Ustrello wrote: But I thought trump promised to hire the best and smartest people to help him?
Also, I thought he was so loaded with money, that he didn't need donors??
Nah man, he has so many donors and you know what, they are the best donors. The best donors you have ever seen. Way better than her donors, he just has the best donors. You wouldn't believe how good his donors are.
Ustrello wrote: But I thought trump promised to hire the best and smartest people to help him?
Also, I thought he was so loaded with money, that he didn't need donors??
It gets even worse when you look into the numbers a bit deeper. Trump donated 2.2 mil to his campaign last month and his campaign ended the month with 1.3 million cash on hand. his campaign took in 5.4 million total including his own donation but spent 6.7 million. He is actively losing money...in the month after he secured the nomination. Clinton ended the month with 42 million cash on hand--after she paid for a 120 million ad buy in swing states from now until Nov. Tonight Trump announced he purchased a $700,000 ad buy for comparison.
Trump's appeal to his core supporters so far is partly that he is not part of the usual political machine that has hundreds of people sitting there to work the phones and raise money for a slick campaign.
In truth, though, Trump is a "Fake it 'til you make it" kind of candidate. He's achieved his current situation through a combination of luck and cheapness.
Now he has effectively won the nomination he has to hope that the GOP grandees will get the party machine out to support him.
I don't even know how you reached to that conclusion...
You used the word "unknowable" regarding the concept of "trial and error", which sounds an awful lot like "faith" to me. Double points for assuming that society is a homogeneous thing because, given that we're having this argument, said assumption is plainly false. We are both natural-born citizens of the US, in case you have forgotten.
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump's appeal to his core supporters so far is partly that he is not part of the usual political machine that has hundreds of people sitting there to work the phones and raise money for a slick campaign.
In truth, though, Trump is a "Fake it 'til you make it" kind of candidate. He's achieved his current situation through a combination of luck and cheapness.
Now he has effectively won the nomination he has to hope that the GOP grandees will get the party machine out to support him.
That's his play, but the RNC isn't doing much better. They took in 11 million last month and they have to try to divide that up not only with Trump, but with congressmen and senators as well. If Trump's numbers don't improve considerably, I would bet the money they would be willing to dole out to him would be sparse.
To put Trump's woes into perspective, he has less cash on hand than Ben Carson's campaign has remaining.
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump's appeal to his core supporters so far is partly that he is not part of the usual political machine that has hundreds of people sitting there to work the phones and raise money for a slick campaign.
In truth, though, Trump is a "Fake it 'til you make it" kind of candidate. He's achieved his current situation through a combination of luck and cheapness.
Now he has effectively won the nomination he has to hope that the GOP grandees will get the party machine out to support him.
That's his play, but the RNC isn't doing much better. They took in 11 million last month and they have to try to divide that up not only with Trump, but with congressmen and senators as well. If Trump's numbers don't improve considerably, I would bet the money they would be willing to dole out to him would be sparse.
To put Trump's woes into perspective, he has less cash on hand than Ben Carson's campaign has remaining.
Do you have a link to that? I am not really disputing what you are saying. I just want to see it. I need a good laugh.
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump's appeal to his core supporters so far is partly that he is not part of the usual political machine that has hundreds of people sitting there to work the phones and raise money for a slick campaign.
In truth, though, Trump is a "Fake it 'til you make it" kind of candidate. He's achieved his current situation through a combination of luck and cheapness.
Now he has effectively won the nomination he has to hope that the GOP grandees will get the party machine out to support him.
That's his play, but the RNC isn't doing much better. They took in 11 million last month and they have to try to divide that up not only with Trump, but with congressmen and senators as well. If Trump's numbers don't improve considerably, I would bet the money they would be willing to dole out to him would be sparse.
To put Trump's woes into perspective, he has less cash on hand than Ben Carson's campaign has remaining.
Do you have a link to that? I am not really disputing what you are saying. I just want to see it. I need a good laugh.
The Washington Post wrote:Soon after he was axed, Lewandowski emerged with several "Everything is Awesome" interviews.
But things aren't awesome. And they probably won't be anytime soon, says Chris Cillizza, because Monday's move doesn't get rid of the campaign figure generating the most damage to the campaign: Trump himself.
Obviously The WP is totally biased so nothing they say can be true.
A growing number of prominent U.S. corporations are opting to drop or scale back their sponsorship of the Republican national convention next month in Cleveland, as the nomination of Donald Trump promises a level of controversy rarely seen in such gatherings.
Among those to signal in recent days that they won't sponsor the convention this year are Wells Fargo & Co., United Parcel Service Inc., Motorola Solutions Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Ford Motor Co., and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. All of those companies sponsored the previous Republican conclave, in Tampa, Florida, in 2012.
Apparently Trump has so far treated the $45 million he has spent on his campaign as loans to the campaign, and has been saying he will convert them into gifts.
Kilkrazy wrote: In truth, though, Trump is a "Fake it 'til you make it" kind of candidate. He's achieved his current situation through a combination of luck and cheapness.
Well, there's also a major contribution from his opponents all being terrible. His primary opponents were all either obviously incompetent (Carson, Fiorina), bland and forgettable (Bush, Kasich), or spectacularly awful (Cruz). If there had actually been a candidate anyone wanted to vote for (other than as a "dear god anyone but Trump" vote) then I don't think Trump would have had any hope of winning.
Yes indeed, he was up against a weak field. That is part of his luck, and together with his personal style it enabled him to run a cheap campaign.
But it was a cheap campaign that, rather than saving money for the big game, simply didn't get much out of supporters' pockets. Partly because Trump presented himself as the self-made man who didn't need to play the usual political game.
Trump is now in the position that Clinton's campaign is reserving the best advertising slots, and he doesn't have enough money to make bookings.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes indeed, he was up against a weak field. That is part of his luck, and together with his personal style it enabled him to run a cheap campaign.
I suspect it wasn't luck and Trump decided to make a serious campaign because the competition was weak. I guess it's luck that such an opportunity happened at all, but taking advantage of the opportunity is good strategy, not luck.
Kilkrazy wrote: Luck created an opportunity and Trump took advantage.
I wonder if he's regretting it now.
If he loses he certainly will as it will provide comedians and critics with ammunition to blast him with for years to come. For someone with as thin a skin as Trump that will be excruciating
Kilkrazy wrote: Luck created an opportunity and Trump took advantage.
I wonder if he's regretting it now.
If he loses he certainly will as it will provide comedians and critics with ammunition to blast him with for years to come. For someone with as thin a skin as Trump that will be excruciating
And with hands so small he can't cover his ears he will have to listen to all of it.
meanwhile evidently the Secret Service is still protecting Sanders at a sum of like thousands per day with detail SS agents to round the clock security of him, and one has to wonder why? hes lost, so why the detail still?
Asterios wrote: meanwhile evidently the Secret Service is still protecting Sanders at a sum of like thousands per day with detail SS agents to round the clock security of him, and one has to wonder why? hes lost, so why the detail still?
It's not unprecedented to have a secret service detail for a popular, but losing/lost candidate until after their convention when the hoopla dies down a bit for them. Each case is handled individually. Also, the candidate can refuse at any time.
On an unrelated not, in the airport yesterday, I saw a dead ringer for Bernie Sanders wearing an "I'm not Bernie" t-shirt. He had fewer wrinkles.
Asterios wrote: meanwhile evidently the Secret Service is still protecting Sanders at a sum of like thousands per day with detail SS agents to round the clock security of him, and one has to wonder why? hes lost, so why the detail still?
It's not unprecedented to have a secret service detail for a popular, but losing/lost candidate until after their convention when the hoopla dies down a bit for them. Each case is handled individually. Also, the candidate can refuse at any time.
On an unrelated not, in the airport yesterday, I saw a dead ringer for Bernie Sanders wearing an "I'm not Bernie" t-shirt. He had fewer wrinkles.
problem is he still has the secret service detail because he has not dropped out, reason he has not dropped out is he is still waiting on Clinton to be jailed over her e-mail fiasco and come the convention if she is not arrested he will run independent, why you ask? because she will have to drop out eventually, and as long as he is running he has a chance.
Kilkrazy wrote: Luck created an opportunity and Trump took advantage.
I wonder if he's regretting it now.
I can only imagine that the racist and sexist way Trump has chosen to run his campaign will have all but destroyed his brand. I'm thinking the biggeat regret he may have will be after he loses and the smoke clears, the impact on his businesses could be disastrous.
Kilkrazy wrote: Luck created an opportunity and Trump took advantage.
I wonder if he's regretting it now.
I can only imagine that the racist and sexist way Trump has chosen to run his campaign will have all but destroyed his brand. I'm thinking the biggeat regret he may have will be after he loses and the smoke clears, the impact on his businesses could be disastrous.
and you still think he will lose, problem is you think people vote rationally, they don't they vote emotionally. all it takes is certain things to happen and people will flock to vote Trump and one of those is the camp I am in which is anyone but Hillary.
When your justification for why your chosen candidate will win is "people don't really think about who they should vote for, and if they did, my guy would lose", you might want to reconsider whether you've made the right choice.
Spinner wrote: When your justification for why your chosen candidate will win is "people don't really think about who they should vote for, and if they did, my guy would lose", you might want to reconsider whether you've made the right choice.
problem is Trump is not my Guy, hes just not Hillary. and he has the best chance of beating her.
Kilkrazy wrote: Luck created an opportunity and Trump took advantage.
I wonder if he's regretting it now.
I can only imagine that the racist and sexist way Trump has chosen to run his campaign will have all but destroyed his brand. I'm thinking the biggeat regret he may have will be after he loses and the smoke clears, the impact on his businesses could be disastrous.
and you still think he will lose, problem is you think people vote rationally, they don't they vote emotionally. all it takes is certain things to happen and people will flock to vote Trump and one of those is the camp I am in which is anyone but Hillary.
I'm in the camp of seeing this as an opportunity to possibly create a 3 party system. At least have 3 parties getting recognition and funding. I'm normally a republican voter for the presidency (my views align slightly better with them than with Dem's in most elections) but America can withstand 4-8 years of Hilary. I'm putting my vote behind Gary Johnson. We desperately need a moderate party and this is a chance to take a step in that direction.
To be fair while I think Hilary is a lock (I know a LOT of normally republican voters that are either staying home or voting libertarian) I think American could also withstand 4 years of Trump. We've had ridiculous and crazy presidents before in our republic. It'll weather Trump. Shoot I'd weather Trump if it brought back a moderate republican party happily no matter what the world might think of us for 4 years. Granted I also think most of the world would understand they only had to wait 4 years for a changing of the guard too so it won't get to crazy.
Spinner wrote: When your justification for why your chosen candidate will win is "people don't really think about who they should vote for, and if they did, my guy would lose", you might want to reconsider whether you've made the right choice.
problem is Trump is not my Guy, hes just not Hillary. and he has the best chance of beating her.
You spend an awful lot of time defending someone who isn't your guy whenever he says something crazy or racist.
So your argument is that if people really thought about it, they'd vote for Hillary, but they won't because people are emotional and irrational and therefore they'll vote for Trump? Again, you, uh. If you believe that, you still might want to reconsider your stance.
To be fair while I think Hilary is a lock (I know a LOT of normally republican voters that are either staying home or voting libertarian) I think American could also withstand 4 years of Trump. We've had ridiculous and crazy presidents before in our republic. It'll weather Trump. Shoot I'd weather Trump if it brought back a moderate republican party happily no matter what the world might think of us for 4 years. Granted I also think most of the world would understand they only had to wait 4 years for a changing of the guard too so it won't get to crazy.
I think the best chance for a more moderate Republican party is what's happening right now. Infighting, implosion, and a joke of a candidate being the best they can offer. They've spent so, so long cultivating the crazy and politically grandstanding that this is really the only way. Trump needs to lose, and then they need to have a good, long, honest look at why that happened and rethink some basic ideas.
Kilkrazy wrote: Luck created an opportunity and Trump took advantage.
I wonder if he's regretting it now.
I can only imagine that the racist and sexist way Trump has chosen to run his campaign will have all but destroyed his brand. I'm thinking the biggeat regret he may have will be after he loses and the smoke clears, the impact on his businesses could be disastrous.
and you still think he will lose, problem is you think people vote rationally, they don't they vote emotionally. all it takes is certain things to happen and people will flock to vote Trump and one of those is the camp I am in which is anyone but Hillary.
Yes, I do. His numbers are dismal, he doesn't have a professional campaign, bit mostly he has an insurmountable disadvantage (of his own making) with blacks, single women, and Latinos. Significant improvement with these demographics would be required to win, and I think the damage is already done here for Trump.
Spinner wrote: When your justification for why your chosen candidate will win is "people don't really think about who they should vote for, and if they did, my guy would lose", you might want to reconsider whether you've made the right choice.
problem is Trump is not my Guy, hes just not Hillary. and he has the best chance of beating her.
You spend an awful lot of time defending someone who isn't your guy whenever he says something crazy or racist.
So your argument is that if people really thought about it, they'd vote for Hillary, but they won't because people are emotional and irrational and therefore they'll vote for Trump? Again, you, uh. If you believe that, you still might want to reconsider your stance.
no to be honest if people voted rationally neither of these candidates would be options, and like I said even if they said Trump made a pact with Satan I would still vote for him because he is not Hillary (that and i'm an Athiest/Agnostic)
but then again who ever takes the presidency will be a martyr since something is coming the politicians know it (notice none of the ones who would have made a good president ran?) this country is in for a rough few years.
Spinner wrote: When your justification for why your chosen candidate will win is "people don't really think about who they should vote for, and if they did, my guy would lose", you might want to reconsider whether you've made the right choice.
problem is Trump is not my Guy, hes just not Hillary. and he has the best chance of beating her.
You spend an awful lot of time defending someone who isn't your guy whenever he says something crazy or racist.
So your argument is that if people really thought about it, they'd vote for Hillary, but they won't because people are emotional and irrational and therefore they'll vote for Trump? Again, you, uh. If you believe that, you still might want to reconsider your stance.
no to be honest if people voted rationally neither of these candidates would be options, and like I said even if they said Trump made a pact with Satan I would still vote for him because he is not Hillary (that and i'm an Athiest/Agnostic)
but then again who ever takes the presidency will be a martyr since something is coming the politicians know it (notice none of the ones who would have made a good president ran?) this country is in for a rough few years.
Probably the main reason why our best and brightest do not currently want to run for President is the total forfeiture of privacy involved.
Spinner wrote: When your justification for why your chosen candidate will win is "people don't really think about who they should vote for, and if they did, my guy would lose", you might want to reconsider whether you've made the right choice.
problem is Trump is not my Guy, hes just not Hillary. and he has the best chance of beating her.
You spend an awful lot of time defending someone who isn't your guy whenever he says something crazy or racist.
So your argument is that if people really thought about it, they'd vote for Hillary, but they won't because people are emotional and irrational and therefore they'll vote for Trump? Again, you, uh. If you believe that, you still might want to reconsider your stance.
no to be honest if people voted rationally neither of these candidates would be options, and like I said even if they said Trump made a pact with Satan I would still vote for him because he is not Hillary (that and i'm an Athiest/Agnostic)
but then again who ever takes the presidency will be a martyr since something is coming the politicians know it (notice none of the ones who would have made a good president ran?) this country is in for a rough few years.
I, uh.
Hm.
Something is coming? I'd like to guess! Is it aliens? I hope it's aliens, untold hours of XCOM have prepared me for this day. And then we can elect Bill Pullman!
Out of curiosity, who would you describe as a good 'rational' candidate?
Spinner wrote: When your justification for why your chosen candidate will win is "people don't really think about who they should vote for, and if they did, my guy would lose", you might want to reconsider whether you've made the right choice.
problem is Trump is not my Guy, hes just not Hillary. and he has the best chance of beating her.
You spend an awful lot of time defending someone who isn't your guy whenever he says something crazy or racist.
So your argument is that if people really thought about it, they'd vote for Hillary, but they won't because people are emotional and irrational and therefore they'll vote for Trump? Again, you, uh. If you believe that, you still might want to reconsider your stance.
no to be honest if people voted rationally neither of these candidates would be options, and like I said even if they said Trump made a pact with Satan I would still vote for him because he is not Hillary (that and i'm an Athiest/Agnostic)
but then again who ever takes the presidency will be a martyr since something is coming the politicians know it (notice none of the ones who would have made a good president ran?) this country is in for a rough few years.
I, uh.
Hm.
Something is coming? I'd like to guess! Is it aliens? I hope it's aliens, untold hours of XCOM have prepared me for this day. And then we can elect Bill Pullman!
Out of curiosity, who would you describe as a good 'rational' candidate?
not aliens, I see a major economic disaster that will make the last recession look like a cake walk.
And seriously, though. Who would you pick as a good candidate for people voting rationally? Preferably someone who is or was running, but if you don't think anyone qualifies for...whatever reason, I'm curious to know who you'd pick.
And seriously, though. Who would you pick as a good candidate for people voting rationally? Preferably someone who is or was running, but if you don't think anyone qualifies for...whatever reason, I'm curious to know who you'd pick.
well for Republican either Ryan or Romney would have been a good choice
as to Democrats, harder to call, but it would have to be someone outside the political mainstream like Morgan Freeman?
as it goes Trump beat out his contenders because he had something they did not, Charisma, Charisma is a strong force.
I'd vote Freeman's beautiful, beautiful voice into any office in the land. Can you imagine a State of the Union delivered by that man? That's clearly an emotional response, though.
Can you explain your reasoning behind picking those three as rational choices? Especially Morgan Freeman.
I'd call what Trump has a 'forceful personality', not necessarily charisma. He's colorful, a well-known name, and played well to the crazy types as well as people too dissatisfied with 'politics as usual' to really look at him beyond his status as an outsider. Charisma typically means more people like you than dislike you.
Not trying to pile on, but what experience does Morgan Freeman have that lead you to believe he'd be a good presidential candidate. He's an actor. Ronald Regan was also an actor, but he had executive experience as the Governor of California for 8 years.
Morgan Freeman has just been acting and doing commercials...
Spinner wrote: I'd vote Freeman's beautiful, beautiful voice into any office in the land. Can you imagine a State of the Union delivered by that man? That's clearly an emotional response, though.
Can you explain your reasoning behind picking those three as rational choices? Especially Morgan Freeman.
I'd call what Trump has a 'forceful personality', not necessarily charisma. He's colorful, a well-known name, and played well to the crazy types as well as people too dissatisfied with 'politics as usual' to really look at him beyond his status as an outsider. Charisma typically means more people like you than dislike you.
like you said Freeman's voice, if thats not good enough then his average stance when it comes to politics, he is supporting Clinton and even doing ads for her, his politics are in line with Clinton's in certain aspects,
Romney is about as middle of the road you can get hes not far right nor far left hes right in the middle
Ryan? pretty much on par with Romney, but he would have the general consensus of not being in politics long so not being polluted by them as much.
Charisma is compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others, and when it comes to snake oil salesmen Trump is #1.
jasper76 wrote: Not trying to pile on, but what experience does Morgan Freeman have that lead you to believe he'd be a good presidential candidate. He's an actor. Ronald Regan was also an actor, but he had executive experience as the Governor of California for 8 years.
Morgan Freeman has just been acting and doing commercials...
and you think he could do worse with the current candidates?
Absolutely. Morgan Freeman is a celebrity. I have no reason to think he'd be better as POTUS than Tim Robbins, Jerry Seinfeld, or Ariana Grande.
BTW, Ryan and Romney are not moderate by any stretch of the imagination. They may seem moderate with people like Cruz and Palin in the mix. For example, Trump is much more moderate than either Romney or Ryan on most issues that are important to conservative voters.
Whilst one appreciates the in political life moreso than any other it's possible to fail upwards, the idea that Romney would be a good choice is bewildering.
... have I traveled to Earth -2 ?
Is this like in "Fringe" .....
........ actually, thinking about it, there are actually Red Arrow and Red Lantern comics ...
jasper76 wrote: Absolutely. Morgan Freeman is a celebrity. I have no reason to think he'd be better as POTUS than Tim Robbins, Jerry Seinfeld, or Ariana Grande.
BTW, Ryan and Romney are not moderate by any stretch of the imagination. They may seem moderate with people like Cruz and Palin in the mix. For example, Trump is much more moderate than either Romney or Ryan on most issues that are important to conservative voters.
I don't see those 3 being good Presidents, don't know how to explain it, its just a feeling Freeman would be a good President.
Whilst one appreciates the in political life moreso than any other it's possible to fail upwards, the idea that Romney would be a good choice is bewildering.
Let it be known that Morgan Freeman's soothing, aloe vera-and-hot-chocolate voice would be a rational reason for voting him into the Presidency of the United States.
Whilst one appreciates the in political life moreso than any other it's possible to fail upwards, the idea that Romney would be a good choice is bewildering.
... have I traveled to Earth -2 ?
Is this like in "Fringe" .....
........ actually, thinking about it, there are actually Red Arrow and Red Lantern comics ...
... bugger.
Once you buy a lemon, you miss your old car, even though you hated it then.
Wasn't Morgan Freeman the president in "Deep Impact'? His presidency led to the Earth being hit by an asteroid!
Everyone knows Movies lead to reality, just look at "The Siege" as exhibit A. If Freeman is elected, we will be hit by an Asteroid!
and you say that like its a bad thing? and besides which the Earth was mostly saved except for the East Coast.
As it goes the Spartans had it right when they had kings (2 at a time?)after their kings term was done he was judged to see if he was a good king. if not, oh well off with his head.
Something is coming? I'd like to guess! Is it aliens? I hope it's aliens, untold hours of XCOM have prepared me for this day. And then we can elect Bill Pullman!
Pretty certain it's Winter.
We'll all get killed by dragonfire and/or frozen zombies, but we do get to laugh at those who believed all those scientific predictions about Global warming.
Hulksmash wrote: I'm putting my vote behind Gary Johnson. We desperately need a moderate party and this is a chance to take a step in that direction.
Libertarianism is not moderate. Libertariamism is Capital A anarchy for old people and rednecks. Libertarianism is flying bat gak crazy.
It's the name of the party not the actual political agenda of the party. Be serious for a second and take a step away from the hyperbole. The candidates for the part are both term limit leaders of states. They were republicans but the republican party is insane and wants to invade our lives as much as the democrats do just for different (and in some ways to me, worse) stuff. It really is where most of the moderates should be able to find their ground. If you can't tell the difference between actual ideology and the definition of a term I don't know what to tell you.
Whilst one appreciates the in political life moreso than any other it's possible to fail upwards, the idea that Romney would be a good choice is bewildering.
Truthfully, I think Romney would have beat Clinton in a general election, barring some unexpected circumstance. Her negatives are very high, and the biggest problem he had was "relatability". Now that he's done something we've all done and can empathize with (failed at something) I think his favorables would have been much higher this election
The problem is he would never have survived the primaries, look what Trump did to poor ol' Jeb!.
Yeah, Trump would have eaten Romney alive...Romney is way too nice a person to have survived that primary race. If that race taught us anything, it's that people who vote in Republican primaries are sick of having candidates like Romney.
Hulksmash wrote: I'm putting my vote behind Gary Johnson. We desperately need a moderate party and this is a chance to take a step in that direction.
Libertarianism is not moderate. Libertariamism is Capital A anarchy for old people and rednecks. Libertarianism is flying bat gak crazy.
It's the name of the party not the actual political agenda of the party. Be serious for a second and take a step away from the hyperbole. The candidates for the part are both term limit leaders of states. They were republicans but the republican party is insane and wants to invade our lives as much as the democrats do just for different (and in some ways to me, worse) stuff. It really is where most of the moderates should be able to find their ground. If you can't tell the difference between actual ideology and the definition of a term I don't know what to tell you.
The Libertarian Party of America wants to do away with taxation and allow unfettered "free market" capitalism. It's a strange mix of wild west and industrial revolution ideals. It's basically a masturbatory cowboy fantasy for frustrated white guys. It's not a coherent policy.
CNN is airing a town hall with the Presidential and VP candidates from the Libertarian Party tomorrow (Wed) night.
The subject of libertarianism as a concept and the current Libertarian Party's platforms was discussed earlier, so perhaps this program will be of interest to some.
jasper76 wrote: CNN is airing a town hall with the Presidential and VP candidates from the Libertarian Party tomorrow (Wed) night.
The subject of libertarianism as a concept and the current Libertarian Party's platforms was discussed earlier, so perhaps this program will be of interest to some.
Should be good for a few laughs.
I have friend of a friend who is the local candidate for the Libertarian Party of Canada. His grasp on reality is best described as tenuous.
I still have faith in Trump, I mean the campaign hasn't really even started yet.
Too early to say that the words "President Trump" may never be said...
As an outsider, if I were, say, nationalised as an American citizen tomorrow... I think, considering all the various history, I would have to vote democrat and continue to vote democrat for the forseeable future.
However, my personal politics are probably a lot closer to your typical Republican viewpoints. However, the problem continues to be for me, for pretty much every Republican candidate I've been aware of, even the ones I could say, "yeah, I agree with you on all those things" all have some gigantic, massive red flipping line that says, "no, because of this, I could never vote for you."
I heard a joke once that was along the lines of, "read the wikipedia pages for Republican candidates and give them points based on how far down the page you reached before you felt the urge to vomit." Hyperbole too far, but yeah, that's the impression that's generally seen from the fowk I know.
Bleh, I'm getting to the point to start thinking the whole world is screwed.
WATERTOWN, Wis. (AP) -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said Tuesday he agrees that delegates to the Republican national convention should be free to vote their conscience, even if that means not supporting presumptive nominee Donald Trump.
Walker is a former presidential candidate and a delegate to the convention next month. He told reporters following a groundbreaking at a sausage factory that he will follow Wisconsin Republican Party rules and cast his ballot for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the first round because Cruz won the state primary.
But he also left open the possibility that the rules could change between now and the convention next month, and gave credence to House Speaker Paul Ryan's comments from last week that delegates should vote their conscience.
"I think his comments are legitimate," Walker said. "I think historically, not just this year, delegates are and should be able to vote the way they see fit. ... We'll see how things go between now and the convention as to what the next steps are. I'm not going to speculate now only because you all know the situation may change by this afternoon, let alone between now and the convention."
Under Wisconsin rules, at-large delegates like Walker are bound to vote for whichever candidate won statewide. Cruz beat Trump by 13 points on April 5, the billionaire's last defeat before becoming the presumptive nominee. Delegates can switch their votes to another candidate only if they are released or the candidate fails to get 30 percent of the vote in any round at the convention.
Walker backed Cruz in the primary, then endorsed Trump when he became the presumptive nominee. But he wavered in his backing since Trump questioned the ability of a judge to be fair in a lawsuit involving Trump University because of the judge's Mexican heritage. Walker said he wanted Trump to rescind those comments and "I still haven't heard those clarified."
Even as Walker wavers, the top Republican in the Wisconsin state Senate repeated his call Tuesday for the GOP to get behind Trump. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said attempts to abandon Trump for some other alternative "is just not going to work." Doing that would hurt other Republicans on the ballot, including U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson.
Asterios wrote: because she will have to drop out eventually.
I don't believe that for one minute.
The Deadly Assassin plotline of Tom Baker Doctor Who comes to mind, whereby the Doctor evades execution by running for the newly vacated spot of Time Lord president
whembly wrote: And even under a fair reading of the current rules, they’re entitled to defy the voters in their home states and choose whatever nominee they like.
They're entitled to do so. They'd be committing suicide as a party if they did. Like it or not Trump is your candidate.
whembly wrote: And even under a fair reading of the current rules, they’re entitled to defy the voters in their home states and choose whatever nominee they like.
They're entitled to do so. They'd be committing suicide as a party if they did. Like it or not Trump is your candidate.
Nah... damn near 50% of GOP voters want RNC to dump Trump.
Also, there's no "defy voters" here... The RNC (DNC, other political parties) can simply nominate anyone. The "rules" (yes, air-quotes) are not laws, and SOCTUS has ruled that the National Party rules supercedes State Party rules.
whembly wrote: Nah... damn near 50% of GOP voters want RNC to dump Trump.
So, like I said, committing suicide as a party. If 50% want to dump Trump then 50% don't want to, and if the republican party loses even half of those voters then they are guaranteed to lose in november.
Also, there's no "defy voters" here... The RNC (DNC, other political parties) can simply nominate anyone. The "rules" (yes, air-quotes) are not laws, and SOCTUS has ruled that the National Party rules supercedes State Party rules.
Yes, of course the party can legally pick whatever candidate they want. Nobody is going to be spending time in prison for violating election laws if they decide to ignore the primary results and pick someone other than Trump. But you can absolutely guarantee that the democrats are going to take advantage of that decision. We would hear, over and over again, how Cruz (or whoever else they nominate) was willing to ignore the will of the people and be appointed to his position by the party elite, and therefore clearly can't be trusted to obey the will of the people once he's in office. The replacement candidate would be absolutely dead to unaffiliated voters, and you can't win an election with just the hardcore "anyone but Hillary" conservatives.
And this is assuming that Trump and his former voters fall in line with the party's decision instead of making trouble. If Trump runs as a third-party candidate or his supporters stay home on election day the democrats win in a landslide. And they probably manage to take decisive majorities in both houses of congress and the various state legislatures as well.
Remind me again why I'm supposed to be impressed by the "at least he's not Hillary" argument?
I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve her, but if she was 13 at the time, why a civil suit and not going to the police... statute of limitations, I guess?
I would just like to say that I hope my fellow dakka members from across the Pond, enjoy their last day on Earth. Big vote in Britain tomorrow, and if it's a leave vote, Western Civilization will collapse or something
whembly wrote: And even under a fair reading of the current rules, they’re entitled to defy the voters in their home states and choose whatever nominee they like.
They're entitled to do so. They'd be committing suicide as a party if they did. Like it or not Trump is your candidate.
Nah... damn near 50% of GOP voters want RNC to dump Trump.
Also, there's no "defy voters" here... The RNC (DNC, other political parties) can simply nominate anyone. The "rules" (yes, air-quotes) are not laws, and SOCTUS has ruled that the National Party rules supercedes State Party rules.
Shame more of those attending aren't literate, if they were you could have a write in vote campaign !
It's going to be a very odd event given how divisive Trump is.
His somewhat belligerent claim about his fundraising
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I would just like to say that I hope my fellow dakka members from across the Pond, enjoy their last day on Earth. Big vote in Britain tomorrow, and if it's a leave vote, Western Civilization will collapse or something
Enjoy your last 24 hours
If you all decide to Brexit, and things go south, maybe you can join the US. That would be pretty cool. You'd just have to abandon most of your sovereignty and all of your "royalty".
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I would just like to say that I hope my fellow dakka members from across the Pond, enjoy their last day on Earth. Big vote in Britain tomorrow, and if it's a leave vote, Western Civilization will collapse or something
Enjoy your last 24 hours
If you all decide to Brexit, and things go south, maybe you can join the US. That would be pretty cool. You'd just have to abandon most of your sovereignty and all of your "royalty".
There might not be a USA left to join if Trump gets elected
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I would just like to say that I hope my fellow dakka members from across the Pond, enjoy their last day on Earth. Big vote in Britain tomorrow, and if it's a leave vote, Western Civilization will collapse or something
Enjoy your last 24 hours
If you all decide to Brexit, and things go south, maybe you can join the US. That would be pretty cool. You'd just have to abandon most of your sovereignty and all of your "royalty".
No, gotta keep the royalty. They help sell the tabloids on the rare days when the Kardashians didn't do anything.
Anyway, I am somewhat curious as to how the candidates will address the results of the Brexit vote. If Britain does leave, that will have an impact on the US, and I'd like to see how Trump and Hillary deal with it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I would just like to say that I hope my fellow dakka members from across the Pond, enjoy their last day on Earth. Big vote in Britain tomorrow, and if it's a leave vote, Western Civilization will collapse or something
Enjoy your last 24 hours
If you all decide to Brexit, and things go south, maybe you can join the US. That would be pretty cool. You'd just have to abandon most of your sovereignty and all of your "royalty".
No, gotta keep the royalty. They help sell the tabloids on the rare days when the Kardashians didn't do anything.
Anyway, I am somewhat curious as to how the candidates will address the results of the Brexit vote. If Britain does leave, that will have an impact on the US, and I'd like to see how Trump and Hillary deal with it.
Totally agree with the impacts it will have on the US election if it's BREXIT. I'll bail out of this thread as I don't want to drag it OT, but if Britain votes to Leave the EU, American dakka members are more than welcome to contribute to the EU thread with how it affects the USA.
One thing that stands out is that the hack of the DNC is suspected to have been done by the Russians. Now why would they hack the DNC and try to smear HRC? Are they actually trying to help Trump? If so, that is kind of terrifying.
One thing that stands out is that the hack of the DNC is suspected to have been done by the Russians. Now why would they hack the DNC and try to smear HRC? Are they actually trying to help Trump? If so, that is kind of terrifying.
I suspect the Russians believe that a product of the KGB political machine like Putin could lead a thin-skinned blow hard like Trump around by his nose.
That was actually a well crafted speech.... (!!!!!)
He delivered it rather well... this is the best zinger imo:
“She believes she is entitled to the office. Her campaign slogan is ‘I’m with her.’ You know what my response to that is? I’m with you: the American people. She thinks it’s all about her. I know it’s all about you... I know it’s all about making America Great Again for All Americans.”
A campaign sign in Polk County is stirring up a lot of controversy.
The sign, located off Highway 411 near Benton, says "Make America White Again" and was put there by Rick Tyler, an independent candidate in the race for Tennessee's 3rd congressional district seat currently held by Chuck Fleischmann.
Tyler told Channel 3, he has no hatred in his heart for "people of color." He says the sign's message is that America should go back to a "1960s, Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver time when there were no break-ins; no violent crime; no mass immigration."
And his second sign of a White House surrounded by Confederate battle flags.
A campaign sign in Polk County is stirring up a lot of controversy.
The sign, located off Highway 411 near Benton, says "Make America White Again" and was put there by Rick Tyler, an independent candidate in the race for Tennessee's 3rd congressional district seat currently held by Chuck Fleischmann.
Tyler told Channel 3, he has no hatred in his heart for "people of color." He says the sign's message is that America should go back to a "1960s, Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver time when there were no break-ins; no violent crime; no mass immigration."
To quote an English gentleman, "Oh, reality is reality, and Tyler is Tyler, and never the twain shall meet"
Trump wrote: “She believes she is entitled to the office. Her campaign slogan is ‘I’m with her.’ You know what my response to that is? I’m with you: the American people. She thinks it’s all about her. I know it’s all about you... I know it’s all about making America Great Again for All Americans.”
Who's the speech writer?
Elect that person.
That was hackneyed nonsense that the speech writer played directly into.
Sinful Hero wrote: Well, the congressional race is on here in Tennessee!
Tyler told Channel 3, he has no hatred in his heart for "people of color." He says the sign's message is that America should go back to a "1960s, Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver time when there were no break-ins; no violent crime; no mass immigration."
I have a feeling this guy has no idea what the 60's were really like.
I didn't get very far into Trump's big speech. I stopped where he started attacking big business and jobs being sent overseas. Because, you know, Trump is big business and he sent jobs overseas.
One thing that stands out is that the hack of the DNC is suspected to have been done by the Russians. Now why would they hack the DNC and try to smear HRC? Are they actually trying to help Trump? If so, that is kind of terrifying.
Well which would they rather deal with, a veteran politician who knows here way around forign policy, or a moron who has no idea what he is doing.
whembly wrote: That was actually a well crafted speech.... (!!!!!)
He delivered it rather well... this is the best zinger imo:
“She believes she is entitled to the office. Her campaign slogan is ‘I’m with her.’ You know what my response to that is? I’m with you: the American people. She thinks it’s all about her. I know it’s all about you... I know it’s all about making America Great Again for All Americans.”
whembly wrote: That was actually a well crafted speech.... (!!!!!)
He delivered it rather well... this is the best zinger imo:
“She believes she is entitled to the office. Her campaign slogan is ‘I’m with her.’ You know what my response to that is? I’m with you: the American people. She thinks it’s all about her. I know it’s all about you... I know it’s all about making America Great Again for All Americans.”
whembly wrote: That was actually a well crafted speech.... (!!!!!)
He delivered it rather well... this is the best zinger imo:
“She believes she is entitled to the office. Her campaign slogan is ‘I’m with her.’ You know what my response to that is? I’m with you: the American people. She thinks it’s all about her. I know it’s all about you... I know it’s all about making America Great Again for All Americans.”
Who's the speech writer?
Elect that person.
Damn, Whembly is turning quicker that I thought.
I fear I might lose the #TeamTrump contest...
Nurp.
Still on #TeamJohnson.
Are you actually excited about the Libertarian platform, or is it a protest vote?
whembly wrote: That was actually a well crafted speech.... (!!!!!)
He delivered it rather well... this is the best zinger imo:
“She believes she is entitled to the office. Her campaign slogan is ‘I’m with her.’ You know what my response to that is? I’m with you: the American people. She thinks it’s all about her. I know it’s all about you... I know it’s all about making America Great Again for All Americans.”
Who's the speech writer?
Elect that person.
Damn, Whembly is turning quicker that I thought.
I fear I might lose the #TeamTrump contest...
Nurp.
Still on #TeamJohnson.
Are you actually excited about the Libertarian platform, or is it a protest vote?
Protest.
At least Gary Johnson ain't a turd sammich (Drumpf) v. bowl of vomit (HRC).
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.
whembly wrote: That was actually a well crafted speech.... (!!!!!)
He delivered it rather well... this is the best zinger imo:
“She believes she is entitled to the office. Her campaign slogan is ‘I’m with her.’ You know what my response to that is? I’m with you: the American people. She thinks it’s all about her. I know it’s all about you... I know it’s all about making America Great Again for All Americans.”
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.
What's next, shutting down the entire federal government because they don't get their way?
whembly wrote: That was actually a well crafted speech.... (!!!!!)
He delivered it rather well... this is the best zinger imo:
“She believes she is entitled to the office. Her campaign slogan is ‘I’m with her.’ You know what my response to that is? I’m with you: the American people. She thinks it’s all about her. I know it’s all about you... I know it’s all about making America Great Again for All Americans.”
Who's the speech writer?
Elect that person.
Damn, Whembly is turning quicker that I thought.
I fear I might lose the #TeamTrump contest...
Yeah, I wish I hadn't picked the date I did now.
I was hoping a late season panic would set in so I chose a fall month myself
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.
What's next, shutting down the entire federal government because they don't get their way?
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.
What's next, shutting down the entire federal government because they don't get their way?
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.
What's next, shutting down the entire federal government because they don't get their way?
Zodiac killer approved
ICWYDT...
GOP was willing to play, their "price" for the Democrat bills was to ensure Due Process...
I hate the idea of tying firearm purchases to the no-fly list. Not to turn this into the 50 billionth gun thread, but as a strategy, I think this is not one I like even if it's a good one for the Democrats. If they would work with the GOP on getting some sort of judicial oversight, I think I could get on board and everyone can be a winner, but in mid 2016 I suspect that working with the other side is a loser for everyone involved.
The common ground between the left-of-Hillary voter and the Everyman voter enamoured by Trump is their mutual desire to seize control of federal, state, and local government from corporate interests and establish a representative democracy.
I think a whole new party with an entirely new platform could be formed around this unifying principle (or an existing party could realign it's platform to adopt this principle).
Ouze wrote: I hate the idea of tying firearm purchases to the no-fly list. Not to turn this into the 50 billionth gun thread, but as a strategy, I think this is not one I like even if it's a good one for the Democrats. If they would work with the GOP on getting some sort of judicial oversight, I think I could get on board and everyone can be a winner, but in mid 2016 I suspect that working with the other side is a loser for everyone involved.
Yeah... it's a bad strategy, especially since the current D plans would weaken the Due Process provisions.
The GOP has a losing strategy on gun reform because there is a supermajority of citizens that want something (I.e. anything at all) done in Congress to perturb these horrible massacres we see in the news. Banning No Fly Listers is something, and some measures will beat no measures. Really, the GOP/NRA need to come up with a reform proposal to satisfy public demand. I imagine the issue won't be dealt with, if it ever is, until after Obama's term.
jasper76 wrote: The GOP has a losing strategy on gun reform because there is a supermajority of citizens that want something (I.e. anything at all) done in Congress to perturb these horrible massacres we see in the news. Banning No Fly Listers is something, and some measures will beat no measures. Really, the GOP/NRA need to come up with a reform proposal to satisfy public demand. I imagine the issue won't be dealt with, if it ever is, until after Obama's term.
Actually... when the bills are drafted, it's unpopular by the public.
Why do you hate her so much that you cannot consider her political position in comparison to Trump's? It can't be Benghazi, or the email scandal, because you clearly hated her prior to those.
Why do you hate her so much that you cannot consider her political position in comparison to Trump's? It can't be Benghazi, or the email scandal, because you clearly hated her prior to those.
Because:
#NeverHillary
#NeverTrump
FETH them both.
In other words, Trump is the boorish, baffoon clown:
Hillary Clinton is like Periwinkle:
Spoiler:
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.
She's obviously let it be known that she can be bought...
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...
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."
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...
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."
But plutocrats are better than those darned politicians its not like they would let a state go without a budget for a year because they hate unions and want to break them.
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.
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.
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.
No, I'm pretty sure he is living in a fantasy world, that is only set in the 60's. He is wearing HUGE nostalgia goggles.
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.
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.
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.
How long until a punch is thrown in Congress? D-Usa, you got any extra bank money for a second pool?
I agree with Ouze that the measure they are fighting for is a terrible idea as the No Fly List has 0 oversight, which I am opposed to.
I am just surprised to see D's actually so "active" and "In-your-face" on a topic.... any topic really.
I thought that there was an appeal process to get off the no-fly list (or any of those lists)
If so...that means that there would then be an appeal process to have your rights to purchase restored (because you are taken off the list through apeal).
So really....
What is it that the GOP is so against, whilst using the appeal process as a smokescreen?
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.
It's been notoriously difficult to get off the no-fly list once someone (or some computer) has decided that you're on it. Or your super common name is on it, anyway. The no-fly list is aboutas usefulas you'd expect for something linked to the TSA.
I mean, I'm all for an honest, informed look at gun control, but the no-fly list isn't a part of any of that.
From what I've heard, you can get on the No Fly list just for having a suspicious name like Mohammed (this is the equivalent of John for Arabs) and you don't find out until you try to check in for a flight.
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...
Not trying to lose any gak - well, not at you, anyway. I'm not what you might call a huge fan of the way the TSA or their...processes work.
Hope you're a little bit more familiar now, and I also hope that you don't become even more familiar because someone somewhere decides there might be a terrorist with a name that sounds vaguely like yours!
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...
You mean like a champion of the Civil Rights movement staging a sit in to deprive others of their civil rights?
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.
EDIT:
No need to lose your gak over my question
Apologies-I am a Bill of Rights Advocate-and noting all the violations to our sacred rights that I could name just off the top of my head.
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.....
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.
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.
Au contraire, mon Capitan! You misunderstand me!
I am one of the Weenie Legion!
"Any man can be a father, but it take a special man to be a Dachshund Daddy"
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.
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.
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: 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!
Great!
So we can dispense with the idea that a congress person, or groups of congress critters "speaks" for the whole party!
And there is also the difference between the party ideaologies...Democrats allow more differences in opinions, etc...Republicans are more about uniformity.
skyth wrote: And there is also the difference between the party ideaologies...Democrats allow more differences in opinions, etc...Republicans are more about uniformity.
Unless you're a pro-life Democrat, small government Democrat, or free enterprise Democrat, or evidently support the Second Amendment.
jasper76 wrote: The GOP has a losing strategy on gun reform because there is a supermajority of citizens that want something (I.e. anything at all) done in Congress to perturb these horrible massacres we see in the news. Banning No Fly Listers is something, and some measures will beat no measures. Really, the GOP/NRA need to come up with a reform proposal to satisfy public demand. I imagine the issue won't be dealt with, if it ever is, until after Obama's term.
Actually... when the bills are drafted, it's unpopular by the public.
Otherwise, you'd see something by now.
It's unpopular and it's unconstitutional. Let's not destroy our civil rights just for the sake of having the federal government take worthless ineffectual actions just for the sake of doing something.
Only if the crime is punishable by more than 6 months in jail, that leaves out a lot of crimes; depending on the State. Missouri's sexual assault laws are pretty interesting.
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...
Took that from The National Review? Or maybe The Federalist? Yeah, I read those articles too, they were awful. The NR one equated the Republican Party that Frederick Douglass was a part of with the Republican Party of today, and The Federalist one was a standard Libertarian screed.
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.
Setting aside the actual case itself, as it's irrelevant to the point I want to make, I find it annoying that the Republicans were falling all over each other in a mad rush to congratulate themselves on their "win", when they really didn't win at all. The whole problem here is that the SCdidn't decide. The Rs would be singing a completely different tune if this had gone against them; how will they act when the next big case doesn't go the way they want because of the deadlock?
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.
Setting aside the actual case itself, as it's irrelevant to the point I want to make, I find it annoying that the Republicans were falling all over each other in a mad rush to congratulate themselves on their "win", when they really didn't win at all. The whole problem here is that the SCdidn't decide. The Rs would be singing a completely different tune if this had gone against them; how will they act when the next big case doesn't go the way they want because of the deadlock?
You mean like when Democrats congratulated themselves over their "win" with Obamacare?
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.
Setting aside the actual case itself, as it's irrelevant to the point I want to make, I find it annoying that the Republicans were falling all over each other in a mad rush to congratulate themselves on their "win", when they really didn't win at all. The whole problem here is that the SCdidn't decide. The Rs would be singing a completely different tune if this had gone against them; how will they act when the next big case doesn't go the way they want because of the deadlock?
You mean like when Democrats congratulated themselves over their "win" with Obamacare?
It's.The.LAW!!!!
lets face it no matter which side wins, the winners will crow and losers will moan.
Only if the crime is punishable by more than 6 months in jail, that leaves out a lot of crimes; depending on the State. Missouri's sexual assault laws are pretty interesting.
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...
Took that from The National Review? Or maybe The Federalist? Yeah, I read those articles too, they were awful. The NR one equated the Republican Party that Frederick Douglass was a part of with the Republican Party of today, and The Federalist one was a standard Libertarian screed.
You're comparing apples and oranges. There is a huge difference between putting US citizens on an arbitrary and secret list without due process for the sole purpose of restricting their travel and ability to leave the country and allowing citizens to freely leave the country and travel anywhere they want except Cuba. One applies to specific individuals and bans travel and the other applies to everyone, allows travel but restricts a singular destination.
Which made that decision according to the 1st and 5th Amendments, specifically regarding travel to Communist states. If No Fly lists are Unconstitutional, then so is the embargo on Cuba; but the embargo on Cuba remains and is heavily supported.
Which made that decision according to the 1st and 5th Amendments, specifically regarding travel to Communist states. If No Fly lists are Unconstitutional, then so is the embargo on Cuba; but the embargo on Cuba remains and is heavily supported.
Which made that decision according to the 1st and 5th Amendments, specifically regarding travel to Communist states. If No Fly lists are Unconstitutional, then so is the embargo on Cuba; but the embargo on Cuba remains and is heavily supported.
No, you need to read the decision again. Aptheker v SecState specifically addressed the federal govt preventing US citizens who were believed to be Communists from bein allowed to leave the country. It didn't matter where they wanted to go it didn't let those people leave the country at all. The govt can't put citizens on a list for being a Communist and then not let anyone on that list travel out of the country. The Cuban embargo has nothing to do with no fly lists. The embargo isn't about putting certain citizens on a list and restriction their movements.
Asterios wrote: also you can fly to Cuba, but no flights going there, and no guerantee you will make it to Cuba after the bay of pigs fiasco.
No you can't just fly to Cuba. Even if you have your own plane you aren't allowed to go, unless you qualify for one of the exemptions to the law (and tourism is not one of them). The US has recently been a little more generous with those exemptions but it's still not something you can just decide to do on a whim.
Also, can we not act like it's still 1960? Travel to Cuba is perfectly safe and done frequently. The only obstacle to going there is US policy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Aptheker v SecState specifically addressed the federal govt preventing US citizens who were believed to be Communists from bein allowed to leave the country.
Asterios wrote: also you can fly to Cuba, but no flights going there, and no guerantee you will make it to Cuba after the bay of pigs fiasco.
No you can't just fly to Cuba. Even if you have your own plane you aren't allowed to go, unless you qualify for one of the exemptions to the law (and tourism is not one of them). The US has recently been a little more generous with those exemptions but it's still not something you can just decide to do on a whim.
Also, can we not act like it's still 1960? Travel to Cuba is perfectly safe and done frequently. The only obstacle to going there is US policy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Aptheker v SecState specifically addressed the federal govt preventing US citizens who were believed to be Communists from bein allowed to leave the country.
It also has nothing to do with no-fly lists.
It has everything to do with no fly lists. Aptheker had his passport revoked and wasn't allowed a new one because he was barred from leaving the country because he was a communist. That's an unlawful restriction of his movements and the travel ban for any known communists was a no fly lists, nobody who was believed to be a communist was allowed to fly out of the country or leave the country by any other means. The unlawful traffic restrictions placed on people who were believed to be communists is no different in principle than the unlawful travel restrictions against people believed to be Muslim terrorists.
Prestor Jon wrote: It has everything to do with no fly lists. Aptheker had his passport revoked and wasn't allowed a new one because he was barred from leaving the country because he was a communist. That's an unlawful restriction of his movements and the travel ban for any known communists was a no fly lists, nobody who was believed to be a communist was allowed to fly out of the country or leave the country by any other means. The unlawful traffic restrictions placed on people who were believed to be communists is no different in principle than the unlawful travel restrictions against people believed to be Muslim terrorists.
Except there's a key difference: the Aptheker case involved a refusal to issue a passport, the no-fly list involves regulation of commercial air travel but not other forms of travel. There's pretty solid precedent that the government has much greater ability to regulate commercial airline travel than, say, taking a bus somewhere. The no-fly list is allowed under the assumption that if you're banned from traveling on commercial airline flights you can still find an alternative, if less convenient, way to get where you want to go.
(Now, whether or not the no-fly list is good policy is an entirely separate question, but it does seem to be constitutional.)
Easy E wrote: I will say, his attack on trade deals is a great strategy.
Yeah, It's basically an enormous pile of lies heaped on top of crazy bs, but most people have almost zero economic knowledge, so yeah, as a strategy it's pretty smart.
What's interesting is that Republicans haven't ever tried anything like it before because it goes against their pro-business stance. Democrats have made noise about in the past because it plays well to their union base. But Trump's done well with the issue, so maybe this election could see it become a Republican issue. It might mark a shift in Republican strategy away from 'lies and distractions in order to cover over the party's unpopular big business policies' and towards a party that's actually just 'lies and distractions'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: I didn't get very far into Trump's big speech. I stopped where he started attacking big business and jobs being sent overseas. Because, you know, Trump is big business and he sent jobs overseas.
It got worse. There were some things in there that were true, but it was maybe about 20%. The rest was big sounding claims that simply had nothing to do with reality.
It will never cease to amaze me that people who complain about how politicians who are bad are all liars will almost always end up falling for someone who tells even more blatant lies.
Prestor Jon wrote: It has everything to do with no fly lists. Aptheker had his passport revoked and wasn't allowed a new one because he was barred from leaving the country because he was a communist. That's an unlawful restriction of his movements and the travel ban for any known communists was a no fly lists, nobody who was believed to be a communist was allowed to fly out of the country or leave the country by any other means. The unlawful traffic restrictions placed on people who were believed to be communists is no different in principle than the unlawful travel restrictions against people believed to be Muslim terrorists.
Except there's a key difference: the Aptheker case involved a refusal to issue a passport, the no-fly list involves regulation of commercial air travel but not other forms of travel. There's pretty solid precedent that the government has much greater ability to regulate commercial airline travel than, say, taking a bus somewhere. The no-fly list is allowed under the assumption that if you're banned from traveling on commercial airline flights you can still find an alternative, if less convenient, way to get where you want to go.
(Now, whether or not the no-fly list is good policy is an entirely separate question, but it does seem to be constitutional.)
Justice Douglas, also concurring, opined that "Freedom of movement is kin to the right of assembly and to the right of association. These rights may not be abridged," citing De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353. "War may be the occasion for serious curtailment of liberty. Absent war, I see no way to keep a citizen from traveling within or without the country, unless there is power to detain him. Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 65 S.Ct. 208, 89 L.Ed. 243. And no authority to detain exists except under extreme conditions, e.g., unless he has been convicted of a crime or unless there is probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest by standards of the Fourth Amendment."
Seems pretty clear to me that no fly lists are unconstitutional.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I didn't get very far into Trump's big speech. I stopped where he started attacking big business and jobs being sent overseas. Because, you know, Trump is big business and he sent jobs overseas.
It got worse. There were some things in there that were true, but it was maybe about 20%. The rest was big sounding claims that simply had nothing to do with reality.
It will never cease to amaze me that people who complain about how politicians who are bad are all liars will almost always end up falling for someone who tells even more blatant lies.
Teleprompter Trump is very different than free-swinging Trump.
That speech had so much red meat, it was gory. Maybe his speech-writer needs to run.
Prestor Jon wrote: Seems pretty clear to me that no fly lists are unconstitutional.
Except the no-fly list doesn't keep you from traveling. You can still travel by car. You can still travel by bus. You can still travel by train. You can even travel by a chartered flight or your own private plane. You just can't get on a commercial airline flight. And it's pretty clear that restrictions on commercial air travel are permitted, based on the precedent of things like requiring passengers to show their identification papers or submit their baggage to a search by the government.
whembly wrote: Teleprompter Trump is very different than free-swinging Trump.
Maybe. Or possibly Trump thought he could free wheel it through the general in the same way that he did in the primary... and is now learning that nonsense was an amateur sideshow, and now he needs to get serious and work with the people who've spent their professional lives working on winning elections.
That speech had so much red meat, it was gory. Maybe his speech-writer needs to run.
It was basically just a retelling of every attack the Republicans have tried on Clinton over 20 years. There was a few bits of substance, and whole lot of stuff that wandered somewhere between lies and fething crazy lies. Trump repeated it all, without any regard for accuracy or honesty, because he knows his audience.
It'll probably work in shoring up support within the Republican base. Which says some very unfortunate things about the state of the Republican base - they are united only in their agreed hate-fantasies about Democrats. It is not a good place for a political party to be in. It ends up producing candidates like Trump.
Prestor Jon wrote: Seems pretty clear to me that no fly lists are unconstitutional.
Except the no-fly list doesn't keep you from traveling. You can still travel by car. You can still travel by bus. You can still travel by train. You can even travel by a chartered flight or your own private plane. You just can't get on a commercial airline flight. And it's pretty clear that restrictions on commercial air travel are permitted, based on the precedent of things like requiring passengers to show their identification papers or submit their baggage to a search by the government.
The no fly list apples to all air travel including international flights. A US citizen can't drive to the EU or take a train to Africa. The no fly list is an unconstitutional travel restriction. Refusing to issue passports to communists didn't impact their ability to travel within CONUS either but it was still unconstitutional. Aptheker's inability to board an outbound flight leaving the US is no different than a no fly list member being forbidden from boarding international flights.
Prestor Jon wrote: The no fly list apples to all air travel including international flights. A US citizen can't drive to the EU or take a train to Africa. The no fly list is an unconstitutional travel restriction. Refusing to issue passports to communists didn't impact their ability to travel within CONUS either but it was still unconstitutional. Aptheker's inability to board an outbound flight leaving the US is no different than a no fly list member being forbidden from boarding international flights.
You do realize that boats exist, right? For example, if you want to go from the US to the UK (still the EU for now!) you can just go here: http://www.cunard.com/cruise-types/transatlantic-cruises/ and get your ticket. Or if you want to get there faster you could charter a flight, or even fly yourself if you have a license and don't mind crossing the north Atlantic in a small plane.
And, again, precedent disagrees with you. It is pretty clear that the government can and does impose restrictions on commercial air travel. No matter what legal theories you come up with the actual events that have been happening for a long time will continue to exist.
Prestor Jon wrote: The no fly list apples to all air travel including international flights. A US citizen can't drive to the EU or take a train to Africa. The no fly list is an unconstitutional travel restriction. Refusing to issue passports to communists didn't impact their ability to travel within CONUS either but it was still unconstitutional. Aptheker's inability to board an outbound flight leaving the US is no different than a no fly list member being forbidden from boarding international flights.
You do realize that boats exist, right? For example, if you want to go from the US to the UK (still the EU for now!) you can just go here: http://www.cunard.com/cruise-types/transatlantic-cruises/ and get your ticket. Or if you want to get there faster you could charter a flight, or even fly yourself if you have a license and don't mind crossing the north Atlantic in a small plane.
And, again, precedent disagrees with you. It is pretty clear that the government can and does impose restrictions on commercial air travel. No matter what legal theories you come up with the actual events that have been happening for a long time will continue to exist.
Couldn't you alternatively just drive into Canada and catch a flight from there?
Saying that your right to travel to say, Hawaii or Alaska isn't being unconstitutionally barred because you're always free to charter a private plane is pretty much exactly the logic that is allowing legal abortion to be destroyed in this country despite it still being "legal". It's a pretty dubious foundation to build on.
Ouze wrote: Saying that your right to travel to say, Hawaii or Alaska isn't being unconstitutionally barred because you're always free to charter a private plane is pretty much exactly the logic that is allowing legal abortion to be destroyed in this country despite it still being "legal". It's a pretty dubious foundation to build on.
Or go on a boat, I guess But with the smart alec response aside, and noting that I have no idea about the legal or constitutional basis of any of this, it just seems obvious and natural to me that while a government should be able to restrict travel to certain people on grounds of safety and law enforcement*, there needs to be a clear and proper process so that it is clear what kinds of actions will get you placed on it, and those improperly on it can be removed with minimal fuss. Instead the list is kept secret, the reasons why people are placed on it are kept secret, and there are massive hoops placed in front of anyone who attempts to be removed, and people are probably never completely removed.
I have no idea what is and isn't legal/constitutional in all that, but I know it's a fething terrible way for government to go about it's business and it should be reformed or abandoned as quickly as possible.
*This is, afterall, why we have passports in the first place. So that governments can deny them to certain people.
Prestor Jon wrote: The no fly list apples to all air travel including international flights. A US citizen can't drive to the EU or take a train to Africa. The no fly list is an unconstitutional travel restriction. Refusing to issue passports to communists didn't impact their ability to travel within CONUS either but it was still unconstitutional. Aptheker's inability to board an outbound flight leaving the US is no different than a no fly list member being forbidden from boarding international flights.
You do realize that boats exist, right? For example, if you want to go from the US to the UK (still the EU for now!) you can just go here: http://www.cunard.com/cruise-types/transatlantic-cruises/ and get your ticket. Or if you want to get there faster you could charter a flight, or even fly yourself if you have a license and don't mind crossing the north Atlantic in a small plane.
And, again, precedent disagrees with you. It is pretty clear that the government can and does impose restrictions on commercial air travel. No matter what legal theories you come up with the actual events that have been happening for a long time will continue to exist.
You do realize that Aptheker sued over not being able to board an international flight due to the refusal of the state dept to give him a passport because he was a communist? He could still board domestic flights or drive himself into Canada or Mexico but the court still ruled that it was unconstitutional for the Feds to put every communist on a list and revoke their passports to specifically hamper their ability to travel abroad. The SCotUS opinions specifically say that the federal govt doesn't have the right to punish any and every communist equally without presenting evidence that supports charges/a warrant. Not letting a citizen board a plane because he/she is a suspected terrorist is no different from not letting somebody board a plan for being a communist. The court ruled that the travel ban doesn't have to be a total ban on all travel to be unconstitutional because being put on an arbitrary secret govt list in the first place is a constitutional violation and any restriction placed upon a citizen for being on the list is fruit from that poisonous unconstitutional tree. That's not my personal theory that's what was written in the majority and concurrent opinions of Supreme Court justices.
The fact that the Supreme Court hasn't heard a case on the no fly list that allow them to uphold the Aptheker precedent doesn't change the fact that the Aptheker case and it's opinions exist as case law.
And people on the no fly list can't charter planes in the US, that loophole would negate the very purpose of the no fly list.
Ouze wrote: Saying that your right to travel to say, Hawaii or Alaska isn't being unconstitutionally barred because you're always free to charter a private plane is pretty much exactly the logic that is allowing legal abortion to be destroyed in this country despite it still being "legal". It's a pretty dubious foundation to build on.
Or go on a boat, I guess But with the smart alec response aside, and noting that I have no idea about the legal or constitutional basis of any of this, it just seems obvious and natural to me that while a government should be able to restrict travel to certain people on grounds of safety and law enforcement*, there needs to be a clear and proper process so that it is clear what kinds of actions will get you placed on it, and those improperly on it can be removed with minimal fuss. Instead the list is kept secret, the reasons why people are placed on it are kept secret, and there are massive hoops placed in front of anyone who attempts to be removed, and people are probably never completely removed.
I have no idea what is and isn't legal/constitutional in all that, but I know it's a fething terrible way for government to go about it's business and it should be reformed or abandoned as quickly as possible.
*This is, afterall, why we have passports in the first place. So that governments can deny them to certain people.
The Supreme Court didn't dispute the fact that the govt can refuse to issue passports it simply ruled that the govt can't deny passports to anyone believed to be a communist on the grounds that all communists are equally dangerous even in the absence of any evidence that a particular communist posed any danger at all. The arbitrary nature of the list and the lack of due process made it unconstitutional. The majority opinion specifically says that the offending statute is too broad and vague to be constitutional. The govt can't restrict an individual's Liberty without justification and due process. In the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary everyone is presumed innocent and is entitled to full constitutional protection of his/her Liberty.
Prestor Jon wrote: The Supreme Court didn't dispute the fact that the govt can refuse to issue passports it simply ruled that the govt can't deny passports to anyone believed to be a communist on the grounds that all communists are equally dangerous even in the absence of any evidence that a particular communist posed any danger at all. The arbitrary nature of the list and the lack of due process made it unconstitutional. The majority opinion specifically says that the offending statute is too broad and vague to be constitutional. The govt can't restrict an individual's Liberty without justification and due process. In the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary everyone is presumed innocent and is entitled to full constitutional protection of his/her Liberty.
Read my post again mate, because I'm not sure your response follows from what I said. If you want me to give a tldr version, then;
1) The government obviously has the right to deny some passports and otherwise control travel.
2) I don't care what their constitutional limits on those controls are*, what matters is whether they are good and necessary restrictions that are applied fairly.
3) Clearly the No Fly List is unfair and poorly implement, because there is no well defined criteria that causes you to be put on it, the requirements for evidence are non-existant, and there is little ability to get removed from the list.
*And no, I don't much care to hear internet opinions on the constitution either.
No, you need to read the decision again. Aptheker v SecState specifically addressed the federal govt preventing US citizens who were believed to be Communists from bein allowed to leave the country. It didn't matter where they wanted to go it didn't let those people leave the country at all. The govt can't put citizens on a list for being a Communist and then not let anyone on that list travel out of the country. The Cuban embargo has nothing to do with no fly lists. The embargo isn't about putting certain citizens on a list and restriction their movements.
The majority opinion was that US citizens have the right to travel abroad, free from restriction. I'm a US citizen, my ability to travel to Cuba is restricted. To me, as a generic white guy from Chicago, that satisfies the "too broad" criticism the Court held in Aptheker v. Secretary of State. It is basically a no fly list that features the vast majority of American citizens.
skyth wrote: And there is also the difference between the party ideaologies...Democrats allow more differences in opinions, etc...Republicans are more about uniformity.
Unless you're a pro-life Democrat, small government Democrat, or free enterprise Democrat, or evidently support the Second Amendment.
Nope, Check, Check, And Check.
#independentparty
I am for alot of things perseverations, But I am also for banning drugs of all kinds, I am for tighter border control, yet I am against closing them. I am for gun control, but I am also against getting rid of the right to own a gun, I just think there need to be tighter restrictions and a maximum amount of weaponry you can own. I am for the bill of rights proposed by FDR that says:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
Yet I am against limiting the freemarket, I am against big coporations owning more than one part of an industry and holdinga monopoly on said industry, I am against wars, but I am for the UN and relations.
I am for puerto rico becoming a state, but I am against restrictions on video games, movies, music, food, at schools and for children.
I am also thoroughly against anything that violates the bill of rights or the constitution, but I am for removing parts of the constitution and updating it as time wanes on.
I personally have been reading up on the thing going on at the congress. I gotta say, I rather them try and fix this damn issue of gun control so we stop having loonies have guns.
Its not a radical terrorist or a muslim terrorist just some fething crazy guy.... with a rifle and pistol...
Ouze wrote: Saying that your right to travel to say, Hawaii or Alaska isn't being unconstitutionally barred because you're always free to charter a private plane is pretty much exactly the logic that is allowing legal abortion to be destroyed in this country despite it still being "legal". It's a pretty dubious foundation to build on.
It's hardly a dubious foundation. In fact it's one that's well established in the US. Remember how you have to consent to the government searching your baggage every time you get on an airline flight, contrasted with your ability to refuse a similar search if the police ask to search your car?
Prestor Jon wrote: You do realize that Aptheker sued over not being able to board an international flight due to the refusal of the state dept to give him a passport because he was a communist?
Yes, in fact I've pointed out several times now that the passport is the key difference. If you are denied a passport you can't travel internationally by any means. If you are denied the ability to board an airline flight you can still travel by some other method even if it's less convenient. This is why the government is allowed to enforce all kinds of restrictions on airline travel that do not exist elsewhere.
And people on the no fly list can't charter planes in the US, that loophole would negate the very purpose of the no fly list.
Depends on the charter, actually. Larger aircraft (anything over 12,500lbs maximum takeoff weight) require security checks, anything smaller doesn't. And there are quite a few charter operations flying those smaller aircraft.
Prestor Jon wrote: The no fly list apples to all air travel including international flights. A US citizen can't drive to the EU or take a train to Africa. The no fly list is an unconstitutional travel restriction. Refusing to issue passports to communists didn't impact their ability to travel within CONUS either but it was still unconstitutional. Aptheker's inability to board an outbound flight leaving the US is no different than a no fly list member being forbidden from boarding international flights.
You do realize that boats exist, right? For example, if you want to go from the US to the UK (still the EU for now!) you can just go here: http://www.cunard.com/cruise-types/transatlantic-cruises/ and get your ticket. Or if you want to get there faster you could charter a flight, or even fly yourself if you have a license and don't mind crossing the north Atlantic in a small plane.
And, again, precedent disagrees with you. It is pretty clear that the government can and does impose restrictions on commercial air travel. No matter what legal theories you come up with the actual events that have been happening for a long time will continue to exist.
No reason they couldn't extend the unconstitutional list to sea travel, public transportation, or well anything. Thats why the government likes it.
Ouze wrote: Saying that your right to travel to say, Hawaii or Alaska isn't being unconstitutionally barred because you're always free to charter a private plane is pretty much exactly the logic that is allowing legal abortion to be destroyed in this country despite it still being "legal". It's a pretty dubious foundation to build on.
No fly lists aren't inherently unconstitutional if they provide adequate due process. The current setup has been successfully challenged in at least one federal court (http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/NoFlyOpinion.pdf). In that opinion, the court held that the process did not provide adequate notice or opportunity to contest inclusion on the list.
I would think that just from a common sense perspective that Americans would be troubled by a list that the federal government uses to restrict rights that has no disclosure of why you are on there and no way to challenge it. Heck, what if a name shows up due to a clerical error?
jmurph wrote: No fly lists aren't inherently unconstitutional if they provide adequate due process. The current setup has been successfully challenged in at least one federal court (http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/NoFlyOpinion.pdf). In that opinion, the court held that the process did not provide adequate notice or opportunity to contest inclusion on the list.
I would think that just from a common sense perspective that Americans would be troubled by a list that the federal government uses to restrict rights that has no disclosure of why you are on there and no way to challenge it. Heck, what if a name shows up due to a clerical error?
Exactly. The no fly list has always violated due process. It continues to exist only because the government literally makes it impossible to contest your inclusion on the list and get yourself removed. It's existence doesn't make it constitutional.
Ouze wrote: Saying that your right to travel to say, Hawaii or Alaska isn't being unconstitutionally barred because you're always free to charter a private plane is pretty much exactly the logic that is allowing legal abortion to be destroyed in this country despite it still being "legal". It's a pretty dubious foundation to build on.
It's hardly a dubious foundation. In fact it's one that's well established in the US. Remember how you have to consent to the government searching your baggage every time you get on an airline flight, contrasted with your ability to refuse a similar search if the police ask to search your car?
Prestor Jon wrote: You do realize that Aptheker sued over not being able to board an international flight due to the refusal of the state dept to give him a passport because he was a communist?
Yes, in fact I've pointed out several times now that the passport is the key difference. If you are denied a passport you can't travel internationally by any means. If you are denied the ability to board an airline flight you can still travel by some other method even if it's less convenient. This is why the government is allowed to enforce all kinds of restrictions on airline travel that do not exist elsewhere.
And people on the no fly list can't charter planes in the US, that loophole would negate the very purpose of the no fly list.
Depends on the charter, actually. Larger aircraft (anything over 12,500lbs maximum takeoff weight) require security checks, anything smaller doesn't. And there are quite a few charter operations flying those smaller aircraft.
You don't need a passport to travel to Canada or Mexico millions of people do it every year without showing anyone a passport.
The passport is irrelevant, the right of the state dept to refuse to issue a passport was never in question, the PROCESS by which the state dept was refusing passports, nobody on the list of alleged Communists could get one, was what was being sued over because it violated due process. That's what the Supreme Court ruled and that's what the all the majority and concurring opinions state, the travel restrictions require that the govt follow due process and not use nebulous secret lists.
You're focusing on passports as if that somehow nullifies the right to due process when it clearly doesn't according to the court.
I already acknowledged that the govt has that ability to revoke passports and restrict travel. However, the govt MUST follow due process when they restrict travel for citizens.
jmurph wrote: I would think that just from a common sense perspective that Americans would be troubled by a list that the federal government uses to restrict rights that has no disclosure of why you are on there and no way to challenge it. Heck, what if a name shows up due to a clerical error?
This here is the new 'Merica, where apparently people are cool with this sort of thing, as long as it's that other guy, because clearly he had it coming.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: This here is the new 'Merica, where apparently people are cool with this sort of thing, as long as it's that other guy, because clearly he had it coming.
Pretty much. No Fly Lists and secret government lists were the antithesis of democracy when a Republican was in charge, now the Democrats are protesting for the chance to expand it's influence. The fact that a champion of the civil rights movement is campaigning for others to lose their rights adds a nice layer of unintentional irony.
I was under the impression that many Democrats and Republicans voted for the PATRIOT Act and other new laws that set up the No Fly list and so on in the early 2000s.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was under the impression that many Democrats and Republicans voted for the PATRIOT Act and other new laws that set up the No Fly list and so on in the early 2000s.
yes they did, but at the time the Democrats had the power, all I know is when you have no fly lists that stop people from flying because they share the same name as someone on it (like a certain 8 year old boy) and the Democrats want to use that as a basis of preventing gun ownership I see way too many ways that can be abused by the Government.
Also it does not take much to get on the no fly list and you don't even find out you are on it till you try to go buy a plane ticket.
According to this the PATRIOT Act was brought in by a Republican, most of the dissenters were Democrats, and it was a Republican president who signed it into law.
Kilkrazy wrote: According to this the PATRIOT Act was brought in by a Republican, most of the dissenters were Democrats, and it was a Republican president who signed it into law.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was under the impression that many Democrats and Republicans voted for the PATRIOT Act and other new laws that set up the No Fly list and so on in the early 2000s.
The No Fly List was in place prior to the Patriot Act, so who voted for it is immaterial to this discussion. Or is your contention that because members of a party voted one way that they cannot then object to the implementation of that law?
The fact of the matter is that during Bush's tenure Democrats considered the No Fly list unconstitutional. To pretend otherwise is historical revisionism.
Kilkrazy wrote: According to this the PATRIOT Act was brought in by a Republican, most of the dissenters were Democrats, and it was a Republican president who signed it into law.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was under the impression that many Democrats and Republicans voted for the PATRIOT Act and other new laws that set up the No Fly list and so on in the early 2000s.
The No Fly List was in place prior to the Patriot Act, so who voted for it is immaterial to this discussion. Or is your contention that because members of a party voted one way that they cannot then object to the implementation of that law?
The fact of the matter is that during Bush's tenure Democrats considered the No Fly list unconstitutional. To pretend otherwise is historical revisionism.
just like Democrats voted for the ACA then a couple years ago many back peddled on that. its all about what is popular at the time, when 9/11 happened the country was unified and one, then time came in and everyone went back to their roots and the country became divided.
djones520 wrote: So can anyone explain to me the "Brexit happened, so Trump can win" thing that's going about the internet right now?
Basically don't discount the populations propensity for doing something which can cause a lot of harm to their own country, especially if they've been told that doing so will "make X great again".
djones520 wrote: So can anyone explain to me the "Brexit happened, so Trump can win" thing that's going about the internet right now?
It's really dumb... like fethingdumb.
My sense is that it's the old ELITIST vs. THE COMMON MAN dichotomy.
There's two tweets that jumps out at me (man i wish we could embed tweets here...), so I'll transcribe as best as I can.
The snarky one:
#Brexit happend because elites became fatally disconnected from, then grew contemptuous of, average citizens... This has wider implications.
Here's what the head of BBC political research said:
"It seems to me that the London bubble has to burst if there is to be any prospect of addressing the issues that have brought us to our current sitution. There are many millions of people who do not enthuse about diversity and do not embrace metropolitan values yet do not consider themselves lesser human beings for all that. Until their values and opinions are acknowledge and respected, rather than ignored and despised, our present discord will persist. Because these discontents run very wide and very deep and the metropolitan politcal class, contronted by them, seems completely bewildered and at a loss about how to respond ("who are these ghastly people and where do they come from?" doesn't really hack it). The 2016 EU referendum has witnessed the cashing in of some very bitter bankable grudges but I believe that, throughtout this 2016 compaign, Europe has been the shadow not the substance".
The idea that Brexit "proves" that Trump has a chance in November is both lazy and asinine.
The no fly list wasn't part of the Patriot Act passed by congress, it was created and implemented by the Bush Admin. It was a secret for its first two years of existence. It actually existed before 9/11.
Gordon Shumway wrote: The no fly list wasn't part of the Patriot Act passed by congress, it was created and implemented by the Bush Admin. It was a secret for its first two years of existence. It actually existed before 9/11.
The list—along with the Secondary Security Screening Selection, which tags would-be passengers for extra inspection—was created after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The No Fly List, the Selectee List and the Terrorist Watchlist were created by the administration of George W. Bush and retained by the administration of Barack Obama. U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in May 2010: "The no-fly list itself is one of our best lines of defense."[1] However, the list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, or racial profiling and discrimination. It has also raised concerns about privacy and government secrecy. It has also been criticized as costly, prone to false positives, and easily defeated.
The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. As of June 2016 the Terrorist Watch List is estimated to contain over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities
I don't see the Brexit having a big effect on American politics. Americans are much too insular as a whole and tend to have very little interest in anything outside of the US unless it relates to war or celebrity.
Trump: "They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people."
He said before flying away in his golden helicopter.
One interesting parallel is the division of support- Scotland and Ireland seemed to be solidly remain. Likewise, the US shows some pretty stark geographical political divides.
Gordon Shumway wrote: The no fly list wasn't part of the Patriot Act passed by congress, it was created and implemented by the Bush Admin. It was a secret for its first two years of existence. It actually existed before 9/11.
The list—along with the Secondary Security Screening Selection, which tags would-be passengers for extra inspection—was created after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The No Fly List, the Selectee List and the Terrorist Watchlist were created by the administration of George W. Bush and retained by the administration of Barack Obama. U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in May 2010: "The no-fly list itself is one of our best lines of defense."[1] However, the list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, or racial profiling and discrimination. It has also raised concerns about privacy and government secrecy. It has also been criticized as costly, prone to false positives, and easily defeated.
The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. As of June 2016 the Terrorist Watch List is estimated to contain over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities
If you are going to quote Wikipedia, you might want to read all of it. "Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. federal government had a list of 16 people deemed "no transport" because they "presented a specific known or suspected threat to aviation"
So it is less "A makes B happen" than "A happened so there is proof B can happen", it seems.
problem is Hillary doesn't stand a chance her "a" game is missing and she is currently giving her "D" game, Trump did and said what he had to to get Republican voters during the primaries and a whole lot of free press, now his tactics will change to adjust to not getting Republican votes but even Democratic votes, meanwhile Clinton hasn't realized the war is on yet.
Trump is a stage man, a carnival barker, charismatic and has presence, Hillary has none of that, that is why I say she is doomed.
Gordon Shumway wrote: The no fly list wasn't part of the Patriot Act passed by congress, it was created and implemented by the Bush Admin. It was a secret for its first two years of existence. It actually existed before 9/11.
The list—along with the Secondary Security Screening Selection, which tags would-be passengers for extra inspection—was created after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The No Fly List, the Selectee List and the Terrorist Watchlist were created by the administration of George W. Bush and retained by the administration of Barack Obama. U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in May 2010: "The no-fly list itself is one of our best lines of defense."[1] However, the list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, or racial profiling and discrimination. It has also raised concerns about privacy and government secrecy. It has also been criticized as costly, prone to false positives, and easily defeated.
The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. As of June 2016 the Terrorist Watch List is estimated to contain over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities
If you are going to quote Wikipedia, you might want to read all of it. "Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. federal government had a list of 16 people deemed "no transport" because they "presented a specific known or suspected threat to aviation"
but we are dealing with a no-fly list, not some list some agency made up to make themselves feel better, big difference between thousands on a list and barely over a dozen on a post-it note.
Kilkrazy wrote: According to this the PATRIOT Act was brought in by a Republican, most of the dissenters were Democrats, and it was a Republican president who signed it into law.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!
4:21 AM - 24 Jun 2016
This is despite the fact that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU, with 62 percent of the population backing the Remain campaign.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was under the impression that many Democrats and Republicans voted for the PATRIOT Act and other new laws that set up the No Fly list and so on in the early 2000s.
yes they did, but at the time the Democrats had the power
Asterios wrote: The Democrats had the power in congress, the law could not get passed without Democratic backing to a degree
Ah yes, the early 2000s, when the Democrats had the power in congress, such as
2000-2003: Congress 221 R / 212 D, Senate 50 R / 50 D, and
2003-2005: Congress 229 R / 205 D, Senate 51 R / 48 D
Kilkrazy wrote: I was under the impression that many Democrats and Republicans voted for the PATRIOT Act and other new laws that set up the No Fly list and so on in the early 2000s.
yes they did, but at the time the Democrats had the power
Asterios wrote: The Democrats had the power in congress, the law could not get passed without Democratic backing to a degree
Ah yes, the early 2000s, when the Democrats had the power in congress, such as
2000-2003: Congress 221 R / 212 D, Senate 50 R / 50 D, and
2003-2005: Congress 229 R / 205 D, Senate 51 R / 48 D
What a lazy, clownish lie.
I commend you on your consistency.
I'm not sure if we need a facepalm gif, or a burn gif.
I remember my professor from the first Political Science class I took in college organizing a discussion about what is the greatest threat to the USA. Now bear in mind this was in the early 1980's, when there was a very real Cold War, a global arms race and the USSR were a very real threat.
We discussed nuclear war, natural disaster, communism, financial crisis...all the usual suspects...and in the end the hands down winner of what posed the biggest threat to America was an uninformed electorate.
Here we are 35 years later and we've survived a global financial crisis, the Cold War is over, communism is noise in the background, natural disasters have hit and we're still around, nuclear war hasn't happened and yet I see Trump take the GOP by storm and listen to some of the daily idiocy that spews from his mouth and I realize that we were absolutely spot on in our conclusion. Our democracy won't fail from without, but fail from the fear and stupidity within.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!
4:21 AM - 24 Jun 2016
This is despite the fact that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU, with 62 percent of the population backing the Remain campaign.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was under the impression that many Democrats and Republicans voted for the PATRIOT Act and other new laws that set up the No Fly list and so on in the early 2000s.
yes they did, but at the time the Democrats had the power
Asterios wrote: The Democrats had the power in congress, the law could not get passed without Democratic backing to a degree
Ah yes, the early 2000s, when the Democrats had the power in congress, such as
2000-2003: Congress 221 R / 212 D, Senate 50 R / 50 D, and
2003-2005: Congress 229 R / 205 D, Senate 51 R / 48 D
The horror of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001— followed by the Capitol Hill anthrax attacks a month later—united the 107th Congress (2001–2003) behind a shared sense of national duty, and forged momentary bipartisanship. Though both chambers were narrowly divided between Republicans and Democrats, Congress authorized the use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq, established the Homeland Security Department, and easily passed anti-terrorism legislation.
Here we are 35 years later and we've survived a global financial crisis, the Cold War is over, communism is noise in the background, natural disasters have hit and we're still around, nuclear war hasn't happened and yet I see Trump take the GOP by storm and listen to some of the daily idiocy that spews from his mouth and I realize that we were absolutely spot on in our conclusion. Our democracy won't fail from without, but fail from the fear and stupidity within.
Same could be said of Hillary. you say potato, I say potahto.
You got that right! Sadly, it's the same phenomenon that made Brexit a reality, that made Trump the GOP POTUS candidate.
A lot of the BREXIT vote was directed against the 'political elites.'
And there's no bigger political elite in the USA than the Clintons. HRC may feel like she has a bulls-eye on her back after this.
But, at the same time, there's a lot of rancor for the corporate elite here in the US who are believed to be the ones buying off the political elite, and Trump is part of the corporate elite. So, both have tha bullseye.
The Republican Party held the final voting share of both houses for the 107th Congress.
For starters, they had the majority caucus in the House for the entire 107th Congress and ended with a 51.5% to 48.5% majority over the Democrats.
More importantly, you didn't include the entirety of the Congress term when using your Senate numbers, you just cherry picked the brief time that the Democrats had the "majority." Speaking of which, it's a little more complicated than that: it began with an even split with the Democrats having the tie-breaker through Al Gore, then the Republicans gained the tie-breaker with Dick Cheney, then it switched to a Democrat majority when Jeffords became an independent and Wellstone died, then switched back to a Republican majority to end the term (this was not recognized until the beginning of the next session).
Maybe you should get your facts straight before you tell someone to "go back to school."
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The Republican Party held the final voting share of both houses for the 107th Congress.
For starters, they had the majority caucus in the House for the entire 107th Congress and ended with a 51.5% to 48.5% majority over the Democrats.
More importantly, you didn't include the entirety of the Congress term when using your Senate numbers, you just cherry picked the brief time that the Democrats had the "majority." Speaking of which, it's a little more complicated than that: it began with an even split with the Democrats having the tie-breaker through Al Gore, then the Republicans gained the tie-breaker with Dick Cheney, then it switched to a Democrat majority when Jeffords became an independent and Wellstone died, then switched back to a Republican majority to end the term (this was not recognized until the beginning of the next session).
Maybe you should get your facts straight before you tell someone to "go back to school."
I went with who was in the house and senate when 9/11 happened and the laws were created, going outside those numbers is just trying to alter the numbers in your favor.
Asterios wrote: I went with who was in the house and senate when 9/11 happened and the laws were created, going outside those numbers is just trying to alter the numbers in your favor.
And now you've predicitably begun moving goalposts, which you always do when people point out when you're wrong. Your consistency is commendable.
Asterios wrote: I went with who was in the house and senate when 9/11 happened and the laws were created, going outside those numbers is just trying to alter the numbers in your favor.
And now you've predicitably begun moving goalposts, which you always do when people point out when you're wrong. Your consistency is commendable.
we were talking about when the 9/11 laws were created and the current no-fly rules, what were you talking about? or are you the one moving the goal posts to fit in with what you want?
Asterios wrote: we were talking about when the 9/11 laws were created and the current no-fly rules
Yeah, and your line about the Democrats having "the power in Congress" isn't accurate. When the PATRIOT Act was passed, the Democrats had gained the majority when Jeffords left the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats. This gave the Democrats control of the Senate 51-49. Then Paul Wellstone died in October and the Democrats had control 50-49, though in practice Mary Landrieu (D-LA) often broke with the Democratic Party (especially over the PATRIOT Act) because she was widely described as the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. In the Senate vote, it was confirmed 98-1 with the only "nay" being a Democrat and one Democrat not voting (Landrieu, ironically enough). At no time during the 107th Congress did the Democratic Party control the House, so like I've already explained to you and you've seemingly ignored, saying the Democrats "had all the power" Congress, even during the passage of the PATRIOT Act, is not a true statement.
what were you talking about?
How you're (yet again) wrong.
or are you the one moving the goal posts to fit in with what you want?
I beginning to think that you don't know what "moving goalposts" means.
whembly wrote: Can't we just say "both" parties suck at times.
No one is saying that isn't the case.
Asterios is apparently trying to claim that the only reason the PATRIOT Act was passed is because the Democrats "had the power in Congress." As has been explained repeatedly to him, that isn't true. What is true, however, is that piece of burning dumpster fire legislation had fairly wide bipartisan support, something that pretty fething obvious given how the votes in both houses went.
At the same time, it should be noted that of the handful of senators and congressmen that dissented were primarily members of the Democratic Party: one Democrat in the Senate and sixty-two in the House with no Republicans in the Senate voting nay and only three in the Republican-controlled House voting nay.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday. The disclosure makes it unclear what other work-related emails may have been deleted by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
The email was included within messages exchanged Nov. 13, 2010, between Clinton and one of her closest aides, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin. At the time, emails sent from Clinton's BlackBerry device and routed through her private clintonemail.com server in the basement of her New York home were being blocked by the State Department's spam filter. A suggested remedy was for Clinton to obtain a state.gov email account.
"Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible," Clinton responded to Abedin.
Clinton never used a government account that was set up for her, instead continuing to rely on her private server until leaving office.
The email was not among the tens of thousands of emails Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence. Abedin, who also used a private account on Clinton's server, provided a copy from her own inbox after the State Department asked her to return any work-related emails. That copy of the email was publicly cited last month in a blistering audit by the State Department's inspector general that concluded Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup violated federal standards and could have left sensitive material vulnerable to hackers.
"While this exchange was not part of the approximately 55,000 pages provided to the State Department by former Secretary Clinton, the exchange was included within the set of documents Ms. Abedin provided the department in response to our March 2015 request," State Department spokesman John Kirby told The Associated Press on Thursday.
Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said she provided "all potentially work-related emails" that were still in her possession when she received the 2014 request from the State Department.
"Secretary Clinton had some emails with Huma that Huma did not have, and Huma had some emails with Secretary Clinton that Secretary Clinton did not have," Fallon said.
Fallon declined to say whether Clinton deleted any work-related emails before they were reviewed by her legal team. Clinton's lead lawyer, David Kendall, did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The November 2010 email was among documents released under court order Wednesday to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, which has sued the State Department over access to public records related to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's service as the nation's top diplomat between 2009 and 2013. The case is one of about three dozen lawsuits over access to records related to Clinton, including one filed by the AP.
Before turning over her emails to the department for review and potential public release, Clinton and her lawyers withheld thousands of additional emails she said were clearly personal, such as those involving what she described as "planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations."
Clinton has never outlined in detail what criteria she and her lawyers used to determine which emails to release and which to delete, but her 2010 email with Abedin appears clearly work-related under the State Department's own criteria for agency records under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
Dozens of the emails sent or received by Clinton through her private server were later determined to contain classified material. The FBI has been investigating for months whether Clinton's use of the private email server imperiled government secrets. Agents recently interviewed several of Clinton's top aides, including Abedin.
As part of the probe, Clinton turned over the hard drive from her email server to the FBI. It had been wiped clean, and Clinton has said she did not keep copies of the emails she choose to withhold.
On Wednesday, lawyers from Judicial Watch, a conservative legal organization, questioned under oath Bryan Pagliano, the computer technician who set up Clinton's private server. A transcript released Thursday shows Pagliano repeatedly responded to detailed questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as he did last year before a congressional committee.
Dozens of questions Pagiliano declined to answer included who paid for the system, whether there was technical help to support its users and who else at the State Department used email accounts on it. Pagliano also would not answer whether he discussed setting up a home server with Clinton prior to her tenure as secretary of state, according to the transcript.
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the November 2010 email cited in the inspector general audit was one of more than a dozen work-related emails that his group identified that Clinton sent or received but later failed to turn over the State Department.
"Contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Mrs. Clinton did not return all her government emails to the State Department," Fitton said. "Our goal is to find out what other emails Mrs. Clinton and the State Department are hiding."
I read about that a day or so again. What took you so long? It may not mean anything, or it may mean lots, but if nothing it is problematic to be sure as it creates the appearance of wrongdoing. She has money and clout so I wouldn't worry to much as I doubt anything will happen. At least she isn't a Presidential candidate.
More bad news for Hillary Clinton and her ill-advised personal email server. Another set of emails released by the State Department shows the government agency had to disable several security processes just to get its server to accept email from Clinton's private email address.
The emails, reviewed by The Associated Press, show that State Department technical staff disabled software on their systems intended to block phishing emails that could deliver dangerous viruses. They were trying urgently to resolve delivery problems with emails sent from Clinton's private server.
"This should trump all other activities," a senior technical official, Ken LaVolpe, told IT employees in a Dec. 17, 2010, email. Another senior State Department official, Thomas W.
Lawrence, wrote days later in an email that deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin personally was asking for an update about the repairs. Abedin and Clinton, who both used Clinton's private server, had complained that emails each sent to State Department employees were not being reliably received.
After technical staffers turned off some security features, Lawrence cautioned in an email, "We view this as a Band-Aid and fear it's not 100 percent fully effective."
While trial-and-error is generally useful when solving connection problems, the implication is undeniable: to make Clinton's private, insecure email server connect with the State Department's, it had to -- at least temporarily -- lower itself to Clinton's security level. The other workaround -- USE A DAMN STATE DEPARTMENT EMAIL ADDRESS -- was seriously discussed.
This latest stack of emails also exposed other interesting things... like the fact that Clinton's private email server was attacked multiple times in one day, resulting in staffers taking it offline in an attempt to prevent a breach. (h/t Pwn All The Things)
In addition to the security issues, there's also some discussion about why Clinton was choosing to use her own server.
In one email, the State Department's IT person explains the agency already has an email address set up for Clinton, but offers to delete anything contained in it -- and points out that using the State Dept. address would make future emails subject to FOIA requests.
[W]e actually have an account previously set up: SSHRC@state.gov. There are some old emails but none since Jan '11 -- we could get rid of them.
You should be aware that any email would go through the Department's infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches.
So, there's one reason Clinton would have opted to use a personal email address and server. More confirmation of the rationale behind this decision appears in an earlier email (2010) from Clinton to her aide, Huma Abedin.
Abedin: We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email to the department so you are not going to spam.
Clinton: Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible.
There appears to be some intent to dodge FOIA requests -- either by ensuring "no documents found" when Clinton's State Department email address was searched, or by being able to control any release by being the chokepoint for responsive documents.
To accomplish this, Clinton's team set up a private email server that was insecure and did not follow State Department guidelines. In fact, her team brushed off the agency more than once before finally informing it that they simply would not comply with State Department regulations.
In a blistering audit released last month, the State Department's inspector general concluded that Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers. Her aides twice brushed aside concerns, in one case telling technical staff "the matter was not to be discussed further," the report said.
The FBI investigation that Clinton refuses to call an investigation continues. There may be no criminal charges forthcoming, but there's already plenty of evidence that Clinton's use of a private email server was not only dangerously insecure, but put into place in hopes of limiting her accountability.
On a more serious note I hope the Brexit isnt a sign of things to come in the US. A platform built on fears of outsiders, jigonism and some may even say plain racism spearheadded by the older well off segment of the population, clearly on the Right of the politisphere; sounds uncomfortably similar to a platform being endorsed by a certain overripe orange with a bad case of mold on the top
On a more serious note I hope the Brexit isnt a sign of things to come in the US. A platform built on fears of outsiders, jigonism and some may even say plain racism spearheadded by the older well off segment of the population, clearly on the Right of the politisphere; sounds uncomfortably similar to a platform being endorsed by a certain overripe orange with a bad case of mold on the top
I know the American White nationalists and supremacists are going buck wild over England leaving the EU (having I guess, saved the white race). Incidently or anecdotally, they are Trump voters and waiting for him to apparently exit....the world...not sure their goals never make actual sense.
Depending on how this pays off for the English in the next few months and how hard the various POTUS wannabes play the market on it, I think this could work in Turnip's flavor. We shall see, for a majority of voting Americans the events of yesterday and today will likely be forgotten Monday.
other then the banning of Muslim's (which I see as just rhetoric and not gonna happen) the only thing I see Trump doing is enforcing this countries laws that already exist for Illegals, furthermore I see California declaring it a safe zone for Illegals and then see the Government cutting off California's federal subsidies for not enforcing the law.
It must be relaxing to look at a politician, listen to the crazy stuff that comes out of their face, and decide that the craziest parts are just rhetoric.
Spinner wrote: It must be relaxing to look at a politician, listen to the crazy stuff that comes out of their face, and decide that the craziest parts are just rhetoric.
Politics must seem almost sane!
no its just a dose of reality, Trump was trying to get Republican votes so he fed them what they wanted to hear, now he wants all our votes so he will feed us what we want to hear, meanwhile every one of his comments gets him free airtime and face value in the news, he says boo and the news agencies eat it up.
Spinner wrote: It must be relaxing to look at a politician, listen to the crazy stuff that comes out of their face, and decide that the craziest parts are just rhetoric.
Politics must seem almost sane!
no its just a dose of reality, Trump was trying to get Republican votes so he fed them what they wanted to hear, now he wants all our votes so he will feed us what we want to hear, meanwhile every one of his comments gets him free airtime and face value in the news, he says boo and the news agencies eat it up.
So you actually like that he's just saying absolutely anything that will get him elected and doesn't actually have anything he stands for?
Spinner wrote: It must be relaxing to look at a politician, listen to the crazy stuff that comes out of their face, and decide that the craziest parts are just rhetoric.
Politics must seem almost sane!
no its just a dose of reality, Trump was trying to get Republican votes so he fed them what they wanted to hear, now he wants all our votes so he will feed us what we want to hear, meanwhile every one of his comments gets him free airtime and face value in the news, he says boo and the news agencies eat it up.
So you actually like that he's just saying absolutely anything that will get him elected and doesn't actually have anything he stands for?
Spinner wrote: It must be relaxing to look at a politician, listen to the crazy stuff that comes out of their face, and decide that the craziest parts are just rhetoric.
Politics must seem almost sane!
no its just a dose of reality, Trump was trying to get Republican votes so he fed them what they wanted to hear, now he wants all our votes so he will feed us what we want to hear, meanwhile every one of his comments gets him free airtime and face value in the news, he says boo and the news agencies eat it up.
So you actually like that he's just saying absolutely anything that will get him elected and doesn't actually have anything he stands for?
compared to what I know Hillary will do? yes.
Hey... at least Drumpf trained as a samuria masta:
Seriously... what the feth is he doing with a sword on a golf course? Gators getting too big?
Spinner wrote: It must be relaxing to look at a politician, listen to the crazy stuff that comes out of their face, and decide that the craziest parts are just rhetoric.
Politics must seem almost sane!
no its just a dose of reality, Trump was trying to get Republican votes so he fed them what they wanted to hear, now he wants all our votes so he will feed us what we want to hear, meanwhile every one of his comments gets him free airtime and face value in the news, he says boo and the news agencies eat it up.
So you actually like that he's just saying absolutely anything that will get him elected and doesn't actually have anything he stands for?
compared to what I know Hillary will do? yes.
Hey... at least Drumpf trained as a samuria masta:
Seriously... what the feth is he doing with a sword on a golf course? Gators getting too big?
You got that right! Sadly, it's the same phenomenon that made Brexit a reality, that made Trump the GOP POTUS candidate.
Sort of, not really....
One article I read stated that the majority of people who voted for leaving, were older Brits... likely those who were retired, or about to. The majority who voted for staying were younger, in the early/middle stages of a career.
A friend of mine from my rugby club posted an article stating that the divide between educated and uneducated was similar... those without 4+ year college degrees voted to leave, while those with degrees voted predominately to stay.
You don't really see the same kind of age divide in the US, while you do see it in the education levels.
Depending on how this pays off for the English in the next few months and how hard the various POTUS wannabes play the market on it, I think this could work in Turnip's flavor. We shall see, for a majority of voting Americans the events of yesterday and today will likely be forgotten Monday.
Read an article earlier today that the process for the UK really hasn't even begun. Apparently, the UK government has to formally do some stuff with the EU declaring their intentions to leave (the referendum wasn't that)... That could happen tomorrow, a year from now, or when whatever-Prince-Harry-or-William's-youngest-child's-name-is ascends to the throne. Once that declaration is made, the EU and UK governments have 2 years to renegotiate their standings, trade, etc. in an attempt to keep them in the Union. If that fails, then UK leaves, and they begin negotiations all over again.
You got that right! Sadly, it's the same phenomenon that made Brexit a reality, that made Trump the GOP POTUS candidate.
Sort of, not really....
One article I read stated that the majority of people who voted for leaving, were older Brits... likely those who were retired, or about to. The majority who voted for staying were younger, in the early/middle stages of a career.
A friend of mine from my rugby club posted an article stating that the divide between educated and uneducated was similar... those without 4+ year college degrees voted to leave, while those with degrees voted predominately to stay.
You don't really see the same kind of age divide in the US, while you do see it in the education levels.
Actually, I think it's the fact that the older voters *remembers* what UK was like pre-EU.
Whereas the younger generation has no frame of reference and thus don't want to rock the status quo.
Asterios wrote: compared to what I know Hillary will do? yes.
And what exactly is that? What is so terrifying in Hillary's agenda that you'd rather have an incompetent racist whose entire strategy is screaming really loudly about how everyone but rich white men is ruining America in a desperate hope to draw attention away from things like his business fraud and accusations of raping a 13 year old girl?
Asterios wrote: compared to what I know Hillary will do? yes.
And what exactly is that? What is so terrifying in Hillary's agenda that you'd rather have an incompetent racist whose entire strategy is screaming really loudly about how everyone but rich white men is ruining America in a desperate hope to draw attention away from things like his business fraud and accusations of raping a 13 year old girl?
and where is Trump Racist?
and are you referring to this Civil case which was dismissed in California, and is now currently in New York and happened over 20 years ago? you do realize anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason.
you have done nothing but to prove to myself why I should vote for Trump since those for Hillary and/or Sander's got nothing better to do then to make claims of racism and lies, have fun when Trump is elected later this year.
And I notice that you ignored the question of what terrifying things you think Hillary is going to do that justify voting for someone so obviously horrible and incompetent as Trump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: and are you referring to this Civil case which was dismissed in California, and is now currently in New York and happened over 20 years ago? you do realize anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason.
Yes, that's why I said accused, not convicted. You know, kind of like Hillary has been accused of breaking the law with the email "scandal" but has not been convicted of anything.
And I notice that you ignored the question of what terrifying things you think Hillary is going to do that justify voting for someone so obviously horrible and incompetent as Trump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: and are you referring to this Civil case which was dismissed in California, and is now currently in New York and happened over 20 years ago? you do realize anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason.
Yes, that's why I said accused, not convicted. You know, kind of like Hillary has been accused of breaking the law with the email "scandal" but has not been convicted of anything.
Hillary has the FBI investigating her, no law enforcement is investigating Trump for Rape, big difference, you reek of desperation. as to trump being Racist, fine Hillary is racist:
and those are her words praising a card carrying leader of the KKK as her mentor and such. and what makes it worse she praised him, unlike trump who just didn't knock them down, and you know what he has my praise for that since its not his job to judge people and their beliefs nor is it the Governments. now if he praised them thats another story but he did not.
as to Trump being racist I'll listen to Ben Stein over the much Hillary sucking up of the Huffington Post
You can never use facts against anyone who doesn't think Trump is racist, it's a lost cause at that point. The less people argue with these kind of folks, the less they will reply, and then I have to read fewer of their posts which means we all win at the end.
Asterios wrote: Hillary has the FBI investigating her, no law enforcement is investigating Trump for Rape, big difference, you reek of desperation.
Hillary is also being investigated for a rather boring "crime" that only conservatives care about (and only as an opportunity to attack the democrats), while Trump is accused of something much more horrifying, big difference. And yes, there is no police investigation because it is a civil suit where the statute of limitations on criminal charges has expired. The lack of an FBI investigation says nothing about the credibility of the accusation.
And I notice that you again ignore the question of what you think that Hillary intends to do that is scary enough to justify voting for Trump. Even if you ignore the rape accusation and pretend that he isn't a racist he's still incompetent. His only claimed qualification for the job is his business experience, and when his businesses aren't outright frauds they're making a mediocre return on his investment at best. So what about Hillary makes this level of incompetence look appealing?
As for racism, I'm going to have to concede the point to d-usa. If you can't see how the guy who is campaigning on "build a wall to keep the Mexicans from stealing our jobs" could possibly be accused of being racist then I don't know what else to say.
Asterios wrote: Hillary has the FBI investigating her, no law enforcement is investigating Trump for Rape, big difference, you reek of desperation.
Hillary is also being investigated for a rather boring "crime" that only conservatives care about (and only as an opportunity to attack the democrats), while Trump is accused of something much more horrifying, big difference. And yes, there is no police investigation because it is a civil suit where the statute of limitations on criminal charges has expired. The lack of an FBI investigation says nothing about the credibility of the accusation.
And I notice that you again ignore the question of what you think that Hillary intends to do that is scary enough to justify voting for Trump. Even if you ignore the rape accusation and pretend that he isn't a racist he's still incompetent. His only claimed qualification for the job is his business experience, and when his businesses aren't outright frauds they're making a mediocre return on his investment at best. So what about Hillary makes this level of incompetence look appealing?
As for racism, I'm going to have to concede the point to d-usa. If you can't see how the guy who is campaigning on "build a wall to keep the Mexicans from stealing our jobs" could possibly be accused of being racist then I don't know what else to say.
problem is I see Hillary more as a racist then Trump, but then again what do you expect when she praises her good friend and mentor a card carrying KKK leader?
as to minor, so you think letting State secrets out is minor? typical liberal thinking there, as to Hillary, where do I start? well her stance to let more illegals into the country and make them citizens, as far as i'm concerned don't care what race, religion, sex or whatever, you come into this country illegally you are breaking the law and should be kicked out with expedience.
Then there is her anti-gun rhetoric, which I will not stand behind, and her standing by the ACA which is still a disaster.plus her plans to tax everyone (other then the poor) to pay for her pie in the sky dreams of free 4 year college. then there was her foreign policy disasters and Benghazi, and then there is that whole letting state secrets out on an unsecured service which really sticks in my craw.
You got that right! Sadly, it's the same phenomenon that made Brexit a reality, that made Trump the GOP POTUS candidate.
Sort of, not really....
One article I read stated that the majority of people who voted for leaving, were older Brits... likely those who were retired, or about to. The majority who voted for staying were younger, in the early/middle stages of a career.
A friend of mine from my rugby club posted an article stating that the divide between educated and uneducated was similar... those without 4+ year college degrees voted to leave, while those with degrees voted predominately to stay.
You don't really see the same kind of age divide in the US, while you do see it in the education levels.
Actually, I think it's the fact that the older voters *remembers* what UK was like pre-EU.
Whereas the younger generation has no frame of reference and thus don't want to rock the status quo.
Much like how the older Republicans yearn for the so-called glory days of Reagan and the Democrats yearn for the so-called glory days of (Bill) Clinton, when everything was sunshine and rainbows and unicorn farts?
Asterios wrote: Hillary has the FBI investigating her, no law enforcement is investigating Trump for Rape, big difference, you reek of desperation.
Hillary is also being investigated for a rather boring "crime" that only conservatives care about (and only as an opportunity to attack the democrats), while Trump is accused of something much more horrifying, big difference. And yes, there is no police investigation because it is a civil suit where the statute of limitations on criminal charges has expired. The lack of an FBI investigation says nothing about the credibility of the accusation.
And I notice that you again ignore the question of what you think that Hillary intends to do that is scary enough to justify voting for Trump. Even if you ignore the rape accusation and pretend that he isn't a racist he's still incompetent. His only claimed qualification for the job is his business experience, and when his businesses aren't outright frauds they're making a mediocre return on his investment at best. So what about Hillary makes this level of incompetence look appealing?
As for racism, I'm going to have to concede the point to d-usa. If you can't see how the guy who is campaigning on "build a wall to keep the Mexicans from stealing our jobs" could possibly be accused of being racist then I don't know what else to say.
problem is I see Hillary more as a racist then Trump, but then again what do you expect when she praises her good friend and mentor a card carrying KKK leader?
.
He was a member of the KKK. Then he quit, apologized numerous times for his involvement with them, then promoted the Civil Rights Act and many other acts for equality. Buuuuut, just keep repeating the same thing over and over again. It really works.
Asterios wrote: problem is I see Hillary more as a racist then Trump, but then again what do you expect when she praises her good friend and mentor a card carrying KKK leader?
You mean the guy who was in the KKK in his "young and stupid" days, admitted that he was completely wrong back then, and fought against racism later in his life? Do you really see that as comparable to "our top priority should be building a wall to keep all the icky brown people out"?
as to minor, so you think letting State secrets out is minor?
Yes, given that Hillary didn't let state secrets out (she arguably put them in a vulnerable location but that's not the same thing as leaking/publishing them) and she had, as part of her job, the ability to remove the "secret" status from the information. This is not a case of selling our important secrets to China.
well her stance to let more illegals into the country and make them citizens
Do you not see a contradiction between "illegals" and "citizens"? If immigrants are allowed into the country and allowed to become citizens then they are no longer illegal immigrants.
as far as i'm concerned don't care what race, religion, sex or whatever, you come into this country illegally you are breaking the law and should be kicked out with expedience.
That's a nice theory, but in practice it will never happen. Too many businesses (many of them owned by conservatives) depend on illegal immigrants as a source of cheap labor, and both parties know that the economic disruption would not be worth any supposed benefits from removing them (if you could even do it without spending obscene amounts of money). And, more importantly, it's the kind of theory that has no practical effect on your life. Hillary is not going to destroy the country by continuing business as usual as it has existed under presidents from both parties.
Then there is her anti-gun rhetoric
Rhetoric which has little to do with actual laws. Democrats will often talk about gun control, but make no meaningful attempt to get any laws passed. The only people who are going to be hurt by Hillary becoming president are people who want to buy new AR-15s but can't because all of the panic buys stripped the inventory from every gun store in the country. You know, just like what happened when Obama was about to be elected and people were talking about his anti-gun rhetoric.
and her standing by the ACA which is still a disaster
I'll grant you this. If you oppose the ACA you want Trump instead of Hillary. But I am extremely skeptical of any claim that the ACA continuing to exist has more of a negative impact on you than things like the potential for Trump's incompetence damaging the economy.
plus her plans to tax everyone (other then the poor) to pay for her pie in the sky dreams of free 4 year college.
What is so scary about increased funding for education? Is it really so much worse than the prospect of increasing taxes to pay for a border wall?
then there was her foreign policy disasters and Benghazi
You mean the "scandal" where investigation after investigation found nothing to blame her for, and the whole thing continued way longer than it had any sane reason to do because the republican party wanted to use it for partisan politics?
Asterios wrote: Hillary has the FBI investigating her, no law enforcement is investigating Trump for Rape, big difference, you reek of desperation.
Hillary is also being investigated for a rather boring "crime" that only conservatives care about (and only as an opportunity to attack the democrats), while Trump is accused of something much more horrifying, big difference. And yes, there is no police investigation because it is a civil suit where the statute of limitations on criminal charges has expired. The lack of an FBI investigation says nothing about the credibility of the accusation.
And I notice that you again ignore the question of what you think that Hillary intends to do that is scary enough to justify voting for Trump. Even if you ignore the rape accusation and pretend that he isn't a racist he's still incompetent. His only claimed qualification for the job is his business experience, and when his businesses aren't outright frauds they're making a mediocre return on his investment at best. So what about Hillary makes this level of incompetence look appealing?
As for racism, I'm going to have to concede the point to d-usa. If you can't see how the guy who is campaigning on "build a wall to keep the Mexicans from stealing our jobs" could possibly be accused of being racist then I don't know what else to say.
problem is I see Hillary more as a racist then Trump, but then again what do you expect when she praises her good friend and mentor a card carrying KKK leader?
.
He was a member of the KKK. Then he quit, apologized numerous times for his involvement with them, then promoted the Civil Rights Act and many other acts for equality. Buuuuut, just keep repeating the same thing over and over again. It really works.
He said he doesn't care about old stuff like the accusations against Trump from such a long time ago, he only brings up recent stuff like KKK memberships.
Edit: wasn't Trump born after the KKK membership was dropped?
Asterios wrote: Hillary has the FBI investigating her, no law enforcement is investigating Trump for Rape, big difference, you reek of desperation.
Hillary is also being investigated for a rather boring "crime" that only conservatives care about (and only as an opportunity to attack the democrats), while Trump is accused of something much more horrifying, big difference. And yes, there is no police investigation because it is a civil suit where the statute of limitations on criminal charges has expired. The lack of an FBI investigation says nothing about the credibility of the accusation.
And I notice that you again ignore the question of what you think that Hillary intends to do that is scary enough to justify voting for Trump. Even if you ignore the rape accusation and pretend that he isn't a racist he's still incompetent. His only claimed qualification for the job is his business experience, and when his businesses aren't outright frauds they're making a mediocre return on his investment at best. So what about Hillary makes this level of incompetence look appealing?
As for racism, I'm going to have to concede the point to d-usa. If you can't see how the guy who is campaigning on "build a wall to keep the Mexicans from stealing our jobs" could possibly be accused of being racist then I don't know what else to say.
problem is I see Hillary more as a racist then Trump, but then again what do you expect when she praises her good friend and mentor a card carrying KKK leader?
.
He was a member of the KKK. Then he quit, apologized numerous times for his involvement with them, then promoted the Civil Rights Act and many other acts for equality. Buuuuut, just keep repeating the same thing over and over again. It really works.
you mean like this?
Byrd was a member of the wing of the Democratic Party that opposed desegregation and civil rights imposed by the federal government. However, despite his early career in the KKK, Byrd was linked to such senators as John C. Stennis, J. William Fulbright and George Smathers, who based their segregationist positions on their view of states' rights in contrast to senators like James Eastland, who held a reputation as a committed racist. Byrd joined with Democratic senators to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Byrd also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
also he was a recruiter, for the KKK and even a leader of his local chapter, but because he said hes sorry we should forgive him? so if a killer says hes sorry we should forgive him? if a racist says hes sorry we should forgive him ? and the list goes on and on.
so what your saying anything in your candidates past does not exist or matter, but anything in Trumps past should be used against him?
Asterios wrote: problem is I see Hillary more as a racist then Trump, but then again what do you expect when she praises her good friend and mentor a card carrying KKK leader?
You mean the guy who was in the KKK in his "young and stupid" days, admitted that he was completely wrong back then, and fought against racism later in his life? Do you really see that as comparable to "our top priority should be building a wall to keep all the icky brown people out"?
so he wants to protect our borders on the biggest entry point for illegals, don't think any color was mentioned or as you said "icky Brown People"
as to minor, so you think letting State secrets out is minor?
Yes, given that Hillary didn't let state secrets out (she arguably put them in a vulnerable location but that's not the same thing as leaking/publishing them) and she had, as part of her job, the ability to remove the "secret" status from the information. This is not a case of selling our important secrets to China.
you do realize Wikileaks has her e-mails and such, and thats tantamount to them getting out.
well her stance to let more illegals into the country and make them citizens
Do you not see a contradiction between "illegals" and "citizens"? If immigrants are allowed into the country and allowed to become citizens then they are no longer illegal immigrants.
and yet that is not what i want, if they want to come to this country do it legally, not by breaking the law and and person who enters this country illegally should be kicked out., but then there you go avoiding the breaking the law part.
as far as i'm concerned don't care what race, religion, sex or whatever, you come into this country illegally you are breaking the law and should be kicked out with expedience.
That's a nice theory, but in practice it will never happen. Too many businesses (many of them owned by conservatives) depend on illegal immigrants as a source of cheap labor, and both parties know that the economic disruption would not be worth any supposed benefits from removing them (if you could even do it without spending obscene amounts of money). And, more importantly, it's the kind of theory that has no practical effect on your life. Hillary is not going to destroy the country by continuing business as usual as it has existed under presidents from both parties.
might not be able to remove all of them but removing as many of them as possible is a step in the right direction, not making them legal.
Rhetoric which has little to do with actual laws. Democrats will often talk about gun control, but make no meaningful attempt to get any laws passed. The only people who are going to be hurt by Hillary becoming president are people who want to buy new AR-15s but can't because all of the panic buys stripped the inventory from every gun store in the country. You know, just like what happened when Obama was about to be elected and people were talking about his anti-gun rhetoric.
you mean like Trumps plans to build a wall, so far everything you have said is reason for you to vote for Trump.
and her standing by the ACA which is still a disaster
I'll grant you this. If you oppose the ACA you want Trump instead of Hillary. But I am extremely skeptical of any claim that the ACA continuing to exist has more of a negative impact on you than things like the potential for Trump's incompetence damaging the economy.
and after her Pan-Pacific pact set to go into effect soon you think she has any qualifications?
then there was her foreign policy disasters and Benghazi
You mean the "scandal" where investigation after investigation found nothing to blame her for, and the whole thing continued way longer than it had any sane reason to do because the republican party wanted to use it for partisan politics?
she may have not been found to be blamed, but she was still incompetent as far as i'm concerned.
Didn't we already talk about this? Something about how he felt about the fact that he had black accountants...I think the relevant quote was 'the only guys I want counting my money are short guys who wear yarmulkes all day.'
d-usa wrote: You can never use facts against anyone who doesn't think Drumpf is racist, it's a lost cause at that point. The less people argue with these kind of folks, the less they will reply, and then I have to read fewer of their posts which means we all win at the end.
And I thought I wasn't going to win my game of logical fallacies bingo sheet.
Now all I have to do is wait for tu quorque, slippery slope, black and white, and the burden of proof fallacies. Oh boy can't wait.
North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un has hailed the test flight of a new ballistic missile as a “great event”, and evidence of the country’s “sure capability” of hitting US targets in the Pacific.
Mr Kim’s boast followed an apparently successful test of the Musudan medium-range missile, after five previous tests in recent months failed.
The first of two missiles fired on Wednesday also failed, but the second flew around 400km (250 miles), reached an altitude of 1,000km (620 miles) and came down in the Sea of Japan.
The test launches have triggered serious concerns in the US, Japan and South Korea, as the missile’s potential range of 3,500km (2,180 miles), puts significant areas of Asia and the Pacific, including US military bases in Guam, within firing range.
“We have the sure capability to attack in an overall and practical way the Americans in the Pacific operation theatre,” North Korea’s official news agency KCNA quoted Mr Kim as saying.
The United Nations Security Council has condemned the tests after an emergency meeting was held to discuss its response.
UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon, said the missile launch was a “brazen and irresponsible act”.
Mr Ban’s spokesman, Faran Haq, described the tests as a “deliberate and very grave violation” of security council resolutions banning the country from using ballistic missiles.
North Korea’s continuing pursuit of these weapons and nuclear weapons “will only undermine its security and fail to improve the lives of its citizens”, he added.
Tokyo has expressed its concern about the “certain level of capability” North Korea now poses with working ballistic missiles. “The threat to Japan is intensifying,” said defence minister Gen Nakatani.
“We have to see it as a success,” Lee Choon Geun, an analyst at South Korea's state-funded Science and Technology Policy Institute, told Associated Press. “No other (previous) missiles fired by North Korea have ever flown that high.”
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said: “The impact of these provocations will be to only strengthen the resolve of the international community that has such serious concerns with North Korea’s behaviour.
“The United States will do what we have done in the past, which is work with the international community, particularly our allies in South Korea and Japan.”
The successful launch of the Musudan ballistic missile is one of a series of breakthroughs North Korea has claimed in its continuing efforts to create a long-range nuclear weapons arsenal capable of attacking the US mainland.
From United States Strategic Command Facebook Page in reaction:
United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) systems detected and tracked what we assess were two North Korean missile launches at 10:56 a.m. Hawaii time and 1:03 p.m. Hawaii time, June 21, 2016. The launch of two presumed Musudan intermediate range ballistic missiles occurred at Wonsan.
The missiles were tracked over the Sea of Japan, where initial indications are that they fell.
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) determined the missile launches from North Korea did not pose a threat to North America.
We strongly condemn this and other North Korean missile tests in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions, which explicitly prohibit North Korea's use of ballistic missile technology.
We are closely monitoring the situation on the Korean Peninsula in coordination with our regional allies.
We urge North Korea to refrain from provocative actions that aggravate tensions and instead focus on fulfilling its international obligations and commitments.
Pretty interesting what this will have in the next 5 years.
Didn't we already talk about this? Something about how he felt about the fact that he had black accountants...I think the relevant quote was 'the only guys I want counting my money are short guys who wear yarmulkes all day.'
In each instance, Drumpf sought to project both strength and a lack of concern for the reaction to his provocative rhetoric, calculating that both would help him rise in the polls during the Republican primary. Indeed, a majority of Republican voters agreed with Drumpf's call to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.
Can also watch the video about him saying that too. He is equally racist to Mexicans, Muslims, and basically anyone that isn't white and male.
The guy is well known to be racist and sexist. Can't really defend the guy at all.
d-usa wrote: You can never use facts against anyone who doesn't think Trump is racist, it's a lost cause at that point. The less people argue with these kind of folks, the less they will reply, and then I have to read fewer of their posts which means we all win at the end.
Has engaging really worked, though? All that has done is allow him to suck all the air out of every thread he's in with the usual barrage of nonsense, goalpost-moving, and flat out lies. How many threads needs to get locked due to that behavior?
Asterios wrote: also he was a recruiter, for the KKK and even a leader of his local chapter, but because he said hes sorry we should forgive him? so if a killer says hes sorry we should forgive him? if a racist says hes sorry we should forgive him ?
You do realize those are entirely different things, correct?
Wait wait, better question, if you are a racist and say/do racist things at some point in your life, you should be condemned for the rest of your life?
Didn't we already talk about this? Something about how he felt about the fact that he had black accountants...I think the relevant quote was 'the only guys I want counting my money are short guys who wear yarmulkes all day.'
[MOD EDIT - Removed as it was deemed Inappropriate -. Alpharius]
Asterios wrote: also he was a recruiter, for the KKK and even a leader of his local chapter, but because he said hes sorry we should forgive him? so if a killer says hes sorry we should forgive him? if a racist says hes sorry we should forgive him ?
You do realize those are entirely different things, correct?
Wait wait, better question, if you are a racist and say/do racist things at some point in your life, you should be condemned for the rest of your life?
Matters on the occasion. IF you are catholic before the reformation and you paid the church enough... Then no! You are absolved!
Asterios wrote: also he was a recruiter, for the KKK and even a leader of his local chapter, but because he said hes sorry we should forgive him? so if a killer says hes sorry we should forgive him? if a racist says hes sorry we should forgive him ?
You do realize those are entirely different things, correct?
Wait wait, better question, if you are a racist and say/do racist things at some point in your life, you should be condemned for the rest of your life?
No, no, if you say them to work racist people into a lather so they vote for you, but don't really mean them, it's totally cool.
Didn't we already talk about this? Something about how he felt about the fact that he had black accountants...I think the relevant quote was 'the only guys I want counting my money are short guys who wear yarmulkes all day.'
[MOD EDIT - Removed as it was deemed Inappropriate -. Alpharius].
Can also watch the video about him saying that too. He is equally racist to Mexicans, Muslims, and basically anyone that isn't white and male.
The guy is well known to be racist and sexist. Can't really defend the guy at all.
didn't know Muslim was a race? or Mexican? and yet the Muslim Religion has people of all races in it, even white, and the Mexican culture, also has many people of other races including blond haired blue eyed white skinned Mexicans, so sounds like you are the racist here.
in other words learn what racism is. not what you think it is.
Says the guy that just said "Jews are known for being good with money." Where did you learn that, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
in other words learn what racism is. not what you think it is.
Is this like that time a couple pages ago where you were wrong and when corrected you told that person "to go back to school" by trying to prove you were right even though you were still wrong?
The 'some people' in 'some people say' might be a teeeeeeeeny bit racist. A tip - if you find yourself espousing the same viewpoint as Eric Cartman, you're almost certainly in the wrong.
Family Guy, on the other hand, is well-known for being a bastion of sensitivity and good taste, and I'm glad we get our knowledge about what is and isn't racist from it.
All I know is when Trump wins in November I will be saying told you so, do i think he will be a good president? no, but he will be better then Hillary and my family votes Democrat so what does that tell you.
Asterios wrote: All I know is when Trump wins in November I will be saying told you so, do i think he will be a good president? no, but he will be better then Hillary and my family votes Democrat so what does that tell you.
That your Thanksgiving is going to be a lot of fun?
Asterios wrote: if you are going to quote me then quote the whole thing I said
What I put in quotes is arguably better than what you wrote.
its not what I say, its what some say, even family Guy has done a stint on this whole thing too.
Holy gak... "It's not what I say, it's what some people say... even though I just said it."
can't win so you insult, congrats whatever you want to believe, you believe it, what I want to believe I will believe and neither the twain shall meet.
Asterios wrote: All I know is when Trump wins in November I will be saying told you so, do i think he will be a good president? no, but he will be better then Hillary and my family votes Democrat so what does that tell you.
That your Thanksgiving is going to be a lot of fun?
most of my family went with Sanders and are strongly in the anyone but Hillary camp. so they might go Jill stein or such. me i'm gonna put my vote where it will do the most good of her not winning.
Asterios wrote: All I know is when Trump wins in November I will be saying told you so, do i think he will be a good president? no, but he will be better then Hillary and my family votes Democrat so what does that tell you.
No one cares.
Do us all a favor and please stop dragging this thread down the gakker.
But with the smart alec response aside, and noting that I have no idea about the legal or constitutional basis of any of this, it just seems obvious and natural to me that while a government should be able to restrict travel to certain people on grounds of safety and law enforcement*, there needs to be a clear and proper process so that it is clear what kinds of actions will get you placed on it, and those improperly on it can be removed with minimal fuss. Instead the list is kept secret, the reasons why people are placed on it are kept secret, and there are massive hoops placed in front of anyone who attempts to be removed, and people are probably never completely removed.
