This is the kind of hilarious stuff I pop in from time to time to see. Priceless.Originally Posted by Richard Davis
Mr. Bookkeeper,
You're turning further and further left as the days go by. I would just simply say that you seem to be stuck on the same track that makes you think I care one iota what you think of me, or what I think of your political opinions.
The only thing I can fathom is that you're still stinging from someone (me) having the gall to question your logic and your reasoning.
Such was the case in the posting about the McCloskey's.
My advice would be (and I couldn't care less if you take it) to get over it and get over yourself.
The anger persona isn't working for ya'..... at all.
Trump: US Treasury should get cut of TikTok deal
Started by ozprof, 08/05/2020 05:47AM
Posted 08/06/2020 02:35AM
#10
Posted 08/06/2020 03:14AM
#11
I knew you wouldn't get it.Originally Posted by Richard Davis
No matter how he wants to court me, I still don't want to be his friend!
Posted 08/06/2020 04:07AM
| Edited 08/06/2020 04:08AM
#12
Hi All:Originally Posted by Richard Davis
You're turning further and further left as the days go by.
Check it out, another complete fabrication. I am not trending left at all. You could set your clock by Richard's misconstructions of other people's opinions. It truly is remarkable.
Of course in Richard's world anyone who actually wears a mask in public or anyone who likes mail-in voting and thinks mail-in voting is reasonably safe or otherwise contradicts his idol, is a leftist by definition. It is amazing the extent to which Rich will provide cover for Trump. Bush never had that kind of loyalty. It is frankly kind of creepy.
I am trending away from any remaining vestiges of sympathy for Trump when he tweets ignorant BS along the lines of, extend the election??? or mail-in = fraud. My main worry now, as the same old moderate Republican I always have been, is that Trump will not only lose the election, but he could lose it so hugely that he will take the Senate with him and solidify the D hold on Congress for a generation. Imagine the angst we Republicans will feel then, when all aspects of federal government are controlled by the D's? Smarter Republicans than me (like Russ) saw it coming years ago. It is going to be hard or impossible for us remaining Rs to justify the price it looks like we'll be paying for indulging in four years of DJT.
Jim
Posted 08/06/2020 07:53AM
| Edited 08/06/2020 07:58AM
#13
Originally Posted by James Brown
My main worry now, as the same old moderate Republican I always have been, is that Trump will not only lose the election, but he could lose it so hugely that he will take the Senate with him and solidify the D hold on Congress for a generation.
It is going to be hard or impossible for us remaining Rs to justify the price it looks like we'll be paying for indulging in four years of DJT.
Jim
On your first point, my main worry is that Republicans will not get wiped out. A close election will leave this disgusting Trumpist party somewhat in tact and the remaining retards fighting over who will be even more vile than the Don to take his place. We need to burn the GOP to the ground and start over, or get a new conservative party.
As to your second point - the "right" got very little that will be lasting and in return a massive amount of damage to it, the country and sadly, the church. This has been nearly a pure sugar high and that is about it. As to all of the "conservative" judges appointed, they seem to have a mind of their own, and what we see unfolding is that there is a structure to our legal system that is based on reason and intellect - you really have not seen "radical" activity from the bench IMO. That doesn't mean that there are no differences, but it says to me that the law is an honest intellectual pursuit that is impacted more by reason than emotion or politics. I could be wrong. Do you think that is a fair (but inarticulate) view of the judiciary, Jim?
Posted 08/06/2020 07:56AM
#14
Your best post ever, Richard. I'd quit on a high note if I were you.
Attached Image:
Posted 08/06/2020 11:40PM
#15
I think that is a very fair view of the judiciary. I ought to acknowledge my own bias. It is indisputable that justices have a mind of their own. Historically this has often caused the president who appointed them a lot of heartburn.Originally Posted by Russ Carroll
On your first point, my main worry is that Republicans will not get wiped out. A close election will leave this disgusting Trumpist party somewhat in tact and the remaining retards fighting over who will be even more vile than the Don to take his place. We need to burn the GOP to the ground and start over, or get a new conservative party.
As to your second point - the "right" got very little that will be lasting and in return a massive amount of damage to it, the country and sadly, the church. This has been nearly a pure sugar high and that is about it. As to all of the "conservative" judges appointed, they seem to have a mind of their own, and what we see unfolding is that there is a structure to our legal system that is based on reason and intellect - you really have not seen "radical" activity from the bench IMO. That doesn't mean that there are no differences, but it says to me that the law is an honest intellectual pursuit that is impacted more by reason than emotion or politics. I could be wrong. Do you think that is a fair (but inarticulate) view of the judiciary, Jim?
I bugs me a lot when people argue in the press or on social media over a distorted snippet, for example, "according to the Supreme Court corporations are people now" or "the Supreme Court just gutted the Voting Rights Act." The horrific oversimplifications bandied about by partisans in response to politically hot cases like Citizen's United or Heller are so frustrating because no one cares about the underlying reasoning except the justices and lawyers. This is especially frustrating since the thousands of pages of briefs and the transcripts of argument and the lengthy opinions are just a mouse click away for anyone who wants to appreciate the complexity of all these issues. The justices get no credit.
It also annoys me when imbeciles like Rich pronounce intellectual giants (e.g. Ruth Bader Ginsberg) to be idiots, merely because the justice may have a different point of view than Rich.
Oh well, none of this will change. I think you make a great point though.
Jim
Posted 08/06/2020 11:52PM
#16
All this angst and bile; yet you still mailed in your ballot in in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018!Originally Posted by Richard Davis
Well, if you are stupid enough to believe that he has some sort of power to EXTEND the date of the election, then you haven't a CLUE about the Constitution. Only a complete, Constitutional Illiterate moron would be worried about that. LOL!
Not only that, but you're big a rube and as big a dupe as they come.
Trump tweeted the next day that he was attempting to get a rise out of them. I guess it worked on you as well.
And mail in doesn't equal fraud? Really? I'll be posting tomorrow how many cases are being brought to the courts over the mail-in balloting resulting in Fraud all over the country.
And here are a couple of other things to consider about just WHY mail in is so damned bad.
First of all we only have a couple of states that are VERSED in mail in balloting. They've got it figured out after 5 years, however, the other remaining 45 states will be stumbling to try and get it all done right.
They have 90 days to perfect it, and get it all correct.
Did you not consider that?
Next, I can attest to the fact that mail gets stolen. I had it happen to me, packages and mail stolen right out of my box. I had to buy a locking mailbox a few months back to keep it from occurring.
If you don't believe that libs will be putting together groups of professional Democrats to STEAL ballots right out of mailboxes, you're as ignorant as the day is long..
If you don't believe they will engage in any CROOKED method to WIN, then you are dumber than I thought. There is nothing they won't do to WIN by hook or by Crook.
How about DEAD voters. How many ballots are mailed out EVERY election cycle to DEAD People?
Did you not consider that bookkeeper.
Further bookkeeper, have you ever lived in an apartment house? The overflow mail by mail receivers, especially young kids 18, 19, 20 years old goes right into the wastebasket at the mail facility. People then can reach right in and take mail ADDRESSED to someone else and do whatever they want with it.
Do you think young kids who decide not to vote, won't PITCH their ballot right into the 39 gallon trash can? How stupid are you?
Did you NOT think of that Dumbass?
They will try to mail ballots to EVERYONE in the nation whether registered or not, illegal aliens, dead people, to people's old address.
I STILL get ballots from FLORIDA for my DEAD parents. If I was a fraud, and a criminal, I could send those in. Do you think I'm not the only person?
How about the DELAY? Do you think that on WED after the election, we will KNOW?
How many EXTRA ballots will the Democrats FIND MAGICALLY in a closet?
Just how stupid and naive are you bookkeeper?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, when a person moves LEFT, their brain gets 3 times smaller. You prove that in spades!
Let me just tell you, you are officially a moron. I give you the badge of honor. Wear it with pride.
And lastly, we JUST TODAY had a national story where a Federal JUDGE decided that 10,000 MAIL IN BALLOTS HAD to be counted even though they didn't have the stamped date by the US MAIL on them.
Also, how bad will it be for the US POSTAL SERVICE to get it all correct when they are inundated with 150 MILLION ballots AT LEAST?
And those are just a few things I can think of off the top of my head in 5 minutes to PROVE how asinine mail in voting is, especially in this election.
Don't worry I'll be back with MORE reasons, but for now I have to and have dinner with my family and friends. OH wait I forgot I don't have any friends!
For those who actually are considering the safety of mail-in balloting, in Colorado you have to sign your ballot envelope even though the ballot is confidential. Signatures are audited. We get emails before the ballot is sent confirming addresses, we get emails when the ballot is sent to us. We get emails when the ballot is shown as delivered, and we get emails when the ballot is received by the Secretary of State and processed.
No one is saying that fraud does not exist. I am saying that there is no evidence that the incidence of fraud is any higher than when we were an in-person state.
Jim
Posted 08/07/2020 01:38AM
#17
But you have not made any arguments. You have merely speculated about all of the things that can go wrong, based largely upon your premise that Democrats are criminals.Originally Posted by Richard Davis
Go ahead Mr. Bookkeeper, shoot down all my arguments above.
The actual compelling argument is that Colorado has been predominately mail-in for years; and there is no evidence of increased fraud. You have produced no evidence of increased fraud. None. So you lose.
We should be able to agree that a relatively tiny number of partisan criminals will commit election fraud. They will find a way. They always have. You are speculating that the mail in system is more susceptible to fraud than the previous in-person system. Your speculation is not based in fact. There is no evidence that the predominately mail in system increased fraud. None. So you lose.
Since you like to speculate, I'll engage in a little speculation: Why is Rich so afraid of mail-in voting? Only Rich knows for sure, but I would speculate that mail-in opens the vote to folks Rich despises - basically anyone that is not an angry right-wing crank. Tut-tut, we can't let that happen can we?
Jim
Posted 08/07/2020 01:42AM
#18
Originally Posted by James Brown
I think that is a very fair view of the judiciary.
What flies in the face of this is the Obamacare decision that Roberts made. I am no expert on the law, but it seems to me that what he said, when upholding the ACA, was something to the effect of "Hey, I'm not undoing this law on a technicality. If the country wants this gone, do it at the ballot box, not the courthouse" and he made what appears to me to be a twisted argument about a penalty being close enough in substance to being a tax that he rationalized his position. It didn't seem like he actually followed the law but wanted to preserve some concept of derived power of the law from voters. Of course 5 experts (that mattered) disagree with me on that.
Posted 08/07/2020 01:53AM
#19
Roberts is judicially conservative. He does not want to overturn an act of Congress, unless he literally has no other choice. I would agree that he bent over backwards in the ACA case to preserve the law. I recall though, that his reasoning was well supported, and obviously persuasive to Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.Originally Posted by Russ Carroll
What flies in the face of this is the Obamacare decision that Roberts made. I am no expert on the law, but it seems to me that what he said, when upholding the ACA, was something to the effect of "Hey, I'm not undoing this law on a technicality. If the country wants this gone, do it at the ballot box, not the courthouse" and he made what appears to me to be a twisted argument about a penalty being close enough in substance to being a tax that he rationalized his position. It didn't seem like he actually followed the law but wanted to preserve some concept of derived power of the law from voters. Of course 5 experts (that mattered) disagree with me on that.
I think this case is a good example of something from your original post. Roberts' opinion was an expression of what he thought the legal outcome should be, under the law, in an extremely divisive case, even though this was possibly not his own personally preferred outcome.
Funding Member
