...Uber hard core lefty, (evento the point of aggressively and openly supporting partial birth abortion),
lives in the imaginary environment of academia, feminista extraordinaire.
Many of us made the SCOTUS the number one issue in 2016 for this very reason. Because of this, we got a
rational and more qualified Gorsuch.
As if we needed another reminder of why it’s important to vote for Trump, this is it. I’ll take tweets over her any day.
I think this impeachment hearing is helping remind people of why Trump was elected, and why it’s important to support him.
They have been proven utterly and completely wrong but they won't admit it to this day.
Kristol being the most famous one.
I do not fear strong bright women.
My only criticism was her remark that Trump can name his son Baron, but unlike a King, cannot make his son a baron.
Wouldn’t have felt the need to quote the whole thing out of context in an effort to make it look better whil still paying the lip service you feel is PC.
You also admire her for her knowledge of the law?! Did you especially like her assumption of Trump’s guilt without there even having been a trial yet? The “expert witness” didn’t say “If Trump did these things”, she instead said, “When and because Trump did these things”.
Amateur bias. Unprofessional. Living in the fake world of academia where her aberrant thinking goes unquestioned and her tenure protects her. Even a first year law student could see the problem with her as an expert, but not you. Your partisanship rationalizes all things.
1) As a diehard Trump loyalist, you lack moral standing to judge any comment that is insensitive or personal.
2) If you and Mike Pence and Fox News cared about Baron's well being and privacy, you would not perpetuate the remark, over and over.
3) If you are offended by the remark, stand up and shout every time Trump makes a personal or disparaging remark abut another person/woman.
4) If you believe in protecting children, I did not hear your outrage re Trump's DELIBERATE policy to separate small children from the parent.
5) If you have any shred of decency, vote Democrat in 2020.
(no message)
What really happened here is that you saw Chris post that he doesn’t think there was anything wrong with it, and PC animal that you are, you began to grow courage in taking up the view that you previously lacked the courage to claim.
Also, how does one with a self proclaimed sinful nature find it so easy to judge others?
She was not mocking him or using him as a political tool. She was making a (silly) pun to make a point.
Surely there is a difference between mean-spirited mockery of children (unforgivable) and MENTIONING the names of children (fine).
The outrage is 100% bullshit.
(no message)
”Today, as Congress examines the constitutionality of impeaching President Donald John Trump, I have noticed a grave oversight. While erudite and experienced, none of the witnesses are persons of color. To see the committee hearing experts on the topic of impeachment with not one of color is both regrettable and disrespectful. What subliminal message are we sending to the world about the intellect of people of color? Are we indicating that there are no experts of color on one of the seminal issues of this Congress? . . . We cannot have the output of people of color without the input of people of color. I support people of color, not only because I am a person of color, but because I believe that the words of the Pledge of Allegiance are important: we should have liberty and justice for all.”
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Professor Pamela Karlan offered a qualified apology Wednesday after being called out by First Lady Melania Trump for using Barron Trump’s name during her impeachment testimony.
“I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president’s son. It was wrong of me to do that,” the Stanford professor said before turning her apology into another attack on President Donald Trump. “I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he’s done that’s wrong, but I do regret having said that.”
(no message)
political points. Though, I guess this shouldn’t be surprising given her disdain for them.
The traditional, nuclear family is patriarchal and thus oppressive. Children burden women and interfere with their development towards the ideal of a awakened woman. Plus, they tie women to men, at least theoretically.
It's probably not a coincidence that most of these women tend to homely, bitter, celibate hags.
I understand your arguments about tribalism, but I used the term Dem anyways because if they win in 2020, they’ll put her up again since she is now their rock star (or certainly someone else like her). Then, they will point to her LGBTQ status as a shield claiming any criticism of her many faults as “racist” since they have staked a claim to minority status.
You know, "tough"..."badass."
But this one will do.
And, yes, her LGBT identification would be employed to shoot down any substantive criticism of her previous rulings and her philosophy.
Aren't people who describe themselves as "snarky" always especially sharp tools?
You'll notice the obligatory passive-agressiveness in her "apology" before Congress. She gives a two-second apology and then declares that Trump should apologize for the things he says. She's a child. An indulged child. Another one of those people who imagines that she's three steps ahead, when she is in fact five steps behind. It's a shame that she works in an environment where she is shielded from accountability.Now if she said something like, "I can't recall a single black law student graduating in the top half of a class," then she'd be held accountable. I mean, that's repugnant, that is.
(no message)
envision themselves as characters from a Jesse Eisenberg movie who have a fast wit and talk even faster.
But almost always, their wit isn’t quite at the level that they think that it is.
What “snarky” equates to in reality with these people is being unhappy, and sarcastically bitter - usually because they see themselves as deserving better than what “life has given them” rather than realizing that they aren’t that special and got what they earned which wasn’t much.
She earned a proper, extended dress-down, figuratively speaking, of course.
With a healthy does of "snark."
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)