ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

I would say this court is usually more conservative in it's legal approach, but that's completely different than what @blazers and others have said. They want to act like they are some hardcore, right wing republicans, out to destroy the justice system. Being conservative/liberal in your approach to the law is a normal thing and can sometimes lead to the same conclusions. The freaking out by certain people is due to the politicizing of the court by politicians. My guess is that most of the people complaining haven't read any of the legal opinions and/or listened to oral arguments for the cases they complain about. They just go with the talking points they like.
I'm as guilty as anyone. I was vehemently opposed to Kavanaugh and Barrett. I've been surprised by a lot of the rulings, in a good way. I'm more concerned, now, with Clarence Thomas's wacky wife. I hope he can leave her at home when faced with a Trump ruling.
 
Nice of her to help out her father in law. Republicans have lost their whole party.

It's ironic how Trump supporters focused on his business acumen and wealth when he was first running for office, but now those same people are digging into their savings to bail him out.
 

Huge day for Pelosi today. Nvidia stock is ripping, up 15% - that makes it up over 60% since she bought a bunch of calls on it 3 months ago in what was her largest stock trade in the last 3 years. Best inside trader I've ever seen. How is this legal?

Yet you can't walk through her district without stepping over homeless bums in opioid comas and human shit. "Let them eat cake", indeed.
 

Huge day for Pelosi today. Nvidia stock is ripping, up 15% - that makes it up over 60% since she bought a bunch of calls on it 3 months ago in what was her largest stock trade in the last 3 years. Best inside trader I've ever seen. How is this legal?

Yet you can't walk through her district without stepping over homeless bums in opioid comas and human shit. "Let them eat cake", indeed.

It’s wild how the liberals say Trump is only out to make himself richer. He’s literally the only person in politics probably ever to have his net worth go down by serving in office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
Yet you can't walk through her district without stepping over homeless bums in opioid comas and human shit. "Let them eat cake", indeed.
I strongly disagree. My wife and I spent the week leading up to the UNC-Cal game in 2018 in San Francisco. The only area we saw in the city that was sketchy was the Tenderloin. Otherwise, we found it a clean and beautiful city.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: gunslingerdick

Huge day for Pelosi today. Nvidia stock is ripping, up 15% - that makes it up over 60% since she bought a bunch of calls on it 3 months ago in what was her largest stock trade in the last 3 years. Best inside trader I've ever seen. How is this legal?

Yet you can't walk through her district without stepping over homeless bums in opioid comas and human shit. "Let them eat cake", indeed.
If she were arrested, indicted and tried... I wonder if her cult followers would pay for her legal fees?
 
I'm as guilty as anyone. I was vehemently opposed to Kavanaugh and Barrett. I've been surprised by a lot of the rulings, in a good way. I'm more concerned, now, with Clarence Thomas's wacky wife. I hope he can leave her at home when faced with a Trump ruling.
Genuine questions and not arguing with your right to hold such opinions, but:

"I was vehemently opposed to Kavanaugh and Barrett" I am curious as to why or what your perception was that created such strong opposition? Dedication to organized religion or something? Legally speaking, based upon previous rulings, was there a real basis for the worry or was it just the smears that took place?

"with Clarence Thomas's wacky wife" I'm also curious about this concern. I mean, I know she's been a constant talking and attack point of the far left as they truly hate uncle Thomas, but why the hyperbole from you? What has he done that gives you any such justification legally speaking? His positions and opinions have been consistent since well before his wife came to be featured as a point of attack. Also, just because you aren't aware of things about them, what makes you think that Thomas' wife has anymore influence over him than any other Supreme? Are we now going to only want Supreme Court justices who have no significant other? Lastly, be super careful of not buying into the spin out there. If it wasn't actually pushed so heavily, it would be comical at times. For example, supposedly Thomas is attempting to rule that interacial marriage should be banned - yet his "wacky wife" is white. Things that make you go hmmm. . . . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
I strongly disagree. My wife and I spent the week leading up to the UNC-Cal game in 2018 in San Francisco. The only area we saw in the city that was sketchy was the Tenderloin. Otherwise, we found it a clean and beautiful city.
Your perception is not uncommon from a historical standpoint, so I don't dispute it and believe you in terms of what you experienced. But, that was six years ago and the change that has purportedly taken place is all the more bitter because of exactly what you saw. I think the point is how great it used to be compared to where it is today. They even had to clean it up when the Chinese came to visit. I think many of our major cities are having major issues with homelessness and addiction. SF is just one of the poster children.

So, it was great six years ago. Don't know that any of us can really say how it is today unless we'd been there in the last, say, six months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
I strongly disagree. My wife and I spent the week leading up to the UNC-Cal game in 2018 in San Francisco. The only area we saw in the city that was sketchy was the Tenderloin. Otherwise, we found it a clean and beautiful city.
6 years ago, I'm sure nothing changed.
 
His wife is one of those loonies that believes Trump won the 2020 election. I hope he can forget who his wife is if he's ever in a situation where his ruling can affect anything related to the 2020 election.
Her belief one way or the other doesn't mean that Thomas can't set it aside on any given issue. It kinda comes with the territory and applies across the board to all of them. For example, when Ketanji Brown Jackson was giving testimony before the Senate, she couldn't answer the question of what a woman was. They didn't call in her husband to find out if he could define it for her because it didn't matter what his thoughts were either way. I didn't like her as a nominee and I surely don't like her rulings/politics, but there is no denying that she is definitively qualified regardless of who is or isn't her spouse.
 
