- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Really??? As we've discovered you wouldn't HIRE a black man.. You wouldn't LIVE next door to a black family. You HATE black people..
And, they only CLAIM to feel oppressed, your own actions notwithstanding..
Seriously??? Bwa, ha ha ha ha..
Your party preaches that white people are from the same place Hitler said the Jews were from, and that's after censoring them so...
So you admit that a poll that is never wrong said Trump can't lose.
Caution: The massive disruptions caused by the Coronavirus outbreak may prompt me to revise the forecast, especially if there is a crack in Trump support.
Which is exactly what happened. Idiot.
They didn't revise their claim.
Here's the same claim by the same pollster a month later.
Obama and Clinton did the same thing.
So you admit that Trump is a deep state agent just like they were?
It's interesting how you now claim Obama is a deep state agent when no one else mentioned any such term.
Glad we got that sorted. Now get the tin foil back on your head you ridiculous neo-fascist retard.
Why would you call Conservatives the children of Marxist idealists?
A tax break for the rich added to the debt
The Democrats pork put into the stimulus bill added trillions to the debt.
to be paid back with interest by the middle class.
Top 3% of U.S. Taxpayers Paid Majority of Income Tax in 2016
By Alexandre Tanzi
October 14, 2018, 8:00 AM CDT
Updated on October 16, 2018, 12:45 PM CDT
Richest 1,409 taxpayers pay more income tax than bottom 70Mln
Not a Trump acheivement
Literally could not be less true.
CNN video footage-
CNN's Van Jones: Give Trump credit on prison reform
CNN's Van Jones says that President Trump deserves some credit after he announced his support for bipartisan criminal justice legislation.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan disregarded two controlling precedents from higher courts with his decision to appoint John Gleeson as amicus curiae in the U.S. v. Michael Flynn case this week. Judicial conduct similar to J. Sullivan’s in these prior, far less politically charged cases was roundly and unanimously condemned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, and their colleagues across the ideological spectrum.
So, whether or not one agrees with the Department of Justice’s call to drop its charges against President Trump’s former National Security Advisor, Gen. Michael Flynn, there should be widespread agreement that J. Sullivan has veered way out of line.
One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for dragons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.”
Judge Sullivan didn't MAKE a decision in the case.
Yes he did. He rejected the DOJ, who is the prosecutor in the case, dropping the case. In all other cases of this type, he and all other judges, dropped the case because there is no prosecutor prosecuting the case, and it's career suicide to ignore the upper courts and the Supreme Court as a judge.
So there's nothing to defend
He attempted to override a Supreme Court ruling that was a 9-0 ruling per Ruth Ginsberg ironically, and the court above him gave him a time limit to explain what in the hell he was doing.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!