But.....You're gonna Love It!

[BarryBobPosthole]

Here ya go Thumper.

Confusticate on this for a minute.
BKB


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/group-of-50-former-gop-national-security-officials-trump-would-be-most-reckless-president-in-american-history/2016/08/08/6715042c-5d9f-11e6-af8e-54aa2e849447_story.html

[Thumper]

Why me?? As I said in another post, we have a choice between a twat and a twit ... who're ya' gonna pick? (hint: you can have the twat)

[Chicken Dinner]

I'll say it again, that's a false choice. Change has to start somewhere.

[LJ3]

Hank, I agree with you but the only thing causing pause in my mind is the Supreme court nominations. What are your thoughts on voting 3rd party, Clinton winning and what happens to the supreme court?

[BarryBobPosthole]

The GOP should have thought about that before they nominated a nincompoop as their candidate.

BKb

[Thumper]

I'll say it again, that's a false choice. Change has to start somewhere.

Pissing into the wind is not going to change it's direction.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Pissing into the wind is not going to change it's direction.

But it'll warm you up on a cold day! Temporarily it will anyway.

BKB

[Thumper]

Reminds me of the night a few buddies and I were headed to Daytona Beach for the weekend. We were about 15 years old and my buddy (the same guy who goes to the estate sales with me now) had a Jeep Forward Control Pick-up. His dad had built a metal canopy covering the back. I was in the back with 2 other guys and there were 2 in the front (2 seats with the engine in the middle). Half way to Daytona (it was like 3 am), I had to pee. So, I proceeded to the rear of the bed (the back was open except for the short tailgate) and as I held onto one of the struts for the canopy top, took a leak out the back. Now you know when you really, REALLY have to pee, once you start, there ain't no way in hell to cut off the flow! Well at 50-60 mph, every drop that came out'ta me ... came right back at me .... AND MY BUDDIES!!! They were screaming and scrambling trying to find ANYTHING available to hide under (there was nothing). Needless to say, I learned quite a bit about airflow around a moving vehicle at highway speeds that night! (and I've remembered that lesson to this day!) ;)

Here's what a Forward Control looks like. The one we had was similar to the one at the lower right ... except the top of the canopy was metal and the sides/back were open.


http://cj3b.info/Photos/Mahindra/Mahindra1972/Mahindra1972Range15.jpg

[BarryBobPosthole]

A friend of mine bought one of those that he was going to restore. I never got to see the finished product but it was a cool pickemup truck.

BKB

[Chicken Dinner]

Hank, I agree with you but the only thing causing pause in my mind is the Supreme court nominations. What are your thoughts on voting 3rd party, Clinton winning and what happens to the supreme court?

It's really a zero sum game. With the exception of Scalia who is already gone, the next three are all liberal anyway.

[BarryBobPosthole]

There's way too much emphasis on Supreme Court nominees. All that this hoo hah about it from the right indicates is that with Senate control and a sitting GOP president, they had plans to nominate activist judges with a specific purpose in mind.
Approval of nominations,whether we like it or not, is largely a bipartisan process and although the nominees may be activist or liberal or conservative in nature, the process can (and generally has) actually produce true constructionist justices that can actually make decisions based on the Constitution and not based on their own ideologies. There are several examples of this happening from both liberal and conservative leaning justices in the past. Most times, the party who lost bitches about it to high heaven and declares them to have gone over to the other side, but in most cases they just made the right decision.
Politicizing the court is the very worse thing we can do and that's why we have to take very seriously when there are threats from the political branches of government, presidents included. We also shouldn't hold up a non political process for political reasons like this current bunch of motherfuckers in he Senate are doing.
The price of doing so? They are about to find out big time. The SCOTUS is the one thing in our system that works very well. And its about to get screwed up, and not entirely because of who Hillary will nominate, but by the very political environment that was created by the GOP controlled Senate.

BKB

BKB

[LJ3]

That's an interesting perspective BBP. I would argue that the SC has already politicized itself and has always been a political entity and is always politicized by politicians, politically speaking. BUT... I do agree that it may be much ado about not much; there could be serious risk to conservative values with new SC appointees. That's not something that can be minimized and glossed over. Saying "in most cases they just made the right decision" is not something a great percentage of the country would agree with, depending on the issue and the decision. Besides, I happen to agree with the SC on most social issues so there's that.

I've voted in every election since I was 18 and I actually have no idea who I'm going to vote for yet.

[BarryBobPosthole]

I'm no SCOTUS historian, but I do know there have been justices that became more or less conservative or liberal as they spent more time on the bench and actually have voted with their ideological opposites in critical decisions.
Probably the most notable in sitting justices is Chief Justice Roberts. He cast a vote to uphold Obamacare and was villified for being political, by a bunch of fucking politicians. I suppose if he'd have voted his ideology straight up he wouldn't be viewed as political. That is the stupidness of the public discourse on the whole thing.

Here's another example of what I'm talking about. Roe v Wade is one of the decisions that both ideologies want to either overturn or protect. The ORIGINAL Roe v Wade Decision was decided 7-2 by the SCOTUS. Five of the seven who. voted in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents. And one of the two dissenters was appointed by a Democrat president.

You can google just about any really big SCOTUS decision in the past 50 years or so and see a similar pattern. Who nominates them has less to do with how the court will decide than the pols would like it to be. Our systems of checks and balances actually works quite well most of the time.

BKB