2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome)

[HarthorneWingo]

ian miles cheong is a lying fascist propagandist

The video speaks for itself.

That’s a tacit admission.

Objection OVERRULED! Robillionaire, please continue.

[BallSacBounce]

https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/2020/09/17/the-news-as-we-once-knew-it-is-dead-n936292

The News as We Once Knew It Is Dead

In 2017, the liberal Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University found that 93 percent of CNN’s coverage of the Trump administration was negative. The center found similarly negative Trump coverage at other major news outlets.

The election year 2020 has only accelerated that asymmetrical bias — to the point that major newspapers and network and cable news organizations are now fused with the Joe Biden campaign.

Sometimes stories are covered only in terms of political agendas. Take COVID-19.

The media assure us that the Trump administration’s handling of the pandemic has been a disaster. But their conclusions are not supported by any evidence.

In the United States, the coronavirus death rate per million people is similar to, or lower than, most major European countries except Germany.

When the virus was at its worst, before the partisan campaign of this election year heated up, the governors in our four largest states had only compliments for the Trump administration.

Democrats Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gavin Newsom of California and Republicans Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida effusively praised the administration’s cooperation with their own frontline efforts.

The most recent conclusions of impartial heads of federal agencies responsible for coordinating national and state policies are about the same.

Dr. Deborah Birx (adviser to both the Obama and Trump administrations on responses to infectious diseases), Dr. Anthony Fauci (director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), and Dr. Scott Gottlieb (former head of the Food and Drug Administration) have not faulted the Trump administration’s overall COVID-19 response. They attribute any shortcomings to initial global ignorance about the origins and nature of the epidemic, incompetence at the World Health Organization, or the initial inability of bureaucracies to produce easily available and reliable test kits.

Prominent progressive Trump critics such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized the necessary Trump travel ban, yet Pelosi told people there was no reason to cancel planned travel to San Francisco’s Chinatown.

However, the real warping of the news is not just a matter of slanting coverage, but deliberately not covering the news at all.

In the last two weeks, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has achieved the most stunning breakthroughs in Middle Eastern diplomacy in over half a century.

Countries once hostile to Israel, such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, now formally recognize it. Other Arab nations may follow. Ancient existential enemies Kosovo and Serbia also agreed to normalize their relationship with Israel by signing economic agreements.

Yet none of these historic events have drawn much media attention. All of them would have been canonized were they achievements of the Obama administration.

In 2017, the media suggested that Trump’s plans to get out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord, to confront Chinese mercantilism, to forge new alliances between Israel and moderate Arab regimes, to isolate an ascendant Iran, to close the southern border to illegal immigration, to jawbone NATO alliance members into honoring their defense expenditure commitments, and to destroy ISIS and weaken Hezbollah were all impossible, counterproductive or sheer madness.

And now?

An embargoed and bankrupt Iran is teetering on the brink. Its international terrorist appendages, including Hezbollah, are broke.

China is increasingly being ostracized by much of the world.

The U.S. has cut its carbon emissions, often at a rate superior to those nations still adhering to the Paris climate accord targets.

Cross-border illegal immigration has been reduced, according to many metrics.

ISIS was bombed into near dissolution. Moderate regimes in the Middle East are ascendant; radical cliques like Hamas and al-Qaeda are not.

More NATO members are meeting their commitments. The alliance’s aggregate defense investments are way up.

Is any of that considered news? Not really.

Instead, every three or four days the public is fed a series of fantasy “bombshells” much like the daily hysterias of the Robert Mueller investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump team and Russia — a two-year, media-hyped dud.

In recent weeks the media warned us that Trump was dismantling the Post Office to disrupt mail-in balloting.

Trump, we are told, has decided never to concede his sure loss in November and might have to be forcibly removed, perhaps by the military.

We read that Trump defiled the memory of fallen American soldiers in cemeteries abroad. We are lectured that Trump supposedly never took COVID-19 seriously.

All of these stories were either demonstrably untrue, were supported only by anonymous sources, or were the sensationalism of authors hawking books.

Yet such concocted melodramas will continue each week up to Election Day, while fundamental geostrategic shifts abroad brought about by American diplomacy will by intent go unnoticed.

The news as we once understood it is dead.

It has been replaced by the un-news: a political narrative created by partisans who believe the noble ends of destroying Trump justify any biased means necessary — including destroying their own reputation and craft.

This is why you won't see it coming again this election. You're being lied to by an MSM who so despise the Orange Man. Your news sources suck. The "samizdat" is going to win. The MSM holds no power anymore, people just don't believe it. The real reporting is being done by citizen reporters. The MSM doesn't have the manpower anymore. It has become a bonfire of the inanities led by twenty somethings who don't know or question anything.


