Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 4, 2016 at 11:23 AM in reply to: OT: Does anyone have a list of local politicians that are endorsing Trump? #798320
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]This is a stupid scenario. There are plenty of legal Juans and mixed families. The legal ones often have 2 or 3 jobs, meaning they are working hardest. My carpet guy was born in USA. He works on big commercial buildings and runs a small business on the side. He dad might be undocumented, or was at one point.[/quote]I agree with this.
Participant[quote=svelte]Oh give me a gd break.
It’s not as dire as you all make it to be.
I’ve got two kids.
One four year degree. Got a great job in the bay area this year. Making a lot of $$ but renting.
The other a certificate, not even a two year degree. Making an equal amount of $$ in SD, able to buy a house which the other kid can’t do. Will the 4 year degree win out? No doubt in the long run. But for now, neck in neck, both working office jobs for great corporations, both hard working, both going for the gold.
Let’s not be doom-n-gloomers. Is the world as it was 50 years ago? of course not. But human nature being what it is, there will always be lazy folks and those that will do whatever it takes to be successful. Degree or not.
As the saying goes, you can’t keep a good man down.[/quote]Agree with this. Your degreed kid can’t buy anything in the bay area simply because the prices are too high for a “recent” grad (one who graduated in the past 10 years). They haven’t yet had enough time to save up $175k++ for a downpayment and possibly don’t make enough to qualify for a supercomforming or jumbo mortgage (by themselves). My kid(s) are successful in the bay area as well (SF) but still renting for 12+ years, during which time SF residential real estate has gone up in price 250%+ (in spite of the “2008+ recession” which had little effect on this city).
A one-year “certificate” from a CC or private occupational school can get one a job at an insurance company, bank, medical/dental office or an administrative or account clerk position anywhere. Once the certificate-holder starts working, they can move up from their entry-level position. It’s a totally respectable and affordable way to get trained after HS. The worker can always attend college later on in the eves …. AFTER their employer agrees to pay for it!
I agree that boomers had it much easier on living expenses than millenials do …. straight out of HS. My first apt in SD (Banker’s Hill) was $140 month (incl all utils as it had a “boiler room”). It was a beautiful, spacious “vintage” apt in an historic bldg with my own private small yard. BUT the wages then were far, far less than they are today. Fortunately, I made good tips, lived very well and was able to pay cash for a brand new car (~$5K for a “loaded” vehicle at the time) :=0
Disclaimer: I was not a college student at the time.
It all depends on the motivation of the kid how successful they’re going to be as a young adult. And I believe the parents’ input on expectations (or lack thereof) affect that level of motivation. The lazy 20-something indebted-millenial-whiner college graduates just don’t want to alter their lifestyles (ex: pay exorbitant rent in Gritty City to place themselves in positions to make the Big Bucks). For many CA millennials, it’s easier to camp out in parents’ back bdrms indefinitely (if their parent(s) are willing). Especially if they will have their own baths, access to pool/jacuzzi, garage parking, etc, etc. And a lot of these kids are heavily indebted after graduation cuz they chose a PRIVATE college over public and/or borrowed copious amounts of money for living expenses while in college (ex rented “luxury” apt, did not have enough roommates, weekly salon visits, mall shopping, amusement parks, eating out at full-service restaurants … the list goes on). These same ex-students are now crying wolf because they’re in debt for ~100K just from earning a bachelor degree at a CA public university!
Where were their parents when their student was wasting $$$$ every quarter/semester on non-necessities? Didn’t any financial advice or talks occur between parent and student? Were these students ever counseled against taking out a student loan by anyone who cared about them??
A large portion of student loans were taken out solely to “upgrade” the lifestyle of the student while in college. Their tuition, fees, books and parking were already covered (and then some). I know this because I know VA Chapter 35 eligible students (now grads) who did this (unbeknownst to their parents) and had to return “home” after graduation to start making their student loan payments. Needless to say, their parents were furious when they found out because VA Chapter 35 eligible students now receive over $1060 month from the VA over and above their (year-round) tuition waiver! A part time job of 12-15 hrs week at min wage could have solved all their problems! Yes, even at a large urban CA campus!
I’ve always “talked turkey” to my kids. I’m not their “friend” (they’ve got 100’s of those, lol). I’m their parent.
I don’t feel sorry for any of these indebted “entitled brats.” They did it to themselves.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]LOL,
The 70’s and early 80’s were no picnic.
IMO the current grads will have much better opportunities than we did.[/quote]You’re damned straight, Shoveler! Our living expenses were much less than today but we had to work our asses off doing (often physical) jobs that today’s millenials would balk at. And there wasn’t any “telecommuting,” LOL. We punched a time clock (even in and out for “lunch”) all the way up to 1990 …. yeah, even working for the “gubment.”
Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote]John Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; John Legal now has $31,231.00.[/quote]
This is a prime example of how broken our thinking is of our taxes. Unless John’s spouse is a high earner and he’d be better off staying home with the kids, John didn’t pay for sh*t.
John “middle class” Legal thinks he pays taxes. It’s right there, 30% off the top. He doesn’t.
If John has a W2 income of $52,000, is married and two kids, without another single thing, John and family will pay $588 in Federal income tax and $0 in California income tax. The child tax credit and California exemption wipes out his income taxes. Go do the ____ing math, the tax form takes all of 3 minutes at this level.
That leaves social security, which is 7.65% if W2 and 15.3% if self employed. Medicare is 1.45% of that, or 2.9% if self employed.
Since John’s family only makes $52K, they qualify for a $304/month assistance on for medical insurance. Broken, pain in the butt, sure, but roughly half of their premium.
They’re damn close to qualifying for SNAP too depending on their rent and housing expenses.
So John thinks he’s paying for the roads, police, firefighters and everything else with his $588 per year in taxes while sending two kids to school at $9000+ per year each.[/quote]I agree with most of this. John should probably claim at least 6 dependents on his W-4 at work so he can keep more of his paycheck and not get such a large tax refund.
Covered CA isn’t going to use $52K for John’s income. They’re going to use his MAGI. I maintain that John and Ms. Legal can get an HMO “marketplace” plan for $1 to $11 month each and a PPO plan for $27 to $70 mo each depending on their ages. They at least qualify for a Silver 73 plan and possibly even a Silver 87 plan with the two kids (which have copay assistance built into them). Their two kids will be placed into expanded Medi-Cal under the new March 2015 guidelines for “moderate income” families.
Participant[quote=bewildering]Most of OPs comment seems contrived and ignores the major issue:
The negative effect of illegal immigration on “john legals” salary. Why pay 25/hour for the same work as 10/hour. Low/semi skilled workers are people that lose out most to illegal immigration.
All the academic research I have seen indicates that illegal immigration greatly benefits the wealthy, but absolutely screws the poor, especially the working poor.[/quote]
I agree with this post. But I disagree that working in a “blue collar” occupation automatically means that one will be “poor” throughout their working lives. Unfortunately, in our part of the country, wages paid to illegal immigrants for some trades (mainly construction, landscaping and manual labor) significantly lowers the wages of legal American citizens who legitimately trained in these occupations thru state-approved programs (in CA, ROP – CC) and obtained a 2-year official “journey-level certificate.” These much lower wages long after graduation often renders the worker and their families eligible for public assistance (ex: SNAP, WIC and free child care as well as rent subsidies), where, if they were being paid their union wages of yesteryear, they would be solidly “middle-class” taxpaying families off the dole.My advice to anyone considering going into the trades in SoCal and other border cities across the nation would be to major in a trade like HVAC, Electrician or Master Plumber where they could get a well-paying job with a general contractor. Either that, or move far away from the border after graduation to ply their trade in an area which is NOT infiltrated with cheap immigrant labor. There ARE still some areas left in the nation which are not crawling with cheap immigrant labor willing to do almost anything for .20 to .40 on the dollar. SoCal is not one of them, nor is most of the state.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
I haven’t had TV since the 2nd week of Jan, SK. I cancelled my service because I had only been watching it myself ~2 hrs month for the past ~15 years and my last kid left home almost two years ago. It was a big waste of $$ for me.What kind of “rule” are you referring to in your first paragraph? I can do some more research on this plus Trump’s supreme court picks later tonight. And, are you sure some of those “vile (Trump) votes” aren’t being cast by men?[/quote]
Scalia died in February. For the first time ever, the Republ….nevermind. I already typed it. For 111 days, Republicans, who control the US senate, have refused to have a hearing on an Obama SC nominee. The rule never existed before. They just made it up, because Obama is black. They make lots of other excuses, but that’s what it is. No white president has ever faced the disrespect that this president has faced.
