THE Political Thread (ALL Political Discussion Here - See Rules, P. 1)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1542, 1543, 1544 ... 1689, 1690, 1691  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
VicXLakers
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 11823

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 4:50 pm    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:
tox wrote:
The House should open impeachment proceedings on Barr (unless there is private pressure from Republicans to make Barr resign and it's just a matter of time before he's pushed out). Anyone disagree with that take?

Seconded.


I'm all in favor of embarrassing trump by showing the world how silly Barr's act is...and reminding everyone which republicans vote like trump stormtroopers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 17177
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 4:53 pm    Post subject:

And then when you're about to lose all your worldly possessions and your life's work, you begin to rethink that whole unconditional support for the MAGA hat guy:

Newsweek: Iowa farmer who voted for Trump in 2016 says he’ll "never vote for him again" as his family is set to lose $150K in China trade war.

Quote:
Larry Angler, a farmer in Iowa, voted for President Donald Trump in 2016. Now, he says he does not plan to vote for him again because of massive economic losses he expects to incur due to the escalating trade war with China.

Speaking to CNN for an interview aired Wednesday, the Iowan said he expects his family will lose about $100,000 to $150,000 as a result of the trade dispute between Washington and Beijing. When asked by the CNN correspondent if he voted for Trump, Angler was quick to respond:

“I did! I’ll never vote for him again!”



Quote:
Other Iowan farmers interviewed by CNN also expressed frustration with the president, as well as skepticism about his ability to improve trade ties with China.

“He’d better hurry up and start producing a little bit,” said farmer Greg Beaman. “Because this negotiation I’m seeing so far has not panned out.”

Robert Ewoldt told CNN he has been able to keep his farm afloat only by working a second job as a truck driver. “This is survival at this point. I mean, for a lot of operations it is a survival thing,” he said. Ewoldt added that he voted for Trump and now has regrets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 17177
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 6:10 pm    Post subject:

Maybe one the benefits of having a large Democratic field is that if we win the White House and the Senate, we will also have some great detailed policy plans ready to go.

Vox: Jay Inslee is writing the climate plan the next president should adopt

Quote:
Washington governor and presidential candidate Jay Inslee is out with his second package of climate policy proposals. It is dense, ambitious, and long. At 38 pages, it is longer, I would venture to guess, than the complete climate agenda of any other candidate, for any elected position in the US, maybe ever.

And it’s only part two! The campaign says at least three or four more rounds are coming. (I wrote about the first round here.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 84586
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 6:27 pm    Post subject:

Inslee is running for a cabinet spot. And he should get one. Very solid governor who lacks charisma, but is good on policy.
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 17177
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 6:33 pm    Post subject:

I've seen Inslee interviewed a couple of times. I liked him. He seemed down to earth and normal. It's sad we live in a culture where those qualities are not seen as charismatic enough. I mean, Trump has plenty of charisma and look where that got us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 43587
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 6:47 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
OJ was a famous celebrity whom a jury judged as "not guilty" because they weren't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Most Americans who watched the trial for themselves didn't conclude that OJ was innocent. They concluded that for a variety of reasons (inept prosecution, racism, red herrings, jury nullification, etc) he got away with murder even though he was guilty. And his celebrity and wealth afforded him high-powered attorneys to exploit the system.


It'd be nice if this was all simple and obvious as the OJ Simpson case. It's clearly not and the ramifications for the country run far deeper.

Quote:
I'm sure Trump will try to spin the "not guilty" thing, just like he's tried to spin the "no collusion" thing. But the public doesn't believe him. Only the 38% believe him. Most people who would watch a trial based on the evidence in the Mueller report will not conclude that Trump is "not guilty" even if the Senate doesn't convict him; nor will Trump typing "not guilty" on Twitter ten-thousand times convince anyone except the cult who already don't care if he's guilty or not.