Leftist author David Samuels exposed the sham when he quoted Ben Rhodes. You're just slow catching up with it.

https://thefederalist.com/2016/05/10/why-a-liberal-journalist-brought-the-house-down-on-obama-fabulist-ben-rhodes/
Why A Liberal Journalist Brought The House Down On Obama Fabulist Ben Rhodes

However, the real motivating factor in his willingness to help Rhodes hang himself seems to be Samuels’ sorrow over the damage done to journalism as a profession.

The most punishing thing Rhodes said in his long-form confession to manipulating and subverting the press is that the journalists he encounters today “literally know nothing.” We need to look at the full quote to appreciate the importance of this to Samuels. Here is Rhodes:

All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus. Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing. (emphasis added)

Now let us look at another quote, this one from Samuels himself in an interview given in 2012.

I believe the catastrophe has already happened. The magazine world I entered almost 20 years ago was a rich, commercially-viable world. For a reasonably broad audience of people it was a fun way to spend two hours in the afternoon. That world is gone. The Washington Post hires 26-year-old bloggers to fill the pages that were filled by reporters who had bureaus in Nairobi that were paid for by their newspapers. That entire substructure has now been blown up. (emphasis added)

Rhodes’ insight is, in other words, almost verbatim the complaint Samuels was raising four years ago. Samuels described this shift, rightly, as a “catastrophe.” When he heard Rhodes say the same thing, it was an opportunity to force America to look at the harm done American journalism’s collapse.

[BallSacBounce]

ian miles cheong is a lying fascist propagandist

The video speaks for itself.

That’s a tacit admission.

Objection OVERRULED! Robillionaire, please continue.

Awesome, thanks for the levity.

He lost me at the f word. Common run of the mill leftist term for anyone on the right. It's not based on anything factual, I'm sure. He may be a lier, I wouldn't know don't know anything about him. He's certainly a propagandist. So what. Such a dirty word for trying to persuade it flavors the content of the video not a bit. But a fascist? C'mon man, do better.

[HarthorneWingo]

The video speaks for itself.

That’s a tacit admission.

Objection OVERRULED! Robillionaire, please continue.

Awesome, thanks for the levity.

He lost me at the f word. Common run of the mill leftist term for anyone on the right. It's not based on anything factual, I'm sure. He may be a lier, I wouldn't know don't know anything about him. He's certainly a propagandist. So what. Such a dirty word for trying to persuade it flavors the content of the video not a bit. But a fascist? C'mon man, do better.

There is enough evidence of it so that it’s not all hyperbole. Look at the great increase in wealth inequality along with the increase in the number of billionaires/oligarchs, the increase in right-wing white nationalist acts of terrorism, etc.

Aren’t you more of a “libertarian” than a Republican? Amirite?

[BallSacBounce]

That’s a tacit admission.

Objection OVERRULED! Robillionaire, please continue.

Awesome, thanks for the levity.

He lost me at the f word. Common run of the mill leftist term for anyone on the right. It's not based on anything factual, I'm sure. He may be a lier, I wouldn't know don't know anything about him. He's certainly a propagandist. So what. Such a dirty word for trying to persuade it flavors the content of the video not a bit. But a fascist? C'mon man, do better.

There is enough evidence of it so that it’s not all hyperbole. Look at the great increase in wealth inequality along with the increase in the number of billionaires/oligarchs, the increase in right-wing white nationalist acts of terrorism, etc.

Aren’t you more of a “libertarian” than a Republican? Amirite?

Definitely more Libertarian. And yes I have a huge problem with the oligarchy, tech control especially. I have a huge problem with where we go from here as a society as I keep seeing consolidation of wealth even with increases in opportunity for the average person. I have a huge problem with Crony Capitalism, I want the little guy to have his shot. I'm against any type of political violence whomever it is but Wingo I am not seeing it come from the white nationalists, I'm just not. I reject those people they can only stir it bad. I see the fascism coming from the left and there is plenty of evidence for it just look at the continued violence. It's what they did in Nazi Germany. They started wrecking **** until they got their way.

I want a beautiful American system of opportunity for all. And some of that might be preferential treatment for some who have been left behind before, that's ok for me. But I do want it to end at some point and everyone to accept responsibility for themselves. I do not know what that point is but I want a plan for it. A Plan of Opportunity For All... education, training and guidance. For the left behind everywhere. Without stigmatization or blame, just bettering our country and the people in it.

[Pointgod]

I'll let your insults slide, but knock it off. Plain and simple, I don't play that crap so keep it respectful. Obama didn't have to look to pick a fight to be more aggressive. He just had to press his advantage in numbers while he had it instead of offering olive branches and trying to play nice with a party whose leadership said this

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president"

That was Mitch Mcconnell before Obama even got sworn in. Obama had two years to press his advantage and failed. Period. You can rationalize it all you want, but the Republicans laid their strategy out and it worked. The party lost seats under him the way a one term president typically loses seats, not a beloved successful leader. The party lost seats; the trademark legislation lost a key piece at the zero hour and then was further damaged by the Supreme Court period; and in the last two years of his term, when Obama acted aggressively it was too late to avoid the Trump Administration rolling back huge portions of the accomplishments.

Well I always hear this line of reasoning from people on this board and across social media, but they never expand on what Obama could have done. I always hear the criticism that he should have fought the Republicans at every turn and jailed the GWB administration for the Iraq war. I’m curious as to where you think he could have pressed harder considering that: he inherited the greatest global economic crisis since the depression, he inherited two disastrous wars and he had to deal with resistance within his own party. Sure it’s easy to play Monday morning quarterback, but the Republican backlash against Obama was simply because he is a black man and Democrats stopped bothering to show up after 2008 the black President didn’t fix all the world’s problems in two years. There were actual Democratic candidates that distances themselves from him during the midterms.

If you think those were the best results that any leader could muster; then I disagree. Dangers of the big tent party is not being able to WHIP votes effectively; and that's why I typically suggest that courting Republican voters is a fool's errand. This time around, desperate times call for desperate measures, but I'd hope you keep the challenges from within the party in mind next time you sing the praises of strategies that center around appealing to voters who will flee their Congressmen if we try to pass the agenda that actual Democrats like.

A significant portion of the Democratic Party is still moderate. Bernie learned the hard way what only catering to a segment of your party leads to. I hundred percent support challenges within the party. But the when the primaries are over, Democrats need to vote blue period. No third party stupidity, no protest votes or sitting out.

Christ, are we really using Donald Trump as a barometer for what an effective leader could accomplish with a Super Majority now!? How low are we setting the bar? Listen, the point isn't utopian here or expecting huge moves from Obama. He just needed to be more aggressive and get the ball rolling on ideas sooner. That might have made it so that the ACA wasn't the major focus of all voters at a time when it was unpopular and cost Democrats down ballot seats. Again, we have the benefit of hindsight now, let's use it and learn from the past. Trying to return to norms didn't help last time, it just made it easier for Trump to erode them even further when he got into office.

And the Trump example is equally poor thought out because when you ask what Trump accomplished; most of his goals that he did attain were done without legislative support. The Tax Cut sure...but he didn't need legislation to damage target immigrants; his Muslim ban was blocked initially but just needed to be reworded a bit to pass essentially the same concept; DeJoy's damage to the USPS, Sessions rolled back the Justice Department's attempts to address BLM concerns, Betsy Devos' attempts to roll back education reforms for college debt and then ignore court orders to stop...oh yeah and let's look back at those Judge Appointments;

Almost a quarter of all Federal Judges in this country are Trump appointees. A direct result of the Democrats following norms when the Republicans obviously didn't give a damn about them. Again, while the Judicial branch is such a big story, this seems significant but maybe it just doesn't count...but the impact could be felt for a generation without aggressive reform.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/15/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/

I bring up Trump because it shows that just because a President has control of all three branches doesn’t mean that they can ram through any legislation that they want. Obama had a lot more success in the first two years than Trump has. And you know the reason why Trump has confirmed so many Federal judges? Because the **** Mitch McConnell refused to fill the Federal judiciary under Obama. That’s why there were so many vacancies. It comes back to how horrible Republicans are and voters failing to show up during the midterms.

It's kinda weird to both blame Democratic Representatives for being an additional impediment to Obama's attempts at progress and then turn around and blame the Democratic voters for not showing up to voter for those Democratic Representatives. It's like wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

"We'll get you change but you have to vote...well you see what had happened was, some of those guys we told you to vote for are blocking the bills you want...it's your fault we didn't get change because you stopped voting for the guys we tell you to vote for"

This is the cycle that has empowered anti-establishment voices across the board. Also one I feel like we're doomed to repeat if Biden's not much more aggressive than Obama was out the gate. I have hopes he will be though; as long as enough of the electorate actually shows the will to back him up. Joy Ann Reid talked court stacking today...I dig it.

