President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Shaka]

Supreme Court!

Wait.......has Trump been indicted or impeached yet? How's that been going for you?

[All-American]

What is going under the radar is the vast number of completely unqualified lower court appointees he's trying push through. And I don't say "unqualified" in the political sense, as in they have views I disagree with. I mean actually unqualified in that they can't answer BASIC questions about the law -- or at least basic in the sense of what a federal judge show know about the law.

You say "they." As in more than one. I assume you are referring to Peterson, but do you have someone else in mind as well?

[frank ryan]

Wait.......has Trump been indicted or impeached yet? How's that been going for you?

Shocker, you deflect and minimize criticism of you guy. Knock it off. Even if he was impeached (which he won't be as long as the GOP is in power) you'd still stand by your vote for the pussy grabber.

[frank ryan]

You say "they." As in more than one. I assume you are referring to Peterson, but do you have someone else in mind as well?

Brett Talley is another one.

[BigFatMeanie]

You say "they." As in more than one. I assume you are referring to Peterson, but do you have someone else in mind as well?

He must have several someone elses in mind because he states that it's a "vast number".

[Maximus]

Wait.......has Trump been indicted or impeached yet? How's that been going for you?

what a deflection

[Shaka]

Shocker, you deflect and minimize criticism of you guy. Knock it off. Even if he was impeached (which he won't be as long as the GOP is in power) you'd still stand by your vote for the pussy grabber.

Knock it off indeed. Said by the man who’s been on a year-long bitch fest. I’m trying to help you Frank. We need to dial back your political interest to healthy levels and get over the obsession.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlueK]

You say "they." As in more than one. I assume you are referring to Peterson, but do you have someone else in mind as well?

yeah, that 25 year old guy from Georgia, or wherever he was from who fortunately withdrew or was withdrawn. There have been others as well. I'll look them up when I have time.

[frank ryan]

Knock it off indeed. Said by the man who’s been on a year-long bitch fest. I’m trying to help you Frank. We need to dial back your political interest to healthy levels and get over the obsession.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, you're just being a dick.

[old_gregg]

Knock it off indeed. Said by the man who’s been on a year-long bitch fest. I’m trying to help you Frank. We need to dial back your political interest to healthy levels and get over the obsession.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

can you not with the advice giving?

[Shaka]

can you not with the advice giving?

[All-American]

yeah, that 25 year old guy from Georgia, or wherever he was from who fortunately withdrew or was withdrawn. There have been others as well. I'll look them up when I have time.

I bring it up because while I don't disagree regarding Peterson there was a lot more going on there that people don't appreciate. The guy was actually rated as qualified by the ABA but got caught in the crossfire of a senator's pissing match. I don't mind that he withdrew as I would prefer a judge who has litigated a day in his life, but one shouldn't read too much into that episode.

[Walter Sobchak]

because they’re stupid. we can kvetch all we want about the origins of a trump win but at the end of the day they are stupid and generally acting against their own interest.

Don't be so sure:

What We Don’t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking

Francis Shen of the University of Minnesota and Douglas Kriner of Boston University analysed election results in three key states – Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan – and found that ‘even controlling in a statistical model for many other alternative explanations, we find that there is a significant and meaningful relationship between a community’s rate of military sacrifice and its support for Trump.’ Clinton’s record of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an opponent of protracted and pointless war. Kriner and Shen conclude that Democrats may want to ‘re-examine their foreign policy posture if they hope to erase Trump’s electoral gains among constituencies exhausted and alienated by 15 years of war’. If the insurgent movements within the Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy critique, a re-examination may finally occur.

[...]

It is not the Democratic Party that is leading the search for alternatives to the wreckage created by Republican policies: a tax plan that will soak the poor and middle class to benefit the rich; a heedless pursuit of fossil fuels that is already resulting in the contamination of the water supply of the Dakota people; and continued support for police policies of militarisation and mass incarceration. It is local populations that are threatened by oil spills and police beatings, and that is where humane populism survives. A multitude of insurgent groups have begun to use the outrage against Trump as a lever to move the party in egalitarian directions: Justice Democrats, Black Lives Matter, Democratic Socialists of America, as well as a host of local and regional organisations. They recognise that there are far more urgent – and genuine – reasons to oppose Trump than vague allegations of collusion with Russia. They are posing an overdue challenge to the long con of neoliberalism, and the technocratic arrogance that led to Clinton’s defeat in Rust Belt states. Recognising that the current leadership will not bring about significant change, they are seeking funding from outside the DNC. This is the real resistance, as opposed to ‘#theresistance’.

[...]

We can gauge the corrosive impact of the Democrats’ fixation on Russia by asking what they aren’t talking about when they talk about Russian hacking. For a start, they aren’t talking about interference of other sorts in the election, such as the Republican Party’s many means of disenfranchising minority voters. Nor are they talking about the trillion dollar defence budget that pre-empts the possibility of single-payer healthcare and other urgently needed social programmes; nor about the modernisation of the American nuclear arsenal which Obama began and Trump plans to accelerate, and which raises the risk of the ultimate environmental calamity, nuclear war – a threat made more serious than it has been in decades by America’s combative stance towards Russia. The prospect of impeaching Trump and removing him from office by convicting him of collusion with Russia has created an atmosphere of almost giddy anticipation among leading Democrats, allowing them to forget that the rest of the Republican Party is composed of many politicians far more skilful in Washington’s ways than their president will ever be.

[...]

The Democratic Party has now developed a new outlook on the world, a more ambitious partnership between liberal humanitarian interventionists and neoconservative militarists than existed under the cautious Obama. This may be the most disastrous consequence for the Democratic Party of the new anti-Russian orthodoxy: the loss of the opportunity to formulate a more humane and coherent foreign policy. The obsession with Putin has erased any possibility of complexity from the Democratic world picture, creating a void quickly filled by the monochrome fantasies of Hillary Clinton and her exceptionalist allies. For people like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, war is a desirable state of affairs, especially when viewed from the comfort of their keyboards, and the rest of the world – apart from a few bad guys – is filled with populations who want to build societies just like ours: pluralistic, democratic and open for business. This view is difficult to challenge when it cloaks itself in humanitarian sentiment. There is horrific suffering in the world; the US has abundant resources to help relieve it; the moral imperative is clear. There are endless forms of international engagement that do not involve military intervention. But it is the path taken by US policy often enough that one may suspect humanitarian rhetoric is nothing more than window-dressing for a more mundane geopolitics – one that defines the national interest as global and virtually limitless.

[creekster]

I bring it up because while I don't disagree regarding Peterson there was a lot more going on there that people don't appreciate. The guy was actually rated as qualified by the ABA but got caught in the crossfire of a senator's pissing match. I don't mind that he withdrew as I would prefer a judge who has litigated a day in his life, but one shouldn't read too much into that episode.

Agreed. And I have appeared before some really dumb federal judges, both Democrats and Republicans, and have also been very impressed with other federal judges, again from both parties.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just incredible how he keeps inventing new ways to disgrace the office of POTUS.

Embedded Tweet

And what the hell. Let's joke about nuclear war.

Embedded Tweet