Her belief one way or the other doesn't mean that Thomas can't set it aside on any given issue. It kinda comes with the territory and applies across the board to all of them. For example, when Ketanji Brown Jackson was giving testimony before the Senate, she couldn't answer the question of what a woman was. They didn't call in her husband to find out if he could define it for her because it didn't matter what his thoughts were either way. I didn't like her as a nominee and I surely don't like her rulings/politics, but there is no denying that she is definitively qualified regardless of who is or isn't her spouse.
Did you read the second sentence? "I hope he can..." I never said it was beyond him to do it.
 
I said I was wrong in my perspective. Go back through the thread (probably in mid-2018 area) and read it. It's really not worth it to me. I misjudged them- NPI. That's all that matters now.
Fair enough. But the misjudging at the time and the reasons for it are probably a really good illustration for us all to take a step back and ponder this stuff before we jump off the cliff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
Did you read the second sentence? "I hope he can..." I never said it was beyond him to do it.
I did read it. But this started with you expressing concern over her and that's exactly what the more progressives want to happen.

As far as I am aware, other than the very vocal agenda of trying to neutralize Thomas, I've never seen any actual example of him being influenced by his spouse one way or the other, let alone improperly. Just like all the other justices including the "moderate" and "liberal" ones. That is, without actual evidence of it happening, why would you be worried otherwise just because you are aware of her politics v. the other 8 justices that the left hasn't pursued such an agenda? This seems like we are back to the unfounded concerns over Kavanaugh and Barrett.

Let's put it this way and take a trip back to 1975. Did going to see the movie Jaws make it more or less likely for you to be attacked by a shark when you stepped into the water? The answer, of course, is that it had no impact whatsoever on the actual reality, it was merely your perception that may or may not have changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
So, it was great six years ago. Don't know that any of us can really say how it is today unless we'd been there in the last, say, six months.
Exactly this. Coincidentally, I was also there in Fall of 2018 (not for the UNC/Cal game though). And I actually shared Noir's opinion of the city. Very nice place. However I was also there a month and a half ago for a work conference. It's amazing how much different the situation is a mere 5 years later. Sad, really.
 
She wouldn't need them to - she's worth $200M+ despite having been a career politician making a paltry $200k/year. She'd have them covered several times over just off what she's fleeced them on via those NVDA calls.
I guess DJT is flat broke?

It would be awesome to see Pelosi being investigated and indicted by the SEC! That would be front-row entertainment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
I would say this court is usually more conservative in it's legal approach, but that's completely different than what @blazers and others have said. They want to act like they are some hardcore, right wing republicans, out to destroy the justice system. Being conservative/liberal in your approach to the law is a normal thing and can sometimes lead to the same conclusions. The freaking out by certain people is due to the politicizing of the court by politicians. My guess is that most of the people complaining haven't read any of the legal opinions and/or listened to oral arguments for the cases they complain about. They just go with the talking points they like.
On the whole i agree, though i haven't said "destroy the justice system" I think there are some individuals on the court that are close to extreme (relative to norms), or paid to be hard-core, right-wing.

And LOL at your recent example... can you image if they HAD agreed to review it?
 
Last edited:

Huge day for Pelosi today. Nvidia stock is ripping, up 15% - that makes it up over 60% since she bought a bunch of calls on it 3 months ago in what was her largest stock trade in the last 3 years. Best inside trader I've ever seen. How is this legal?

Yet you can't walk through her district without stepping over homeless bums in opioid comas and human shit. "Let them eat cake", indeed.
there's a twitter account unusual_whales or something similar that posts unique trades where tons of money are made "overnite" and trades involving congressmen and the overlap is a stinker.
 
I guess DJT is flat broke?

It would be awesome to see Pelosi being investigated and indicted by the SEC! That would be front-row entertainment.
I think you're close to understanding much of the reason why they (anti-Trumpers of any stripe) want to paint him as an untrustworthy liar, and strive to be rid of him. He poses a constant threat to expose a mountain of skullduggery.
 
I think you're close to understanding much of the reason why they (anti-Trumpers of any stripe) want to paint him as an untrustworthy liar, and strive to be rid of him. He poses a constant threat to expose a mountain of skullduggery.
No one is painting him as anything. He's got that covered all by himself- he has all the paint and all the brushes. This fantasy that he's draining the swamp is horseshit. Yeah... He's a real straight-shooter! A regular Eagle Scout, he is. If he were the threat that you're trying to pass-off, someone would have shot him by now. Or, an unfortunate plane crash, perhaps.
 
No one is painting him as anything. He's got that covered all by himself- he has all the paint and all the brushes. This fantasy that he's draining the swamp is horseshit. Yeah... He's a real straight-shooter! A regular Eagle Scout, he is. If he were the threat that you're trying to pass-off, someone would have shot him by now. Or, an unfortunate plane crash, perhaps.
I nominate your post as Most Predictable Response of the Year. I think it'll hold up.
 
No one is painting him as anything. He's got that covered all by himself- he has all the paint and all the brushes. This fantasy that he's draining the swamp is horseshit. Yeah... He's a real straight-shooter! A regular Eagle Scout, he is. If he were the threat that you're trying to pass-off, someone would have shot him by now. Or, an unfortunate plane crash, perhaps.
You wish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluetoe
If he were the threat that you're trying to pass-off, someone would have shot him by now. Or, an unfortunate plane crash, perhaps.
I like that argument: Trump must not be a threat or he'd have caught the dead.

Truth be told, I sometimes wonder why some of the worst actors haven't been vigilanteed. [Yes, I think vigilante should be a verb.]

Then again, it always seems to be good Dems and liberals who get assassinated, so maybe I should keep those thoughts to myself. We know who has most of the guns, after all.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT