jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (30 posts)

The Party grooms another Presidential puppet.

  1. Barefootfae profile image61
    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago

    http://daily-download.com/chelsea-clint … ournalist/

    Of course. I have no doubt Chelsea is a wonderful girl.
    I also have no doubt she is hideously unqualified. When the time comes that won't matter.
    Just like the last two Supreme Court justices.

    1. profile image0
      Lybrahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hilary Clinton 2016!!!!!  The return of the Clintons is just what we need in this country!

      1. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If she was actually what we need she would have run in 2012.
        But the Party won't allow for that.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Good evening to you Ms. Fae. I hope you had a wonderful Christmas and you will also enjoy a prosperous New Year.

      I am troubled to read your unwarranted attack on Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. The OP statement takes a swipe at the qualifications of two highly experienced legal scholars. It also represents another uninformed, biased statement, this time smearing two respected public servants. Permit me to provide a few facts to fill in the gaps in your knowledge.

      After four years at Princeton University, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was graduated summa cum laude with the school’s highest academic honor. Three years later, she earned a Juris Doctor degree from Yale Law School where she also served as an editor for the Yale Law Journal. After five years as an assistant District Attorney in New York City, she served eight years as an associate, and later a partner, for the firm Pavia & Harcourt. Republican President H.W. Bush nominated her to the U.S. District Court where she served for six years. Hold on Fae. We are not done yet. She sat eleven years on the U.S. Court of Appeals before being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009. {1} Shall we do the arithmetic, Fae? I come up with 37 years studying and practicing law.

      Associate Justice Elena Kagan earned a Bachelor of Arts also from Princeton in 1981, a Master of Philosophy in Law from Oxford, and a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School. She clerked for Judge Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals and for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. She taught as a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School and at Harvard Law School. After serving as Associate Counsel to the President and as Deputy Assistant to the President during the Clinton Administration, she became Dean of Harvard Law School and Solicitor General of the United States before being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010. {2} Her experience in the field of law spans 33 years, Fae.

      I would welcome the opportunity to read your reasons for thinking they are unqualified. That is, if you have any. I am sure you know of other candidates more agreeable with your political philosophy but I doubt you know many that are more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than are these two jurists.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx
      {2} Ibid

      1. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I calls em as I sees em.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ah, Fae, I already know that, but do you call them based on facts or prejudice?
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          1. Barefootfae profile image61
            Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Their resumes will not give you their ideological bent.
            At the end of the day they will go with their ideology above what the Constitution says.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Dear Ms. Fae,

              Without a shred of evidence, lacking even one supporting fact, you question their qualifications and now their ethics.

              Thinking must become effortless and unchallenging for those who can reach calumnious conclusions without having to search for the truth.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              1. Barefootfae profile image61
                Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You don't have any real evidence about me.
                That does not stop you from making a decision about me now does it?

                1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                  Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi Ms. Fae.

                  Please do not assume any of my posts are personal.

                  I am only responding to statements found in your posts. If you have evidence that these justices are unqualified or unethical then I would love to see it. However, in the absence of evidence, the only decision I have made so far is that your posts contain calumnious statements without a shred of evidence and lacking even one supporting fact.

                  The OP statement claimed the last two appointed Supreme Court justices were unqualified. “She is hideously unqualified…Just like the last two Supreme Court justices.”

                  After I provided facts that they had extraordinary qualifications, your reply said that their future decisions would likely be unethical. “At the end of the day they will go with their ideology above what the Constitution says” is the way you put it.

                  These quotes are taken from the statements posted. Most contributors to this forum, based upon my experience, expect others to challenged outrageous and unsupported claims. For this reason, I try to simply offer facts without any concern for how others interpret them. No one is required to agree with me. Everyone is free to ignore the truth or correct my facts if I am wrong.

                  Again, I am sorry if there is a misunderstanding. Be well, Fae, and be sure to follow your bliss in the New Year.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

        2. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Amen to that.

          1. Cody Hodge5 profile image61
            Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Calling them based on what?

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Me personally......I base 'em on the facts,  the actions of those people.   Whoever watches their doings through the news media and etc.  can SEE what they've done and what their mindset is.   And the Officials in question are decidedly unfit.     I really ain't gonna go into it here;  just google their names and see for yourself if you don't know already. 

              I can add Justice Roberts to that list too;  he caved in at the last minute.   Didn't see that one coming.

              1. ATexanagain profile image57
                ATexanagainposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I didn't either.

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL  I didn't see this 'un coming again either------ATexanagain,  is that really you??   WELCOME back!! smile

                  1. ATexanagain profile image57
                    ATexanagainposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You must have me confused with someone else I am an entirely different person now, I have discovered my emotional side.

        3. Ralph Deeds profile image72
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          BFF "I calls em as I sees em."
          Maybe you need a new pair of glasses??   :-)

          1. habee profile image91
            habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ralph, do you think Chelsea is qualified to be POTUS?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Is anybody suggesting that she is?  Perhaps in 20 years. What did she do to deserve to be vilified in this forum? This thread is an example of the toxic politics afflicting this country.

              1. habee profile image91
                habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I didn't vilify her. I was just curious about your thoughts.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
                  Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  My comment was in reference to the creation of this forum thread which claimed that Chelsea is "hideously unqualified." Of course Chelsea isn't qualified to be president. She might be in 20 years or so if she inherited her parents' brains.

                  1. habee profile image91
                    habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you think Hil will run in 2016? I'm kinda worried about her health, but I think "Billary" would be good for the country.

        4. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Then you are seeing something other than the facts, as far as I can tell.

    3. Cody Hodge5 profile image61
      Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hahaahaha and George Bush was? Or for that matter, any conservative who has been elected in the last 8-12 years?

      1. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So you will vote for Chelsea today?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why would you ask such a nonsensical question? What makes you think anybody is grooming Chelsea for president? I remember my mother telling me when I was a little kid that I could be president. Her grooming me for the presidency didn't work out. I wasn't even nominated, let alone elected!!   :-)

 
working