Replacing Ginsburg's Supreme Court Seat

[wydileie]

Actually it makes good sense to vote that way.  The thing that makes no sense is when people vote for candidates that have no chance to win which often results in electing the candidate they would least prefer.  Right now in Kentucky, there is a bogus Libertarian candidate running and being funded by anti-McConnell people.  The idea is to sucker enough conservative people into voting Libertarian so the Democrat can win.  That actually worked for them in the governor's race last time.

It may to you, and that's fine. That's not how I feel, and I think is one of the main reasons the country is in the politically contentious state it is in right now. I don't think all that many Democrats really want to see the country move to the far left that AOC and Omar are touting, but they are the mouth of the party. If people really don't like Trump, they are now trapped in a two party system where no one represents their ideals.

[ScarletHayes]

If what I said is at least close to the case I think that would be a boon to 3rd party candidates

[dkeener67]

I hope this makes you vote orange

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

It won't, but good try

I think voting against someone is a silly way to vote, ... .

Actually it makes good sense to vote that way.  The thing that makes no sense is when people vote for candidates that have no chance to win which often results in electing the candidate they would least prefer.  Right now in Kentucky, there is a bogus Libertarian candidate running and being funded by anti-McConnell people.  The idea is to sucker enough conservative people into voting Libertarian so the Democrat can win.  That actually worked for them in the governor's race last time.

Totally agree. I consider my political party to be the anti democrat party. I thoroughly despise what they have become. They should change their name from the Democrat Party to the Far Left Party.

[Hightop77]

Actually it makes good sense to vote that way.  The thing that makes no sense is when people vote for candidates that have no chance to win which often results in electing the candidate they would least prefer.  Right now in Kentucky, there is a bogus Libertarian candidate running and being funded by anti-McConnell people.  The idea is to sucker enough conservative people into voting Libertarian so the Democrat can win.  That actually worked for them in the governor's race last time.

It may to you, and that's fine. That's not how I feel, and I think is one of the main reasons the country is in the politically contentious state it is in right now. I don't think all that many Democrats really want to see the country move to the far left that AOC and Omar are touting, but they are the mouth of the party. If people really don't like Trump, they are now trapped in a two party system where no one represents their ideals, but they feel trapped in voting for R or D.

It is a two party system and works well when you have a homogeneous population as we used to have.  Once you get to the point that you need multiple political parties to meet all of the various interests and agendas, it will not be a good fit for our type of government.  With all of the cultural and race groups in America, you might wind up with 10 or 15 political parties under your system.  It would be a disaster and a hopelessly splintered country.  But as we move toward third world status it would make sense.

[wydileie]

It is a two party system and works well when you have a homogeneous population as we used to have.  Once you get to the point that you need multiple political parties to meet all of the various interests and agendas, it will not be a good fit for our type of government.  With all of the cultural and race groups in America, you might wind up with 10 or 15 political parties under your system.  It would be a disaster and a hopelessly splintered country.  But as we move toward third world status it would make sense.

Disagree. Once you have parties actually representing people's needs and desires, you will have a real representation of our population. That is an upside, not a downside. You now have people in Congress that will be required to compromise and work together to pass anything, instead of endless gridlock where things just slowly march to the edge of a cliff as we go further and further into the demonization of the "other" party. 

Plenty of first world countries have multi-party systems. In fact, I believe the US is one of the only ones, if not the only one, to have only two prominent parties.

[dunefan]

It is a two party system and works well when you have a homogeneous population as we used to have.  Once you get to the point that you need multiple political parties to meet all of the various interests and agendas, it will not be a good fit for our type of government.  With all of the cultural and race groups in America, you might wind up with 10 or 15 political parties under your system.  It would be a disaster and a hopelessly splintered country.  But as we move toward third world status it would make sense.

Disagree. Once you have parties actually representing people's needs and desires, you will have a real representation of our population. That is an upside, not a downside. You now have people in Congress that will be required to compromise and work together to pass anything, instead of endless gridlock where things just slowly march to the edge of a cliff as we go further and further into the demonization of the "other" party. 

Plenty of first world countries have multi-party systems. In fact, I believe the US is one of the only ones, if not the only one, to have only two prominent parties.

At what point do you think AOC or Pelosi or Schitt or baby Nads or Pocahontas or any of these fools are going to compromise?  It's their way or the highway.

[wydileie]

At what point do you think AOC or Pelosi or Schitt or baby Nads or Pocahontas or any of these fools are going to compromise?  It's there way or the highway.

The Democrats would be split into two (or more) parties, your "Progressive Party" and your "Democratic Party". AOC and Pelosi have little in common in what they believe or how they want to govern, yet they are stuck in the same party because there aren't any other options. If they ever wanted to get any of their bills passed, they would have to work with each other, and/or with other parties to gain enough support. Your argument that they wouldn't be willing to compromise should be a pro to you, if you really believe that, as their parties would be rather useless.

I would envision something from left to right:
Green->Progressive->Democrat->Republican->Libertarian

Perhaps the progressives simply meld with the Green Party, or the Republicans splinter into another party, but in any case, all these parties have to compromise and work together with each other.

[Hightop77]

It is a two party system and works well when you have a homogeneous population as we used to have.  Once you get to the point that you need multiple political parties to meet all of the various interests and agendas, it will not be a good fit for our type of government.  With all of the cultural and race groups in America, you might wind up with 10 or 15 political parties under your system.  It would be a disaster and a hopelessly splintered country.  But as we move toward third world status it would make sense.

Disagree. Once you have parties actually representing people's needs and desires, you will have a real representation of our population. That is an upside, not a downside. You now have people in Congress that will be required to compromise and work together to pass anything, instead of endless gridlock where things just slowly march to the edge of a cliff as we go further and further into the demonization of the "other" party. 

Plenty of first world countries have multi-party systems. In fact, I believe the US is one of the only ones, if not the only one, to have only two prominent parties.

No way that would ever return us to the great country that the Founders envisioned with limited government and where politics didn't dominate thinking.  What you want will politicize things even more than what they are today and the country will be even more fractured.  Rights would literally disappear just like they don't really exist in those multi-party countries you admire.

[davebucknut]

It is a two party system and works well when you have a homogeneous population as we used to have.  Once you get to the point that you need multiple political parties to meet all of the various interests and agendas, it will not be a good fit for our type of government.  With all of the cultural and race groups in America, you might wind up with 10 or 15 political parties under your system.  It would be a disaster and a hopelessly splintered country.  But as we move toward third world status it would make sense.

Disagree. Once you have parties actually representing people's needs and desires, you will have a real representation of our population. That is an upside, not a downside. You now have people in Congress that will be required to compromise and work together to pass anything, instead of endless gridlock where things just slowly march to the edge of a cliff as we go further and further into the demonization of the "other" party. 

Plenty of first world countries have multi-party systems. In fact, I believe the US is one of the only ones, if not the only one, to have only two prominent parties.

No way that would ever return us to the great country that the Founders envisioned with limited government and where politics didn't dominate thinking.  What you want will politicize things even more than what they are today and the country will be even more fractured.  Rights would literally disappear just like they don't really exist in those multi-party countries you admire.

I agree.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[dunefan]

At what point do you think AOC or Pelosi or Schitt or baby Nads or Pocahontas or any of these fools are going to compromise?  It's there way or the highway.

The Democrats would be split into two (or more) parties, your "Progressive Party" and your "Democratic Party". AOC and Pelosi have little in common in what they believe or how they want to govern, yet they are stuck in the same party because there aren't any other options. If they ever wanted to get any of their bills passed, they would have to work with each other, and/or with other parties to gain enough support. Your argument that they wouldn't be willing to compromise should be a pro to you, if you really believe that, as their parties would be rather useless.

I would envision something from left to right:
Green->Progressive->Democrat->Republican->Libertarian

Perhaps the progressives simply meld with the Green Party, or the Republicans splinter into another party, but in any case, all these parties have to compromise and work together with each other.

Progressives will only be happy if they take over the democratic party.  They aren't going to be satisfied with the green party.  No power there.  And when biden (if elected) dies in office (or is removed because of his dementia) you've got harris in charge probably for 8-10 years.  The progressives will be in power at that point and the US as we knew it is fu*ked.  If Trump stays President then the progressives will take over more and more of the democratic party until they are in control.  The green party will join THEM.  More and more socialists from NY and CA will keep flooding the red states and take their politics with them and change them blue.  The progressives will be in power at that point and the US as we knew it is fu*ked.  I'll be dead by the time any of this shyt effects me but I'm worried sick about my daughters and grand-daughter.

[zigbee]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/girl-sc...reme-court

The Girl Scouts of America deleted a social media post on its official Twitter and Facebook pages Wednesday evening congratulating Amy Coney Barrett on her appointment to the Supreme Court.


The original post, shared by FOX 6 Milwaukee political reporter Jason Calvi, included the caption: "Congratulations Amy Coney Barrett on becoming the 5th woman appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1789" ending with an emoji of hands raised up.

The post featured an image of Barrett; her two Supreme Court colleagues, associate justices Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor; former associate justice Sandra Day O'Connor; and the late associate justice and Barrett's predecessor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

SCOTUS WON'T FAST-TRACK APPEAL OVER BLOCKING EXTENDED DEADLINE FOR PA MAIL-IN BALLOTS

The move quickly faced swift backlash from critics and lawmakers, with Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., tweeting, "What kind of patch does one earn for uplifting a woman who is the antithesis of justice?"


Another Twitter user, a "life-time Girl Scout", said she was "ashamed" of the post.

"I already felt uneasy as a trans person in this organization, but now I really understand that with this message that Girl Scouts really does not support me or my trans/LGBTQ siblings," she added.


In a statement released by the Girl Scouts, the organization said the post was "quickly viewed as a political and partisan statement," which was not its original intent.

"Girl Scouts of the USA is a nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization," the statement added. "We are neither red nor blue, but Girl Scout GREEN. We are here to lift up girls and women."


One of the more than 4,000 replies to the post said she would take her business elsewhere, saying, “Iâ€m going to spend my $100 Girl Scout Cookie budget on ingredients to make my own next year.”

Noah Michelson, editorial director of HuffPost Personal, argued in a Facebook post that there was "no requirement that we celebrate someone as a hero to women simply because she identifies as a woman, especially when the thing she did was actually done for her by a gang of disgraceful goons and when she is poised to destroy the lives of so many people."

JOY REID POSTS INCORRECT TWEET KNOCKING MCCONNELL'S SCOUT WINS: 'ALL IT TOOK WAS THREE PEOPLE TO DIE'

Some commenters also offered praise for the post, with one woman on Facebook writing, “Girl Scouts, thank you for celebrating ALL women and showing us there is a place at the table for those with ALL different sorts of values. Practicing what youâ€re preaching, right here. Itâ€s very nice to see.”

Another woman wrote, “Iâ€m glad to see the organization support all women both liberal and conservative!”

One conservative woman pointed out that she didnâ€t "trash the Girl Scouts when I didnâ€t agree with things that were against my beliefs."

"When other conservatives trashed Girl Scouts for leftist ideas, I defended it,” she added. “Now I see it being trashed by the so called tolerant left for uplifting a female to the Supreme Court. That is disappointing. Those of you bashing the organization, please remember there are conservatives that support Girl Scouts too. I was grateful to see the post in support of WOMEN, regardless of who they are.”

Even one of Barrett's critics saw no issue.

“As much as I dislike this particular woman and deplore the political hypocrisy that allowed her to be in such respected company, GSUSA is completely right to recognize her,” the commenter wrote. “Well done. It could not have been easy.”

President Donald Trump watches as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas administers the Constitutional Oath to Amy Coney Barrett on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Oct. 26, after Barrett was confirmed by the Senate earlier in the evening. (Associated Press)
President Donald Trump watches as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas administers the Constitutional Oath to Amy Coney Barrett on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Oct. 26, after Barrett was confirmed by the Senate earlier in the evening. (Associated Press)
On Tuesday, Barrett was officially sworn in as the 115th Supreme Court justice after being confirmed by the Senate in a 52-48 vote on Monday, just days before the upcoming presidential election.

Barrett is expected to quickly begin, weighing in on significant cases involving voting rights, health care, immigration, religious freedom and LGBTQ rights, among other issues.


The post congratulating Barrett is not the first time the Girl Scouts has shown support for female figures in the political arena.

The Girl Scouts previously shared a Huffington Post article dating back to December 2013 in which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the importance of female political leadership as she was mulling a run in the 2016 election.


A spokesperson for the Girl Scouts did not immediately return FOX News' request for comment on that political tweet, which remained on the organization's Twitter feed.

What kind of patch does one earn for uplifting a woman who is the antithesis of justice? https://t.co/Z7TfkymPfL

— Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) October 28, 2020

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

As a life-time Girl Scout, I am ASHAMED that this is on our org's Twitter. I already felt uneasy as a trans person in this organization, but now I really understand that with this message that Girl Scouts really does not support me or my trans/LGBTQ siblings. pic.twitter.com/aByBN3u2tZ

— ✨🌻Felix🌻✨🌹Abolish The Police🌹 (@IkeaClark) October 28, 2020

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Earlier today, we shared a post highlighting the five women who have been appointed to the Supreme Court. It was quickly viewed as a political and partisan statement which was not our intent and we have removed the post.

— Girl Scouts (@girlscouts) October 28, 2020

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[davebucknut]

The girl and boy scouts are getting killed by the left, they should just tell them to pound salt.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Alabuckeye]

A point to make on that article about the Girl Scouts, and the Tech CEO's testifying in front of Congress.....

Jack Dorsey made the point, as he was being exposed for Twitter's hypocrisy, that Twitter's main goal was a platform where people felt safe to express themselves. That's an important distinction. Twitter allows Iran's official accounts to deny the holocaust while censoring Conservatives for attaching articles about Joe Biden. That GS article above mentions respondents who "don't feel safe" with the GS congratulating ACB. As a result, rules are applied based on emotion, on wokeness, on ideology, with no need for logic.

[Hightop77]

The girl and boy scouts are getting  killed by the left, they should just tell them to pound salt.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The Leftists now run them and comprise most of their board and leadership.

[ScarletHayes]

ACB is now "the antithesis of justice."  Lmao!  Really?  Please explain to the class on what you base that statement.  Uhhhhh...  I think Chuck Schumer said it, so it has to be true.

This might even outdo the previous quote:

Noah Michelson, editorial director of HuffPost Personal, argued in a Facebook post that there was "no requirement that we celebrate someone as a hero to women simply because she identifies as a woman, especially when the thing she did was actually done for her by a gang of disgraceful goons and when she is poised to destroy the lives of so many people."

Lol. I love the language of today. ACB "identifies as a woman." Not that she actually IS A WOMAN. These people are absolutely effffffing NUTS