198 replies to this topic

[onbekende]

McCain, along with John Kasich, come from a bygone era before Robert Bork was politically assassinated during his Supreme Court nomination during the Reagan years. Everything has gone downhill as far as Democrats and Republicans working together ever since. The more social issues are injected into the realm of the Federal Government, the more divided we have become. Senators, like McCain, are dinosaurs, and they think they can bring it back to a time when Democrats were patriots, and Republicans thought that unions were good for the economy. Things have definitely changed... and there is no return. I see permanent separation as a viable solution. I know which side the wealth, the Constitution, and the weapons will fall on... so I know my family will survive. If anyone thinks it can't happen here in the USA... you have not been paying attention.

 

*looks up Robert Bork*

 

> Fun fellow it seems, never understood that "originalism" mentality of some (if so, why isn't he amish? ). Seems he was also the "yes-man" for Nixon's demise. Unsure also how you would consider him the point of Rep-Dem true schism, his SCOTUS was downvoted with a somewhat split Dem and Rep line-up. (2 Dems with 40 Rep Y vs 6 Reps with 52 No Dems). Then again this is from before my time quite literally

 

"to a time when Democrats were patriots, and Republicans thought that unions were good for the economy".

 

> Sounds like the sides switched

 

As for seperation, which way do mean?

[Lysistrata]

It used to be if there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the President of the United States put forward a nomination. The Senate would then give their consent if they found the nominee to be an honorable citizen with the law chops to deliver competent opinions. When Robert Bork was nominated by Ronald Reagan, the Democrats dug into his rulings, and judged for themselves that they just didn't want a man with his political leanings on the court. It was then that every Supreme Court nominee since has gone through an intense interrogation to weed out their political beliefs, and the Liberal and Conservative wings of the court came into our everyday lives. It's been a constant fight ever since.

As for seperation, which way do mean?

 Easy. If they don't want to live by our Constitution... let them go. If they don't want to go... force them.

[Lysistrata]

How bizarre is this? Just as I'm talking about it... BOOM! Here is some moron bobble-head in my home state of California demonstrating all the reasons I left that shithole. I was born down the street from Disneyland. I went to military school in Long Beach. I grew up in Orange County. I worked in Hollywood. I spent my first 38 years in California, and I never thought I would leave. But Progressive idiots like this guy... what's his name?... yeah, Sankar Singam... say that 3 times fast... they moved in by the millions and killed my state. I had to leave while I still had a soul. Please leave the USA. As soon as the limousine liberals start losing all their wealth and property, they will all be filing applications to move back to the USA. I so much want to sign this petition.

 

[onbekende]

It used to be if there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the President of the United States put forward a nomination. The Senate would then give their consent if they found the nominee to be an honorable citizen with the law chops to deliver competent opinions. When Robert Bork was nominated by Ronald Reagan, the Democrats dug into his rulings, and judged for themselves that they just didn't want a man with his political leanings on the court. It was then that every Supreme Court nominee since has gone through an intense interrogation to weed out their political beliefs, and the Liberal and Conservative wings of the court came into our everyday lives. It's been a constant fight ever since.

 

 

As for seperation, which way do mean?

 Easy. If they don't want to live by our Constitution... let them go. If they don't want to go... force them.

 

Well as I said I can't really comment on that cause it was literally before my time . Offcourse I doubt that person was the first to be shot down as SCOTUS nominee, but perhaps the first one so publicly? Heck on his trackrecord from his Nixon days alone I personally would be much obligated to go neck deep into his past for a confirmation hearing.

 

Can't deny the animosity and divide has only grown stronger with time, it really looks bleak when a political affiliation goes from a mediocre punchline to the  prefered insult norm of the masses.

 

 

Funny you go with that first line, sidetracking obvious Dem-Rep divide in term of SCOTUS nomination/approval, the Rep side was the first to outright forsake the duty of the Senate to hold a hearing.

 

 

As for the originalism you seem somewhat fond of, hows the barn?

 

How bizarre is this? Just as I'm talking about it... BOOM! Here is some moron bobble-head in my home state of California demonstrating all the reasons I left that shithole. I was born down the street from Disneyland. I went to military school in Long Beach. I grew up in Orange County. I worked in Hollywood. I spent my first 38 years in California, and I never thought I would leave. But Progressive idiots like this guy... what's his name?... yeah, Sankar Singam... say that 3 times fast... they moved in by the millions and killed my state. I had to leave while I still had a soul. Please leave the USA. As soon as the limousine liberals start losing all their wealth and property, they will all be filing applications to move back to the USA. I so much want to sign this petition.

 

 

Not viewing the clip, can guess where this one is going as we have a couple of those "party's" on our side of the pond aswell. I do think it funny that you dislike them cause they are liberal/rich, you do know there are equal amount of conservative/poor groupings that shout the same thing right?

[Lysistrata]

If I ever said that I can't really comment on something because it was before my time, lack experience or knowledge on the issue, or live on another continent... I wouldn't go on to comment about it, but that's just me. Kagan and Sotomayor were confirmed without much fanfare. It didn't matter if she was in favor of open borders, or she is an abortion activist... they were qualified for the job, and they were duly nominated by the President. Scalia died suddenly when we were in the process of electing a new President. We absolutely refused to allow a replacement of the most Conservative Justice on the court without consent of the people. I believe this issue was a deciding factor in the election of Donald Trump. It's okay for a lot of people to not like this, and I don't care.

 

You don't watch the clip, but go on to comment about it. I don't hate anyone for being rich. I hate people that pound podiums and yell in my face about the effects of climate change while they buy multi-million dollar mansions up and down the coast of California. I hate people that are so comfortable spending other people's money. I hate people that ignore our laws so they can have their vegetables picked, lawns mowed, cars washed, children nannied... while we have to pay for the cost of their welfare, their healthcare, their schooling, and their crimes.

 

I want so much for these people to experience the Socialism they desire.

 

The clip is of a guy in my home state... where I was born, where I grew up, and where I raised children. He's one example of the reason I left 20 years ago, and this clip can show you why. I have experienced this, so I am well qualified to comment on it.

[onbekende]

I am commenting on this with help from the "historical documents" left behind, aka wikipedia and google. While I can't comment on when the Rep-Dem schism started (or truely came into effect), I do think I can comment on its present effects no?

 

As for it being an election year, does this mean that basically only half the time you would "allow" for a SCOTUS (or anyone else if it ever became a truely blockade-by-vote) confirmation? You would bar any confirmation for roughly 1y prior to a POTUS election correct (thats Scalia timeframe)? Would you do likewise for the 2-yearly Senate 1/3rd renewal (think you guys have a fancy word for this, forgot ), perhaps not a full year but you would bar it "when the process of election is underway"?

 

I don't feel I need to watch said clip cause I could guess what would be said by such a "freedom fighter", you might not have heared about the various parts of european nations who want to "break free" but it isn't just an US thingy. I was also merely commentating about your objection and downright resentment of him and what/whom he stands for. Meanwhile you speak about kicking people out who don't follow your dogma.

 

I get it, you hate socialism, even the mere mention of it riles you up greatly. But could you please stop conflating communism (the USSR kind, not the theory) and social programs? We can debate into the night about certain programs worth or scope but your position is as hypocritical as your Californian liberal "dimwits" due to your no doubt usage of social programs.

 

You did hit a core nerve that resounds across the aisle, across both political or society norms: "follow the law". You only have anarchists (whom are mostly misguided) and libertarians (the island dwellers) against you on that. Crack down on any illegality preformed, I will completely agree and even cherish national differences cause they excist for (historical) reasons. I will however step on the brakes if such crack-down is accompanied by a mad dash to legate the non-illegal circumstances, for that I stay true to the conservative idea.

 

As for more gray area issues you might find, let society itself pass judgement, as it has done for millenia and shall do so untill we are all single on an island

[Lysistrata]

First... the U.S. Constitution is not my dogma.

 

How the Senate handles any SCOTUS nomination is entirely up the Senate Majority Leader at the time. The President does what the Constitution allows, and then the Senate does what the Constitution allows. It could go completely the other way... the President could decline to put forward a nomination in lieu of a pending election. Whatever they do, someone will bitch about it. We have an election for President every 4 years. The court is just fine on their own. They don't need permission, or supplied a fresh body from the other branches of government, to function.

 

According to the Wall Street Journal, Robert Mueller called up a Grand Jury on the Russia ordeal. Reliable source, and I believe them. As the story goes, a Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich. I'm curious how many ham sandwiches there are in Washington DC

[DeathMerchant]

In my college days, one of my professors joked about indictments. Everyone makes such big deal about it but they mean absolutely nothing. Any person can stand in front of a Grand Jury and say "well there is some speculation and possibly further evidence, so lets indict Mr. Smith so we can see what else comes out of it". Why indictments even exit is truly beyond me. If you think someone is guilty sue them, arrest them, or bring them to trial. Get the truth out and over with as opposed to random speculation.

I always laugh everytime I read in the news some guy gets indicted for murder or robbery, when it goes on to say like 10 people saw him do it. Well if that many people saw it and are ready to testify, why not get on with the trial?

