₦airaland Forum

DCatt:
This is the person the deepstate sacrificed for Kamala Harris to come out.

The deepstate believes that a life must be give to moloch for a big event to be successful and the energy of the one passed used as fuel.

But we all know that it's all for nothing, it is over for the devil!

DCatt:
Kamala slept her way to the senate with married men.

Who knew that the quickest way to the top is laying on ones back or just riding wieners.

Talk of success powered by pleasure!

DCatt:
And the boy has won two of the case against CNN and Washington Post, smiling to the bank.

Zuorom:
She and Biden will bite the dust in November

budaatum:
I remember.

pic.twitter.com/AO8YWVhmzW

— Sarah Huckabee Sanders (@SarahHuckabee) August 13, 2020

Senator Kamala Harris called VP Joe Biden's work in the senate 'racist'! pic.twitter.com/83WLQeUZDM

— ACT For America (@ACTforAmerica) August 11, 2020

basilico:
At last finally. He was a senator 54-64 Switched parties to Republican and remained as senator till 2003.

Did he change his stance on segregation? Or did he realise that running for the party that was half hearted ... I have just seen this

. A magnet for controversy during his nearly
half-century Senate career, Thurmond
switched parties, primarily because of his
vehement opposition to the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, and endorsed Republican
presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. In
the months before switching, he had "been
critical of the Democratic Administration for
enactment of the Civil Rights Law",

That tells you all. He was a proponent of segregation like the democrats, then realised that it would not take him anywhere .
Note he switched from the stance taken by the party of slavery to the party that emancipated slaves.

Very good example.

Goodvibes007:
Salford1 asked a very valid question which Basilico has been finding it hard to dance around it.

You are trying to act smart. I am coming.

salford1:
We can learn from Basilico this morning. Can you tell us why John Lewis was a democrat and not a republican?

sexylassie2:
As i have written if i wrote for the New York times, you would have believed without thinking.

salford1:
Bad timing. She propagated the advert when there was mass unemployment. If there was mass unemployment, where are the "find something new" jobs going to come from?
Maybe we can learn from you.

salford1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siNqfn5aEsk
From the horse's mouth.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/white-house-urges-jobless-to-find-something-new-in-ad-campaign

salford1:
They run advert based on Trump's own word.

You can visit the website below to ask them further questions.

https://lincolnproject.us/

salford1:
You mean the Republicans at the Lincoln project. Point out the lies in their video advertisements? We will be waiting.

donjazet:
When you use the word, you also subscribe to a political ideology "thrown at you" according to you. A centrist still falls within my purview of someone who finds it difficult to make decisions because you will most likely end up eventually making decisions based on populist ideas.

For instance, that Donald Trump is now the president is because of these so called "centrists". They chose to overlook the very obvious terrible sides of this vile man and we're easily swayed by his demagoguery.
it is often said, if your mind is not made up 2 months before an election, don't bother voting.

donjazet:
If you can't form personal convictions and ideologies, it means your decision making ability is suspect.

When you are presented with a narrative you look at both sides of the argument and make a decision based on logical reasoning. That's how you get to make a sound judgement.

donjazet:
It is not about using emotions, it's about having your own personal convictions and ideology. Someone who is incapable of making decisions and always staying on the fence is a confusionist. The person is confused.

A conservative will not want gay people to legally recognized because he doesn't think it is right, a conviction that most likely stems from his religious book, while a liberal would open to recognizing the liberty of a gay individual seeing as the individual(s) is still a person who deserves his fundamental basic rights irrespective of his sexual orientation.

A conservative would strictly be against abortion because his religious mind cannot tolerate such.
But a liberal would be open to questioning where "life" begins and most importantly the mother always having a legal "choice" if to keep her pregnancy or not, considering that it's her own body.

donjazet:
after all these shalaye, you still did not answer my question.

What is your political ideology?
Are you a liberal or a conservative?

What are your stances on issues like;
Immigration, LGBT rights, abortion, government regulations on big businesses?

Liberals by definition are always open to challenging their knowledge and accepting new ideas while conservatives by definition wish to conserve the traditional way of life.
So what exactly is your political ideology?
No need for the political dilly-dallying. Which party espouses your ideology more?

OLAADEGBU:
Will Judge Sullivan Be Removed From The Michael Flynn Case?
The Thoughtful Conservative in Opinion, Trending Commentary August 7, 2020

https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/09/01/17/56/lincoln-statue-2705001_960_720.jpg

When the Department of Justice decided to drop the case against former national security advisor Michael Flynn, the case, for all intent and purposes, should have been dismissed by the presiding judge. Unfortunately, rather than dismissing the case, federal district judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order inviting third party groups to file amicus briefs regarding the Department's decision to drop the case. The judge's decision was ultimately overturned by a three-judge appeals court panel. Again, rather than simply dismissing the case, Judge Sullivan filed a petition for rehearing for an en banc review by the full court for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, agreed to hear oral arguments on August 11, 2020. Initially, the court agreed to hear arguments regarding the writ of mandamus. However, on August 5, 2020, the court entered another order directing the parties to be ready to address the applicability of several statutory provisions relating to the issue of judicial impartiality. Given the court's recent order and Judge Sullivan's role/conduct in Flynn's case to date, there is a strong argument that he should be removed/disqualified from this case.

According to 28 U.S. Code §455:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a Party.

The language of this statue is clear and compels a judge to disqualify him/herself under certain circumstances. More particularly, subsection (a) compels disqualification when the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. While this does not require certainty, it will likely require a detailed and fact-specific analysis by the court as to whether the judge’s conduct, etc. made it reasonable to question his impartiality in Flynn’s case. Various Circuits have interpreted this provision differently. For example, some, but not all, Circuits have held that close questions should be decided in favor of disqualification.

Subsection (b) of the statute is much clearer and compels disqualification if the judge is a party to the proceeding. According to Section (d), the term “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation.

In light of this language, there is a question as to whether Judge Sullivan made himself a “party" to the lawsuit when he filed the Petition for Rehearing. In other words, by filing the petition, Flynn’s counsel could very well argue that Judge Sullivan injected himself into the case as a party, thereby cementing his immediate disqualification in Flynn’s case. As a matter of fact, Judge Sullivan also appears to be named as a “party" in the court's recent Order and is allotted 20 minutes to present oral arguments. Therefore, if judge Sullivan is deemed to be a party, disqualification is mandatory pursuant to (b)(5)(i).

The court's August 5, 2020 order added a new wrinkle to this already convoluted case. By ordering the parties to address the issue of judicial impartiality and disqualification, the court could rule on the issue of mandamus and/or also decide that Judge Sullivan should be removed from the case because he is a party to the proceeding and/or because his partiality can reasonably be questioned.

Hopefully, the court issues its ruling in relatively quick fashion. Until then, Michael Flynn’s freedom continues to hang in the balance.

This article is intended for informational purposes only. It is not intended to solicit business or to provide legal advice. You should not take, or refrain from taking, any legal action based upon the information contained in this article without first seeking professional counsel.

Mr. Hakim is a writer, commentator, and a practicing attorney. His articles have been published in The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Epoch Times, The Western Journal, American Thinker, Conservative Daily News, and other online publications.

Source