Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi] . . . BG, If you drive a new car, you have much less chance of getting stopped. The police target old cars like your old Lexus. Your want profiling the Trump way? You got a taste of it. . . . [/quote]Ha, ha, FIH! Why don’t you try driving MY route sometime in your *newer* car! Make sure you pack your trunk relatively heavy, where it is visibly lower from your vehicle’s rear view. You’re going to be gone for weeks! You can start from beautiful El Centro, CA and work your way along I-8/I-10 all the way to El Paso, TX. We’ll let you have a 4-6 week “pass.” You will return to SD along the same route and come back and report to the Piggs your experience with Homeland Security east-west checkpoints in this great country of ours! I’m waiting with bated breath!
Oh, and I would recommend you get a “bra” for your car (or carry heavy-duty washing mitts and cleaners with you). We’re approaching “flying beetle season” in NM.
I’ve seen PLENTY of new and newer vehicles pulled into “secondary” at these makeshift traffic stops (which has never happened to me, btw). Yeah, even a new luxury car rental ($65K Mercedes Sedan) straight out of LAX! Of course, the Border Patrol/Customs agents can certainly tell by its CA plate configuration if a particular vehicle is from a rental fleet. Why don’t you tell me why the border patrol would pull over a carload of tourists who have obviously already been “vetted” with their documents at the time they entered the country at the airport??
Participant[quote=spdrun] . . . Maybe I’m just not wired to feel nationalism and patriotism.[/quote]Yes, I am an (admitted) US “Nativist.” I have been stopped at dozens of (continually moving) east-west “border checkpoints” NUMEROUS times within the US in my (interstate) travels and had my trunk and trailer searched by US Border Patrol as well as dogs sniffing around my tires every.single.time. I pass thru their (moving) checkpoints 2-4x year. And I have never carried drugs (or ingredients to “make” drugs) or tried to smuggle any “illegal immigrants” in my trunk into the country! G@ddammit, I’m an American … with proper ID … traveling on a east/west interstate in MY OWN COUNTRY! I should not have to put up with this NONsense! It is BULLsh!t! And what for? Because we have illegal immigrants pouring into the country (just like Trump discusses), many with heroin, meth (or the ingredients to manufacture meth) hidden in their vehicles.
Why should I have to pay the penalty?? I, as a native American citizen, should be allowed to travel freely within my OWN COUNTRY! Does anybody here object to that??
ParticipantI repeat, the US does NOT OWE other countries’ would-be ex-pats ANYTHING! We don’t OWE their people residency … or citizenship … or ANYthing!
We don’t owe would-be immigrants to the US jack sh!t!
Participant[quote=spdrun]Borders are artificial and arbitrary. Why does someone have more right to live in a given place if they were born there, vs not being born there?
Plenty of native-born Americans contribute little to society, some are even criminals, but they luck happened to win the lucky sperm/ovum jackpot by being born on US soil. Thus they can be here by default.
Why should one feel closer to people who just accidentally happened to be born in an area controlled by the same government? It seems like a pretty daft way to pick whom you feel a commonality with or closeness to.
Maybe I’m just not wired to feel nationalism and patriotism.[/quote]spd, it is impossible for any one country to take care of everyone else in the world who wants to come to that country. The reason so many Americans are out of work is because their (prior) jobs were “outsourced” to countries with much cheaper labor.
Regardless of how you feel about native-born Americans currently collecting cash aid, I can tell you that the vast majority of these recipients don’t really want to (and deeply resent “big-brother” minding their personal business for them, in doing so). They want a JOB paying a living wage. Or the equivalent to TWO or more JOBS held by family members in one family residing together to pay enough for them to reside together. So many of those living-wage jobs in smaller cities and towns across America (and even large cities, such as Detroit) have been “outsourced” in recent decades to cheap labor in other countries.
This does NOTHING for Americans’ earning potential or their way of life.
I personally have a problem with Chinese factories who have made money hand over fist manufacturing “engineered” or “laminate hardwood floors” for YEARS for giant US retailer Lumber Liquidators using (toxic) formaldehyde in the process. That’s disgusting and never would have happened had the flooring been manufactured inside the borders of the US.
ParticipantLOL! Just stop! We have here two “attorneys” here at their worst, folks … arguing for the sake of arguing … and I understand PC’s point, btw.
SK has also accused me on this forum of being a “racist” simply by virtue of my admission here that I voted for Trump in the primary. While spewing these indignities, he should be aware that I reside in one of the most diverse communities in SD County. My youngest kid, who graduated from “local” public HS two years ago, is now at a public university in East LA (the most “diverse” campus in the entire 23-campus system, btw) and I could have moved on at that point (relocated). However, I have plenty of “home equity” and am still here. Ask yourselves why, people. Could it be that I have lived in this area of SD County since August of ’86, moving here from SD metro (city proper)? For the record, that was nearly 30 years ago, folks. The truth is, I’m “comfortable” here, know well the “lay of the land” and am admittedly somewhat “territorial.”
And Mr. PC (pablo) has accused me in the past here of not hearing in SD domestic courtrooms what I have personally witnessed and heard with my own ears coming out of (female) judge’s mouths.
