RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lagoa needs to recuse herself from cases involving Trump, or Trump employees, right away, then.

She doesn't have to recuse intil after she is picked.

The problem is, her decision could be tainted by the promise of an appointment. She has a common taint that even a dog catcher would recuse from.

To avoid that appearance, she should recuse after she is picked. Recusing now suggests a done deal. Not recusing after selection means she is by definition, noonger impartial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump was right, the system is rigged.

A 6th GOP justice, nominated by an impeached president who lost the popular vote by 3M, confirmed by GOP senators representing 15M fewer Americans than their Democratic colleagues, after Obama's pick couldn't even get a vote.

- Sec. Reich

The system was rigged by a plutocracy long before Trump came along. In fact, Secretary Reich benefited from said system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was right, the system is rigged.

A 6th GOP justice, nominated by an impeached president who lost the popular vote by 3M, confirmed by GOP senators representing 15M fewer Americans than their Democratic colleagues, after Obama's pick couldn't even get a vote.

- Sec. Reich

The system was rigged by a plutocracy long before Trump came along. In fact, Secretary Reich benefited from said system.

So did I. Doesn't mean I don't like it.

[Anonymous]

Everyone on here should educate themselves about the constitution before commenting on the nomination of SC justices. Hyperbole and opinion does not equal fact.

[Anonymous]

Anyone watching Turtle talking right now?

Says “already people are playing every dirty trick in the book to stop this nomination.”

He’s evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone on here should educate themselves about the constitution before commenting on the nomination of SC justices. Hyperbole and opinion does not equal fact.

We are in a post fact world now. Good luck finding significant facts that everyone can agree on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone on here should educate themselves about the constitution before commenting on the nomination of SC justices. Hyperbole and opinion does not equal fact.

You mean the facts that McConnell conveniently ignored in order to block a vote on a legitimate SC nomination?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone watching Turtle talking right now?

Says “already people are playing every dirty trick in the book to stop this nomination.”

He’s evil.

Coming from him that's rich and every one damn well knows it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was right, the system is rigged.

A 6th GOP justice, nominated by an impeached president who lost the popular vote by 3M, confirmed by GOP senators representing 15M fewer Americans than their Democratic colleagues, after Obama's pick couldn't even get a vote.

- Sec. Reich

The system was rigged by a plutocracy long before Trump came along. In fact, Secretary Reich benefited from said system.

So did I. Doesn't mean I don't like it.

I made $487, $595, $569, and $615 these past four weeks from just selling covered calls on a portion of my retirement savings (not even six figures!) My regular weekly salary is $2,725 (before taxes).

My day job at least ensures some tiny part of the military-industrial-Oedipal complex stays safe, and quite possibly our country and our allies.

I did absolutely nothing for the betterment of humanity outside my family and my 401k. This buying and selling of financial implements?

I just did some pointing and clicking and made 25% of my weekly salary. I'll get taxed at a lower rate than I would if I worked hard and got myself promoted to a job paying $3,300 a week. My stock picking isn't any great shakes, I just bought a bunch of companies we've all heard of.

I'm sure some conservative will tell me to just give it all to charity and will fancy her/himself quite witty.

But a system that's biased towards folks like me isn't going to work forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone on here should educate themselves about the constitution before commenting on the nomination of SC justices. Hyperbole and opinion does not equal fact.

Considering that you didn’t make a single factual point, or even indicate which posts you disagree with, this is a completely worthless post.

[Anonymous]

I'll never again suffer any kind of lecture about integrity, honesty, morality, godliness from any Christian on the Right. Ever.

They've shameless sold their souls. I could, at one time, at least a "moral" stance on most issues. But, they don't care about morality. Or have integrity. If they did, every single one would have stood up long ago, but especially now. McConnell, Graham, stood up there in 2016 and lied. Blatantly. Intentionally.

So all you moral majority, family values, party of god folks . . . . shame on all of you. You disgust me.

[Anonymous]

McConnell just saved Americans the trouble of going through a trial.

[Anonymous]

In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

With McConnell's rule the Supreme Court can sit empty indefinitely. Is that Constitutional? Is that politics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

With McConnell's rule the Supreme Court can sit empty indefinitely. Is that Constitutional? Is that politics?

Still waiting on an answer to this. No one?