Joe Biden To Announce He Will Nominate Michelle Obama To The Supreme Court ?

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  john-russell  •  one month ago  •  249 comments

Joe Biden To Announce He Will Nominate Michelle Obama To The Supreme Court ?
By Biden announcing he will nominate her in 2021 he would electrify Democratic turnout for the Nov 3 election and steal all the GOP thunder. 

Joe Biden To Announce He Will Nominate Michelle Obama To The Supreme Court

This is neither satire or fantasy, but rather speculation. 

Michele Obama is by some accounts the most popular public figure in America.  She is a lawyer, and has a legal mind, even though that is not a requirement for nomination to the Court. 

By Biden announcing he will nominate her in 2021 he would electrify Democratic turnout for the Nov 3 election and steal all the GOP thunder. 

You want "nuclear" ? , this would be it. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    one month ago

800

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

What a bunch of BS. First, it is highly doubtful that former First Lady Michelle Obama would in any way want to be on the SCOTUS.

Second, to face the kind of insulting and denigrating comments and accusations from the GOP about her appearance and made up lies by Trump and his toilet paper supporters would shame out country in front of the world, and Trump would love it. He cares nothing about America or its people, just his own personal agenda and self importance as he sees it.

Third, why would Mrs Obama want to give up her freedom to live as she wants. To be able to work for the American people of all walks of life to live a better life.

This stupid concept makes no sense at all, and is just one more way for the Trump lovers to try to not only debase her and Biden, when there is no basis for such a thought on either Mrs. Obama's or Bidens' end.

Just more and more BS to confuse and confuse the American people at this point. It is a shame that all these idiots out there willing to be Trumps toilet paper and wipe his ass are too stupid to think of those Trump has already tossed under the bus when he no longer needs or wants them. Do they really think they are that important to him? They will have a rude awakening when they find themselves on the outside looking in at Trump flipping them the bird.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
1.1.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1    one month ago

It does seem ridiculous but it is what Biden said. I’m glad it will be Trump making the decision and not Biden. His court picks will be a valuable and important part of his legacy even if he doesn’t win re-election. There’s no guarantee he will win so it is important to me that he gets it done now. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1    one month ago

The article is somewhat tongue in cheek, however, were Michelle Obama to be open to the idea I think Biden would be wise to consider it. An announcement that Michelle Obama would be on the Supreme Court would win the election for Biden. That is not a small thing. 

You have to fight fire with fire, and such an announcement would suck a lot of the oxygen out of Trump.  Or should we fret and fume while Trump has another 1460 days to further ruin our country ? 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.3  gooseisgone  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1    one month ago
Second, to face the kind of insulting and denigrating comments and accusations from the GOP about her appearance and made up lies

"Hello pot, meet kettle"

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.4  Raven Wing  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.3    one month ago
"Hello pot, meet kettle"

Your BS stands high. She already went through an endless amount of totally humiliating attacks from her First Lady tenure from the Repubs. But, if the Dems give it back on Melania it's totally unacceptable?

Double standard much maybe?

However.....any such kind of dirty and disgusting comments aimed by either party against the wives of  Presidential candidates is totally unacceptable, and nothing more than expressed hatred of anything that does not meet the view of either side.

IMHO, there is no word filthy or disgusting enough to describe such actions. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.5  gooseisgone  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.4    one month ago
"Hello pot, meet kettle"

This went right over your head..........we are talking about the SUPREME COURT not President's wives. 

Maybe take a breath and look at what the Democrats did to Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork and Brett Kavanaugh then maybe you'll have a clue.  

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.6  Raven Wing  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.5    one month ago
we are talking about the SUPREME COURT not President's wives. 

Really? Then why was Mrs. Obama brought into the conversation as a possible nomination by Biden for the SCOTUS and then your snarky retort?

You can try to pass the buck all you want, but, your true meaning is more than obvious so your excuse fails.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.6    one month ago

Is Mrs. Obama actually qualified to sit on SCOTUS? Is her law license still current? I don't think she's ever served on any court.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.8  Raven Wing  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.7    one month ago
Is Mrs. Obama actually qualified to sit on SCOTUS?

Even is she met all the requirements, which I am not sure of at this point, for her to tie herself to such an obligation at this point in her life would likely not be her choice. There are far more ways to give back to your country than committing the rest of ones life to such an institution. There is no one size fits all career choices. She still has a lot to contribute in many important areas of our country's needs where she is more suited.

I could be very wrong, but, that is my opinion at this point. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.9  gooseisgone  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.6    one month ago
Then why was Mrs. Obama brought into the conversation as a possible nomination

I never brought Obama into the conversation, you did. My comment was in response to you posting "face the kind of insulting and denigrating comments and accusations" which is what happened to the Republican nominees that I referenced to the Supreme Court, but obviously you can't see your own hypocrisy of your comment. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.6    one month ago
Really? Then why was Mrs. Obama brought into the conversation as a possible nomination by Biden for the SCOTUS

A fantasy of the author of the seeded article. A giant what-if scenario that in all likelihood will never happen. Kind of like when some suggested that the Democratic nominee for Vice President be her, too.

Personally, nothing against Mrs. Obama, I prefer my Justices with at least some judicial experience.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.8    one month ago

There are no Constitutional requirements to be a member of SCOTUS.

Under the Constitution, Mrs. Obama qualifies if nominated and confirmed.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.12  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.7    one month ago

A supreme court justice does not even have to be a lawyer according to the constitution. I think. It could be John Q. Public. That being said, a "JQP" would have a hell of a time getting senate advise and consent. Emphasis on the latter.  It is customary to try to find high caliber professionals in any endeavor, nevertheless. Unless you are a narcissist who sees a "self-image" and "mini-mees."

 
 
 
CB
1.1.13  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    one month ago

And there is that preference for a great amount of experience in oppressing liberals, secularists, independents, and others! There, I enhanced it.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @1.1.12    one month ago

Well, that is something I didn't know and my dad didn't know. I once told my dad I wanted to be a Supreme Court Judge when I grew up (I had just lost an argument at the age of 5 with him) and he said I had to be a lawyer.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.13    one month ago

there, you posted some wild fantasy, its all cool..i know it just can't be helped

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    one month ago

do you think most people prefer Justices for our highest court to be completely inexperienced?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

384

We'll wait.

 
 
 
arkpdx
2  arkpdx    one month ago

Hmm you know that becoming a Supreme Court Justice is not a popularity contest and one must be highly qualified for the job. She is definitely not qualified

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  arkpdx @2    one month ago

She is more qualified to be on the Supreme Court than Trump is to be president of the United States, that is for sure. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
2.1.1  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    one month ago

Only in your dreams. Be prepared. You will be having those same dreams for the next 4 years. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.1    one month ago

Such comments are a good illustration of why the Republics are ruining this country.  Trump is utterly unfit for office, any office. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
2.1.3  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    one month ago

See 2.1.1

 
 
 
MAGA
2.1.4  MAGA  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.3    one month ago

The other problem is that even if Biden were to be elected he won’t have that seat to fill.  If it’s not filled before the election, it certainly will be during the November/December lame duck sessions if Biden wins.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.5  author  JohnRussell  replied to  MAGA @2.1.4    one month ago
 If it’s not filled before the election, it certainly will be during the November/December lame duck sessions if Biden wins.  

If Republicans have a death wish as a party they could try something like that. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  MAGA @2.1.4    one month ago

hey, hey.

No need to introduce the facts.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.7  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.6    one month ago
No need to introduce the facts.

Hilarious. 

 If it’s not filled before the election, it certainly will be during the November/December lame duck sessions if Biden wins.  

is not a fact. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    one month ago

Trump only wants one of his toadies who will help overturn Roe vs Wade.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.1.9  Thrawn 31  replied to  MAGA @2.1.4    one month ago

Hey hey, there is nothing written anywhere that says there have to be 9 justices. Biden and the Democrats can always up the number to whatever they want and go from there. And I would encourage them to do so. 

After the GOPs bullshit in 2016, if they nominate and elect a justice now then fuck it, play as dirty as the GOP and just jump the justice count to 12 and get your majority. The system is already broken. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.1.9    one month ago
den and the Democrats can always up the number to whatever they want and go from there. A

And then in 4 years or 8 years, Republicans will double that number.. 

LEt's hope, should Biden win, Democrats have the courage to stand up to Biden like they did the power mad Roosevelt.  Destroying the legitimacy of the Court would mark Biden as the worst of Presidents. Hopefully he's still sentient enough to care about those things. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.1.11  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.10    one month ago
And then in 4 years or 8 years, Republicans will double that number..

Yep, we are fucked.

LEt's hope, should Biden win, Democrats have the courage to stand up to Biden like they did the power mad Roosevelt. 

Nah fuck that. If the GOP installs a new justice before January then all bets are off. The system has completely broken down and there is no longer ANY trust.

Destroying the legitimacy of the Court

It is already fragile, but if Mcconnell does what he said on Friday, it is destroyed. 

Hopefully he's still sentient enough to care about those things.

He does it seems, but the GOP and Trump absolutely do not. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    one month ago

To respond to your idea:

A) I don't think the Biden campaign wants to release the names on a "Biden Court list."

B) The reason they don't want the public to know those listed is because those listed are ideologically closer to Bill Ayers than Michelle Obama. (though that's not so far)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.13  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.12    one month ago

Biden should hold a rally and announce he is nominating Michelle Obama to the Supreme Court.

I think it would win the election for him. 

He has already said that he is likely to nominate a black woman as his first SC pick. 

 
 
 
bccrane
2.1.14  bccrane  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.13    one month ago

If Biden picks Michelle as SC justice then who is left for Harris to pick for VP in 2021?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.13    one month ago

Don't you think he should ask Michelle Obama first?  I'm fairly certain she wouldn't want it.

I'm not sure Joe is making such decisions anyway.


He has already said that he is likely to nominate a black woman as his first SC pick. 

We shall see. The President has promised a woman would be his next choice. Barbara Lagoa  might be perfect delivering Florida to the Trump column!  Even if it is a woman, I expect the dems & the media to savage whoever it is, thus risking whatever edge they may have in the polls. You see, John, rational Americans are repulsed by that sort of stuff.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.16  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.15    one month ago

If Trump was rational, he wouldnt lie 20 times a day. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.16    one month ago

Sorry, John, I don't see it.  I do remember those who lied about him being a "Russian agent", just like I'm observing all those who are noting the prior positions of the Senate on election year nominations by only citing Republicans opposing the idea and not all of the Democrats who demanded it

 
 
 
CB
2.1.18  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.15    one month ago
I'm not sure Joe is making such decisions anyway.

No let it disturb you. There are quite a number of things you're not sure of these days regarding this republic and republicans": "Take me to your Leader!"

 
 
 
CB
2.1.19  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.16    one month ago

He has some gall mentioning reason an Donald in the same sentence as related. Trump supporters wanted Donald simply because he was a wild, chaotic businessman.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.19    one month ago
He has some gall mentioning reason an Donald in the same sentence as related. Trump supporters wanted Donald simply because he was a wild, chaotic businessman.

And how many, if any at all, Trump supporters have told you that?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.21  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.1.18    one month ago

LOL, I'm sure the dems are gonna screw it up in 45 days!

 
 
 
CB
2.1.22  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.20    one month ago

Well y'all don't address much straightforward often, not a slight - simply fact, so I read about it in conservative news articles, and main-stream conservative book materials. Don't feel compelled to carry on a meaningless thread about it, nevertheless.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.23  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.21    one month ago

Okay, then with that level of confidence you can go on your way in relative comfort.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.24  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.15    one month ago
I'm fairly certain she wouldn't want it

yepp, that position requires a little thing called.....    work

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.25  Vic Eldred  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.24    one month ago

I happen to believe that Michelle Obama has had her belly full of living in the spotlight. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.22    one month ago
Well y'all don't address much straightforward often, not a slight - simply fact, so I read about it in conservative news articles, and main-stream conservative book materials.

Okay then, give me just two quotes from the sources you claim to have seen it in. That will work just fine since you have no interpersonal sources.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.27  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.26    one month ago

Actually, . . . I rather let you struggle to get it like I did in researching and reading for myself. And, I'm A-Okay with you berating me for not sharing with you. (Chuckles.)  This is fun for me at some 'sub' -level.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.27    one month ago
Actually, . . . I rather let you struggle to get it like I did in researching and reading for myself. And, I'm A-Okay with you berating me for not sharing with you.

Not a problem for me. Either you actually have the info and can share it, or you don't have it.

(Guffaw)

No berating, just an honest attempt to further the discussion, as you are fond of saying. Funny thing--discussions are supposed to be an exchange of information, and since you don't want or can not exchange it, I'm fine with it.

This is fun for me at some 'sub' -level.

Some folks are more easily entertained than others, it is true.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.29  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.28    one month ago

I just find it a weird curiosity that you don't know as much as you tirelessly work to defend about Donald. The level of dedication to keeping the focus off of him by his surrogates is astonishing. Having said that may be that is part of the problem, NT Trump surrogates could be blind to Trump press that is not over-glowing. Anyhoo, google something like, "Trump supporters love tough guy Donald."  See what kind of news articles populate the "Googler."

(Chuckles.)

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.29    one month ago

Nice deflection.

Amazing how someone who isn't a Republican, never has been one, and most likely never will be one professes to know so much about the party, cites knowledge gleaned from "conservative news articles" and "mainstream conservative book materials" and can suddenly not name a single article or even book or newspaper or magazine he read it in.

What is your next deflection, because I can see it coming.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.31  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.30    one month ago

So you can "see" me asking you if you have "the Googler"?! Stellar! So what did you find. . . . Report back!

I voted for Ronald Reagan. And, George W. Bush (the first time to spite Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinski fiasco. It was a military 'thing' for me.) So you don't know what the heaven you let yourself get high and mighty about. As for reading conservative books, as Joanie Mitchell's song goes, "...I've looked at life from both sides now. . . ." And I don't need your permission to do it.

Moreover, I was a 'fan' of Fox News in its inception decade - when all the new cable channels were 'jockeying' for eyeballs and asses. I used to hate Hannity's "insanity" and agree with Colmes  (Hannity & Colmes) during the second gulf war. Even "hung out" with Alan Keyes, the 'ugly sweaters' guy, on his brief run with MSNBC up until he told a caller or a questioner that Muslims overseas/jihadis should be sent to God for "judgement" (meaning dead) or words thereabouts.

hen, there was 'bad' old Michael Savage on MSNBC who got so angry at a caller that he told him to, . . . well listen for yourself:

The Call That Got Michael Savage Fired

Yeah, memories! So that happened and I was watching Savage Nation on MSNBC in real-time as part of my routine. Therefore, Texan, you don't know a damn thing about me and my car radio with Christian-Right 'talk radio,' Clear Channel conservatives 'on the dial,' or Rush Limbaugh.

Oh, and once upon an expansive period of time, Bill O'Reilly was 'appointment tv' when the phrase itself was current. And who can forget "Conservative Hq" and Richard Viguerie's book, "Takeover" (which appears to be the playbook in the 'Trumpistsphere.'

"I do research."

 
 
 
CB
2.1.32  CB   replied to  CB @2.1.31    one month ago

Incidentally, got a 'mailer' from The Family Research Council 2020 campaign for Trump. Several pages of ad hoinen attacks on liberals; from a organization expressing family 'values' while denigrating a whole segment of the population, and of course begging for "Christian" funding, and 2020 Trump campaign funding.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.31    one month ago
I voted for Ronald Reagan. And, George W. Bush (the first time to spite Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinski fiasco. It was a military 'thing' for me.) So you don't know what the heaven you let yourself get high and mighty about.

Voting for a Republican doesn't make you a Republican. You admitted as much when you said you voted for Bush basically as a FU to Clinton.

And I don't need your permission to do it.

You digress. My "permission" wasn't mentioned by me, and I have never told you what you could not read. Don't twist it .

Moreover, I was a 'fan' of Fox News in its inception decade - when all the new cable channels were 'jockeying' for eyeballs and asses. You to hate Hannity's "insanity" and agree with Colmes during the second gulf war. Even "hung out" with Alan Keyes on his brief run with MSNBC until he told a caller or a questioner that Muslims should be sent to God for "judgement" (meaning dead) or thereabouts. Then there was 'bad' old Michael Savage on MSNBC who got so angry at a caller that he told him to, . . . well listen for yourself:

None of that makes you a Republican, either. Republicans were considered conservative back when Reagan ran, and you always talk crap about conservatives and are reminding people what a proud liberal you are. Not something a real Republican would do. The Republican Party has stood for all the things you profess to hate for decades. And it is laughable to even think you were a Republican. That would be like you thinking I am a Democrat. Lunacy!

Oh, and once upon an expansive period of time, Bill O'Reilly was 'appointment tv' when the phrase itself was current

And I watch Rachel Maddow and some of those talking heads on CNN occasionally. Doesn't make me one of them I watch for sheer entertainment value, and perhaps you did or do the same with listening to conservative media.

You managed to cite many conservative media sources there---which one told you that Trump supporters wanted Donald simply because he was a wild, chaotic businessman. Just a source name and I will do the legwork to find the quotes for you.

thanks.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.34  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.33    one month ago
You managed to cite many conservative media sources there---which one told you that Trump supporters wanted Donald simply because he was a wild, chaotic businessman. Just a source name and I will do the legwork to find the quotes for you

I don't want to. So now what? I will give you a 'leg' and you bring me the name(s). How about that? Oh, maxresdefault.jpg .

