As far as I'm concerned, Trump will be America's worst president forever. There's nothing anyone can do to change that. Also, he also has some other dumb scheme going on.
Trump ordered to pay $350 million for fraudulent business practices in New York
- Thread starter Piscian
- Start date
Sure. On the day you express as much concern that the director of the FBI potentially gifted the presidency to Trump by publicly announcing an investigation into Clinton and hugely embarrassing just before the election, I might give a shit. I'm quite happy to accept both were cack-handed errors of judgement with no malice intended, despite their consequences, because accidents happen. I'm less interested in people bewailing their party's misfortunes whilst happily pocketing the advantages of their opponents'.
As to the rest... your argument here seems to sum up that lots of people work in Washington DC in various fields. Yes, yes they do. It's the capital of the USA, after all. Unless you want to identify any links that are problematic (e.g. conflicts of interest, conspiracies), it's not worth worrying about that much.
I'm afraid I'm not so optimistic about possible future POTUS. His angry incompetence severely limited how bad he could be.
I hate the fucker, and I want him out of everybody's way. I don't care much at this point otherwise. He sucks. I want him to be dragged to hell with all of his cronies and know nothing pawns. They'll be a great feast for Fleming and his minions.
Last edited:
And what has actually happened to challenge that? Just because people say something doesn't always actually mean anything.You do know that Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly said in overturning Roe v. Wade that the ruling on gay marriage was now also an error and should be reconsidered, right? Why do you think supporters of gay marriage might have viewed an clearly stated criticism of the constitutionality of gay marriage by a Supreme Court Justice as a threat to gay marriage?
fucking, fucking hell...
Thankfully, it was (hopefully) rendered moot shortly after because the Federal government confirmed gay marriage in a new law.
No. But if there's a law that says someone who commits murder can't run for office, there would be nothing legally stopping Capone from running for office.
Women never actually had abortion rights. Trans people are not losing rights.
And when the democrats say they are going to do XYZ and never do it, do you still believe them?
No clue.
Have you stopped to consider that some people say something and do mean it?
Cool. Glad we've cleared up your objection to terming Trump an insurrectionist because he wasn't convicted of it.
Absolute bollocks on both counts. Women had access to abortion services before in places where it has now been taken away-- that's an unequivocal loss.
But when something is basically impossible to do, it's rather meaningless. It's like when republicans say democrats are gonna take your guns, that's not possible so why worry about it?
I don't think Jan 6th stuff makes him an insurrectionist either legally or just normally.
Roe v Wade ruling did not give women abortion rights. It resulted in them having the ability to get abortions but didn't give them any rights.
And it's "impossible" for SCOTUS to reconsider and overturn a previous ruling, is it?
Not every ruling has the same chances of being overturned. Roe was an obvious overturn because it made no sense. Gay marriage being illegal was unconstitutional.
It was based off right to privacy, it actually had nothing to do specifically with abortion, you can apply it to any medical procedure if you want to.
Do you know what was also unconstitutional for about 50 years? Banning abortion. And then it became constitutional.
What do you think this means about calling things "constitutional" and "unconstitutional"?
Clarence Thomas pointed out that an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that SCOTUS has just eliminated when reversing Roe v. Wade was also used to support prior rulings on several other issues, including gay marriage. In other words, in striking down Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS had potentially just turned banning gay marriage from unconstitutional to constitutional.
Take a look at yourself some time. You are so, so one-sided, for a party not even in your country.
The ruling didn't apply it to "any medical procedure". It dealt with abortion. And regardless of the reasoning used, the effect of the ruling was to revoke access to abortion, which is exactly what is meant by the loss of the right.
They had access to something before, and then after the ruling they didn't. You can't get past that with mental gymnastics. They lost that access.
Because Heaven forfend that women have purview over what happens to their bodies when God gave that right to men.
No they didn't, stop with the hyperbole... It's so tiring.
Because that case was about abortion... And how does Roe v Wade not apply to literally any medical procedure? The overturn of Roe just made abortion a state's decision because that's what it is.
No, after their state's ruling (not the overturn Roe). Just read RBG's take on Roe. I'm pretty sure she knew more about it and the law than us.
"How does it not"? Other medical procedures simply were not banned by the Roe ruling. It concerned abortion, as you say yourself. What on earth are you talking about?
Tautology. It wasn't a state's decision before. Afterwards it was.
Yet the overturn of Roe is what made that possible. It was a direct result.
Hey, if you're happy to defer to SCOTUS justices knowing more about the law than us, will you agree with Clarence Thomas that the Roe reasoning can apply just as easily to Obergefell?