2020 Democratic Primaries

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,990
5,890
0
Texas
You do realize that this statement, puts you in the camp of people who believe that she is lying in this tweet.
You mean where Warren tweets "5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri." And JG writes: "Do I think he murdered him? No."

Well, he can technically slide out from that (as he often does--" I saw the video", "I meant that I saw all of the various accounts and specials that were sh[w]orn about it" . So you're right, he must be in the "She's lying" camp, because he didn't actually write that he was part of the " half of the nation disagrees with your assertion that she is lying." LOL

You know, I might have just ignored that weaseling around if you JG hadn't told me not long ago that I can't stand for people to disagree with me. I admit there's some truth there, but I'm not sure I ever get as twisted up as you JG does in squirming out from under you his own words.

Edit to make clear I was referring to JG and not jamesrh
 
Last edited:

jamesrh

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
3,604
2,771
0
You mean where Warren tweets "5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri." And JG writes: "Do I think he murdered him? No."

Well, he can technically slide out from that (as he often does) because he didn't actually write that he was part of the " half of the nation disagrees with your assertion that she is lying." LOL
And I would say that I never mentioned him switching sides only that this latest tweet cements him in the against column.
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,990
5,890
0
Texas
And I would say that I never mentioned him switching sides only that this latest tweet cements him in the against column.
Yeah I caught that and corrected myself. Apologies if it seemed like I was 'putting words in your mouth'.
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
14,198
4,577
0
I'm going to write in a name. Not voting for any of these turds. Probably something snide that no one will laugh at.

Maybe Augustus. I'll let them figure out if it's Octavious or Romulus.
Hmm. That might be a better idea.
 

PFD

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
16,515
19,922
0
Dallas
Eric Holder would be in the half the agrees with the assertion. The Ferguson police force was a corrupt, evil organization at the time of the Michael Brown shooting. That doesn't mean that the shooting was unjustified.
I was just listening this week to a new episode of of Malcolm Gladwell’s excellent podcast Revisionist History which addresses police shootings issues and how people tend to react to them in a mindlessly binary fashion.

One of his guests is a representative of a Left-leaning, non-profit, watchdog organization that pushed the DOJ investigation of Ferguson P.D. He and Gladwell unequivocally acknowledge that the results of the two separate DOJ investigations reveal that Darren Wilson was justified in shooting Michael Brown and the Ferguson city government was corrupt and deliberately used its police force to drive up its revenues.

Both can be true. Both are true. Except in the minds of simpletons like @JG.
 

PFD

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
16,515
19,922
0
Dallas
I don't know what makes me sadder.
The fact that you honestly believe, in spite of the fact that every swinging asshole from the PD, the DA to the DOJ tried everything possible to find some way to hang the officer who was literally fighting for his life and defending himself, that this was a bad shoot.
Or that you have actually proven just how damned dumb you can be at times.
Or even sadder....That you do not even have a damned clue of it.

You may be one of the best and most intelligent engineers around.
But that does not seem to equate to the rest of your skill sets.
You can be extremely intelligent John....and still be dumb as a rock.

I could write a volume on this one event that would prove that it was a good shoot and that Brown died because he was a thug and stupid at the same time.
But it would be wasted on you due to the fact that it would not fit your view of this country and it's people.
You want to believe it and no matter what anyone says...and facts be damned...they are not going to change your mind

This is one of those times that I truly understand why you are routinely dismissed and discounted by so many people here.


Semper Fi
You mean where Warren tweets "5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri." And JG writes: "Do I think he murdered him? No."

Well, he can technically slide out from that (as he often does--" I saw the video", "I meant that I saw all of the various accounts and specials that were sh[w]orn about it" . So you're right, he must be in the "She's lying" camp, because he didn't actually write that he was part of the " half of the nation disagrees with your assertion that she is lying." LOL

You know, I might have just ignored that weaseling around if you JG hadn't told me not long ago that I can't stand for people to disagree with me. I admit there's some truth there, but I'm not sure I ever get as twisted up as you JG does in squirming out from under you his own words.

Edit to make clear I was referring to JG and not jamesrh
Yet another example of why I ultimately chose to ignore him.

His currency is falsehood, and his goal is obfuscation.
 

TexasPalladin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Nov 30, 2008
8,179
13,293
0
Sorry it was late.

I meant that I saw all of the various accounts and specials that were shorn about it.

Do I think he murdered him? No.

But do I think it was a senseless escalation by an out-of-control police officer from an out-of-control overly aggressive police force? Yes I do.
Article speaks for itself:

Short story....Lizzy lied.
The End.


Semper Fi
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
8,514
15,526
0

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
59,037
295,734
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
Dem nominees are worried the SCOTUS is too politicized. You can't make this s*** up.

Democratic candidates, including former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas, and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California, and Gillibrand, all have signaled an openness to expanding the number of judges on the court should they reach the White House.

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has also supported expanding the court, proposing a plan to have some justices appointed by the president and others selected by the other justices in order to "depoliticize" the court. He's admitted that the only way he can think of to make this work would be to increase the size of the court from nine justices to 15, while stressing that simply "adding more justices onto the court who agree with you" would be a bad idea.



"Adjudicate how we like or we'll find someone who will."

I swear they're Aggies who never learn this is going to blow up in their face.
 

jamesrh

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
3,604
2,771
0
Dem nominees are worried the SCOTUS is too politicized. You can't make this s*** up.

Democratic candidates, including former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas, and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California, and Gillibrand, all have signaled an openness to expanding the number of judges on the court should they reach the White House.

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has also supported expanding the court, proposing a plan to have some justices appointed by the president and others selected by the other justices in order to "depoliticize" the court. He's admitted that the only way he can think of to make this work would be to increase the size of the court from nine justices to 15, while stressing that simply "adding more justices onto the court who agree with you" would be a bad idea.



"Adjudicate how we like or we'll find someone who will."

I swear they're Aggies who never learn this is going to blow up in their face.
And of course, these nitwits gloss over this fact, "...but the past year featured a multitude of cases where conservatives -- including President Trump's picks Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- sided with the liberal bloc."
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
8,514
15,526
0
Dem nominees are worried the SCOTUS is too politicized. You can't make this s*** up.

Democratic candidates, including former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas, and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California, and Gillibrand, all have signaled an openness to expanding the number of judges on the court should they reach the White House.

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has also supported expanding the court, proposing a plan to have some justices appointed by the president and others selected by the other justices in order to "depoliticize" the court. He's admitted that the only way he can think of to make this work would be to increase the size of the court from nine justices to 15, while stressing that simply "adding more justices onto the court who agree with you" would be a bad idea.



"Adjudicate how we like or we'll find someone who will."

I swear they're Aggies who never learn this is going to blow up in their face.
It's only politicized because conservatives control it. But, I know you know this already.

I am beginning to truly despise that party. Before I only tolerated their bull****. People need to open their eyes, including lifelong moderate dems. Vote these authoritarian assholes out of office. Long term it will pay off for you.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
62,311
12,935
0
It's only politicized because conservatives control it. But, I know you know this already.

I am beginning to truly despise that party. Before I only tolerated their bull****. People need to open their eyes, including lifelong moderate dems. Vote these authoritarian assholes out of office. Long term it will pay off for you.
Conservatives would never, ever politicize the Court, would they?

They wouldn't block a legally nominated candidate for almost a year so they could wait and get a different one from a Republican president...would they? Oh...wait. Never mind.

Come on.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
8,514
15,526
0
Conservatives would never, ever politicize the Court, would they?

They wouldn't block a legally nominated candidate for almost a year so they could wait and get a different one from a Republican president...would they? Oh...wait. Never mind.

Come on.
Yes, they were prescient. They knew Trump would win and they would take the Senate with enough votes to get a conservative justice on the court. Mad props to their foresight. They completely dismissed the idea Hillary would be President contrary to just about everyone else. Big balls for sure.

That's also very similar to threatening the current SCOTUS with do was we say or else we'll pack the court with someone who will do as we say. You really are dumb.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
62,311
12,935
0
Yes, they were prescient. They knew Trump would win and they would take the Senate with enough votes to get a conservative justice on the court. Mad props to their foresight. They completely dismissed the idea Hillary would be President contrary to just about everyone else. Big balls for sure.

That's also very similar to threatening the current SCOTUS with do was we say or else we'll pack the court with someone who will do as we say. You really are dumb.
What is the difference between blocking a nominee of the other party for a year, and stacking the court with nominees of your own? Both are politicizing the Court.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
62,311
12,935
0
I don't know, maybe orders of magnitude of scale for one.
I’ll buy that, actually.

One is politicizing the Court. One takes that up a notch...but doesn’t invent such activity.
 

PFD

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
16,515
19,922
0
Dallas
Dem nominees are worried the SCOTUS is too politicized. You can't make this s*** up.

