rigorousintuition.ca

.

seemslikeadream wrote:

BUT: how will a vote in this coming National Election change any of that?

it stays off Mussolini


one has to play the hand their dealt

it's always baby steps Bob

.

The problem is they are BOTH variations of "Mussolini". Vanilla-flavored Mussolini or Strawberry-flavored Mussolini?

LOSE-LOSE 2016.

BUT: how will a vote in this coming National Election change any of that?

It is all about the Supreme Court appointments, which are not set in stone.

.


I admire the idealism.

Belligerent Savant » Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:19 am wrote:.

seemslikeadream wrote:

BUT: how will a vote in this coming National Election change any of that?

it stays off Mussolini


one has to play the hand their dealt

it's always baby steps Bob

.

The problem is they are BOTH variations of "Mussolini". Vanilla-flavored Mussolini or Strawberry-flavored Mussolini?

LOSE-LOSE 2016.

no the lady will not take the control of my body away from me or my daughters control of their bodies away from them

you...I am sure do not have to worry about that

Belligerent Savant » Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:24 am wrote:.


I admire the idealism.

I admire women and men who think it's a good idea to have control of their bodies

in real life it has real consequences...a woman does not have to bleed out from a coat hanger abortion

I've lived it ...I've seen it.....women are not going back to it ..ever again


Trump

when I am not laughing at him...I am puking


yes Virginia ...some things are worse than others

since the beginning of time ..it's the lesser of two evils...forever and ever amen

Not at all idealistic, Belligerent one. While I may despise both candidates, I know whoever Clinton would choose to sit on the SCOTUS bench would be far more to my liking than any Trump would nominate.

Do you really believe their would be no difference in the political leanings of SCOTUS nominees either successful candidate for President would be sure to be nominating?

they want us to watch the shiny object


they are trying to hypnotize us

seems like a dream

they want us to watch the shiny object

(it's a speculum)

they are trying to hypnotize us

But we're distracted by the other shiny objects.
(Forceps and a vacuum)

seems like a dream

(reliving a fifty year-old nightmare)

.

Iamwhomiam » Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:41 am wrote:Not at all idealistic, Belligerent one. While I may despise both candidates, I know whoever Clinton would choose to sit on the SCOTUS bench would be far more to my liking than any Trump would nominate.

Do you really believe their would be no difference in the political leanings of SCOTUS nominees either successful candidate for President would be sure to be nominating?

It's difficult to "believe" anything represented by either major party "would be sure" once either toad is elected to office, and the line of delineation increasingly fades with each passing year. I won't assume anything.
Both candidates are currently pandering to those that are lining their campaign funding purses. Sure, it's understandable to assume SCOTUS nominees will likely fall in line with historical precedent, and if that's what one wants to hang their hat on, then by all means, hang it. It's certainly a viable/practical criteria to work with.

I recall however Obama's cabinet (albeit not bench) choices shortly after his first day in office. Turned out to be more of the same turds, no?

seemslikeadream » Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:26 am wrote:

Belligerent Savant » Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:19 am wrote:.

seemslikeadream wrote:

BUT: how will a vote in this coming National Election change any of that?

it stays off Mussolini


one has to play the hand their dealt

it's always baby steps Bob

.

The problem is they are BOTH variations of "Mussolini". Vanilla-flavored Mussolini or Strawberry-flavored Mussolini?

LOSE-LOSE 2016.

no the lady will not take the control of my body away from me or my daughters control of their bodies away from them

you...I am sure do not have to worry about that

Never wise to presume. I have daughters that have yet to hit their teens, so it's VERY much an important issue for me as well.
That said, see my prior reply. Both candidates are pandering to their bases, and it's folly to take anything that comes out of Trump's mouth at face value.
We'll be Fucked regardless -- and humans in other parts of the world will continue to lose LIVES due to policies put in place by either candidate.
Choose whichever presumptive pyrrhic victory helps y'all sleep better at night.

I'm gonna hang my vagina on it

I'm a one issue girl and those guys on the SC will be there for the rest of your daughters child bearing lives

I recall however Obama's cabinet (albeit not bench) choices shortly after his first day in office. Turned out to be more of the same turds, no?

You've wandered off-topic, BS. Kagan and Sotomayor were O's appointments to the bench, replacing Stevens and Souter, respectively.

The future appointments to the Supreme Court our next president will nominate matters greatly, as they are the interpreters of our Constitution.

And no matter where in the world our military wreaks havoc, which will continue under either candidates administration, the interpretation of our constitutional rights remain paramount to me as a citizen, regardless.

That you want to pretend there's no difference in who makes the appointments, or in the impacts of their appointments decisions, I can do nothing to convince you otherwise.

yes vote for the guy who is going to have this guy speak at his convention

Who is that SLAD?

Willie Robertson, the star of Duck Dynasty.