I honestly don't see how MORE people watching evidence of his criminal wrongdoing HELPS HIM. He has not added one voter to his pile since he has been in office. He has his base and that's it. There are a few on the edges that sometimes support him, then don't for a while, then they jump back on.

Just who are these voters that have previously not supported Trump, but after watching an Impeachment Hearing with tons of damning evidence are going to decide, yep poor Trump, I think I'll vote for him next time because those Democrats (who want me to have health care) were mean to him.

Really?


First of all, of course there are voters who linger in the middle and will be watching how an impeachment process will play out and will use an unsuccessful impeachment attempt to justify their continued support for Trump. I know this because I know some of those very people. Their sentiment is that Trump is just a blowhard maverick who pisses people off but he's not really doing anything illegal or improper and they support what he is doing and even how he is doing it.

Secondly, it's not just about how some voters may move, it's about how the GOP itself digs in. A protracted attempt to impeach Trump at this point is going to play right into the hands of the institutional Right who will say that of course the Left is trying to make criminal charges stick because they don't have any other way to bring Trump down. The powerful people on the Right are all in with Trump. There's no dismissing the implications of that reality. They are getting everything they want, no matter how ugly it is. There is no way that the GOP is suddenly going to grow a conscience because an impeachment process underlines everything the world already knows.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 17177
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 7:07 pm    Post subject:

The GOP and Trumpers are already 100% for Trump. Educating non-voters, Independents and low-information voters through Impeachment H-E-A-R-I-N-G-S seems to be no-brainer.

The only way Trump won last time was to depress THE DEMOCRATIC TURNOUT just enough to manipulate the electoral college to his advantage with the help of the Russians. I believe Mitt Romney actually outperformed Trump in raw numbers in Republican voting.

We don't need to be afraid of pissing off the GOP/Right -- they are always pissed about something 100% of the time, and if you don't give them something to be pissed about, THEY MAKE SOMETHING UP. We need to worry about educating the non-voters, low-information voters, Independents and motivating our own base -- with an eye toward to the electoral college.

Everyone who has read the Mueller report says IT IS OBVIOUS TRUMP OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. Most Americans will never read the Mueller report, but most WOULD WATCH LIVE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS where the report is recreated REALITY TV STYLE.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. We'll eventually see what happens and who had the better theory of the case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10668

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 7:51 pm    Post subject:

When it comes to major proceedings in Washington, one thing is clear, Success rates are exceedingly low and risks of unintended consequences are exceedingly high. These things are very dirty and take on a life of their own. They aren't controllable and nobody knows the carnage that will be exacted,but there will most definitely be plenty of carnage. Wise folks with plenty of mileage under their political belts, like Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Nadler, offer caution when it comes to Impeachment. They've a clear understanding of the perils and unintended consequences which can't be known that lay in wait. It's simply not the kind of unpredictability anyone wants going into an election. It would be like a QB starting divorce proceedings the week before the Super Bowl after his wife was caught in an affair with the opposing teams punter. The smart move would be to concentrate on the Super Bowl and deal with the wife and her philandering ways after the game.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 17177
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 8:34 pm    Post subject:

There were months of "Watergate Hearings" prior to the "Impeachment Hearings." If the Democrats don't get a move on soon, they look like fearful cowards. Nadler is saying Muller/McGahn testimony is now not expected until June. You know why? Trump and Barr are stonewalling everything and Democratic response is to roll over and play nice instead of playing hardball. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence and excite the base.

The reality is there probably isn't enough time before the election to do hearings, then impeachment debate, then Senate trial. BUT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO AT LEAST START PRE-IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.

The few hearings that have been held in the last couple of years (Comey, Cohen) saw a dramatic uptick in public disapproval of Trump and higher belief in Comey and Cohen's version of events than in Trump's.

