President attacks 'so political' courts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

WickedsDesire -> President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 1:25:01 PM)

US President Donald Trump has taken a swipe at "so political" courts, as his immigration travel ban faces a major legal test.

Mr Trump told a gathering of police chiefs in Washington DC that he has the right to enact his executive order.

His remarks came a day after an appeals court heard a challenge to the Republican president's policy.

Choice for supreme court Neil Gorsuch - defense adjourns. I could of course cite all of orange hairy boy’s faux pas but that’s just about everything he has ever said.
I could of course cite the senate rules were changed to allow a party majority as opposed to 60.

“Safety”:

1. I could cite those seven countries death tally on American soil since 1971 = zero
2. I could cite death tally on American soil from the other 40 Muslim countries since 1971 as being ~4000 – most of that is the twin Towers mainly Saudi nationals. Whats Americashire arm deals worth with the Saudis each year anyone?
3. I could cite death by Americans killing themselves with guns since 1971 ~ 1.3 million souls – that’s sickening

At the end of the day this will end up in the Supreme Court..oh and here is the article--video of him making the usual howling kunt of himself http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38902574



mnottertail -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 2:00:55 PM)

since the constitution of the united states is concerned with the politics of the united states, it points out even more spectacularly that the nutsucker president voted in by nutsuckers (who want a strict interpretation of the constitution, and shit their pants when it is delivered into their hands) are not aware that the Executive is a political branch, the Legislative is a political branch, and the Judiciary is a political branch (otherwise why are they so interested in getting the SCOTUS packed with conservatives?)

I find these retarded nutsuckers more fascinating every day in that they can walk upright and breathe simultaneously with only a shriveled brain stem.



jlf1961 -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 2:06:12 PM)

Actually, to be very honest, your statistics of Americans killing Americans should be "Americans descended from European and Slave parents killing each other with guns."

Strangely enough, Native Americans killing each other is down 98% from historic highs when they killed each other as often as the killed white eyes.

Of course, I am working on the theory that it is a native American conspiracy to let the white eyes kill each other to the point where there are more native Americans than them, and we can take our country back.

A friend of mine who is full Apache recently told me something his great grandfather told him, "If we had been smart, we would have moved to the reservations instead of continuing to fight. White eyes kill themselves faster than we ever did."

Of course, Native Americans have a nasty habit of drinking themselves to death, as the incidence of alcoholism is higher among native Americans than any other segment of society, which has led many reservations to ban the sale of alcohol on reservations.



WickedsDesire -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 2:23:42 PM)

jlf1961 I know. mnottertail nuances of your system still escape me...did his man get elected to the Supreme court? A mere 10 months after senate re Obama man, or women- was a women I seem to think, it was to close to the end of his presidency to consider Obama bint....and they changed that rule swearyman where does te 60 aye come into it?..I seem to think the senate is split 52-48 is this correct?

I only use that figure because he is citing security-safety. The disparity between 0 versus ~1.3 million is shimmering clarity itself. Logically should he not have went after half of the second?

But if you just listen to what he says in that link you should all be afeared World.




mnottertail -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 2:38:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

jlf1961 I know. mnottertail nuances of your system still escape me...did his man get elected to the Supreme court? A mere 10 months after senate re Obama man, or women- was a women I seem to think, it was to close to the end of his presidency to consider Obama bint....and they changed that rule swearyman where does te 60 aye come into it?..I seem to think the senate is split 52-48 is this correct?

I only use that figure because he is citing security-safety. The disparity between 0 versus ~1.3 million is shimmering clarity itself. Logically should he not have went after half of the second?

But if you just listen to what he says in that link you should all be afeared World.



All federal judges Circuit, Appellate, and Supreme Court are voted by the Senate.

This particular judge was nominated by George W Bush, you may of heard of that rotter, with 99-0 and one not voting in the Senate.

The other fellow who will be voted to the Supreme court either way, needs 51 votes, the nutickers changed the rule of 60, to simple majority.



WickedsDesire -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 2:47:47 PM)

The other fellow who will be voted to the Supreme court either way, needs 51 votes, the nutickers changed the rule of 60, to simple majority. Now how did president dangerous fukwit do this....Christ dont tell me it was an executive order?

