'Murica! (149 Viewers)

[GordoDeCentral]

When media focuses on Pence having a fly on his head, that's how you know your candidate was shite.

When we readily accept that the media has 0 objectivity

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Hust]

When we readily accept that the media has 0 objectivity

Indeed.

With regards to Biden, yesterday when asked about whether or not he (or "his" party) will pack the Supreme Court after the election his response was: "You’ll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over".

Wow. Imagine being able to run for president but not actually have to offer up your positions so people know what they are voting for and STILL have a 0 objectivity media run around with their pants down around their ankles protecting you.

 

[DAiDEViL]

Indeed.

With regards to Biden, yesterday when asked about whether or not he (or "his" party) will pack the Supreme Court after the election his response was: "You’ll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over".

Wow. Imagine being able to run for president but not actually have to offer up your positions so people know what they are voting for and STILL have a 0 objectivity media run around with their pants down around their ankles protecting you.

How often did Pence ask Harris about it? No answer.

 

[Hust]

How often did Pence ask Harris about it? No answer.

Neither she nor Biden are willing to answer the question. But that's where we are with that party. They are held hostage by the idiots in the party so in order not to "offend" them they have to toe the fine line. Actually, Harris is one of the most liberal in her party based on voting record so all it really is trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes long enough to try and get the big W. Then the veil comes off.

Biden made it clear in the last debate..."This is my democrat party". Yeah, Joe. It sure is.

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently this is a picture of all the people Harris prosecuted for "non-violent drug offenses". Add this to the video of her joking about her smoking weed.

- - - Updated - - -

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/10/08...idate-zul-mirza-mohamed-arrested-voter-fraud/

Stories like this are popping up all over the place.

 

[Enron]

Indeed.

With regards to Biden, yesterday when asked about whether or not he (or "his" party) will pack the Supreme Court after the election his response was: "You’ll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over".

Wow. Imagine being able to run for president but not actually have to offer up your positions so people know what they are voting for and STILL have a 0 objectivity media run around with their pants down around their ankles protecting you.

it’s an awesome precedent

 

[Hust]

it’s an awesome precedent

Reading ur post trying to determine sarcasm level:

 

[DAiDEViL]

As Franz Müntefering once said

"After the election they judge you based on what you said before the election - that's unfair." @lgorTudor

 

[Enron]

Reading ur post trying to determine sarcasm level:

It’s pretty high considering who your guy is

personally I think the scotus should stay at 9 and Congress should implement a 10 year limit on seats.

 

[Bjerknes]

I've thought long and hard about this. It's been a tumultuous four years and I think I'm ready to give my vote. It's time to time get real.

Spoiler

Fuck that bitch!

 

[Hust]

It’s pretty high considering who your guy is

personally I think the scotus should stay at 9 and Congress should implement a 10 year limit on seats.

Do you not think its an issue that they refuse to answer a question as important as that? They are threatening to literally change the rules because they lost by the the current rules. At least with Trump with regards to SCOTUS has said BEFORE what he would do and who he would appoint and has done exactly that. DNC knows they will lose independents the moment they answer the question and list what judges they would pick.

Agree SCOTUS stays at 9. Honest question: Why term limits for SCOTUS? If anything, term limits should be on Congress (Both houses).

 

[AFL_ITALIA]

personally I think the scotus should stay at 9 and Congress should implement a 10 year limit on seats.

We'll have around 500 Supreme Court Justices by the end of the century otherwise.

 

[swag]

When we readily accept that the media has 0 objectivity

TBH, this whining about the media seems a bit weaksauce in an era where now social media has been undercutting its credibility all over.

Indeed.

With regards to Biden, yesterday when asked about whether or not he (or "his" party) will pack the Supreme Court after the election his response was: "You’ll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over".

Wow. Imagine being able to run for president but not actually have to offer up your positions so people know what they are voting for and STILL have a 0 objectivity media run around with their pants down around their ankles protecting you.

Or you could be like Mitch and Lindsey and answer the question only to be the leopard that changes your spots four years later.

I defended Trump on this a few weeks ago when they asked him what i thought was a posturing question if he'd step aside if he didn't win the election. IMO, I know journalists are required to do this (Trump did claim he'd stay in office previously, so it's follow-up). But questions like this are theater for baiting discussion and little else. Because everything can change anyway.

So in my book, Biden actually gave a more sane and reasonable answer.

Apparently this is a picture of all the people Harris prosecuted for "non-violent drug offenses". Add this to the video of her joking about her smoking weed. .

I've made my opinions on Harris clear all along.

But what I don't get is this talking out of both sides of the mouth at the same time: either she's a hawkish prosecutor locking up people for non-violent drug offenses or she's the most radical left-leaning liberal senator in office today. Conservatives seem to be claiming both at the same time, which is retarded.

 

[Hust]

But what I don't get is this talking out of both sides of the mouth at the same time: either she's a hawkish prosecutor locking up people for non-violent drug offenses or she's the most radical left-leaning liberal senator in office today. Conservatives seem to be claiming both at the same time, which is retarded.

I mean, that makes her the poster child of the current DNC. Pretend to be the party of minorities but make a career locking up your voters for non-violent drug shit then joke about doing it in an interview.

No offense, but that's what the party is now. Nancy, who made her fortune as a politician, ran a small business woman out of business because she got caught being an idiot in her salon. Same shit, same party.