This isn't rocket science. There are no Perry Mason surprise witnesses that will exonerate Trump.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 17177
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 8:53 pm    Post subject:

The opinion of one of the Watergate prosecutors with links to approval comparison data:

Quote:
Jill Wine-Banks Verified account @JillWineBanks

Here's something I wrote showing why Ds should proceed to hearings, and likely impeachment. Data shows it won't hurt Ds, won't help Trump, and without holding Trump accountable for the crimes in plain sight, democracy is at risk


The Balance Has Shifted: The Data on Impeachment Favor Moving Ahead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 17177
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 9:02 pm    Post subject:

Former federal prosecutor and Stanford law professor:

Quote:
Elizabeth de la Vega @Delavegalaw

If Dems never conduct a formal House Judiciary Committee impeachment inquiry, Trump's 2020 message will be that Dems' failure to conduct impeachment proceedings "proves" that even *they* didn't think he did anything that was all that bad, including his obstruction of justice.


Quote:
Elizabeth de la Vega @Delavegalaw

Sheer idiocy. If they want to play Trump mindgames, how about maybe he doesn't want televised impeachment hearings at all (which he obviously does not), but acts like he does because he knows that will make Dems afraid to go forward? We are in a crisis. Just do the right thing.

Quote:
CNN Politics Verified account @CNNPolitics

Many Democrats fear Trump is laying an impeachment trap | Analysis by CNN's Stephen Collinson https://cnn.it/2VAII28




Quote:
Elizabeth de la Vega @Delavegalaw

If you think the Watergate era was a model of bipartisanship, if you think Republicans did not defend Nixon past the point of reason and their own integrity, if you think Republicans did not attack journalists and blame investigators, it'd be a good idea to read the piece below.


https://twitter.com/Delavegalaw/status/1108983327287992320

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 2991
Location: South Orange County

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 9:38 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
Former federal prosecutor and Stanford law professor:

Quote:
Elizabeth de la Vega @Delavegalaw

If Dems never conduct a formal House Judiciary Committee impeachment inquiry, Trump's 2020 message will be that Dems' failure to conduct impeachment proceedings "proves" that even *they* didn't think he did anything that was all that bad, including his obstruction of justice.


Quote:
Elizabeth de la Vega @Delavegalaw

Sheer idiocy. If they want to play Trump mindgames, how about maybe he doesn't want televised impeachment hearings at all (which he obviously does not), but acts like he does because he knows that will make Dems afraid to go forward? We are in a crisis. Just do the right thing.

Quote:
CNN Politics Verified account @CNNPolitics

Many Democrats fear Trump is laying an impeachment trap | Analysis by CNN's Stephen Collinson https://cnn.it/2VAII28




Quote:
Elizabeth de la Vega @Delavegalaw

If you think the Watergate era was a model of bipartisanship, if you think Republicans did not defend Nixon past the point of reason and their own integrity, if you think Republicans did not attack journalists and blame investigators, it'd be a good idea to read the piece below.


https://twitter.com/Delavegalaw/status/1108983327287992320



Excellent. It’s a shame that some care more about political expediency than honoring their constitutional duty.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 17177
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 10:04 pm    Post subject:

Another take on the anti-abortion side (via Facebook):

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 20433
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 10:13 pm    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
Excellent. It’s a shame that some care more about political expediency than honoring their constitutional duty.

People are worried impeachment will help Trump get reelected. And the only thing worse than the damage he's done, is the damage he'll do with 4 more years in office.
_________________
Turn your losses into lessons. - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
VicXLakers
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 11823

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 10:34 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
Excellent. It’s a shame that some care more about political expediency than honoring their constitutional duty.

