ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amy Coney Barrett , People of Praise , Supreme Court nominees

Reply
Old 26th October 2020, 01:15 PM   #241
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
With those states, you can win the Presidency with only 21.91% of the popular vote. That is a touch more than "marginal", I'd say.
But it never actually works out that way, does it? Because that scenario isn't even vaguely realistic.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 01:24 PM   #242
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,222
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But it never actually works out that way, does it? Because that scenario isn't even vaguely realistic.
In the era of Trump, you want to rely on historical precedent and tradition to counter an objective mathematical argument?

Bold choice.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 02:42 PM   #243
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
In the era of Trump, you want to rely on historical precedent and tradition to counter an objective mathematical argument?

Bold choice.
The objective mathematical argument you put forth indicates what is in principle possible, given the proper distribution of votes.

But objective mathematical arguments will also tell you that such an inhomogeneous distribution of votes is, shall we say, highly unlikely. That isn't a matter of precedence or tradition, but hard numbers. So, nice try, but fail.

And it's funny that you appeal to "the era of Trump". Trump's only got one election left, and the polling data is reliable enough to know that your scenario simply isn't in the cards for this election.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 03:49 PM   #244
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,518
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is not a logical argument, it is merely an axiomatic assertion. I have no reason to accept it.
I didn't say you had to accept anything. You're free to believe whatever you want. Judging by your posts, that's exactly what you do.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 04:55 PM   #245
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 29,860
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
2 or 3 times or more than some states is only marginally more influence, huh?



How do you find it to be reasonably fair?



How do you think the Electoral College does this better than a direct election of the President?
But this thread isn't about the Electoral College, it's about the illegitemate approval of a new Justice of the Supreme Court.
Wyoming population per Senator: 284,150
California population per Senator: 18, 670, 995

That's a ratio of about 65:1 for confirming a Justice.
The Holy Founding Fathers NEVER forsaw such a discrepancy.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 05:08 PM   #246
marting
Graduate Poster
 
marting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,926
Senate just confirmed. Thomas to swear her in.
__________________
Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.
marting is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 05:15 PM   #247
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,969
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But it never actually works out that way, does it? Because that scenario isn't even vaguely realistic.
So of the vaguely realistic scenarios, what is the most extreme case you think should result in the minority winning?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 05:46 PM   #248
dirtywick
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,502
Originally Posted by marting View Post
Senate just confirmed. Thomas to swear her in.
Outside of Senate traditional reasons, that they made pretty clear they weren’t going to honor from the beginning, unlike Kavanaugh there was little reason not to.
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 05:48 PM   #249
dirtywick
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,502
Originally Posted by bignickel View Post
LOL! They didn't even BOTHER with a discharge resolution, which they could have easily have done. But instead, they just said 'eff it' and broke the rules, because... they could.

I'd say that the thing that bothers me the most is all the people going on about 'well, if the Democratic party changes the Supreme Court, then won't the Repubs do the same?!". That's very strange to me: isn't the right question "If the Repubs proceed with hypocritically installing their candidate 2 weeks before the election, won't the Democratic party respond in kind?" So bizarre. The Repubs are ploughing ahead with this, but there's just all this talk about to the Democratic party that "you better not respond, cuz we'll respond back!". Don't want a response? Then fine, don't pull this bs, and you won't get one.

Personally, I love the idea floated earlier in this thread or the RBG thread (by Joe Morgue? Can't remember), or increasing the Supreme Court to 15 seats, and have a random 9 picked for every session. Can't pack the court when you have no idea who's gonna show up for the trial.
This is a good point. Warning of a slippery slope as you’ve already been plummeting down a cliff seems silly in retrospect.
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 05:51 PM   #250
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,571
Originally Posted by marting View Post
Senate just confirmed. Thomas to swear her in.

Happy birthday, Hillary!
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 06:07 PM   #251
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 30,165
Why not just fire justices? The president appoints and the senate confirms all kinds of ppl. There’s nothing I see in the constitution that says the president can’t fire justices like he can any other appointment.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 06:10 PM   #252
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 30,165
Melania, who was reportedly still experiencing coronavirus symptoms last week, is not wearing a mask at ACB's White House swearing in ceremony
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 06:25 PM   #253
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 30,165
Just remarkable that she was nominated at an event where a dozen people got sick and they’re STILL not wearing masks.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 07:05 PM   #254
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,929
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Why not just fire justices? The president appoints and the senate confirms all kinds of ppl. There’s nothing I see in the constitution that says the president can’t fire justices like he can any other appointment.
It's in Article III, scan to the bit about "good behavior. "

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 07:15 PM   #255
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,090
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Why not just fire justices? The president appoints and the senate confirms all kinds of ppl. There’s nothing I see in the constitution that says the president can’t fire justices like he can any other appointment.
Appointed for life unless impeached. Judges don't work for the executive branch.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 07:25 PM   #256
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,618
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
True. You're wrong because millions and millions of people aren't "few", and power isn't concentrated when they have only marginally more influence with their votes.



First off, note I said "maximal fairness". Our electoral system is still reasonably fair, honestly.

Producing good outcomes is more important than maximal fairness. That's hard to engineer into a system, though, so I'll settle for something a little more practical to achieve: protecting federalist structure of our government.
In Nov 2016, was a good outcome obtained where clearly maximal fairness was not a factor?

In other words, were maximal fairness to have been in effect then, might a better (if not good, then gooder) outcome have resulted? Would the federalist structure of government have been better protected?
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 07:27 PM   #257
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Why not just fire justices? The president appoints and the senate confirms all kinds of ppl. There’s nothing I see in the constitution that says the president can’t fire justices like he can any other appointment.
Someone's super confident in a Biden win, and no way worried about the long term.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 07:29 PM   #258
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 24,080
Every time her name comes up I can't help but mentally replace it with "Sasha Baron Cohen". It doesn't help that he's got a new movie coming out.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 07:35 PM   #259
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,618
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The objective mathematical argument you put forth indicates what is in principle possible, given the proper distribution of votes.

But objective mathematical arguments will also tell you that such an inhomogeneous distribution of votes is, shall we say, highly unlikely. That isn't a matter of precedence or tradition, but hard numbers. So, nice try, but fail.

And it's funny that you appeal to "the era of Trump". Trump's only got one election left, and the polling data is reliable enough to know that your scenario simply isn't in the cards for this election.
Isn't a scheme that admits even the tiniest potential for such a skewing (where less than 1/4 of the vote count can prevail) automatically flawed, if the tiniest wisp of lip service is to be paid to the term "democracy?"

It would be bad enough for the possibility of a 45% portion prevailing.

"The system ain't bad because it's not yet got as bad as it could get" is no damned good argument.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 07:46 PM   #260
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 4,734
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
Every time her name comes up I can't help but mentally replace it with "Sasha Baron Cohen". It doesn't help that he's got a new movie coming out.
I keep thinking Coney Island hotdogs.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 10:04 PM   #261
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Isn't a scheme that admits even the tiniest potential for such a skewing (where less than 1/4 of the vote count can prevail) automatically flawed
Popular vote allows for the possibility of such a skewing too, if you want to get right down to it. If only 1% of the population votes, then that 1% determines the election.

Quote:
"The system ain't bad because it's not yet got as bad as it could get" is no damned good argument.
The arguments in favor of the electoral college are long standing, you don't need me to tell them to you if you're actually curious (not a given). And the fundamental complaint here is really that Trump got elected. The gnashing of teeth about the electoral college all went on vacation when Obama was elected. So no, I don't really take them very seriously.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 11:01 PM   #262
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
In Nov 2016, was a good outcome obtained where clearly maximal fairness was not a factor?

In other words, were maximal fairness to have been in effect then, might a better (if not good, then gooder) outcome have resulted?
You're basically asking if my preferred candidate would have won had we not used the electoral college. I don't expect my opinion on that question to carry much weight here.

Quote:
Would the federalist structure of government have been better protected?
Oh, hells no.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 11:02 PM   #263
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Why not just fire justices? The president appoints and the senate confirms all kinds of ppl. There’s nothing I see in the constitution that says the president can’t fire justices like he can any other appointment.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 12:29 AM   #264
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,779
Well, let's see what kind of damage she'll do.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 12:43 AM   #265
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,748
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Well, let's see what kind of damage she'll do.
The biggest damage she will do is to the Religious Right - but that's the long term.
In the short term, she will probably completely discredit the Supreme Court.
Which is probably a good thing.
__________________
Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 01:09 AM   #266
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,518
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Popular vote allows for the possibility of such a skewing too, if you want to get right down to it. If only 1% of the population votes, then that 1% determines the election.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 02:36 AM   #267
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,458
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Melania, who was reportedly still experiencing coronavirus symptoms last week, is not wearing a mask at ACB's White House swearing in ceremony
The First Lady tested negative on the 14th of October. You may wish to consider other news sources now and then.
__________________
“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” August 14, 2017 President Donald John Trump
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 02:44 AM   #268
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,458
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
But this thread isn't about the Electoral College, it's about the illegitemate approval of a new Justice of the Supreme Court.
Wyoming population per Senator: 284,150
California population per Senator: 18, 670, 995

That's a ratio of about 65:1 for confirming a Justice.
The Holy Founding Fathers NEVER forsaw such a discrepancy.
How is Justice Barrett's approval illegitimate? Citation please.


I think the Founding Fathers did well seeing how Wyoming has 1 Representative in the House and California has 53 or so. Representation by population is well provided as per the Constitution. Didn't you get this stuff in Elementary?
__________________
“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” August 14, 2017 President Donald John Trump
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 02:49 AM   #269
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 30,628
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
The First Lady tested negative on the 14th of October.
And ?

That isn't incompatible with Melania later experiencing symptoms. Reasons include (but are not limited to):
  • False negative on the test (which is why repeated negative tests are required)
  • Reinfection - rare but not unknown
  • Experiencing Coronavirus symptoms but not having Covid-19
  • The White House lying about the negative test
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 03:29 AM   #270
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 21,884
At least Clarence Thomas will no longer be known as the stupid one. He wasn't looking to good at the swearing-in ceremony either, probably has a few underlying conditions. He might be providing Biden a chance to put a neutralizing vote on the court before too long.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 03:31 AM   #271
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 21,884
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
The First Lady tested negative on the 14th of October. You may wish to consider other news sources now and then.
Cases of long haulers are well documented. Many patients deal with symptoms due to damage caused by the disease well after they test negative. Sadly, that thing she mated with does not appear to be one of them.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 03:33 AM   #272
Gulliver Foyle
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You say that as if that's the dichotomy. But it isn't. A "fair" voting system can still produce accumulation of power by a few.
And as we can see in the USA today, an unfair and undemocratic one will.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
That seems irrelevant, since minority rule outcomes aren't necessarily good outcomes either.
I would say that minority rule outcomes will always be bad. Whereas fair outcomes tend to be good, not all are, but the most will be.

Last edited by Gulliver Foyle; 27th October 2020 at 03:34 AM.
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 03:51 AM   #273
Gulliver Foyle
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I didn't say you had to accept anything. You're free to believe whatever you want. Judging by your posts, that's exactly what you do.
Of course what Ziggurat is actually saying here is that we have to throw out the base stuff from which we underpin everything else. He's arguing the equivalent of, in mathematics, the axiom of x = x.
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 04:03 AM   #274
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 30,165
Trump Retweeted

Trump Retweeted

Sebastian Gorka DrG
@SebGorka
POETIC JUSTICE
@JoeBiden was the committee chairman who launched the “high-tech lynching” against then Judge Clarence Thomas.
Guess who President @realDonaldTrump asked to swear in new SCOTUS Justice, Amy Coney Barrett tonight?
You got it. #SweetRevenge

Dan Bongino
@dbongino
CLARENCE THOMAS IS A NATIONAL HERO!
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 04:04 AM   #275
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 30,165
Trump Tweets

Biden’s Handler’s want to expand the Court. This would be very bad for the USA. On top of that they don’t want to provide a list of who would be chosen for the Court. MUST HAVE A LIST OF THESE RADICAL LEFT JUDGES!
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 04:07 AM   #276
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 30,165
Trump Tweets

I agree!
Quote Tweet

Ben Shapiro
@benshapiro
ACB sworn in by Clarence Thomas. Awesome.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 04:12 AM   #277
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 30,165
Trump Retweets

Gregg Jarrett
@GreggJarrett
JOE ‘BLOW’ BIDEN: Head of Biden transition team endorses proposal to blow up Supreme Court
In an effort to counteract the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, Fix the Court – a leftist advocacy group – is pushing to enforce an 18-year hard term limit for Supreme Court justices. And the head...
thegreggjarrett.com
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 04:13 AM   #278
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 30,165
McConnell tweeted

@senatemajldr
The Senate just confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States.
One of the most impressive nominees for public office in a generation will serve for life on our highest court.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 04:15 AM   #279
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 21,884
It's funny how the Trumptrash are taking victory laps over something most of the country didn't want them to do.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 04:16 AM   #280
Tero
Master Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 2,058
How soon till we get abortion tourism? You know, girl gets a Greyhound bus ticket from Iowa to Illinois, with Super 8 motel in the package. Abortion free at Planned Parenthood.
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.