

 |
| Town Hall Meetings What's your choice? (Page 7/9) |
|
cliffw
|
OCT 16, 07:55 PM
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
gtjoe
|
OCT 16, 09:00 PM
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
blackrams
|
OCT 16, 09:44 PM
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
randye
|
OCT 16, 09:47 PM
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
OCT 16, 10:07 PM
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
OCT 16, 10:52 PM
|
|
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.
|
|
|
blackrams
|
OCT 17, 01:09 AM
|
|
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
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
OCT 17, 08:47 AM
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
maryjane
|
OCT 17, 09:41 AM
|
|
| 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"
|
|
|
cliffw
|
OCT 20, 07:08 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Boondawg: What are people going to tell their little girls about how the President talks about & treats women?
That it’s alright for men to treat them that way? |
|
Assuming they even ask ? Who will be the President when they do ?
When little "Karen" asks, will it be before or after she asks why women sell their snatch for cash ? Trade it for drugs ? Use it to 'snatch whoop" men, use it to lead them on, or just for a tease in exchange for a free dinner, flowers, or gifts ?
|
|

 |
|