The New American Politics thread

[troutman]

I heard Michelle speak in Virginia today. She might be the best person in the world.

I wish she could be president.

[Coach]

Why couldn't she be? Is there a rule that a 1st Lady can't run for office while still 1st Lady?

[KootenayFlamesFan]

More stupidity, but par for the course.

Donald Trump on Friday wondered aloud what would happen to Hillary Clinton should her Secret Service detail disarm.

"I think her bodyguards should drop all weapons. Disarm immediately," Trump said. "Take their guns away, let's see what happens to her."

"Take their guns away, OK? It'll be very dangerous," he added.

Trump's comment on Friday, which came as he criticized Clinton over gun rights, is not the first time he has called for Clinton's Secret Service detail to "disarm." But it is the first time he has wondered aloud what would happen to her should she suddenly deprived of armed protection.

Trump argued that he would be a staunch defender of the Second Amendment and said that Clinton would "destroy" the right to bear arms. Clinton has called for tightening access to guns, including instating universal background checks, but has never suggested she would seek to do away with the Second Amendment.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/16/politi...ice/index.html

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Blind faith in any one politician, no matter what side, is always pathetic and hilarious.

"Trump says broccoli causes cancer so it must be true!"

Of all the veggies, I wish you didn't pick that one for a cancer example, even if its benefits out weigh the traces of crap in it!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ha ha. He totally did that. Talked about how beautiful it was, really gorgeous, under budget and on time, tremendous. He also said it's an honour to be holding the first event in the hotel. It's such a nice hotel, I guess, that he's honoured to be the first one to use his own hotel.

Anyway, I wonder how many of his followers now think he's a reptilian for boldly saying that Obama was born in America.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I just had to lol at this (comments predictably hilarious as well)






https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/sta...10827617886208

As much as some are trying to push the narrative that Trump support is part of a larger groundswell of establishment opposition, examples illustrate just how irrational the support for Trump really is.

It is fervent, but I don't think it's as substantial as polling might indicate. I anticipate an exceptionally low voter turnout.

[driveway]

When anyone talks about a President 'destroying' the Second Amendment it reveals how little they understand about the Constitution. The President has absolutely no role in the Amendment process. They do not get to propose, vote on, veto, pass, ratify or otherwise officially participate in any way. It's entirely the Legislature and the Legislatures of the States.

Just finished the Creating the Constitution unit in History class. Fired up about this.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by driveway

When anyone talks about a President 'destroying' the Second Amendment it reveals how little they understand about the Constitution. The President has absolutely no role in the Amendment process. They do not get to propose, vote on, veto, pass, ratify or otherwise officially participate in any way. It's entirely the Legislature and the Legislatures of the States.

Just finished the Creating the Constitution unit in History class. Fired up about this.

The president can appoint judges who believe in the reasonable interpretation of the constitution rather than judges who believe in a literal interpretation. Then when laws like assault gun bans or other "anti" gun legislation comes up it is either constitutional or unconstitutional so while they can't Amend the constitution they can influence how it's applied

[driveway]

This would also require the legislature to approve those judges, after appointment, and a specific court case making its way through the appellate process before arriving in front of the Supreme Court.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by driveway

This would also require the legislature to approve those judges, after appointment, and a specific court case making its way through the appellate process before arriving in front of the Supreme Court.

The legislative branch in theory does not have to approve to the Supreme Court judges. Historically the president and congress have also added Judges and changed the size of the court to ensure favourable rulings on their policies.

[ernie]

Trump with just another version of assassinate Clinton. He and his campaign are disgusting.

[driveway]

The "Advice and Consent" clause of Article II is pretty clear.

Also, Presidents have no role (other than signing or vetoing) in changing the number of Justices. That power remains with the Legislative branch. Besides, the number of Justices hasn't changed since 1869.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

The legislative branch in theory does not have to approve to the Supreme Court judges. Historically the president and congress have also added Judges and changed the size of the court to ensure favourable rulings on their policies.

Please listen to the guy who just finished a unit in his civics class. He's right on the nose. The system of appointment/nomination and confirmation has been observed since the introduction of the Judiciary Act of 1789. While the size of the court has fluctuated during its history, that was a result of the lack of centralized circuit courts to deal with federal challenges. Once these circuit courts, established with the entrenchment of the Circuit Judges act of 1869, returned the court to its current size, and has remained that size since. Again, domestic policy is controlled by congress. The president doesn't have much control over what happens domestically, and when he does, congress has the ability to provide oversight and balance to those decisions.

[GGG]

The president can when the senate is not in session appoint justices to vacancies in the court who can serve until the end of the next senate session.

Also look at how the new deal and the courts work and how rosevelt manipulated the courts into not declaring the new deal unconstitutional. It is a tacos mating piece of political brinkmanship.

You are understating the power the president has if they wanted to manipulate the court into fitting their biases.

Not to mention if Hillary wins the presidency there is a good chance that the senate will go democrat. This would allow stacking the court quite easily.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by ernie

Trump with just another version of assassinate Clinton. He and his campaign are disgusting.

I'm all for calling out Trump, but this is a stretch. He was saying she would never disarm her guards to show her hypocrisy, not to incite people to kill her.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I'm all for calling out Trump, but this is a stretch. He was saying she would never disarm her guards to show her hypocrisy, not to incite people to kill her.

I don't see how it is hypocrisy in any way. Saying she wants better background checks to get guns off the streets isn't saying that she thinks the Secret Service, police and specially trained security should be disarmed.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I'm all for calling out Trump, but this is a stretch. He was saying she would never disarm her guards to show her hypocrisy, not to incite people to kill her.

To the morons that follow the guy, it could mean anything.

What it definitely means though is that he's using the old "gun grabber" nonsense that the gun nuts bite on every time.

He's lying, as usual, but since pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth is bull####, nobody even pays attention to that part. We just expect him to be lying. Everyone does.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

The president can when the senate is not in session appoint justices to vacancies in the court who can serve until the end of the next senate session.

Yeah, those few months are worthwhile blowing every bit of political capital a president has accrued for such a short period of time. This is exactly why this scenario plays out all the time.

Also look at how the new deal and the courts work and how rosevelt manipulated the courts into not declaring the new deal unconstitutional. It is a tacos mating piece of political brinkmanship.

Again, more extremism to try and make a point. Look at the most unique time in American history and equate that to SOP. Stupid with scattered pockets of stupidness.

You are understating the power the president has if they wanted to manipulate the court into fitting their biases.

Except that if your highly uneducated perspective on the court were accurate it would happen all the time. Fortunately there are checks and balances in the system that make manipulations like this pretty difficult. Take an American civics class and learn how the system works before bringing this stuff. We Americans would appreciate if you truly understand the process before trying to tell us how it works to anyone's advantage.

Not to mention if Hillary wins the presidency there is a good chance that the senate will go democrat. This would allow stacking the court quite easily.

What are the numbers for Powerball, since you are so certain of outcomes. Just so you are aware, the Senate could change regardless of a Clinton presidency, and that Senate Judiciary Committee would have the responsibility of acting as the check and balance to a Trump presidency. That is the way the system is design and the way it works.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by New Era

Yeah, those few months are worthwhile blowing every bit of political capital a president has accrued for such a short period of time. This is exactly why this scenario plays out all the time.



Again, more extremism to try and make a point. Look at the most unique time in American history and equate that to SOP. Stupid with scattered pockets of stupidness.

Except that if your highly uneducated perspective on the court were accurate it would happen all the time. Fortunately there are checks and balances in the system that make manipulations like this pretty difficult. Take an American civics class and learn how the system works before bringing this stuff. We Americans would appreciate if you truly understand the process before trying to tell us how it works to anyone's advantage.

What are the numbers for Powerball, since you are so certain of outcomes. Just so you are aware, the Senate could change regardless of a Clinton presidency, and that Senate Judiciary Committee would have the responsibility of acting as the check and balance to a Trump presidency. That is the way the system is design and the way it works.

The original statement was that Clinton can't change the second amendment. Which while true the point is that she could spend political Capital to do so.

It isn't an unreasonable statement to say than gun ownership will be more restricted under a Clinton presidency then a trump one. And since people don't spilt tickets anymore a vote for Clinton is a vote for a democratic senate whee senate races are being held and is a vote for more restrictive gun rules.

[octothorp]

Yeah, it's classic Trump to say something clearly offensive and over the line (like the original 'although for the second amendment people'), then argues that it's misinterpreted and introduces a mainstream reinterpretation that is within the bounds of acceptable (that he was referencing political action), then continues to say things that clearly reference the first interpretation of the original comment, but don't go as far or aren't as clear (such as here, referencing the potential for her to be assassinated).
It's simplistic and transparent, but it works because nobody's effectively holding him accountable for the narratives he's creating.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

The original statement was that Clinton can't change the second amendment. Which while true the point is that she could spend political Capital to do so.

Clinton doesn't have that type of capital. Not even remotely close. Obama, coming off of a successful eight year term as president, doesn't have that capital. You don't change the constitution or make amendments without having both the house and the senate in your pocket. That is why they happen so little.

It isn't an unreasonable statement to say than gun ownership will be more restricted under a Clinton presidency then a trump one. And since people don't spilt tickets anymore a vote for Clinton is a vote for a democratic senate whee senate races are being held and is a vote for more restrictive gun rules.

Bull####. You don't know what you are talking about. It doesn't matter if the Democrats own both houses and the presidency, no one is going to take a run at the 2nd amendment without having massive support. That would require the Dems owning a 66 seat majority in the senate and a 288 seat majority in the house. That would require a 40+ seat swing in the house of representatives and a senate pickup of 22 seats. That means the Democats would have to win the White House, pickup 21 of 34 seats available in the senate, and then pick up 102 seats in the house of representatives. Pretty well impossible based on the way the system is split. That's the math, and its not open for debate.