When is Enough ,Enough?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Yes I did and it is but please show me the post I said I would leave the country becuase of it,I'll wait.

You didn't. I never claimed you did. I stated it bluntly as an obvious option you should consider if a 6-3 court dangerous to you.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

You didn't. I never claimed you did. I stated it bluntly as an obvious option you should consider if a 6-3 court dangerous to you.

LOL, you don't get it, a 6-3 court is dangerous no matter who you are politically...left or right. Like Matty said ...it's not a good thing.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

LOL, you don't get it, a 6-3 court is dangerous no matter who you are politically...left or right. Like Matty said ...it's not a good thing.

Here is an interesting article. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...hey-get-older/ One that, I think, you could use to make the argument that it is better to start with a conservative nominee who gradually moves to center, then a liberal nominee who will go deeper to one side. That's not the main argument of the article, that's my opinion derived from it

Wikipedia has an article with good pictures of how the SC has been composed over the course of our county. We have had a 7-2 split on the court one time and the country has survived. And in fact during 1970 - 80 the court was a conservative 6-3 or 7-2(around 1980), and our country turned several positive corners in those years.

There is no historical precedent to say that a 6-3 court is dangerous, none.

The funnier thing is that for this current nomination, we aren't even talking about making the court 6-3. Just moving it to a 5-4 where Roberts, who is just above neutral by the analytics, becomes the swing vote.


from the wikipedia article


Another thing that graph seems to show, is that the country periodically goes through these "rebalancing periods" because the Justices do tend to age more towards more liberal decisions.

Pretty interesting studies for the 4th of July.

[CRedskinsRule]

In that picture, the dark black line is the chief justice, the yellow highlight line represents the median balance of the court. And the balance historically has stayed between slight liberal to slight conservative, regardless of the makeup of the court. Which for me highlights the seriousness with which all the justices take their tasks of interpreting and protecting the constitutional framework of our country.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Here is an interesting article.

There is no historical precedent to say that a 6-3 court is dangerous, none.

.

There is no "historical precedent" for trump presidency,doesn't mean he can't fuck up the country.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

I really can't believe you're still stuck on Putin's trying to influence the election. That's old news now. Everybody not named Trump or House Republicans agree he did.

Bear with me for a moment because I know this is nothing more than a mere concept to us non-Mueller investigators. But what if the real concern isn't Putin doing whatever he can to get Trump elected, but Trump's loans from Deutsche Bank coming from illegal money laundering out of Russia? What if Trump owed Russian oligarchs connected to Putin money? You don't think owing debt to any Putin-connected Russian would be a serious conflict of interest as POTUS?

Seriously, ignore my theory if you must as I have nothing to back it up, but it's just starting to sound like you're tired of hearing Russia mentioned so you couldn't care less what they do, or who they did it with, or if there's any actual legit crimes there. Have you started thinking up an excuse for if/when Mueller completes the investigation and makes his recommendation to Congress? If you've ever watched any of those reality crime shows, it's a classic technique. Start at the bottom and keep flipping guys until you reach the guy at the top. Cohen is next. And as Trump's fixer, there really aren't that many guys left to flip.

Mooby,

I wanted to circle back to this. I think your theory has a lot of plausibility, and possible validity. Where my problem is, is when media conflates the Russian collusion story, which in my opinion is bogus, with what very well may be serious issues that took place from the Russian side.

I don't for a minute think that the Trump campaign went out and actively sought Russian operatives to act against HRC's campaign which is what the House report said they didn't find evidence of.

I do think Russia actively sought to act against HRC's campaign at a higher intensity then past elections, which is what the Senate said happened.

There is a significant difference between those two statements. So that's what I mean by the russia russia russia whinings of the msm. They seek to conflate Russian interference (which did happen) first to the level of Russian collusion(which I don't think happened) then to level of the indictments brought by Muellers team (on banking charges not Russian based collusion) all with the intent of de-legitimizing Trump's election win and the policies he ran on.

I believe your theory is actually what's happening in Mueller's investigation. AND if that all turns out to be a sordid financial story of either blackmail or fraud, then the Russian story will take an ugly turn for Trump.

I don't know if I am making the distinctions clear enough, but this is a far more interesting discussion to have then trump cultists want to fuck america.

[Chico23231]

Pompeo reportedly gives Kim Jong Un an Elton John 'Rocket Man' CD at Trump's request | Fox News

Pompeo reportedly gives Kim Jong Un an Elton John 'Rocket Man' CD


Troll game strong

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Pompeo reportedly gives Kim Jong Un an Elton John 'Rocket Man' CD at Trump's request | Fox News

Pompeo reportedly gives Kim Jong Un an Elton John 'Rocket Man' CD


Troll game strong

You bitch about "fake news" and then you post this??? You should be embarrassed,really.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Giantone

There is no "historical precedent" for trump presidency,doesn't mean he can't fuck up the country.

He has made this OK..................


https://www.yahoo.com/news/feel-raci...144808767.html

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

You bitch about "fake news" and then you post this??? You should be embarrassed,really.

Only doom and gloom in a g1 world

[MTK]

More like douche game strong with his latest embarrassingly childish rally.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

More like douche game strong with his latest embarrassingly childish rally.

I assume the rallies are fund raising events for the local candidates. Expect to hear how they all violate campaign finance laws in about 2 weeks.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I assume the rallies are fund raising events for the local candidates. Expect to hear how they all violate campaign finance laws in about 2 weeks.

Yet we are paying for him to tour the country and lie .

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Only doom and gloom in a g1 world

..............funny coming from a paranoid trump cult member that believes all media is out to get them.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Mooby,

I wanted to circle back to this. I think your theory has a lot of plausibility, and possible validity. Where my problem is, is when media conflates the Russian collusion story, which in my opinion is bogus, with what very well may be serious issues that took place from the Russian side.

I don't for a minute think that the Trump campaign went out and actively sought Russian operatives to act against HRC's campaign which is what the House report said they didn't find evidence of.

I do think Russia actively sought to act against HRC's campaign at a higher intensity then past elections, which is what the Senate said happened.

There is a significant difference between those two statements. So that's what I mean by the russia russia russia whinings of the msm. They seek to conflate Russian interference (which did happen) first to the level of Russian collusion(which I don't think happened) then to level of the indictments brought by Muellers team (on banking charges not Russian based collusion) all with the intent of de-legitimizing Trump's election win and the policies he ran on.

I believe your theory is actually what's happening in Mueller's investigation. AND if that all turns out to be a sordid financial story of either blackmail or fraud, then the Russian story will take an ugly turn for Trump.

I don't know if I am making the distinctions clear enough, but this is a far more interesting discussion to have then trump cultists want to fuck america.

Thanks for the post Cred. I'll make this short as I have another long day tomorrow, but I believe the "collusion" isn't as strong as some people would have us believe. Did they have the meeting? Sure. Did anything come out of the meeting? No idea. Russia is going to interfere, via hacking/etc. with or without anyone's approval. Maybe they offered Trump dirt, and he said he was interested? Maybe they said they'll release DNC emails, and Trump said sure but I don't wanna be anywhere near that when you do. Idk, but the idea they were working in tandem doesn't seem likely. Trump probably said do whatever you want, and if we get elected I'll pay it back however I can.