Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=punch it in;1164381]Well, I don't think protest is ever meaningless.
This is my favorite so far,....

[url]https://youtu.be/sqiwLYhwxAY[/url][/quote]

Well at least it's not a high school pep rally chant like most you hear broadcast

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=punch it in;1164384]Exactly this was a stick it to the right pick. And there was never an ounce of thought put into one that might help unify things. Trump is so hung up on his popularity that he is now in full battle mode with every action he takes. Has no intentions of unifying anybody. Good luck with that.[/quote]

To be fair, the democrats have no intention of unifying anyone, the republicans have no intention of unifying anyone, and if this division were more along the geographical divide, we probably would be closer to a civil war then any point since the 1850's. I keep picturing FarmersOnly.com tractors encircling every urban city and splashing mud on all them fancy city boys

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1164383]I think the problem is that in the White House they are confused. Michael Flynn couldn't respond to his Canadian counterparts questions about the executive action and this the man who is supposed to be enforcing it. It looks pretty piss poor when the admins own team can't field these questions from inquiring governments. This is why there is so much confusion not journalist making stuff up.[/quote]

So if the media reports green cards are banned, writes articles stating the green cards are banned, that's ok?

Re: What would it take?
 

Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1164392]Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

[B]Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).[/B]

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.[/quote]

Nailed it...everything ive read he is unbiased to the letter of the law type. I think the most important thing he said was...[B]a good judge should never be happy with all his rulings. [/B]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1164392]Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.[/quote]

In terms of court balance, I think Garland or a unifying pick would have increased the chance that Ginsburg steps down. She's here forever now.

That said, Garland was nominated by a sitting president. He should have had a hearing, and Trump would have been a better man to nominate him, even if the Republicans shot him down in the first week. It was wrong, AND sets a very bad precedent, to hold a nominee for nearly 1 whole year basically because you can.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164397]In terms of court balance, I think Garland or a unifying pick would have increased the chance that [B]Ginsburg steps down. She's here forever now.[/B]
That said, Garland was nominated by a sitting president. He should have had a hearing, and Trump would have been a better man to nominate him, even if the Republicans shot him down in the first week. It was wrong, AND sets a very bad precedent, to hold a nominee for nearly 1 whole year basically because you can.[/quote]

Could you have imagined if Scaila would have criticized Obama as a nominee for President like Ginsburg did?

Funny, didn't hear liberals say a peep about this when it happened several months ago.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164390]So if the media reports green cards are banned, writes articles stating the green cards are banned, that's ok?[/quote]

No it means that those representing the administration need to get their shit together and make sure they are providing the same information when being interviewed instead of one person saying one thing and one saying the other.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1164399]No it means that those representing the administration need to get their shit together and make sure they are providing the same information when being interviewed instead of one person saying one thing and one saying the other.[/quote]

So you agree. The media should wait for the facts, that's all Im asking.

The media is so corrupt that dumb people believe this stuff.

Re: What would it take?
 

I can't get over this quote from the party of obstruction and do nothing.

[quote]“We did not inflict this kind of obstructionism on President Obama,” added Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), the only other senator in the room. He added that the Democrats were committing “a completely unprecedented level of obstruction. This is not what the American people expect of the United States Senate.”[/quote]

:doh:




[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-ram-through-committee-approval-of-trump-cabinet-nominees/2017/02/01/aa2b5458-e87f-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.20c86142d11a[/url]

The Republicans are a total shit show. Say what you want about Democrats, but Republicans have taken insanity and "alternative facts" to a new level. It's why I won't vote for them anymore. That party died two decades ago.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1164402]I can't get over this quote from the party of obstruction and do nothing.