Democratic candidates, including former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas, and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California, and Gillibrand, all have signaled an openness to expanding the number of judges on the court should they reach the White House.

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has also supported expanding the court, proposing a plan to have some justices appointed by the president and others selected by the other justices in order to "depoliticize" the court. He's admitted that the only way he can think of to make this work would be to increase the size of the court from nine justices to 15, while stressing that simply "adding more justices onto the court who agree with you" would be a bad idea.



"Adjudicate how we like or we'll find someone who will."

I swear they're Aggies who never learn this is going to blow up in their face.
This kind of thing has been tried before (although I’ll wager a tidy sum that most, if not all, of the Dem candidates listed are blissfully unaware of matters as trivial and irrelevant to them as American political history).


You’ll note that even FDR’s VP—Texan John Nance Garner—was opposed to his court-packing scheme.

But who should be surprised that any of these unabashed Marxists are trying to circumvent the Constitution?

I’m waiting for one of them to openly disavow it as the work of privileged white men.
 

stevehorn

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
27,549
19,156
0
On a bit of different tangent, what are your opinions on "term limits" for Supreme Court justices? Something like 20 or 30 years. I tend to favor it for a couple of reasons. One is the belief that no one should hold that much "power" for a lifetime. The other is that with modern medicine, we are seeing more justices serving into their 80s and potentially 90s or even higher and the potential of a justice serving with diminished capacity or severe health problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasPalladin

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
8,514
15,526
0
This kind of thing has been tried before (although I’ll wager a tidy sum that most, if not all, of the Dem candidates listed are blissfully unaware of matters as trivial and irrelevant to them as American political history).


You’ll note that even FDR’s VP—Texan John Nance Garner—was opposed to his court-packing scheme.

But who should be surprised that any of these unabashed Marxists are trying to circumvent the Constitution?

I’m waiting for one of them to openly disavow it as the work of privileged white men.
When even RBG is opposed to the idea, you know it's a bad idea.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
8,514
15,526
0
On a bit of different tangent, what are your opinions on "term limits" for Supreme Court justices? Something like 20 or 30 years. I tend to favor it for a couple of reasons. One is the belief that no one should hold that much "power" for a lifetime. The other is that with modern medicine, we are seeing more justices serving into their 80s and potentially 90s or even higher and the potential of a justice serving with diminished capacity or severe health problems.
I think it has potential. There is precedent for mandatory retirement in other professions. With a father that recently turned 80 and watching his mental decline over a very brief period, I think it's a discussion worth having.
 

jamesrh

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
3,604
2,771
0
I’ll buy that, actually.

One is politicizing the Court. One takes that up a notch...but doesn’t invent such activity.
Takes it up a notch like from a M-80 to a Hydrogen Bomb, but sure there is some equivalency. /Sarcasm
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasPalladin

eodhorn

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Mar 24, 2018
1,181
2,271
0
42
Surprise, Arizona
On a bit of different tangent, what are your opinions on "term limits" for Supreme Court justices? Something like 20 or 30 years. I tend to favor it for a couple of reasons. One is the belief that no one should hold that much "power" for a lifetime. The other is that with modern medicine, we are seeing more justices serving into their 80s and potentially 90s or even higher and the potential of a justice serving with diminished capacity or severe health problems.
This is a pretty good discussion. Not sure we should have people who might no longer be the sharpest of mind deciding major constitutional issues. I imagine back when the life long appointment was initiated most folks died before the mind faded. It’s getting to be the opposite nowadays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasPalladin

U.S. Bates

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Nov 2, 2009
12,135
10,385
0
Here
On a bit of different tangent, what are your opinions on "term limits" for Supreme Court justices? Something like 20 or 30 years. I tend to favor it for a couple of reasons. One is the belief that no one should hold that much "power" for a lifetime. The other is that with modern medicine, we are seeing more justices serving into their 80s and potentially 90s or even higher and the potential of a justice serving with diminished capacity or severe health problems.
12 years all federal judges.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: TexasPalladin

TEXBTP

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
12,999
4,596
0
I think it has potential. There is precedent for mandatory retirement in other professions. With a father that recently turned 80 and watching his mental decline over a very brief period, I think it's a discussion worth having.
I could support a 20-30 year term limit for SCOTUS. 20 would probably be the low end for me. I like SCOTUS being independent of politics; for me anything lower causes a potential harm to our independent judiciary.