Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

1 hour ago, Mark F said:

I think it’s time for a few days off from republican criminality watch for me.

Need a break from the stench 

Hold my gin.... 

3 minutes ago, do or die said:

Hold my gin.... 

helps me listening to this.... lots of laughs

 

Who is paying for Trump to go from city to city for the next 3 weeks, can't be his campaign cause it barely has any funds left, or does his considerer his lie infested Covid fest Presidential business

'Unmasking' probe concludes without 'finding any substantive wrongdoing'
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/520922-unmasking-probe-concludes-without-finding-any-substantive-wrongdoing

Barr quietly shelving this stuff, to save further embarrassment...

8 minutes ago, bustamente said:

Who is paying for Trump to go from city to city for the next 3 weeks, can't be his campaign cause it barely has any funds left, or does his considerer his lie infested Covid fest Presidential business

When it comes to Trump, someone else is always paying. He doesn't pay his own bills ever. 

Russia shuts down Trump admin's last-minute push to strike nuclear arms deal before election
https://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/520935-russia-shuts-down-trump-admins-last-minute-push-to-strike-nuclear

When a "useful idiot".....is no longer useful...

America where incompetence is rewarded but if you keep your mouth shut you get rewarded for life

 

 

The Boss delivers..on the streets of Philadelphia.

 

8 hours ago, bustamente said:

America where incompetence is rewarded but if you keep your mouth shut you get rewarded for life

 

I would think this was a very basic question to answer and I don’t see why she felt the need to duck it.  Then, she wouldn’t even say that she thinks presidents should commit to the peaceful transfer of power.  These are softball questions and her evasive answers send out warning signals to the populace, but of course, these are the kind of responses the Republicans want.

Credibility shot.

Trumps tweets that he declassified everything on the Russian hoax, DOJ says no that didn't happen, also no Durham report before the election and by the way has anyone seen this man lately

 

Edited October 14, 20205 yr by bustamente

16 minutes ago, bustamente said:

Trumps tweets that he declassified everything on the Russian hoax, DOJ says no that didn't happen, also no Durham report before the election and by the way has anyone seen this man lately

 

They can trot out an un-redacted Mueller Report, while they are at it.....

1 hour ago, Mr Dee said:

I would think this was a very basic question to answer and I don’t see why she felt the need to duck it.  Then, she wouldn’t even say that she thinks presidents should commit to the peaceful transfer of power.  These are softball questions and her evasive answers send out warning signals to the populace, but of course, these are the kind of responses the Republicans want.

Credibility shot.

Judges can get removed if they have perjured themselves. The “nothing” answer is the safe way to avoid that. And to be fair, expecting her to know every statute off the top of her head is a stretch. Now logically, common sense would dictate that the answer is likely a “yes”. 
 

Now, if one ants to question her credentials, point out that she was a law clerk for 2 years, only practiced law for 3, has been an academic for 15, and was appointed to an appeals court for 3 years before this nomination. So 6 years practical legal experience and gets appointed to the highest court on the land. 

11 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

expecting her to know every statute off the top of her head is a stretch

Those were not “trap” questions...pretty basic, and safe when answered. 

Senator @amyklobuchar
“just asked Judge Barrett whether it's illegal under federal law to intimidate voters at the polls”.

 👁‍🗨How about “the peaceful transfer of power”?

“Coney Barrett won't even say that she thinks presidents should commit to the peaceful transfer of power” -Aaron Rupar

Judging by a lot of her answers, it could be said that she didn’t commit to giving answers that could come back to haunt her. Not once did I think she was unsure of what she was doing.

Might be a raging pandemic sweeping the county, but the President of the United States can always find some time, to give citizens useful information.........

Trump Promotes Baseless, QAnon-Endorsed Conspiracy Theory Alleging Obama Staged Bin Laden’s Killing
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/10/14/trump-promotes-baseless-qanon-endorsed-conspiracy-theory-alleging-obama-staged-bin-ladens-killing/#74d7db85b166

She must have been the only one who didn’t know this.

 

Mr. Dee showing some signs of disapproval, towards the latest Supreme Court Nominee... 

This is a complete waste of time, everyone know what the outcome will be, but you have one side pampering her and other asking questions which for the most part she doesn't answer all the while hundreds are dying everyday and people's lives are being destroyed, what a country. 

Edited October 14, 20205 yr by bustamente

2 minutes ago, bustamente said:

This is a complete waste of time, everyone know what the outcome will be, but you have one side pampering her and other asking questions which for the most part she doesn't answer "lawyering" all the while hundreds are dying everyday and people's lives are being destroyed, what a country. 

McConnell made no bones about it.  This is the Senate priority before the election.   Not people running out of food, medical care, facing evictions etc,

25 minutes ago, do or die said:

Mr. Dee showing some signs of disapproval, towards the latest Supreme Court Nominee... 

You know, I read a little about her and thought she sounded like she had a shot at being a reasonable judge. 
Now, she sounds a little more like she’s getting in line to what the Republicans expect. And that’s too bad.

54 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

You know, I read a little about her and thought she sounded like she had a shot at being a reasonable judge. 
Now, she sounds a little more like she’s getting in line to what the Republicans expect. And that’s too bad.

Have you heard her remarks about reproductivity? Simply barbaric. 

They're going to confirm someone with very little experience, who refuses to answer the simplest questions about law to a lifetime appointment position? When the GOP is decimated next month, they'll deserve it. 

 

And when the Dems expand the court because it's so overwhelmingly representative of the alt-right, Republicans will deserve that too. 

 

This is a "democracy" that actively tries to get as few people to vote as possible, where hours long lines to vote are common place, where the president encourages his armed supporters to "monitor" the elections and for racist terrorist cells to "stand by" for when he loses. 

 

 

 

Patrick S. Tomlinson

 

@stealthygeek

 

I don't give a **** that she lives her faith. I give a **** that she'll force the rest of us to live her faith.

 

 

She comes across as a "miss goody two shoes" with her modest dress and annoying voice but once she gets on the court her claws will come out and most will be horrified and her sway vote will hurt many, she will never be confused to the lady she is replacing.

Edited October 14, 20205 yr by bustamente

Coney Barrett, like Anton Scalia before her, believes in an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution, meaning she’ll apply the laws as the original framers intended, and not adapt her reasoning for any change in policy, adaptation to modern day thinking, and such. Forget for a moment that the Constitution itself allows for (and intended to have) Amendments as a way of self-correcting over time to recognize changes in society, and focus on just this one issue: the original framers lived in a society that did not recognize either black people or women as equals (or even people based on the legal definition of such) the former allowed to be subjected to ownership by others, and the latter not given rights such as voting or working to name but 2. So if she believes in that doctrine, then she must admit that per the original framers’ intent she cannot be allowed to sit on the very court that would not have allowed women to practice law or be a candidate for a judgeship. 
 

But hey, if you want to start with that “originalist” mindset, let’s not apply 2nd Amendment logic to anything beyond muskets. 
 

Oh I forgot, Republicans and Trump defenders alike don’t worry themselves with inconsistency and hypocrisy, they just demand strict adherence to the rules when it suits their interests and conveniently shrug it off with What-about-isms when it boxes them in to a morally inescapable losing argument any time they want to break those same rules because it no longer helps them.