A few thousand pages ago Merrick Garland's nomination and lack of a vote was brought up and if it has happened before. I guess it has because Millard Fillmore submitted three different nominations for SCOTUS. The Senate ignored each one.
Printable View
A few thousand pages ago Merrick Garland's nomination and lack of a vote was brought up and if it has happened before. I guess it has because Millard Fillmore submitted three different nominations for SCOTUS. The Senate ignored each one.
This is just a wildly dangerous (and particularly factual) view point in my opinion, unfortunately it seems that a lot of people feel this way. I don't believe it to be based on a rational, fact-based assessment of our country's current state, or our political system. It seems that when we run out of real problems we just manufacture some threats to fight against.Quote:
Originally Posted by OTRMUSKIE
How is this 'What American politics needed'? We definitely have a dysfunctional political system, but 'voting for chaos' is a wildly reckless solution. All you did was vote in a more autocratic and dangerous version of the status quo. The idea that voting for Trump is somehow voting against greed and power is insane. Donald Trump is a second generation East Coast 'rich kid' who has shown a propensity toward greed that would make even the most craven politician compulsively shower. I just don't see how things are so bad that we are willing to take a massive risk (like electing an unqualified and mentally unstable autocrat to the highest office in the land) to 'fix' our imaginary problems? We certainly have some issues, but we have a fantastic quality of life relative to the rest of the developed world, and relative to almost any point in history.
So just to recap: in your estimation, our current system is so bad that you voted in a person who feel might 'destroy the world', in hopes that they are somehow going to bring the political system down, and Donald F-ing Trump is going to rebuild a more functional system in it's place? Holy shit. Hopefully your 'chaos' doesn't get a whole bunch of people killed.
Joy Villa made her bank account great again last night. I'm not sure if she actually loves Trump or hates him, but the dress she wore last night was a brilliant business decision. She went from relative unknown to the top of the charts overnight.
I have no idea who that is. I guess that's the point, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
I'm curious to get conservatives' thoughts on both civil asset forfeiture as well as the fiduciary rule.
National Review: Trump Sides with the Sheriffs on Their Racket
Forbes: Trump Signs Memorandum Shelving Fiduciary Standard For Financial Advisors
How do these two EOs make America great again?
Did we just all get scolded and belittled for posting our thoughts on an online message board?Quote:
Originally Posted by vee4xu
Neither did anyone else before last night.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
http://media.breitbart.com/media/201...70-640x480.jpg
Her record/album/song sales soared overnight.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
Civil asset forfeiture is generally bullshit. I am glad to see that you side with the Koch brothers on this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoX
I'm not a big fan of the fiduciary rule. More nanny-state policy. But I don't feel particularly strongly either way. Caveat emptor.
Civil forfeiture is an archaic law that needs to be removed entirely, the Fiduciary Rule would seem excessive until you consider how some of the big banks unloaded crap 8 years ago. It is pretty clear that Wall Street still needs rules that say if they are investing our money or giving us advice they need to at least believe it's on our best interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies