Well wrong again.. that comment was made by your hero Don Lemon last night when he and Fredo does the handoff between shows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ge/ar-BB19iGTO
Printable View
Well wrong again.. that comment was made by your hero Don Lemon last night when he and Fredo does the handoff between shows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ge/ar-BB19iGTO
I think he was referring to your polling assertions.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Looks like Turtle has the votes for confirming the next Supreme Court Justice
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/polit...tus/index.html
https://media3.giphy.com/media/26zzb...sQQE/giphy.gif
Was never any doubt.
That was a newsweek article that said that not social media..Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
It was a poll on a social app. Sounds non-scientific to me. Where are you reading about Hispanic support. I know Trump is doing well with Cubans in Florida, but the numbers I saw nationally said he was at 30% with Latinos. Granted, that’s very good for a GOP candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
I was referring to FL and also the 30+ percent nationally.. which is high relative to past GOP candidates as you said. All that said, I still personally don't have a lot of faith on polls as all of the major pollsters got it so wrong in 2016. I think a lot of that was the MSM was trying to shape/influence/discourage voters from voting by stating how much Hillary was going to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
They are Regressives.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
6-3 Baby!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Saw some numbers based on the exit polls of the 2016 POTUS election where as many as 15% of voters in some battleground states said they voted for Trump because of one issue, they wanted him, not Killary, to nominate the next SC justices. For many voters it often comes down to ONE ISSUE. These same voters apparently told the pollster they would not have voted for Trump otherwise. So...if Trump replaces Ruthie prior to November 3rd, these key voters might say "thanks Mr. President for filling the SC with someone we like, and now it's time to get rid of you." Just saying...
9-6 coming your way.Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Mitch is running the show now. I think he knows confirming before the election likely hurts Trump and a handful of vulnerable senators. I think he’s ok with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Yup. He is playing into the script of a 9-6. Will see if he pushes the confirmation until after the election. Even a nomination before the election could hurt Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Doesn’t hurt Trump with anybody that understands the Biden/Harris platform.
Let us all hope it doesn't come to that. Yep, regaining control of the Senate the Dems could up the SC to a 9-6 split. And that would last until the GOP regains the Senate...and off we go running!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Besides, if we were to get a true conservative justice to replace Ruthie it would make it only 5-4, at best, to the good. Roberts has been anything but a conservative justice.
It'll be hard to tell because Trump was at a historic deficit prior to the SCOTUS news.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
In reality, overturning Roe v Wade returns control of that issue to the states. Louisiana is the most pro-life state in the union and eliminating abortion here is going to reduce it by small numbers here. New York, California etc. are still going to have legal abortion. The holy grail of SC justices for the pro-life cause serves the Republican party, predominantly, to keep one issue voters in line especially if nothing is done about it. Some pro-life voters are weighing the reality of my first statement against what they perceive as the character issues with Trump. Remember, single issue voters are conscience voters. They tend to have moral standards when it comes to behavior. Evangelical voters had the biggest switch from "character matters" to "character doesn't matter" in polling in the last 4-6 years. That is a tenuous line to balance because the cognitive dissonance is loud.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Roe v. Wade is just one of the hot-button items that the SC can affect. There is also all the 1st and 2nd Amendments issues to consider. Voters who care about the Bill of Rights are likely to want a conservative SC to uphold those rights.
In my post, I did not mention Roe v. Wade, just that a significant % of voters in battleground states cited SC appointees as a, or THE, reason they voted for Trump in 2016. Now, maybe Roe was that key issue for those voters, but it was not expressly stated. I assumed, from the language of the report...and maybe I just projected my own view into that assumption...that it was a "we want a conservative justice(s)" rather than "we want someone who will overturn Roe v. Wade."
But, weunice, you are correct, of course, about overturning Roe simply returning the issue to the 50 separate states. It's what Ruthie was worried about, since she was such a strong advocate of murdering babies. She stated many times how she would have preferred baby-murder to have been made law at the state level and for the SC to NEVER have been asked to make a ruling on it. She also famously said, which she may or may not have been right about, that in the early 1970's there was ample momentum on the side of baby-murder that many, most, maybe all states would have eventually passed a law allowing it, at least to some degree. But, the lawsuit which eventually beget Roe v. Wade took it out of the hands of all those separate state movements and the local (state) momentum slipped away.
Ruthie was 100% correct though when she warned those celebrating baby-murder as "the law of the land" to be ever mindful that Roe could very easily, and quickly, be overturned by the same SC they leaned on.
Do you want a "conservative" or an "originalist"? It seems many more on the right are NOW wanting a judge to advocate for conservative causes as opposed to being a strict constitutionalist. Seems like that's judicial activism. Now, I can understand the argument that you need activism on the right to combat activism on the left...I don't agree, but I understand.
I think ABC's answers when asked about her religion have been very good with regard to how she approaches her job as a judge. I think the left is playing a dangerous game if they go hard after her catholicism...you know where a lot of catholics live? The midwest.
Yep Biden is a crook and a scumbag.
Breaking:
Senate Report Says Joe Biden Allowed Family to Enrich Themselves Abroad While He Was VP
A new Senate report released Wednesday concludes that former Vice President Joe Biden allowed Hunter Biden and other members of his family to enrich themselves through links with foreign companies and governments while he was in office.
The report notes that the Obama administration was aware of, but did nothing about the conflict of interest that was created when Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was appointed to the board of Burisma, a corrupt Ukrainian fossil fuel company.
Much more:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ile-he-was-vp/
Lol. Cause he has the ability to stop Hunter, a grown ass adult, from doing what he chooses.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
What did the report say about POTUS’s children that are enriching themselves with foreign companies and governments?
So you libs like slimy Biden with his kickbacks from Russia and China huh? I guess Obama let Biden family crap go scott free because he was in tight with Iran, as in $4 Billion tight.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
More
Hunter Biden’s Firm Received $3.5 Million from One of Russia’s Most ‘Powerful’ Oligarchs
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ful-oligarchs/
Senate Committee: Hunter Biden Paid Women Linked to ‘Prostitution or Human Trafficking’
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...n-trafficking/
No, because he enabled Hunter to be in the position to do that by his connections. If Hunter wants to 'knock-up' a stripper, I don't blame Joe for that other than for bad parenting. But if you introduce your son to these people and this is the result then Joe definitely has some of the blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The report cleared Joe. No surprise there. The fact that Hunter traded off on his dad’s name is not something in Joe’s control.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonPieBlue
Which introduction do you find problematic?
In other news.. Poor Nadler.. I think he had an accident while on stage with Nancy today.. definitely seems to be doing the clinch walk..
https://i.imgur.com/jqFWHxA.gif
If Trump wins in November, he likely will have a 4th nomination with Justice Beyer. He's 82yo. Or Justice Thomas may retire.
OMG! that would be awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
I think Trump will definitely get to name a replacement for Thomas, who is in my opinion, one of the finest justices to have ever served on the supreme court, but Breyer will stick it out another four years unless he gets deathly ill.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Nobody?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Anyway, y’all catch Trump’s comment on the peaceful transfer of power? Good times. I’ve seen HRC’s comments attributed to Biden. Trump just came out and said it!
Sorry Johnny, missed your post earlier. I myself would prefer a "Constitutionalist", which probably leans more as an originalist if I think I understand your definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
abc, i'm shocked -- SHOCKED!
https://freebeacon.com/2020-election/abc-town-hall-masquerades-anti-trump-activists-as-uncommitted-voters/
All SC judges are constitutionalists.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Honestly, “judicial activism” and “strict constructionism” are both perjorative, and I think it is hard to apply either label objectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
It is easier to distinguish between textualists, originalists, and “living Constitutionalists”. Many judges will still vacillate between each of these philosophies in different circumstances.
A judge not bringing personal bias is really not any of these things in particular - that is one of the basic canons of judicial ethics. That is a base ethical expectation of all judges.
Textualism has always made more sense to me. How is a judge supposed to know the intent of the authors?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I guess if we did a Venndiagram, textualism would overlap originalism and maybe even living Constitutionalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Language changes, technology changes, society changes...
These factor into the thinking. There is always some record of intent, whether explicit or implicit in legislative history (what legislators argued that it meant in the case of laws) or the vast amount of writings the founders did contemporaneously with the Constitutional convention.
Provisions of the Constitution were drafted with a specific purpose and time can make aspects of the original language anachronistic.
Obvious example - The second amendment. You would have thought militias would be the rage and obviously the concept of “arms” itself has developed substantially since then. Civilian militias with nuclear arms?
It is really hard to pigeon hole yourself into one of these dogmas and then use it universally. Judges will pick and choose.
Mail-in ballots marked for Trump were found dumped in the trash, in Pennsylvania.
There is no doubt the Left plans to steal the election. It is not debatable, it is not in dispute, it is a scientific fact commies lie, cheat, and steal...follow the science.
There is 100% certainty Trump will actually win the election, but the commies will steal it, or try to. I support Trump standing up to this travesty. He has to, just like he has stood up to The Swamp, the Deep State, and to all commies around the world. The future of our country and the free world hangs in the balance.
The polls don't agree.:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
This is the DOJ under the direction of Trump’s henchmen trying to stir up controversy before they have a full set of facts and investigation. It is designed to create chaos. Trump is a chaos president.
Links?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
My assessment of the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Look who made the announcement: US Attorney David Freed, nominated by Trump and under the direction of Barr.
Look at the information in the announcement: it was incomplete and, in contrast with past practices, included information about who the votes were for.
Look at the timing of the announcement: again, announced publicly before the investigation has concluded and at a time that underscores POTUS’s current campaign message.
Trump’s current campaign theme is that he could only lose if the election is rigged. He knows he is going to lose so he is trying to create a climate of chaos so that people don’t trust the result and he can hopefully use the DOJ and courts he has made more favorable to him to intervene and give him a better shot.
This benefits him but hurts the US.
This can't be true.. Goosy said that mail in ballot fraud doesn't exist.. that would make his position wrong if this took place.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Back to the actual election campaign...
Why does Biden need a week just to prepare for a debate? Never mind, no need to answer that, it's obvious.
You are drama queening. Neck and neck race between you and Pawdawg over lead queen.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
We still don’t know the facts of what happened in PA, but the scale of this particular issue is relatively minor and no greater than what you see in regular voting in some states.
Unfortunately you can’t trust our current DOJ not to politicize issues in ways that amplify Trump’s campaign. Sad state of affairs, and hopefully will get corrected next year.
More like it isn’t a surprise that Trump would not need time to prepare as he just makes up facts on the spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
For example, what if the facts are that these ballots were not put in secrecy envelopes? Based on the request of the Trump campaign and RNC, the PA Supreme Court, those ballots are to be discarded.
I personally don't care if those ballots get discarded. My point was that unsolicited mail in ballots promote and invite voter fraud. I have given you examples of where it takes place, evidence that people are admitting to actually doing it, yet you say it doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And my point is that the fraud isn’t any greater than in person voting.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
https://i.imgflip.com/423r5m.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
It will be...and much worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Ha! You just can’t accept that Trump isn’t winning anybody over. He knows he’s losing, so he’s whining about the process. Mitch has already signaled that he won’t back this play.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
It’s like whining about the refs before you’ve lost the game.
I thought this guy was supposed to be a winner. This is straight out of the loser playbook.
Remember when the candidate said negative things regarding the military?? We couldn't find any proof? Well I found some.. "Clap you stupid bastards"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5Tv7eneXrc
Right...it was Trump and the GOP who have done everything they can think of it to overturn the 2016 results.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
And after Trump wins, just watch....
You seem to have forgotten 2008...and our birther in chief. Do you deny that Trump is already making excuses for his loss in November? What a loser!Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
You’re projecting.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
But then, you are gullible little Johnny Lightweight.
Sorry you backed a loser Glen!Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
Who is the President?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
You’re backing Biden, the real racist in this election.
You support BLM, a terrorist organization.
I could go on and on, but what’s the use?
I always know when I get under your skin. You know how?
Cause your pecker gets stiff?Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
Weak Goober, even for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You’re a legend in your own mind!Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
Biden called US soldiers "stupid bastards" and said of them "what a dull bunch, awfully slow..."
There's a video clip of it. Well, there ya go.
Looks like the troops took the comment in jest, most likely because it was in juxtaposition to the comments he was making about people not really understanding the magnitude of their sacrifice and other comments of admiration of their service and capabilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
The fact that this clip is making the rounds kind of shows how little the Republicans have to criticize.
No, the troops were just being polite and adhering to discipline wrought of their training. No way would a group of American soldiers going to lower themselves to Biden's level and react to his insulting comments. They are only a million times better than that piece of shit and quietly endured his crapola.
Of course, leave it to another POS to defend such asinine comments.
Sounds like you have been getting your chain yanked again. Where did you pick up on this Biden clip? Social Media? I am guessing you saw a snippet rather than the whole speech, because it would be impossible not to take it as anything other than affectionate blue collar slang in the context.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Now we know why the Atlantic dropped a bogus story about Trump making derogatory comments about troops.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
It’s like clockwork, liberals accusing Trump of what they’re guilty of doing.
Wasn’t just the Atlantic. 4 different news outlets reported on it based on their sources. AP, WaPo, and NYT also reported on it based on their sources. The Atlantic claims to have 4 firsthand sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
We also know Trump also called GHW Bush and McCain losers for being shot down.
I don't recall his exact words or the context, but yeah, Trump is prone to make such off-the-cuff comments at times. It's who he is. He's been that way for his entire public life, going back to the days of the ill-fated USFL and his derogatory remarks toward the NFL. So? It's been discussed ad nauseum and now you act like this is something new? You have run out of ammo and are just recycling the same old tired BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Newsflash for ya! Trump will say other things many people will find inappropriate and distasteful. Okay...yes, he will, it's who he is. Get over it.
Now that is funny. 🤪Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Democrats: "Biden shouldn't concede the election under ANY circumstances." "Abolish the Electoral College." "Pack the Supreme Court."
...and y'all are upset because DJT wouldn't come out and say he's cool with a peaceful transfer of power if he loses? Good Lord. Y'all haven't "peacefully" accepted the results of 2016...YET.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t command the US Military. The comparison between her “advice” to Biden and Trump’s refusal are silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckK3
truth!Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckk3
What's silly is to have taken Trumps refusal to answer a stupid question (what will you do if you lose?) as an indication that he would use the US Military to keep power. Good grief!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Don’t be naive...he’s been laying the foundation for his conspiracy explanation of his loss for months now.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
The military would never back his garbage, but that doesn’t mean that his words aren’t an order of magnitude more concerning than Clinton’s.
Don't be naive. The democrats have been laying the foundation for the next loss since Hillary lost a dead lock cinch election. Every morning the MSM gets a hot button talking point to use. Mis-quoting Trump and his refusal to sound like a loser is a perfect example that your were naive enough to take it in and help spread the BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Keep plugging those ears. You know Trump’s been talking and tweeting like a loser all summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
The Dems have a built in excuse...Joe Biden. Anybody with a pulse should be able to beat him...unless they totally botched a virus response I guess.
