Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has died

[AUwent 3,748]

Barrett sounds terrifying. If Trump wins re-election our planet is donezo.  😵🤮

[SaturdayGT 719]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/democrats-threaten-violence-supreme-court-vacancy

[SaturdayGT 719]

https://genesiustimes.com/oped-i-was-raped-by-whoever-trump-picks-to-replace-ginsburg-on-the-supreme-court/

[alexava 6,973]

28 minutes ago, SaturdayGT said:

https://www.theblaze.com/news/democrats-threaten-violence-supreme-court-vacancy

Exactly why I am not a democrat anymore. I’m not down with destroying the country to win. They have shown that they are. 

[Leftfield 2,593]

6 minutes ago, alexava said:

Exactly why I am not a democrat anymore. I’m not down with destroying the country to win. They have shown that they are. 

Unfortunately I believe both sides are. We truly do live in an age of lesser of two evils.

I don't agree with the reason they would be doing it, but there is precedent for expanding the court. Originally there were six justices. At one time it was expanded to match the number of judicial circuits. There are currently twelve. To do it out of retaliation, though, is beyond a slippery slope. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

28 minutes ago, SaturdayGT said:

https://genesiustimes.com/oped-i-was-raped-by-whoever-trump-picks-to-replace-ginsburg-on-the-supreme-court/

Wrong forum for this.  Be better.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

21 minutes ago, alexava said:

Exactly why I am not a democrat anymore. I’m not down with destroying the country to win. They have shown that they are. 

Don't pay attention to The Blaze.  Not a reliable source for information at all.  Seriously, Fox is better than them.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-blaze/

[alexava 6,973]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Don't pay attention to The Blaze.  Not a reliable source for information at all.  Seriously, Fox is better than them.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-blaze/

It’s all over Twitter too. 
 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, alexava said:

It’s all over Twitter too. 
 

Then link it with something legitimate.  Ya know, conspiracy theories are all over Twitter too.  That make them legitimate?

[SaturdayGT 719]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Then link it with something legitimate.  Ya know, conspiracy theories are all over Twitter too.  That make them legitimate?

There's also several takes of the CNN crew downplaying and in a way..backing Antifa....its there, you know it, we all do...not sure why you are so dedicated to cover for it...its not going away.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, SaturdayGT said:

There's also several takes of the CNN crew downplaying and in a way..backing Antifa....it there, you know, we all do...not sure why you are so dedicated to hide it...its not going away.

Who's trying to hide anything?  I'm literally just asking for either of you to provide something from a legitimate source as this forum requires.  This ain't the smack forum.  Higher standards apply.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

20 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Unfortunately I believe both sides are. We truly do live in an age of lesser of two evils.

I don't agree with the reason they would be doing it, but there is precedent for expanding the court. Originally there were six justices. At one time it was expanded to match the number of judicial circuits. There are currently twelve. To do it out of retaliation, though, is beyond a slippery slope. 

Nope sorry both sides are not. Regardless of the outcome of the election, republicans will not ever riot and burn the country down. That’s exclusive to democrats.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Who's trying to hide anything?  I'm literally just asking for either of you to provide something from a legitimate source as this forum requires.  This ain't the smack forum.  Higher standards apply.

So you are the judge of legitimate sources?  Scoff.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, jj3jordan said:

So you are the judge of legitimate sources?  Scoff.

It's literally in the rules of the forum dude.  Go read them yourself.  Damn y'all are dense sometimes.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

It's literally in the rules of the forum dude.  Go read them yourself.  Damn y'all are dense sometimes.

Sorry chief but you are not the judge of what is a legitimate news source. Just because you don’t like it don’t make it so.  You don’t like the Blaze. I don’t care.  This is why people like you don’t see bias in mainstream news.  Lefty=legit.  Righty=illegitimate. Real solid philosophy for a discussion. 

[SaturdayGT 719]

Yes, I'm in the wrong format, and I apologize. I do not have much to prove on my comments. You all live in the same country as I do, you see the same things in the news, we interpret it our own ways....we don't need any guidance,  so yeah...I think most of us can make out what's going on by our own selves!

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Sorry chief but you are not the judge of what is a legitimate news source. Just because you don’t like it don’t make it so.  You don’t like the Blaze. I don’t care.  This is why people like you don’t see bias in mainstream news.  Lefty=legit.  Righty=illegitimate. Real solid philosophy for a discussion. 

1) I've actually worked in a newsroom.  Probably have a better idea than you do.

2) I tend to post stuff from the AP or Reuters.  I know the idea of primarily neutral sources are a foreign concept to you, but it's possible.

3) The Blaze is illegitimate because they actually print false information.  That's the point here.

4) Let me help you get back to where you belong since you don't want to provide something based on forum rules (not mine).  Link below.

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/forum/3-political-smack-talk/

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 minutes ago, SaturdayGT said:

Yes, I'm in the wrong format, and I apologize. I do not have much to prove on my comments. You all live in the same country as I do, you see the same things in the news, we interpret it our own ways....we don't need any guidance,  so yeah...I think most of us can make out what's going on by our own selves!

Good on you for owning up.  Seriously.  It's needed more around here.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

10 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

1) I've actually worked in a newsroom.  Probably have a better idea than you do.

2) I tend to post stuff from the AP or Reuters.  I know the idea of primarily neutral sources are a foreign concept to you, but it's possible.

3) The Blaze is illegitimate because they actually print false information.  That's the point here.

4) Let me help you get back to where you belong since you don't want to provide something based on forum rules (not mine).  Link below.

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/forum/3-political-smack-talk/

Don’t care where you worked. And doubtful.

Don't care where you post from. Never called one of your sources illegitimate.

And AP and Reuter’s haven’t? Ever?

All I did as react to your statement regarding legitimate news sources. I belong in whatever forum you are in. You stated your OPINION. I stated mine.

[SaturdayGT 719]

12 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Good on you for owning up.  Seriously.  It's needed more around here.

We can all agree and disagree...we can all go over board with our thoughts and feelings , and we can...should, or try to understand when someone with different thoughts go over board on us!  ...

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Don’t care where you worked. And doubtful.

Don't care where you post from. Never called one of your sources illegitimate.

And AP and Reuter’s haven’t? Ever?

All I did as react to your statement regarding legitimate news sources. I belong in whatever forum you are in. You stated your OPINION. I stated mine.

LOL!  Doubtful?  Dude, I have two degrees in Communication.  I won a statewide award while at Auburn for being the best television student news reporter in Alabama (first person at AU to do so by the way).  I was working in a professional newsroom the night of the 2000 election while I was in high school.  But you keep on doubting.

And no, AP and Reuters don't ever knowingly post BS.  That's the difference.  If they get something wrong, they admit it. 

As far as the forum goes, I'm just asking y'all to follow it's rules.  I scoff at HuffPo just as much as I do The Blaze.  If you can't follow the forum rules as written and administered by the admins, then the smack talk forum is probably a better fit.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, SaturdayGT said:

We can all agree and disagree...we can all go over board with our thoughts and feelings , and we can...should, or try to understand when someone with different thoughts go over board on us!  ...

I love a good, well thought out conversation.  Nola and I disagree on a ton, but he's one of my favorite posters here.  All I'm asking for is good, solid sourcing so that we can base conversation around facts and not misleading BS.

[alexava 6,973]

9 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Who's trying to hide anything?  I'm literally just asking for either of you to provide something from a legitimate source as this forum requires.  This ain't the smack forum.  Higher standards apply.

The threats are not from “ legitimate “ sources. They are from Mostly nameless sources who are going to riot and burn s*** down. Those people are not legitimate. However the threats will be downplayed by legitimate people. Those people happen to be democrats. Where have you been the past 6 months? All these buildings didn’t set themselves on fire. Nobody is taking credit for it. Just blame “outside agitators “. 

[Leftfield 2,593]

10 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Nope sorry both sides are not. Regardless of the outcome of the election, republicans will not ever riot and burn the country down. That’s exclusive to democrats.

Look, I'm not going to defend rioting and looting, but if you truly believe that only Democrats turn violent when an election doesn't go their way then you've lost all credibility. You don't remember all the attacks against Obama supporters when he won? Should all Republicans be blamed for that?

[Mikey 16,576]

On 9/18/2020 at 6:51 PM, Brad_ATX said:

This just completely changed the game for November.  And you're 100% correct that Mcconnell will ram someone through.  The literal only hope for Dems is that some of the Senators in tight races won't go along with it for fear of losing the race.  But I still wouldn't put it past them to try a lame duck appointment if they lose the WH and Senate.

It's been said that every president who was faced with this opportunity tried to use it. Some failed, some succeeded, but every one who had a vacancy in an election year, or who was a lame duck when the vacancy happened, tried to put an appointment through. Why would this time be any different?