[onbekende]

First... the U.S. Constitution is not my dogma.

 

How the Senate handles any SCOTUS nomination is entirely up the Senate Majority Leader at the time. The President does what the Constitution allows, and then the Senate does what the Constitution allows. It could go completely the other way... the President could decline to put forward a nomination in lieu of a pending election. Whatever they do, someone will bitch about it. We have an election for President every 4 years. The court is just fine on their own. They don't need permission, or supplied a fresh body from the other branches of government, to function.

 

According to the Wall Street Journal, Robert Mueller called up a Grand Jury on the Russia ordeal. Reliable source, and I believe them. As the story goes, a Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich. I'm curious how many ham sandwiches there are in Washington DC

 

Sure sounds like you want everyone to be a "Constitution-thumber" >_>

 

Yes the entire thing was done "legal", still has a terrible stench surrounding it. I would bitch about any side doing such tactics as a means of holding a position hostage. And while true SCOTUS court's are obliged to hold any number of seats, sure helps to have a tie-breaker (Pence is living proof).

 

Speaking about the obvious ham in the WH, he keeps showing he isn't a politician (both his weakness and his strenght). While a politician would be as vague as possible (unless not in power, then paradise is offered, something which Trump did to), Trump is nothing but straight-up, which makes all the backpaddling which happen in timeframes as small as a week that more boggling that large swaths of the US doesn't bother with changing their views. Tying that to the Mueller inquiry with the recent "ooo, he actually did help his son in his written testimony, as any good father would".

 

And while you folks yourself have been pretty mellow about it, sure alot of Republicans think an indictment is anything but the obvious admission of guilt, see Hillary.

[Shahenshah]

What would US constitution say about Robert E. Lee? 

[Theophilos]

 

First... the U.S. Constitution is not my dogma.

 

How the Senate handles any SCOTUS nomination is entirely up the Senate Majority Leader at the time. The President does what the Constitution allows, and then the Senate does what the Constitution allows. It could go completely the other way... the President could decline to put forward a nomination in lieu of a pending election. Whatever they do, someone will bitch about it. We have an election for President every 4 years. The court is just fine on their own. They don't need permission, or supplied a fresh body from the other branches of government, to function.

 

According to the Wall Street Journal, Robert Mueller called up a Grand Jury on the Russia ordeal. Reliable source, and I believe them. As the story goes, a Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich. I'm curious how many ham sandwiches there are in Washington DC

 

Sure sounds like you want everyone to be a "Constitution-thumber" >_>

 

Yes the entire thing was done "legal", still has a terrible stench surrounding it. I would bitch about any side doing such tactics as a means of holding a position hostage. And while true SCOTUS court's are obliged to hold any number of seats, sure helps to have a tie-breaker (Pence is living proof).

 

Speaking about the obvious ham in the WH, he keeps showing he isn't a politician (both his weakness and his strenght). While a politician would be as vague as possible (unless not in power, then paradise is offered, something which Trump did to), Trump is nothing but straight-up, which makes all the backpaddling which happen in timeframes as small as a week that more boggling that large swaths of the US doesn't bother with changing their views. Tying that to the Mueller inquiry with the recent "ooo, he actually did help his son in his written testimony, as any good father would".

 

And while you folks yourself have been pretty mellow about it, sure alot of Republicans think an indictment is anything but the obvious admission of guilt, see Hillary.

 

 

Trump became a politician the minute he was elected to hold a public office. Holding a public office is part of the definition of a political after all...

 

What would US constitution say about Robert E. Lee? 

 

 

Shah what do you mean?

[onbekende]

 

 

Trump became a politician the minute he was elected to hold a public office. Holding a public office is part of the definition of a political after all...

 

 

You know what I mean >_>

[Theophilos]

I know, I know... I was pointing more to the fact that he uses that as an 'excuse' for everything. I.e. I'm not a politician, therefore my errors/mistakes in politics don't count etc etc

[onbekende]

He uses it less as an excuse but more as a modus operandi >_>

[Theophilos]

He uses it less as an excuse but more as a modus operandi >_>

 

Betsy, his MO is to have an excuse... bottom line 'it wasn't me' is what he is about

[onbekende]

Not many excuses have left his mouth thusfar, much blaming of X (anyone not him) has been going on thou

[Theophilos]

Precisely 

[onbekende]

Well he isn't excusing his shortcommings on X, he is blaming present (and perceived) faults as being from X.

[Theophilos]

Which is the point He is using it (X) as an excuse

[onbekende]

Not for his actions, he is using them as an excuse to DO actions. excuse pre-action instead of excuse post-action.

 

and I think we are now fighting over grammar, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooo