State of the union?
 

Trump announces second North Korea summit distraction what did we get the 1st time?

Using the s word nothing gets the conservative blood pumping then this fantasy

"Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country,"

"We renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country,"

Claims his tax cut is the reason the economy is Booming ... when all the facts point in a different direction

and this peach of a MAGA line

He touted withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia and warned that if a new deal can't be reached, the US would "outspend and out-innovate" all others in nuclear weapons development.

innovate how does one innovate a Nuke (remove the radiation? smaller package bigger boom? The guys a Moron

I’ll bet you didn’t sleep a second of last night festering over the speech 😜


Liberals looked like a bunch of spoiled kids sitting on their hands the whole speech.
I particularly enjoyed the look on Bernie’s face when Trump said that America will never be a Socialist State. Bernie’s face was as red as a f***ing tomato 🍅
The camera zoomed in on him at immediately when Trump said it 👍
Wonder why 😜
New York’s newest DingBat Socialist congresswoman had a bunch of great facial shots when the camera zoomed in on her.
Nancy looked like she took a handful of Qualudes before showing up. What the hell is up with her mouth ?
Looked like she was adjusting her dentures most of the speech.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, Yeah. Maybe improved delivery methods as well. Maybe small enough to be delivered by a drone. Or developing Stealth technology so they never even know they're coming, who knows, there's always ways to innovate on anything


were you looking in a mirror while you typed this?

You can innovate anything Even knee pads? You never seem to get tired of blowing Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems he got you off.. he has that effect. With his base
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The highlight was the 11 year old kid who dropped out of school due to his last name being Trump. Passed out cold in the front row.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why bother explaining to the simpleton? He won’t understand the answer as his mind is made up. He is probably on a corner somewhere holding his Warren 2020 sign.��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did notice one Trump line that got deafening silence.
"If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation," he said. "It just doesn't work that way!"

Must have been all the tolerant snowflakes who made him feel so welcome due to his name. Another good look for the party that votes in their favorite blackface candidate and points fingers at all who dare to choose otherwise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't like that line at all, that was a dud. But the speech was well received, got high approval ratings. Now back to the gridlock.

What 11 year-old kid wouldn't be bored at that event?

First off, have I missed something where there has been widespread condemnation of the VA gov and calls for him to resign from the democrats?

This speech was well written (I read it this AM, I didn't get a chance to see the first half), and delivery was decent, especially for Trump.

But, while he says a lot of kumbaya stuff, he will be back to tweets and insults and undo the good he might have done with this SOTU shortly...

Who's blowing him? personally can't stand the man, didn't even vote for him. But the Early Onset TDS you suffer from is the gift that keeps on giving. :rotflmao:

Don't.Ever.Change :hihi:

Many prominent democrats are calling on the VA governor to resign. I haven't seen a single prominent democrat call on the Lieutenant Governor to resign, and if an unsubstantiated allegation was enough to disqualify Kavanaugh, why isn't it enough to disqualify this guy?

The speech was decent, and as you said, after his calls for unity, we'll go back to gridlock. Although he did offer to extend protection for DACA folks in exchange for the wall, he did offer something.

Ronnie.

Much of the calls, not from the lunatic fringe was for an investigation and hearings on the Kavanaugh situation. I felt the Garland situation was the main reason to disqualify Kavanaugh, but that is me. I 100% support an investigation into this if warranted in to the LT Gov. I would suspect most reasonable people feel the same.

The vast majority of democrats in the senate voted against Kavanaugh, If a mere allegation is enough to disqualify him, why isn't it enough to disqualify the Lt Governor of VA?

As for Garland, he should have had a hearing and then been rejected. The American people have seen fit to give the Senate to the GOP, and they didn't do so, so that Obama could shift the court a mile to the left. As Obama used to like to say, at least when it suited him, elections have consequences.

I think most mainstream democrats were saying the allegation was enough to keep Kavanaugh off the court. But today's "mainstream" democrat was considered a whacko a few years ago. TDS is driving that party a million miles to the left of Nancy Pelosi. It's the stupidest thing they could do, but it's what they're doing.

Well this simpleton understands there is. No up side to another nuke arms race ... but feel free to beat your chest like Tarzan Trump ... acting as if it’s a good idea and part his MAGA plan
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which happened after the hearings and investigation, right?
Have an investigation into the Lt Gov, 100% for it here, but I am not a voter in VA so that plus $2 will get a cup of coffee...

Absolutely the Kavanaugh push back was 99% about Garland no matter how the right insist it was not.

As far as the lt gov goes I haven’t seen anything from this accusers about it? Yet
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes. After an investigation (which produced allegations which had zero substantiation and a million holes), all the democrats except 2(?) still voted against him. So my point holds. The mere allegation was enough for the democrats to conclude he was ineligible.

That's not what the left said. The left said it was because he was an abuser of women, which the left started caring about as soon as Bill Clinton stopped being useful.

"I haven’t seen anything from this accusers about it? Yet"

Then you aren't looking. And you won't hear about it on MCNBC or CNN.

Great. Have the accuser on the record and testify/investigate. That was the standard the GOP set for Kavanaugh.

Otherwise, this is a vague hit piece in a third rate 'news' outlet on the Lt. Gov with no follow up yet.

And the GOP resistance to Garland, happened after what the democrats did to Bork, who was obviously qualified. That changed the game forever. Ginsberg got in almost unanimously. That doesn't happen anymore, the left changed the rules with Bork, and now that they're in the minority in the Senate, they want to go back to the way it was. Can't un-ring that bell, what's good for the goose...even Obama's first 2 appointees got a ton of GOP votes, and Sotomayor is a racist nut with a terrible record of having her decisions unanimously overturned.

I really hope Trump gets to replace Ginsberg (I hope she retires and then lives to be 120). If he does, then even when the left inevitably takes control again, they won't be able to over-reach.

OK, is anyone on the left calling for an investigation of the Lt Governor? The shape that state is in, the dog catcher may be the last one left who can serve as governor. Everyone else in the line ahead, has serious issues.

I did just see that all the politicians in Virginia once wore blackface.
I laugh when I hear people claim that Bork and Kavanaugh were choirboys and they were just getting picked on. Both were swamp dwellers their entire careers. And it's tough to live in the swamp on either the left or right side.

Where did Bork first come into the public spotlight?
Attorney General Elliot Richardson refused to carry out Nixon's order and resigned in protest. Richardson's deputy, William Ruckelshaus, also refused and resigned as well. Finally, Solicitor General Robert Bork, the third-ranking official at Justice, fired the prosecutor.
I would think one would wonder about Bork's judgement, though perhaps Nixon's troubles were also a deep state plot.


What is Kavanaugh's political history?
Of course he has never played any political games, here is a little but it is not hard to find more.

Judge Starr’s predecessor as independent counsel, Robert Fiske, had looked into unfounded claims that White House Counsel Vincent Foster, who committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park in 1993, had in fact been murdered as part of an alleged White House cover-up related to Whitewater. After a thorough investigation, Mr. Fiske concluded in 1994 that there was nothing to the conspiracy theories and that Mr. Foster, who suffered from depression, had indeed killed himself. Official accounts by the United States Park Service in 1993 and by Republican Congressman William Clinger, the ranking member of the House Government Affairs Committee in 1994, came to an identical conclusion, as did a bipartisan report of the Senate Banking Committee early in 1995.

But shortly after the Senate report came out, Kavanaugh pushed Starr to reopen the probe yet again, citing “allegations” his death was “related to President and Mrs. Clinton’s involvement” in the scandal. And just who could’ve whispered those disproven allegations in Kavanaugh’s ear? Citing files at the National Archives, Wilentz reports that it was a who’s who of conservative wingnuts, some of whom are still active on the scene today:

One was Reed Irvine, a self-appointed debunker of the “fake news” of mainstream media. Another was Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, an English author of a book entitled “The Secret Life of Bill Clinton” that posited that the Oklahoma City bombing was an F.B.I. plot gone awry. A third was Christopher Ruddy, today the chief executive of Newsmax and confidante of President Trump, but at the time on the payroll of the right-wing tycoon Richard Mellon Scaife to promote conspiracies.

Although Kavanaugh wrote in notes that he personally believed Foster’s death was a suicide, he still pushed the investigation on for three years at a cost of some $2 million, a process that involved such far-fetched ideas as scrutinizing carpet in the White House and harassing Foster’s bereaved friends and family. The professor recounts in the Times:

As inventive as they were vindictive, these partisans concocted all sorts of wild theories to explain why Mr. Foster could not have killed himself. According to one of Mr. Kavanaugh’s sources, Mr. Foster had been working for the National Security Agency and was being blackmailed by the Israelis over a secret Swiss bank account. Carpet fibers had been found on Mr. Foster’s clothing, which was proof positive that he was murdered, his body wrapped in a carpet and then dumped. Another charged that “long blonde hairs” on Mr. Foster’s clothing pointed to a cover-up.

He investigated the Swiss bank account connection, down to examining Mr. Foster’s American Express bills for flights to Switzerland. He meticulously examined the White House carpets, old and new. (By now, Mr. Foster had been dead four years.) He sent investigators in search of follicle specimens from Foster’s bereft, blonde, teenage daughter. (“We have Foster’s hair,” one agent working for Mr. Kavanaugh reported in triumph.)

Mr. Kavanaugh apparently took a special interest in Hillary Clinton’s bruited affair with Mr. Foster, a popular rumor in the fever swamps of the right. As he reported, his investigators “asked numerous people about it,” before he decided to ask Mrs. Clinton herself.

"I laugh when I hear people claim that Bork and Kavanaugh were choirboys "

You're hearing voices again, no one ever said that. Maybe take off your tin foil hat once in awhile to air out the cobwebs between your ears.

I said Bork was qualified, and was the first nominee to be rejected for political reasons. You may not like that. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Before Bork, it was understood that if the POTUS nominated someone who was qualified, both partied would support the nomination. It wasn't a purely political exercise like it is now.

Pay attention! I did not say nor act like it’s a good idea. Just enjoying your meltdown while noting that you can’t even understand the context of last nights speech.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Untrue other nominees were rejected or never reviewed
It has always been a political exercise, not a rubber stamp
And it was not designed as such
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fascinating. You know more about the confirmation process than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who complained last year at how political it has become, she noted that Scalia got confirmed unanimously, and her vote was 96-3.

She should have consulted you. You could have told her that it's always been political, even though only 3 voted against her.

You just make it up as you go along.



https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/...gress_justice/

You just believe whatever rightwing gibberish you happen to read.

The Supreme Court from the moment of it's inception has been political.

In September 1789, on the same day that the Judiciary Act passed Congress, President Washington nominated the six justices to serve on the first Supreme Court. For Chief Justice, he chose John Jay, one of the leaders of Washington’s Federalist Party and one of the chief advocates of the Constitution and a strong federal government throughout the founding period. Washington’s other five nominees, including John Rutledge who would succeed Jay as the second Chief Justice six years later, were likewise staunch Federalists and allies of the president.

"You just believe whatever rightwing gibberish you happen to read"

Ruth Bader Ginsburg spews right-wing talking points? That's what you are saying?

Oh, I needed that laugh like you can't believe...

PeteF. is having a bad day.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Understatement.

I also watched the liberal, angry hens all dressed in white and scowling all night like they got stood up at prom. They refused to cheer for low unemployment, wage growth, or crime reform, for opposing late-term abortions, for the first lady, and for cracking down on sex trafficking.

But when Trump expressed joy for the record number of women in congress, then they stood, cheered, hugged, and high-fived each other, and even chanted "USA! USA!". They celebrated their own success, but not anyone else's.

Very, very telling. Self absorbed a**holes.

You might be better off studying history than thinking just because an 85 year old person said something it's true.
To think the Supreme Court is apolitical is silly, though you can wish it.
When the Democrats win and increase the number of Supreme court justices to 15 and appoint them then you'll be whining.

Although that early Court did not hear nearly as many cases as would subsequent ones, those first decisions reflect its political make-up and perspective. In Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), for example, the court ruled 5-1 that federal courts had the power to supersede states’ “sovereign immunity” and hear disputes between citizens and the states.

The case and decision were so controversial that they led directly to the first post-Bill of Rights Constitutional Amendment, the 11th, which when ratified in early 1795 reasserted the states’ sovereign immunity to federal court decisions.

The Court’s first reorganization, less than a decade after Chisholm, was even more overtly tied to partisan and electoral politics. In the aftermath of the hotly contested presidential election of 1800, President John Adams and a lame duck Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which reduced the number of Supreme Court Justices from 6 to 5 and instituted a number of other sweeping changes to the federal judiciary that would benefit the current President’s party, and disadvantage the incoming one. Although the act passed only 19 days before Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration, Adams and Congress filled as many open judgeships as possible, leading to the act’s popular nickname, the Midnight Judges Act.

Pete, the fact is, until recently, senators not in the presidents party usually voted to confirm SCOTUS nominees. they didn’t go berserk trying to block the other party’s nominees. the democrats changed that, and as usual, they didn’t like being on the receiving end of what they started.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are wrong, 37 times out of 115 justices who have served is not usually, in 11 cases they were rejected in Senate roll call votes, in 11 cases the President withdrew the nominee and 15 lapsed at the end of a Senate session.

pete, here are the results of the senate votes since 1965

https://projects.newsday.com/databas...ourt-nominees/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nonsensical meltdown
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is there anybody else who discovered Kyrsten Sinema last night?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device