2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[SCLaxAttack]

I’m having a hard time understanding why so many on this thread are upset at the thought of a political party adding a SC justice or two in order to accomplish their objectives. In 2016 one political party decided to reduce the SC to 8 until they no longer felt it necessary, and I have no doubt they would have reduced it to 7 or 6 had they been able.

[ggait]

Federal court enjoins the single ballot box gambit by the GOP in Texas:

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-cont ... p.pl1_.pdf

"The State’s justifications for the October 1 Order do not present a sufficiently relevant and legitimate interest in light of the burden it imposes on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have thus met their burden in showing that the October 1 Order likely violates their fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

And a Trump appointed federal judge in western PA has thrown out a GOP lawsuit seeking to get rid of ballot drop boxes in PA.

Even Trump appointees won't bless the crazy shirt the Banana Republicans are trying to pull.

The Texas situation was beyond egregious. One drop box for 5 million people in Harris County??? When I voted today in my 330k county, I had my choice of SIXTEEN permanent drop boxes -- all open 24/7.

Seems like the Banana Republicans are just terrified of the voters.

[seacoaster]

Federal court enjoins the single ballot box gambit by the GOP in Texas:

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-cont ... p.pl1_.pdf

"The State’s justifications for the October 1 Order do not present a sufficiently relevant and legitimate interest in light of the burden it imposes on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have thus met their burden in showing that the October 1 Order likely violates their fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

And a Trump appointed federal judge in western PA has thrown out a GOP lawsuit seeking to get rid of ballot drop boxes in PA.

Even Trump appointees won't bless the crazy shirt the Banana Republicans are trying to pull.

The Texas situation was beyond egregious. One drop box for 5 million people in Harris County??? When I voted today in my 330k county, I had my choice of SIXTEEN permanent drop boxes -- all open 24/7.

Seems like the Banana Republicans are just terrified of the voters.

I think the Court of Appeals just stayed the district court order, awaiting Abbott’s appeal.

[Peter Brown]

I’m having a hard time understanding why so many on this thread are upset at the thought of a political party adding a SC justice or two in order to accomplish their objectives. In 2016 one political party decided to reduce the SC to 8 until they no longer felt it necessary, and I have no doubt they would have reduced it to 7 or 6 had they been able.

I’m certain that the same party which is burning down cities and promoting anarchy isn’t too concerned with judicial integrity.

[youthathletics]

I’m having a hard time understanding why so many on this thread are upset at the thought of a political party adding a SC justice or two in order to accomplish their objectives. In 2016 one political party decided to reduce the SC to 8 until they no longer felt it necessary, and I have no doubt they would have reduced it to 7 or 6 had they been able.

IMO - because the SCOTUS should not be 'used' as a political leverage tool. Mitch effed with that during BHO years, and Harry Reid in 2013 set the wheels in motion by breaking the 60 vote threshold. Again, partisan antics.

If they want to change rules, then put term limits on SCOTUS judges and /or define rules that a sitting President can select no more than 2 during their sitting as POTUS in term 1 and term 2.

[6ftstick]

What possible reason would voters need to know if one of the presidential candidates
was planning to fundamentally alter the three branches of government forever.

https://www.facebook.com/crawfordology/ ... 9833273592

He won't discuss the filibuster or the electoral college either.

After all he doesn't work for us horse faced pony soldiers.

If you don’t like what he says or doesn’t say, don’t vote for him.

Pretty simple, really.

Problem is there are azzholes that will vote for him

[6ftstick]

What possible reason would voters need to know if one of the presidential candidates
was planning to fundamentally alter the three branches of government forever.

Agree. It is better to tell people that you positively absolutely will never ever do X. And then after the election is over and the votes are counted, you do X.

Hold the tape. Use my words against me.

If I were Joe, I'd say that if you are worried about a court pack then you need to hold off filling the seat.

The rule now, per Mitch, is that if you have the votes, then you are allowed to use those votes. Regardless of what you did/did not say before the election. Like Trump always says, I'm keeping all my options open and I'll keep you in suspense.

Goose meet gander.

+1. Exactly. Reap what you...throw at others.

Yeh its not OUR supreme court its Joes to do with as he pleases.

[6ftstick]

I’m having a hard time understanding why so many on this thread are upset at the thought of a political party adding a SC justice or two in order to accomplish their objectives. In 2016 one political party decided to reduce the SC to 8 until they no longer felt it necessary, and I have no doubt they would have reduced it to 7 or 6 had they been able.