People are worried impeachment will help Trump get reelected. And the only thing worse than the damage he's done, is the damage he'll do with 4 more years in office.


can you imagine a republican that loves his country and constitution enough to do something at a time like this? no...I guess not
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 15139

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 10:40 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
The opinion of one of the Watergate prosecutors with links to approval comparison data:

Quote:
Jill Wine-Banks Verified account @JillWineBanks

Here's something I wrote showing why Ds should proceed to hearings, and likely impeachment. Data shows it won't hurt Ds, won't help Trump, and without holding Trump accountable for the crimes in plain sight, democracy is at risk


The Balance Has Shifted: The Data on Impeachment Favor Moving Ahead

I understand the conservativism of Pelosi, Clinton et al., but this is basically where I stand. I think people underestimate how much people are already sold on how they feel about Trump. Even in 2016, note how much of the Russian propaganda campaign was about lowering Democratic turnout as opposed to convincing swing voters.

Here's a 538 article discussing how voter enthusiasm is abnormally high. This level of political engagement to me is almost certainly in response to Trump. Which is to say, the number of swing voters who'll be turned off by impeachment proceedings isn't very high to begin with. CL's been saying for a while there is actually upside in impeachment, i.e. by having truth come to the forefront. But even beyond that, the downside (and upside, but that's irrelevant here) is limited by how "inelastic" voters generally are.

538's most opinionated pundit basically comes to the same conclusion on this exact question. Yeah it's risky, but it's not risky enough to outweigh what I feel is morally right (impeachment).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 18290
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2019 11:45 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
The opinion of one of the Watergate prosecutors with links to approval comparison data:

Quote:
Jill Wine-Banks Verified account @JillWineBanks

Here's something I wrote showing why Ds should proceed to hearings, and likely impeachment. Data shows it won't hurt Ds, won't help Trump, and without holding Trump accountable for the crimes in plain sight, democracy is at risk


The Balance Has Shifted: The Data on Impeachment Favor Moving Ahead

I understand the conservativism of Pelosi, Clinton et al., but this is basically where I stand. I think people underestimate how much people are already sold on how they feel about Trump. Even in 2016, note how much of the Russian propaganda campaign was about lowering Democratic turnout as opposed to convincing swing voters.

Here's a 538 article discussing how voter enthusiasm is abnormally high. This level of political engagement to me is almost certainly in response to Trump. Which is to say, the number of swing voters who'll be turned off by impeachment proceedings isn't very high to begin with. CL's been saying for a while there is actually upside in impeachment, i.e. by having truth come to the forefront. But even beyond that, the downside (and upside, but that's irrelevant here) is limited by how "inelastic" voters generally are.

538's most opinionated pundit basically comes to the same conclusion on this exact question. Yeah it's risky, but it's not risky enough to outweigh what I feel is morally right (impeachment).


I'm mostly concerned with how I think impeachment proceedings would look in terms of the election; we know he's not getting convicted in the Senate. However, I think I would do it. Not because it's the right thing to do morally (it is, but that's not why I would do it), but because I actually think it will help the Democrats. Much of the public is genuinely unaware of the details. Get it out there. Hammer it home. It will help with Trump fatigue going into the election, I think.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 10351

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 6:09 am    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
And now for a little comic relief via twitter:

Quote:
The only person Trump ever hired who was actually qualified to do their job was Stormy Daniels.




I think he's hired plenty of people qualified to do their jobs. I just think the definition of their jobs is different than under a typical administration.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 43587
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 6:41 am    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
We'll eventually see what happens and who had the better theory of the case.


Absolutely not even remotely anything I care about. It's not a competition.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 43587
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 6:58 am    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
It’s a shame that some care more about political expediency than honoring their constitutional duty.


Oh please . . . it's not about "political expediency" and you know it. The only "expediency" in play is making sure that Trump gets stopped in 2020. Because if he isn't, he and GOP will continue to erode the Constitution to a non-factor. You can't fulfill a "duty" to something that doesn't effectively exist anymore. And if you want to talk about political expediency, nothing says that more than posturing about political appearances and doing things because they feel morally correct.

Defeating Trump and reigning in the GOP is the constitutional duty we have right now. Not sitting on a high horse trumpeting about ideological obligations (pun unintended )
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 43587
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 7:02 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
And now for a little comic relief via twitter:

Quote:
The only person Trump ever hired who was actually qualified to do their job was Stormy Daniels.




