dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Seriously, I was ambivalent toward HRC, even during her Senate tenure. However, it's the Benghazi/email saga/Clinton Foundation saga that forever put me in the #NeverHillary camp.

I'm calling BS on that, person who ran with Benghazi the moment it started and is going to run with a traditional, GOP criticism in 1...2...3...

 whembly wrote:

Hillary Clinton is like Periwinkle

...4.

Is the "joke" that she held Foster down? Because it isn't funny. It is rote.

 whembly wrote:

She's obviously let it be known that she can be bought...

And Gary Johnson, current CEO of Cannabis Sativa Incorporated, cannot be? The dude's face is on their webpage with the tag "Gary Johnson campaign updates - Gary's run for the White House 2016."

 Easy E wrote:
I have a feeling this guy has no idea what the 60's were really like.

 jmurph wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I have a feeling this guy has no idea what the 60's were really like.

Of course he does. Certain aspects anyway. What he is saying is just a nicer(?) way of saying that all problems are because of the non-whites and immigrants (and I am sure he would use much more vulgar terms). That's pretty much his whole platform.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fundamental attraction of guys like this and Trump is that the 1960s were awesome if you were a white man. You were practically guaranteed a decent job with enough money to marry, send your children to university and have a car and so on.

That is a standard of living I think everyone should be able to have a good expectation of reaching, whatever their skin colour or genital arrangements.

The fact that these days even white men can't be too hopeful for it naturally pisses them off by their fall from grace, but a lot of the rest of the population didn't have it that good to start with.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fundamental attraction of guys like this and Trump is that the 1960s were awesome if you were a white man. You were practically guaranteed a decent job with enough money to marry, send your children to university and have a car and so on.

That is a standard of living I think everyone should be able to have a good expectation of reaching, whatever their skin colour or genital arrangements.

The fact that these days even white men can't be too hopeful for it naturally pisses them off by their fall from grace, but a lot of the rest of the population didn't have it that good to start with.

It wasn´t just nice for white people, quite a few black people got good paying jobs in manufacturing.

If we disregard the whole civil rights part

 whembly wrote:
What.A.Bunch.Of.Toddlers:

Spoiler:

Washington (CNN)John Lewis revived Wednesday one of the most evocative forms of protest from the civil rights movement -- the sit-in -- to demand House Republicans move on gun control.

In a move rich with historic symbolism, the civil rights icon and Democratic congressman from Georgia led a dramatic protest inside the House of Representatives. He and fellow Democrats sat down at the front of the chamber in an unusual demonstration of civil disobedience challenging Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan.

"Sometimes you have to do something out of the ordinary. Sometimes you have to make a way out of no way. We have been too quiet for too long," Lewis said. "There comes a time when you have to say something, when you have to make a little noise, when you have to move your feet. This is the time. Now is the time to get in the way. The time to act is now. We will be silent no more."

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Lewis said, "Too many of our children, too many of our sisters and brothers, our mothers and fathers, our friends, our cousins are dying by guns and we have to do something about it."

He said lawmakers would remain on the floor.

"We don't have any intention of leaving anytime soon," Lewis said.

In a roundtable with reporters later in the day, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi reiterated that point, saying Democrats would continue the sit-in "until we have a bill."

The sit-in follows the shooting at an Orlando gay nightclub earlier this month that killed 49 people -- the deadliest incident of gun violence in American history. The shooting is renewing the debate over gun control legislation, which seems poised to go nowhere in Congress. The Senate blocked several gun measures Monday even as a CNN/ORC poll this week found that public support for changes such as tighter background checks hovers around 90%.

Ryan didn't commit to holding a vote but House Republicans are slated to meet Wednesday evening to plot their next steps. In an interview with Blitzer, Ryan dismissed the sit-in as a "publicity stunt."

"This is not about a solution to a problem," he said. "This is about trying to get attention."

Several Republican congressmen criticized the sit-in as a political stunt.

"Calling this a sit-in is a disgrace to Woolworth's," Rep. Mark Walker of North Carolina tweeted. "They sat-in for rights. Dems are 'sitting-in' to strip them away."
Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan tweeted, "Democrats are staging a sit-in on the House floor. They refuse to leave until our Constitution replaces due process with secret lists."
... just click on the CNN link for more...

Great time to create a wedge issue prior to the election.

 Frazzled wrote:
Please research attempting to appeal getting off the no fly list.
Then get back to me on how thats Constitutionally appropriate in regards to the right to face your accuser, to hear and defend against specific charges (no general writs), the right to examine evidence, the right to examine and cross examine witnesses, the right to a speedy trial, and the right to a jury trial.

You will find literally none of that. But hey if you want dictatorship then thats it on a silver platter.

There's a reason the ACLU is already suing.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Please research attempting to appeal getting off the no fly list.
Then get back to me on how thats Constitutionally appropriate in regards to the right to face your accuser, to hear and defend against specific charges (no general writs), the right to examine evidence, the right to examine and cross examine witnesses, the right to a speedy trial, and the right to a jury trial.

You will find literally none of that. But hey if you want dictatorship then thats it on a silver platter.

There's a reason the ACLU is already suing.

This.

But, hey... this Democrat "sit in"?

It's totally like Selma... eh?

The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act in '68... and the Democrats in 2016 are trying to push for an anti-Civil Rights bill (neutering Due Process) now...

No need to lose your gak over my question

 Frazzled wrote:
What if the next President is Trump and decides to put anyone who voted for Bernie on the list?
What if he put everyone with a Spanish surname? After all there's no reason he couldn't. Its not like it s a law or anything. just a list, a secret list.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
What if the next President is Trump and decides to put anyone who voted for Bernie on the list?
What if he put everyone with a Spanish surname? After all there's no reason he couldn't. Its not like it s a law or anything. just a list, a secret list.

Or people who are training an army of doxies for world domination.....

Vive la Doxies!

 Frazzled wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
What if the next President is Trump and decides to put anyone who voted for Bernie on the list?
What if he put everyone with a Spanish surname? After all there's no reason he couldn't. Its not like it s a law or anything. just a list, a secret list.

Or people who are training an army of doxies for world domination.....

Vive la Doxies!

Team Wienie says bring it. Put us on a list and we'll show you gun control wiener dog style.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's the reaction to Trump's anti-Hillary speech?

From the general public, I mean.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's the reaction to Trump's anti-Hillary speech?

From the general public, I mean.

It was well recieved... but he's full of gak because he's completely different w/o the teleprompter.

The high court ruling is a major blow to Obama's effort to redeem his legacy on immigration.

The Supreme Court has thwarted President Barack Obama’s drive to expand his executive actions on immigration by making as many as five million immigrants currently in the U.S. illegally eligible for quasi-legal status and work permits.

By dividing 4-4, the justices left in place a lower court order forbidding the president from launching a new program to grant “deferred action” status to illegal immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or green card holders.

The high court ruling is a major blow to Obama’s effort to redeem his legacy on immigration, an issue which was pushed to the back burner early in his presidency and never regained much momentum. It also leaves Obama branded by many immigration activists as the “deporter-in-chief” for overseeing the removal of more than 2.5 million migrants from the U.S.

Obama hoped to counter those perceptions with the executive-action program he created for so-called “Dreamers” in 2012 and the new one for parents, which was set to begin early last year before a federal judge in Texas halted it.

The Supreme Court decision does not signal the beginning of a new wave of deportations since the lawsuit the justices were considering focused on the benefits Obama sought to accord to qualifying immigrants, not his administration’s right to decide priorities and timing for deportations.

However, the ruling does raise questions about the validity of “deferred action” status and work permits issued to more than 700,000 immigrants in the past four years under Obama’s program for “Dreamers,” also known as “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” or “DACA.”

Despite the profound consequences of the case for millions of immigrants and their families, the shorthanded high court's deadlock was relayed in a one-page opinion saying simply: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court."

As is usual when the justices split evenly, no tally was released of how the justices voted. However, based on comments at oral arguments in the case, it appeared the justices were split along the usual ideological lines with the four Democratic appointees supportive of the legality of Obama's plan and the four Republican appointees inclined to find it went beyond his legal powers.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced the even split in the case at the end of the court's release of opinions on Thursday. Roberts nonchalantly announced the result together with the deadlock in a less-prominent case Thursday relating to the jurisdiction of tribal Indian courts.

The stalemate at the Supreme Court is likely to turn up the heat further on the immigration issue in the presidential campaign. It could make the Supreme Court itself more of an issue in that contest and in Senate races around the country, as Democrats highlight the impact of the vacancy Senate Republican leaders have refused to fill since the unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February.

Reaction from the political world was swift and, like the court, sharply split.

“Today, Article I of the Constitution was vindicated,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s ruling makes the president’s executive action on immigration null and void. The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers.”

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton denounced the decision, while also seeming to minimize it.

“Today’s deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and show us all just how high the stakes are in this election,” she wrote. "Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is purely procedural and casts no doubt on the fact that DAPA and DACA are entirely within the President's legal authority.”

Clinton also linked the momentous immigration ruling to the standoff over filling the seat opened by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February. Republicans have refused to hold a hearing or vote on Obama’s nominee for the slot, appeals court judge Merrick Garland.

“In addition to throwing millions of families across our country into a state of uncertainty, this decision reminds us how much damage Senate Republicans are doing by refusing to consider President Obama’s nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Our families and our country need and deserve a full bench, and Senate Republicans need to stop playing political games with our democracy and give Judge Merrick Garland a fair hearing and vote,” Clinton said.

One Clinton aide was even more blunt about his feelings on the ruling.

““F***. Awful news,” tweeted Jesse Lehrich, a spokesman for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Other Democrats also slammed the ruling, while Republicans said they were delighted with the outcome.

“The Supreme Court tie on immigration decision is exactly why #WeNeedNine. @SCOTUSnom Garland deserves a hearing and vote,” Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) tweeted.

“Deeply saddened by divided #SCOTUS decision in #USvTexas. We should be keeping families together, not tearing them apart!” Rep, Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) wrote on Twitter.

“Obama's illegal action on #immigration has been blocked! A huge win for our Constitution and for our rule of law,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) tweeted.

All-but-certain Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has vowed to revoke Obama’s actions and step up efforts to deport millions of illegal immigrants out of the U.S.
Clinton has pledged to expand Obama’s executive actions and seek a more permanent solution through Congress.

Because the new ruling doesn’t set precedent for future cases, it doesn’t slam the door on future executive actions, but it does demonstrate the perils of a president trying to act without explicit authority from Congress.

 whembly wrote:
The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act in '68.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act in '68.

That would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that eighteen Southern Democrats and one Republican filibustered against. The voting in both houses was pretty much split geographically; Southerners of both parties voted against it and Northerners of both parties generally voted for it. Also, a higher percentage of northern Democrats in both the House and Senate voted for its passage compared to northern Republicans.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act in '68.

That would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that eighteen Southern Democrats and one Republican filibustered against. The voting in both houses was pretty much split geographically; Southerners of both parties voted against it and Northerners of both parties generally voted for it. Also, a higher percentage of northern Democrats in both the House and Senate voted for its passage compared to northern Republicans.

But scooty, those are facts! And we can't have facts get in the way of outrage and partisan shots!

 whembly wrote:
So we can dispense with the idea that a congress person, or groups of congress critters "speaks" for the whole party!