IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 BTW, I’m more for throwing the DC bums in power out than I am this huge fan of Donald Trump. He’s the one and only destructor in the field and that’s what I’m rooting and voting for. As for polls, check out this nonsensical NBC Michigan poll… Trumps wallops Cruz by 20 points, yet he loses the general election to Clinton by 16 points, while Cruz loses to Clinton by 7 points…in the same poll. There’s something way way off right there. I’ve come to not trust the non-southern polls very much when it comes to Trump. I think a lot of people are simply lying because they’re too embarrassed to say they’ll vote for him against Clinton. We shall see what happens tomorrow. I wouldn’t get so crazy about this, the cards are stacked against whoever it is going against Hillary. I really think she’ll be the next president. I just think that Trump has a chance and Cruz doesn’t no matter what the polls are saying. Sweet Bejeezus. RCP is a collaboration of all relevant polls, not some non-southern poll or whatever you think it is. Lastly, if you honestly believe your first goal is to throw out the DC bums, the last thing you want to do is elect as president a guy who gave virtually each and every one of them a check of the last four decades. Trump IS a DC bum, you nitwit, and once in office, he'll be as bad as Obama or Hillary could ever be. Why do you Trumpsters NOT understand this?
1billsfan Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Sweet Bejeezus. RCP is a collaboration of all relevant polls, not some non-southern poll or whatever you think it is. Lastly, if you honestly believe your first goal is to throw out the DC bums, the last thing you want to do is elect as president a guy who gave virtually each and every one of them a check of the last four decades. Trump IS a DC bum, you nitwit, and once in office, he'll be as bad as Obama or Hillary could ever be. Why do you Trumpsters NOT understand this? Angry much? Don't get mad at me, get mad at your buds in DC who've created the fertile landscape for a revolt.
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Angry much? Don't get mad at me, get mad at your buds in DC who've created the fertile landscape for a revolt. Yeah, LA's a real supporter of the establishment.
IDBillzFan Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Angry much? Don't get mad at me, get mad at your buds in DC who've created the fertile landscape for a revolt. I'm not angry. I'm perplexed. You seem to be raging against the DC machine, and have chosen as your vehicle of destruction a guy who has personally funded everyone from Hillary Clinton to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. You've chosen a man who said he has no use for American prisoners of war. You've chosen a man who believes the military will do what he tells them, regardless of whether it's legal. You've chosen a man who says he will build a wall that Mexico is going to pay for, and when Mexico says it won't pay for it, his only response is "Well, the wall just got 10 feet taller." When confronted by all the inaccuracies in his economic plan, he simply yells "I will get rid of Department of Education" until the clock runs out and they have to move on to the next question. Facts don't lie. But Trump doesn't work with facts. He makes stuff up and when challenged, his best response is "Well, you just have to believe me because it's gonna happen because I say it's gonna happen."" In the end, you don't hear what he's saying. You hear what you think he's saying because you believe if Trump is elected president, he's suddenly going to stop working with all the people to whom he gave donations to get elected over the past four decades. And in typical Trump styple, when you are confronted with very basic facts debunking pretty much everything, all you can say is "Angry much?" You're like a right-wing gatorman.
Observer Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 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. The Senate is not obligated to advise first--we agree on that, although it's interesting that George Washington did it the other way around. You said earlier that the Senate ADVISED the president not to nominate. That is not the "advise" portion of their Constitutional role. Their advise role kicks in once there's a nomination. This issue is really not important to the nomination process--advise and consent clearly follows the nomination. May I assume that you're a DCTom-ist and don't think that there's any Constitutional mandate that a Senate ever act on a nominee (procedure doesn't specify a time so I assume they can let all the Justices just die off)? And Tom you're wrong when you say, "But once the nomination is received from the President, the Senate is under absolutely no Constitutional obligation to do anything with it." The Constitution says the Senate must "advise and consent" on the nomination. Doing nothing is not an option. Although you will point out that they can effectively do nothing for 1000 years, that is a far cry from what the drafters intended and that's not an activist interpretation.
1billsfan Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 I'm not angry. I'm perplexed. You seem to be raging against the DC machine, and have chosen as your vehicle of destruction a guy who has personally funded everyone from Hillary Clinton to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. You've chosen a man who said he has no use for American prisoners of war. You've chosen a man who believes the military will do what he tells them, regardless of whether it's legal. You've chosen a man who says he will build a wall that Mexico is going to pay for, and when Mexico says it won't pay for it, his only response is "Well, the wall just got 10 feet taller." When confronted by all the inaccuracies in his economic plan, he simply yells "I will get rid of Department of Education" until the clock runs out and they have to move on to the next question. Facts don't lie. But Trump doesn't work with facts. He makes stuff up and when challenged, his best response is "Well, you just have to believe me because it's gonna happen because I say it's gonna happen."" In the end, you don't hear what he's saying. You hear what you think he's saying because you believe if Trump is elected president, he's suddenly going to stop working with all the people to whom he gave donations to get elected over the past four decades. And in typical Trump styple, when you are confronted with very basic facts debunking pretty much everything, all you can say is "Angry much?" You're like a right-wing gatorman. While I don't like it, Trump was just doing business. The simple fact is that he isn't bought by anyone while the DC politicians are. You're angry at the wrong people, the DC two party system is so corrupt the system really needs to be shocked to it's core. Don't know if Trump could do it, but at least he's the best hope left to possibly do something close to it.
....lybob Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 I heard Ted Cruz was a big "Constitutional Origionalist" except for that whole "Natural Born Citizen" part, that part he wants to live and evolve.
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 The Senate is not obligated to advise first--we agree on that, although it's interesting that George Washington did it the other way around. You said earlier that the Senate ADVISED the president not to nominate. That is not the "advise" portion of their Constitutional role. Their advise role kicks in once there's a nomination. This issue is really not important to the nomination process--advise and consent clearly follows the nomination. May I assume that you're a DCTom-ist and don't think that there's any Constitutional mandate that a Senate ever act on a nominee (procedure doesn't specify a time so I assume they can let all the Justices just die off)? And Tom you're wrong when you say, "But once the nomination is received from the President, the Senate is under absolutely no Constitutional obligation to do anything with it." The Constitution says the Senate must "advise and consent" on the nomination. Doing nothing is not an option. Although you will point out that they can effectively do nothing for 1000 years, that is a far cry from what the drafters intended and that's not an activist interpretation. No, I'm not. The Constitution does not specify how "advise and consent" is to be given. That is up to the Senate, according to Senate rules. If the Senate decides that "advise and consent" is a coin flip, that's what it is. What the Senate HAS decided is that "advise and consent" is satisfied by acceptance of the nomination. The Senate chair is under no Constitutional obligation to refer it to committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee is under no obligation to let it out of committee for a floor vote. What you don't seem to comprehend is that Constitutionally "consent" need not be an affirmative action. It can just as easily be a withholding of action. That's because the Constitution DOES NOT SPECIFY PROCEDURE. The framers specifically wrote it that way, to provide for flexibility. The irony being that, despite calling everyone else a "strict constructionist," it's your incorrect viewpoint that's the most restrictive.
Dante Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 I'm not angry. I'm perplexed. You seem to be raging against the DC machine, and have chosen as your vehicle of destruction a guy who has personally funded everyone from Hillary Clinton to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. You've chosen a man who said he has no use for American prisoners of war. You've chosen a man who believes the military will do what he tells them, regardless of whether it's legal. You've chosen a man who says he will build a wall that Mexico is going to pay for, and when Mexico says it won't pay for it, his only response is "Well, the wall just got 10 feet taller." When confronted by all the inaccuracies in his economic plan, he simply yells "I will get rid of Department of Education" until the clock runs out and they have to move on to the next question. Facts don't lie. But Trump doesn't work with facts. He makes stuff up and when challenged, his best response is "Well, you just have to believe me because it's gonna happen because I say it's gonna happen."" In the end, you don't hear what he's saying. You hear what you think he's saying because you believe if Trump is elected president, he's suddenly going to stop working with all the people to whom he gave donations to get elected over the past four decades. And in typical Trump styple, when you are confronted with very basic facts debunking pretty much everything, all you can say is "Angry much?" You're like a right-wing gatorman. So what are we left with? The problem is there is no good option. I've gave up on all of them since Paul dropped out but as near as I can tell Cruz is the conservative's choice on the message board. He is certainly better than Rubio so I guess there is no one else. But I don't trust him at all. His wife is way to connected with the banks and Washington. She's was or still is on the Council Of Foreign Relations promoting a" North American Community" whatever that's supposed to mean. It seems to be open up the borders to unskilled labor, welfare recipients to come up here and ship all manufacturing to Mexico. This part of her career seems to be missing from her Wiki page as well. http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102 So yell, scream, insult whatever but this is why things seem so desperate. Even Cruz, arguably the best candidate left is compromised. It's a crappy situation.
IDBillzFan Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) . Even Cruz, arguably the best candidate left is compromised. It's a crappy situation. And still nowhere NEAR as crappy as a guy who spent the last 40 years putting money in the pockets of the DNC candidates. Trump has literally helped get Clinton, Reid AND Pelosi elected. In what world does he sound like a better option than Cruz? Look, even if Trump becomes president, do any of you honestly believe he is going to work to reduce the size of government, adhere to the Constitution and not get pulled into the political cashbag whirlwind that is DC? He's a freaking money-grubbing opportunistic blowhard who for years shoved cash in the hands of politicians, and is now ready to have them start stuffing his hands. Why are none of you able to see this? On his worst day Cruz is a MUCH better option than Trump on ANY day. Hell, I'd even take Hillary over him if there weren't SCOTUS seats to fill. Edited March 8, 2016 by LABillzFan
....lybob Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 And still nowhere NEAR as crappy as a guy who spent the last 40 years putting money in the pockets of the DNC candidates. Trump has literally helped get Clinton, Reid AND Pelosi elected. In what world does he sound like a better option than Cruz? Look, even if Trump becomes president, do any of you honestly believe he is going to work to reduce the size of government, adhere to the Constitution and not get pulled into the political cashbag whirlwind that is DC? He's a freaking money-grubbing opportunistic blowhard who for years shoved cash in the hands of politicians, and is now ready to have them start stuffing his hands. Why are none of you able to see this? On his worst day Cruz is a MUCH better option than Trump on ANY day. Hell, I'd even take Hillary over him if there weren't SCOTUS seats to fill. Except any "Constitutional Origionalist" could tell you he doesn't pass the "Natural Born Citizen" clause of the Constitutional attributes needed to be President of the United States
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Except any "Constitutional Origionalist" could tell you he doesn't pass the "Natural Born Citizen" clause of the Constitutional attributes needed to be President of the United States Define "Natural Born Citizen", under Origionalist doctrine. Then, if you disagree that Cruz qualifies, tell me who has Constitutional standing to challenge. You're going to have trouble, given that Cruz was conferred US citizenship at the moment of his birth, and did not require naturalization. You'll have further trouble given that the Courts denied everyone standing to challenge Presidential Citizenship in recent years.
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Except any "Constitutional Origionalist" could tell you he doesn't pass the "Natural Born Citizen" clause of the Constitutional attributes needed to be President of the United States That's complete horseshit. There's two ways to acquire citizenship: you're born a citizen, or your granted it through a legal and administrative process. There is no "Well, you were boen a citizen...but it doesn't really count in some circumstances." Anything else isn't a "Constitutional Originalist" position. It's a !@#$ing stupid position.
Ozymandius Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 So what are we left with? The problem is there is no good option. I've gave up on all of them since Paul dropped out but as near as I can tell Cruz is the conservative's choice on the message board. He is certainly better than Rubio so I guess there is no one else. But I don't trust him at all. His wife is way to connected with the banks and Washington. She's was or still is on the Council Of Foreign Relations promoting a" North American Community" whatever that's supposed to mean. It seems to be open up the borders to unskilled labor, welfare recipients to come up here and ship all manufacturing to Mexico. This part of her career seems to be missing from her Wiki page as well. http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102 So yell, scream, insult whatever but this is why things seem so desperate. Even Cruz, arguably the best candidate left is compromised. It's a crappy situation. All this is true. Except, I suspect most Trump voters would be able to put aside their cynicism on voting day to cast a vote for Cruz. Especially if he gets Trump's endorsement because of the Sessions connection. Cruz is probably the only way the GOP can win this cycle.
Observer Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) The irony being that, despite calling everyone else a "strict constructionist," it's your incorrect viewpoint that's the most restrictive. You have me wrong. You're all being quite flexible with the Constitution. I too believe in a living, breathing, and changing Constitution. Just not one where the Senate can ignore its job. Let's come at this another way since we're just running in circles: At what point does not holding a hearing to "advise and consent" on a president's nominee become not "advising and consenting" as required by the Constitution. We both agree that the Senate must do something regarding a nomination, and that something is advice and consent. What could the Senate do that would violate that duty? Cruz is probably the only way the GOP can win this cycle. Rubio or Kasich maybe. Cruz will have a tough time because he'll never carry swing states. Trump...I'm done making predictions about Trump. I have a sting of wrong predictions about him in this cycle. Going to quit while I'm behind. Edited March 8, 2016 by Observer
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 You have me wrong. You're all being quite flexible with the Constitution. I too believe in a living, breathing, and changing Constitution. Just not one where the Senate can ignore its job. Let's come at this another way since we're just running in circles: At what point does not holding a hearing to "advise and consent" on a president's nominee become not "advising and consenting" as required by the Constitution. We both agree that the Senate must do something regarding a nomination, and that something is advice and consent. What could the Senate do that would violate that duty? Putting forth their own nominee, or accepting a nominee from anyone other than the executive, and then confirming him/her/Jenner as a Supreme Court Justice.
IDBillzFan Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Except any "Constitutional Origionalist" could tell you he doesn't pass the "Natural Born Citizen" clause of the Constitutional attributes needed to be President of the United States It's comments like this that make it exceedingly difficult to see where gatorman ends and ...lybob begins.
Ozymandius Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Rubio or Kasich maybe. Cruz will have a tough time because he'll never carry swing states. Cruz can compete in the swing states if he has the Trump/Sessions endorsement. In 2012, the turnout level for uneducated whites was only 57%. Educated whites turned out at 77%. Back in the 80s, uneducated whites had turnout rates > 70%, similar to their educated counterparts. It's just that over the years since then, both the Dems and the GOP have abandoned that demographic. They re-emerged this cycle thanks to Trump. Rubio and Kasich can't win. As stated before, you'll have a lot of angry Cruz and Trump supporters if their candidates have the most delegates but Rubio or Kasich become the nominee. The Republican coalition is fractured. You have to think in terms of which candidate has the best chance of bringing it all together for the general. The answer is Cruz.
....lybob Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Define "Natural Born Citizen", under Origionalist doctrine. Then, if you disagree that Cruz qualifies, tell me who has Constitutional standing to challenge. You're going to have trouble, given that Cruz was conferred US citizenship at the moment of his birth, and did not require naturalization. You'll have further trouble given that the Courts denied everyone standing to challenge Presidential Citizenship in recent years. That's complete horseshit. There's two ways to acquire citizenship: you're born a citizen, or your granted it through a legal and administrative process. There is no "Well, you were boen a citizen...but it doesn't really count in some circumstances." Anything else isn't a "Constitutional Originalist" position. It's a !@#$ing stupid position. http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf And the children of citizens of the United States, That may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf You do know that the Naturalization Act of 1790 is 1) not the Constitution, and 2) superseded many, many times over in the 225 years since? Of course you do. You're just trying to prove a ridiculous point that you don't even understand.
Recommended Posts