Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 23, 2017, 08:46:12 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 91
26  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Lisa From Alaska on: August 29, 2017, 01:47:28 pm
FIORINA, CARDENAS WILL LEAD GOP


Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina has been elected RNC Chair while Al Cardenas will serve as a Deputy Chair for the Republican Party.

In a Twitter missive, President Trump derided the RNC vote: "Globalists Hillary supporters conspired to take over our party. DONT LET THEM."
27  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Lisa From Alaska on: August 27, 2017, 08:54:11 pm
SOUTH CAROLINA PRIMARY RESULTS


100% Reporting
Donald Trump     54%
Lisa Murkowski    44%

Despite earning the support of South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, Sen. Lisa Murkowski was not able to win the Palmetto State in the GOP primary. President Trump won by 10 points, but after garnering only 54% of the vote, many Republican operatives theorize that President Trump's base is eroding, even if it makes up a majority of primary voters.

In his victory speech, President Trump appeared particularly unhinged:

"Wow, tonight, what a beautiful night. Tonight's beautiful victory proves that Little Lisa from Alaska will never be able to do what she intends to do which is to tell you that your vote doesn't matter. In fact, I'll say it right here right now. She shouldn't even be in the Senate. No wonder they can't get anything done. Imagine having to work with that face all the time? Come on! Right? They know what I'm talking about. They know.

But tonight is not about Lisa from Alaska. Even though it's hard not to think about it. I mean her husband, does she even have a husband? If she does maybe he's spending a little time with Lindsey Graham if you know what I mean."



Meanwhile, the GOP has a chairperson's race to focus on. Numerous candidates have emerged for GOP Chair:

* Former Trump aide Corey Lewandowski
* New York GOP Chair Ed Cox
* Senior Advisor to President Trump, Stephen Miller
* Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina
* Former American Conservative Union Chair Al Cardenas

Sources close to President Trump admit that the President originally wanted to leave the post vacant, concluding that a weaker national party will allow Trump to roll over Murkowski more easily in the primary. Trump reportedly wants Ed Cox and Stephen Miller to serve as co-chairs. Sources close to Sen. Murkowski suggested that Lisa has given her blessing to Fiorina and Cardenas.

NEXT UP: Super Tuesday states (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia). Lisa Murkowski badly needs to win several of these states.
28  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kasich/Hickenlooper 2020 on: August 25, 2017, 09:28:48 am
Just another way for Democrats to lose votes.
29  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: New progressive Party on: August 23, 2017, 03:33:15 pm
Congratulations Gail McGowan Mellor, whoever you are, on your plans for a permanent Trump majority.
30  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Does Trump pardon Joe Arpaio tomorrow? on: August 22, 2017, 07:32:07 pm
Arpaio has earned a pardon. He has served his country so beautifully for so many, many years. An inspiration that I always looked up to as a young child.

Alright I mean look you can agree with him politically but let's not pretend we think he's a good person here...
31  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Does Trump pardon Joe Arpaio tomorrow? on: August 22, 2017, 06:05:04 pm
He must forgive him, Joe is an old man and has done so much for the country.

LOL
32  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: New Timeline Ideas- Please Vote on: August 22, 2017, 01:18:40 pm
Four more years!
33  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Does Trump pardon Joe Arpaio tomorrow? on: August 21, 2017, 09:15:15 pm
Yes, unquestionably. I'm going to go protest out at the Convention center.

Thank you for your service and activism. Please be safe and calm. With you there in spirit.
34  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Does Trump pardon Joe Arpaio tomorrow? on: August 21, 2017, 09:07:19 pm
Testing the waters for a self-pardon.

Slick Bill pardoned his half brother...so that's already been mostly tested.

I'd rather Trump pardon some sort of sleazy crony than Joe Arpaio. Joe Arpaio is symbolic for so much wrong with the country.
35  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump nominee; Legalized Same-Sex marriage could lead to legalized pedophillia on: August 21, 2017, 09:05:39 pm
I have been with my boyfriend since college. We love each other very much. He could not love me more if I were a woman and I could not love him more if he were a woman. I'm uninterested in your meaningless take or vote on whether or not I can marry the person I love. Thank you, judges.

Progressive, if you think I am trying to attack your feelings of love and/or your right to live with your love for the rest of your life, you still do not grasp what I have been talking about. I am not the slightest bit happy with you dismissing my beliefs about what the judiciary is, properly, supposed to do with the legal disputes it hears as being a "meaningless take." That is infuriating and ignorant for you to say that about my beliefs.

