2016 Election Thread Part Deux

#827
#827
AM64 said:
Thanks for the link. At least somebody gets it.
Click to expand...

Not really.

An alleged political pundint that self identifies as being conned by Obama in 2008 suddenly thinks the message Donald Trump is bringing is the right one? I'm not sure he's the kind of person that can objectively analyze this election cycle.
 
#828
#828
Vol8188 said:
Seriously? Idk how someone could ask this:

1st amendment: trump has openly admitted to wanting to censor the Internet, restrict immigration based on religion, and limit the power of the press.
and probably doesn't support the right to peaceful assemblies since he condones violence against protestors.

4th amendment: he supports warrantless monitoring of mosques.

5th amendment: he believes eminent domain should apply to private business

8th amendment: he supports torture
Click to expand...

I'm going to do something I rarely do which is defend Trump's position on the Internet thing. He didn't say "shut down the Internet" in that context. But rather getting tech companies on board to deny Internet access to known ISIS cells as a tactic in the fight against them.

Of course the media took it out of context and ran with it like he wanted to shut down the information flow entirely. But as a military method, restricting communications of enemy combatants is certainly something we practice and continue to use on the battlefield to this day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#829
#829
AM64 said:
How is Trump an anti-Constitutionalist?
Click to expand...

I would counter with the question how is he not. Let's see here:

1. Has made comments suggesting he will (or at least wants to) restructure the press and the freedoms granted it once in office. A ridiculous and largely impossible claim, but he still made it. Speaking of free speech and free press, he has also made statements about how he wants to more tightly regulate the Internet. What does this even mean? Does he simply want to avoid giving jihadist groups greater recruiting tools (which is still a questionable measure), or does he want to go Putin and Turk Putin on us? I don't know, and that is his fault.

2. Has not directly stated but has suggested that violence can be used to silence those he disagrees with. Admittedly, one can interpret the several suggestive statements he has made on this matter how they will, but perhaps that is part of the problem.

3. Has claimed he would do several things which are not given authority to him by the powers of the executive. For example, he has said he would directly interfere in private business practices on occasion. Now, I think here one can reasonably say he's largely kidding and merely pandering, but he's made the statements nonetheless.

4. Wants to change our laws concerning citizenship. Now, I'm not a strict originalist who thinks that questions about citizenship should never be revisited, but it seems to me that he has a particular agenda here and is targeting a specific group. If one is going to change our citizenship laws, then it needs to be done for the right reasons and not for those which Trump seems to be motivated.

5. As far as freedom of religion is concerned, he has made direct statements about regulating religious practice in this country and determining, in particular, which mosques are viable and which are not. This is not the place of the president to make such determinations.

I don't even include his plans for "temporarily banning Muslims until we can figure out what the hell is going on," whatever the hell that means, because he can possibly do this without even directly violating the law of the land. However, such a notion raises troubling questions, including but not limited to the following: who else might he consider banning, and would he consider using extrajudicial practices to monitor/regulate said groups already here domestically?

No, he has not explicitly stated he wants to "change the Constitution," which would be a suicidal statement as he postures towards the general (although perhaps not with his cult followers, who may or may not value Trump over the Constitution). No, he doesn't even have the power to do these things, even if he so desired, but someone needs to convince me why I shouldn't take him seriously when he says these things. Or have we reached the point where we should no longer take a presidential candidate seriously when he or she says something? Maybe we have, but that doesn't make it right.

Nearly every president, especially as of the past couple of decades it seems, has at least one or two moments where his desires conflict directly with the Constitution and when he is even sometimes capable of meandering around it. This, however, should not necessarily excuse such behavior or such comments from their successors.

Trump, in particular, has made such comments into an art form, and he has made them at a far greater rate and with more alacrity than I have ever heard another candidate make. I simply have to ask where do we draw a line? Where do we take him seriously, and where do we not? Where is he planning on taking us? He already has a personality cult unlike any other we've seen in American politics, even including the Obama phenomenon. Perhaps not in sheer numbers, but certainly in fanaticism. Does he think he's so special that we're going to make exceptions for him to do what he wants with our nation's laws?

These are just some of the things that concern me about Trump and a Trump presidency. They should concern us all, but I understand that they do not, for one reason or another.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#830
#830
Grand Vol said:
I'm going to do something I rarely do which is defend Trump's position on the Internet thing. He didn't say "shut down the Internet" in that context. But rather getting tech companies on board to deny Internet access to known ISIS cells as a tactic in the fight against them.

Of course the media took it out of context and ran with it like he wanted to shut down the information flow entirely. But as a military method, restricting communications of enemy combatants is certainly something we practice and continue to use on the battlefield to this day.
Click to expand...

Like I said: he wants to censor the Internet. I didn't claim he wanted to shut it down. But he does want to censor the Internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#831
#831
Vol8188 said:
Like I said: he wants to censor the Internet. I didn't claim he wanted to shut it down. But he does want to censor the Internet.
Click to expand...

He wants to keep ISIS from getting access to the Internet. That's not censorship, but a valid tactic against someone committing genocide.

Good grief, you of all people should know how valuable communications are on the modern battlefield.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#832
#832
Grand Vol said:
He wants to keep ISIS from getting access to the Internet. That's not censorship, but a valid tactic against someone committing genocide.

Good grief, you of all people should know how valuable communications are on the modern battlefield.
Click to expand...

The last thing I want is to give Donald Trump the power to decide who should or should not be allowed on the Internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#833
#833
Grand Vol said:
He wants to keep ISIS from getting access to the Internet. That's not censorship, but a valid tactic against someone committing genocide.

Good grief, you of all people should know how valuable communications are on the modern battlefield.
Click to expand...

I bet trump is also for feeezing bank assets.
 
#834
#834
Vol8188 said:
The last thing I want is to give Donald Trump the power to decide who should or should not be allowed on the Internet.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things to be outraged about with Trump and you listed some decent examples. However, this isn't one of them as such things are necessary on the battlefield. And trying to argue against shutting down a communications method of an enemy that's been committing atrocities won't help your case in the long run.

There are far worse things he's said and done rather than this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#839
#839
volprof said:
I would counter with the question how is he not. Let's see here:

1. Has made comments suggesting he will (or at least wants to) restructure the press and the freedoms granted it once in office. A ridiculous and largely impossible claim, but he still made it. Speaking of free speech and free press, he has also made statements about how he wants to more tightly regulate the Internet. What does this even mean? Does he simply want to avoid giving jihadist groups greater recruiting tools (which is still a questionable measure), or does he want to go Putin and Turk Putin on us? I don't know, and that is his fault.

2. Has not directly stated but has suggested that violence can be used to silence those he disagrees with. Admittedly, one can interpret the several suggestive statements he has made on this matter how they will, but perhaps that is part of the problem.

3. Has claimed he would do several things which are not given authority to him by the powers of the executive. For example, he has said he would directly interfere in private business practices on occasion. Now, I think here one can reasonably say he's largely kidding and merely pandering, but he's made the statements nonetheless.

4. Wants to change our laws concerning citizenship. Now, I'm not a strict originalist who thinks that questions about citizenship should never be revisited, but it seems to me that he has a particular agenda here and is targeting a specific group. If one is going to change our citizenship laws, then it needs to be done for the right reasons and not for those which Trump seems to be motivated.

5. As far as freedom of religion is concerned, he has made direct statements about regulating religious practice in this country and determining, in particular, which mosques are viable and which are not. This is not the place of the president to make such determinations.

I don't even include his plans for "temporarily banning Muslims until we can figure out what the hell is going on," whatever the hell that means, because he can possibly do this without even directly violating the law of the land. However, such a notion raises troubling questions, including but not limited to the following: who else might he consider banning, and would he consider using extrajudicial practices to monitor/regulate said groups already here domestically?

No, he has not explicitly stated he wants to "change the Constitution," which would be a suicidal statement as he postures towards the general (although perhaps not with his cult followers, who may or may not value Trump over the Constitution). No, he doesn't even have the power to do these things, even if he so desired, but someone needs to convince me why I shouldn't take him seriously when he says these things. Or have we reached the point where we should no longer take a presidential candidate seriously when he or she says something? Maybe we have, but that doesn't make it right.

Nearly every president, especially as of the past couple of decades it seems, has at least one or two moments where his desires conflict directly with the Constitution and when he is even sometimes capable of meandering around it. This, however, should not necessarily excuse such behavior or such comments from their predecessors.

Trump, in particular, has made such comments into an art form, and he has made them at a far greater rate and with more alacrity than I have ever heard another candidate make. I simply have to ask where do we draw a line? Where do we take him seriously, and where do we not? Where is he planning on taking us? He already has a personality cult unlike any other we've seen in American politics, even including the Obama phenomenon. Perhaps not in sheer numbers, but certainly in fanaticism. Does he think he's so special that we're going to make exceptions for him to do what he wants with our nation's laws?

These are just some of the things that concern me about Trump and a Trump presidency. They should concern us all, but I understand that they do not, for one reason or another.
Click to expand...

That stirred up a hornet's nest. Too much to argue, but all candidates promise things they have no power to do - Obama and Obamacare, for example. Congress could do that - he couldn't although it was a pledge. Sometimes they work; sometimes they don't - they forced Obamacare, but Guantanamo is still open.

Most of the items in the Constitution and more specifically the Amendments have been "clarified" by the courts to fit the agenda over the years because the detail was never there in the original. Little things like disrespect of the flag is free "speech" but I'd bet the original thought had to do with the spoken or written word. So perhaps Trump's thoughts would be no more unusual to the founders than some of the politically correct interpretations. Oh yeah, there's that three branch thing, checks and balances, impeachment - if somebody gets out of line.

As to mosques, who knows on that one - there is such a thing as Unlawful Assembly defined (Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary) as "When three or more people meet with the intention of carrying out an unlawful act to deliberately disturb the peace" - sounds a bit like protesters interrupting a speech. Presumably peaceful assembly wouldn't include unlawful assembly nor would honest religious activity. Since the tax codes put limits on what can be considered "religious", then it would seem reasonable that suspected terrorist activity veiled as religion could also be limited by government without violating the concept.

We've had and continue to have immigration quotas. Somehow I'd bet that most of you have locks on your doors and don't feel any regret at limiting access your home. What makes a country different? You may choose to "enhance" your home by allowing permanent residence to someone who became a spouse, lover, or to a new child. You may see fit to grant temporary access by someone who may make things better - plumber, electrician, etc. And you may see fit to tell some people "when hell freezes over."

The Constitution covers citizen rights for the most part, but it does address enemies and protections against them, and I just can't find anything about welcoming them with open arms or making their battle against us easier. In fact there is this little clause regarding treason and providing aid and comfort to the enemy. So maybe you'll have to excuse some of us if we confuse a terrorist as an enemy and not the guy who just knocked over the local convenience store. Somehow I'd bet that there's nothing specifically stating that someone in the country illegally is entitled to the same rights as a citizen; of course in some whoever v the US .... In our confused state I guess some of us might even consider providing the enemy with full internet access, etc as aid, but then in these days of political correctness and conscience who knows. And, too, I suppose some of us have even acquired a few funny thoughts regarding enemies, safeguarding sensitive information, boundary protection, and so on by too much close contact with subversive organizations such as the US military.
 
Last edited:
#840
#840
presidential_favorability.0.png


The two most hated candidates in recent history facing off for the presidency... scary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#841
#841
I think Trump is way to narcasistic to be a good president. I also worry that he would be more focused on trying to pass laws to benefit himself from a business sense and not worry as much about the American people as he would himself. Also how is this guy going to deal with foreign dignitaries when all he does is piss people off. The President has to show some respect when meeting with foreign leaders. Not sure if respect is in his vocabulary
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#843
#843
AM64 said:
That stirred up a hornet's nest. Too much to argue, but all candidates promise things they have no power to do - Obama and Obamacare, for example. Congress could do that - he couldn't although it was a pledge. Sometimes they work; sometimes they don't - they forced Obamacare, but Guantanamo is still open.

Most of the items in the Constitution and more specifically the Amendments have been "clarified" by the courts to fit the agenda over the years because the detail was never there in the original. Little things like disrespect of the flag is free "speech" but I'd bet the original thought had to do with the spoken or written word. So perhaps Trump's thoughts would be no more unusual to the founders than some of the politically correct interpretations. Oh yeah, there's that three branch thing, checks and balances, impeachment - if somebody gets out of line.

As to mosques, who knows on that one - there is such a thing as Unlawful Assembly defined (Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary) as "When three or more people meet with the intention of carrying out an unlawful act to deliberately disturb the peace" - sounds a bit like protesters interrupting a speech. Presumably peaceful assembly wouldn't include unlawful assembly nor would honest religious activity. Since the tax codes put limits on what can be considered "religious", then it would seem reasonable that suspected terrorist activity veiled as religion could also be limited by government without violating the concept.

We've had and continue to have immigration quotas. Somehow I'd bet that most of you have locks on your doors and don't feel any regret at limiting access your home. What makes a country different? You may choose to "enhance" your home by allowing permanent residence to someone who became a spouse, lover, or to a new child. You may see fit to grant temporary access by someone who may make things better - plumber, electrician, etc. And you may see fit to tell some people "when hell freezes over."

The Constitution covers citizen rights for the most part, but it does address enemies and protections against them, and I just can't find anything about welcoming them with open arms or making their battle against us easier. In fact there is this little clause regarding treason and providing aid and comfort to the enemy. So maybe you'll have to excuse some of us if we confuse a terrorist as an enemy and not the guy who just knocked over the local convenience store. Somehow I'd bet that there's nothing specifically stating that someone in the country illegally is entitled to the same rights as a citizen; of course in some whoever v the US .... In our confused state I guess some of us might even consider providing the enemy with full internet access, etc as aid, but then in these days of political correctness and conscience who knows. And, too, I suppose some of us have even acquired a few funny thoughts regarding enemies, safeguarding sensitive information, boundary protection, and so on by too much close contact with subversive organizations such as the US military.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reasonable response. Clearly, there is a divide in our interpretations of and reactions to his comments. I am not necessarily against a strong executive in matters of security. For instance, I'm not necessarily against Bush's (or Obama's, for that matter) Patriot Act, which is technically unconstitutional. I think, however, that such a security measure needs to be monitored closely and never misused (such as giving authority to arrest without warrant).

Trump's proposed measures, however, seem to constantly beg the question of where does it end. Obviously, that is not how you see it, but I urge caution. I hate to make this association, because it risks going too far, but here goes: no, Trump is not a "fascist," but he has the most authoritarian, strong man tendencies of any candidate I can recall on record. Maybe George Wallace from back in the day, but that was before my time, and I don't know as much about him as I perhaps should. Such an individual may merely be pandering to a particular group of voters, but I don't know where he's merely pandering and where he is not. And such an individual scares the absolute crap out of me.

And if it's the fact that he's not a "liberal" that keeps some (not you necessarily) from seeing how potentially threatening he is, then they should just remember that he's a Democrat in reality. That should help get us all on the same page.
 
#844
#844
Sin City Vol said:
I think Trump is way to narcasistic to be a good president. I also worry that he would be more focused on trying to pass laws to benefit himself from a business sense and not worry as much about the American people as he would himself. Also how is this guy going to deal with foreign dignitaries when all he does is piss people off. The President has to show some respect when meeting with foreign leaders. Not sure if respect is in his vocabulary
Click to expand...

I don't know how accurate it is, but I have heard that the reason why he attempts to flatter Putin so much (unlike practically every other world politician, who is apparently scum, in Trump's opinion) is because the Trump Organization has not been given favorable access to Russia in the past. In other words, he's merely trying to inveigle himself with Putin (who, as the head oligarch of a nation of oligarchs, makes the final business decision on nearly every major business deal in Russia) so that he can get Trump Org.'s foot in the door.

Again, I don't know how true that is. The simplest explanation of the flattery - that Trump merely sees a strongman model he likes in Putin - may actually be the sole reason.
 
#845
#845
Sin City Vol said:
I think Trump is way to narcasistic to be a good president. I also worry that he would be more focused on trying to pass laws to benefit himself from a business sense and not worry as much about the American people as he would himself. Also how is this guy going to deal with foreign dignitaries when all he does is piss people off. The President has to show some respect when meeting with foreign leaders. Not sure if respect is in his vocabulary
Click to expand...

It's simply amazing that he has ever been able to close a business deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#846
#846
Sin City Vol said:
I think Trump is way to narcasistic to be a good president. I also worry that he would be more focused on trying to pass laws to benefit himself from a business sense and not worry as much about the American people as he would himself. Also how is this guy going to deal with foreign dignitaries when all he does is piss people off. The President has to show some respect when meeting with foreign leaders. Not sure if respect is in his vocabulary
Click to expand...

We should bow to King Abdullah, amirite?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#847
#847
Vol8188 said:
What?
Click to expand...

It's more than I care to explain. Just know that Trump is privy to things you and I are not.

He will expose them.

Example: audit the federal reserve.

There is a reason why neither the GOP or the Dems want him. He will reveil their dirty little secrets and bring them to justice. (Prison)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#850
#850
Interesting...

Trump reportedly to meet with top Republicans in Washington | Fox News

Donald Trump will reportedly meet Monday in Washington with nearly two dozen influential Republicans, with the apparent hope of improving relations with the GOP establishment.

The Republican presidential front-runner will be in the nation’s capital to speak at the annual policy conference for AIPAC, or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a major pro-Israel group.

Trump’s meeting with Republican lawmakers and other party leaders, as first reported by The Washington Post, will be his first major discussion with them since last fall, when he was on Capitol Hill to protest President Obama’s Iranian nuclear agreement.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top