for anybody that believes trump actually has a chance..explain this

Trump boasted that it was OK to grab women by their genitalia.
Are you saying that didn't happen?

 

He didn't say that it was okay to grab women by their genitalia. He said, "they let you do it." Two completely different things. It being okay to grab women and them letting you grab *****.

Here's what he said and he's since apologized back in 2016 for his offensive but then private comments to Bush.

Trump privately said to Billy Bush,"And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.
"Grab them by the p****. You can do anything."

 

The point I'm making is that no President sjpuld be allowed to pick for SCOTUS or any other position. The best people are those in charge of the Judicial system and know the right and competent people.
In the UK. All appointments are made by open competition. The Commission recommends candidates to the Lord Chancellor, who has a very limited power of veto. The Commission also has a specific statutory duty to “encourage diversity in the range of persons available for selection for appointments”.

 

That wasn't your original point. If it was, you failed.
What do you mean no president should be allowed the pick? After he makes his nomination, the person he picks has to be fully vetted and confirmed by the senate. Seems to me you don't know much about our government judicial process.

 

So the President picks. Is the President a lawyer? I would guess that Trump had little problem getting his choice through vetting. Still it's your choice.

 

couldn't care less. Here in the USA the president picks nominees to the federal court and the senate confirms or denies. I want to live in the USA not England. And I suspect what is considered "competence" over there is political in nature-just like here

 

actually the president has advisers who help with this

I will explain it since I have several friends who have been nominated for federal positions including a couple who have been mentioned as possible USSC justices

For district (trial) judges,, the ranking senator or congressman in a state usually makes a suggestion
IN Appellate courts, judges are designed as coming from one of the states in the judicial circuit. Again the ranking politician of the party holding the white house does that but with high profile circuit positions (such as the DC court of appeals) the white house and the national party will have more input. For Supreme court, same with groups like the Federalist Society (GOP) or the ABA (Democrats) will be involved.

 

Have a day:

 

Haven't you left quite a lot out, as in kissing them, and in reference to a specific person?

He only apologised because he was caught out, did he explain why it was offensive?

If that dog breath old man attempted to kiss my daughter and grab her genitalia he wouldn't last long around me. He even referenced the power imbalance that oppressed women have to endure 'when you're a star'.
They're not 'letting you' you nasty old pervert, they are being subjugated because of fear and the expectation of deference from the predatory old nonce.
If you want to support that kind of creep go right ahead, it says as much about you as it does about him.

 

is this Russian toilet??

 

He had a horrible time. Did you want the confirmation process for Kavanaugh and Barrett? It's clear you didn't if you think they had an easy time getting confirmed.
The president has advisors, some attorneys, who make suggestions, and help him with his picks.

 

I haven't left anything out. Read the post I refuted. He was wrong, and I proved it with a Trump quote.
Have a nice day making personal comments about me. I don't have to read any more of them starting right now.

Bye, bye.

 

Our country fought a war for our independence to get away from their rule. Why do some think we should still do things their way?

 

Your country fought a war of independence so rich men could continue to own slaves.

 

You have proved nothing.

Bye bye failed apologist.

 

And when did he ever listen and take advice?

 

This certainly aged...poorly lol.

You made a thread about "how does Trump have a chance to beat biden since biden raised 26 million". Now that Trump just doubled that, does that answer your question or are you going to shift the goalpost?

 

This isn't true. The Revolutionary War had nothing to do with slavery. Slavery was legal in England for decades after the Revolutionary War ended. History 101.

 

Research the James Somerset case. You will see I am right. George Washington was a notorious slave owner protecting his own interests when it became clear that Britain was heading towards abolition.
The Americans killed each other in a war over slavery many years after Britain bloodlessly abolished slavery.

 

No, you're still wrong, LOL.

The Somerset case was in England, not America, where a judge ruled that he couldn't be forcibly deported to Jamaica after having been a freed slave. That has no bearing on your false statement that the Revolutionary War was fought over slavery. It wasn't. It was fought primarily over taxation and representation. Slavery existed in England and its colonies long after the Revolutionary War.

 

I am afraid you’re wrong. You’re missing the point as to why he was seemingly a ‘freed slave’ and why he couldn’t be forcibly deported anywhere. It was about conditions that would inevitably lead to Britain not allowing slavery in all of its jurisdiction, which included colonies. The case was held in Westminster Hall, and that court at that time was the court whose decisions applied everywhere under British jurisdiction.
Personally I think all struggles against colonialism were valid. However the American Revolution was not about noble stuff such as representation, it was about rich white men holding on to the wealth they got from slavery, encouraged by France who at that time was an enemy of Britain and wanted to encourage expensive military action overseas in order to weaken Britain.
If you study and compare the route to abolition in Britain and what became the United States you will find each place took a different journey, and in America the slave owning diaspora fought to the bitter end with a huge amount of bloodshed in the home of the brave and the land of the free. I refer to the American civil war.
As with most conflicts the American Revolution was about money, not high ideals.

 

Because he was baptized which was interpreted as emancipation.

Where are you getting this nonsense from? Let me CRT and/or the debunked 1619 Project.

Slavery still existed in England and its colonies throughout the Revolutionary War. There's a ton of historical record as to why the war was fought. This isn't something we don't know the answer to. You don't get to rewrite history to conform to your CRT principles.

 

You are mixing up the American Revolutionary War with the Civil War. Crack open a US History book if you get a chance.

 

This is some great comedy. I have read dozens of books concerning both wars I have never heard someone claim that the revolutionary war was over black slavery

 

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc804870/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf