40
   

How will Trump handle losing the election?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2016 08:57 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Please give us one piece of legislation used to ban all guns proposed by Democrats.

Legislation does not have to ban all guns in order to be unconstitutional.

An example of an unconstitutional gun law would be assault weapon bans.

And while not legislation, Mr. Obama's executive order adding law abiding citizens to the list of people who are blocked from buying guns is also unconstitutional.


parados wrote:
You have already said that banning some guns is OK. (We will see if you can be consistent in your arguments.)

In order to comply with the Second Amendment, a gun law must comply with Strict Scrutiny.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2016 08:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
You consider your opinion as fact.

No I don't.


cicerone imposter wrote:
You have never provided any credible source for your opinion.

Much to my regret, I gave you a reliable link the last time you asked for one. (Even though you were asking for evidence of the obvious.)
glitterbag
 
  4  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2016 09:15 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
You consider your opinion as fact.

No I don't.


You're correct CI, he believes his own vapors.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2016 09:23 pm
I write in a few places so can't recall if I noted here McCain's statement from a week ago that Republicans would stonewall any President Clinton appointment to the SC. And Ted Cruz has now said the same (and a number of conservative voices in right wing media have been pushing this strategy as a good and proper idea). Grassley has said they won't stonewall but he's not someone you ought to trust.

So let's recall the rationale that was advanced when Scalia died and Garland was nominated by Obama to fill that vacant seat. This rationale (that a president in his/her last year of office must not be permitted to forward a SC nominee and that this appropriately falls only to the next president, after the election, so the people can have a voice) has no precedent, of course, but it served the purpose of keeping, at least temporarily, a Dem president from placing his/her choice on the SC.

To go another step forward, as McCain and Cruz and others are now doing (effectively - NO Democrat president has any right to place a SC justice) is as bad as it seems. As I've said before, these people do not give a crap about democracy and the will of the people. They really don't.

Here's what they said back around March:
Quote:
“I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president…The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be.” (McConnell)


Quote:
“I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president…The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be.” (Paul Ryan)


Quote:
“The only way to empower the American people and ensure they have a voice is for the next President to make the nomination to fill this vacancy.” (John Cornyn)


Quote:
“The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next President nominates, whoever that might be.” (McConnell)


Quote:
As we mourn the tragic loss of Justice Antonin Scalia, and celebrate his life’s work, the American people are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide, in a very real and concrete way, the direction the Court will take over the next generation. We believe The People should have this opportunity….to protect the will of the American people, this Committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2017. Numerous Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee http://bit.ly/2dNs9tS


cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2016 09:51 pm
@blatham,
I'm hoping that Hillary becomes our next president, and the republicans loose all their congressional seats as they become due. I plan on voting for democrats for the foreseeable future even though I'm an Independent. The republicans are destroying our democracy.
glitterbag
 
  8  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2016 10:16 pm
@blatham,
I find it incredibly frightening. I'm not upset that a Republican could be president, I lived thru many Republican presidents and Ive been a fan of a few. What frightens me is the idea that one of two parties is trying to stamp out the other and basically **** all over the will of approximately half of the voting population. And it was stupid for the Republicans to allow 16 or 18 or 47 whatever the hell number it was to compete with a carnival clown. I will hate to see the Republican party die, but if it does it will be their own fault. They got excited over the tea party, holy ****, a group of aging malcontents who were offended because a black man was Commander in Chief of these United White Folks. When they courted those low brows they rebuilt their reputation on a sandbar.

I don't know what will happen on election day, but I hope the 'Im White and pissed over something but I just can't put my finger on it" doesn't prevail. I want our country to improve, not atrophy in order to satisfy the low achievers. For Christ sake, can't we vote for something inspirational instead of the revenge fairy who thinks he will have unlimited power to punish anyone who doesn't worhip the King of Crude??

ossobucotemp
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2016 10:23 pm
@glitterbag,
good post
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2016 10:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I'm hoping that Hillary becomes our next president

That will happen.
Quote:
and the republicans loose all their congressional seats as they become due.

That won't happen. There are far too many seats well protected by purposeful/strategic redistricting or simply as a consequence of a preponderance of conservatives in a lot of geographical areas (countryside, in the south, in the west, etc). The best we can hope for is a continuing diminishing of modern conservative power at the federal level and in more and more areas in the states. But it's a long game.
Quote:
The republicans are destroying our democracy.
It's a dangerous time because they've become a dangerous entity. I'm not sure how this corrects itself or if it will but this election ought to serve as indication that sanity can prevail.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2016 10:59 pm
@glitterbag,
Thank you. As an Independent, I have my share of having voted for republicans. None of them resembled Trump.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2016 11:07 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
I will hate to see the Republican party die, but if it does it will be their own fault.

I don't want that either. Or more accurately, I don't want a single party to dominate for any extended period. The right is already fractured in a very serious manner and that seems like it will get worse after the election. Whether there is a formal bifurcation, god knows. The Bannon/Trump crowd want to blow things up including, very certainly, the GOP. I seriously doubt they'll manage it. Like the militia crazies, they have a grandiose or meglomaniacal vision of their importance. But it's a bad time, no question.
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 01:24 am
@blatham,
I really don't want the GOP to be destroyed by Trump and his semi-literate henchman. They have Trump right now, but who follows Trump........you don't want to think about it. We just have to get thru this, and hopefully Trump will be wisked away on a puff of scandal and not be heard from again.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 04:06 am
@blatham,
the Limbaugh mantra was always that the GOP wasnt conservative enough. Actually, the bulk of the country is hovering around the "moderate" line on the political scale and the batshit contingent continues to try to make its national position to be almost fascistii.

I blame the entire " operationally conservative base thing" on the fact that the "Tea Party" and recent redistricting of the states have eviscerated anything that smacks of moderate and progressive. Thats why the rural parts of Delaware , for example, are hotbeds of conservatism and the liberal portions of those congressional districts are diluted out by reapportioning them with a stroke of a cartographic pencil.. In the 2012 primaries, Delaware had several wackos running on the GOP side that were nominated by the states closed primary rules (I think theyve gone to open primaries now).
These 2012 candidates (including a Wiccan) were then celebrated by their party as their candidates and they went down to defeat in the general election by decisive margins because most of the voters(especially moderate Christians ) werent that crazy.
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 07:08 am
@glitterbag,
Quote:
who follows Trump........you don't want to think about it.

Well, I think we probably ought to think about it (though I'll give everyone two weeks off). It's horrid that this electioneering now seems to continue at a constant roar without abatement but that's the modern reality. Cruz is already doing his best Joe McCarthy routine with 2020 in mind and he's one who will be at the forefront, I expect. He's a truly scary guy.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 07:34 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
the Limbaugh mantra was always that the GOP wasnt conservative enough. Actually, the bulk of the country is hovering around the "moderate" line on the political scale and the batshit contingent continues to try to make its national position to be almost fascistii.

Yes. But we can trace this back further. In their College Republican days, Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed and Karl Rove set out quite purposefully to remove Republican moderates from the political universe they were operating in at that time, for example (though I suspect this was not ideological so much as a means to grasp and solidify their personal power - a question one might ask about Limbaugh as well). Earlier, the crowd pushing Goldwater was definitely ideological and certainly held that the GOP wasn't conservative enough (Eisenhower is a commie!)
Quote:
I blame the entire " operationally conservative base thing" on the fact that the "Tea Party" and recent redistricting of the states have eviscerated anything that smacks of moderate and progressive.

Yes, that's how I see it too. But we probably ought to note that the "Tea Party" would not have been a shadow of what it became outside of the organizational support of the Koch people (which points back to the Goldwater era and the John Birch people) along with the media/propaganda support of Fox and other modern right media entities.

Redistricting has been an effective tool wielded by the crazies to gain their now inordinate levels of power in the party, yes. And again, more moderate Republicans found reason to be complicit in these endeavors. All sorts of polling informs us that the broad GOP voting base, when asked specific questions on policy, is not nearly as extreme as the crazy people. I guess a key question I'm pondering is how the broader and less insane majority of them might reassert influence (and that's certainly what the intellectual portions of the party are trying to figure out now too). I wish I was more optimistic about this.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 07:50 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Legislation does not have to ban all guns in order to be unconstitutional.

An example of an unconstitutional gun law would be assault weapon bans.


Is it OK to ban one type of gun or not?
In the argument about the British gun laws you said the right still existed when hand guns were banned because they didn't ban all guns. Now you are arguing that banning one type of gun takes away the right completely.

Quote:

In order to comply with the Second Amendment, a gun law must comply with Strict Scrutiny.
It seems you are defining "strict scrutiny" as what you want it to mean and f*** the courts.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 07:53 am
@blatham,
Well, going back to a post WWII era, Wilson's "A Case for Conservatism" was prolly where the "K Street Gang" got it . It was required reading along with Ayn Rand in Lit and Comp for the SCiences (as if we were all helpless dolts getting into elites only by grace of primogeniture or daddy's cash donations). Scary fuckin book about how conservatives are "Rightly so, according to him) ready to fight and die for any changes they find truly offensive.

blatham
 
  4  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 08:18 am
@farmerman,
That's a book and author I don't know. There are too many books to read. We should burn more.
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 08:26 am
@blatham,
Here are the folks you want to see to get started on that:

blatham
 
  3  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 08:38 am
@Blickers,
He's right about everything, that man. Except that he's way behind the curve on the greatest threat facing Americans and liberty - Jet "condensation" trails are not condensed water. They are gluten mist.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 08:50 am
Goodness. Trump has seen the light (or absence of it) and has realized that investing in himself is a fool's errand.

Quote:
Today we learn that my primitive math was pretty close to the mark. Trump would need to contribute another $44 million to make good on his $100 million claim. Indeed, this month he's only contributed $33,000. (You can apparently mark him down as another major donor who has abandoned Trump during the stretch as his poll numbers have collapsed.)
http://bit.ly/2eiILWy
 

Related Topics

Trump and the Central Park Five - Discussion by ossobuco
TRUMP's GONE---This just in - Discussion by farmerman
Trump : Why? - Question by Yalow
Project 2025 - Discussion by izzythepush
Why so many believe Trump - Discussion by vikorr
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/22/2024 at 03:54:42