Support for a 3rd party at an all time high

[Micawber]

Let's suppose you hate racism and want affirmative action, in kind transfers and job quotas, but don't want runaway deficits, national debt,
stupid wall projects and rejection of science, and church in public schools. You want strong public schools and labor unions,
and a strong military, but want more butter than guns now, and reject trickle down on the evidence. You have nowhere to go.

So yes, a third party would help me. The Dems don't care enough about the debt clock, and neither do Republicans.
But until that is viable, the Democratic party has my vote, and thanks to Trumpsim and Teabaggerism I will NEVER vote for any Republican.
These idiots cannot be trusted with the keys to the family car. Hand these drunk yokels the keys and hundred bucks on friday night? No fucking way.
Republicans need to be sent to reform school. I will never bail them out of jail again.

[Nomad]

This would mean, then, that there is no rational or logical reason to expand the SCOTUS, right? since they are completely independent and unbiased?????

I don't think it needs to be expanded, but one has nothing to do with the other.

Having a system of beliefs that tend to lean one way or the other and which might color a justice's interpretation of the law is not the same thing as ruling against or in favor of one side in a particular case based merely on loyalty to one side due to their occupation as was alleged earlier.

Apples and oranges.

[SmarterthanYou]

I don't think it needs to be expanded, but one has nothing to do with the other.

Having a system of beliefs that tend to lean one way or the other and which might color a justice's interpretation of the law is not the same thing as ruling against or in favor of one side in a particular case based merely on loyalty to one side due to their occupation as was alleged earlier.

Apples and oranges.

do you then believe that Citizens United is a completely justified case completely within the framework of the US Constitution???? That Qualified Immunity is in complete compliance with the Constitution? That the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right that doesn't require militia membership and that it shall not be infringed????

[Nomad]

do you then believe that Citizens United is a completely justified case completely within the framework of the US Constitution???? That Qualified Immunity is in complete compliance with the Constitution? That the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right that doesn't require militia membership and that it shall not be infringed????

What has any of that got to do with a judge ruling in favor of another member of the judiciary in a specific civil or criminal trial, based solely on occupational and government employee loyalty?

Nothing.

Why can't you tell the difference between an apple and an orange?

[SmarterthanYou]

What has any of that got to do with a judge ruling in favor of another member of the judiciary in a specific civil or criminal trial, based solely on occupational and government employee loyalty?

we're not talking about a member of the judiciary ruling in favor of or against another member of the judiciary. We were talking about a member of the judiciary, aka government employee, ruling in favor of another government employee, aka police officer, to relieve them of any responsibility for crimes committed during the course of their so called duties

Why can't you tell the difference between an apple and an orange?

why are you refusing to see the crony corruption occurring between the branches of the government, instead choosing to stupidly believe that the courts, aka branch of government, as somehow being 'above' the fray of politics, despite the fact that they are all politicians?????

[LV426]

we're not talking about a member of the judiciary ruling in favor of or against another member of the judiciary. We were talking about a member of the judiciary, aka government employee, ruling in favor of another government employee, aka police officer, to relieve them of any responsibility for crimes committed during the course of their so called duties
why are you refusing to see the crony corruption occurring between the branches of the government, instead choosing to stupidly believe that the courts, aka branch of government, as somehow being 'above' the fray of politics, despite the fact that they are all politicians?????

I figured out who you are; you are Anakin Skywalker in Attack of the Clones:

Anakin Skywalker: I don’t think the system works.

Padmé: How would you have it work?

Anakin Skywalker: We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem… agree what’s in the best interest of all people… and then do it.

Padmé: That’s exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don’t always agree.

Anakin Skywalker: Well, then they should be made to.

Padmé: By whom? Who’s going to make them?

Anakin Skywalker: I don’t know. Someone.

Padmé: You?

Anakin Skywalker: Of course not me.

Padmé: But someone.

Anakin Skywalker: Someone wise.

Padmé: Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.

Anakin Skywalker: Well, if it works.

[Nomad]

we're not talking about a member of the judiciary ruling in favor of or against another member of the judiciary. We were talking about a member of the judiciary, aka government employee, ruling in favor of another government employee, aka police officer, to relieve them of any responsibility for crimes committed during the course of their so called duties

It's the same fucking thing, half-wit.

Whether a judge rules in favor of one party in a case over another, based on the prevailing party's occupation as a judge or that party's occupation a police officer, is the same subject. The exact nature of the occupation is just a detail you're trying to nit-pick about because you got called out on your attempt to obfuscate.

why are you refusing to see the crony corruption occurring between the branches of the government, instead choosing to stupidly believe that the courts, aka branch of government, as somehow being 'above' the fray of politics, despite the fact that they are all politicians?????

Once again.... the SCOTUS, which YOU brought into the argument, rules broadly on the basis of constitutionality. They do not make rulings of guilt or innocence or liability. That is something the lower courts do and if a judge rules based on loyalty to another member of the judiciary, law enforcement or any other similar occupation based on occupational or any other kind of bias, that judge's actions will be subject to scrutiny by an appellate court and possibly a judicial review board. Those two factors alone make the likelihood of judges acting in such a blatantly biased manner extremely low.

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm going to spew some star wars bullshit in order to sound like I know what i'm talking about

WTF are you really talking about? I understand how you came to this idiotic crap, especially considering that you are clueless about how government works, but seriously???? star wars tripe to somehow make a point that is pointless?????

[SmarterthanYou]

It's the same fucking thing, half-wit.

Whether a judge rules in favor of one party in a case over another, based on the prevailing party's occupation as a judge or that party's occupation a police officer, is the same subject. The exact nature of the occupation is just a detail you're trying to nit-pick about because you got called out on your attempt to obfuscate.

Once again.... the SCOTUS, which YOU brought into the argument, rules broadly on the basis of constitutionality. They do not make rulings of guilt or innocence or liability. That is something the lower courts do and if a judge rules based on loyalty to another member of the judiciary, law enforcement or any other similar occupation based on occupational or any other kind of bias, that judge's actions will be subject to scrutiny by an appellate court and possibly a judicial review board. Those two factors alone make the likelihood of judges acting in such a blatantly biased manner extremely low.

the only conclusion I can come to is that you're a fucking moron with little to no rational thought processes...............you're better off naming crayon colors, because that's all you're worth

[Nomad]

the only conclusion I can come to is that you're a fucking moron with little to no rational thought processes...............you're better off naming crayon colors, because that's all you're worth

Poor little Trumptard snowflake is all upset because I won't play his stupid little game...

SmarterthanYou = DumberthanShit.

[LV426]

WTF are you really talking about? I understand how you came to this idiotic crap, especially considering that you are clueless about how government works, but seriously???? star wars tripe to somehow make a point that is pointless?????

I'm talking about how you are a latent fascist.

That's what that scene is about.

You get that, right? You get what Anakin is saying there, right? Because he's saying the same things you have been saying.

You present yourself as someone "wise" enough to make people agree with you.

That's why you had the 3%er logo as you AVI for years. That's the whole philosophy around that terrorist group, of which you were a member for a long fucking time.

[SmarterthanYou]

Poor little Trumptard snowflake is all upset because I won't play his stupid little game...

you're free to be as ignorant and stupid as you choose...........it doesn't really bother me, but you sure make yourself look dumber than fuck in front of your supposed liberal friends.........

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm talking about how you are a latent fascist.

That's what that scene is about.

You get that, right? You get what Anakin is saying there, right? Because he's saying the same things you have been saying.

You present yourself as someone "wise" enough to make people agree with you.

That's why you had the 3%er logo as you AVI for years. That's the whole philosophy around that terrorist group, of which you were a member for a long fucking time.

you're projecting..........it's YOU who wants an emporer, who wants fascism. YOU are the one who wants supreme federal power in the hands of one person, not I.

[LV426]

you're projecting..........it's YOU who wants an emporer, who wants fascism. YOU are the one who wants supreme federal power in the hands of one person, not I.

You are the one who was (or still is) a 3%er, and they're fascists.

I'm the one who wants universal voter registration and mail-in balloting.

So which one of us is really the fascist here?

[LV426]

YOU are the one who wants supreme federal power in the hands of one person, not I.

When did I ever say that?

never.

But your 3%er philosophy was precisely that.