Trump gets to appoint another conservative justice

[Thikn2velvet1]

Exactly right on all points. Just Google all the 5-4 decisions and every single loss is a hit to the environment, to individuals wishing to hold corporate interests accountable, to women's rights, to gay rights, you name it. If you asked most Americans they would be for what SCOTUS has just ruled against. They get away with it because the "liberal media" takes it's marching orders straight out of Republican talking points e.g. Hillary's emails and Obama's birth certificate. All distractions while they rob the people and the planet blind.

Most voters realize that unfettered public sector unions are killing state budgets, so Janus was widely favored.

Most voters realize that balancing secular rights vs religious rights is thankless so I think lots of Americans favored the Masterpiece decision.

 

[b.c.]

It's going to be a rude awakening to females once the theocrats and the opportunists swirling around them take away something they thought was an option and indeed a right. Oh and the Plan B pill is gone. That's abortion too.

In an interview with Fox airing Sunday and Monday, Trump doubled down on his past rhetoric about sending the issue of abortion to the states, which is another way of saying overturning Roe. (Roe legalized abortion nationwide, meaning its repeal would allow states to decide the issue.)​

Trump makes clear Roe v. Wade is on the chopping block​

And we'll have the women who voted for Trump to thank for it as well.

I happen to love strong women - be they strong minded, determined, articulate, and/or physically strong. And I, well, lets just say I'm not too "keen" on their opposites. And my "better half" herself a strong woman, said it best when she said any woman who voted for Trump should have their asses kicked.

This guy and men of like mentality have NO respect for women, and they show it in what they say and in their body language. When Trump stood there on national t.v. in a debate with Hillary Clinton and called her a "nasty woman" it was no less than a dog whistle shout out to every fkr who felt threatened and intimidated by women who knew what of they spoke, had equally as firm convictions in what they said and believed in, and didn't mind looking chauvinists and "pussy grabbers" in the eye and telling 'em where to get off.

A WHOLE lot of Trump's constituency couldn't handle that kind of gumption in a woman (just had a flashback to MTM Show - "You've got spunk. I hate spunk.") and I'd dare say some on the left couldn't either, especially those who quickly bought into the phoney-assed Trump/Clinton equivalency narrative.

So threats to Roe vs Wade and the like is exactly what happens - when women support egotistical bullies, presumptuous pricks, misogynists and such.

 

[Klingsor]

Seriously?

"Elections have CONSEQUENCES."

The Libtards changed the rules of the United States Senate! We will now all pay for the consequences of Harry Reid's stupidity for generations. Benefits conservatives for the time being, but the pendulum shall swing again.

In the end, Reid's stupidity will harm us all.

Very likely. But remember what prompted Reid's action: unprecedented use of the filibuster by Republicans to block confirmation of Obama's executive and judicial nominees. Also, Reid's nuclear option applied only to those situations; it was the Republicans who later invoked the nuclear option as a way to confirm their Supreme Court nominee, Gorsuch. And the nuclear option still doesn't apply to legislation--if anyone takes that step, it will likely be the Republicans.

 

[Wei]

Very likely. But remember what prompted Reid's action: unprecedented use of the filibuster by Republicans to block confirmation of Obama's executive and judicial nominees. Also, Reid's nuclear option applied only to those situations; it was the Republicans who later invoked the nuclear option as a way to confirm their Supreme Court nominee, Gorsuch. And the nuclear option still doesn't apply to legislation--if anyone takes that step, it will likely be the Republicans.

Thanks for reminding us and informing those who did not know...

 

[phonehome]

No it is really "those that do not give a fuck as long as "they win" "

Or think that they are/did

All those soon to be out of work HD employees in MO who learned within months of the election that HD was moving that production to Thailand. All the soon to be out of work employees in WI and PA who will be seeing some of that production moving to the EU

When BMW says "fuck you all" and decides to pull up stakes and move from SC to Mexico

 

[Max_Polo]

Very likely. But remember what prompted Reid's action: unprecedented use of the filibuster by Republicans to block confirmation of Obama's executive and judicial nominees. Also, Reid's nuclear option applied only to those situations; it was the Republicans who later invoked the nuclear option as a way to confirm their Supreme Court nominee, Gorsuch. And the nuclear option still doesn't apply to legislation--if anyone takes that step, it will likely be the Republicans.

Actually, the democrat minority have currently held up more Trump appointments than at any time in our history. Hundreds of Executive Branch nominees sitting in limbo. But again, what goes around comes around. One of these days Ted Cruz will lead a right-wingnut sit-in to slow-walk Elizabeth Warren's nominees. It's all a cluster fuck. None of them are there to do our business, they're just there to get power-drunk and re-elected.

