4merper4mer Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Lots of people willing to believe they could never lose. If the biggest loser of all time can't believe he lost, and Hillary can't believe she isn't up by 50 points, why is it hard to believe that Trump won't believe it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr1 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Hillary and Donald need to make a buddy cop movie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 I see Former is off his meds again today but he did raise one good point in there. Her Supreme Court answer was horrific. I support a living Constitution whose meaning may change over time. But there's belief in that, and then there's advocating that the Court be legislative, which was Hillary's entire answer. Trump put out a list, sure, but if he nominated Harambe to the court, no one would be shocked. Jefferson's advocacy for ritual bloodletting is well known. He was deeply influenced by the French Revolution. Here's the thing: We don't need TJ's draconian chaotic revolution if people would just vote the powers-that-be out. But Americans won't do it. You do realize that the biggest recent "legislative" SCOTUS actions were conservative. The Voting Rights Act and Campaign Finance reform were both bipartisan, overwhelmingly passed with near unanimous approval by both house and senate.....and Scalia saw fit to overturn them. I would say both were bad calls: The States that were under the VRA immediately went back to their nefarious ways and NC was just found to have blatantly targeting minorities in pinching voting access. Talk about Tyranny. CU has thrown gas on the pay for legislation we have today. Legislators now spend half their time raising money...Bravo Scalia...the Supreme Legislator... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Sorry about that. I took your objections to anyone criticizing her to be advocacy. You've fell into the confirmation bias trap. My criticism of Trump is not an endorsement of Clinton. IIRC, I don't ever recall objecting to her criticisms. The only thing comes to mind is disputing that she's been a neocon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) Interpretations change over time. That's the beauty of the Constitution. How would the commerce clause be interpreted in the age of the Internet? Jurisdiction as well. Hillary said she wants to choose judges to advocate for the common man and listed some specific issues. Of course, so did Trump--he just picked the other side of issues. The Constitution has a prescribed method for changing the Document, which is how the commerce clause, and all other clauses should be adapted to a changing world. Your preferred method is that of Clinton and Trump, because it expressly lends itself towards their ends. You do realize that the biggest recent "legislative" SCOTUS actions were conservative. The Voting Rights Act and Campaign Finance reform were both bipartisan, overwhelmingly passed with near unanimous approval by both house and senate.....and Scalia saw fit to overturn them. I would say both were bad calls: The States that were under the VRA immediately went back to their nefarious ways and NC was just found to have blatantly targeting minorities in pinching voting access. Talk about Tyranny. CU has thrown gas on the pay for legislation we have today. Legislators now spend half their time raising money...Bravo Scalia...the Supreme Legislator... The role of the Court is to deem if legislation is Constitutional or not, not to judge if legislation is good or not. The Constitution is the high law of the land, and all legislation must be subservient to it. Scalia did not rule that the legislation wasn't constructive. He ruled that the Constitution did not permit it. At which point, it falls to Congress to amend the legislation in order that it meet Constitutional rigors, or that they amend the Constitution in order to permit the legislation. Did you really require this civics lesson this morning? Edited October 20, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Did you really require this civics lesson this morning? Rhetorical question, I am sure.... Reminder: The loser of the election doesn’t have to “accept” the results Last week Hillary agreed that Gore ‘won’ 2000 election 8 Times Liberals Claimed An Election Was Stolen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 THE MEDIA WILL LEARN TO LOVE TRUMP IN DUE TIME: . He is the worst major-party candidate in history. He’s a gaffe machine. He’s an evil racist who wants to return black people to slavery. He’s a brutal sexist who wants to return women to the subservience of the 1950s. He’s a nasty warmonger who doesn’t get the fundamental intricacies of modern foreign policy, with the Manichean worldview to match. He’s an old homophobe with a history of cruelty to workers. Think we’re talking about Donald Trump? No, we’re talking about Mitt Romney circa 2012. That’s how the media painted one of the most honorable men ever to run for the White House, the creator of Romneycare, a northeastern Republican with a penchant for compromise and negotiation. Mitt Romney, the left claimed, was no John McCain — that halcyon of moderation and decency. Now, of course, the media tells us that Donald Trump is a massive departure from the legacy of John McCain and Mitt Romney. He’s beyond the pale! He panders to racists! He’s a vicious sexist and sexual assaulter! He’s uninformed, unstable, ignorant, stupid! Why, compared to Mitt Romney, the man’s a monster! Much of this may be true in a way it simply wasn’t about Romney. But by 2020, Donald Trump will be the new standard of civility and decency according to the Left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 You've fell into the confirmation bias trap. My criticism of Trump is not an endorsement of Clinton. IIRC, I don't ever recall objecting to her criticisms. The only thing comes to mind is disputing that she's been a neocon. It is more your lack of criticism of Hillary that exposes your Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 It is more your lack of criticism of Hillary that exposes your I can't possibly keep up with B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 I can't possibly keep up with B-Man Hmmmmm, I'm not sure if I'm insulted or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts