* Democratic nominee Joe Biden continued to drag his feet on answering whether he'd support increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court
* Some liberal have pitched the idea of 'court-packing' to offset the conservative slant of the court courtesy of President Donald Trump
* The calls to increase the number of justices grew louder after he nominated conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett
* 'They'll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over,' Biden told reporters in Arizona Thursday
* His running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, also refused to answer the question directly on Wednesday night's debate stage
* Biden and Harris campaigned in Phoenix Thursday with Cindy McCain, the widow of Republican Sen. John McCain, who's endorsed the Democrats
Democratic nominee
Joe Biden continued to drag his feet on answering whether he'd support increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court.
It's a move - referred to as 'court-packing - that some liberals have pitched to offset the conservative tilt of the court under President Donald Trump, especially with his recent choice of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
'They'll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over,' Biden said Thursday as he arrived in Arizona for a campaign stop with running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: In the past the main stream media would be destroying a candidate who would say something like that. But this is the present, and we are definitely living in a different world. As to what is my take. His refusal to not answer this straight-forward and simple question tells me that his administration will be committed to changing the structure and operation of the Supreme Court if they are elected.
More News On US Democrat Presidential Candidate Biden Saying He'll Answer The Supreme Court-Packing Question 'When The Election Is Over'
15 comments:
"Elect me and find out."
There is a problem with that particular canned/rehearsed non-answer. And the question is starting to come up every time Biden or Harris is seen in daylight - which is seldom but not never.
They will be forced to answer that question. No matter what answer they give, it will halve their base. If they continue to patronize and dodge, it will alarm the general electorate.
The central issue is whether (or not) their aim is to destroy a branch of government in order to cement one-party rule. It really does require an answer. Even among modern US media.
Trump is a magnificent bastard.
Sounds like somebody else I know and their tax returns.😂
Why should he answer now?
1. He is not elected as yet
2. we do not know who or when a new Justice will be approved
He could answer when Trump shows us his taxes
The Supreme Court is about justice not power.
The Democrats are making it about power. It will be one of their pillars of power along with regulators and the police.
When you make SCOUTS about power and not justice, you might as well dispense with it. But it will be a charade. SCOUTS gives the Democrat holders of the executive branch and legislative branch the veneer of respectability and democracy.
People like Fred (8:14) want the taxes for 2 reasons. One they think there is a Stormy Daniels payment in there somewhere. At least that is the reason given by the failing NYT.
the other is that they want to say that Trump paid no taxes, very little taxes or something along those lines and then to make hay of it and destroy Trump.
Trump uses the very same tax laws as the Sulzberger family which owns the NYT. the Sulzberger do the same thing the Fred is excoriating the Trumps for. Fred (8:14) refuses to admit his own basic hypocrisy and vindictiveness.
If Trump act in a legal manner in that way than neither can the New York Times. But the NYT does
And Fred (8:14) never hesitates to pick up a NYT.
Fred issuing the same bullying technique as Senator Reid. Reid said a friend told him that Romney had not paid taxes for 10 years. After the election he asked about it and he said"Well it worked didn't it?". So a national leader one of the 3 highest leaders in the land told a 100% lie and paid no price.
Fred (8:14) follows the leader.
People, really awful no good people, tell us the Trump is brash and bad and Romney is a gentleman and The way Romney presents himself should be the model.
Except this is the way those awful people were presenting Romney before 2106:
"Prior to that, Dingy Harry was out there suggesting that Mitt Romney had not paid his taxes for ten years. He was on the floor of the Senate claiming a friend of his told him that. The media said (paraphrasing), “Who’s your friend?” Dingy Harry said, “Doesn’t matter.” The media said, “Where’s your evidence?” Dingy Harry said, “I don’t need any. What you need to do is go ask Romney why he hasn’t paid his taxes in ten years.” The media said, “But you don’t have any evidence?” “No. That doesn’t matter. The onus is on Romney to prove that he’s paid his taxes and we gotta see his taxes.”
The media dutifully went over and assumed the charge that Romney had not paid his taxes was true and began treating him as such."
We remember 2012. Romney is held up as a gentlemen by Democrats today, but we remember what these Democrats said in 2012.
We remember 2012.
Harry Reid lied about Mitt Romney’s taxes. He’s still not sorry. - Washington Post
If you will lie and make hay of Romney's taxes, you will lie and make hay out of Trump's taxes.
That is all Democrats, the NYT and Fred (8:14) want to do.
We remember 2012.
When Larry Beat Dirty Harry?
You beat Majority Senator Leader Harry Reid?
1) His brother Larry?
2) The Mafia?
3) The Deep State?
If it is #3, then perhaps we do not live in a Democracy anymore. Perhaps we live ina Banana Republic.
We never did get an answer did we?
And yet the beating is written all over Harry Reid's face as bright as a lighthouse light.
Maybe the USA is not more Democratic than Russia?
Maybe Democrats are chomping at the bit to got their 1st USA "Nuremberg" rallies?
blah blah blah
30 days till America has its say and you tell us what the Court is "really" about?
If the GOP rams through a Justice, then I hope the Dems, should they win, enlarge the court: if GOP can play games, so too, the Dems
"Now, about this tax return business. I think, again, a little perspective might be helpful here. What is this tradition of candidates releasing their tax returns anyway? When did that start? What’s its purpose? Well, its purpose is to tell a lie. Its purpose is to show that candidates are no different than you and me. Its purpose is to show that candidates are honest, that candidates pay their taxes, that candidates this or that. But it’s all a show. It’s all buzz and PR and spin and so forth.
It’s also the kind of thing that only benefits long-serving politicians. I maintain to you that if you were in politics you are going to structure your finances in such a way that your tax return looks a certain way. I submit to you that if you are a lifetime or longtime member in politics, you’re gonna do everything in your life to pass muster if it’s exposed to the public, including your tax return, which in politics it is because the tradition is that candidates release them."
And yet these politicians are different than you and I.
-They are much richer.
-They marry lobbyists.
-They are a minimum of 3 million dollars richer than the average family.
It is not all speeches and book deals as the liars would have you believe.
Biden;s taxes would pass muster by this old measure. But have you looked at his family?
Yeah they are all just that bright. NOT!
Well, Jill is a gold digger. Saw her face in the dictionary under gold digger.
Ram through a judge?
1) We went thought the statistics of the number of judges nominated and appointed in the 4th year of a presidency. YO may see you accountant about the percentages. He'll have to explain it all to you because ... numbers.
2) Barrett was vetted by the Senate back in October 2017. Why do we have to re-vet?
3) Ass fuckers like Feinstein have broken the law, have broken the constitution, and have said :The Dogma live loudly in you". Feinstein and others are trying to establish a religious test in order to become a judge.
3) No matter, who we nominate, the Democrats will make it a circus. We saw the Kavanaugh hearing, the pussy hats, the payoffs outside the hearing chamber, the PhD speaking in the little girl voice like she could not go on she was so shattered.
Is Dr. Ford still speaking in a little girl voice a year later? Is she so shattered that she is on skid row hardly able to get up in the morning?
Democrats turn every hearing into a zoo.
BTW 9:56 are you having your period? Did you place of work forget to restock tampons in the men's restroom again? You are not suffering from toxic shock syndrome are you?
We know what kind of judges you like. The same type Epstein and the Bay Area liked.
“The dogma lives loudly in you”: Democratic Senator Diane "China Riches" Feinstein on Amy Coney Barrett
Youtube
The word "dogma" was translated in the 17th century from Latin dogma meaning "philosophical tenet" or principle, derived from the Greek dogma (δόγμα) meaning literally "that which one thinks is true" and the verb dokein, "to seem good".[4][5] The plural, based on the Greek, is "dogmata" (dawg-MAH-tah), though "dogmas" may be more commonly used in English.
Democrats have their dogmas.
@ Like 6 foot men using the ladies room.
@ Putting tampons in the men's room
@ It not being a crime for 24 year olds to have sex with 14 year olds.
Democrats have lots & lots of dogmas.
If you disagree with Democrat dogmas they will take all you money through fines and penalties. They are nice people don'cha see. They rule with a velvet fist, when they are not fisting each other.
Every presidential candidate except Trump has made taxes available. Calling folks names is childish. NY State onto Trump stuff and what we know now is that milillions in debt but we do not know to which nation. And yes: his son said in public they borrow money from Russia.
the issue remains: why should a candidate state what he might or might not do about the court when the Congress must first now decide what it will do?
your name calling is like Trump's, and we see where that has thus far gotten him
And again, the below quote is true.
"Now, about this tax return business. I think, again, a little perspective might be helpful here. What is this tradition of candidates releasing their tax returns anyway? When did that start? What’s its purpose? Well, its purpose is to tell a lie. Its purpose is to show that candidates are no different than you and me. Its purpose is to show that candidates are honest, that candidates pay their taxes, that candidates this or that. But it’s all a show. It’s all buzz and PR and spin and so forth.
It’s also the kind of thing that only benefits long-serving politicians."
Earth to 2 year old child.
You borrow money to make money. That is obvious. Otherwise you would not be able to pay the bank back and banks would close since none of their clients made money.
People in business write-off interest a a business expense to lower taxes. You call it a loophole or a tax dodge. What are you doing there? You are calling this or that business person a name. You insist people not call others names and then you call other people's names with a straight face.
If you do not like business people writing of interest against taxers, then have your rep and/or senator change the law. They won't. If they do they won't do it for long. In the meantime you will thump your ignorant dumb AF chest with great pride and shit eating grin.
Will you the Dumb AF person with the shit eating grin pledge that you will go after anyone deducting interest against taxes as hard as you go after Trump? Will you take that pledge?
Will you go after the NYT?
Last time I checked Deutsche Bank, which Trump borrowed from, was in Germany not Moscow.
"Deutsch or Deutsche may refer to: Deutsch: The German language, in Germany. Deutsche: Germans, as a feminine or plural demonyma. Deutsch (word), originally referring to the Germanic vernaculars of the Early Middle Ages."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch
You do realize Deutsche means German, don't you? Or is language as hard for you as numbers?
Maybe Robert Heinlein was right and you don't know how to wear shoes or bathe and all the rest?
You realize that Deutsche Bank is in Germany and German regulators have oversight. They are quite capable of investigating. If you are so uberly concerned maybe you should right them. Wait don't. While the regulators probably can read and write English, you English grammar is just so bad that they would never take you seriously. But who dies>
If you are billionaire, any billionaire, you are probably always millions in debt. Show me one, who is actively in business who is not. They write off the interest. They make money faster that way.
Trump is worth 2.5 billion. He is million in debt. What is the percentage? Or right you don't do math. Even Rush Limbaugh does fractions, decimals and long division. He uses a calculator. But you, you are special. You can argue all day waving your hands, but never once use number unless it is a quote. Yo never run numbers yourself and are quite pleased with that fact. Your secretary did the budget and made sure you did not overspend. You hid that fact from the Dean and kept paying your secretary peanuts. At home someone else does the budget, because ... numbers.
What is the % of the money that Trump owes to what he is worth or what he makes?
What is the % ?
Does ROI mean anything to you? Or are you going to have to look it up or ask a tax professional?
Kidd and Andrew Jackson thank you. Because, when you are on this site, they are not the bottom of the barrel.
What is the percentage of the debt to what Trump is worth or his cash flow. Tell us that and you might have a story.
Unless you can produce tax records and bank accounts, you can not tell us how wealthy he is.
"Unless you can produce tax records and bank accounts, you can not tell us how wealthy he is."
And neither can you. Is that the lame excuse to get out of doing a little bit of long division or a calculator.
I can always estimate which something people with real professions and real education have to do OJT. With the estimates you could calculate the ratio and be accurate with +/- so much.\
You are all worried about trump like you are going to bust a nut and you do not know or do not care about Congress critters.
Wealth is often or always given as a range, because of the law and the fact that assets are volatile. But you want an exact amount for Trump. That is so sweet of you. I never knew that you cared.
Example:
Feinstein’s financial disclosure statement for 2014 revealed that she had anywhere from $5 million to $25 million invested in a blind trust. She also had between $3.1 million to $7.3 million in various money market accounts.
www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/041516/who-are-americas-7richest-senators.asp
Trump has ownership in multiple companies or legal entities, When you are calculating a ratio, for the millions in loans that you are so squealing about, you have to figure out which one.
Say the the loan failed. Well that particular company/LLC would fold and go into bankruptcy if they could not renegotiate. Trump would take a hit, but he would not be bankrupt and would live a much like before.
You do know what an LLC is? If not, then talking to you is like throwing pearls before a swine.
If there was a problem the IRS can take care of it. OR maybe they can;t because there might be too many Clinton and Obama cronies like Louis Lerner. They might be politically solid but technically incompetent.
Are you going to claim the the IRS is incompetent?
The Obama IRS had plenty of time to audit Trump in 2016. Is a year not enough?
Are you sick?
Post a Comment