Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No you Stupid Douchebag.The Democratic Party is wading further into Alex Jones territory with each passing day. I mean, this is just stupid.
Whatever his company is doing is of no concern to me, as long as he keeps transforming this country to it's rightful; place of greatness.
Ahhhh a true Trump Cult Member........MAGA........lol
View attachment 202556
The Democratic Party is wading further into Alex Jones territory with each passing day. I mean, this is just stupid.
Finance is, of course, deeply involved in every level of American government; the connections between Trump and Kennedy have been reported over the last two years. There is no reason to believe that Kennedy’s ties to Trump affected any of his votes. But as this new report details, these ties coincided with “a quiet campaign” to ensure Kennedy’s retirement and give Trump a chance to fill a spot on the Supreme Court.
Trump’s relationship with Justice Kennedy sounds shady in this new report.
No you Stupid Douchebag.The Democratic Party is wading further into Alex Jones territory with each passing day. I mean, this is just stupid.
Alex Jones is Trump's Buddy. - You Effing 12 IQ Moron.
You are TOO STUPID TO POST.
and Today's Infowars IS tomorrow's Trump/Fox News/...Policy
InfoWars: Alex Jones Interviews Donald Trump - December 2, 2015
`
Well he shouldn’t. Right? I mean you guys set a precedent and all.I think it does. They could also be trying to build a foundation for an argument on why Trump should not be permitted to nominate a justice until AFTER the presidential election in 2.5 years.this is just the next 'outrage' that the left is preparing to gin up against America.
They cannot stop the nomination and appointment of a Justice now, so they're going to try and place an asterisk next to the next judge in a hope to show contempt for a possible impeachment hearing if they get the Senate back.
Does impeachment still require a 2/3 majority vote? Hard to believe they would go that far, but I would not be surprised if the tried to "pack the court" with say 6 more liberal justices if and when they win the WH and the Senate.
Well he shouldn’t. Right? I mean you guys set a precedent and all.I think it does. They could also be trying to build a foundation for an argument on why Trump should not be permitted to nominate a justice until AFTER the presidential election in 2.5 years.this is just the next 'outrage' that the left is preparing to gin up against America.
They cannot stop the nomination and appointment of a Justice now, so they're going to try and place an asterisk next to the next judge in a hope to show contempt for a possible impeachment hearing if they get the Senate back.
Does impeachment still require a 2/3 majority vote? Hard to believe they would go that far, but I would not be surprised if the tried to "pack the court" with say 6 more liberal justices if and when they win the WH and the Senate.
Oh, certainly...in a normal world. But the GOP cheated last time, so the gloves are off for the Dems...Well he shouldn’t. Right? I mean you guys set a precedent and all.I think it does. They could also be trying to build a foundation for an argument on why Trump should not be permitted to nominate a justice until AFTER the presidential election in 2.5 years.this is just the next 'outrage' that the left is preparing to gin up against America.
They cannot stop the nomination and appointment of a Justice now, so they're going to try and place an asterisk next to the next judge in a hope to show contempt for a possible impeachment hearing if they get the Senate back.
Does impeachment still require a 2/3 majority vote? Hard to believe they would go that far, but I would not be surprised if the tried to "pack the court" with say 6 more liberal justices if and when they win the WH and the Senate.
I think a president should be permitted nominate a SCOTUS judge that far in advance of his last year in office. There is no precedence to preclude that.
Incorrect. They should do what is best for the country and putting a Constructionist on the bench is best for this country.Well he shouldn’t. Right? I mean you guys set a precedent and all.I think it does. They could also be trying to build a foundation for an argument on why Trump should not be permitted to nominate a justice until AFTER the presidential election in 2.5 years.this is just the next 'outrage' that the left is preparing to gin up against America.
They cannot stop the nomination and appointment of a Justice now, so they're going to try and place an asterisk next to the next judge in a hope to show contempt for a possible impeachment hearing if they get the Senate back.
Does impeachment still require a 2/3 majority vote? Hard to believe they would go that far, but I would not be surprised if the tried to "pack the court" with say 6 more liberal justices if and when they win the WH and the Senate.
Good luck with that.Oh, certainly...in a normal world. But the GOP cheated last time, so the gloves are off for the Dems...Well he shouldn’t. Right? I mean you guys set a precedent and all.I think it does. They could also be trying to build a foundation for an argument on why Trump should not be permitted to nominate a justice until AFTER the presidential election in 2.5 years.this is just the next 'outrage' that the left is preparing to gin up against America.
They cannot stop the nomination and appointment of a Justice now, so they're going to try and place an asterisk next to the next judge in a hope to show contempt for a possible impeachment hearing if they get the Senate back.
Does impeachment still require a 2/3 majority vote? Hard to believe they would go that far, but I would not be surprised if the tried to "pack the court" with say 6 more liberal justices if and when they win the WH and the Senate.
I think a president should be permitted nominate a SCOTUS judge that far in advance of his last year in office. There is no precedence to preclude that.
Incorrect. They should do what is best for the country and putting a Constructionist on the bench is best for this country.Well he shouldn’t. Right? I mean you guys set a precedent and all.I think it does. They could also be trying to build a foundation for an argument on why Trump should not be permitted to nominate a justice until AFTER the presidential election in 2.5 years.this is just the next 'outrage' that the left is preparing to gin up against America.
They cannot stop the nomination and appointment of a Justice now, so they're going to try and place an asterisk next to the next judge in a hope to show contempt for a possible impeachment hearing if they get the Senate back.
Does impeachment still require a 2/3 majority vote? Hard to believe they would go that far, but I would not be surprised if the tried to "pack the court" with say 6 more liberal justices if and when they win the WH and the Senate.
The thought crossed my mind, I admit. But Kennedy has been considering this quite awhile, I hear, so no, 75 is sure old enough for most of us to want to retire.The Democratic Party is wading further into Alex Jones territory with each passing day. I mean, this is just stupid.
Finance is, of course, deeply involved in every level of American government; the connections between Trump and Kennedy have been reported over the last two years. There is no reason to believe that Kennedy’s ties to Trump affected any of his votes. But as this new report details, these ties coincided with “a quiet campaign” to ensure Kennedy’s retirement and give Trump a chance to fill a spot on the Supreme Court.
Trump’s relationship with Justice Kennedy sounds shady in this new report.
Huge long term monetary relationships there, plus long closed door meetings at the Whitehouse, plus tRumps history of manipulating people/circumstances with his (borrowed) money and general disregard for rules and such.The Democratic Party is wading further into Alex Jones territory with each passing day. I mean, this is just stupid.
Finance is, of course, deeply involved in every level of American government; the connections between Trump and Kennedy have been reported over the last two years. There is no reason to believe that Kennedy’s ties to Trump affected any of his votes. But as this new report details, these ties coincided with “a quiet campaign” to ensure Kennedy’s retirement and give Trump a chance to fill a spot on the Supreme Court.
Trump’s relationship with Justice Kennedy sounds shady in this new report.
The Democratic Party is wading further into Alex Jones territory with each passing day. I mean, this is just stupid.
Finance is, of course, deeply involved in every level of American government; the connections between Trump and Kennedy have been reported over the last two years. There is no reason to believe that Kennedy’s ties to Trump affected any of his votes. But as this new report details, these ties coincided with “a quiet campaign” to ensure Kennedy’s retirement and give Trump a chance to fill a spot on the Supreme Court.
Trump’s relationship with Justice Kennedy sounds shady in this new report.
Yeah task the sc justice who decides the affirmative vote on women's rights just steps down and hands the pos anti choice president the deciding vote against.....you are cluelessI believe the word I'm searching for is BULLSHIT! Collusion between Trump and Kennedy, what's next?
Impeachment doesn't have anything to do with the SC, does it?this is just the next 'outrage' that the left is preparing to gin up against America.
They cannot stop the nomination and appointment of a Justice now, so they're going to try and place an asterisk next to the next judge in a hope to show contempt for a possible impeachment hearing if they get the Senate back.
Does impeachment still require a 2/3 majority vote? Hard to believe they would go that far, but I would not be surprised if the tried to "pack the court" with say 6 more liberal justices if and when they win the WH and the Senate.
The Democratic Party is wading further into Alex Jones territory with each passing day. I mean, this is just stupid.
Finance is, of course, deeply involved in every level of American government; the connections between Trump and Kennedy have been reported over the last two years. There is no reason to believe that Kennedy’s ties to Trump affected any of his votes. But as this new report details, these ties coincided with “a quiet campaign” to ensure Kennedy’s retirement and give Trump a chance to fill a spot on the Supreme Court.
Trump’s relationship with Justice Kennedy sounds shady in this new report.
He was not denied. The answer to his nomination was no. That IS the right of Congress.Incorrect. They should do what is best for the country and putting a Constructionist on the bench is best for this country.Well he shouldn’t. Right? I mean you guys set a precedent and all.I think it does. They could also be trying to build a foundation for an argument on why Trump should not be permitted to nominate a justice until AFTER the presidential election in 2.5 years.this is just the next 'outrage' that the left is preparing to gin up against America.
They cannot stop the nomination and appointment of a Justice now, so they're going to try and place an asterisk next to the next judge in a hope to show contempt for a possible impeachment hearing if they get the Senate back.
Does impeachment still require a 2/3 majority vote? Hard to believe they would go that far, but I would not be surprised if the tried to "pack the court" with say 6 more liberal justices if and when they win the WH and the Senate.
You mean what YOU THINK IS BEST even if it means breaking with precedent and rules that have long governed these things.
That is not good for this country any more than obstruction simply for the sake of obstruction. Denying a president his right to appoint a SCOTUS is an abuse of power.
he is not the first to retire. Some just want to take their money and have a life. O'Conner retired to be with her husband. Not everyone wants to work everyday until they drop dead.The thought crossed my mind, I admit. But Kennedy has been considering this quite awhile, I hear, so no, 75 is sure old enough for most of us to want to retire.The Democratic Party is wading further into Alex Jones territory with each passing day. I mean, this is just stupid.
Finance is, of course, deeply involved in every level of American government; the connections between Trump and Kennedy have been reported over the last two years. There is no reason to believe that Kennedy’s ties to Trump affected any of his votes. But as this new report details, these ties coincided with “a quiet campaign” to ensure Kennedy’s retirement and give Trump a chance to fill a spot on the Supreme Court.
Trump’s relationship with Justice Kennedy sounds shady in this new report.
It's the right of the Senate not the congress.He was not denied. The answer to his nomination was no. That IS the right of Congress.Incorrect. They should do what is best for the country and putting a Constructionist on the bench is best for this country.Well he shouldn’t. Right? I mean you guys set a precedent and all.I think it does. They could also be trying to build a foundation for an argument on why Trump should not be permitted to nominate a justice until AFTER the presidential election in 2.5 years.Does impeachment still require a 2/3 majority vote? Hard to believe they would go that far, but I would not be surprised if the tried to "pack the court" with say 6 more liberal justices if and when they win the WH and the Senate.
You mean what YOU THINK IS BEST even if it means breaking with precedent and rules that have long governed these things.
That is not good for this country any more than obstruction simply for the sake of obstruction. Denying a president his right to appoint a SCOTUS is an abuse of power.
*sigh*It's the right of the Senate not the congress.He was not denied. The answer to his nomination was no. That IS the right of Congress.Incorrect. They should do what is best for the country and putting a Constructionist on the bench is best for this country.Well he shouldn’t. Right? I mean you guys set a precedent and all.I think it does. They could also be trying to build a foundation for an argument on why Trump should not be permitted to nominate a justice until AFTER the presidential election in 2.5 years.
You mean what YOU THINK IS BEST even if it means breaking with precedent and rules that have long governed these things.
That is not good for this country any more than obstruction simply for the sake of obstruction. Denying a president his right to appoint a SCOTUS is an abuse of power.
