Log in:  

Register

U.S. Politics

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Alpe d'Huez, Red Rick, Tonton, Pricey_sky, King Boonen

Re: U.S. Politics

18 Mar 2017 14:56

Scott SoCal wrote:
blutto wrote:....sooooo.....the tax thingee was a very funny and particularly embarrassing squib....now there may be even more and bigger problems on the horizon for the vast alt-left fake news industrial complex...

Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence.

The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton’s most vocal CIA surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming, “In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to “cast doubt” on “allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.” “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all,” he said, adding, “There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.”


Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally. Unlike Morell, who left his official CIA position in 2013 but remains very integrated into the intelligence community, Clapper was Obama’s DNI until just seven weeks ago, leaving on January 20.

Perhaps most revealing of all are the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — charged with investigating these matters — who recently told BuzzFeed how petrified they are of what the Democratic base will do if they do not find evidence of collusion, as they now suspect will likely be the case. “There’s a tangible frustration over what one official called ‘wildly inflated’ expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation,” BuzzFeed’s Ali Watkins wrote


....and....

But given the way these Russia conspiracies have drowned out other critical issues being virtually ignored under the Trump presidency, it’s vital that everything be done now to make clear what is based in evidence and what is based in partisan delusions. And most of what the Democratic base has been fed for the last six months by their unhinged stable of media, online, and party leaders has decisively fallen into the latter category, as even their own officials are now desperately trying to warn.


https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/

Cheers


Whatever you do don't let Busted see this post.


...yeah this could be a replay of the tragic, we'll never get Humpty Dumpty back together again scenario....alas poor Busted, we knewed him well and so on and so forth...

Cheers
User avatar blutto
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,494
Joined: 04 Jul 2009 19:27

Re: Re:

18 Mar 2017 16:26

Scott SoCal wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
red_flanders wrote:Apparently, in a SHOCKING development, we'll be paying for the wall. Not Mexico. How do Trump supporters feel about that? I'm somewhat (no, not really) curious to hear the inevitable defense of yet another Trump lie.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-budget-us-taxpayers-pay-mexico-border-wall-4-billion-bill-cuts-a7633551.html

4.1 Billion is just the start:

However experts have suggested the $4.1 billion figure could be just a fraction of the total cost. According to leaked calculations by the Department of Homeland Security, the project could come to more than $21 billion (£16.9bn).


How stupid do you have to be to believe this kind of drivel when you hear it? What leverage did we ever have to get Mexico to pay for this? His entire candidacy was built on lies and obviously illegal plans.

But we'll now hear why it's all OK, etc.


Dunno.

$27 Billion in remittances last year from the USA and 80% of their net exports come to the good ol USA with a US trade deficit of more than $100 billion.

Other than that I can't think of much.


Dunno...wait, wasn't your first reaction to this strategy to decry it as stupid? But here you are again, pom poms in hand...


Not quite. My reaction was Mexico would be stupid not to work with Trump for the reasons listed. I'm not an open society, one world, no country, no border "imagine" kind of guy.
4

That's bulls**t and you know it. That was not your first reaction. Your first reaction was to pretend that it was the first time you disagreed with his policies...
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

Re: U.S. Politics

18 Mar 2017 16:27

Scott SoCal wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
red_flanders wrote:Judicial role in Tyranny of the Majority. This or similar reading probably quite relevant. This is an opinion piece.

https://www.aclunv.org/en/news/preventing-tyranny-majority-original-plan

They money shot:

But the Founding Fathers understood the problem of the “tyranny of the majority”—the likelihood of most citizens being so uninformed about constitutional law, so uninformed on relevant facts, and/or flat-out irrational that they might vote not only in favor of silly statutes or unfair taxes or appalling political candidates, but that they would support basic constitutional rights being denied their fellow citizens. (Protecting against the tyranny of the majority was the reason behind all of the checks and balances: veto power, staggered election terms, differences between the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, even designing a representative—not direct—democracy in the first place.) Whatever one thinks about a particular judge, or judges generally, they know more about constitutional law than the average voter, or the average politician, and what judges don’t know, they find out before making decisions. They also are sworn to uphold constitutional rights—it’s in their job description—which certainly is not true for the average voter.


So that explains how 80% of the 9th circuits decisions that appear before the supremes get overturned. Because they have such a deep understanding of the constitution and check their political bias at the door.

Sounds legit.


Funny, in your continued line of bu11sh!t about political courts, you and Hannity (where you got the feed for this line of stupidity) ignore that the 6th Circuit is overturned at a rate of 87%...you know, one of the most conservative courts in the country...

