GG Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 1A. Closest thing to an opinion you've offered. Thanks for that. I disagree because I think she is an out and out criminal and, importantly, has the political infrastructure behind her which will allow her to continue to get away with shameful and harmful behavior. Trump OTOH, while an idiot, will take all sorts of criticism and have curbs put on his ability to do stupid/harmful things. This is and advantage IMO. That's just my opinion though. I am totally cool with you having yours as outlined in 1A. What kind of curbs will be put on a thin skinned narcissist who doesn't listen to any advice?
Magox Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 1. OK fine, then why are you in this thread? I come here to discuss politics, issues and criticize things that I dislike politically because it's a politics board.
4merper4mer Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 What kind of curbs will be put on a thin skinned narcissist who doesn't listen to any advice? Daily press beat downs when justified....and sometimes not justified....whereas Hillary's new clothes will be advertised as fantastic even though she is not wearing any. Mitch McConnell/Paul Ryan bending over for Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi or replacement and not giving Trumpster what he wants as opposed to giving Hillary everything just like the last 8 years. Push back from other countries....he may not back down and it may cause conflict, but this will chew up time and make for less damage in 4 years than Hillary will inflict with complicit congress/courts/press/foreign nations. Trump may try the pen and phone routine we've seen for 8 years but my guess is that he'll have the power of the purse pulled from him a lot faster than Obama did or Hillary would. I am not someone who wants to see the world become Hillary's lap dog for the next 8 years. Comey is a big enough lap dog already. She should be in jail by now. I think 4 years of Trump would throw a lot of things into chaos. I think the Republican party overall would suffer the brunt politically. They deserve it. I think in the longer scheme of things this would be temporary....maybe an additional 4 year fallout. It may help the Republicans right the ship and turn again toward embracing capitalism....a system that actually works. 4 or 8 years of Hillary would more deeply embed the creeping state control into our society. I think it is almost impossible for this not to happen. I'm not sure how many more 4 year chunks of living off the spoils of past generations successes while dooming future generations to diminishing freedoms we can take. Without question we are hosed in the immediate term. Of course this generation only cares about the immediate term so many view things only in terms of 2017-2021. IMO if you look at the generations from the past whose toil gave us opportunities and generations of the future who deserve freedoms and opportunities, Hillary solidifying state run everything dooms far more than Trump's chaos. That's my opinion. Don't think I enjoy listening to morons like Sean Hannity ramble on about the positives of Trump and how he will get Bernie voters over to his side. Don't think I agree with any of it. I just see 4 years of folly and craziness and maybe some good as superior to more bricks in the foundation of the almighty government.
TH3 Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 Daily press beat downs when justified....and sometimes not justified....whereas Hillary's new clothes will be advertised as fantastic even though she is not wearing any. Mitch McConnell/Paul Ryan bending over for Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi or replacement and not giving Trumpster what he wants as opposed to giving Hillary everything just like the last 8 years. Push back from other countries....he may not back down and it may cause conflict, but this will chew up time and make for less damage in 4 years than Hillary will inflict with complicit congress/courts/press/foreign nations. Trump may try the pen and phone routine we've seen for 8 years but my guess is that he'll have the power of the purse pulled from him a lot faster than Obama did or Hillary would. I am not someone who wants to see the world become Hillary's lap dog for the next 8 years. Comey is a big enough lap dog already. She should be in jail by now. I think 4 years of Trump would throw a lot of things into chaos. I think the Republican party overall would suffer the brunt politically. They deserve it. I think in the longer scheme of things this would be temporary....maybe an additional 4 year fallout. It may help the Republicans right the ship and turn again toward embracing capitalism....a system that actually works. 4 or 8 years of Hillary would more deeply embed the creeping state control into our society. I think it is almost impossible for this not to happen. I'm not sure how many more 4 year chunks of living off the spoils of past generations successes while dooming future generations to diminishing freedoms we can take. Without question we are hosed in the immediate term. Of course this generation only cares about the immediate term so many view things only in terms of 2017-2021. IMO if you look at the generations from the past whose toil gave us opportunities and generations of the future who deserve freedoms and opportunities, Hillary solidifying state run everything dooms far more than Trump's chaos. That's my opinion. Don't think I enjoy listening to morons like Sean Hannity ramble on about the positives of Trump and how he will get Bernie voters over to his side. Don't think I agree with any of it. I just see 4 years of folly and craziness and maybe some good as superior to more bricks in the foundation of the almighty government. I hear this all the time....what freedoms have you lost in the last 8 years....and if HC is POTUS - what freedoms do you expect to lose?
Deranged Rhino Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 I hear this all the time....what freedoms have you lost in the last 8 years....and if HC is POTUS - what freedoms do you expect to lose? We've been stripped of our 4th and 5th amendment rights as Americans over the past two administrations (43 & 44). 44 is as much to blame for this as 43, despite the hype. HRC will continue the expansion of the state at the expense of the individual liberty this country was founded upon.
