Kansas Crimson

Shocker. He doesn’t get it.

Good morning, everyone. It's right here in front of you:



The playbook is telegraphed. The in-person vote will likely be a narrow Trump loss. Then the remote results will reveal a historic landslide.

At some point through all this, foreign actors will be "caught" manipulating the remote voting process, setting up an attempt to discredit all remote votes.

It's right here in front of you.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 8:56 am Good morning, everyone. It's right here in front of you:



The playbook is telegraphed. The in-person vote will likely be a narrow Trump loss. Then the remote results will reveal a historic landslide.

At some point through all this, foreign actors will be "caught" manipulating the remote voting process, setting up an attempt to discredit all remote votes.

It's right here in front of you.

He continues to prove me right. I said after the election that Trump would prove to be the worst thing that this country has done to itself since the civil war.

November-January could be a quite bad time for us!

Praying for RBG

Ugh.


The most lasting legacy of the Trump-Mitch regime will like be the courts.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:05 am Ugh.


The most lasting legacy of the Trump-Mitch regime will like be the courts.

Yep. A full generation of setback.

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:15 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:05 am Ugh.


The most lasting legacy of the Trump-Mitch regime will like be the courts.

Yep. A full generation of setback.

Genuine and honest question: Have his current appointees really done things to set us back? Didnt they just go against him recently? Are you judging them based on their decisions or solely judging based on who picked them?

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:52 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:15 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:05 am Ugh.


The most lasting legacy of the Trump-Mitch regime will like be the courts.

Yep. A full generation of setback.

Genuine and honest question: Have his current appointees really done things to set us back? Didnt they just go against him recently? Are you judging them based on their decisions or solely judging based on who picked them?

It isn't so much the SCOTUS, but the lower courts that are troubling.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 8:56 am Good morning, everyone. It's right here in front of you:



The playbook is telegraphed. The in-person vote will likely be a narrow Trump loss. Then the remote results will reveal a historic landslide.

At some point through all this, foreign actors will be "caught" manipulating the remote voting process, setting up an attempt to discredit all remote votes.

It's right here in front of you.

Two thoughts.
1) If he wins the election - is he right? That he will have won a "fraudulent"/"corrupt" election?
2) Trump's campaign team has sent out emails encouraging people to register to vote and if necessary, request an absentee MAIL IN ballot.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:52 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:15 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:05 am Ugh.


The most lasting legacy of the Trump-Mitch regime will like be the courts.

Yep. A full generation of setback.

Genuine and honest question: Have his current appointees really done things to set us back? Didnt they just go against him recently? Are you judging them based on their decisions or solely judging based on who picked them?

You do remember that he has appointed more than just the Supreme Court members?

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 10:29 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:52 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:15 am
Yep. A full generation of setback.

Genuine and honest question: Have his current appointees really done things to set us back? Didnt they just go against him recently? Are you judging them based on their decisions or solely judging based on who picked them?

You do remember that he has appointed more than just the Supreme Court members?

I do...but i am not entirely positive you did until plano mentioned it above...which is why you just repeated what he said (albeit in a much more smartass tone as per usual).

And not surprising you didnt answer with any substance or examples of why we have been set back a generation...all i did was ask how/why you feel that way or if you would feel this way regardless simply because of who picked them....i am going to assume it is the latter for you based on your non response...which is totally fine. I get it. It is much easier to hate all things trump than know why you actually hate some of the more complex aspects of his presidency (and i am right there with you on a lot of it)....there are others here who i know would have some insight into why some/many/most/all of his picks are problematic. I should have asked or waited for their responses to try to help myself become more informed on it rather than asking you when i know how this game goes.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 10:35 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 10:29 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:52 am

Genuine and honest question: Have his current appointees really done things to set us back? Didnt they just go against him recently? Are you judging them based on their decisions or solely judging based on who picked them?

You do remember that he has appointed more than just the Supreme Court members?