Like I said above. Primaries is the time to fall in love, then the general election is the time to fall in line. I don’t see how sitting out of votes, even if it’s not for your preferred candidate gets you closer to what you want. A Democratic member of Congress is much easier to move further left than a Republican member. It’s really that simple. So yes even if someone’s ideology doesn’t 100% align with yours, they can be pressured. And you don’t stop the pressure till you get what you want or they’re replaced.

And I don’t know what you expect from Biden but if he wins he’s going to inherit a similar situation that Obama did. It will take time for his administration to start putting the government back in order and investigating the obvious crimes of the previous administration and President. These things will take time. The one benefit he’ll have that there are a stack of laws passed by Pelosi awaiting the next Senate Majority leader. I just hope that voters don’t think they don’t need to continue to show up in record numbers in 22’,24’,26’,28’,30’,32’. This is all about the long game.

[BallSacBounce]

Read on Twitter

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-09-19/trumps-list-of-possible-supreme-court-nominees
Trump's List of Possible Supreme Court Nominees

BRIDGET BADE

Bade is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. She is a graduate of Arizona State University and ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.

AMY CONEY BARRETT

Barrett is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. She's a graduate of Rhodes College and Notre Dame's law school and a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

ALLISON EID

Eid is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. She graduated from Stanford and the University of Chicago's law school and was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

BRITT GRANT

Grant is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and formerly a justice on the Supreme Court of Georgia. She graduated from Wake Forest University and attended law school at Stanford.

BARBARA LAGOA

Lagoa is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Before her appointment in 2019, Lagoa was a justice on the Florida Supreme Court. She is a graduate of Florida International University and Columbia Law School.

MARTHA PACOLD

Martha Pacold is a federal judge in Illinois and former deputy general counsel at the Treasury Department. A graduate of Indiana University and the University of Chicago Law School, she clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

SARAH PITLYK

Pitlyk is federal judge in Missouri and former special counsel at the Thomas More Society. She clerked for then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. She graduated from Boston College, Georgetown University and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium; and Yale Law School.

ALLISON JONES RUSHING

Rushing is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. She clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and then-Judge Neil Gorsuch on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. She graduated from Wake Forest University and Duke University School of Law.

MARGARET RYAN

Ryan was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and previously served in the Marine Corps. A graduate of Notre Dame's law school, she is a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.

DIANE SYKES

Sykes is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. She's a graduate of Northwestern University and Marquette University Law School

KATE TODD

Todd is deputy counsel to President Donald Trump and formerly served as chief counsel of the United States Chamber Litigation Center. Todd clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She graduated from Cornell University and Harvard Law School.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/19/trump-supreme-court-candidates-418366
Trump weighs Barrett, Lagoa for Court seat

President Donald Trump and his team are weighing a key decision this weekend: whether to nominate a Supreme Court candidate who already has been carefully vetted and interviewed, or take extra time to select someone newer to his process who could yield a bigger election-year payoff.

In a call with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Friday, Trump mentioned Barrett and Lagoa, according to one of the people. “There’s a presumption that the leading short-lister is Barrett,” a Senate GOP aide said.

A third person said if he waits until after Wednesday the White House will have trouble pushing a replacement through this year. “It’s important to simplify the process,” said a former White House official.

Lagoa is on a list of names that Trump released earlier this month as possible replacements. But unlike Barrett, people close to the process say Lagoa has demographic and geographic advantages in her favor when it comes to the politics of Senate confirmation and the presidential election: Lagoa hails from Trump’s must-win state of Florida and she’s Cuban American.

“Justice Lagoa is perfect,” said one source, who has discussed the matter with White House officials but was not authorized to speak on record. “The president wants a conservative jurist and he wants to win the biggest battleground. How do Democrats in the Senate vote against a Latina?”

A second Republican who has close ties to Florida said that “Lagoa is at the top of the list. She checks a lot of boxes.”

But some conservative groups could object based on what they see as Lagoa’s insufficient record on abortion, the ultimate litmus test issue on the right. One prominent GOP senator, Josh Hawley of Missouri, has already said he would only vote for a nominee who has affirmed that Roe v. Wade was “wrongly decided.”

Barrett has her own geographic advantage: She hails from Indiana, the home state of Vice President Mike Pence, and she’s well-known and liked by the White House legal team, which vetted her when she was nominated for the appellate court.

One risk for her nomination is that she supported a November 2018 statement from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who criticized Trump for blasting an opinion from an “Obama judge.”

Of the three women, Lagoa had the easiest and most bipartisan confirmation hearing. The Senate confirmed her by 80-15 compared to 55-43 for Barrett and 53-44 for Rushing.

Gotta think it's Logoa. She checks all the boxes and won't get the abortion activists riled up like Amy would. She had the easiest confirmation for her current position. Dems will have a helluva time lobbying against a Florida Cuban first generation woman who they easily approved last go around.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article245861735.html
Trump considers Miami-born judge Barbara Lagoa for Ginsburg’s seat on Supreme Court

Lagoa, who speaks fluent Spanish, is the daughter of exiled Cubans who fled the country more than 50 years ago when Fidel Castro came into power.

In 2000, as a private attorney, Lagoa was part of the legal team that defended the Miami-based relatives of Elián González, the Cuban boy caught in a high-profile custody dispute between his father in Cuba and his relatives in Miami. She joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2003 and in 2006, then-Gov. Jeb Bush appointed her to the 3rd District Court of Appeal.

DeSantis announced Lagoa’s appointment at the Freedom Tower in downtown Miami, a symbol for Cuban immigrants arriving in South Florida.

Politically speaking this is a 10/10 pick. There is a lot of push behind Amy Coney Barrett though and there has been for some time.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/19/amy-coney-barrett-what-you-need-to-know-418378
What you need to know about Amy Coney Barrett

Here’s what you should know about Amy Coney Barrett:

A reliable conservative
Religious conservatives would have much to be pleased with Barrett, a devout Catholic.

Barrett has stated that “life begins at conception,” according to a 2013 Notre Dame Magazine article. She also said that justices should not be strictly bound by Supreme Court precedents, a deference known as stare decisis, leaving open the possibility that she could vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if seated on the court.

She could serve for decades
At 48-years-old, Barrett would be the youngest justice currently on the Supreme Court, making it entirely plausible that Barrett could leave her mark on a swath of cases for a generation or more.

A protégé of Scalia
Barrett clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia after graduating from Notre Dame University Law School. Like Scalia, Barrett is a strict originalist and would “enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks is clearly in conflict with it,” she wrote in a 2013 Texas Law Review article.

She can go toe to toe with Democrats
During her confirmation hearing to serve on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, Barrett engaged in a contentious exchange with the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein. The California Democrat pressed Barrett on her deeply held religious beliefs and how they could impact her jurisprudence, which led to criticism that Democrats' questioning was anti-Catholic.

“The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for years in this country,” Feinstein said to Barrett.

Barrett responded sharply: “It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”

Her record
Barrett has served less than three years on the 7th Circuit after working as a law professor at Notre Dame University for nearly two decades.

Her short tenure on the bench means there’s been little time to develop a body of legal opinions, which lawmakers from both sides of the aisle would likely scrutinize. Republicans, having been burned in the past by GOP presidents’ nominees who ended up voting more liberally, would also likely demand reassurances from Barrett before granting her a lifetime appointment to the court.

If it's Barrett there will be a lot of fireworks.

[Pointgod]

Scumbags. Every single one of them.

https://www.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2020/09/a-long-list-of-gop-senators-who-promised-not-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee-during-an-election-year/

[Pointgod]

I don’t know what it says about a person who supports a man like this but I’ll stop now because I’ll say some real ****. Even if it was it was a little respected scumbag reporter that works for Fox News, no one should be celebrating the abuse of the press. It’s literal facism.

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[robillionaire]

The video speaks for itself.

That’s a tacit admission.

Objection OVERRULED! Robillionaire, please continue.

Awesome, thanks for the levity.

He lost me at the f word. Common run of the mill leftist term for anyone on the right. It's not based on anything factual, I'm sure. He may be a lier, I wouldn't know don't know anything about him. He's certainly a propagandist. So what. Such a dirty word for trying to persuade it flavors the content of the video not a bit. But a fascist? C'mon man, do better.

Nah. I will call it like it is. You are fascists and I don’t care if you like it or not that’s my analysis. This is fascism and I reject it and will loudly proclaim it every day. You do better. Stop being a white nationalist.

It’s hilarious the right will slander Biden and officer Kamala calling these corporate dems a radical Trojan horse for communism and a threat to “western civilization” all day long but when you correctly identify the opposition as white nationalists and fascists people want to get offended about it

[aq_ua]

I have a question regarding the concept of originalism and its application in judicial review. I get that it’s similar to biblical interpretation of the literal vs. interpreted, and that originalism leaves much less scope for judicial review than allowing for a reading of the language in alignment with the current prevailing circumstances of the world.

I also understand that originalism also means the ninth amendment has no relevance or legal basis (and of course begs the question of why then does the ninth amendment exist).

I also understand a valid argument it makes is that constitutional amendments are the appropriate venue for reinterpreting the language of the constitution and not the individual biases of judges.

However, as with so many things, this introduces partisan politics into an institution that is supposed to be apolitical, if there is still such a thing.

Is there a more robust and defensible explanation of originalism that makes it more acceptable? I bring this up of course because the nominees for the open seat all seem to come from that school of thought.

[HarthorneWingo]

That’s a tacit admission.

Objection OVERRULED! Robillionaire, please continue.

Awesome, thanks for the levity.

He lost me at the f word. Common run of the mill leftist term for anyone on the right. It's not based on anything factual, I'm sure. He may be a lier, I wouldn't know don't know anything about him. He's certainly a propagandist. So what. Such a dirty word for trying to persuade it flavors the content of the video not a bit. But a fascist? C'mon man, do better.

Nah. I will call it like it is. You are fascists and I don’t care if you like it or not that’s my analysis. This is fascism and I reject it and will loudly proclaim it every day. You do better. Stop being a white nationalist.

It’s hilarious the right will slander Biden and officer Kamala calling these corporate dems a radical Trojan horse for communism and a threat to “western civilization” all day long but when you correctly identify the opposition as white nationalists and fascists people want to get offended about it

And THAT! was Robillionaire telling it like is.

And this is Howard Cosell, speaking of politics

[Stannis]

Scumbags. Every single one of them.

https://www.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2020/09/a-long-list-of-gop-senators-who-promised-not-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee-during-an-election-year/

The Maine and Alaska senator says they might vote against the nominee.

Mitt Romney also might vote against it.

If Kelly wins AZ, he can actually be sworn in by November 30th. So that could help, but I think Mitch can do something to stop that.

Truth be told, I think Trump will put a moderate conservative in there. It won't be anyone too extreme.

I see this going through the senate pretty quickly.

[HarthorneWingo]

I have a question regarding the concept of originalism and its application in judicial review. I get that it’s similar to biblical interpretation of the literal vs. interpreted, and that originalism leaves much less scope for judicial review than allowing for a reading of the language in alignment with the current prevailing circumstances of the world.

I also understand that originalism also means the ninth amendment has no relevance or legal basis (and of course begs the question of why then does the ninth amendment exist).

I also understand a valid argument it makes is that constitutional amendments are the appropriate venue for reinterpreting the language of the constitution and not the individual biases of judges.

However, as with so many things, this introduces partisan politics into an institution that is supposed to be apolitical, if there is still such a thing.

Is there a more robust and defensible explanation of originalism that makes it more acceptable? I bring this up of course because the nominees for the open seat all seem to come from that school of thought.

There is some reason to believe that originalism has its bases found in the purposes of the document. "Living constitutionalism" is the counter theory to interpreting it. This has been The Great Debate in the law for a long time.

If you're interesting in reading more, as I am, I found a recent (2019) law review article on the topic from Northwestern Law School. I'm going to read it tomorrow.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1376&context=nulr

[HarthorneWingo]

Scumbags. Every single one of them.

https://www.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2020/09/a-long-list-of-gop-senators-who-promised-not-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee-during-an-election-year/

The Maine and Alaska senator says they might vote against the nominee.

Mitt Romney also might vote against it.

If Kelly wins AZ, he can actually be sworn in by November 30th. So that could help, but I think Mitch can do something to stop that.

Truth be told, I think Trump will put a moderate conservative in there. It won't be anyone too extreme.

I see this going through the senate pretty quickly.

The stakes just got exponentially higher. Maybe getting this SCOTUS nominee will placate the republican voters into staying home on 11/3.

[Stannis]

It really makes no sense for the GOP not to appoint a new SCOTUS now. Why would they wait? It's a paradox. It's almost like accepting defeat because Biden should appoint a new SCOTUS. It's like you aren't planning that you will have two-terms. Or it's like... if you really felt you losing the election, why not get one in on your way out? You think you will get more votes waiting it out? I think appointing someone now will energize your base rather than waiting.

I'm not saying it will pass. And I'm definitely not saying I agree with it. But it just seems like suicide for the GOP to wait.

This is why I think Trump (if he's smart) will nominate somebody who is center with a slight lean to the right. That way democrats won't have a reason to filibuster as much as they did with Kavanagh.

[Stannis]

Scumbags. Every single one of them.

https://www.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2020/09/a-long-list-of-gop-senators-who-promised-not-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee-during-an-election-year/

The Maine and Alaska senator says they might vote against the nominee.

Mitt Romney also might vote against it.

