|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 08 2016 04:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 04:02 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2016 03:51 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2016 03:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Secret probably because they change the permissions of the image prior and use that designation to keep track of what needs to stay hidden on their server. Every news site has articles pre-written for certain outcomes of certain events. This is perhaps the most laughable of conspiracy nonsense you've posted. Lol the graphic wasn't the AP's though. It was Hillary's. I get you all want to snap to defending her, but at least get what you're defending right. You can't seven see the source of the email or any other information about the page that is displaying it. I have no idea who that is from. It's from info@HillaryClinton.com I get the urge, but it's 100% real. You should be able to verify it yourself (presuming you get her campaign emails). On June 08 2016 03:53 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2016 03:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Secret probably because they change the permissions of the image prior and use that designation to keep track of what needs to stay hidden on their server. Every news site has articles pre-written for certain outcomes of certain events. This is perhaps the most laughable of conspiracy nonsense you've posted. Lol the graphic wasn't the AP's though. It was Hillary's. I get you all want to snap to defending her, but at least get what you're defending right. Perhaps be a bit more clear as to what you are trying to say instead of dumping more Shaun King bullshit. I am not seeing what makes this image hers, but even if it was, it would still mean nothing. It's obviously hers/real and it means the AP secretly called the race days ago and told Hillary's camp. Edit: Now I see what you mean. The image comes from an HRC address, but that is still meaningless. The polling of superdelegates likely took longer than a single day. I am sure they have been working on this for weeks.
EDIT: How do you suppose Hillary knew about it days before anyone else? Hillary has known she was going to clinch the nomination for the last few months ffs. Yes the only explanation is that this is a massive conspiracy to call the race early so that 'normal' voters who will most likely vote Hillary stay home because the race is over while frothing legions of Bernie fanatics will vote regardless to send a message... Oh wait no, AP calling the race last night is actually worse for Hillary then doing it today after she wins CA... That has nothing to do with what we're talking about but thanks for playing? Anyways, AP told us last night, they even say they didn't do finish counting until Monday, yet Hillary had their victory announcement graphic blended into hers already in it's second iteration on Saturday, not Monday. The AP and Hillary's camp were talking about the results before the AP even had them by their own admission.
"Media company talked to person before making announcement about said person, more staggeringly normal news in an hour".
|
On June 08 2016 04:07 xDaunt wrote:I think that what a lot of non-lawyers don't understand is how racially partisan some of these legal groups are.
If there is an actual issue then Trump should file for having the judge replaced. If he does not then there is no issue and he is blowing steam to get air time.
|
On June 08 2016 04:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:59 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 03:35 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Donald Trump turns out to be an autocratic president, running the country with pen and phone regardless of the Constitution, Congress and the courts will step in to stop him. That's the latest and perhaps most flummoxing rationale Republicans are offering these days as the party seeks to justify its support for its nominee.
Even after endorsing Trump, many Republicans are finding themselves constantly forced to distance themselves from Trump's inflammatory statements. Saying they disagree is beginning to sound hollow so Republicans have taken another tack. They promise that the courts and Congress will safeguard the United States from Trump's authoritarian whims.
If the New York businessman begins carrying out an agenda from the White House that looks anything like the one he's proposed on the campaign trail– like a ban on Muslims –Republicans promise the Constitution guarantees there will be a check and a balance.
“I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the New York Times last week in a piece highlighting how legal scholars are growing increasingly worried about Trump's authoritarian tendencies. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania."
In May, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a similar proclamation when he was asked in an interview whether he had concerns about the divisiveness Trump's message evoked even from within the Republican Party.
"What protects us in this country against big mistakes being made is the structure, the Constitution, the institutions," McConnell told CBS News last month. “No matter how unusual a personality may be who gets elected to office, there are constraints in this country. You don’t get to do anything you want to.”