Then you have the former First Lady coming out and calling the right "racists" for calling attention to the rioting while calling the protests overwhelmingly civil. When their pants are caught down around their ankles the party's response via their playbook is to throw out the race (i.e. Michelle to riots) card or gender (i.e. Pence "man-splainng" to Harris) card.

 

[Enron]

Do you not think its an issue that they refuse to answer a question as important as that? They are threatening to literally change the rules because they lost by the the current rules. At least with Trump with regards to SCOTUS has said BEFORE what he would do and who he would appoint and has done exactly that. DNC knows they will lose independents the moment they answer the question and list what judges they would pick.

Agree SCOTUS stays at 9. Honest question: Why term limits for SCOTUS? If anything, term limits should be on Congress (Both houses).

I think it’s important, but for me not as much. It’s a big what if. Right now, Republicans are in control. I’m more concerned about the mythical Obamacare replacement that’s probably going to happen in the next six months.

SCOTUS is the most powerful branch. It should be representative of the changes that happen within our country. Not of the party that plays the game the best.

I’m also for term limits in Congress. Limits to power should actually be limiting. No matter what Mike Lee says.

 

[Hust]

I think it’s important, but for me not as much. It’s a big what if. Right now, Republicans are in control. I’m more concerned about the mythical Obamacare replacement that’s probably going to happen in the next six months.

SCOTUS is the most powerful branch. It should be representative of the changes that happen within our country. Not of the party that plays the game the best.

I’m also for term limits in Congress. Limits to power should actually be limiting. No matter what Mike Lee says.

I know you're an independent so that's why I'm trying to tap into your thought process on it all. For me, when I see politicians (both sides) enriching themselves so much, playing favors, etc that's where I see the line to give them term limits. No politician should go into public office coming-out a millionaire. The only millionaires in public office should be the ones that went in with that wealth. I never really understood why independents are independents because I see things sorta either that side or this side not much of an in-between b/c we only have 2 parties. That's why I'm asking you.

I always believed that the reason SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment is b/c you don't want them pressured politically. By being a lifetime they never have to run for reelection and play favors for donations, etc which is the game politicians play. This allows them to do their jobs (in theory) separately from the other branches and remain independent and free to do their job interpreting the laws written.

I don't follow Lee since he is from your state your comment "limits to power should actually be limiting". Sounds like something he would say but he says it and means something else?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

TBH, this whining about the media seems a bit weaksauce in an era where now social media has been undercutting its credibility all over.



Or you could be like Mitch and Lindsey and answer the question only to be the leopard that changes your spots four years later.

I defended Trump on this a few weeks ago when they asked him what i thought was a posturing question if he'd step aside if he didn't win the election. IMO, I know journalists are required to do this (Trump did claim he'd stay in office previously, so it's follow-up). But questions like this are theater for baiting discussion and little else. Because everything can change anyway.

So in my book, Biden actually gave a more sane and reasonable answer.



I've made my opinions on Harris clear all along.

But what I don't get is this talking out of both sides of the mouth at the same time: either she's a hawkish prosecutor locking up people for non-violent drug offenses or she's the most radical left-leaning liberal senator in office today. Conservatives seem to be claiming both at the same time, which is retarded.

Stating facts doesn't make one "triggered" and neither is it "whining", seems to me not accepting those facts would check both boxes on the other hand.

 

[lgorTudor]

As Franz Müntefering once said

"After the election they judge you based on what you said before the election - that's unfair." @lgorTudor

My mom was always pissed at Münte because he married a woman 40 years younger than him 1 year after his OG wife died from cancer

- - - Updated - - -

I've thought long and hard about this. It's been a tumultuous four years and I think I'm ready to give my vote. It's time to time get real.

Spoiler

Fuck that bitch!

Not good? You can always come to G*rmany, work as a humble whatever making 55k€, then have it taxed 42%, then brag about how yurop is great because everything is free

 

[Juventus 32]

@Hust @GordoDeCentral @Bjerknes

It Ain't Over Till It's Over...

 

[Enron]

I know you're an independent so that's why I'm trying to tap into your thought process on it all. For me, when I see politicians (both sides) enriching themselves so much, playing favors, etc that's where I see the line to give them term limits. No politician should go into public office coming-out a millionaire. The only millionaires in public office should be the ones that went in with that wealth. I never really understood why independents are independents because I see things sorta either that side or this side not much of an in-between b/c we only have 2 parties. That's why I'm asking you.

I always believed that the reason SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment is b/c you don't want them pressured politically. By being a lifetime they never have to run for reelection and play favors for donations, etc which is the game politicians play. This allows them to do their jobs (in theory) separately from the other branches and remain independent and free to do their job interpreting the laws written.

I don't follow Lee since he is from your state your comment "limits to power should actually be limiting". Sounds like something he would say but he says it and means something else?

I’m independent because a long time ago I realized that neither party’s politics actually benefit me. While I lean left, don’t reap the benefits of their policies. The same with the right. I think most people don’t actually benefit from the party the support.

scotus is a wonderful idea. But it’s just that, an idea. If there was no political pressure or bias on a lifetime appointment then we wouldn’t be discussing the repeal of roe or taking back gay marriage. Look at citizens United, that doesn’t benefit the people in any way. Yet it’s somehow the law of the land.

things don’t always end the way they start out, if they did you wouldn’t have a pro life president using fetus parts to save his life

 

[Hust]

@Hust @GordoDeCentral @Bjerknes

I saw that. I don't really like polls but this particular poll was evidenced in the wins from the last two admins (43 & 44) so perhaps they are onto something.