slug.com slug.com
27 10

What do you think about Amy Coney Barrett and getting her confirmed for the Supreme Court this year?

While it's unlikely that there will be claims of sexual improprieties in her confirmation hearings, it doesn't mean that it will be a smooth process. First, there is an uproar by Democrats that nominating someone so close to an election is bad form. Second, there are fears that her religious beliefs will take precedence or that her strict interpretation of the Constitution may not provide the "flexibility" for future administrations to make progressive changes. One thing is agreed by both sides: she has the intellect, wisdom, temperament, experience and restraint to be on the Supreme Court. What are your thoughts?

Will Amy Coney Barrett be confirmed this year for the Supreme Court?

  • 37 votes
  • 2 votes
  • 1 vote
Admin 8 Sep 26
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

27 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

10

There are several reasons why she is among the best candidates right now, and some of them are tactical. This is chess, not checkers.

is it to get investigations started regarding Haiti? lol

9

I've been in her courtroom. I like her. I've read some of her opinions - my partner practiced in the 7th District.

interesting . Do you think she would oveturn abortion "rights". Will she survie DF in the senate

@Leader1776 Depends on the case that is brought before the Court. DF has passed her 'good till' date. That said.... depends on what Mitch does with the nomination.

I would rather abortion go back to what the Court suggested in Roe - a viability test. Which would piss off the Right, but be more consistent with 'individual rights'.

8

Hopefully....
I agree with her that judges should adhere to the letter of the law not reinterpret law, not mix politics, progressivism and law... judges are there to uphold the law not rewrite the law to fit their opinions or politics.
The legislature/government should be separate from the law, and secular in nature

Judges have always made law. Common law was created by Judges.

In England after the Norman Conquesrt 1066 the judges appointed by William found every village and every shire had its own laws. These local laws differed from those in the next village and shire.

The judges said this is ludicrous the kingdom should have one set of Common laws that apply everywhere in the kingdom. They all then started to use and enforce the Common law thy had agreed on.

In the UK it is understood that Judges have the right to create new law, by creating a precedent ,in an area where NO law exists. If Parliament does like the new law, it can pass legislation to overrule the precedent and define what the law in that area.

The US inherited the Common law from the UK.

@Thasaidon Judges don't make laws in Australia or in many other countries. There is a separation of law and state. Similarly with religion and state.
Australia adopted the Westminster system from the UK.

I think you may find you are a bit wrong there.

@Lightman I know that it is the case in the UK. One of the strands in my Degree was Law and I answered a question on just this point and got good marks for it. In any case what is precedent but Judge made law.

I have a friend who is a law professor and will check with him.

@Lightman Until the late 19th century, English common law continued to be developed primarily by judges rather than legislators.

The common law of England was largely created in the period after the Norman Conquest of 1066. Britannica online

A judge made law, also known as stare decisis or case law, is the legal rule, ideal, or standard that is based on the past decisions of other judges in past cases, instead of laws made by an elected, legislative body. Duckduckgo "Judge based law" you will get pages on this and it is the case in countries other than England.

If a Judge has a case where the law is unclear or non existant and still has to judge the case. His decision becomes a precedent and usually will be followed by other judges. Essentially the Judges decision has become the law.

If the decision is generally accepted there is no usually need for the legislators to pass a statute to say the same thing. and usually they will not. If there are questions about whether the decision is correct then the legislature may decide to settle the matter by passing a statute to clarify the issue.

Duckduckgoed and checked with my friend

@Lightman Judges apply the law as passed by legislatures, generally this applies in slightly different variations across the Western legal systems. However, individual cases usually have no clear cut application of a law and judges are forced to establish something in those cases. The difference between black letter law and established (or establishing) precedent - caselaw. It is in those gray areas that judges 'create' law, ie, the boundary between competing rights.

Often you have a reasoning that goes: if a = b and b = c, then a = c even if c has never been established in law anywhere. We expect that type of rational judgments.

I've worked for attorneys in the Federal Court system for more than 20 years. I've actually written a couple of briefs (obviously with oversight and presented by the attorney) so I understand the process extremely well. I've read hundreds of opinions in the area of practice I've been involved in - and Barrett's opinions have occasionally involved such so I've seen her approach.

Note, I don't always agree with decisions, but usually can see how they were reached.

@tracycoyle I think you will find that the legislature creates the law and judges implement the law and in rare cases interpret the law. Sometimes incorrectly. Which is why judgements can be appealed.

@Thasaidon Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government and makes laws for the nation. Congress has two legislative bodies or chambers: the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Anyone elected to either body can propose a new law. A bill is a proposal for a new law.

@Lightman It is the similar in the UK. Members of the two houses (Commons and Lords) can propose new laws. Yes a proposal for a new law is called a bill, If a bill is passed by both houses, in the UK, it then becomes an Act and the law of the land BUT Acts are only part of the Law of the land. Judicial precedent where there is no statute that covers the area is also the Law of the land. If that was not the case the legislature would need to sit 24 hours per day, 365 days per year to produce statutes to cover every aspect of life that may end up in court.

Judges use this power very sparingly and usually in ways that do not cause controversy because that is in everyone's interests. I can only remember one case in the UK where Parliament seriously disagreed with a precedent and passed a statute to change things. This means it is not something most people who do not study law to some degree are likely to come accross.

7

The Democrats proclivity for political shenanigans, aided by a corrupt MSM, and a GOP that is reluctant to grow a spine during an election year spell trouble for a 2020 confirmation. I look for a hard-fought Trump win and confirmation in 1Q 2021.

@coalburned Wow! That's a perspective I hadn't yet heard on #ACB. She doesn't sound so good in light of those criticisms.

@ZuzecaSape I pray I'm wrong...

@coalburned I also pray you're wrong, but I fear you may be right.

6

If she were a muslim would her religious beliefs be an issue? What about if she were jewish? Of course the left WILL make her Christian faith an issue because if it were not for double standards the left would have no standards at all.

Andyman Level 8 Sep 26, 2020

Totally great point

Being Catholic matters little. Pelosi is Catholic. Cuomo is Catholic. So are millions of registered voters. The only thing that matters to the Left where ANYTHING is concerned is Trump. Anyone and anything he endorses is automatically rejected by Democrats. They would turn up their noses at 75 degree sunny weather if Trump favored it.

What is your opinion on the religious matter? If she was a Jew, Muslim, or dare say...a Satanist, would you support her just the same as a Christian?

@JacksonNought No....to all but Jew...which is not a deal breaker to me. Muslim, nope. Satanist, nope. Because their principles (to the extent that they might espouse any consistent with their faiths) are antithetical to American Constitutional principles and individual liberty.

@tracycoyle so you think someone's faith can get in the way of ruling fairly, which you seem okay with, you just prefer it to be a faith you like? That actually seems antithetical to American Constitutional principles, as it flies in the face of the first Amendment to have a religious test. Often times Satanism is a lot more altruistic than the Abrahamic religions, so I think a Satanist or an atheist judge would be the most fair.

@JacksonNought, so you’re a satanist?

@Andyman I am indeed.

@JacksonNought Yes, I think it can, and I think it is possible for anyone of any faith to be able to set it aside - but in those times when their ability fails them, I want the error to be beneficial to the principles of our Founding. I was born Roman Catholic, I was a member of a non-denominational fundamentalist church, I left it all behind but I was formed by those experiences and can't eliminate those foundations in their entirety - my principles NOW are founded upon individual liberty. My perspectives are informed by the past - anyone is. And yes, it seems to be a religious test. The difference I'd argue is one of intent - I don't expect a religious opinion from a jurist, but I can estimate their intent based on their foundations. And I am not into altruism....

As to Satanism - the worship of a deity is of no value to me....even if the deity is less than omni*

@JacksonNought, well then you are aware that satan is the king of lies. I don’t think people who worship the king of lies would make good Supreme Court justices, just sayin.

@tracycoyle @Andyman

Satanism is a non-theistic religion. It doesn't actually believe in a literal Satan, nor any deities or supernaturalism. Satanists champion freedom and science, and would therefore be most likely to follow the law and rule impartially, compared to someone who may appeal to a higher power when ruling.

Forcing a religious test for SCOTUS spits in the face of the Constitution. We have to hope that all justices can be impartial and follow the law and precedent, rather than following what their religion dictates. If a justice fails to set aside their faith, it can be disastrous. You may think it's good if they are Christan as a fallback, but that could hurt impartially when it comes to the freedom of others, such as in marriage equality issues.

Don't Catholics pledge allegiance to the Pope, a foreign national? Would a devout Catholic justice be corrupted by allowing the Pope to weigh in on crucial decisions? According to reports, the religious group Barrett belongs to dictates that her husband is in charge and can make decisions for her - should we be concerned that confirming her is basically the same as confirming her husband, and allowing him to make rulings? If you think these are unfair characterizations or questions that shouldn't be asked of a justice, then there is absolutely no reason you should have a problem with a Muslim or Satanist being a Supreme Court justice either.

@JacksonNought, do as thou wilt?

@Andyman You're thinking of Aleister Crowley and Thelema. That isn't Satanism.

@JacksonNought so who founded your brand of satanism, Anton LaVey?

@JacksonNought There are times, and I can't offer an example at the moment, when there is insufficient evidence (science) and the Constitution is silent that people, judges (and juries) have to rely on some kind of underlying personal principle to make a judgement upon a case. In those times, I want someone I can rely upon, via their personal principles, to make useful decisions. When someone says they have a religious foundation and I understand the root of that religion, I can GENERALIZE their positions on those types of situations - and Judaism and Christianity have some foundations I can support: sanctity of life being one, but also relationships in the home and in life. That doesn't mean blind obedience to others. Islam does NOT hold to those same foundations (second class status for women and virulent anti-gay and individual liberty). I do not know enough about the variations in Satanism - I am aware that others have said that different variations exist....kinda like socialist failures 'not being REAL socialism'. So, I can't make a broad judgment about Satanist - the use of "Satan" with it's connotations from religion suggests either a specific approach (anti-Christian) or a rebellion against religion (specifically Christian) in general. Even if rational and useful, it is like calling oneself a Klansman and expecting people to listen to your political approach and principles.

Now, MY personal principle is : the individual is sovereign. In practice, in this country, that equates to individual liberty and rights. Law establishes the boundary line between competing rights.

No, the Catholic do not pledge fealty to the Pope - they look to the Pope to offer guidance on religious matters.

BTW, I've written and made public MY foundations if you are interested. I'd be willing to read YOUR personal approach. [tracycoyle.com]

@JacksonNought, I know this is off topic but I’m just curious, do you practice witchcraft/sorcery?

@tracycoyle your thoughts are interesting, as Satanism is very much about the individual being sovereign. I also find your comparison of Islam vs Christian/Judaism interesting, as I see all three expousing extremely misogynistic, anti-gay, and anti-individual liberty edicts. As I previously said, reports of Barrett's congregation saying that they practice having women as second-class citizens, which again could be concerning if her husband is able to make decisions on important rulings. I am much more concerned about someone looking to religious dogma to make a decision on law versus secular rationality - as the dissenters on marriage equality seemed to do.

@Andyman I don't really consider myself a LaVeyan Satanist, as my values don't all line up with the Church of Satan. I am aligned with The Satanic Temple. As a previously stated, my version of Satanism is non-theistic, and doesn't believe in any supernaturalism. Based on that, I do not believe in witchcraft or sorcery. I enjoy them from an aesthetic viewpoint, and can appreciate the theatrics, but have no belief that they actually do anything - same way I feel about prayer.

@JacksonNought, I appreciate your candidness.

5

She’s guilty of one thing only: Being appointed in a Republican administration. Anyone with a brain has to be ashamed of what Democrats are doing with this.

I think she's too authoritarian supportive, had similar problem with Kavanaugh. I think Trump had some good 2nd and 3rd choices in Rushing and Lagao (SP?)

@Penrodster "Authoritarian"??? Dude, the job is to judge decisively if legislation or suit is consistent with the Constitution. That is pure authority, as called for in the Constitution, Article III, Section 1. You might want to read it sometime.

@TimTuolomne Not much to go on but I didn't like the decision that state has the power to make mandates in a (medical) emergency. So far state have been allowed to 1) make unconstitutional mandates in an emergency 2) declare the emergency themselves 3) decide when the emergency ends.

If she's just reads and interprets the law (the way Roberts DOESN'T!) then great. Viva Frei had a group discussion on SCOTUS picks and I found Barnes' argument compelling in her case.

@Penrodster. The Constitution provides for temporary curtailment of Constitutional protection of rights under special circumstances. Mandates are only un-Constitutional if the government fails to prove an unusual threat. While it remains to be seen if the government attempts to establish such a case, and if it is successful, I suspect it will fail. Barrett is an originalist, so if it goes all the way up to SCOTUS, I expect she will vote that the government will have failed to make its case.

@TimTuolomne True enough. But:

  1. The courts are granting very broad emergency powers to governors.
  2. The courts have allowed the governors to determine what constitutes that emergency
  3. The courts have allowed the governors to determine when that emergency is over.

The courts are granting too much executive power, I would like it pulled back.

4

It’s about abortion. It’s always been about abortion. Both parties have made that issue the cornerstone of their policy platforms since Roe v. Wade. Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, John Ashcroft (ran the leftist gauntlet getting confirmed as AG,) Bret Kavanaugh and now Amy Barrett all triggered the same panic button. No one cares about their record on civil rights. No one is interested in the their thoughts on the proper role of government in addressing society’s ills. Monetary policy? What’s that? None of it matters.

Only Roe v. Wade.

If and when Roe v. Wade bites the dust, it won’t be due to the zealots so feared by the Democrats. It will be because someone actually read The Constitution and discovered, GASP! There’s no Right To Privacy encoded in the words.

Not that the Left reads The Constitution. Otherwise Diane Feinstein would have known that when she attacked Barrett on the basis of “The dogma lives loudly in you,” she was in violation it. The left screams loudly about SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!! Which is why The Constitution strictly forbids a religious litmus test when considering appointments.

But none of that matters. Right and left have decided that abortion is the hill they will die on. What’s been killed is reasoned debate and our once vibrant system of government.

I get your point, and it is well taken, but, as someone on the Right, I can think of worse hills to die on that an attempt to save the lives of millions of unborn babies that I believe are being murdered every year.

@KeithThroop

I agree with you personally. The moment I saw my daughter’s sonogram and realized that something the size of a postage stamp had arms and legs kicking in the breeze, I knew the issue was settled for me.

On the other hand, I recognize that a sane argument can be made for abortion. But like many of the priorities on the left for which a reasonable argument could be made, they never try to make it. It’s full-scale ballistic, period. Attack, slander and smear. To borrow Chuck Schumer’s words, no lie is off the table.

The issue isn’t abortion, pro or con. It’s The Constitution, follow it or trash it.

4

It is another political centrist choice so this probably is a reasonable choice. It will make both sides somewhat unhappy but any choice will do that.

Miner Level 7 Sep 26, 2020
4

Comments are rolling in about whether or not she's a good pic.

@Admin, is the question whether or not she's a good pic, or whether or not she'll be confirmed in 2020? Both are worth exploring.

Yes, both. For a "question of the day" post, have to be a catch-all for comments (as is most of my posts). I don't know much about her other than she'll be the first blue eye blonde since O'Conner. 🙂

4

I follow Constitutional Atty Robert Barnes on You tube - he is a brilliant man. Here is his position on who should be nominated and it isn't Barrett.

iThink Level 9 Sep 26, 2020

My #1 problem with her is Marco Rubio's "sponsoring" her.....I don't trust HIM.

@tracycoyle interesting but that's only because she comes from Cuban refugee parents I believe. Robt. Barnes loves her and I greatly admire his judgement.

@iThink

Trump has to appease the neo cons

3

why would Mitch entertain confirmation hearings if the votes exist to confirm?

RobD1 Level 7 Sep 26, 2020

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!!!
The hearings have nothing to do with legal requirements!!!
Maybe as a Justice, she will have a chance to fix this SH-T, so qualified people do not have to have their personal lives and reputations dragged through the mud, and SH-T!!!!!!!!!!!

@Serg97 I mean I hear you, but if he does go through with hearings the purpose better be to make it clear just how bat shit insane the left is. if thats not the plan then F it. just vote she is eminently qualified

@RobD1 Maybe we could save time by reviewing the hearings conducted on her THREE years ago when she was first appointed to the Federal Judiciary!!!!

3

I think she will be a nice balance and we are fighting the left for this country, so take the gloves off and get this done.

2

If indeed its true that the policy was that one woman must be replaced by another woman and that was the criteria above all, and because of that men cannot qualify, regardless of merit, than that is identity politics, the very same ideology that made a mess of America right now. If Trump chose to support identity politics instead of opposing in in area of major importance like supreme court, than I have little hope he will do much to stop it, if he gets elected. You can't bend the knee to identiterians, they have no respect for that. To do this is to put a gun to your own head.

I've heard her gender, I've herd her religion being thrown around far more than her character which is implied by which tribe can clam her as their own. Supreme Court should be above tribalism that is practically its only function, and yet here we are. Trump lacks a spine on this one. Instead of going with what was needed he went with what was politically correct. Maybe that is the only way to win, tribalism, but than he better declare civil war and make it official and stop pretending that there is United States.

In regards to tribalism its about Abortion for the most part. On that note:

'I'm all for women's freedom of choice, just one made before the fact. (pregnancy). Infamous Roe vs Wade court case was ideological answer to non constitutional question.

Court pretended to be impartial when it was overtly so and beyond the incompetency in being a true to the function of supreme court it was almost certainly partisan and ideological decision.

That is the difference between lefty ideologues and conservatives. “The conservative "thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the ideologue is merciless.” ― Russell Kirk

“When we fail to properly civilize people, human nature rushes in. Absent a higher alternative, human nature drives us to make sense of the world on its own instinctual terms: That’s tribalism. “Tribalism is natural, but it can also be manufactured. Manufactured tribalism is the very essence of identity politics, the heart of aristocracy, and the soul of nationalism. “Identity politics” may be a modern term, but it is an ancient idea. Embracing it is not a step forward but a retreat to the past" ― Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics is Destroying American Democracy

When there is not general agreement in society about any given issue, a system of governance that works best will not make law. Ours is still the best system in the World - barely, but we have laws that were forced on us by political fiat, like Prohibition, the Affordable Care Act, the LRRA, Roe v Wade, Busing, Segregation....

Every excess eventually self corrects, like Prohibition, busing, segregation... The others are still in process.

@TimTuolomne I watched a debate about it between two law professors... and while I don't agree with everything they said, it was insightful. What concerns me beyond the clear divide in the country and using Supreme court as the ultimate tool for changing politics not preserving it... is how vulnerable Supreme Court seems under activists pressure.

An Empty SCOTUS Seat Epstein - Yoo on Ginsburg- Barrett- the Hearings- and the Future of the Court

@Krunoslav, Epstein is clueless about the progressives driving the lack of civility, and then caims the lack of civility is cause to wait.

SCOTUS is Constitutionally responsible to defend the Constitution and pass judgement on law passed by Congress as to its Constitutional compliance.

SCOTUS should have declared Prohibition, Busing, Affirmative Action, Segregation, the LRRA, and the Affordable Care Act un-Constitutional, and did not correctly assign Constitutional compliance with Wickard v Filburn and Roe v Wade, among many others.

2

I think that it should be a man instead of her. Just because I think it's more important to get rid of the social pressure of forcing women into positions of power. If a woman earned it, that's perfect, but we all know right now that it's all because of her genitals. Let's first get rid of feminists, then let anybody accomplish whatever they can. But this is gendered terrorism and I don't like being pussy-whipped.

A1fredo Level 8 Sep 26, 2020

She is VERY qualified for the position. Further, her principles further our own Constitutional ones. Gender was always going to plan into the choice - but given Trump's first two picks were men, having one woman in the mix seems rational.

@tracycoyle That's good to know. Sh'es really pretty too. I just wish we could get over that, and didn't have to be thinking about our politicians genitals every time. Some day...

2

Barbara Lagoa would be a much better candidate than Barrett IMHO:

iThink Level 9 Sep 26, 2020

Election-wise or her views?

@Admin Both! neither Lagoa nor Barrett would hurt Trumps election outcome.

1

The fifty states are separate sovereigns, with their own state constitutions, state governments, and state courts. All states have a legislative branch which enacts state statutes, an executive branch that promulgates state regulations pursuant to statutory authorization, and a judicial branch that applies, interprets, and occasionally overturns both state statutes and regulations, as well as local ordinances. States retain plenary power to make laws covering anything not preempted by the federal Constitution, federal statutes, or international treaties ratified by the federal Senate.

Something about which RBG and three other Justices seemed to be unaware, and failed to defend - in spite of being so charged in the Constitution and pledging to support. That makes them liars. As an "originalist," Barrett will defend the concept.

And most of the Democrats in Congress also fail to support States Rights, in spite of pledging to defend the Constitution. The Affordable Care Act is the latest, most egregious example. That makes them also liars.

1

I'm happy that he's picked someone who generally seems like a originalist. Although I haven't checked her rulings so i can't vote yes on this.

1

Straw man arguments take the field!

I’m surprised - but really shouldn’t be - at the number of comments here that raise completely invalid questions regarding ACB’s nomination. Everything from her gender to her religion are being made into proverbial mountains over the single and only issue for consideration: her qualifications as a jurist.

I’ll be happy to be read she isn’t a suitable candidate for the SCOTUS on merit if anyone can present such an argument.

1

I think so. I also hope so.😊

1

They're attempting to accuse her of being affiliated with a cult like religious group..

Roman catholic burned people for beliefs (science) in the past.

@Leader1776 yes...in the past, and as for today, I would say those blindly following the word of scientific leaders are pretty damn close to doing the same to those who disagree with their beliefs..

Fauci may be short...but he seems to have taken the role of the Roman High Priests of the past

@DesireNoDesires balance of power

@Leader1776 Should those in charge of the health organizations, be spending their time competing for power? Balance of power is Dem vs Rep...not this non-elected third party that has paid their way in through the backdoor

@Leader1776 lol well just in...the Roman "Emperor" himself, is stepping into the ring against the Trump administration

[t.co]

0

I thought Amy Coney Barrett's nomination acceptance speech was excellent.

guru Level 9 Oct 11, 2020
0

I'm kind of waiting for the hordes of pussy hat wearing wymyn pounding on the door claiming Barret previously gang raped them all but they don't remember what state, city, county, building or what years.

0

For this learning adventure, we will talk about how laws are made on the national level. These are called Federal laws because they are made by our Federal Government. Everyone must follow the Federal laws because we live in one nation called the United States.

Federal laws are made by Congress on all kinds of matters, such as speed limits on highways. These laws make sure that all people are kept safe. The United States Congress is the lawmaking body of the Federal Government. Congress has two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Each state also passes its own laws, which you must follow when you are in that state. If you live in Michigan, for example, you would follow the laws of that state as well as the Federal laws.

0

So that whole holy rhetoric about how Merrick Garland could not be considered in an election year was a bunch of lies. In this country might makes right and trumps precedent every time.

Pand0ro Level 7 Sep 27, 2020

In every country this is true. You are describing human nature, as if it should be different. That is the kind of infantile utopianism that brings about murderous socialist regimes.

The senate had a solid republican majority, there was no way Garland would pass. Turtle Neck Mitch said he liked the guy and didn't want to put him through all that for nothing.

@TimTuolomne I am especially fearful of those murderous socialist countries of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. Socialism does not make evil. If there is evil in a regime it is made by those in power, not the system of government. The United States is a government with both capitalist and socialist features. The fact that nationwide the Republicans have been in power for 10 years and the constant repeated attempts to eliminate Obsmacare have only been partially successful shows that the majority of people, many Republicans included, have enjoyed this socialist program. There is no utopia nor ever will be. All human endeavors are flawed in many ways. The elimination of liberalism and socialism will not bring utopia. The crisis in our country is the result of people isolating their beliefs to only those that satisfy them and refusing to consider any other point of view. Human nature has many different expressions. The "might makes right" aspect of our natures has been brought to the forefront of our thinking and being the dominant aspect expressed today is leading to our destrction.

@Pand0ro, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark are as socialist as the US is Capitalist. Your statement presumes no murderous socialist regimes and you list four hybrids as proof, when over a hundred million people have lost their lives to socialist experiments. When you have to misrepresent the facts to make your argument, you have lost that argument.

@TimTuolomne I did not imply there are no murderous socialist countries. Venezuela, Syria, and the old Soviet Union countries are both socialist and mortally repressive, and yes they have been the agents of death for hundreds of millions of people. China is in no way a socialist country that they claim to be. They are simply a dictatorship run by the millionaires and billionaires the government enables and they are agents of death for many of their minorities. The Scandinavian countries are a hybrid and while they all have their faults the socialistic qualities of their governments have been reasonably successful. As stated it appears to be not the type of government but the group in power that decides openness or repression. In the United States today it is the people on the far left and those on the far right who with the arrogance that springs from ignorance are driving the division with unhinged ideas and criminal actions. As Trump will retain the presidency after the so called election, the dream of our founding fathers has evaporated.

0

I do not care anymore.

Just let it all burn. 🔥

The impulse to not care is exactly what Progressives are cultivating in you, so you will abdicate defense of our unique and special system. They have convinced you that it is not unique and special, so you don't care. You've been brainwashed.

Now they can install socialism and you, for one, will not quibble. Multiply your apathy by millions and they will succeed in destroying our nation.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke.

@TimTuolomne how does a Republican supreme court justice install socialism ?

You accuse me of being brainwashed and yet you seem to be unable to comprehend my statement .

That sounds like a personal problem.

@Mikewee777. I didn’t attack you personally, just observed that somehow you’ve come to devalue the US. You tell me what is most likely the mechanism that did that.

You however did resort to attacking me, and presumed to limit the scope of my statement, making it plausibly flawed. However I did not limit my statement. Those choices show weakness of character. Maybe that is the more true root of your apathy.

@TimTuolomne If all Colorado residents communicate as poorly as you have, then it explains why Hickenlooper lost.

He never stood a chance against that mumbling old guy everyone hates .

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 115

Photos 128 More

Posted by Admin Does teaching "white guilt" also cultivate a "white pride" backlash?

Posted by Admin Is it time to take a knee on the Superbowl?

Posted by Admin Why not equality right now?

Posted by Admin How's Biden doing?

Posted by Admin How many good friends do you have from other political tribes?

Posted by Admin What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?

Posted by Admin Now what?

Posted by Admin What do you expect to be achieved by this week's pro-Trump DC rally?

Posted by Admin What did you learn in 2020?

Posted by Admin Should pedophiles be allowed to have "child" sex robots?

Posted by Admin Do you have a "line in the sand" regarding political or social change?

Posted by Admin Should big tech firms hire more Blacks and Hispanics?

  • Top tags#video #media #racist #world #biden #truth #liberal #government #racism #democrats #conservatives #society #politics #community #FreeSpeech #youtube #justice #IDW #hope #Police #friends #videos #Identity #culture #Google #book #policy #vote #conservative #evidence #violence #liberals #reason #economic #Socialmedia #USA #tech #money #god #guns #gender #whites #campaign #population #laws #religion #TheTruth #equality #democrat #Christian ...

    Members 9,701Top

    Moderator