Yeah I tried to read that twice and still didn't get it. Can we get a translation please?ernest_t_bass;1802633 wrote:Wat!?
ernest_t_bass;1802633 wrote:Wat!?
like_that;1802634 wrote:Yeah I tried to read that twice and still didn't get it. Can we get a translation please?
You see, he was taking a Trump vs Hillary thread and making a plug for gun rights.SportsAndLady;1802635 wrote:Might be time for belly to hang up the Internet.
FixedBelly35;1802628 wrote:My friend and former design engineer from the UK .. We talk on skype weekly, we have a project coming up with General Dynamics. He voted for the exit of the UK out of European control. It was worth it to lose some of his pension, interest on savings and what ever else to be free from socialistic government control. The next thing he wants is freedom to own and buy weapons to protect himself... They want what we have freedom ... Let's not lose what others want. Freedom
You're a fucking wizard.FatHobbit;1802649 wrote:Fixed
O-Trap;1802659 wrote:You're a fucking wizard.
yes the supreme court members should not weighing in on this matter.QuakerOats;1803170 wrote:Hard to believe that Ginsburg shot her mouth off ......................she should be resigning today.
Wait, it's hard to believe? She shoots off all the time.QuakerOats;1803170 wrote:Hard to believe that Ginsburg shot her mouth off ......................she should be resigning today.
Spock;1803195 wrote:yes the supreme court members should not weighing in on this matter.
ill advised? Who in the hell would be advising a sitting supreme court justice to make bad decisions? She should be forced to step down.QuakerOats;1803257 wrote:"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issues statement saying she 'regrets' comments she's made about presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying they were 'ill-advised,' adding, 'Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office.'"
I think she should step down. Not because I think she's a bad justice but she clearly just publicly admitted she has a bias against Trump and if he is elected that tarnishes the credibility of the court to interpret fairly the law.QuakerOats;1803257 wrote:"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issues statement saying she 'regrets' comments she's made about presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying they were 'ill-advised,' adding, 'Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office.'"
Its a big deal because she is leveling a personal attack against a candidate for POTUS during the campaign. Basically calling him a liar all this in the context of his opponent being exposed yet again for her severe lack of truthfulness. She could potentially rule on his executive orders or worse yet Trump v Clinton. Judges are supposed to be able to reign in their personal feelings and rule according to the letter of the law. This kind of public comment will call her impartiality into question in a decision directly or indirectly involving Trump.O-Trap;1803198 wrote:Also, the actual comments she made about Trump are pretty timid. I know it's not the place for justices to comment on these sorts of things, but given her track record, this is a blip on the screen.
Color me unimpressed. Trump is an idiot. Please GOP, please pull off the coup.majorspark;1803274 wrote:Looks like Trump's VP pick is Mike Pence.
iclfan2;1803285 wrote:Color me unimpressed. Trump is an idiot. Please GOP, please pull off the coup.
Gary Johnson had the chance to be great. He seems determined to screw it up.gut;1803287 wrote:Ehhh, Trump/Hillary is the BEST thing that could happen to the Libertarian party. I'm still holding out hope Gary Johnson can get to 15% in polling to get into the Presidential debates (and he is slowly inching toward that number, getting about 11% in the latest).
I'd vote for this man over Trump any day. If he's trying to draw his party back in to supporting him he made the right choice.majorspark;1803274 wrote:Looks like Trump's VP pick is Mike Pence.
Should tick up a bit more now that Bernie has sold his soul. Also since polls vary if its close which poll determines in or out? The hosting network?gut;1803287 wrote:Ehhh, Trump/Hillary is the BEST thing that could happen to the Libertarian party. I'm still holding out hope Gary Johnson can get to 15% in polling to get into the Presidential debates (and he is slowly inching toward that number, getting about 11% in the latest).
Con_Alma;1803291 wrote:I'd vote for this man over Trump any day. If he's trying to draw his party back in to supporting him he made the right choice.
It's the average of 5 polls selected, of course, by the Dem/Repub bipartisan election committee.majorspark;1803292 wrote:Should tick up a bit more now that Bernie has sold his soul. Also since polls vary if its close which poll determines in or out? The hosting network?
I don't disagree with any of what you said. However, let me ask:majorspark;1803278 wrote:Its a big deal because she is leveling a personal attack against a candidate for POTUS during the campaign. Basically calling him a liar all this in the context of his opponent being exposed yet again for her severe lack of truthfulness. She could potentially rule on his executive orders or worse yet Trump v Clinton. Judges are supposed to be able to reign in their personal feelings and rule according to the letter of the law. This kind of public comment will call her impartiality into question in a decision directly or indirectly involving Trump.
No.O-Trap;1803299 wrote:- If she hadn't said this, would you have trusted her to impartially rule on any executive orders any more so?
No.O-Trap;1803299 wrote:- Did you think she was any more impartial prior to these comments?
You and I know the majority of judges at this level are in reality not always impartial. In order to maintain the faith of the masses in the judiciary however it is vitally important for judges to at least have the appearance of impropriety.O-Trap;1803299 wrote:Knowing her track record, both in how she votes and what she's said in the past, I thought it was already assumed that she thought this way prior to her actually saying it. I certainly would've guessed it.
Doesn't this seem like the Emperor's New Clothes? Is it really that important that we keep the facade up?majorspark;1803309 wrote:In order to maintain the faith of the masses in the judiciary however it is vitally important for judges to at least have the appearance of impropriety.