Legal Experts Opine On SCOTUS And Trump
[guest post by Dana]
Over at Reason, some noteworthy “libertarian and conservative legal experts” weigh in on whether the Supreme Court is a good enough reason to vote for Trump.
Orin Kerr sums up the results:
Five of the 10 answers were some form of “no.” Most of these responses argued that while Trump’s judicial nominees might be marginally better than Hillary Clinton’s, that possible benefit is outweighed by the damage Trump would do as head of the executive branch. (Jonathan Adler, Alan Gura, Orin Kerr, Roger Pilon and Timothy Sandefur)
Two of the answers were some form of “maybe.” Generally, they argued that Trump’s judicial nominees would be better than Clinton’s and that reasonable people will disagree on whether other concerns about Trump outweigh that. (Randy Barnett and Michael Rappaport)
Finally, three of the answers were some form of “yes.” Generally, they argued that Trump’s judicial nominees clearly would be better than Clinton’s. These answers did not take a clear position on whether people should vote for Trump, but instead responded only to the question of whether Supreme Court appointments provide a good reason to do so. (David Kopel, Glenn Reynolds and Carrie Severino)
Here are a few of the interesting opinions:
Jonathan Adler
Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve UniversityThe future of the Supreme Court is of tremendous importance, particularly given the number of likely retirements in the next several years. Concern for the Court, and lower federal courts, is often a good reason to ignore a Republican presidential candidate’s other inadequacies. A sound court appointment far outweighs a few silly spending programs. Many say this justifies supporting Trump. Not me. Trump is beyond the pale and there’s no guarantee Trump’s nominees will be any good anyway.
Roger Pilon
Director of Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute
Assuming Trump were to follow through on his list of possible Supreme Court nominees, that would be a reason to support him, but there are countervailing reasons to oppose him that are, I believe, far more important. The Court will correct itself in time, I hope, but it is the character of the Republican Party and, more broadly and crucially, of our very nation that is at stake in this election. Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate, to be sure, but the election of Donald Trump would so defile the party of Lincoln and America itself that it must be resisted. He is an aberration that we must get past, and quickly.Michael B. Rappaport
Director of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego School of Law
I certainly believe that the future of the Supreme Court is “a reason” to support Trump. There are no assurances, but I do believe it is likely that he will choose someone from the list he issued previously (or someone similar). Is it strong enough reason to overcome the other reasons not to vote for him?To me, it depends on one’s perspective. If one is simply voting for the candidate whose views are closest to your own, then most libertarians will vote for Gary Johnson. Trump’s Supreme Court appointments are unlikely to affect that.
But if you are (for some reason) choosing between Trump and Clinton, then Trump’s likely appointments are important. Both Trump and Clinton are so flawed that any significant chance that one of them will do something good is pretty important. So I would say that if one is choosing between Trump and Clinton, then Trump’s likely appointments are a strong reason for preferring him. Of course, that strong reason might be outweighed by other considerations, depending on your views of the two candidates.
In a separate column titled “It’s the Supreme Court, Stupid,” Hugh Hewitt also claims that because of the Court, voters should support Trump:
[T]here is a positive case for Donald Trump, a third prong in the case for working for Trump’s election: He brings 3,000 political appointees with him, and the first two — Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as VP and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has chief of the transition — telegraph that the vast majority of his team in the executive branch (and his appointees on the courts) will be conservatives.
Back in May, the Trump campaign released this list of potential Supreme Court justices.
This isn’t a new subject of discussion, certainly, but it’s interesting to read the compilation of views. And the fact remains that there will be at least one, if not more vacancies filled by the next president.
–Dana
Good morning.
Dana (995455) — 8/2/2016 @ 6:29 amRead constitution 2020 and see how puny the objection are.
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 6:34 amJohnson effs up in a state he could have complicated:
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 8/2/2016 @ 6:43 amhttp://www.sltrib.com/news/4183208-155/libertarian-gary-johnsons-comments-on-religious
Because Libertarians aren’t really that concerned with liberty.
She actually went to court to proscrive a political opponent.
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 6:47 amHillary’s picks will likely be to the left of ginsberg – whose opinion in the ACA case can be summarized as “i like the ACA as a policy, therefore it must be constitutional”
joe (debac0) — 8/2/2016 @ 6:59 amI love how tenured professors such as Jonathan Adler (who enjoy guaranteed job security) like to make the claim “…there’s no guarantee…” that Trump’s Supreme Court picks will be any good.(LOL)
There’s no guarantee for very much in this world, save for death and taxes…and professors with tenured positions at universities ever having to worry about keeping their job.
There’s no guarantee that your marriage is going to work out, there’s no guarantee that the wonderful employee with the stellar resume and recommendations you just hired isn’t going to embezzle from you, and there’s no guarantee when you take your dog for a routine walk around the block that you won’t get run over by a drag-racing high school kid in an old muscle car who just got his driver’s license last week.
There’s also no guarantee that George H.W. Bush won’t nominate a David Souter, and there’s no guarantee that George W. Bush won’t nominate a John Roberts who will go all turncoat on the Constitution.
Ah, but there’s one guarantee that I can think of … President Hillary will nominate left wing nuts who won’t go all turncoat and move to the center/right.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/2/2016 @ 7:00 amCruz Supporter, I agree. But, I had a dream the other night and in the dream Trump got pissed that things weren’t going his way and threw up his hands and said “I don’t need this crap” and pulled out of the race. What would happen then?
Bald01 (f38852) — 8/2/2016 @ 7:18 amThat just might happen, Bald01. Trump’s burning ambition has never been to be President. It has been to be Miss April.
nk (dbc370) — 8/2/2016 @ 7:23 amImagine the damage a court with 5 or 6 kagens or sotomayers can do. And maybe the court would correct itself over time but will the country last long enough for that to happen?
Jim (a9b7c7) — 8/2/2016 @ 7:28 amThe Supreme Court is a good but not sufficient reason to vote Trump.
The reality is, we have a statist future ahead, until we reform our civics instruction, and get rid of most of Academia, and decimate the Federal Bureaucracy. . . .
Oh, heck, who am I kidding . . . we’re screwed.
Steve Malynn (4bc33a) — 8/2/2016 @ 7:30 amAlder puts up the precautionary principle. The same stupidity the global warming fraud has been floating on for the last ten years.
And just like the AGW crooks, he breezes past the incalculable harm Hilary Clinton and the gargantuan spending programs she is sure to impose on top of insane judge picks, in his infantile actuarial.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 8/2/2016 @ 7:48 amAssuming? Is he implying that Trump might say something, then contradict himself in word or deed later? Why, Trump would never do such a thing!
CayleyGraph (353727) — 8/2/2016 @ 7:51 amThank you, Steve Mallyn. Which reminds me. We have more than half a dozen lawyers here whose opinions I respect more than the famous-for-being-on-the-internet ones.
nk (dbc370) — 8/2/2016 @ 7:53 amDon’t kid yourselves, a left wing Supreme Court will accelerate the erosion of the Constitution and federalism.
Say, why do we have ObamaCare?
Because John Roberts said so.
There will be a lot more of “Because the Supreme Court said so!” if Hillary gets to put some more Sotomayors and Kagans on the Court.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/2/2016 @ 7:54 amThe left wing wants to erode federalism.
Ultimately, they don’t want Texas to be Texas or Wyoming to be Wyoming.
They want Texas and Wyoming to be Massachusetts.
Roger Pilon – The Court will correct itself in time, I hope, but it is the character of the Republican Party and, more broadly and crucially, of our very nation that is at stake in this election.
The lack of character of the Republican Party is the reason we rejected your open borders illegal labor pool policies. If the Republican Party had character Bush wouldn’t have been selling American jobs in Mexico City.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 8/2/2016 @ 7:57 amDuring the 2008 election season, a majority of Reason’s ‘great libertarian thinkers’ argued why they thought Obama was better than McCain.
I am not defending Trump, I am pointing out that Reason is an insane asylum purporting to be libertarian while always voting authoritarians into power because of stoners.
Susan (ecb6d6) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:03 amI am not defending Trump, I am pointing out that Reason is an insane asylum purporting to be libertarian while always voting authoritarians into power because of stoners.
Heh.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:06 amAll you need to do is prepare yourself to hear: “That’s settled Law” about the Supreme Court as often as you do “That’s settled science” about AGW and you’ll be set for the Hillary! Court.
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:10 amRoger Pilon sounds like a fool.
Look at the passive voice he uses when he suggests that the Court will “…correct itself in time…”
How on earth does the Supreme Court “correct itself?”
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:11 amIs he expecting the toys in “Toy Story” to spring to life in the middle of the night and go ‘fix’ the Court?
Also, for all the accusations directed at Trump voters about how they’re voting for Trump because he has an *R* next to his name, our wonderful Mr Pilon seems to be admitting that his primary concern is to not see the party of Lincoln defiled.
He says he doesn’t want to see America defiled either, but another four years of Barack’s policies will result in plenty of defiling.
Frankly, the notion that the office of POTUS can be damaged any further than it has these past 8 years is absurd.
The notion that anything good can come of a HRC presidency is mendacious vacuity, whether posed in absolute terms or comparative terms to the admitted unknowns of a DJT term.
#nevertrump assumes what they have never given evidence of, that their personal dislike for a Philistine will bear any fruit whatever.
You are an effete clique of sanctimonious prudes whose values, particularly among younger folk, the future of America are dismissed and discarded. There is no lesson America can learn from your intransigence.
DNF (755a85) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:11 amThe lovely Mrs Clinton has already said that she believes that Citizens United and MacDonald v Chicago were wrongly decided. Just those two 5-4 decisions guaranteed our First and Second Amendment rights, and she wants them overturned. We cannot know that Donald Trump would carry through on his promises, but we do know that Mrs Clinton will be looking for “Justices” who would reverse those cases.
The constitutionalist Dana (f6a568) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:13 amI’m glad we are talking about this, because it’s about the only reason a non-Trumper would vote for him.
Like Cruz Supporter says, we have no way of knowing how a “conservative” justice will actually turn out, and we have been burned many times before. My question is: Have any “liberal” justices turned into conservatives on the court?
My other thought is that liberalism is so entwined with emotionalism that once a Court is 100% liberal, as a Hillary Court would be, the justices would lose that frisson of moralistic smugness that comes with creating new law to restrain all us bigoted, stingy Americans. With all of their rhetorical fists in the air, it is no longer special; they are no longer rebels. They might even come to their senses. Maybe.
Patricia (5fc097) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:18 am10. Yes, we are screwed, many times over.
But the choice before us is whether to lay down and die or to be unseamed while resisting.
DNF (755a85) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:27 amA (barely) Sufficient Reason to vote Trump – is #neverHillary plus the fact that the entire media and academia and entertainment will spend all of a Trump presidency actually looking at what is happening (and though they will still lie) and for a change be in opposition to executive power.
In fact, as Instapundit says, the only way the press will do their job is if we vote a white male Republican into office.
Steve Malynn (4bc33a) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:27 amAin’t that the truth?
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:30 ampapertiger (c2d6da) — 8/2/2016 @ 7:57 am
The lack of character of the Republican Party is exemplified by the adamant opposition BOTH to illegal labor AND to open borders. You can’t be opposed to both of them.
There is a carryover, also, between opposition to amnesty and toleration of evil deeds committed abroad; co-operation with Russia (because, you know, “America First” and we need to defeat ISIS) so who cares how many Syrians Russia kills, or if Russia invades NATO members Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; and general insensitivity to all human beings. The spillover to other kinds of cruelty is undeniable. There is no getting away from it, and it’s clear to me from where it starts.
It is not a coincidence that Trump has other problems besides his immigration policy, which he’s not even really serious about. The only thing he’s serious about is general insensitivity. On that, he’s been consistent. Ted Cruz also has problems. No coincidence.
Sammy Finkelman (7fce49) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:39 amyes, but they see their job as courtiers for the regime, too many of the publications are on our side, seem to dine from the same spoon, as well, you read her statement about mass shootings, to chris wallace, by by second amendment, with a stroke of a pen,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:40 amif only failmerica would pay more attention to legal experts
oh well
happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:46 amI thought Trump was the “let it burn” candidate that will shake everything up and usher forth the SMOD candidate we’re all really pulling for? If that’s the case then the Court isn’t a reason to vote for Trump, it’s just an ancillary issue. Joking aside, Trump’s SCOTUS picks can’t possibly be worse than Hillary’s, but no one can be sure since the man changes his mind more often than a new born changes diapers (okay, maybe I wasn’t ready to put aside the jocular comments just yet). In the end, all we have to hang our hat on is the possibility that having Trump in the White House, with a Republican backed Congress (if Trump can get his act together and start support down ticket candidates), would allow us to shape public policy enough to hang on to this wounded Republic for a few more years.
Sean (221079) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:54 amImmigation policy will, as I have said, become the principle issue in American politics, the way slavery was before the Civil War. We are now about where slavery was in 1844, or perhaps it’s only 1840, meaning this is the last election in which this will not be the dominant issue.
Once it becomes a dominant issue there will no going back. The Republican Party is in crazy territory here, but it doesn’t know it.
And, yes, saying maybe you could be for amnesty but only after the law is enforced and a wall is built, is crazy, and getting crazier every year nothing changes with the law.
And there seems to be also a strong inclination to overstate the case, and say things that are flat out wrong, like diseases are coming, or that would be more applicable to other groups of people. We seem to have imported zika, but not because of any people illegally crossing the border. They travel a lot slower.
The Republicans could be for facilitating the immigration of the type of people who would tend to vote Republican, but they are not for that, either. What’s happening is that groups that used to favor Republians, like people from Asia, sre drifting away from them.
The Democrats are content to benefit from this, without making it too much of an issue, because they don’t want to intellectually defend their position. Democrats criticize immigration policy only obliquely; in fact they don’t criticize it at all, they just say it’s broken. It is, of course, divorced from reality, but it always has been. And they discuss things only case by case, and there’s lots of lying and hypocrisy there. They also, of course, only care about people currently in the United States, because that affects votes. They aren’t anxious to bring people back, and they are tending to be strongly against international trade.
Sammy Finkelman (7fce49) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:55 amI was just talking to a financial planner about my 401k. He reminded me of when obama and the DOL were looking into seizing our 401k’s and giving us a government IOU.
A third obama term might just get that rammed through.
Pinandpuller (0845e7) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:04 amOnly one candidate has pledged to introduce a Constitutional amendment to criminalize criticism of Herself in an election year, and nominate Supreme Court justices willing to do the same without an amendment.
Did the pronoun give away who it was?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:05 amit will only be a fleshwound, probably,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/teresa-ghilarducci
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:06 amCS
Wyoming and Texas are already wicked awesome!
Pinandpuller (c16705) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:07 amThey say once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three times is enemy action.
A Trump administration could accidentally do something right once in a while.
Pinandpuller (928ad9) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:10 am@Sammy Finkelman:You can’t be opposed to both of them.
Why not? They are not logically incompatible.
Incidentally you never acknowledged your incorrect statements about E-Verify. Highly relevant to any discussion of immigration, is that the government has at great expense set up completely fake enforcement.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:15 am#34 Pinandpuller,
Once the left wing Supreme Court erodes federalism, Texas and Wyoming will no longer be wicked awesome — they’ll just become wicked! (LOL)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:22 amEveryone at the link agrees that SCOTUS is one of the most important outcomes of the election, and most also think there’s some chance Trump will make better appointments than Clinton (though for some it’s not enough of a reason to vote for him). Those are exactly the points I’ve made.
One of those who doesn’t support Trump says: Trump is ignorant of virtually all of the critical legal disputes of the day, and has no idea which judges are best positioned to resolve those disputes.
I made that identical argument, which in my mind increases the likelihood he’d appoint someone decent, based on my point about the Second Amendment, which he clearly does understand is hanging in the balance, since he’s said so a number of times. He would just ask whoever’s advising him, “Which judges are pro-Second Amendment?”. He doesn’t have to understand complex legal theories.
When all is said and done though, he’s almost certainly going to lose, so it’s all academic.
Gerald A (945582) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:34 amOne also has to consider the effect of a GOP Senate majority, if that can be kept. Will they treat Hillary’s appointments like Harry Reid treated W’s? Can the rank-and-file make them do so?
If a GOP Senate was adamant on limiting the damage, and refusing to seat any judge who did not meet litmus tests like open political speech and campaigning, or RKBA, then the worry would be much less.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:36 amThe lack of character of the Republican Party is the reason we rejected your open borders illegal labor pool policies. If the Republican Party had character Bush wouldn’t have been selling American jobs in Mexico City.
Yeah, choosing Trump was a way to inject “character” back into the GOP. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:39 am@Kevin M: You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Trump is most certainly a character. Not sure you can make the case he’s a good one.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:41 am32. Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:05 am
When Trump started to say something about the constitution I was hoping (against expectations, so not really hoping) that he would mention this, but he only mentioned the Second amendment. Trump is ignorant and also doesn’t care.
Now the constitutional amendment will get no place, and it would take several justices and SEVERAL YEARS to overturn Citizen’s United, but she might hope to get other things.
Not to mention turning the Internet over to a consortium of dictatorships.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:41 amfailmericans need to stop pretending their precious widdle presidency is some kind of office fit only for the noble and wise
there’s just no evidence for this
happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:41 amKind of how it’s “clear” to him Hillary’s server wasn’t insecure I guess.
Gerald A (945582) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:42 amsome kind of *rarefied* office i mean
happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:42 amOnly one candidate has pledged to introduce a Constitutional amendment to criminalize criticism of Herself in an election year, and nominate Supreme Court justices willing to do the same without an amendment.
The other candidate just wants to make criticism illegal. Witness his continuing idiotic tirade against the Khans.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:43 amIrrelevant point. They’re not keeping it.
That’s kind of like believing in the tooth fairy.
Gerald A (945582) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:44 amTrump is most certainly a character.
As I said, not what it means in that context.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:44 am@Kevin M:Witness his continuing idiotic tirade against the Khans.
I read what he said. He said no such thing. He used a common figure of speech, he was not calling for legal restrictions on free expression.
My wife said I had no right to buy a new grill without running it by here first. Was she calling for legal restrictions on grills?
Please. Trump is bad enough without the point-and-sputter pants-wetting. That reaction is what propelled him to where he is today. The public sees right through every attempt to demand Outrageous Outrage.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:46 amIrrelevant point. They’re not keeping it.
Then they’re not electing Trump. You can’t sink the boat and keep the boat anchor.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:46 amSammy,
So when Russia invades Crimea on Barack’s watch and Barack fails to deter the aggression, it’s Donald Trump’s fault for espousing immigration policies?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:46 amWhat responsibility does Chester Arthur have in any of this — if any?
@Sammy Finkelman: SEVERAL YEARS to overturn Citizen’s United
Good thing she doesn’t have several years if she gets elected.
Still waiting for you to acknowledge your false statements about E-Verify. E-Verify allows employers the legal right to employ illegals regardless of the outcome of the E-Verify process. I quoted that to you from the government manual for employers and I would like you to acknowledge that.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:49 amGabriel Hanna,
Next time your wife tells you she’s going to kill you for failing to remember to take out the trash, the #NeverTrump crowd expects you to call 9-1-1 and report the threat.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:49 amHanna,
Trump has repeated said that he wants to make “libel” of a public figure the same as libel of anyone else, which is to say that free political speech would be strangled and the Khans would be in front of a Trumpist judge faster than you could say “trumped up.”
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:49 amI know Trump by the character of his supporters.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:50 amTrump has repeated said that he wants to make “libel” of a public figure the same as libel of anyone else,
I know, but you referenced the Khans and he said no such thing about the Khans.
which is to say that free political speech would be strangled
Libel law did not always work this way, and does not work this way in other countries like the UK which are still democratic last time we checked.
Khans would be in front of a Trumpist judge faster than you could say “trumped up.”
Hillary’s critics already had to go to court. Obama already weaponized the IRS and those people still work there. Cruz is not on the ballot….
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:52 amthe precondition to libel, set out in sullivan is malice, as john poindexter found out, it’s a very tricky wicket, indeed,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:53 amI will never be able to understand the younger generations. They think my generation owes them a free life. GTFOH and take a rug head with you.
mg (31009b) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:54 amMr. Trump is an egads and a great scott both
he’s the shocking surprise twist at the end of a shalamynymonan movie
you can see where he’s been but not where he’s going
cause stinky moves quick but trump moves faster than light
happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:55 am39. Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:36 am
If they lose the majority in 2016, and the Democrats abolish the filibuster rule for Supreme Court nominations, then if they regain the majority in 2018 they won’t put it back, and no nominee in the Congress elected in 2018 will be confirmed. If the Republicans lose the majority in this election, and Hillary wins, they would also be smart to confrim Merrick Garland, because the filibuster rule will go. Merrick garland at least is not committed to overturning Citizen’s United, nor to making law on freedom of religion related issues, the one open question where the “liberal” side has not ruled. Vouchers, for one thing, could be at stake.
If they retain the majority, and Hillary sticks to this Citizens’s United business, then Mitch McConnell simply will not hold any hearings and even if he does the nomination will probably be rejected. This may be made into an issue in 2018 and the Democrats will lose, and it could be Hillary will then make it an issue for 2020 and no Supreme Court vacancies will be filled..
If Trump is elected, and the Republicans lose the majority of the Senate in 2016, Trump will nominate one person from his list, which nomination will be rejected, and then Trump will make a deal with Charles Schumer and name someone slightly to the left of Merrick Garland, and taht will go for any subsequent nominees.
If Trump is elected, and the Republicans retain the majority of the Senate in 2016, the Democrats will filibuster his nomination and the Republicans will not use the nuclear option, and trump will also negotiate except that McConnell will also be involved in thse negotiations. If a GOP Senate was adamant on limiting the damage, and refusing to seat any judge who did not meet litmus tests like open political speech and campaigning, or RKBA, then the worry would be much less I think McConnell might be very stubborn if Hillary insisted on a litmus test on open political speech and campaigning, and she might because she seems to want to demagogue on this.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:57 amI failed to distinguish
as a quote.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:58 amHere’s what happens when libel and slander law is stronger:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi
Also this:
http://westchester.news12.com/news/sex-offender-sues-monsey-rabbi-after-slanderous-tweet-1.12080843
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/215443
He wants the case dismissed.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:02 amThe rug heads are often Sikhs, and not Muslims, about which I have no problem with, except for the dagger-in-pouch thing.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:05 am@narcisco, Kevin M: Hustler said that Jerry Falwell lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse and was not held liable.
I don’t blame any celebrity who feels hard done by when it comes to libel law, and I don’t blame anyone who thinks it goes too far and wants to change it to something more reasonable.
I do blame people who pretend that expressing a candidate’s desire to change libel law is an espousal of fascism. I especially blame those people when there is another candidate who has already done worse and promised to do much worse in the future.
There is pretty much nothing you can plausibly say Trump has done, or will do, that his opponent has not already done worse, or promised to.
Doesn’t mean you have to vote for Trump, or stop criticizing him. Just need to keep your head screwed on about it.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:06 am@Sammy Finkelman:Here’s what happens when libel and slander law is stronger:
Yeah, and Sandy Hook is what you get when gun laws are weaker.
Waiting for your acknowledgment that E-Verify permits legal employment of illegals.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:07 amNot necessarily. Congressional races have often been disconnected from the Presidential, particularly on the Senate side, because not all Senate seats are at stake in any one year. That might be more true than usual this year because of the unusual coalition Trump is trying to put together. Trump both outperforming and under performing relative to other Republicans are possible.
Gerald A (945582) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:09 am63. There was a time in the 1980s when Pakistan’s rogue military intelligence agency was recruiting Sikhs. They blew up one Air India airliner and nearly blew up another in 1985 and assassinated Indira Gandhi in 1984. But now, it’s all Islamic.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:10 amI’d forgotten about that one, woody harrelson’s rictus like mug should have reminded me,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:11 amJerry Falwell didn’t sue for libel, because for one thing, nobody believed what was in the cartoon, nor was it meant by Hustler to be taken as factual.
He sued for emotional distress.
The Suprem,e Court ruled in 1988 that a public figure could not recover damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), if the emotional distress was caused by a caricature, parody, or satire of the public figure that a reasonable person would not have interpreted as factual.
It also worked as an ad parody. The justices also may not have believed there was all that much emotional distress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:17 amThere is pretty much nothing you can plausibly say Trump has done, or will do, that his opponent has not already done worse, or promised to.
— Hillary dodged the draft?
nk (dbc370) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:21 am— Cruised “chickens” on 42nd Street with Roy Cohn?
— Claimed that being promiscuous while dodging venereal disease was her personal Vietnam?
— Hires illegals and was fined for it?
— Practiced racial discrimination on a mass scale and was fined for it?
— Fraudulently marketed “get rich quick” schemes as a University and is on trial for it?
— Had four bankruptcies?
— Is on her third spouse?
— Paraded her lovers in public while married?
— Appeals to every neo-Nazi and skinhead that can find his way out of the woodwork?
@nk: list of bad stuff
Yeah, Hillary is way worse.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:22 am@Sammy Finkelman: You are technically correct, which is the very best kind of correct. Note the “public figure” issue I was alluding to in libel law, as what Trump most likely objects to, is present there.
Waiting for your acknowledgment that E-Verify permits legal employment of illegals. Guess I’ll wait a long time.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:23 amI know its lunch time but has anyone seen the before and after picture of Hillary’s tongue?
She’s obviously had some kind of a lesion removed.
I’m no doctor but I’d love to see it referred to as a Huma-toma.
Pinandpuller (0845e7) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:25 amGabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:07 am
Who’s arguing? When did I ever say it didn’t? It permits legal employment of illegals while the rejection is under appeal, and also forbids it after the appeal is lost, and forbids an employer from querying it until a decision to hire has been made. The system also allows a number of things to happen that aren’t legal, like someone using someone’s name with their permission, if someone can mnanage the documents. It also can stop people from working who can work legally, if they have problems of the sort that happened to people in California with driver’s licenses whose licenses did not precisely match their legal name, which created problems for a while. And if it is scaled up, E-Verify could become completely dysfuctional.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:27 am@nk: Hitler and Stalin didn’t do most of those things on your Hillary list, you know. Neither did Chavez or Castro.
How many times did supporters of Hillary’s husband say that we’re not electing a saint here, that you can be a decent President even if you have personal moral failings?
Hillary’s moral failings are not merely personal. Her moral failings are directed toward obtaining and using power, and have been her entire public life.
Trump might be our Berlusconi, but Hillary would be our Mussolini. (Actually Trump is our Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.)
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:30 am@Sammy Finkelman: also forbids it after the appeal is lost,
100% false. Acknowledge it. I quoted the manual to you.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:30 amWho is more likely to sign off on laws like they have in Canada that snare people like stand up comics and Mark Steyn?
Pinandpuller (a12946) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:32 amWhatevs. What you told Kevin. You can vote for Trump, and I’ll continue to say that he’s a demented old pansy and he and his Slovenian hooker of a beard should not be allowed within a mile of the White House.
nk (dbc370) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:34 am@Sammy Finkelman: E-Verify allows the legal retention of illegal in employment no matter what result was obtained from E-Verify. I will quote the manual to you again, and I expect you to acknowledge it this time:
►The employee continues to work for the employer after receiving a Final Nonconfirmation result.
E-Verify cannot verify that this employee is authorized to work in the United States. The employee had contested the tentative nonconfirmation (TNC), but was unable to resolve it. The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.
►The employee continues to work for the employer after receiving a No Show result.
E-Verify cannot verify that this employee is authorized to work in the United States. The employee had contested the tentative nonconfirmation (TNC), but did not take action to resolve it. The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.
►The employee continues to work for the employer after choosing not to contest a Tentative Nonconfirmation.
E-Verify cannot verify that this employee is authorized to work in the United States. The employee chose not to contest the tentative nonconfirmation. The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:34 am@nk: You can vote for Trump
Who said I was planning to?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:35 am@Sammy Finkelman: See the thing is that you keep saying that E-Verify “forbids” employment of illegals after they lose their appeal. It does the exact opposite of “forbid”. It explicitly allows employment of illegals, no matter what result was obtained, as a matter of legal right.
In what sense is this enforcement? If the law forbids speeding, but regardless of what ticket you got or what outcome there was in traffic court you have the legal right to continue speeding, in what sense is that law being enforced? If the law forbids insider trading, but regardless of the outcome of the SEC investigation you have the legal right to continue insider trading, in what sense is that law being enforced?
It is a calculated and expensive deception of the American people.
This is why we’re talking about Trump. We cannot trust the government not to set up legal mechanisms to defeat its own laws, when it suits it.
Trump is not the cure for this, of course. I’m afraid only the Gods of the Copybook Headings will cure it.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:41 amNk
Dodging the draft was an act of love.
He also sacrificed a lot of southeast asian trim.
Pinandpuller (0845e7) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:42 am@pinandpuller:Dodging the draft was an act of love.
I don’t think that anyone contests that Trump loves and cares deeply for himself, and his personal well-being.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:47 amtrump didn’t quite do thse two things:
trump wa snot fined for hiring illegal workers. It wasn’t illegal to do so then. That wa sin 1980, befoee Simpson Mazzoli.
He was sued in two different cases, 1) for violating minimum wage and overtime laws, and 2) conspiring with the union not to make payments into the union pension and welfare fund.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/25/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-donald-trump-had-pay-1-million-hi/
And he was not fined – he lost one case but appealed, and settled the other court case in 1998, after upteen years, (actually settled them both because he was appealing) when preparing to run for president in the 2000 election.
His father did. That was not his business. His father set policy.
Donald J. Trump, at age 27, was president, and Fred Trump, was chairman. They hired Roy Cohn, whom Donald Trump had met because they were both members of Le Club (he said, I guess) and counter-sued the government, demanding it pay them $100 million for falsely accusing them of discrimination, claiming they were trying to force them to rent to people on welfare, which they had a right to refuse to do. They also accused a government lawyer of coercing testimony.
They were not fined. They settled, agreeing to “thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis” with the Fair Housing Act and to place ads informing minorities they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at their properties. Donald Trump declared victory, in part because the agreement specifically stated that Trump made the deal without acknowledging wrongdoing. He also probably decided then not to get into the business of renting to low and moderate income people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-governments-racial-bias-case-against-donald-trumps-company-and-how-he-fought-it/2016/01/23/fb90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:53 amGabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:41 am
Now, wait a second. How can that be? What E-verify law repeals Simpson-Mazzoli??
Are you saying maybe that the employer does not have to accept the judgment of E-Verify? That might be the case in places where it is not mandatory, and it is not mandatory under federal law anywhere now. It’s experimental, or only a matter of state law to use it. Perhaps a state cannot mandate that an employer rely on it exclusively.
But people who propose E-verify, also propose that it made mandatory, or that its decisions be accepted.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:07 amGabriel Hanna
Well at least in Trump’s Total Perspective Vortex both he and America are in the center of the universe.
Pinandpuller (a12946) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:09 am51. Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/2/2016 @ 9:46 am
No not his fault.
What I said was something more like, Trump’s toleration of whatever Russia does, (which of course did not affect things yet, and certainly not before 2015) is of a piece with his immigration policies.
It’s got the same motivation. Supposedly, “America First and Only”
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:12 amPinandpuller (a12946) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:09 am
Only trumo\p, not america. Theer’s really no such thing as altruistic selfishness.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:14 am@Sammy Finkelman:Now, wait a second. How can that be? What E-verify law repeals Simpson-Mazzoli?? Are you saying maybe that the employer does not have to accept the judgment of E-Verify?
I am saying that the GOVERNMENT tells EMPLOYERS in the GODDAMNED E-VERIFY MANUAL which I ALREADY QUOTED that they have the legal right to continue employment no matter what E-Verify says. I don’t know how to be more clear than REPEATEDLY QUOTING the GOVERNMENT-ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS.
One more time, let me quote the MANUAL that the GOVERNMENT issues to EMPLOYERS about HOW E-VERIFY WORKS.
►The employee continues to work for the employer after receiving a Final Nonconfirmation result.
E-Verify cannot verify that this employee is authorized to work in the United States. The employee had contested the tentative nonconfirmation (TNC), but was unable to resolve it. The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.
►The employee continues to work for the employer after receiving a No Show result.
E-Verify cannot verify that this employee is authorized to work in the United States. The employee had contested the tentative nonconfirmation (TNC), but did not take action to resolve it. The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.
►The employee continues to work for the employer after choosing not to contest a Tentative Nonconfirmation.
E-Verify cannot verify that this employee is authorized to work in the United States. The employee chose not to contest the tentative nonconfirmation. The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:17 amSorry about the tags, Sammy. But it is very frustrating that you are not reading what was written a la Hillary Clinton’s interview with Chris Wallace.
The government says, over and over, employers have the legal right to continue the employment. I do not know what law or regulation is the basis of that but I suspect it is here:
“(3) Defense.-A person or entity that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of subsection (b) with respect to the hiring, recruiting, or referral for employment of an alien in the United States has established an affirmative defense that the person or entity has not violated paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such hiring, recruiting, or referral.”
There are many other exemptions for good-faith attempts at compliance.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:28 amIs there an actually agreed upon definition of “dodging the draft”?
W dodged the draft by joining the TNG.
Cheney and Trump dodged the draft with student and medical deferrments.
Bill Clinton delayed and delayed until he was safe.
It almost sounds like anyone who wasn’t sent to Vietnam dodged the draft.
Pinandpuller (0845e7) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:28 amWhat’s really the problem is the condition of our political parties, and the inability a third choice to emerge, even though this election presents a worse choice, I think, than Nixon v NcGovern in 1972, which also didn’t have a realistic third party candidate. There are too many obstacles to that. I think maybe something is still possible, altough noot in all 50 states – but who needs that?
Sammy Finkelman (7fce49) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:31 amSammy, would a fair compromise be that you acknowledge that the government is telling employers, through its E-Verify manual, that they have the legal right to continue employment no matter what outcome E-Verify reaches?
If you acknowledge that I will leave you alone about it.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:33 amWhat I think it is saying is simply, that E-Verify only is dispositive one way.
It can be used as a defense to any claim the employer violated the law in hiring any person, that is, it can verify eligibility. But failure to verify is not considered proof of ineligibility.
The employer can rely on other things instead.
Sammy Finkelman (7fce49) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:42 amlets consider the libertarian party, other than pot and undiagnosed snowden philia, what liberty interest does it uphold,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:46 amWhich means anyone using E-Verify isn’t necessarily truly “using” it. It can only verify qualification – it cannot verify disqualification.
Sammy Finkelman (7fce49) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:47 am@Sammy: So how do you explain “The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work” regardless of outcome? Why do you keep straining at gnats and swallowing camels to avoid acknowledging that you were wrong when you said E-Verify forbids employing people who get disconfirmed?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:52 am93. Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:33 am
Under current law, they have the legal right to disregard it, and can give it whatever weight they want.
The people touting it as a mandatory measure, propose, I assume, that that be changed.
Sammy Finkelman (7fce49) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:52 amIts a shame Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood didn’t use E-Verify.
Pinandpuller (928ad9) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:55 am@Sammy:The people touting it as a mandatory measure, propose, I assume, that that be changed.
In most cases I have found that they, like yourself, don’t know that employers have the legal right to continue employment regardless of the outcome.
But every HR department in the country knows it.
I’m perfectly willing to hear arguments about changing immigration law, I’m married to and related to legal immigrants. But I am not willing to see non-enforcement, or fake enforcement, of the law as it exists and I demand enforcement of current law before I am willing to listen to proposed changes to it.
Because I have zero trust right now that any law I give my consent to will actually function as it is presented to the voters. E-Verify is exhibit A.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 12:18 pmyou want a blueprint of what they are planning,
http://www.constitution2020.org/
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 12:27 pmThe esteemed Mr Finkelman wrote:
In 1968, George Wallace, running on the American Independent Party ticket, carried five southern states and 46 electoral votes. Even had Hubert Humphrey carried all of those states, Richard Nixon would still have won the election. It actually is possible, though improbable.
Could Gary Johnson carry even one single state? I very much doubt it, but you never know. Here in the Keystone State, my vote doesn’t matter: Hillary Clinton will carry Pennsylvania easily, and no Republican has carried this state since 1988.
I can see where, in other states, people who really can’t stand Donald Trump might feel compelled to vote for him anyway, just to stop Hillary Clinton, but in most states, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Our host can vote for whomever he chooses in California, and it won’t change the outcome in the slightest.
In the odd chance that Pennsylvania and California are in play, then you can count on it: Donald Trump will be winning in a landslide.
My planned vote for Gary Johnson is in no way intended to help him win the election; he has less than a snowball’s chance. Rather, it is meant to be part of an aggregate number of votes telling the GOP that not no, but Hell no, we don’t support Trumperism.
The political scientist Dana (f6a568) — 8/2/2016 @ 12:28 pmMr. Trump is the best chance for freedom and prosperity in whole whirl
and me I like them odds
happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/2/2016 @ 12:57 pmDana,
Another reason to vote Johnson rather than leave the line blank or write in Snoopy is to reduce Clinton’s aggregate margin. ISTM a 5-8 point margin is most probable right now but Trump has the proven capability of doing something ridiculously stupid at any given moment. If he pushes Clinton much above 8, we’re going to be reading MANDATE for the next four years.
Rick Ballard (8a237d) — 8/2/2016 @ 1:06 pmstinkypigs don’t get mandates
happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/2/2016 @ 1:11 pmMy voting priority – 2nd Amendment before justurds
mg (31009b) — 8/2/2016 @ 1:33 pmlike saying something crazy like garland seems a solid choice, and religious liberty is overrated,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 1:47 pmThe size of the SCOTUS isn’t specified in the Constitution, not at nine or any other number. Rather, it is determined by the Judiciary Act, first passed by Congress and signed by President Washington in 1789 as one of the first actions of the fledgling government after ratification of the Constitution and resulting elections.
Most of you, except for most of you Trumpkins, probably know about the threat made by Franklin D. Roosevelt, when frustrated by a SCOTUS that was finding FDR’s New Deal legislation unconstitutional, to “pack” the SCOTUS with FDR nominees. There is no doubt whatsoever that Congress and the POTUS, acting together, have the constitutional power to radically and very quickly transform the SCOTUS notwithstanding the life tenure during good behavior of Article III judges. But FDR underestimated the amount of public backlash — including among conservative Democrats — and never tried to implement the packing plan. After the Grim Reaper cooperated a bit with FDR’s goals, a slightly revised SCOTUS became much less of a thorn in his side, and he quietly abandoned all talk of packing the Court by adding additional seats to it through amendment of the Judiciary Act.
All of which is to say that there are indeed existing constitutional mechanisms, including quite a few that have never yet been employed at all — like SCOTUS-packing, or like an Article V constitutional convention, or like impeaching a POTUS in the House (done twice and almost a third time now) and convicting him in the Senate (done never).
Either Clinton or Trump is surely going to teeter the United States government more toward imbalance, because neither remotely respects the Constitution. There is no happy outcome in November 2016 — and if there’s one proposition for which you can get 70-plus percent support nationally from far left to far right and everywhere in between, it’s that one. It’s the ugly and uncomfortable comradery one shares with fellow diners in a restaurant that no one can leave and that only serves crap sandwiches.
But the structures to fix things already exist. We ought never see another election so bleak as this one, if we can save the country by keeping faith in those structures, those principles. The chaos that Trump, in particular, is fomenting now is all at the very top of the GOP, exclusively in the POTUS race; but even the most powerful officeholder, even the POTUS, isn’t yet all-powerful, and what happens with that office is not, in the long run, as important as what’s going on at lower levels, and with all types and kinds of elected and appointed public servants, all the way down to the precinct level.
The Democratic Party is bankrupt. But only the current GOP presidential nominee is (literally) a bankrupt, and he’s mortal — indeed, fat, old, sedentary, and prone to fits of rage.
I’m already focused on aftermath from November.
Beldar (fa637a) — 8/2/2016 @ 1:52 pmrage seems a bit overstated
fits of pique is more accurate i think
happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/2/2016 @ 1:54 pmthe constitution in 2020, is tied the american constitution society, that both red squaw and the solon have addressed, if you don’t think that’s their blueprint, well there’s a supertanker in the houston ship channel, you can use,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 1:59 pmhttps://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/760487129621209089
ppp gittin sassy
happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/2/2016 @ 2:25 pmNot only is Trump trying to make sure that Hillary is elected, but now he is going after GOP House and Senate members. Making sure that crazy candidates run in swing states isn’t really the way to hold the Senate. But then that’s not what he’s after.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/2/2016 @ 2:26 pm— Hillary dodged the draft?
Along with every woman.
— Cruised “chickens” on 42nd Street with Roy Cohn?
If you spoke English we might have an argument.
— Claimed that being promiscuous while dodging venereal disease was her personal Vietnam?
Or as Hilary put it, “Standing by my man.” If your hubby is named Clinton, dodging venereal disease is written in the wedding vow.
— Hires illegals and was fined for it?
Hired illegals to address the Nation on the stage of the DNC. Is beyond the scope or reach of any law according to the FBI.
— Practiced racial discrimination on a mass scale and was fined for it?
Leads the party that invented poll taxes, drug laws, the Klan, and who’s constituents still pick their candidates primarily by the color of their skin.
— Fraudulently marketed “get rich quick” schemes as a University and is on trial for it?
Case shopped from one side of the country to the other looking for and eventually finding a racist judge.
— Had four bankruptcies?
Is bought out by Saudi Arabia. Uses a registered charity as her personal piggybank.
— Is on her third spouse?
Needed a divorce back in the 80’s. Can’t speak honestly on the topic of her child’s patrimony.
— Paraded her lovers in public while married?
Made a Saudi Arabian “anchor baby” into her personal assistant and secret lover – giving yet another America hating Muslim access to power.
— Appeals to every neo-Nazi and skinhead that can find his way out of the woodwork?
Appeals to every race huckster and cop killer that can find his way across our open borders.
nk (dbc370) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:21 am
The only douche nozzle mendacious enough to write this drivel with a pretense to irony.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 8/2/2016 @ 2:27 pmwithout a pretense to irony.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 8/2/2016 @ 2:28 pmRe the possibility of an Article V Convention Of States: The sitting and extremely popular governor of the most populous deep-red state, second only to California in electoral vote and congressional clout, has been on record enthusiastically pushing for one since January 2016, and he has a detailed and well-conceived plan. There’s a growing national organization, with increasing numbers of responsible public servants and opinion leaders seriously discussing this possibility. You want to talk about game-changers that mean all bets are off? That indisputably happens the very day the thirty-fourth state legislature delivers to Congress its call for an Article V Convention of States.
