Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Donald vs Hillary


August1991

Who will American voters choose: Clinton or Trump?  

53 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, -TSS- said:

Some Californians are toying with the idea of a Calexit. Go ahead. Last time there was an attempted secession just over 150 years ago that was a roaring success.

 

It is quite a common notion....northern Californian counties want to leave the fruits and nuts down south too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Of course, fantasies like: if only the millennials had voted are just that: a fantasy.

Might as well be a hotdog. Monday morning quarterbacking.

I don't see it that way. Monday morning quarterbacking would be 'if only we had done this', but Clinton's camp repeatedly urged Millennials to vote and told them things were much closer and they shouldn't take a win for granted. Too many ignored her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

There are already four socially conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

No there isn't........

Conservative judges:

Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy. (Kennedy often acts as a swing vote; he has voted both for and against abortion in the past, but the majority of his rulings have been conservative.)

Liberal Judges:

Kagan, Ginsburg, Bryer, Sotomayer..

In addition, some of the Liberal judges are over 70.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices

The last Supreme court ruling (after Scalia died) saw them strike down a Texas law restricting abortion 5-3. Ok, so abortion rights were upheld. But Trump will appoint one anti-abortion judge at least, and if one of the Liberal judges should die in the next 4 years (Ginsburg is already over 80, so its certainly a strong possibility; Bryer is also well over 70.), you can easily see similar rulings run 5-4 against abortion in the future. (It may get even worse if more than 1 justice dies.)

In general, presidents get to appoint 1-2 supreme court justices per term. Scalia will have died approximately a year before Trump's swearing in, so its reasonable to expect he'll have at least another appointment.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/supreme-court-abortion-texas/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy.

I see.........explain how they are social conservatives, you know, jurisprudence and past rulings etc.........or better yet, prior to the passing of Justice Scalia, why these then five "socially conservative judges" didn't ban abortion or round up the gays.......you know, when they had an actual majority? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

I see.........explain how they are social conservatives, you know, jurisprudence and past rulings etc.........or better yet, prior to the passing of Justice Scalia, why these then five "socially conservative judges" didn't ban abortion or round up the gays.......you know, when they had an actual majority? :rolleyes:

The supreme court can only rule on cases that actually get presented to them. They cannot proactively go out and seek out laws that they think are unconstitutional for them to rule on, nor could they simply "ban" something they don't like. The fact that there haven't been more anti-gay or anti-abortion rulings is just a case of luck (i.e. what cases happen to make their way through the courts.)

And as I explained, Justice Kennedy usually has a conservative leaning. But, he can also serve as a swing vote; many of the 5-4 rulings have been decided based on his vote. (However, it should also be noted that he has also voted AGAINST both abortion and gay rights in the past.)

There HAVE been anti-gay rulings in the past. (e.g. Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale.) The fact that the "gays haven't been rounded up" doesn't mean that there isn't some oppression going on. Apparently you seem to have no problem with human rights abuses. Some of us think human rights abuses should be stopped.

In the best case scenario, Trump appoints one supreme court justice, and we end up with more 5-4 rulings, some in favor of gay rights/abortion rights, some against. But again, as I stated before, with some of the judges in their 70s/80s, it is likely that additional appointments of right-leaning judges will be made during Trump's term. In that situation, you end up with a bunch of rulings that will attack abortion/gay rights with either a 5-4, or 6-3 vote (depending on how Kennedy votes).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Zuckerberg defended Peter Thiel's donation to Donald Trump and rejects responsibility for the plight of depressed Clinton losers.   Facebook isn't just for social justice warriors and coddled millennials.   We are seeing reactionary and violent protests from the very same people who demanded diversity.   Now you are either with the Trump haters, or against them.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/19/13334608/mark-zuckerberg-peter-thiel-donald-trump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

The supreme court can only rule on cases that actually get presented to them.

Social conservatives have controlled both Houses more then they haven't for the last two decades.........likewise, have governed more States then they haven't.......yet....for some reason they didn't get around to banning abortion. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Social conservatives have controlled both Houses more then they haven't for the last two decades.........likewise, have governed more States then they haven't.......yet....for some reason they didn't get around to banning abortion. :rolleyes:

Won't this be the first time in quite a while that the Republican party will control the White House, Senate, House, and Supreme Court all at the same time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Won't this be the first time in quite a while that the Republican party will control the White House, Senate, House, and Supreme Court all at the same time?

George W. Bush had that for a while, but some of the Republican Supreme Court appointees were not sufficiently "pro-life" enough to overturn Roe v Wade. One of them is viewed as a "traitor" for not being a pro-life rubber stamp as Republicans had expected when they got selected. Several anti-abortion laws have been defeated in the Supreme Court in recent years, by 5-4 votes, and one of the 4 pro-life votes was Scalia.  So it might be that they need Scalia's replacement, plus they need one of the liberal justices to croak within the next few years.

They won't make the same mistake again, and the next Supreme Court Justice nominees will be selected with a careful 4-point litmus test (loves guns, hates abortions, loves Bibles, hates homos.)

 -k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Roe v. Wade will never be overturned in the U.S., no matter how much Canadians worry about it.

Have you broken the news to Betsy? I don't think she'll take it well.

 -k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This blog tries to explain things to the crying losers....America is NOT your "safe space":

 

Quote

...Well, children, that’s not how it works. America is not your safe space. He won, fairly and decisively. He’s our president. You don’t have to like it, but you have to accept it. I would’ve accepted it if that other crook had won.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cybercoma said:

"Decisively" by losing the popular vote. The author must be illiterate.

Why are you latched onto the "popular vote". Everyone knows exactly how the system works. Just like in Canada, it's not pure popular vote that matters, and for good reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

It is quite a common notion....northern Californian counties want to leave the fruits and nuts down south too.

Northern California (north of San Francisco) has more in common with Wyoming than the rest of California. 

 

2 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Just like in Canada, it's not pure popular vote that matters, and for good reason. 

Are you aware of any instances in Canada of the party coming in second place in the popular vote, yet forming government? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2016 at 6:35 PM, Derek 2.0 said:

 

I have no doubt some sort of "Religious Freedom" bill will be passed, I just don't see any major legislation curtailing gay rights or abortion.......at the very least, not unless Trump is able to install four socially conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

"Religious Freedom Bill" is just short for "Religious Freedom To Discriminate Bill".

On 11/10/2016 at 6:35 PM, Derek 2.0 said:

And the counter argument to that is why are the major religions allowed to continue with their beliefs that could be described as discrimination against gays, adulterers and those that worship false idols?

I'd suggest that first off, that's not a question that would even occur to guys like Mike Pence or the social conservatives in congress.

And I suggest the answer they'd give is that their right to discriminate is guaranteed by the First Amendment, while the constitution doesn't expressly protect sexual orientation at all.

On 11/10/2016 at 6:35 PM, Derek 2.0 said:

I'd quit my job..... (And I did in the 90s over a proposed posting to Quebec)

That's a lot like Trump's response when somebody asked him how he'd feel if Ivanka was being treated the way Roger Ailes treated women at Fox. “I would like to think she would find another career or find another company if that was the case." I didn't care for that response. If her boss was grabbing her by the pussy, she should find a new job?

I guess that's a great option if you have the job prospects to just quit, or the resources to just up and relocate at the drop of a hat. For a lot of people it's not very realistic.

I don't agree with this might-makes-right approach to peoples' rights. Making everything "states rights" and telling the rest of the country that it's not their business how people in other states, or telling people "it's Yahweh or the Highway" when your government brings in punitive laws, is miserable and vindictive.   I'm sure that some governors would love to put up a sign at the state line that says "ATTENTION HOMOS: GET OUT AND STAY OUT."  Pence would no doubt be at the front of the line, and your guy Rick Perry would be close behind if he were still governor.  But is that really the kind of country you'd want?

Like I said earlier, I see it as a lot of people being hurt for no good reason, and the suggestion that everything can just be "states rights" and the chips fall where they may doesn't do anything to reassure me that it's not going to lead to a shitty situation for a lot of people.

 -k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

This blog tries to explain things to the crying losers....America is NOT your "safe space":

 

Refusing to accept the results of an election isn't an exclusively left wing phenomenon. A lot of angry conservatives likewise refused to accept that Barack Obama was their President as well.

 -k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kimmy said:

 

Refusing to accept the results of an election isn't an exclusively left wing phenomenon. A lot of angry conservatives likewise refused to accept that Barack Obama was their President as well.

 

Did they protest and riot in the streets ?  Did they launch an online petition to change EC voting?   Did they have cute Twitter hash tags ?  

Donald Trump refused as well....now he is the president elect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...