The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Topic: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga (Read 353983 times)

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #700 – 2016-02-07, 16:53:47

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-07, 00:07:13

Brains turned to mush by so-called institutions of "higher education" likewise would glow, reddish

Like Ted Cruz's, who graduated from Princeton University in 1992, and then from Harvard Law School in 1995?

Glow little Cruz brain, glimmer, glimmer.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #701 – 2016-02-07, 17:59:17

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-07, 05:07:13

The 14th Amendment to the constitution is carte blanche to re-write the rest of the document, by judicial fiat…

I have never said that. What I did say is that provides equal protection under the law for all citizens, which it blatantly does. Courts all over the political spectrum agree with that interpretation. Mine is an educated, informed interpretation. Meanwhile continue pretending you know better than the best legal minds in the country. Delusions of superiority are what you excel at.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-07, 05:07:13

What about Cruz's stated positions bothers you?

For one, I disagree with his solution to ISIS, out of respect for human life. I don't believe in carpet bombing whole cities to go after a terrorist group. That position alone says he should not be president, on the grounds that he'll draw us into another long, pointless war, if not ignite WWIII

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-07, 05:07:13

Won't you vote for whatever candidate the Democrat Party puts forward?

Maybe that can stop when Republicans put forward somebody that's at least sane. For instance, I could give our governor Sandoval his due consideration. But the current crop of them appeals to fear and ignorance and has become the very opposite of the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Do you understand yet? No? Let me put in even simpler terms for. It's not pro-Democratic as much as listening to Republicans and having to say "Are you kidding? You must be drunk!"

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #702 – 2016-02-08, 07:35:26

Quote from: Jimbro3738 on 2016-02-07, 08:53:47

Like Ted Cruz's, who graduated from Princeton University in 1992, and then from Harvard Law School in 1995?

Yup! William F. Buckley came out of Yale, as well…

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-02-07, 09:59:17

For one, I disagree with his solution to ISIS, out of respect for human life. I don't believe in carpet bombing whole cities to go after a terrorist group. That position alone says he should not be president, on the grounds that he'll draw us into another long, pointless war, if not ignite WWIII

Of course, you recognize rhetoric… The fact is, Obama's "deal" with Iran is more likely to ignite WWIII.

But, I take it, that's it? His small government ambitions, tax reform and consistent fidelity to the Constitution — you're okay with?

You always seem to look for the sound-byte, the "for that alone" type of argument, Sang… It's your nature, and your education encourages it!

If you're seriously worried about a Cruz presidency -because of his rhetoric against ISIS- keep in mind that he would likely require (and respect) Congress' prerogative, to declare war.
Your years of living under the Obama administration have dulled your senses: We don't elect kings, though we've elected presidents who act as though we did.
——————————————————————————
Of course, I understand that -in your world- all Republicans are lying bastards!

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #703 – 2016-02-08, 12:56:53

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-08, 02:35:26

The fact is, Obama's "deal" with Iran is more likely to ignite WWIII.

I thought you stopped smoking that stuff.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #704 – 2016-02-08, 19:14:24

Clinton is a damnable hypocrite and comes out with guff when challenged by Saunders on her being part of the money barons. Just look at what she gets from that quarter and then more recently what was it - around $675,000 dollars for 3 talks to the money lot? When challenged on television on that one she was shown to be on the back foot saying that was what always dished out. Talk about being two-faced?

The Republican contenders are all a joke and as bad as each other and Saunders is the only principled one on the Democratic corner. What a damnable lesson in the lack of proper democracy. For the millions of midle class people the lack of movement on incomes what the soaking rich pay in tax and the struggle of the working class the Republicans have no-one of any competence. The only half decent one for the Democrats is Saunders as Clinton is just another establishment yak mouth and an utter two-face and waste of time. One cannot help but feel for so many over there who are frustrated by what passes for a system ore even a decent democracy and in the future it is interesting that Saunders attracts so many of the youthful citizenry. The republicans will not win the election and we assume that Clinton will and you can take that as just a continuation of the political mess the nation is in. If Saunders does well in polls it is a glimmer for the future but for now after the Presidential farce things will just be the same under that two-faced woman.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #705 – 2016-02-09, 07:00:33

Quote from: rjhowie on 2016-02-08, 19:14:24

The Republican contenders are all a joke

It's a joke when they consider themselves "constitutional conservatives" when the only part of it they seem to know is the second amendment

Quote from: rjhowie on 2016-02-08, 19:14:24

If Saunders does well in polls it is a glimmer for the future but for now after the Presidential farce things will just be the same under that two-faced woman.

Sanders, Howie. He does seem to have a chance, but we'll see. You're right that in him there's a glimmer of hope for the future. That's not necessarily because his positions, but he's showing that somebody with integrity can do well. Maybe we'll see somebody with integrity on the GOP side. They claim to be "anti-establishment" but are just in bed with Wall Street, who in practical terms are more the establishment than the Washington insiders. But those clowns claim to not be part of the Republican National Committee establishment. If that's true or not, they're still representing the corrupt establishment in the truer, broader sense of the term.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-08, 07:35:26

You always seem to look for the sound-byte, the "for that alone" type of argument, Sang

Not at all. But his foreign policy is truly frightening. Meanwhile, I see your fondness for going after strawmen has blossomed in a torrid love affair.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #706 – 2016-02-10, 03:04:37

Looks as though Bernie and The Donald have won New Hampshire.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #707 – 2016-02-10, 03:26:25

Meanwhile, GOP voters there continue to show their ignorance of the Constitution. Meet the Press tells us:

Fear, ignorance and constitutional illiteracy continue to the rule the GOP.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #708 – 2016-02-10, 04:07:48

Interesting point of fact. No Muslim terrorist group has ever managed to poison an entire American city, but Republicans have.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #709 – 2016-02-10, 05:49:20

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-02-09, 19:26:25

Meanwhile, GOP voters there continue to show their ignorance of the Constitution.

No, Sang: You continue to show your ignorance of the Constitution… Congress or the executive branch have the power to limit immigration however they choose. It needn't be "fair" — and the rights of U.S. citizens are not granted, by the Constitution, to foreign nationals.
Surely, you know that?

No?

Well, I'm not surprised: Much of what you think you know just isn't so!

Immigration policy is just that: Policy. (And, yes, policy usually has goals relevant to current and projected circumstances…) "Fairness" is not a policy, in this case; it's a canard.

Should everyone wish to be an American? Hm. I can think of a great many who wouldn't; and almost as many whom we should preclude…
How about you? (I mean, what do you think?

You were born here, I presume; and of citizen-parents. No matter how much I disagree with you, you're a fellow American — as entitled to express his opinion as I am.
—————————————————————————————

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-02-09, 20:07:48

No Muslim terrorist group has ever managed to poison an entire American city, but ~~Republicans~~ Democrats have.

Fixed that for ya!

Aren't ya glad you don't have to drink the water in Flint, MI?

(What were you referring to, BTW? Don't be shy! Do tell…)
——————————————————————————————
I've chosen a source you will likely accept:

Quote

[I've clipped the egregious Democrat talking-points that pander to their "true believers"…]
CNN noted that “Flint residents say they were kept in the dark for 18 months until a local doctor, Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha a physician in a local medical center pediatric ward took things into her own hands. “When (my research team and I) saw that it was getting into children and when we knew the consequences, that’s when I think we began not to sleep…at first, the state publicly denounced her work, saying she was causing near hysteria. They spent a week attacking her before reversing their narrative and admitting she was right.” Ironically, adding that agent would have cost about $100 a day, and experts say 90 percent of the problems with Flint’s water would have been avoided.
[underlining added…]
(source)

The city of Flint couldn't come with an extra $100 a day…? And it's the Republican governor's fault? Why do cities elect Democrats, I wonder…

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #710 – 2016-02-10, 08:47:22

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-10, 05:49:20

No, Sang: You continue to show your ignorance of the Constitution… Congress or the executive branch have the power to limit immigration however they choose.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-10, 05:49:20

No, Sang: You continue to show your ignorance of the Constitution… Congress or the executive branch have the power to limit immigration however they choose.

You're trying to invoke the plenary power doctrine, but I guarantee banning an entire religion of 1.6 billion adherents entry into the US wouldn't survive a legal challenge. Remember, Trump isn't just addressing immigration, but mere entry into the US. But let's say I'm wrong and it did, such a thing would be monumentally stupid on multiple levels. Wouldn't that be fabulous for international relations banning a Kuwaiti Sheik for entry into the US on the grounds that he's a Muslim. It's plays right in ISIS and Al-Quada's hands.

How do you necessarily know somebody is a Muslim in the first place? There are countries that pretty evenly divided between Islam and Christianity and even predominantly Muslim countries have Christians and Jews. How would those GOPers be able to tell them apart, gonna have the Christians were a cross and the Jews a Star of David (that would create problems of its own...), as if a Muslim couldn't pick one up for five bucks (if not less?) What of Caucasian Muslims? Then did you wanna open existing Muslims in the US to radicalization by making them feel discriminated against, wanna prove to Muslims that it's a "clash of civilizations?" In case you don't understand because you're slow, this attempt to keep terrorists out would create more terrorists. Obviously, you Republicans didn't think this one through (as usual with your issues) and I'm barely scratching the surface.

But it's doubtful that I'm wrong.
The Wall Street Journal tells us that constitutional scholars are calling it unconstitutional. It's your right-wing media that hallucinates that such a thing is legal in the constitution, although it should be noted the WSJ is a conservative publication. Your right-wing blogs point out cases in which people were denied entry based on race and national origin, but those cases are old. Banning an entire major world religion would not survive Federal Courts and ultimately the SCOTUS today, just as those old examples would have struck down

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-10, 05:49:20

Should everyone wish to be an American?

Of course not. But that's based on the personal background and character of the person, not on his or her race and religion. There are horrible middle-eastern Muslims just as there are toxic white, Christian Europeans. Likewise, there are hardworking, intelligent people with good character of every race, religion and nationality. I don't think this is hard, except to ignorant, racist GOPers.

Now onto Flint. Did I say it was all Snyder's fault? Flint was under the management of Darnell Earley, appointed by Snyder. Perhaps even you can understand this. He was not elected by the people. Earley claimed he objected to the switching the water source, but there is no record of his supposed objections in any of the resolutions. His excuse is that the decision to which water source was made before he became manager. Former Mayor Dayne Walling called Earley's account "blatantly false" and City Council President Josh Freeman called it a "fairy tale. " Regardless of who's to blame, why didn't Snyder's man order the hundred bucks a day be spent, especially after the problems with the water supply became evident (almost immediately?) Where the Snyder administration's culpability comes in is that they failed to respond months ago when they complaints over water quality and sick people were already coming from Flint. What we have here is a case of cost cutting over humanity , GOP style.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #711 – 2016-02-10, 10:21:26

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-02-10, 00:47:22

You're trying to invoke the plenary power doctrine, but I guarantee banning an entire religion of 1.6 billion adherents entry into the US wouldn't survive a legal challenge.

Upon what Constitutional basis would such a "legal" challenge be based…?
Is there a "right" of entry into the U.S. mentioned anywhere in the Constitution? There are laws passed by congress that prescribed and proscribed nationalities — and, while I'll agree, they weren't "fair" (or even reasonable…), they were Constitutional. Likewise, some of Obama's executive actions have actually abrogated adopted laws. Doesn't that bother you?

But I suppose you mean, if there are enough liberal activist judges on the Supreme Court, than "importing" international law (the laws of other nations, and those of the United Nations…) into our own Supreme Court's deliberations might swing their opinions towards the way you'd like…?

I'm opposed to accepting foreign-law precedent in our courts. Their ways are -often- not ours; and, while we may understand them, they are unlikely to ever understand us.
(I don't know why it's so hard, for those from the Old World -and Great Britain, in particular- to "get" us: They had all the same pieces of the puzzle we had…)

I suppose it's much like RJ imagines: Every crack-pot with a soapbox should be considered a viable candidate! What else is democracy about?

Someone said:

Quote

John Yoo, a conservative law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the” proposal is unconstitutional”, pointing to First Amendment guarantees of the free exercise of religion.

“The United States cannot discriminate on the basis of religion,” Mr. Yoo said. He added that in the past, the U.S. has discriminated based on country of origin, but that is different from a wholesale religious ban.

Why…? Yoo has been wrong before. (Some of you may remember…) But never so bald-faced, stupidly wrong!
The distinction is not moot; it is plain and persistently pernicious. Actual adherence to Islamic doctrine requires the elimination of the United States of America… Isn't that a declaration of war?
Of course, followers of Islam could reject much of what their Holy Books say… They won't, of course.
And the so-called "radicals" will continue, with a lot of support from the "moderates".

Where -I'd ask Mr. Yoo- does it say that it can't discriminate on the basis of religion…?
(This is a serious question: Until the U.S. rules the world, only our citizens are entitled to the "rights" of U.S. citizens… But, of course, most of us would like to see everyone else have them.)

Has it not occurred to the "powers-that-be" that those who desire (and conspire to achieve…) Shari'a seek the demise of American republicanism, and democracy in general?
The usual means of succession in Muslim countries is — assassination; their "books" and history show that that is what they expect.
Do we want that…?

Does anyone who says Yes understand how far back we'd go, to get there?

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #712 – 2016-02-10, 11:21:51

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-10, 10:21:26

Shari'a seek the demise of American republicanism, and democracy in general?

