Likes: 
Faceplams: I hope Mitch burns in hell for eternity.
To be clear, I do not wish anyone to take his life. But everyone dies, and when he does, that is the only fate I want for him.
Active Member
I hope Mitch burns in hell for eternity.
To be clear, I do not wish anyone to take his life. But everyone dies, and when he does, that is the only fate I want for him.
Active Member
Go nuclear. Do whatever you can to force a supermajority vote. Stall everything until November. Vote these cunts out. Then veto each and every nomination that comes through until you have the Oval again.
(Probably doesn't work that way, but that at this point the left needs to employ every single possible dirty tactic to fuck Mitch.)
Hairy Member
I was reiterating what I had read back then since it popped back into my mind with what's going on. Yes RBG isn't dead or retired yet, however, to come off as this isn't a big deal is dismissive of how things have been playing out in courts since Trump was elected. Shit, if all that comes from this is I was coming across as panicking to some random online, that's fine by me, lol.Originally Posted by DigitalChaos
24.24.1.1397
go chuck, go!
i'm too thin
What a fucking disgraceful disaster of a country.
Active Member
I bet there's a chance he'll put in a liberal just to keep things interesting.
tempus est umbra in mente
It'll be interesting regardless, but if he does that, I finally know I'm kidnapped and in a virtual reality simulation, something like the Matrix if it was glitching out.
i'm too thin
Donald Trump is 100% The Presence.
Throbbing Member
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
Essay by Umberto Eco from '95 about the origin and characteristics of fascism. a must-read imho.
Last edited by baudolino; 06-28-2018 at 08:39 AM.
Active Member
I will literally print this post and eat it if that happens.
Active Member
Kennedy was the swing vote on the left side on gay marriage and abortion no?
Active Member
https://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/49832...f-clinton-wins
For anyone who wants the left to play nice...just remember this article from the weeks prior to the election.
Active Member
Double post, but separate train of thought so why the heck not.
Am I absolutely mad for thinking that we need to just completely rewrite the rules for SCOTUS appointments? Here's how I'd like to see it done.
In order to be confirmed, a candidate needs at least 50 votes - 25 from Republicans and 25 from Democrats. Can't find a judge who both sides like? Fine, they can't serve. Next candidate.
The prospect of the highest court in the United States being heavily stacked to a conservative OR liberal lean based on which political party happens to be in the Oval at the time of a death or retirement (and which party has ONE more person than the other in the senate) is ridiculous to me. In a system that's supposed to be full of checks and balances, we're making politically charged appointments to the most powerful court in the country that last for an entire generation based on who happens to have control on one particular day. That just seems deeply and utterly flawed to me.
Throbbing Member
The concerns you raise would have also existed at the time the founding fathers selected this method, correct? I sometimes find it useful to review the history of why the founding fathers elected the method they did. When I've done this on other issues, often it seems that the method was appropriate, did not have the downsides of other potential options, and that the reasons stand the test of time (at least for now). But, since I am not wanting to spend the time on that research now (especially with a long holiday weekend on the north shore waiting for me), I tend to defer to the experts who have spent a ton of time researching it. I bet it would be an interesting read though (but I sort of find that historical stuff very interesting).
Active Member
I understand your point, but I hesitate to say I fully agree.
The founding fathers, who had guns that could fire a couple bullets per minute, wrote legislation that did not think to include "what if these ever get so powerful that people could use them to murder dozens of people in just a few minutes"?
The founding fathers didn't think gay people should be treated the same as straight people when it came to legal protections.
The founding fathers owned human beings.
The founding fathers died hundreds of years ago. Times change. It's okay to look to the past to see intent, but if what they intended is no longer working, then we shouldn't be afraid to fix it.
Active Member
Is the private nukes argument one that has a standard refutation? As in, as per the constitution, should civilians be allowed to own nukes, if so then how do you justify such a risk, and if not then why are rapid fire weapons exempt from that logic
I was nobody. Nothing.
Hahahahaha. Thanks. I needed that.
Active Member
Uhhh...but we DO vote for SCOTUS. Yes, the president makes the nomination, but he or she has to be confirmed by a vote. That's where my part comes in. Can't find someone that both sides of the aisle are comfortable with? Then they don't belong on the highest court in the country.
Active Member
i think it's the subtle crap this admin gets away with like sarah's tweet , an attack on the press is an a attack on the press is an attack on America! WTF?!? or china has stopped taking our recycling? or trump meeting with NATO then going directly to meet with Putin? I think we have trump fatigue, which is very scary most they no longer even try and their their corruption.i feel bad for everyone who doesn't have a voice or a ton of money, you seam to be the only ones who matter if you can't donate a lot of money to some politician the tough and take it. i think it may be time for a revolution i guess to to go back to listen to ragea against the machine on repeat
-Louie
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
Trollhunter
Retweeted this earlier. Is everyone near the Orange Overlord complicit, then? For fuck’s sake.
i'm too thin
Active Member
Guarantee all you want. Since long before Obama was ever even in office, my fantasy notion of politics in general was that there was no such thing as parties, and that everyone ran in one big pool and people voted on - gasp - the things the politicians actually achieved in lower offices or promised in campaigns; not a single letter in parenthesis next to their name. I know we could never handle something as time-consuming as researching candidates instead of forming a stubborn allegience and blindly sticking to it though, so I know it'll never happen.
And as for "what if there's never enough people on either side to confirm the justice"? Eh, just write the rules so that no matter how few people from a party are elected, half of that number has to confirm the appointment. Otherwise, it just feels unbalanced to me.
Throbbing Member
Everytime somebody brings up the founding fathers I think of this scene from Game of Thrones.
Times change and civilizations realize their errors as time moves along. If the founding fathers believed in a concept that no longer reflects the needs of the modern age and the people living within the modern age - then a change should occur regardless of what the founding fathers believed or wanted at the time.
Don't get me wrong, the men who influenced our country's laws and ethics at the beginning of the United States had some fantastic and revolutionary ideas. I'm not saying they were morons who didn't know a thing. But some of their worldviews are no longer useful in 2018, and some of their worldviews were just flat-out wrong (like their views on race for instance.)
tempus est umbra in mente
Why are we talking about loudness? Also, how portable was this 20 round-capable gun? Could it fit in your waistband?
Active Member
The stuff happening to kids of immigrants to the US is just evil. Surely Trump has to be compelled to rescind that zero tolerance policy soon
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06...r-court-alone/
Trollhunter
Sometimes a fart just isn’t so funny.
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/evkyyw/trump-hopes-fart-will-get-congresss-attention
Throbbing Member
This is one of those things that I hope to God is an attempt at trolling Democrats because I have a hard time believing that anyone would be stupid enough to use an acronym like that.
The ideas are also terrible, but i'm really stuck on the abject stupidity of the name as well.
I was nobody. Nothing.
You've got to be shitting me. This can't be real.
He's had a bill drawn up to bolster his own power and is really, seriously calling it FART? Seriously?
Can someone please explain...wtf?
This is like something a five year old would do.
Edit: from article. This at least makes more sense.-"Some have even suggested that a White House staffer was in on the joke while naming the draft bill, or even that it was a deliberate act of subversion. "
Last edited by elevenism; 07-02-2018 at 03:03 PM.
Active Member
he's doing anything he can to try and get his base out for midterm if immigration something he feels will get his base out remember he started his presidential campaign with, the tariffs our hurting the market, with Brexit and how he acted @ the G7 what if Europe and our allies decide the us trading policies our to inconsistent and move to other places for their goods many friendly nations have started this under the banner of trading diversification countries are now turning to new Zealand, china, Mexico and yes Russia funny how he is meeting with NATO the directly going to see Vlad, collude much? even scarier is the outside chance of pullbacks from other nations and them decide to trade in another currency than the US dollar which would conclude the chapter of make America great again. maybe people will learn but I also said this after "W" and two years later the US elects another idiot, but at least "W" surrounded himself with competent people and listened to them even if it was Cheney
-Louie
Posting Permissions