Your avatar is for the state of New York. Do you live there now, have you lived there for long, or is that avatar your choice because it was where you were originally from? If you have lived in New York for the last five years or so, then you have no reason whatsoever to "thank" any judges for the fact that you "can marry the person I love." Maybe you should thank the Supreme Court for striking down the federal DOMA in the case of U.S. v. Windsor, if your personal circumstances have been, in any way, similar to that of Edith Windsor's -- i.e., you needed to have the federal government recognize your NY-granted marriage in terms of filing joint income tax or something like that. But in terms of who granted any New York same-sex couple the right to get married, it was not any judges at all, that was done by the Governor and the state legislature.

~~~

Virginia, my goal and my strategy for how to adopt a constitutional amendment that rewrites Section 1 of the Fourteenth is to draft and to campaign for a bi-partisan proposal, an ideological compromise. Believe me, I fully understand the difficulties of getting an amendment proposed and ratified if only conservatives love it or if only liberals love it. I've been brooding about that difficulty for many, many years. My original idea was to propose something that merely returned the meaning of Section 1 of the Fourteenth to its mid-Nineteenth Century meaning. But that idea would only be pleasing to conservatives; liberals would hate it; it would be all about "going backwards." Then about 3 and a half years ago I brainstormed an idea for how to draft the proposal in such a way as it mixes together some ideas for both sides to root for. I realized I could include some of the Twentieth-Century "progress" that has been made with the Fourteenth, as well as make even one more "advance" that the Fourteenth has not yet been used to accomplish. I realized I could create a compromise that would give both sides about half of what they want.

~~~~

Badger, I absolutely, completely agree with the dissenting opinions in Griswold v. Connecticut. If you want to cling to a decision like that, be my guest.

We need judicial review in order to arrive at an accurate understanding of what our Constitution means.

1. Born, "bread and buttered," and living in New York. That doesn't mean that my rights to marry were full since simply because NYS passed marriage equality on that beautiful summer day in July 2011, when across the country, the marriage would not have been legally the same.

2. You can say you are not attacking my relationship all you want. But if you think you should have a say in a ballot box over my civil right to marry then yes you are indeed attacking it. As my law professor said during my 1L year several years ago, "too bad, so sad."
36  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump nominee; Legalized Same-Sex marriage could lead to legalized pedophillia on: August 21, 2017, 06:51:50 pm
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/347354-trump-nominee-same-sex-marriage-could-lead-to-legalizing-pedophilia

Quote
President Trump's nominee for the top science position at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has argued that the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to legalized pedophilia, CNN's KFile reported on Monday.

Sam Clovis made the comments on his conservative radio show and in an op-ed in a conservative blog in separate incidents ranging from 2011 to 2015, according to the news network's investigative unit.

“If we protect LGBT behavior, what other behaviors are we going to protect? Are we going to protect pedophilia?” he asked in a video uncovered by the CNN team. “We're not thinking the consequences of these decisions through."


When told his opinions were “extreme,” Clovis said that he believes they are “logical.”
"I think it's a logical extension of thought. And if you cannot follow the logic, then you're denying you’re in denial."


It is stupid to talk as if when "WE" make a decision to legalize SSM, then the net step must inevitably be that WE will make a decision to legalize marriage between adults and children. WE make distinctions all the time that WE want to legalize A but we do not want to legalize B. Eleven states and countries such as Ireland and Germany have chosen to legalize SSM, but not pedophilic marriage. Nobody is going to tell them that they HAVE to do both.

However, when the decision to legalize SSM is taken out of OUR hands and that decision is made by un-elected judges instead of by US, then many people begin to wonder ... what will the courts do next? If the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ("No State shall .... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") requires that heterosexuals and homosexuals must be treated exactly the same way -- and if you come to that legal conclusion just by looking at the literal words, disregarding them from their historical context -- then why wouldn't the legal logic also be that pedophiles must be treated as the equal of non-pedophiles? Are the courts going to treat all sexual orientations as exactly the same as one another? If the courts have legalized SSM because homosexuals are a "discrete and insular minority" victimized by society's "prejudice" (see below), then why couldn't the same be said about pedophiles? If the courts took the decision about SSM out of the hands of "the people," then what is the likelihood it will take the decision away from them as well when it comes to this other topic? Isn't it scary that the decision is not up to "US"??

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the 14th Amendment, and it was adopted in 1868, in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Supreme Court's first-ever interpretation of that Clause was that it protected the recently freed slaves from being treated worse than the white majority, but that the Clause would not be extended any further than that topic. "We doubt very much whether any action of a state not taken by way of discrimination against negroes as a class, or on account of their race, will ever be held to come within the purview of this provision." (The Slaughter-House Cases.)

Seventy years after the 14th was adopted, the Supreme Court came up with a theory that the Equal Protection Clause protects more kinds of minorities than just racial minorities. The Court said it might look suspiciously at government actions that are based on "prejudice against discrete and insular minorities," because that kind of prejudice will lead to legislative majorities never having any respect for those kinds of minorities. This appeared in what has been called the most celebrated footnote in American jurisprudence: the fourth footnote in the Court's opinion in U.S. v. Carolene Products Co., 1938. Please read about it here.

Another 42 years later, Prof. John Hart Ely published a book called, "Democracy and Distrust," in which he elaborated at length about the ideas in "footnote four." He discussed the idea that "discrete and insular minorities," are not just people who happen to be outnumbered, but that they are victims of prejudice, in that they "keep finding themselves at the wrong end of the pluralist's bazaar for reasons that are, in some sense, discreditable." In a pluralist society, which we obviously are, the are many groups of people who may be outnumbered, but they are able to engage in political wheeling-and-dealing to get their interests protected on many occasions anyway. They win some legislative battles and they lose some. But a "discrete and insular minority" never wins, they always lose, because there is "widespread hostility" and "stereotyping" against that group; no one else will stand up for that minority. In 1980, Prof. Ely said homosexuals fit that description. So, Prof. Ely said, when homosexuals are subjected to laws that treat them as inferior, the courts should look upon that as constitutionally "suspicious." However, Ely also theorized that because gay people were more and more often coming out of the closet (as of 1980), they were gaining more and more social respect, and Ely thought that maybe some day -- he hoped it would happen while his book still remained in print -- the time would come in which gay people, though still a minority, are no longer either "discrete" nor "insular," and then the courts will not need to look "suspiciously" at legislation like that.

I happen to think that this idea of "discrete and insular minorities" should have never been invoked as a reason for courts to strike down any laws. It is an idea that the people who ratified the Constitution never consented to. The Court came up with the idea, almost eighty years ago, without any historical justification as to why it is a constitutional "principle." If this idea does not get buried, because it should never have been born to begin with, then the logic behind it might be such that it will be used by some lawyers to argue to the courts that pedophiles are a "discrete and insular minority" victimized by society's "prejudice." Because of that "prejudice," courts, hypothetically, might start looking "suspiciously" at laws that treat pedophiles as "inferior," which, according to a literal reading of the Equal Protection Clause, is not allowed.

I don't actually think that any court will come to any conclusions that anti-pedophile laws of any kind are "unconstitutional." But what is upsetting is that the decision is not in OUR hands, it is up to the judicial branch to decide. We need to do something about that. See my signature.

MarkD is 100% correct that the marriage decision should have been made by legislators and voters, not by unelected judges.

I have been with my boyfriend since college. We love each other very much. He could not love me more if I were a woman and I could not love him more if he were a woman. I'm uninterested in your meaningless take or vote on whether or not I can marry the person I love. Thank you, judges.
37  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Does Trump pardon Joe Arpaio tomorrow? on: August 21, 2017, 06:49:28 pm
I'm afraid he's going to do it to cause a very visceral toxic reaction in AZ tomorrow. We know he doesn't want peace, etc. in the country so he wants to stoke flames tomorrow.
38  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Lisa From Alaska on: August 21, 2017, 05:55:35 pm
Thanks everyone!

NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY FALLOUT


On February 15, 2020, a few days before the South Carolina primary, President Trump addressed Republican bigs at the National Press Club.

"Look folks, I have on good word that Democrats may have been up to 8% or more of the New Hampshire Republican primary vote and to be honest with you probably more. Much more in fact. Many many aides have told me and shown me real reports about how Lisa Murkowski or whatever her name is, is using alt-Left agitators to swarm Republican primaries. South Carolina is in a few days folks. In 2016 we killed it, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio got shlonged not that Marco minded but Ted I almost felt bad for you know he's a good guy, a bit off, but he's with us. [Cruz was in the audience and nodded accordingly]. But there's a danger with Lisa Murkowski she's running a very dangerous campaign that is going to result in outsourcing jobs and importing liabilities from the Middle East if she gets her way. And folks she's going to try to get her way. So I spoke to Ronna [Romney McDaniel] and she told me that the GOP primaries are secure but let's face it. Who made the party? Before me. Before us I mean. We made this party what it is today. We won't be denied our own nomination. I need everyone in South Carolina to be on the lookout for Lisa and her liberal frauds. That's what I'll say about that."


The next day, thousands of pro-Trump protesters surrounded all twelve Lisa Murkowski field offices in South Carolina, demanding the Alaska senator drop out of the race and make room for the embattled president. Trump's South Carolina state director explained that protesters are "ensuring the voice of the people is heard. The voice of the people is with President Trump. And our campaign supporters will not allow a pro-illegal immigrant, anti-common sense senator from the swampiest depths of DC to make South Carolina less great."


That afternoon, protesters burned a Murkowski campaign office to the ground with several field volunteers in it, in Greenville, South Carolina. No one was hurt, but numerous Trump supporters were arrested.

