[Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread

Pagy said:
youre calling four “incessant”?

And you wonder why we call your triple?
Click to expand...

4 is actually a lot relative to how many have been rated unqualified, though they never rate liberal appointed judges as unqualified. Of course if you actually look at the criteria and why these 4 were rated unqualified it gets even sillier. One was rated unqualified because they require 12 years of experience and she was only at 11 years, 11 months. Another was unqualified because they worried he might be too biased to be fair. The 3rd was unqualified because of work habits, sometimes not showing up to work until the afternoon (he worked from a home office when not in court).

The only one that's even remotely close to not qualified is the last one, who is only 10 years out of law school, but has never tried a case. Of course they're more focused on the fact that he likes the supernatural as a hobby and may or may not be a poster on the University of Alabama's football forum with 16,000 posts, making a disturbing average of posts per day (3.5).
 
phaytal said:
It's actually 8%, as the article clearly states that 53 of the appointees have been evaluated, not 58. But that's not here nor there.

For someone so who spends all his time nitpicking details about literally everything, I'm quite surprised that you're fine with 8% of his appointments being unqualified for the job by the country's most prestigious overseeing body.

:lol: who am I kidding - Fool gonna shill
Click to expand...

No, I simply don't appeal to a biased authority using criteria I'm unaware of to pass judgement on the qualification of someone I don't know. When I hear such information, I research what the supposed unqualified status is for. When it turns out to be subjective opinion, a 30 day shortage on a 12 year minimum, liking ghost stories, and sometimes works from home, I might question the motivations of the organization rating the people. An organization, mind you, that I have no reason to label as prestigious or even qualified to make such a rating to begin with.

Your willingness to just take a faceless group's word for something is a clear indication of your inability to think for yourself.
 
Vanster said:
I've done enough stirring for another week or so.

I'll let Havax and Tele blow each other while SS and the rest cheer, and once your self-esteems, confidence, and feelings of worth have returned-- so shall I.
Click to expand...

and here i thought we wuz friends for allowing me to live rent free in your mind

:(
 
Fool said:
No, I simply don't appeal to a biased authority using criteria I'm unaware of to pass judgement on the qualification of someone I don't know. When I hear such information, I research what the supposed unqualified status is for. When it turns out to be subjective opinion, a 30 day shortage on a 12 year minimum, liking ghost stories, and sometimes works from home, I might question the motivations of the organization rating the people. An organization, mind you, that I have no reason to label as prestigious or even qualified to make such a rating to begin with.

Your willingness to just take a faceless group's word for something is a clear indication of your inability to think for yourself.
Click to expand...

I was simply stating a fact. Scooby thought that 'you and the other flaming dipshits right' were calling them unqualified and I simply responded.

I'll give you Holly Teeter. The one month short thing is dumb. The other 3 - not so much.

Talley 'liking ghost stories' as the reasoning for him being unqualified is pretty laughable. He's never tried a case.

ABA said:
“The [ABA Standing] Committee believes that Mr. Talley does not presently have the requisite trial experience or its equivalent,” said Pamela A. Bresnahan, a member of the Bar Association’s board of governors, in a Nov. 7 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee leadership. “I would also like to point out, based on its peer review, that the Committee did not have any questions about Mr. Talley’s integrity or temperament.”
Click to expand...

Grasz 'might be a little too right'? He's an extremely outspoken anti-abortionist who openly said 'professing loyalty to a higher court’s rulings is difficult'.

In more recent appointments, both John O’Connor and Jonathan Kobes have received not qualified ratings. Connor was unanimously voted unqualified for flat out incompetence and inexperience, and Kobes serves on a Christian board, and has been outspoken about not providing equal rights in adoption cases and being an anti-abortionist.

The work from home guy is just a lazy shit stain, and he cites 'peaceful writing environments' as his excuse but has yet to deliver any meaningful law papers. :lol:

So, I guess 1 out of 6 ain't bad Fool.
 
Last edited:
phaytal falls for another headline

:lol:

im glad to see him still post though instead of quitting or acting like he has to step out for a week (after getting his feelings crushed)
 
phaytal said:
I was simply stating a fact. Scooby thought that 'you and the other flaming dipshits right' were calling them unqualified and I simply responded.

I'll give you Holly Teeter. The one month short thing is dumb. The other 3 - not so much.

Talley 'liking ghost stories' as the reasoning for him being unqualified is pretty laughable. He's never tried a case.

Grasz 'might be a little too right'? He's an extremely outspoken anti-abortionist who openly said 'professing loyalty to a higher court’s rulings is difficult'.

In more recent appointments, both John O’Connor and Jonathan Kobes have received not qualified ratings. Connor was unanimously voted unqualified for flat out incompetence and inexperience, and Kobes serves on a Christian board, and has been outspoken about not providing equal rights in adoption cases and being an anti-abortionist.

The work from home guy is just a lazy shit stain, and he cites 'peaceful writing environments' as his excuse but has yet to deliver any meaningful law papers. :lol:

So, I guess 1 out of 6 ain't bad Fool.
Click to expand...


I agree on Talley. I don't agree on the others. It's an application of subjective opinion masking as objectivity. The point still stands, however, that the ABA is a biased organization who rates people based on their political views and not simply the law. Being against abortion has no bearing on your judicial ability.

Regardless of our opinion of who or who isn't qualified, none of this justifies your inference that Trump is incessantly appointing unqualified judges. You're trying to frame 7% as incessant, when the vast majority of his appointments were rated as qualified. If anything, he's incessantly appointing qualified judges. You are blatantly attempting to reframe reality to make something that is objectively fine into something nefarious at worst or incompetent at best. We have a word for that. Propaganda.
 
phaytal said:
I was simply stating a fact. Scooby thought that 'you and the other flaming dipshits right' were calling them unqualified and I simply responded.

I'll give you Holly Teeter. The one month short thing is dumb. The other 3 - not so much.

Talley 'liking ghost stories' as the reasoning for him being unqualified is pretty laughable. He's never tried a case.


Grasz 'might be a little too right'? He's an extremely outspoken anti-abortionist who openly said 'professing loyalty to a higher court’s rulings is difficult'.

In more recent appointments, both John O’Connor and Jonathan Kobes have received not qualified ratings. Connor was unanimously voted unqualified for flat out incompetence and inexperience, and Kobes serves on a Christian board, and has been outspoken about not providing equal rights in adoption cases and being an anti-abortionist.

The work from home guy is just a lazy shit stain, and he cites 'peaceful writing environments' as his excuse but has yet to deliver any meaningful law papers. :lol:

So, I guess 1 out of 6 ain't bad Fool.
Click to expand...

Oh my God this judge is Christian and he doesn't like killing babies he's clearly not qualified because he doesn't have the same values I do
 
Captain Tele said:
next you conservatards are gonna tell me planned parenthood and the ACLU are politically biased

SHILLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

:lol:
Click to expand...

remember when the aclu supported the charlottesville march, even after the camaro happened, until the twitter outrage of 'no longer donating' prompted them to delete fucking everything?

good times
 
phaytal said:
:rofl:

Do you even know what you're looking at there Scooby?

Jesus...
Click to expand...

Do you fucking moron? Please tell me how many are NOT QUALIFIED

IZ5TjUJ.png
 
As you quoted:

The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee of the Federal Judiciary, which has been evaluating judicial appointments since the 1950s, has assessed 53 of Trump's 58 nominees and found four "not qualified."
Click to expand...

learn 2 count
 
Broward County Completes Recount Showing Republicans Gaining Votes, Then Fails to Submit Them In Time, Nullifying Recount | Daily Wire

Oops.

Despite completing the machine recount in time, the office of embattled Broward County elections supervisor Brenda Snipes missed the deadline for submitting its new results by just a few minutes Thursday, which happened to give both Republican candidates Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis even larger vote margins over their Democratic opponents.

"With just 15 minutes to go before Thursday’s deadline, Broward County finally finished recounting every vote," the Miami Herald reports. "At least, that’s what officials told reporters and the canvassing board at 2:45 p.m. In a surprise announcement at nearly 6 p.m., Broward’s director of elections planning, Joseph D’Alessandro, told the canvassing board the county actually turned in results to the state two minutes late. They won’t count officially."

"Basically I just worked my ass off for nothing," D’Alessandro said. "What caused it was my unfamiliarity with their website."

Since the office failed to submit them in time, the original results will stand.

So what did those now nullified machine recounts find? Democrats lost about 1,300 ballots, while Republicans lost about 600. In other words, the recount benefited both Republicans. In the case of Scott's contest against Bill Nelson, Scott came out 779 votes ahead in comparison to the initial count.

They found a discrepancy of 2,040 votes due to "a commingling of ballots," said D'Alessandro, who admitted, "We did not correctly handle the ballots."

So, despite having actually completed them with 15 minutes to spare, Snipes' team says they weren't able to properly submit them, wiping out all of that work they had just done — and the Republicans' gains. As the Herald notes, that suspicious sequence of events prompted Scott senior campaign advisor Brad Todd to suggest to MSNBC that the "error" was maybe not an error at all.

The manual recount in Broward has reportedly also wrapped up, and much more quickly than the Democrats hoped it would. Mother Jones' Pema Levy has been on the scene tracking the developments and has some bad news for Democrats.

"The hand recount in Broward is over for the Senate race," she reported Friday. "It was a blur it went so fast. Looks like Nelson didn't come close to making up the ground he needs."

The hand recount in Broward is over for the Senate race. It was a blur it went so fast. Looks like Nelson didn't come close to making up the ground he needs. In Critical Broward County, Hope for Bill Nelson Fades as Hand Recount Begins Mother Jones

— Pema Levy (@pemalevy) November 16, 2018
The recount in Palm Beach County isn't expected to take too long, either, which also isn't a good sign for Democrats:

Hello from Palm Beach County, where the hand recount is just getting underway. Word here is they have about 5k ballots to check and that it will take less than 2 hours. pic.twitter.com/KCUDGcwvHC

— Pema Levy (@pemalevy) November 16, 2018
Heading into the recount, DeSantis and Scott led the races for governor and U.S. Senate by counts of 33,669 and 12,536, respectively. According to the 26 elections that have experienced a recount in recent history, the chances of either result being overturned was effectively zero. Only three of those 26 recounts resulted in a reversal of who won the election, but the average vote margin change was just 311 votes.

According to FairVote, between 2000 and 2016, 26 of the 4,687 statewide elections went to a recount, and the outcomes of only three reversed. "The 2004 Washington governor’s race, the 2006 Vermont state auditor’s race and the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race," the Miami Herald reports. "The average swing in those three elections after the recounts? About 311 votes."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top