IMO - because the SCOTUS should not be 'used' as a political leverage tool. Mitch effed with that during BHO years, and Harry Reid in 2013 set the wheels in motion by breaking the 60 vote threshold. Again, partisan antics.

If they want to change rules, then put term limits on SCOTUS judges and /or define rules that a sitting President can select no more than 2 during their sitting as POTUS in term 1 and term 2.

Its fascinating that the TDS folks on the left think that Merrick Garland would have been approved in a Republican Senate. A waste of time.

Senate Republicans were following the advise and consent clause of the constitution. Not creating an extension of the democrat party to create legislation where none exists or can be passed because the majority of American s are against it.

What makes you think Americans would accept tyranny from 6-10-12 black robes.

[Peter Brown]

What possible reason would voters need to know if one of the presidential candidates
was planning to fundamentally alter the three branches of government forever.

https://www.facebook.com/crawfordology/ ... 9833273592

He won't discuss the filibuster or the electoral college either.

After all he doesn't work for us horse faced pony soldiers.

If you don’t like what he says or doesn’t say, don’t vote for him.

Pretty simple, really.

Problem is there are azzholes that will vote for him

I don't say this facetiously, but it's very hard (impossible even) for me to understand anyone who loves (even likes) America, how they could ever vote for the Democratic Party as currently constructed and where it's headed. You are looking at the devolution of a Party into some quasi-Marxist revolutionary anti-American reactionary hornet's nest intent on destroying all that makes this country great (assembly, property, freedom of expression), and they absolutely will not stop their path of destruction until they run out of targets.

[Peter Brown]

I’m having a hard time understanding why so many on this thread are upset at the thought of a political party adding a SC justice or two in order to accomplish their objectives. In 2016 one political party decided to reduce the SC to 8 until they no longer felt it necessary, and I have no doubt they would have reduced it to 7 or 6 had they been able.

IMO - because the SCOTUS should not be 'used' as a political leverage tool. Mitch effed with that during BHO years, and Harry Reid in 2013 set the wheels in motion by breaking the 60 vote threshold. Again, partisan antics.

If they want to change rules, then put term limits on SCOTUS judges and /or define rules that a sitting President can select no more than 2 during their sitting as POTUS in term 1 and term 2.

Its fascinating that the TDS folks on the left think that Merrick Garland would have been approved in a Republican Senate. A waste of time.

Senate Republicans were following the advise and consent clause of the constitution. Not creating an extension of the democrat party to create legislation where none exists or can be passed because the majority of American s are against it.

What makes you think Americans would accept tyranny from 6-10-12 black robes.

To show you how in bed with the DNC most major media are, AP announced yesterday that they were substituting in all of their stories the words "court packing" to "depoliticization".

The only justices that consistently refuse to even consider case law and precedent are the liberal judges. They don't bother in the least to consider anything other than how the DNC wants the vote. They are a liberal voting bloc is all, no different than 4 Maduro/Chavez judges voting to incinerate the country they live in.

The one thing keeping this country together at this stage is the majority conservative court...without them, all bets are off.

[a fan]

IMO - because the SCOTUS should not be 'used' as a political leverage tool. Mitch effed with that during BHO years, and Harry Reid in 2013 set the wheels in motion by breaking the 60 vote threshold. Again, partisan antics.

You left out why Reid did that. I'm sure it was an oversight.

Your team chose this path. Even Gingrich worked with Clinton. Result? Welfare reform, among other things.

Your team has lost their way. 20 years of FoxNation pumping your team's head full of "the Dems are the enemy nonsense" and "socialism is coming".

Have you noticed my ongoing discussion about socialism withe Pete? That guy can't even tell me what it is he thinks that "the socialists" are going to do. Because he knows---and this is hilarious-----that socialism is already here, and he'll be unable to list things that are socialism that we don't already have....things that Pete and FoxNation love, and don't want to surrender.

Your team has some self-help work to do to figure out what the heck it is you want government to do for you....because right now, you can't tell anyone. So what do your reps do? Play political games with the Dems, fleece taxpayers, and stay in power.

A great example is both immigration reform and health care.....your team should have been THRILLED to have control of Congress to get the free market health care that they allegedly wanted for the last 30 years.