President Trump tweeted: "Likely fire was started to make us look bad. Lisa from Alaska we can't be tricked MAGA"


In an emotional press conference, RNC Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel announced that she would resign. "I just--I can't do this anymore. The president is...The president is the president. Thank you."
39  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Does Trump pardon Joe Arpaio tomorrow? on: August 21, 2017, 04:52:33 pm
I hope not, but IDK.
40  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Lisa From Alaska on: August 20, 2017, 02:19:20 pm

NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY RESULTS

100% REPORTING
Lisa Murkowski    49.6%
Donald Trump*    46.3%

Granite State gut punch delivered to President Trump as Senator Murkowski pulls off a decisive victory in its Republican Primary. Aides to President Trump, who spent primary night in New Hampshire, report that the President is furious with campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, who he now suspects of working with the RNC to usurp the nomination from him.


In a speech to supporters in New Hampshire, Senator Murkowski delivered powerful remarks. "President Trump, what happened tonight was no accident. The verdict is in. Your presidency has been a failure to our country, and tonight, we realize it has been a major setback for our party. Luckily, conservatives and Republicans across beautiful and snowy New Hampshire have chosen another path. I'm so humbled to be your pick for president."

But President Trump would not accept defeat. In a thrashing, brief statement to supporters in New Hampshire, Trump said the following: "Looks like Little Lisa worked with Democrats and, well they said I shouldn't say this but I'm gonna' say it because I won't lie to anybody, believe me folks, Massachusetts chose an Alaskan tonight. Liberals from western Massachusetts--by the way, they say lots of Subarus you know what that means two ladies coming together in their Massachusetts Subaru, you know. They came up here. And they pulled off what the illegals could only dream of. These results, and they are what they are, but I won't play nice with fraud I'll tell that. Someone tell Little Lisa from Alaska that. Nothing more to say other than thank you for New Hampshire people choosing me, Massachusetts people--those women with the buzz cuts and the biker jackets if you catch my drift, they see one of their own in Lisa I guess.  The results should be void and everybody knows it."

Fallout to come, next.
41  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democrats only: Who would you choose for president from one of these republicans on: August 19, 2017, 04:48:57 pm
Donald J. Trump is no less/more damaging than any generic R when it comes to cabinet, Court, etc.

That being said, I chose Kasich.
42  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: New York City mayoral election, 2017 thread on: August 19, 2017, 07:52:33 am
Primary is in less than a month. Anyone think Albanese picking up steam?

Yes. I like him. He's not going to be mayor, he ran for mayor in 1997, 2001, and 2013, but Albanese should run for Congress against Dan Donovan, the former S.I. D.A. who allowed Eric Garner's killer walk free in 2014.

He'll do well in Staten Island and some parts of Brooklyn, but turnout will be very, very low on September 12.

DEB getting so much bad press lately, wouldn't be surprised if he does worse than thought
43  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Describe A Clinton 2016/Trump 2020 Voter on: August 18, 2017, 02:39:25 pm
An idiot.

That and people who voted Clinton in the "Ossoff" world but will, or may, return home in 2020.
44  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Lisa From Alaska on: August 18, 2017, 02:37:20 pm
I mean it only in the most flattering way when I say that the first image you used of Murkowski really makes her look like America's concerned grandmother.

Consider me a follower.

Haha, that was part of the point in using that particular image, for her to appear like the responsible matriarch.
45  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Left's Trump on: August 18, 2017, 10:56:57 am
Bernie Sanders. A very controversial figure with a hard core of strong supporters.

Neither Hillary nor Bernie come remotely close to Trump. I really think Figueira is right. There's no equivalence.
46  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: New York City mayoral election, 2017 thread on: August 18, 2017, 10:50:12 am
Primary is in less than a month. Anyone think Albanese picking up steam?
47  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / The Left's Trump on: August 18, 2017, 10:41:54 am
Ok so I have tried to put myself in the place of someone who is not like me (gay, Jewish, progressive Democrat living in NYC) to imagine who the Trump of the left could be. I really can't imagine someone who presents so caustically and recklessly and would have the same success in the Democratic primaries. Who do you think could fit this mold?
48  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Lisa From Alaska on: August 18, 2017, 10:27:43 am
New post coming soon. Had some blood work done to figure out why I keep getting the flu. Will be back soon.
49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Trump keep the support of the Alt-Right in 2020? on: August 17, 2017, 04:02:57 pm
Can you really divorce the alt-Right from GOP mainstream at this point?

Yeah, quite easily.

Really? Other than the GOP members of Congress, all polls suggest that actual GOP voters essentially in line with Trump presidency and platform.
50  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: AL-SEN Megathread: GOP and Dem primaries on August 15th on: August 15, 2017, 06:07:17 pm
Can we just reflect on how wild it is that Roy freakin' Moore might be senator
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 91


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines