1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Nov 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

  2. HanSenSE

    HanSenSE Well-Known Member

  3. gingerbread

    gingerbread Well-Known Member

    During an intelligence briefing (according to the time stamps), he tweets about his family business. And the rub is: It's not just that Ivanka's goods aren't selling; they're knockoffs. (I so wish Luggie or 21 or imjustagirl were here right now!)



     
  4. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Totally wrong is an awfully strong thing to say when you're talking politics. One dies a week before the next President is inaugurated, I'm OK with the next guy doing it. One dies two years beforehand, I'm not OK with waiting. Where I would draw the line ... I don't know. The only weapon against such is the ballot box, and at least this time, the voters seemed to be saying they didn't mind waiting.
     
  5. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Lot of diverse opinions in the Berkeley student paper:

     
    QYFW likes this.
  6. Deskgrunt50

    Deskgrunt50 Well-Known Member

    On this one, wrong is wrong. Obama put up an excellent, qualified candidate. He wasn't even considered because Republicans knew he was qualified.

    Which is why I think, even though the situation stinks, Gorsuch should be confirmed. Because he's qualified.
     
    Neutral Corner and Webster like this.
  7. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    Somebody's about to get the judicial appointment equivalent of primaried.
     
  8. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I think you're wrong there. He wasn't voted on because he was nominated by a Democratic President. It was a cynical partisan play that happened to work out. If there had been a Republican in the W.H., the Senate would have confirmed that Republican's nominee (and, though we can't actually bet, the Democrats would have vigorously opposed it). It's just the nature of the S.C. these days ... if the presidency is the highest-valued totem in the partisan/culture wars, seats on the S.C. are close seconds.
     
  9. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    I guess we'll know soon enough, but I wonder if we're at the point where the Senate has to go nuclear on SCOTUS votes because there's no way to get to 60.
     
  10. Riptide

    Riptide Well-Known Member


    Fucko strikes again ...


    [​IMG]
     
  11. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Now do the Wall Street Journal.
     
    doctorquant likes this.
  12. Deskgrunt50

    Deskgrunt50 Well-Known Member

    Can't argue that it was "just politics." But it was just wrong. I stand by the idea Garland wasn't considered because he was an excellent candidate and republicans would have looked bad voting against him.

    I also wish I could stop caring about politics because the shit that's going on now is pretty depressing. (Sad!)
     
    Neutral Corner and doctorquant like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page