It’s all okay and I hold nothing against either of you. But bear in mind that I have as long of a memory (or longer) than both of you, combined :=0 And you can’t take that away from me. SK, you need to chill and not automatically assume that anyone who wants to vote for Trump is a “racist.” It’s not what you think … not by a long shot.
If I was a “racist,” I would have defected to an area of the state or region of the country where more of my own “peeps” reside the day after my youngest kid graduated from HS (and I am of mixed heritage, btw). Um, but … alas, I haven’t. What does that tell you? And no, I do not have a drop of Hispanic blood in my body. But here I am! I’m down here in SD South County groveling with “Hispanics” (full, half, 1/4, who cares?) and others (Filipinos) who are beyond disgusted with the routine of the local “illegal immigrant” or simply “daily-border-crossers” successfully availing themselves of US benefits played out over the last 2+ decades and wouldn’t mind seeing a nice, tall (preferably brick or block) wall built at the border … all the way to the ground, where northbound humans can’t slip under it every.single.day. like they are at present.
I know this might be a stretch for some folks (SK?) to believe around here, but not everyone who votes for Trump is a “racist.” Nor is Trump a racist. Far from it. He’s trying to have conversations with the American public and the press re: the detrimental effect that illegal immigration has on the states and the country but some people don’t want to listen. This group can selectively not listen to him or put in earplugs, for all I care. He’s trying to have conversations re: the role some of the immigrants allowed into this country played who adhere to the Muslim religion who are terrorists-in-the-making or would-be-terrorists (if a little something happens in the US that goes against their “grain”). He is absolutely in the right to question why we are allowing into the country all these people who can offer us nothing except their presence, especially since all other countries in the world do not allow into their countries even one-tenth of the immigrants the US allows in. And for what? What do all these groups DO for us Americans? Would the Piggs expect to be welcomed with open arms into another country with a path to “citizenship” whilst collecting cash, food and medical aid from that country (or charities from that country)? Ummm, I think not!
The US is not a “dumping ground” for all the (disenfranchised) people from other countries who want to permanently live here. ESPecially if they don’t have the means to do so and/or (secretly) want to emigrate to the US solely to spread their (incompatible, non-western) religious beliefs and customs to Americans and also onto their own offspring, later born in the US (ex: delusional father of recent Orlando shooter). Our country can’t even properly take care of its own. Thus, we have no business trying to save other countries from themselves, IMO. Trump has the b@lls to discuss what no other presidential candidate has addressed before while campaigning. It NEEDS to be addressed and I, for one, am glad he has brought up these issues. Illegal immigration has (fiscally) broken the State of CA in many prior Junes (end of the state’s fiscal year) and will continue to do so. The cost of having this group in our country is enormous and growing and impacts the ability of the states and the country to repair/replace its badly worn infrastructure, among its addressing its many other pressing domestic issues …. ALL of which require BILLIONS to fix!
Trump has been asking very valid questions that have needed to be addressed for decades and the “Hillary supporters” (who want to maintain the status quo) are shooting the messenger by insinuating that everyone who wants to discuss these valid concerns are “racists.” Of course, that is their perogative. It’s a free country and thus, they can vote for Hillary. And Trump supporters can certainly vote for Trump.
No one is a “racist” here.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, if San Diego has/had too many new developments, and if there’s a huge selection, shouldn’t prices be depressed?[/quote]No, even though the selection is much better at any given time in newer tracts, we have ~75% of homebuyers trying to bid each other out on heavily encumbered (MR/HOA) “mcmansions” situated 6-8 feet apart. They don’t even want the aging Poway rancher situated on 1/2 AC+ in the same (debt-riddled) school district (hopefully not run by incompetent, greedy clowns anymore but the damage is already done). The vast majority of these (Gen X-Y) homebuyers would rather have the crackerbox with stairs where they can carry heavy vacuums and their laundry up and downstairs and hear their neighbors’ toilet flush when they open a window :=0
The other 25% are buying in established areas and usually paying 70-100% cash for their home purchases. This is why the long-established areas in CA were not anywhere near as hard hit (with distressed property) as the newer tracts were from 2008 to 2012. Old-timers have good memories and the “rich” have good counsel and so therefore these groups traditionally make offers of well-priced properties situated in an excellent location, especially if the property has a view and/or “good bones” but can be had for an under-market price which makes sense to them … as they will often set aside cash to rehab it prior to moving in. And, of course, the longtime residents in these areas have tons of equity. On some blocks, over half of the homes are free and clear!
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd time family buyer with minor children in school usually must get a mortgage of 70% or more and don’t have the cash, time or expertise to do any major work to the property prior to moving in. They are often willing to up-bid each other and pay up to $300K more for the same house in a particular public school attendance area when a comparable house could be had up to $300K less and with a bigger lot in a different school attendance area in the same city.
It’s amazing to me that SD County parents are willing to prostrate themselves with huge mortgages and huge MR and in some cases, two or more monthly HOA dues obligations to live in an inferior location to the well-established communities when the CSU and UC don’t care where your kid went to HS. Yes, let me repeat that, they don’t care! As a matter of fact, all the CSU campuses but SDSU actually honor their agreements with neighboring school districts to allow in local freshman applicants with a ~3.1 GPA and a reasonable ~1100 SAT (excluding writing score). This is so these kids (many from lower and moderate-income homes) won’t have to live in the (now very pricey) campus housing their first year and it is as it should be. And the course, the UC “guarantees” admission (no choice of campus) to each and every applicant who meets the criteria for Eligibility in the Local Context:
http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/counselors/q-and-a/local/index.html#1
For a “smart kid,” it’s far easier to be in the top 9% of one’s senior class in a HS rated a 7 or 8 than it is at a HS rated a 9 or 10. And those HS’s rated a 7 and 8 often have just as many AP offerings as the HS’s rated a 9 or 10. Some of them even offer the IB program where a HS rated 9 or 10 does not. And why would one pay all that extra money (more expensive home/high MR) so their kid could attend a “10” elementary/middle school when homes feeding into a school rated an 8 or 9 are much cheaper for the same type/size home, often have larger lots, more convenient locations and no MR? (Yes, they’re usually older.) CA public university admissions boards only considers transcripts from grades 10-11 (and transcripts from 1-3 classes from Grade 9) for admission purposes (and later re-vet the already-admitted freshman applicant thru their final transcript from Grade 12). Transcripts before Grade 9 are never sent for by CA public university admissions boards.
Families are wasting all this money up-bidding each other in the same housing tracts and paying MR thru the nose for decades for naught, IMO. They could be putting those thousands of dollars every year into their retirement accounts and college funds for their kids but many of them are no doubt too “house poor” to do this.
When push comes to shove and your kid is applying to a CA public university, it doesn’t matter in the end where they attended grades K-12 … only that they graduated and fulfilled all the requirements for entrance into that particular system (CSU or UC) and the degree program they are applying to. A kid who attended public schools rated 9-10 from K-12 could easily turned down for admission to their top 3 campuses of choice in favor of another freshman applicant who attended CA public schools rated a 5-7 and who had lesser qualifications than the first applicant … especially if the 2nd applicant met ELC requirements and thus is “guaranteed” admission. This is why I advise that a HS senior apply to at least four campuses of each system (CSU/UC), assuming they’re qualified to apply as a freshman to both systems.
[End of lecture] I’m beginning to sound like Elizabeth Warren here lamenting that having children (and insisting they live in certain school districts/attendance areas) is the biggest single reason for personal BK filings in the US. And I am actually fundamentally opposed to many of her views :=0
Participant[quote=livinincali]. . . There’s 10’s of thousands of people in San Diego that live in a house they couldn’t afford to buy at today’s prices. When they die those homes will rent or be purchased by something affordable for the middle income of that area. The house in Mira Mesa that is occupied by an aging boomer who bought it 30 to 40 years ago on a military salary will eventually be occupied by somebody else.[/quote]With props 58 and 193 still on the books in CA, that “somebody else” will more than likely be occupied by the “aging boomer’s” child or grandchild. Why not, when the “aging boomer’s” ultra-low tax assessment can be passed down into perpetuity? They (and their heirs) would be fools to sell. Hence the low, low SFR inventory we in almost every single well-established community in the entire state!
Millenials (with no “aging parent/grandparent-homeowner living in the state) don’t care about this anyway. The vast majority of them want “newer” construction for their first home (high MR/HOA dues be damned). They don’t want an “old person’s” ’70’s “open concept” MM home with sparkly acoustical ceilings and few walls (pun intended). They just want “new” or “newer” because they can have it in SD County! This is so because SD City/County officials sold their longtime “constituents” down the river in approving a breathtaking amount of subdivision permits over the past 29 years (this has been most pronounced since 2003). These horribly unwise actions by our elected officials have severely adversely affected the quality of life for ALL residents of SD County.
Millenial prospective homebuyers have no choice in LA County as well as in at least five bay area counties. They must buy what is on offer (older home or even very old home), pay exorbitant rent closer to work or buy a home so far away from work that the commute severely impacts their daily lives for the worse. This is due to few to zero CFD’s being formed since the inception of the Mello Roos CFD Act (1982) due to their city/county officials electing to take their responsibilities as wise stewards of their constituents’ environments very seriously. As it should be.
Millenial homebuyers are “spoiled” in SD County with a HUGE selection of suburban and exurban newer construction tracts to choose available listings from. There are far more listings in these tracts than there will ever be in the established communities in SD best locations (Del Mar incl). The sole reason for this is the presence of Props 13, 58 and 193 on CA’s books, plain and simple.
Within the past ~2 months, two more of my “neighbors” (60-something “boomers”) just inherited another neighborhood home (one each) and promptly moved their (renting) kids (and their families) into the homes. Nothing will change in this regard until such time as CA voters have the will to ask our Legislature to repeal Props 58 and 193 and that likely won’t happen until h@ll freezes over :=0
CA coastal counties were never meant to have available inventory for first-time homebuyers …. at least not in the most desirable locations closer to the coast. This will never change, even IF Props 13, 58 and/or 193 are ever successfully repealed.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]This opinion doesn’t make me or anyone else that is in favor of seeing this wall built a “racist.” You might be “shocked” as to how many thousands of native-born or legal-resident persons of “Hispanic origin” from all across the country (incl “border dwellers”) agree with me![/quote]
The wall doesn’t make Trump a racist. (That wall, btw, will never be built. If it was built, it would never work.) Your pointing out facts don’t make you a racist. That doesn’t change the fact that Trump is a racist. You’re supporting a racist. You know all the facts that make him a racist. That, and a dozen or more of your posts here make it clear you’re a racist. Again, I don’t need to apologize for that. You should. Or own up to it. You’re supporting a flat out racist. You’re a flat out racist.
And yes, thousands of Hispanics will vote for Trump. Good luck with that. There’s 55 million Hispanics in the country. It’s estimated that 10 million will vote. Again, thousands will vote for Trump. That should win him…….nothing.[/quote]”All Trump supporters are racists” is your blanket “put down” of 30-40% of voters in this country (and that was only in the primary). They’re all “racists” but you’re not. I can see why more than a few Piggs will support Trump and vote for Trump and not post about it here with the likes of you on this board.
No one has asked you for an apology here. I honestly don’t care if you think I’m a “racist” because you know nothing about me. It has become apparent to all reading this thread and watching the CNN video I provided that your claim here that McConnell lied on CNN and is a “racist” is all in your head. But you’ll never own up to it, even when the proof is staring you in the face.
So much for your credibility ….
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Your whole series of posts to me on this and the “list” thread smack of someone with an air of superiority. So superior that they cannot acknowledge that they called someone out as a liar and a racist by mistake. And I’m not talking about myself, here, although in the past, you have (both overtly and covertly) implied that I, too, am a “racist.”[/quote]I never said anywhere that “I feel” or “I felt” anything. McConnell is a liar. McConnell is a racist. He just admitted in the last 48 hours that Trump is a racist. And he’s still supporting him anyway. And I think you’re a racist too. I don’t need to apologize for that. You do.[/quote]SK, you’re blinded by your “my way or the highway” mindset. You have essentially called me a racist for bringing up here the massive costs that CA has incurred for services for (as well as criminal justice system costs for) illegal immigrants. I’ve seen it first-hand for the past ~40 years and CA’s “unfunded mandates” over that time frame are likely in the $1T+ category by now. There are dozens of websites (some govm’t websites) detailing in lengthy reports this massive outlay of cash by CA taxpayers over many years due to being unreimbursed by the Federal Govm’t for these services. Everyone in government in CA who has any power at all is acutely aware of the adverse affect illegal immigration has had on this state and has had their own dept’s budget suffer because of it. All the while many of CA’s highways have been crumbling for years.
You’ve chosen to “shoot the messenger” who dares to discuss CA’s most prominent, seemingly intractable, elephant in the room, here. It doesn’t make you “look good” by doing so.
If Trump believes he can have a wall built along our ~1000 mile southern land border to protect this country’s interests and stop the sieve of northbound people (nearly all “indigent”) who are an endless money drain for local, state and Federal government coffers, then I say let him try. He can start right here in San Ysidro, since it is the largest border crossing of all of them.
This opinion doesn’t make me or anyone else that is in favor of seeing this wall built a “racist.” You might be “shocked” as to how many thousands of native-born or legal-resident persons of “Hispanic origin” from all across the country (incl “border dwellers”) agree with me!
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
When Justice Scalia died on February 13, 2016, Pres. Obama had 341 days or 11 months, 5 days left of his term (less than one year). Are you sure the reason our current Republican Senate won’t confirm any of Pres Obama’s supreme court picks in his last year of office are because he’s Black (or half-Black … as the case may be)?[/quote]or half-black? really? why is that even worth mentioning? Has any other president ever been required to provide his birth certificate to prove he wasn’t born in Kenya? I didn’t read anything you posted except for the last paragraph. Here’s the deal. No supreme court vacancy occurring in the first 6 months of the last year of any presidents last term in office has ever not been filled by that sitting president. Even McConnell acknowledges that it’s purely political. No former president has ever been treated as poorly as this president has. None has been accused of being a liar DURING a state of the union address. None has ever been denied a hearing on a supreme court nominee.
Have you heard the tea partiers claim “I want my country back”? You know what they’re saying, right?
Yes. I’m sure.[/quote]Um, SK, you can’t be “sure” of anything except that by accusing others of racism and idiocy, you are proving yourself to be arrogant, patronizing and a bully. You stated in the link below that you feel that the (“racist”) Republican majority in the Senate is essentially “dissing” Pres Obama re: confirmation of his Supreme Court nomination for the sole reason that he is “Black.” You stated here that you felt that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell himself was a “racist.” I don’t know anything about the “tea party,” nor do I have the time or inclination to listen to right-wing radio talk shows. And I haven’t had TV since January. The reason why I got rid of it is that I myself had only been watching it 1-3 hrs month for the last 15 years (CBS and ABC only). It wasn’t worth the price I was paying to Cox. And I didn’t even know what Fox News was until someone kept texting me clips of it this past February and I had to tell them to stop.
Remember that I have been registered as a “Dem” from the early/mid eighties until April 2016 (with a short stint as an “Independent” when I wanted to vote Bob Filner out of his longtime seat representing the 51st Congressional District … but he was re-elected anyway).
You posted here that McConnell was lying in the video I provided in the link. You explicitly stated that he was “a liar” and a “racist” (as were his fellow Republicans in the Senate) even though he (and several of his brethren) publicly denounced Trump for his public comments on Judge Curiel’s heritage.
I worked for 45 mins the other night researching what you posted here and determined that McConnell was telling the truth to Jake Tapper on CNN … that is, IF the info in Wikipedia is accurate and I suspect it is.
http://piggington.com/ot_everything_hillary#comment-268411
You “didn’t read” my findings because your recollection of “history” in this regard is a bit fuzzy and my “research” doesn’t comport with the fantasy that you have in your head of how things actually were and how they should be today.
And I can’t help it that nearly everyone around you (as you stated in the “List of local politicians supporting Trump” thread) is “ignorant” because you now live in the middle of a “deep red state.” You chose to leave your hometown of SD to move there so you have no choice but to deal with the people around you or move back “home.” Even so, you cannot be sure that at least 30% of San Diegans might not be “idiots” as well, lol ….
[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
flu, by your recent posts on this thread and others, you seem to the reader to be developing a chip on your shoulder as it applies to the Trump candidacy where there shouldn’t be. That’s on you … NOT Trump. Maybe you, too, SK. [/quote]I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Do I think Trump is a horrible candidate? Absolutely. Do I think every single person who supports him is a complete idiot? Absolutely. The worst candidate in my lifetime from either major party. Worse by an order of magnitude. For a dozen or more reasons. His lack of experience. His lack of the right temperament. His ignorance of the law. His lack of ideas. His lack of curiosity. His disdain for knowledge. His bullying tactics. His racism. His misogyny. His lack of respect for the office. His lack of respect for the press. There’s a dozen I typed without hesitation in a minute or so. But a chip on my shoulder? It’s hardly necessary for me to be critical of his candidacy.[/quote]
Your (bolded) statement is indicative of you “developing a chip on your shoulder,” imho. You could easily find yourself surrounded by “complete idiots” in the space of just a very few days to a few months. Methinks that’s a limiting posture to take and could severely limit your day to day activities and the people you associate with. But if that kind of life suits you, far be it from me to judge.[/quote]
I didn’t bold any words. You did. In my not the least bit humble opinion, the words mean exactly what they say. And your bolding them, and describing them as you have, are indicative, (again, in my not the least bit humble opinion) of you having no clue what “chip on your shoulder” means.
I think the likelihood of Trump winning is miniscule. But that said, I’ve survived just fine, being surrounded by 30% of the population that:
A: Think gay people choose to be gay
B: Think the bible is the literal word of god
C: Think evolution never happened
D: Think global warming isn’t happening or isn’t the result of human action
E: Can’t find the pacific ocean on a map
F: Think Fox News is actually newsThanks for your concern.
BTW, exactly what policy of Trump’s that he’s actually presented for, is it that you like? Can you point me to the actual plan?[/quote]
http://piggington.com/ot_does_anyone_have_list_local_politicians_are_endorsing_trump#comment-268314
Well, I must be a “complete idiot,” then. If 30% of the entire country is a “complete idiot,” that only leaves 70% of the populace who are not “complete idiots” worth talking to or trying to get to know. Hopefully, you are able to “properly vet” everyone you meet before wasting more of your “valuable” time with them … only to find out later that they are actually “complete idiots” for voting for Trump :=0
[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Wow, SK, I’ve noticed over the years that plenty of “zonies” know how to find Pacific Beach (SD) just fine. I’m disappointed to hear that your peeps in AZ are as “unenlightened” and ignorant as you say they are.
[/quote]
That’s not Arizona people. That’s the entire country.[/quote] (emphasis mine)
Your whole series of posts to me on this and the “list” thread smack of someone with an air of superiority. So superior that they cannot acknowledge that they called someone out as a liar and a racist by mistake. And I’m not talking about myself, here, although in the past, you have (both overtly and covertly) implied that I, too, am a “racist.”
Participant[quote=deadzone]These studies are clearly biased in order to promote immigration. But if you want to believe this garbage, then go ahead. If this is true, then we should promote open borders and unlimited immigration since it will improve all of our wages.[/quote]LOL … we already have this, and all of CA’s mayors, county boards of supervisors and all their agencies on up to the governor well know this fact, as well the superintendents of CA public school districts, heads of social service agencies, the US Homeland Security Dept and all of their respective agencies, the US District Courts in CA and their judiciary, the state courts and their judiciary, The head of the CA Dept of Corrections (CDC), etc, etc. CA’s county counsels repeatedly sue the state for operating funds for “unfunded mandates” to service illegal aliens and in turn, the CA AG’s office repeatedly sues the Federal Gubment for same.
And on and on and on it goes. It’s been like this since the mid-eighties and if someone doesn’t get into the highest office in the land to change things around, it will continue to be.
Alas, the truth is that these bureaucrats’ hands are tied … yes even the border patrol. They can do nothing about the sieve of people coming over the border every day. Border Patrol agents in AZ aren’t even allowed to tell their superiors that the groups of people coming over are larger than 20 people. They’re not allowed to apprehend and deport that many people at once, even though they have the manpower and resources to do so. See video in the following link:
Now, we have all these thugs making asses of themselves attacking people, kicking in vehicles (incl police vehicles), starting fires and waving MX flags outside of Trump rallies up and down the state on national TV and everyone else in the country with a TV set knows it, too. Sweet! Maybe we won’t have anymore domestic in-migration for awhile until CA’s problems can be addressed by the PTB in Washington DC. It can’t come soon enough.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]If, as you say, Obama will replace Scalia (and possibly Ginsburg), what are you worried about, SK? If Ginsburg is worried about who will replace her, then why doesn’t she just retire now? (My understanding is that she was in remission from Stage 1 panc after undergoing the Whipple procedure over 6 years ago but I understand the odds). She is very, very lucky to have caught it when she did, having been diagnosed with colon cancer (stage 2) nearly ten years before that where she had part of her colon removed. So I agree that Justice Ginsburg may not last thru January 2021.
[/quote]
Jesus fucking Christ. Do you not pay attention to what’s going on in the world? The racist republicans in control of the US Senate, have decided on a new rule, that has never existed before, that black presidents in the final year of their terms, can’t get a hearing on a supreme court justice.
The only way that Obama will get an opportunity to get a vote on a SC nomination is if Democrats take back control of the Senate. New senators will take office before Obama leaves office. He’ll have about 3 weeks to confirm a justice. If Trump wins (highly unlikely, unless there are way too many women like you casting vile votes), AND dems take back the Senate, then RBG will retire immediately. If Clinton wins, she’ll wait until Clinton is inaugurated. If Trump wins and Dems don’t take back the senate, women are fucked. Not maybe. That’s an absolute.
You might remember there was a douchebag hypocrite SC justice by the name of Antonin Scalia. He suddenly died, at the age of 79. Both Breyer and Kennedy, though neither are burdened with the douchebag disease, could similarly die unexpectedly. The risk is just too great to take the chance and leave it to a disgusting man like Trump.
If you cared about women, you could never vote for Trump. End of story.[/quote]SK, what you’re saying here isn’t what 32-year veteran of the senate and current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated in this great and informative CNN interview of June 2. Essentially, he stated that NO supreme court justice vacancies had been filled during an election year for the past 80 years. He also stated that a supreme court nominee has not been confirmed by the opposite party in an election year since 1888 and no US senate is ever going to confirm a SC nominee of a president of an opposite party.
see at 5:25
http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/watch/mcconnell-trump-could-alienate-latinos/vp-BBtO0e5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell
That doesn’t sound like a “new rule” to me. The reason Scalia’s vacancy is not currently being filled has nothing to do with the race of the current president.
If what McConnell stated in the interview is true, then whoever is elected POTUS in 2016 will get to fill Scalia and Ginsburg’s slots next year.[/quote]
It’s not true. Mitch McConnell is a liar.
Abe Fortas was confirmed as chief justice during Lyndon Johnson’s final year in office. Homer Thornberry was confirmed as his replacement.
Benjamin Cardozo was nominated and confirmed under Herbert Hoover during his last year in office.
Mahlon Pitney was both nominated and confirmed during Howard Taft’s last year in office.
What is true, is not a single vacancy on the supreme court during the first 6 months of the final year of a presidential term has ever NOT been filled by the sitting president. The first time it’s ever happened is right now, because of a rule just invented 114 days ago by Mitch McConnell.
Again, McConnell flat out lied. He made the racist rule and then he lied about it. He’s made it pretty clear he’s comfortable with racism as part of his party’ platform. He’s continuing to support the only racist that is still a candidate. The same racist that you’re supporting.[/quote]
I just did some research on your post and found out the following:
LBJ spent 5 years, 2 months as president. The first year and 2 months was in succession due to the death of JFK. Relevant dates of that term was 11/22/63 to 1/20/65. He was re-elected for a second term commencing 1/20/65 to 1/20/69.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson
LBJ (D) nominated Abe Fortas for Justice of the Supreme court in 1965 and he was successfully confirmed by a Dem Senate 8/11/65 (the first year of LBJ’s second term).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Fortas
In June 1968, LBJ nominated Abe Fortas for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Homer Thornberry for Fortas’ seat but he was never confirmed because Abe Fortas was never confirmed for the Chief Justice post so no vacancy on the court existed.
Thornberry was nominated for Abe Fortas’ seat on the Supreme Court by Lyndon B. Johnson when Johnson nominated Fortas to replace Earl Warren as Chief Justice. However, once Fortas withdrew his nomination in October 1968, Thornberry’s nomination became moot and was withdrawn by the White House without a vote. Thornberry was the last Supreme Court nominee to have served in the United States Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Thornberry
LBJ nominated Thurgood Marshall for supreme court justice on 6/13/67 (in the middle of his second term) and he was successfully confirmed by a Dem Senate on 8/31/67.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall
…When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced his retirement in June 1968, Johnson nominated Associate Justice Fortas to replace Warren as Chief Justice, and nominated Homer Thornberry (whom Johnson had previously appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1965) to the Associate Justice seat that Fortas would be vacating. Thornberry was chosen out of a larger field of candidates who were considered, including former United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance, Maine Gov. Edmund Muskie, United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry H. Fowler and prominent lawyer Albert E. Jenner, Jr.[9]
However, the Warren Court’s form of jurisprudence had angered many conservative members of the United States Senate, and the nomination of Fortas provided the first opportunity for these senators to register their disenchantment with the direction of the Court; they planned to filibuster Fortas’ nomination.[10] Senate Judiciary Committee chair James Eastland told Johnson he “had never seen so much feeling against a man as against Fortas.”[2] Fortas was the first Chief Justice nominee ever to appear before the Senate, and he faced hostile questioning about his relationship with Lyndon B. Johnson.
Johnson sought to help Fortas win a majority vote, but only as a face-saving measure, according to Johnson aide Joseph Califano:
“ “We won’t withdraw the nomination. I won’t do that to Abe.” Though we couldn’t get the two-thirds vote needed to shut off debate, Johnson said we could get a majority, and that would be a majority for Fortas. “With a majority on the floor for Abe, he’ll be able to stay on the Court with his head up. We have to do that for him.” Fortas also wanted the majority vote….On October 1, after a strenuous White House effort, a 45-43 majority of senators voted to end the filibuster, short of the 59 votes needed for cloture, but just barely the majority LBJ wanted to give Fortas. Later that day, Fortas asked the President to withdraw his nomination.[11] ”The debate on Fortas’s nomination had lasted for less than a week, led by Republicans and conservative southern Democrats, or so-called “Dixiecrats”. Several senators who opposed Fortas asserted at the time that they were not conducting a perpetual filibuster and were not trying to prevent a final up-or-down vote from occurring.[12] However, the Senate web site now characterizes the debate as the first filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee.[13]
In 1968, Senate rules required two-thirds of senators present to stop a debate (now 60% of the full Senate is needed). The 45 to 43 cloture vote to end the Fortas debate included 10 Republicans and 35 Democrats voting for cloture, and 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats voting against cloture. The 12 other senators, all Democrats, were not present.
The New York Times wrote of the 45 to 43 cloture roll call: “Because of the unusual crosscurrents underlying today’s vote, it was difficult to determine whether the pro-Fortas supporters would have been able to muster the same majority in a direct confirmation vote.”[14]
Once Fortas withdrew his nomination in October 1968, Thornberry’s nomination became moot and was withdrawn by the White House without a vote. Former Justice Arthur Goldberg later claimed that he was Earl Warren’s preference to succeed him.[15] After Fortas’s nomination was withdrawn in the face of Senate opposition, Johnson briefly considered naming Goldberg as Chief Justice as a recess appointment before rejecting the idea.[16] The next president, Republican Richard Nixon, appointed Warren Burger the next Chief Justice. David Leonhardt of The New York Times called Johnson’s nomination of Fortas “one of the most consequential blunders in modern American politics” as the Chair has been held by conservatives appointed by Republican presidents ever since.[17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson_Supreme_Court_candidates
Herbert Hoover (R) was president from 3/2/29 to 3/4/33. He nominated Benjamin Cardozo for supreme court justice and he was successfully confirmed on 3/2/32 (84 years ago) by a Republican Senate, one year and 2 days before he left office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo
Howard Taft (R) was president from 3/4/1909 to 3/4/1913. He nominated Mahlon Pitney for supreme court justice and he was successfully confirmed on 3/13/1912 (104 years ago) by a Dem Senate, just nine days short of one year before he left office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahlon_Pitney
McConnell was technically correct when he said on CNN that there hadn’t been a supreme court justice vacancy which had been filled during an election year for the past 80 years.
I don’t know whether McConnell’s claim is true or not that a supreme court nominee hadn’t been confirmed by the opposite party in an election year since 1888. Finding the answer would take much more research.
[img_assist|nid=25865|title=History of US Senate and House of Reps in power|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=50]
When Justice Scalia died on February 13, 2016, Pres. Obama had 341 days or 11 months, 5 days left of his term (less than one year). Are you sure the reason our current Republican Senate won’t confirm any of Pres Obama’s supreme court picks in his last year of office are because he’s Black (or half-Black … as the case may be)?
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]If, as you say, Obama will replace Scalia (and possibly Ginsburg), what are you worried about, SK? If Ginsburg is worried about who will replace her, then why doesn’t she just retire now? (My understanding is that she was in remission from Stage 1 panc after undergoing the Whipple procedure over 6 years ago but I understand the odds). She is very, very lucky to have caught it when she did, having been diagnosed with colon cancer (stage 2) nearly ten years before that where she had part of her colon removed. So I agree that Justice Ginsburg may not last thru January 2021.
[/quote]
Jesus fucking Christ. Do you not pay attention to what’s going on in the world? The racist republicans in control of the US Senate, have decided on a new rule, that has never existed before, that black presidents in the final year of their terms, can’t get a hearing on a supreme court justice.
The only way that Obama will get an opportunity to get a vote on a SC nomination is if Democrats take back control of the Senate. New senators will take office before Obama leaves office. He’ll have about 3 weeks to confirm a justice. If Trump wins (highly unlikely, unless there are way too many women like you casting vile votes), AND dems take back the Senate, then RBG will retire immediately. If Clinton wins, she’ll wait until Clinton is inaugurated. If Trump wins and Dems don’t take back the senate, women are fucked. Not maybe. That’s an absolute.
You might remember there was a douchebag hypocrite SC justice by the name of Antonin Scalia. He suddenly died, at the age of 79. Both Breyer and Kennedy, though neither are burdened with the douchebag disease, could similarly die unexpectedly. The risk is just too great to take the chance and leave it to a disgusting man like Trump.
If you cared about women, you could never vote for Trump. End of story.[/quote]SK, what you’re saying here isn’t what 32-year veteran of the senate and current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated in this great and informative CNN interview of June 2. Essentially, he stated that NO supreme court justice vacancies had been filled during an election year for the past 80 years. He also stated that a supreme court nominee has not been confirmed by the opposite party in an election year since 1888 and no US senate is ever going to confirm a SC nominee of a president of an opposite party.
see at 5:25
http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/watch/mcconnell-trump-could-alienate-latinos/vp-BBtO0e5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell
That doesn’t sound like a “new rule” to me. The reason Scalia’s vacancy is not currently being filled has nothing to do with the race of the current president.
If what McConnell stated in the interview is true, then whoever is elected POTUS in 2016 will get to fill Scalia and Ginsburg’s slots next year.[/quote]
It’s not true. Mitch McConnell is a liar.
Abe Fortas was confirmed as chief justice during Lyndon Johnson’s final year in office. Homer Thornberry was confirmed as his replacement.
Benjamin Cardozo was nominated and confirmed under Herbert Hoover during his last year in office.
Mahlon Pitney was both nominated and confirmed during Howard Taft’s last year in office.
What is true, is not a single vacancy on the supreme court during the first 6 months of the final year of a presidential term has ever NOT been filled by the sitting president. The first time it’s ever happened is right now, because of a rule just invented 114 days ago by Mitch McConnell.
Again, McConnell flat out lied. He made the racist rule and then he lied about it. He’s made it pretty clear he’s comfortable with racism as part of his party’ platform. He’s continuing to support the only racist that is still a candidate. The same racist that you’re supporting.[/quote]OK, I’m going to research what you’re saying here later tonight.
I’m puzzled though. It was obvious to me that McConnell had some idea of the questions that Tapper was going to ask him. He didn’t waste a second or flinch but answered them straight up, thoroughly and without hesitation. Isn’t CNN considered to be a liberal news media outlet? Why didn’t Tapper call him on his lies if he knew the truth?
Or maybe he didn’t research and therefore didn’t know the “truth” (as you say) … or didn’t have time in the broadcast to delve into the truth :=0
Conversely, ultra Lib Political Correspondent John Dickerson seemed to have no problem inviting Trump into his Beverly Hills home for a “Face the Nation” interview yesterday morning (June 5) for the sole purpose of attempting to make him look stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dickerson_%28journalist%29
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]If, as you say, Obama will replace Scalia (and possibly Ginsburg), what are you worried about, SK? If Ginsburg is worried about who will replace her, then why doesn’t she just retire now? (My understanding is that she was in remission from Stage 1 panc after undergoing the Whipple procedure over 6 years ago but I understand the odds). She is very, very lucky to have caught it when she did, having been diagnosed with colon cancer (stage 2) nearly ten years before that where she had part of her colon removed. So I agree that Justice Ginsburg may not last thru January 2021.
[/quote]
Jesus fucking Christ. Do you not pay attention to what’s going on in the world? The racist republicans in control of the US Senate, have decided on a new rule, that has never existed before, that black presidents in the final year of their terms, can’t get a hearing on a supreme court justice.
The only way that Obama will get an opportunity to get a vote on a SC nomination is if Democrats take back control of the Senate. New senators will take office before Obama leaves office. He’ll have about 3 weeks to confirm a justice. If Trump wins (highly unlikely, unless there are way too many women like you casting vile votes), AND dems take back the Senate, then RBG will retire immediately. If Clinton wins, she’ll wait until Clinton is inaugurated. If Trump wins and Dems don’t take back the senate, women are fucked. Not maybe. That’s an absolute.
You might remember there was a douchebag hypocrite SC justice by the name of Antonin Scalia. He suddenly died, at the age of 79. Both Breyer and Kennedy, though neither are burdened with the douchebag disease, could similarly die unexpectedly. The risk is just too great to take the chance and leave it to a disgusting man like Trump.
If you cared about women, you could never vote for Trump. End of story.[/quote]SK, what you’re saying here isn’t what 32-year veteran of the senate and current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated in this great and informative CNN interview of June 2. Essentially, he stated that NO supreme court justice vacancies had been filled during an election year for the past 80 years. He also stated that a supreme court nominee has not been confirmed by the opposite party in an election year since 1888 and no US senate is ever going to confirm a SC nominee of a president of an opposite party.
see at 5:25
http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/watch/mcconnell-trump-could-alienate-latinos/vp-BBtO0e5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell
That doesn’t sound like a “new rule” to me. The reason Scalia’s vacancy is not currently being filled has nothing to do with the race of the current president.
If what McConnell stated in the interview is true, then whoever is elected POTUS in 2016 will get to fill Scalia and Ginsburg’s slots next year.
-
AuthorPosts