I don't have to please you to be a republican and a liberal, both. Or Independent. I ain't loyal to no party. I choose to cast my vote as I choose after hearing people out! 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.32    one month ago
Incidentally, got a 'mailer' from The Family Research Council 2020 campaign for Trump. Several pages of ad hoinen attacks on liberals; from a organization expressing family 'values' while denigrating a whole segment of the population, and of course begging for "Christian" funding, and 2020 Trump campaign funding.

You should request to be taken off their mailing list, or do what I do---throw all political crap in the garbage without looking at anything other than who it was from. I delete any text messages or voice mails and emails I get, too, from any politicians.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.34    one month ago
I don't want to. So now what? I will give you a 'leg' and you bring me the name(s). How about that? Oh

Ok, don't. I had already figured proof of your claim was nonexistent anyways.

I don't have to please you to be a republican and a liberal, both. Or Independent. I ain't loyal to no party. I choose to cast my vote as I choose after hearing people out! 

Well, that is great! You claimed I knew nothing about you, and now we can conclusively say that I DO know something about you: you are not a Republican.

Have a good night!

 
 
 
CB
2.1.37  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.35    one month ago

It was not to me, it was to a family member who found it 'curious' to say the least and handed it over. But, I know all about Ralph and Tony and "Christian Teaching Ministries" - I was conservative-leaning and 'curious, until they ran me away with their stupidity. Not all conservatives can go the distance some are willing to extend themselves to reach out beyond. After all, for the sake of Donald, y'all shit-canned mainline conservatives and did the dirty 'do.'

Yeah, I was listening in on Rushbo - 'tha God' when the newly elected Obama and Michelle were in France thereabouts and "the beast" (the presidential car) got stuck on a road "bump" riser and Rush mocked the first lady for having a rather large (nuanced: black) behind which 'stuck' the beast on a traffic riser. (He yucked it up that morning on his show.)

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.38  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.37    one month ago
But, I know all about Ralph and Tony and "Christian Teaching Ministries" - I was conservative-leaning and 'curious, until they ran me away with theirstupidity. Not all conservatives can go the distance some are willing to extend themselves to reach out beyond. After all, for the sake of Donald, y'all shit-canned mainline conservatives and did the dirty 'do.'

Maybe you should consider the possibility that conservatives have extended themselves and reached out beyond and still do not think as you do. Just consider the idea.

Your last sentence reeks of sheer hatred.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.39  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.36    one month ago

This was funny. And sad. And I don't need you to validate me. Good night? Ditto!

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.37    one month ago
Yeah, I was listening in on Rushbo - 'tha God' when the newly elected Obama and Michelle were in France thereabouts and "the beast" (the presidential car) got stuck on a road "bump" riser and Rush mocked the first lady for having a rather large (nuanced: black) behind which 'stuck' the beast on a traffic riser. (He yucked it up that morning on his show.)

I was never a Limbaugh fan. Might have heard parts of his show and I remember seeing him on tv a couple of times.

It appears he upset you, I hope you don't still listen to him.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.39    one month ago
This was funny. And sad.

Good to know I have at least two bases covered!

And I don't need you to validate me.

Whew, that's a relief.

Good thing, too, because I am not in the business of validating others.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.42  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.38    one month ago
Your last sentence reeks of sheer hatred.

Yeah, criticize me and give El Rushbo his 'privilege' card to carry-on! You didn't even bother to consider or ask me how it felt to listen to a white man on the airways and ships overseas mock a black woman about her "behind" stopping a motorcade in Europe. Shoot the messenger and let the white privilege recipient with 'jokes' run scotch-free!

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.43  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.42    one month ago
Yeah, criticize me and give El Rushbo his 'privilege' card to carry-on! 

I made no criticism of you. Don't twist it. And what are you talking about me giving Rush something????? I told you, I am not a Limbaugh fan. I am not responsible for what he says! Why on earth are trying to hold ME responsible for someone else's actions or words?

You didn't even bother to consider or ask me how it felt to listen to a white man on the airways and ships overseas mock a black woman about her "behind" stopping a motorcade in Europe.

So you are mad because you feel as though I am not empathic enough for you? Well, excuse me. Besides, i didn't make you listen to it--you did that on your own volition. How dare you try to hold me accountable for your actions. I don't condone what Limbaugh says--heck, I told you, I don't listen to him. Tell the truth, I don't have a clue about what he says unless someone quotes him when trying to put his words into my mouth.

Shoot the messenger and let the white privilege recipient with 'jokes' run scotch-free!

I'm sorry, I am at a loss for words. What do you mean? Can you rephrase that?

 
 
 
CB
2.1.44  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.40    one month ago

I don't need or am I inclined to listen to El Rushbo nearly as much now (he is sick, yes?) There are so many (conservative) books to get through - Whew! Just finished up, "Everything Trump Touches Dies"  by Rick Wilson. Next up: Mary Trump; John Bolton, Peter Strzok, - wowsers! So many in my book club listing!

Piece of video for ya! Ths was the incident for which Rush L., remarked on Michelle Obama's, another man's wife, butt on the public airways:

Obama's ''Beast'' Cadillac Limo stuck on ramp/speed bump

 
 
 
CB
2.1.45  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.43    one month ago

You're get it later. Let's get back to the subject, please - or 'bust.'

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.44    one month ago
I don't need or am I inclined to listen to El Rushbo nearly as much now (he is sick, yes?)

I do not like Limbaugh. i do not listen to Limbaugh. i don't have any idea what Limbaugh says until someone tells me.

There are so many (conservative) books to get through - Whew! Just finished up,"Everything Trump Touches Dies" by Rick Wilson. Next up: Mary Trump; John Bolton, Peter Strzok, - wowsers! So many in my book club listing!

Sounds like you'll be busy reading for a while.

Piece of video for ya! Ths was the incident for which Rush L., remarked on Michelle Obama's, another man's wife,button the public airways:

Piece of video for ya! Ths was the incident for which Rush L., remarked on Michelle Obama's, another man's wife, butt on the public airways:

I do not like Limbaugh. i do not listen to Limbaugh. i don't have any idea what Limbaugh says until someone tells me. I don't care what Limbaugh says. Limbaugh does not speak for me.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.47  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.45    one month ago
You're get it later. Let's get back to the subject, please - or 'bust.'

If it isn't important enough to explain, I'm okay with not knowing.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.48  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.46    one month ago

I get the sense that you may not be aware of (all) that you defend. But, many on here are simply in denial or soemthing. No matter. I have no reason to suspect you will say less in defense of Donald as a surrogate.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.49  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.48    one month ago
I get the sense that you may not be aware of (all) that you defend. But, many on here are simply in denial or soemthing. No matter. I have no reason to suspect you will say less in defense of Donald as a surrogate.

Now, this is just starting to get comical.

I keep on telling you that I am not Limbaugh fan. I do not like him. I don't know what he says unless someone tells me, and frankly, I don't give a shit what he says. He does not speak for me.

Now, if that truly sounds like me defending him, we have nothing else to say to each other. 
It blows my mind you could read my posts and come to the conclusion that I am defending him in way.

SMH

 
 
 
CB
2.1.50  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.49    one month ago

Okay. Your mind is blown. So now what?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.51  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.50    one month ago

Did you read my post, or just reply when you saw it without reading?

Now, if that truly sounds like me defending him, we have nothing else to say to each other.
 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.52  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.13    one month ago

I thought you have posted that biden will win easily?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  arkpdx @2    one month ago

Lol give me a fucking break. If I talked big enough about Trump he would nominate me.

 
 
 
cjcold
2.2.1  cjcold  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2    one month ago

Actually, you are likely much more qualified for any job than any of Trump's picks.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
2.2.2  Raven Wing  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2    one month ago
If I talked big enough about Trump he would nominate me.

Or supplied him with enough Stormy Daniels and hush money for them he would be sure to nominate you for whatever position you wanted other than his own. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @2    one month ago

None of the turds trumpturd is picking to become a Supreme Court justice are qualified.  Being a trumpturd ass kisser or ****sucker doesn't make you qualified.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
3  Snuffy    one month ago

Michelle Obama petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to have her law license changed to inactive status in 1994. So she has not practiced law in 24 years. For that I would think that she is not qualified to become a Supreme Court Justice.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3    one month ago
There are  no explicit requirements  in the U.S. Constitution for a person to be nominated to become a Supreme Court justice. No age, education, job experience, or citizenship rules exist. In fact, according to the Constitution, a Supreme Court justice does not need to even have a law degree.
original
www.thoughtco.com/what-are-the-requirements-to-become-a-supreme-court-jus
 
 
 
Snuffy
3.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one month ago
A Presidential candidate must be: A natural born citizen (U.S. citizen from birth) At least 35 years old and. A U.S. resident (permanently lives in the U.S.) for at least 14 years. Jul 13, 2020

Presidential Election Process | USAGov

Considering how often you stand up and proclaim that President Trump is not qualified for the office, I'm a little surprised by your reply.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.1    one month ago

Oh let me be perfectly clear, Michelle Obama is far more qualified for any position than Trump is , be it the Supreme Court, the presidency of the United States, or county dogcatcher.  Trump is a known liar, crook, bigot, moron, and cheat, and Michelle Obama isnt any of those things. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    one month ago

Oh I understand you perfectly clear, all you truly care about is partisan politics. You are willing to ignore that Michelle Obama has not practiced law for 24 years so long as she is a card carrying Democrat. I would prefer someone more experienced and qualified (and more recent experience) for such an important post. And unlike our choices for the upcoming presidential election, there are more experienced jurists available to pick from. Now I'm confident you are going to come back with a line about how Trump is not qualified for the office,  in my opinion Biden is not qualified either. So we really don't have a good choice for president.  And we keep getting the same riffraff elected in to Congress, so IMO we should hope for qualified jurists to be put forth for SCOTUS.

We just lost a great jurist from the court, her replacement should be someone highly qualified.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.4  CB   replied to  Snuffy @3.1.1    one month ago

Donald Trump is not treated the way he is, because of what he lacks, per se. It is because of his negative, aggressive, and boorish temperament and exclusions of many of the tnes of millions (of us) he is intended to serve. Humility goes a long way towards making a truly great leader. Donald has little to none of the aforementioned. Sadly, once again fate has blindly stepped in to make it just that much harder to get rid of a true horse's ass before it could be retired to 'pasture.'

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.5  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.3    one month ago

It is precious to watch people who support the most unfit president in American history, without a shred of a doubt, and dont say a peep, but then get all indignant when a Michelle Obama is mentioned for a high position. 

Either by apathy, acquiescence, or enthusiasm you foisted Donald Trump off on us for four years. It's not like it was a secret in 2016 that he was a liar, bully, narcissist, crook, and buffoon , it's that his voters didnt care. 

Michelle Obama would be a far far far better Supreme Court justice than Trump has been a president, that is not even worth discussing. . 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.1.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @3.1.4    one month ago

Part of it does have to do with what he lacks....education, empathy, and taking action regarding the cv.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.1.7  Thrawn 31  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.3    one month ago

Drop the high road horseshit. [Deleted]

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.1.8  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    one month ago

Get all indignant?  Really?  All I said was I would not agree with appointing Michelle Obama to the Supreme Court as in my opinion she does not have sufficient experience for the position. Not very indignant at all. But if believing that is what gets  you thru the day then by all means feel free.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.1.9  Thrawn 31  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.8    one month ago

If Trump nominated a bum off the street you would support it, [deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.8    one month ago

you dared to think that a favorite Democrat wasn't the right pick.

40 lashes and a lecture for you

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.11  bugsy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1.9    one month ago
If Trump nominated a bum off the street you would support it, fuck off.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.1.12  Snuffy  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.10    one month ago

I love how some people think they know what the fuck I'm thinking or what I would do.  All they do is enforce my believe that some people will just blindly support their political party regardless.  I'm losing any hope for this chat site, can't have a discussion with some people.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.13  CB   replied to  Snuffy @3.1.12    one month ago

Y'all are constitutional 'originalist' or not? Speak plainly. This ain't a trick question. Where in the constitution does it say that supreme court justice need court experience or any such thing? Please proceed . . . .

Let's see how fair, balanced, and independent you really are. I expect you won't answer either question. I am prepared to accept spin or your exit from the thread.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.13    one month ago

You might want to reread his post.

he said in HIS opinion.

are people to be censored if you don't like what their opinion is?

he also didn't claim any requirements for SCOTUS

 
 
 
arkpdx
3.1.15  arkpdx  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1.9    one month ago

Don't worry I am pretty sure he won't nominated you. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1.9    one month ago

prove it!

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.1.17  Snuffy  replied to  CB @3.1.13    one month ago
Where in the constitution does it say that supreme court justice need court experience or any such thing?

Where in my comments did I say anything to the effect that the experience is required by the constitution?  I did say,  IN MY OPINION I would rather they have experience.  Clear enough for ya?

Let's see how fair, balanced, and independent you really are.

Did I not in 6 say I would accept take Barrack Obama who has 20 years experience with the law over Michelle Obama?  No spin and about as fair and balanced as I can imagine. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.17    one month ago

perhaps the fair and balanced part is throwing him off

 
 
 
CB
3.1.19  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.14    one month ago
Y'all are constitutional 'originalist' or not?

(Sigh.) Speak plainly please.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.19    one month ago

what possible reason do you have for repeating the question?

the constitution and how it is interpreted has changed through the years.

someone's opinion that Mrs. Obama is not as qualified as others us their opinion. you may feel differently.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.21  CB   replied to  Snuffy @3.1.17    one month ago

Then, we can treat your opinion of Michelle Obama accordingly.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.21    one month ago

Just like we treat your opinions on Trump, conservatives, and white people.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.23  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.20    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.23    one month ago

as usual, I answered YOUR question.

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
3.1.25  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.22    one month ago

Stop resembling my opinions and most of us can live happily ever after. Michelle Obama does not resemble the lies told on her. Nor the misshapen opinions.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.25    one month ago

I have never told a lie on Mrs. Obama. 

I just prefer my SCOTUS Justices to have actually BEEN a judge before becoming one of the most powerful judges in the US.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.25    one month ago

Do you want Justices that have at least been a judge somewhere at some time, or do you prefer ones with no experience at all at being a judge?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.25    one month ago
Stop resembling my opinions

Your opinions are yours and yours alone. No one else is responsible for your opinions.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Snuffy @3    one month ago

Since when does experience mean shit in government? It hasn't for the last 4 years.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.2    one month ago

Last four- where the hell were you for the 16 before that?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.1    one month ago
where the hell were you for the 16 before that?

and the 30 yrs before that?   LOL

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Why not? The Plan is to Pack the court with Democratic soldiers and forgo the whole idea of an independent judiciary.  Putting the most unqualified nominee in decades, if not ever, would fit right in with the plan.   Might as well pick any Democratic hack in the country at random and put them on the court.  Michelle Obama, Sidney Blumenthal, Rachel maddow, it doesn’t matter.   

 The votes will always be the same and the clerks can dress them up in legalese for them.

 
 
 
CB
4.1  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @4    one month ago

We don't care what you think. It is Trump conservatives who are souring and poisoning like in America. This country is in the worse shape it has been in since the 1970's.  (What's Going On? Ecology Song by Marvin Gaye overtones.) Go ahead pick your dirty conservative justice. Put that 'snarling' beast of a true conservative on the court, and we will invent new ways to attack all political appointees to the high court. Necessity is the mother of invention. Expect minds to find new ways of dealing with "ancient" problems and issues.

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  CB @4.1    one month ago

Right, and Democratic backed Brown Shirts "burn it all the fuck down", is so much better.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.2  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.1    one month ago

If you must result to Hitler, don't do it on my comments please.

 
 
 
cjcold
4.1.3  cjcold  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.1    one month ago

The last large group of "brown shirts" I saw marching and carrying torches were far right wing neo-nazis marching in Charlottesville.

Trump said that they were "very fine people". 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @4.1.3    one month ago

why is that lie repeated so often after being debunked?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.5  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.4    one month ago

I think I explained and proved to you before - the Charlottesville march was organized by white supremacists. It wasnt organized by "fine people" . Trump either knew this or should have known it, it was common knowledge at the time. 

There is no excuse for him. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.5    one month ago

no excuse necessary.

if you wish to continue to take his remark out of context even after being shown the whole quote. go ahead.

no skin off me!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.7  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.6    one month ago

I know the whole quote. He says there were good people on both sides.  The problem with that is that one of the sides was organized and led by white supremacists, and the "good people" on that side were few and in the background. 

The Unite The Right rally at Charlottesville Virginia on that day was organized by white supremacists. They got the permit, and they advertised the event. 

Trump knew that, or should have known it before he said anything.  I'm sorry, but this is not debatable. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.7    one month ago

the problem is yours then

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.9  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.8    one month ago

Trump supporters are in large part immune to the truth

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.7    one month ago
They got the permit, and they advertised the event. 

And of the other side of the permit was far left antifa. So by your logic, Trump was also calling antifa good people.

See what happens when you try and twist what the President says?

Obviously the President was referring, as he explained, to those for and against protecting/removing certain statues.

BTW he revived a law that carries a ten year sentence for ripping down a statue.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.9    one month ago

I notice that many here slap on the label of truth to slander. Some of them should know better.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.11    one month ago

The truth isn't slander.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.9    one month ago

wrong again

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.12    one month ago

Let's be specific. What are you calling "the truth?"

 
 
 
Gazoo
4.1.15  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.7    one month ago

“and the "good people" on that side were few and in the background.”

So you admit there were good people on that side. Those are the people trump was talking about, not the white supremacist. You’re making progress, john.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.9    one month ago

still your problem

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.1.17  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.9    one month ago
Trump supporters are in large part immune to the truth

nah, we are just immune to leftwing bs   -    natural immunity   :)

 
 
 
CB
5  CB     one month ago

Yes! Consider Michelle Obama a nominee to the court. Heavens, why can't we consider a straight-up guy like Barack Obama, the former president, as an appointee. Forget what some Trump  conservatives (who lie, cheat, and steal) say. Many of them are opportunists (like Donald) and have no goodwill for us at all!

 
 
 
Snuffy
6  Snuffy    one month ago

I would definitely take Barrack Obama who has 20 years experience with the law over Michelle who graduated from Harvard in 1988, worked for a law firm until 1991, left that and went into public service and three years later petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to have her law license changed to inactive status.  IMO that is insufficient experience for a Supreme Court Justice. 

But a lot of people here are pushing back saying I'm just for the Republican side. To that all I can say is thanks for proving my point that party politics is at play here and is overriding all other issues. I wasn't happy when the Republican Senate refused to even meet with Merrick Garland but wrote that off to party politics at play, which is was. What it comes down to is that we have the government we voted for. When politicians continue to be re-elected into office over and over again, when we don't hold them accountable for what they do,  when all we do is act as cheerleaders for the political parties, then we truly have no voice in Washington anymore.

The simple fact is that right now the same political party controls both the Senate and the White House. There is no law to prevent them from nominating and seating another justice. If you don't like it, then get out and vote.

 
 
 
CB
6.1  CB   replied to  Snuffy @6    one month ago

To be blunt: Elections have consequences. That said, it is grace in the service of power that reminds one group of Americans not to wield power destructively against another set of Americans. Conservatives have been operating without  grace for quite some time now. Political gluttony has consumed them. So much so that they 'run dark' when the mention of morals and values is mentioned - deferring to reappear touting excesses of capitalism.in new discussions

Money ain't everything life requires of us as citizens. Personal integrity is needful.

How we treat one another is a law for society and humanity unto itself. And Snuffy, don't you forget that too!

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  CB @6.1    one month ago
Elections have consequences.

Yes they do. You want to trash the conservatives with this. But I ask,  how did it work out for President Obama when he said that line “Elections have consequences. I won.” work for him during his eight years?  If I remember correctly,  the Republicans fought him at every term. It turned into six (only because the Democrats had both the House and a super-majority in the Senate otherwise it would have been eight) years of obstruction.

But I would say that both political parties have been operating without grace for quite some time. Too many people seem to want to ignore what their side is doing while blaming the other side. We're not going to get our country back until a majority of people realize that neither political party cares about we the people except for when it's time for them to collect our votes.

Money ain't everything life requires of us as citizens. Personal integrity is needful.
How we treat one another is a law for society and humanity unto itself. And Snuffy, don't you forget that too!

I'm not sure how this fits in as a reply to my comments in 6.0.  Can you explain please?

 
 
 
CB
6.1.2  CB   replied to  Snuffy @6.1.1    one month ago

Degrees matter and distinctions matter. Obama is a great many things, but a crooked, schemer he is not. No matter how his words are twisted. That man loves people and it shows no matter the fact that some white conservatives pretend they can't comprehend plain English spoken out of a "colored" mouth. (That last sentence is bitter sarcasm). I have a critic on NT that calls my words "gibberish" too as if I can't discern the meaning or the intent of his designs. So enough with the "both sides" bullshit. Barack Obama did nothing to hurt anybody who means well to all the good people in this country.

Money ain't everything life requires of us as citizens. Personal integrity is needful.
How we treat one another is a law for society and humanity unto itself. And Snuffy, don't you forget that too!

Just read it and receive it or not. If I have to explain 'heart' and conscience to Trump supporters in a group setting I don't mind.

 
 
 
arkpdx
6.1.3  arkpdx  replied to  CB @6.1.2    one month ago
white conservatives pretend they can't comprehend plain English spoken out of a "colored" mouth

Not true; I heard  from someone that Obama was " clean and articulate." 

Hmmm! If l could just remember who told me that. I think it was the same guy that said you have to have an Indian accent to run a 7-11. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  CB @6.1    one month ago
To be blunt: Elections have consequences.

Yes, they do. Elect someone the left doesn't like and get 4 years of shit at the federal level. And Democratic back Brown Shirts "Burning it the fuck down!" 

But those are morals to be admired right?

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  CB @6.1.2    one month ago

I'm beginning to think you cannot comprehend plain English when typed by "white" fingers. Please point out where in my comments I even insinuated that President Obama was crooked or a schemer. Look hard, but I can give you a hint because you aren't going to find it. About the only negative thing I said about Obama was that he said the line “Elections have consequences. I won.” and after that the Republicans set about to obstruct him everywhere they could. I also remember that the Senate managed to approve almost all of his nominations for the first seven years of his presidency.

How we treat one another is a law for society and humanity unto itself.

You may want to rethink on this and re-read my posts because you seem to be insinuating things that I have not said.  If you want to respond to me then I request that you actually respond to what I write and don't insert things that I have not said. If all you can do is accuse me of things I have not said then I would rather you just place me on ignore.

 
 
 
CB
6.1.6  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.4    one month ago

Again, references to Hitler I will not be a party too.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  CB @6.1.2    one month ago

[deleted]

I asked you what you meant in your post and all you could come back with was something about being in a hurry and for me to figure it out.

if i knew what you meant, there wouldn't have been the need to ask you what on earth you were saying. or trying to say.

 
 
 
CB
6.1.8  CB   replied to  Snuffy @6.1.5    one month ago

You can request anything you wish, but I wish to inform you I am not a genie. I will answer as I please in accordance to the rules of NT (as best I can). Read my comments, take anything you wish to use for good (not BS) and comment on that and shitcan the rest. And always remember this: You're not some boss of me.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7  Tacos!    one month ago
She is a lawyer, and has a legal mind

Uh What?

Other than this vague and strange evaluation, I can't imagine a good reason why Michelle Obama should be on the Supreme Court as opposed to lots of other available people.

 
 
 
CB
7.1  CB   replied to  Tacos! @7    one month ago

Why not her? She is "available people" if she wants to be.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  CB @7.1    one month ago
Why not her?

Because there are other people with a lot more experience at being federal judges. Actually, anyone who has spent a single day as judge has more experience than her.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.2  CB   replied to  Tacos! @7.1.1    one month ago

So? For all the reasons you can imagine, so what? The Constitution y'all keep whining about does not list "experience" as required. Are you an 'originalist' or not?! Be plain!

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  CB @7.1.2    one month ago
The Constitution y'all keep whining about does not list "experience" as required.

I never said it did. I just prefer someone in the position who is an expert at the job already. Michelle is not.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.3    one month ago

We have a president who is basically a moron, and still the other side from the Democrats has the gall to talk about "experience" as a requirement for a position. 

But, I offered this scenario as a political excitement, not as a discussion of Michelle Obama's qualifications.  As we all know, in the Trump era qualifications are meaningless. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.4    one month ago

do you prefer members of SCOTUS have some judicial experience or not?

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.4    one month ago
We have a president who is basically a moron, and still the other side from the Democrats has the gall to talk about "experience" as a requirement for a position.

We're talking about the SCOTUS, right? If you want to talk about the president, that would seem like a different kind of article. I'm focused on your topic. I would think you'd appreciate that.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.7  CB   replied to  Tacos! @7.1.3    one month ago

You prefer?You preferred an experienced president back in 2016 too? Yes or No?

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  CB @7.1.7    one month ago

there were no experienced Presidents to vote for in 2016

 
 
 
CB
7.1.9  CB   replied to  Tacos! @7.1.3    one month ago

Oh, I see now. You wanted something from the inexperienced man whose whole lie is composed of a limitless stream of lies you made a politician, and you have little to no use for a woman who is a lawyer (at least she plied the trade) and who detests the job of: politician. Convenient. What else should we know about your opinion of Michelle Obama. Outstandingly, we know she can never be conservative-right enough for any Trump supporters. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  CB @7.1.9    one month ago

once again, there was NO ONE with any Presidential experience TO vote for in 2016

 
 
 
CB
7.1.11  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.8    one month ago

Meh.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  CB @7.1.11    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.13  Tacos!  replied to  CB @7.1.9    one month ago
You wanted something from the inexperienced man whose whole lie is composed of a limitless stream of lies you made a politician

I'm sorry, I'm not following you. Which justice are you referring to?

What else should we know about your opinion of Michelle Obama.

Other than her total lack of judicial experience, I have not expressed an opinion about her. Perhaps you are confusing comments again?

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.4    one month ago

The only requirement from trumpturd is that you are a trumpturd ass kisser or ****sucker.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.15  CB   replied to  Tacos! @7.1.13    one month ago

Here's a hnt: Generally, the public does  not tend to make politicians out of justices.  [removed]

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8  The Magic Eight Ball    one month ago
Joe Biden To Announce He Will Nominate Michelle Obama To The Supreme Court

nothing would bring trump more votes than that...  go for it.

 
 
 
CB
8.1  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8    one month ago

Tired rhetoric. Internal liberal politics, policies, or "Calls to Action" need not care what Trump supporters think of its decisions or activities.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @8.1    one month ago

im begging the left, LOL  seriously... DO IT.

 

 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
9  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

One would hope that any appointees to the SCOTUS would forego party loyalty and focus on being fair-minded and legally correct in their decisions.  From what I have seen on NT, party loyalty seems to be more important to Americans than actual justice.

 
 
 
CB
9.1  CB   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    one month ago

Party loyalty at any cost is raw politics. I have always detested raw politicians. I believe in what is wholesome and right according to and related to law. So, I am not anybody's hapless partisan. I am grounded in pragmatism focused in the sound treatment of all people.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
9.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  CB @9.1    one month ago

What upsets me is seeing so many supposedly intelligent members of NT adhering to political party direction rather than the good of their nation. It's sickening.

 
 
 
arkpdx
9.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.1.1    one month ago

I agree Buzz but liberals will be liberals. 

 
 
 
CB
9.1.3  CB   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.1.1    one month ago

It is sickening. Many on NT I can discern from their responses and even their targeted moments of silence, are direct or indirect surrogates of the RNC. It is clear to me they are reading and writing out insider talking points with their well aligned statements. What's worse is in many cases, they act as though silo-ed across the country and unaware the other conservatives are mimicking their talking points. It's sickening and would be childish, if it was not so serious a time as it is.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
9.1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  arkpdx @9.1.2    one month ago

You, and those who thumbed-up your comment, just proved my point. Thank you. 

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
10  Release The Kraken    one month ago

The seat will be filled by then but i do think Michael Obama would represent the trans population with honor.

 
 
 
bugsy
11  bugsy    one month ago

Liberals like to claim they are nominating or voting in the "first" of any minority.

Problem for them now is, Michelle Obama would not be the first black man to be nominated.

Now, if they nominated Barack, then they might have something.

 
 
 
CB
11.1  CB   replied to  bugsy @11    one month ago

Michelle Obama could give a damn what a Trump conservative thinks about the time of day it is, at-known her femininity. So whatever you call yourself suggesting comes back an even number of times to you and Release The Kraken. One thing is clear, she can point to her daughters from her womb; you have not birthed anybody unless it came out of your 'man-cheeks.'

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  bugsy @11    one month ago
Liberals like to claim they are nominating or voting in the "first" of any minority.

the democrats have been on the wrong side of every major civil rights issue.

but if you ask the left?  they did it all...    so,  what's new?

256

 
 
 
CB
11.2.1  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2    one month ago

So you're a republican (INO)? You can't get there on the strength on what those others have done. Stop trying to fake black people out. We see what today's republican party for what it is.

Donald Trump is willing to ignore the howls and cries of sick and dying black coronavirus sufferers, because it ain't important to him. RINO. That is what some of y'all are!

#Walk Away From That!

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @11.2.1    one month ago
#Walk Away From That!

governors are responsible for their state's covid problems not potus. which is why people are also walking away from democrat governors who put covid patients in nursing homes

 at the end of the day, leftwing ideology and their general bs is going in the proverbial trash can.

everything the left said for years was going to happen to the right?  is happening to the left... LOL

the death of the democrat party is fun to watch - the left needs to get ready for their upcoming irrelevancy

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.2    one month ago

WHACK!

 
 
 
CB
11.2.4  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.2    one month ago

States (Rights) won't get the federal government, who has vested powers over pandemics, out of its duties and responsibilities to protect the citizenry. As you might have observed Donald Trump, the big shit talker, has been manipulating all federal agencies which address the pandemic and the public. And being combative in the process!

You don't know what the heaven you are writing about. Though, I note your 'push' for state's rights. Hint of libertarian BS. A fifty state response to a pandemic is best defined by the word: STUPID.

As for the democratic party I won't discuss it with you, because I detect it would be a waste of time for one who comes off as one who likes as little (just above chaos?) governance as possible. Impractical at that is.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.5  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @11.2.4    one month ago
States (Rights) won't get the federal government, who has vested powers over pandemics, out of its duties and responsibilities to protect the citizenry.

LOL

did the feds tell democrat governors to put covid patients in nursing homes?

and how are those resulting deaths trumps fault?   ( be specific please )

 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.6  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @11.2.4    one month ago
the federal government, who has vested powers over pandemics

citation from the constitution please

take your time, I can wait :)

 
 
 
Kavika
11.2.7  Kavika   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2    one month ago

Too bad the Republicans didn't keep up the good work.

In today's world, there is a huge difference in the number of minorities and women represented by the parties in congress.

Democratic minority members of Congress far outnumber the Republican minority members.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45583.pdf

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.8  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Kavika @11.2.7    one month ago
In today's world, there is a huge difference in the number of minorities and women represented by the parties in congress

so you are saying we should elect people based on skin color and genitalia?   that seems kind of racist and bigoted

 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
11.2.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.8    one month ago

I wonder if anyone ever stops to think about what they are saying. Perhaps it is because the men, and particularly white men, aren't worth a damn on the Dem side? That may be a sweeping gen but ..............I stand by it. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.10  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.2.9    one month ago
Perhaps it is because the men, and particularly white men, aren't worth a damn on the Dem side?

that, or the left is simply pandering to minorities/women for their votes. so they elect people based on their color and sex.     ( known as "identity politics" )

 
 
 
CB
11.2.11  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.5    one month ago

I have no knowledge of what you are writing about regarding coronavirus patients placed in nursing homes. Though I heard sketchily something about it New York. In any case, were it so, that is a legitimate state(s) issue and they have or should deal with it on the local policy level. It does not alleviate the federal government from its duties and responsibilities to the citizenry at the federal level!

Try again; if you wish.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
11.2.12  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @11.2.11    one month ago
I have no knowledge of what you are writing about regarding coronavirus patients placed in nursing homes

Here ya go.  Get educated.

Gov. Cuomo sent 6,300 COVID-19 patients to nursing homes during pandemic

Source:  https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/cuomo-sent-6300-covid-19-patients-to-nursing-homes-amid-pandemic/
 
 
 
arkpdx
11.2.13  arkpdx  replied to  Kavika @11.2.7    one month ago

And what have those Democrats done except for give lipservice and broken promises. 

 
 
 
CB
11.2.14  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.6    one month ago

Proclamation 9994 of March 13, 2020

Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act ( 50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq .) and consistent with section 1135 of the Social Security Act (SSA), as amended ( 42 U.S.C. 1320 b-5) , do hereby find and proclaim that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes a national emergency, beginning March 1, 2020. Pursuant to this declaration, I direct as follows:
 
 
 
Kavika
11.2.15  Kavika   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.8    one month ago
so you are saying we should elect people based on skin color and genitalia?   that seems kind of racist and bigoted

That's some projection on your part 8ball. I'm simply stating a fact that the democratic party better represents the diversity of the US and their constituents than the Republicans. 

By not having a diverse party and diverse representation really could be seen as racist and bigoted.

Cheers

 
 
 
XDm9mm
11.2.16  XDm9mm  replied to  Kavika @11.2.15    one month ago
By not having a diverse party and diverse representation really is racist and bigoted.

Are you trying to claim that the Republicans don't have people of all races and creeds, religious or lack of, sexual orientation as party members?  Seriously?

Come back when you have actual PROOF of that hyperbolic concept and we can discuss it.

 
 
 
Kavika
11.2.17  Kavika   replied to  arkpdx @11.2.13    one month ago
And what have those Democrats done except for give lipservice and broken promises. 

It's fairly obvious that the Dems have done more than the republicans just based on the numbers. 

Cheers

 
 
 
Kavika
11.2.18  Kavika   replied to  XDm9mm @11.2.16    one month ago
Are you trying to claim that the Republicans don't have people of all races and creeds, religious or lack of, sexual orientation as party members?  Seriously?

Not at all,  I'm well aware of the very small numbers of minorities and women in the republican party compared to the democratic party. Perhaps you should take a longer look at the republican party. Don't you remember the ''Republican autopsy'' that the party did and the results and recommendations? 

When you get up to speed feel free to post something other than your projections.

Cheers

 

 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.19  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  XDm9mm @11.2.16    one month ago
Are you trying to claim that the Republicans don't have people of all races and creeds, religious or lack of, sexual orientation as party members?  Seriously?

maybe they are trying to claim we should force more minorities and women to run for office?

   im really not sure anymore... LOL

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.20  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Kavika @11.2.17    one month ago
It's fairly obvious that the Dems have done more than the republicans just based on the numbers

ya got that right.... not that anything they did was good, but they sure did more... LOL

decades of democrat policies have trapped the black communities in poverty

256

 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2.21  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @11.2.12    one month ago
Here ya go.  Get educated.

Did you READ the content of that article XD? 

State Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker instead said the virus was spread by the 20,000 infected home staffers, many of whom kept going to work in March and April unaware that they were sick — findings outlined in a DOH report issued Monday.

“Facts matter. And those are the facts,” Zucker said during a news conference Monday.

The report backs claims Cuomo had been making for weeks that sick staff, not transported patients, had caused the deadly spread through nursing homes.

My father in law died of Covid 19 in a nursing home in July and was infected by a member of the staff. 

 
 
 
Kavika
11.2.22  Kavika   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.20    one month ago
  decades of democrat policies have trapped the black communities in poverty

And decades of republican policies have have not done a thing. If you feel that the dems policies have trapped blacks in poverty you would think that the republicans could get a majority of their votes. But alas, they haven't. 

Oh, and BTW the meme should show the LEO that killed George Floyd was white and a registered republican. And guess what he also did a lot of lying about his residence being in FL while living and working in MN.

Cheers.

2775.jpeg

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.23  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Kavika @11.2.22    one month ago
you would think that the republicans could get a majority of their votes. But alas, they haven't. 

every time the gop tried anything related the dems would immediately start screaming the gop is trying to end your welfare, and the black community believed the dems.  

but that was then...  this is now.  (not the same kettle of fish)

among other things, trump setting 50yr records in black employment - changed a lot.  the black community saw an outsider come in and do what dems have failed to do for half a century, and now the dems no longer have enough of the black community's support to win.


george floyd should have followed the officers instructions. he would still be alive.

 
 
 
Kavika
11.2.24  Kavika   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.23    one month ago

Under Obama, the unemployment rate for blacks hit it lowest and Trump inherited that took it a bit lower and blew the whole thing up...You may want to check the current unemployment rates. 

Chauvin has been charged with 2nd-degree murder. 

Cheers

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.25  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Kavika @11.2.24    one month ago
You may want to check the current unemployment rates.

the chinese plague is temporary. the economy will return. but for now,  explain how trump is responsible for states currently keeping their people and economies closed down?

 
 
 
Kavika
11.2.26  Kavika   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.25    one month ago
explain how trump is responsible for states currently keeping their people and economies closed down?

LOL, you're really on a strawman roll there 8ball.. I never said anything about Trump being responsible for keeping people and their economies closed down. 

Check with your governor perhaps he can explain it to you. 

 
 
 
CB
11.2.27  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.8    one month ago

Actually, what it is, is REPRESENTATIVE. But keep looking at the negative aspects of life when it suits you. The rest of us will keep building a more "perfect" union!

 
 
 
CB
11.2.28  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.10    one month ago

Why are libertarians voting for republicans? You never get what you want, particularly now, because there is a requirement to kiss Donald's. . . worldview each and every day. That's not freedom and it darn sure is not small governance! But, but, small governance is not what some of yall libertarians are after, you just want a 'takeover' of governance. Consequently: Donald creates chaos will do

 
 
 
CB
11.2.29  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @11.2.12    one month ago

 A legitimate state(s) issue and they have or should deal with it on the local policy level.

Note: I will take time to read the 'Post' article, I will not take time to remark on it here, nevertheless. Because that is a distraction from the federal government's role in the national coronovirus pandemic thread between another commenter and me.

 
 
 
CB
11.2.30  CB   replied to  Kavika @11.2.15    one month ago

Real. You could almost identify the Republican Party as a "tribe" (in a generic sense, that is) all its own with a few exceptions speckled in. No problem, being exceptional is not a problem. Meddling and oppressing others while strategizing on living the high-life for you and yours (alone) that is a big problem!

 
 
 
CB
11.2.31  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.19    one month ago

Fewer whimsical suppositions, please. Curious. How does one go about forcing someone to run for office? What do you do first? Force money into another to 'start'? It can't work. (Chuckles.)

 
 
 
CB
11.2.32  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.20    one month ago

Untrue. Republican obstructions and blocking are primarily the problem for more than Black people. All we have to look at is your "future" candidate for Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. She will be joining "the boys" there to oppress the liberals who just suffered a natural 'defeat' of one of the finest female justices to ever have lived—because Ruth Bader Ginsburg had an open-mind and a big heart.

But before we get to the republican "choice" to take Mrs. Ginsburg seat, we can just focus on the theft in the senate and the institutions ultimate defiling my Majority Leader McConnell to bring this miscarriage of senate traditions and collegiality about. No honor in the republican party to be found anymore. It remains to be seem if republicans/conservatives will 'flock' in over this power-play, or more rapidly migrate out due to disgust.

 
 
 
CB
11.2.33  CB   replied to  Dulay @11.2.21    one month ago

Sorry about your familial loss, Dulay! So so sorry. How are you feeling about this tragedy? I have heard of several of my distance family members getting ill from the mild version and for that I am hanging on. They got better!

Also, that article (I read it too) mentioned at its opening that "recovered covid patients" emphasis on "recovered" were sent to nursing homes. That is, those sent were not sick people. Once again, republicans can be counted on to tell tall tales until the proverbial cows come home never!

 
 
 
CB
11.2.34  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.23    one month ago

The video misses the point. We have camera footage of policemen shooting people in the back (non-aggression), multiple officers on-scene letting a single individual get (back) in his car instead of using take down procedures (or pinning him between themselves and the door), and using unsolicited choke holds.

No one complains that every time a police officer/s fire a weapon and takes a life that is unjustified. Indeed, not every (black) death is protested! However, we all have eyes and common-sense to see that the video examples above, while realistic, are not all-inclusive.  And, may be selected.

Police are not all bad. But that does not mean they are right and above correction either! The gun firing must be the last resort!

 
 
 
CB
11.2.35  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.25    one month ago

It's Trump's virus here and now. Especially in the coming winter months. We are going to be in real trouble, locked in homes, with heating systems on. We need a plan for surviving this winter with a virus afoot!

It's times like where we are planning to head off into, when we could use a singular mind (on the same page - uniform - itself of this scatter-brain approach) to help everybody focus.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2.36  Dulay  replied to  CB @11.2.33    one month ago

Thanks CB. Still seems unreal because we couldn't be with him. He had been diagnosed with dementia 5 years ago and went into the nursing home about 4 years ago. My MIL moved in to stay close to him about 2 years ago. They've been married FOREVER. Needless to say, she is devastated yet because of the quarantine, we can't be with her either. We visit her through the window once a week. 

"recovered covid patients"

Yes, they conveniently 'skip over' that little fact...

 
 
 
CB
11.2.37  CB   replied to  Dulay @11.2.36    one month ago

Okay. I understand. So hard. So very hard. This type of sickness and death in isolation units. Thank God for those professionals who make life work in these crucial moments.

 
 
 
Kavika
11.2.38  Kavika   replied to  Dulay @11.2.21    one month ago

Sorry to hear about your father in law, Dulay.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2.39  Dulay  replied to  Kavika @11.2.38    one month ago

Thanks Kavika.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.40  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @11.2.35    one month ago
It's Trump's virus here and now.

no... LOL  we don't have a central government  /  states do what they want in regards to covid. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/13/politics/asa-hutchison-arkansas-coronavirus/index.html

different states do different things and get different results but somehow that is trump fault?  LOL

 
 
 
CB
11.2.41  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.40    one month ago

What do you mean we do not have a central government 'component." State systems (governors) and  federal system (congress/federal courts and supreme court/president).

It's Trump's virus. He is the head of our federal systems and agencies. Which is why you listen to him above and beyond your governor (depending on the status of the messaging coming from whatever state you live). You might adore a hodge-podge and discordant set of instructions - most of us do not! There are times efficiently requires one voice and that voice to be factual! We will not get that from a man who lives to go his own way while the science of the pandemic goes another.

Additionally, states do not have the luxury to make pandemic expenditures indefinitely. That is a function and action of the federal system.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.42  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @11.2.41    one month ago
It's Trump's virus.

so ya say,

tell me how trump is responsible for decisions made at the state and local levels?

be specific please.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.43  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @11.2.41    one month ago
states do not have the luxury to make pandemic expenditures indefinitely

yepp, blues states are going broke 

they can open their economies any time they like... 

 trump has nothing to do with that either.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.44  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @11.2.41    one month ago
What do you mean we do not have a central government

 I mean, the states do what they want - period

  •  one state did not lockdown even a little bit.
  • some states are still locked down tight as a drum
  • while other states are open for business.

- the "federal government has no power to do anything about that.


meanwhile, a "central government would be able to arrest governors who did not follow orders from above and arrest people who do not wear masks, stay locked down or social distance. _ our federal government has no power here. 

if you are still confused - ask chairman xi to explain how a central government works.

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.2.45  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Kavika @11.2.7    one month ago

Since 1900 there have been about 140 African American members of the U.S. House of Representatives.  94% of them have been Democrats. 

Since 1900 there have been 8 African American U.S. Senators.  6 of the eight were Democrats. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.46  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @11.2.14    one month ago
I direct as follows:

why didja stop so soon?   lets continue shall we?


 I direct as follows:

Section 1 .   Emergency Authority . The Secretary of HHS may exercise the authority under section 1135 of the SSA to temporarily waive or modify certain requirements of the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance programs and of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule throughout the duration of the public health emergency declared in response to the COVID-19 outbreak

Sec. 2 .   Certification and Notice . In exercising this authority, the Secretary of HHS shall provide certification and advance written notice to the Congress as required by section 1135(d) of the SSA ( 42 U.S.C. 1320 b-5(d)).


  • where is the federal stay home order?
  • where is the federal mask order?
  • where is the federal social distance order?

the answer is simple...       the feds do not have that power.            governors do.

 
 
 
CB
11.2.47  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.42    one month ago

Enough! Wasting time with this. See ya.

 
 
 
CB
11.2.48  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.43    one month ago

No more time for this. Good day!

 
 
 
CB
11.2.49  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.44    one month ago

Believe what you wish. Good day!

 
 
 
CB
11.2.50  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.46    one month ago

We're done here. Bye.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.51  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @11.2.50    one month ago

you were done the moment you blamed trump for decisions made at the state and local levels.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
12  The Magic Eight Ball    one month ago

BTW....

where is the list of bidens supreme court picks?

he is too afraid to release it? or has he not done his work yet?

if we have to elect joe to find out who is on his list?   hard pass.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
12.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @12    one month ago

Has Biden been elected yet?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
12.1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.1    one month ago

trump released his list before he was elected.

    may 19, 2016  

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominees.html

 biden is about 4 months behind trump on releasing his picks.

so, whats biden trying to hide? is he afraid to piss off the squad? or everyone else?

perhaps quid pro "sleepy" joe is just too busy sleeping in his basement...

256

 
 
 
CB
12.1.2  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @12.1.1    one month ago

He don't owe Trump and his enablers anything. Moreover, Donald Trump simply pulled names from the Federalist Society. BTW, where is Trump's tax returns?!!! Up his gazoo?

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  CB @12.1.2    one month ago
BTW, where is Trump's tax returns?!!

The State of New York has his state returns and the IRS has his federal returns.

I assume his accountants have a copy and probably provided him with same.

Why?

Private tax returns of other citizens are supposed to be exactly that--private. You Have no right to see them.

 
 
 
CB
12.1.4  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.3    one month ago

I don't want to see Trump's taxes. The proper officials have a duty to perform and to do so they need (tax) compliance from the man at the top of government: Donald. What is your issue with complete compliance with standard operating procedural matters? You definitely demand democrats "toe" the line and cross every "tittle."

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  CB @12.1.4    one month ago
The proper officials have a duty to perform and to do so they need (tax) compliance from the man at the top of government:

Why do you assume that the proper officials have not done their duty?

I have never heard anyone say that they don't think he filed his returns, so what exact standard operating procedural matters are you referring to?

Donald.What is your issue with complete compliance with standard operating procedural matters? You definitely demand democrats "toe" the line and cross every "tittle."

Again, assuming that he is not in complete compliance. You have found him guilty already based on nothing, absolutely nothing, more than your feelings.

And why are you demanding something not required anyways?

 
 
 
CB
12.1.6  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.5    one month ago

But it is a good tradition. That is why congress and NY state keep asking. They have more than a passing interest at this juncture four years later. But, since you don't have Trump's returns, you can't 'protest' on his behalf. For surely you don't know what is in them to deny there is a 'there' to concern the nation.

You demand much of democrats; demand much of republicans, up to and including, Donald.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  CB @12.1.6    one month ago

I can't say anything about his tax returns because I don't have them and I don't know if anything is bad on them, and yet you are free to demand them because you don't have them and just know something bad is in them.

got the double standard, carry on.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
12.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @12.1.1    one month ago

so what if he did. I wouldn't use POUTUS as a good example for anything.

I would say he jumped the gun on that

 
 
 
CB
12.1.9  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.7    one month ago

That's full of it. Sorry you took the time to post it. And for the record, I don't need to see Donald's taxes - the system does. But continue stalling through.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  CB @12.1.9    one month ago

the system has seen his returns. as has been pointed out repeatedly.

 
 
 
CB
12.1.11  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.10    one month ago

Have a nice day. We're done here.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  CB @12.1.11    one month ago

adios!

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @12    one month ago
or has he not done his work yet?

Any claim that Trump had anything to do with compiling his list of SCOTUS nominees is laughable. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
12.2.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @12.2    one month ago

sleepy joe can have whoever he wants make his list. 

the question is: why has he not done it yet? 

the answer is simple.

bidens list will either piss off the squad or will scare off the moderate democrats.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.2  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @12.2.1    one month ago

You know that there is a difference between making a list and releasing a list right? 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
12.2.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @12.2.2    one month ago
You know that there is a difference between making a list and releasing a list right?

yepp... if you imply joe has created a list...  why won't joe release it?

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.4  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @12.2.3    one month ago
yepp... if you imply joe has created a list...  why won't joe release it?

I implied nothing other than your conflation. 

 
 
 
CB
12.2.5  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @12.2.3    one month ago

Why should he? When did you start giving a damn about democratic candidate choices of judges. Oh and as Dulay stated, Trump did not build a list of judge appointees he is 'pickin' from the bushel given him by the Federalist Society.  Not labor intensive!

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  CB @12.2.5    one month ago
Not labor intensive!

Okay then, Biden can just hand over the list his handler's prepared for him.

I wouldn't expect any President or nominee to actually put the list together by himself. Way too much work for just one person.

But since the idea has been put forth that by somehow electing Biden and allowing him to pick the successor to Ginsburg's seat will "save the court" and "save democracy" or some similar clattletrap, wouldn't it be wise to at least see what kind of people Biden thinks can deliver all of that?

 
 
 
CB
12.2.7  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.6    one month ago

Make you a deal: Trump signs a tax waiver for eight years of his returns (as determined by proper officials) for Biden's list of federal judges? What say you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  CB @12.2.7    one month ago
Make you a deal: Trump signs a tax waiver for eight years of his returns (as determined by proper officials) for Biden's list of federal judges? What say you?

Because when I make a bet, I have the goods in hand to pay off if I lose. I really try to not let my alligator mouth override my hummingbird ass.

I don't have his tax returns and don't care about them, seeing as how they are private and all, and I respect people's privacy--even people I don't like-- and have no business with them.

I don't consider a list of potential nominees to SCOTUS to be a private matter.

You may think differently.

 
 
 
CB
12.2.9  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.8    one month ago
I respect people's privacy

Really. Meh. How convenient. If Donald wants his tax returns to be private, let him off his meddlesome ("do as I say not as I am privileged to do") rear-end back into the private sector. Problem solved.

Biden is not president, he should tell Donald's enabler to 'go fish.' And bring dinner home on the way back!

Biden should not feed the 'dragon' in our midst.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  CB @12.2.9    one month ago

sorry my standards of privacy aren't yours. but oh, well.

 
 
 
CB
12.2.11  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.10    one month ago

I ain't wasting time with this crap. See ya.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  CB @12.2.11    one month ago

good idea 

 
 
 
MonsterMash
13  MonsterMash    one month ago

Biden isn't releasing his SCOTUS nomination for a very good reason, it's Stacey Abrams. UGGG!!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

devangelical
Transyferous Rex
Hal A. Lujah
paulspikes
Trout Giggles
Paula Bartholomew
Sparty On
Old Hermit


50 visitors