If Kelly wins AZ, he can actually be sworn in by November 30th. So that could help, but I think Mitch can do something to stop that.

Truth be told, I think Trump will put a moderate conservative in there. It won't be anyone too extreme.

I see this going through the senate pretty quickly.

The stakes just got exponentially higher. Maybe getting this SCOTUS nominee will placate the republican voters into staying home on 11/3.

Why would republican voters stay home because Trump put in his SCOTUS nominee? I think it energizes them more than anything.

I live in a red church state. And all I can really say is these people really want to reverse Roe V. Wade, and they love "triggering" libs more than anything. Nominating and appointing a new SCOTUS will do just that.

[BallSacBounce]

I don’t know what it says about a person who supports a man like this but I’ll stop now because I’ll say some real ****. Even if it was it was a little respected scumbag reporter that works for Fox News, no one should be celebrating the abuse of the press. It’s literal facism.

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Well now at least we're getting to the crux of the problem. You believe the bull that was tweeted and the twitterverse echo chamber amplified it so it becomes reality. It's still not true no matter how often you read a tweet saying the same thing.

Same thing happened with the Charlottesville Hoax. This is an MSM problem they really now how to push those buttons and get people going who don't do their own research and look into things. They take some words out of context and splice them together. Voila! Outrage! Fascist! Twitter Explodes!!!

LMAO?

The tweets were by...
Wajahat Ali: NY Times
Ayman Mohyeldin: MSNBC
Ali Velshi: MSNBC/CNN

We look at them as paid supporters of the old guard. The former trusted sources. The gatekeepers that keep you off balance so you don't find out the truth. Why do they do that? Economics. The people at the top have a vested interest in keeping us divided. Truth is imports from China, illegal immigration and H1B visas were hollowing out this country's economic base. All are supported by Global Corporate Interests. The middle class was getting destroyed. Nobody cared till Trump.

So here is what they did, I'll transcribe it for you. What Trump actually said was:

"I remember this guy Velshi, he got hit on the knee, by a can of teargas. And he went down. He didn't, he was down. My knee my knee. Nobody cared these guys didn't care, they moved him aside. And they just walked right through it was like, it was the most beautiful thing. No because after we take all that crap for weeks and weeks they would take this crap and then you finally see men get up there and go right through didn't, wasn't it really a beautiful sight. For law and order, law and order."

Obviously the "beautiful thing" and "beautiful sight" he's referring to is the police taking control after putting up with so much ****.

Wajahat Ali/NYTimes Tweet: Here is Trump praising and encouraging violence against journalist @AliVelshi. I'm resharing this again. He called it a "beautiful sight." These are the actions of a fascist.

Ayman Mohyeldin/MSNBC Tweet: In all of my years covering wars and authoritarian leaders around the world and even with their disdain for a free media, I have never heard one of those leaders call the shooting, targeting and/or injury of a reporter “a beautiful thing” the way Trump has spoken about @AliVelshi

Ali Velshi: MSNBC/CNN Tweet: The President of the United States cheering the targeting of a journalist by authorities...
In response to David Gura ALSO MSNBC Tweet: "He got hit on the knee with a canister of tear gas," President Trump says, of @AliVelshi, who was actually hit by a rubber bullet. "Wasn't it really a beautiful sight? It's called law and order."

Getting hit on the knee with a can of tear gas and calling the police taking control are two SEPARATE things. But the MSM conflated them by splicing them together in the tweet. That's not the way Trump said it and it's not the way he meant it.

He said "they just walked through and it was a beautiful thing.' He was praising the police taking control. He also had the crowd have a bit of a laugh at Velshi's expense. That's not at all praising violence or encouraging it against Velshi or calling what happened to Velshi a beautiful thing. But cue up the outrage! Hey, Trump is an uncouth ass no question about it but that does not a fascist make.

Same thing happened with the Charlottesville Hoax and you have Joe Biden and Kamala Harris gaslighting you on it as well so I'm quite sure you've swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris Cite Debunked Charlottesville ‘Fine People Hoax’
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/08/12/joe-biden-kamala-harris-cite-debunked-charlottesville-fine-people-hoax/

Joe Biden cited the Charlottesville “fine people hoax” — again — on Wednesday in his remarks introducing his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), in Wilmington, Delaware.

Biden repeated his debunked claim that Trump called neo-Nazis in Charlottesville in August 2017 “very fine people”:

It is also the third anniversary of that terrible day in Charlottesville — remember? Remember what it felt like to see those neo-Nazis — close your eyes — and those Klansmen and white supremacists coming out of fields, carrying lighted torches, faced contorted, bulging veins, pouring into the streets of [an] historic American city spewing the same antisemitic bile we heard in Hitler’s Germany in the 1930s. Remember how it felt to see a violent clash ensue between those celebrating hate and those standing against it? It was a wake-up call for all of us as a country. For me, it was a call to action. My father used to say, “silence is complicity” — not original to him, but he believed it. At that moment, I knew I could not stand by and let Donald Trump, a man who went on to say when asked about what he thought, he said, “there were very fine people on both sides. “Very fine people on both sides.” No president of the United States of America has ever said anything like that.

Except that's not what he said and clearly not what he meant. Again the MSM and Biden spliced together two separate thoughts to get something vile.

Here are the facts.

President Trump repeatedly condemned the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville in August 2017 — “totally.”

Moreover, the neo-Nazis were not the only violent group in Charlottesville. The “clash” was not with those “standing against” hate peacefully, but with violent, black-clad Antifa extremists.

As to “very fine people,” Trump had been referring to peaceful protests both for and against the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

He completely condemned the extremists — as the timeline and transcript confirm:

Aug. 12, 2017: Trump condemned “violence “on many sides” in Charlottesville, after neo-Nazi and Antifa clashes
Aug. 14, 2017: Trump condemned “neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups” in White House statement
Aug. 15, 2017: Trump condemned neo-Nazis “totally,” praised non-violent protesters “on both sides” of statue debate

Here is the transcript of what he actually said:

Biden launched his campaign with the Charlottesville hoax, and persisted in doing so, even after Breitbart News confronted him last August with the fact that he was misquoting the president. His words on that occasion, like his words on Wednesday, repeated his campaign launch speech almost verbatim — a script from which he refuses to depart.

Harris also used the Charlottesville “fine people hoax” repeatedly in the course of her short-lived presidential campaign.

As Breitbart News noted last year:

In a CNN town hall in January, Harris told Jake Tapper: “We have seen when Charlottesville and a woman was killed, that we’ve had a president who basically said, well, there were equal sides to this.” Tapper, who later acknowledged that Trump had not, in fact, called white supremacists and neo-Nazis “very fine people,” did not correct her. Harris repeated the claim in June, claiming on Twitter that Trump had “called neo-Nazis ‘fine people.’”

[BallSacBounce]

Awesome, thanks for the levity.

He lost me at the f word. Common run of the mill leftist term for anyone on the right. It's not based on anything factual, I'm sure. He may be a lier, I wouldn't know don't know anything about him. He's certainly a propagandist. So what. Such a dirty word for trying to persuade it flavors the content of the video not a bit. But a fascist? C'mon man, do better.

Nah. I will call it like it is. You are fascists and I don’t care if you like it or not that’s my analysis. This is fascism and I reject it and will loudly proclaim it every day. You do better. Stop being a white nationalist.

It’s hilarious the right will slander Biden and officer Kamala calling these corporate dems a radical Trojan horse for communism and a threat to “western civilization” all day long but when you correctly identify the opposition as white nationalists and fascists people want to get offended about it

And THAT! was Robillionaire telling it like is.

And this is Howard Cosell, speaking of politics

Oh BS on you too Wingo, lol.

[BallSacBounce]

That’s a tacit admission.

Objection OVERRULED! Robillionaire, please continue.

Awesome, thanks for the levity.

He lost me at the f word. Common run of the mill leftist term for anyone on the right. It's not based on anything factual, I'm sure. He may be a lier, I wouldn't know don't know anything about him. He's certainly a propagandist. So what. Such a dirty word for trying to persuade it flavors the content of the video not a bit. But a fascist? C'mon man, do better.

Nah. I will call it like it is. You are fascists and I don’t care if you like it or not that’s my analysis. This is fascism and I reject it and will loudly proclaim it every day. You do better. Stop being a white nationalist.

It’s hilarious the right will slander Biden and officer Kamala calling these corporate dems a radical Trojan horse for communism and a threat to “western civilization” all day long but when you correctly identify the opposition as white nationalists and fascists people want to get offended about it

Well I'm a small government Libertarian more than anything. That makes me one of the least fascist in here and I'm certainly not a white supremacist but you do you! When all you have is name calling everything looks like it should have a label.

Democrats are the most fascist without a doubt. They want to regulate everything at the federal level. **** that ****. And Obama was the King of the Executive Order. Even after he said he didn't have the authority to do anything about dreamers (he was right) he did it anyway by emperor decree. And they lose on anything and they're ready to go full autocrat. RBG is gone pack the courts!