• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

2016 American Presidential Campaign

Status
Not open for further replies.
The mental gymnastics and rationalizations betrayed by the public laying out of thoughts from Trump supporters shows just how intellectually bankrupt you have to be to even consider him viable.

So Droppers, you're telling us that you're happy to put a sociopathic, self-absorbed, out of touch with reality, blatantly racist, obviously dangerous fool into office to potentially ruin the country worse than Bush did, all to avoid what you perceive to be a "activist court", which by the way is just a right wing talking point?

Seems like an unequal trade-off to me.

Edit: you can't simply "abolish" an amendment to the US constitution unilaterally in the supreme court. If you recall, in order to repeal the 18th amendment (prohibition) we had to ratify the 21st amendment which strictly repealed the 18th. Now tell me: who ratifies amendments? The supreme court? No. This just shows how the people who are the most vociferously "strict constitutionalist" actually don't really know much about constitutional law.

Edit 2: to this day only one constitutional amendment has ever been repealed, the 18th. Not much precedent there to make someone fear a repeal of a BILL OF RIGHTS amendment.
 
Last edited:
Well I ended up voting for rand and it felt good. Unsure of which question I dodged Ali?

I'm talking about the 2013 DC gun ban case. It was won with a 5-4 vote. Sure I exaggerated but court cases set precedence and that is fact. What do you think would happen in a case like that with another progressive judge on the panel? I'm biased enough to know I do not want to find out tbh..
 
Phil.McKeer said:
The mental gymnastics and rationalizations betrayed by the public laying out of thoughts from Trump supporters shows just how intellectually bankrupt you have to be to even consider him viable.

So Droppers, you're telling us that you're happy to put a sociopathic, self-absorbed, out of touch with reality, blatantly racist, obviously dangerous fool into office to potentially ruin the country worse than Bush did, all to avoid what you perceive to be a "activist court", which by the way is just a right wing talking point?

Seems like an unequal trade-off to me.
Click to expand...
President doesn't have as much power as you think. I believe Hilary and Bernie would be more politically viable with an attempt to transform the country to the left. It's just a difference of mindsets and it doesn't upset me at all. I just feel more government is not the answer being a conservative where you all think it is. I don't even believe trump is a conservative I truly just think he would do less harm to the constitution. Also the number one thing I care about is all the scotus justices he has mentioned I approve of. I can't even watch trump he makes me cringe almost more than Bernie when he goes on and on about free stuff and they pan all the stoners in the audience cheering him on.
 
Wait...so...is the problem at the supreme court level or the local level? So I guess it will be fine after all for a democrat to appoint the 9th SCOTUS justice, since the issue is at the local level only? Hence, you're no longer pulling for Trump so that the court doesn't become "activist"? Right?

I agree. Long live The Republic.
 
^ right. but that is totally different from what you said. which was just a lie. plain and simple.

it's not good enough. what does it say about a country when somebody - trump - who lies so much is considered a viable candidate for the presidency? it's so troubling that people don't just stand for it but laud him for it :(

alasdair
 
Lol you guys crack me up I feel like you guys have to pick at semantics because logic, reason, and constitutional principle is not on your sides. So let's say the scotus takes up a case that derives from a small claims court which ends up challenging the constitution. So they take this case and they debate amongst themselves then they vote. This vote will decide which way the case goes. If said case is won on the side of the plaintiff it could set precedent causing many other cases to be challenged or many other laws to be passed depending on the outcome of the ruling. If I have to spell out Im happy to do it ;)
 
Last edited:
Droppersneck said:
Lol you guys crack me up I feel like you guys have to pick at semantics because logic, reason, and constitutional principle is not on your sides. So let's say the scotus takes up a case that derives from a small claims court which ends up challenging the constitution. So they take this case and they debate amongst themselves then they vote. This vote will decide which way the case goes. If said case is won on the side of the plaintiff it could set precedent causing many other cases to be challenged or many other laws to be passed depending on the outcome of the ruling. If I have to spell out Im happy to do it ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, logic and reason have always been on the side of political conservatives, you're so right.

Why don't we start by you spelling out how a case can possibly wind up going from SMALL CLAIMS COURT to the Supreme Court? I think it would be a historical first.
 
Droppersneck said:
Lol you guys crack me up I feel like you guys have to pick at semantics because logic, reason, and constitutional principle is not on your sides. So let's say the scotus takes up a case that derives from a small claims court which ends up challenging the constitution. So they take this case and they debate amongst themselves then they vote. This vote will decide which way the case goes. If said case is won on the side of the plaintiff it could set precedent causing many other cases to be challenged or many other laws to be passed depending on the outcome of the ruling. If I have to spell out Im happy to do it ;)
Click to expand...
ok.

none of which is the same as "In 2013 we came 2 votes away from abolishing the 2nd amendment".

alasdair
 
Sigmond 8 months ago-referring to Sanders and Trump said:
I think the socialist tag + the Clinton machine is too much to overcome. It's nice to see the Liberal media really play up the "Trump card". ;)
There will be a major shift in the polls once the debates get underway.
Click to expand...

Marco Rubio said that the media is paying so much attention to Trump because he cannot beat Hillary. (basically saying the same thing I was last July) lets all hope that is true.

But holy fucking batshit Trumpman, this guy is really gonna be the nominee.
 
I could never bring myself to vote for the lesser of 2 evils in this election. Billary and Trump are equally vile personalities.
 
Jeezus...how does clinton have so many delegates? shes at 1001 right now. things aren't looking good for bernie. I don't know how anyone can support hillary. the whole machine seems rigged. she wins the nomination, she wins the election. fucking fuck. this whole election is going to push people over the edge. what a system we have going here.
 
I think I find it interesting that Trump is an elite but not Republican old guard like Bush and co. Its like if Vegas decided to run for the presidency.
 
One candidate has a life-history of being anti-woman. She has demonized every woman her husband raped, sexually harassed, and slept with. Even at the age of 27 while a trial lawyer, she viciously attacked a 12 year old rape victim and laughed gleefully when she got the girl's rapists off with a slap on the wrist. She runs on a platform of being pro-woman and American Women love her. And on the other side we have Trump. Despite some of his comments, I wonder if Trump might actually respect women.
When did most Americans search for 'move to Canada'?
3 hours ago
From the section US & Canada
US election 2016
Three Republican 'colonels' plot their coup
Is this Hillary Clinton’s time?
The full 2016 field
Video 2016 Republican message mash-up
As sure as "Results Wednesday" follows Super Tuesday, Americans were reacting to the outcome of the voting by searching on Google for how to move to Canada.
On this occasion, a tweet by Google's data editor, Simon Rogers, alerted the world to renewed interest. He noted a spike of 350% in searches over a four-hour period for "how can I move to Canada" coming from the United States.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35706377
Click to expand...
Tthe "Apply to immigrate to Canada" page: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/apply.asp
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top