:doh:




[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-ram-through-committee-approval-of-trump-cabinet-nominees/2017/02/01/aa2b5458-e87f-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.20c86142d11a[/url]

The Republicans are a total shit show. Say what you want about Democrats, but Republicans have taken insanity and "alternative facts" to a new level. It's why I won't vote for them anymore. That party died two decades ago.[/quote]

this stuff usually happens...its typical nonsense, political bickering back and forth. 9.9 times out of 10 the picks go through. I blame both sides for committing the same type of acts...It just petty and really just waste time.

Re: What would it take?
 

both sides are taking it to new levels with each moment of obstruction. The Republicans just used the cabinet appointees as a shot across the bow that they will absolutely pass this SC nominee.

The other side of the Garland debate is that HAD Democrats had the majority in the Senate they would clearly have run him through, and the Republicans would have used the same tactics the Democrats are now using. At this point there is no greater imperative in DC at then to get your agenda through, and if the other side doesn't like it, win the seats and use whatever tactics you can while you have the power. It doesn't matter which side started it now, because both sides have done it repeatedly.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1164402]...
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-ram-through-committee-approval-of-trump-cabinet-nominees/2017/02/01/aa2b5458-e87f-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.20c86142d11a[/url]

...[/quote]

They need to fire the proofreader for that article. Not saying anything about the actions - just the editing:

I know what the writer means, but the Post is supposed to be better than this
[quote]...
There is Democrats they can do to prevent final confirmation of any of Trump’s picks but the plan to focus
...[/quote]

I didn't know the Democrats need 60 votes to block the confirmation. I was pretty sure they only needed 41. [/sarc]
[quote]...
Supreme Court was met with fierce resistance from some Democrats, though it’s unclear whether they will have the 60 votes needed to block his confirmation.
...[/quote]

Re: What would it take?
 

Deleted Post.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1164407]both sides are taking it to new levels with each moment of obstruction. The Republicans just used the cabinet appointees as a shot across the bow that they will absolutely pass this SC nominee.



The other side of the Garland debate is that HAD Democrats had the majority in the Senate they would clearly have run him through, and the Republicans would have used the same tactics the Democrats are now using. At this point there is no greater imperative in DC at then to get your agenda through, and if the other side doesn't like it, win the seats and use whatever tactics you can while you have the power. It doesn't matter which side started it now, because both sides have done it repeatedly.[/QUOTE]



Which brings us full circle to the point that the Republicans are being headed up by a narcissistic con artist. Lol. He is a lightning rod like politics has never seen, and as long as he continues the drama, bold faces lies, and hateful comments about people, religions, races, and every thing else under the sun the tactics will continue.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=punch it in;1164419]Which brings us full circle to the point that the Republicans are being headed up by a narcissistic con artist. Lol. He is a lightning rod like politics has never seen, and as long as he continues the drama, bold faces lies, and hateful comments about people, religions, races, and every thing else under the sun the tactics will continue.[/quote]

This all started way before Trump. I would say Pres Obama was a similar lightning rod (and not because of his skin color). I won't argue about Trump taking it to another level (I might argue Hillary would have taken it to the same that Trump is at) but it I would call it a downward spiral, and I have already said I pin the start of it somewhere around the middle of Bush 1.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164401]So you agree. The media should wait for the facts, that's all Im asking.

The media is so corrupt that dumb people believe this stuff.[/quote]

I think the media should report the facts as given to them. If the administration can't figure out what the hell its doing I am not holding the media accountable for that. If it was investigative I would agree with you that needs to be fact checked but you can't tell the media they should not report something when it is clearly the fault of the executive office. When you ask a question and get a statement from the official the accountability falls with them to have their facts together before making that order not the other way around.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164408]They need to fire the proofreader for that article. Not saying anything about the actions - just the editing:

I know what the writer means, but the Post is supposed to be better than this


I didn't know the Democrats need 60 votes to block the confirmation. I was pretty sure they only needed 41. [/sarc][/quote]

I have been very disappointed with the writing in the Post lately.

Re: What would it take?
 

See, the GOP needed to put their foot down on this candidate selection.

[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-senate-confirms-former-exxon-ceo-secretary-state-200145344--finance.html[/url]

I'm not sure who is worse, this guy or Bannon.


I'm really surprised 2 Republicans voted no do Devos.

[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/two-republicans-wont-vote-trump-education-pick-devos-194138305.html[/url]


She has no business near our education system.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1164392]Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.[/quote]


Lord knows you guys know how I feel about Trump but from what I have read and info I have seen an heard about this guy he is the best that we can expect from Trump and honestly he seems fine with me .The Dems need to pick their battles with Trump ....this one they should let go.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1164425]See, the GOP needed to put their foot down on this candidate selection.

[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-senate-confirms-former-exxon-ceo-secretary-state-200145344--finance.html[/url]

I'm not sure who is worse, this guy or Bannon.


I'm really surprised 2 Republicans voted no do Devos.

[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/two-republicans-wont-vote-trump-education-pick-devos-194138305.html[/url]


She has no business near our education system.[/quote]


Agree!!!

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164380]Ive watched someone on NBC news say this wasn't true?

There is so much misinformation about the move...is it even a ban? nobody really knows.

Honestly, there is so much bullshit out there and folks are generally just making up stuff, write a bs article on the internet and pass it off as fact. The reason is the media doesn't fact check, basically whatever trump says just makeup whatever you need to go against it.[/quote]

I'm basing this off the videos and posts on social media and reddit where green card holders are saying they are being denied entry at the airport in whatever ME country they are stuck in. Haven't seen anything on MSNBC yet about it.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164401]So you agree. The media should wait for the facts, that's all Im asking.

The media is so corrupt that dumb people believe this stuff.[/quote]

If the administration slips the facts in with a stream of bullshit, why put it on the media? It's ok to assign equal blame. I don't think there's any innocent party in this, from Trump to Congress or the media. Yes the media needs to do better vetting. Yes Trump should stop talking about unimportant shit like crowd sizes, losing the popular vote because of voter fraud (that has not a shred of evidence), etc. Maybe our politicians should work together to make things better for everyone rather than vote on party lines almost every single fucking time. But nah, if they do that then they wouldn't get reelected by the base that elected them in the first time. It's both goddamn sides too, when the dems have the majority it's always about pressing issues that they think are important. No wonder they lost the majority, because they forgot about middle class people just trying to make a living and raise a family, so they could focus on social issues and whatnot. This is why I hate politics, and I hate myself for getting so wrapped up in it. It's just bullshit. I can't name one thing they've done in the last 20 years that has single handedly made a major improvement in my quality of life.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1164442]If the administration slips the facts in with a stream of bullshit, why put it on the media? It's ok to assign equal blame. I don't think there's any innocent party in this, from Trump to Congress or the media. Yes the media needs to do better vetting. Yes Trump should stop talking about unimportant shit like crowd sizes, losing the popular vote because of voter fraud (that has not a shred of evidence), etc. Maybe our politicians should work together to make things better for everyone rather than vote on party lines almost every single fucking time. But nah, if they do that then they wouldn't get reelected by the base that elected them in the first time. It's both goddamn sides too, when the dems have the majority it's always about pressing issues that they think are important. No wonder they lost the majority, because they forgot about middle class people just trying to make a living and raise a family, so they could focus on social issues and whatnot. This is why I hate politics, and I hate myself for getting so wrapped up in it. It's just bullshit. I can't name one thing they've done in the last 20 years that has single handedly made a major improvement in my quality of life.[/quote]

come to the libertarian side -- we have brownies!!

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1164425]See, the GOP needed to put their foot down on this candidate selection.

[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-senate-confirms-former-exxon-ceo-secretary-state-200145344--finance.html[/url]

I'm not sure who is worse, this guy or Bannon.


I'm really surprised 2 Republicans voted no do Devos.

[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/two-republicans-wont-vote-trump-education-pick-devos-194138305.html[/url]


She has no business near our education system.[/quote]

I agree, she is fuckin terrible...she was the worst choice of the cabinet.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1164440]I'm basing this off the videos and posts on social media and reddit where green card holders are saying they are being denied entry at the airport in whatever ME country they are stuck in. Haven't seen anything on MSNBC yet about it.[/quote]

I saw it Sunday on NBC...green cards were all good.

I'm fairly certain the president cannot order green cards to become invalid.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164445]I saw it Sunday on NBC...green cards were all good.

I'm fairly certain the president cannot order green cards to become invalid.[/quote]

I'm not saying Trump said throw the green card holders in too, idk the person/people responsible for it. I'm just saying that I saw social media/reddit posts from people with green cards and visas saying they were stopped at the airport. Not talking about the guy with the dead mother in Iraq either, I didn't read that story.

Edit: I realized I am getting this wrong, I am getting green card holders and people with visas mixed up. I saw something about green card holders but nothing concrete so I am most likely mistaking them for visa holders that were denied entry onto planes. If you want I will try to find the posts on reddit/social media where visa holders were denied entry.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1164448]I'm not saying Trump said throw the green card holders in too, idk the person/people responsible for it. I'm just saying that I saw social media/reddit posts from people with green cards and visas saying they were stopped at the airport. Not talking about the guy with the dead mother in Iraq either, I didn't read that story.

Edit: I realized I am getting this wrong, I am getting green card holders and people with visas mixed up. I saw something about green card holders but nothing concrete so I am most likely mistaking them for visa holders that were denied entry onto planes. If you want I will try to find the posts on reddit/social media where visa holders were denied entry.[/quote]

Well first, this announcement of this whole deal was screwed up and poorly done...that can't be argued. But it's fairly reasonable to think the folks at the airport held some peeps because of bureaucracy bs and confusion. I mean airports today are worst than DMV...so that's not really surprising. The problem is people (pitchfork libs still pissed about the election) take this situation and say " hey the order applies to green card holder....omg the president is keeping green card holders out the country". Now, the irresponsibility of the media is to take this stuff on Reddit and publish it as fact.

Re: What would it take?
 

One of the first things I learned during this election cycle was that the Democratic Party invented what we right now call "alternative facts".

One of the senior political correspondents wrote yesterday that most of the mess happening in the senate is just a means to try and defy trump, it has nothing to do with voting "right or wrong", but they are just protesting and trying to block his cabinet appointments just to mess with him. He also explained that once you get outside of the crazy liberals, most smart enough people acknowledge that the Democratic Party right now is putting up the final shouts of a dying resistance movement.

Hillary is to blame for much of it. Why would America elect Democratic Leaders again after Hillary's utter and total failure of a presidential campaign? To me the group has been irreparably damaged. Write off this talk of Hillary running again in 2020. No way the DNC puts her out there again

Re: What would it take?
 

lol that's rich after we just saw 8 years of obstructionism towards Obama.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=SolidSnake84;1164456]One of the first things I learned during this election cycle was that the Democratic Party invented what we right now call "alternative facts".



One of the senior political correspondents wrote yesterday that most of the mess happening in the senate is just a means to try and defy trump, it has nothing to do with voting "right or wrong", but they are just protesting and trying to block his cabinet appointments just to mess with him. He also explained that once you get outside of the crazy liberals, most smart enough people acknowledge that the Democratic Party right now is putting up the final shouts of a dying resistance movement.



Hillary is to blame for much of it. Why would America elect Democratic Leaders again after Hillary's utter and total failure of a presidential campaign? To me the group has been irreparably damaged. Write off this talk of Hillary running again in 2020. No way the DNC puts her out there again[/QUOTE]



Stick to why Cousins is going to be traded it makes more sense. Lol

Re: What would it take?
 

Frederick Douglass is a guy who has been getting more and more attention. I noticed.

Im sorry but if you still have anything good to say about this guy than you are hopeless. You are defending the biggest moron to ever sit in the Oval Office and it is not even close.

Re: What would it take?
 

[url]https://youtu.be/fVZkroLsPwQ[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=punch it in;1164466]Frederick Douglass is a guy who has been getting more and more attention. I noticed.[/QUOTE]



So cringe worthy. So painful.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1164442]If the administration slips the facts in with a stream of bullshit, why put it on the media? It's ok to assign equal blame. I don't think there's any innocent party in this, from Trump to Congress or the media. Yes the media needs to do better vetting. Yes Trump should stop talking about unimportant shit like crowd sizes, losing the popular vote because of voter fraud (that has not a shred of evidence), etc. Maybe our politicians should work together to make things better for everyone rather than vote on party lines almost every single fucking time. But nah, if they do that then they wouldn't get reelected by the base that elected them in the first time. It's both goddamn sides too, when the dems have the majority it's always about pressing issues that they think are important. No wonder they lost the majority, because they forgot about middle class people just trying to make a living and raise a family, so they could focus on social issues and whatnot. This is why I hate politics, and I hate myself for getting so wrapped up in it. It's just bullshit. I can't name one thing they've done in the last 20 years that has single handedly made a major improvement in my quality of life.[/quote]

hears another example of the corrupt media: [url=http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/01/trump-to-mexico-take-care-of-bad-hombres-or-us-might.html]Trump to Mexico: Take care of 'bad hombres' or US might send troops[/url]

Take a look at the correction at the bottom: UPDATE: The AP updated its story with a spokesman for Mexico's president saying: "It is absolutely false that the president of the United States threatened to send troops to Mexico."

So you see whats going on? The AP put out a correction, but NBC chose to report the story as fact...before fact checking. interesting huh?

Fact checking in the ethics of journalism is a cornerstone. There is no argument there, it is a guiding principle.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1164474]hears another example of the corrupt media: [url=http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/01/trump-to-mexico-take-care-of-bad-hombres-or-us-might.html]Trump to Mexico: Take care of 'bad hombres' or US might send troops[/url]



Take a look at the correction at the bottom: UPDATE: The AP updated its story with a spokesman for Mexico's president saying: "It is absolutely false that the president of the United States threatened to send troops to Mexico."



So you see whats going on? The AP put out a correction, but NBC chose to report the story as fact...before fact checking. interesting huh?



Fact checking in the ethics of journalism is a cornerstone. There is no argument there, it is a guiding principle.[/QUOTE]



Dude u can put aside all the fake news. There are still literally thousands of real things he has done and said that should be plenty to prove to u that he is a straight cunt.

Re: What would it take?
 

I mean Trumps comments on Frederick Douglass were correct in context

[QUOTE]I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things. Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice -- Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact.[/QUOTE]
He is clearly speaking of past heroes of African American culture.

Spicer's response was idiotic and unprepared for a media asking a gotcha type question

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

I guess they are accurate as far as him doing amazing things. An amazing job. Lol.
The point is that if someone had asked him what he did or if he has ever spoken to him Trump would have had to think about it! Lol. Neither him nor Spicer had any idea - he is being recognized more by who? People who have been on the fence about equal rights for blacks??? "I notice ". Wtf does that mean? I hope you "notice ". Lol. You have had since 1895 to do so!
No excuses whatsoever.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=punch it in;1164475]Dude u can put aside all the fake news. There are still literally thousands of real things he has done and said that should be plenty to prove to u that he is a straight cunt.[/quote]

LOL...WOW. That is all folks. :doh::doh:

gotta give that a double.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164476]I mean Trumps comments on Frederick Douglass were correct in context


He is clearly speaking of past heroes of African American culture.

Spicer's response was idiotic and unprepared for a media asking a gotcha type question

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk[/quote]

Spicer is in way over his head. Dude needs to find another job quick