It's about differing constitutional philosophies, not differing political philosophies in both cases...hack.


It's politics and judge shopping. End of.


Judges don't shop themselves. Yet another thing about our courts you don't understand. Your comment has to do with the people bringing the case, not the court that hears it. You really should stick to subjects you're better at...I'm searching for one, and that list is short, I'll grant you.
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

Re: Re:

18 Mar 2017 16:38

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:

That's bulls**t and you know it. That was not your first reaction. Your first reaction was to pretend that it was the first time you disagreed with his policies...


I don't remember disagreeing with border control/wall. But I'm getting older so...

Seriously tho, I think you misremember this one.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,842
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: U.S. Politics

18 Mar 2017 16:42

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Judges don't shop themselves. Yet another thing about our courts you don't understand. Your comment has to do with the people bringing the case, not the court that hears it. You really should stick to subjects you're better at...I'm searching for one, and that list is short, I'll grant you.


This is the most naive post I've ever seen from you. But if this if what you choose to believe then go with it.

Btw, what is your take on the Watson's decision? Okay to ignore the EO's legality based on candidate Trump's rhetoric? Okay to read in to the order that which the judge feels versus what the words say?

Anyways, if you have time, can you explain this to me?

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.


Maybe explain the constitutionality of the above and how it relates to the written EO and judge Watsons grounds to declare unconstitutionality?

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens, (14)(f).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,842
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

19 Mar 2017 03:18

Scott SoCal wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:

That's bulls**t and you know it. That was not your first reaction. Your first reaction was to pretend that it was the first time you disagreed with his policies...


I don't remember disagreeing with border control/wall. But I'm getting older so...

Seriously tho, I think you misremember this one.


Not the wall, the trade strategy to "make" Mexico pay for it.
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

Re: U.S. Politics

19 Mar 2017 03:19

Scott SoCal wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Judges don't shop themselves. Yet another thing about our courts you don't understand. Your comment has to do with the people bringing the case, not the court that hears it. You really should stick to subjects you're better at...I'm searching for one, and that list is short, I'll grant you.


This is the most naive post I've ever seen from you. But if this if what you choose to believe then go with it.

Btw, what is your take on the Watson's decision? Okay to ignore the EO's legality based on candidate Trump's rhetoric? Okay to read in to the order that which the judge feels versus what the words say?

Anyways, if you have time, can you explain this to me?

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.


Maybe explain the constitutionality of the above and how it relates to the written EO and judge Watsons grounds to declare unconstitutionality?

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens, (14)(f).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182


I actually work in courts, not the cheap seats, so you really are out of your element junior. Litigants shop for judges all the time, judges don't offer themselves. They don't. You can believe some stupid conspiracy theory if you want.

I have a real job, and don't have time to read Judge Watson's grounds, but you feel free to wade into something you don't have the chops to understand anyway.
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

Re: U.S. Politics

19 Mar 2017 05:18

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Judges don't shop themselves. Yet another thing about our courts you don't understand. Your comment has to do with the people bringing the case, not the court that hears it. You really should stick to subjects you're better at...I'm searching for one, and that list is short, I'll grant you.


This is the most naive post I've ever seen from you. But if this if what you choose to believe then go with it.

Btw, what is your take on the Watson's decision? Okay to ignore the EO's legality based on candidate Trump's rhetoric? Okay to read in to the order that which the judge feels versus what the words say?

Anyways, if you have time, can you explain this to me?

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.


Maybe explain the constitutionality of the above and how it relates to the written EO and judge Watsons grounds to declare unconstitutionality?

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens, (14)(f).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182


I actually work in courts, not the cheap seats, so you really are out of your element junior. Litigants shop for judges all the time, judges don't offer themselves. They don't. You can believe some stupid conspiracy theory if you want.

I have a real job, and don't have time to read Judge Watson's grounds, but you feel free to wade into something you don't have the chops to understand anyway.


Fair enough.

I work in the real economy. Don't ever **** question me on it again. Jackass.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,842
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

19 Mar 2017 05:25

I guess this slug doesn't have the chops either.

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said if Trump’s predecessor former President Barack Obama had issued the same order, the courts would not have intervened on the constitutionality of the executive order.

Dershowitz continued, “That’s not the way the law is supposed to operate. And finally, the Trump Justice Department is getting smart. They are appealing this not to the Ninth Circuit where they are likely to get an adverse ruling. They are appealing it to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit is a much more conservative court. And much more likely to uphold the travel ban, and then if the case goes to the Supreme Court and ties four to four, Trump wins.”

