TrueBlue4ever Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 Coney Barrett, like Anton Scalia before her, believes in an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution, meaning she’ll apply the laws as the original framers intended, and not adapt her reasoning for any change in policy, adaptation to modern day thinking, and such. Forget for a moment that the Constitution itself allows for (and intended to have) Amendments as a way of self-correcting over time to recognize changes in society, and focus on just this one issue: the original framers lived in a society that did not recognize either black people or women as equals (or even people based on the legal definition of such) the former allowed to be subjected to ownership by others, and the latter not given rights such as voting or working to name but 2. So if she believes in that doctrine, then she must admit that per the original framers’ intent she cannot be allowed to sit on the very court that would not have allowed women to practice law or be a candidate for a judgeship. But hey, if you want to start with that “originalist” mindset, let’s not apply 2nd Amendment logic to anything beyond muskets. Oh I forgot, Republicans and Trump defenders alike don’t worry themselves with inconsistency and hypocrisy, they just demand strict adherence to the rules when it suits their interests and conveniently shrug it off with What-about-isms when it boxes them in to a morally inescapable losing argument any time they want to break those same rules because it no longer helps them. Fred C Dobbs, blue_gold_84 and bustamente 2 1
Mr Dee Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 58 minutes ago, JCon said: Have you heard her remarks about reproductivity? Simply barbaric. No I haven’t, and something tells me I don’t want to... Republicans...not doing this because, you know, they have priorities. Indecent.
JCon Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 There is nothing too low for the GOP: Mr Dee, Tracker, bustamente and 1 other 3 1
Mr Dee Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, JCon said: There is nothing too low for the GOP: No, there is nothing too low and therefore it should be declared a victory for the Democrats in the Presidential elections because of mail flawed.
JCon Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 1 minute ago, Mr Dee said: No, there is nothing too low and therefore it should be declared a victory for the Democrats in the Presidential elections because of mail flawed. It's not just the presidency at stake. Control of both Houses and state level elections too. The Governor of Texas is so worried about people voting that he limited the number of mail-in ballot boxes to one per county. The State Supreme Court upheld it because they're worried that Democrats are going to win some key races. It's voter suppression. Tracker 1
do or die Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 Well, Trump tweeted on Wednesday in support of the Republicans who installed unofficial ballot drop boxes in California, a move that state officials labelled as misleading and illegal. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/521010-trump-tweets-support-for-republicans-who-installed-unofficial-ballot blue_gold_84 1
Mr Dee Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 Fred C Dobbs, JCon, Tracker and 1 other 4
Super Duper Negatron Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 21 minutes ago, do or die said: Well, Trump tweeted on Wednesday in support of the Republicans who installed unofficial ballot drop boxes in California, a move that state officials labelled as misleading and illegal. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/521010-trump-tweets-support-for-republicans-who-installed-unofficial-ballot Trump: All these mail in ballots will result in mass voter fraud! Also Trump: Encourages voter fraud. Trump again: See? I was right! bustamente 1
Wideleft Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 2 hours ago, JCon said: There is nothing too low for the GOP: "We must prevent people from voting or it will be the end of democracy!" Mr Dee 1
JCon Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, Wideleft said: "We must prevent people from voting or it will be the end of democracy!" GOP sees democracy as rich white people voting and that's it. Bigblue204 1
bustamente Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 After the GOP take their victory lap after the confirmation of ACB they will soon realize that they are in deep in the coming election and with no chance to win will turn to steal, the Democrats need to get all their supporters out to vote and make the this election over early, win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and most importantly Florida then it's over and then they can look forward to stream rolling the Republicans. Mr Dee 1
HardCoreBlue Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 8 minutes ago, JCon said: GOP sees democracy as rich white people voting and that's it. Yea but what about Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Antifa, no more nice suburbs, stacking the court, law and order, communism, socialism. JCon, blue_gold_84 and Tracker 1 2
bustamente Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 This clown is delusional, gonna be tough to be the Treasury Secretary from jail as he has broken the law constantly with anything pertaining to Trump's taxes. Everyone knows that she is not SCOTUS material but here we go blue_gold_84 and Mr Dee 1 1
HardCoreBlue Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, bustamente said: This clown is delusional, gonna be tough to be the Treasury Secretary from jail as he has broken the law constantly with anything pertaining to Trump's taxes. Everyone knows that she is not SCOTUS material but here we go Don't worry Mnuchin, full rebuild coming.
do or die Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/10/14/im-not-happy-trump-noncommittal-on-keeping-barr-after-failure-to-turn-up-october-surprise/#7f9fd8e23735 I'm with the Don here. Barr's failure to create fake prosecutions of Obama, Biden and Hillary, among others......is simply egregious.
