Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T
  Town Hall Meetings What's your choice? (Page 2)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 2 pages long:  1   2 
Previous Page | Next Page
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Town Hall Meetings What's your choice? by blackrams
Started on: 10-15-2020 06:59 PM
Replies: 68 (662 views)
Last post by: maryjane on 10-17-2020 09:41 AM
blackrams
Member
Posts: 28870
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 223
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 04:47 PM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:

I am not a leftist. I am a person who disagrees with your political view on Trump. He is a hate-filled, spiteful lying sack of **** , and if you vote for one aspect of his "character", you are endorsing the entire character.


I'll take your word on that but still note that you are definitely a Trump Hater.
Would voting for the lessor of evils be applicable?

If, the two top dogs where out of this race, would you, could you support either VP Pence or Senator Harris for the top job?
VP Pence is 180 out from Senator Harris on most things. Do you support a VP Pelosi?
I'm sure such a ticket would not only drive me to drink but, I doubt there's a 12 step program to bring me back from alcoholism should that happen.

SO, by not supporting President Trump, would mean you support just about anyone else? I felt that way about HRC.


Reference the current SCOTUS nomination, by no definition (other than Leftist Democrats) can filling an empty seat by a legally elected President be considered "Packing".
It's just the way things happened to come out. Blame RBG for dying and opening up that seat. Had she survived a few more months, the next President would have filled that seat. What the "Leftist" are wanting to do is add seats to the court and appoint "Leftist" or politically left leaning jurists. That, is packing the courts.

Very "Unqualified"? I guess that again depends on your perspective. There are those that don't like her decisions or positions from the past, but to my knowledge, no one has questioned her qualifications. She was obviously the brightest bulb in that conference room. Those questioning her didn't even challenge her qualifications.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-16-2020).]

IP: Logged
Synthesis
Member
Posts: 12140
From: Jordan, MN
Registered: Feb 2002


Feedback score:    (19)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 290
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 04:54 PM Click Here to See the Profile for SynthesisSend a Private Message to SynthesisEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by LitebulbwithaFiero:


We the people should havd a problem with a President changing statutes in order to sway the bias in there favor.



What statute? The number of Supreme Court Justices has always been fluid and can be changed by Congress. Is it packing if the existing system is used to adjust the number to better reflect modern society's needs?
IP: Logged
Synthesis
Member
Posts: 12140
From: Jordan, MN
Registered: Feb 2002


Feedback score:    (19)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 290
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 04:58 PM Click Here to See the Profile for SynthesisSend a Private Message to SynthesisEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

Synthesis

12140 posts
Member since Feb 2002
 
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
Reference the current SCOTUS nomination, by no definition (other than Leftist Democrats) can filling an empty seat by a legally elected President be considered "Packing".
It's just the way things happened to come out. Blame RBG for dying and opening up that seat. Had she survived a few more months, the next President would have filled that seat. What the "Leftist" are wanting to do is add seats to the court and appoint "Leftist" or politically left leaning jurists. That, is packing the courts.

Rams



Why not nominate me? I am equally qualified according to all requirements to be a Supreme Court Justice. The difference here is the hypocrisy between when Obama nominated Merrick Garland and when Trump nominated ACB... Is this purely a "Might makes right" scenario? Do you support the hypocrisy of the Republican party because it gets you what you want or do you support the hypocrisy because it hurts the right people?
IP: Logged
blackrams
Member
Posts: 28870
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 223
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 05:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:


Why not nominate me? I am equally qualified according to all requirements to be a Supreme Court Justice. The difference here is the hypocrisy between when Obama nominated Merrick Garland and when Trump nominated ACB... Is this purely a "Might makes right" scenario? Do you support the hypocrisy of the Republican party because it gets you what you want or do you support the hypocrisy because it hurts the right people?


Well, I don't personally believe you're qualified to be nominated based on education and experience but, I don't know if you graduated from college, law school, clerked of another SCOTUS jurist or much else about you. Please enlighten us as to your qualifications, maybe you and Boonie can both get on there. Reference Might is Right, whether I like the rules of the game or not, it's the way things work in Congress. IMHO, Garland should have gotten a hearing and then been voted down by the majority. But, that's just me. Supports the hypocrisy because it hurts the right people? Give me a freaking break, I'm all for equal opportunity and equal rights. I am not for favored anybody.
I even support you and Boonie to be all you can be.


