It wasn't a deflection you illiterate dunce; it was a direct reflection of the retarded claim you made. Grow a brain asshat.
Challenge for our leftie friends
- Thread starter Teflon Don
- Start date
It wasn't a deflection you illiterate dunce; it was a direct reflection of the retarded claim you made. Grow a brain asshat.
reagansghost
eternal
That's funny coming from another sock of a cowardly pussy.
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
People are not going to behave in a Kangaroo Court! This is what happens when a political party over-reaches and denies one president his inherent choice for Supreme Court pick during his presidency, and then tries to rush through a pick on the Supreme Court to corrupt the court so that their newly non-legitimate crooked president they elected, can't be indicted or prosecuted for anything!
So, don't expect people to just sit there and act like nothing is wrong and that this is somehow a legitimate process. This process has been hijacked and shit on, and people are voicing their opinions in this corrupt process.
What makes them sound shrill to you, specifically? Looking back, my writing conveys to me a calm tone, focused on the methodical presentation of facts and arguments. "Shrill" implies a more emotional tone -- similar to your shrill use of frequent all-caps interjections, exclamation points, and commands to shut the fuck up. I invite you to go back and reread your contributions and mine and then think again about who is being shrill. I don't think you're coming across the way you imagine.
Actually, there have already been multiple indictments and guilty pleas, including with regard to the campaign finance violations by Cohen. As I earlier indicated, I'm skeptical about whether authorities will have the courage to indict Trump, but that won't be because there's no basis for indictment, but rather because the Justice Department has taken the stance that a sitting president just can't be indicted. They basically pass the buck to Congress to enforce the law by way of impeachment, and Republicans in Congress will make sure that doesn't happen.
Agreed. What makes him an extremist is the fact his legal positions are to the extreme edge of what you see among American legal thinkers.
Yes. I'm not arguing that long-standing precedents must be adhered to. I'm simply pointing out the things that have made his nomination so controversial. He is expected to disrupt the legal status quo in a big way.
No. What made you think I meant that?
No. Have you listened to Biden's speech or are you relying on skewed paraphrases by right-wing blogs? If you listen to his actual speech, you will see that he was not calling for delaying hearings until there was a new president. He was saying that if a vacancy occurred during the throes of an election (e.g., the summer or fall of the election year), the president and the senate should both consider postponing the nomination process until after the election. He expressly disclaimed any attempt to hold it open until there was a Democrat in the presidency. The right-wing blogs had fun deceiving their gullible readers into thinking he was proposing not holding any hearings until after the inauguration, but his speech is widely available and all you need to do is go listen to it to realize that's a lie.
Which "black boy" do you imagine you're quoting there, specifically? Please, link to the quotation.
1) So it's considered extreme because those you agree with say so. No difference.
2) Your entire argument centered around something that has been precedent being changed. In fact, you mentioned the current precedent. Are you saying Brown didn't disrupt the legal precedent of Plessy is a big way?
3) It's called an example showing your hypocrisy.
4) Since the election process is over a year, we were in the throes of an election. You can't argue that Republicans were attempting to hold it open until a Republican was there because none of you Hillary twat lickers ever thought she'd lose.
reagansghost
eternal
reagansghost
eternal
See the information I posted earlier in the thread about examples of Democrats voting for people Trump nominated. For example, Trump's nominee of Jerome Powell to chair the Fed, got only seven Democratic votes against him, versus 40 Democrats voting for him. Jim Mattis did even better, for Secretary of Defense, with only a single Democrat voting against him. There are several others that had vastly more Democrats voting for them than against. For example, Elaine Chao got approved for the cabinet with only five Democratic votes against her. When Trump puts forward decent nominees, the Democrats are fine with approving them. So, let's not pretend this is a matter of the Democrats refusing to vote for anyone Trump nominates. We know for a fact that's simply not the truth. The truth is, they pick their fights, based in large part on the perceived expertise and extremism of the nominee.
This is most definitely a matter of voting against someone Trump has nominated for the Supreme Court. Stop being a dishonest dumbfuck pretending that it is not mkay?
If Bret is not qualified to sit on the Court, NO one can be. His qualifications are superior to that of Sotomayor and Ginsberg.
floridafan
Verified User
You have no fucking idea what his credentials are other than an (R) after his name.
