Challenge for our leftie friends

Truth Detector said:
Apparently they did bother you because you are whining about it.
Click to expand...

No, as you can see, I'm doing nothing of the sort.

I am amused that you think you have knowledge of anything.
Click to expand...

I have knowledge of the difference between an Independent Counsel and Mueller's position.
Now you do, too. You're welcome. That's one of the advantages of forums like this. For many right-wingers, it's their only real contact with the world outside their right-wing media bubble. So, it's a rare opportunity to educate them about the world.

I will tell you what, I am so sure of my knowledge on the topic I am willing to bet a permanent ban from the forum that Trump will never be indicted OR charged with Obstruction of Justice.
Click to expand...

I expect that's right, though I'm not certain. The usual trend has been for presidents to be able to break the law with impunity. None has ever been indicted, despite several admitting to crimes.

When are we going to see signs of this superior knowledge you seem to think you have?
Click to expand...

Reread my last post to you, specifically with regard to the Independent Counsel position.

The investigation has found NOTHING connected with the Special Councils obligations.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Reread the appointing language. You'll see that the long list of indictments and guilty pleas that have already come out of the investigation are clearly connected with the Special Counsel's obligation. Also, Mueller is a "Counsel." A "Council" is something else entirely.

There is ZERO evidence the Trump campaign coordinated with Russians to win the election.
Click to expand...

The fact the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russians to win the election isn't even seriously contested. Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner have all been up front about secretly meeting with known agents of the Russian government for the express purpose of getting assistance with the campaign.

The notion that Clinton lost because the Russians helped Trump are not merely ludicrous and retarded, they defy gravity in their nonsense.
Click to expand...

I try to ignore grammar errors, but I'm at a loss for what "they" refers to here.

That is another laughably stupid and moronic claim you are parroting from MSNBC and CNN. Members of a campaign can meet with ANYONE they want for ANY reason they want even if it is for opposition research.
Click to expand...

Not according to existing campaign finance law. At this point, the Trump team's defense is essentially that the campaign finance law itself is unconstitutional -- that there's an unspoken first amendment right to work with foreign governments to get dirt on your political opponents no matter what statutory law says.

The notion that meeting in broad daylight in the Trump Tower is somehow a "secret" also defies gravity in the level of stupidity that comment makes.
Click to expand...

It was secret at the time, as you're well aware. In fact, the Russians were so interested in keeping it secret that they set it up through a series of intermediaries.

But perhaps with your SUPERIOR knowledge, you can find the criminal code telling us meeting with Russians is illegal.
Click to expand...

Why? Do you imagine that I claimed meeting with Russians is illegal? If so, what led you to that false conclusion?
 
Oneuli said:
No, as you can see, I'm doing nothing of the sort.

I have knowledge of the difference between an Independent Counsel and Mueller's position.
Now you do, too. You're welcome. That's one of the advantages of forums like this. For many right-wingers, it's their only real contact with the world outside their right-wing media bubble. So, it's a rare opportunity to educate them about the world.

I expect that's right, though I'm not certain. The usual trend has been for presidents to be able to break the law with impunity. None has ever been indicted, despite several admitting to crimes.

Reread my last post to you, specifically with regard to the Independent Counsel position.

Incorrect. Reread the appointing language. You'll see that the long list of indictments and guilty pleas that have already come out of the investigation are clearly connected with the Special Counsel's obligation. Also, Mueller is a "Counsel." A "Council" is something else entirely.

The fact the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russians to win the election isn't even seriously contested. Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner have all been up front about secretly meeting with known agents of the Russian government for the express purpose of getting assistance with the campaign.

I try to ignore grammar errors, but I'm at a loss for what "they" refers to here.

Not according to existing campaign finance law. At this point, the Trump team's defense is essentially that the campaign finance law itself is unconstitutional -- that there's an unspoken first amendment right to work with foreign governments to get dirt on your political opponents no matter what statutory law says.

It was secret at the time, as you're well aware. In fact, the Russians were so interested in keeping it secret that they set it up through a series of intermediaries.

Why? Do you imagine that I claimed meeting with Russians is illegal? If so, what led you to that false conclusion?
Click to expand...

Bottom line, you're so sure you won't take my bet; no surprise. But hey, you focus like a laser on semantics because that is all you have. other than cluelessly parroting false media narratives.

The rest of your screed reads like this:
giphy.gif
 
Oneuli said:
The Constitution doesn't say a word about what's required to become a member of the Supreme Court. In theory, a president could nominate a six-month old citizen of Bhutan, or a felon, or his dog. The decision about whether someone is qualified comes down to the advice and consent of the Senate. The idea of the Founders is that if a president ever nominated someone who has no business being in the role, the Senate would reject the pick. The problem is the Founders didn't foresee the extent to which party politics would ultimately distort the process, such that Trump might well manage to get his dog through a nomination process if he really committed to it.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. In theory, the President can nominate anyone since that is one of the two requirements. In practice, the 6 month old, a felon, or his dog would't be confirmed which is the second requirement. The idea the founders had was that of checks/balances. However, the founders didn't not believe the practice of denying should be based on political party affiliation or ideology which is the exact and ONLY reason you left wing fuckers oppose Kavanaugh. If you think party politics is distorting the process, stop playing party politics.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah and when you pack the court with a bunch of ignorant neanderthals who know nothing about the law and just enforce their ideology, expect a counterpacking. The constitution exists, I'm sorry. We will ensure our rights are enforced. You will never have the freedomless dictatorship of your dreams.
Click to expand...

oh stop, you can disagree with his ideology but the bar association unanimously gave him a well qualified rating, just like all the other judges nominated to the supreme court. He's fully qualified. you are just butthurt.

as far packing the court, you guys are too pussy to do that, and even if you did we'd fuck you back 10x harder.
 
Thing1 said:
Both sides make arguments based more on how much control they have at a given time. The libbies have none now, so of course they're making the fairness arguments & all that. They really can't do anything about anything when it comes to this process.

The GOP was shortsighted w/ Garland, though. Just like other precedents that have been set, it's likely they'll regret that one.
Click to expand...

it's one thing to make an argument for the dumbass masses and another thing to believe it. liberals believe in being "fair" and "diverse" on the court and want to turn it into a representative body rather than the judicial body it's meant to be.

and they were not shortsighted. liberals are pussies, they can easily be walked over. we are not going to have scalia replaced with a milquetoast piece of shit like garland. you will take our judges, eat our shit. republicans already gave you two judges basically no questions asked, no problem. more than fair to you guys.
 
Irthriuth said:
oh stop, you can disagree with his ideology but the bar association unanimously gave him a well qualified rating, just like all the other judges nominated to the supreme court. He's fully qualified. you are just butthurt.

as far packing the court, you guys are too pussy to do that, and even if you did we'd fuck you back 10x harder.
Click to expand...

lol

You guys are going to be out of power for a long time

We can just wait for Thomas to die well enough

If Roe v Wade is overturned, though, our hand will be forced
 
Irthriuth said:
it's one thing to make an argument for the dumbass masses and another thing to believe it. liberals believe in being "fair" and "diverse" on the court and want to turn it into a representative body rather than the judicial body it's meant to be.

and they were not shortsighted. liberals are pussies, they can easily be walked over. we are not going to have scalia replaced with a milquetoast piece of shit like garland. you will take our judges, eat our shit. republicans already gave you two judges basically no questions asked, no problem. more than fair to you guys.
Click to expand...

The judges that were replaced under Obama didn't shift the balance of the court lol

We'd be perfectly happy to give you this one for Thomas, another Scalia clone though is not acceptable to replace Kennedy
 
Watermark said:
lol

You guys are going to be out of power for a long time

We can just wait for Thomas to die well enough

If Roe v Wade is overturned, though, our hand will be forced
Click to expand...

i think there is a non-zero chance thomas steps down before the trump presidency is over. dont know if he can risk potentially 8 more years if trump loses in 2020. don't want to make the same mistake ginsberg made
 
Watermark said:
The judges that were replaced under Obama didn't shift the balance of the court lol

We'd be perfectly happy to give you this one for Thomas, another Scalia clone though is not acceptable to replace Kennedy
Click to expand...

there shouldn't be such a thing as "balance of the court" if not for your sides judicial activism.

balance is fucking stupid. it's about correctly interpreting the law. that's it.
 
Watermark said:
lol

You guys are going to be out of power for a long time

We can just wait for Thomas to die well enough

If Roe v Wade is overturned, though, our hand will be forced
Click to expand...

We don’t need to overturn Roe to wreck it

States can effectively ban it and USSC can allow it.

Suck it
 
Watermark said:
The judges that were replaced under Obama didn't shift the balance of the court lol

We'd be perfectly happy to give you this one for Thomas, another Scalia clone though is not acceptable to replace Kennedy
Click to expand...

Fuck you and your “balance of the court” bullshit. It is a faux argument.

It isn’t yours to give.

It is an Alinsky type argument used by you lefties when you lose

Face it. You guys fucked up. You took your eye off the ball.

Now you will pay the judicial price.

I could give fuck all about Roe being overturned. Truth is while I think abortion is an abomination it is mostly liberal babies getting whacked so it is hard to be too broken up about it.

No this will be a check on liberals when they eventually get power again and they will. We will have a court for thirty years to keep you in check.

Suck it
 
Irthriuth said:
i think there is a non-zero chance thomas steps down before the trump presidency is over. dont know if he can risk potentially 8 more years if trump loses in 2020. don't want to make the same mistake ginsberg made
Click to expand...

This is how I would love for it to go down

1) Ginsburg croaks this year and Trump replaces her

2) GOP keeps Senate after 2018

3) June 2020 Thomas retires and GOP pushes through replacement right before 2020 election

It would be fucking awesome.
 
Watermark said:
Roe v Wade is the correct interpretation of the law.
Click to expand...

It was not an interpretation of any law. It made up something in the Constitution that is not there

Even liberal scholars who believe in abortion think it was poorly decided law.

Like I said. We don’t need to overturn it to fuck it and weaken it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top