Donald Trump

[mancity2012_eamo]

As I am close to the matter, I have chosen to convene the council for objective review.

It’s obvious.
9 13 is a black day in BM history.

 

[Roy Munson]

Not an American, but I would have voted for Trump in 2016 and I would vote for Trump again. I am alot more scared of the radicalness on show from the Democrat's than from Trump.

What I have always liked about Trump is that he is unique. Normally to get into power, politicians say what they think people want to hear and once elected they do not follow through (because they never meant it). Trump however tells you exactly what he wants to do, warts and all, and in my estimation appears to follow through with it.

Ffs. Absolute wum of a post.

 

[mat]

Not an American, but I would have voted for Trump in 2016 and I would vote for Trump again. I am alot more scared of the radicalness on show from the Democrat's than from Trump.

What I have always liked about Trump is that he is unique. Normally to get into power, politicians say what they think people want to hear and once elected they do not follow through (because they never meant it). Trump however tells you exactly what he wants to do, warts and all, and in my estimation appears to follow through with it.

Is this one of BT's multiple personalities on here?

 

[SWP's back]

Well, as I keep saying, if you don’t do your homework, you make mistakes. You haven’t, so you have. You’re beyond hope of redemption at this late date. If I piled the dozens of quotes from Biden condemning precisely what you claim he hasn’t, you’d find another reason to castigate him. So we’ll just have to outvote you, or the “yous” that are American.

And here I am, a man who has tried over and over and over to explain to anti-Trumpers not to pile all pro-Trumpers together. That there really are frustrated, hopeless people in America who believe Washington has cast them aside, and that they have every reason to feel that way. And they fell in for Trump because they believed he was fighting for them. They just picked the wrong guy.

But you know what? I’m done now. I’m done with empathy, with unity, with hope that some day America can heal. If after EVERYTHING Trump has said and done, especially since the pandemic, you still can’t see and understand what evil looks like in a statesman, then there is no argument strong enough, no voice of reason loud enough, no insult biting enough to wake you out of whatever state you are in.

Your post is the most depressing thing I’ve seen in a while.

Well said. And well done for actually bothering replying. It’s more than I’d have done.

 

[SWP's back]

You don’t care if I disagree with you, but you chose to use one of your three accounts to respond with several paragraphs of drivel that doesn’t actually support your position, but rather is an attempt to wind me up with childish insults?

All evidence to the contrary, 2Timer.

Isn’t having multiple accounts against the CoC?

 

[Vic]

Tactically...

what benefit electorally does Trump get from appointing a new SC justice before the election?

If he loses, he's left a biased SC that suits his base's agenda (if not his), but if he wants to use this moment to help him get elected, would it not be better to say he'll defer appointment till after the election? Then re-electing him is the only way for his base to get another conservative / reactionary / corruptible justice on the SC.

I think it means he knows he's going to lose, so he might as well do the damage now.

 

[domalino]

Tactically...

what benefit electorally does Trump get from appointing a new SC justice before the election?

If he loses, he's left a biased SC that suits his base's agenda (if not his), but if he wants to use this moment to help him get elected, would it not be better to say he'll defer appointment till after the election? Then re-electing him is the only way for his base to get another conservative / reactionary / corruptible justice on the SC.

I think it means he knows he's going to lose, so he might as well do the damage now.

Step 6 involves going to the supreme court. Where he will have appointed 3 nutters without any legal principles amongst the 9, and where Republicans will be 6-3 up.

 

[mat]

Tactically...

what benefit electorally does Trump get from appointing a new SC justice before the election?

If he loses, he's left a biased SC that suits his base's agenda (if not his), but if he wants to use this moment to help him get elected, would it not be better to say he'll defer appointment till after the election? Then re-electing him is the only way for his base to get another conservative / reactionary / corruptible justice on the SC.

I think it means he knows he's going to lose, so he might as well do the damage now.

It's a pick he thinks will win Florida. That's all he's bothered about.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

It's a pick he thinks will win Florida. That's all he's bothered about.

That's what I thought of - he'll pick someone that gives support somewhere he needs it, with the knock-on effect that @domalino mentions when it all gets nasty after the vote.

I think they'd need incredibly strong evidence to make the Supreme Court back anything that looks like a put-up job - I think they'll exercise conscience rather than automatically toe the party line.

 

[domalino]

That's what I thought of - he'll pick someone that gives support somewhere he needs it, with the knock-on effect that @domalino mentions when it all gets nasty after the vote.

I think they'd need incredibly strong evidence to make the Supreme Court back anything that looks like a put-up job - I think they'll exercise conscience rather than automatically toe the party line.

If there's one thing I've learned from following the Opening Arguments law podcast these past 4 years is that the Supreme Court is not the bastion of legal order you always thought it was. The right wing of the bench are deeply political, and will tie themselves in knots to find legal excuses to further their political agenda.

The only one who will go against orders on principle is Gorsuch, who's sided against the other Republican judges when they abandon all reason to force something through. Thomas will join the liberal side on votes they will either win or lose anyway, in order to appear more neutral.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

If there's one thing I've learned from following the Opening Arguments law podcast these past 4 years is that the Supreme Court is not the bastion of legal order you always thought it was. The right wing of the bench are deeply political, and will tie themselves in knots to find legal excuses to further their political agenda.

The only one who will go against orders on principle is Gorsuch, who's sided against the other Republican judges when they abandon all reason to force something through. Thomas will join the liberal side on votes they will either win or lose anyway, in order to appear more neutral.

The GOP have been jamming the Federal Courts with Conservative judges for years. This jamming through of another Conservative judge to the Supreme Court has been the GOP's wet dream ever since Ginsberg got cancer the first time round. Their ultra-conservative, pro-life religious nut job followers have been desperate to overturn Roe v Wade for years. The GOP see it as a massive vote winner, and they're probably right.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I’d go for arsehole but that’s just a personal option

I'd definately go for troll

is this the same guy you banned from the trump thread last week?

So Trump’s disrespect for others (and the Constitution and the rule of law and the precedents set by other Presidents, etc.) aren’t problems, but — magically, somehow, the most important issue to you wasn’t even an issue Biden spoke to before George Floyd. What a coincidence! Wow, lucky for you a bunch of people died so you could find a better stick to beat him with, phew. What was it before? What was it before he was nominated? What was wrong with him in 2017 before we knew he was running?

The only thing worse than not doing your homework is thinking you have when you haven’t. And being a lying WUM with shadow accounts, that sucks too. Embarrassing for me that I took you seriously.

You'll catch a few with that.

It’s obvious.
9 13 is a black day in BM history.

Ffs. Absolute wum of a post.

Is this one of BT's multiple personalities on here?

Isn’t having multiple accounts against the CoC?

Bazza_no_longer_Talks

His other two accounts have also been ****ed off.

Back to regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[hgblue]

Bazza_no_longer_Talks

His other two accounts have also been ****ed off.

Back to regularly scheduled discussion.

Haha, back to the TDS circle jerk ;)

 

[Shadz69]

People with Z-heavy nicknames ‘likely to be morons’ find study

People with nicknames based on the letter Z are ‘much more likely to be an utter tool’ than those without such a nickname, researchers at Luton University have discovered.

newsthump.com

Haha Wait what

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Bazza_no_longer_Talks_Shite

His other two accounts have also been ****ed off.

Back to regularly scheduled discussion.

Slight edit for you.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Bazza_no_longer_Talks

His other two accounts have also been ****ed off.

Back to regularly scheduled discussion.

Out of interest.
What were his other two accounts?
Did they end in repetitive numbers?

 

[SebastianBlue]

Haha, back to the TDS circle jerk ;)

He was banned for WUMing across quite a few threads, football and political.

Out of interest.
What were his other two accounts?
Did they end in repetitive numbers?

I referenced them previously in the thread and both were quite fitting:

Penoche
2Timer

You won’t find any posts from them viewable on the forum.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

He was banned for WUMing across quite a few threads, football and political.


I referenced them previously in the thread and both were quite fitting:

Penoche
2Timer

You won’t find any posts from them viewable on the forum.

I checked Bazza’s 38 posts last night.
As you say across all subjects, he made himself very obvious.

 

[Vic]

You may want to reflect some more before rushing to the all to familiar defensive, tribal reactions. As I told you already, I don't have any skin in this game. I don't care if you disagree with me. Yet I find it perplexing that you cannot accept that somebody can reasonably hold a view that Biden is dangerous. I find that much more revealing about you and your tolerance for others than it is about me. You have made me consider whether this is an example of the Never-Trumpism you mentioned.

It reminds me of those video interviews on college campuses they did after Trump was elected. They filmed students responding to a statement that Trump had said on the campaign trail with the students asked to judge whether they agreed with the statement, how true and accurate it was. Interestingly, when the students were told the comments had been made by Obama they found them agreeable, respectable, trustworthy and reasonable. They were somewhat embarrassed when told the truth. Indeed the reverse was also found when Obama's past statements were repeated to students and were purported to be made by Trump. Maybe you are right, therefore, never Trumpism is a phenomenon. I had thought if it did exist it was confined to naive college students on radical campuses, but maybe it is much broader and deeper than that.

Useless as an academic exercise if the quotes from Trump were lies.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I checked Bazza’s 38 posts last night.
As you say across all subjects, he made himself very obvious.

I checked Bazza’s 38 posts last night.
As you say across all subjects, he made himself very obvious.

Indeed he did — I had raised him shortly after he began posting (well before he joined this thread), and he was given ample opportunity to prove my (and other mod’s) suspicions incorrect.

He obviously did the opposite.

Anyway, best to move on, otherwise his work lives on.

If anyone needs a reminder of Trump and co’s genocidal mania, here’s another.