What is Wrong With the United State?

Zeitgeist · February 11, 2019

8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Trump has no ideology other than Trump, he's a brand not an ideology, but in this case he's just being used by the Red States to get the Blue Collar districts onside, so the Red States could take control of the Supreme Court, because in the virtual civil war, all legislation will have to be made or broken by the Supreme Court, only the Supreme Court can make law, so only the Supreme Court matters.

You’re in for a surprise.

Dougie93 · February 11, 2019

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You’re in for a surprise.

You wouldn't know, based on your posts, you don't really have a grasp of what is going on.

Zeitgeist · February 11, 2019

16 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

You wouldn't know, based on your posts, you don't really have a grasp of what is going on.

You think because the Supreme Court has a conservative majority that it would be able to block all bills supported by a Dem president and Congress? It doesn’t work like that. The court would only block unconstitutional legislation.

Dougie93 · February 11, 2019

They'll overthrow all socialistic mandates which the Democrats try to impose, because all of those will be deemed unconstitutional by the conservatives.

They've already struck, rendering that federal mandate of Obamacare is unconstitutional, renders Universal Public Healthcare writ large unconstitutional in America.

Probably is in Canada as well, it just hasn't been overthrown by the Charter yet.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Dougie93

Zeitgeist · February 11, 2019

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

They'll overthrow all socialistic mandates which the Democrats try to impose, because all of those will be deemed unconstitutional by the conservatives.

They've already struck, rendering that federal mandate of Obamacare is unconstitutional, renders Universal Public Healthcare writ large unconstitutional in America.

Probably is in Canada as well, it just hasn't been overthrown by the Charter yet.

The Supreme Court cannot write laws. That’s the work of Congess, which under Dem majorities would continuously send bills for approval. Not even a Presidential veto can stop a congress two thirds majority. My point is, American politics could look very different in 2 years and will look different in 6. I hope a radical socialist causes a political shit storm. It would be the best thing that ever happened to America. Feel the burn redux.

Dougie93 · February 11, 2019

When you have gridlock, all laws are adversarial, both sides will have their proxies challenge all laws at the judiciary at the Supreme Court.

No law will survive which is not vetted by the SCOTUS, thus, the SCOTUS is making law by default.

Zeitgeist · February 11, 2019

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

When you have gridlock, all laws are adversarial, both sides will have their proxies challenge all laws at the judiciary at the Supreme Court.

No law will survive which is not vetted by the SCOTUS, thus, the SCOTUS is making law by default.

Not really. Even your conservative Supreme Court shut down Trump’s Muslim ban as unconstitutional. It would be rare for the S Court to block a reasonable bill on constitutional grounds.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Zeitgeist

Dougie93 · February 11, 2019

I don't care about Muslim bans, Muslims do not bother me. Muslims have served the British Crown faithfully, since 1763.

Dougie93 · February 11, 2019

One of my best friends was a Lt. Colonel in the Pakistan Army. Devout Muslim. Is not a British Imperialist, none the less chose to return to the British rule of law rather than stay in Pakistan.

Even now he would kill and die for the British Crown. He was infantry commander, and he's still in top shape.

Although most Canadians think he's just some filthy immigrant so they pay him no mind

Dougie93 · February 11, 2019

Whenever I am stressed out, the Colonel just puts his hand on my chest and says "there is nothing to fear, God is with you, always"

Works actually. Calms me right down. I would follow the Colonel over the top, without hesitation.

Zeitgeist · February 11, 2019

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Whenever I am stressed out, the Colonel just puts his hand on my chest and says "there is nothing to fear, God is with you, always"

Works actually. Calms me right down. I would follow the Colonel over the top, without hesitation.

I believe we all share the same God, so that makes sense to me.

Dougie93 · February 11, 2019

I have been warned by Charles Anthony for thread jacking, simply by responding to your thread jacking, again, apparently you are allowed to jack threads but I am not.

Thus I will just have to stand by my posts at this juncture.

bush_cheney2004 · February 13, 2019

Another high speed rail project bites the dust....what is "wrong" with those liberals in California?

Quote

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Tuesday he’s abandoning a plan to build a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco, a project with an estimated cost that has ballooned to $77 billion.

“Let’s be real,” Newsom said in his first State of the State address. “The current project, as planned, would cost too much and respectfully take too long. There’s been too little oversight and not enough transparency.”

The idea long championed by Newsom’s predecessor, Jerry Brown, is years behind schedule. The latest estimate for completion is 2033.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/los-angelestosan-francisco-high-speed-rail-project-abandoned-by-new-governor-2019-02-12?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

Boges · February 13, 2019

LOL Trump intends to sign a bipartisan deal that only provides $1 billion for "barrier" construction. He knows that another shutdown would be untenable.

Utter Failure of a President. :lol:

Edited February 13, 2019 by Boges

ironstone · February 13, 2019

I think the biggest problem looming for the USA is the embrace of Socialism by the Democrats. This is clearly where this party is heading and given that the polls tend to swing like a pendulum this means that at some point these radicals will be running the country.Look at the power Ocasio Cortez has right now.She is wildly popular and get's the rock star treatment but rarely get's challenged by the media. She does have enough savvy to avoid any media outlets that will dare to ask tough questions.How far can this nutbar go in politics?

The Democrats have lost their way.

WestCanMan · February 14, 2019

On 2/11/2019 at 11:07 AM, Zeitgeist said:

The Supreme Court cannot write laws. That’s the work of Congess, which under Dem majorities would continuously send bills for approval. Not even a Presidential veto can stop a congress two thirds majority. My point is, American politics could look very different in 2 years and will look different in 6. I hope a radical socialist causes a political shit storm. It would be the best thing that ever happened to America. Feel the burn redux.

The courts in the US can't "write" laws but "ruling from the bench" is a big problem in the US.

WestCanMan · February 14, 2019

8 hours ago, ironstone said:

I think the biggest problem looming for the USA is the embrace of Socialism by the Democrats. This is clearly where this party is heading and given that the polls tend to swing like a pendulum this means that at some point these radicals will be running the country.Look at the power Ocasio Cortez has right now.She is wildly popular and get's the rock star treatment but rarely get's challenged by the media. She does have enough savvy to avoid any media outlets that will dare to ask tough questions.How far can this nutbar go in politics?

The Democrats have lost their way.

They're not really "embracing socialism" imo. They're just little kids playing "opposite day" right now. Their platform du jour is just "exactly the opposite of what Trump says".

AOC is the furthest left and that's sexy to the generation of voters who blindly follow the loudest, angriest accusations and have no interest in history or relevant facts.

JamesHackerMP · February 14, 2019

On 2/10/2019 at 8:43 PM, Dougie93 said:

Trump has no ideology other than Trump, he's a brand not an ideology, but in this case he's just being used by the Red States to get the Blue Collar districts onside, so the Red States could take control of the Supreme Court, because in the virtual civil war, all legislation will have to be made or broken by the Supreme Court, only the Supreme Court can make law, so only the Supreme Court matters.

I'm sorry did you say that the supreme court can make the law? Sounds like I'm not the only one who needs a civics lesson.

Certainly it's more powerful than the founders imagined it would be, in all likelihood. But I wouldn't say they make the law, or that only the SC matters. That is a definite misunderstanding of the situation.

Edited February 14, 2019 by JamesHackerMP

Dougie93 · February 14, 2019

5 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I'm sorry did you say that the supreme court can make the law? Sounds like I'm not the only one who needs a civics lesson.

Certainly it's more powerful than the founders imagined it would be, in all likelihood. But I wouldn't say they make the law, or that only the SC matters. That is a definite misunderstanding of the situation.

The misunderstanding is your own, as you apparently do not grasp the distinction between de jure and de facto.

JamesHackerMP · February 14, 2019

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The misunderstanding is your own, as you apparently do not grasp the distinction between de jure and de facto.

Forgive me, m'lord for my shameful ignorance (seems to be a lot of that going around I might add). Even in the de facto sense, the Supreme Court isn't as powerful as you seem to think. it's just that their judgments are listened to for some reason like they are gods incarnate.

I've taken two courses in college on the Supreme Court (one on the first amendment, the other, civil liberties and the supreme court). So I'm far from as ignorant as you seem to assume, dougie.

Edited February 14, 2019 by JamesHackerMP

Dougie93 · February 14, 2019

Just now, JamesHackerMP said:

Forgive me, m'lord for my shameful ignorance (seems to be a lot of that going around I might add). Even in the de facto sense, the Supreme Court isn't as powerful as you seem to think. it's just that their judgments are listened to for some reason like they are gods incarnate.

Again, should be quite obvious to any reasonable person, that invoking the SCOTUS as the lawmaker when legislation is gridlocked, is a de facto lawmaking rather than de jure.

De jure separation of powers, de facto lawmaking when the conservative majority overrules socialist Democrat Party laws as being unconstitutional.

An ideological court is a good thing; just win baby. 5-4 reliable conservative majority, mission accomplished.

JamesHackerMP · February 14, 2019

11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Again, should be quite obvious to any reasonable person, that invoking the SCOTUS as the lawmaker when legislation is gridlocked, is a de facto lawmaking rather than de jure.

De jure separation of powers, de facto lawmaking when the conservative majority overrules socialist Democrat Party laws as being unconstitutional.

An ideological court is a good thing; just win baby. 5-4 reliable conservative majority, mission accomplished.

If you say so, Dougie. That's not quite how it works, and I'm not just talking about what was intended to happen or what happens on paper. In order for the SC to overturn a law, the law has to be made first. By Congress. If there's gridlock in Congress, there's no law to overturn, no? The SC has historically refrained from influencing legislation while it's being made. If you wanted to say that they legislate in that they go too far when they render a judgment, OK that's probably on the mark. But as far as making the law due to gridlock in Congress, that's way off.

Edited February 14, 2019 by JamesHackerMP

Dougie93 · February 14, 2019

2 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

If you say so, Dougie. That's not quite how it works, and I'm not just talking about what was intended to happen or what happens on paper. In order for the SC to overturn a law, the law has to be made first. By Congress. If there's gridlock in Congress, there's no law to overturn, no?

The key laws to be stopped are first amendment related "Citizens United!" and second amendment related "Federal Gun Control!'

So long as the first and second amendments are secured, the republic shall never perish from this earth.

JamesHackerMP · February 14, 2019

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The key laws to be stopped are first amendment related "Citizens United!" and second amendment related "Federal Gun Control!'

So long as the first and second amendments are secured, the republic shall never perish from this earth.

What laws related to the Citizens United and gun control are you specifically referencing?

And can you clarify your second sentence.

Edited February 14, 2019 by JamesHackerMP

Dougie93 · February 14, 2019

No need to clarify.

Any who does not understand it, is immune to the evidence of the Declaration of Independence preamble and associated first amendment to uphold it, and second amendment to defend that.