landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
OT - Jon Runyan Getting the Bad Sort of Attention
At least he said he disagreed with it.
I am more curious about what he THOUGHT he was disagreeing with. You know, what case decided 10-15 years ago that he disliked.
Maybe he just forgot a zero.
the dred scott decision was in the 1850s. let's hope he just didn't hear a number at all.
Yeah, apparently he couldn't provide any other answer after the moderator explained that it was from 1850, so that's not great.
Right -- 150 (15 + a zero) years ago would get you to 1860, which is at least close to 1857.
(I was making a joke.)
It's John Runyan math. U have to subtract the number of pancake blocks youve had in your career to give u the actual number. This gives him 10-15 depending on if they give him the assist on some or all of them.
I guess on the bright side there has definitely been dumber things said during debates. Heck....that comment doesnt even rank #1 if the category is "dumb things said by ex-Michigan football players during debates for political office."
I think President Ford's got that one locked down for his claim that Eastern Europe WASN'T under Soviet control in 1976.
Not everyone can be Gerald Ford.
I avoided mentioning that aspect of it since I wanted to post it for the "former Michigan guy said something silly" factor without unnecessarily arousing a political debate, but yeah, you're right on target.
I BLAME RR BECAUSE NOW ALUMNI ARE GETTING WORSE SEND HIM BACK GO BLUE
I think you meant to say "Go Big Blue"
Come on guys, everybody kills.... everybody enslaved until the 2000's. People make mistakes
Or Dread Lock?
I realize that historical court cases are "fair questions" for a debate, and not to make excuses for Runyan . . . but there's a ton of information that people just forget or can't remember when put on the spot. I wish more people would just say, "I can't recall that case right now." or "I would have to brush up on my history before I answer that question."
Eh, the Senate confirms SCOTUS nominations anyway, not the House.
But as a prospective LAWMAKER shouldn't we assume he has at least a general sense for how the judiciary has interpreted said law over the past 219 years? Dred Scot is one of those cases that EVERYONE who takes an introductory poli.sci. class has beaten into their heads.Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scot, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, etc...
Not mentioned, and avoided posting this like the plague, is that his opponent has been allegedly involved with a 3-rd party candidacy to siphon votes from the big guy. It's been talked about in the Philly papers if you are interested...
...and if you aren't, ignore this post cause I'm not interested in dragging politics into this fine board.
I have disagreed with the Dred Scott decision each of the last 10-15 years of my life. At least. I'm sure that's what Big Jon meant.