Actually can you explain the 60 rule to me. That's from 100 isn't it, or kinda 60% rule (to low)...whats the origin of that one?



jlf1961 -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 3:14:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

The other fellow who will be voted to the Supreme court either way, needs 51 votes, the nutickers changed the rule of 60, to simple majority. Now how did president dangerous fukwit do this....Christ dont tell me it was an executive order?

Actually can you explain the 60 rule to me. That's from 100 isn't it, or kinda 60% rule (to low)...whats the origin of that one?



Actually the Senate did this, the president has no control over senate rules.

In point of fact, when the dems controlled the senate, the republicans raised a major stink, calling it a move to eliminate republican power in the senate, and therefore wrong to do so.

So, the democrats backed off and left the super majority rule (rule of 60) in place.

Now, that the Republicans have control of the senate, then of course if they do it, there is no move to eliminate the voice of the other party.

Basically, it is political hypocrisy in action.



BoscoX -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 3:44:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Of course, I am working on the theory that it is a native American conspiracy to let the white eyes kill each other to the point where there are more native Americans than them, and we can take our country back.


Time for the orderlies to take you back to your nice padded room now



Greta75 -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 4:38:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Of course, Native Americans have a nasty habit of drinking themselves to death, as the incidence of alcoholism is higher among native Americans than any other segment of society, which has led many reservations to ban the sale of alcohol on reservations.

This very strange alcoholism problem seem to be the bane of most tribes in any country. Same problem with aboriginals in Australia.



vincentML -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 4:42:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

The other fellow who will be voted to the Supreme court either way, needs 51 votes, the nutickers changed the rule of 60, to simple majority. Now how did president dangerous fukwit do this....Christ dont tell me it was an executive order?

Actually can you explain the 60 rule to me. That's from 100 isn't it, or kinda 60% rule (to low)...whats the origin of that one?


Easy peasy . . .when one or more Senators seize the floor and refuse to relinquish it they are staging a filibuster. A tactic by the minority to prevent the majority from voting. Was a time when the minority would keep the floor by speaking the night through or until "debate" was cut off (called cloture) By rule 60 votes were needed to invoke cloture. now the lazy creatures do not actually "take to the mattresses." Instead, they just declare "filibuster." Sixty votes are needed to shut them up.

See the movie . . . Mr Smith Goes to Washington



jlf1961 -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 5:34:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Of course, I am working on the theory that it is a native American conspiracy to let the white eyes kill each other to the point where there are more native Americans than them, and we can take our country back.


Time for the orderlies to take you back to your nice padded room now



You really have no concept of sarcasm, or actually any form of humor that requires an IQ above 50.

Let me guess, you go to family reunions to pick up girls, right?



lovmuffin -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 8:03:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

The other fellow who will be voted to the Supreme court either way, needs 51 votes, the nutickers changed the rule of 60, to simple majority. Now how did president dangerous fukwit do this....Christ dont tell me it was an executive order?

Actually can you explain the 60 rule to me. That's from 100 isn't it, or kinda 60% rule (to low)...whats the origin of that one?



Actually the Senate did this, the president has no control over senate rules.

In point of fact, when the dems controlled the senate, the republicans raised a major stink, calling it a move to eliminate republican power in the senate, and therefore wrong to do so.

So, the democrats backed off and left the super majority rule (rule of 60) in place.

Now, that the Republicans have control of the senate, then of course if they do it, there is no move to eliminate the voice of the other party.

Basically, it is political hypocrisy in action.


I don't recall that the Democrats backed off. I thought it was the Democrats who changed the rule (the nuclear option) for legislation to get Obama care to pass. They changed it for approving judges and cabinet members. The only thing they didn't change it for is SC judges. I wouldn't doubt the Republicans would change it for the SC if necessary. The Democrats are having to swallow their own pill.



BoscoX -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 8:16:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

The other fellow who will be voted to the Supreme court either way, needs 51 votes, the nutickers changed the rule of 60, to simple majority. Now how did president dangerous fukwit do this....Christ dont tell me it was an executive order?

Actually can you explain the 60 rule to me. That's from 100 isn't it, or kinda 60% rule (to low)...whats the origin of that one?



Actually the Senate did this, the president has no control over senate rules.

In point of fact, when the dems controlled the senate, the republicans raised a major stink, calling it a move to eliminate republican power in the senate, and therefore wrong to do so.

So, the democrats backed off and left the super majority rule (rule of 60) in place.

Now, that the Republicans have control of the senate, then of course if they do it, there is no move to eliminate the voice of the other party.

Basically, it is political hypocrisy in action.


I don't recall that the Democrats backed off. I thought it was the Democrats who changed the rule (the nuclear option) for legislation to get Obama care to pass. They changed it for approving judges and cabinet members. The only thing they didn't change it for is SC judges. I wouldn't doubt the Republicans would change it for the SC if necessary. The Democrats are having to swallow their own pill.


It's really a waste of time trying to reason with an oaf like jlf. He makes up his "history" and his "facts" as he goes along. And if you prove something to him one minute, five minutes later he is totally ignorant of that same thing all over again



WickedsDesire -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 9:55:57 PM)

Donald creature-god orange hairy boy Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court has described the president's fuking looneys attacks on the judiciary as "demoralising" and "disheartening".
Neil Gorsuch's comments were made to a Democratic senator and confirmed by his spokesman.
The president called a judge who halted his controversial travel ban a "so-called judge", and said any terror attacks on US soil would be his fault.

Well i suppose at least he has plums http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38914598

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igGLXfKASuw



Greta75 -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 9:59:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire
Neil Gorsuch's comments were made to a Democratic senator and confirmed by his spokesman.

I think it's a good move by Neil to show that even though he is appointed by Trump but he can be very independent from Trump.

So to me, this was strategically said to make sure he gets instated as the supreme court judge.



WickedsDesire -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 10:02:45 PM)

I would expect the supreme court judges & nominees to be impartial on matters that challenge the remnants of the constitution (save the second) - good to see him speak out against the dangerous fuk



WickedsDesire -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 11:12:43 PM)

The US Senate has confirmed President Donald Trump's nomination for attorney general, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, by a vote of 52 to 47. guffaws



heavyblinker -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 11:23:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Of course, Native Americans have a nasty habit of drinking themselves to death, as the incidence of alcoholism is higher among native Americans than any other segment of society, which has led many reservations to ban the sale of alcohol on reservations.

This very strange alcoholism problem seem to be the bane of most tribes in any country. Same problem with aboriginals in Australia.


I'm sure that being reduced to third class citizens in your own country is pretty collectively traumatic.
Of course it's not like they've suffered the horrors that respectmen has, but it's pretty close.



tamaka -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 11:26:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Of course, Native Americans have a nasty habit of drinking themselves to death, as the incidence of alcoholism is higher among native Americans than any other segment of society, which has led many reservations to ban the sale of alcohol on reservations.

This very strange alcoholism problem seem to be the bane of most tribes in any country. Same problem with aboriginals in Australia.


I'm sure that being reduced to third class citizens in your own country is pretty collectively traumatic.
Of course it's not like they've suffered the horrors that respectmen has, but it's pretty close.



Victim mentality never got anyone anywhere.



Greta75 -> RE: President attacks 'so political' courts (2/8/2017 11:42:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
I'm sure that being reduced to third class citizens in your own country is pretty collectively traumatic.
Of course it's not like they've suffered the horrors that respectmen has, but it's pretty close.

Irony is, our natives are traditionally Muslims, so they traditionally are forbidden to drink alcohol, so they never got alcoholism problem within their community ha!

But I always feel like, assuming aboriginals in Australia used to just happily live in the deserts, and Native Americans just live in their forests or whatever.

The west should have done like Brazil. How Brazil got their Natives still happily living self-sustainingly without any modern technology or contact with the modern world in their amazon forest out there.

That was what should have happened with Natives of every country, just leave them alone and give them Territory to live in their natural environment by their own terms.

My country is too small to do that. Although we have one tiny little spot left where the Natives are living in wooden houses,and growing their own food in their own wilderness, but most Natives choose to modernized and join the rest of us in the modern world. But US and Australia has ALOT of land.

Because if I was not wrong, Australia tried to take away aboriginal kids from their parents to assimilate them into western cultures, and they still all end up depressed and alcoholic and struggling in the modern world.

Maybe they are just not meant for the modern world.

I feel like the Brazilian Natives are so happy in their own little bubble. And living a great life.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/uncontacted-tribe-amazon-brazil-photos/



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625