He added, “I actually said that this wasn’t constitutional analysis. It was psychoanalysis. There is precedent in extreme cases where legislators in enacting a statute say things that you can sometimes look to the legislative intent. But I have never heard of a case where the rhetoric of a candidate, ambiguous rhetoric to be sure — because I do not believe this is a Muslim ban —focusing on a country like Iran, the greatest exporter of terrorism, not only no vetting, it sends terrorists out in order to kill Americans. Iran has so much blood on its hands of Americans and American allies, to exclude a country like Iran from the list would be absurd. And the list —although for a different purpose — was originally designed by President Obama. So how can you say that the exclusion of six countries on the list was motivated by what Mr. Trump said when he was candidate Trump? That is not good legal analysis. I’m putting my reputation on the line—I predict the case gets to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will uphold the major provisions of this ban.”


You should ring him up Chewie. Tell him what a lightweight he is.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,842
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: U.S. Politics

19 Mar 2017 10:39

Trump was a vocal critic of former President Barack Obama for taking golf trips while serving as president, though has made a series of trips to his branded golf clubs since entering office.


10 golf trips in 8 weeks. dope. Liar.

Now Donald Jr., 39, has completed his own apprenticeship.

Since his father was sworn in as president, he and his brother Eric, 33, have taken over management of the Trump Organization, with Donald Jr. overseeing commercial licensing and much of the international business and Eric managing the golf courses, among other duties. Donald Jr. is also a rising figure in Republican politics and a robust defender of the family name. As a public speaker who brings in an estimated $50,000 per speech, he has impressed conservatives with a rough, straightforward manner that belies his cushy upbringing.


Guess it pays for his hair product.
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,995
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re: U.S. Politics

19 Mar 2017 11:54

Scott SoCal wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Judges don't shop themselves. Yet another thing about our courts you don't understand. Your comment has to do with the people bringing the case, not the court that hears it. You really should stick to subjects you're better at...I'm searching for one, and that list is short, I'll grant you.


This is the most naive post I've ever seen from you. But if this if what you choose to believe then go with it.

Btw, what is your take on the Watson's decision? Okay to ignore the EO's legality based on candidate Trump's rhetoric? Okay to read in to the order that which the judge feels versus what the words say?

Anyways, if you have time, can you explain this to me?

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.


Maybe explain the constitutionality of the above and how it relates to the written EO and judge Watsons grounds to declare unconstitutionality?

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens, (14)(f).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182


I actually work in courts, not the cheap seats, so you really are out of your element junior. Litigants shop for judges all the time, judges don't offer themselves. They don't. You can believe some stupid conspiracy theory if you want.

I have a real job, and don't have time to read Judge Watson's grounds, but you feel free to wade into something you don't have the chops to understand anyway.


Fair enough.

I work in the real economy. Don't ever **** question me on it again. Jackass.


Small business owner myself. Employ ans support part time employees and moving to needing full time. Pretty real economy there junior.
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

Re:

19 Mar 2017 12:02

Scott SoCal wrote:I guess this slug doesn't have the chops either.

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said if Trump’s predecessor former President Barack Obama had issued the same order, the courts would not have intervened on the constitutionality of the executive order.

Dershowitz continued, “That’s not the way the law is supposed to operate. And finally, the Trump Justice Department is getting smart. They are appealing this not to the Ninth Circuit where they are likely to get an adverse ruling. They are appealing it to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit is a much more conservative court. And much more likely to uphold the travel ban, and then if the case goes to the Supreme Court and ties four to four, Trump wins.”

He added, “I actually said that this wasn’t constitutional analysis. It was psychoanalysis. There is precedent in extreme cases where legislators in enacting a statute say things that you can sometimes look to the legislative intent. But I have never heard of a case where the rhetoric of a candidate, ambiguous rhetoric to be sure — because I do not believe this is a Muslim ban —focusing on a country like Iran, the greatest exporter of terrorism, not only no vetting, it sends terrorists out in order to kill Americans. Iran has so much blood on its hands of Americans and American allies, to exclude a country like Iran from the list would be absurd. And the list —although for a different purpose — was originally designed by President Obama. So how can you say that the exclusion of six countries on the list was motivated by what Mr. Trump said when he was candidate Trump? That is not good legal analysis. I’m putting my reputation on the line—I predict the case gets to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will uphold the major provisions of this ban.”


You should ring him up Chewie. Tell him what a lightweight he is.


Thanks for proving my point. As for his assertion that if it were Obama's order, it wouldn't have been questioned, that is hyperbolic speculation...something that wouldn't pass muster on the stand. I'd object immediately to any such assertion, and the objection would be sustained. But you keep the stupid conspiracy theory, because i know for a fact that the ACLU and other groups would have pursued any such order by Obama in the courts...and would have shopped for a court more friendly to their cause. Again, judges don't prostitute themselves for things like this, the plaintiffs come knocking without that. Differing constitutional theories create differing expectations of rulings, but I don't consider that political on the part of the judges.

I am really protective of our judiciary because in every way they are the great hope for our democracy. That is why I am so fervently against elected judges, and special interest funding, particularly in judicial races. The right is determined to undermine every part of our constitutional government. Not even our courts can do right by them...unless of course they only rule along the lines of which you approve.

As to the bolded, it makes my point for me, and you quoted it...thanks man, you did me a solid.
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

19 Mar 2017 13:25

Anytime. I think. Although other than slamming me you didn't really have a point.

Dershowitz as well as many others have a problem when legislating from the bench occurs even when it produces an outcome he prefers. There's a term for that.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,842
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

19 Mar 2017 14:35

Good stuff Scott. Judges who talk about Iran as if it were the heady rides at Disneyland are definitely clear sighted on this.

I'll grant that he can probably find it on a map.
aphronesis
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,731
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re:

19 Mar 2017 14:38

Scott SoCal wrote:Anytime. I think. Although other than slamming me you didn't really have a point.

Dershowitz as well as many others have a problem when legislating from the bench occurs even when it produces an outcome he prefers. There's a term for that.


Yup, call partisanship, bias..by you. I'm SURE you know more and better than the judges that are ruling on this. I think instead of whining on a bike forum, you ought to 'politic' for one of these benches.

So, if adolf had just STFU, during his campaign..these would have probably flown but...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-evidence-for-trumps-travel-ban-simply-isnt-there/2017/02/27/90e228ac-fd36-11e6-8f41-ea6ed597e4ca_story.html?utm_term=.7955692ef1cc

But it is for scott..

'Maybe' not outright collusion by adolf and his clown car with the Russians..but contact? In spite of donnie's lies, yes and often. 'WireTapping"..nope..along with 'I won by the largest electoral college margin since Reagan"..nope, another lie.

So spicer-hinge-neck spouts about UK spying on donnie, heard it from Faux news..but wait..complete BS..president bannon better do better research before he feeds his two clowns BS..
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,995
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re: U.S. Politics

19 Mar 2017 14:54

Bustedknuckle wrote:
Trump was a vocal critic of former President Barack Obama for taking golf trips while serving as president, though has made a series of trips to his branded golf clubs since entering office.


10 golf trips in 8 weeks. dope. Liar.

How can anyone be fine with all the hopping back and forth between White House and Trump Resort X? Not least because it costs the tax payers tens of millions of dollars. The hypocrisy of announcing budget cuts for needy people vs. this is absolutely revolting.
User avatar Jagartrott
Member
 
Posts: 1,885
Joined: 15 Apr 2014 13:37

Re:

19 Mar 2017 15:51

aphronesis wrote:Good stuff Scott. Judges who talk about Iran as if it were the heady rides at Disneyland are definitely clear sighted on this.

I'll grant that he can probably find it on a map.


....so are you telling me that Iran is not like a heady rides at Disneyland .....oh my, that is very troubling....

Cheers
User avatar blutto
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,494
Joined: 04 Jul 2009 19:27

19 Mar 2017 16:05

Well for me sure, but for people making policy based on the Waltons it's not a good scene.
aphronesis
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,731
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re:

19 Mar 2017 19:17

Scott SoCal wrote:Anytime. I think. Although other than slamming me you didn't really have a point.

Dershowitz as well as many others have a problem when legislating from the bench occurs even when it produces an outcome he prefers. There's a term for that.


When you filter what Republican "constitutional scholars" consider this to be, AND you filter it through Marbury v. Madison,..well, pretty much every decision by the Court is "legislating from the bench."...or it isn't. I go with the latter, but you experts seem to disagree...not every position is equally correct...
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

Re: Re:

19 Mar 2017 19:23

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:Anytime. I think. Although other than slamming me you didn't really have a point.

Dershowitz as well as many others have a problem when legislating from the bench occurs even when it produces an outcome he prefers. There's a term for that.


When you filter what Republican "constitutional scholars" consider this to be, AND you filter it through Marbury v. Madison,..well, pretty much every decision by the Court is "legislating from the bench."...or it isn't. I go with the latter, but you experts seem to disagree...not every position is equally correct...


I thought you said judges weren't political?
aphronesis
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,731
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Back to top