Every vote for Trump is vile.[/quote]I saw the Scalia death online and posted about it here. I’ll check out the other stuff you’re saying here tonight.
I still maintain that it is an uphill battle to get the SCOTUS to even accept a case, much less hear it and make a decision on it in less than 3 years. And that’s not counting the time it took for the case to work it’s way to the SCOTUS. The opposition to the LA law you brought up as a prospective lawsuit is currently as yet unfiled, no?
If Trump wins, he may only be in office for 4 years. I fail to see how he can change the “political complexion” of the Court overnight or even at all … that is, unless as least two more justices drop dead in the next 3.5 years or so.
ParticipantI’ve seen a post like this here on the forum before and it is more than a little bit erroneous. There are a lot of misconceptions floating around about who is eligible for what kind of subsidy. This post presumes that John and Juan are the sole support of their families and continue to be until their kids are of majority (their spouses don’t bring in income or at least any income which is reported to the state).
Erroneous assumptions about John:
John’s MAGI is low enough for him to get Obamacare for he and his spouse for as little as $1 month each and Medi-Cal for both of his kids. Medi-Cal covers the children’s dental and the parents can buy a dental HMO from their exchange carrier for as little as ~$20 month each.
If John’s income is the same or nearly the same when his kid(s) reach the 11th grade, his kids are likely eligible for a Pell Grant and even possibly a Cal Grant to attend University in CA IF they can get accepted.
John’s kids are eligible for a .40 day school lunch (and a .40 breakfast, if offered) at his income level.
Most of the Johns residing in CA with $31-$40K net income per year for a family of 4 only have liability insurance on their (well-used) vehicles … or intermittently lapsing insurance (put in place only for biennial vehicle registration purposes) or none at all (they license the vehicle in MX).
I’m not sure if John’s family qualifies for a Section 8 voucher. If they do, they are borderline qualified and there is a lo-o-o-ong waiting list. In addition, not very many landlords accept them anymore.
Erroneous assumptions about Juan:
Juan’s family is eligible for limited SNAP of $150-$200 mo (fka food stamps). Juan’s family will have to join a food coop (and send an adult to work there 1-2 days month) to get more “free food” in CA. Juan’s kids are eligible for free school lunches (and breakfasts, if offered). Juan will have to present two legitimate forms of “residency” to enroll his kids in public school in CA (utility bills, lease, etc) in his name. Cell phone bills are not allowed.
Juan’s family is not eligible for cash aid in CA.
Juan’s family is not eligible for subsidized rent in CA unless the principal worker in the family is documented (again, long waiting list).
Juan’s family can and does show up in CA hospital emergency rooms where they are round up and questioned by “Medi-Cal specialists” as soon as they are able to hold a conversation. That specialist gets their “story” and the name/identity they are purportedly using (from a fake SS card?) and later indexes it with the SSA, possibly learning that the number was previously issued to an American decedent but by then Juan or his family member has been released and can’t be found. Perhaps it’s not such a good idea anymore for Juan and his family to visit hospital emergency rooms unless one of them is dying. Community Clinics exist in many CA counties to specifically serve this population.
Juan’s kids can only avail themselves of the “Dream Act” (to attend University in CA) IF they have successfully graduated from a CA HS (not sure how many years must be in residency) with the “right” academic record and a GPA and SAT score high enough to be accepted. Juan’s kids are welcome to enroll in a CA CC (space permitting).
*************************************************
Both John and Juan’s kids qualify for an admission fee waiver to UC/CSU and SAT test fee waiver.
Both John and Juan may qualify for a utility (gas and elec) and landline phone discount IF they are legitimately renting a place in their name. John may qualify for ONE basic cellphone per family (no smartphone – <$20 month service) but he would need to choose between it or a family landline at ~$7 month. He can't have both at a discount. The rest of the stuff is way out in left field.
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]
I haven’t had TV since the 2nd week of Jan, SK. I cancelled my service because I had only been watching it myself ~2 hrs month for the past ~15 years and my last kid left home almost two years ago. It was a big waste of $$ for me.
What kind of “rule” are you referring to in your first paragraph? I can do some more research on this plus Trump’s supreme court picks later tonight. And, are you sure some of those “vile (Trump) votes” aren’t being cast by men?
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=The-Shoveler]I think I remember the HS Grad speech,
It was something like
You’er not special, you’er most likely just cogs in the machine.
Welcome to the machine.Yep I think that was the gist of it
But then again that was in the 70’s and things were a little fuzzy.[/quote]
today’s comparable speech would be, robots do everything you can do but better and faster, the best you can hope for is a universal basic income, legal weed and hopefully a,few gallons of water rations. you’re so fucking special, you snowflake u, problem is all the snowflakes melted with global warming…[/quote]scaredy, I get all this. I got it over 15 years ago. All you can do is counsel your recent graduate to 1) NOT take out any student loans behind your back; 2) major in an occupation that no humans in India (or robots) can replace and declare that major ASAP (NOW would be preferable); and 3) take summer classes if they have to in order to graduate in four years.
It’s okay, scaredy. All the special snowflakes out there working at Starbucks at age 28 (some with a Bachelor’s AND Master’s degree) are doing so because 1) they majored in the “wrong” field, and 2) they refuse to leave their “comfort zone” (parent’s home/hometown) and thus won’t apply for entry level positions in another county or state to get their foot in the door to start their careers.
The above description of an “indebted do-nothing college graduate” is particularly prevalent in SD County as well as the rest of SoCal. These kids don’t want to leave our weather and the “comforts” of parents’ homes and neighborhoods (backyard pool/beach neighborhood, etc) and the parents are taking them back after college graduation open-endedly with no plan to ever be on their own.
This phenomenon isn’t near as prevalent in “flyover country” where its residents don’t enjoy nearly as much of a “comfortable life” that we in SoCal do. Nor is it that prevalent on the east coast. When I moved to SD in my early 20’s, a lot of my “contemporaries” (mostly co-workers) were FT college students living with parents. Some were graduate students who were several years older than me living with parents. The “coddled-teen-turned-coddled-adult” phenomenon was present in SD County ~40 years ago and is still present today. While living in my own rented apt (and paying my own rent), I was amazed that all these people my own age and older were still living with parents at 22-30+ years old and had no plans to move out (it only took 4 yrs to graduate from college back then and students didn’t graduate with debt as CC/UC/CSU were “free” or had a very nominal cost). I was especially amazed at a couple of my co-workers who were unmarried single moms living with their parent(s) and who had more child(ren) while living with parents! Over 80% of my own HS class (in “flyover country”) moved away from home ASAP after HS graduation (some the very next day or weekend, after they recovered from all the grad parties). A couple dozen of my classmates had their own apt all during their senior year in HS and worked at least 32 hrs per week to pay for it. A handful of my classmates were married their entire senior year and several of my married female classmates were in various stages of pregnancy in their caps and gowns at graduation. About 8-10% of the males in my HS class enlisted in the military the summer after our graduation. About 17% of my HS class immediately went on to college away from home and another ~3% of us (me incl) attended college as a freshman while living in the same (or adjacent) city we grew up in (junior college and state college). Almost NONE of us stayed “home” (parent[s] homes) to work FT after HS or while attending college … even as a freshman!
It seems as if part of the “SoCal culture” is to hang with mom and/or dad as long as possible for ALL races/nationalities. There are people on my block (2) who are 65-70 years old who never moved out of mom and dad’s house. Of course, they each now just have one parent left whom they are now assisting in their day to day lives.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]Anthony Kennedy is a couple months shy of 80. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 83 and has pancreatic cancer. Breyer is just a couple years shy of 80. That would be 4. Two are guaranteed for the next president unless the Dems retake the Senate, in which case Ginsberg will retire immediately if Trump wins, and Obama will get 2. And probably two during the next term.
The Louisiana law just signed is probably headed to the SCOTUS.
You’re not vile because you already voted, or because you want a candidate different than me. The vote is vile. You support a candidate that is vile and hateful. Particularly to women. Hope you feel good about that. Just stop pretending to care about women. You don’t.[/quote]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.
If Obama selects the next two SC justice posts before his term is out and they are successfully installed before he leaves office, then how will the political makeup of the court look at the time of the next presidential inauguration in January 2017?
Why are you worried that the replacement of J. Breyer (age 78) and J. Kennedy (age 79) is an eminent possibility? Are either of them currently in ill health?
And can you point me to the LA law just passed that you are certain will be litigated?
Do you know how long is it taking from the filing a civil rights case today in Federal Court (for example) to successfully arguing it before the US Supreme Court? And how long is the current wait time after oral argument to get their decision? Another 1-3 years? And what is the percentage of cases brought before the Supreme Court which they end up accepting? My educated guess is that IF a case is accepted by the SCOTUS today (AFTER spending 2+ years in District/Circuit Court), it could now take at least 3 more years to be processed through the Supreme Court (total of 5+ years). If the case originates from very busy District/Circuit Courts (such as CASD/9th Cir), then figure on 6-8 years total all the way up thru SCOTUS decision (assuming they accept it).
I think you’re really jumping the gun with worry, here, SK … especially if Obama is able, by hook or crook, to fill TWO Supreme Court seats on his way out the door.
And if not currently ill, Breyer and Kennedy could easily outlive Trump’s first term (should he be elected POTUS).
I DO care about women’s issues (that should already be very apparent by now) and that is part of the reason why I’m now engaging you on this very important topic.
June 3, 2016 at 4:46 PM in reply to: OT: Does anyone have a list of local politicians that are endorsing Trump? #798285Participantflu, I was so sorry to read here that the lists you requested on this thread may have not been to your liking. There are more endorsements to come, of course, as more longtime Repub holdouts begin to face reality. Hopefully, there is someone on your ballot you can vote for who did not make a “wrong endorsement” of another candidate. You are aware that you can always “write in” your fav candidate for as many offices as your ballot will allow and just call it a day, right? Why don’t you give that a try, just to get this whole sordid voting mess off your chest. That would be far preferable than sitting around preparing spreadsheets in preparation for casting your ballot, methinks. I should know. I just spent days preparing a complicated multi-tabbed one for a large project I’ve been given.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Roe v Wade has little chance of being overturned in my (or your) lifetime … or ever, imho. It doesn’t matter who is sitting on the Supreme Court. A viable case which has made it all the way to them has to actually be before them for them to opine on it. I just don’t see that happening, regardless if any of Trump’s current “picks” for Supreme Court justices end up actually being interested in the job (at the time the nomination is offered to them) and they survive the vetting process and actually take the job on his “watch.”And I really haven’t studied Trump’s list to determine if any of his SC picks are actually “moderates.” (I consider Trump a moderate, NOT a conservative.)
I think it’s way too soon to worry about Roe v Wade being overturned. Trump will be 70 years old at the time he takes office if he is elected. He may or may not want or be able to run a second term and if he does, he may or may not be elected again. Theoretically, by January 2021 (4 years from the next presidential inauguration), zero, one or two of Trump’s choices for supreme court justices would actually accept the nomination and make it far enough in the vetting process to sit on the bench during his first term … IF he is actually elected POTUS.
We cannot presume the sitting supreme court justices are going to become terminally ill or die in the next four years (or die early enough for Trump to be able to successfully appoint his choice of nominee before the next election cycle ends) IF he is elected. Yes, even if 2-3 of them are currently octogenarians.[/quote]
Are you fucking nuts? Every single one of Trump’s list of SC justices is from a list acceptable to the anti-abortion right. Every one of them. Are you aware of the hundreds of laws that have been passed in the last 10 years, across the country, limiting women’s access to care? Louisiana just passed a law outlawing D&E as an abortion method. We just passed the 7th anniversary of the death of George Tiller, killed at the hands of pro-forced-birth radicals in Kansas. Do you know how many abortion providers there are in Kansas now? Zero. Not a single one.
It’s not wild speculation that Roe v. Wade will be overturned if Trump is elected. The next president will name at least 3, possibly more SC judges. Trump has said he will nominate anti-abortion judges. I guarantee you, if Trump is elected. Roe v. Wade will be overturned. It’s fortunate you live in CA, where Clinton will win. But your vote is a vote that represents the most vile hatred of women. Remember that, as you cast that hateful vote. And stop pretending you care about women.[/quote]It took three years (1970 – 1973) for Roe v. Wade to even get from a US District Court in TX to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to finally come before the US Supreme Court for its decision:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
How long do you think that path will take today, SK? Be reasonable, now.
If Trump is elected POTUS, he will select nominee(s) to replace Justice Scalia. We don’t know if he’ll get any other chance to do so thru his term ending January 2021 (meaning, actually nominate a replacement up to 3 years from now.)
Do you know of any suits currently in the pipeline anywhere in the US which (directly or indirectly) challenge Roe v Wade?
Oh, and I already voted over a month ago. You don’t need to be calling people “vile” or “hateful” because they didn’t vote for the same candidate you did.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]Wow. Seriously. Just wow. You defend Trump, and his outrageously disgusting comments against women, and criticize Clinton for her women and family policies. And you’re willing to vote for a man who has vowed to put judges on the supreme court that would take women back more than 40 years, and put thousands of women’s health and lives at risk. How can you hate women that badly? I can’t imagine how anyone who cares about women could ever vote for that man.[/quote]I never defended Trump’s statements re: women (half statements and stmts taken out of context in the Clinton campaign ad). As a matter of fact, I never gave them a second thought because I don’t take them seriously. I realize they were just “campaign bluster” and they don’t represent who he is in real life. And I never criticized any of Hill’s policies … here or anywhere.
I want the ACA to be abolished/repealed ASAP (2017 would be great, thank you) and the Big Carriers offering nationwide medical coverage to come back into the states to compete for customers. I’m standing by ready to do what it takes to “re-qualify” for one of those policies. Hillary Clinton has no plans to do that. I voted for the candidate that does.
Roe v Wade has little chance of being overturned in my (or your) lifetime … or ever, imho. It doesn’t matter who is sitting on the Supreme Court. A viable case which has made it all the way to them has to actually be before them for them to opine on it. I just don’t see that happening, regardless if any of Trump’s current “picks” for Supreme Court justices end up actually being interested in the job (at the time the nomination is offered to them) and they survive the vetting process and actually take the job on his “watch.”
And I really haven’t studied Trump’s list to determine if any of his SC picks are actually “moderates.” (I consider Trump a moderate, NOT a conservative.)
I think it’s way too soon to worry about Roe v Wade being overturned. Trump will be 70 years old at the time he takes office if he is elected. He may or may not want or be able to run a second term and if he does, he may or may not be elected again. Theoretically, by January 2021 (4 years from the next presidential inauguration), zero, one or two of Trump’s choices for supreme court justices would actually accept the nomination and make it far enough in the vetting process to sit on the bench during his first term … IF he is actually elected POTUS.
We cannot presume the sitting supreme court justices are going to become terminally ill or die in the next four years (or die early enough for Trump to be able to successfully appoint his choice of nominee before the next election cycle ends) IF he is elected. Yes, even if 2-3 of them are currently octogenarians.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]It’s so easy to be judgmental from afar. To decide how others should live their lives, having no clue what actually goes on in those lives. They say you can’t judge a book by its cover. But you sure can judge them by how they judge others.[/quote]Totally agree with the italicized portion of your post. However, everyone has the right to vote (or not vote) for a candidate running for the highest public office in the land based on how they “feel” about them and how they “judge” their character. I posted earlier on this thread that if Hill and Bill were living in obscurity, no one would give a sh!t about their personal lives.
By campaigning hard for President of the United States on a platform of women and family issues and putting out a hodgepodge pieced together multi-million dollar national “attack ad” (which took her opponent’s statements in partiality and/or out of context) on Trump’s (supposed) distaste and/or disrespect for women, Hill is now experiencing the fallout of having her own personal life heavily scrutinized.
I’m sure you’re aware by now that all is fair and love and politics. The Clintons certainly are. And yes, political campaigns can get to rolling in the mud at the local level as well. I’ve seen it, heard and lived it … multiple times. We can’t change any of this so don’t shoot the messenger.
disclaimer: I’m currently not involved in any candidate’s campaign this election year.
-
AuthorPosts
