Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: Face"Probably" is based on....???
Iran controls the Persian Gulf. It is the key to the entire region's economy. So they "probably" committed an act to hurt global opinion on the safety of commerce on its waterway?
The ship was Japanese. Japan was in Iran at the time of attack. Japan is not pointing the finger. Iran "probably" has them hostage somehow?
America says mine. Japanese owner of vessel claims flying object. Damage is above water line. Iran... "probably" bought bouncing betty marine mines from the Russians?
18 months from an Election. My Maine point is we shouldn't be Tonkin about this as if the American claim doesn't require at least 9/11ths of 2001 grains of salt.
Hmm.
Quote:The Senate voted to block the sale of billions of dollars of munitions to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on Thursday, in a sharp and bipartisan rebuke of the Trump administration’s attempt to circumvent Congress to allow the exports by declaring an emergency over Iran.
In three back-to-back votes, Republicans joined Democrats to register their growing anger with the administration’s use of emergency power to cut lawmakers out of national security decisions, as well as the White House’s unflagging support for the Saudis despite congressional pressure to punish Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman after the killing in October of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Quote: FleaswatterJudges for the most part fall into 2 categories, liberal and conservative.
My opinion, and I tend to believe that this opinion about justices is widely held, is that:
-(1) a “liberal judge” is one that believes in their own personal ideologies and when the letter of the law conflicts with their ideologies, they legislate from the bench
-(2) a “conservative judge” is one that understands that a judge’s function is bound by the letter of current law, and that it is expressly not a judge’s job to decide and “legislate” what the laws “should” say and ignore what they DO say.
Democratic presidents nominate liberal judges and republican presidents conservative judges.
So when I make the statement “make the judiciary great again”, I am expressing my belief that the “conservative justices” appointed will rule on the basis of “the letter of the law” and not “interpret the law based upon their personal ideologies and legislate from the bench” as I believe many "liberal" judges do.
Of course I desire impartial judges, but unfortunately this is not always the case.
See response above
This is a common trope, untrue but repeated often enough by the losing side that some people think it is true. Screaming about "activist judges" ignores precedent and well-considered opinions written with the Constitution as it applies to ALL citizens in mind.
It's a great fund-raiser for Conservatives and Trumpers from their bases, though. Which is why it stays in the conversation.
Judicial decisions are based on civil and criminal laws and statutes. Laws are passed by Congress, once the President signs them. The judicial checks and balances both the other branches from enacting laws that create inequalities, are based on religious tenets, or otherwise contravene individual rights.
Quote: beachbumbabsThis is a common trope, untrue but repeated often enough by the losing side that some people think it is true.
Earlier this week the Senate confirmed 3 judges as indicated below:
(1)Senate vote on the confirmation Greg Gerard Guidry, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana:
Yea 53 Nay 46 1 not voted
0 republicans voted nay and 0 democrats voted yea
(2)Senate vote on the confirmation Allen Cothrel Winsor, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida
Yea 54 Nay 44 2 not voted
0 republicans voted nay and 1 democrat voted yea
(3)Senate vote on the confirmation Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas:
52 Yea 46 Nay 2 not voting
1 republican voted nay and 0 democrats voted yea
If you do not believe that judges fall into either “liberal” or “conservative” categories, please explain the above votes to me.
Quote:Screaming about "activist judges" ignores precedent and well-considered opinions written with the Constitution as it applies to ALL citizens in mind.
It's a great fund-raiser for Conservatives and Trumpers from their bases, though. Which is why it stays in the conversation.
Judicial decisions are based on civil and criminal laws and statutes. Laws are passed by Congress, once the President signs them. The judicial checks and balances both the other branches from enacting laws that create inequalities, are based on religious tenets, or otherwise contravene individual rights.
Quote: gamerfreakI would like for this to be true, but I don’t buy it.
Looking at recent history, all the dissenting opinions in Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage) were conservative judges.
How is that a conservative viewpoint?
I thought a large component of conservatism was small government.
Government being involved in marriage at all is big government. The government telling you who you can or cannot marry is bigger government.
I totally agree
Conservatives were about small govt
Now they are the spend spend spend party
No interest in balancing the budget
sad
Quote: FleaswatterEarlier this week the Senate confirmed 3 judges as indicated below:
(1)Senate vote on the confirmation Greg Gerard Guidry, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana:
Yea 53 Nay 46 1 not voted
0 republicans voted nay and 0 democrats voted yea
(2)Senate vote on the confirmation Allen Cothrel Winsor, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida
Yea 54 Nay 44 2 not voted
0 republicans voted nay and 1 democrat voted yea
(3)Senate vote on the confirmation Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas:
52 Yea 46 Nay 2 not voting
1 republican voted nay and 0 democrats voted yea
If you do not believe that judges fall into either “liberal” or “conservative” categories, please explain the above votes to me.
Judges PREVIOUSLY to recent decades did not fall into "conservative" and "liberal" categories for party purposes. A series of decisions in the 60s and 70s, both legislative and judicial, displeased conservatives. Those include Miranda rights, civil rights for minorities, Roe v Wade, voting rights, LGBT rights, etc, most of which determined that non-white-males had rights equal to those of white males.
They made this a biased issue, the selection of judges, with a series of social litmus tests they expect those judges to consider more important than Constitutional concerns when ruling. They claimed judges were "legislating from the bench" when they struck down laws allowing segregation, policing citizen bedrooms, police overreach, and other violations of individual rights. They got fought back on with liberals taking the opposite but procedurally similar tack. It has only escalated since Bork, one of the better known early examples.
So now candidates don't even have to be qualified (see several of Trump's joke nominees) as long as they are inclined to be "christian" religious, conservative, and loyal. The Republicans want these people confirmed - therefore the Democrats don't. When the Democrats held the Senate, it went mostly the other way. They each want judges that will affirm their legislation.
Particular to my previous post, you misunderstood the point I was making. The recent results you cite are the RESULT of people buying into the trope of judicial overreach, not the CAUSE of the problem, which is to mislabel the judiciary as activist for simply doing their jobs, seeing both sides, and applying the Constitution as the highest civil authority.
The Garland nomination was a perfect example of how perverted the system has become. The guy was a moderate, great record of fairness, great career, deserved the nomination on MERIT. (Seems like a lot of conservatives only consider hard work and merit to be primary considerations when they're arguing against affirmative action or handouts...funny how that is). A perfect judge who could make decisions based on, what is it called again, the Constitution. Might go Left, might go Right.
He didn't even get a vote in McConnell's Senate. What BS.
"In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran."
"Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate."
"Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans!"
"I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face!"
"Remember what I previously said--Obama will someday attack Iran in order to show how tough he is"
"Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly-not skilled!"
Replace Obama with Trump in the tweets. Very telling lol
Quote: MaxPenWhen we attack Iran there will be no warning. We did the same thing with Iraq. False leaked attack targets in order to see how they reacted at the leaked sites. Trump wants confrontation with Iran less than anyone in DC. But I think if something goes down under Trump it will be balls out destruction.
Ewww, no one wants to see Trump balls out
That would be destructive
Probably why no one got to view the pee tape
Quote: beachbumbabsJudges PREVIOUSLY to recent decades did not fall into "conservative" and "liberal" categories for party purposes. A series of decisions in the 60s and 70s, both legislative and judicial, displeased conservatives. Those include Miranda rights, civil rights for minorities, Roe v Wade, voting rights, LGBT rights, etc, most of which determined that non-white-males had rights equal to those of white males.
Since you start your argument with civil rights and voting rights, why don't we look at who actually voted against them. Liberals love to sound like the "wonderful Democrats" pushed all this through and the "evil Republicans" fought against it.
Civil Rights act of 1964
Senate Vote - Nay - 21 Democrats 6 Republicans
House Vote - Nay - 91 Democrats 35 Republicans
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Senate Vote - Nay 16 Democrats 2 Republicans
House vote - Nay 62 Democrats 23 Republicans
I find it fascinating that republicans are never more proud of their party than when they took liberal positions.Quote: timberjimSince you start your argument with civil rights and voting rights, why don't we look at who actually voted against them. Liberals love to sound like the "wonderful Democrats" pushed all this through and the "evil Republicans" fought against it.
Civil Rights act of 1964
Senate Vote - Nay - 21 Democrats 6 Republicans
House Vote - Nay - 91 Democrats 35 Republicans
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Senate Vote - Nay 16 Democrats 2 Republicans
House vote - Nay 62 Democrats 23 Republicans
Quote: timberjimSince you start your argument with civil rights and voting rights, why don't we look at who actually voted against them. Liberals love to sound like the "wonderful Democrats" pushed all this through and the "evil Republicans" fought against it.
Civil Rights act of 1964
Senate Vote - Nay - 21 Democrats 6 Republicans
House Vote - Nay - 91 Democrats 35 Republicans
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Senate Vote - Nay 16 Democrats 2 Republicans
House vote - Nay 62 Democrats 23 Republicans
So over the last 60 years the dem party has turned into a defender of civil rights
While the Republican party has abandoned the fight for civil rights?
Is that your point?
Quote: timberjimSince you start your argument with civil rights and voting rights, why don't we look at who actually voted against them. Liberals love to sound like the "wonderful Democrats" pushed all this through and the "evil Republicans" fought against it.
Civil Rights act of 1964
Senate Vote - Nay - 21 Democrats 6 Republicans
House Vote - Nay - 91 Democrats 35 Republicans
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Senate Vote - Nay 16 Democrats 2 Republicans
House vote - Nay 62 Democrats 23 Republicans
Geography was far more predictive on Civil Rights votes than party affiliation. Do a control for region and post the findings.
Cue the Southern Strategy.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6165129-Texts-Messages-Between-Paul-Manafort-Sean-Hannity.html
WHOOO-BOY, Sean has really, truly drunk the Kool-Aid. What a nutcase!
Quote: timberjimPlease give me the votes in congress that support your hypothesis that Republicans have abandoned civil rights.
Are Republicans for gay rights? Equality in marriage?
Womens right to choose?
And ahem, gerrymandering to suppress minority votes is about as anti-civil rights as you can get
Which message or messages in particular signify "Kool-Aid"Quote: ams288If anyone needs a pick-me-up, enjoy reading these private text messages between Sean Hannity and Paul Manafort.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6165129-Texts-Messages-Between-Paul-Manafort-Sean-Hannity.html
WHOOO-BOY, Sean has really, truly drunk the Kool-Aid. What a nutcase!
Quote: SanchoPanzaWhich message or messages in particular signify "Kool-Aid"
Anything about HRC, the deep state, “an fbi friend swears I’m gonna get shot,” etc.
LOL
Quote: timberjimSince you start your argument with civil rights and voting rights, why don't we look at who actually voted against them.
The House Judiciary Comittee held another one of their photo op reparations hearings a few days ago.
Rep Gohment (R-Texas) mentioned how three-fourths of the opposition in the House to the Civil Rights bill came from the dems, and the role the dem party played in creating Jim Crow laws.
He was followed by former NFL player Burgess Owens who believes in restitution.
“Let’s point to the party that was part of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, that has killed over 40 percent of our black babies, 20 million of them,” he said.
“In the state of California, 75 percent of our black boys cannot pass a standard reading and writing test – a Democratic state,” Owens said. “How about the Democratic Party pay for all the misery brought to my race?’
Quote: TankoRep Gohment (R-Texas) mentioned how three-fourths of the opposition in the House to the Civil Rights bill came from the dems, and the role the dem party played in creating Jim Crow laws.
Your history is correct
but
It has nothing to do with todays reality.
Today Dems would support that bill and todays republicans would be against
In other words, the inability to post even one example from 56 pages. Not much of a surprise there.Quote: ams288Anything about HRC, the deep state, “an fbi friend swears I’m gonna get shot,” etc.
LOL
And that is doubtlessly based on your survey of the subjects involved.Quote: terapinedYour history is correct
but
It has nothing to do with todays reality.
Today Dems would support that bill and todays republicans would be against
Quote: timberjimSince you start your argument with civil rights and voting rights, why don't we look at who actually voted against them. Liberals love to sound like the "wonderful Democrats" pushed all this through and the "evil Republicans" fought against it.
Civil Rights act of 1964
Senate Vote - Nay - 21 Democrats 6 Republicans
House Vote - Nay - 91 Democrats 35 Republicans
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Senate Vote - Nay 16 Democrats 2 Republicans
House vote - Nay 62 Democrats 23 Republicans
You can continue to ignore the Yellow Dog Democrats of the 60s if you like, but they all left the party for the Republicans 30-40 years ago. These 2 votes are Dixiecrats, conservative Southern leftovers who didn't want to align with the Party of Lincoln until later.
Quote: beachbumbabsYou can continue to ignore the Yellow Dog Democrats of the 60s if you like, but they all left the party for the Republicans 30-40 years ago. These 2 votes are Dixiecrats, conservative Southern leftovers who didn't want to align with the Party of Lincoln until later.
Right.
Old Southern Racist Politicians = Democratic
Current Southern Racist Politicians = Republican
Republicans on this site, feel free to point out any exceptions to this generality.
Quote: SanchoPanzaIn other words, the inability to post even one example from 56 pages. Not much of a surprise there.
I posted three. One of which was a specific quote. 🤷♂️
Quote: tringlomaneCurrent Southern Racist Politicians = Republican
Thanks for clearing that up.
"A few years ago, (Barack Obama) would have been getting us coffee.” - Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy
“That’s just how white folks will do you. It wasn’t merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn’t know that they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least thought you deserving of their scorn.” -Obama
“The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person…” ) - Obama
“You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent.” - Biden
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.- Biden
“White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” - “Reverend” Al Sharpton
“Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them. - Mary Frances Berry , former Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights
"I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street.” -Spike Lee
"We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops. They ought to go.” - Marion Barry
"We are owned by propagandists against the Arabs. There’s no question about that. Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where their mouth is…We’re being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.” -Helen Thomas
“I want to go up to the closest white person and say: ‘You can’t understand this, it’s a black thing’ and then slap him, just for my mental health.” — New York City Councilman, Charles Baron
I’ve got Rep. Steve King on line 1 for you.
Quote: mcallister3200Man this place is really devolving into a hate filled cesspool. Sad. I wish you all the best of luck in your future endeavors.
Political baiting and trolling has become the new national pastime. Led from the top, I guess, but both sides are participating.
I would suggest you just ignore or block the political threads. The rest of the board still has value.
Quote: beachbumbabsPolitical baiting and trolling has become the new national pastime. Led from the top, I guess, but both sides are participating.
I would suggest you just ignore or block the political threads. The rest of the board still has value.
Yeah. You notice I have stopped posting with any frequency in the political threads.
I read
I laugh
I sometimes smh and grunt.
Try not to respond anymore.
Quote: FleaswatterEarlier this week the Senate confirmed 3 judges as indicated below:
(1)Senate vote on the confirmation Greg Gerard Guidry, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana:
Yea 53 Nay 46 1 not voted
0 republicans voted nay and 0 democrats voted yea
(2)Senate vote on the confirmation Allen Cothrel Winsor, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida
Yea 54 Nay 44 2 not voted
0 republicans voted nay and 1 democrat voted yea
(3)Senate vote on the confirmation Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas:
52 Yea 46 Nay 2 not voting
1 republican voted nay and 0 democrats voted yea
If you do not believe that judges fall into either “liberal” or “conservative” categories, please explain the above votes to me.
The votes were split based on party, not ideology. And the reason for the votes being split has nothing to do with ideology. It is a political strategy that was born very recently. Just in recent history, Democrats had very little problem confirming Reagan, and both Bush's nominees; and Clinton nominees were treated equally. Then the Republican party made major shifts in their vision for the country and became the party of resistance and political activism in this area (https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/mitch-mcconnell-judges-225455). That separation and division that they wanted so desperately 10 years ago, continues in 2019.
The Democrat and Republican parties both have some platforms that are extremely liberal, some that are extremely conservative, and many that are in between. Based on my ideologies I would argue both shift far Liberal now that R want obstruction, wars on free trade, call constitutional rights the enemy, and continue with deficit spending.
123 total judges confirmed
80 District Court judges
41 Circuit Court judges
2 Supreme Court justices
Making the judiciary great again!!
Quote: beachbumbabsPolitical baiting and trolling has become the new national pastime. Led from the top, I guess, but both sides are participating.
I would suggest you just ignore or block the political threads. The rest of the board still has value.
Could you point out recent threads you think have had value?
Quote: billryanCould you point out recent threads you think have had value?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/32266-an-ap-nightmare/
If you are taken into custody in your home in the dark of night by a heavily armed squadron, we'll be sure to describe the reaction as "drinking the Kool-Aid."Quote: ams288I posted three. One of which was a specific quote. 🤷♂️
Quote: SanchoPanzaIf you are taken into custody in your home in the dark of night by a heavily armed squadron, we'll be sure to describe the reaction as "drinking the Kool-Aid."
I am not a nefarious criminal like Paul Manafort or Roger Stone. Big difference. They deserved what they got.
As promoted by a big fan of Banana Republics.Quote: ams288I am not a nefarious criminal like Paul Manafort or Roger Stone. Big difference. They deserved what they got.
U mad because Trump excels at everything he does. Ya, I know... you think he excels at rape.Quote: beachbumbabsPolitical baiting and trolling has become the new national pastime. Led from the top
Quote: AxelWolfU mad because Trump excels at everything he does. Ya, I know... you think he excels at rape.
When it comes to spreadsheets he probably does not excel at excel
He probably thinks spreadsheets are what you use after a bunch of hookers peed on him and he has to make the bed up
from wiki:
"In 2009, marketing staffer Peter Costanzo suggested to Trump that he could use social media to draw attention to his book, Think Like a Champion, which was due to be released later that year. He was unable to use the username @DonaldTrump, as it was already being used by a parody account. He and his marketing team decided to use the username @realDonaldTrump. Trump joined Twitter in March 2009 and sent out his first tweet on May 4, 2009, advertising his upcoming appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman, which was due to air a couple of days later.
Quote: ams288
The cartoonist who made this got fired from his job at the newspaper he worked for because of it.
I’d say he’s a hero. The truth stings.
Quote: ams288Quote: ams288
The cartoonist who made this got fired from his job at the newspaper he worked for because of it.
I’d say he’s a hero. The truth stings.
So did this one, same day I think.
Guess it's going to make newspapers obsolete, if they try to suppress what's freely available elsewhere. We subscribe to several, just to support the medium. But if they're going to give in, they may have forfeited our collective patronage.
Again, NVM that's it's about Trump. Are you telling me you don't find that disrespectful and inappropriate at all? You don't find it very insensitive to all the Immigrants and their family's that you love so much that have lost loved ones while trying to cross the border?Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: ams288Quote: ams288
The cartoonist who made this got fired from his job at the newspaper he worked for because of it.
I’d say he’s a hero. The truth stings.
So did this one, same day I think.
Guess it's going to make newspapers obsolete, if they try to suppress what's freely available elsewhere. We subscribe to several, just to support the medium. But if they're going to give in, they may have forfeited our collective patronage.
Quote: AxelWolfAgain, NVM that's it's about Trump. Are you telling me you don't find that disrespectful and inappropriate at all? You don't find it very insensitive to all the Immigrants and their family's that you love so much that have lost loved ones while trying to cross the border?Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: ams288Quote: ams288
The cartoonist who made this got fired from his job at the newspaper he worked for because of it.
I’d say he’s a hero. The truth stings.
So did this one, same day I think.
Guess it's going to make newspapers obsolete, if they try to suppress what's freely available elsewhere. We subscribe to several, just to support the medium. But if they're going to give in, they may have forfeited our collective patronage.
1) not at all. Its more a stance against trump and family separations. The truth hurts sometimes but needs to be exposed.
2) funny how righties want to protect constitutional rights for guns but screw free speech.
3) these 2 stories sound like BS anyway. Since when does a newspaper editor vet and check his staff work AFTER its printed. Cant seem to get my head around that one. If anyone should have been fired it was the editor who wasnt doing his job
Quote: AxelWolfAgain, NVM that's it's about Trump. Are you telling me you don't find that disrespectful and inappropriate at all? You don't find it very insensitive to all the Immigrants and their family's that you love so much that have lost loved ones while trying to cross the border?Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: ams288Quote: ams288
The cartoonist who made this got fired from his job at the newspaper he worked for because of it.
I’d say he’s a hero. The truth stings.
So did this one, same day I think.
Guess it's going to make newspapers obsolete, if they try to suppress what's freely available elsewhere. We subscribe to several, just to support the medium. But if they're going to give in, they may have forfeited our collective patronage.
No, it's not about Trump. And I don't "love the immigrants so much". It's cutting commentary that's directly on-point about the consequences of bad and illegal policies being inflicted on immigrants. IOW, it's political cartooning at its best. And protected speech.
Chances are, the fired cartoonists have no legal recourse - the newspaper has the right to publish what and whom they want. But whenever expressing an opinion contrary to the government position is quashed, it needs to be noted.
Quote: FleaswatterI find it amusing that lefties who say they support free speech are silent when entities such as google, facebook, twitter and youtube censor conservative speech.
“Conservative speech” aka nazis and white supremacists?
Never heard of a First Amendment?Quote: ams288“Conservative speech” aka nazis and white supremacists?
Even the Holocaust survivors in Skokie knew about it.