It is a shrill and lunatic view to suggest that Trump was not elected, that Trump is somehow unqualified, that Trump colluded with Russians, that Bret Kavanaugh is not qualified to sit on the bench. The efforts to suggest it are painfully moronic and you attempting to sound rational while making moronic arguments is laughably weak and pathetic.
All you are doing is parroting the garbage you have been fed. That is all. Stop pretending to know what you are erupting about.
Actually, there has been NOTHING connected to the Trump campaign to suggest that anything illegal occurred or that the campaign committed any crimes. You can keep repeating the same boorish stupidity until the end of days and it won't look less stupid, false or desperate.
His record and credentials are readily available to view and to see. Suggesting that the man is not qualified is more of the shrill moronic stupidity we have been seeing from the left and the Democratic Party of the Jackass since Trump was elected.
floridafan
Verified User
We are only allowed to see the parts of his record that republicans want us to see. Of course the parts regarding Roe V Wade were hidden until just recently. How much else of his record remains hidden? Now, I asked YOU want you know of his record to support him, its obvious that you dont know shit.
No. He's extreme because if you arranged major figures from the legal field along a spectrum, from right to left, based on their decisions and published comments regarding major legal issues, he'd sit near the extreme right of that spectrum.
No. What would make you imagine that's what I was saying? My argument is very simple. I'm arguing that part of what has made Kavanaugh so controversial is the expectation that his taking that seat will result in the disruption of key long-standing precedents. That is not, in itself, an argument as to whether those precedents are good or bad, nor whether upsetting them is a good or bad thing. It's just pointing out why he's so controversial. Specifically, people who don't like the idea of women being treated as criminals for ending unwanted pregnancies are keenly aware that if he gets on the court, that's just what's likely to happen.
You seem to have lost the thread here. I'll help. As a reminder, I was pointing out the role that Kavanaugh's refusal to provide customary documentation has added to the controversy. You responded by asking "You mean like a birth certificate that took 3 years to provide?" I responded that I didn't mean that (I'm not even aware of any issue involving a judicial nominee being asked to provide a birth certificate and not doing so for three years). So, I asked what made you think I meant that. So, what's your answer?
First, Biden's comments were made in June and referred to a seat that might become vacant at some point in future weeks, before the election. So, clearly what he was picturing was much deeper in the throes of an election than something happening way back in mid-February, when the primaries haven't even gotten going. Would 1992 Biden have wanted to keep the seat vacant for many more months? That's impossible to know, at this point. However, even if we were to imagine he thought that way, and for some reason only got around to saying something many months later, that still doesn't change the fact he never called for postponing hearings until the next president was in power. That's just the lie that the right-wing blogs told their gullible readers. He merely called for delaying until after the election. There were still 78 days to confirm after that, which is well under the average wait time between nomination and confirmation.
Anyway, you seem to have missed a question I asked, so I'll put it to you again:
Which "black boy" do you imagine you're quoting there, specifically? Please, link to the quotation.
I thought there was a decent chance she'd lose. So did most people who looked at the data, which is why the Republican gambit of delaying was worth it to them. Trump was ahead in the polling average as late as late July, and was in a dead heat with Clinton a couple other times before that. In the end, the Fivethirtyeight analysis gave Clinton a 71.4% chance of winning, which is hardly a slam dunk. In fact, sticking to the basketball analogy, it's about the average percentage of a college free throw shot... you expect it will go in, but you're not terribly surprised when it misses, either. So, it was roughly analogous to a team committing an intentional foul in the closing seconds of a game, knowing that if the opponent hits the foul shots, they'll lose, but still thinking it's their best shot at winning.
His record of decisions is public you brain dead asshat. STFU, seriously. Stop pretending you have even the slightest of clues.
Since Trump has never nominated a moderate to the Supreme Court, we cannot say definitively what would happen if he did. All we have to go on is what has happened when he nominated moderates to other extremely important positions like the head of the Fed, as well as examples of how Democrats reacted when other Republican presidents nominated moderates to the Supreme Court (like Souter). Both those pieces of evidence suggest you're wrong. Aside from your very strong emotions, do you have any evidence to suggest you're right?
You don't get to define extreme right or left snowflake. The rest of your whiny screed reads like this.....
