He was talking about you seemingly bringing Barrett up just to drag her. Although not like Mac did has done multiple times, and not near in the way he did, I see the point he's going for.
The New Lounge
- Thread starter hpnole
- Start date
He was talking about you seemingly bringing Barrett up just to drag her. Although not like Mac did has done multiple times, and not near in the way he did, I see the point he's going for.
Why then are there hundreds of affidavits from poll workers who if they are lying face criminal charges if they are lying going to court saying they saw wide scale fraud occurring.Biden for once told the truth when he that he had assembled the the best voter fraud team in history.Hey y’all got away with it and will win the Election but if we hold the Senate it can stop the country from going Socialist.On 22 we will take the house and completely block the Democrats
You're really reaching man. I like women. Just not liberal women. For someone with a masters degree, you're failing to read.
I've been more than clear, you're just choosing to be obtuse.
No, it wasn't to drag her specifically. I was pointing out the hypocrisy between the Senate Repubs denying Merrick Garland in what, February of 2016? Because it was an election year, then rushed to fill Ginsburg seat, when the election was currently happening. I then added that she was unqualified because by all rights, it's true.
someone please fact check: ACB
2 years in private practice
never tried a case
never argued an appeal
never argued b4 SC
most private work involved civil and criminal cases
15 years teaching exp
never served as judge until 2017
I am asking?
2 years in private practice
never tried a case
never argued an appeal
never argued b4 SC
most private work involved civil and criminal cases
15 years teaching exp
never served as judge until 2017
I am asking?
I agree in that there she never should have been up for a seat because the Republican senate decided in 2016 Justice vacancies should not be filled in presidential election years.
You definitely seem like you have issues with women. Even when you pointed out ones you do like, the first positive quality you mentioned in all of them was their physical qualities.
Calling ones you don't like hoes and pointing immediately to the physical attributes of ones you do like would kinda indicate a lack of respect for women.
Anyway, did you see the post about Texas earlier? I'm really curious how you feel about possible fraud in that state.
That was my point when I first brought her up. And, @BOOGIEMAN1914 just pointed out a few reasons why she is unqualified.
What's the concern for Texas? I'm asking. That state was Biden early, then as the polls across the state were tallied, they came in strong for Trump, as expected. Election day voting, too. The states in question are ones that had massive mail in, and late too.
You are making something out of nothing with my comments about women. You clearly struggle reading. I'm not joking. Who doesn't like a good looking woman? This is really a pathetic argument you're making. You can't win on the issues being talked about, so you try to smear and twist what I've said.
I have said what I've said, and don't apologize for it. Liberal women are dangerous and idiots. So are liberal men. You're saying some idiotic stuff lately. Not near as bad as shatter or this boogey guy, but you're getting there.
I ask about Texas because it's an example of
1. A state that did not stipulate mail-in votes be held until after in-person, which accounted for Biden's substantial early lead which dropped and turned over once all in-person ballots were counted. The massive swing occurred once one type of vote had been completed and another began being tallied.
2. A state that had incredible uptick in voter turnout, so much so that it allowed for Donald Trump to blow away Bush 41 and 43 numbers in their home states. I brought this up because I keep seeing Biden's sheer vote count as "evidence of fraud."
Basically, every point people are using to talking about fraud costing Trump the election can be applied to Texas.
And yes, I, too like good women. That's just not usually the first point I make about women when I'm talking about politics or work qualification. I also don't make a habit of calling ones I disagree with politically tramps and hoes.
Research that 234 page document with the affidavits. From what I've been able to find so far, a large part of it is basically white people going to Detroit to poll watch like Trump told them to and then being uncomfortable/scared as hell once they got there because of all the Black folks they saw.
Apparently her peers beg to differ. I'll take their opinion over Mother Jones.
"The American Bar Association on Sunday rated Judge Amy Coney Barrett as "well qualified," its highest rating"
From the NY Bar
The City Bar finds Judge Barrett to be “an extremely talented lawyer and judicial writer” who “unquestionably” meets the first three of the City Bar’s evaluation criteria: (1) exceptional legal ability; (2) extensive experience and knowledge of the law; and (3) outstanding intellectual and analytical talents.
However, “we have significant concerns over the remaining evaluative criteria,” the City Bar states in its report on Judge Barrett. Those criteria are (4) maturity of judgment; (5) unquestionable integrity and independence; (6) a temperament reflecting a willingness to search for a fair resolution of each case before the court; (7) a sympathetic understanding of the Court’s role under the Constitution in the protection of the personal rights of individuals; and (8) an appreciation for the historic role of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the meaning of the United States Constitution, including a sensitivity to the respective powers and reciprocal responsibilities of the Congress and Executive.
if referring to ND peers, some do and some dont...but are the things listed true or false...also that ABA rating, is that as a lawyer...her former position of judge, or for SC?
Reports like the one I have linked make me lean more and more and toward the idea that Trump and his people don't even believe the fraud claims, but are using this as a cash grab on the way out the door.
We will see what Trump thinks over the next few days. We already see what might happen in PA. If what I've heard is true, PA could flip to Trump. Personally, I think he's intentionally laying low while they gather the information.
Say what you want about him, but he proved the accusations over his term were bogus, and lies. Time will tell, but I suspect fraud will be exposed, just not sure if enough to put him back in.
He's a lot of things, but dumb isn't one of them.
Say what you want about him, but he proved the accusations over his term were bogus, and lies. Time will tell, but I suspect fraud will be exposed, just not sure if enough to put him back in.
He's a lot of things, but dumb isn't one of them.
There is plenty of fraud but the Democrats have successfully hid enough of it to steal this election
Pa judge just ruled that the Secretary of State for Pa did not have right to extend date to extend deadlines for accepting mail in votes.No other instances except that Joe is now a candidate for sainthood after raising the dead on Election Day
The judge ruled the Secretary of State did not have to extend the date for voters to verify identification from November 9th to November 12th.
True. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't a case of a judge saying ballots received after November 3rd should not be counted.
I also didn't want to pass up the opportunity to link something from Fox News for @Mac9192 since I know he would approve of the site.
Her Peers in the ND law school are overwhelmingly for her .The rest of the faculty not so much which is to be expected.
Why exactly would it be expected that the rest of the faculty would not be behind her appointment to the SC?
What exactly would that have to do with her appointment to the SC? The SC is supposed to be a non-partisan entity. So maybe they just find her obvious far right, religious ideology a red flag? Or perhaps maybe her utter lack of relevant experience, especially for the lifetime appointment to the highest court in the country? Not that either? Oh maybe it has something to do with that cult she was in...People of Praise? Oh she's still in that cult? Well well, yeah, maybe a teeny, weeny, itsy, bitsy little bit of reservation but, I'm sure it'll be fine!
Joint Statement from Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees | CISA
The members of Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council (GCC) Executive Committee – Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Assistant Director Bob Kolasky, U.S. Election Assistance Commission Chair Benjamin Hovland, National Association of Secretari
www.cisa.gov
You asked why wouldn’t the rest of the faculty be behind her. I gave you a straight forward answer. Only you could botch it.
It really was a good answer kid.
Joint Statement from Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees | CISA
The members of Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council (GCC) Executive Committee – Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Assistant Director Bob Kolasky, U.S. Election Assistance Commission Chair Benjamin Hovland, National Association of Secretari
Just saw this break on tv as well. That's a big announcement, and likely closes the deal on any possibility of overturning the election. If the president can accept it, I think he still can maintain his legacy and put an eye toward 2024.
On another note, there seems to be a break from Fox by numerous republicans. They are slowly turning toward another network (NewsMax?) which is another right wing operation. Apparently there is still strong GOP backlash toward Fox for calling Arizona for Biden on Election Night.
True that the early call on Arizona riled many up, but a couple other things set things into motion.
First was the way Newt Gingrich got silenced by the ladies on ‘OutNumbered’ when he brought up George Soros.
The second was the debate with Chris Wallace as the moderator. Thought he was horrible. The lady from nbc did a better job, IMO.