Cat_Scratch Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 Just now, DownSouth said: https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics?id=factcheck_8df18b2a-26ab-4d33-ba13-2c4a4e45b23c&iid=ffembed%3Acard The campaign says Biden did not know about the restrictions at the time of his speech, since his campaign event in Iowa started shortly after the Trump administration briefing where the restrictions were revealed by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar. But Biden never took an explicit position on the restrictions until his April declaration of support. - Once Biden has the info Trump did, he agreed with him anyway. So he didn't know but put his 2 cents into it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarterBlue Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 4 minutes ago, Cat_Scratch said: On the flip side, you have to wonder if that is why Biden went into hiding for almost a month. Did he have covid also? Who knows? But if he did it's not an issue now. In fact if anything, he would probably have immunity. If Pence is currently ill, it is a current problem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarterBlue Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 3 minutes ago, Cat_Scratch said: I agree with you on this. There should never be a life time politician or Law maker. There should never be a lifetime anything. Even a family business should have provisions for the transfer of power when the founder gets old. It just makes sense. None of us are immortal or indispensable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat_Scratch Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 Just now, DarterBlue said: Who knows? But if he did it's not an issue now. In fact if anything, he would probably have immunity. If Pence is currently ill, it is a current problem. If Pence is ill he should do what his Dr's tell him to do. If he needs to confine, then so be it. It's to late for that now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarterBlue Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 6 minutes ago, Bormio said: FIFY IT MAKES NO SENSE, PERIOD! I am serious. Think about it. For a doctor you are as dense as molasses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat_Scratch Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 1 minute ago, DarterBlue said: There should never be a lifetime anything. Even a family business should have provisions for the transfer of power when the founder gets old. It just makes sense. None of us are immortal or indispensable. I agree again. The transfer should be peaceful... like when Trump won in 2016. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 Just now, DarterBlue said: IT MAKES NO SENSE, PERIOD! I am serious. Think about it. For a doctor you are as dense as molasses. It does make sense. It is supposed to insulate the justices from politics by being appointed for life. Justices quite often change during their lifetime, and move left or right. Some don’t. There are downsides, but there is also a reason. Replacing justices more often makes the court even more political, not less. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 Very often the court acts as a check on the political flavor of the day - which is not a bad thing. And how it was designed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 Kamala Harris's Ratings Plummet As People Realize They'd Have To Listen To Her Voice For Next 4 Years October 7th, 2020 SALT LAKE CITY, UT—Joe Biden's running mate appears to be in deep trouble after speaking in tonight's debate and letting everyone hear what her voice actually sounds like. "This is a disaster for us," said campaign manager Jennifer O'Malley Dillon to anonymous sources. "We really didn't think people were actually going to watch this debate, let alone with the sound on." According to polls of citizens who watched the debate, the very thought of hearing Kamala Harris's voice and signature cackle for the next 4-8 years makes 3 out of 4 people want to lay down in front of a steamroller. "Never thought I'd say this, but maybe my old lady's voice ain't so bad," said Bob Ataboy, a local factory worker. The campaign vowed to address this situation and has set up Harris for personal classes with famous likeability coach Hillary Clinton. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 Biden Confused By Woman Of Color On TV Who Isn’t Stocking Grocery Shelves October 7th, 2020 WILMINGTON, DE—During the evening of the VP debates, Joe Biden settled down on his soft couch with a glass of warm milk to watch his favorite stories on television. When he turned on the tube, he was shocked to see a woman of color on the screen. "Wait a jack-a-doodle minute! This ain't Matlock!" Biden said to his assistant. "Who is that lady on the screen? Why isn't she stocking the grocery store shelves? How will I get my pudding and applesauce? Why isn't this Matlock, you good for nothin' pony soldier?" Biden's assistant began her nightly ritual of reminding Biden who he was and what he was doing. "She's my running mate? Wow! So clean and articulate!" Biden exclaimed. Biden started watching the debate but fell asleep 9 minutes in. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarterBlue Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 9 minutes ago, Bormio said: It does make sense. It is supposed to insulate the justices from politics by being appointed for life. Justices quite often change during their lifetime, and move left or right. Some don’t. There are downsides, but there is also a reason. Replacing justices more often makes the court even more political, not less. The court is already political. Clearly the intent has not worked. I can think of no situation anywhere else that provides for a lifetime job. There have been Justices that have become seriously mentally impaired who refused to exit. We can have a spirited debate about duration. I threw out 12-20, but you could extend it. I was reluctant to suggest less than 12 for precisely the reason you cite. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat_Scratch Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 13 minutes ago, Bormio said: It does make sense. It is supposed to insulate the justices from politics by being appointed for life. Justices quite often change during their lifetime, and move left or right. Some don’t. There are downsides, but there is also a reason. Replacing justices more often makes the court even more political, not less. Never thought of it that way but you do make sense. Can never be sure you are going to get a balanced court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Cat_Scratch said: Never thought of it that way but you do make sense. Can never be sure you are going to get a balanced court. You are either applying the constitution as written or not. This "living breathing document" stuff is bullshit. What they really mean is "read into it what they want". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarterBlue Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Cat_Scratch said: Never thought of it that way but you do make sense. Can never be sure you are going to get a balanced court. In the 37 years I have lived in the USA we have not had one balanced court, regardless of whether it tilted right or left. The court is supposed, among other things, to provide a check on power of the other two branches of government (primarily the executive, but on congress also). I think the whole thing needs serious study and thought insulated from undue political influence. I know the USA is loathe to look at examples from elsewhere. But in this case, it may be productive to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 5 minutes ago, DarterBlue said: The court is already political. Clearly the intent has not worked. I can think of no situation anywhere else that provides for a lifetime job. There have been Justices that have become seriously mentally impaired who refused to exit. We can have a spirited debate about duration. I threw out 12-20, but you could extend it. I was reluctant to suggest less than 12 for precisely the reason you cite. Suddenly an issue for Democrats - wonder why. It actually is a resume enhancer for the Court to be young. Better 40 years than 15-20. Justices change though. Whizzer White was appointed by a Democrat - became a solid conservative vote. Nixon appointed Stevens - became a liberal lion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat_Scratch Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 21 minutes ago, DarterBlue said: In the 37 years I have lived in the USA we have not had one balanced court, regardless of whether it tilted right or left. The court is supposed, among other things, to provide a check on power of the other two branches of government (primarily the executive, but on congress also). I think the whole thing needs serious study and thought insulated from undue political influence. I know the USA is loathe to look at examples from elsewhere. But in this case, it may be productive to do so. Well there is that reason why an odd number are appointed. So much for being a centrist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imaGoodBoyNow Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 Pence probably got pink eye from all the Dog shit Harris was spewing all night 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 8 hours ago, Cat_Scratch said: Just a guess... higher taxes and a packed court? higher taxes are decades over do... no one is packing the court Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 10 hours ago, Bormio said: Lot of middle of the roaders not down with court packing either why do Trumpets keep bringing this up? it's not gonna happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imaGoodBoyNow Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 9 hours ago, Wildcat Will said: You shittin yourself. Truth is truth. You know it’s bad when even Yahoo says Pence won Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 37 minutes ago, noonereal said: why do Trumpets keep bringing this up? it's not gonna happen Why not? All it takes is a law, not a constitutional change. The Democrats are not going to let no stinking Supreme Court stand in the way of their plans to destroy America 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imaGoodBoyNow Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 You know the Dems are losing when all they got to talk shit about is a fly and a pink eye from last night 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted October 8, 2020 Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 I agree with very little of what Elizabeth Warren stands for politically, but she would have been a far more credible VP candidate. Harris is a lightweight who has no business being near the Oval Office. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted October 8, 2020 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 Kamala Harris’s ‘little history lesson’ about Lincoln’s Supreme Court vacancy wasn’t exactly true https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/10/08/lincoln-supreme-court-kamala-harris/?outputType=amp 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted October 8, 2020 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2020 Public opposes packing Supreme Court with liberal judges, Washington Examiner/YouGov poll finds https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/public-opposes-packing-supreme-court-with-liberal-judges-washington-examiner-yougov-poll-finds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.