6 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

May I ask you what exactly is the reason that you have so much interest in the course of US society? The USA is not run of your opinions it is run off of your Constitution. If we wish to change it we amend it. A long process. Never the less, I am not from Australia. I would be concerned perhaps if Australia was going to begin a trade policy hostile to the USA, or purchase weapon systems on loan from China or some other crazy thing, but other then that I have no skin in the game of Australian life. So what exactly is your worry about the USA and how it functions. I mean you regularly argue with Americans and insult them and their Country. I do not do this with the English or the Australians or French, so what is your reason? Do you have one?  You just wrote an entire paragraph about how YOU think the American system should work. Why would anyone do that?  You do not understand our history when it comes to the appointment of Justices. Obama was not blocked, the Senate was of the opposition party, and he did not have the votes, so no confirmation hearing was put forward to waste our time. It has worked that way 17 of 19 times. But who cares, why is that so important to YOU? What is this about, your caring so much about which party is in control in the USA? Do you think it affects you in Australia? Or affects some other Country you have affinity with ? Is there some Democrat party policy you admire coming out of the USA or anticipate would come? I don't get it please explain.  I am all ears.

First of all, disagreeing with someone opinions are not insulting them, nor is a non-US national restrained from commenting on US politics on TVF.

 

My interest in the trump administration is due to the influence US politics has on world affairs e.g. unfortunately, there are some Australians who follow trump's hard right policies and wish to impose them on Australian society. US Paleo Conservative ideology is incompatible for the future of Australia, I suggest, neither is it for the good for the future of America. You're assumedly a US citizen, but sounds as though you have minimal comprehension of how a US president influences world affairs for good or bad, no matter whether the policies are domestic or internationally focussed. IMO trump administration policies and edicts are overwhelmingly 'bad'.

 

From my reading of trump supporter comments on this forum, elsewhere and by trump, I do not believe the trump world is "all ears','. quite the opposite.

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

My interest in the trump administration is due to the influence US politics has on world affairs e.g. unfortunately, there are some Australians who follow trump's hard right policies and wish to impose them on Australian society. US Paleo Conservative ideology is incompatible for the future of Australia, I suggest, neither is it for the good for the future of America. You're assumedly a US citizen, but sounds as though you have minimal comprehension of how a US president influences world affairs for good or bad, no matter whether the policies are domestic or internationally focussed. IMO trump administration policies and edicts are overwhelmingly 'bad'.

 

The thing is amigo, you think anyone to the right of stalin is "hard right" and I would feel comfortable to say that based on all the posts ive seen you make, youre the one in the fringe minority. 

32 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No contradiction.

LOL, well that settles it then!

38 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

My apologies, Judaism:

""If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

 

No, since we've covered your diversion maybe you can answer to question and the point it raises (if you indeed get it)?

And now as you have decided to use Judaism and quote from the Bible, I do not know of any Jewish sect that currently stones anyone to death for either adultery, or homosexuality. It would be wise to perhaps do a cursory study of Judaism and its major branches to gain an understanding of Judaism before going to wikipedia and using old testament bible verses. I want you to know that this gives the appearance that you have not even the most rudimentary of understanding of any of the major world religions.  You would have to hunt for the most ultra-orthodox of sects which would number at a maximum in the hundreds isolated somewhere to find such a rigid adherence to the Torah in the application of punishments. Shame on you for thinking otherwise.

39 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

What do you mean? Should I be fearful of some sort of consequence? 

 

Like what exactly? 

Already answered in post #110. You know, it would help reduce the number of pointless posts if you paid just a little bit more attention.

Just now, Phoenix Rising said:

Already answered in post #110. You know, it would help reduce the number of pointless posts if you paid just a little bit more attention.

So the consequence for filling the SC seat is that republicans are going to die from covid? 

5 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

And now as you have decided to use Judaism and quote from the Bible, I do not know of any Jewish sect that currently stones anyone to death for either adultery, or homosexuality. It would be wise to perhaps do a cursory study of Judaism and its major branches to gain an understanding of Judaism before going to wikipedia and using old testament bible verses. I want you to know that this gives the appearance that you have not even the most rudimentary of understanding of any of the major world religions.  You would have to hunt for the most ultra-orthodox of sects which would number at a maximum in the hundreds isolated somewhere to find such a rigid adherence to the Torah in the application of punishments. Shame on you for thinking otherwise.

