US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4691

On August 10 2016 08:50 GreenHorizons wrote:


That's my point. Outside of the context of Trump winning (this was presupposing he doesn't have a chance) the "lesser evil" argument falls apart.

Hillary needs Trump to be the only alternative, if he's not the prime alternative, her entire campaign needs redirecting.



She's also a "proud moderate", where are people getting these visions of hyper liberal judges from?

On August 10 2016 08:52 oBlade wrote:

That's a good point, it wouldn't even make logical sense, so I won't take it all so seriously.

On August 10 2016 08:53 On_Slaught wrote:


Basic revenge against the Republicans for not putting in a moderate judge to replace Scalia.

On August 10 2016 08:59 Ravianna26 wrote:
Trump's 2nd Amendment remark was a call for Constitutionalists to unite behind him.

On August 10 2016 09:15 Dan HH wrote:

The premis of his scenario was after a Hillary win. Or are we gonna ignore that and pretend he was talking about the campaign?

On August 10 2016 09:30 Doodsmack wrote:
I guess Trump is still in total "get the media spotlight through controversy" mode, which is one thing that propelled him through the primaries, because he just gives a middle finger to the media. But it would seem that by now, he would have already exhausted that supply of voters who hate the liberal media and support Trump for that reason. The media frenzy was more a primary strategy.

Is someone who has such little competence in a presidential campaign after the primaries a viable President? Especially when primary turnout was like 15%?

On August 10 2016 06:29 Sermokala wrote:
I think Trump might be starting to go down the rabbithole of beliveing his own shit. Hes lost so much ground from the DNC. the khan family may have saving the country in their blood.

On August 10 2016 09:30 Doodsmack wrote:
I guess Trump is still in total "get the media spotlight through controversy" mode, which is one thing that propelled him through the primaries, because he just gives a middle finger to the media. But it would seem that by now, he would have already exhausted that supply of voters who hate the liberal media and support Trump for that reason. The media frenzy was more a primary strategy.

Is someone who has such little competence in a presidential campaign after the primaries a viable President? Especially when primary turnout was like 15%?

On August 10 2016 09:34 IgnE wrote:


"saving the country"?

On August 10 2016 09:35 Sermokala wrote:

I think you're overestimating the chances that drumf ever had to win the presidency. He was never a viable candidate and anyone who said he was doesn't understand how us elections work.


ie saving us from a populace that thinks he has a chance to be president.

On August 10 2016 09:34 IgnE wrote:


"saving the country"?

On August 10 2016 08:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's my point. Outside of the context of Trump winning (this was presupposing he doesn't have a chance) the "lesser evil" argument falls apart.

Hillary needs Trump to be the only alternative, if he's not the prime alternative, her entire campaign needs redirecting.

AUSTIN — Three professors duking it out in court for the right to ban guns in their classrooms were told Monday they will be punished if they do, according to the latest legal back-and-forth prompted by Texas' new campus carry law.

"Faculty members are aware that state law provides that guns can be carried on campus, and that the president has not made a rule excluding them from classrooms," attorneys representing the University of Texas at Austin and Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a legal brief filed Monday. "As a result, any individual professor who attempts to establish such prohibition is subject to discipline."

The warning was meant as a clear message to UT professors Mia Carter, Jennifer Glass and Lisa Moore, who sued the university and state in federal court last month to temporarily block the implementation of campus carry. The new law, which went into effect just last week, allows licensed gun owners to carry concealed handguns into most buildings on college campuses, where they were previously allowed just in common areas like quads and sidewalks.

The state's lawyers, in their Monday filing, asked Judge Lee Yeakel to throw out the professors' lawsuit. The educators fired back in their own brief, calling again for Yeakel to halt the law for one semester so they can hold a public trial on whether campus carry violates their constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection.

The professors' lawyers say the law and UT's own campus carry rules are too vague for his clients to know if and how they might be punished if they tried to keep gun owners out of their classrooms.

On August 10 2016 09:48 acker wrote:

I don't think Trump the President would be more controllable than Trump the Presidential Candidate.

At this point, Trump needs to go and his supporters need to take a hard long look at what the future has in store for them. Fortunately, the former looks likely, if not guaranteed.


Trump still has between a 30 to 15 percent chance of winning according to 538. His ceiling is low, but his floor is uncomfortably high.

I wouldn't be too surprised if Europe melted down or a major bombing happened in the USA sometime between now and November. That could change the polling.

On August 10 2016 10:19 m4ini wrote:
I don't even understand the logic behind that.

"You guys, we allow guns on campus now. By law. The law doesn't exclude classrooms. If you try and take legal action to change that, we punish you."

.. eh? How is that even legal, to "discipline" your employees because they try and change something that they think is retarded? That sounds like you actually wanted guns on campus in the first place. Which, lets be honest, is one of the most retarded things i've ever heard. And that includes Trump.

PS: i absolutely can understand that as a professor you get "uneasy" judging kids, potentially let them fail a class, while they're playing with their glock under the table.

And no. The "licensed gunowner" doesn't change a thing, considering what it takes to get that license in Texas.

On August 10 2016 10:30 Sermokala wrote:

I'm kinda confused on what you mean but I'm going to take a shot at this. They're being disciplined because they're not following the state law while its being challenged in court. While its being challenged in court doesn't mean that its not still state law so they have to follow it.

The warning was meant as a clear message to UT professors Mia Carter, Jennifer Glass and Lisa Moore, who sued the university and state in federal court last month to temporarily block the implementation of campus carry.

Yeakel could decide by week's end whether to grant the professors' request to temporarily block the law. While their attorney said it would apply only to them and the students they will teach in the fall, Yeakel acknowledged granting their request would be a slippery slope that would allow other professors at UT, and every other public university in Texas, an excuse to ban guns in their classrooms.