under those circumstances would have done the same. 

The more pressing issue, is how he is destroying us now.  What happened last Saturday did not have to happen, if this POS had done his job properly.

He was doing the very same thing then. Now and then hold no difference.

[Fishrrman]

Title and presumption:
"Mitch McConnell must not be Senate Majority Leader after the midterms"

That's all well and good, and I agree.
But... a little fly in the ointment/argument:
Just how is this going to be accomplished?

[Fishrrman]

jafo:
"T   E   R   M         L   I   M   I   T   S!"

Not going to happen.
Not under the current government.
Not under the current Constitution.

(Frankly, I'm amazed at how the rube-believers just can't let go of this...)

Pure idle speculation:
It -might- happen under a "different" government and a "re-composed" Constitution... (sumthin' I've been thinkin' about, lately...)

[catfish1957]

jafo:
"T   E   R   M         L   I   M   I   T   S!"

Not going to happen.
Not under the current government.
Not under the current Constitution.

(Frankly, I'm amazed at how the rube-believers just can't let go of this...)

Pure idle speculation:
It -might- happen under a "different" government and a "re-composed" Constitution... (sumthin' I've been thinkin' about, lately...)

For someone who seems hell bent on belittling other Briefer's POV's, you sure are weak in suggesting solutions, outside your incessant "continental congress" screed. Which by definition, would have to happen after a revolution anyway.

[Hoodat]

T   E   R   M         L   I   M   I   T   S!

Term limits will require a constitutional amendment.  Good luck getting two thirds of the Senate and House to go along.

[Fishrrman]

catfish wrote:
"outside your incessant "continental congress" screed. Which by definition, would have to happen after a revolution anyway."

OK.
When was the First Continental Congress convened?
When was the Second one convened?
You can look it up.

When were the dates of the Revolutionary War?

(there was definitely "a chicken" before the "egg" here...)