And you've completely missed the point. What a stunning surprise...

2 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

So the consequence for filling the SC seat is that republicans are going to die from covid? 

Oh Mama, I really hope for Papa's sake you're being deliberately obtuse.

52 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

If you consider that a threat then you really need to dial down your paranoia. We're living in a time of Covid-19, which affects older people the most. This forum primarily consists of older guys and some of those guys are trump base supporters. Now we know that this group is adverse to medical advice and common sense (wearing a mask) so it stands to reason that the life expectancy of that group is far lower than the average population.

Get it now?

You were never taught to have respect for your elders? As for life expectancy of that group - yes at age 62 I perhaps have less years to live then you do. But everyone dies kid. And everyone spends their life learning. I am well aware of the history of Mask wearing in the USA as was put forward by the CDC and the Surgeon general and Fauci. I am well aware of the changes in how this was put out. I am well aware of the downsides of lockdowns or lack of lockdowns and understand that like all things in life everything is a tradeoff. I am well aware of the morbidity rates of this virus. I am also aware of the population it affects the most. Why would you think that someone older then you knows less then you? It's a rather strange and presumptive way to think.

Just now, Phoenix Rising said:

Oh Mama, I really hope for Papa's sake you're being deliberately obtuse.

 

This is not your post? 

 

 

Just now, Mama Noodle said:

 

This is not your post? 

 

 

I feel sorry for Papa.

2 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

The thing is amigo, you think anyone to the right of stalin is "hard right" and I would feel comfortable to say that based on all the posts ive seen you make, youre the one in the fringe minority. 

 

 

you think anyone to the right of stalin is "hard right"

 

No, based upon US Paleo Conservative ideology, interpreted by Stephen Miller et al, which allegedly trump administration policy is founded.

 

youre the one in the fringe minority. 

 

Not based upon the last US national elections, nor in 2018 midterms. Hubris is a consistent 'sin' in the trump world.

Just now, Phoenix Rising said:

I feel sorry for Papa.

 

Even you yourself have no idea what youre talking about, do you. 

1 hour ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

This legal scholars also deviate from the majority opinion, not just "my interpretation" 

You cited a brief summary of a dissent between Supreme Court Justices.  Dissenting opinions among the Justices are common and not evidence of deviation from the Constitution.

 

If you can't accept that, you will have to accept that every time a conservative Justice dissented from a majority ruling that Justice deviated from the Constitution.

1 hour ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

No, that is an assumption and it is not reasonable. Looking at a persons previous court rulings is how to tell what they are about. Assuming their position on a matter is unfair. 

 

The anti-abortion crowd is full of non religious people too, BTW

If there is not an expectation of a religious bias in future rulings, why would there be so much emphasis on a possible nominee being Catholic and anti-abortion?

1 minute ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Even you yourself have no idea what youre talking about, do you. 

Says one who haven't even bothered to look up what I replied to!

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

You cited a brief summary of a dissent between Supreme Court Justices.  Dissenting opinions among the Justices are common and not evidence of deviation from the Constitution.

 

If you can't accept that, you will have to accept that every time a conservative Justice dissented from a majority ruling that Justice deviated from the Constitution.

 

Except when they deviate, its in support of the constitution, not against it, and not to further restrict rights. 

  I expected better of Romney.  Despicable that so many  other Republican senators have gone back on their word after declaring in 2016 that no Supreme Court nominee should be considered close to a Presidential election.  Beyond me how they can look at themselves in the mirror.   All total hypocrites.  All total scum.  

 

Just now, Phoenix Rising said:

Says one who haven't even bothered to look up what I replied to!

 

"If youre still around after the election" - stated by you.

 

Why wouldnt I still be around after the election? 

 

You can just admit you dont have the testicular fortitude to be clear, preferring to dance and wiggle around it, gaslighting along the way. 

57 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Why is it you guys make weird little subtle threats of "consequences" but when called out on it to be specific, you never do? 

 

 

Again, I very clearly outlined a politics consequence.

 

You either didn’t read it, didn’t understand it or are trolling.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Again, I very clearly outlined a politics consequence.

 

You either didn’t read it, didn’t understand it or are trolling.

 

So youre saying that if we fill the seat, we will as a consequence lose elections. 

 

Funny, if you really believed that, you'd be jumping for joy - not framing it as a threat. 

26 minutes ago, simple1 said:

First of all, disagreeing with someone opinions are not insulting them, nor is a non-US national restrained from commenting on US politics on TVF.

 

My interest in the trump administration is due to the influence US politics has on world affairs e.g. unfortunately, there are some Australians who follow trump's hard right policies and wish to impose them on Australian society. US Paleo Conservative ideology is incompatible for the future of Australia, I suggest, neither is it for the good for the future of America. You're assumedly a US citizen, but sounds as though you have minimal comprehension of how a US president influences world affairs for good or bad, no matter whether the policies are domestic or internationally focussed. IMO trump administration policies and edicts are overwhelmingly 'bad'.

 

From my reading of trump supporter comments on this forum, elsewhere and by trump, I do not believe the trump world is "all ears','. quite the opposite.

OK so rather then speaking in such broad and general terms regarding conservatism etc... what US policy affecting Australia are you opposed to or wish to prevent? Can you speak specifically? What are we talking about here really?

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again, I very clearly outlined a politics consequence.

 

You either didn’t read it, didn’t understand it or are trolling.

All of the above IMO.

1 minute ago, Phoenix Rising said:

All of the above IMO.

 

Weak. 

1 minute ago, Damual Travesty said:

OK so rather then speaking in such broad and general terms regarding conservatism etc... what US policy affecting Australia are you opposed to or wish to prevent? Can you speak specifically? What are we talking about here really?

Off topic - last response. e.g. Australian relations with PRC, divisive rhetoric from Australian far right who leverage off trump rhetoric. 

12 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

So youre saying that if we fill the seat, we will as a consequence lose elections. 

 

Funny, if you really believed that, you'd be jumping for joy - not framing it as a threat. 

I’m not framing anything as a threat.

 

I’m observing the ongoing consequences of Trump’s haste and the apparent Senate backing to move forward with a nomination.

 

Influential Republicans moving across to back Biden, opposition to Trump enlivened, massive increase in individual citizen donations to the Democrats.

 

These are not ‘threats’ they are observed reality, though Trump and his dwindling base are probably right to regard them a threat.

 

 

Edited September 23, 20205 yr by Chomper Higgot

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

No contradiction.

Right.  On the subject of Supreme Court Justices you posted:

 

"The only partiality should be to adhere to the Constitution."

 

then moments later posted:

 

"But since all Justices are human then it would be unreasonable and irrational to think that personal beliefs never enter into any given Justice's decisions."

 

You don't find a contradiction in stating that Justices should follow the Constitution, but it's to be expected that their religious beliefs will influence their judgment?

Edited September 23, 20205 yr by heybruce

52 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Which I corrected.

 

As to your argument that Supreme Court vacancies should not be filled six weeks before an election there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it.  If you wish to say it should be prohibited then that would be unconstitutional.  Are you arguing for the Constitution or against it?

As I explained in other posts, confirming a Supreme Court Justice less than six weeks before an election makes the process of selecting "neutral" parties even more political than it already is.

 

The Constitution also doesn't prohibit Justices from meeting in clown suits, but it, and this rushed appointment, are still bad ideas.

21 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Except when they deviate, its in support of the constitution, not against it, and not to further restrict rights. 

I hate to tell you this, but your personal opinion of when a dissension is in support of or against the Constitution is of no importance to anyone but you.

1 hour ago, Damual Travesty said:

I do not know of a single Christian religious sect that calls for a death penalty to be applied to adulterers or homosexuals. Please name one - just a single one.

You don't know the Bible very well, do you?

 

Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22 cover death for adulterers (bye-bye Trump).  Leviticus 20:13 covers death for male homosexual acts.  Exodus 21:17 and Proverbs 20:20 mandate death for those who curse their father or mother. 

 

Lesbians seem to be ok.