Jump to content

TahoeHorn

banned
  • Posts

    617
  • Joined

Everything posted by TahoeHorn

  1. There is a big difference between votes on District Judges and votes on appellate judges. There is a mega difference on votes for Supreme Court Justices. Look at votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump
  2. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/us/miss-america-swimsuit-trnd/index.html I have the same comment as I had on the NFL thread: It's your competition. If you want to produce a product I won't buy you have that right. There is no right or wrong. The world has potential buyers other than me.
  3. I get a kick out of reading posts like TornACL's foam-at-the-mouth. Or to quote Chicken "it's glorious to watch you suffer and then deflect with your one liners and multiple socks."
  4. If you're going to play the game stick to the chart. Sam Clovis doesn't count. Nor does Kelly Sadler.
  5. I don't know anybody who is angry about NFL players taking a knee. I don't know anybody who has used the word "nigger" recently. I know many who have reduced their NFL viewing. My viewing went from about 30 games per year to about 3.
  6. Republicans buy sneakers too. When the TV contract comes up for renewal, how much less per year do you think this shit will reduce it? I'll guess $200MM.
  7. Have you seen Kim? He has to be a doughnut eater.
  8. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/politics/mitch-mcconnell-cancels-august-recess/index.html
  9. That was never my contention. If the US sends me instead of Trump to meet Kim then the US is being insulting, no matter how graciously I behave. As I stated much earlier in the thread I believe the invitation was to the team, the unit, not to individuals.
  10. I did. And I made the point earlier. I consider the invitation to be to the team, not to 50 people. The team made a strong statement with their representation. Suppose that the US sends me instead of Trump to meet KIm in Singapore. Don't you think that would be an insult? I believe that when the Eagles decided to send a tiny representation the Eagles were choosing not to be gracious guests.
  11. I've seen several reports that they planned to send only 4-10. You can do your own search.
  12. I think this portends well for fans of the baker's position in future rulings on how religious freedom will be balanced with gay rights. Although this ruling didn't cut the baby I think it's clear that will happen. And I think lawyers who read all the opinions can make a good guess as to how future rulings will come out. There was concern among fans of the baker's position that religious freedom would get trampled. I think that concern is greatly reduced.
  13. Oh, I won't disagree with that if we're talking about the first move. Where I'd disagree is when others act like a dick first. The offer to the Eagles was gracious. The Eagles decision to send 4-10 players was a dick move which deserved an appropriate response.
  14. Yes, he could have responded to "going low" by "going high". But I don't think it would have served him well.
  15. It means that team team has indicated that they do not intend to be gracious guests. Sending 4-10 players is not behaving graciously. It's insulting.
  16. As a big supporter of the free enterprise system I fully support the owner's right to run the team as they see fit. They can decide to support the players or produce a product for fans like me who want a show of respect for the flag and the anthem to be part of the product they sell. If they don't provide a product I like I won't buy it, but I don't think they are obligated to provide a product I want. The behavior of the players is between them and the owners. Trump doesn't have any obligation to host the players at the White House, particularly if they don't plan to be gracious guests. Trump did the thing which was in his interests, as he should.
  17. Dems drag out Wier's confirmation. Then the vote is 95-0.
  18. Liawatha tops my list. Will it happen?
  19. I think we're all acutely aware of who on this board is guilty of calling people names and insulting posters' morality, and who refrains from that. When I see Poster A act ugly toward Poster B, accusing him of acting ugly while Poster B is being polite ... well, I just chuckle at the irony. One of the things that made Martin Luther King, Jr successful, I think, was that he was always a class act. I think that sells. Contrast that with, say, Yassir Arafat. I think his cause had a lot of merit (although not as much) but I have much less sympathy for the cause because of the tactics. The gay rights movement in general made their case in a positive way. I think the Gandhi model of protest works. I think acting like an ass and insulting the audience you're trying to sell does not. I wonder if there is anybody on this board who is both a more likely convert to the cause of opposing Trump, or a more useful ally. If there is the list is short. Yet the opponents of Trump go out of their way to insult me and act ugly. That's fine. I'm entertained. And maybe they understand that this isn't real life and nobody is selling anybody. But the emotion is so raw I wonder if they do. And if they did why they'd act ugly. Any theories?
  20. One of the interesting metric is voting patterns. One data point: White politicians are extraordinarily uncompetitive in minority districts. Or even more to the point White politicians perform atrociously against Black politicians in every Black precinct I have studied. Black politicians can win in a White precinct. Hell we elected Obama, Tim Scott and Mia Love just to mention three Black politicians with White opponents elected by Whites . I can name many more. Now name some White politicians elected by Blacks when they had a viable Black choice.
  21. I think your assessment is 180 degrees off.
  22. The Trump pardon won't work for state crimes. I have to believe that if he plays the Trump pardon card it will piss the state prosecutors off to eleven.
×
×
  • Create New...