Republican strategist John Feehery (who believes Trump won't be that bad) argued in a blog post that if thing got really bad, Trump could always be impeached. Source We are totally backing the guy, but don't worry, we will also totally stop him if he tries to violate the Constitution like he claims. Please vote for Trump.This is real life. This is the GOP trying to find a good way to let go of the Tiger's tail. They're still a bunch of slaves to political correctness who don't want to get too close b/c they don't want to be labeled 'racist/sexist/homophobe' because they're more concerned with their political careers than reality. It's been the story of the entire republican primary. In the case of some of the GOP members, its because they are not terrible people who have no respect for civil liberties, goverment, the rule of law and the balance of power. Trump is McCarthy 2.0, who attacks everyone who criticizes him and threatens them. Some members of the GOP are finally showing some spine. Um ok? I disagree and think you're overreacting to a non-story blown entirely out of proportion again. Trump's legal team isn't even trying to get the judge replaced. You guys love dramatic flair though. Lindsey Graham is the one who called Trump another McCarthy. And Trump's legal team is not dumb enough to file a motion to ask the judge to recuse himself because of his race, since it would be denied. But that doesn't matter, since Trump is asking people to look into the judge and making baseless claims of bias based on race. You'd think if Trump was such an autocrat he'd be able to make his legal team do it if he actually wanted them to. I mean which is it does Trump actually want to force the judge out and get a new one but his legal team stood up against the autocrat in the face of getting fired/violently attacked or is he not an autocrat anymore now? or maybe I was right and the left/media ARE blowing this up as a non-issue but he's still an autocratic 'hitler' Like seriously man you have all sorts of people/media calling him hitler 2.0 (which is totally not inappropriate/offensive) because taking illegal immigrants and sending them back to their home country is just like genocide. The idiotic hypocrisy and cognitive bias from the regressive left this election is just mind-boggling
Once again, members of the GOP are saying this stuff. Not the left. The call is coming from inside the house.
On June 08 2016 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 04:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote:Bad La Raza! Bad! Again! MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler + I think that what a lot of non-lawyers don't understand is how racially partisan some of these legal groups are. If there is an actual issue then Trump should file for having the judge replaced. If he does not then there is no issue and he is blowing steam to get air time.
I would bet money the firm handling the case would withdraw before they would file that motion. As one of my attorneys said "Only if I had a gun to my head."
|
On June 08 2016 04:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:59 IgnE wrote:On June 08 2016 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 07 2016 17:28 Surth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 12:18 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Hey xDaunt or Testie, why are people who hated Romney's flip floping beind fine with Trump being even worse about it? Romney was just dishonest, Trump is a phenomenon of showbusiness and reality TV. He literally always just says whatever is on his mind, and often what is on his mind contradicts himself (like walt whitman, he contains multitudes). Not that this is necessarily whatyou want in a president. But his flipflopping is a very different beast. Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 13:22 SK.Testie wrote:
I was for Obama in 08 / 12. And was a lefty who demonized any conservative source & ate up Jon Stew & Steven Colbert & thought Bill Maher wasn't just a shill (he is). Because I feel I can see when he knows he's lying for his team now. In highschool I was so left after reading a book on Osama that I was like, "oooh he has a point. It's because we're fucking up shit over there that we get attacked". Now, nay. In the 17th century, Puritans weren't just Christians from birth. They had to come up, at some point in their lives, with a conversion narrative, and tell everyone in church about this conversion. The elders then judged whether it was convincing or not, and only then would you be a proper Christian. These conversion narratives were a distinct genre, with distinct tropes and so on.I find it interesting how often conservatives have conversion narratives. You forgot to quote that fake-Churchill quote though: "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."' Show nested quote +But after having my own business and supporting people monetarily I've changed a lot. I think that should almost be a pre-requisite for voting that you should have a kid or know what it's like to spend your own $ on someone to vote. I think it should almost be a pre-requisite for voting that you are younger than 50, but then, that would be equally undemocratic.  Show nested quote +Obama nerfed our economy pretty hard when he killed that and our economy tanked right away because Harper went all in on oil. In this instance again it's a lot more jobs for a lot more people. And this in itself is a great thing because at least you have a useful happy populace rather than one that is forced to lose their dignity and collect unemployment insurance or other benefits. A fiat currency is not meant to be redistributed so much as it is to be grown and expanded. Trump knows where money comes from and how to make more of it. "haha he was bankrupt 4 times" - Aka he used bankruptcy 4 times to get out of shitty places and his other 9582989258 successful businesses were doing swell. I appreciate the sentiment in favor of FDR-style full employment, but I doubt the oil industry is going to need that much extra-labor. Also, "nerfed our economy", lol. If only he had taken more expo's! We need more vespene gas! Show nested quote +The Military & rule of law - It's very obvious he's going to be the best option for the military as he has called out things that other politicians simply haven't during the campaign. The rule of law has been completely eroded as the left and police are demonized and that's somehow allowed. The riots cannot stand. The police, the border patrol, and the military stand with Trump. The military is a necessary tool for keeping Americas interests in tact. I'm most definitely sickened by the riots. I feel that no matter what happens to me in my life, I will never act violently towards another human being. An inanimate object? Sure. But another human being? Unless it's a fight for survival, then there's no chance of that. The left's constant outright disrespect of laws is deeply concerning. And it has been constant for years and getting worse. And the fact that the Trump supporters are thanking police officers as they walk by them personally, giving them handshakes and having small talk with them shows a better sense of community as a whole. This next sentence could be classified as bullshit, but they genuinely seem like better people who care more about the country than they do themselves. Meanwhile people on the left seem to come off as, "what the fuck has this country done for me?" Even if you're in a terrible position in America, you're lucky to be there by default. You just are. i like how you begin with "military" and end up with "you're lucky to be born in the USA". You have a rambling quality that is slightly reminiscent of Trump, you know. Anyway. I'll just ramble a bit too. 1. you are "sickened by riots" and would "never act violently", but the Military, which is mostly in charge of killing people, is a "necessary tool for keeping Americas interests intact". Okay. 2. I said to samizdat a few days ago about how it remains an important philosophical project to explain how all violence, including systemic violence, is bodily violence. He thought that notion to be obvious, and yet here we are, believing that "we would never act violently ... unless its a fight for survival." Guess what, you and me and our entire life is already violent. Our lives are fundamentally built on top of daily, incessant, terrible violence. Besides, I don't think you have any idea of what it means to be "born in a terrible position in the US". Since you seem to generalize about the left so much, let me make a generalization about conservatives: Somehow you all still buy into the American dream of upwards mobility. It's hogshit. Show nested quote +Immigration - Again, another position I changed on. The left is arguing for a slave class that is consistently dependent on welfare. Again, after owning my own business. "I do not work for you. Nor do I work for a foreign invader that did not respect our laws to begin with." Harsh words, but if Canada's economy were shit, and I just decided to up and move to Japan because I liked their country best without any skills or knowing the language, I think I'd be a questionable person to do that. I think that's kinda.. a shitty thing to do to another country. Entering it against it's will. Isn't that rape? Raping a country?! Ok hyperbole and bad jokes aside. But it is intertwined with the rule of law. These people broke a law. They did not care about your country to begin with, we owe them no allegiance in return. You're an idiot. Well, no, you are right. Certain elements of what you term "the left" end up supporting policies that do in fact perpetuate a slave class thati s consistently dependent on welfare. To think that an actual leftist position would argue for that, is however, idiotic. Show nested quote +wtf is with criminals who've been deported 5-10 times getting access back into the country over and over? How does anyone remotely try to justify that? In many cases, these people are second-generation immigrants from El Salvador and a few other Central and South American countries who have been criminalized under spurious gang laws. They are then deported back to their "home countries", despite being born in the US and never actually having lived in their "home countries". Often they are denied documentation by the authorities in both countries and become quasi-stateless. Under such conditions, they then prefer to return to the US (a country which they at least know, where they might at least know a few streets or blocks), where, as criminalized subjects, they will still lack any possibility of getting a job, and thus be more likely to engage in criminal activity. I can send you heaps and heaps of literature on this, if you want. Rekrul was so much more fun as a progamer than you! Now where's my ketamine? ----- I'll tell you why I'm for George McGovern. George McGovern is one of the few men in public life today any place in the world who has passion in his heart and a commitment to the very depths of his soul. And what this nation lacks, lady [sic] and gentlemen, is a sense of commitment and a sense of passion for all the people of this entire nation and the entire world. George McGovern is not satisfied that 10 million Americans go to bed hungry every night. George McGovern is not satisfied that four and a half million Americans -- families -- live in rat infested and roach encrusted houses. George McGovern is not satisfied that in this nation of ours -- in this great nation of ours -- our infant mortality is so high that we rank 21st in all the nations of the world. [...] And with George McGovern as President of the United States we wouldn't have to have Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago! With George McGovern we wouldn't have a National Guard. You bet! You bet! I am sad that no one has commented on your important point about systemic violence. maybe its because your buried it in a long post. or maybe its because no one knows what you are talking about. That's a really, really deep rabbit hole to go down. but maybe the most important one to go down. definitely more interesting than "how is msm in hillary's pockets when they might be hurting her w sanders voters by prematurely declaring absolute victory." Eh, not really. I don't think that there's any real value in that conversation. All it would accomplish is describe (in starkly Hobbesian terms) how and why things are the way that they are. Nothing's going to come of it.