He did that in 2012 and you went for it. So did Obama. He made a fool of himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
https://i.imgur.com/70qc6oh.jpg
Now THIS is how you melt :laugh:
https://twitter.com/LannyDavis/statu...74493045084166
Who is Lanny Davis?Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
He? Romney? I saw you edited...were you implying that you didn't vote for Romney in 2012?Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
I'm sure you don't mean this literally, because everyone knows Lanny Davis...don't like him, but know him. I suppose you mean, who is Lanny Davis that he thinks he can speak for all you libtards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I pushed the button for Romney in 2012, but it was a vote against obummer, more than a vote for Mitt.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Hadn’t heard of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
I didn't. I just could not do it when it came time to do so. Couldn't vote for McCain either. Just didn't vote at all. Still stinging after voting for Bush's second term, I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
I KNEW that Romney was of weak character and easily distracted (just like McCain) and would do the bidding of the liberals just so they would sometimes pretend they like him. If this is the Republican party Johnny wants, just become a Democrat and be done with it!
Thought Trump was going to be the same and did not vote for him the first go around, but will be there when the sun rises to cast my vote for him this time.
:laugh: Romney was of weak character, but you're voting for Trump! That's great!Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
Not surprised you wouldn't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Unfortunately, I think I understand perfectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
No, I just typed 2012 instead of 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Wanna give you a chance to confirm this. If you're just yanking our chain, say so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Lanny Davis...
Yeah, why should I know him?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Just that I find it hard, no impossible, to believe that someone who likes to portray himself as being so well informed doesn't know Lanny Davis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Okay...
Why would I know him? What is significant about him?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Just want to mention that Senator Dick Durbin (D) took Krooked Killary to task for suggesting Biden should not accept the outcome of the election, no matter what. Good for him. And it shows how the Klintons, especially Killary, are no longer significant.
Remember, the key to the notion is the "no matter what" aspect. Killary is advising even if Trump wins and after all the predictable griping, whining, and claiming fraud, is dealt with she wants Biden to refuse to concede. She is a danger to democracy, she and other libs accuse Trump of.
And, to be clear, the Dems WILL CHEAT! Just as the sun rises in the east, Dems cheat in elections. It's who they are. But, does it change the outcome, is the question. In 2012 there was voter fraud in Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and California...all favoring obummer and some other Dems down the ticket, but none of it affected the election for POTUS. obummer won Illinois, for instance, and would have won even without the several thousand fake votes he got. Dem election officials were charged with the fraud, they paid some token fines, and are probably right back in the polls doing it again. That said, yes, Trump and his campaign have every right, even a duty! to verify the election results. If, when it is all said and done, he loses, then YES he should accept the results and orchestrate a peaceful transfer of power. I will not support any effort to do anything to the contrary.
Biden's Texas Political Director Accused of Illegal Ballot Harvesting at Texas Supreme Court -
https://nationalfile.com/bidens-texa...supreme-court/
Will be interesting to see how TXAG Ken Paxton handles this..
National File. Lol. You really should stay off of social media.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Please tell me in my post where I said that this was credible or that I believed it... The accusations have been made to the TX Supreme Court. That's all that was mentioned. What becomes of it (if anything) is another matter. I expected you to be the first one to respond and trash the source. As I stated, I was just pointing out that these claims have been officially made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
this piques my curiosity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
so you know national file (which i've never heard of), but you don't know lanny davis (i admit i'm in the same boat on this one, but he does have a wikipedia page, apparently).
why does it matter who is reporting it if it is true? why attack the source rather than discuss the news the source reports?
I didn’t know about them, which made me suspicious. But there are sites that you can go to check out the credibility rating of these new so-called news sites, and they will give you examples of the reporting that supports their assessment.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Furthermore, when one of these partisan sites (with their minuscule relative resources) is the first to timely break a story of a local matter, it makes you question the story itself, particularly their potential involvement with the story.
Btw, the person behind the lawsuit is the same person that sued Judge Hidalgo for the Harris County mask requirement.
The thrust of the lawsuit that included the referenced affidavits is to oppose the extension of the early voting period.