• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Trump

Big fan of the Dred Scott case, I bet?
You can’t compare disenfranchised people. Of course a ruling on people who were put in a place against their will and have no say in the law will never be just
 
You can’t compare disenfranchised people. Of course a ruling on people who were put in a place against their will and have no say in the law will never be just
Though I suppose this does raise the question of pregnant minors
 
I just can't wrap my head around the USA. Guns for all, healthcare only if you can afford it, but life is sacred.
 
Wedded to interpreting a document that's nearly 250 years old whose founding fathers wouldn't have had the slightest notion or probably desire to have it still at the core of the nation to this day. Plus a love of a mythical being, that because it's mythical you can make 'his' principles align to yours and use 'him' as your basis for decision making
 
You can’t compare disenfranchised people. Of course a ruling on people who were put in a place against their will and have no say in the law will never be just
And you don't think women are being disenfranchised by this ruling?
 
Don’t think you know what that word means…
Don't be a patronising @#£-

If you think that women haven't had a right taken away from them by this ruling you're even more of a @#£& than you're coming across as

And that's some effort.
 
In the US disenfranchisement generally is used to mean without the right to vote, and in the context of my comment that’s clearly what it was used as.

Whether a right was taken away or not is a philosophical debate and has nothing to do with my comment about Dred Scott.
 
In the US disenfranchisement generally is used to mean without the right to vote, and in the context of my comment that’s clearly what it was used as.

Whether a right was taken away or not is a philosophical debate and has nothing to do with my comment about Dred Scott.
Maybe you should use a dictionary next time before you spout your right wing MAGA garbage.

You're on a website about an English football team why would you expect its users to understand your version of the word disenfranchised?

I mean that doesn't come across as arrogant at all...

On a personal note I would rather Trump voters didn't support my football team. I think they're worse than scum.
 
In the US disenfranchisement generally is used to mean without the right to vote, and in the context of my comment that’s clearly what it was used as.

Whether a right was taken away or not is a philosophical debate and has nothing to do with my comment about Dred Scott.
Who the fuck are you to tell me what that word means in the US?
 
the removal of a right looks pretty straightforward to me. it’s gone from a choice at the most democratic level possible, the individual, to decision making at state level. it’s resulted in inaccessibility of that choice with immediate effect for many, no debate. the judges who ruled knew exactly what that result would be when they made the ruling and should be held culpable for any direct or indirect consequences.
 
Not looking good for little genghis khan't today.

Pence deserved to be hanged.
Didn't care that insurrectionists were armed.
Tried to force secret service to take him to the Capitol.
Nearby War Room.
Witness tampering.
 
He has already admitted he will try all sorts of tactics to keep the parents in litigation for years and years. But ultimately it will probably cost him $100 million plus.
 
filed for bankruptcy protection though haven't they?
Meanwhile, congress looking to subpoena the info to see if any texts relate to 6 january.
 
Back
Top