Donald vs Hillary

[Argus]

23 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Is the poison-feeder Soros living in America? If so I wish Trump goes after him and has him arrested for inciting hatred because that is what Soros has done for a long time.

Aside from his political beliefs apparently being different than yours what is he supposed to be locked up for?

Some of you guys have dreams about concentration camps, don't you?

[DogOnPorch]

Just a little hyperbole....jus' a weee one.

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Seen 'Bill and Bill's Gentleman's Club?

 

 

Nice !    "You know I would, Bill."

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nice !    "You know I would, Bill."

 

In reference to Little St James Island in the US Virgins....apt name.

Edited November 12, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Just a little hyperbole....jus' a weee one.

Lock up Clinton, lock up Soros. Who else does he want locked up? I might be a conservative but I despise the far right as much as I do the far left.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Lock up Clinton, lock up Soros. Who else does he want locked up? I might be a conservative but I despise the far right as much as I do the far left.

 

As the Brown Shirts riot in the streets...See? I can do it too.

[bush_cheney2004]

#4 of Michael Moore's plan to save the fractured and devastated Democratic Party:

 

Quote

4. Everyone must stop saying they are "stunned" and "shocked". What you mean to say is that you were in a bubble and weren't paying attention to your fellow Americans and their despair. YEARS of being neglected by both parties, the anger and the need for revenge against the system only grew. Along came a TV star they liked whose plan was to destroy both parties and tell them all "You're fired!" Trump's victory is no surprise. He was never a joke. Treating him as one only strengthened him. He is both a creature and a creation of the media and the media will never own that. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/read-michael-moore-s-5-point-facebook-plan-for-taking-america-back-from-donald-trump-a7408971.html

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[-TSS-]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Aside from his political beliefs apparently being different than yours what is he supposed to be locked up for?

Some of you guys have dreams about concentration camps, don't you?

Soros is a dangerous man. He is like Trump but on the opposite side of the fence.

Edited November 13, 2016 by -TSS-

[Derek 2.0]

10 hours ago, Argus said:

So you are saying the Republican Party is pro choice?

As a whole? Of course not, but like Democrats (or Liberals and Tories here), there are varying degrees of opinion on any given topic....the point is regards to abortion, despite having held majorities in both Houses and the Supreme Court, allowing ample opportunity to do so, Republicans didn't overturn Roe vs. Wade.......suggestions that they will are as grounded in reality as those that said Harper would overturn gay marriage and abortion if ever given a majority.

[Argus]

37 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

As a whole? Of course not, but like Democrats (or Liberals and Tories here), there are varying degrees of opinion on any given topic....the point is regards to abortion, despite having held majorities in both Houses and the Supreme Court, allowing ample opportunity to do so, Republicans didn't overturn Roe vs. Wade.......suggestions that they will are as grounded in reality as those that said Harper would overturn gay marriage and abortion if ever given a majority.

But Harper never said he would overturn or ban gay marriage or abortion. In fact, he avoided having any discussion on it or having any of his people talk about it. Virtually every Republican congressional and senate candidate promised to do everything humanly possible to ban abortion.

[Derek 2.0]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Virtually every Republican congressional and senate candidate promised to do everything humanly possible to ban abortion.

Hyperbole much?   

[Wilber]

17 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Hyperbole much?   

Not much. The GOP's official stance is that the 14th Amendment should apply to the unborn.  

Quote

"We assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."

 

Trump's position is actually milder than the GOP's

[kimmy]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

He would have said that if he'd lost and it was his supporters protesting.  The trick is to be equally disgusted with those who would use violence of any kind to dispute a fair election result, regardless of who wins.  Like me.

What Trump said on Twitter in 2012 after Romney lost:

Quote

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

...

Quote

We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

...

Quote

He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!

...

Quote

The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one! (sic)

He thought the electoral college was "a disaster" when he thought that Romney had won the popular vote (although Obama actually won the popular vote) and he was calling for "a revolution" to "stop this travesty".  ...so overall I think burning a few dumpsters and smashing some windows is pretty tame compared to what he called for.

 -k

[kimmy]

26 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Hyperbole much?   

Not much. Pro-life is a litmus test for anybody who wants to run for the Republicans in any capacity.  Name a single pro-choice Republican at the federal level.

 -k

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, kimmy said:

What Trump said on Twitter in 2012 after Romney lost:

...

...

...

He thought the electoral college was "a disaster" when he thought that Romney had won the popular vote (although Obama actually won the popular vote) and he was calling for "a revolution" to "stop this travesty".  ...so overall I think burning a few dumpsters and smashing some windows is pretty tame compared to what he called for.

 -k

What I said was, if it were Trump supporters burning dumpsters, he would praise them too.

They are still all unmitigated tossers whoever's side they are on.

[kimmy]

1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said:

despite having held majorities in both Houses and the Supreme Court, allowing ample opportunity to do so, Republicans didn't overturn Roe vs. Wade

As you've been pointing out, Bush didn't actually have a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court. He did, however, manage to sign a number of anti-abortion measures while president. From a quick glance over Supreme Court rulings it looks like there have been 4 reliably pro-life votes on recent abortion rulings, and one of those was Scalia, so the Republicans probably just needs to replace Scalia and wait for an octogenarian liberal to croak.

 -k

[Derek 2.0]

8 minutes ago, Wilber said:

The GOP's official stance is that the 14th Amendment should apply to the unborn. 

 

Huh? Their 2016 platform.......and whats more, its no different then it was a decade ago, you know, when they held both Houses, the majority of the Supreme Court and the White House.....yet they didn't ban abortion then. 

[Guest]

That's because all but the most rabid evangelical Republicans know that you can't run a country on prayer.

[Derek 2.0]

8 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Name a single pro-choice Republican at the federal level.

 

Here's one from each house.......and Gov. Sandoval of Nevada, one of the rumored replacements of Justice Scalia    

[kimmy]

5 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Here's one from each house.......and Gov. Sandoval of Nevada, one of the rumored replacements of Justice Scalia    

I did some searching of my own and found 2 senators-- Mrs Murkowski of Alaska and Mrs Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk was a third, although he lost his reelection bid. I also turned up 4 congressmen. Mr Hanna wasn't one of them, although he does strongly defend Planned Parenthood. Given the Republican majorities in both houses, that's inconsequential.

As for Gov. Sandoval, I'll believe it when I see it.  The White House was apparently vetting him in February, presumably because they thought a moderate Republican might have a chance of getting confirmation. But now? Not likely. He clearly fails the 4-prong litmus test.

 -k

[Derek 2.0]

2 minutes ago, kimmy said:

I did some searching of my own

 

That alone is inconsequential.....as the entire subject is more complex then yes or no......there are those opposed to any and all forms, those that oppose only late term abortions, those that morally oppose but support the right to choose, those that favor right to choose but not on the taxpayers dime, those that only support ones in cases of maternal health and rape and those that are fully pro choice..........the exact same division can also be found with the Democratic party too........

 

With that being said, I return to my point, during the Bush administration, a socially conservative president, they could have "banned abortion" with their majorities in both houses and on the Supreme Court........yet they didn't.......why? And why do you think a RHINO like Trump would do what the bible thumping Bush administration didn't....

[kimmy]

2 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

With that being said, I return to my point, during the Bush administration, a socially conservative president, they could have "banned abortion" with their majorities in both houses and on the Supreme Court........yet they didn't.......why? And why do you think a RHINO like Trump would do what the bible thumping Bush administration didn't....

Trump might be a RINO, but the large majority of his congressmen and senators are very serious about the subject.

As I said before, I think the post-Obama, post-2010 Tea Party uprising Republicans are in general far less compromising than they were in the Bush 43 era.

And as I said before, it doesn't matter if Trump himself is a RINO or not, these measures are going to be generated in Congress and Senate and get sent to him to sign or veto. You really think he's going to fight his own party for principles he doesn't actually care much about?

And, as I also said earlier, in under 2 years it'll be time for the mid-term elections. When the 5% growth hasn't materialized, and the millions of Rust Belt workers are still out of work, and the illegals still haven't been deported, and ISIS still hasn't vanished from the face of the earth, what's he going to have to show the voters? His congressmen and senators are going to be desperate for some "wins" that they can take back to their constituents. He's going to need something that he and his congress can brag about. And Mike Pence, or Steve Bannon, or whoever happens to be whispering in his ear at the time, is going to point out that putting some social-conservative social policy into law would be a lot easier to do than making ISIS disappear or creating millions of Rust Belt jobs out of thin air.  Whether or not Trump actually supports that stuff, he's going to do it, because it's the politically expedient thing to do.

-k

 

 

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, kimmy said:

large majority of his congressmen and senators are very serious about the subject.

 

The GOP has been comprised of the Religious Right for decades.....

2 minutes ago, kimmy said:

post-2010 Tea Party uprising Republicans are in general far less compromising than they were in the Bush 43 era.

......The Tea Party has nothing to do with the party's stance on Roe vs. Wade

 

4 minutes ago, kimmy said:

His congressmen and senators are going to be desperate for some "wins" that they can take back to their constituents.

 

In two years, thanks to to current cycle and happenstance, the majority of those up for reelection in the midterms are Democrats...............but in four years Trump will want to be reelected, a reelection that will require Trump keeping all those Reagan Democrats onside......voters that are largely middle of the road and not necessarily social conservatives.

8 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Whether or not Trump actually supports that stuff, he's going to do it, because it's the politically expedient thing to do.

 No it isn't.......already Trump has walked back locking Clinton up and completely tearing up Obamacare, more so now "fixing it".....I don't expect him to close the abortions clinics and run off the gays.....  

 

[bush_cheney2004]

Trump was not elected to overturn Roe v. Wade.   This bogeyman is always resurrected when SC justices are in play, regardless of who won the election.

Edited November 13, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

21 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Or.........freedom to practice ones own religion sans the threat of legal action.......its kinda of an enshrined right.

Many people argued the same thing in regard to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

21 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

States Rights are enshrined in the Constitution.....not having to look for another job or moving isn't.

"States Rights" is a residuals kind of thing, where if it's not granted elsewhere the states can look after it. Many of these topics that social conservatives say are "states rights issues" are things like abortion or gay rights that aren't *specifically* addressed in the Constitution.  But the 9th Amendment says to those people, "not so fast". Rights that aren't specifically enumerated can still be clearly inferred from other rights that exist in the Constitution.

Rick Santorum has been talking for 10 years about how awful it is that the Supreme Court overturned Connecticut's ban on contraception. It should be a States Rights issue, he says, because the Constitution doesn't actually say anything about a right to contraception.  The Supreme Court concluded that the right to use contraception is obviously inferred from clauses within the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court struck down the Texas ban on same-sex sexual activity in 2003, and Rick Perry is still mad as hell about it. That should be a States Rights issue, he says. The Supreme Court concluded that the right of consenting adults to have sex is obviously inferred from clauses within the 14th Amendment.

21 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

And that is what you're missing.......said situation would be in response to a far greater amount of people feeling they too are already living a "shitty situation", a situation in which their Freedom to practice their religion is being eroded, not through the more commonplace mockery and disdain, but as of late, the threat of legal action and the hand of government.

Rick Santorum might THINK it's an intolerable situation that somebody in his state is using birth control at this very moment, but it's not actually an intolerable situation.

People having their families destroyed because some politician outlawed gay marriage or adoption by gay people would actually be an intolerable situation.

Rick Perry might THINK it's an intolerable situation that somebody in his state might be having sex with somebody of the same gender at this very moment, but it's actually not.

People being fired from jobs or thrown out of restaurants or refused accommodation at hotels because somebody suspects they might be gay actually is an intolerable situation.

21 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

You mean a country comprised of numerous individual States, States that have enshrined rights and are reflective of the people that live within them........sign me up!!!

The idea that having control of the legislature means that your views "reflect the people of your state" is pretty debatable. Consider last year's big dust-up in Indiana.

Indiana has a whole lot of corn farmers, but it also has the city of Indianapolis, which aspires to be more than a corn mecca. The city and the state have offered all kinds of incentives to bring businesses to Indianapolis.  As in most places, urban voters are under-represented by population relative to rural voters, and the rural voters have control of the legislature.

And Mike Pence and his legislature thought it would be a great idea to bring in a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" that legally protected anti-gay discrimination, provided it's done in the name of religion. And the resulting curb-stomping they received from the business community was absolutely gratifying to see.

Businesses that had planned to expand into Indianapolis, like the software company Salesforce, cancelled their plans. Salesforce said "we have gay employees and we're not sending them someplace where they'll be discriminated against. We're not doing business there anymore."  Lots of others followed suit. People boycotted Indianapolis businesses. They cancelled trips to Indianapolis. They moved their conventions out of Indianapolis to other places.

And the people of Indianapolis said "PLEASE! WE DIDN'T WANT THIS LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE!"  Indianapolis business start putting up signs with rainbows or hearts that say "all are welcome here!" and civic politicians start fighting with the state legislature, and the Indianapolis newspaper prints a front page that has just 3 words: "FIX THIS NOW."

So Pence has this dilemma where his corn-farmers want one thing and the city that makes up over 1/3 of the state's populace wants the exact opposite, and the resulting firestorm had the potential to cost Indianapolis thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity, and it looks like he's throwing his capital city under the bus to appease the rural voters.

So grudgingly Pence tells his legislature to amend the legislation. And they add a clause that states that the law can not be used to justify discrimination, including discrimination against gay people. And they do a press conference and say "aw, shucks, we never ever meant to make the gay people feel unwelcome here, we love the gay people."  And Pence signs the amended legislation, grumbling the whole time that the law was "misunderstood".

 

So... uh, long story short: was Mike Pence's "religious freedom" act really reflective of the people who live in Indiana? It might have been reflective of the rural voters, but it turns out it definitely wasn't reflective of the city of Indianapolis.

Do you think Rick Perry's continued insistence that keeping gay sex illegal is "right for Texas" is "right" for the people who live in Austin and Houston and DFW?

 -k