American Politics X: Is There A Reset Button Around Here?

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

I ask you and all persons these questions, please type it as separate paragraphs not multi quote it, I hate it. Please skip a line between answers. Please no spoilers, I hate spoilers. Yes or no with your comments.

1 - The Democrats tried to destroy Brett Kavanaugh, personally, politically and professionally, who is highly qualified as a US Supreme Court Justice.

I don't know or care.

2 - A majority right wing or leftist majority matters to the Republicans and the Democrats and to me as a right winger, on the US Supreme Court, the House and Senate.

I imagine people who support (X position) would want (X position) to be represented, so yes?

3 - The Republicans are not political saints, and the Democrats are not political saints.

Both parties are utterly fucking awful as people and as leaders

4 - In Politics everything works both ways, not just one way.

Elaborate.

5 - In Politics Economic, Political and social issues are subjective not objective.

Genocide: Subjectively Bad?

I strongly agree with myself on the statements I make on this post.

Good for you bro

Thank you for answering my questions, but I hate spoilers as I stated. You are the one who posted politics is subjective and I quoted you and strongly agreed.

1 - You don't know and you don't care, if the Democrats tried to destroy Brett Kavanaugh personally, politically and professionally, who is highly qualified as a US Supreme Court Justice. they did try, I care and we care.

2 - Yes, Republicans and Democrats care and I care, about a Republican or Democrat majority on the US Supreme Court, the House and Senate. It is called politics, and it works both ways, not just one way. I am always fair and balanced to both sides and all sides.

3 - "Both parties are utterly fucking awful as people and as leaders"
I don't use any cuss words, I don't cuss, I guess we strongly agree the Republicans and the Democrats are not political saints.

4 - In Politics everything works both ways, not just one way. Elaborate? The Republicans Jerrymander and the Democrats Jerrymander. The Republicans lie and exaggerate and the Democrats lie and exaggerate. The Republicans and the Democrats fight and argue for their policies. Most Democrats say the Republicans don't about democracy, most Republicans say the Democrats don't care about democracy, the same things, charges, allegations and complaints the Democrats say about the Republicans, the Republicans say about the Democrats. This is the answer to the question I asked earlier and not even one of you got the answer right, as I expected. What do you guys think most Republicans say and think about the Democrats? The answer is the same most Democrats say and think about the Republicans. I am always or usually fair and balanced to both sides and all sides. I should get some credit for it, but I always get put down for it, by the leftist, democrat, progressives, leftists of all kinds and anti Trump Republicans, or as Therm say, the Real Leftists. I am not surprised or shocked by it, I expect it,

5 - In Politics Economic, Political and social issues are subjective not objective. You are the one who posted politics is subjective and I quoted you and strongly agreed. You gave me the idea of using this phrase, thank you for it. But you got me on genocide

Not you but Certain leftists on NS have posted to me, I think you cant grasp anything, another thing we can add to the list of things you don't know anything about, just because I said, I think, I did not say I know, I said I think. 2 leftists posted to me, for 4 Years we have tried to teach him, we have tried to educate him, but he does not listen, he is a F Brick Wall to talk too . Who are the Real F Brick Walls to talk to, Me or them? I say them. A certain leftist guy posted to me, the only persons who agree with you are imaginary persons, two or three of his leftists friends defended his post to me, this one is a classic Not you. but I am not politically stupid. I am not economically, politically and socially stupid, I just strongly and respectfully disagree with them and their politics. I am a Political Junky, and we are all Political Junkies on NS, if not we would not be on NS with our nations, with Pics of real world leaders and VIPs, with real world statistics as much as possible, and our nations, laws and Facts. In Politics all Persons, opinions, views and facts are their Facts. As you say Politics is subjective and I strongly agree with you, not objective.

Thank you for answering my 5 questions. I keep asking my 5 questions to all persons on NS, on the post where it belongs. Please no multi quotes I hate multi quotes. Please no Spoilers I hate Spoilers.

You say you are LMAO and so am I, lol.

[Grave_n_idle]

Thank you. I respectfully strongly disagree Brett Kavanaugh is not qualified as a US Supreme Court...

I don't care.

The question of qualification was one raised by the American Bar Association - twice, on two separate occasions, with more than a decade between them.

One day you're going to have to face the fact that your opinion is not a fact, and that when your opinions are different to the facts, your opinions are wrong.

[Zurkerx]

"He gets immunity for what he says, or he says nothing": Trump's lawyers argue that Trump is being singled out in New York Probe, arguing his Constitutional Rights are being violated. They want to have immunity should he have to testify. They also claim James' investigation is "political" and should be dismissed on that basis alone. The judge appeared skeptical to that claim:

Engoron appeared skeptical that James might be playing politics by targeting the former president.

"If Ms. James has an opinion against him," the justice said, "he's just a bad guy she should go after as the chief law enforcement officer of this state."

[Grave_n_idle]

Political affiliation is a major qualification.

To whom?

Anyone who votes to confirm or deny a candidate for the Supreme Court based on their political affiliation should be stripped of their vote.

And that's not me being unreasonable or biased - it should apply both ways - because the Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan, by design.

[Deblar]

(Image)

Presented without comment

[American Legionaries]

Political affiliation is a major qualification.

To whom?

Anyone who votes to confirm or deny a candidate for the Supreme Court based on their political affiliation should be stripped of their vote.

And that's not me being unreasonable or biased - it should apply both ways - because the Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan, by design.

It isn't, nor can it possibly be. And your opinion is patently unreasonable.

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

Thank you. I respectfully strongly disagree Brett Kavanaugh is not qualified as a US Supreme Court...

I don't care.

The question of qualification was one raised by the American Bar Association - twice, on two separate occasions, with more than a decade between them.

One day you're going to have to face the fact that your opinion is not a fact, and that when your opinions are different to the facts, your opinions are wrong.

You and I and the millions of Conservative Republicans strongly disagree on CRT and most issues - "One day you're going to have to face the fact that your opinion is not a fact, and that when your opinions are different to the facts, your opinions are wrong."

Dude, it works both ways not just one way, In Politics everything works both ways, not just one way, it works both ways. lol.

You and I strongly disagree at least 99 % Percent of the time. I see you still have not answered my question, You say you are a Conservative Republican, but you never back me up, you always support the Democrats? Please answer my question?

[Grave_n_idle]

To whom?

Anyone who votes to confirm or deny a candidate for the Supreme Court based on their political affiliation should be stripped of their vote.

And that's not me being unreasonable or biased - it should apply both ways - because the Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan, by design.

It isn't, nor can it possibly be. And your opinion is patently unreasonable.

Well, sure, with that kind of attitude.

Nah, seriously, my opinion is the absolute minimum everyone should be arguing for - unless they just don't care about the constitution.

In which case, why should I care about their opinion, anyway?

[The Black Forrest]

"He gets immunity for what he says, or he says nothing": Trump's lawyers argue that Trump is being singled out in New York Probe, arguing his Constitutional Rights are being violated. They want to have immunity should he have to testify. They also claim James' investigation is "political" and should be dismissed on that basis alone. The judge appeared skeptical to that claim:

Engoron appeared skeptical that James might be playing politics by targeting the former president.

"If Ms. James has an opinion against him," the justice said, "he's just a bad guy she should go after as the chief law enforcement officer of this state."

The politics comments are probably for qanon people. They love that garbage. All that matters is the claims and the evidence. They are going to have hard time defending the inflation for loans; deflation for tax claims.

The interesting thing is their tax firm trying to save themselves by severing ties. It sounds like the rats leaving the sinking ship move. They will probably get investigated no matter what. If said fraud is true; how did the miss it all those years?

[Kowani]

Political affiliation is a major qualification.

To whom?

Anyone who votes to confirm or deny a candidate for the Supreme Court based on their political affiliation should be stripped of their vote.

And that's not me being unreasonable or biased - it should apply both ways - because the Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan, by design.[/It’s an inherently political institution in every sense of the term
A “non-partisan” court is pure wishgazing

[Skelly Man Dan]

To complain that he can't use racial slurs, of course

I have to admit I didn’t follow this guy or his background. Once tried one of his products…turned my stomach actually. Yea….he is….”interesting”. Kind of along the lines of MTG without the qanon nonsense. That he probably would get into that.

I can see why they want him to speak…..

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... acial-slur

Where I live we have a family pizzaria on every corner, so never had to try his stuff (fortunately). Guy certainly is a nutcase though, and I'm hardly surprised he's getting invited, just disappointed. As for the article...

Yes, Schnatter uttered a deplorable racial slur. Yes, he did so on a corporate conference call. But he says there’s so much more to the story.

Feels like it's straight from the Onion.

[American Legionaries]

It isn't, nor can it possibly be. And your opinion is patently unreasonable.

Well, sure, with that kind of attitude.

Nah, seriously, my opinion is the absolute minimum everyone should be arguing for - unless they just don't care about the constitution.

In which case, why should I care about their opinion, anyway?

Iunno, I don't care about yours.

But Kowani has a point, a non-partisan court is impossible, and wishing for one is like writing to Santa and asking him for a real life unicorn. The only possible outcome is disappointment.

[The Black Forrest]

To whom?

Anyone who votes to confirm or deny a candidate for the Supreme Court based on their political affiliation should be stripped of their vote.

And that's not me being unreasonable or biased - it should apply both ways - because the Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan, by design.[/It’s an inherently political institution in every sense of the term
A “non-partisan” court is pure wishgazing

There is always hope.

How much of a political organization do you think it is? Is it political simply because people didn’t like the ruling?

I think the problem we face now is the inherent desire to place an ideologue versus simple bias. Probably a test case would be the three trump judges. See their rulings on something important to the republicans…..

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't care.

The question of qualification was one raised by the American Bar Association - twice, on two separate occasions, with more than a decade between them.

One day you're going to have to face the fact that your opinion is not a fact, and that when your opinions are different to the facts, your opinions are wrong.

You and I and the millions of Conservative Republicans strongly disagree on CRT and most issues - "One day you're going to have to face the fact that your opinion is not a fact, and that when your opinions are different to the facts, your opinions are wrong."

Dude, it works both ways not just one way, In Politics everything works both ways, not just one way, it works both ways. lol.

You and I strongly disagree at least 99 % Percent of the time. I see you still have not answered my question, You say you are a Conservative Republican, but you never back me up, you always support the Democrats? Please answer my question?

I have not said I am a conservative republican. This really shows how much you pay attention to the posts you're 'replying' to.

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

Well, sure, with that kind of attitude.

Nah, seriously, my opinion is the absolute minimum everyone should be arguing for - unless they just don't care about the constitution.

In which case, why should I care about their opinion, anyway?

Iunno, I don't care about yours.

No one cares about any persons opinions, we all care about our Facts. This rule applies to me, you and all persons on NS and off NS, it is called human nature.

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

You and I and the millions of Conservative Republicans strongly disagree on CRT and most issues - "One day you're going to have to face the fact that your opinion is not a fact, and that when your opinions are different to the facts, your opinions are wrong."

Dude, it works both ways not just one way, In Politics everything works both ways, not just one way, it works both ways. lol.

You and I strongly disagree at least 99 % Percent of the time. I see you still have not answered my question, You say you are a Conservative Republican, but you never back me up, you always support the Democrats? Please answer my question?

I have not said I am a conservative republican. This really shows how much you pay attention to the posts you're 'replying' to.

ok fair enough, but you did say and post you are a Conservative, it is on your post.

[Untecna]

Iunno, I don't care about yours.

No one cares about any persons opinions, we all care about our Facts. This rule applies to me, you and all persons on NS and off NS, it is called human nature.

This statement is false.

1. People care about opinions, otherwise, we wouldn't engage them.

2. No one owns facts.

[The Black Forrest]

I have to admit I didn’t follow this guy or his background. Once tried one of his products…turned my stomach actually. Yea….he is….”interesting”. Kind of along the lines of MTG without the qanon nonsense. That he probably would get into that.

I can see why they want him to speak…..

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... acial-slur

Where I live we have a family pizzaria on every corner, so never had to try his stuff (fortunately). Guy certainly is a nutcase though, and I'm hardly surprised he's getting invited, just disappointed. As for the article...

Yes, Schnatter uttered a deplorable racial slur. Yes, he did so on a corporate conference call. But he says there’s so much more to the story.

Feels like it's straight from the Onion.

I am lucky as well on the family pizzarias. When the know their stuff; the corporates just can’t match the taste.

I also liked the comments of he was going to work hard to remove the N word from his vocabulary.

[Eahland]

(Image)

Presented without comment

I would boycott his pizza, but I've been doing that anyway just because it's bad.

[Grave_n_idle]

And that's not me being unreasonable or biased - it should apply both ways - because the Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan, by design.[/It’s an inherently political institution in every sense of the term
A “non-partisan” court is pure wishgazing

There is always hope.

How much of a political organization do you think it is? Is it political simply because people didn’t like the ruling?

I think the problem we face now is the inherent desire to place an ideologue versus simple bias. Probably a test case would be the three trump judges. See their rulings on something important to the republicans…..

This - it's a difference between personal politics, and activism.

Someone can have a bias, but it shouldn't affect their ruling - the explicit role of the Supreme Court is to make rulings on constitutionality regardless of parties, and if they're not able to do that (for whatever reason) then they are failing to do the one thing they exist for.

[The Black Forrest]

You and I and the millions of Conservative Republicans strongly disagree on CRT and most issues - "One day you're going to have to face the fact that your opinion is not a fact, and that when your opinions are different to the facts, your opinions are wrong."

Dude, it works both ways not just one way, In Politics everything works both ways, not just one way, it works both ways. lol.

You and I strongly disagree at least 99 % Percent of the time. I see you still have not answered my question, You say you are a Conservative Republican, but you never back me up, you always support the Democrats? Please answer my question?

I have not said I am a conservative republican. This really shows how much you pay attention to the posts you're 'replying' to.

Hmpf. I thought you did once. Ok. My bad……

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

(Image)

Presented without comment

I would boycott his pizza, but I've been doing that anyway just because it's bad.

It makes me want to buy $ more Papa John's Pizza, and I know many of us conservative Republicans strongly agree with me.

[Zurkerx]

"He gets immunity for what he says, or he says nothing": Trump's lawyers argue that Trump is being singled out in New York Probe, arguing his Constitutional Rights are being violated. They want to have immunity should he have to testify. They also claim James' investigation is "political" and should be dismissed on that basis alone. The judge appeared skeptical to that claim:

Engoron appeared skeptical that James might be playing politics by targeting the former president.

"If Ms. James has an opinion against him," the justice said, "he's just a bad guy she should go after as the chief law enforcement officer of this state."

The politics comments are probably for qanon people. They love that garbage. All that matters is the claims and the evidence. They are going to have hard time defending the inflation for loans; deflation for tax claims.

The interesting thing is their tax firm trying to save themselves by severing ties. It sounds like the rats leaving the sinking ship move. They will probably get investigated no matter what. If said fraud is true; how did the miss it all those years?

Certainly. I'm in the accounting field and there are standard procedures in the event that an accounting firm has to drop a client and deem financial statements unreliable if it came to it. But that's very rare and the fact Mazars did it should send alarm bells to anyone with loans currently to the Trump Organization and anyone that wants to do business with them. Of course, Mazars statement is done in a way to try to avoid them being entangled criminally but they could get further scrutinized it they an investigator thinks it's warranted.

Them deeming this unreliable also makes it harder for Trump to justify his inflated values and defend them. The question becomes whether he'll be given immunity if he has to testify in the Civil Case. That we should watch for.

[Grave_n_idle]

I have not said I am a conservative republican. This really shows how much you pay attention to the posts you're 'replying' to.

ok fair enough, but you did say and post you are a Conservative, it is on your post.

I am a conservative. I am a law-and-order conservative, which means that issue like due process aren't just important to me, but paramount.

So, while I am pro-Second Amendment, and while I also argue for sensible regulation, I 100% opposed Trump saying that we should take people's guns away first and employ due process later.

So, while I think Kavanaugh is unqualified as a judge because the ABA has repeatedly said he is, I backed the ABA's call for a judicial committee review, because THAT is due process. And then I opposed them stopping the review just because he got confirmed - because that is NOT due process.

I am a conservative, which means I cannot identify with the current GOP. I'm not a republican, because (right now) they are not a conservative party.

[Grave_n_idle]

I have not said I am a conservative republican. This really shows how much you pay attention to the posts you're 'replying' to.

Hmpf. I thought you did once. Ok. My bad……

I've quite often pointed out that it hasn't been possible to be a conservative AND a republican for quite a few years, now.

I'm conservative. I'm definitely not a republican.