Blowjob repost…

[crazed_hoosier2]

Does attempting to overthrow the election have any bearing on your thinking?

That's definitely among the reasons I'm not voting for him again.

But I do have to say that I've never been all that concerned that he or anybody else could succeed at actually pulling that off. Our institutions are plenty strong enough to withstand that sort of thing. I don't even think it would've made any difference if Mike Pence had carried out Trump's demand to thwart certification of the electors. I'm certainly glad that Pence didn't go along with it -- and nobody will ever catch me defending anybody in Congress (whether it was Republicans in 2020 objecting to Biden's victory or Democrats in 2016 objecting to Trump's victory) objecting to or otherwise trying to thwart the certification of a lawful election....just because they hated the outcome.

 

[UncleMark]

No, I voted for him pretty much entirely because the balance of the Supreme Court was at stake -- and, unfortunately, the judiciary has become the most consequential of the 3 branches of government.

You got your wish there. Again, does fomenting a riot on the Capitol affect your current thinking?

Edit-- you already answered above.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Great. And he'll get two more picks if he's elected, so five of the nine justices would be his picks. That's another reason I'm NOT voting for him.

But you probably have very different opinions of the picks he did make than I do. And that's why we have elections.

It's still early of course. But I actually think that, from a conservative perspective, Donald Trump nominated a better slate of justices than GWB, GHWB, and Reagan. I've become particularly fond of Justice Gorsuch. But all 3 of them have done some good stuff.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You got your wish there. Again, does fomenting a riot on the Capitol affect your current thinking?

I'm not voting for him this year, UM.

But are you asking me if that makes me regret my vote in 2016? Because it doesn't. I don't regret it.

The court is a very, very big deal. And I just think there is a whole lot that needs to be cleaned up there if we're to have any hope of reorienting our government back closer what was envisioned by the framers.

And Trump's ploy to have the election overturned never had any chance of succeeding, anyway.

 

[mcmurtry66]

The court is a very, very big deal. And I just think there is a whole lot that needs to be cleaned up there

god damn you hate these no good lawyers. mercy

 

[Lucy01]

Great. And he'll get two more picks if he's elected, so five of the nine justices would be his picks. That's another reason I'm NOT voting for him.

Are you even voting?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

And Trump's ploy to have the election overturned never had any chance of succeeding, anyway.

I should add that my belief that Trump's incredibly brazen attempt to have the election overturned would never succeed is in no way a defense of what he did.

I had no issue with him questioning the results and pursuing investigations. Candidates have a right to do that, and many do. But he was never able to make any kind of a plausible case that the results weren't legitimate. And that absolutely should've been the end of it. Period.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Great. And he'll get two more picks if he's elected, so five of the nine justices would be his picks. That's another reason I'm NOT voting for him.

What do you have against his picks? They seem to have been eminently reasonable and not 100% conservative. I think they are objectively better than Brown-Jackson.

 

[IU_Hickory]

I'm not voting for him this year, UM.

But are you asking me if that makes me regret my vote in 2016? Because it doesn't. I don't regret it.

The court is a very, very big deal. And I just think there is a whole lot that needs to be cleaned up there if we're to have any hope of reorienting our government back closer what was envisioned by the framers.

And Trump's ploy to have the election overturned never had any chance of succeeding, anyway.

Does it really matter what you think his chances of succeeding were? If Pence went along with the plan, then the chances would have gone way up.

We are finding out more and more that Justices put their political bias before country and ignore precedent when it's in the way.

I bet the framers never intended for McTurtle to steal a spot on the Supreme Court and for the justices to be so politically corrupt and prone to bribery.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

I felt certain that after I posted this somebody would have a Kamala sex tape to share. I’m disappointed at the way this thread headed (pun entirely intended)

 

[mcmurtry66]

I felt certain that after I posted this somebody would have a Kamala sex tape to share. I’m disappointed at the way this thread headed (pun entirely intended)

montel williams is diggin through his garage as we speak trying to find that mfer. time to get paidddddddddddddd

 

[UncleMark]

What do you have against his picks? They seem to have been eminently reasonable and not 100% conservative. I think they are objectively better than Brown-Jackson.

Shocker

 

[mcmurtry66]

Shocker

kamalalalalalala and all her lies and stupid ideas. trump actively doing his best to steal an election and cheat the system. none of that means shit to crazed in comparison to how much he hates these rotten lawyers !!!!!! i love it!

 

[Ty Webb iu]

I swear I don’t know anybody.. especially those who call themselves Christians, can defend this abhorrent human being who we still have to refer to as Mr President

Bloom, did you change your handle? You are Charmin Ultra Soft my friend.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Does it really matter what you think his chances of succeeding were?

I think so -- insofar as simply considering whether or not I regret taking some past action, anyway.

If Pence went along with the plan, then the chances would have gone way up.

I honestly don't think so. But, again, we're in counterfactual territory here. The fact is that it didn't succeed. All we can do about other scenarios that didn't happen is speculate.

We are finding out more and more that Justices put their political bias before country and ignore precedent when it's in the way.

There's a lot of bad precedent that should be ignored. So I'm glad they are ignoring bad precedents -- not because those precedents conflict with their political bias, but if they're unfounded in the ratified text and its properly understood meaning.

As a great example: the Bakke decision was absolutely indefensible on any understood interpretation of the 14th amendment. Indefensible precedents such as that need to be overturned.

I don't want them or any other judge to make decisions based on their political bias. But I very much do think judges should be entirely restrained by the text and the meaning of that text, properly understood by its framers and those who moved to ratify it.

Keep in mind that the other view of judging is best espoused by Justice Thurgood Marshall -- who said that he saw the proper role of a judge as "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."

That is somebody who is putting his own beliefs of "what you think is right" squarely above the actual law that has been considered, drafted, debated, amended....and ultimately ratified. Do you realize just how radical and tyrannical that view of the judiciary is? It's basically saying that our laws are whatever the judges want them to be....and what was actually deliberated and ratified is of no consequence.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I think so -- insofar as simply considering whether or not I regret taking some past action, anyway.



I honestly don't think so. But, again, we're in counterfactual territory here. The fact is that it didn't succeed. All we can do about other scenarios that didn't happen is speculate.



There's a lot of bad precedent that should be ignored. So I'm glad they are ignoring bad precedents -- not because those precedents conflict with their political bias, but if they're unfounded in the ratified text and its properly understood meaning.

I mean...the Bakke decision was absolutely indefensible on any understood interpretation of the 14th amendment. Indefensible precedents such as that need to be overturned.

I don't want them or any other judge to make decisions based on their political bias. But I very much do think judges should be entirely restrained by the text and the meaning of that text, properly understood by its framers and those who moved to ratify it.

Keep in mind that the other view of judging is best espoused by Justice Thurgood Marshall -- who said that he saw the proper role of a judge as "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."

That is somebody who is putting his own beliefs of "what you think is right" squarely above the actual law that has been considered, drafted, debated, amended....and ultimately ratified. Do you realize just how radical and tyrannical that view of the judiciary is? It's basically saying that our laws are whatever the judges want them to be....and what was actually deliberated and ratified is of no consequence.

you sent all this to someone who can't name the three branches of gov. fyi

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

Bloom, did you change your handle? You are Charmin Ultra Soft my friend.

I only drove through Carmel one time and said “hell, no”

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I should add that my belief that Trump's incredibly brazen attempt to have the election overturned would never succeed is in no way a defense of what he did.

I had no issue with him questioning the results and pursuing investigations. Candidates have a right to do that, and many do. But he was never able to make any kind of a plausible case that the results weren't legitimate. And that absolutely should've been the end of it. Period.

I’m not buying any spin regarding J6. It was a riot in the Capitol. Those who rioted should be tried and punished. It was definitely not an attempt to overthrow the government, that’s Democrat/media spin.

The unification of the Biden Campaign, social media, regular media, past high intelligence officials, and currently paid CIA operatives into an anti-Trump political force in 2020 is a huge concern. That’s not democracy . That big laptop lie was important, what is more important is how it was conceived and nurtured. (And that’s only what we know about) Trump is charged with a felony for the same stuff they did.

The 2020 campaign was not a fair fight. Neither is the 2024 campaign. (Zuck’s confession is huge and the media yawns) Rules and norms are bent, broken, and vaporized to make sure Trump doesn’t become president. Kamala will be sworn in.

 

[kraft cheese+macaroni]

You realize that Harris and walz have been lying through their teeth. The Dem party concealed the condition of Biden, lied about it, and perpetuated a fraud on the American public.

These are all politicians. Character isn’t a requirement or trait they concern themselves with. Winning and power. Nothing else

The character shit is silly. This isn’t pence vs Carter

He asked the VP to change the results of the election. He can't be trusted with what would be close to unchecked power. Especially since his Republican minions have decided to bow down to everything he's asked them to do. It cuts much deeper than run of the mill political bullshittery lying.

 

[kraft cheese+macaroni]

I’m not buying any spin regarding J6. It was a riot in the Capitol. Those who rioted should be tried and punished. It was definitely not an attempt to overthrow the government, that’s Democrat/media spin.

The unification of the Biden Campaign, social media, regular media, past high intelligence officials, and currently paid CIA operatives into an anti-Trump political force in 2020 is a huge concern. That’s not democracy . That big laptop lie was important, what is more important is how it was conceived and nurtured. (And that’s only what we know about) Trump is charged with a felony for the same stuff they did.

The 2020 campaign was not a fair fight. Neither is the 2024 campaign. (Zuck’s confession is huge and the media yawns) Rules and norms are bent, broken, and vaporized to make sure Trump doesn’t become president. Kamala will be sworn in.

They entered the Capitol with the intent of stopping the final steps in ratifying the results of the election. Now maybe they had no idea what would happen if they'd have succeeded, but that was their reason, their intent and that is considered trying to overthrow the government.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

you sent all this to someone who can't name the three branches of gov. fyi

Heh.

I guess it makes sense to somebody who agrees with Justice Marshall's judicial philosophy to assume that everybody else agrees with it...and it's just a matter of getting enough judges who agree with you about "what you think is right" onto the court.

If I'm right about that, then I guess they're just dismissing out-of-hand the notion of originalism as a fig leaf for just doing what Marshall did, but not copping to it the way he did. If so, then we're all just talking past each other on these issues.

 

[mcmurtry66]

He asked the VP to change the results of the election. He can't be trusted with what would be close to unchecked power. Especially since his Republican minions have decided to bow down to everything he's asked them to do. It cuts much deeper than run of the mill political bullshittery lying.

See crazed’s post on the election overthrow. I co-sign same in response

 

[Ty Webb iu]

I only drove through Carmel one time and said “hell, no”

So…you’re not all bad. Just another TDSer?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I’m not buying any spin regarding J6. It was a riot in the Capitol. Those who rioted should be tried and punished. It was definitely not an attempt to overthrow the government, that’s Democrat/media spin.

Oh, I don't think it was an attempt to overthrow the government. That's hyperbole -- I agree.

But it very much was an attempt to prevent certification of the electors from happening. And that is not Democrat spin. Trump had made his case that the results were the result of fraud to the courts, and it went nowhere. And it hasn't gone any farther since then, either.

Biden won the election. It was a valid and fair election. And there was absolutely no excuse for trying to disrupt the certification proceedings.

The 2020 campaign was not a fair fight.

I don't agree with that. But I don't have the slightest problem with anybody trying to make a case for it -- with evidence and such. Nobody has.

Neither is the 2024 campaign. (Zuck’s confession is huge and the media yawns) Rules and norms are bent, broken, and vaporized to make sure Trump doesn’t become president. Kamala will be sworn in.

Well, same thing. If unlawful things happen this time, then they need to be demonstrated and dealt with. If they do happen, and are demonstrated, but are not dealt with....then we've officially become corrupted. But the case would have to actually be made. And the attempt made by Trump and Eastman and those clowns about the 2020 election was a total joke.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Oh, I don't think it was an attempt to overthrow the government. That's hyperbole -- I agree.

But it very much was an attempt to prevent certification of the electors from happening. And that is not Democrat spin. Trump had made his case that the results were the result of fraud to the courts, and it went nowhere. And it hasn't gone any farther since then, either.

Biden won the election. It was a valid and fair election. And there was absolutely no excuse for trying to disrupt the certification proceedings.



I don't agree with that. But I don't have the slightest problem with anybody trying to make a case for it -- with evidence and such. Nobody has.



Well, same thing. If unlawful things happen this time, then they need to be demonstrated and dealt with. If they do happen, and are demonstrated, but are not dealt with....then we've officially become corrupted. But the case would have to actually be made. And the attempt made by Trump and Eastman and those clowns about the 2020 election was a total joke.

While I think there was fraud involved with the infamous 51 intelligence officials letter, that isn’t the biggest problem. The biggest problem is the mindset that allows such dishonesty to happen without any measure of accountability accompanied by the belief that Trump is so dangerous that lies are an acceptable means to defeat him.

The problem with todays politics is the merging of Democrat party politics and the media and social media. Accountability is important. Kamala is a great example. Putting her out there on her own with an objective media interviewer would make her a better candidate and President.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

They entered the Capitol with the intent of stopping the final steps in ratifying the results of the election. Now maybe they had no idea what would happen if they'd have succeeded, but that was their reason, their intent and that is considered trying to overthrow the government.

Nobody was charged or convicted of this .

 

[jsig]

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1pF59i.img?w=534&h=357&m=6

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Nobody was charged or convicted of this .

There were a handful of people convicted of seditious conspiracy. They were affiliated with the Oath Keeper and Proud Boys. Enrique Tarrio of the Proud Boys was the most notable one convicted of seditious conspiracy. But there were several others.

 

[This Is Keanu Reeves]

You realize that Harris and walz have been lying through their teeth. The Dem party concealed the condition of Biden, lied about it, and perpetuated a fraud on the American public.

These are all politicians. Character isn’t a requirement or trait they concern themselves with. Winning and power. Nothing else

The character shit is silly. This isn’t pence vs Carter

I think he's a shitty leader, and part of that is because he is a shitty character. He was not an exceptional real estate developer. Not saying he didn't make money, but it's not like he was in the Trammel Crow or Herb Simon echelon. So to me, he was never an exceptional business mind, and he is a shitty, divisive leader who causes so many distractions that is a detriment to the necessary work that needs to be done. He spray-tans, he dodged the draft and I'd bet $100 he wouldn't know how to start a lawn mower. I just cannot get behind a dude like that. Sure, you may tell me a bunch of horrible things about Kamala, but I'll still tell you she is the lesser of two evils.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I think he's a shitty leader, and part of that is because he is a shitty character. He was not an exceptional real estate developer. Not saying he didn't make money, but it's not like he was in the Trammel Crow or Herb Simon echelon. So to me, he was never an exceptional business mind, and he is a shitty, divisive leader who causes so many distractions that is a detriment to the necessary work that needs to be done. He spray-tans, he dodged the draft and I'd bet $100 he wouldn't know how to start a lawn mower. I just cannot get behind a dude like that. Sure, you may tell me a bunch of horrible things about Kamala, but I'll still tell you she is the lesser of two evils.

He’s a shitty leader and all of those things. He’s also not a progressive. So for me that’s enough. Biden year one was it for me. Harris being the second most lib sen in 25 years. Game over

I do like Keanu reeves tho

 

[jrbjrb]

yup, MAGA party is all about love and freedom...unless you are black, LBTQ or woke.

idiot

 

[ulrey]

Bloom, did you change your handle? You are Charmin Ultra Soft my friend.

He’s definitely not Bloom..

 

[IU_Hickory]

idiot

are you identifying yourself to the board?

 

[T.M.P.]

That’s the point. Both sides lie through their teeth. The scale or import depends on your own values. For me they’re both so bad character is a wash

dumb

 

[kraft cheese+macaroni]

Nobody was charged or convicted of this .

Surely you're familiar with seditious conspiracy?

 

[Lucy01]

are you identifying yourself to the board?

I think he was pretty clear. He was describing you to a T.

 

[IU_Hickory]

I think he was pretty clear. He was describing you to a T.

Hardly. you probably should put the mirror away

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

He’s definitely not Bloom..

The Trumpers AND the ultralibs would all hate me. That ain’t Bloom

 

[twenty02]

I swear I don’t know anybody.. especially those who call themselves Christians, can defend this abhorrent human being who we still have to refer to as Mr President

DJT is not well.....

 

[Ty Webb iu]

The Trumpers AND the ultralibs would all hate me. That ain’t Bloom

What about the people who believe it MUST be Trump, otherwise the US is in deep shit. The people that are attempting to compare the policies of Trump vs. Harris and believe Trump to be the best choice. Do you consider those people to be Trumpers. And if you don’t consider those people to be Trumpers, why do you assume their reason for backing Trump is because they are Trumpers vs. people that believe his policies are best for the country.

It seems like a pretty pessimistic viewpoint.

A person can argue hard for and defend Trump because they believe in his policies more than the phantom policies of Harris (let’s be honest, we know her policies are next level bad). Labeling those people Trumpers is misguided.