 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:


What statute? The number of Supreme Court Justices has always been fluid and can be changed by Congress. Is it packing if the existing system is used to adjust the number to better reflect modern society's needs?


Needs? The court has leaned left for quite a while, the Republicans lived with it even though they didn't like it. Now the pendulum has swung back to the right, live with it. It will swing back at some point. To start that crap would be another mistake, just like eliminating the filibuster. Keep that in mind. It would come back to haunt you and all your leftist friends. Of that, I am very confident.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-16-2020).]

IP: Logged
Synthesis
Member
Posts: 12140
From: Jordan, MN
Registered: Feb 2002


Feedback score:    (19)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 290
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 05:06 PM Click Here to See the Profile for SynthesisSend a Private Message to SynthesisEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Interesting. I just saw an argument here on the forum that the court has leaned right for a while. Which is it? Left or right?

The statement was that the court leans right already, and if rights for LGBTQ haven't been taken away yet, ACB wouldn't make it any worse...

IP: Logged
olejoedad
Member
Posts: 14168
From: Clarendon Twp., MI
Registered: May 2004


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 190
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 05:12 PM Click Here to See the Profile for olejoedadClick Here to Email olejoedadSend a Private Message to olejoedadEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
The needs of our society, relative to SCOTUS, is to live under Constitutional laws.

Activist judges of any type are not good for the balance of power delineated in the Constitution.

Judges must put aside whatever personal beliefs they have when interpreting the law, and the legality of legislation presented to them by Congress for consent.

I do believe that the current President has appointed non-activist judges to the SCOTUS, perhaps the best group of appointees of any President in a century.
IP: Logged
blackrams
Member
Posts: 28870
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 223
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 05:13 PM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

The needs of our society, relative to SCOTUS, is to live under Constitutional laws.

Activist judges of any type are not good for the balance of power delineated in the Constitution.

Judges must put aside whatever personal beliefs they have when interpreting the law, and the legality of legislation presented to them by Congress for consent.

I do believe that the current President has appointed non-activist judges to the SCOTUS, perhaps the best group of appointees of any President in a century.


What he said......

 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:

Interesting. I just saw an argument here on the forum that the court has leaned right for a while. Which is it? Left or right?

The statement was that the court leans right already, and if rights for LGBTQ haven't been taken away yet, ACB wouldn't make it any worse...


I'd say that is an opinion type question. I'd agree that Kavanaugh joining SCOTUS did swing the court to the more right constitutionalist balance but, that's a very recent swing.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-17-2020).]

IP: Logged
Synthesis
Member
Posts: 12140
From: Jordan, MN
Registered: Feb 2002


Feedback score:    (19)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 290
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 05:15 PM Click Here to See the Profile for SynthesisSend a Private Message to SynthesisEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:


I'd say that is an opinion type question. I'd agree that Kavanaugh joining SCOTUS did swing the court to the right but, that's a very recent swing.

Rams


And ACB is even harder right than Kavanaugh... The Handmaid's Tale wasn't meant to be guidance for the Republicans to set the court, but here we are.

IP: Logged
blackrams
Member
Posts: 28870
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 223
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 05:20 PM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:


And ACB is even harder right than Kavanaugh... The Handmaid's Tale wasn't meant to be guidance for the Republicans to set the court, but here we are.


That sir would be an opinion. I and quite a few others don't see it that way.

My guess is, no one has changed their minds.......... But, I do feel better getting that off my chest.
Things to do, gotta go. Be safe.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-16-2020).]

IP: Logged
olejoedad
Member
Posts: 14168
From: Clarendon Twp., MI
Registered: May 2004


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 190
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 06:05 PM Click Here to See the Profile for olejoedadClick Here to Email olejoedadSend a Private Message to olejoedadEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:


And ACB is even harder right than Kavanaugh... The Handmaid's Tale wasn't meant to be guidance for the Republicans to set the court, but here we are.


I would say that ACB is neither right or left - she is neutral, and exactly the type of person who should sit on SCOTUS.
IP: Logged
olejoedad
Member
Posts: 14168
From: Clarendon Twp., MI
Registered: May 2004


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 190
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 06:17 PM Click Here to See the Profile for olejoedadClick Here to Email olejoedadSend a Private Message to olejoedadEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Just read this ...

Thought it worth sharing.

"I am not voting for a man. I am voting for the principles for which this country has stood since its founding. I am voting for Constitutional government. I am voting for a strong and viable military. I am voting for a vibrant economy. I am voting for the right to keep and bear arms. I am voting for the freedom to worship. I am voting for a national recognition of the founding of our nation on Biblical principles. I am voting for the ability for anyone to rise above their circumstances and become successful. I am voting for my children and grandchildren to be able to choose their own path in life, including how and where their children are educated. I am voting for our borders to be open to everyone who enters under our law and closed to everyone who would circumvent or ignore the law. I am voting for the Electoral College to remain in place, so that a few heavily populated liberal centers do not control the elections. I am voting for a Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution rather than rewrites it. I am voting to teach history, with all its warts, not erase it or revise it. I am voting for the sanctity of life from conception to birth and after. Let us all Make America Great Again."
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
cliffw
Member
Posts: 33305
From: Bandera, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 288
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 06:47 PM Click Here to See the Profile for cliffwClick Here to Email cliffwSend a Private Message to cliffwEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
It was not a "Town Hall", it was a debate; and the poor little girl was way outgunned.
Trump was attacked by Savannah Guthrie from the start, but she debates like a few members on here.


While you are whining about Savannah Guthrie, let me whine about George Stephanopoulos. He asked Hiden' Biden ..., well I should preference it with what George did not include in the question.

Boy George did not say, "As a Monday morning quarterback, how would you have responded to the Covid crisis" ?


President Trump was pressed on his handling of the pandemic amid rising coronavirus cases during a contentious town hall on Thursday, while Democratic nominee Joe Biden was asked what he would do differently.
IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 9511
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 196
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 07:02 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:


I will be watching neither. My ballot was cast today, delivered directly to the local town hall secure ballot box by my wife.


I do this every year
IP: Logged
rbell2915
Member
Posts: 1269
From: Clayton, NC
Registered: Mar 2013


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 07:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rbell2915Click Here to Email rbell2915Send a Private Message to rbell2915Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:


What statute? The number of Supreme Court Justices has always been fluid and can be changed by Congress. Is it packing if the existing system is used to adjust the number to better reflect modern society's needs?


Dude, the literal American Emperor Until Death, FDR, couldn't pack the SCOTUS when his party dominated the House and Senate. He had to wait, appoint and replace Justices like everyone else.
IP: Logged
82-T/A [At Work]
Member
Posts: 18321
From: Florida USA
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 185
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 07:16 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 82-T/A [At Work]Send a Private Message to 82-T/A [At Work]Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:

Interesting. I just saw an argument here on the forum that the court has leaned right for a while. Which is it? Left or right?

The statement was that the court leans right already, and if rights for LGBTQ haven't been taken away yet, ACB wouldn't make it any worse...



No, I don't think "Conservative" judges ever will inhibit gay rights. Matter of fact, the point in time with the single greatest number of anti-gay legislation ever passed was during the 2008 election. Even California had banned gay rights, which the state arbitrarily overturned (even though it was against their constitution to do so). Incidentally, the "conservative" court ruled in favor of gay rights, striking down a Democrat-passed anti-gay law, Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

"Conservative" judges believe in Federalism, and adherence to constitutional law. That is... not manipulation of or "interpretation" of, but taking it literally. They do not legislate from the bench, but in fact validate whether or not a law is constitutional. It is for that reason why the conservative court under Obama did not ultimately overturn the ACA. They said... "It is not our job to save you from yourselves, but to validate a law's constitutionality."


Respectfully... I've kind of wanted to have a conversation with you... but I'm getting the impression that you're fairly worked up and not really willing to listen or have a conversation. I respect your views, but I largely disagree with them. I think if we were to look at actual facts, and not politics or fake scandals... you and I would probably agree on most things and I think you'd see things differently. Your mind is already made up that Trump is the anti-christ, and I don't think anyone here can (or should even try) to change your mind.
IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 9511
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 196
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 07:22 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:


What statute? The number of Supreme Court Justices has always been fluid and can be changed by Congress. Is it packing if the existing system is used to adjust the number to better reflect modern society's needs?


Realistically all that is needed is an odd number, 3 will do. No such thing as additional justices for the purposes of modernization. At this point additional justices is purely a political move and an abuse of the system. The sole purpose (given the totality of circumstances) is to nominate justices who judge with a slant towards one side or the other. Judges are supposed to determine if a case meets the Constitutional guidelines NOT a party line.
IP: Logged
LitebulbwithaFiero
Member
Posts: 3140
From: LaSalle, Michigan
Registered: Jun 2008


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 07:23 PM Click Here to See the Profile for LitebulbwithaFieroClick Here to Email LitebulbwithaFieroSend a Private Message to LitebulbwithaFieroEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:


What statute? The number of Supreme Court Justices has always been fluid and can be changed by Congress. Is it packing if the existing system is used to adjust the number to better reflect modern society's needs?


I can't keep up with this thread right now, but I can answer this.

The Judiciary Act of 1869 was the last time the number of justices was changed, to the current 9.

IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 9511
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 196
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 07:32 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by LitebulbwithaFiero:


I can't keep up with this thread right now, but I can answer this.

The Judiciary Act of 1869 was the last time the number of justices was changed, to the current 9.


True, it is also true that the President can let the number dwindle down. By the letter of the law, a nomination is not mandatory. It is tho, VERY politically convenient to try to get justices that will most likely rule in favor of politics rather than law.
BTW, Amy is exactly the right person for this job. AND the judges that Trump nominated have each ruled against Trump on a couple of cases. So it isn't as if Trump is polluting the court with cronies. The evidence speaks for itself.
IP: Logged
Synthesis
Member
Posts: 12140
From: Jordan, MN
Registered: Feb 2002


Feedback score:    (19)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 290
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 07:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for SynthesisSend a Private Message to SynthesisEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

Your mind is already made up that Trump is the anti-christ, and I don't think anyone here can (or should even try) to change your mind.


I don't think he is the anti-Christ, I think he is incompetent to the point of willfully and deliberately harmful and negligent. He is in it for himself and only himself, and he has master(s) that he is beholden to because of his debt. He is without character, charm, has abhorrent behavior, unfaithful, yet calls forth the support of the evangelical community who is willing to look past all of his indiscretions if it means they can get their theocratic ideals passed. THAT'S the problem I have with him, and with the people who support him. They are willing to look at him as a legitimate option because it gets their ideals through, even to the detriment of the country and its citizens.

My youngest sister is black, gay, and "unequal" because of those ideals. I have a real problem with people who support Trump and everything about him, and then can tell me that my sister matters as a person, while at the same time denigrating the ideal of what "Black Lives Matter" as a statement (not a movement) in the same breath to my face. There are a LOT of things wrong with this country, and Trump isn't the cancer. He's a symptom of the cancer.

I'd rather get along with everyone here, but I have finally hit my breaking point... I have always avoided politics, but I can no longer stay silent. Am I worked up? Yes. I am physically having trouble catching my breath right here and now as I type this because I do not know how to get people to look past their mother****ing nose and give me even one remote iota of serious consideration as to my thoughts on this, so instead I yell about how everyone who supports Trump is supporting the worst of humanity... And the facts back that up, regardless of whether I can learn to keep my emotion out of it. He is a fraud, a cheat, a misogynist, a racist, a liar, a horrible person overall.

I'm done. Vote for whoever you are going to vote for... It's on your conscience and your judgement in whatever afterlife you believe in.
IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 9511
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 196
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 07:51 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:


I don't think he is the anti-Christ, I think he is incompetent to the point of willfully and deliberately harmful and negligent. He is in it for himself and only himself, and he has master(s) that he is beholden to because of his debt. He is without character, charm, has abhorrent behavior, unfaithful, yet calls forth the support of the evangelical community who is willing to look past all of his indiscretions if it means they can get their theocratic ideals passed. THAT'S the problem I have with him, and with the people who support him. They are willing to look at him as a legitimate option because it gets their ideals through, even to the detriment of the country and its citizens.

My youngest sister is black, gay, and "unequal" because of those ideals. I have a real problem with people who support Trump and everything about him, and then can tell me that my sister matters as a person, while at the same time denigrating the ideal of what "Black Lives Matter" as a statement (not a movement) in the same breath to my face. There are a LOT of things wrong with this country, and Trump isn't the cancer. He's a symptom of the cancer.

I'd rather get along with everyone here, but I have finally hit my breaking point... I have always avoided politics, but I can no longer stay silent. Am I worked up? Yes. I am physically having trouble catching my breath right here and now as I type this because I do not know how to get people to look past their mother****ing nose and give me even one remote iota of serious consideration as to my thoughts on this, so instead I yell about how everyone who supports Trump is supporting the worst of humanity... And the facts back that up, regardless of whether I can learn to keep my emotion out of it. He is a fraud, a cheat, a misogynist, a racist, a liar, a horrible person overall.

I'm done. Vote for whoever you are going to vote for... It's on your conscience and your judgement in whatever afterlife you believe in.


It's all good man. Not worth getting worked up
IP: Logged
cliffw
Member
Posts: 33305
From: Bandera, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 288
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 07:55 PM Click Here to See the Profile for cliffwClick Here to Email cliffwSend a Private Message to cliffwEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:
Interesting that you guys are obsessing over Biden lasting an hour, when he stayed the entire 90 minutes of the town hall and then another 30+ minutes to continue talking to the voters and Trump ...


Truthfully, I was astonished that Biden lasted 30 minutes in in the shallow end of the pool.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
gtjoe
Member
Posts: 348
From: burgaw nc usa
Registered: Feb 2012


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 09:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for gtjoeSend a Private Message to gtjoeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:

Yes. I am physically having trouble catching my breath right here and now as I type this because I do not know how to get people to look past their mother****ing nose and give me even one remote iota of serious consideration as to my thoughts on this, so instead I yell about how everyone who supports Trump is supporting the worst of humanity... And the facts back that up, regardless of whether I can learn to keep my emotion out of it. He is a fraud, a cheat, a misogynist, a racist, a liar, a horrible person overall.

I'm done. Vote for whoever you are going to vote for... It's on your conscience and your judgement in whatever afterlife you believe in.

I ask you to take a deep breath and think about something for a second.
I can assure you, that if you sat down and had a beer with most of the people here, You would find you have a lot more things that you agree on that things you disagree on. You would also likely find that the majority of us are decent people, who mean well. We even likely have the same desires for what we want society to look like, merely different ideas on how to get there.
IP: Logged
blackrams
Member
Posts: 28870
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 223
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 09:44 PM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:
Vote for whoever you are going to vote for... It's on your conscience and your judgement in whatever afterlife you believe in.


With absolutely no dis-respect intended, that is applicable to each and every one of us.
Based on the Democratic Leadership's action the last decade or so, I'll have a hard time not voting a straight ticket this election.
As a registered Democrat, I can honestly say I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me.

Rams

IP: Logged
randye
Member
Posts: 10745
From: New Port Richey, Florida
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 195
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 09:47 PM Click Here to See the Profile for randyeClick Here to visit randye's HomePageClick Here to Email randyeSend a Private Message to randyeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:

I'd rather get along with everyone here, but I have finally hit my breaking point... I have always avoided politics, but I can no longer stay silent. Am I worked up? Yes. I am physically having trouble catching my breath right here and now as I type this because I do not know how to get people to look past their mother****ing nose and give me even one remote iota of serious consideration as to my thoughts on this, so instead I yell about how everyone who supports Trump is supporting the worst of humanity... And the facts back that up, regardless of whether I can learn to keep my emotion out of it. He is a fraud, a cheat, a misogynist, a racist, a liar, a horrible person overall.

I'm done. Vote for whoever you are going to vote for... It's on your conscience and your judgement in whatever afterlife you believe in.


IP: Logged
82-T/A [At Work]
Member
Posts: 18321
From: Florida USA
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 185
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 10:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 82-T/A [At Work]Send a Private Message to 82-T/A [At Work]Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:

I don't think he is the anti-Christ, I think he is incompetent to the point of willfully and deliberately harmful and negligent. He is in it for himself and only himself, and he has master(s) that he is beholden to because of his debt. He is without character, charm, has abhorrent behavior, unfaithful, yet calls forth the support of the evangelical community who is willing to look past all of his indiscretions if it means they can get their theocratic ideals passed. THAT'S the problem I have with him, and with the people who support him. They are willing to look at him as a legitimate option because it gets their ideals through, even to the detriment of the country and its citizens.

My youngest sister is black, gay, and "unequal" because of those ideals. I have a real problem with people who support Trump and everything about him, and then can tell me that my sister matters as a person, while at the same time denigrating the ideal of what "Black Lives Matter" as a statement (not a movement) in the same breath to my face. There are a LOT of things wrong with this country, and Trump isn't the cancer. He's a symptom of the cancer.

I'd rather get along with everyone here, but I have finally hit my breaking point... I have always avoided politics, but I can no longer stay silent. Am I worked up? Yes. I am physically having trouble catching my breath right here and now as I type this because I do not know how to get people to look past their mother****ing nose and give me even one remote iota of serious consideration as to my thoughts on this, so instead I yell about how everyone who supports Trump is supporting the worst of humanity... And the facts back that up, regardless of whether I can learn to keep my emotion out of it. He is a fraud, a cheat, a misogynist, a racist, a liar, a horrible person overall.

I'm done. Vote for whoever you are going to vote for... It's on your conscience and your judgement in whatever afterlife you believe in.



So... respectfully, nothing you've stated above mentions any policy, specifics, or unique agenda points in your discussion. Quite honestly, everything you said above is emotional and flailing opinion. I've countered several of your points, and in doing so, you simply moved on to the next topic without addressing it. I can only assume from this that you're unable to counter what I've said or that you were unaware of this and now frustrated. Either way, my goal isn't to brow beat you, but at the very least, curb your rage. It's misplaced. Whatever problems exist in your life, they are not from Trump. I highly recommend you stop watching the news... because it's not really news. When all you're doing is seeking information to reaffirm your views, you're not learning, you're simply compounding a problem.
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 9223
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 115
Rate this member

Report this Post10-16-2020 10:52 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Put me down for changing the Supreme Court justices from appointment for life, to appointment for a maximum of 18 years from the day that they're sworn in.

Based on something I read the other day--it was a discussion of how this change would not require any amendment to the Constitution. If a Supreme Court justice reaches the end of her (or his) 18 year term, they would have the option of staying on as a federal judge, but not as part of the Supreme Court.

Adding more justices... I could see it. I saw recently where that was being discussed. If I could find a record of that discussion online, I would perhaps say more; but I don't want to enlarge on that thought without having access to a record of that discussion. And I haven't been able to find it.
IP: Logged
blackrams
Member
Posts: 28870
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 223
Rate this member

Report this Post10-17-2020 01:09 AM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Correct me if I'm wrong but, as I remember it, the reason for a life time appointment was to provide for stability within the Court to protect the Constitution.
Jurist are living longer than they used to, depending on a person's perspective, that could be a good thing (or not).

Once we get back to NINE justices, I'm thinking that'll be a good thing for the rest of my time on this rock.

Rams
IP: Logged
82-T/A [At Work]
Member
Posts: 18321
From: Florida USA
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 185
Rate this member

Report this Post10-17-2020 08:47 AM Click Here to See the Profile for 82-T/A [At Work]Send a Private Message to 82-T/A [At Work]Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Put me down for changing the Supreme Court justices from appointment for life, to appointment for a maximum of 18 years from the day that they're sworn in.

Based on something I read the other day--it was a discussion of how this change would not require any amendment to the Constitution. If a Supreme Court justice reaches the end of her (or his) 18 year term, they would have the option of staying on as a federal judge, but not as part of the Supreme Court.

Adding more justices... I could see it. I saw recently where that was being discussed. If I could find a record of that discussion online, I would perhaps say more; but I don't want to enlarge on that thought without having access to a record of that discussion. And I haven't been able to find it.



I can't remember where I read it... it might be in the Federalist papers... but the reasoning for having lifetime supreme court justices was, as I remember it... "to outlive 'fleeting moments' of social fancy" or however they worded it, in that they couldn't be swayed by pressure from political parties or other branches of government. So, I for one would not want the Supreme Court packed... quite honestly, I think 9 is too many, I'd much prefer 5... regardless of which direction they swayed. I think adding more people starts to make it seem like it's a jury (and we all know how those go), rather than a group of Constitutional scholars that are determining constitutionality.
IP: Logged
maryjane
Member
Posts: 66141
From: Cleveland Texas
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 442
Rate this member

Report this Post10-17-2020 09:41 AM Click Here to See the Profile for maryjaneSend a Private Message to maryjaneEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I can't remember where I read it... it might be in the Federalist papers... but the reasoning for having lifetime supreme court justices was, as I remember it... "to outlive 'fleeting moments' of social fancy" or however they worded it, in that they couldn't be swayed by pressure from political parties or other branches of government. So, I for one would not want the Supreme Court packed... quite honestly, I think 9 is too many, I'd much prefer 5... regardless of which direction they swayed. I think adding more people starts to make it seem like it's a jury (and we all know how those go), rather than a group of Constitutional scholars that are determining constitutionality.

The downside to having a much smaller number of justices is the problems that arise when one (or more) of only 5 dies or retires.
1 out of 9 is an 11% loss but 1 out of 5 = a 20% loss.


You want enough to get a varied opinion on any given issue but not so many that the issue gets overly clouded with too many opinions and thoughts but the more justices on the bench, the longer it would probably take to issue a ruling.
'Too many cooks spoil the broth"

IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 2 pages long:  1   2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic

All times are ET (US)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock