No, but I can imagine getting a job as a temp at his favorite restaurant, and spitting in his food. For starters... 
Posted on 07/09/2018 12:55:30 PM PDT by SMGFan
Hours ahead of President Donald Trump’s prime-time announcement of his selection for the U.S. Supreme Court, and Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Casey has made up his mind.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
Can anyone imaging having to sit near a person like Bob Casey or having someone like him in the foxhole next to you?
You have to respect the OPEN MINDED willingness for people to at least FIRST consider, before making an opinion. THAT is why Washington D.C. is broken and can’t get anything done. I am GLAD Trump canceled the picnic on the WH lawn because these crazies don’t pass laws, they only obstruct.
No, but I can imagine getting a job as a temp at his favorite restaurant, and spitting in his food. For starters...
I’ve said it before, but I still think some of them believe they are voting for his dad...
“Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey says he’ll oppose Trump’s Supreme Court pick”
Well isn’t he special!
" Dr. Kathi Aultman told a U.S. Congressional committee in 2017 that she referred to unborn babies as 'fetuses' when killing them in abortions but 'babies' when they were wanted; and she regretted the incongruity. She also said she was fascinated by the 'tiny but perfectly formed limbs, intestines, kidneys, and other organs' of aborted babies."
Aultman, in the first clause of her statement summarizes the semantic trickery Liberals/Progressives knowingly used to implement their takeover of the minds of American citizens before 1973 in order to impose their population control method of destroying babies in order to facilitate the goals of socialism for America.
Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.An examination of the history of nations reveals the long and arduous struggle by human beings for individual liberty--from kings, from masters, from whatever description fitted those other human beings who gained power and exercised it over their fellow citizens.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
By whatever semantic maneuver those power holders chose to identify themselves, no matter how benevolent they purported to be, the end was the same: some individuals in the society or group were denied their Creator-endowed rights to be free.
No such thing as a pro-life demoncrat.
another leftist Ahole who doesn’t even care who the president might actually nominate
when can we finally Drain the political swamp in this country? these commie type fascist ideologues are ruining America
not even waiting to find out who is nominated, to oppose?
what kind of idiocy is that?!
Actually, Bob Casey might be the most honest Democrat in the Senate by announcing he’s a no BEFORE a candidate is even nominated.
It’s hard to unseat an incumbent Senator, as evidenced by Seahag Claire McCaskill from Missouri. That state has been trending red for the past few cycles and is no longer a battleground state. Yet Josh Hawley can’t get over the hump in what should be a very vulnerable race for Claire.
The Dem Senate seats that are in play are:
Danger for DEMS
FL (Trump won by 1): Bill Nelson-D (AUG 24 Primary, current polling has Nelson behind Rick Scott 46-41)
IN (Trump by 19): Joe Donnelly-D already polling behind 48-47 to Mike Braun
ND (Trump by 36): Heidi Heitkamp-D down 48-44 to Kevin Kramer-R
WV (Trump by 42): Joe Manchin-D was polling behind Patrick Morrissey (44-46 on MAY 10), but now up 50-43 (JUN 19)
MO (Trump by 18): Claire McCaskill-D up, but only 48-44 over Josh Hawley
MT (Trump by 21): Jon Tester-D up 52-44 over Matt Rosendale in May, but Trump visited recently
Needing help
OH (Trump won by 8): Sherrod Brown, seeking his 3rd term in Ohio (GOP candidate is Jim Renacci, current polling at 51-38 for Brown)
WI (Trump won by 0.8%): Tammy Baldwin (AUG 14 Primary, Vukmir likely GOP candidate but polls behind 49-40)
PA (Trump won by 0.7%): Bob Casey (Lou Barletta is a weak challenger, 47-32 is the most recent poll)
MICH (Trump won by 0.2%): Debbie Stabenow, 40 yrs in MI politics (AUG 7 Primary, Stabenow polling 51-30 over both likely opponents)
(But NEV, TENN, and ARIZ are currently potential DEM pickups, too.)
Hillary was a horrible candidate and Trump destroyed her with his rust belt message.
The communists are furious, and if Casey is already sitting on a comfortable lead, the quickest way to lose it is to piss them off.
Understand how you feel but what you suggested is exactly what 'they' would do. I remember Jesse Jackson saying the same thing about spitting in White People's food.
Lou Barletta is currently my Congressman. I would love for him to win this U.S. Senate seat. Senator Bob Casey is not even a pimple on the ass of a real man like his father.
As far as The PA Governor's race is concerned, I am voting Republican but understand what a disappointment the GOP Field is for that seat. I am just disappointed that if reelected, Wolf will start to implement strict Gun Control like they have in New Jersey. I just left New Jersey three years ago to escape Communist Bliss.
Trump overcame the Dem vote in Philly and its suburbs. He won Berks County and nearly beat the witch in Bucks County.
Interesting to see if he carries PA in 2020. I wonder if any Freepers from the northeast could weigh in.
Simple. It’s not really about the Roe v. Wade excuse. Democrats don’t like our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights with its protections of individuals vs. the government.
If a nominee pledges to rule according to the intent of the written law, that’s enough for a no vote. They want the Supreme Court to find ways around the Constitution (aka blah-de-blah.. Lay and Collect Taxes! ... Promote The General Welfare! ... blah de blah blah)
This Nov Dems in Minnesota will elect 2 women without a fight?
Apparently, at least two threatened Democrat Senators have calculated that their pathway to victory is to be all in for the Bernie Sanders Democrats. Claire McCaskill in MO has decided that the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City, their suburbs and la la land of Columbia will pull together to bring her across the finish line. Therefore, she will likely oppose Trump’s nominee as she did with Gorsuch. Even though she has dirty tricks and voter fraud on her side, this is a risky move and I will predict that she will come up short.
I don’t know what Casey’s future will be, but he has adopted the same strategy. I am thinking that they have been drinking the Blue Wave Kool Aid and that by Election Day rolls around, the Wave may be a kiddie wading pool.
You're right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.