Beldar (fa637a) — 8/2/2016 @ 2:28 pmnk made a number of points about Trump, and the only one that Water-Carrier Extraordinaire papertiger didn’t dispute was that Trump made a habit of cruising for male prostitutes with Roy Cohn. Maybe he knows something we don’t! He’d better, by now.
Leviticus (efada1) — 8/2/2016 @ 2:40 pmMr. Trump does not make sexy with chickens
everybody knows this
happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/2/2016 @ 2:45 pmwait there’s more, (the ginzu knives come to mind)
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438614/gary-johnson-freedom-religion-murder
of course this could fall into the billy madison level of absurdity,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 2:47 pmSo that’s what it meant. Kind of like a secret hand shake thing between nk and Levi.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 8/2/2016 @ 3:04 pmKeeping it on the downlow there, eh puffer?
Nah. I get it. You can’t call a [edit] a [edit] on the net, because freedom!
papertiger (c2d6da) — 8/2/2016 @ 3:51 pmWrote a prayer you can say, papertiger:
Our sugar-daddy,
nk (dbc370) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:11 pmWho may or may not get into the White House,
Donald be thy name.
Thy ego come,
Thy will be done,
On us as well as on the hookers you hire.
Give us every day our food stamps and beer money,
And we promise to vote for you.
And do not lead us far from our trailers,
But deliver us from brown people.
For yours is the combover and the spray tan and the Aqua Net.
Sig Heil.
99. Pinandpuller (928ad9) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:55 am
It didn’t exist, it’s only intended for substantial size businesses, and I’ve always believed Bill Clinton never had any intention of nominating either one of them, and knew of the facts before he nominated either of them, and staged the whole charade only to make the confirmation of Janet Reno easier, and make it look like it was an almost accidental pick, so that whatever she did, it would look like she was independent.
The whole business of nominating a woman was only to explain why he picked her. There was lots to complain about during her tenure as State’s Attorney in Dade County, Florida. And he probably knew a lot from Ann Lewis. Janet Reno had broken up her marriage to Florda State Comptroller Gerald Lewis.
Besides everything else, Janet Reno attempted to pull all investigations of Bill Clinton, federal and state (state because local prosecutors tend to defer to the federal government) into the hands of a lawyer whom Bill Clinton could trust: Robert B Fiske Jr., who had successfully kept Robert E. Rubin, and all the rest of Goldman Sachs, out of the clutches of Rudolph Giuliani while he was pursuing his insider trading investigations.
Janet Reno first appointed Fiske as an unofficial special prosecutor, and then a law creating again a special prosecutor’s office was signed by Bill Clinton, and the idea was that the appointment would then be ratified; however the 3 federal judges charged with naming a special prosecutor did not ratify that decision, so in that respect it did not work, but Fiske did complete a report on the Vincent Foster case, and Clinton had some contacts in and influence on Kenneth Starr. (there’s a point in Clinton;s grand jury testimony where he almost cites Monica Lewinsky’s definition of sex in his defense, only to catch himself and not say it because he was not supposed to know yet what her testimony was. I noticed that, but nobody else did.) I think Samuel Dash was probably one of Bill Clinton;s sources and agents of influence on the inside of Starr’s investgation.
Kenneth Starr never re-investigated the Foster case, and the FVI had also been under Clinton’s control by that time, when it came to extremely important matters.
After Starr became the special prosecutor, Janet Reno, although she created a multiplicity of special prosecutors for various Cabinet members, never did so again for anything involving Bill Clinton personally, not even the investigation into the financing of his 1996 campaign, and she prevented one of the special prosecutors, the one charged with investigating Mike Espy, from following up a line of investigation into Bill Clinton and Tyson Foods, telling him that that was outside of his jurisdiction.
She did authorize Kenneth Starr to investigate the Monica Lewinsky case at the beginning of 1998, but Kenneth Starr was already doing that, and probably didn’t need her authorization and probably would have gone ahead anyway, and also she and/or Bill Clinton may have been in a bit of a panic and she didn’t want to look like she was covering something up, which would have happened had an attempt to keep Starr out of this gotten into court. Strarr would have gone into court. There was a nexus to what he was already doing.
Back to Fiske: Giuliani had two main targets, if you read Den of Thieves – one was Drexel Burnham Lambert and Michael Milken, and the other was Goldman Sachs and Robert E. Rubin. The low man on the totem pole at Goldman Sachs was Robert Freeman. After Guiliani left the U.S. Attorney’s office to run for mayor the first time in 1989, the case was settled by Freeman pleading to an imaginary crime that never took place that led to no higher ups. That is, I think it was invented. Fiske complaiend about a leak – but I think he was the one who leaked it, or caused it to be leaked. His complaining about it had the effect of making it look like he didn’t want that to be the charge.
http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1993/10/04/78399/index.htm
At first, Bill Clinton named Robert E. Rubin to a specially created position in the White House that did not need Senate confirmation, and named Senator Lloyd Bentsen Treasury Secretary, but in 1995, after he was convinced the coast was clear, he nominated Robert E. Rubin to be Secretary of the Treasury.
Bill Clinton was very close to Goldman Sachs in 1992 – it had evaluated and pronounced OK his “economic plan” which he never had any intention of implementing. Bill Clinton had another idea: He’d pass, by one vote, in both houses of Congress, (and he successfully manuvered it that way) a budget and tax plan with zero Republican support. The economy would then get better, because he knew it would get better because of monetary policy and any drag from a relatively small tax increase was minor. Then he’d argue that the Republicans were partisan. The public, however, correctly perceived the Democratic party as more partisan and assumed that the unanimous rejection of a piece of legislation by every member of one political party meant it was no good, and this was also helped along by his health care plan, which the Democrats did not dare even to bring up for a vote. Hillary didn’t devise that, by the way – that whole study she made was intended to come to a pre-planned result. I’m not sure what the Cintons intention was with their 1994 health care legislation – maybe it was to create a fertile field for lawyers, as incentives would not be aligned with obligations to give care.
Sammy Finkelman (7fce49) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:14 pmpale face hater
mg (31009b) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:14 pmCourting disaster: the desperate SCOTUS strategy. Hewitt let the cat out of the bag last night on one of the cablers: “If Hillary wins, conservatism is dead.”
Meow.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:15 pmLook at nk. Has he ever done a poem before?
Dressed up in his skirt and everything.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:19 pmThe political scientist Dana (f6a568) — 8/2/2016 @ 12:28 pm
I think Mitt Romeny could carry Utah, and maybe even throw it to Gary Johnson. Mormons are very much against Trump, because they care about people in the rest of the world. But to throw it into the House, blue states need to be acfrried by someone other than HRC.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:39 pmthe tages @89 do not work. Where is alink to the manual. What you quoted seems to say it can only be used to verify – it is not conclusive that someone is not eligible.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:42 pm93. Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/2/2016 @ 11:33 am
Yes it is.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:44 pmthe problem I see with the convention of states. is that the left has developed an infrastructure, that will steer the convention once it has gotten underway.
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:49 pmWhat the hell is that supposed to MEAN, Sammy? Therefore, Lutherans, Catholics and Jews don’t care about people? If Mormons are against Trump it’s not because they care about people, it’s because they don’t like what Trump represents.
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:50 pmeither that or they loves them some stinkypig
happyfeet (28a91b) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:51 pmone tries to be ecumenical, but we discovered in the last election, that mormons were not beloved in this country,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:53 pmYou called it narciso, if there were a convention of states the ONLY news would be far left news until it was over. We’d end up with the second 86’d and abortion replacing it. It would be pandemonium.
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:55 pmIt is odd. I’ve always kinda liked Mormons. Seem like decent people.
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:56 pmAny JD postings since his trip?
mg (31009b) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:58 pmnot a one
happyfeet (28a91b) — 8/2/2016 @ 4:59 pmSammeh, teh Joos hate Trump with a passion.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 8/2/2016 @ 5:09 pmIf Mormons don’t like Trump, it’s because he has the morals of a mink.
nk (dbc370) — 8/2/2016 @ 5:20 pmyet they don’t have trouble seemingly with congressman who call settlers termites, (I guess he changed it to grasshoppers) and william barber, who came to light in the duke lacrosse shamarama, calling jesus a palestinian,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 5:20 pmBack to the original point:
The best argument to vote for Trump is the probability (not certainty) that he will fill court seats and cabinet positions with RINOs and statist conservatives, against the certainty that Hillary will fill them with leftists.
Balance this off with apparent plans to destroy the American economy via tariff wars and let Putin have a free hand in Europe, the Middle East, and wherever else Putin wishes, and an indifference to all the social issues important to conservatives….
The argument in fact is not that compelling.
kishnevi (b9b7a2) — 8/2/2016 @ 5:23 pmone candidate funded the skulkovo military district, one might have a passel of hotels, across the country, one candidate is on the christmas club of the house of saud, and the nigerian bankers cartel,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 5:28 pmHoagie, do you have the impression that the delegates to a Convention of States would be people like Anderson Cooper or Sean Hannity?
Actually, each state would get a vote. Two-thirds of the states are still required to ratify any amendments. Oklahoma’s vote counts as much as New York’s, Nebraska’s counts as much as California’s. There are 31 Republican governors. In 23 states the GOP controls the governor’s mansion and both chambers of the state legislature. There are only 7 states in which the Democrats can make the same claim.
So I have no idea what you’re talking about. Do you?
Beldar (fa637a) — 8/2/2016 @ 5:32 pmAck, sorry, three-fourths for ratification, not two-thirds — that’s the call.
Beldar (fa637a) — 8/2/2016 @ 5:32 pm137.
kishnevi (b9b7a2) — 8/2/2016 @ 5:36 pmOn that point
http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2016/07/israel-republicans-and-democrats.html
138.
kishnevi (b9b7a2) — 8/2/2016 @ 5:38 pmThat is highly insulting.
To minks.
rock ribbed like john cornyn or kay bailey hutchinson, those alabaster monuments,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 5:40 pmHow is thumbing his nose at Paul Ryan helpful to him?
Does he really want to attract Tea Party people by supporting the primary challenger?
Or is this another reflexive petty revenge action?
Or does he really not want to get elected?
He trashed the anti-establishment,
now he is taking a shot at the establishment establishment.
Will his presidency be one personal petty counter attack after another?
Of course, Clinton will be one attack on liberty after another.
Divine intervention is what is needed, not Trump.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/2/2016 @ 6:31 pmMormons are very much against Trump, because they care about people in the rest of the world.
130.
Mormons tend to pay attention to what is going on in the rest of the world, because they send missionaries all over.
And because they want to convert everyone, they consider all persons to be created equal, especially since they got rid of the exclusion of blacks from official positions, and therefore they do not take well to an approach that says go and benefit the American people by impoverishing everyone else. And then there’s Trump’s personal behavior. And the social issues. Trump’s praise of the LGBTQ community is also probably grating.
Here’s an interesting thing I read in Sunday’s New York Daily News: There was a Mormon elder who ran Trump’s Plaza casino in Atlantic City. He told Robert Libutti, a horse dealer who had tied to John Gotti, that he should stop his daughter from seeing Donald Trump. Donald Trump was courting Edith Libutti in the late 1980s when he was in his early 40s and Edith Libutti was about 35. Robert Libutti was a high roller, and Trump was giving him and his daughter all sorts of gifts. He gave her a cream colored Mercedes Benz for her 35th birthday.
He gave the Mafia connected gambler 9 cars – 3 Ferraris, 3 Rolls Royce, 2 Bentleys and a Mercedes, most of which Libuti sold right away. His casino was fined $450,000 for doing that. Giving him helicopter rides I guess wasn’t a problem.
The Mormon elder told Libutti he should not let his daughter go out with him, because, he said, if he did, he’d wind up killing Donald Trump, and, he added, then he would never come back (be allowed back in?) to the casino. I suppose what’s left out is that maybe he said Donald Trump would cheat on her, or that he would never marry her. Donald Trump was still not divorced at that time. Libutti is said to have threatened Donald Trump afterwards with doing harm to him personally, and Donald Trump backed off. This is all from a book. “The Making of Donald Trump” by David Cay Johnston.
Robert Libutti was extremely abusive to people. He was eventually banned from all New Jersey casinos, although then he claimed he was only puffing when he said on a tape that John Gotti was his boss.
Another thing that happened was that Trump allowed him, or arranged for him, to play without any black or female dealers and got fined $200,000 for that.
His daughter eventually married someone else. She says she will vote for Trump, and that her late father said he would in 2011 when Trump was also thinking of doing so for the 2012, but she doesn’t like the fact he has denied knowing her father, or at least being able to tell him apart from otehr high rollers.
Sammy Finkelman (7fce49) — 8/2/2016 @ 6:41 pmTrump knows that, until November 8, the only way he will get good press is by attacking Republicans.
nk (dbc370) — 8/2/2016 @ 6:47 pmSammy,
So when Utah has voted for Republican candidates in past Presidential elections, are you asserting that they were voting for the candidate who cares about people in the world?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/2/2016 @ 6:50 pmSammy Finkelman
Well I always knew that Janet Reno was a homewrecker…
Its so nice to know we might have all of this to look forward to again.
I guess Tim Kaine should be good for some Gore/Biden level gaffes about once a week.
Pinandpuller (a12946) — 8/2/2016 @ 7:11 pmcarry on, nothing important is going on,
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/760626764062261248
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 7:13 pmThat’s just O tithing to his one true god.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:05 pmWhat approach is that?
Gerald A (76f251) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:28 pmthe willingness to jump into the fire, without looking more closely,
https://pjmedia.com/blog/khan-flict-freedom-fighter-son-sharia-supremacist-father/
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 8:58 pmAcademics and Lawyers are most responsible for this mess. Yet their vile disgusting self interested piggish selves have principles when it comes to a different pig running the country. Seriously boys, F off. Constitution is dead, you jackass sophists killed it. Stop blaming Trump for the garbage you kids created.
Rodney King's Spirit (d28741) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:20 pmit seems they are eliding that thin line between clever and stupid, by entertaining bluntman’s vote, or literally going on to support red queen deliberately like sally bradshaw (who) and
narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:31 pmmeg whitman, who we wish was that terra incognita,
Rodney King’s Spirit,
I think a lot of the #NeverTrumpers (including some of these ‘brilliant’ legal scholars such as Roger Pilon LOL) are fearful that a President Trump might send a ransom payment of $400 million to Iran or Russia, or do some executive orders regarding immigration policy, or attempt to make “recess” appointments to the labor board when Congress is not actually in recess, or even store classified national security documents on a private server.
Because none of these people would ever tolerate having a President who did any of those things!
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/2/2016 @ 10:38 pmClinton is a known criminal. As far as I know, Trump is not guilty of any felony. But please, continue advocating for the corrupt democrat. Because principles.
Mr Black (7c41e5) — 8/3/2016 @ 12:27 amif they don’t get their yummy ideology spoon fed to them by greasy harvardtrash ted and his harvardtrash sacky they’ll just let hillary slaughter a bunch of wiggly giggly fetuses and see how you like it lols
the principle is strong with these ones
happyfeet (28a91b) — 8/3/2016 @ 4:52 amyikes!
looks like America’s taking out the nevertrump trash
happyfeet (28a91b) — 8/3/2016 @ 5:02 amthey’ll just let hillary slaughter a bunch of wiggly giggly fetuses and see how you like it lols
That is the silver lining. A million fewer potential Democrat a year. You always find a way to see the bright side of things, happyfeet.
nk (dbc370) — 8/3/2016 @ 5:08 am*Democrats*
nk (dbc370) — 8/3/2016 @ 5:09 amyes yes there’s that for sure
but we could accomplish even more by doing the Mr. Trump immigration policies all up on the southern border
America is of one mind on this subject, except for the odd duck
happyfeet (28a91b) — 8/3/2016 @ 5:14 amNah. We need cheap labor. Even if we let the food stamps live; and even if we took away their food stamps so they would either have to work or starve; it still takes five of them to do the work of one Mexican. In the meantime, they’d be leaving their stinky food stamp carbon footprint on the planet. Fewer Democrats and more Mexicans is the way to go, I think.
nk (dbc370) — 8/3/2016 @ 5:33 amWe’ve all heard about Trump’s disastrous venture into football with the USFL. What’s less known is his short-lived hockey team. Very short-lived. They all drowned in spring training.
nk (dbc370) — 8/3/2016 @ 6:22 am#165 nk wrote,
“Fewer Democrats and more Mexicans is the way to go, I think.”
Mexicans are Democrats.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/3/2016 @ 6:22 amStill waiting to learn what, according to Sammy, is Trump’s approach of benefiting America at the expense of the rest of the world that Mormon’s are recoiling at.
Gerald A (76f251) — 8/3/2016 @ 6:22 amIf you stop insulting them, maybe they won’t stay democrats.
urbanleftbehind (4d1a75) — 8/3/2016 @ 6:35 amMeanwhile the administration apparently embittered the Iran deal eleventy
narciso (732bc0) — 8/3/2016 @ 6:36 amExcept theytrended more democratic after Simpson mazzoli fancy that, this was before prop 187.
narciso (732bc0) — 8/3/2016 @ 6:39 amWhere are you getting that Huelskamp’s a NeverTrumper? The story doesn’t mention Trump at all. Marshall apparently is seen as less conservative than Huelskamp.
Gerald A (76f251) — 8/3/2016 @ 6:41 amOf course trump is repaying ryan So the same blanc mange he gave a month or so ago.
narciso (732bc0) — 8/3/2016 @ 6:43 amWALTER RUSSELL MEAD: The Soul-Sick Leadership Elite in America.
“Too bad that we now have to depend on leaks from Putin moles to know what’s going on in our country, but the donor stroking industry revealed in these emails is anything but secret. Thousands of prominent people are involved, either as strokers or strokees. Many of these people are extremely well known to journalists at major newspapers, and not a few of them are married to journalists.
Yet here is the NYT treating these leaked emails as a window into an unknown world. The unwillingness of the press to delve into the Vanity Fair at the heart of modern progressive politics (there is no such reluctance to peer into the mysteries of Republican finance) is a real problem. . . .
The fatheaded stupidity of rich liberals is the subtext of the hacked emails: how easily they are exploited, how gullible their vanity makes them, how pathetically eager they are for the hollow satisfaction of a seat next to the powerful. In one sense it’s refreshing: great wealth does not in fact make a nincompoop powerful. Also, it suggests that the real problem with our republic is that what should be our leadership elite is soul-sick: vain, restless, easily miffed, intellectually confused, jealous…
The sense that people like this—a mix of knaves and fools—are running both parties has a lot to do with the anger that fueled both the Sanders and the Trump campaigns. There’s a spiritual disease at work in this, and over time it has the ability to wreck not just individual souls, but our free institutions and the rule of law itself.”
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/240381/
Colonel Haiku (ff5774) — 8/3/2016 @ 6:44 amIt’s funny how some of the true convervatives who said they could “never” vote for Marco Rubio or John Kasich are kind of “maybe, baby!” on the prospect of voting for Hillary.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/3/2016 @ 7:02 amIt’s funny how a Cruz Supporter supports Trump.
nk (dbc370) — 8/3/2016 @ 7:04 amnk,
Cruz is out of the race.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/3/2016 @ 7:14 amWhen my team gets eliminated from March Madness, I tend to accept that they’re not going to win the tournament. As a long suffering Cubs fan, you know the drill.
I’m voting for our party’s nominee. It’s been an American tradition for decades! (LOL)
Huelskamp just got caught in a backlash that was primarily against State legislators who were staunch supporters of the Brownback no/low tax agenda. Its a small t- trumpian victory in that sense.
urbanleftbehind (4d1a75) — 8/3/2016 @ 7:20 amIt seems to me more like a guy who claimed to like Citizen Kaine now giving the Oscar to Plan Nine From Outer Space.
nk (dbc370) — 8/3/2016 @ 7:22 amAnd ricketts and the club for growth, free swords At each other.
narciso (d9722a) — 8/3/2016 @ 7:22 amCongressman Tim Huelskamp appeared on Fox News Sunday today to provide the #NeverTrumpers with a proselytizing butthurt voice in the media cycle. Huelskamp was so proud of himself after the interview, he bragged about it to his #NeverTrump cohorts.
happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/3/2016 @ 7:31 amAre you suggesting he was pretending to prefer Cruz all those months? That would be quite loony. BTW that’s a completely stupid analogy since the Oscars aren’t a two step process where all except two films get eliminated.
Gerald A (76f251) — 8/3/2016 @ 7:54 amThis article that https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/05/15/ego-wounded-congressman-tim-huelskamp-showcases-why-ted-cruz-lost/ happyfeet linked is illustrative of many of the social conservative haters.
I remember some of that guy’s articles from a few months ago. He is defining social conservatism as “politically correct”. Opposing men in women’s bathrooms is politically correct. Opposing SSM is politically correct. Think about how stupid or insane (or both) that guy is.
Gerald A (76f251) — 8/3/2016 @ 8:06 am141. narciso (732bc0) — 8/2/2016 @ 5:28 pm
All more or less true, but there seems to have been a break between the Clinton and Vladimir Putin going back at least as far as 2014. (although the other alliances may still be going strong)
The North Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge used to work together. But then, at the time of the fall of Saigon, Hanoi discovered it no longer controlled the Khmer Rouge. I already mentioned also the Sino-Soviet split and Mafia wars. These things happen.
Two more proofs that Hillary and Putin are not on good terms. John Batchelor, on his radio show, has a more or less permenanet pro-Russia guest. Yesterday night, he accused Hillary of being a cold-warrior. Second, Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton has “terrible relations” with Russia.
I don’t believe that Putin succcessfully hacked into clintonemail.com. He got the secret e-mail address but no more. But he does have his own record of communications by his cronies, and some third party communications. The question is: is he willing to leak soemthing that makes Russia look bad, too?
Right now I think the favorite Putin propaganda line is that Hillary Clinton created ISIS on purpose. I don’t know how he can document that without forgeries. Wikileaks has something, anyway.
Sammy Finkelman (7fce49) — 8/3/2016 @ 8:07 amnk,
The archives exist.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/3/2016 @ 8:13 amI was very hard on Trump and his supporters during the primaries; go ask ropelight, papertiger, and Mr happyfeet.
But now, it’s a choice between Trump and Hillary and I will vote for Trump.
With 20/20 hindsight, I can say that Rubio would have been the most electable general election candidate. Any Democrat operative will tell you he’s the one they feared the most.
Cruz would make a fine President, but he seems to lack the populist instincts necessary to win a general election campaign across diverse regions of the country.
When you run for President, you’re not running to become President of Texas; you’re running to become President of the United States.
I think Kasich was the most electable. However, he literally had no conservative theme of any kind. He was running on the theme that he had been a good manager. The mushy middle loves someone like that. The election isn’t about hard choices when someone presents themselves that way. Rubio on the other hand did present some conservative themes.
Gerald A (76f251) — 8/3/2016 @ 8:19 amCruz Supporter a few of the NeverTrumpers are starting to remind me of ropelight.
Gerald A (76f251) — 8/3/2016 @ 8:21 amDon’t go attributing things to people, Gerald. You too, CS. My comment was about lowering of standards, obvious to anyone who read it honestly.
I suppose I could have written “A guy who was looking at filet mignon, now rooting through McDonald’s dumpsters”. Which is also very true.
nk (dbc370) — 8/3/2016 @ 8:22 amI read where the big money GOPe was going to try to take out the Freedom Caucus people, and that the challenger actually ran as being more conservative.
Idk, that is what I saw someplace
Everyone has an agenda to push as to “the” reason something happens
Last I read, the Brownback economy plan was showing success after what appeared to be not working
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/3/2016 @ 8:22 amidk again, just what I read
I was looking at where you said Cruz Supporter “claimed” to have supported Cruz. Maybe you were just lazy in how you worded that, but there was no reason to use that word.
Gerald A (76f251) — 8/3/2016 @ 9:10 amReally, Gerald?
It’s funny how a Cruz Supporter supports Trump.
nk (dbc370) — 8/3/2016 @ 7:04 am
It seems to me more like a guy who claimed to like Citizen Kaine now giving the Oscar to Plan Nine From Outer Space.
nk (dbc370) — 8/3/2016 @ 7:22 am
That’s very Trumpian. Looking for a grievance and manufacturing one from your own construction of what the other person said. Well, I can play that game, too:
“If you really cared, you wouldn’t twist everything I say.” (Sniff) (Sob) (Flounce)
nk (dbc370) — 8/3/2016 @ 9:31 amnk,
Speaking of standards, Hillary is a lower standard than Trump.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/3/2016 @ 9:40 amThat’s why I’m voting for Trump.
I wish Calvin Coolidge were on the menu, but he’s not.
Suggesting Cruz Supporter may have only claimed to have supported Cruz is loony to me, and I would suggest would seem that way to anyone who was reading these threads back then. Is that a “grievance”? Whatever.
Gerald A (76f251) — 8/3/2016 @ 10:09 amnk,
Here’s what I wrote back in February during one of the debates;
Hit Trump in the mouth AGAIN! Go Ted! Go Marco! Do it!
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/25/2016 @ 6:54 pm
Like I said, the archives exist.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/3/2016 @ 10:22 amAnd a few months from now, people will look back and say, “That nk guy kept talking about Roy Cohn’s secret gay lifestyle all the while ISIS was cutting people’s heads off.”
@Sammy Finkleman: E-Verify manual is here.
What you quoted seems to say it can only be used to verify – it is not conclusive that someone is not eligible.
What I quoted says “The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work”. That is not what you said it says at all. It is explicit and very clear and I don’t know why you can’t seem to parse this very simple and declarative statement.
If you use E-Verify, you have the legal right to employ someone no matter what E-Verify comes back with. There’s no wiggle room in what it says. That’s what it says.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 8/3/2016 @ 10:23 am