Skimpledawg:

Oh really.

Thought you based in Edo State.

All good my guy.

Shey we are still good like this?

Yeah we good

nihilistjnr:


You had richarlison and DCL?

James, DCL and Digne

airmark:


Only idiots would blame Conte for Chelsea buying Morata instead of Lukaku, Rudiger instead of Van Dijk.

Cuntay bought this same Morata when he was at Juventus, He has bought 16 players at Inter already

Watching the replay of West Brom first goal and I see Yeri Mina backing away from the Brom player until he shot and scored

Just like VVD would have done

raumdeuter:


The justice need to die or retire for any president to replace them. So if a Democrat rules for 8yrs have senate majority but no opening as in no judge dies or retire, then what?
The judges appointed by Trump Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are young and can be in the court for 30yrs

afrodoc2:


If a god-like figure like FDR couldn’t succeed in doing it despite a rallying cry of social reform you think any Democrat would attempt it now?

It would be an obvious case of trying to stack the court and the public backlash would ensure its failure.
Not going to happen.

You both still don't get my point.
The number of Supreme Court justices being only 9 is not a constitutional law but simply a tradition. One that can simply be altered by congress. As a matter of fact, there were once 10 Supreme Court justices in the 1800's. If the republicans ditch their honor and pick a conservative justice to replace RBJ, nothing will stop the democrats from increasing adding at least two Supreme Court justices to the bench to make it 11 once they regain the majority

raumdeuter:


Cuntay bought this same Morata when he was at Juventus, He has bought 16 players at Inter already

Even when i am not in the mood, you will call me to come and force a big L down your throat.

Conte gave you the answer below but you are always hungry for Ls. It's looking like a curse.

Ibime:


Mesef tire.

Na BlueAngel444 dey give them oxygen to continue that useless debate.

The quality of trolling has plummeted here.

Indeed it has. I was just frustrated reading more than 20 pages of rubbish. That blueangel really needs to take their time, seems they're responsible for this.

Landslide for pdp at
Ward 4

Unit 12 -18

Counted

Madt goal from Costa

donjazet:




You both still don't get my point.
The number of Supreme Court justices being only 9 is not a constitutional law but simply a tradition. One that can simply be altered by congress. As a matter of fact, there were once 10 Supreme Court justices in the 1800's. If the republicans ditch their honor and pick a conservative justice to replace RBJ, nothing will stop the democrats from increasing adding at least two Supreme Court justices to the bench to make it 11 once they regain the majority

and nothing will stop Republicans from increasing the number of judges to make sure they have a majority once they retake the majority somewhere in the future,na democrats go suffer last last before you know number of judges go reach 50 lmao,where was democrats "honor" when they introduced the nuclear option to make sure a simple majority of Senate is enough to appiont judge instead of the usual 2/ 3,they did it to silent the Republican senate minority back in Obama second tenure thinking they won't lose election in the future only for Trump admin to use the same simple senate majority to appiont 3 judges in 4 years,( likely 3),if Trump wins again na die democrats die be that,keep creating laws that your opponent will use against u in the future.

donjazet:




You both still don't get my point.
The number of Supreme Court justices being only 9 is not a constitutional law but simply a tradition. One that can simply be altered by congress. As a matter of fact, there were once 10 Supreme Court justices in the 1800's. If the republicans ditch their honor and pick a conservative justice to replace RBJ, nothing will stop the democrats from increasing adding at least two Supreme Court justices to the bench to make it 11 once they regain the majority

That will be a dangerous path to tow. So you change long standing tradition to favor you? Then anytime the republicans get the majority in the future they also increase it to 15, next democrats increase to 19 next republicans to 23. Is that not an invitation to anarchy?

If that is the way you think they will approach it, then senate currently seeing that republicans will lose California state can reduce California electoral college point and increase Alabama to 70 electoral college point

You see where I am going. If every party start changing laws because it doesn't favor them

raumdeuter:


That will be a dangerous path to tow. So you change long standing tradition to favor you? Then anytime the republicans get the majority in the future they also increase it to 15, next democrats increase to 19 next republicans to 23. Is that not an invitation to anarchy?

If that is the way you think they will approach it, then senate currently seeing that republicans will lose California state can reduce California electoral college point and increase Alabama to 70 electoral college point

You see where I am going. If every party start changing laws because it doesn't favor them

Mitch himself changed a long standing tradition by refusing to even hold a nomination confirmation hearing of a Supreme Court nominee by the sitting president. If he and his cohorts would do that 10 full months before an election, why on earth, would they reverse this trend just 4 years later with just 45 days to the elections?

Furthermore, on the question of the electoral college numbers, that is not just a tradition but a constitutional law. States electoral college numbers are directly proportional to that state's population determined via the census. State's cannot do anything about that.

fingers crossed as to what to expect but the next 45 days of American politics is bound to get bloody metaphorically speaking. Let's see how this situation develops.

donjazet:




You both still don't get my point.
The number of Supreme Court justices being only 9 is not a constitutional law but simply a tradition. One that can simply be altered by congress. As a matter of fact, there were once 10 Supreme Court justices in the 1800's. If the republicans ditch their honor and pick a conservative justice to replace RBJ, nothing will stop the democrats from increasing adding at least two Supreme Court justices to the bench to make it 11 once they regain the majority

I get your point. But they are not going to try that.

If FDR who was arguably the most popular President at that time and was doing it for a worthy cause (I.e push his New Deal reforms through the courts) could not succeed in increasing the number of justices what makes you think anybody would succeed now?

Then there is the problem of ever increasing number of justices as each party increases the number once it is in power. Before you know it there are 863 Supreme Court Justices. Lol

Expert17:


Egungun be careful.

Quality intellectual discourse that will lead to dragging of family.
Kwantinue

Good discussions should not be set aside because of fear of the potential rancidity of its participants. You guys are messing up the thread with your meaningless trollings. I mean, does it make sense to you spending 3 whole weeks arguing the price of one player? Abeg make una use una head for this matter.

raumdeuter:


That will be a dangerous path to tow. So you change long standing tradition to favor you? Then anytime the republicans get the majority in the future they also increase it to 15, next democrats increase to 19 next republicans to 23. Is that not an invitation to anarchy?

If that is the way you think they will approach it, then senate currently seeing that republicans will lose California state can reduce California electoral college point and increase Alabama to 70 electoral college point

You see where I am going. If every party start changing laws because it doesn't favor them

They can’t change electoral votes that way. It is based on population and entrenched in the constitution. No way can they give Alabama more votes than California.

afrodoc2:


I get your point. But they are not going to try that.

If FDR who was arguably the most popular President at that time and was doing it for a worthy cause (I.e push his New Deal reforms through the courts) could not succeed in increasing the number of justices what makes you think anybody would succeed now?

Then there is the problem of ever increasing number of justices as each party increases the number once it is in power. Before you know it there are 863 Supreme Court Justices. Lol

Well, if politics has thought us anything, it is that change is constant.
The republicans will leave the democrats little choice but to do this and if the democrats do make this massive change, it is certain that every election will now have massive stakes, one that ties directly to the Supreme Court appointments.
This will inevitably drive up election participation and you know that the democrats do have higher number of supporters than the republicans.

donjazet:


Well, if politics has thought us anything, it is that change is constant.
The republicans will leave the democrats little choice but to do this and if the democrats do make this massive change, it is certain that every election will now have massive stakes, one that ties directly to the Supreme Court appointments.
This will inevitably drive up election participation and you know that the democrats do have higher number of supporters than the republicans.

the democrats have higher number of supporters is just audio lol,you mistake Twitter noice to supporters

donjazet:


Well, if politics has thought us anything, it is that change is constant.
The republicans will leave the democrats little choice but to do this and if the democrats do make this massive change, it is certain that every election will now have massive stakes, one that ties directly to the Supreme Court appointments.
This will inevitably drive up election participation and you know that the democrats do have higher number of supporters than the republicans.

It's not like Democrats are innocent in this too. Do you know it was Chuck Schumer who introduced the nuclear option into the senate where only a simple majority was made law overriding the standing rule

afrodoc2:


They can’t change electoral votes that way. It is based on population and entrenched in the constitution. No way can they give Alabama more votes than California.

My main point is that any party in power can just change the rule anyway they want

The electoral college is based on human population, what if the republicans having a majority decide its going to be by land mass and Give Alaska more and New York less. Or even decide it will be by number of cattles

raumdeuter:


My main point is that any party in power can just change the rule anyway they want

The electoral college is based on human population, what if the republicans having a majority decide its going to be by land mass and Give Alaska more and New York less. Or even decide it will be by number of cattles

It is not that way. Electoral college is based on articles of the constitution as well as constitutional ammendments.

Changing such a constitutional product as the electoral college would require 2/3 of both Senate and House of Rep AS WELL AS ratification by 3/4 of all the states.

You now see how hard it is to change ?

airmark:


Even when i am not in the mood, you will call me to come and force a big L down your throat.

Conte gave you the answer below but you are always hungry for Ls. It's looking like a curse.

Who bought Morata at Juventus?

donjazet:


Indeed it has. I was just frustrated reading more than 20 pages of rubbish. That blueangel really needs to take their time, seems they're responsible for this.

I must thank u n ibime for seeing just blueangel. Thanks

I removed bamford for batshuayi

madrid5:
the democrats have higher number of supporters is just audio lol,you mistake Twitter noice to supporters

Democrats do have the higher support. As a matter of fact, the major third parties like the green party and others are offshoots of the democrat party. You think it's by chance that the last two republican presidents lost the popular vote and won only by the margins? The vast majority of black people, brown people and immigrants all vote democrats. While the republicans are predominantly white uneducated voters.

Ibime:


James, DCL and Digne

I have digne richarlison and bamford

Can you see how Bamford is playing in the EPL?

I knew this guy will come good one day.

BlueAngel444:
I must thank u n ibime for seeing just blueangel. Thanks

You are the one that goes to their thread and instigate all these rubbish, more so you don't when to call it quits even when the arguments have far devolved into a mess.

BlueAngel444:
I must thank u n ibime for seeing just blueangel. Thanks

Na you dey bring them come here.

nihilistjnr:


I have digne richarlison and bamford

That's 33 points right there. My sure Leeds pick Harrison is currently blanking.

Mad game

Nezzsnr:

See Corn sha...


But on a more serious note.... Owerri has been an haven for Gboys and Runz girls

I Dey always follow that Contro-Egbu Road whenever I'm going to school

There are genuine ways of making money but we just want to hit it quickly

Did you school in Imo state?