 

[Max_Polo]

And we'll have the women who voted for Trump to thank for it as well.

I happen to love strong women - be they strong minded, determined, articulate, and/or physically strong. And I, well, lets just say I'm not too "keen" on their opposites. And my "better half" herself a strong woman, said it best when she said any woman who voted for Trump should have their asses kicked.

This guy and men of like mentality have NO respect for women, and they show it in what they say and in their body language. When Trump stood there on national t.v. in a debate with Hillary Clinton and called her a "nasty woman" it was no less than a dog whistle shout out to every fkr who felt threatened and intimidated by women who knew what of they spoke, had equally as firm convictions in what they said and believed in, and didn't mind looking chauvinists and "pussy grabbers" in the eye and telling 'em where to get off.

A WHOLE lot of Trump's constituency couldn't handle that kind of gumption in a woman (just had a flashback to MTM Show - "You've got spunk. I hate spunk.") and I'd dare say some on the left couldn't either, especially those who quickly bought into the phoney-assed Trump/Clinton equivalency narrative.

So threats to Roe vs Wade and the like is exactly what happens - when women support egotistical bullies, presumptuous pricks, misogynists and such.


View attachment 1164756

More name calling and less logic of course.

Try this. It's illegal to kill a 2 year old. Similarly, it's illegal to kill a 1 day old. What happened in the 24 hours before birth to change the law? In some states, nothing. Well, what happened in the day prior to that to change the law?

I'm cautiously pro-choice (primarily for practical reasons; overturning Roe would ensure that rich women can have safe abortions but poor ones would be endangered) but to say that all baby killing is justified as being the mother's choice (no paternal consent needed) is just fucking stupid.

 

[Klingsor]

Actually, the democrat minority have currently held up more Trump appointments than at any time in our history. Hundreds of Executive Branch nominees sitting in limbo.

"President Donald Trump has long blamed Democrats for moving his nominees through the Senate confirmation process at a sluggish pace . . . We ran the numbers, and Trump is certainly right on one count: Important government posts are empty. But allocating blame is more complicated than Trump suggests. Democrats bear some responsibility, but so do Senate Republicans and the Trump White House."

Why Trump appointments have lagged behind other presidents

 

[Max_Polo]

"President Donald Trump has long blamed Democrats for moving his nominees through the Senate confirmation process at a sluggish pace . . . We ran the numbers, and Trump is certainly right on one count: Important government posts are empty. But allocating blame is more complicated than Trump suggests. Democrats bear some responsibility, but so do Senate Republicans and the Trump White House."

Why Trump appointments have lagged behind other presidents

Try again.

Democrats Perfect Art of Delay While Republicans Fume Over Trump Nominees

 

[Klingsor]

Try again.

Democrats Perfect Art of Delay While Republicans Fume Over Trump Nominees

As the article concludes:

"The clash is the latest development in a nomination process that has become politically poisonous in recent years, scarred by regular filibusters, two 'nuclear' explosions altering the rules and a refusal even to consider a Supreme Court nominee. This latest chapter holds the potential for more long-term damage to both the Senate and the government across the board."

Note that Republicans are given their share of the blame. I'm not denying there's an escalating problem, but both sides have contributed.

 

[Max_Polo]

I'm not denying there's an escalating problem, but both sides have contributed.

In the past, you've been much more thoughtful that some here...did you not read what I wrote?

It's all a cluster fuck. None of them are there to do our business, they're just there to get power-drunk and re-elected.

 

[b.c.]

More name calling and less logic of course.

Try this. It's illegal to kill a 2 year old. Similarly, it's illegal to kill a 1 day old. What happened in the 24 hours before birth to change the law? In some states, nothing. Well, what happened in the day prior to that to change the law?

I'm cautiously pro-choice (primarily for practical reasons; overturning Roe would ensure that rich women can have safe abortions but poor ones would be endangered) but to say that all baby killing is justified as being the mother's choice (no paternal consent needed) is just fucking stupid.

Where in ANY of my post did I suggest any of the above or offer ANY argumentation on abortion pro or con?

I made commentary herein, about a couple thousand posts or so ago, re. what kind of abortion law I'd most favor. But that's not even the point. Nor is my personal feelings re. such.

The point is whether MEN should be in a position to tell women what THEIR choice must be... to tell women that they have NO choice at ALL.

 

[Klingsor]

In the past, you've been much more thoughtful than some here...did you not read what I wrote?

Did you not read what *I* wrote? I made a similar point about both sides being at fault a couple of posts back--you were the one who responded by pointing a finger specifically at the Democrats.

Both parties have contributed to the increasing gridlock in Congress. Yes, Democrats are using unprecedented means to obstruct right now, but they inherited that mantle from the Republicans. If we can agree on that, I don't see a need to argue.

 

[Max_Polo]

Where in ANY of my post did I suggest any of the above or offer ANY argumentation on abortion pro or con?

I made commentary herein, about a couple thousand posts or so ago, re. what kind of abortion law I'd most favor. But that's not even the point. Nor is my personal feelings re. such.

The point is whether MEN should be in a position to tell women what THEIR choice must be... to tell women that they have NO choice at ALL.

Setting aside the practical issues here, should the father of a child have no legal right to determining whether that child is killed in utero? That right vests exclusively with the child's mother?

I think abortion is one of the most challenging and divisive issues we face as a society. But the wingnuts in both parties make it impossible to have an adult conversation about it.

Can say the same for asset inequality, race and gender relations. The difference is that you can reasonably take absolute positions in each of the latter, but that's not true with abortion where there will always be exceptions to any rule. I think our current legal environment (ie post Roe) is probably the best we'll get from both viewpoints, maybe with some tweaking around the edges. But even small changes beget hateful arguments. Again, because of the wingnuts and activists-for-profit on both ends of political spectrum.

 

[keenobserver]

Most voters realize that unfettered public sector unions are killing state budgets, so Janus was widely favored.

Most voters realize that balancing secular rights vs religious rights is thankless so I think lots of Americans favored the Masterpiece decision.

Tax cut and spend Republicans are killing state budgets. Remember Kansas?

 

[keenobserver]

Setting aside the practical issues here, should the father of a child have no legal right to determining whether that child is killed in utero? That right vests exclusively with the child's mother?

I think abortion is one of the most challenging and divisive issues we face as a society. But the wingnuts in both parties make it impossible to have an adult conversation about it.

Can say the same for asset inequality, race and gender relations. The difference is that you can reasonably take absolute positions in each of the latter, but that's not true with abortion where there will always be exceptions to any rule. I think our current legal environment (ie post Roe) is probably the best we'll get from both viewpoints, maybe with some tweaking around the edges. But even small changes beget hateful arguments. Again, because of the wingnuts and activists-for-profit on both ends of political spectrum.

Unless a "father" sustains a heart attack conceiving a child he is at no risk at all for an unplanned pregnancy. The woman has to have the child and take the physical risk for that. The woman, unless she gives the child up for adoption takes all the financial risks and burdens for the child's upbringing. Men can and do walk a way. The few, very few exceptions who will take on the responsibility for that child do not merit giving the so called father a legally imposed voice in the decision to abort at all.

 

[Max_Polo]

Both parties have contributed to the increasing gridlock in Congress. Yes, Democrats are using unprecedented means to obstruct right now, but they inherited that mantle from the Republicans. If we can agree on that, I don't see a need to argue.

Except to add that the limitation on minority power originated principally with Harry Reid, it seems that we are in violent agreement about the current issues.

Like each or not, we need more representatives in the mold of Teddy Kennedy, Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, etc who could work across the aisle. Not these morons like Cruz and Warren.

 

[Industrialsize]

Except to add that the limitation on minority power originated principally with Harry Reid, it seems that we are in violent agreement about the current issues.

Like each or not, we need more representatives in the mold of Teddy Kennedy, Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, etc who could work across the aisle. Not these morons like Cruz and Warren.

You left out the part that Harry Reid's actions were a direct result of the Republican's obstructing of picks for the judiciary that President Obama presented.

 

[Max_Polo]

You left out the part that Harry Reid's actions were a direct result of the Republican's obstructing of picks for the judiciary that President Obama presented.

They were using the filibuster, a rule of the Senate for generations. And they were responding the the Democrat's obstruction of 45's nominees. Who were reacting to the... And so the stupidity and escalation continues.

 

[Klingsor]

Except to add that the limitation on minority power originated principally with Harry Reid, it seems that we are in violent agreement about the current issues.

Add away, but Industrialsize's post in response to you, and yours in response to him, serve as a reminder that Reid's action was one more scene in a continuing drama that stretches before and after him. Each of us will focus on the moments he finds most egregious.

Like each or not, we need more representatives in the mold of Teddy Kennedy, Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, etc who could work across the aisle. Not these morons like Cruz and Warren.

Working across the aisle would be nice, but the philosophical differences can't just be wished away. While compromise is all well and good, I wouldn't want it to mean going along with some of Cruz's positions, or abandoning some of Warren's.