2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[Typical Lax Dad]

Just out of curiosity a Fan, which judges are nutjobs and which ones are unqualified ?

They're one and the same. I go by the American Bar Association recommendation, as most policy wonks do.

WaPo: At issue are three candidates for federal district judgeships in Oklahoma, Kansas and Alabama, along with Leonard Steven Grasz, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The ABA found all four unqualified, unanimously in the cases of Mr. Grasz and Brett Talley, the Alabama nominee. In Mr. Talley's case and that of Holly Lou Teeter, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, the Senate Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings before the ABA had announced its ratings. Now, only days after receiving the ABA's vote of no confidence in Mr. Talley and Ms. Teeter, the committee is still planning to move forward briskly with their nominations.

Some of these judges don't have the CV. Trump doesn't care. His fans are fools for thinking these judges will rule "in their favor".

Time and again, "conservative" judges rule in favor of big guy over little. Corporations over citizens. Think: Citizens United.

But at least previous judges have the CV and reasonable qualifications and experience for the job. That's all I ask for.....it's been years, but recall I was entirely behind Roberts. Stellar qualifications, and that's all that matters to me. I don't care about left/right when it comes to judges. Let the chips fall where they may.

Thank you for the info. I agree 100% that if the ABA gives you thumbs down then you do not belong on the bench. I thought you were referring to all of the r nominated judges in general.
.

See the link above with details on past and present nominees by President.

Thanks TLD. I did see it. I will read it when I get home and have more time to take it in.

They all have clams. Some more than others.

[runrussellrun]

The early Russian Troll vote is in.

Nice link

Make a statement, mention a "new analysis" report....but never provide a direct link to said report.

Obama called Ken Deneir (author on DNC's payroll ) and told him the 80's called and wants it Russian fear mongering, foreign policy back.....something like that.

Guess this article was "peer reviewed" and deemed credible. wafj

The source was clearly called out in the article. Easy to find the research.

Is it really THAT hard to provide just ONE example of a "Russian" bot ad, especially one favoring any Presidential candidate? Guess so. They claim thousands, but can't provide ONE article. ?

This is your source for "facts" ? weak

OH....btw.....must look like work to you.....all that "diversity" at the Foreign policy research institute. Guess blacks don't care about research or foreign stuff.

[ABV 8.3%]

The source was clearly called out in the article. Easy to find the research.

This is silly, and easily debunked. Your link misinforms. And, again, is easily verifiable.

The "research" shows that Tulsi Gabbard was mentioned a combined 61 times, between Sputnik and RT agencies, using the same time period as the linked research article. (Jan. thru Nov 10, 2019 )

Yet, when you or I do a search on just Sputnik website, it shows 175 hits

https://sputniknews.com/search/?query=gabbard

We can just stop there. JHU72.....I want YOU to tell us all.....which of these 175 are "favorable" for Gabbard? Isn't what is considered "favorable" a matter of opinion? Mostly.

I know you won't do this exercise.

Same for the other mentioned news source.....Russian Times. Same data misrepresentation.

But, for purposes......please show the actual favorable reporting Gabbard is getting from ANY of these articles. (unless straight news reporting is "favoring" )

https://www.rt.com/shows/redacted-tonig ... pat-memes/

https://www.rt.com/usa/471480-bernie-de ... ign-agent/

https://www.rt.com/usa/471340-trump-rus ... y-clinton/

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/469774-id-poli ... men-potus/

https://www.rt.com/usa/468961-tulsi-tru ... es-saudis/


Way more than 60 something combined aarticles mentioning Gabbard..........

....but will ask again. Provide just ONE article from either source (Russia Times/Sputnik ) that is negative towards Biden, like your link claims. Just one.

I'll make it easy for you. (FTC require paperwork for spending ???? ....so this MUST be negative because it's true ! )

https://sputniknews.com/us/201910171077 ... vate-jets/

Former Vice President Joe Biden's campaign team spent of $924,000 on private jets, burning through campaign funds in 3 months, ending the final quarter of 2019 with under $9 million left to spend, according to Federal Election Commission data released on Wednesday.

The data shows that the $924,000 sum was spent on EJCR LLC Dba Advanced Aviation Team, a private jet charter services company.

[jhu72]

The early Russian Troll vote is in.

Nice link

Make a statement, mention a "new analysis" report....but never provide a direct link to said report.

Obama called Ken Deneir (author on DNC's payroll ) and told him the 80's called and wants it Russian fear mongering, foreign policy back.....something like that.

Guess this article was "peer reviewed" and deemed credible. wafj

The source was clearly called out in the article. Easy to find the research.

Is it really THAT hard to provide just ONE example of a "Russian" bot ad, especially one favoring any Presidential candidate? Guess so. They claim thousands, but can't provide ONE article. ?

This is your source for "facts" ? weak

OH....btw.....must look like work to you.....all that "diversity" at the Foreign policy research institute. Guess blacks don't care about research or foreign stuff.

Here you go fatty. I didn't do the research or write the article. Why not try contacting the guy who did, Clint Watts.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The early Russian Troll vote is in.

Nice link

Make a statement, mention a "new analysis" report....but never provide a direct link to said report.

Obama called Ken Deneir (author on DNC's payroll ) and told him the 80's called and wants it Russian fear mongering, foreign policy back.....something like that.

Guess this article was "peer reviewed" and deemed credible. wafj

The source was clearly called out in the article. Easy to find the research.

Is it really THAT hard to provide just ONE example of a "Russian" bot ad, especially one favoring any Presidential candidate? Guess so. They claim thousands, but can't provide ONE article. ?

This is your source for "facts" ? weak

OH....btw.....must look like work to you.....all that "diversity" at the Foreign policy research institute. Guess blacks don't care about research or foreign stuff.

Too lazy

[ABV 8.3%]

The early Russian Troll vote is in.

Nice link

Make a statement, mention a "new analysis" report....but never provide a direct link to said report.

Obama called Ken Deneir (author on DNC's payroll ) and told him the 80's called and wants it Russian fear mongering, foreign policy back.....something like that.

Guess this article was "peer reviewed" and deemed credible. wafj

The source was clearly called out in the article. Easy to find the research.

Is it really THAT hard to provide just ONE example of a "Russian" bot ad, especially one favoring any Presidential candidate? Guess so. They claim thousands, but can't provide ONE article. ?

This is your source for "facts" ? weak

OH....btw.....must look like work to you.....all that "diversity" at the Foreign policy research institute. Guess blacks don't care about research or foreign stuff.

Here you go fatty. I didn't do the research or write the article. Why not try contacting the guy who did, Clint Watts.

already tried.......had questions about:

Who are the 20 or so college Interns searching for "favoring" articles?

What criteria was used in selecting said articles, especially the 3000 RT/Sputnik cited?


Why aren't ANY of the "favorable" articles links, attributed, footnoted ?


"Man wins $100million lottery ", is this considered a favorable news story, or just straight AP style news reporting? Do the 20 or so college interns know the difference ?

Questions like that....

JHU72, surpised as a scientist, that you cite links that are NOT verifiable because you can't duplicate the research.

[jhu72]

… ah. Did Mr Watts answer any of your questions? Exactly when did you ask these questions?

[ABV 8.3%]

… ah. Did Mr Watts answer any of your questions? Exactly when did you ask these questions?

Why are you hiding behind Mr. Watts? Can't YOU answer the questions yourself?

....b/c Sputnik/RT articles that say "gabbard suing google" or "tulsi responds to Hillaryous' slander with....." as FAVORABLE prove something of value?

[jhu72]

… ah. Did Mr Watts answer any of your questions? Exactly when did you ask these questions?

