Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I don't think he'll actuall accomplish anything more than having a heart attack in office.

Whereas that is the best case scenario for a Drumpf presidency.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I don't think he'll actuall accomplish anything more than having a heart attack in office.

I dunno man... have you seen the youtube videos of him running around?? There's one of him literally running through an airport to catch his bus

Whereas I'm sure Drumpf's diet consists largely of alternating NY style pizza and Chicago style pizza, extra grease. Maybe some cheese steaks when he's around Philly or somethin.

I think Trump would like be a fairly poor president, but not the usher in the apocalypse, hitler clone he's been made out to be. He just doesn't seem to understand how government actually works, which is why I think he'd be more ineffective than anything else - Congress isn't a group of recalcitrant employees you can fire.

I don't think the Hitler comparison has to do with his ability to use government so much as a comparison of his use of anger and fear, but it is still a bad comparison to make as he is an idiot without being compared to Hitler. That and the comparison is pretty old hat with all sides making the leap. People have done the same with Hillary Clinton as well.

But yes, he won't destroy the country as his ability to affect change will be limited by the power of the Presidency within the governmental framework as well as what appears to be a deficiency in how things work. It would still make the USA look like a bunch of idiots both home and abroad though and most likely be a low point.

 Ahtman wrote:

But yes, he won't destroy the country as his ability to affect change will be limited by the power of the Presidency within the governmental framework as well as what appears to be a deficiency in how things work. It would still make the USA look like a bunch of idiots both home and abroad though and most likely be a low point.

While true, some of the areas that he could affect change could have long-term affects on us. Particularly in the SCOTUS nominations that would undoubtedly come up during that 4 years. (or 3 years, if we want to use GOP logic)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

But yes, he won't destroy the country as his ability to affect change will be limited by the power of the Presidency within the governmental framework as well as what appears to be a deficiency in how things work. It would still make the USA look like a bunch of idiots both home and abroad though and most likely be a low point.

While true, some of the areas that he could affect change could have long-term affects on us. Particularly in the SCOTUS nominations that would undoubtedly come up during that 4 years. (or 3 years, if we want to use GOP logic)

Indeed, this is one of the more coherent excuses I've heard to support Trump. Some people are really afraid that HRC will appoint only gun-hating judges.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

But yes, he won't destroy the country as his ability to affect change will be limited by the power of the Presidency within the governmental framework as well as what appears to be a deficiency in how things work. It would still make the USA look like a bunch of idiots both home and abroad though and most likely be a low point.

While true, some of the areas that he could affect change could have long-term affects on us. Particularly in the SCOTUS nominations that would undoubtedly come up during that 4 years. (or 3 years, if we want to use GOP logic)

And yet that still doesn't make the Hitler comparison a good idea. Reading what was written it doesn't seem that I said he will have no impact whatsoever just that it won't be radical as some have presented.

 feeder wrote:


Indeed, this is one of the more coherent excuses I've heard to support Trump. Some people are really afraid that HRC will appoint only gun-hating judges.

Because Obama Hillary will take away our guns, don't'chaknow!

 feeder wrote:
Some people are really afraid that HRC will appoint only gun-hating judges.

Aren't they generally the same people that thought, every election, that President Obama would take away all the firearms as well?

I dunno, I would not be surprised if the CIA or FBI was having secret operational planning taking place of some deep covert internal ops if Trump were to win. Wait, lemme adjust my hat a bit, it's disrupting my pacemaker. But seriously, I bet someone has a file somewhere. Hell, we had a file on John Lennon and he just wanted to "Give Peace a Chance"

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

But yes, he won't destroy the country as his ability to affect change will be limited by the power of the Presidency within the governmental framework as well as what appears to be a deficiency in how things work. It would still make the USA look like a bunch of idiots both home and abroad though and most likely be a low point.

While true, some of the areas that he could affect change could have long-term affects on us. Particularly in the SCOTUS nominations that would undoubtedly come up during that 4 years. (or 3 years, if we want to use GOP logic)

And yet that still doesn't make the Hitler comparison a good idea.

There are valid Hitler comparisons that can be made, but the problem is that as soon as you compare someone to Hitler people think that you are arguing that the person is going to start WW3 and go on a genocidal rampage to wipe out an entire race.

Trumps comparison to Hitler would be appropriate when you compare their campaign, their arguments, their speeches, the themes they speak about, the fears and anger they draw from, the marginalizing of people groups, the role of foreigners and religions.

You can argue that both Hitler and Trump are drawing from that same primal feelings in the population and have similar electoral tactics without arguing that Trump would be the same kind of leader that Hitler was or that the US would turn into the same kind of country that Germany turned into. But as soon as you say "like Hitler" people complete "...Trump will kill all the Muslims/start wars/commit genocide/build concentration camps/whatever" in their heads, regardless of what the actual comparison is.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

But yes, he won't destroy the country as his ability to affect change will be limited by the power of the Presidency within the governmental framework as well as what appears to be a deficiency in how things work. It would still make the USA look like a bunch of idiots both home and abroad though and most likely be a low point.

While true, some of the areas that he could affect change could have long-term affects on us. Particularly in the SCOTUS nominations that would undoubtedly come up during that 4 years. (or 3 years, if we want to use GOP logic)

And yet that still doesn't make the Hitler comparison a good idea.

There are valid Hitler comparisons that can be made, but the problem is that as soon as you compare someone to Hitler people think that you are arguing that the person is going to start WW3 and go on a genocidal rampage to wipe out an entire race.

Trumps comparison to Hitler would be appropriate when you compare their campaign, their arguments, their speeches, the themes they speak about, the fears and anger they draw from, the marginalizing of people groups, the role of foreigners and religions.

You can argue that both Hitler and Trump are drawing from that same primal feelings in the population and have similar electoral tactics without arguing that Trump would be the same kind of leader that Hitler was or that the US would turn into the same kind of country that Germany turned into. But as soon as you say "like Hitler" people complete "...Trump will kill all the Muslims/start wars/commit genocide/build concentration camps/whatever" in their heads, regardless of what the actual comparison is.

Have an exalt for that, d-usa! Those are precisely the kinds of comparisons that can, and should, be made.

 d-usa wrote:
There are valid Hitler comparisons that can be made, but the problem is that as soon as you compare someone to Hitler people think that you are arguing that the person is going to start WW3 and go on a genocidal rampage to wipe out an entire race.

Trumps comparison to Hitler would be appropriate when you compare their campaign, their arguments, their speeches, the themes they speak about, the fears and anger they draw from, the marginalizing of people groups, the role of foreigners and religions.

I don't disagree in general but at the same time using a Hitler comparison doesn't really help. Just say he's a demagogue that preys on peoples fear, the worst elements on nationalism, ect ect. When someone brings up Hitler they get the people who already agree to agree but those who don't will just stop listening. Come to think of it the latter probably wouldn't listen anyway and the former may be starving for it.

 Ahtman wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Some people are really afraid that HRC will appoint only gun-hating judges.

Aren't they generally the same people that thought, every election, that President Obama would take away all the firearms as well?

The SCotUS conceivably has that power, though, right? Judgeship is for life AFAIK, too. Could be part of a long con to steal all the guns. Can't take any chances.

 feeder wrote:


The SCotUS conceivably has that power, though, right? Judgeship is for life AFAIK, too. Could be part of a long con to steal all the guns. Can't take any chances.

Not arbitrarily though... AFAIK, they'd have to have a case brought before them to alter the interpretation of law.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 feeder wrote:


The SCotUS conceivably has that power, though, right? Judgeship is for life AFAIK, too. Could be part of a long con to steal all the guns. Can't take any chances.

Not arbitrarily though... AFAIK, they'd have to have a case brought before them to alter the interpretation of law.

And most of these instances where people whine about SCOTUS legislating from the bench, have only their elected representatives to blame. If Congress did their jobs right, half of the cases that go to the SC wouldn't happen to begin with.

 whembly wrote:

America is so boned...

Nah, Presidents are a lot less important than they're made out to be, as many have reminded us with their strident defenses of Congress regarding the Supreme Court.

 feeder wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Some people are really afraid that HRC will appoint only gun-hating judges.

Aren't they generally the same people that thought, every election, that President Obama would take away all the firearms as well?

The SCotUS conceivably has that power, though, right? Judgeship is for life AFAIK, too. Could be part of a long con to steal all the guns. Can't take any chances.

Not really, they would have to overrule a previous SCOTUS ruling. I believe it would be more realistic for Congress to amend the constitution and the 2nd amendment.

Theoretically SCOTUS could do it if something made it to them, but I find that to be highly unlikely. Not all liberal judges think the same way, nor are they all out to take away the second amendment. Being liberal does not make you a part of a hive mind. *gasp* I know I just blew some peoples minds with that comment!

I'm not even really sure how a case like that could come about. What would someone claim, the law is infringing upon my constitutional right to attempt to pass a law limiting guns? Wouldn't a law limiting guns have to be passed in congress first and then be struck down or upheld by the SC?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm not even really sure how a case like that could come about. What would someone claim, the law is infringing upon my constitutional right to attempt to pass a law limiting guns? Wouldn't a law limiting guns have to be passed in congress first and then be struck down or upheld by the SC?

Perhaps a challenge to one of my state's recent gun laws could bring *A* case up to the SCOTUS... though I doubt it would necessarily bring about a significant change to how things are already.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm not even really sure how a case like that could come about. What would someone claim, the law is infringing upon my constitutional right to attempt to pass a law limiting guns? Wouldn't a law limiting guns have to be passed in congress first and then be struck down or upheld by the SC?

the problem is the second amendment was created so that the government was being created if it ever got too powerful it could be toppled by the people, during the time private citizens if they could afford it could stock any military item available to the military, it sounds good on paper, but did not take into account mans propensity to create even more stronger and more dangerous weapons, now a days we have nukes, missiles with long range and destructive power and so forth, these things were never taken into account when the second amendment was created, but laws have already removed these from the playing field already, what it comes down to is automatic weapons and pistols and such, most laws on these things are only recent (very recent) and I myself believe they do not adhere to what the second amendment meant, don't get me wrong I don't think your average Joe really needs a fully auto rifle and such, but they should be able to get them if they so choose, now california has passed some new laws that make me say WTF ? like you have to jump thru hoops to even get ammunition now (background checks, seriously?), and they claim on a that these laws are to protect citizens and keep weapons out of the hands of Criminals, problem is it is doing the exact opposite, all his is doing is removing weapons from law abiding citizens, this is two fold, the government wants control and by removing weapons from those who would protest government control it allows the government more power.


this brings why I will vote for Trump, his presidency will be a lame duck presidency with the government actually doing nothing and not taking away more of our rights as they stand on a whole, now states screwing over the people is another matter.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm not even really sure how a case like that could come about. What would someone claim, the law is infringing upon my constitutional right to attempt to pass a law limiting guns? Wouldn't a law limiting guns have to be passed in congress first and then be struck down or upheld by the SC?

+

There has been an enormous swing in just the last few years in terms of expanding the legal right to own firearms. For 200 odd years, it was sort of a grey area as to whether or not the right to own a firearm was linked to membership in a militia, or whether it was an intrinsic right to self defense. I personally fall into the militia camp - I do think people have a right to self defense, and I have no beef with owning firearms. I own 3 pistols, 2 rifles, and a shotgun, and have a concealed carry permit. However, I don't think there is a constitutional right to self defense the way the SCOTUS ruled in Heller v DC and then expanded upon with McDonald v Chicago- one which would then trump local restrictions on firearms. The amendment was written in a time in which we didn't have a permanent standing army - the founders hated the idea - and that citizens would own firearms in case the government needed to raise a militia. My interpretation, but anyway - the point is, the SCOTUS essentially overturned many, many years of precedent and invented a right out of thin air, much in the way conservatives bitterly complain they did in Roe v Wade.

I'm not trying to rehash any gun arguments - we've done that a bajillion times and it's off topic and stupid. The reason I bring it up, circling back to the topic, is that it's not at all impossible for a President to appoint two, or possible three, SCOTUS justices who might revisit Heller and decided to overturn it, thus again allowing localities to greatly restrict private gun ownership. I'm not saying it's likely, or it will happen, but what happened in the last decade was a huge, huge swing and it can totally go the other way too.

 Ouze wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm not even really sure how a case like that could come about. What would someone claim, the law is infringing upon my constitutional right to attempt to pass a law limiting guns? Wouldn't a law limiting guns have to be passed in congress first and then be struck down or upheld by the SC?

+

There has been an enormous swing in just the last few years in terms of expanding the legal right to own firearms. For 200 odd years, it was sort of a grey area as to whether or not the right to own a firearm was linked to membership in a militia, or whether it was an intrinsic right to self defense. I personally fall into the militia camp - I do think people have a right to self defense, and I have no beef with owning firearms. I own 3 pistols, 2 rifles, and a shotgun, and have a concealed carry permit. However, I don't think there is a constitutional right to self defense the way the SCOTUS ruled in Heller v DC and then expanded upon with McDonald v Chicago- one which would then trump local restrictions on firearms. The amendment was written in a time in which we didn't have a permanent standing army - the founders hated the idea - and that citizens would own firearms in case the government needed to raise a militia. My interpretation, but anyway - the point is, the SCOTUS essentially overturned many, many years of precedent and invented a right out of thin air, much in the way conservatives bitterly complain they did in Roe v Wade.

I'm not trying to rehash any gun arguments - we've done that a bajillion times and it's off topic and stupid. The reason I bring it up, circling back to the topic, is that it's not at all impossible for a President to appoint two, or possible three, SCOTUS justices who might revisit Heller and decided to overturn it, thus again allowing localities to greatly restrict private gun ownership. I'm not saying it's likely, or it will happen, but what happened in the last decade was a huge, huge swing and it can totally go the other way too.

I get that, but doesn't there have to be a legitimate case brought before the courts that would even allow the SCOTUS to revisit the law? Or can they just decide to revisit what they want without a case that challenges it? If it's the former, my question is what kind of case would that be? I guess it could come from a lower jurisdiction (city or state) and work its way through that way. Wasn't there a somewhat recent case involving Chicago? If it's the latter, I rescind the question entirely.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm not even really sure how a case like that could come about. What would someone claim, the law is infringing upon my constitutional right to attempt to pass a law limiting guns? Wouldn't a law limiting guns have to be passed in congress first and then be struck down or upheld by the SC?

+

There has been an enormous swing in just the last few years in terms of expanding the legal right to own firearms. For 200 odd years, it was sort of a grey area as to whether or not the right to own a firearm was linked to membership in a militia, or whether it was an intrinsic right to self defense. I personally fall into the militia camp - I do think people have a right to self defense, and I have no beef with owning firearms. I own 3 pistols, 2 rifles, and a shotgun, and have a concealed carry permit. However, I don't think there is a constitutional right to self defense the way the SCOTUS ruled in Heller v DC and then expanded upon with McDonald v Chicago- one which would then trump local restrictions on firearms. The amendment was written in a time in which we didn't have a permanent standing army - the founders hated the idea - and that citizens would own firearms in case the government needed to raise a militia. My interpretation, but anyway - the point is, the SCOTUS essentially overturned many, many years of precedent and invented a right out of thin air, much in the way conservatives bitterly complain they did in Roe v Wade.

I'm not trying to rehash any gun arguments - we've done that a bajillion times and it's off topic and stupid. The reason I bring it up, circling back to the topic, is that it's not at all impossible for a President to appoint two, or possible three, SCOTUS justices who might revisit Heller and decided to overturn it, thus again allowing localities to greatly restrict private gun ownership. I'm not saying it's likely, or it will happen, but what happened in the last decade was a huge, huge swing and it can totally go the other way too.

I get that, but doesn't there have to be a legitimate case brought before the courts that would even allow the SCOTUS to revisit the law? Or can they just decide to revisit what they want without a case that challenges it? If it's the former, my question is what kind of case would that be? I guess it could come from a lower jurisdiction (city or state) and work its way through that way. Wasn't there a somewhat recent case involving Chicago? If it's the latter, I rescind the question entirely.

these links might help:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/31317-the-supreme-court-s-5-4-decisions-can-be-reversed-with-even-one-new-justice

also from this site:

http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm

this part is pertinent to your question:

The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation. Its decisions set precedents that all other courts then follow, and no lower court can ever supersede a Supreme Court decision. In fact, not even Congress or the president can change, reject or ignore a Supreme Court decision.

American law operates under the doctrine of stare decisis, which means that prior decisions should be maintained -- even if the current court would otherwise rule differently -- and that lower courts must abide by the prior decisions of higher courts. The idea is based on a belief that government needs to be relatively stable and predictable.

This means that overturning a Supreme Court decision is very difficult. There are two ways it can happen:

States can amend the Constitution itself. This requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures -- no easy feat. However, it has happened several times.
The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur (partly due to stare decisis).

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

I get that, but doesn't there have to be a legitimate case brought before the courts that would even allow the SCOTUS to revisit the law? Or can they just decide to revisit what they want without a case that challenges it? If it's the former, my question is what kind of case would that be? I guess it could come from a lower jurisdiction (city or state) and work its way through that way. Wasn't there a somewhat recent case involving Chicago? If it's the latter, I rescind the question entirely.

Just as Katz overturned Olmstead, I would suppose that another firearms related case could do that....


As I mentioned earlier, here in Washington (State) we have a new law that the fething morons passed a couple years back, so I suppose that if someone were to challenge it, and work it all the way through the lower courts to the supreme court, then they could see it and make their decision. Although, I suspect that in our case, we're just SOL due to vague wording and shenanigans.

 Ouze wrote:
I think Trump would like be a fairly poor president, but not the usher in the apocalypse, hitler clone he's been made out to be. He just doesn't seem to understand how government actually works, which is why I think he'd be more ineffective than anything else - Congress isn't a group of recalcitrant employees you can fire.

So if it's Drumpf v. Corrupt Clinton...

Would you rather have an incompetent nincompoop who may not be able to substantially accomplish anything? Or a corrupt bureaucrat who knows what she's doing, but the public will second/third-guess her agenda, especially over blatant quid pro quo?

As I said... we're so boned.

 Frazzled wrote:
I give the edge to Trump now actually. The Democrats are choosing possibly one of the worst possible candidates in their history to run against him. Obama would have wiped the floor with this guy.

Obama very narrowly beat Clinton, that was a two horse race that really could have gone either way. So if Obama and Clinton are pretty tied, and you think Obama would have wiped Trump... then I don't know how you can predict a Trump win over Clinton.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I give the edge to Trump now actually. The Democrats are choosing possibly one of the worst possible candidates in their history to run against him. Obama would have wiped the floor with this guy.

Obama very narrowly beat Clinton, that was a two horse race that really could have gone either way. So if Obama and Clinton are pretty tied, and you think Obama would have wiped Trump... then I don't know how you can predict a Trump win over Clinton.

Obama never had the baggages that Clinton has...

I saw this classic from Nate Silver on twitter, pointing out how increasingly ridiculous the Sanders supporters are in complaining the race has been unfair;
"Clinton ‘strategy’ is to persuade more ‘people’ to ‘vote’ for her, hence producing ‘majority’ of ‘delegates.’”

Pretty much. More votes, more delegates, and now its enough that Sanders is heading in to a very unfavourable set of states needing to win more than 65% of the vote. But somehow it's unfair to think Clinton has the race won, because reasons.

 whembly wrote:
Wait... wut? Saw this on twittah?

BREAKING: Hillary Clinton to be indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges #RICO

I think this nonsense piece probably says everything that needs to be said about the standards at the Huffington Post and the mindset of many people - they have an absolute belief that 'Clinton is corrupt, based pretty much entirely on knowing other people who also believe Clinton to be corrupt, and they will believe any story as soon as it appears.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
There are valid Hitler comparisons that can be made, but the problem is that as soon as you compare someone to Hitler people think that you are arguing that the person is going to start WW3 and go on a genocidal rampage to wipe out an entire race.

Trumps comparison to Hitler would be appropriate when you compare their campaign, their arguments, their speeches, the themes they speak about, the fears and anger they draw from, the marginalizing of people groups, the role of foreigners and religions.

You can argue that both Hitler and Trump are drawing from that same primal feelings in the population and have similar electoral tactics without arguing that Trump would be the same kind of leader that Hitler was or that the US would turn into the same kind of country that Germany turned into. But as soon as you say "like Hitler" people complete "...Trump will kill all the Muslims/start wars/commit genocide/build concentration camps/whatever" in their heads, regardless of what the actual comparison is.

Sure, which is why it's probably just easier to use examples of world leaders who tapped in to those primal feelings without going on a genocidal rampage. Mussolini has been pointed out on dakka as a better comparison, but I'd think you've still got the WWII spectre there. Better examples are probably Berlusconi or Putin.

Berlusconi is probably the best example, there's the same pattern of minority scapegoating, villification of anyone who questions him, and the use of a great personal wealth to convince people he'd be good for the economy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Theoretically SCOTUS could do it if something made it to them, but I find that to be highly unlikely. Not all liberal judges think the same way, nor are they all out to take away the second amendment. Being liberal does not make you a part of a hive mind. *gasp* I know I just blew some peoples minds with that comment!

And any appointment still has to get through the senate. If there were 4 SC justices who believed in limiting the 2nd amendment, and a replacement nomination also believed in it, does anyone on this Earth or any alternate Earth believe that appointment would get 60 votes in the senate. Democrats are not that likely to take the senate, and they'd need a super-majority to get an appointment to the senate that'd be willing to restrict the 2nd amendment... because not one Republican will vote to let that nomination be heard. Even if the Democrats did somehow get a super-majority, they'd still have to get the support of every single Democrat and that's not going to happen, because there's plenty of Democratic senators who support gun right, and on top of that NRA money is everywhere.

This is just the same old Republican nonsense that turns up every presidential election.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I get that, but doesn't there have to be a legitimate case brought before the courts that would even allow the SCOTUS to revisit the law? Or can they just decide to revisit what they want without a case that challenges it? If it's the former, my question is what kind of case would that be? I guess it could come from a lower jurisdiction (city or state) and work its way through that way. Wasn't there a somewhat recent case involving Chicago? If it's the latter, I rescind the question entirely.

At a guess I'd say a state would pass a law restricting one or more guns, and that law would be taken to court by people looking to protect their gun rights. It would then wander up through the various appeal courts until it hit this new, horrible, totally left wing and anti-gun Supreme Court.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Obama never had the baggages that Clinton has...

The only change in the Republican attacks from 2008 to 2012 is Benghazi and the emails. Which gets back to the point about how many people outside of the Republican faithful care about either of those things.

Oh I agree, if Clinton makes it and she has to nominate more SC justices, it will be an uphill battle the whole time. I honestly doubt she would get any through. Some sort of precedent would be made up saying no President has ever done this or that with justices in the SC and republicans will flock to that defense like it is scripture. *cough*whembly*cough*

Honestly, I have no idea how anybody would ever think Trump would be better than Clinton. I'm not even worried about the SC if Trump becomes president, I am more worried about our foreign relations. Which are very VERY important, but his supporters do not seem to think so. They seem to think we should continue to be bullies, instead of politicians.