Mr Dee Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 I know what they’re trying to prevent but they have to look at the aspect as waiting to watch a train wreck in action. People will be getting out the popcorn on this one., but, if there’s no control, might as well just move on. That would be caught too...
do or die Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 15 Million Americans have already voted. JCon 1
Colin Unger Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 On 2020-10-13 at 12:15 PM, Mr Dee said: And one of the highest tweeting rates.. Mortality rate is the ratio of covid cases to deaths. The death rate in this article is the number of deaths with Coronavirus being listed as at least one death factor compared to the overall population. 1 hour ago, Mr Dee said: I know what they’re trying to prevent but they have to look at the aspect as waiting to watch a train wreck in action. People will be getting out the popcorn on this one., but, if there’s no control, might as well just move on. That would be caught too... This reminds me of when CNN horribly told Americans that they should not look at the Wikileaks documents themselves because this could be illegal and only get their wikileaks news from them. They don't want people to see what's actually be said they want to crop one liners and manipulate reality to match their political leanings.
Colin Unger Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, Mr Dee said: Just say uncle.. Was that intended for me? 7 hours ago, Mr Dee said: Those were not “trap” questions...pretty basic, and safe when answered. Senator @amyklobuchar “just asked Judge Barrett whether it's illegal under federal law to intimidate voters at the polls”. 👁🗨How about “the peaceful transfer of power”? “Coney Barrett won't even say that she thinks presidents should commit to the peaceful transfer of power” -Aaron Rupar Judging by a lot of her answers, it could be said that she didn’t commit to giving answers that could come back to haunt her. Not once did I think she was unsure of what she was doing. I don't think a nominee for the supreme court wants to give an indication of how they would rule on something in the future that might be much more complex than the simple questions that are being asked. Additionally, these types of questions could be construed as injecting current politics into a supreme court nomination hearing. I could see a nominee not wanting to inject themselves into politics. Politics should not be their role.
Colin Unger Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 On 2020-10-12 at 8:31 PM, wanna-b-fanboy said: So.. what category is the one that contains a spokesperson in the most powerful office in the free world that fails to condemn the "pure racists" and even equates them with antiracist protesters until the political fallout is untenable? Is that the same category that stokes racial tensions and lends legitimacy to these "pure racist"? There have been times when he's failed to condemn White Supremacists upon request. However, that is because he's insulted by the request. Why does he have to constantly be asked that question when he's condemned White Supremacists so many time. I view it more as an ego thing where he's not going to be a puppet to every request the media makes of him. Especially when he's already done it so many times. Its really laughable and also a lie at this point when people like Joe Biden suggest that Trump to this day has yet to condemn white supremacists. The statement where he said there there were good people on both sides he was talking about protesters who were against tearing down statues who had showed up. Not the neo-nazis.
Jpan85 Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 Have seen on the news that some people are waiting 10-11 hours to vote. That seems comical for the “worlds greatest superpower” for people have to wait that long. What’s the longest you have ever waited to vote. Since I have lived in mostly rural areas I usually just walked in and voted. Even the few times I voted in Winnipeg I was in and out in 15 min. JCon, MOBomberFan and Mark F 2 1
Colin Unger Posted October 14, 2020 Report Posted October 14, 2020 Just now, Jpan85 said: Have seen on the news that some people are waiting 10-11 hours to vote. That seems comical for the “worlds greatest superpower” for people have to wait that long. What’s the longest you have ever waited to vote. Since I have lived in mostly rural areas I usually just walked in and voted. Even the few times I voted in Winnipeg I was in and out in 15 min. Yeah same. Probably 15 minutes and done. I can assure you I wouldn't wait 10-11 hours to vote. One vote is meaningless anyways. Even if my one vote would decide an election I'm not convinced id wait 11 hours given there's very little true difference between large tent parties lol
Recommended Posts