Why are you hiding behind Mr. Watts? Can't YOU answer the questions yourself?

....b/c Sputnik/RT articles that say "gabbard suing google" or "tulsi responds to Hillaryous' slander with....." as FAVORABLE prove something of value?

Watts is the source. If you can prove Watts research is inaccurate, do so. I am not going to do it for you, nor am I going to try to redo Watts' research. You are invested in Tulsi, not me. You claim you already tried to contact him if I read your post correctly. So what did he say?

[jhu72]

Doing my bit to publicize Tulsi.

[kramerica.inc]

You best not!

You are only allowed to promote her during the primaries!

If you (or anyone else) votes for her or your conscience (and not the Democrat nominee) in the General Election, and Trump is releected, you are part of the problem!

[ABV 8.3%]

… ah. Did Mr Watts answer any of your questions? Exactly when did you ask these questions?

Why are you hiding behind Mr. Watts? Can't YOU answer the questions yourself?

....b/c Sputnik/RT articles that say "gabbard suing google" or "tulsi responds to Hillaryous' slander with....." as FAVORABLE prove something of value?

Watts is the source. If you can prove Watts research is inaccurate, do so. I am not going to do it for you, nor am I going to try to redo Watts' research. You are invested in Tulsi, not me. You claim you already tried to contact him if I read your post correctly. So what did he say?

If? I already did (scroll up )

....and nice scientific method.

Prove watts is lying- you

ok....how did he define "favorable" ? - me

we can start there.....

[HooDat]

Doing my bit to publicize Tulsi.

the article reaffirms my earlier point. There is a very good chance that a Tulsi run as an independent would hurt Trump more than the Dem candidate.

[jhu72]

Doing my bit to publicize Tulsi.

the article reaffirms my earlier point. There is a very good chance that a Tulsi run as an independent would hurt Trump more than the Dem candidate.

Yup. I think you are correct. This is the second or third article I have seen regarding her real base of support.

[cradleandshoot]

Doing my bit to publicize Tulsi.

the article reaffirms my earlier point. There is a very good chance that a Tulsi run as an independent would hurt Trump more than the Dem candidate.

I would love to see her run as an independent. I would vote for her in a heartbeat.

[jhu72]

After last night, Tulsi's chances of doing anything in the democratic party seem pretty small. Her own Hawaiian constituents seem less enamored with her, feeling she has not spent time representing them while running for president.

[youthathletics]

After last night, Tulsi's chances of doing anything in the democratic party seem pretty small. Her own Hawaiian constituents seem less enamored with her, feeling she has not spent time representing them while running for president.

What is it about here that democrats in general do bot like?

[jhu72]

After last night, Tulsi's chances of doing anything in the democratic party seem pretty small. Her own Hawaiian constituents seem less enamored with her, feeling she has not spent time representing them while running for president.

What is it about here that democrats in general do bot like?

I do not know. I would guess that Harris' arguments last night represents the thinking of a good number of democrats at the party level. Rank and file members I would guess are uncomfortable with her flip flop on some positions she previously held (LGBTQ and abortion). They are certainly suspicious of these changes of heart. In my opinion she suffers from being a relative unknown looking for a quick way to the top. Her trashing the party doesn't help her even a little bit, especially in the age of Trump.

[Kismet]

The fix may apparently be in

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ ... d_nn_tw_ma

Trump hosted Zuckerberg for undisclosed dinner at the White House in October along with Peter Thiel. What's the over/under that NADA gets done on truth in political ads running on the platform in 2020?

[ABV 8.3%]

After last night, Tulsi's chances of doing anything in the democratic party seem pretty small. Her own Hawaiian constituents seem less enamored with her, feeling she has not spent time representing them while running for president.

Isn't it amazing how none of the other candidates constituents have the same feeling towards all the others running who hold office.........or, you COULD just make that up about them too......

Afraid Tulsi will take your D.O.D. binky welfare away?