Did you notice they never once mentioned their landmark changes to our health care system? No "wow, that sounds great" idea that made you think the Republicans had a better way? Biggest one I remember? Insurance across State lines. Wow, groundbreaking stuff there.

That's for two reasons, YA. One, there's no such thing as affordable free market health care.....and two, Republican leadership isn't governing anymore. Where are mitch's awesome ideas? Or Romney's?

Same for immigration reform. Where's their easy to understand proposal? A proposal, I might add, reasonable people like myself might look at and say "well, that sounds reasonable, let's try that....what we're doing now isn't working".

I have no interest in a bunch of liberal running this country any more than I'm interested in court packing. What I want is governance, and the middle way. So does the vast, vast majority of Americans.....a number that's going down as media keeps telling partisan voters that UFlorida isn't socialism.

[6ftstick]

IMO - because the SCOTUS should not be 'used' as a political leverage tool. Mitch effed with that during BHO years, and Harry Reid in 2013 set the wheels in motion by breaking the 60 vote threshold. Again, partisan antics.

You left out why Reid did that. I'm sure it was an oversight.

Your team chose this path. Even Gingrich worked with Clinton. Result? Welfare reform, among other things.

Your team has lost their way. 20 years of FoxNation pumping your team's head full of "the Dems are the enemy nonsense" and "socialism is coming".

Their team wants

Abortion up to and including delivery
Paid for by federal funds

the elimination of the electoral college

End of the filibuster

free healthcare AND open borders

Defunding the police

The green new deal

Socialism

Elimination of the first second fourth and fifth amendments

And we've lost our way?

[Peter Brown]

IMO - because the SCOTUS should not be 'used' as a political leverage tool. Mitch effed with that during BHO years, and Harry Reid in 2013 set the wheels in motion by breaking the 60 vote threshold. Again, partisan antics.

You left out why Reid did that. I'm sure it was an oversight.

Your team chose this path. Even Gingrich worked with Clinton. Result? Welfare reform, among other things.

Your team has lost their way. 20 years of FoxNation pumping your team's head full of "the Dems are the enemy nonsense" and "socialism is coming".

Their team wants

Abortion up to and including delivery
Paid for by federal funds

the elimination of the electoral college

End of the filibuster

free healthcare AND open borders

Defunding the police

The green new deal

Socialism

Elimination of the first second fourth and fifth amendments

And we've lost our way?

That is only a starter list, 6, but there is a worse means which we need to discuss. The methods the Left need to achiever those ends include violent anarchy, intimidation, suppression of speech, an assault on religion, removal of culture and history, destruction of all things beautiful, and of course the complete removal of the Bill of Rights. I say Democrats are anti-American not to get a rise out of anyone but rather it seems simply a very sensible observation as to what they are doing.

[njbill]

Oh, the Trumpists are cranky this morning. Is something about to happen?

[seacoaster]

IMO - because the SCOTUS should not be 'used' as a political leverage tool. Mitch effed with that during BHO years, and Harry Reid in 2013 set the wheels in motion by breaking the 60 vote threshold. Again, partisan antics.

You left out why Reid did that. I'm sure it was an oversight.

Your team chose this path. Even Gingrich worked with Clinton. Result? Welfare reform, among other things.

Your team has lost their way. 20 years of FoxNation pumping your team's head full of "the Dems are the enemy nonsense" and "socialism is coming".

Their team wants

Abortion up to and including delivery
Paid for by federal funds

the elimination of the electoral college

End of the filibuster

free healthcare AND open borders

Defunding the police

The green new deal

Socialism

Elimination of the first second fourth and fifth amendments

And we've lost our way?

Perfect recitation of the FNC narrative, delivered to his brain and transformed into his "original thoughts." Just sad.

[SCLaxAttack]

I’m having a hard time understanding why so many on this thread are upset at the thought of a political party adding a SC justice or two in order to accomplish their objectives. In 2016 one political party decided to reduce the SC to 8 until they no longer felt it necessary, and I have no doubt they would have reduced it to 7 or 6 had they been able.

I’m certain that the same party which is burning down cities and promoting anarchy isn’t too concerned with judicial integrity.

Once again our resident troll and azzclown has a problem with reading comprehension and staying on topic. Florida public higher education cringes a little more.

IMO - because the SCOTUS should not be 'used' as a political leverage tool. Mitch effed with that during BHO years, and Harry Reid in 2013 set the wheels in motion by breaking the 60 vote threshold. Again, partisan antics.

