2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Hillary just went on a news talk show and said that young people are supporting Bernie because it's "cool to be protesting". Why is she attacking voters now? Even the republicans have the sense to not do that!
She's a bit fecking dumb at times.
yeah. That will make them grow up and start supporting you Grandma!
kin senile old woman.
Because they don't have a political majority? I'd respectfully disagree with their views, just as I respectfully disagree with pro-lifers. All I'm talking about is respecting the differing opinion.
Pro-lifers would get much respect if they don't try and enact their belief as law. Nobody disrespects them because of what they believe in, they are ridiculed because they believe in forcing their belief on everybody else.
I don't know what political majority has to do with anything and I'm not even sure they are in the majority now.
So if they have a political majority, they have a right to cut people's hands off? and this is Ok?
her whole game is to gain power whatever way she can and pay back the people who funded her. They are the ones she is answerable to.
She uses voters like toilet paper.
Its so surprising to me that her supporters aren't put off by her fakeness and pandering.
In my eyes she really is no better than Mitt Romney.
As a practical matter laws tend to reflect what is acceptable to the political majority, just that.
Last edited:
I was referring to the equal protection law that protects minority groups under US law, not referring to laws of barbaric countries.
I can accept this is the game with the Republicans. But how low the Dems have sunk.
They are.
John F. Kennedy: nervous wreak, known infidelity, protégé of a political family with close ties to Strom Thurmond.
Lyndon B. Johnson: proud liar (read Doris Kearns Goodwin book), racially backward white man (I'll have them voting for the next 200 years)
Jimmy Carter: ineffective. Kindly Southern chap.
Bill Clinton: well...
Obama: establishment centrist.
Hate to break it to you, but the Dems have never been that high to begin with. Those are just counting the presidents when the party began to adopt civil rights into their platform. Before that, you were the big tent for lynchin' loving white men in queer hood.
Oh Peleeeeease.....
The first 3 were among the best Presidents this country has produced. I'm not going to defend them here....but that is desperate.
Hillary is not fit to sit in their chairs.
Billo..ah well...
Obama could have shown more fight, but he did bring us out of the recession.
As for your referring to the old Democratic party....come on..
must try harder.
EDIT:
I'm not a Democrat.
When people assess Obama's legacy they'll realise he got more done than many realise now.
I'm not even trying, that's just the cold hard facts. Legislative achievements don't go hand in hand with great ethics, usually. It's laughable of you to even suggest that Carter is a great president when the general consensus is that his presidency fecked up the party pretty seriously until Slick Wille came along. JFK is about what could've been and his space program rather than what he truly achieved, Dick Nixon arguably got more done in the way of domestic policies despite his principal occupation with foreign affairs. Bill Clinton trumps all of them in the way of domestic achievements and none would suggest that he's a paragon of human virtues.
The checks and balances of the US political institution forces legislators to settle for incremental changes, even in time of genuine crisis. The New Deal took 3 terms to make genuine effect, admits the worst economic depression of the last two centuries and a world war, the ACA's public option was killed because it couldn't even passed a Democratic controlled Congress. That's why ideologically ambivalent candidates are more likely to get elected and more likely to actually push through their agenda. Hillary Clinton fits that mould perfectly.
JFK.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/
The man who nearly started a nuclear apocalypse based on ego.
JFK is remembered as a great president, mainly because he was handsome, had a great speech about space, and then got shot.
Whoa, we've actually got a republican on here?!
Even if Hilary wins in November, anyone here reckon she can win two terms?
Constitutional rights are meant to stop democracy from becoming mob rule (or the poor from seizing every billionaires' assets)
Talk about wildly inaccurate.
There's a few actually, and at least one unashamed Trump supporter as well. Quite a few independents too.Absolutely, as much chance as any incumbent particularly with the present state of the GOP.
Nail. On. Head.
LBJ was twice the president JFK was, but his entrenchment in the Vietnam War robbed him of much recognition. Kennedy admitted to not oppose Strom Thurmond on race because the latter was well liked in MA. What a liberal hero he was.
I think this November will be an indication. If she can't win it convincingly then I think she has problems. She was supposed to walk through the primaries.
Point it out to me then. Of course, it was meant a bit tongue in cheek regarding RD's comment about 'how low the Dems have sunk'. In the overall context of Dems nominees and presidents from FDR onwards, there's nothing to suggest that Hillary is a significant downgrade.
If she can't win convincingly against Cruz or Trump, then I'd agree. Both should be there for the taking. Primaries though I don't see as indicative, you can waltz through them and go on to struggle in a GE (Kerry 04), or you can win by small margins, even losing the popular vote, and then win massively in November (Obama).
it is but he wont understand.
Yes, but they ultimately rest on the fact that there is broad political support for those rights themselves. I think a country can go from having the minority (not that kind of minority) rights protected from majority interference, to having less protection without leaving the existing political framework. You'd just need majorities large enough at voting time. This is something I would obviously consider terrible, like I think most others here would, but not impossible.
This can also be argued from the fact that different democratic countries have different levels and items of rights/protections. I would think this is due to what rights have broad political support in each country.
Last edited:
In India the Supreme Court has set a precedent, called the basic structure. Those parts of the constitution deemed to be its basic structure (like fundamental rights) cannot be amended no matter the parliamentary and state legislative majorities that vote for amendment (according to the constitution, an amendment requires 2/3rd majority in parliament and some number of state legislatures to ratify)
Whether people like it or not, we will have the (non-absolute) freedoms guaranteed by our constitution.
Feel free to enlighten me. I've addressed your point in good faith based on my knowledge, if somewhat aggressively and hyperbolic. Snark isn't a good contribution.
Trump is absolutely lacerating Cruz in his first NY speech.
I'll be interested to know, for example, the support for the 4th amendment among the general US public. If you frame it as a Miranda rights question rather than a const amendment question. Or as Snowden and Osama v/s the 9/11 victims and the armed forces.
- Status