Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 11:19:53 GMT -5
After 6 years you guys are still pretending he doesn't mean what he says. Incredible.
Ted Cruz is in on it also.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,441
|
Post by TC on Sept 22, 2020 11:28:17 GMT -5
The first half of November is going to be very ugly. Despite his recent statements, I don't think Trump has any idea what he's going to do in November; I think people give him way to much credit for actually thinking and strategizing about anything in advance. Republican denialism. He's flat out saying what he's going to do and there are definitely Republicans behind him who have laid this all out for him that constitutional crisis = win.
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Sept 22, 2020 12:25:00 GMT -5
Strangely , I agree. This whole Supreme Court fight takes all attention away from Covid. Additionally, the Republicans have a potential court nominee candidate who with her seven kids (two adopted from Haiti with its humanitarian crises), strong religious faith, impeccable academic and legal credentials, and past connection to Scalia is almost a real living saint. And a non-Ivy League saint that puts her on the side of great American middle versus the elites who are trying to take God out of their schools, 1776 out of the constitution , the police out of their communities and make Catholics look like a weird religious cult.
If I were the Democrats I would punt on this one and focus on Covid, where they are winning.
They say Never get in a Editeding contest with a skunk. I would have a new admonition-never get into a Supreme Court confirmation fight with a saint, particularly one with a Thomas More level IQ. Feinstein, Klobuchar, Coons, Harris, Whitehouse, Hirono etal once again looking like mean spirited bigots like they were in 2017 when Barrett was first confirmed is a recipe for disaster if played out on a large stage.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by hoya9797 on Sept 22, 2020 12:39:51 GMT -5
Catholics are part of a weird cult and do a fine job of demonstrating that themselves.
Your anti-Catholic posts of the past were out of line on this board. Please exercise discretion to take these comments elsewhere. --Admin
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,247
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 22, 2020 12:42:20 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 13:00:04 GMT -5
Strangely , I agree. This whole Supreme Court fight takes all attention away from Covid. Additionally, the Republicans have a potential court nominee candidate who with her seven kids (two adopted from Haiti with its humanitarian crises), strong religious faith, impeccable academic and legal credentials, and past connection to Scalia is almost a real living saint. And a non-Ivy League saint that puts her on the side of great American middle versus the elites who are trying to take God out of their schools, 1776 out of the constitution , the police out of their communities and make Catholics look like a weird religious cult. If I were the Democrats I would punt on this one and focus on Covid, where they are winning. They say Never get in a Editeding contest with a skunk. I would have a new admonition-never get into a Supreme Court confirmation fight with a saint. Feinstein, Klobuchar, Coons, Harris, Whitehouse, Hirono etal once again looking like mean spirited bigots like they were in 2017 when Barrett was first confirmed is a recipe for disaster if played out on a large stage. Or they could focus on Covid, the fact whoever the nominee is will kick 30 million people of their healthcare plan, and end roe v. wade.
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Sept 22, 2020 13:06:50 GMT -5
I admire people who devote the time and focus to really pray in a serious way in the same way I admire people who devote the time and really focus on exercise or scholarship in a serious way.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,441
|
Post by TC on Sept 22, 2020 13:32:13 GMT -5
I admire people who devote the time and focus to really pray in a serious way in the same way I admire people who devote the time and really focus on exercise or scholarship in a serious way. Literally one post ago you were bashing Ivy League schools as godless elitists out of touch with America.
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Sept 22, 2020 13:43:24 GMT -5
I have degrees from Georgetown and an Ivy League Graduate school and, at least when I attended, Georgetown was more serious and more in touch with American than than The Ivy League institution. That may well no longer be true.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by hoya9797 on Sept 22, 2020 13:51:52 GMT -5
I admire people who devote the time and focus to really pray in a serious way in the same way I admire people who devote the time and really focus on exercise or scholarship in a serious way. It’s hard to imagine what praying in a serious way means. Talking to an imaginary being is the opposite of serious. Second warning, see notes above.--Admin
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Sept 22, 2020 15:25:26 GMT -5
I admire people who devote the time and focus to really pray in a serious way in the same way I admire people who devote the time and really focus on exercise or scholarship in a serious way. It’s hard to imagine what praying in a serious way means. Talking to an imaginary being is the opposite of serious. Second warning, see notes above.--AdminLet me answer in a serious way. I have had faith experiences, maybe even on the level of minor miracles, where people's behaviors have changed, illnesses have been cured and things going a bad way have turned out ok that I could not rationally explain. These experiences have had the effect of dissolving the total certitude I had as a much younger man (could have even been called an Ayn Rand objectivist at one point) as to how we humans interact within our universe. I have never been able to have a great experience in a retreat environment that has personally helped me to resolve my lack of understanding but I have met people, of whom Judge Barrett appears to be one, who appear to have an inner peace and respect for the manner science, rational thought and faith interact in the world, particularly when we approach the real deep and hard problems of the world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 16:48:35 GMT -5
Democratic-controlled Senates have confirmed 12 SCOTUS justices nominated by Republican presidents, and rejected three (2 of Nixon's and then Bork).
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,845
|
Post by EtomicB on Sept 22, 2020 16:57:18 GMT -5
Collins, not Snowe. Collins probably goes whatever way she thinks helps her most in her election, there's no guiding principle here whatsoever other than naked power. The Kennedy reference is directed at Ed. Kennedy was confirmed after Bork with Democratic votes, so Bork wasn't really the genesis of what the new rules are here. The new rules were made clear in the Garland nomination and the aftermath where Republicans said that even if Hillary was elected that they wouldn't take up her nominees - the rule here is you need partisan control of both Presidency and Senate to get a nomination through. The real kicker here is if this is the deciding vote in throwing out vote-by-mail votes for 2020 and kicking the election of the Presidency to the House, where the Republicans will win. Trump's made it clear that he's going to do a coup on election night, not accept results, and try to invalidate the counting. I'm skeptical our legal system will withstand whatever BS claims he makes. I guess referencing Snowe rather than Collins shows my age. She's already said she does "not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election," and that "Trump has the constitutional authority to make a nomination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and I would have no objection to the Senate Judiciary Committee's beginning the process of reviewing his nominee's credentials." Interesting she leaves open the possibility of voting in a lame duck session. The first half of November is going to be very ugly. Despite his recent statements, I don't think Trump has any idea what he's going to do in November; I think people give him way to much credit for actually thinking and strategizing about anything in advance. How many times has President Trump gone to court over issues he didn’t,t like during the last 3+ years? why would you think he hasn’t thought about going to court over the election?
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by DallasHoya on Sept 22, 2020 17:02:07 GMT -5
I guess referencing Snowe rather than Collins shows my age. She's already said she does "not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election," and that "Trump has the constitutional authority to make a nomination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and I would have no objection to the Senate Judiciary Committee's beginning the process of reviewing his nominee's credentials." Interesting she leaves open the possibility of voting in a lame duck session. The first half of November is going to be very ugly. Despite his recent statements, I don't think Trump has any idea what he's going to do in November; I think people give him way to much credit for actually thinking and strategizing about anything in advance. How many times has President Trump gone to court over issues he didn’t,t like during the last 3+ years? why would you think he hasn’t thought about going to court over the election? Because he doesn't really think about anything he does or says until right before he does or says it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 17:14:20 GMT -5
How many times has President Trump gone to court over issues he didn’t,t like during the last 3+ years? why would you think he hasn’t thought about going to court over the election? Because he doesn't really think about anything he does or says until right before he does or says it. 1) “I think it’s going to be a terrible time for this country and we’re counting on federal judges,” says Trump on mail-in ballots, setting up a path to dispute the election results. 2) 3) After 6 years you guys are still pretending he doesn't mean what he says. Incredible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 17:58:11 GMT -5
They are being very clear about their intentions. The only way you can't see it is if you don't want to.
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Sept 22, 2020 19:32:23 GMT -5
I admire people who devote the time and focus to really pray in a serious way in the same way I admire people who devote the time and really focus on exercise or scholarship in a serious way. It’s hard to imagine what praying in a serious way means. Talking to an imaginary being is the opposite of serious. Second warning, see notes above.--AdminNo historical figure in the past 2000 years has had 34 documented miracles that were witnessed by others (in some cases thousands of others) and so impressive that the record of them was carried down through the years.No historical figure in the years prior to 0 AD has had this documented record of miracles. If this historic figure was imaginary how could all these events have occurred? It seems too fantastic to say that all this was completely made up and passed down through over 2000 years. Something to think about, seriously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 20:03:31 GMT -5
Catholics are part of a weird cult and do a fine job of demonstrating that themselves. Your anti-Catholic posts of the past were out of line on this board. Please exercise discretion to take these comments elsewhere. --Admin Admin Can I ask why a post like this isn't similarly flagged? hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/657389Is it because Georgetown is a Catholic institution so Catholicism is protected? Why is it not ok to call Catholicism a cult, but ok to say a Muslim boy is going to go fund Jihad because he's a follower of Islam ok? Not trying to start anything, just curious as to where the line is drawn here. 1. That post was from 2015 and no one pointed it out that I recall. 2. The poster in question has been insulting of Catholics on this board for a while now and has been asked to back off before. 3. Generally speaking, religious issues are governed tighter on the board than in 2015. If he said all Jews or all Muslims were in a cult, the same reprobation applies. --Admin
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,318
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 22, 2020 21:47:55 GMT -5
They are being very clear about their intentions. The only way you can't see it is if you don't want to. This is my take as well. And, while I'm admittedly biased, I don't see how it can objectively be interpreted otherwise. Though, I'm up for listening to the rationale for the counterpoint.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 22:00:08 GMT -5
Catholics are part of a weird cult and do a fine job of demonstrating that themselves. Your anti-Catholic posts of the past were out of line on this board. Please exercise discretion to take these comments elsewhere. --Admin Admin Can I ask why a post like this isn't similarly flagged? hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/657389Is it because Georgetown is a Catholic institution so Catholicism is protected? Why is it not ok to call Catholicism a cult, but ok to say a Muslim boy is going to go fund Jihad because he's a follower of Islam ok? Not trying to start anything, just curious as to where the line is drawn here. 1. That post was from 2015 and no one pointed it out that I recall. 2. The poster in question has been insulting of Catholics on this board for a while now and has been asked to back off before. 3. Generally speaking, religious issues are governed tighter on the board than in 2015. If he said all Jews or all Muslims were in a cult, the same reprobation applies. --Admin
Admin If you go back to that time there was a lot of anti-Muslim rhetoric being tossed around the board at the time. If you would like me to point to more examples I would be happy to. I think it's good that you wouldn't allow it now but just wish you guys would have had that same standard when that was happening. Would a comment like the one I linked be deemed inappropriate now? Do you only respond if someone points it out?
|
|