Doc Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 What kind of curbs will be put on a thin skinned narcissist who doesn't listen to any advice? "Those darn obstructionist Democrats!"
keepthefaith Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 I hear this all the time....what freedoms have you lost in the last 8 years....and if HC is POTUS - what freedoms do you expect to lose? The freedom to use whatever kind of !@#$ing light bulb I want to.
TH3 Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) The freedom to use whatever kind of !@#$ing light bulb I want to. That one sure stings..a lot...I bet you hate have having fuel efficient cars with a crap-ton of horsepower too..... We've been stripped of our 4th and 5th amendment rights as Americans over the past two administrations (43 & 44). 44 is as much to blame for this as 43, despite the hype. HRC will continue the expansion of the state at the expense of the individual liberty this country was founded upon. Stripped of illegal search and seizure? Well that was 43 - who you likely voted for. 5th amendment ? Brought down to the hooskow and had to testify against yourself lately...? Weak...on the other hand you can marry your gay lover if you want, and bring your gun to the wedding as your 2nd amendment rights were reaffirmed in what 2008? ...and you and your rich corporate buddies can contribute as much money to political causes as you want because that spreads freedom like nothing else.... Edited June 9, 2016 by baskin
DC Tom Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 That one sure stings..a lot...I bet you hate have having fuel efficient cars with a crap-ton of horsepower too..... Stripped of illegal search and seizure? Well that was 43 - who you likely voted for. 5th amendment ? Brought down to the hooskow and had to testify against yourself lately...? Weak...on the other hand you can marry your gay lover if you want, and bring your gun to the wedding as your 2nd amendment rights were reaffirmed in what 2008? ...and you and your rich corporate buddies can contribute as much money to political causes as you want because that spreads freedom like nothing else.... You haven't read the Bill of Rights, have you? The 3rd Amendment is the only one that hasn't been bent or broken.
Azalin Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 I hear this all the time....what freedoms have you lost in the last 8 years....and if HC is POTUS - what freedoms do you expect to lose? There's this little bit from this past Sunday - from an interview conducted by George Stephanopoulos: Stephanopoulos: Do you believe that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it's not linked to service in a militia? Clinton: I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia, and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulation. A right to impose reasonable regulation on constitutional amendments? That should tell you everything you need to know, and if you agree with her, then that tells me everything I need to know about you.
TH3 Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) You haven't read the Bill of Rights, have you? The 3rd Amendment is the only one that hasn't been bent or broken. OK sniper - tell me your specifc tales of woe of how your freedoms have changed over the last 8 years.... There's this little bit from this past Sunday - from an interview conducted by George Stephanopoulos: Stephanopoulos: Do you believe that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it's not linked to service in a militia? Clinton: I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia, and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulation. A right to impose reasonable regulation on constitutional amendments? That should tell you everything you need to know, and if you agree with her, then that tells me everything I need to know about you. Well - What HC says is correct...until the Scalia decision it was up to the states or localities...and in fact there were local regulations on firearms...it ain't why I "think" or "agree with" bro.....of course there are regulations on "rights"....check free speech for one, there already are regulations on firearms....got an automatic? of course it is just so much FUN to fight your imagined war against the government...... Please - give me one example of how your "freedoms" have changed over the last 8 years.... Edited June 9, 2016 by baskin
Azalin Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 OK sniper - tell me your specifc tales of woe of how your freedoms have changed over the last 8 years.... Well - What HC says is correct...until the Scalia decision it was up to the states or localities...and in fact there were local regulations on firearms...it ain't why I "think" or "agree with" bro.....of course there are regulations on "rights"....check free speech for one, there already are regulations on firearms....got an automatic? of course it is just so much FUN to fight your imagined war against the government...... Please - give me one example of how your "freedoms" have changed over the last 8 years.... My point should have been obvious, but it apparently went straight over your head. I'll simplify it for you: anyone who views constitutional amendments as something that can be regulated has no business holding elected office at the federal level, let alone to head the executive branch.
GG Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 Please - give me one example of how your "freedoms" have changed over the last 8 years.... The curtailment of individual rights and freedoms may be invisible to you, because you don't see the new regulations that virtually every non-favored industry has to abide by. So individuals have less choices or reduced choices by executive diktat. By what the hey, what you don't know, can't really hurt you, right?
DC Tom Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 OK sniper - tell me your specifc tales of woe of how your freedoms have changed over the last 8 years.... Well - What HC says is correct...until the Scalia decision it was up to the states or localities...and in fact there were local regulations on firearms...it ain't why I "think" or "agree with" bro.....of course there are regulations on "rights"....check free speech for one, there already are regulations on firearms....got an automatic? of course it is just so much FUN to fight your imagined war against the government...... Please - give me one example of how your "freedoms" have changed over the last 8 years.... MY specific tales? I'm not allowed to believe my right to religious freedom is curtailed because the Little Sisters of the Poor's rights are? Or that my right to assembly isn't infringed by the IRS's refusal to consider certain groups for tax exemption? Or that my fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth amendment rights aren't violated by the mere existence of civil asset forefeiture, even though it hasn't been applied to me? Or that the tenth amendment wasn't gutted by Obergefell v Hodges? You're going to argue that rights aren't abridged, and you can't be against rights being abridged, unless you've personally and directly been impacted? Because if it is, you are going to get MASSIVE amounts of **** for your endless liberal pontificating for the rights of other people, you dumbass.
....lybob Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 MY specific tales? I'm not allowed to believe my right to religious freedom is curtailed because the Little Sisters of the Poor's rights are? Or that my right to assembly isn't infringed by the IRS's refusal to consider certain groups for tax exemption? Or that my fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth amendment rights aren't violated by the mere existence of civil asset forefeiture, even though it hasn't been applied to me? Or that the tenth amendment wasn't gutted by Obergefell v Hodges? You're going to argue that rights aren't abridged, and you can't be against rights being abridged, unless you've personally and directly been impacted? Because if it is, you are going to get MASSIVE amounts of **** for your endless liberal pontificating for the rights of other people, you dumbass. wasn't the question about your lost of rights over the last 8 years? how long have we had civil asset forfeiture ? did the IRS suddenly when Obama came into office start making judgements about which groups qualify for tax exemption status or have they been making judgements all along?
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 I hear this all the time....what freedoms have you lost in the last 8 years....and if HC is POTUS - what freedoms do you expect to lose? The 2nd ammendment. Invasion of privacy, unreasonable searches and seizures. Restrictions on free speech and expression. Loss of religious freedoms
GG Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 wasn't the question about your lost of rights over the last 8 years? how long have we had civil asset forfeiture ? did the IRS suddenly when Obama came into office start making judgements about which groups qualify for tax exemption status or have they been making judgements all along? Please tell me the last time an executive branch forced losses on secured creditors in violation of bankruptcy law?
4merper4mer Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 wasn't the question about your lost of rights over the last 8 years? how long have we had civil asset forfeiture ? did the IRS suddenly when Obama came into office start making judgements about which groups qualify for tax exemption status or have they been making judgements all along? That was in fact the question. But a moron asked the question demanding specific one by one direct impacts on individuals in response to a general statement about all of us as a group. Tm answered it in a proper way whether you choose to see that or not.
reddogblitz Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) anyone who views constitutional amendments as something that can be regulated has no business holding elected office at the federal level, let alone to head the executive branch. The 1st amendment had been regulated such that one cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. The 2nd ammendment was regulated under Reagan with the Brady Bill. And goodness knows there are a ton of regulations around the 16th ammendment. Edited June 10, 2016 by reddogblitz
Deranged Rhino Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Stripped of illegal search and seizure? Well that was 43 - who you likely voted for. 44 ran on transparency and ending the most egregious sections of the Patriot Act. Instead, he increased the scope and power of its worst elements while persecuting more "whistleblowers" than any other president in history. The myth is believing civil liberties improved under 44; they did not. And, for the record, I did not vote for Bush nor am I a conservative. I supported going into Iraq in 2003, because like many others, I believed the case the administration was making. Once the shock and awe wore off though, so did my naivete... ...Well, for the most part. Stripped of illegal search and seizure? Well that was 43 - who you likely voted for. 5th amendment ? Brought down to the hooskow and had to testify against yourself lately...? We have a thread on this topic, it's lengthy and filled with informative links from both sides of the aisle so I won't bore you with a lengthy ramble. Suffice it to say, if you truly understood the topic which I'm referring, you wouldn't be this glib. We're currently living in the most extensive and pervasive surveillance state in history, we have local police geared out with military style weapons and heavy equipment (not the training though), and a federal government who's using the "war on terror" as an excuse to crack down every meaningful legal protection individuals have to due process and privacy. Add to that, the last two administrations have both treated the constitution and its contents as mere suggestions rather than the law and bedrock of our nation. This isn't about left vs right, progressive vs conservative. It's about democracy vs totalitarianism. 43 and 44's records aren't all that different on that scale despite their party affiliation. Weak...on the other hand you can marry your gay lover if you want, and bring your gun to the wedding as your 2nd amendment rights were reaffirmed in what 2008? ...and you and your rich corporate buddies can contribute as much money to political causes as you want because that spreads freedom like nothing else.... Weak is the appropriate header for this last section;) It's a hodge podge of nonsense and manages to completely avoid the topic all together.
Recommended Posts