Do yourself a favor and look up from those right-wing blogs, will ya? Such a ban will never get passed in the first place. It just red meat for GOP primary voters and the candidates know this. But the fact remains that its unconstitutional on religious grounds and if it wasn't.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #713 – 2016-02-10, 17:37:03

I hope you're lucky America with Trump. Offer to arrange a vote on moderators of candidate in Presidents of America.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #714 – 2016-02-10, 17:53:15

One can only be unlucky with Trump.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #715 – 2016-02-11, 00:52:09

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-02-10, 03:21:51

But the fact remains that its unconstitutional on religious grounds and if it wasn't.

Cogent, as always, Sang! What was it you meant to say? Care to try again?

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #716 – 2016-02-12, 02:48:41

No. Instead I'll ask you how it's possible to think this good policy.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #717 – 2016-02-12, 03:18:14

Didn't say it was! But it is not unconstitutional.

The policy of taking into the U.S. refugees from Syria and other areas over-run by ISIS -knowing full-well we can't vet them- is risky. What benefits outweigh the risks?
(And please don't say something like "Good PR"… That matters little, in the Middle East.)

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #718 – 2016-02-12, 15:01:42

Note again, we're talking about a total ban on Muslims coming into the country not just would-be immigrants. Perhaps you're not understanding how draconian the positions of your GOPers are here's where we're running into constitutional issues but acceptance or refusal of refugees probably is constitutional. Trump's proposal, which NH GOP primary voters seemed to support would ban people like Peter Murphy (former lead singer of Bauhaus) from entering the country on the grounds that converted to Islam. Get it now?

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #719 – 2016-02-12, 19:30:43

The highly unusual circumstances happening in the carnival, ooops, Presidential race show how much people have gradually become disconcerted with what passes for a political or representative system. There are unfortunately an almost circus for a developed country. Thankfully I live 3,000 miles away from Wall Street land but iordinary people have at last started coming round to what passes for a way of doing things. On the |Republican side there is really no-one of a moderate sense hence the rise of Trump and makes that side look so silly. On the Democrats corner, Clinton is a very snide woman who is being supported by big money. That incident where she got $670,000 for 3 speeches for a big money corporation she answered with a stupid stance. She is just as bad and is so much part of the in-house money lot. Even when she got beat by Bernie Saunders coming onto platforms you could tell she was so damn false with all that smiling and pointing to people with out on laughter. She is a hypocrite. If she wins it will just be the same establishment and make no difference to the middle or working class people. Although I am no of Saunders tradition I would say that his thinking is long overdue for America..

One cannot but feel for the ordinary American who has had his loyalty misused and suffered the propaganda guff of the media which is controlled by the big money corner. The republicans are at sixes and sevens but the Democrats under Clinton will make little difference. However Bernie Saunders does I hope it is a new direction especially for the young who have been sidetracked but now given some home by the views of that man.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #720 – 2016-02-13, 00:50:24

Oh please, Howie. Here we go again. You're saying the British establishment candidates aren't supported by big money? Spare us.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #721 – 2016-02-13, 22:37:30

The usual ex-colonist brained guff.

We in practice have a far wider parliamentary system. There are a 3 main national parties (4 if you consider that UKIP now has an MP and also won the Euro Elections on britain). In addition there are regional parties like the Welsh and Scottisn nationalist parties and the Unionists in Ulster. It is completely different from what goes on in your messed up money controlled fiefdom. Some 40% of your lower House are multi-millionaires and 60% of the Senate. The 2 parties are rules by money barons and you do not have the wider situation we have in parliament the standing committees and wider democracy. So you are the big losers and that Clinton woman taking in that $670,000 dollars from the finance sector from 3 speeches alone?

So you are trying to ignore that both the Democrats and Republicans aren't tied up with the Wall Street controllers whereas here having the national and regional aspect to our democracy puts you lot in the damnable shade. So sneer and be as crassly ignorant as you like but even with rich people our system is broader based and more challenging to money than your political joke.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #722 – 2016-02-14, 02:17:02

Quote from: rjhowie on 2016-02-13, 15:37:30

Some 40% of your lower House are multi-millionaires and 60% of the Senate.

I'd love to hear you explain The House of Lords.

But in Britain if you're born into money you're just supposed to have it therefore no one can say anything about it. So it'd just be a whiny mess of excuses.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #723 – 2016-02-14, 02:39:44

Howie, tells us all about Lord Ashcroft worth 1.48 billion USD

I'm not saying Republicans and Democrats aren't beholden to big money, I'm just saying you're quick to judge the US without looking at your own country first - as usual.

Re: The American 2016 Presidential Elections & The Ongoing American Saga

Reply #724 – 2016-02-14, 04:41:32

RJ, this might please you (…before you realize what it means!

): The sad new of Antonin Scalia's death creates a situation where the Republican Senators must prevent another Obama nominee from ascending to the Supreme Court. Should they fail to do so, the U.S. will likely see its first successful third party…