TakeYouToTasker

It's par for the course here. Case in point: a second thread was opened, and then immediately merged.

Feeling triggered?

There is absolutely nothing the Senate can do to keep President Obama from nominating. Nothing. So once we have a nominee? Describe to me the Constitutionally mandated process through which or by which the Senate must advise and consent. Also, please explain to me why the Senate is obligated to advise before it consents. The Document carefully states "and" rather than "then". The Senate is intentionally given a wide berth on it's processes, and this is feature rather than flaw: the States held their autonomy tightly, and the Senate was elected by the State legislatures. Fair point, though I'm not asking them to vouch for me, but rather to acknowledge my positions; which they may, or may not, agree with in some part, or none.

Tradition is not Law. The Constitution was written, very carefully, dictating exact process and procedure where it was intended. The Constitution intended only what it says. There is no dangerous precedent, rather this is a return to an Origionalist interpretation of the document giving way to a firm and true separation of powers. Anyone here familiar with my posting history will tell you that I always concern myself with process rather than individual outcomes, as process is more important to a lasting prosperous and free society. They'll also tell you that I place all remaining candidates on roughly equal footing with the sitting president.

There is no abrogation Constitutional duties. The Constitution does not specify what "advise and consent" means. There is no Constitutionally prescribed procedure. As such, the Senate, which was in existence prior to the Constitution, is free to perform those duties through it's own functions, and as it sees fit so long as it is not acting outside of the scope of it's Constitutional authority. The Senate has advised the President not to nominate, and has stated that it will not consent.

Stay on topic. You claimed that in the 1980's the CIA was executing the policy of the Reagan Administration by supplying black American communities with crack cocaine, with the intention that it would, inter-generationally, disenfranchise black voters. This is not an appropriate place to introduce whatever CIA historical tidbits you might wish to share. Again: - The CIAs purpose in the crack cocaine trade was funding the Contras - The CIA used cocaine because it was a resource they had in great abundance, and had a continued supply - The CIAs participation in the cocaine trade was so diminishingly small that it was nearly non-existent - The CIA did not create the cocaine market - The CIA did not create the crack cocaine market Given this, if the CIAs intention was to disenfranchise black voters, they did a horrendous job, because the supply they did introduce to market was so minimal in the grand scheme of things that it had no ability to influence macro-behaviors.

This is absurd. The truth is that America's intelligence agencies operate with far too much autonomy, and use this lack of true oversight and accountability to conduct business towards their own ends. Examine Charlie Wilson, for example. As I mentioned earlier, and you ignored, the CIA's agenda was concerned only with funding the Contras. They did so by utilizing an asset which they held, and was continually resupplied through seizure. They took advantage of an existing market, and their share of the market was so diminishingly small that it was almost non-existent given the scope up crack cocaine use in the 1980's.

I don't think you're following along... My point is that every immigrant group to this country has experienced life in the ghetto. Every ethnic group has experienced poverty, even by the absurd Bernie Sanders standard.

Because the Great Society policies, and all of their off-spring, have incentivized them staying there.

Virtually every immigrant group that has come to this country since the 1820's has lived in ghettos.

Which means that Hillary wins the delegate count?

It's incredibly important to note who came up with the idea, and who lobbied for it, when you're making charges of insidious racist plots built around those things. There was no nefarious plot. It's just another case of government interfering to help, but bungling the process, just as they've done with the Great Society policies. The Contra mess was not about a long game plot to disenfranchise black people. It was about making use of the utility of a plentiful and largely seized resource, and taking advantage of an existing market for distribution. There was a growing crack cocaine epidemic in urban America long before the CIA became involved; they just simply tapped into an existing market. Further, these drugs were, in most instances, already bound for market; and were a diminishingly small portion of the crack trade in the 80's. You can argue all you want about the propriety of the CIA engaging themselves as they did, and you won't get argument from me; but that's the end of the argument. The CIA did not plot against black America, and if they did, they did a lousy job of it given the foolishly small portion of the market they were involved in.

He really said that?

No it didn't. Harsher sentences for the types of drugs used by the black community were conceived of, and lobbied for, by black community leaders who were trying desperately to combat an epidemic of violent crime which was being fueled by widespread use of crack cocaine. Your narrative is nothing but a narrative.

Words hard try better do harder

Good grief, there's a lot of stupid in there.

I agree with everything you've stated here, but that's not the argument Dante was making. He was attacking Romney because Romney attacked the Republican front runner. Dante is looking inside the system.

Donald Trump is not a conservative. He is a liberal Democrat. He is crass. He is poorly spoken. He is not successful in business. He is a devout liar. He is an egotist and self promoter. The money his father gave him, had he simply invested in a coward's portfolio and walked away, would be worth more today than it is under his own management. His foreign and domestic policy initiative would be disastrous for America and Americans. He would do more damage to the country that President Obama has. Worse, he's a thin-skinned proto-fascist strong man who is making extra-Constitution promises the basis of his campaign. You don't have to like Mitt Romney, but that doesn't make him wrong.

No. 7-9

Republicans haven't embraced a true conservative since Eisenhower. And please keep in mind that in a two party system such as ours, the destruction of the Republican Party turns the keys over to the Democrats for the next 20 years.

Globalization is inevitable. Those who don't embrace it will be overrun by it. The economy is always changing, and innovations drive that change. American labor has out priced itself in the global market place. It is not for the Government to protect American labor against international markets. It is for individual American laborers to make themselves useful to changing markets if they wish to have value in it. Trump's proposals regarding international tariffs of 35% would launch a global trade war, and drive businesses out of America. He hasn't proposed anything that would help. Quite the opposite actually.

That's an ignorant statement.

It shouldn't be. Trump's election would destroy the Party, and leave in non-viable politically for the next 20 years if it even managed to survive at all.

You think his 35% tariff on imported goods and his cutting of taxes without reforming entitlements are going to be good for the middle class, working class, and working poor?

#7 is going to be a very tough sell. Over all, it's far more good than bad, however.