Cal20sailor

Political realism of RBG passing

Recommended Posts

You really haven't disproven the "only trumpaloos" accusation, bro.  Every one of those sources is inside the echosphere.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frenchie said:

You really haven't disproven the "only trumpaloos" accusation, bro.  Every one of those sources is inside the echosphere.

 

Great another denier. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, frenchie said:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking most of y'all haven't glanced at Barrett's past answers about her religion vs her job... or looked at her track record. 

She has said that a judge's job is to interpret the law, irrespective of personal beliefs. 

And she has put her money where her mouth is: ruled on a death penalty case, did not recuse, allowing the execution to take place. 

 

Not saying I like her, or think she belongs on the SC  -  saying this angle is weak AF. 

How is a religious nut bag allowing an execution to go forward comforting?  Catholics (I was one until I quit after confirmation) have been executing people for centuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Joker said:

I guess you missed the crunch heard round the world 

VIDEO: Woman Driver Crashes Car While Flipping the Bird at ...

legalinsurrection.com/2020/09/video-woman-driver...

woman crashed her car after she leaned out the window to flip off a MAGA corner rally. Yes. This woman was driving her car, took her hands off the steering wheel,... 

See woman flip off Trump fans, then crash into car ahead of her

www.wnd.com/2020/09/see-woman-flip-off-trump...

A viral video shows a Trump-hating driver leaning out of her carwhile it is moving to flip off a group of supporters of the president. She then crashes into the car in... 

Viral video shows woman flipping off Trump supporters, then ...

www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/viral-video...

A female driver is seen in a viral video showing her middle fingers, yelling at a group of Trump supporters, and then accidentally rear-ending another driver in front of... 

VIDEO: Woman Driver Crashes Car While Flipping the Bird at ...

clickitconservativenews.com/video-woman-driver...

What you are about to witness is an angry Trump hating womancrash her car while she’s leaning out of it to yell and flip off a MAGA corner rally. Yes. This woman was... 

Woman Crashes Car While Flipping Off Trump Supporters ...

clarion.causeaction.com/2020/09/23/woman-crashes...

woman crashed her car after she leaned out the window to flip off a MAGA corner rally. Yes. This woman was driving her car, took her hands off the steering wheel,... 

Watch: Crazed Woman Frantically Flips Off Trump Rally, Then ...

www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/09/22/watch-crazed...

Unfortunately for the woman in this video, she must not have any friends willing to speak sanity into her life. Upon seeing a Trump rally on the side of a road, she... 

Crazed Woman Frantically Flips Off Trump Rally, Then ...

thespectator.info/2020/09/22/crazed-woman...

Unfortunately for the woman in this video, she must not have any friends willing to speak sanity into her life. Upon seeing a Trump rally on the side of a road, she... 

VIDEO: Woman crashes car while flipping off Trump supporters ...

kelo.com/2020/09/23/video-woman-crashes-car...

Here’s an example of a woman who went out of her way to flip the bird (both of them, actually) whiledriving by supporters of President Trump. She’s got both hands... 

Woman mocks, flips off Trump supporters while driving - then ...

www.lawenforcementtoday.com/woman-taunts-trump...

Woman mocks, flips off Trump supporters whiledriving - then crashes car right in front of them More than 7,000 people participate in "Trump Train" parade in Texas -... 

WATCH: Woman Driver Taunts, Flips Off Trump Supporters. Then ...

www.dailywire.com/news/watch-woman-driver-taunts...

For all of you Trump supporters who could use a laugh, this one’s for you. A woman who was temporarily stopped in heavy traffic decided to taunt

Furious driver taunts Trump fans and flips the ... - thesun.co.uk

www.thesun.co.uk/news/12747561/driver-taunts...

A DRIVER who taunted Trump fans, flipping them the finger, was so distracted she crashed into a car in front. The confrontation was captured in a 37-second video and... 

VIDEO: Woman Driver Crashes Car While Flipping the Bird at ...

legalinsurrection.com/2020/09/video-woman-driver...

woman crashed her car after she leaned out the window to flip off a MAGA corner rally. Yes. This woman was driving her car, took her hands off the steering wheel,... 

Shocking moment Trump rips heckler who flips him off during ...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7808083/...

Trump rips heckler who flipped him off while holding a 'you're fired' banner during raucous Michigan rally - then slams security guards for letting her in A heckler at a ... 

  • Video Duration: 4 min

VIDEO: Woman Driver Crashes Car While Flipping the Bird at ...

clickitconservativenews.com/video-woman-driver...

What you are about to witness is an angry Trump hating womancrash her car while she’s leaning out of it to yell and flip off a MAGA corner rally. Yes. This woman was... 

 

Not a single legitimate new source among those cites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Joker said:
1 minute ago, frenchie said:

You really haven't disproven the "only trumpaloos" accusation, bro.  Every one of those sources is inside the echosphere.

 

Great another denier. :) 

Of non-reality

This why Dog gets so-o mad at goddam lefties.

Of coure, I'm not a lefty by any means but anybody who dislikes Trump's rule must be a lefty. All the Trumpalos say so.

The virus is a hoax. Masks don't work. All the Trumpalos say so.

That TDS woman crashed her car. All the Trumpalos say so....besides the police went over to talk to her, how much PROOF do you need!

It's fine to run off this cliff, all the Trumpalos say so.

It's probably very comforting, being wrapped up in your nice warm herd mentality.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, The Joker said:

I guess you missed the crunch heard round the world 

VIDEO: Woman Driver Crashes Car While Flipping the Bird at ...

legalinsurrection.com/2020/09/video-woman-driver...

woman crashed her car after she leaned out the window to flip off a MAGA corner rally. Yes. This woman was driving her car, took her hands off the steering wheel,... 

See woman flip off Trump fans, then crash into car ahead of her

www.wnd.com/2020/09/see-woman-flip-off-trump...

A viral video shows a Trump-hating driver leaning out of her carwhile it is moving to flip off a group of supporters of the president. She then crashes into the car in... 

Viral video shows woman flipping off Trump supporters, then ...

www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/viral-video...

A female driver is seen in a viral video showing her middle fingers, yelling at a group of Trump supporters, and then accidentally rear-ending another driver in front of... 

VIDEO: Woman Driver Crashes Car While Flipping the Bird at ...

clickitconservativenews.com/video-woman-driver...

What you are about to witness is an angry Trump hating womancrash her car while she’s leaning out of it to yell and flip off a MAGA corner rally. Yes. This woman was... 

Woman Crashes Car While Flipping Off Trump Supporters ...

clarion.causeaction.com/2020/09/23/woman-crashes...

woman crashed her car after she leaned out the window to flip off a MAGA corner rally. Yes. This woman was driving her car, took her hands off the steering wheel,... 

Watch: Crazed Woman Frantically Flips Off Trump Rally, Then ...

www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/09/22/watch-crazed...

Unfortunately for the woman in this video, she must not have any friends willing to speak sanity into her life. Upon seeing a Trump rally on the side of a road, she... 

Crazed Woman Frantically Flips Off Trump Rally, Then ...

thespectator.info/2020/09/22/crazed-woman...

Unfortunately for the woman in this video, she must not have any friends willing to speak sanity into her life. Upon seeing a Trump rally on the side of a road, she... 

VIDEO: Woman crashes car while flipping off Trump supporters ...

kelo.com/2020/09/23/video-woman-crashes-car...

Here’s an example of a woman who went out of her way to flip the bird (both of them, actually) whiledriving by supporters of President Trump. She’s got both hands... 

Woman mocks, flips off Trump supporters while driving - then ...

www.lawenforcementtoday.com/woman-taunts-trump...

Woman mocks, flips off Trump supporters whiledriving - then crashes car right in front of them More than 7,000 people participate in "Trump Train" parade in Texas -... 

WATCH: Woman Driver Taunts, Flips Off Trump Supporters. Then ...

www.dailywire.com/news/watch-woman-driver-taunts...

For all of you Trump supporters who could use a laugh, this one’s for you. A woman who was temporarily stopped in heavy traffic decided to taunt

Furious driver taunts Trump fans and flips the ... - thesun.co.uk

www.thesun.co.uk/news/12747561/driver-taunts...