I do...but i am not entirely positive you did until plano mentioned it above...which is why you just repeated what he said (albeit in a much more smartass tone as per usual).

Good grief, there have been dozens of reports and discussions about the volume of federal judges appointed by Trump. This is common knowledge.

https://www.pfaw.org/report/confirmed-j ... al-judges/



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/us/t ... udges.html

Why are they problematic for you or is it simply because they were picked by trump? That was the question. It wasnt a "gotcha" question. Your answer can be "because trump picked them and he rarely gets anything right" and i would have been TOTALLY fine with it since i feel that way about a ton of shit he does.

This is the same thing you did about the china ban. You dont know why you hated it, you just know you hate it, and you hate that it wasnt a full ban, but not because you wanted a full ban, but just because trump used the word ban when it wasnt really a ban.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 10:43 am Why are they problematic for you or is it simply because they were picked by trump? That was the question. It wasnt a "gotcha" question. Your answer can be "because trump picked them and he rarely gets anything right" and i would have been TOTALLY fine with it since i feel that way about a ton of shit he does.

This is the same thing you did about the china ban. You dont know why you hated it, you just know you hate it, and you hate that it wasnt a full ban, but not because you wanted a full ban, but just because trump used the word ban when it wasnt really a ban.

You suck at reading minds and should give it up as a hobby. You failed to get a single assumption correct in that post.

It was a question originally (which plano responded to respectfully with a reasonable response....and then you felt the need to repeat the EXACT thing he said in a douchebag tone with no additional substance...then when called out on that lack of response you post a top google search article that i was already searching thru).

I will read your articles on his appointees that were unsurprisingly the first few things that pop up on google, which makes me wonder if you have actually read them yourself or if you googled something similar to what i googled.

But as far as reading minds that wasnt my intent. But that is pretty much the impression you left me with about the china ban becuase as usual when asked sort of difficult questions you rarely answer and NEVER are okay just saying "i dont know".

Which to loop back around was the ENTIRE reason i asked a genuine and honest question about his appointees to the courts and if they were truly problematic for decisions or just because trump picked them....because i didnt know and some people here (not you typically) are pretty educated on those kind of topics and can provide valuable insight. So i asked....and plano tried to start a good discussion possibly, but then you did your thing.

No big deal. But funny how things go at times. Sucks it always has to be that way. I was only asking a question.

To cycle back around, Trump has handed out a ton of lifetime federal judge positions throughout the system and we will feel the ramifications of those appointments for the next generation.

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:02 am To cycle back around, Trump has handed out a ton of lifetime federal judge positions throughout the system and we will feel the ramifications of those appointments for the next generation.

And to cycle back around again (please let this go better this time)....do you feel that way based on the character of those judges and past decisions those judges have made or mostly because it was trump who chose them? No wrong answers so dont feel like you have to try to provide one answer or the other. Just genuinely curious. A few (maybe even more than a few) clearly stick out based on the short time i spent reading on some of them just now....but at the same i feel like many judges are capable of separation of personal beliefs/politics from their decisions.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:25 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:02 am To cycle back around, Trump has handed out a ton of lifetime federal judge positions throughout the system and we will feel the ramifications of those appointments for the next generation.

And to cycle back around again (please let this go better this time)....do you feel that way based on the character of those judges and past decisions those judges have made or mostly because it was trump who chose them? No wrong answers so dont feel like you have to try to provide one answer or the other. Just genuinely curious. A few (maybe even more than a few) clearly stick out based on the short time i spent reading on some of them just now....but at the same i feel like many judges are capable of separation of personal beliefs/politics from their decisions.

The issue is that Trump doesn't know Adam from Brenda from Carol from Don. Not only does he not know who any of these people are, he's entirely disinterested in their ideologies, records, backgrounds or beliefs.

He is choosing them because the Federalist Society wants him to. That's the extent of his research/vetting/involvement.

I will say - in many ways we are quite fortunate that he doesn't actually care about the causes important to his enablers, puppeteers and various hangers-on. It would be much worse if he did.