If they want to change rules, then put term limits on SCOTUS judges and /or define rules that a sitting President can select no more than 2 during their sitting as POTUS in term 1 and term 2.

Oh, I agree Youth. SCOTUS nominations should have never been weaponized.

[6ftstick]

IMO - because the SCOTUS should not be 'used' as a political leverage tool. Mitch effed with that during BHO years, and Harry Reid in 2013 set the wheels in motion by breaking the 60 vote threshold. Again, partisan antics.

You left out why Reid did that. I'm sure it was an oversight.

Your team chose this path. Even Gingrich worked with Clinton. Result? Welfare reform, among other things.

Your team has lost their way. 20 years of FoxNation pumping your team's head full of "the Dems are the enemy nonsense" and "socialism is coming".

Their team wants

Abortion up to and including delivery
Paid for by federal funds

the elimination of the electoral college

End of the filibuster

free healthcare AND open borders

Defunding the police

The green new deal

Socialism

Elimination of the first second fourth and fifth amendments

And we've lost our way?

Perfect recitation of the FNC narrative, delivered to his brain and transformed into his "original thoughts." Just sad.

Oh this is all news to you. LOL

You never heard the words Defund the police before"

You didn't hear the CA and NY legislatures guaranteeing abortions to term.

You didn't hear Governor Northum of VA discuss how doctors would keep a delivered baby warm and comfortable while they discussed with the mother how to terminate it.

You never heard Kamala Harris say she wanted to eliminate the Hyde Amendment and allow federal funds for abortions.

You didn't see ALL the democrat candidates raise their hands when asked who supported Open Borders and free healthcare.

Fox made it all up.

[youthathletics]

IMO - because the SCOTUS should not be 'used' as a political leverage tool. Mitch effed with that during BHO years, and Harry Reid in 2013 set the wheels in motion by breaking the 60 vote threshold. Again, partisan antics.

You left out why Reid did that. I'm sure it was an oversight.

Your team chose this path. Even Gingrich worked with Clinton. Result? Welfare reform, among other things.

Your team has lost their way. 20 years of FoxNation pumping your team's head full of "the Dems are the enemy nonsense" and "socialism is coming".

Their team wants

Abortion up to and including delivery
Paid for by federal funds

the elimination of the electoral college

End of the filibuster

free healthcare AND open borders

Defunding the police

The green new deal

Socialism

Elimination of the first second fourth and fifth amendments

And we've lost our way?

Perfect recitation of the FNC narrative, delivered to his brain and transformed into his "original thoughts." Just sad.

Oh this is all news to you. LOL

You never heard the words Defund the police before"

You didn't hear the CA and NY legislatures guaranteeing abortions to term.

You didn't hear Governor Northum of VA discuss how doctors would keep a delivered baby warm and comfortable while they discussed with the mother how to terminate it.

You never heard Kamala Harris say she wanted to eliminate the Hyde Amendment and allow federal funds for abortions.

You didn't see ALL the democrat candidates raise their hands when asked who supported Open Borders and free healthcare.

Fox made it all up.

That is what happens when you are programmed by the DNC. Same as it ever was, pull on your heart strings, blow smoke up your arse to make you think we are going to do something...anything, the roll you. Just read Joe's own website, it is damned near all pandering. All of a sudden Joe is going to do something...whatever.

Joe's peter principal maxed out 46 years ago, now he just floats aimlessly with no sail. It's no wonder Nancy is igniting the fire of the 25th, she knows darned well the Schit sandwich she has to eat if Joe wins.

[Peter Brown]

So the Denver shooter turns out to be a registered Democrat, Bernie fan, anti Trump, and agitated BLM supporter.

He shot and killed a hat maker/pro police citizen from Colorado.

I’m just wondering how many more far left killers need to show up before the media and Chris Wray pay attention?

[RedFromMI]

The man being held is a Pinkerton guard hired by a local TV station to provide security for them. Whether any purported political affiliation is responsible for fueling the argument that led to the killing is complete speculation that PB is wont to do, whether or not he has evidence of that being material.

But the man charged was hired to be there, and was not there to be an "anti" anything. I would let the judicial process play out before making such accusations.

So of course law enforcement will look into possible motives. But to say this is definitively an example of "far-left" violence is extremely premature.