A DRIVER who taunted Trump fans, flipping them the finger, was so distracted she crashed into a car in front. The confrontation was captured in a 37-second video and... 

VIDEO: Woman Driver Crashes Car While Flipping the Bird at ...

legalinsurrection.com/2020/09/video-woman-driver...

woman crashed her car after she leaned out the window to flip off a MAGA corner rally. Yes. This woman was driving her car, took her hands off the steering wheel,... 

Shocking moment Trump rips heckler who flips him off during ...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7808083/...

Trump rips heckler who flipped him off while holding a 'you're fired' banner during raucous Michigan rally - then slams security guards for letting her in A heckler at a ... 

  • Video Duration: 4 min

VIDEO: Woman Driver Crashes Car While Flipping the Bird at ...

clickitconservativenews.com/video-woman-driver...

What you are about to witness is an angry Trump hating womancrash her car while she’s leaning out of it to yell and flip off a MAGA corner rally. Yes. This woman was... 

 

Regardless of whether she crashed, what was the stupid b (person) thinking? We share the roads?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, warbird said:

Regardless of whether she crashed, what was the stupid b (person) thinking? We share the roads?????

Now ^this^ I agree with.

Lots of stupid on display in that video.

And in the headlines, somebody should tell the "journalist" Trumpalos reporting this shit that the steering wheel of a car does not make it go or stop.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And not a single video of her “crashing”

panickng and hitting the brakes? Sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, warbird said:

Regardless of whether she crashed, what was the stupid b (person) thinking? We share the roads?????

she was thinking HOLY FUCK! HUGE DICKS AND NOT A SINGLE ONE CAN FUCK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

And not a single video of her “crashing”

panickng and hitting the brakes? Sure. 

The video shows the damage to her hood.  No one is claiming this was a major crash but she clearly hit the other car.   That is backed up by the loud cheer when it happened.  They were ignoring her antics until that point.   The police would not have turned on their siren and approached her unless she caused an accident.   The real proof is the other vehicle didn’t move after the light changed.  If they had not been hit they would have pulled away with the cars in the other lanes.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

The video shows the damage to her hood.  No one is claiming this was a major crash but she clearly hit the other car.   That is backed up by the loud cheer when it happened.  They were ignoring her antics until that point.   The police would not have turned on their siren and approached her unless she caused an accident.   The real proof is the other vehicle didn’t move after the light changed.  If they had not been hit they would have pulled away with the cars in the other lanes.   

There is no “real proof” but you’re convinced. Typical of a low-Intel trumpaloo. Confirmation bias is all you need.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

There is no “real proof” but you’re convinced. Typical of a low-Intel trumpaloo. Confirmation bias is all you need.

There is plenty of proof.  Over 2 million people have seen the video and laughing at the crash.  Hundreds of News services around the world state she crashed, but you and steam are claiming it didn’t happen.   
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Joker said:

There is plenty of proof.  Over 2 million people have seen the video and laughing at the crash.  Hundreds of News services around the world state she crashed, but you and steam are claiming it didn’t happen.   
 

 

2 million sheeple 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Joker said:

The video shows the damage to her hood.  No one is claiming this was a major crash but she clearly hit the other car.   That is backed up by the loud cheer when it happened.  They were ignoring her antics until that point.   The police would not have turned on their siren and approached her unless she caused an accident.   The real proof is the other vehicle didn’t move after the light changed.  If they had not been hit they would have pulled away with the cars in the other lanes.   

Circumstantial evidence.

 

It's a thing.

It's what dumfucks use to prove  both Hillary is guilty  and Trump is innocent.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One day a Trump fanboy is gunna surprise us all and talk about policy...

Hehehe....only joshing . First you need a policy to talk about. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Good luck with that. She's in a D+26 district, she won her primary by 17% and Shitstain is at the top of the ticket. But you can always hope.

My bad. I did mean to imply I'm a supporter of Ohmer. Just noting the similarity  of the "religion" (third rail) counter argument. Not new, quite a while back, there was the kerfuffle with electing a Catholic president- would he serve the country or the Pope? That was bullshit, JFK (and I think he had many faults) did OK. (how times have changed--how many supreme court justices are Catholics now). Ohmer seems to be mainstream Muslim. Kinda like mainstream Catholic, both of which I am OK with. But being an avowed member of a  sect or cult that by it's very definition subordinates the exercise of US constitutional duties  to one's religion or spouse (or other person) is a disqualifier for Supreme Court Justice in my view. It is like choosing a conscientious objector to be battlefield general. Doomed to failure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Like mainstream  She has made no declaration that her political motivation or decisions are influenced by the

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, frenchie said:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking most of y'all haven't glanced at Barrett's past answers about her religion vs her job... or looked at her track record. 

She has said that a judge's job is to interpret the law, irrespective of personal beliefs. 

And she has put her money where her mouth is: ruled on a death penalty case, did not recuse, allowing the execution to take place. 

 

Not saying I like her, or think she belongs on the SC  -  saying this angle is weak AF. 

I have. Good for her for not recusing, but this is execution of an adult. Not abortion.

Most religious fundamentalists (Catholic or no) have no issue with capital punishment.

And most of my Trump supporting Catholic relatives are standing by TRUMP, not the pope. They think the pope is "too liberal" or some such twaddle for insisting things like capital punishment really is wrong and atheists aren't going to hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, frenchie said:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking most of y'all haven't glanced at Barrett's past answers about her religion vs her job... or looked at her track record. 

She has said that a judge's job is to interpret the law, irrespective of personal beliefs. 

And she has put her money where her mouth is: ruled on a death penalty case, did not recuse, allowing the execution to take place. 

 

Not saying I like her, or think she belongs on the SC  -  saying this angle is weak AF. 

I have. Good for her for not recusing, but this is execution of an adult. Not abortion.

Most religious fundamentalists (Catholic or no) have no issue with capital punishment.

And most of my Trump supporting Catholic relatives are standing by TRUMP, not the pope. They think the pope is "too liberal" or some such twaddle for insisting things like capital punishment really is wrong and atheists aren't going to hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough of this talk about Judge Coney Barrett.  Can we get back to whether there was a collision in that video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

One day a Trump fanboy is gunna surprise us all and talk about policy...

Hehehe....only joshing . First you need a policy to talk about. 

Being mean to brown people!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

It's a dissent.  That means it's not an accurate statement of the law.  You could save everyone the time by writing "Do think Thomas' dissent was a correct statement of the law" if you wanted to write accurately.

 

 

Screen Shot 2020-09-25 at 8.11.36 AM.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

One day a Trump fanboy is gunna surprise us all and talk about policy...

Hehehe....only joshing . First you need a policy to talk about. 

What's wrong with 'fuck you-all I've got mine'?

Oh yeah - that's actually honest. Can't have that.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Enough of this talk about Judge Coney Barrett.  Can we get back to whether there was a collision in that video?

image.png.c7e7de6d9dd5d595a6b8ab7e37cb17ba.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2020 at 6:21 PM, frenchie said:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking most of y'all haven't glanced at Barrett's past answers about her religion vs her job... or looked at her track record. 

She has said that a judge's job is to interpret the law, irrespective of personal beliefs. 

And she has put her money where her mouth is: ruled on a death penalty case, did not recuse, allowing the execution to take place. 

 

Not saying I like her, or think she belongs on the SC  -  saying this angle is weak AF. 

I have, and think she’s that crazy strain of US Catholicism that likes death & murder, but not abortion. Comeon - Barr is catholic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

didn't Catholics support Hitler?

They certainly supported Mussolini and Franco in Spain.  She’s an extra nutty Catholic and is more than likely a fascist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

didn't Catholics support Hitler?

Yep, at least the Pope did. Bigly. And a lot of Catholics followed him, including here.

I think one of the vetting questions Trump asked was about whether she would render a Supreme Court decision on him declaring himself President-For-Life with the power to name his successor

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I have, and think she’s that crazy strain of US Catholicism that likes death & murder, but not abortion. Comeon - Barr is catholic.

The line of attack, in her confirmation hearings for the Appellate, was based on an article she wrote about the conflict between Catholicism & the death penalty, specifically. 

It popularized the line "the dogma is strong in you"... but was a pretty fuckin' stupid angle of attack, IMO: the article said a Judge should recuse herself, rather than let her religious beliefs affect her interpretation of the law.  Isn't that what we want her to say?  So the angle is basically "admit you didn't really mean that," or try to distort what she wrote.  Neither of which strike me as particularly useful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frenchie said:

The line of attack, in her confirmation hearings for the Appellate, was based on an article she wrote about the conflict between Catholicism & the death penalty, specifically. 

It popularized the line "the dogma is strong in you"... but was a pretty fuckin' stupid angle of attack, IMO: the article said a Judge should recuse herself, rather than let her religious beliefs affect her interpretation of the law.  Isn't that what we want her to say?  So the angle is basically "admit you didn't really mean that," or try to distort what she wrote.  Neither of which strike me as particularly useful.

In what way? She’s the same faith as the Democratic presidential candidate, but her appeal to the elk is she has a crazy view of the faith she makes law with, sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

In what way? She’s the same faith as the Democratic presidential candidate, but her appeal to the elk is she has a crazy view of the faith she makes law with, sometimes.

The article she wrote, said a Judge should NOT make law with one's faith. 

How was it smart to bring that up?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, frenchie said:

The article she wrote, said a Judge should NOT make law with one's faith. 

How was it smart to bring that up?

Because she hasn’t followed that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, frenchie said:

The article she wrote, said a Judge should NOT make law with one's faith. 

How was it smart to bring that up?

 

Like she can divorce herself from her beliefs? Get a grip if you believe that.

handmaiden.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frenchie said:

The article she wrote, said a Judge should NOT make law with one's faith. 

How was it smart to bring that up?

 

your logic only applies to those that stand by what they say.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2020 at 9:20 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

I'm no 'angle investor' but maybe you should've watched your business better so you wouldn't have had to take the second exam

Yeah, I guess lawyers are never allowed to move to another state.  Dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I think one of the vetting questions Trump asked was about whether she would render a Supreme Court decision on him declaring himself President-For-Life with the power to name his successor

- DSK

And how exactly would that work, doug?  Is there some precedent in US law or some aspect of the Constitution that would allow her to even remotely rule that way?  Did congress pass a law recently or in the past that is ambiguous about the presidential term office that would allow her to interpret anything even close to what you wrote above?  Last I checked, a single SCJ much less the entire SCOTUS has zero ability to create a law out of thin air.  And that is precisely what you're suggesting could happen.  Here's the BLUF:  They have no power to do anything even close to that.  

And see.... this is the problem with most of these sorts of discussions here in PA.  Rarely is anything remotely discussed based on logic and fact.  It's all emotion and hyperbole and fear.  Criticize here for what's she done and said.  Oppose her for her beliefs and for her actual case history.  Don't oppose someone for what they might think yet have zero ability to carry out. 

IOW, stop being an emotional teenage girl.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

And how exactly would that work, doug?  Is there some precedent in US law or some aspect of the Constitution that would allow her to even remotely rule that way?  Did congress pass a law recently or in the past that is ambiguous about the presidential term office that would allow her to interpret anything even close to what you wrote above?  Last I checked, a single SCJ much less the entire SCOTUS has zero ability to create a law out of thin air.  And that is precisely what you're suggesting could happen.  Here's the BLUF:  They have no power to do anything even close to that.  

And see.... this is the problem with most of these sorts of discussions here in PA.  Rarely is anything remotely discussed based on logic and fact.  It's all emotion and hyperbole and fear.  Criticize here for what's she done and said.  Oppose her for her beliefs and for her actual case history.  Don't oppose someone for what they might think yet have zero ability to carry out. 

IOW, stop being an emotional teenage girl.  

Trump has laid out the scenario himself. He’s rallying Red state legislatures to over-ride in-state popular vote due to “rigged” elections. 
 

These electors show up at the EC and those votes throw him over the top.

I assume he’d get 5 supremes including Judge Amy to support him. After all, the apportionment of electors is absolutely up to the state legislatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Burning Man said:
14 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

think one of the vetting questions Trump asked was about whether she would render a Supreme Court decision on him declaring himself President-For-Life with the power to name his successor

 

And how exactly would that work, doug?  Is there some precedent in US law or some aspect of the Constitution that would allow her to even remotely rule that way?  Did congress pass a law recently or in the past that is ambiguous about the presidential term office that would allow her to interpret anything even close to what you wrote above?  Last I checked, a single SCJ much less the entire SCOTUS has zero ability to create a law out of thin air.  And that is precisely what you're suggesting could happen.  Here's the BLUF:  They have no power to do anything even close to that.  

And see.... this is the problem with most of these sorts of discussions here in PA.  Rarely is anything remotely discussed based on logic and fact.  It's all emotion and hyperbole and fear.  Criticize here for what's she done and said.  Oppose her for her beliefs and for her actual case history.  Don't oppose someone for what they might think yet have zero ability to carry out. 

IOW, stop being an emotional teenage girl.  

Do you believe there is some big magical thing in the sky that enforces "the rules"?

The law was written by people, interpreted by people, enforced by people. Every one of those people makes a choice.

Kind of like some people who had custody of US prisoners made the choice that torture was good when WE do it.

To pretend that Donald Trump would not ask for loyalty to himself over the country and the Constitution is dumber than fuck. He's already done it several times we know of, and many times we can easily infer from actions. Do you think A.G. Barr is dedicated to following the law and the Constitution as perfectly as he can?

Do you think that a Supreme Court Justice has "zero ability to carry out" the over riding of a national election?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Trump has laid out the scenario himself. He’s rallying Red state legislatures to over-ride in-state popular vote due to “rigged” elections. 
 

These electors show up at the EC and those votes throw him over the top.

I assume he’d get 5 supremes including Judge Amy to support him. After all, the apportionment of electors is absolutely up to the state legislatures.

How does any of that allow him to declare himself dick-tator for life as doug claimed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

didn't Catholics support Hitler?

 

14 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yep, at least the Pope did. Bigly. And a lot of Catholics followed him, including here.

I think one of the vetting questions Trump asked was about whether she would render a Supreme Court decision on him declaring himself President-For-Life with the power to name his successor

- DSK

The Catholics made peace with the Nazis so they could play nicy nice with their churches, as they feared Bolsheviks even more..   Go look up Reichskonkordat.  Quite a few prominent Catholics were killed during "The Night of the Long Knives."

Oskar Schindler and Claus Von Stauffenherg were a Catholic if that means anything..  Many Catholics (mainly Southern Central and Western Germany) opposed Hitler and the Nazis which got them to Dachau, and many credit the Catholic Church for saving close to a million Jews from the camps.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Do you believe there is some big magical thing in the sky that enforces "the rules"?

The law was written by people, interpreted by people, enforced by people. Every one of those people makes a choice.

Kind of like some people who had custody of US prisoners made the choice that torture was good when WE do it.

To pretend that Donald Trump would not ask for loyalty to himself over the country and the Constitution is dumber than fuck. He's already done it several times we know of, and many times we can easily infer from actions. Do you think A.G. Barr is dedicated to following the law and the Constitution as perfectly as he can?

Do you think that a Supreme Court Justice has "zero ability to carry out" the over riding of a national election?

- DSK

You're moving the goalposts.  You said that he would declare himself dictator for life and that ACB would make it happen.  

And no, I think AG Barr is a cunt who will do what pleases his master.  However, the AG still doesn't have absolute power to do a lot of stuff you think he does.  

Quote

Do you think that a Supreme Court Justice has "zero ability to carry out" the over riding of a national election?

No.  They have zero ability to overrule a national election.  I believe in the system of checks and balances, and I believe there is enough good people left in gov't that they would not allow blatantly unconstitutional shit like you suggest to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

How does any of that allow him to declare himself dick-tator for life as doug claimed?

One election at a time baby. One election at a time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

You're moving the goalposts.  You said that he would declare himself dictator for life and that ACB would make it happen.  

And no, I think AG Barr is a cunt who will do what pleases his master.  However, the AG still doesn't have absolute power to do a lot of stuff you think her does.  

No.  They have zero ability to overrule a national election.  I believe in the system of checks and balances, and I believe there is enough good people left in gov't that they would not allow blatantly unconstitutional shit like you suggest to continue.

The R senators have already been saying “whoever the Supremes say won”

there is a high likelihood that Trump will steal this election in a constitutional way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

The R senators have already been saying “whoever the Supremes say won”

there is a high likelihood that Trump will steal this election in a constitutional way.

In a "constitutional" way?  How so?  Lay out the scenario for me because I'm not seeing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

In a "constitutional" way?  How so?  Lay out the scenario for me because I'm not seeing it.

It comes down to the Electoral College. The Connie says it’s up to the state legislatures on how to apportion EC votes. There’s no requirement for a popular vote. 
 

if the Red states toss out all “suspect” ballots due to rampant “fraud” and give the votes to Trump, the only institution that could say “no” would be the Supremes. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
5 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

No.  They have zero ability to overrule a national election.  I believe in the system of checks and balances, and I believe there is enough good people left in gov't that they would not allow blatantly unconstitutional shit like you suggest to continue.

The R senators have already been saying “whoever the Supremes say won”

there is a high likelihood that Trump will steal this election in a constitutional way.

The Trumpublican Senators at least did a pleasant little backfill on peaceful transition of power, but as we know, their promised word means doodley-squat.

And not just them, the military (or at least Gen. Milley) has said "whoever the Supremes say."

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

In a "constitutional" way?  How so?  Lay out the scenario for me because I'm not seeing it.

?

Seven posts ago. #1039.

30 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Trump has laid out the scenario himself. He’s rallying Red state legislatures to over-ride in-state popular vote due to “rigged” elections. 
 

These electors show up at the EC and those votes throw him over the top.

I assume he’d get 5 supremes including Judge Amy to support him. After all, the apportionment of electors is absolutely up to the state legislatures.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

The Trumpublican Senators at least did a pleasant little backfill on peaceful transition of power, but as we know, their promised word means doodley-squat.

And not just them, the military (or at least Gen. Milley) has said "whoever the Supremes say."

- DSK

That’s right, Milley has said he’s staying out of it and whoever is installed in Jan will be his CiC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2020 at 12:32 PM, Burning Man said:

Yeah, I guess lawyers are never allowed to move to another state.  Dick.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

The R senators have already been saying “whoever the Supremes say won”

there is a high likelihood that Trump will steal this election in a constitutional way.

The 'right' is a play on words created by the left to point out their propensity to let the ends justify the means.  The left will always need more than a majority to take power. 

In this election, with this president, I'd say the over under is 3% for states with Republican legislatures.   Meaning that the Democrats will need at least a 3% margin of victory in enough R states to take the electoral count to win the election. 

When you're looking at battleground state polling data from your favorite polling site, subtract 3% from the D for NC, AZ,  PA and WI.  Throw in polling bias and margin of error and you can see why the R's are taking this avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

It comes down to the Electoral College. The Connie says it’s up to the state legislatures on how to apportion EC votes. There’s no requirement for a popular vote. 
 

if the Red states toss out all “suspect” ballots due to rampant “fraud” and give the votes to Trump, the only institution that could say “no” would be the Supremes. 
 

 

The 'right' is a play on words created by the left to point out their propensity to let the ends justify the means.  The left will always need more than a majority to take power. 

In this election, with this president, I'd say the over under is 3% for states with Republican legislatures.   Meaning that the Democrats will need at least a 3% margin of victory in enough R states to take the electoral count to win the election. 

When you're looking at battleground state polling data from your favorite polling site, subtract 3% from the D for NC, AZ,  PA, FL, OH and WI.  Throw in polling bias and margin of error and you can see why the R's are taking this avenue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Teener said:

The 'right' is a play on words created by the left to point out their propensity to let the ends justify the means.  The left will always need more than a majority to take power. 

In this election, with this president, I'd say the over under is 3% for states with Republican legislatures.   Meaning that the Democrats will need at least a 3% margin of victory in enough R states to take the electoral count to win the election. 

When you're looking at battleground state polling data from your favorite polling site, subtract 3% from the D for NC, AZ,  PA and WI.  Throw in polling bias and margin of error and you can see why the R's are taking this avenue.

 

I think it’s higher than 3%. Basically, what % is mail-in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to move closer to a popular vote, why not just eliminate 'all or nothing' in allocation of state electors.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

If you want to move closer to a popular vote, why not just eliminate 'all or nothing' in allocation of state electors.

 

Why bother with popular vote at all? Trump says it’s not legit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Yeah, I guess lawyers are never allowed to move to another state.  Dick.

What the fuck does that have to do with the bar exam? Did your oxygen masks malfunction while flying and starve your brain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

If you want to move closer to a popular vote, why not just eliminate 'all or nothing' in allocation of state electors.

 

It is up to the state to do that.  Two states use that method of allocating electoral votes and I hope others follow.  It still doesn't do much for making each person's vote count the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bridhb said:

It is up to the state to do that.  Two states use that method of allocating electoral votes and I hope others follow.  It still doesn't do much for making each person's vote count the same.

Move to Chechnya,  their votes all count the same:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bridhb said:

It is up to the state to do that.  Two states use that method of allocating electoral votes and I hope others follow.  It still doesn't do much for making each person's vote count the same.

I'll go back to saying that the American citizens are under represented.  Right now the House has 435 members, the Senate 100 and the Electoral college 538.  When you are dealing with a population of 350 million that simply isn't enough.  Each member of the house represents around 800,000 people. It is not humanly possible to get any sort of consensus or guidance from that many people.  It concentrates power to a very few people and, ultimately, gives party more power than the electorate in directing legislators decisions.

Here is an article that might interest some

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/55/why-435/

The Framers of the Constitution believed the “people’s branch” of government—the House—should grow in size as the population grew, thereby guaranteeing the people access to their elected representatives. The first Congress in 1789 had districts of 33,000 constituents; today’s districts have 740,000. Districts need to be smaller, and the membership of the House larger. That change in law would eliminate a 90-year monument to bigotry, make the House more democratic, and make the Electoral College more representative of the population of our country. Smaller districts, accompanied by redistricting and electoral reform, will also create more competitive districts, which will mean less virulently partisan candidates—and, hopefully, legislators.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nacradriver said:

 

The Catholics made peace with the Nazis so they could play nicy nice with their churches, as they feared Bolsheviks even more..   Go look up Reichskonkordat.  Quite a few prominent Catholics were killed during "The Night of the Long Knives."

Oskar Schindler and Claus Von Stauffenherg were a Catholic if that means anything..  Many Catholics (mainly Southern Central and Western Germany) opposed Hitler and the Nazis which got them to Dachau, and many credit the Catholic Church for saving close to a million Jews from the camps.

agree.

 

what the management did was not what the supporters did. after all, there were plenty of allied catholics!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, warbird said:

Move to Chechnya,  their votes all count the same:D

There, fixed it for yo so no one would make the mistake you were not kidding,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump had a new way to win yesterday. No EC vote at all, rather there is an option for 1 vote per state by their legislature.

what do you want think now @Burning Manknowing the ores is actively working to ignore the time-tested process of electing a prez?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Raz'r said:

It comes down to the Electoral College. The Connie says it’s up to the state legislatures on how to apportion EC votes. There’s no requirement for a popular vote. 
 

if the Red states toss out all “suspect” ballots due to rampant “fraud” and give the votes to Trump, the only institution that could say “no” would be the Supremes. 
 

 

If as you say it is completely up to the state legislatures and they do whatever in accordance with their state laws - then what basis would the SCOTUS have to overrule them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

If as you say it is completely up to the state legislatures and they do whatever in accordance with their state laws - then what basis would the SCOTUS have to overrule them?

Did I say the scotus would? No. You asked for plausible scenarios where Trump performs a palace coup. He’s laid out 2, himself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now