The Republic States of America vs. The Socialist States of America.

61,268 Views | 502 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Enforcer
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

What so many people lose in all this, is how the President-elect must handle the aftermath.

If Trump had won the election, he would have the burden of making peace with the Democrats for the good of the nation. In some ways it's good that Trump lost the court cases, because election results aside, his temper is combative and a second term would bring strong conflict with the House and likely cause change he would not like in 2022 and 2024. If the courts had supported Trump and denied the certification, the results would have been explosive.

But Biden is not in a strong position. The plain fact is that a great many people think he stole the election, and he needs to reassure the nation that he is going to work for everyone, not just his party. A good way to do that would be to ask for alternatives to Dominion, since Dominion is a foreign-owned and foreign-managed company. Even if Congress ignored the request, it would be smart of Biden to say he sees the concern and wants to make sure elections are fair and above-board. He already has won the office, now he needs to show he is a real leader.

But mocking Republicans and voters who support Trump is exactly the wrong move. It's only going to cause that same outrage and chaos that he claims Trump is causing.

The election is decided. But not the course of Biden's Presidency.
It is not mocking Republicans to request that you read the court cases. Evidence has been considered and found lacking. I don't blame Republicans, I blame the lawyers representing the campaign.(Those that are still left; the better ones dropped off.)

I completely reject your assertion of "If the courts had supported Trump..." There is nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else that requires SCOTUS or any other court to support the president. Check the oath of office.

If, however, Trump supporters want to continue their outrage and chaos then it is entirely fair to ask them to first channel their emotions into legit court cases. Courts are where we resolve disputes. Courts are where this dispute has been heard and found lacking so far.


The lack of credibility in the judiciary renders appeals to channel emotions into legit court cases problematic. Are the cases lacking, or the courts?
Talking to my lawyer friends, they say the timing is the big problem. In a case where there is reason to doubt the integrity, be it fraud, system errors or whatever, if evidence is found to support the complaint, the obvious remedy is a re-vote, such as we saw in North Carolina last year.

But in a Presidential election, the size of the area needed to revote makes it impossible to schedule and hold a revote before the Safe Harbor date. There is also the problem of producing evidence in the time frame.

It should be obvious that there have been serious irregularities in the votes in several states. That of course does not prove fraud or even that the outcome was altered. But it certainly justifies serious investigation. In this case the Democrats do not want such an investigation, out of fear this may create doubt about Biden's election, but the way Democrats have gone about things, from blocking observers to holding private counts in the middle of the night, et cetera, has caused a lot of people to believe there is substance to the claims that Biden stole the election.

The courts find themselves in a no-win situation. There is insufficient evidence to overturn the results, but there is evidence of serious problems. Hearing a case and issuing a ruling based on that evidence means either making a decision on incomplete information or delaying certification in case the evidence revealed the claims were correct. Either way is a bad end.

Judges, even SCOTUS Justices, are human and feel pressure. It's much easier to just refuse to hear the case than face the pressure of looking like you decided the election.

TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

What so many people lose in all this, is how the President-elect must handle the aftermath.

If Trump had won the election, he would have the burden of making peace with the Democrats for the good of the nation. In some ways it's good that Trump lost the court cases, because election results aside, his temper is combative and a second term would bring strong conflict with the House and likely cause change he would not like in 2022 and 2024. If the courts had supported Trump and denied the certification, the results would have been explosive.

But Biden is not in a strong position. The plain fact is that a great many people think he stole the election, and he needs to reassure the nation that he is going to work for everyone, not just his party. A good way to do that would be to ask for alternatives to Dominion, since Dominion is a foreign-owned and foreign-managed company. Even if Congress ignored the request, it would be smart of Biden to say he sees the concern and wants to make sure elections are fair and above-board. He already has won the office, now he needs to show he is a real leader.

But mocking Republicans and voters who support Trump is exactly the wrong move. It's only going to cause that same outrage and chaos that he claims Trump is causing.

The election is decided. But not the course of Biden's Presidency.
It is not mocking Republicans to request that you read the court cases. Evidence has been considered and found lacking. I don't blame Republicans, I blame the lawyers representing the campaign.(Those that are still left; the better ones dropped off.)

I completely reject your assertion of "If the courts had supported Trump..." There is nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else that requires SCOTUS or any other court to support the president. Check the oath of office.

If, however, Trump supporters want to continue their outrage and chaos then it is entirely fair to ask them to first channel their emotions into legit court cases. Courts are where we resolve disputes. Courts are where this dispute has been heard and found lacking so far.


The lack of credibility in the judiciary renders appeals to channel emotions into legit court cases problematic. Are the cases lacking, or the courts?
Credibility in he judiciary hinges on excusing Trump from following legal procedure? Most of the judges were his appointees. When they hold Trump to the rules, they have no credibility? As of yet, we don't have kangaroo courts, much to Trump's chagrin.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
br53 said:

Canada2017 said:

Gold Tron said:

Texas and who ever wants to come with us.


Will the official language be English or Spanish ?


Spanglish just like it is now
orale, dude.

- el BUmma
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

What so many people lose in all this, is how the President-elect must handle the aftermath.

If Trump had won the election, he would have the burden of making peace with the Democrats for the good of the nation. In some ways it's good that Trump lost the court cases, because election results aside, his temper is combative and a second term would bring strong conflict with the House and likely cause change he would not like in 2022 and 2024. If the courts had supported Trump and denied the certification, the results would have been explosive.

But Biden is not in a strong position. The plain fact is that a great many people think he stole the election, and he needs to reassure the nation that he is going to work for everyone, not just his party. A good way to do that would be to ask for alternatives to Dominion, since Dominion is a foreign-owned and foreign-managed company. Even if Congress ignored the request, it would be smart of Biden to say he sees the concern and wants to make sure elections are fair and above-board. He already has won the office, now he needs to show he is a real leader.

But mocking Republicans and voters who support Trump is exactly the wrong move. It's only going to cause that same outrage and chaos that he claims Trump is causing.

The election is decided. But not the course of Biden's Presidency.
It is not mocking Republicans to request that you read the court cases. Evidence has been considered and found lacking. I don't blame Republicans, I blame the lawyers representing the campaign.(Those that are still left; the better ones dropped off.)

I completely reject your assertion of "If the courts had supported Trump..." There is nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else that requires SCOTUS or any other court to support the president. Check the oath of office.

If, however, Trump supporters want to continue their outrage and chaos then it is entirely fair to ask them to first channel their emotions into legit court cases. Courts are where we resolve disputes. Courts are where this dispute has been heard and found lacking so far.


The lack of credibility in the judiciary renders appeals to channel emotions into legit court cases problematic. Are the cases lacking, or the courts?
I'd say the cases. Trump's legal team had trouble with the federal pleadings in multiple venues.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

What so many people lose in all this, is how the President-elect must handle the aftermath.

If Trump had won the election, he would have the burden of making peace with the Democrats for the good of the nation. In some ways it's good that Trump lost the court cases, because election results aside, his temper is combative and a second term would bring strong conflict with the House and likely cause change he would not like in 2022 and 2024. If the courts had supported Trump and denied the certification, the results would have been explosive.

But Biden is not in a strong position. The plain fact is that a great many people think he stole the election, and he needs to reassure the nation that he is going to work for everyone, not just his party. A good way to do that would be to ask for alternatives to Dominion, since Dominion is a foreign-owned and foreign-managed company. Even if Congress ignored the request, it would be smart of Biden to say he sees the concern and wants to make sure elections are fair and above-board. He already has won the office, now he needs to show he is a real leader.

But mocking Republicans and voters who support Trump is exactly the wrong move. It's only going to cause that same outrage and chaos that he claims Trump is causing.

The election is decided. But not the course of Biden's Presidency.
It is not mocking Republicans to request that you read the court cases. Evidence has been considered and found lacking. I don't blame Republicans, I blame the lawyers representing the campaign.(Those that are still left; the better ones dropped off.)

I completely reject your assertion of "If the courts had supported Trump..." There is nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else that requires SCOTUS or any other court to support the president. Check the oath of office.

If, however, Trump supporters want to continue their outrage and chaos then it is entirely fair to ask them to first channel their emotions into legit court cases. Courts are where we resolve disputes. Courts are where this dispute has been heard and found lacking so far.


The lack of credibility in the judiciary renders appeals to channel emotions into legit court cases problematic. Are the cases lacking, or the courts?


The cases, laughably so. Read the opinions.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

What so many people lose in all this, is how the President-elect must handle the aftermath.

If Trump had won the election, he would have the burden of making peace with the Democrats for the good of the nation. In some ways it's good that Trump lost the court cases, because election results aside, his temper is combative and a second term would bring strong conflict with the House and likely cause change he would not like in 2022 and 2024. If the courts had supported Trump and denied the certification, the results would have been explosive.

But Biden is not in a strong position. The plain fact is that a great many people think he stole the election, and he needs to reassure the nation that he is going to work for everyone, not just his party. A good way to do that would be to ask for alternatives to Dominion, since Dominion is a foreign-owned and foreign-managed company. Even if Congress ignored the request, it would be smart of Biden to say he sees the concern and wants to make sure elections are fair and above-board. He already has won the office, now he needs to show he is a real leader.

But mocking Republicans and voters who support Trump is exactly the wrong move. It's only going to cause that same outrage and chaos that he claims Trump is causing.

The election is decided. But not the course of Biden's Presidency.
It is not mocking Republicans to request that you read the court cases. Evidence has been considered and found lacking. I don't blame Republicans, I blame the lawyers representing the campaign.(Those that are still left; the better ones dropped off.)

I completely reject your assertion of "If the courts had supported Trump..." There is nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else that requires SCOTUS or any other court to support the president. Check the oath of office.

If, however, Trump supporters want to continue their outrage and chaos then it is entirely fair to ask them to first channel their emotions into legit court cases. Courts are where we resolve disputes. Courts are where this dispute has been heard and found lacking so far.


The lack of credibility in the judiciary renders appeals to channel emotions into legit court cases problematic. Are the cases lacking, or the courts?
Talking to my lawyer friends, they say the timing is the big problem. In a case where there is reason to doubt the integrity, be it fraud, system errors or whatever, if evidence is found to support the complaint, the obvious remedy is a re-vote, such as we saw in North Carolina last year.

But in a Presidential election, the size of the area needed to revote makes it impossible to schedule and hold a revote before the Safe Harbor date. There is also the problem of producing evidence in the time frame.

It should be obvious that there have been serious irregularities in the votes in several states. That of course does not prove fraud or even that the outcome was altered. But it certainly justifies serious investigation. In this case the Democrats do not want such an investigation, out of fear this may create doubt about Biden's election, but the way Democrats have gone about things, from blocking observers to holding private counts in the middle of the night, et cetera, has caused a lot of people to believe there is substance to the claims that Biden stole the election.

The courts find themselves in a no-win situation. There is insufficient evidence to overturn the results, but there is evidence of serious problems. Hearing a case and issuing a ruling based on that evidence means either making a decision on incomplete information or delaying certification in case the evidence revealed the claims were correct. Either way is a bad end.

Judges, even SCOTUS Justices, are human and feel pressure. It's much easier to just refuse to hear the case than face the pressure of looking like you decided the election.




SCOTUS didn't do the easy thing out of pressure, they did the easy thing because of law. Texas had no standing.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

What so many people lose in all this, is how the President-elect must handle the aftermath.

If Trump had won the election, he would have the burden of making peace with the Democrats for the good of the nation. In some ways it's good that Trump lost the court cases, because election results aside, his temper is combative and a second term would bring strong conflict with the House and likely cause change he would not like in 2022 and 2024. If the courts had supported Trump and denied the certification, the results would have been explosive.

But Biden is not in a strong position. The plain fact is that a great many people think he stole the election, and he needs to reassure the nation that he is going to work for everyone, not just his party. A good way to do that would be to ask for alternatives to Dominion, since Dominion is a foreign-owned and foreign-managed company. Even if Congress ignored the request, it would be smart of Biden to say he sees the concern and wants to make sure elections are fair and above-board. He already has won the office, now he needs to show he is a real leader.

But mocking Republicans and voters who support Trump is exactly the wrong move. It's only going to cause that same outrage and chaos that he claims Trump is causing.

The election is decided. But not the course of Biden's Presidency.
It is not mocking Republicans to request that you read the court cases. Evidence has been considered and found lacking. I don't blame Republicans, I blame the lawyers representing the campaign.(Those that are still left; the better ones dropped off.)

I completely reject your assertion of "If the courts had supported Trump..." There is nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else that requires SCOTUS or any other court to support the president. Check the oath of office.

If, however, Trump supporters want to continue their outrage and chaos then it is entirely fair to ask them to first channel their emotions into legit court cases. Courts are where we resolve disputes. Courts are where this dispute has been heard and found lacking so far.


The lack of credibility in the judiciary renders appeals to channel emotions into legit court cases problematic. Are the cases lacking, or the courts?
2016: Trump is a jerk, but we need conservative judges.

2020: Conservative judges have no credibility!
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

What so many people lose in all this, is how the President-elect must handle the aftermath.

If Trump had won the election, he would have the burden of making peace with the Democrats for the good of the nation. In some ways it's good that Trump lost the court cases, because election results aside, his temper is combative and a second term would bring strong conflict with the House and likely cause change he would not like in 2022 and 2024. If the courts had supported Trump and denied the certification, the results would have been explosive.

But Biden is not in a strong position. The plain fact is that a great many people think he stole the election, and he needs to reassure the nation that he is going to work for everyone, not just his party. A good way to do that would be to ask for alternatives to Dominion, since Dominion is a foreign-owned and foreign-managed company. Even if Congress ignored the request, it would be smart of Biden to say he sees the concern and wants to make sure elections are fair and above-board. He already has won the office, now he needs to show he is a real leader.

But mocking Republicans and voters who support Trump is exactly the wrong move. It's only going to cause that same outrage and chaos that he claims Trump is causing.

The election is decided. But not the course of Biden's Presidency.
It is not mocking Republicans to request that you read the court cases. Evidence has been considered and found lacking. I don't blame Republicans, I blame the lawyers representing the campaign.(Those that are still left; the better ones dropped off.)

I completely reject your assertion of "If the courts had supported Trump..." There is nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else that requires SCOTUS or any other court to support the president. Check the oath of office.

If, however, Trump supporters want to continue their outrage and chaos then it is entirely fair to ask them to first channel their emotions into legit court cases. Courts are where we resolve disputes. Courts are where this dispute has been heard and found lacking so far.


The lack of credibility in the judiciary renders appeals to channel emotions into legit court cases problematic. Are the cases lacking, or the courts?
Credibility in he judiciary hinges on excusing Trump from following legal procedure? Most of the judges were his appointees. When they hold Trump to the rules, they have no credibility? As of yet, we don't have kangaroo courts, much to Trump's chagrin.
Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump. Sorry he lives so hard in your head.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Judges have credibility
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?


Personal experience combined with observation.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

What so many people lose in all this, is how the President-elect must handle the aftermath.

If Trump had won the election, he would have the burden of making peace with the Democrats for the good of the nation. In some ways it's good that Trump lost the court cases, because election results aside, his temper is combative and a second term would bring strong conflict with the House and likely cause change he would not like in 2022 and 2024. If the courts had supported Trump and denied the certification, the results would have been explosive.

But Biden is not in a strong position. The plain fact is that a great many people think he stole the election, and he needs to reassure the nation that he is going to work for everyone, not just his party. A good way to do that would be to ask for alternatives to Dominion, since Dominion is a foreign-owned and foreign-managed company. Even if Congress ignored the request, it would be smart of Biden to say he sees the concern and wants to make sure elections are fair and above-board. He already has won the office, now he needs to show he is a real leader.

But mocking Republicans and voters who support Trump is exactly the wrong move. It's only going to cause that same outrage and chaos that he claims Trump is causing.

The election is decided. But not the course of Biden's Presidency.
It is not mocking Republicans to request that you read the court cases. Evidence has been considered and found lacking. I don't blame Republicans, I blame the lawyers representing the campaign.(Those that are still left; the better ones dropped off.)

I completely reject your assertion of "If the courts had supported Trump..." There is nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else that requires SCOTUS or any other court to support the president. Check the oath of office.

If, however, Trump supporters want to continue their outrage and chaos then it is entirely fair to ask them to first channel their emotions into legit court cases. Courts are where we resolve disputes. Courts are where this dispute has been heard and found lacking so far.


The lack of credibility in the judiciary renders appeals to channel emotions into legit court cases problematic. Are the cases lacking, or the courts?
Credibility in he judiciary hinges on excusing Trump from following legal procedure? Most of the judges were his appointees. When they hold Trump to the rules, they have no credibility? As of yet, we don't have kangaroo courts, much to Trump's chagrin.
Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump. Sorry he lives so hard in your head.
Sources?
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?


Personal experience combined with observation.
If they rule against you they have no credibility? You may need better defense counsel, or change your ways.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?


Personal experience combined with observation.
If they rule against you they have no credibility? You may need better defense counsel, or change your ways.


Or have a better judiciary.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?


Personal experience combined with observation.
If they rule against you they have no credibility? You may need better defense counsel, or change your ways.


Or have a better judiciary.
Better how?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?


Personal experience combined with observation.
If they rule against you they have no credibility? You may need better defense counsel, or change your ways.


Or have a better judiciary.
Better how?


Better outcomes.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?


Personal experience combined with observation.
If they rule against you they have no credibility? You may need better defense counsel, or change your ways.


Or have a better judiciary.
Better how?


Better outcomes.
That's not how you judge a judiciary.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?


Personal experience combined with observation.
If they rule against you they have no credibility? You may need better defense counsel, or change your ways.


Or have a better judiciary.
Better how?


Better outcomes.
That's not how you judge a judiciary.
Democrats do that all the time and you never say 'boo' about it
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?


Personal experience combined with observation.
If they rule against you they have no credibility? You may need better defense counsel, or change your ways.


Or have a better judiciary.
Better how?


Better outcomes.
That's not how you judge a judiciary.
Democrats do that all the time and you never say 'boo' about it
For example?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?


Personal experience combined with observation.
If they rule against you they have no credibility? You may need better defense counsel, or change your ways.


Or have a better judiciary.
Better how?


Better outcomes.
That's not how you judge a judiciary.
Democrats do that all the time and you never say 'boo' about it
For example?
Well, the courts and the 2020 elections come to mind.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?


Personal experience combined with observation.
If they rule against you they have no credibility? You may need better defense counsel, or change your ways.


Or have a better judiciary.
Better how?


Better outcomes.
That's not how you judge a judiciary.
Democrats do that all the time and you never say 'boo' about it
For example?
Well, the courts and the 2020 elections come to mind.
I am not aware of the Democrats judging our judiciary based on the outcomes of the Trump campaign lawsuits.

I have been keeping up with the outcomes and find them based soundly in law. You, however, have said the courts are afraid to rule and decide an election. I completely disagree.

It sounds like you are the one basing your evaluation on outcomes.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's because - despite your denials - you are pro-Democrat and it skews your own bias hard left sometimes.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

That's because - despite your denials - you are pro-Democrat and it skews your own bias hard left sometimes.


Typical non-sequitur, you just left out your normal charge of emotion.

Deal with the substance: I judge the courts based on their written opinions and how well they hew to the law or on what principle they use to guide their decision. In fact, I routinely post my views on SCOTUS opinions. Why don't you go read a few of those and get back to me with the Democrat bias you see in them. Heads up: several are praising Gorsuch opinions for his attempt to renew property interests as a guiding principle...
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?


Personal experience combined with observation.
If they rule against you they have no credibility? You may need better defense counsel, or change your ways.


Or have a better judiciary.
Better how?


Better outcomes.
That's not how you judge a judiciary.
Democrats do that all the time and you never say 'boo' about it
For example?
I think threatening to pack the court indicates judgement and motivation.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?


Personal experience combined with observation.
If they rule against you they have no credibility? You may need better defense counsel, or change your ways.


Or have a better judiciary.
Better how?


Better outcomes.
That's not how you judge a judiciary.


Yes, it is.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Arrogant, you are.

Derided, you shall be.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?


Personal experience combined with observation.
If they rule against you they have no credibility? You may need better defense counsel, or change your ways.


Or have a better judiciary.
Better how?


Better outcomes.
That's not how you judge a judiciary.
Democrats do that all the time and you never say 'boo' about it
For example?
I think threatening to pack the court indicates judgement and motivation.
You and I both wait for the act, not the threat, to discuss it. When the attempt is made we can talk.

Also, as noted above, I have often discussed SCOTUS opinions. The Democrats hate the result in Citizens United and I have always said it was a First Amendment two-fer for speech and association; while I like the outcome my focus has consistently been on the reasoning to reach it. Naturally, that makes me a Democrat lapdog...
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Osodecentx said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?


Personal experience combined with observation.
If they rule against you they have no credibility? You may need better defense counsel, or change your ways.


Or have a better judiciary.
Better how?


Better outcomes.
That's not how you judge a judiciary.
Democrats do that all the time and you never say 'boo' about it
For example?
I think threatening to pack the court indicates judgement and motivation.
You and I both wait for the act, not the threat, to discuss it. When the attempt is made we can talk.

Also, as noted above, I have often discussed SCOTUS opinions. The Democrats hate the result in Citizens United and I have always said it was a First Amendment two-fer for speech and association; while I like the outcome my focus has consistently been on the reasoning to reach it. Naturally, that makes me a Democrat lapdog...
I'm reconsidering my position on Citizens United. $800 million has been spent in the Georgia senate contest. This is out of balance. Free speech for an individual is admirable. However, when one person gives $100 million it drowns out the individual's freedom to speak. A West Texas oil man funded a state senate contest for the Teea Party.
I'm rethinking it. Something is out of balance
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

quash said:



You and I both wait for the act, not the threat, to discuss it. When the attempt is made we can talk.

Also, as noted above, I have often discussed SCOTUS opinions. The Democrats hate the result in Citizens United and I have always said it was a First Amendment two-fer for speech and association; while I like the outcome my focus has consistently been on the reasoning to reach it. Naturally, that makes me a Democrat lapdog...
I'm reconsidering my position on Citizens United. $800 million has been spent in the Georgia senate contest. This is out of balance. Free speech for an individual is admirable. However, when one person gives $100 million it drowns out the individual's freedom to speak. A West Texas oil man funded a state senate contest for the Teea Party.
I'm rethinking it. Something is out of balance
What's out of balance is the number of things being purchased, not the price being paid.

If we limited our government in a meaningful way then there wouldn't be any value in a Senate or House race. Make taxes simple with no deductions. Leave most regulating to the states. Shrink the military to homeland defense, not empire defense, etc. When there's nothing to gain personally from government then the price goes waaaay down. Added bonus: more public servants, less politicians.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Osodecentx said:

quash said:



You and I both wait for the act, not the threat, to discuss it. When the attempt is made we can talk.

Also, as noted above, I have often discussed SCOTUS opinions. The Democrats hate the result in Citizens United and I have always said it was a First Amendment two-fer for speech and association; while I like the outcome my focus has consistently been on the reasoning to reach it. Naturally, that makes me a Democrat lapdog...
I'm reconsidering my position on Citizens United. $800 million has been spent in the Georgia senate contest. This is out of balance. Free speech for an individual is admirable. However, when one person gives $100 million it drowns out the individual's freedom to speak. A West Texas oil man funded a state senate contest for the Teea Party.
I'm rethinking it. Something is out of balance
What's out of balance is the number of things being purchased, not the price being paid.

If we limited our government in a meaningful way then there wouldn't be any value in a Senate or House race. Make taxes simple with no deductions. Leave most regulating to the states. Shrink the military to homeland defense, not empire defense, etc. When there's nothing to gain personally from government then the price goes waaaay down. Added bonus: more public servants, less politicians.
You thought Citizens was rightly decided. Are you rethinking that?
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

quash said:

Osodecentx said:

quash said:



You and I both wait for the act, not the threat, to discuss it. When the attempt is made we can talk.

Also, as noted above, I have often discussed SCOTUS opinions. The Democrats hate the result in Citizens United and I have always said it was a First Amendment two-fer for speech and association; while I like the outcome my focus has consistently been on the reasoning to reach it. Naturally, that makes me a Democrat lapdog...
I'm reconsidering my position on Citizens United. $800 million has been spent in the Georgia senate contest. This is out of balance. Free speech for an individual is admirable. However, when one person gives $100 million it drowns out the individual's freedom to speak. A West Texas oil man funded a state senate contest for the Teea Party.
I'm rethinking it. Something is out of balance
What's out of balance is the number of things being purchased, not the price being paid.

If we limited our government in a meaningful way then there wouldn't be any value in a Senate or House race. Make taxes simple with no deductions. Leave most regulating to the states. Shrink the military to homeland defense, not empire defense, etc. When there's nothing to gain personally from government then the price goes waaaay down. Added bonus: more public servants, less politicians.
You thought Citizens was rightly decided. Are you rethinking that?
Not at all. Again, a constitutional two-fer.

The Democrats are wasting their time on overturning Citizens legislatively; they need to address the root problem.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Osodecentx said:

quash said:

Osodecentx said:

quash said:



You and I both wait for the act, not the threat, to discuss it. When the attempt is made we can talk.

Also, as noted above, I have often discussed SCOTUS opinions. The Democrats hate the result in Citizens United and I have always said it was a First Amendment two-fer for speech and association; while I like the outcome my focus has consistently been on the reasoning to reach it. Naturally, that makes me a Democrat lapdog...
I'm reconsidering my position on Citizens United. $800 million has been spent in the Georgia senate contest. This is out of balance. Free speech for an individual is admirable. However, when one person gives $100 million it drowns out the individual's freedom to speak. A West Texas oil man funded a state senate contest for the Teea Party.
I'm rethinking it. Something is out of balance
What's out of balance is the number of things being purchased, not the price being paid.

If we limited our government in a meaningful way then there wouldn't be any value in a Senate or House race. Make taxes simple with no deductions. Leave most regulating to the states. Shrink the military to homeland defense, not empire defense, etc. When there's nothing to gain personally from government then the price goes waaaay down. Added bonus: more public servants, less politicians.
You thought Citizens was rightly decided. Are you rethinking that?
Not at all. Again, a constitutional two-fer.

The Democrats are wasting their time on overturning Citizens legislatively; they need to address the root problem.
Speaking of two-fers, to me the "root problem" in regard to Congress critters and Senate sewer-dwellers is twofold:

1. There is no term limit for elected federal officials
2. Those elected officials who do leave office often go to work for lobbying firms they helped during their time in official crime.


People elected to DC become the Ruling Class, and soon abandon any interest in protecting the little people.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Osodecentx said:

quash said:



What's out of balance is the number of things being purchased, not the price being paid.
You thought Citizens was rightly decided. Are you rethinking that?
Not at all. Again, a constitutional two-fer.

The Democrats are wasting their time on overturning Citizens legislatively; they need to address the root problem.
I don't understand the sentence in bold above.
I agree the number of things being purchased (paid media ads) is out of balance. This is what Citizens allows.
(Edit: you have to click on the prior post to see the bold)
BrooksBearLives
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The guy saying our elections are a sham is pretending to be an expert on patriotism?

Lol.

You're having a rough fall, buddy. The loser President lost when all he needed to win was get caught doing the bare minimum of his job. You're big sad about it. No need to take it out on me.
BrooksBearLives
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

quash said:

Osodecentx said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

curtpenn said:



Speaking broadly, the judiciary lacked credibility long beforeTrump.
On what do you base that claim?


Personal experience combined with observation.
If they rule against you they have no credibility? You may need better defense counsel, or change your ways.


Or have a better judiciary.
Better how?


Better outcomes.
That's not how you judge a judiciary.
Democrats do that all the time and you never say 'boo' about it
For example?
I think threatening to pack the court indicates judgement and motivation.
You and I both wait for the act, not the threat, to discuss it. When the attempt is made we can talk.

Also, as noted above, I have often discussed SCOTUS opinions. The Democrats hate the result in Citizens United and I have always said it was a First Amendment two-fer for speech and association; while I like the outcome my focus has consistently been on the reasoning to reach it. Naturally, that makes me a Democrat lapdog...
I'm reconsidering my position on Citizens United. $800 million has been spent in the Georgia senate contest. This is out of balance. Free speech for an individual is admirable. However, when one person gives $100 million it drowns out the individual's freedom to speak. A West Texas oil man funded a state senate contest for the Teea Party.
I'm rethinking it. Something is out of balance


We agree here.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.