@The Old Man posted:"White power, white power."
I'm Donald J. Trump and I approve of this message.
He is such a pig, but I feel poorly putting pigs into this deplorable mindset.
If you do not standup and disapprove of any racist, you are a racist, period.
@wine+art posted:He is such a pig, but I feel poorly putting pigs into this deplorable mindset.
If you do not standup and disapprove of any racist, you are a racist, period.
Agree. Pig is not the best comparison. I like pigs, actually. They are smart, curious and very tasty. <some guilt here, fwiw...>
Let's call a spade a spade shall we? He's a Nazi, just like his daddy. If tRump was around in the 30s, is there ANY doubt about who he would support? He babbles platitudes about Israel, but inherently dislikes Jews. Flush the turd on November 3rd. Enough is enough.
PH
He’s stupid. Lazy. A coward. Treasonous.
He absolutely is Putin’s Bitch.
To no one’s surprise that lives with their own head not up their own ass, ( see the empty suit) collaborative informative starting to pour in from multiple sources that the orange dump did indeed receive intel on exactly what Russia was doing and their bounties.
Not to defend the obese orange POS, but he does have the attention span of a two year old on his best day.
Putin and his poodle...
@wine+art posted:Not to defend the obese orange POS, but he does have the attention span of a two year old on his best day
Which is supposedly why he posted a video of a whackadoo in a golf cart shouting "white power". After all, it was ten seconds into the video. No way Trump can pay attention that long!
@bman posted:Which is supposedly why he posted a video of a whackadoo in a golf cart shouting "white power". After all, it was ten seconds into the video. No way Trump can pay attention that long!
Dump and his ‘ Make America White Again’ diatribe.
Well, the orange ostrich can’t be happy with republican governors in Florida, Arizona and Texas shutting things ( appropriately) down again as the delusional conman sells his BS to his shrinking cult that all is well. 🤣
Today the S. Ct. reversed an appellate opinion. The S. Ct. held a Louisiana law which had severe restrictions on the practice of gynecology and the performance of abortions unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurrence, joining the liberals. Roberts noted that in 2016 the S. Ct. held a similar law unconstitutional. That law was enacted in Texas. He noted that he was in the minority in that case, but, based on the doctrine of Stare Decisis, he joined the majority here, saying that the law does not permit going back and forth as to what is constitutional based on who appointed the justices. Stare Decisis, he said, has meaning.
Justice Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, who said during their hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee that they believed in stare decisis, voted to overturn the 2016 S. Ct. case.
So, one must conclude either:
1) Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, or
2) Despite their Catholic school and law school educations, they don’t understand Latin.
@irwin posted:Today the S. Ct. reversed an appellate opinion. The S. Ct. held a Louisiana law which had severe restrictions on the practice of gynecology and the performance of abortions unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurrence, joining the liberals. Roberts noted that in 2016 the S. Ct. held a similar law unconstitutional. That law was enacted in Texas. He noted that he was in the minority in that case, but, based on the doctrine of Stare Decisis, he joined the majority here, saying that the law does not permit going back and forth as to what is constitutional based on who appointed the justices. Stare Decisis, he said, has meaning.
Justice Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, who said during their hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee that they believed in stare decisis, voted to overturn the 2016 S. Ct. case.
So, one must conclude either:
1) Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, or
2) Despite their Catholic school and law school educations, they don’t understand Latin.
The obvious answer is, #1, but we knew that prior to today. 🤔
@irwin posted:Today the S. Ct. reversed an appellate opinion. The S. Ct. held a Louisiana law which had severe restrictions on the practice of gynecology and the performance of abortions unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurrence, joining the liberals. Roberts noted that in 2016 the S. Ct. held a similar law unconstitutional. That law was enacted in Texas. He noted that he was in the minority in that case, but, based on the doctrine of Stare Decisis, he joined the majority here, saying that the law does not permit going back and forth as to what is constitutional based on who appointed the justices. Stare Decisis, he said, has meaning.
Justice Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, who said during their hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee that they believed in stare decisis, voted to overturn the 2016 S. Ct. case.
So, one must conclude either:
1) Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, or
2) Despite their Catholic school and law school educations, they don’t understand Latin.
W’s finest achievement in office might have been getting Roberts on the court. Brilliant jurist, almost entirely dispassionate. Thank god he is young. Will be influencing the court’s rulings for many years to come.
I had some hope for Kavannagh. That is pretty much gone.
Roberts is young. He’s only 65.
@irwin posted:Today the S. Ct. reversed an appellate opinion. The S. Ct. held a Louisiana law which had severe restrictions on the practice of gynecology and the performance of abortions unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurrence, joining the liberals. Roberts noted that in 2016 the S. Ct. held a similar law unconstitutional. That law was enacted in Texas. He noted that he was in the minority in that case, but, based on the doctrine of Stare Decisis, he joined the majority here, saying that the law does not permit going back and forth as to what is constitutional based on who appointed the justices. Stare Decisis, he said, has meaning.
Justice Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, who said during their hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee that they believed in stare decisis, voted to overturn the 2016 S. Ct. case.
So, one must conclude either:
1) Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, or
2) Despite their Catholic school and law school educations, they don’t understand Latin.
3) how can stare decisis apply if the precedent ruling was incorrect in the first place? =)
imagine if Korematsu v. United States was still deemed valid.
Of course, cases can be overturned. When an issue is decided it can be changed but only if the change is warranted due to changes circumstances and upon great consideration.
The classic example is that Plessy v Ferguson (1896) said that “separate but equal” was permissible while “Brown v Board of Education (1954) said it was not. A complete reversal. But many years occurred between the cases and Brown was a unanimous decision.
For the court to flip the law after only 4 years, and go from a 5-4 decision to a 5-4 decision the other way would be political, not because of a true change in external circumstances.
Korematsu (1944) was as odious a decision as the Court has issued in the last 100 years, and Chief Justice Roberts said in an opinion a few years ago that it has been explicitly repudiated. The dissent in Korematsu said that the treatment of Japanese citizens "falls into the ugly abyss of racism" and resembled "the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy."
@csm posted:I had some hope for Kavannagh.
After the whining he did and the barely veiled threats of revenge?
@The Old Man posted:
No, based on his judicial record and several of the decisions I've read. I don't have the first clue what you're talking about.
@csm posted:
No, based on his judicial record and several of the decisions I've read. I don't have the first clue what you're talking about.
"What goes around comes around"
Sure sounds like a loosely veiled threat. But you still also don't accept that Trump has difficulty calling out white nationalists and racists in general (actually anyone who likes him no matter how despicable they are okey dokey with him.) As a few of us have said--if at this point you don't know the president is a racist and a bigot it must be because you're one yourself. You do know that he's a racist and a bigot don't you?
I don’t know why I bother with you. You are the king of the logically fallacy.
I’m not talking about Trump. Never said a word about him here. I never said that Trump has an issue calling out racists and white nationalists. Never once in this context or in any context.
As usual you play fast and lose with people actually said, both Kavannagh and me. What Kavannagh said is that the concerted, intense and politically-motivated campaign to deny him the confirmation to the Supreme Court, would come back to harm the Dems politically and would come bite them. Especially in light of the political climate of the 2000s. He was not making a threat, thinly veiled or otherwise, to exact retribution on his enemies from the bench.
And if you think I’m a racist, say it. And prove it. Don’t pussyfoot around the issue. Get a spine and say it. The passive aggressive implications are weak.
@csm posted:I don’t know why I bother with you. You are the king of the logically fallacy.
I’m not talking about Trump. Never said a word about him here. I never said that Trump has an issue calling out racists and white nationalists. Never once in this context or in any context.
As usual you play fast and lose with people actually said, both Kavannagh and me. What Kavannagh said is that the concerted, intense and politically-motivated campaign to deny him the confirmation to the Supreme Court, would come back to harm the Dems politically and would come bite them. Especially in light of the political climate of the 2000s. He was not making a threat, thinly veiled or otherwise, to exact retribution on his enemies from the bench.
And if you think I’m a racist, say it. And prove it. Don’t pussyfoot around the issue. Get a spine and say it. The passive aggressive implications are weak.
Re: Kavanaugh, since he clearly lied when asked in his confirmation hearing about abortion and respecting current law, I don't think there will be any political backlash for those that opposed his confirmation. Let's not forget the clown show he himself put on, with his whining, BS excuses, and fake indignation.
@csm posted:I’m not talking about Trump. Never said a word about him here. I never said that Trump has an issue calling out racists and white nationalists. Never once in this context or in any context.
--"He never once said the Nazi pigs there were fine people. There is nothing to excuse." We already went around on this. If you're marching with Nazis you're not a good person.--
As usual you play fast and lose with people actually said, both Kavannagh and me. What Kavannagh said is that the concerted, intense and politically-motivated campaign to deny him the confirmation to the Supreme Court, would come back to harm the Dems politically and would come bite them. Especially in light of the political climate of the 2000s. He was not making a threat, thinly veiled or otherwise, to exact retribution on his enemies from the bench.
--He bizarrely talked about it being, "Revenge on behalf of the Clintons." Talk about being unhinged, and then made a clear threat as I quoted and you can watch. I'm quoting, you're prevaricating.--
And if you think I’m a racist, say it. And prove it. Don’t pussyfoot around the issue. Get a spine and say it. The passive aggressive implications are weak.
I do not know you and I do not know if you are a racist so therefore I wouldn't call you one. However I absolutely believe if a person does not see the president for what he is, a racist and a bigot, then they must be a racist and a bigot themselves. Only you can answer that.
Does the same go for admiring the work of directors who force themselves on 13 year old girls?
@billhike posted:Does the same go for admiring the work of directors who force themselves on 13 year old girls?
Alright Grover. I've addressed that issue before. However I'm sure you don't believe that a movie director is as powerful, or as important, as the President of the United States. I'm sure you don't believe that my enjoying the movie "Chinatown" is more harmful than the damage the supporters of our racist, sexist and bigoted president is doing to our country. In addition I acknowledge the wrongs that Roman Polanski did, while you know the defenders and enablers of the demagogue in the White House would never do anything close to that.
I’m just curious if you held yourself to the same standards as others on the forum you pose questions to.
@billhike posted:I’m just curious if you held yourself to the same standards as others on the forum you pose questions to.
I hope I answered your question even if it was a classic example of false equivalence. ie, I do see, and do not deny, that he raped a minor ( I do not sugarcoat it as "forced himself.") I do not admire him as a person nor defend his transgressions. You see the difference, right?
@patespo1 posted:Re: Kavanaugh, since he clearly lied when asked in his confirmation hearing about abortion and respecting current law, I don't think there will be any political backlash for those that opposed his confirmation. Let's not forget the clown show he himself put on, with his whining, BS excuses, and fake indignation.
Nor do I. I was merely explaining the point he was making. It wasn’t a threat to exact revenge.
And may I point out again that I had hope for Kavannagh that he was cut at least somewhat from Roberts’ cloth and could render decisions based solely on the law. That hope now is gone.
@The Old Man posted:I do not know you and I do not know if you are a racist so therefore I wouldn't call you one. However I absolutely believe if a person does not see the president for what he is, a racist and a bigot, then they must be a racist and a bigot themselves. Only you can answer that.
You’re quoting one sentence of a 4+ paragraph commentary from Kavannagh because it suits your preconceived notions. And no you didn’t call me racist. You just passive aggressively imply it. Facts and logical thinking are not your strong suit are they?
All I said about Trump’s comments regarding Charlottesville was that after listening to the whole speech and reading his exact comments I didn’t think that he actually called the neo Nazis that were there fine people. That’s it; however, you again engaged in logical fallacies though to attribute to me a comment I didn’t actually make to suit your reality. Stick to the facts. And the truth. If you’re able. I’m honestly not sure that you are.
@csm posted:You’re quoting one sentence of a 4+ paragraph commentary from Kavannagh because it suits your preconceived notions.
--Egads, I guess you got me. I only quoted the part which proved my point (and which you didn't refute.) I didn't quote the parts about him drinking beer or anything else because it wasn't on point. Facts just aren't your strong point are they?--
And no you didn’t call me racist. You just passive aggressively imply it.
--BS, perhaps you could stop playing junior psychiatrist and just answer a simple yes or no question and perhaps I'll know what to call you: Is Trump a racist and a bigot? Hint: Kong Flu (I've got about 100 other examples if you have trouble thinking logically on this question.)--
All I said about Trump’s comments regarding Charlottesville was that after listening to the whole speech and reading his exact comments I didn’t think that he actually called the neo Nazis that were there fine people.
--Oy vey, as I said, we've already discussed this. He said there were "fine people on both sides." One side was neo-Nazis flying swastikas and wearing Nazi regalia. Those certainly are not fine people However, If you were a person with a good cause and you went to a parade and found that you were marching with White Supremacists chanting, "Jews will not replace us" and you continued to march, no, I don't think you're a fine person either.--
...you again engaged in logical fallacies...
I don't think you know what the phrase "logical fallacies" means. Perhaps you can give me an actual example of one I used as opposed to just claiming I did. Be specific, is it a "strawman" or "argument from authority" or "Tu quoque" or what? Hey, even a good old non sequitur.
weird how some folks did an about face about wearing masks... 100,000 cases too late ...
TOM your quote proved nothing. Other than you lack the intellectual capacity to focus for 4-5 paragraphs and reach your own conclusions. You simply parrot back the conclusions of some people that have a shorter attention span than you.
I’m not going to parse the Charlottesville speech. Anyone that wants to can look at it and reach their own conclusions and I suspect they will reach the same ones I did. The one sentence needs context to be considered properly. You lack the attention span to spend 3 minutesreaching your own conclusions. I never said the neo-nazis POSs that were there were fine people. Nor did the president. My entire extended family is Jewish. I know you are intellectually limited, but do you honestly think a man that chooses to marry into a Jewish family would have anything positive to say about a neo-Nazi? Or someone that supported neo-Nazis? Honestly?
As for Trump, now that you have grown the stones to ask, I don’t know the man, but I think there is overwhelming evidence thar he is bigoted, prejudiced and racist. If I was allowed to vote in the coming election, I wouldn’t. Because Trump is a POS and because Biden is an old fool, well past his prime. Assuming he had one. I would hold my nose and hope for better candidates to emerge in 2024.
I know full well what logical fallacies means. You have engaged in ad popularum, ad hominem, red herring and straw man in “debating” me. Entirely unsuccessfully.
You are not worth my time. You’re too stupid and too prejudiced.
I just found out Trump does read but wants intelligence reports verbally told to him.
"I know you are intellectually limited, but do you honestly think a man that chooses to marry into a Jewish family would have anything positive to say about a neo-Nazi? Or someone that supported neo-Nazis? Honestly?"
I believe Trump supports white supremacists and white nationalists, at the least it's hard for him to speak ill of them, which is just as despicable. This lack of character, and his constant attempts to pit white America against Black, are aspects of the bigotry and racism that you agree he has. So if you supported him, which now I guess you say you don't (which frankly I don't understand. I thought you were in the NC and TT mode of Trump can do no wrong, so I don't understand why you tried baiting me--I should have the "stones "-- to call you a racist. As I said I don't know you and you've now answered the question I was asking) then the answer to your question above would be possibly. Marrying a Jew does not magically inoculate someone from being an anti-Semite (no Bill, I'm not calling him an anti-Semite! I'm just making the point.) HP Lovecraft, whose stories are going to be dramatized on HBO, was a virulent racist and anti-Semite whose wife was Jewish (yes Bill, I'm still going to watch it.)
