The Goat Pen

Professor Tiger wrote:

10ac wrote:I think we are steaming toward 1984 and not inching to the 1930s. What is racist about wanting to secure our borders?.

The statute of limitations of white guilt about very real evils like slavery (which ended 150 years ago) and Jim Crowe (which ended 50 years ago) is drawing to a close.

Can you really say Jim Crow "ended" when you've (The White Christian Men's Party) spent the last 49 years trying to reinstitute it?

Texas GOP Platform Calls For Repealing Voting Rights Act Of 1965
https://thinkprogress.org/texas-gop-pla ... .xf357rsui

North Carolina Voting Restrictions Violate Voters’ Rights, Federal Court Finds
http://www.wsj.com/articles/voting-rest ... 1469810843

Trump a 'National Disgrace' Colin Powell Wrote in Hacked Emails
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-na ... d=42073252

Newly revealed emails hacked from the private account of former Republican secretary of state Colin Powell show the retired four-star general repeatedly blasting Donald Trump, describing him as a "national disgrace" who engaged in a "racist" movement.

A spokesperson for Colin Powell told ABC tonight that the emails revealed "are accurate," and declined any further comment.

Much of the content of these emails was first reported by the website Buzzfeed, and ABC News has not independently obtained the emails. Buzzfeed quotes Powell in one email from June 17, 2016, to Emily Miller, a journalist and former aide of Powell. Powell writes that Trump “is in the process of destroying himself, no need for Dems to attack him."

In another email Powell describes Trump's birther investigation as a "racist" movement that incorrectly suggests Obama was born in a foreign country.

“Yup, the whole birther movement was racist,” Powell wrote. He also said Trump wanted to know if Obama was a Muslim. “As I have said before, ‘What if he was?’ Muslims are born as Americans everyday."

In a separate email titled "racism," Powell writes, "There is a level of intolerance in parts of the Republican Party."

Colin's right. Trump is a national disgrace. And there is a level of intolerance in parts of the Republican Party. Just like there are extreme elements in the Democrat Party, e.g. BLM.

My take on the birther movement (a conservative kook conspiracy theory) was it was more anti-Muslm than anti-black. There was never a supposed "dark conspiratorial secret" about Obama's race.

Speaking of Colin Powell, the hacked and released emails show he tried to keep Hillary from using him as a human shield against email investigations.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09 ... eveal.html

Obviously, Hillary ignored his reasonable request. Would she have ignored his requests if he was white? Of course not.

I am shocked - SHOCKED - at Hillary's blatant racism. It's almost as bad as aTm's.

Cletus wrote:

hedge wrote:I can't imagine why anyone would go to Cozumel and then end up at Senor Frogs. There are so many cool bars on that island and Senor Frogs is at the bottom of the list...

I got some blow there. That's one way to end up there.

I guess that shows how far I've fallen, every time I've been to Cozumel the idea of procuring blow never occurred to me...

Professor Tiger wrote:Speaking of Colin Powell, the hacked and released emails show he tried to keep Hillary from using him as a human shield against email investigations.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09 ... eveal.html

Obviously, Hillary ignored his reasonable request. Would she have ignored his requests if he was white? Of course not.

I am shocked - SHOCKED - at Hillary's blatant racism. It's almost as bad as aTm's.

You missed one email:

Colin Powell Called Benghazi ‘Stupid Witch Hunt’ In Email To Condi Rice
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/c ... witch-hunt

Wow. The latest poll (Bloomberg) has Trump up 5 in OH.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/politics/ ... index.html

RCP has Florida and North Carolina tied too.

I still don't think Trump will win, but this may be a lot closer than I previously thought.

Johnette's Daddy wrote: You missed one email:

Colin Powell Called Benghazi ‘Stupid Witch Hunt’ In Email To Condi Rice
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/c ... witch-hunt

Here's one more Powell email, regarding Hillary:

"I would rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect," he writes in the email dated July 26, 2014. "A 70-year-old person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still dicking bimbos at home (according to the NYP)."

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/29 ... ith-bimbos

Professor Tiger wrote:
Here's one more Powell email, regarding Hillary:

"I would rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect," he writes in the email dated July 26, 2014. "A 70-year-old person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still dicking bimbos at home (according to the NYP)."

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/29 ... ith-bimbos

That email could apply to either candidate. Just remove the words "with a husband."

As for the polls - Bloomberg skews 7 points to the GOP. Two days before, another poll (which skews Dem), had her up 7 in OH.

fivethirtyeight is the key for me and they have Hillary with a 67% chance of winning, which is GREAT . . . but down from 90% exactly one month ago!

I don't see Trump winning at all - but the broad, sweeping mandate for Hillary is out of the question and unless the 2018 midterm is a huge Dem win, she won't accomplish jack legislatively.

The Democratic hope is that she will get to appoint 5 judges during her tenure.

The fact that she is not wiping the floor with Trump is utterly unnnerving, but probably should be recognized as a gift from God to liberals. Clearly, if the Republicans had nominated ANYONE other than Trump (and maybe Cruz), they'd be killing Hillary.

... unless the 2018 midterm is a huge Dem win,she won't accomplish jack legislatively.

The Democratic hope is that she will get to appoint 5 judges during her tenure.

These two statements are directly related. If/when she gets 5 liberal SCOTUS judges, she won't NEED to accomplish jack legislatively. She'll just do whatever she wants to by executive order and/or regulation, and SCOTUS will rubber stamp it.

The fact that she is not wiping the floor with Trump is utterly unnnerving, but probably should be recognized as a gift from God to liberals.

Blacks are the only liberals who still believe in God. To other liberals, the G word is as offensive as Merry Christmas and All Lives Matter. Hurry up and edit your post, removing the offensive references to a deity. Some new liberal may stop by here and read it, not knowing your black, and call you a right-wing fundamentalist Bible-thumping bigot my mistake.

Clearly, if the Republicans had nominated ANYONE other than Trump (and maybe Cruz), they'd be killing Hillary.

Totally agree.

I don't see Trump winning at all - but the broad, sweeping mandate for Hillary is out of the question and unless the 2018 midterm is a huge Dem win, she won't accomplish jack legislatively.

No problem, she'll just rule by fiat, like her predecessor.

Why would Powell call her a friend that he respects then say she is greedy, etc? Why would he respect her if she's all those negative things he said about her?

"The Democratic hope is that she will get to appoint 5 judges during her tenure."

Five?? The only one that's going to matter is whoever replaces Scalia. That's going to be a pretty significant shift in the court if Hillary gets elected. Ginsburg will probably retire, but she's already liberal, so there's no gain there. Kennedy is 80, he's always been kind of a swing vote, but I guess if you would rather have a reliable liberal, that would be somewhat of a gain. Bryer is 78, but again, is considered pretty liberal (appointed by Bill Clinton), so no gain there. Next up would be Thomas, but he's only 68, which is about middle-aged by SCOTUS standards. Obviously if you replaced him with a lib, that would have huge ramifications, esp. with Scalia's seat already flipped, but I doubt he's going anywhere in the next 8 years, unless he dies. Alito and Roberts are both in their 60's and seem younger than that. They're not going anywhere. So basically there's really on 3 seats that are likely to come up (not counting Scalia's) and two of those are already in the liberal camp and the other one is nowhere near the hard right bloc on the court anyway. But still, replacing Scalia with a lib or even a moderate is already going to be a pretty significant shift...

One of Hillary's first acts as POTUS will be to have Clarence Thomas arrested and sent to an otherwise empty Gitmo as an enemy combatant. He'll share a cell with Rush Limbaugh, arrested for treason.

Hillary will replace Thomas and Scalia with John Koskinnen and James Comey - the two men whose loyalty kept her out of jail. She will bypass the inconvenient Senate confirmation process, and they will be seated on the bench, hearing cases, the next day.

Alito and Roberts will be shown pictures of Gitmo cells with their names on the door, just in case they get any counter-revolutionary ideas.

SCOTUS will approve the whole arrangement, and that will be that.

hedge wrote:"The Democratic hope is that she will get to appoint 5 judges during her tenure."

Five?? The only one that's going to matter is whoever replaces Scalia. That's going to be a pretty significant shift in the court if Hillary gets elected. Ginsburg will probably retire, but she's already liberal, so there's no gain there. Kennedy is 80, he's always been kind of a swing vote, but I guess if you would rather have a reliable liberal, that would be somewhat of a gain. Bryer is 78, but again, is considered pretty liberal (appointed by Bill Clinton), so no gain there. Next up would be Thomas, but he's only 68, which is about middle-aged by SCOTUS standards. Obviously if you replaced him with a lib, that would have huge ramifications, esp. with Scalia's seat already flipped, but I doubt he's going anywhere in the next 8 years, unless he dies. Alito and Roberts are both in their 60's and seem younger than that. They're not going anywhere. So basically there's really on 3 seats that are likely to come up (not counting Scalia's) and two of those are already in the liberal camp and the other one is nowhere near the hard right bloc on the court anyway. But still, replacing Scalia with a lib or even a moderate is already going to be a pretty significant shift...

Scalia - dead
Ginsberg - 83
Kennedy - 80
Breyer - 78
Thomas - 68, but Black men have the shortest life expectancy
Alito - 66
Sotomayor - 62
Roberts - 61
Kagan - 56

Assuming reasonable health, Sotomayor, Kagan & Roberts will all have 20 years.

Souter retired at age 70, Sandra Day O'Connor retired at 76, Scalia died at 79. In a 4-year term, she;ll probably have to deal with Ginsberg, Kennedy and Breyer, either due to retirement or death. In an 8 year term, it's not unreasonable to expect Thomas or Alito to ponder retirement.

Thomas has already served 25 years - if he retires, he'll still receive full salary, a paid clerk and paid office. If he serves 5 more years, at 73 he can clean up financially on the speaking circuit or take an endowed chair at a law school or university (and do even less work than he does now). He can even sit in on lower court cases as a judge (Sandra Day O'Connor has done it on occasion - even when retired they're still federal judges).

With Scalia dead and Thomas at Gitmo, Alito will be found at Ft Marcie Park. There will be no need to liquidate Roberts. He is the judicial Father of Obamacare. He'll play along with whatever.

The next justices will come from either the 9th circuit, which has long been a west coast commune of liberal jurisprudence, or the 6th circuit, which is the new 9th,

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/arti ... ed_appeal/

More new polling shockers:

The right leaning CBS/NYT poll: Hillary tied with Trump
The right leaning Rasmussen Reports: Trump +2
The right leaning LA Times/USC Tracking: Trump +6
The right leaning CNN ORC:
Florida: Trump +3
Ohio: Trump +5

That is just flat out astounding.

The liberals on Morning Joe (especially Donny Deutsch) were freaking out this morning.

So you're saying Roberts and Sotomayor easily have another 20 years in them, which would put them retiring (at the earliest) at the ages of 81 and 82, respectively. Thomas has 13 more years before he hits 81 and Alito, who appears to be in pretty good shape (much better than Scalia) has 15 years until he hits that mark. And in any case, they're both younger than Hillary. Considering her recent issues, I'd say it's a good bet that she'll die before either one of them. I can't see either of them (esp. Thomas) voluntarily stepping down with Hillary in office, knowing the type of Justice she would replace them with. And Alito has only been on the bench for 10 years, he's practically a rookie still. The average term of Sup Court justices who have retired since 1970 is over 26 years. Thomas has hit that mark and will likely far surpass it, but Alito would still be 8 years short of the average on Hillary's last day in office, assuming she serves two terms. Like I said, the replacement of Scalia is the only thing that really going to tip the court. It's going to be hard to find anybody more liberal than Ginsburg and I'm sure most libs are plenty happy with Breyer's voting record. There's no net gain for the liberal ideology (whatever that is) by replacing them. If Kennedy retires or dies, that would be an opportunity for a slight nudge leftward, but that about it.

What you haven't considered is, what if Trump wins? He'll replace Scalia with somebody comparable and the other 3 I mentioned with someone far more conservative, although as I've said, in some regards Trump is already more liberal than Hillary. He clearly supports gay rights and I suspect he's fairly liberal on most social issues. What scares me is, I can't even imagine what his thought process would be when considering who to nominate for the SC. He clearly knows plenty about litigation, but I doubt he has even a basic grasp on jurisprudence. It would basically be a crap shoot figuring out who he'd nominate. Of course, it would be hard to do worse than when Bush tried to float Harriett Miers. That kind of thing is truly scary and I wouldn't put it past Trump to nominate someone equally unqualified...

puterbac wrote:

crashcourse wrote:I'm an independent who voted Obama last election because he killed the number one terrorist in the world and made a gutsy call to do it
that one issue earned him my vote

I beg to differ. There was nothing gutsy about saying Yes kill Osama. Credit for doing it, but this wasn't Sophie's choice.

If had said no, it would have got out and he'd have been skewered.

Gutsy as in signed off on a mission that could've had disastrous consequences. See: Carter's Iranian hostage rescue mission or Reagan's foray into Lebanon. Funny how it became a no brainer only because it was a smashing success and no good guys got killed.

Otherwise, good work remembering 9/11.

Also, are you still luring impressionable young women into G10 with jello shots and shitty bands? (and if not, why not?)

puter,

hello

Trump already put out a list of judges from which he would select SCOTUS nominees.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us ... oogle.com/

FWIW, there don't seem to be any unqualified hacks like Harriet Myers on that list.

Tick, glad to see you back. I was worried you might be reading the recent polls, and had done something drastic.

(Preemptive "I wish you would do something drastic.")