This is a fishing site after all, we have a six figure potentially illegal payment of hush money to cover up the affair with an adult actress...and you guys have nothing to say??? :hs:

Sanders is done by the way. She can't even lie about the lying any more.

Old news.

This is a fishing site after all, we have a six figure potentially illegal payment of hush money to cover up the affair with an adult actress...and you guys have nothing to say??? :hs:

Sanders is done by the way. She can't even lie about the lying any more.
But Bill..........

Boys will be boys.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If grabbing muffs did nothing to his popularity did you expect this incident to cause a ripple?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What? Extramarital affair from a politician? Really? Hush money? Subterfuge?

I thought that was only in the movies??

I know one thing. If Obama had this stuff going on, all the republicans would be having head asplode syndrome
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know one thing. If Obama had this stuff going on, all the republicans would be having head asplode syndrome
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course they would, and since its Trump the Democrats are having HAS.

That statement is like one big "Well, Duh"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sanders is done by the way. She can't even lie about the lying any more.

Borrowed from someone's Facebook feed - "Every time she says 'Look' the next words out are going to be a lie...."

That crap is who Trump is and unless your living in a bubble, it’s what powerful men tend to think they can get away with. I’m more concerned about him trying to stroke some of his base in those steel states and starting a trade war, which isn’t going to help the economy as a whole.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That crap is who Trump is and unless your living in a bubble, it’s what powerful men tend to think they can get away with. I’m more concerned about him trying to stroke some of his base in those steel states and starting a trade war, which isn’t going to help the economy as a whole.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


I agree - tarrif's are pretty dumb.
I agree - powerful men (and the occasional woman) DO think they can get away with this and have gotten away with it before.

Short version - treat people well and with respect, oh and don't go extracurricularextramarital and you don't need to worry about the other crap.

That crap is who Trump is and unless your living in a bubble, it’s what powerful men tend to think they can get away with.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree - powerful men (and the occasional woman) DO think they can get away with this and have gotten away with it before.



B.S. Who else has done this? H Reid, M. McConnell, J. Boehner, C. Schummer, P. Ryan? None of them.

I agree - tarrif's are pretty dumb.
.

Well it's good to see that Trump excluded Canada and Mexico. We should negotiate an agreement with those two countries where trade can flow freely between our three countries. You could call it something like that Northern Hemisphere Free Trade Agreement or something similar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Borrowed from someone's Facebook feed - "Every time she says 'Look' the next words out are going to be a lie...."

Is that the “tell”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Borrowed from someone's Facebook feed - "Every time she says 'Look' the next words out are going to be a lie...."
She starts nearly every statement with "look"

Sarah Sanders says -- as far as she knows -- Trump didn't know of porn star payment


Trump Lawyer Obtained Restraining Order to Silence Stormy Daniels


So his lawyer is acting independently for his Client? 1st with the money and then the Restraining order .. yet Trumps says he is uninformed


But the elected POTUS can throw his hot dog down the hallway with a porn star while still being married to his Einstein visa wife who parents immigrated to the US via chain migration

but Sea Dangles is correct "If grabbing muffs did nothing to his popularity did you expect this incident to cause a ripple?"

Amazing how that works ... with the Family values and not enough god in society and video games are bad Crowd

She starts nearly every statement with "look"

:-)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a fishing site after all, we have a six figure potentially illegal payment of hush money to cover up the affair with an adult actress...and you guys have nothing to say??? :hs:

Sanders is done by the way. She can't even lie about the lying any more.

Please.

Bill Clinton was accused of rape. Not merely of being serially unfaithful, but of rape (also he made payoffs to at least one of his victims that we know about).

If Bill Clinton ran against the nicest, the most ethical Republican who ever lived, we all know who you would vote for. Which means your outrage is quite selective. Which means it's fake.

Trump is a morally bankrupt reptile. So was his opponent. But it only bothers you, I guess, when conservatives act this way.

If the democrats and their PR wing in the media hadn't unfairly portrayed McCain as a racist, and then unfairly portrayed Romney as a heartless plutocrat who objectified women (for keeping resumes in a binder for Christ's sake), if Obama hadn't called us bitter clingers, if Hilary hadn't called us deplorables, there would be no President Trump.

I'm not saying give anyone a pass. I'm saying be fair. The media can't come close to doing that. So my side nominated someone who could operate in that sleazy sphere, and do so quite effectively. Someone who could absorb the cheap shots without batting an eye, and throw elbows right back. He doesn't merely survive in the ring of mud-slinging, he loves it. That's his briar patch.

You asked for this, you got it. You plant potatoes, guess what? You get potatoes.

Please.

Bill Clinton was accused of rape. Not merely of being serially unfaithful, but of rape (also he made payoffs to at least one of his victims that we know about).

If Bill Clinton ran against the nicest, the most ethical Republican who ever lived, we all know who you would vote for. Which means your outrage is quite selective. Which means it's fake.

Trump is a morally bankrupt reptile. So was his opponent. But it only bothers you, I guess, when conservatives act this way.

If the democrats and their PR wing in the media hadn't unfairly portrayed McCain as a racist, and then unfairly portrayed Romney as a heartless plutocrat who objectified women (for keeping resumes in a binder for Christ's sake), if Obama hadn't called us bitter clingers, if Hilary hadn't called us deplorables, there would be no President Trump.

I'm not saying give anyone a pass. I'm saying be fair. The media can't come close to doing that. So my side nominated someone who could operate in that sleazy sphere, and do so quite effectively. Someone who could absorb the cheap shots without batting an eye, and throw elbows right back. He doesn't merely survive in the ring of mud-slinging, he loves it. That's his briar patch.

You asked for this, you got it. You plant potatoes, guess what? You get potatoes.
I’m confused is what you’re saying that anytime the media reports they should find somebody who did something equally as immoral, illegal or stupid as Trump has done for a comparison since what seems to happen is anytime Trump does something somebody says but Hillary or Obama or but Bill did this
The media reacts the way they do because for years Trump got attention by ranting and campaigning as a birther, about Presidents playing golf, taking vacations, not having gun control, infidelity etc. Funny how they are all things he has or is doing but he bought off his base with smoke and mirrors so they are upset that the media dares to say the Emperor has no clothes.
You probably think he has a nice head of hair.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m confused is what you’re saying that anytime the media reports they should find somebody who did something equally as immoral, illegal or stupid as Trump has done for a comparison since what seems to happen is anytime Trump does something somebody says but Hillary or Obama or but Bill did this
The media reacts the way they do because for years Trump got attention by ranting and campaigning as a birther, about Presidents playing golf, taking vacations, not having gun control, infidelity etc. Funny how they are all things he has or is doing but he bought off his base with smoke and mirrors so they are upset that the media dares to say the Emperor has no clothes.
You probably think he has a nice head of hair.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I’m confused "

I wish the media would be honest with political candidates, regardless of party. When a candidate does something good, give him credit. When he does something bad, criticize him for it. But hold both parties to the same standard. Foxnews gives a pass to Republicans. Every other media outlet is 100% in the tank for democrats.

John McCain adopted a girl from, I think, Bangladesh, when she was a baby. An amazing act of love and generosity, correct? During the 2008 campaign, the New York Times ran a story suggesting that the girl was actually his biological daughter from an extramarital affair. It wasn't true. This is a man who got kicked in the ribs every day for 4 years, who never regained the full use of his arm after getting shot down, and that's the thanks he gets because he is a Republican. That's what I am talking about.

When Palin was running for VP, the media ran stories that her Down Syndrome baby, was actually not her child, but her grandchild. The media used a Down Syndrome baby as a club to use against someone with whom they disagree.

When Hilary lied about getting shot at in Bosnia, how many in the media held her accountable?


If you have no issue with that, you have that right. But a lot of people got fed up with the unfair attacks, so we (not me, but my side) nominated a guy who doesn't even blink when people treat him this way.

"The media reacts the way they do because for years Trump "

Oh, you are saying media bias is Trump's fault!! I see!!

The media abandoned honesty long before Trump entered politics, when the Iraq War went south. They hated Bush, and their determination to destroy him, was more important than their professional integrity. They haven't even tried to regain that integrity. CNN gave debate questions ahead of time, to their preferred candidate. Some "news" network.

Trump is not the reason why the media was so in the tank for Obama in 08 and 12.

"You probably think he has a nice head of hair"

You know absolutely nothing about me. There's very little about the way he conducts himself, that I like. But I agree with him on policy, far more often than I agree with Hilary. So I plugged my nose and voted for him. It wasn't pleasant, but it was very simple.

Jim, I thought Repub. where morally superior? How many times have you tried making that BS arguement yet nothing you post and the actual facts demonstrates that.

John McCain adopted a girl from, I think, Bangladesh, when she was a baby. An amazing act of love and generosity, correct? During the 2008 campaign, the New York Times ran a story suggesting that the girl was actually his biological daughter from an extramarital affair. It wasn't true. This is a man who got kicked in the ribs every day for 4 years, who never regained the full use of his arm after getting shot down, and that's the thanks he gets because he is a Republican. That's what I am talking about.
Actually that was a whisper campaign started by Karl Rove.

When Palin was running for VP, the media ran stories that her Down Syndrome baby, was actually not her child, but her grandchild. The media used a Down Syndrome baby as a club to use against someone with whom they disagree.
A story that was broken by the mainstream media giant the Anchorage Daily News!

Jim, I thought Repub. where morally superior? How many times have you tried making that BS arguement yet nothing you post and the actual facts demonstrates that.

"Jim, I thought Repub. where morally superior? How many times have you tried making that BS argument"

If you are talking about elected politicians on either side, I have often said that there are plenty of scumbags on the right. I've said it again and again and again and again.

Obviously, I think that conservatism (the platform) is vastly superior to liberalism...morally, economically, spiritually, culturally, and way you want to compare them.

In terms of comparing the people? Depends on if you mean national politicians, local politicians, regular citizens who are fairly devout to the ideology, or regular citizens who are only casually devout to that ideology, or if you mean the media.

When talking about politicians and media talking heads, I find that conservatives generally want to debate the merits of an issue, because they think they can win the debate. Liberals tend to want to shut down the conservative, or to demonize him as a racist/sexist/xenophobe/homophobe/Islamophobe, because they know they don't have an argument that plays well. Demonizing the opponent, is what one does, when one can not defeat the opponent in the debate.

I have asked this MANY times Paul, when was the last time conservatives rioted, in order to prevent a liberal speaker, from speaking? It doesn't happen. Why do you suppose that is?

I can no longer make any claim to moral superiority of Republican presidents. Before the election of 2016, I was very comfortable making that claim, at least regarding the last 30 years. Not anymore. That makes me sad. But if the only way to defeat Hilary was to elect a Republican who was a jerk, I sleep like a baby given that choice.

The Democrats, and the media, refused to fight fair in presidential elections. So we nominated someone who was quite comfortable fighting dirty, and winning the dirty fight.

You reap what you sow.

Actually that was a whisper campaign started by Karl Rove.

[QUTOE]When Palin was running for VP, the media ran stories that her Down Syndrome baby, was actually not her child, but her grandchild. The media used a Down Syndrome baby as a club to use against someone with whom they disagree.
A story that was broken by the mainstream media giant the Anchorage Daily News![/QUOTE]

Karl Rove was smearing Sarah Palin, just after McCain selected her? For what purpose?

And if that's true, was the rest of the media obligated to run with it?


Do you remember Joe The Plumber?

Obama invited him to ask a question...
He asked a question...
Obama answered the question...
America was repulsed by the answer...

So instead of telling us why Obama's answer was the best answer for the country, the left mercilessly attacked the guy who they blamed for making Obama look bad.

That's what I am talking about. Always demonize the other guy, instead of discussing the merits of what each side believes. It wasn't Obama's fault, it was Joe's fault, for accepting Obama's invitation to ask a question. How dare he?

It's a vile tactic, yet sadly effective. The people finally had enough. And you still don't get it.

A story that was broken by the mainstream media giant the Anchorage Daily News

Karl Rove was smearing Sarah Palin, just after McCain selected her? For what purpose?

And if that's true, was the rest of the media obligated to run with it?


Do you remember Joe The Plumber?

Obama invited him to ask a question...
He asked a question...
Obama answered the question...
America was repulsed by the answer...

So instead of telling us why Obama's answer was the best answer for the country, the left mercilessly attacked the guy who they blamed for making Obama look bad.

That's what I am talking about. Always demonize the other guy, instead of discussing the merits of what each side believes. It wasn't Obama's fault, it was Joe's fault, for accepting Obama's invitation to ask a question. How dare he?

It's a vile tactic, yet sadly effective. The people finally had enough. And you still don't get it.
You keep assuming that what the Conservative news says is America's viewpoint.
Most Americans would have forgotten Hillary, Obama and certainly Bill by now if the person in office did not keep bringing them up to distract from his own failings and inability to have an agenda other than to make sure any thing that his predecessor did was eliminated or soiled, like the bed he slept on in Moscow.

Here's a little time capsule for you, it refers to Sarah Palin, but I would think it still applies.
Expressing the strongest public reservations about the conservative star made by any senior Republican figure, Mr Rove said it was unlikely that voters would regard someone starring in a reality show as presidential material.

Karl Rove was smearing Sarah Palin, just after McCain selected her? For what purpose?
No, Jim just can't keep his own rants straight. Two different election cycles.

Karl Rove was smearing Sarah Palin, just after McCain selected her? For what purpose?

And if that's true, was the rest of the media obligated to run with it?


Do you remember Joe The Plumber?

Obama invited him to ask a question...
He asked a question...
Obama answered the question...
America was repulsed by the answer...

So instead of telling us why Obama's answer was the best answer for the country, the left mercilessly attacked the guy who they blamed for making Obama look bad.

That's what I am talking about. Always demonize the other guy, instead of discussing the merits of what each side believes. It wasn't Obama's fault, it was Joe's fault, for accepting Obama's invitation to ask a question. How dare he?

It's a vile tactic, yet sadly effective. The people finally had enough. And you still don't get it.
You keep assuming that what the Conservative news says is America's viewpoint.
Most Americans would have forgotten Hillary, Obama and certainly Bill by now if the person in office did not keep bringing them up to distract from his own failings and inability to have an agenda other than to make sure any thing that his predecessor did was eliminated or soiled, like the bed he slept on in Moscow.

Here's a little time capsule for you, it refers to Sarah Palin, but I would think it still applies.
Expressing the strongest public reservations about the conservative star made by any senior Republican figure, Mr Rove said it was unlikely that voters would regard someone starring in a reality show as presidential material.[/QUOTE]

"You keep assuming that what the Conservative news says is America's viewpoint"

Never said anything like that in this thread, not even close. I said the media has a huge left-leaning bias. And frustration over that bias, helped Trump. You disagree?

"Most Americans would have forgotten Hillary, Obama and certainly Bill by now if the person in office did not keep bringing them up "

You don't get it. People are tired of the double standard. That's the only reason why they are still part of the conversation, evidence of the glaring double standard.

"inability to have an agenda other than to make sure any thing that his predecessor did was eliminated or soiled"

That's Trump's entire agenda? He hasn't done anything in terms of the economy that's helping people? Nothing?

I'm not a huge Sarah Palin fan, there's all kinds of legitimate ways to criticize her. But you absolutely dodged the point I made, which is that the media used her Down Syndrome baby against her. You have no comment on that, apparently. Fine.

No, Jim just can't keep his own rants straight. Two different election cycles.

The claim that Trig was her grandson, was made right after she got selected as the VP candidate in 2008. My facts are very in order.

So if you can tell me why Karl Rove would be sabotaging the McCain/Palin ticket just after the 2008 Republican Convention, I'm all ears.

Here's a link to the rumors that Bill Maher was helping to spread, in September 2008.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brent-baker/2008/09/06/maher-buys-claim-sarah-palins-baby-son-really-her-grandson

You keep assuming that what the Conservative news says is America's viewpoint.
Most Americans would have forgotten Hillary, Obama and certainly Bill by now if the person in office did not keep bringing them up to distract from his own failings and inability to have an agenda other than to make sure any thing that his predecessor did was eliminated or soiled, like the bed he slept on in Moscow.

Here's a little time capsule for you, it refers to Sarah Palin, but I would think it still applies.
Expressing the strongest public reservations about the conservative star made by any senior Republican figure, Mr Rove said it was unlikely that voters would regard someone starring in a reality show as presidential material.

"You keep assuming that what the Conservative news says is America's viewpoint"
Here you go
"Obama answered the question...
America was repulsed by the answer..."


Never said anything like that in this thread, not even close. I said the media has a huge left-leaning bias. And frustration over that bias, helped Trump. You disagree?

"Most Americans would have forgotten Hillary, Obama and certainly Bill by now if the person in office did not keep bringing them up "

You don't get it. People are tired of the double standard. That's the only reason why they are still part of the conversation, evidence of the glaring double standard.
Trumps Gaslighting seems to have removed your ability to think critically

"inability to have an agenda other than to make sure any thing that his predecessor did was eliminated or soiled"

That's Trump's entire agenda? He hasn't done anything in terms of the economy that's helping people? Nothing?
Trumps effect on the economy is far less than he claims, look at the monthly GDP and employment for the last ten years and show me the magic, now remember that when he was campaigning all those numbers were BS. Now they have miraculously become real and he is taking credit for anything possible to move attention away from the "witch hunt"

I'm not a huge Sarah Palin fan, there's all kinds of legitimate ways to criticize her. But you absolutely dodged the point I made, which is that the media used her Down Syndrome baby against her. You have no comment on that, apparently. Fine.[/QUOTE]
You seized on a dot in time that has long been forgotten to prove a nonexistent point. A media source becomes The media, if you repeat lies often and long enough they become true,
ask Donald Trump if it works

The claim that Trig was her grandson, was made right after she got selected as the VP candidate in 2008. My facts are very in order.

So if you can tell me why Karl Rove would be sabotaging the McCain/Palin ticket just after the 2008 Republican Convention, I'm all ears.

Here's a link to the rumors that Bill Maher was helping to spread, in September 2008.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brent-baker/2008/09/06/maher-buys-claim-sarah-palins-baby-son-really-her-grandson
You do know Bill Maher is a comedian, perhaps a political one, but still not necessarily any more truthful than the originator of Little Adam Schiff, Little rocket Man (who he is now going to meet with, that is really scary), Lying Ted, Sloppy Steve, Pocohantas, Crooked Hillary, Little Marco, Crazy Megyn and Honeybunch.

"You keep assuming that what the Conservative news says is America's viewpoint"
Here you go
"Obama answered the question...
America was repulsed by the answer..."


Never said anything like that in this thread, not even close. I said the media has a huge left-leaning bias. And frustration over that bias, helped Trump. You disagree?

"Most Americans would have forgotten Hillary, Obama and certainly Bill by now if the person in office did not keep bringing them up "

You don't get it. People are tired of the double standard. That's the only reason why they are still part of the conversation, evidence of the glaring double standard.
Trumps Gaslighting seems to have removed your ability to think critically

"inability to have an agenda other than to make sure any thing that his predecessor did was eliminated or soiled"

That's Trump's entire agenda? He hasn't done anything in terms of the economy that's helping people? Nothing?
Trumps effect on the economy is far less than he claims, look at the monthly GDP and employment for the last ten years and show me the magic, now remember that when he was campaigning all those numbers were BS. Now they have miraculously become real and he is taking credit for anything possible to move attention away from the "witch hunt"

I'm not a huge Sarah Palin fan, there's all kinds of legitimate ways to criticize her. But you absolutely dodged the point I made, which is that the media used her Down Syndrome baby against her. You have no comment on that, apparently. Fine.
You seized on a dot in time that has long been forgotten to prove a nonexistent point. A media source becomes The media, if you repeat lies often and long enough they become true,
ask Donald Trump if it works[/QUOTE]

"America was repulsed by the answer...""

I see. You are denying that when Obama said we need to "spread the wealth around" that America hated that answer. If you deny that, it's very difficult to see how we can have a rational discussion. Polling showed that answer was unpopular, which is why the liberal establishment focused its wrath on the guy who asked the question. Deny that all you want. But that's what happened.

"Trumps Gaslighting seems to have removed your ability to think critically"

I have been harshly critical of Trump.

"Trumps effect on the economy is far less than he claims"

Oh, I see.

You said hi sonly agenda is to make people forget Obama. He picked a superb Supreme Court Justice, he signed popular tax changes into law, he removed all kinds of burdensome business regulations.

"look at the monthly GDP and employment for the last ten years and show me the magic"

Unemployment isn't low? That's what you are saying?

"You seized on a dot in time that has long been forgotten to prove a nonexistent point"

Which is it? Is my example old, or is it irrelevant? Using a Down Syndrome baby as a political weapon obviously means nothing to you, as long as your side gains. You have the right to that opinion. I think it's disgusting.

I could have pointed to a million examples of media bias (CNN giving debate questions to Hilary comes to mind). I chose ones I found to be particularly offensive.

"You do know Bill Maher is a comedian, perhaps a political one"

I wasn't legitimizing Bill Maher. The only reason I posted that was to show the date of the rumors., it had nothing to do with Maher. Spence seemed to be saying that the rumors about Palin's grandson were not part of the 2008 presidential election, and obviously they were. So I'll ask again, why on Earth, would Karl Rove sabotage the McCain/Palin ticket, in the fall of 2008? Karl Rove wanted Obama to win? That's what Spence believes? In any event, you guys seemed to think those rumors came about in an election other than the 2008 election. It was in 2008.

Spence seemed to be saying that the rumors about Palin's grandson were not part of the 2008 presidential election, and obviously they were. So I'll ask again, why on Earth, would Karl Rove sabotage the McCain/Palin ticket, in the fall of 2008? Karl Rove wanted Obama to win? That's what Spence believes? In any event, you guys seemed to think those rumors came about in an election other than the 2008 election. It was in 2008.
The Rove whisper campaign was in the 2000 primary when McCain won NH and Bush need to win SC.

The Rove whisper campaign was in the 2000 primary when McCain won NH and Bush need to win SC.

You are talking about the rumors that McCain fathered his adopted daughter, not the rumors about Palin and her son. You were correct.

Hope DJT isn't the white Bill Cosby, with porn stars and playboy models coming out of the woodwork now, we all know how easily distracted he can get and don't get me started on how thin his skin is.

Does it embarrass anyone that the president of our country feels the need to get into a sticks and stones can break my bones childish argument with Joe Biden over how Joe would have treated Donald had they met in high school?

He doesn't listen to advice by those that are paid to give it. He is obsessed with TV and the media; how is this guy doing a job for those that voted for him? If you feel he is doing a job, I suspect any means towards an end is OK. While I agree with "some" of what he has done, I think the example he is setting and the new acceptable conduct in the white house, is really IMHO so wrong on so many levels.

Hope DJT isn't the white Bill Cosby, with porn stars and playboy models coming out of the woodwork now, we all know how easily distracted he can get and don't get me started on how thin his skin is.

Does it embarrass anyone that the president of our country feels the need to get into a sticks and stones can break my bones childish argument with Joe Biden over how Joe would have treated Donald had they met in high school?

He doesn't listen to advice by those that are paid to give it. He is obsessed with TV and the media; how is this guy doing a job for those that voted for him? If you feel he is doing a job, I suspect any means towards an end is OK. While I agree with "some" of what he has done, I think the example he is setting and the new acceptable conduct in the white house, is really IMHO so wrong on so many levels.
BUT HILLARY

Yeah Bill had some issues too, but Bill was intent on doing a good job too, watching this administration is like watched the apprentice on TV. That too was an embarrassment, but was more like real life, man not happy with marriage and wife; add some presidential power and wallah blue stained dress and he has some explaining to do.

Why do we and DJT too, have to be blaming or comparing what other administrations or other politicians have done, why can't we focus on the here and now. Nothing can change the past, I'm more concerned out the present and more importantly HOW THIS CHANGES THE FUTURE.

Hope DJT isn't the white Bill Cosby, with porn stars and playboy models coming out of the woodwork now, we all know how easily distracted he can get and don't get me started on how thin his skin is.

well, on the up side, he hasn't drugged anyone that we know of....yet.



Why do we and DJT too, have to be blaming or comparing what other administrations or other politicians have done, why can't we focus on the here and now. Nothing can change the past, I'm more concerned out the present and more importantly HOW THIS CHANGES THE FUTURE.

You may have wanted to bring that up during the "BUSH'S FAULT" era :hee:

Hope DJT isn't the white Bill Cosby,

shouldn't you be hoping he is so they can get him out of there asap?

shouldn't you be hoping he is so they can get him out of there asap?
Much as I can’t stand this clown, I still wish he would shut off the GD TV, delete his Twitter account and spend all that free time focusing on governing. His impending trade war is already screwing around with my retirement funds, not looking forward to what impeachment proceedings would do to them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Much as I can’t stand this clown, I still wish he would shut off the GD TV, delete his Twitter account and spend all that free time focusing on governing.
If he can't watch Fox and Friends where is he going to get his daily intel briefing?

If he can't watch Fox and Friends where is he going to get his daily intel briefing?

yawn......got any new material?

yawn......got any new material?
The people from Fox who are in or close
Kudlow
Bolton
Nauert
Schlapp
McFarland
Hegseth
diGenova
Who's gone from State News, oops Faux, I mean Fox
George Will
Megyn Kelley
Rich Lowry
and the staunch Trump supporters moved to the forefront
Laura Ingraham
Mark Levin
Sebastian Gorka

The people from Fox who are in or close
Kudlow
Bolton
Nauert
Schlapp
McFarland
Hegseth
diGenova
Who's gone from State News, oops Faux, I mean Fox
George Will
Megyn Kelley
Rich Lowry
and the staunch Trump supporters moved to the forefront
Laura Ingraham
Mark Levin
Sebastian Gorka

who cares?....

who cares?....
Trump booting out anyone with a shred of competence and replacing them with cable news talking head yes men? Why would anyone care. What could go wrong?

If he can't watch Fox and Friends where is he going to get his daily intel briefing?

Savage !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this a step up or down?

The White House press office is getting a bit more Sunshine these days -- former Disney Channel star Caroline Sunshine, that is. She's joining the team as a press assistant.

Sunshine, 22, is known for her role alongside Zendaya as Tinka Hessenheffer in "Shake It Up," a Disney Channel show about teen dancers that ran from 2010 to 2013. She was also in the 2010 film "Marmaduke," among other roles.

Is this a step up or down?

The White House press office is getting a bit more Sunshine these days -- former Disney Channel star Caroline Sunshine, that is. She's joining the team as a press assistant.

Sunshine, 22, is known for her role alongside Zendaya as Tinka Hessenheffer in "Shake It Up," a Disney Channel show about teen dancers that ran from 2010 to 2013. She was also in the 2010 film "Marmaduke," among other roles.

It's a non-story.....

Ahh, a new Hope for the White House

Much as I can’t stand this clown, I still wish he would shut off the GD TV, delete his Twitter account and spend all that free time focusing on governing. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agreed.

Is this a step up or down?

The White House press office is getting a bit more Sunshine these days -- former Disney Channel star Caroline Sunshine, that is. She's joining the team as a press assistant.

Sunshine, 22, is known for her role alongside Zendaya as Tinka Hessenheffer in "Shake It Up," a Disney Channel show about teen dancers that ran from 2010 to 2013. She was also in the 2010 film "Marmaduke," among other roles.

Press assistant. Not head of the CIA. You are really reaching...

The people from Fox who are in or close
Kudlow
Bolton
Nauert
Schlapp
McFarland
Hegseth
diGenova
Who's gone from State News, oops Faux, I mean Fox
George Will
Megyn Kelley
Rich Lowry
and the staunch Trump supporters moved to the forefront
Laura Ingraham
Mark Levin
Sebastian Gorka

Megyn Kelly left to get paid a jillion dollars a year, in a way that allowed her to be home at night. What's your point?

Press assistant. Not head of the CIA. You are really reaching...

Just shows what a bunch of crappy people he has hired. His former caddy, Amarosa, lawyers with no experience for judgeships, etc. He told us that he had the A team in his cabinet and now I guess we are down to the B team.

Just shows what a bunch of crappy people he has hired. His former caddy, Amarosa, lawyers with no experience for judgeships, etc. He told us that he had the A team in his cabinet and now I guess we are down to the B team.

How do you know she's not qualified for whatever job she was hired for?

My God, with all the mountains of legitimate criticism this guy deserves, this is what has you worried? The person he hired for a job you never heard of?

are there any leftists that aren't smarter than everyone else?

Megyn Kelly left to get paid a jillion dollars a year, in a way that allowed her to be home at night. What's your point?
I guess you could ask her opinion of Trump and his lawyer?

are there any leftists that aren't smarter than everyone else?
No, just none dumber than Authoritarians
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/head-games/201702/why-liberals-and-conservatives-think-so-differently

Megyn Kelly left to get paid a jillion dollars a year, in a way that allowed her to be home at night. What's your point?
I think how the network handled her criticism of the harassment problem at Fox actually had a lot to do with it.

How do you know she's not qualified for whatever job she was hired for?Did I say that in my intial post?

My God, with all the mountains of legitimate criticism this guy deserves, this is what has you worried? The person he hired for a job you never heard of?

And it bothered you enough that you had to respond. Maybe we should discuss whether Pres. Obama was truly disrespecting the office of the President when he wore a brown suit since that go so much press from the right when it happened.

It is just funny how unqualified some of the people he has hired have been. Betsy Devoss looks silly every time she appears before Congress.

are there any leftists that aren't smarter than everyone else?

leftists aren't smarter than everyone else but it appears Fox news viewers know less about current events than people who don't watch the news.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#42b2643112ab

I guess you could ask her opinion of Trump and his lawyer?

She hates Trump. That's not why she left Fox, your post implied that she was one of many people who left Fox because they didn't like Trump.

I think how the network handled her criticism of the harassment problem at Fox actually had a lot to do with it.

I thought they countered to try and keep her. regardless, it had zip to do with Trump.

, lawyers with no experience for judgeships, etc. .

Having judicial experience didn't stop Sonia Sotomayor from saying this, which should prevent her form ever serving on a jury, let along on the Supreme Court...

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

You cannot get more bigoted than that, you simply cannot, and she will be on that bench for the rest of my life. White men, by virtue of their skin pigmentation and genitals, make inferior judges. That's super.

leftists aren't smarter than everyone else but it appears Fox news viewers know less about current events than people who don't watch the news.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#42b2643112ab

such an odd FOX obsession....

such an odd FOX obsession....

The article?

The article?

you...I didn't bother with the article

Having judicial experience didn't stop Sonia Sotomayor from saying this, which should prevent her form ever serving on a jury, let along on the Supreme Court...

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

You cannot get more bigoted than that, you simply cannot, and she will be on that bench for the rest of my life. White men, by virtue of their skin pigmentation and genitals, make inferior judges. That's super.
It wasn't bigoted at all in context. Just a little clumsy.

Having judicial experience didn't stop Sonia Sotomayor from saying this, which should prevent her form ever serving on a jury, let along on the Supreme Court...

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

You cannot get more bigoted than that, you simply cannot, and she will be on that bench for the rest of my life. White men, by virtue of their skin pigmentation and genitals, make inferior judges. That's super.
And she said that 8 years before she was appointed and she made it through confirmation. Just like Gorsuch did, that is the way the game works.

And she said that 8 years before she was appointed and she made it through confirmation. Just like Gorsuch did, that is the way the game works.

Oh, so what's the statute of limitations, exactly, for when your bigotry expires and you are fit for the Supreme Court?

I am aware she got confirmed. That doesn't mean she's not a maniac and a bigot.

It wasn't bigoted at all in context. Just a little clumsy.

You love saying that criticism of the left are taken out of context, yet I have never seen you once, put it in the correct context. Could you tell us what the correct context is, please?

She also authored 5 majority opinions that were reviewed by the Supreme Court (when she was in the lower court), 3 were overturned. She was found to have been wrong, 60% of the time. Now from what I understand, the SCOTUS overturns a high % of cases, because there is usually a reason why a case gets to them.

democrats can't be bigots...it's a rule

democrats can't be bigots...it's a rule

They're called Allies...

you...I didn't bother with the article

I don't think I have posted very many items concerning Fox news. Any you want to discuss?

You love saying that criticism of the left are taken out of context, yet I have never seen you once, put it in the correct context. Could you tell us what the correct context is, please?

She also authored 5 majority opinions that were reviewed by the Supreme Court (when she was in the lower court), 3 were overturned. She was found to have been wrong, 60% of the time. Now from what I understand, the SCOTUS overturns a high % of cases, because there is usually a reason why a case gets to them.
The reason I said just like Gorsuch is because both parties get their turn and both whine about the others choice.
Laura Gomez said:
"I was a speaker at the conference Sotomayor's speech kicked off, and I would like to put her comment in context.

Entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation," the conference brought together -- for the first time, to my knowledge -- judges, lawyers, scholars and law students to consider the state of Latinos in the judiciary.

By 2050, Hispanics will be 30 percent of the U.S. population, and yet the number of Latino judges remains tiny. The number of female Hispanic judges is even smaller; Sotomayor is one of two Hispanic women among federal appellate judges, and there are not much more than that among the hundreds of federal district judges.

Part of the impetus for the conference was to signal the potential crisis for our courts in the 21st century if we do not get more Latino lawyers interested in becoming judges and more appointed to the bench.

In this context, I did not find Sotomayor's comment controversial. As I look at the speech eight years later, I'm struck by how measured and careful she was in making the claim.

First, the sentence I have quoted here followed Sotomayor's acknowledgement that there is no universal definition of "wise."


Second, she presented the statement as aspirational by using the phrase "I would hope"; she was talking as much about the ideal of diversity as its reality.

Third, she specified that she was talking not about all Latinas and all white men but about ideal types; she invoked a "wise" Hispanic woman who has had a particular set of life experiences and white male judges who have not "lived that life" (suggesting that some white males could, in fact, bring a similar empathy and/or life experience to the bench).

Fourth, she went out of her way to say that she thought this would be the case "more often than not," rather than all the time.

Finally, in the next sentence of her speech, Sotomayor went on to specify that she was addressing the dynamics of an appellate court with multiple judges (such as the three-judge and en banc panels on which she sits as an appeals court judge and the Supreme Court), rather than talking about a trial court context in which a single judge presides.

She was referencing the group dynamics on a U.S. Supreme Court of nine justices who converse publicly during oral arguments and privately during conferences over cases. In these settings, who a judge is, in all the ways that matter, undoubtedly affects his or her own thinking about cases as well as that of the other justices.

Does anyone that doubt that Justice Thurgood Marshall's identity as an African-American male or his experience as a civil rights lawyer shaped his judicial philosophy and influence his fellow justices some of the time? Most watchers of the Supreme Court have similarly concluded that Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have had a great impact on their colleagues in cases of particular interest to women, such as abortion and sex discrimination.

Ultimately, whether, holding other things constant, women of color make "better" judges than white men is an empirical question that we are unable to answer definitively any time soon, given the small numbers of minority judges.

That inquiry itself begs the question of quality explicit in Judge Sotomayor's comment: What makes one judge better than another? Better for whom? Some political scientists have argued that the appropriate measure is essentially political: Is the judge better for those who elected the president who nominated the Supreme Court justice?

At the end of the day, a judge's race and gender may have less impact on how she decides a particular case than how the larger public perceives the court on which she sits. In a society in which African-Americans and Hispanics, in particular, report high rates of dissatisfaction and lack of faith in the courts and other criminal justice institutions, the racial and gender makeup of the judiciary has greater relevance.

Of 111 Supreme Court justices, all but four have been white men. It's past time the nation's highest court looked more like the nation."
Laura Gómez is professor of law and American studies at the University of New Mexico. Gómez, who has a Ph.D. in sociology and a law degree from Stanford University, is the author of "Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican American Race.

so you got to meet Justice Sotomayor?

so you got to meet Justice Sotomayor?

Hey, I'm at work and busy. You want perfection on a political BS forum?
I added the author.

Hey, I'm at work and busy. clearly :rotf3:You want perfection on a political BS forum?
I added the author.

not perfection...I'm disappointed..

I was excited for you..it would be more interesting if you'd attended and wrote it rather than something you found and pasted after scouring the internets ...

It's past time the nation's highest court looked more like the nation."



we should settle on 9 ethnicities and then fill the supremes seats based on that..to look more like the nation....though...not sure about how you settle guy/girl...gay/straight...religious/secular....rich/poor...conservative/communist...in each ethnic category....it's not like they rotate very often...this could actually get complicated :gu:

The reason I said just like Gorsuch is because both parties get their turn and both whine about the others choice.
Laura Gomez said:
"I was a speaker at the conference Sotomayor's speech kicked off, and I would like to put her comment in context.

Entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation," the conference brought together -- for the first time, to my knowledge -- judges, lawyers, scholars and law students to consider the state of Latinos in the judiciary.

By 2050, Hispanics will be 30 percent of the U.S. population, and yet the number of Latino judges remains tiny. The number of female Hispanic judges is even smaller; Sotomayor is one of two Hispanic women among federal appellate judges, and there are not much more than that among the hundreds of federal district judges.

Part of the impetus for the conference was to signal the potential crisis for our courts in the 21st century if we do not get more Latino lawyers interested in becoming judges and more appointed to the bench.

In this context, I did not find Sotomayor's comment controversial. As I look at the speech eight years later, I'm struck by how measured and careful she was in making the claim.

First, the sentence I have quoted here followed Sotomayor's acknowledgement that there is no universal definition of "wise."


Second, she presented the statement as aspirational by using the phrase "I would hope"; she was talking as much about the ideal of diversity as its reality.

Third, she specified that she was talking not about all Latinas and all white men but about ideal types; she invoked a "wise" Hispanic woman who has had a particular set of life experiences and white male judges who have not "lived that life" (suggesting that some white males could, in fact, bring a similar empathy and/or life experience to the bench).

Fourth, she went out of her way to say that she thought this would be the case "more often than not," rather than all the time.

Finally, in the next sentence of her speech, Sotomayor went on to specify that she was addressing the dynamics of an appellate court with multiple judges (such as the three-judge and en banc panels on which she sits as an appeals court judge and the Supreme Court), rather than talking about a trial court context in which a single judge presides.

She was referencing the group dynamics on a U.S. Supreme Court of nine justices who converse publicly during oral arguments and privately during conferences over cases. In these settings, who a judge is, in all the ways that matter, undoubtedly affects his or her own thinking about cases as well as that of the other justices.

Does anyone that doubt that Justice Thurgood Marshall's identity as an African-American male or his experience as a civil rights lawyer shaped his judicial philosophy and influence his fellow justices some of the time? Most watchers of the Supreme Court have similarly concluded that Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have had a great impact on their colleagues in cases of particular interest to women, such as abortion and sex discrimination.

Ultimately, whether, holding other things constant, women of color make "better" judges than white men is an empirical question that we are unable to answer definitively any time soon, given the small numbers of minority judges.

That inquiry itself begs the question of quality explicit in Judge Sotomayor's comment: What makes one judge better than another? Better for whom? Some political scientists have argued that the appropriate measure is essentially political: Is the judge better for those who elected the president who nominated the Supreme Court justice?

At the end of the day, a judge's race and gender may have less impact on how she decides a particular case than how the larger public perceives the court on which she sits. In a society in which African-Americans and Hispanics, in particular, report high rates of dissatisfaction and lack of faith in the courts and other criminal justice institutions, the racial and gender makeup of the judiciary has greater relevance.

Of 111 Supreme Court justices, all but four have been white men. It's past time the nation's highest court looked more like the nation."
Laura Gómez is professor of law and American studies at the University of New Mexico. Gómez, who has a Ph.D. in sociology and a law degree from Stanford University, is the author of "Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican American Race.

I read that diatribe three times. Three. I still cannot fathom (even based on this desperate attempt to whitewash what she said), that Sotomayor doesn't have a problem with gringos who have wee wees. There is no other way to interpret what she said. Whether she said white men actually make inferior judges, or she's just hoping they do, it's equally bigoted. Like most hard core liberals, all she sees is racial and gender identity.

we should settle on 9 ethnicities and then fill the supremes seats based on that..to look more like the nation....though...not sure about how you settle guy/girl...gay/straight...religious/secular....rich/poor...conservative/communist...in each ethnic category....it's not like they rotate very often...this could actually get complicated :gu:

All fun and games until you piss off the Irish justice and all hell breaks loose.....end up looking Boondock Saints :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I read that diatribe three times. Three. I still cannot fathom (even based on this desperate attempt to whitewash what she said), that Sotomayor doesn't have a problem with gringos who have small wee wees. There is no other way to interpret what she said. Whether she said white men actually make inferior judges, or she's just hoping they do, it's equally bigoted. Like most hard core liberals, all she sees is racial and gender identity.

This is a little different now, dont forget this is the USA and we should celebrate our differences, not just have a fit when your political opponent succeeds and then have a fit about your opponent having a fit when yours s...., oops succeeds.
"Of 111 Supreme Court justices, all but four have been white men. It's past time the nation's highest court looked more like the nation."

All fun and games until you piss off the Irish justice and all hell breaks loose.....end up looking Boondock Saints :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

probably need a child justice or two as well...I mean who is there ...among all of those old farts...to represent their views ???...maybe that kid leading the repeal the 2nd amendment movement....he seems "balanced"..."Of 111 Supreme Court justices none have been children"...wassup with that?

...maybe that kid leading the repeal the 2nd amendment movement....he seems "balanced"..."Of 111 Supreme Court justices none have been children"...wassup with that?
So now your approach is to disparage kids who just suffered a school shooting? Are you OK?

The reason I said just like Gorsuch is because both parties get their turn and both whine about the others choice.
Laura Gomez said:
"I was a speaker at the conference Sotomayor's speech kicked off, and I would like to put her comment in context.

Entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation," the conference brought together -- for the first time, to my knowledge -- judges, lawyers, scholars and law students to consider the state of Latinos in the judiciary.

This shows how far we have come from interpreting the Law to interpreting by personal opinions. The blindfolded symbol of lady justice holding a scale no longer applies. The "presence" in the judiciary no longer must be those steeped in the law, who represent the specifically defined Constitution, but those who represent various factions, ethnicity, race, gender, and such things that have no defined or universal perspective.

By 2050, Hispanics will be 30 percent of the U.S. population, and yet the number of Latino judges remains tiny. The number of female Hispanic judges is even smaller; Sotomayor is one of two Hispanic women among federal appellate judges, and there are not much more than that among the hundreds of federal district judges.

The Constitution limits government. It does not limit Hispanics. Interpreting constitutional law protects the rights of everybody. Interpreting by personal ethnicity protects that ethnicity at the expense of others.

Part of the impetus for the conference was to signal the potential crisis for our courts in the 21st century if we do not get more Latino lawyers interested in becoming judges and more appointed to the bench.

The potential crisis being manufactured here is further erosion of the Constitution into unlimited, irrelevant, and divisive points of view that lead to chaotic, unpredictable government which has no basis or principle for being.

In this context, I did not find Sotomayor's comment controversial. As I look at the speech eight years later, I'm struck by how measured and careful she was in making the claim.

First, the sentence I have quoted here followed Sotomayor's acknowledgement that there is no universal definition of "wise."

A defining mark of a Judge is the use of precise, unambiguous language.

Second, she presented the statement as aspirational by using the phrase "I would hope"; she was talking as much about the ideal of diversity as its reality.

Diversity of meaning in law is not law. It is chaos.

Third, she specified that she was talking not about all Latinas and all white men but about ideal types; she invoked a "wise" Hispanic woman who has had a particular set of life experiences and white male judges who have not "lived that life" (suggesting that some white males could, in fact, bring a similar empathy and/or life experience to the bench).

None of us has lived the life of anybody else. This is stupid gibberish. It is not the life you have lived that must be brought to the court of justice. It is your knowledge of the law. Legal, constitutional justice cannot be just if it is based on one personal life experience. It must encompass all lives alike in the interface with government.

Fourth, she went out of her way to say that she thought this would be the case "more often than not," rather than all the time.

More often than not cannot be a just way to interpret the law. Justice requires boring, predictable, disinterested impartial certainty.

Finally, in the next sentence of her speech, Sotomayor went on to specify that she was addressing the dynamics of an appellate court with multiple judges (such as the three-judge and en banc panels on which she sits as an appeals court judge and the Supreme Court), rather than talking about a trial court context in which a single judge presides.

She was referencing the group dynamics on a U.S. Supreme Court of nine justices who converse publicly during oral arguments and privately during conferences over cases. In these settings, who a judge is, in all the ways that matter, undoubtedly affects his or her own thinking about cases as well as that of the other justices.

The "thinking" about Constitutional cases should not be clouded by racial or ethnic or gender points of view. Of course, Progressives elevate those points of view above actual law. It is exactly the type of "interpretation" which makes the Constitution irrelevant.

Does anyone that doubt that Justice Thurgood Marshall's identity as an African-American male or his experience as a civil rights lawyer shaped his judicial philosophy and influence his fellow justices some of the time? Most watchers of the Supreme Court have similarly concluded that Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have had a great impact on their colleagues in cases of particular interest to women, such as abortion and sex discrimination.

Insofar as Marshall's and O'Connor's, or Ginsberg's impact on their colleagues was shaped by the law, their race or gender would be unimportant. But when their impact was fueled by their personal "identity," then constitutional justice was not served, it was transformed into identity politics--and the Constitution was rendered moot.

Ultimately, whether, holding other things constant, women of color make "better" judges than white men is an empirical question that we are unable to answer definitively any time soon, given the small numbers of minority judges.

It is the type of question that relies on the opinion of what is "better." It is the type of question a progressive would ask. It is the type of question that makes the Constitution a matter of opinion.

That inquiry itself begs the question of quality explicit in Judge Sotomayor's comment: What makes one judge better than another? Better for whom? Some political scientists have argued that the appropriate measure is essentially political: Is the judge better for those who elected the president who nominated the Supreme Court justice?

That begging of the question is a progressive inquiry. It depends, again, not on law, but on opinion. And on politics not justice or law. Better for whom? The Constitution, as written and adjudicated, would yield the better for all. Interpretation based on identity or politics, would supposedly make it "better" for limited identities or for political agendas.

At the end of the day, a judge's race and gender may have less impact on how she decides a particular case than how the larger public perceives the court on which she sits. In a society in which African-Americans and Hispanics, in particular, report high rates of dissatisfaction and lack of faith in the courts and other criminal justice institutions, the racial and gender makeup of the judiciary has greater relevance.

Progressive Courts have been trying to satisfy the high rates of dissatisfaction of minority identities for many decades, and the dissatisfaction grows. No wonder. When law is not universal, it will not satisfy. And the more it is tailored to various identities, the more that the dissatisfactions and lack of faith will grow. Making identitarianism more relevant in the makeup of the Court, rather than insisting that the law is uniformly judged, will only lead to erosion of law with the ensuing dissatisfaction with it.

Of 111 Supreme Court justices, all but four have been white men. It's past time the nation's highest court looked more like the nation."
Laura Gómez is professor of law and American studies at the University of New Mexico. Gómez, who has a Ph.D. in sociology and a law degree from Stanford University, is the author of "Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican American Race.

When a nation is divided, what will the law that looks like it . . . look like?

So now your approach is to disparage kids who just suffered a school shooting? Are you OK?

how did I disparage him?...I nominated him for the supreme court..and what "kids"...I mentioned 1....are you ok?...or just swinging for the nuts as usual?

This is a little different now, dont forget this is the USA and we should celebrate our differences, not just have a fit when your political opponent succeeds and then have a fit about your opponent having a fit when yours s...., oops succeeds.
"Of 111 Supreme Court justices, all but four have been white men. It's past time the nation's highest court looked more like the nation."

She bashed white men. How is rooting against white men, celebrating our differences?

How about we pay absolutely zero attention to gender and skin color when picking supreme court justices?

So now your approach is to disparage kids who just suffered a school shooting? Are you OK?

I'll let the kids say their peace, When David Hogg uses nothing but f-words to describe everyone who disagrees with him, he deserves a whole lot of pushback.

So now your approach is to disparage kids who just suffered a school shooting? Are you OK?

One of those kids, a quite in-you-face-girl, admitted to actively ostracizing the shooter since middle school. But it's all the gun's fault.

This is why we don't let kids, especially traumatized kids, make public policy unilaterally. She sure isn't acting as if she wants to hear that being ostracized might have contributed to this.

sometimes...when people want to talk or yell...you run to get them a soapbox to stand on...then just stand back and let em' go for it :hihi:

was that disparaging?....maybe a little snarky...

She bashed white men. How is rooting against white men, celebrating our differences?



it's all the rage....I've been identifying as other ethnicities lately...it helps with the guilt

She bashed white men. How is rooting against white men, celebrating our differences?

How about we pay absolutely zero attention to gender and skin color when picking supreme court justices?


maybe you should take your own advice ... seems anything about gender or skin color gets you fired up ... in general

maybe you should take your own advice ... seems anything about gender or skin color gets you fired up ... in general

Ummm, I get fired up when people discriminate based on color or gender...it's not the gender/color that gets me fired up, it's bigotry based on skin/color.

I'll let the kids say their peace, When David Hogg uses nothing but f-words to describe everyone who disagrees with him, he deserves a whole lot of pushback.
I think he's earned the right to drop a few f bombs. The pushback isn't because he swore in an interview, it's because some see him as a threat.

One of those kids, a quite in-you-face-girl, admitted to actively ostracizing the shooter since middle school. But it's all the gun's fault.
Once again, you should read what she actually said in context instead of educating yourself from meme's.

The pushback isn't because he swore in an interview, it's because some see him as a threat.



you say the funniest things

Once again, you should read what she actually said in context instead of educating yourself from meme's.

"spencetext"

Why would Latinos worry about deportation. Why would their experience count?
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/content/historical-context-mexican-americans-and-great-depression

I think he's earned the right to drop a few f bombs. The pushback isn't because he swore in an interview, it's because some see him as a threat.

"I think he's earned the right to drop a few f bombs."

About what happened, sure. Directed at everyone who disagrees with him? It shows precisely why it's a bad idea to let traumatized children shape public policy.

"The pushback isn't because he swore in an interview, it's because some see him as a threat"

Nobody sees him as a threat, just an annoyance, a profane, vulgar annoyance. I feel horrible for him, the lefty media is using him as a sock puppet, and he's buying into it hook, line and sinker, he thinks he's Rosa Parks. When they no longer have any use for him and they cast him off, he may not handle it well. No one seems to be looking out for his long term interests.

"spencetext"

I saw her on TV, I am responding to her words.

According to Spence, if you are critical of something a liberal said or did, you are necessarily taking it out of context.

The biggest cop -ut in the world, from people who are literally incapable of being self-critical, is that you took it out of context. It's a useless defense.

I saw her on TV, I am responding to her words.

According to Spence, if you are critical of something a liberal said or did, you are necessarily taking it out of context.

The biggest cop -ut in the world, from people who are literally incapable of being self-critical, is that you took it out of context. It's a useless defense.
Well you did, or perhaps you just don't know what ostracized means?

Why would Latinos worry about deportation. Why would their experience count?
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/content/historical-context-mexican-americans-and-great-depression

What is your point?

When a nation is divided, what will the law that looks like it . . . look like?

Luckily because parties in power change we seem to attain a balance between Originalists and Non-Originalists.
Of course those who think that they have the only definition allowable have concerns, but things average out just like the weather.
My concern is that the far reaches of politics on both sides have an inordinate amount of power. I think there are several reasons for this, our electoral process and the effect of the media at a minimum.
The extremists on both sides should have an effect but it should be moderated by the moderate politicians in the middle.
I compare the federal government to a giant sphere rolling along, for most of our government's existence it was pushed along by the people in the middle and it's path was altered to left and right by people pushing from the sides. We seem to now have reached a time where everyone has moved to the left or right and few are left to push us along.

What is your point?

Where did you learn about Mexican repatriation?
In school?
From your family members that we removed?
Knowledge and experience count, if it did not Judging could be done by a machine.

Where did you learn about Mexican repatriation?
In school?
From your family members that we removed?
Knowledge and experience count, if it did not Judging could be done by a machine.

If people, and governments run by people, acted like machines, then not only could judging be done by machines, it would not even be necessary. Except that even machines malfunction.

Knowledge and experience in fixing machines have nothing to do with being Mexican. Knowledge of constitutional law is relevant to being a SCOTUS Judge. Being Mexican has nothing to do with it.

Again, what is your point?

perhaps you just don't know what ostracized means?

Perhaps. Or perhaps I know exactly what it means, and perhaps instead you are biologically incapable of criticizing the left about anything. Perhaps you make Sean Hannity look neutral...

Perhaps. Or perhaps I know exactly what it means, and perhaps instead you are biologically incapable of criticizing the left about anything. Perhaps you make Sean Hannity look neutral...
Do you know what context means?

If people, and governments run by people, acted like machines, then not only could judging be done by machines, it would not even be necessary. Except that even machines malfunction.

Knowledge and experience in fixing machines have nothing to do with being Mexican. Knowledge of constitutional law is relevant to being a SCOTUS Judge. Being Mexican has nothing to do with it.

Again, what is your point?
My point is that justice should be blind, but not deaf.
That by whatever name you call the two sides of the argument about Constitutional Law, they are both important. That while the Constitution is a largely static document, it can change thru amendment and interpretation. The interpretation part is controlled politically by the appointment of Judges for life so that a political party gets to choose and it has a long term effect but not a permanent one.
One may choose to select Originalist appointees or Living Constitutionalists, but neither is prohibited or required by the Constitution.

Do you know what context means?

Yes.

Do you know what a blind, thoughtless, brainwashed, automaton is?

Yes.

Do you know what a blind, thoughtless, brainwashed, automaton is?

A Trump Supporter?


That was:easy:

A Trump Supporter?
I wonder if he's ever, even just once did a little research into what he posts.

Luckily because parties in power change we seem to attain a balance between Originalists and Non-Originalists.

Balance applies to things that are in some way measurable. Principles are not quantifiable. There is no balance between good and evil. Between correct and incorrect. There may be variations of each, but no balance between them.

Textual Originalists and Progressives have different ideological and legal views of the Constitution. There is no middle ground of judicial "interpretation" between them. The most obvious and critical difference is that the Originalist views the Constitution as immutable written law whose text is changeable only by amendment and which must be interpreted by the original meanings of its words, whereas a Progressive views the Constitution, at best, as an artificial quasi-directional context from which any interpretation which satisfies a personal notion of some form of justice supercedes any impediment that words in a text might impose.

In effect, the originalist holds the Constitution as the law of the land, and a Progressive views the Constitution as an obstacle to good and efficient government. An Originalist understands the Constitution basically as the legal limitation and description of government power. A Progressive is antithetical to the notion that good and efficient government should be limited.

Any so-called balancing interpretations of those two separate views will necessarily chip away a the original notion of the Constitution being the law of the land and a limitation on government. And with every new case which leads to a "balancing" effect, ever more of the original notion is destroyed, until, eventually it no longer, in any practical sense, exists.

The same process can be said in attempts to "balance" good and evil or right and wrong. Eventually, with every balancing act, the original concepts will be erased.

Of course those who think that they have the only definition allowable have concerns, but things average out just like the weather.

The weather is quantifiable. Average weather is a mathematical balancing of observed patterns. And that "average" changes as patterns change. So an "average" temperature merely describes what is, not what it should or must be. In that respect, there is no real and permanent "middle," there are only different numbers on a changing spectrum, each with its own value.

My concern is that the far reaches of politics on both sides have an inordinate amount of power. I think there are several reasons for this, our electoral process and the effect of the media at a minimum.
The extremists on both sides should have an effect but it should be moderated by the moderate politicians in the middle.

There is no "middle." What you call the middle is a position which once established will be held to as fast as any other position. In a sense, all positions are "extreme." They are extremely what they are. Those you refer to as "the far reaches on both sides" consider themselves to be no more extreme than your "middle." If they have a notion of the "middle," they consider themselves to be the true middle--all others being extreme, or wrong, or stupid.

The notion of an extreme position is a preferential point of view, and it does not lead to rational discussion. Discussions or debates not based on any common principles lead to foaming at the mouth rants based on myopic opinions. Or to incoherent and prejudicial Supreme Court decisions.

Claiming to be a "centrist" or in the "moderate" middle is a rhetorical trick to paint opponents as extreme.

I compare the federal government to a giant sphere rolling along, for most of our government's existence it was pushed along by the people in the middle and it's path was altered to left and right by people pushing from the sides. We seem to now have reached a time where everyone has moved to the left or right and few are left to push us along.

If it were a giant sphere, the surface on which it roles along would have no center. There would be no "middle" for people to inhabit. And the universe through which it rolled would have no left or right. Those are relative terms.

And the time which we have now reached is one in which we are divided by classical views and post modern ones--the classic view being that there is objective reality, and the post modern view that realities are merely fictions or social constructs.

Our Progressive jurists are closer to the post modern view than to the classical, and the Originalists, vice versa. That is one of the reasons that the Constitution, for a Progressive, is a fiction to be molded into whatever the current social constructs decree.

If it were a giant sphere, the surface on which it roles along would have no center. There would be no "middle" for people to inhabit. And the universe through which it rolled would have no left or right. Those are relative terms.

And the time which we have now reached is one in which we are divided by classical views and post modern ones--the classic view being that there is objective reality, and the post modern view that realities are merely fictions or social constructs.

Our Progressive jurists are closer to the post modern view than to the classical, and the Originalists, vice versa. That is one of the reasons that the Constitution, for a Progressive, is a fiction to be molded into whatever the current social constructs decree.
I'll stick with this, change the names as you wish. I am assuming that they will be Good and Evil.
The sphere is not a physical sphere but a description of how our society moves and changes and apparently too hard to comprehend.
"That by whatever name you call the two sides of the argument about Constitutional Law, they are both important. That while the Constitution is a largely static document, it can change thru amendment and interpretation. The interpretation part is controlled politically by the appointment of Judges for life so that a political party gets to choose and it has a long term effect but not a permanent one.
One may choose to select Originalist appointees or Living Constitutionalists, but neither is prohibited or required by the Constitution."

I wonder if he's ever, even just once did a little research into what he posts.

I've noticed that out of the dozens of times you have accused others of taking things "out of context", I'm not sure you ever enlighten us with what the correct context is. It's a shame to keep such keen perception to yourself, rather than sharing it with us.

A Trump Supporter?


That was:easy:

I thought they were all married women who were threatened to vote Trump by their husbands, isn't that what he opponent recently claimed?

I thought they were all married women who were threatened to vote Trump by their husbands, isn't that what he opponent recently claimed?
I think those were the Stepford Wives
blind, thoughtless, brainwashed, automatons
Was that comment another But Hillary?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll stick with this, change the names as you wish. I am assuming that they will be Good and Evil.
The sphere is not a physical sphere but a description of how our society moves and changes and apparently too hard to comprehend.


I admit...I cannot follow what you are talking about...probably me

metaphorical spheres..some good some evil...moderately extreme...push me pull you....

must be a good perscription

I've noticed that out of the dozens of times you have accused others of taking things "out of context", I'm not sure you ever enlighten us with what the correct context is. It's a shame to keep such keen perception to yourself, rather than sharing it with us.
If I do your work for you will you become even weaker? Use the google, takes a few seconds.

I'll stick with this, change the names as you wish. I am assuming that they will be Good and Evil.
The sphere is not a physical sphere but a description of how our society moves and changes and apparently too hard to comprehend.
"That by whatever name you call the two sides of the argument about Constitutional Law, they are both important. That while the Constitution is a largely static document, it can change thru amendment and interpretation. The interpretation part is controlled politically by the appointment of Judges for life so that a political party gets to choose and it has a long term effect but not a permanent one.
One may choose to select Originalist appointees or Living Constitutionalists, but neither is prohibited or required by the Constitution."

You and Spence have a lot in common in your use of language. Your posts, like this one, are a flow of vague words that seem to imply something substantial but never really deliver it.

And what does the quote you will stick with mean by "the two sides of the argument about Constitutional Law" and that both are important? Important in what way?

There are more than two Progressive methodologies taught and used by Justices to "interpret" constitutional cases. e.g., Monumentalism, Instrumentalism, Realism, Formalism, Cognitive Jurisprudence, Universal Principal of Fairness, Rule According to Higher Law, Preferred Freedom (or Selective Rights Jurisprudence), Utilitarian Jurisprudence, Positivist Jurisprudence, Sociological Jurisprudence, among others such as strict scrutiny, etc. These are mostly concocted ways to skirt constitutional text and deliver verdicts that could not otherwise be found in the structure of the Constitution and are means which are not bound by any form of originalism or strict constructionism. This is especially true in cases which test actual articles in the Constitution. In cases needing decision on statute law, there is a little more leeway since many statutes are not as strictly written as is the Constitution.

I assume your quote is lumping all forms of "originalism" into one "Originalist side" in which change can only be made by amendment, and all of the Progressive concoctions lumped into a loose construction, a "Living Constitutionalist side" in which change can also be made by "interpretation."

The writers of the Constitution did not conceive of constitutional text being changed by interpretation. Text was only to be changed (replaced) by amendment. "Interpretation" was to be the application of the text to the facts of the case. "Interpretation" that changed the meaning of the text in order to arrive at a decision not grounded in the original text is obviously not an application of the text but actually a rewriting of it. This sort of "interpretation" does not create a "Living Constitution." It leads to a "dead" one. It creates a new unwritten constitution that replaces the written one which no longer applies since the text is completely malleable and therefor meaningless. The "Living Constitution" nullifies written text and adjudicates instead by unbounded and unprescribed judicial opinion. The Living Constitution, in effect, is not a document, it is the constant mill of personal opinions cranked out by the majority of the SCOTUS jurists.

And how are both "sides" important?

The "originalist" side of the argument secures unalienable individual rights and liberties which can only be abridged by the representative vote of those individuals.

The "Living Constitution" side guaranties no individual rights but secures to government the ability through its Court the power to decide what rights individuals and collectives have

"Interpretation" that changed the meaning of the text in order to arrive at a decision not grounded in the original text is obviously not an application of the text but actually a rewriting of it.

BINGO

this is akin to Spence taking the exact wording of a statement and claiming that "taken in context"....those words mean or were intended to mean something completely different than what was actually stated....I've lost count of how many times he's attempted this....it's all about arriving at a desired conclusion...who needs Google or a Constitution when you can just make it up as you go along :huh:

Jonah G was praising retired Justice Stevens yesterday for at least having the audacity to be honest.....something that has been rare in the debate where the left has spent considerable time mocking and attacking 2A advocates for "unfounded fears" that the left would like to make significant changes to the Rights of Americans where guns are concerned...Wayne inferred and all but admitted his best "solution" recently but I couldn't quite get him to step out of the shadow...


"Stevens’s argument cuts through all of the fictions and double-talk and says plainly what millions of Americans and lots of politicians and journalists truly believe: Law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be able to buy guns easily, or at all, if it makes it easier or even possible for non-law-abiding citizens to get their hands on them.

But there’s another reason I applaud Stevens’s position. He seeks to change the meaning of the Constitution the way the Founders intended: through the amendment process.

For more than a century, progressives have argued that the Constitution should be seen as a “living and breathing document,” in the words of Al Gore and countless others. What they usually mean is that judges and justices should be free to discern in its text new rights that progressives like, from the right to privacy to the unfettered right to abortion. One needn’t be absolutist about this. I do think we have a right to privacy, because I think you can find that right implicit in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, among other places.

What is ridiculous and despotic is when courts radically reinterpret the text to conform to contemporary norms or fads. Often, when I rail against the “living” Constitution, someone will say to me, “If the Constitution didn’t change, we would still have slavery,” or, “Women wouldn’t be allowed to vote.” That’s true. But those changes weren’t the product of a living, breathing Constitution. They were the result of constitutional amendments, which are as valid and binding as the original text."

those progressives are a sneaky bunch...never take your eyes off of them :shocked:

Oops!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is akin to Spence taking the exact wording of a statement and claiming that "taken in context"....those words mean or were intended to mean something completely different than what was actually stated....I've lost count of how many times he's attempted this....it's all about arriving at a desired conclusion...who needs Google or a Constitution when you can just make it up as you go along :huh:
Good lord I hope you never read the Bible.

Good lord I hope you never read the Bible.

I forgive you....:hihi:

I forgive you....:hihi:
You might want to save that forgiveness for Michael Cohen he's going to be needing some very soon.

Wonder if DJT is regretting bringing in Rudy after he confirmed he not only knew about the payoff to silence the Storm, he paid Cohen back. I swear Donald must have the worst case of foot in mouth in history. The untruths that have come out of his mouth are in the thousands now, I think I saw one of the Washington papers stating it's now over 3000, but DJT likes things to be the biggest, the largest, the best; only makes sense he'd end up being the biggest liar ever elected.

Wonder if DJT is regretting bringing in Rudy after he confirmed he not only knew about the payoff to silence the Storm, he paid Cohen back. I swear Donald must have the worst case of foot in mouth in history. The untruths that have come out of his mouth are in the thousands now, I think I saw one of the Washington papers stating it's now over 3000, but DJT likes things to be the biggest, the largest, the best; only makes sense he'd end up being the biggest liar ever elected.

He does everything bigger and better. :hihi:

No worries Trump has just said their story has not changed on the stormy issue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Rudy wasn't up to speed yet
Unfortunately Mueller is
Does everyone in the White House get a life preserver?

I still can't believe DJT hasn't sent Rudy G packing after all his interviews, because if anything; he is making it worse for the Trumpster.

I still can't believe DJT hasn't sent Rudy G packing after all his interviews, because if anything; he is making it worse for the Trumpster.


I think DJT loves and fosters the Chaos to make the nothing to see folks job easier.

I still can't believe DJT hasn't sent Rudy G packing after all his interviews, because if anything; he is making it worse for the Trumpster.
Remember Trump may not be tried in a court of law, but impeached in Congress where politics and confusion rule.
However Ken Starrs office had an opinion that contrary to what Rudy thinks that a president could be indicted.
"What was the Starr office’s stance?
In laying out his case, Mr. Rotunda played down arguments that permitting a president to be indicted would cripple the executive branch. Instead, he placed greater emphasis on immunity issues that the Nixon — and, later, Clinton — legal teams dismissed.

Among them, he noted that the Constitution’s speech-or-debate clause explicitly grants limited immunity to lawmakers for certain actions. “If the framers of our Constitution wanted to create a special immunity for the president,” he argued, “they could have written the relevant clause.”

He also wrote that the 25th Amendment, which allows for temporary replacement of a president who has become unable to carry out the duties of the office, created a mechanism that would keep the executive branch from becoming incapacitated if the president was on trial.

And he noted that if indictments had to wait until a president’s term was up, some crimes would become untriable — such as those where the statute of limitations had run out. That could happen for crimes that do not rise to an impeachable offense, he wrote, citing the example of a president who punches an irritating heckler.

“No one would suggest that the president should be removed from office simply because of that assault,” he wrote. “Yet the president has no right to assault hecklers. If there is no recourse against the president, if he cannot be prosecuted for violating the criminal laws, he will be above the law.”