• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How is Kim Davis (county clerk) a democrat?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fanatical Meat said:
My thought when I saw him (the husband) on TV at her rally. He plainly knew he was going to be on TV he chose to wear that. Point is we all need to show some dignity when its a planned event like a Job interview or a wedding or a press conference. He can wear that shit any other day of the week.
Click to expand...

Hey, maybe his other suit was at the cleaners.

ceee4e73dbe0fd819108eb1f465bc91f.jpg
 
Fanatical Meat said:
My thought when I saw him (the husband) on TV at her rally. He plainly knew he was going to be on TV he chose to wear that. Point is we all need to show some dignity when its a planned event like a Job interview or a wedding or a press conference. He can wear that shit any other day of the week.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^
pretty much this
 
Fanatical Meat said:
My thought when I saw him (the husband) on TV at her rally. He plainly knew he was going to be on TV he chose to wear that. Point is we all need to show some dignity when its a planned event like a Job interview or a wedding or a press conference. He can wear that shit any other day of the week.
Click to expand...

who cares what he wore? it says very little about the man.

what is more telling is he is ok with what she is doing and continuing to do.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
My thought when I saw him (the husband) on TV at her rally. He plainly knew he was going to be on TV he chose to wear that. Point is we all need to show some dignity when its a planned event like a Job interview or a wedding or a press conference. He can wear that shit any other day of the week.
Click to expand...

What he chose to wear is also symbolic as to the image that he desired to convey.
Contempt of the overall process; so no need to get into the Sunday best outfit.
 
waggy said:
who cares what he wore? it says very little about the man.

what is more telling is he is ok with what she is doing and continuing to do.
Click to expand...

Call me superficial but I do. This was a planned event, this shows poor judgement or easily manipulated to look like an innocent farmer or no fucks will be given or he simply doesn't own some decent khakis and a shirt plus he's not capable of shopping for them he needs mommy to take care of that.

Yes it does say something about the man.
 
Last edited:
Fanatical Meat said:
Call me superficial but I do. This was a planned event, this shows poor judgement or easily manipulated to look like an innocent farmer or no fucks will be given or he simply doesn't own some decent khakis and a shirt plus he's not capable of shopping for them he needs mommy to take care of that.

Yes it does say something about the man.
Click to expand...

shrug. yes it is superficial.

I don't doubt he does not own a pair of khakis. i doubt he has any reason to wear them. for the picture? why?

go spend $50 for something he is going to wear once? seems silly to me.
 
waggy said:
the women should be fired or in jail. she has had chance after chance. wonder if the judge will call her back.
Click to expand...
I agree that she should be back in jail. (I don't know if it can be done under federal law in this case, but personally, I'd like to see her put there for a significant, fixed period of time - say a month or three - rather than simply until she decides to obey the court's order, however temporarily - just to make things actually uncomfortable for her dumbass, time and taxpayer-money wasting, game-playing self.)

I'd be greatly surprised if the Court doesn't drag her back in to "explain herself." But apart from being forced to play a ping-pong game of jailing her for contempt, releasing her when she "promises to obey," and then <rinsing and repeating> when she comes up with yet more weasel-y bullshit, I'm not sure what, if any, authority a Federal court has to impose alternate arrangements in an effort to permanently resolve the matter. From that perspective, I find the situation interesting. From every other perspective, I've long since been bored to the point of ignoring it, or rather I should say ignoring the steady stream of media reports on Davis' latest antics and pronouncements.

As has been mentioned several times, she can't be "fired", she can only be impeached, and only by the Kentucky legislature, which isn't likely to happen.
 
Last edited:
From the article assuming the licenses are void which I doubt will be the case. Seemed like the next logical step is to appoint someone else to handle marriage certificates. That would be interesting.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Seemed like the next logical step is to appoint someone else to handle marriage certificates. That would be interesting.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see what happens next, since I'm not at all sure a Federal court has that authority. I wonder when/if Kentucky will formally get involved?
 
Last edited:
I keep getting the feeling that most of the people she works with hate her. The happy chubby guy could be appointed by the court he seemed pretty happy to issue licenses again last week.
Then I wonder how he'd feel doing a portion of her job for no extra pay?
The original back up guy seemed to not like her crap I'm guessing this is why he started to turn people away. Did he do this because he was sick of her crap or was he really concerned about getting in trouble for issuing them when she was in the office?
 
Last edited:
Fanatical Meat said:
The happy chubby guy could be appointed by the court
Click to expand...
I don't know that a Federal court has the authority to "appoint" anyone as a State official for any reason, any more than it can remove Davis from office even for willfully and repeatedly disobeying a lawful US District Court order...
 
Last edited:
Mike64 said:
I don't know that a Federal court has the authority to "appoint" anyone as a State official for any reason, any more than it can remove Davis from office even for disobeying a lawful US District Court order...
Click to expand...

The previous linked article mentioned its possible that the court can appoint someone to do that job if compliance is not possible using other means.
 
Not all democrats are jackbooted politically correct bobble heads..and eco-KOOKS. If everybody's thinking the same..somebody isn't thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top