Donald vs Hillary

bush_cheney2004 · October 30, 2016

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

Really? What check and balances are there on the president launching nuclear weapons? I'll save you some research. There are none. If the president says launch there is no legal mechanism in place to stop or refuse him.

Nothing wrong with that...sure don't want any "legal mechanism" slowing a first strike or retaliation. Also don't want any foreigners deciding how the U.S. should release its own nuclear weapons. It happened before and may happen again, and that's the way it is supposed to be. Don't like it ? Stop us !

Derek 2.0 · October 30, 2016

28 minutes ago, Argus said:

Thanks for admitting you're a Trump supporter. So it's more important to you that the incoming president appoint judges who will get rid of abortion, perhaps, rather than judges who will put limits on campaign financing and spending? You don't care if every politician in the country is controlled by corporations and the billionaires as long as they ban abortion? Have I got that right?

Where did I state I oppose (or support) abortion? Likewise, how are Supreme Court judges going to put limits on campaign financing..........you understand they're not legislators right?

Watch, a sneeze will blow over those strawmen......

31 minutes ago, Argus said:

Trump's corrupt practices are being investigated by just about everyone else. And the fact the Russians desperately want him as president ought to be a pretty clear signal that he ought not be one. When your enemies want someone to be your leader an intelligent person asks what's wrong with that person.

Investigated by who? Clinton is being investigated by the FBI........Trump is what? Undergoing an audit by the IRS :lol:

33 minutes ago, Argus said:

Really? What check and balances are there on the president launching nuclear weapons? I'll save you some research. There are none. If the president says launch there is no legal mechanism in place to stop or refuse him.

Perhaps you shouldn't "save on research".......forgetting Cabinet and various other elected officials, the flag officer at USSTRATCOM (and his duty officers) all the way down the line could refuse such an order......and of course, that's forgetting invocation of the 25th Amendment. :rolleyes:

Argus · October 30, 2016

54 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Where did I state I oppose (or support) abortion? Likewise, how are Supreme Court judges going to put limits on campaign financing..........you understand they're not legislators right?

The Supreme Court decision on Citizens United vs FEC in which the court struck down limits on campaign spending by third parties was decided by a vote of 5-4 along ideological lines. Another Supreme Court decision, McCutcheon vs FEC was the one that struck down all limits on campaign donations. That was also decided 5-4 on ideological grounds. Now that one of the conservative justices who supported those rulings is dead, both decisions could be overturned by a more liberal judge, which would make it much harder for billionaires and corporations to spend billions on buying politicians.

That's reason enough to want Clinton to be the one appointing judges. If you're not anti-abortion, what's your reason to want Trump to appoint them, given his only promise is he'll appoint anti-abortion judges.

54 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Investigated by who? Clinton is being investigated by the FBI........Trump is what? Undergoing an audit by the IRS

His phony university is also being investigated in a number of states for fraud, and his charity is being investigated for bribing a Florida politician to avoid just such an investigation.

Quote

Perhaps you shouldn't "save on research".......forgetting Cabinet and various other elected officials, the flag officer at USSTRATCOM (and his duty officers) all the way down the line could refuse such an order......and of course, that's forgetting invocation of the 25th Amendment.

Cabinet has no ability to overrule the president, nor do any other elected officials. The flag officers who refuse an order of his would be relieved on the spot, the same as anyone else refusing a direct order from their lawful superior. And the 25th Amendment assumes a medical issue.

Derek 2.0 · October 31, 2016

57 minutes ago, Argus said:

The Supreme Court decision on Citizens United vs FEC

Their decision had nothing to do with upholding campaign finance, but the protection of Freedom of speech..........none the less, if you want campaign finance reform, support those that want it in Congress and the Senate....in other words legislators.

1 hour ago, Argus said:

That's reason enough to want Clinton to be the one appointing judges. If you're not anti-abortion, what's your reason to want Trump to appoint them, given his only promise is he'll appoint anti-abortion judges.

To do the exact opposite of what you suggest.........to prevent an activist Supreme Court that attempts to go outside its mandate.......if you want "new laws", elect new lawmakers.....ironically, Hillary is currently a far larger benefactor of corporate donations than Trump.

1 hour ago, Argus said:

His phony university is also being investigated in a number of states for fraud, and his charity is being investigated for bribing a Florida politician to avoid just such an investigation.

Who is investigating Trump as opposed to independent groups that he is affiliated with? Name them...........Clinton is personally being investigated by the FBI.

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Cabinet has no ability to overrule the president, nor do any other elected officials. The flag officers who refuse an order of his would be relieved on the spot, the same as anyone else refusing a direct order from their lawful superior. And the 25th Amendment assumes a medical issue.

Yes they do (with a majority of the cabinet), through the 25th Amendment, which includes provisions for mental health or being generally "unfit".....it was rumored that Reagan nearly go displaced twice, once after being shot, and the second time during the twilight of his tenure when he started going soft in the brainbox......

And no, they wouldn't be "relieved on the spot" under the pretext of a mentally unstable President Trump.......all officers from enlistment to the Joint Chiefs take an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution, not the presidency, from all enemies foreign and domestic.........clearly a "President Trump" intent on nuking a country that slighted him over twitter would constitute a domestic threat............The "just following orders defense" has proven folly since Nuremberg. :rolleyes:

?Impact · October 31, 2016

4 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

the next president (assuming two terms) is going to likely select upwards of 3-5 Supreme Court justices

Does that make you an anti-abortionist? Trump has talked about reversing Roe vs. Wade, and selecting justices based on that criteria.

Argus · October 31, 2016

35 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Their decision had nothing to do with upholding campaign finance, but the protection of Freedom of speech..........none the less, if you want campaign finance reform, support those that want it in Congress and the Senate....in other words legislators.

Legislators can't do anything to ban this since the Supreme Court said it's all right to spend as much money as they wanted. That's why you change the judge and you get those decisions reversed. Look, I'm all for freedom of speech, and when our supreme court allowed the ban I thought it was a violation of freedom of speech too. So did they! But they said it was necessary, and they turned out to be right. The constitution is not a suicide pact.

35 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Yes they do (with a majority of the cabinet), through the 25th Amendment, which includes provisions for mental health or being generally "unfit".

You can't judge Trump is mentally unfit just because he wants to make a decision you disagree with. Hell, if his own behaviour the last couple of months hasn't already shown how unfit for office he is just what do you think would?

Wilber · October 31, 2016

37 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Yes they do (with a majority of the cabinet), through the 25th Amendment, which includes provisions for mental health or being generally "unfit".....it was rumored that Reagan nearly go displaced twice, once after being shot, and the second time during the twilight of his tenure when he started going soft in the brainbox......

And no, they wouldn't be "relieved on the spot" under the pretext of a mentally unstable President Trump.......all officers from enlistment to the Joint Chiefs take an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution, not the presidency, from all enemies foreign and domestic.........clearly a "President Trump" intent on nuking a country that slighted him over twitter would constitute a domestic threat............The "just following orders defense" has proven folly since Nuremberg.

Why would you want to elect someone where this was seen as a pre election issue? Reagan getting shot and his development of dementia was not a pre election issue.

Derek 2.0 · October 31, 2016

45 minutes ago, Argus said:

Legislators can't do anything to ban this since the Supreme Court said it's all right to spend as much money as they wanted.

No they didn't...........and legislators write laws, but there is very little support, on either side, for such restrictions.

48 minutes ago, Argus said:

You can't judge Trump is mentally unfit just because he wants to make a decision you disagree with.

Yes they can, and I cited the Amendment that allows them to do exactly that......

47 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Why would you want to elect someone where this was seen as a pre election issue?

I don't see it as anymore an issue, grounded in reality, with Trump, then it was with Barry Goldwater.......its politics........there are many things to be weary of with a Trump presidency, but his finger being on the button (or Clintons) is not something that keeps me up at night.....

Derek 2.0 · October 31, 2016

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Does that make you an anti-abortionist?

Reread my response to Argus....

Wilber · October 31, 2016

Dereck. You should really read up on the history of election finance reform in the US. Congress tried to regulate campaign contributions in 1971 and 2002., Each time they have been struck down by a partisan supreme court that ultimately declared money equals free speech and corporations are people.

Did Goldwater get elected?

Derek 2.0 · October 31, 2016

3 minutes ago, Wilber said:

You should really read up on the history of election finance reform in the US. Congress

I have, and understand both rulings by the Supreme Court.........X amount of dollars contributed is a moot point that runs counter to the protection of the right to the Freedom of Speech....

8 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Did Goldwater get elected?

Nope, but his policies did in 1980.

Wilber · October 31, 2016

19 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Reread my response to Argus....

Your response wasn't an answer to the question, it was just another question intended to deflect.

bush_cheney2004 · October 31, 2016

OMG...no wonder Team Clinton and her faithful surrogates in Canada are going nuts....

