Taro T
-
Posts
4,952 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Taro T
-
-
-
1 hour ago, Tiberius said:
You'd be ok with throwing out votes that were mailed on election day? 😕
Not this year, no, because that wasn't the rule that was set up.
But in the future, absolutely. There is almost no way a conscientious voter ends up with & needing to mail in a ballot ON election day. They LITERALLY have MONTHS to obtain & return that ballot. Allowing ballots postmarked on election day encourages ALL parties to manufacture ballots.
-
2
-
-
25 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
The issue should be whether the vote was SUBMITTED or OPENED after the deadline. The exact same principle applies to public contract bidding all over America. You have to submit your sealed bid PRIOR TO the exact time and date. However, when the Agency chooses to OPEN the bids is somewhat up to the Agency, so long as they’re opened ‘in public’.
And, due to the fact that technically votes can recieve a postmark (or be deposited in a ballot collection station) on the day of the election but be submitted AFTER the polls have closed (unless they make sure EVERY mailbox is emptied and the contents collected at the poll closing time; & there's no realistic way that could ever happen), those SHOULD be required to be put into the mailbox/ballot collection box by the day prior to the polls closing to cut down on ballot stuffing AFTER polls have closed.
That would not be "voter suppression" in any meaningful form of the term as people would still have had months to get their mail in or absentee ballot submitted. But it would limit every party's ability to stuff the ballots as prior to the polls closing, they don't know for certain who will or won't vote & also don't know just how many votes they need to manufacture to get the "right" outcome.
-
8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
The Court declined to hear the Repub's attempt to get this back before it now that there's a 9th justice:
They reasoned that ACB hadn't had time to fully review the filings/arguments, etc., so she did not take part.
The Supreme Court is a pretty elite club, and I generally mean that in a good way. Here the longer tenured justices are protecting ACB from having to make that recusal decision. Surely she would have had time to make a decision by, say, Friday. All in all this is pretty typical of what you expect of any Court -- one side is saying "but all kinds of bad things MAY happen if you don't intervene now!" -- and the Court is saying, "maybe we should just wait to see what really DOES happen." The same thing goes for that Wisconsin decision on extending mail-in ballot deadlines that came out yesterday. If there are hundreds or thousands of Wisconsin ballots mailed yesterday that don't make it there by Tuesday, I guess they may have an argument. But if there aren't? Well, then there's really nothing there, and it's premature to get all worked up about it.
So, maybe all the hand wringing about Justice ACB being a conservative shill was misplaced?
-
2 hours ago, Warcodered said:
Right but the thing is that's a possible issue where as the current empty seat was an actual thing. Maybe it doesn't seem like much but definitely think the current seat would of been better for getting their base out and maybe get some others to switch on the issue. As opposed to the idea of the Dems doing something that hasn't been done in over 100 years.
3 things. 1st, conservatives realize that 4-4 decisions from the SC create even more chaos than we all are currently expecting.
And having a jurist whom darn near everybody (from both sides of the aisle) that speaks of her claims is brilliant is something good to have on the bench.
Lastly, that something hasn't been done in over 100 years does not mean the D's are beyond doing it. Senator Reid fired the 1st shot in removing the filibuster when he did away with it for appointments other than the Supreme Court. This vote apparently was (haven't had a chance to confirm it, thus apparently) the 1st time since the mid-1800's that a SC Justice was confirmed without a single vote from anybody that isn't in the majority party. They passed the 1st MAJOR legislation on a strict party line vote in ages with the ACA. Schumer is on record as saying if he's Majority Leader the filibuster is gone entirely. With all that, why would a conservative (or a liberal, for that matter) trust that the D's won't pack the SC given the chance? (Not only that, the last President to threaten packing the court had a D next to his name as well.)
-
1 hour ago, Tiberius said:
Oh, let’s see, how about better relations with hostile nations.?
That one ok? I see Iran has started building nukes again.
And how about our allies?
That’s right, and that’s why he is winning the election
Cool. So, you agree the rest of the items are correct. Glad to see you're coming around, Tibs. There may be hope for you yet.
And, don't agree with you about not improving relations w/ hostile nations. 45 met w/ Kim; 1st President to ever do so. Also, Sudan signed a peace deal w/ Israel & is getting taken off the terrorist watch list. That's just ottomh. So, you didn't even get that one right, but it was a good effort.
-
14 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
Right but I mean Supreme Court packing is hypothetical(there has been 9 since 1869). This is seat is clearly there and if it's such an important issue for their base and maybe even some people in the middle it's a much bigger vote driver. One of the things my dad said was that it's weird for them to essentially give people who this is a huge issue what they want with a conservative majority right before the election with a virus out their making some people think I've got what I want maybe I'll just stay home.
Well, it's hypothetical in that Biden doesn't have any say in court packing at present, but it isn't hypothetical in that Democrat think tanks are promoting court packing, senators such as Senator C oons has essentially threatened lower level federal judges, and Biden has explicitly NOT ruled out packing the Supreme Court.
Should he win & control the Senate, the SC WILL get at least 2 more members & likely 4.
-
2 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:
First Step Act
Banning critical race theory
Border security improvements
Continued efforts to combat human trafficking and assist survivors
No new wars
Trade agreements in middle east
Peace agreement with Isreal and Sudan
Attempts to withdraw troops from middle east
Improved relations with previously hostile nations
Steadily improving economy until the pandemic struck the globe
Limited intervention in state and local government affairs
Removal of many long standing establishment players, especially on the right
Withdrawal from poorly negotiated deals
Covid handled as could be reasonably expected within the structure of our government
Deputized state and local PD to effectively bypass corrupt DA's that were endangering law enforcement
1 hour ago, Tiberius said:Bull, made up crap.
He's done nothing but watch Fox News for four years. Shame on you for defending such an incompetent ignoramus
Which items on that list are made up?
-
No comments on Tucker Carlson's interview of Tony Bobulinski?
Why is that not surprising?
-
1
-
1
-
-
57 minutes ago, Unforgiven said:
Threatening judges. No one says a word. A conservative politician says this and justice dept/fbi gets involved.
Democrats, turning America third world.
Pathetic.
But not surprising that nobody here cares about a sitting senator on the judiciary committee making veiled threats against duly sworn federal judges.
-
3 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:
Mitch wouldn't have let a vote on a new judge. He would have used his made up rule about not confirming judges in an election year.
Oh well. Dems poised to take the White House, Senate and House. Elections have consequences.
Doubt that McConnell would've been as adamant about not confirming a replacement of a liberal judge in '16, but she could've retired in '15 too.
As to your last sentence, we shall see whether that's correct soon enough.
-
8 minutes ago, Plano said:
rbg rolling in her grave
She could've retired toward the end of 44's term but chose not to. Decisions & elections have consequences.
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
-
52-48.
Maine's Susan Collins the lone Senator that didn't vote with her party.
Justice Thomas to swear her in.
Welcome to the Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett. 🍺
-
1
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
Ain’t me slick - I wouldn’t sign up for that cesspoolGary, you truly have the gift of making people laugh.
-
1 minute ago, Doc said:
Does it matter what the Dems do/say/think/vote tomorrow?
They're just desperately trying to make it look like there's a principled reason for their votes against her. Well, beyond the actual principle of "you're not one of us." She should be approved 100-0. She'll get 52 yeas.
-
On 10/3/2020 at 11:17 AM, BillsFanNC said:
Can assume what the loon posted, but it looks like her account was suspended. (Guessing it was suspended by her. Based on other comments around her now suspended tweets, doesn't seem to be the type of posting twitter usually takes issue with.)
-
5 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:
So no?
Here's a story about how it happened: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-cabinet-officials-voted-2018-white-house-meeting-separate-migrant-n1237416
Noooo, the info is here. It's not an issue that's interesting enough to bother saving any of the articles/links or would direct you to them specifically.
But, do you honestly believe there aren't any children brought into this country via traffickers rather than there parents & that none of those manage to get rescued from their traffickers? There are literally 11MM+ illegals in the USA today and HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people come over the border illegally every year and this discussion was about 500 kids. Seriously, you honestly think that many aren't trafficked?
-
12 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:
That's a quote from Trump.
Do you have any proof of that?
Because their is proof of Trump separating families.
DR has posted a lot of info about that right here on this very board. If the search function weren't trash, would suggest you use it. Perhaps Google can be your friend.
-
2 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:
Here's the quote:
Biden: Over 500 kids can't find their parents due to Trump separating kids from their parents.
Trump: Good
Good, because coyotes brought them over not their parents.
Which is why nobody can find those kids' "parents."
-
49 minutes ago, Unforgiven said:
However, the other charges against Chauvin - unintentional second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter - still stand.
My guess he pleads out in the end to second degree manslaughter. The hidden part of the body cam
is very damaging.
So...still ditch the police?
Recall one of the lawyers around here back when the charges were filed saying they thought he was overcharged. Guess that take was a good one.
-
16 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
I'm not surprised you're confused you get your news from the New York Post.
-
26 minutes ago, Doc said:
None should be redacted.
But it looks like all names she & the lawyers mentioned but Epstein, Maxwell, & Giuffre are redacted.
-
19 hours ago, WideNine said:
Carter Page...
Probably because his actions, regardless of his past affiliations, were questionable in the eyes of most folks in the Intelligence field.
The dossier said that there were plans in play to offer a 19% stake in Rosneft one of Russia's state-owned oil/gas companies as a bribe to get sanctions lifted.
Carter met with that same company and not long after a 19% stake of the company was sold to a private party and the money funneled to an account hidden behind multiple shell companies. That was pretty good inside info.
As soon as Trump took office efforts were made by his administration to lift the sanctions against Russia, oddly with no concessions from Russia. Both sides of the isle in Congress rushed to block those efforts.
Within days after the inauguration, new Trump administration officials ordered State Department staffers to develop proposals for immediately revoking the economic and other sanctions.[293] One retired diplomat later said, "What was troubling about these stories is that suddenly I was hearing that we were preparing to rescind sanctions in exchange for, well, nothing."[294] The staffers alerted Congressional allies who took steps to codify the sanctions into law. The attempt to overturn the sanctions was abandoned after Flynn's conversation was revealed and Flynn resigned.[293][177] In August 2017, Congress passed a bipartisan bill to impose new sanctions on Russia. Trump reluctantly signed the bill, but then refused to implement it.[29
The dossier did not have to be smoking tablets from God to peak the interests of our FBI. There was enough credible info there to warrant a follow-up.
Lawfare did a pretty objective review of the dossier too.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective
Lawfare, objective? 😄
The rest was mildly humorous, but that's pure gold right there, Jerry.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Warcodered said:
So, based on the most recent NYP front page article, it seems 44 is saying we shouldn't vote for his former VP because "the Big Guy" actually "made millions of dollars ... from communist controlled China."
He must be voting for the Green Party candidate, right?
It’s Nice To See Obama Again
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Pretty sure that one needs to have initially BEEN relevant in order to STAY relevant.