POTUS 45.08: Suckers

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

That calendar graphic was brutal.

[St. Clown]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Yeah, not the happiest thought.

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

The hill reporting that Donald is considering breaking up the ninth circuit due to blocking his exec orders.

It's only 430 *** else could happen today

My lord this guy is clueless...

edit: I can see the PC now:

"The Ninth Circuit, which btw, is the worst circuit of them all. Ask anyone they are super liberal, they hate Republicans, in fact to even have a case heard in the Ninth Circuit as a Republican is a tremendous thing. Many people have told me, people you wouldnt BELIEVE, that I am being attacked by the courts in ways NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS HAD TO DEAL WITH! The media doesnt mention that though. They just talk about taxes and my gold game. Anyway, the Ninth Circuit has committed what many are telling me, and this is what they are saying, is an I-LLE-gal act, some might say treasonous act, by defying my orders and overruling my rules. We cant let this stand. As President, my authority is beyond reproach, and my power is tremendous. I have done more in my first 100 days than Barack Obama did in 8 years! Think about it, my speeches get the highest ratings, my inauguration was the highest attended in the HISTORY of the USA and my tax reform and health care bills define what it means to MAKE...AMERICA...GREAT...AGAIN! Do you think Hillary would be have done all this? WRONG! In accordance with this, I have asked my amazingly talented and smart son in law Jared Kushner to spearhead an initiative to break up the Ninth Circuit into many tiny Circuits and my lovely and talented...some would say ****, myself included...daughter Ivanka to brand each with the Trump logo and find the right people to run each Circuit. They will be only the greatest minds, and they will help us build the wall."

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

My point was that I think it's fair for Brent and others to be critical of HRC and her handling of the Foundation, her emails, etc..., even if she wasn't prosecuted

Yeah, except the clinton foundation has an A rating, low overhead, and there really is nothing to be critical of (unlike the Trump foundation). And it turns out the email thing was way overblown.

And candidly, anyone trying to find out why someone else thinks HRC would have been a bad president, at this point in time, is acting pretty silly. Who cares? She isn't President. Whether people think she would or would not have made a good president is pretty irrelevant right now, don't you agree?

Well personally I'd like to figure out why people are so stupid and fell for the "emailz" and "foundation shenanigans" while overlooking actual REAL issues on the side of Trump. Like running a fraud university, a bogus charity, ties to Russia, complete lack of knowledge of how government works, the complete inability to speak in coherent sentences, etc.

An autopsy is an important part of the process.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Honestly, I'd have no problem with disliking Hillary "just because" she gives you a bad vibe, or you hate the way she speaks, or whatever. It's the citing of debunked scandals that needs to end.

For example, I have a Canadian co-worker that I just spent couple of days on-site with. He's whip smart, and a good developer, but has the most annoying intonation when he speaks (it's like he's imploring you with every sentence). Being with him in a client meeting for 2 days is difficult. But, he's effective and a pretty good guy.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

The hill reporting that Donald is considering breaking up the ninth circuit due to blocking his exec orders.

It's only 430 *** else could happen today

To be fair, people have been talking about breaking up the Ninth for a long time. Due to population growth it's a monster district.

But it's also a partisan knuck wet dream. I'm not sure how you do it -- amend the Judiciary Act I guess. I think it's just a bill, though, not an constitutional amendment.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

This is just donnie trying to change the rules after you tagged him to say you have to tag him below the knees.

That is the guy's entire persona, you nailed it.

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

While I don't think I was ever a staunch republican, I would say what you are describing is similar to my personal experience. In recent years, I have voted for more Democrats although I still often have split my ticket.

I'd be interested to see how many on here truly evaluate each candidate on their own merits vs simply voting the party...

I can vote for independents or democrats. the republican platform is too nuts to vote for any R. Ethically I can't do ANYTHING that helps the party advance their agenda, which I find morally reprehensible. Having any warm body with a R after their name in congress, or state legislatures, helps them do that. Once upon a time i could respect a Republican like Olympia Snowe or William Cohen, but now I can't respect anyone that willingly associates themselves with that party.

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Well at this point I wont vote for anyone who opposes Gay Rights, Women's Rights, Climate Science and pretty much everything the GOP ****es on daily. Why the Party of smaller government would want to tell people what they can or cannot due proves they dont have clue one what true conservatism is.

When the GOP gets rid of the Christian Sharia Terrorists then we can talk...

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

To be fair, people have been talking about breaking up the Ninth for a long time. Due to population growth it's a monster district.

But it's also a partisan knuck wet dream. I'm not sure how you do it -- amend the Judiciary Act I guess. I think it's just a bill, though, not an constitutional amendment.

Yes, a bill. Like this one, I'd imagine.


Really, it probably should be broken up. 20% of the population is under this one court. But beyond that the other thing is that if they meet en banc they just have 11 of the 28 (I think?) judges show up. So judges appointed by whomever aren't even sitting on the cases they are in theory appointed to be sitting on. That's just a strange way to operate.

[Handyman]

Yes, a bill. Like this one, I'd imagine.


Really, it probably should be broken up. 20% of the population is under this one court. But beyond that the other thing is that if they meet en banc they just have 11 of the 28 (I think?) judges show up. So judges appointed by whomever aren't even sitting on the cases they are in theory appointed to be sitting on. That's just a strange way to operate.

Isn't that how all federal courts work in theory?

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Really, it probably should be broken up. 20% of the population is under this one court. But beyond that the other thing is that if they meet en banc they just have 11 of the 28 (I think?) judges show up. So judges appointed by whomever aren't even sitting on the cases they are in theory appointed to be sitting on. That's just a strange way to operate.

Meh. The only reason we're hearing about it, is because SCROTUS doesn't like the decisions they've been making on some of his edicts. This is like FDR trying to pack the Supremes when some of his New Deal programs were declared unconstitutional.

[Slap Shot]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

The people opposing the Clinton Foundation are the same ones that get their news from InfoWars and Bill O'Reilly.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Isn't that how all federal courts work in theory?

I'm not following-- You have a panel of 3 judges hear cases. In cases deemed particularly important or controversial the courts can meet en banc. In that circumstance in all districts except the 9th all the judges are empaneled to decide the case because all other districts have less than 15 judges. In the 9th only 11 of the 29 appointed judges are empaneled to decide the cases, 18 have no say in the matter.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Meh. The only reason we're hearing about it, is because SCROTUS doesn't like the decisions they've been making on some of his edicts. This is like FDR trying to pack the Supremes when some of his New Deal programs were declared unconstitutional.

Oh, I agree completely. I was just getting at the fact that a)it has seemed like it should be split for some time and b) that there likely could be some support found in congress to do so.

The bill I linked to is from 1993 and was submitted by an Oregon Dem. (There have been others.) Trump might want to try it for political reasons, Dems would oppose it for political reasons, but if they did it, it would probably be good for entirely different non-political reasons. It's probably going nowhere though.