Quote

.Investigators found 650,000 emails on a laptop used by former Rep. Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide, and underlying metadata suggests thousands of those messages could have been sent to or from the private server that Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/laptop-may-include-thousands-of-emails-linked-to-hillary-clintons-private-server-1477854957

Derek 2.0 · October 31, 2016

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

Your response wasn't an answer to the question

BINGO

Derek 2.0 · October 31, 2016

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

no wonder Team Clinton and her faithful surrogates in Canada are going nuts....

And Wikileaks just announced they are beginning "Phase III" of their disclosures........its going to be an interesting week.

Wilber · October 31, 2016

Just now, Derek 2.0 said:

I have, and understand both rulings by the Supreme Court.........X amount of dollars contributed is a moot point that runs counter to the protection of the right to the Freedom of Speech....

So you agree that Congress can't put any limits on campaign financing.

Quote

Nope, but his policies did in 1980.

No, he didn't get elected. Trump doesn't have policies, just taiking points.

Wilber · October 31, 2016

2 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

BINGO

So we can take it that you are an anti abortionist.

bush_cheney2004 · October 31, 2016

Oh Sweet Jesus...how delicious would it be that Clinton's malfeasance and obstruction of justice would be exposed because emails were forwarded to Weiner's laptop. The FBI can also request access to the Yahoo/Google account(s). This is going to get juicy !

Derek 2.0 · October 31, 2016

2 minutes ago, Wilber said:

So you agree that Congress can't put any limits on campaign financing.

No, as there are currently laws pertaining to campaign financing......they didn't just appear out of the ether......

3 minutes ago, Wilber said:

So we can take it that you are an anti abortionist.

No, you can "take it" that I didn't offer my opinion on abortion.

Cum Laude · October 31, 2016

Donald Trump and the Russians have typed up 650,000 emails and somehow transferred them via a floppy disk to Wiener's laptop. It's part of the vast conspiracy.

Wilber · October 31, 2016

27 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

No, as there are currently laws pertaining to campaign financing......they didn't just appear out of the ether......

No, you can "take it" that I didn't offer my opinion on abortion.

What laws.

You are asked whether you were in favour of the Supreme Court being stacked with judges expressly to overturn Roe vs Wade. It was a valid question that deserves an answer. Absent that answer, I can take it any way I want.

Derek 2.0 · October 31, 2016

3 minutes ago, Wilber said:

What laws.

These laws

3 minutes ago, Wilber said:

You are asked whether you were in favour of the Supreme Court being stacked with judges expressly to overturn Roe vs Wade.

Yes, and my answer, quite clearly, was that I don't favor activist judges.....

4 minutes ago, Wilber said:

It was a valid question that deserves an answer.

My personal views relating to abortion are not the subject of this thread.........by all means, start another thread, if there is enough interest I may even share them.

kimmy · October 31, 2016

23 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

What's with the "you guys"......not my circus, not my monkeys.

Not your circus, but these are certainly your clowns. There isn't a bigger Republican cheerleader on the forum, since Shady (PBUH) headed off to the bodybuilding supplements store in the sky.

23 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

According to some recent polls, polls held before the FBI bombshell, "we" might not have to wait four years.........

That LA Times poll has been an outlier for weeks, showing Trump winning even when every other poll had Clinton ahead by 7-12 points. I would think the Republican boosters would have learned after 2012 to not read too much into outlier polls. We'll see this week whether the new developments in the email situation make a difference.

Personally I doubt the Weiner laptop will have anything damaging to Clinton. The first 33,000,000 emails didn't put her in jail, what's 650,000 more?

What would a dork like Weiner have in his laptop that's of any significance anyway? Craigslist personals? Photos of his abs? Correspondence with New York tanning salons?

-k

Wilber · October 31, 2016

7 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

These laws

Yes, and my answer, quite clearly, was that I don't favor activist judges.....

My personal views relating to abortion are not the subject of this thread.........by all means, start another thread, if there is enough interest I may even share them.

So you are OK with the Supreme Court being packed with judges expressly to overturn Roe vs Wade.

bush_cheney2004 · October 31, 2016

Hillary Clinton's "closest personal aid" (whatever that means), better get more attorneys on her case. Forwarding state.gov emails to public email accounts could be a problem.

Quote

In June, Abedin said under oath in a Judicial Watch deposition that she searched through all her devices for government emails so they could be turned over to the State Department.

Abedin could be charged with perjury if she lied under oath and as a result would face up to five years in prison.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/30/laptop-in-fbis-weiner-sexting-case-had-state-gov-clinton-related-emails-source-says.html

Bill Clinton benefited from the Caspar Weinberger indictment just days before the 1992 election. As the saying goes, "payback is a bitch".