You say this as the Republican indictments continue to pile up and as president Trump continues to pardon more criminals.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
So you’re a hardcore atheist and hardcore conservative?? I’m not sure how that works but fair enough man, my mind is slightly blown
Police brutality should be addressed. But police brutality is an infinitely smaller problem than black on black violence in the United States. And black on black violence is largely ignored for several reasons but two of the big reasons- you can’t be the victim if you are also the source of the problem and a lot of blacks stay mum on the subject for fear of being considered a sellout and labeled as an Uncle Tom.
Trump can’t even touch the pardon party of Obama. One of Obama’s shining moments was pardoning the Puerto Rican bombing terrorist who refused to renounce his terrorist actions.
I'm someone who cares about the future of our country, it's people, and the future of my kids and grandkids. I don't care what religion you believe if it provides decent values and doesn't f*** with mine.
Ya but you already disagree with like half your parties policies don’t you? All that shit about wanting to add prayer in schools, teach creation beside evolution, the GD ark park - all that stuff is from conservatives, is it not odd voting for those policies? Is this a thing? Are there lots of agnostic/atheist conservatives? I feel like this is the end result of being stuck with two god awful shitty parties - youre stuck voting for one where you don’t even agree with a lot of their views - basically the least worst. Anyway sorry to derail the thrilling talk about dumbshit Kaepernick was just curious and slightly confused
Per Douglas Schoen: "Even though the rule-breaking by Booker turned out not to be rule-breaking in the end, it set a bad precedent. Senators need to follow the rules of the chamber. That’s because in order for the Senate to operate smoothly in service of the American people it has to operate by rules – and members have to be able to trust each other to abide by those rules.
When senators feel they can ignore rules whenever they wish and fight their opponents with any means necessary the Senate can descend into chaos and paralysis, making it unable to function as what it used to be called – “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”
No one expects Republicans and Democrats to agree on everything in the Senate or in the House. But the two parties can oppose each other vigorously and with determination while operating under agreed-on rules – much as boxers try to knock each other out while still adhering to clear rules limiting the actions they can take in the ring.
Unfortunately, too many Senate Democrats have decided that they must wage a no-holds-barred fight to deny President Trump the right to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court.
In the absence of new revelations showing he is unqualified, I am reluctantly supporting Kavanaugh’s nomination. And I advise my fellow Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the full Senate to support him as well and vote to confirm him.
If Democrats are seen as part of the left-leaning resistance movement fighting everything President Trump does – rather than as members of the loyal opposition – it can only hurt them in the Nov. 6 midterm elections.
Throughout this week’s confirmation hearing, Judiciary Committee Democrats have acted more like radical college student protesters trying to silence a speaker they dislike than lawmakers carefully considering whether to support a nominee to the nation’s highest court.
The Kavanaugh confirmation hearing has been a raucous occasion featuring open hostility towards the nominee and questions about his honesty and integrity.
Kavanaugh, with his family behind him, was met repeatedly with shouts from protesters – dozens of whom were arrested for disrupting the proceedings – and objections from Democrats. It took Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, over an hour to read his opening statement in totality.
What has remained clear throughout the hearing is that, by conventional standards, Kavanaugh is qualified to become a Supreme Court Justice. Some Democrats, particularly in swing states, would surely agree.
In states Trump won in the 2016 presidential elections – where Democratic senators will need substantial and broad support to be re-elected in November – opposing Kavanaugh’s nomination does not make political sense. Democratic senators in this category include Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
Heitkamp, who has said she will refrain from further comment until after the hearings, said in August that Kavanaugh “seems to be a fairly standard conservative judge, and obviously highly qualified.” She’s right.
At age 53, Kavanaugh’s experience speaks for itself. He served the past 12 years on the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., one of the most important courts after the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh was also a clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy, the very justice he was nominated to replace, and worked in key positions in the George W. Bush administration.
However, having been involved in President Clinton’s impeachment in 1998, I am obviously troubled by Kavanaugh’s zeal in wanting to ask President Clinton personal questions dealing with his sex life leading up to the president’s impeachment by the House and acquittal in the Senate.
I have always thought a president’s personal conduct was out of bounds, including for President Trump. While reasonable people may disagree, I do not think President Trump’s personal conduct or effort to cover it up is a basis for impeachment.
This is not to make light of marital infidelity – real or merely alleged. It is to say the Constitution does not require the president to be a faithful spouse.
The judicial process needs to be non-political, and there have been two major problems with this process in recent years.
First, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland should have been confirmed to the Supreme Court when he was nominated by President Obama. Republicans waited an outrageous nine months, which was wrong, and only served to manipulate the judicial confirmation process for political purposes.
Additionally, the nomination and confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch by President Trump was inherently undemocratic and went against both the spirit and the actual practice of the Senate in exercising advice and consent.
To be sure, Gorsuch was also immensely qualified for the Supreme Court, but the process of confirming him only reaffirmed the politicization of the courts. The judicial process simply cannot be politicized.
Qualified judges should be appointed, irrespective of ideology, and without political considerations.
In the past, even when different political parties held the presidency and the Senate, judicial confirmations were far less politicized.
Take for instance, Justice Kennedy, who Kavanaugh was nominated to replace. Kennedy was appointed by Ronald Reagan with a Democratic-controlled Senate, and was confirmed by a vote of 97-0.
Even the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall, the Supreme Court’s first African-American justice – while not simple in its time – ended in a 69-11 vote.
The judicial confirmation process in the past two years has been almost unrecognizable.
Throughout the Trump presidency, Republicans have out-thought and out-worked the Democrats in the entire process, specifically with the confirmation of conservative Federalist Society judges at all levels.
I know Leonard Leo, the head of the Federalist Society. He is a smart, thoughtful and careful guy who has unfortunately done his job all too well. In the past two months alone, President Trump has won Senate confirmation for five federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Four of them were members of the Federalist Society.
As a centrist, I believe it is paramount that decisions involving the courts are based on precedent. We need checks and balances that are wholly independent of the legislative process.
The whole process of selecting and confirming federal judges has become far too political. The Constitution created the judicial branch to be fair and nonpolitical, focused on justice rather than partisanship. Democrats and Republicans should approach the judicial confirmation process in the same way – working together to do what’s right for our country rather than what’s politically expedient."
No one is denying black on black crime is an issue. Hell, ask any black person, they admit it
But you don't ignore one because there is another. Address both. White people have a real problem with mass shootings, particularly white men. When we going to address that?
I don't care Ron. Anything to see liberals burn to the ground. I'd vote to let Jesus to jerk off all over schools just to see liberals burn to the ground
Last edited:
Do you even know the story behind the castro family stuff? probably not.. just going off the idiotic social media mob mentality.
Mass shootings deaths per year don’t touch the number of black on black violence deaths. They don’t even equal the number of violent black deaths in Chicago alone. And the irony of your statement is that many of the murderers in black on black violence kill far more people that mass shooters. The difference is they don’t do it all at one time.
ROTFLMAO.......... Show the proof that Trump was the target of the adds.
You sound like Alex Jones now
Since when did liberals start caring about rules or laws?
The story, correct me if I am wrong, is that CK lauded the education system of the Castro regime. Of course, that completely ignores that fact that Cubans were an oppressed, poor and brainwashed people subject to the violent nature of a brutal dictator.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
That dude is still acting hard and sellin' wolf tickets? What a fraud. Has he not embarrassed himself enough today?Everyhting they have requested has been cleared. After his earlier stunt, to save him further embarrassment, Grassley had everything that Democrats requested cleared.
Booker knows this. He was even told by Burck, last night, that anything he requested, they'll work with him to clear it. Since he requested it all this morning, Grassley put in the word.
Made sure I chose a left wing site for you. From BuzzFeed...
After Booker released the emails, Grassley's office made dozens of other committee confidential documents public that Democrats had asked to be released.
and yet some people manipulate that to mean he applauded their brutality... he didnt.... just education.
Again, 1 problem does't diminish another. Unless you have an agenda you're pushing.
That's Doubtful. Can you point out 1 that killed more than Stephen Paddock, Nik Cruz, Adam Lanza, Dylan Roof, James Holms?
What's funny, like the video I posted above. He went on MSNBC hoping they'd make him a hero, and Chris hayes pretty much questioned him being an idiot...so then he refused to go on CNN afterwards bc he realizes hes an idiot.
Everyhting they have requested have been cleared. After his earlier stunt, to save him further embarrassment, Grassley had everything that Democrats requested cleared.
Booker knows this. He was even told by Burck, last night, that anything he requested, they'll work with him to clear it. Since he requested it all this morning, Grassley put in the word.
Made sure I chose a left wing site for you. From BuzzFeed...
After Booker released the emails, Grassley's office made dozens of other committee confidential documents public that Democrats had asked to be released.
One problem doesn’t finish the other. But if one problem is a much larger problem that another, more resources and investment need to be made to tackle the issue. As far as pointing one black drug dealer who has been responsible for more deaths than any of those idiots, you can google Federal cases involving drug gangs pursued through the RICO statutes.
Wow 3 whole people of color. This changes everything!!you mean these criminals? Damn racist Trump!!
I guess these emails will prove he loves puppies and long walks in the park. Damaging stuff.
The education system under Hitler was advanced and had superb science, medical and math. No one talks about that because it’s irrelevant considering the regime the education was provided in.
You've already stated black people fear speaking or going to authorities. In an effort to alleviate black on black crime, black people are going to have to be able to trust and have relationships with law enforcement. Tackling that issue will only further help black on black crime. So while the volume of crime may be worse, you will likely have to address the trust issue first.
You're a lawyer and can't point at just 1?
The underlying problem isn’t a lack of trust of the police. The underlying problem is the breakdown of the family unit, lack of economic opportunities for black youth and generational poverty.
Don't care about Chick-fila's beliefs. Love those sammys though. Definitely don't care about Kaepernick. Will buy Nike gear when I want. Don't agree with a lot of Pearl Jam's political stances. Love their music. This country is the best in the world. But we sure do get a bug up our asses about the stupidest things.
Sure it is. Regardless of family unit or economic class, trust still isn't going to be apparent. You can look to higher profile blacks that have had run ins with police and report racism or being treated differently simply based on skin color. If the trust isn't evident, why does anything other factor matter. The whole lack of male father figure in the home is an over hyped fallacy. My brother, sister and myself grew up with out a father. We turned out pretty good. My brothers even a former cop turned DEA agent, who fully supports CK stance on the issue. And would love any Nike gear anyone can send his way.
I keep getting that damn error that prevents you from posting more than a couple times an hour or so. How do you get past that?
Hey G-spot..Hillary lost two years ago..are you still that butt hurt? Please seek counseling..please.
Similar threads
