I dispute that she is "highly qualified" to be on the Supreme Court.

She has spent the following lengths of time in various positions throughout her legal career:
-2 years as a law clerk
-3 years in private practice
-15 years as a law professor
-3 years as an appellate judge

An admirable career, to be sure, but really not comparable to most other SC Justices. She has spent 65% of her career in an academic setting. Helpful, but I'd rather see someone with more judicial and/or high-level litigation experience.

Judging from #13 I shouldn't have taken Dumbtake's numbers for granted. So let's look at the actual numbers.

In 2019 the Biden family earned $944,737 and paid $299,346 in taxes. A 31.7% effective tax rate.

In 2019 the Harris family earned $3,018,127 and paid $1,185,628 in taxes. A 39.3% effective tax rate.

Why do we keep saying "Winking and Nodding" or "Dog Whistle"?
He said "Stand By". That's an order, not a wink, nod or dog whistle. He literally told them to get prepped and ready.

That was my thought as well. We are well beyond "dog whistles" at this point. He's using human whistles.

Harris family paid less than 15% in taxes. 3m compared to 400k paid.

So Harris had a 13.33% effective tax rate.

So, it appears that you're making the claim that freedom of speech should be measured against the contents of the speech itself.
Would it follow that bad free speech be prohibited?
Did I miss that part of the 1st amendment?
#89 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2020-09-28 03:06 PM

Yes. Lots of bad free speech is prohibited.

Threats of violence and incitement are "bad speech" and are prohibited. Same with dissemination of child pornography IP infringement, threats against the President, and many other forms of bad speech.

I guess you did miss that part.

I don't seem them killing innocent people during riots and looting. So, while they are a threat, how does this make any other national threat a lesser problem?

Facts and data make everything else a lesser problem.

We will wake up one day and it would have just disappeared.

What's truly sad is that one day, when a vaccine has finally been adequately circulated but a million Americans are dead, Trumpers will actually claim he was right.

Two HUGE Questions remain:
1. Did the family know how bad the financial situation is or is this a huge eye opener?
2. Will the family start fleeing like rats from a sinking ship?
#214 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

I don't think those are "huge questions," or even questions at all.

You really think it's news to these people that their daddy is a -------?

his preferred political party, the Democrats, have become the largest hate group since the resurgence of the Klan in the early 20th Century.

Facts disagree with you.

I can assure you I enjoy the visual of dragging my rhetorical nuts across your face.

You'd have to take off your Depends for that to happen, gramps. Rhetorically, I mean.

Does plonking someone now hide your posts from them?

Mao's posts are hidden from me but I never plonked him.

Did I hurt your feelings little guy?

Sounds like DeSantis is anticipating some very large protests in the coming months. Almost like he knows something about the November election.

If Obama had nominated someone who spent most of her career as a law professor, conservatives would absolutely slam the pick as unqualified.

I still think the logistics of such a change are impossible, but it's worth noting that, at least in one state, Wisconsin Republicans aren't ruling this out and have issued a bunch of non-denial denials.

Assembly Rep. Scott Allen (R):

Not news. Don't ask stupid questions that Democrats want you to ask. Find some news to report on.

I've not been contacted by anyone and there's no such effort in Wisconsin. The only people who have been working to undermine the election are those who want to ignore the voters in their state and grant electors to the winner of the national popular vote... The Electoral College has worked for more than 200 years and I support the current system"

It's nice to see in a thread about the potential upending of American voting rights that we're discussing same sex marriages and Bill's favorite church. If he wasn't such a simpleton i'd say he was derailing threads on purpose.

Mark Meadows calling you incompetent should be a badge of honor. If Mark Meadows ever agreed with something i said i'd start re-examining my thought process.

If the initial results point to a Trump loss, I don't think he will get the cooperation of the Republican Party.

The Republican Party has cooperated with everything Trump has done, from day one.

If it comes to having another 4 years, where he possibly gets another few SC justices, versus letting Joe if Biden be President, you have no basis for thinking they won't at minimum stand by and watch Trump try his best.

Not till tomorrow ;)

My remarks were qualified with the word "Republican" because that's who would eagerly be taking the case on behalf of Trump, not because any other political lawyer has pure motives.

Jesus you're a moron.

This Pollyanna actually thinks Democrat lawyers wouldn't do the same.

Please show me where I ever said that, you reactionary dimwit.

DonnerBoy is experiencing an alien hemorrhoidal assault.
#35 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE AT 2020-09-24 01:51 PM

Since you're a front row observer i'll take your word for it.

President Donald Trump "would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly"

Highly unrealistic even in Trump's world. The right of citizens to vote for their presidential electors is enshrined in state statute, and in some cases state Constitutions. A state legislature to change the way electors are appointed after people have already started voting would be incredible, and to change a state Constitution would require approval by the voters. I simply don't think there is time, political will or ability to do this.

that theory flies in the fact of almost everything Trump is historically notorious for.

No it isn't. Maybe you need to read my post again. Manufacturing an alternate reality in which he actually did win and it's being stolen from him by counting lawfully cast ballots is as Trump as anything.

Filing lawsuits challenging an election after he loses doesn't sound one bit like Trump.

Aside from how detached from reality that sentence is, that wasn't even my point. The point is that since Republicans are more likely to vote in person and Democrats more likely to vote by mail, the 11/3 returns might actually show Trump in the lead, with millions of ballots left to count, and at that point he will begin manufacturing uncertainty by inventing claims of the election being stolen from him while ballots are counted and start filing lawsuits to stop the counting.

The most likely scenario is that election night results show Trump with a lead, but with millions of absentee ballots left to be counted. He then screams about the election being "stolen" from him despite the fact that it always takes weeks for states to certify their results, and files lawsuits everywhere to stop legitimately cast votes from being counted.

Lawyers would have to be convinced he's been robbed somewhere in order for him to not concede the election.
#6 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2020-09-24 08:26 AM

That's an ignorant take. Republican lawyers will gladly take campaign cash to litigate positions they know are meritless on behalf of the President. If they end up in front of a Trump judge all the better.