wat? talking about how and why things are is not useful? i beg to differ. just look at how testie (for example) conceptualizes violence and how that affects his moral judgments. if we are going to debate policies and acknowledge that they are undergirded by an ethics then we need to discuss the what and why of the symbolic that defines those ethics.
|
On June 08 2016 04:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 04:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2016 04:02 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2016 03:51 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2016 03:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Secret probably because they change the permissions of the image prior and use that designation to keep track of what needs to stay hidden on their server. Every news site has articles pre-written for certain outcomes of certain events. This is perhaps the most laughable of conspiracy nonsense you've posted. Lol the graphic wasn't the AP's though. It was Hillary's. I get you all want to snap to defending her, but at least get what you're defending right. You can't seven see the source of the email or any other information about the page that is displaying it. I have no idea who that is from. It's from info@HillaryClinton.com I get the urge, but it's 100% real. You should be able to verify it yourself (presuming you get her campaign emails). On June 08 2016 03:53 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2016 03:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Secret probably because they change the permissions of the image prior and use that designation to keep track of what needs to stay hidden on their server. Every news site has articles pre-written for certain outcomes of certain events. This is perhaps the most laughable of conspiracy nonsense you've posted. Lol the graphic wasn't the AP's though. It was Hillary's. I get you all want to snap to defending her, but at least get what you're defending right. Perhaps be a bit more clear as to what you are trying to say instead of dumping more Shaun King bullshit. I am not seeing what makes this image hers, but even if it was, it would still mean nothing. It's obviously hers/real and it means the AP secretly called the race days ago and told Hillary's camp. Edit: Now I see what you mean. The image comes from an HRC address, but that is still meaningless. The polling of superdelegates likely took longer than a single day. I am sure they have been working on this for weeks.
EDIT: How do you suppose Hillary knew about it days before anyone else? Hillary has known she was going to clinch the nomination for the last few months ffs. Yes the only explanation is that this is a massive conspiracy to call the race early so that 'normal' voters who will most likely vote Hillary stay home because the race is over while frothing legions of Bernie fanatics will vote regardless to send a message... Oh wait no, AP calling the race last night is actually worse for Hillary then doing it today after she wins CA... That has nothing to do with what we're talking about but thanks for playing? Anyways, AP told us last night, they even say they didn't do finish counting until Monday, yet Hillary had their victory announcement graphic blended into hers already in it's second iteration on Saturday, not Monday. The AP and Hillary's camp were talking about the results before the AP even had them by their own admission. "Media company talked to person before making announcement about said person, more staggeringly normal news in an hour".
There are 2 people involved in that, anything to suggest the AP told Bernie's camp on Saturday that the AP was going to announce he was the presumed loser Monday?
Or did they give one camp advanced notice so they could roll out emails, surrogates, etc... and not the other just before primary day today?
|
On June 08 2016 04:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:59 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 03:35 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Donald Trump turns out to be an autocratic president, running the country with pen and phone regardless of the Constitution, Congress and the courts will step in to stop him. That's the latest and perhaps most flummoxing rationale Republicans are offering these days as the party seeks to justify its support for its nominee.
Even after endorsing Trump, many Republicans are finding themselves constantly forced to distance themselves from Trump's inflammatory statements. Saying they disagree is beginning to sound hollow so Republicans have taken another tack. They promise that the courts and Congress will safeguard the United States from Trump's authoritarian whims.
If the New York businessman begins carrying out an agenda from the White House that looks anything like the one he's proposed on the campaign trail– like a ban on Muslims –Republicans promise the Constitution guarantees there will be a check and a balance.
“I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the New York Times last week in a piece highlighting how legal scholars are growing increasingly worried about Trump's authoritarian tendencies. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania."
In May, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a similar proclamation when he was asked in an interview whether he had concerns about the divisiveness Trump's message evoked even from within the Republican Party.
"What protects us in this country against big mistakes being made is the structure, the Constitution, the institutions," McConnell told CBS News last month. “No matter how unusual a personality may be who gets elected to office, there are constraints in this country. You don’t get to do anything you want to.”
Republican strategist John Feehery (who believes Trump won't be that bad) argued in a blog post that if thing got really bad, Trump could always be impeached. Source We are totally backing the guy, but don't worry, we will also totally stop him if he tries to violate the Constitution like he claims. Please vote for Trump.This is real life. This is the GOP trying to find a good way to let go of the Tiger's tail. They're still a bunch of slaves to political correctness who don't want to get too close b/c they don't want to be labeled 'racist/sexist/homophobe' because they're more concerned with their political careers than reality. It's been the story of the entire republican primary. In the case of some of the GOP members, its because they are not terrible people who have no respect for civil liberties, goverment, the rule of law and the balance of power. Trump is McCarthy 2.0, who attacks everyone who criticizes him and threatens them. Some members of the GOP are finally showing some spine. Um ok? I disagree and think you're overreacting to a non-story blown entirely out of proportion again. Trump's legal team isn't even trying to get the judge replaced. You guys love dramatic flair though. Lindsey Graham is the one who called Trump another McCarthy. And Trump's legal team is not dumb enough to file a motion to ask the judge to recuse himself because of his race, since it would be denied. But that doesn't matter, since Trump is asking people to look into the judge and making baseless claims of bias based on race. You'd think if Trump was such an autocrat he'd be able to make his legal team do it if he actually wanted them to. I mean which is it does Trump actually want to force the judge out and get a new one but his legal team stood up against the autocrat in the face of getting fired/violently attacked or is he not an autocrat anymore now? or maybe I was right and the left/media ARE blowing this up as a non-issue but he's still an autocratic 'hitler' Like seriously man you have all sorts of people/media calling him hitler 2.0 (which is totally not inappropriate/offensive) because taking illegal immigrants and sending them back to their home country is just like genocide.The idiotic hypocrisy and cognitive bias from the regressive left this election is just mind-boggling
come on, the man has said the only way to win vs terrorists is to go after their families because they still care about them and that the US needs to stop fighting politically correct.
I guess you could argue that we know families of terrorists aren't actually innocent, they're only innocent by law because we don't have anything on them but I don't know if that's a road you ever want to go down.
|
On June 08 2016 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 04:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote:Bad La Raza! Bad! Again! MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler + I think that what a lot of non-lawyers don't understand is how racially partisan some of these legal groups are. If there is an actual issue then Trump should file for having the judge replaced. If he does not then there is no issue and he is blowing steam to get air time.
LaRaza's slogan "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing.” Sounds supremacist to me. Probably shouldn't be linking to that kind of thinking on two different pages.
|
On June 08 2016 04:20 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 04:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 03:59 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 03:35 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Donald Trump turns out to be an autocratic president, running the country with pen and phone regardless of the Constitution, Congress and the courts will step in to stop him. That's the latest and perhaps most flummoxing rationale Republicans are offering these days as the party seeks to justify its support for its nominee.
Even after endorsing Trump, many Republicans are finding themselves constantly forced to distance themselves from Trump's inflammatory statements. Saying they disagree is beginning to sound hollow so Republicans have taken another tack. They promise that the courts and Congress will safeguard the United States from Trump's authoritarian whims.
If the New York businessman begins carrying out an agenda from the White House that looks anything like the one he's proposed on the campaign trail– like a ban on Muslims –Republicans promise the Constitution guarantees there will be a check and a balance.
“I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the New York Times last week in a piece highlighting how legal scholars are growing increasingly worried about Trump's authoritarian tendencies. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania."
In May, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a similar proclamation when he was asked in an interview whether he had concerns about the divisiveness Trump's message evoked even from within the Republican Party.
"What protects us in this country against big mistakes being made is the structure, the Constitution, the institutions," McConnell told CBS News last month. “No matter how unusual a personality may be who gets elected to office, there are constraints in this country. You don’t get to do anything you want to.”
Republican strategist John Feehery (who believes Trump won't be that bad) argued in a blog post that if thing got really bad, Trump could always be impeached. Source We are totally backing the guy, but don't worry, we will also totally stop him if he tries to violate the Constitution like he claims. Please vote for Trump.This is real life. This is the GOP trying to find a good way to let go of the Tiger's tail. They're still a bunch of slaves to political correctness who don't want to get too close b/c they don't want to be labeled 'racist/sexist/homophobe' because they're more concerned with their political careers than reality. It's been the story of the entire republican primary. In the case of some of the GOP members, its because they are not terrible people who have no respect for civil liberties, goverment, the rule of law and the balance of power. Trump is McCarthy 2.0, who attacks everyone who criticizes him and threatens them. Some members of the GOP are finally showing some spine. Um ok? I disagree and think you're overreacting to a non-story blown entirely out of proportion again. Trump's legal team isn't even trying to get the judge replaced. You guys love dramatic flair though. Lindsey Graham is the one who called Trump another McCarthy. And Trump's legal team is not dumb enough to file a motion to ask the judge to recuse himself because of his race, since it would be denied. But that doesn't matter, since Trump is asking people to look into the judge and making baseless claims of bias based on race. You'd think if Trump was such an autocrat he'd be able to make his legal team do it if he actually wanted them to. I mean which is it does Trump actually want to force the judge out and get a new one but his legal team stood up against the autocrat in the face of getting fired/violently attacked or is he not an autocrat anymore now? or maybe I was right and the left/media ARE blowing this up as a non-issue but he's still an autocratic 'hitler' Like seriously man you have all sorts of people/media calling him hitler 2.0 (which is totally not inappropriate/offensive) because taking illegal immigrants and sending them back to their home country is just like genocide.The idiotic hypocrisy and cognitive bias from the regressive left this election is just mind-boggling come on, the man has said the only way to win vs terrorists is to go after their families because they still care about them
That's not even what he said
|
On June 08 2016 04:26 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 04:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote:Bad La Raza! Bad! Again! MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler + I think that what a lot of non-lawyers don't understand is how racially partisan some of these legal groups are. If there is an actual issue then Trump should file for having the judge replaced. If he does not then there is no issue and he is blowing steam to get air time. LaRaza's slogan "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing.” Sounds supremacist to me.
You should mail that to Trump so his lawyers know to file for a replacement.
Oh wait.
|
On June 08 2016 03:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 03:35 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Donald Trump turns out to be an autocratic president, running the country with pen and phone regardless of the Constitution, Congress and the courts will step in to stop him. That's the latest and perhaps most flummoxing rationale Republicans are offering these days as the party seeks to justify its support for its nominee.
Even after endorsing Trump, many Republicans are finding themselves constantly forced to distance themselves from Trump's inflammatory statements. Saying they disagree is beginning to sound hollow so Republicans have taken another tack. They promise that the courts and Congress will safeguard the United States from Trump's authoritarian whims.
If the New York businessman begins carrying out an agenda from the White House that looks anything like the one he's proposed on the campaign trail– like a ban on Muslims –Republicans promise the Constitution guarantees there will be a check and a balance.
“I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the New York Times last week in a piece highlighting how legal scholars are growing increasingly worried about Trump's authoritarian tendencies. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania."
In May, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a similar proclamation when he was asked in an interview whether he had concerns about the divisiveness Trump's message evoked even from within the Republican Party.
"What protects us in this country against big mistakes being made is the structure, the Constitution, the institutions," McConnell told CBS News last month. “No matter how unusual a personality may be who gets elected to office, there are constraints in this country. You don’t get to do anything you want to.”
Republican strategist John Feehery (who believes Trump won't be that bad) argued in a blog post that if thing got really bad, Trump could always be impeached. Source We are totally backing the guy, but don't worry, we will also totally stop him if he tries to violate the Constitution like he claims. Please vote for Trump.This is real life. This is the GOP trying to find a good way to let go of the Tiger's tail. They're still a bunch of slaves to political correctness who don't want to get too close b/c they don't want to be labeled 'racist/sexist/homophobe' because they're more concerned with their political careers than reality. It's been the story of the entire republican primary. In the case of some of the GOP members, its because they are not terrible people who have no respect for civil liberties, goverment, the rule of law and the balance of power. Trump is McCarthy 2.0, who attacks everyone who criticizes him and threatens them. Some members of the GOP are finally showing some spine. Um ok? I disagree and think you're overreacting to a non-story blown entirely out of proportion again. Trump's legal team isn't even trying to get the judge replaced. You guys love dramatic flair though.
What they really want is a schism between Trump and the GOP establishment, even though they criticize both for the same reasons (racism, only care about the rich, pander to the religious and unintelligent). The right similarly wants to see a schism between the revolutionary left (Bernie) and the mainstream, although the difference is Trump is on top and Bernie isn't. So whenever the GOP establishment, something the media and left have for a while told us can't do anything right, opposes Trump, it gets played up as apparently their first principled act and the first thing they aren't wrong about.
But at the same time, with every controversy where some politician goes on cable (thinking Rick Scott and Mitch McConnell here), they get portrayed as a weasel for not coming out enough against Trump. It's hard for me to figure out whether I'm being asked to believe Trump is something new or not.
|
On June 08 2016 02:58 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 02:58 Surth wrote:
If we cant have fun in politics and philosophy, then we cant have fun anywhere. I'm definitely in favor of fun (and hence ketamine)! Would you want your mother and father to see what you're like on ketamine? Would you go to their house and say, 'hey, really strung out sup mama!' If their opinion is lowered of you, is that just their old thinking and intolerant ways?
I'm pretty normal on ketamine, its not that interesting of a drug. Also, they know and they don't much care, what with me being a responsible adult and all That probably sounds crazy to you, but most people's parents have done drugs at some point in their lives. Legalize that shit now and end the war on drugs that wrecks so many of your cities, not to mention latin america.
GreenHorizons: I'm not sure what your goal in this thread is. I, for example, am only here to take the piss out of testie (and mohdoo) for my own enjoyment, so I don't care very much about what people take away from my posts. In case you do want to convince anyone of your position though, I'd suggest a different approach. I can tell you right now that, as a more-or-less leftists (with some caveats) who wishes Sanders would become president, you're not doing a service to his cause in this thread. Complete, incessant obstinance may sometimes not do a lot of good. I say this with the best intentions 
|
On June 08 2016 04:26 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 04:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote:Bad La Raza! Bad! Again! MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler + I think that what a lot of non-lawyers don't understand is how racially partisan some of these legal groups are. If there is an actual issue then Trump should file for having the judge replaced. If he does not then there is no issue and he is blowing steam to get air time. LaRaza's slogan "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing.” Sounds supremacist to me.
so how do they even define their "race" considering they're either mexican (nationality) or latinos (mish mash of races that are connected by their ties to colonial Spain)?
|
On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz?
Evidence of what? That she expected to win, and that the AP expected her victory? SHOCKING!
|
On June 08 2016 04:31 Surth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 02:58 SK.Testie wrote:On June 08 2016 02:58 Surth wrote:
If we cant have fun in politics and philosophy, then we cant have fun anywhere. I'm definitely in favor of fun (and hence ketamine)! Would you want your mother and father to see what you're like on ketamine? Would you go to their house and say, 'hey, really strung out sup mama!' If their opinion is lowered of you, is that just their old thinking and intolerant ways? I'm pretty normal on ketamine, its not that interesting of a drug. Also, they know and they don't much care, what with me being a responsible adult and all That probably sounds crazy to you, but most people's parents have done drugs at some point in their lives. Legalize that shit now and end the war on drugs that wrecks so many of your cities, not to mention latin america. GreenHorizons: I'm not sure what your goal in this thread is. I, for example, am only here to take the piss out of testie (and mohdoo) for my own enjoyment, so I don't care very much about what people take away from my posts. In case you do want to convince anyone of your position though, I'd suggest a different approach. I can tell you right now that, as a more-or-less leftists (with some caveats) who wishes Sanders would become president, you're not doing a service to his cause in this thread. Complete, incessant obstinance may sometimes not do a lot of good. I say this with the best intentions
Once GH was just a guy who liked Bernie's message. But the long war has made him bitter and hateful.
I actually think a good part, if not half or more of the 'Democratic' posters in this thread (myself included) preferred the early Bernie over Hillary before it became apparent he had no plan for his promises and his attacks became more and more personal instead about policy.
|
On June 08 2016 04:32 anomalopidae wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 04:26 SK.Testie wrote:On June 08 2016 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 04:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote:Bad La Raza! Bad! Again! MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler + I think that what a lot of non-lawyers don't understand is how racially partisan some of these legal groups are. If there is an actual issue then Trump should file for having the judge replaced. If he does not then there is no issue and he is blowing steam to get air time. LaRaza's slogan "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing.” Sounds supremacist to me. so how do they even define their "race" considering they're either mexican (nationality) or latinos (mish mash of races that are connected by their ties to colonial Spain)?
Pretty sure that is lost in translation. Sotomayor is also connected to that group, so I have serious doubts it is some supremacist group based on a translated slogan.
|
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote:Bad La Raza! Bad! Again! MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
why does it say "national counsel of la raza"
instead of "national council of la raza"?
also, that's not much of a connection, that's one link among dozens of links to various groups. It's not a strong affiliation or anything. You seem determined to believe your viewpoint is right, and seek data to support your conclusion. One should twist theories to suit facts, not facts to suit theories (I know that's not on point, but I remember it from reading sherlock holmes and I wanted to say it).
|
On June 08 2016 04:41 zlefin wrote:why does it say "national counsel of la raza" instead of "national council of la raza"?
Probably shouldn't have links towards a subversive front for a supremacist group on your site. I find it suspect that lawyers of all people would be completely ignorant of this.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 08 2016 04:41 zlefin wrote:why does it say "national counsel of la raza" instead of "national council of la raza"? also, that's not much of a connection, that's one link among dozens of links to various groups. It's not a strong affiliation or anything. You seem determined to believe your viewpoint is right, and seek data to support your conclusion. One should twist theories to suit facts, not facts to suit theories (I know that's not on point, but I remember it from reading sherlock holmes and I wanted to say it).
Because they cant spellcheck. The counsel link goes to the council website.
|
Testie, you realize you're still not really proving anything of note, right? and showing me the picture of that other link still doesn't really show much of anything of note. you're still focusing too much on the conclusion you've already arrived at, rather than considering the many possibilities and letting the evidence lead you where it does.
|
On June 08 2016 04:48 zlefin wrote:
Testie, you realize you're still not really proving anything of note, right? and showing me the picture of that other link still doesn't really show much of anything of note. you're still focusing too much on the conclusion you've already arrived at, rather than considering the many possibilities and letting the evidence lead you where it does.
Damnit Zlefin, the new Benghazi commission is going to take time. I'll see if there's something there and report back to you in 6 months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/4lhmM0.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/uEnXzj.jpg)
