Discussion about hot topics trending today

[mad_gater]

by putting a lying Koch-sponsored alcoholic on the Supreme Court they delegitimized it & revealed themselves as the true party of the Elite$

question is will the Dems be (for once) astute enough to capitalize on this instead of fighting the useless fights

you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that he's an alcoholic (and incidentally also no proof whatsoever of his 30-year-old adult indiscretions)

I know this is a foreign concept to you but do try to get it through your wannabe Commie skull that accusations alone are not proof of guilt. If you have no hard evidence then you don't have a leg to stand on. And that's exactly the amount of hard evidence the Democrats had against Kavanaugh: zero ("he said, she said" does not in any way constitute the kind of hard evidence you'd need for a conviction on that score)

[mad_gater]

I say if the neocons win in 2018 it will be definite proof that the Government rigged the elections (likely btw)
this time they won't even need the ruskies

so when things don't go the way you want them to you basically do the equivalent of whining and stamping your feet like a little 2-year-old

[Annoyed]

so the drunk predator's been confirmed to the SDS (Supreme Deep State)

american democracy once again proven a farce

1st lesson to learn from this is presumption of innocence is upheld but only for the elites (and their proteges Koch watched over his)

2nd lesson: supreme deep state lost legitimacy it's no longer a means of checks & balances
instead a partisan elitist "entity" whose purpose behind is to enable the elites (the real ones like Koch who makes Soros look like a beggar) and rubberstamp their will



I look forward to the day when the SDS's 5/4 rulings greenlight Koch & the industrial elites to dump toxic chemicals in the backyards of those Trumpets who are rejoicing
especially trumpette women having a miscarriage when their fetus baby is contaminated

With as much as you rail about the lack of Democracy, the voters not having their say and such, I'm surprised that you aren't in favor of more restrained courts. Or does it just depend upon which side you agree with?

Over a period of time about 10? years ago, California voters not once but twice rejected gay marriage at the ballot box. The issue was put before the voters twice, and each time the voters said nay. But an activist, liberal California court overturned the express choice of the voters both times.

[Annoyed]

So do you think the Republicans will now be able to do stuff like

Rewind abortion laws and reverse Roe vs Wade?

Bring back segregation, only this time it will be the trans and Lgbt communities facing the segregation

I do wonder.

It is possible that Roe v. Wade could be overturned, next time the issue comes before the court. But I don't think that would result in an instant ban on abortions, it would just bounce the issue back to the individual states; each state would make its own choices.

As far as segregation, I would guess that would depend upon how you define it. Forcing gays to the back of the bus, separate water fountains and that sort of thing, not a chance. Changes would be more likely along the lines of the govt. could no longer force a bakery to make a cake for a gay wedding as happened in Colorado I think it was, nor could churches be forced to do things that violates the tenets of their religion, that kind of thing.

[Gatefan1976]

you a trumpet now?

(I know it's tempting to side with the winner it's the american way but comeon)

No, he is simply concerned about you.
Like it or not, people like "us" who drive these threads become family to a degree even when we want to throttle each other.
Do you honestly think I would argue with annoyed just because I think he is wrong?
I think most people are wrong, and are stupid idiots not worth mentioning, let alone discussing for or against posititions on politics.

[SoulReaver]

With as much as you rail about the lack of Democracy, the voters not having their say and such, I'm surprised that you aren't in favor of more restrained courts.

that's the point I would be (as opposed to the partisan supreme court you got now)

No, he is simply concerned about you.

I just state facts unless you think Kavanaugh's innocent
at best he's shady as fook & not fit for the bench

Do you honestly think I would argue with annoyed just because I think he is wrong?
I think most people are wrong, and are stupid idiots not worth mentioning, let alone discussing for or against posititions on politics.

he's brainwashed to worship government but who knows maybe... something happened in the past that explains this

so when things don't go the way you want them to you basically do the equivalent of whining and stamping your feet like a little 2-year-old

isn't that what you supreme judge did on camera

not to mention your king himself everytime he tweets his rants & his sheep (you) gobble them as commandments

you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that he's an alcoholic (and incidentally also no proof whatsoever of his 30-year-old adult indiscretions)

so you missed the entire hearing where he details all his drinking games* & rambles about how he likes beer. reckon you were drunk yourself

*except Devil's Triangle if you're gullible enough to think that's a drinking game

I know this is a foreign concept to you but do try to get it through your wannabe Commie skull that accusations alone are not proof of guilt. If you have no hard evidence then you don't have a leg to stand on.

"commie" says the Putinist/stalinist rusky-lover lol

yeah I get it accusations are not proof of guilt when accusing the [real] elites
(or those protected by them. like your leader Koch protects Kavanaugh)

conversely when you future king called for the execution of the 5 suspects in Central Park 5 (later proven innocent) he didn't hesitate to call for their execution

you don't complain when the neocons call for jailing Hillary based on some phantom mails despite an Fbi investigation (real one this time) and a Kremlin investigation both of which proved nothing. + the alleged crime wasn't even a crime to begin with (negligence at most)

you didn't mind when Cosby & Weinstein were accused + charged despite 0 proof

I'm just applying your own standards for Kavanaugh

And that's exactly the amount of hard evidence the Democrats had against Kavanaugh: zero ("he said, she said" does not in any way constitute the kind of hard evidence you'd need for a conviction on that score)

this wasn't about a conviction he wasn't even charged (another privilege)

[SoulReaver]

hey MG speaking of skulls

I know this is a foreign concept to you but do try to get it through your wannabe Commie skull that accusations alone are not proof of guilt.

try get this into your government-worshiping skull : one day your Supreme Deep State rules by 5/4 that Botham Jean's killing was legal & the beotch who killed him's innocent

so one day a cop barges into your house & guns you down. the last thing going through your skull (before the bullet) will be that feeling of foolishness realizing you did this to yourself

lol

[mad_gater]

that's the point I would be (as opposed to the partisan supreme court you got now)
I just state facts unless you think Kavanaugh's innocent
at best he's shady as fook & not fit for the bench
he's brainwashed to worship government but who knows maybe... something happened in the past that explains this
isn't that what you supreme judge did on camera

not to mention your king himself everytime he tweets his rants & his sheep (you) gobble them as commandments
so you missed the entire hearing where he details all his drinking games* & rambles about how he likes beer. reckon you were drunk yourself

*except Devil's Triangle if you're gullible enough to think that's a drinking game
"commie" says the Putinist/stalinist rusky-lover lol

yeah I get it accusations are not proof of guilt when accusing the [real] elites
(or those protected by them. like your leader Koch protects Kavanaugh)

conversely when you future king called for the execution of the 5 suspects in Central Park 5 (later proven innocent) he didn't hesitate to call for their execution

you don't complain when the neocons call for jailing Hillary based on some phantom mails despite an Fbi investigation (real one this time) and a Kremlin investigation both of which proved nothing. + the alleged crime wasn't even a crime to begin with (negligence at most)

you didn't mind when Cosby & Weinstein were accused + charged despite 0 proof

I'm just applying your own standards for Kavanaugh

this wasn't about a conviction he wasn't even charged (another privilege)

Oh noes he got drunk at some wild parties he's attended in his past. Who hasn't? Heck I'VE been drunk before....doesn't mean I'm an alcoholic.

Simply put.....they had to dredge up his college (or quite possibly his high school days....not sure what age he would've been 30+ years ago) days to find anything at all. Who hasn't done stupid stuff (like getting drunk) when they were teenagers or just entering adulthood?

I also find it quite laughable that Borg-like perfection is expected by the party that advocates for a socialistic system of government that is fundamentally flawed

[mad_gater]

hey MG speaking of skullstry get this into your government-worshiping skull : one day your Supreme Deep State rules by 5/4 that Botham Jean's killing was legal & the beotch who killed him's innocent

so one day a copper with an itch barges into your house & guns you down. I bet the last thing going through your skull (before the bullet) will be an split second feeling of foolishness as you realize you brought this upon yourself

lol

considering my advocacy of the 2nd Amendment....that unjust copper might have a difficult time of it

not to mention that had nothing to do with accusations alone not being proof of guilt....but I've long since come to expect the fact that when you don't have a logical argument you resort to a vain attempt to compare apples to oranges to make a quite erroneous point

[mad_gater]

that's the point I would be (as opposed to the partisan supreme court you got now)
I just state facts unless you think Kavanaugh's innocent
at best he's shady as fook & not fit for the bench
he's brainwashed to worship government but who knows maybe... something happened in the past that explains this
isn't that what you supreme judge did on camera

not to mention your king himself everytime he tweets his rants & his sheep (you) gobble them as commandments
so you missed the entire hearing where he details all his drinking games* & rambles about how he likes beer. reckon you were drunk yourself

*except Devil's Triangle if you're gullible enough to think that's a drinking game
"commie" says the Putinist/stalinist rusky-lover lol

yeah I get it accusations are not proof of guilt when accusing the [real] elites
(or those protected by them. like your leader Koch protects Kavanaugh)

conversely when you future king called for the execution of the 5 suspects in Central Park 5 (later proven innocent) he didn't hesitate to call for their execution

you don't complain when the neocons call for jailing Hillary based on some phantom mails despite an Fbi investigation (real one this time) and a Kremlin investigation both of which proved nothing. + the alleged crime wasn't even a crime to begin with (negligence at most)

you didn't mind when Cosby & Weinstein were accused + charged despite 0 proof

I'm just applying your own standards for Kavanaugh

this wasn't about a conviction he wasn't even charged (another privilege)

you're right...it wasn't about a conviction...it was all about trying to delay things until they could attempt to regain control of the Senate after the midterms, a risky gamble at best

[SoulReaver]

Oh noes he got drunk at some wild parties he's attended in his past. Who hasn't? Heck I'VE been drunk before....doesn't mean I'm an alcoholic.

Simply put.....they had to dredge up his college (or quite possibly his high school days....not sure what age he would've been 30+ years ago) days to find anything at all. Who hasn't done stupid stuff (like getting drunk) when they were teenagers or just entering adulthood?

I also find it quite laughable that Borg-like perfection is expected by the party that advocates for a socialistic system of government that is fundamentally flawed

drinking's not the only thing unless you think Ford was lying

what did she gain - harassment & death threats
what did Kavanaugh gain - a lifetime position of supreme power
that alone shows who's the liar (hint it's not the one who's no politician & gained nothing)


and did you seriously mention the borg
coming from a government-worshiper who's party's motto is basically "comply"
lol

considering my advocacy of the 2nd Amendment....that unjust copper might have a difficult time of it

not to mention that had nothing to do with accusations alone not being proof of guilt....but I've long since come to expect the fact that when you don't have a logical argument you resort to a vain attempt to compare apples to oranges to make a quite erroneous point

what are you on about I was talking of the consequences of Kavanaugh's nomination to the SDS it's on topic try to keep up

and you seriously suggesting you'd shoot that intruder. not very Patriotic(tm)
you realize you'd end up on the electric chair dont you
the SDS 5/4 majority will not be on your side. capice?

you're right...it wasn't about a conviction...it was all about trying to delay things until they could attempt to regain control of the Senate after the midterms, a risky gamble at best

I know Annoyed suggested it could backfire

but Kavanaugh's jekyll & hyde revelation will damage the image of the SDS this won't help at next elections when people no longer trust a court expected to be above partisan divide (again that's assuming the government doesn't rig elections)



if anything there's 2 things that may have damaged the Dems

1) Michael Avenatti when he brought in the 3rd accuser it's possible this helped Kavanaugh

2) the metoo movement which could poison the debate & detract from the real issues

[Annoyed]

he's brainwashed to worship government but who knows maybe... something happened in the past that explains this

Not quite. I distrust all govt. to some degree, but I recognize that it is a necessary evil.

Our founding fathers felt this way too, and therefore set about creating a very limited govt. Look at the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Isn't it clear that they wanted a limited govt. ?

Why do you think I so strongly favor a conservative, original intent minded court that sticks to reading what is actually in the constitution and what laws congress actually passes as congress passed them, as opposed to an activist, liberal court that creates new law out of whole cloth (Much as the accusations against Kavanaugh came from, notice a pattern here?)
How many agencies have had their powers expanded as a result of liberal, activist courts? Or how many citizens have had their rights curtailed, say their 2nd amendment rights by those same courts?

The role of the judiciary is to interpret what is written in the Constitution and what laws are passed by the congress, not to pull new law from where the sun don't shine as liberal, activist courts such as the 9th circus do.

But that right there is why the left opposes conservative courts. They can't get much of their agenda through the legislative process to become law; there are simply not enough people that support it to do so in a representative republic. So they have turned to the courts to do it. They are losing the ability to do that. So I understand their motivation, but that does not in any way justify the completely inexcusable tactics they used against Kavanaugh, and in my opinion, those who perpetrated that atrocity should be held accountable.

[SoulReaver]

Not quite. I distrust all govt. to some degree, but I recognize that it is a necessary evil.

Our founding fathers felt this way too, and therefore set about creating a very limited govt. Look at the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Isn't it clear that they wanted a limited govt. ?

you can forget about that now

The role of the judiciary is to interpret what is written in the Constitution and what laws are passed by the congress

not anymore their new role is to make laws that protect your elites

But that right there is why the left opposes conservative courts. They can't get much of their agenda through the legislative process to become law; there are simply not enough people that support it to do so in a representative republic. So they have turned to the courts to do it. They are losing the ability to do that

what are you talking about your top court's been conservative for decades
Kennedy ruled on maybe 1 or 2 important topics but near the end he was a conservative as proven by the fact that he resigned in summer instead of after november

[jelgate]

Not quite. I distrust all govt. to some degree, but I recognize that it is a necessary evil.

Our founding fathers felt this way too, and therefore set about creating a very limited govt. Look at the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Isn't it clear that they wanted a limited govt. ?

Why do you think I so strongly favor a conservative, original intent minded court that sticks to reading what is actually in the constitution and what laws congress actually passes as congress passed them, as opposed to an activist, liberal court that creates new law out of whole cloth (Much as the accusations against Kavanaugh came from, notice a pattern here?)
How many agencies have had their powers expanded as a result of liberal, activist courts? Or how many citizens have had their rights curtailed, say their 2nd amendment rights by those same courts?

The role of the judiciary is to interpret what is written in the Constitution and what laws are passed by the congress, not to pull new law from where the sun don't shine as liberal, activist courts such as the 9th circus do.

But that right there is why the left opposes conservative courts. They can't get much of their agenda through the legislative process to become law; there are simply not enough people that support it to do so in a representative republic. So they have turned to the courts to do it. They are losing the ability to do that. So I understand their motivation, but that does not in any way justify the completely inexcusable tactics they used against Kavanaugh, and in my opinion, those who perpetrated that atrocity should be held accountable.

False

[mad_gater]

Oh and as far as Kavanaugh being angry and them being llike "see how angry he gets?"

well you'd be just as angry as he was if you were being automatically presumed guilty of a crime.....automatic presumption of guilt is not how our justice system is supposed to work