You talk about ad hominem attacks, and yes I did call you a junior psychiatrist when you were playing, well--junior psychiatrist. However there are ten such personals attacks alone in just your one most recent post. Talk about your pot and your respective kettle.
I'm sorry you cannot vote, but I'm I am glad to be one of the vast majority of Jews, and the vast majority of Americans, who see right through this fraud, charlatan and dangerous menace to our democracy.
You may finish out this discussion out with more ad hominem attacks since that appears to be all you have.
"The president does read and he also consumes intelligence verbally ."
"Nothing hammers home the WH talking point that Joe Biden is old and confused quite like insisting that their guy knows how to read."
"The only way Trump would consume intelligence is if his staff told him it was Häagen-Dazs."
The ever lying POS in the Oval Office just said he thinks he looks good in a mask. Said he looks like the Lone Ranger. Why am I not surprised the fool is wearing his mask like sunglasses, just like the Lone Ranger? 🤣😂😅
@csm posted:TOM your quote proved nothing. Other than you lack the intellectual capacity to focus for 4-5 paragraphs and reach your own conclusions. You simply parrot back the conclusions of some people that have a shorter attention span than you.
I’m not going to parse the Charlottesville speech. Anyone that wants to can look at it and reach their own conclusions and I suspect they will reach the same ones I did. The one sentence needs context to be considered properly. You lack the attention span to spend 3 minutesreaching your own conclusions. I never said the neo-nazis POSs that were there were fine people. Nor did the president. My entire extended family is Jewish. I know you are intellectually limited, but do you honestly think a man that chooses to marry into a Jewish family would have anything positive to say about a neo-Nazi? Or someone that supported neo-Nazis? Honestly?As for Trump, now that you have grown the stones to ask, I don’t know the man, but I think there is overwhelming evidence thar he is bigoted, prejudiced and racist. If I was allowed to vote in the coming election, I wouldn’t. Because Trump is a POS and because Biden is an old fool, well past his prime. Assuming he had one. I would hold my nose and hope for better candidates to emerge in 2024.
I know full well what logical fallacies means. You have engaged in ad popularum, ad hominem, red herring and straw man in “debating” me. Entirely unsuccessfully.
You are not worth my time. You’re too stupid and too prejudiced.
If one is a POS racist and one is an old fool, I will gladly vote for the old fool. 😎
At least the old fool can place competent people in serious positions, listen to his own intelligence community, not think COVID will just go away on its own and potentially not view everything through the lens of how it benefits oneself only, and... 😉
racist old fool you mean.
yes I'd rather vote for an old fool vs a racist unintelligent old fool
speaking of, looks like he's trying to buy votes on behalf of tax paying americans. what's another 3 trillion to our overall deficit right? it's not like Trump bankrupted his 5 previous companies using the same strategy.
@g-man posted:racist old fool you mean.
yes I'd rather vote for an old fool vs a racist unintelligent old fool
speaking of, looks like he's trying to buy votes on behalf of tax paying americans. what's another 3 trillion to our overall deficit right? it's not like Trump bankrupted his 5 previous companies using the same strategy.
You forgot to mention that all stockholders and bondholders other than DJT were totally and royally scr***d
Wish the orange man would wear a mask. Tightly over mouth so we don't have to hear his lies. Then wear hockey gloves so he can't Twitter. The only way to present data to him is in a cartoon, aimed at a 3 year old intellect. Then vote him out in November
That's an awesome looking pie!
@Rothko posted:That's an awesome looking pie!
+1
I want the first slice. Half of whatever dark berry that is and half cherry... if you please.
PH