I think he's hired plenty of people qualified to do their jobs. I just think the definition of their jobs is different than under a typical administration.


Touche.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10668

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 7:03 am    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:

I'm mostly concerned with how I think impeachment proceedings would look in terms of the election; we know he's not getting convicted in the Senate. However, I think I would do it. Not because it's the right thing to do morally (it is, but that's not why I would do it), but because I actually think it will help the Democrats. Much of the public is genuinely unaware of the details. Get it out there. Hammer it home. It will help with Trump fatigue going into the election, I think.


If you believe much of the public is unaware, then why do you believe that is? Trump has been the number one news story almost every day for the past 3 years, yet you believe many folks are still unaware? If that's the case, what's going to suddenly make those people aware? Clearly they aren't following the news closely. Do you realise that the Clinton Impeachment proceedings wasn't even the #1 followed news story of 1998? It was Kosovo. And the result of the Clinton Impeachment was that those who were watching it closely resulted in every Republican that played a featured role in the fiasco ended up getting booted out of office. Newt Gingrich started the proceedings as one of the most popular politicians in the country, and ended with him without a job. Ken Starr's dream was to make it to the Supreme Court, and ended with that being a lifetime impossibility. Bottom line is there is unpredictable fallout and when you already know there is a zero percent chance of conviction in the Senate what's the point? Non voters who aren't already following the news will become outraged through osmosis? Low information voters who aren't already following the news will suddenly become enraged? Unlike 1998, we live in a 24/7 news cycle with tons of social media inundation. Anyone that cares to know already knows because it's literally everywhere. Can't avoid Trump news unless you simply don't care. And even then you have to try pretty hard to not get any Trump info. Yet we're meant to believe those who don't already know the ills of Trump would be suddenly moved to give a crap?


Quote:
"Impeachment is hell," warned independent counsel Ken Starr, whose exhaustive investigative report on Clinton was the basis for the House vote, taken precisely 20 years ago Wednesday. Starr thought through all that happened in writing his new book, Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation. With the benefit of hindsight, he said in an interview, "The better call would have been a resolution of censure," a measure that would have expressed disapproval of the president's actions but left him in office.



Quote:
Trent Lott, then the Senate majority leader, was one of 45 senators who voted to convict Clinton, but he has second thoughts of his own. "I do think he made mistakes," Lott said in an interview. "But in retrospect, I think it probably should not have been done."

_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.


Last edited by Aussiesuede on Sun May 19, 2019 7:42 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 17177
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 7:41 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
And now for a little comic relief via twitter:

Quote:
The only person Trump ever hired who was actually qualified to do their job was Stormy Daniels.




I think he's hired plenty of people qualified to do their jobs. I just think the definition of their jobs is different than under a typical administration.


Point taken. They do seem to hire the very person most uniquely qualified to gut the very agency they are appointed to run, while also exploiting every corruption angle to it's fullest. #DrainTheSwampTrumpStyle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
VicXLakers
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 11823

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 8:35 am    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
And now for a little comic relief via twitter:

Quote:
The only person Trump ever hired who was actually qualified to do their job was Stormy Daniels.




I think he's hired plenty of people qualified to do their jobs. I just think the definition of their jobs is different than under a typical administration.


Point taken. They do seem to hire the very person most uniquely qualified to gut the very agency they are appointed to run, while also exploiting every corruption angle to it's fullest. #DrainTheSwampTrumpStyle


#BeTheSwampYouDrainGOP
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 12818

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 8:41 am    Post subject:

So what’s the play here with these state anti-abortion law? How are these laws can effect roe v wade? I understand conservative SC 5-4 or could be 6-3 if one of the older progressive justices step down for whatever reason but how is it legally can overturn an already SC decided case
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1542, 1543, 1544 ... 1689, 1690, 1691  Next
Page 1543 of 1691
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB