2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sigma said:
:(
Click to expand...
FlawlessThaw said:
feckin' hell that's worrying sight. Was almost never-ending and it's just been 2 days!
Click to expand...

It's horrific isn't it?

I apologise because I'm going to repost it in the "post referendum" thread as well because obviously it really belongs in there, but I put it here first because it just reminded me of Trump supporters and his rallies and the way they speak/act. It's obviously a global pandemic. It really did remind me of what we have been covering here with the Trump Phenomenon! and it's scary as hell. :(
 
langster said:
It's horrific isn't it?

I apologise because I'm going to repost it in the "post referendum" thread as well because obviously it really belongs in there, but I put it here first because it just reminded me of Trump supporters and his rallies and the way they speak/act. It's obviously a global pandemic. It really did remind me of what we have been covering here with the Trump Phenomenon! and it's scary as hell. :(
Click to expand...
Fascism 2.0
 
Dude is just making crap up as he goes along...

Balmedie, Scotland (CNN)Donald Trump's proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States has been a central issue of his campaign -- but he has described the ban differently in the weeks since the mass shooting in Orlando.

His spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, told CNN Saturday that Trump supports barring only Muslims from "terror states," not all Muslims.
Click to expand...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/25/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-terrorism/index.html
 
What happened to Sigma's weird Sporcle quiz, which didn't seem to be a quiz at all. Just click on Trump or Clinton, and score 50%...
 

I think it's time for those few of us who are still sane to find a new planet.
 
Second poll this week showing Clinton with a double digit lead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...june-has-been-an-utter-disaster-in-every-way/

In other good news for Clinton, Sanders voters are already coming around to supporting her. For weeks, Clinton supporters have groused about the disloyalty of Bernie Sanders’ supporters. And it is true that, in the last Post-ABC poll, Clinton only won 71 percent of Sanders voters. But despite the acrimony of the Democratic primary, 81 percent of Sanders backers now support Clinton against Trump. Only 8 percent of Sanders voters now support Trump, compared with 10 percent of all Republicans who support Clinton. (Clinton die-hards should think twice before complaining about Sanders backers’ supposed foot-dragging. At this point in 2008, 22 percent of Clinton primary supporters said they would vote for John McCain in the fall, and 16 percent did so.)
Click to expand...

The question now is, will Brexit affects the US Market enough to cause an economic recession, which is just about the only thing that'll put Drumpf in office, other than an indictment.
 
 
 
Raoul said:
lol....a modern day Glass Steagall. Never gonna happen.
Click to expand...

It's weird. Publicly Clinton supports the death penalty, and opposes the TPP and Glass-Steagall. Yet those were 3 of her positions that were defeated (and unlike TPP she actually believes in the other 2 -- she's been consistent in her stands on death and G-S).
Edit: universal healthcare she has done so many flip-flops I genuinely don't know what her last official position was.
 
Sied said:

I think it's time for those few of us who are still sane to find a new planet.
Click to expand...

Absolutely disturbing stuff right there.
berbatrick said:
It's weird. Publicly Clinton supports the death penalty, and opposes the TPP and Glass-Steagall. Yet those were 3 of her positions that were defeated (and unlike TPP she actually believes in the other 2 -- she's been consistent in her stands on death and G-S).
Edit: universal healthcare she has done so many flip-flops I genuinely don't know what her last official position was.
Click to expand...
According to her campaign website she wants to strengthen Obamacare and use it as a platform to move toward universal healthcare (single payer). I am skeptical of that from her.
 
Last edited:
Carolina Red said:
Even still... Is it constitutional to ban entry to the US based on religion?
Click to expand...

The Civil Rights act doesn't apply to the federal government or native american tribes, they are exempt. They can legal discriminate against anyone they want.
 
berbatrick said:
That seems to refer to the federal govt as an employer.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I was also told that the federal government and native american tribes are exempt from the civil rights act and thus could not be sued under it. Guess I need to do a little more research.
 
berbatrick said:
It's weird. Publicly Clinton supports the death penalty, and opposes the TPP and Glass-Steagall. Yet those were 3 of her positions that were defeated (and unlike TPP she actually believes in the other 2 -- she's been consistent in her stands on death and G-S).
Edit: universal healthcare she has done so many flip-flops I genuinely don't know what her last official position was.
Click to expand...

Clinton doesn't support death penalty, but she wants to retain the death penalty option for extreme cases. I think there's a yuuuuuge difference between supporting death penalty and having it as an option.
 
Kyonn said:
Maybe, but I was also told that the federal government and native american tribes are exempt from the civil rights act and thus could not be sued under it. Guess I need to do a little more research.
Click to expand...

Trump's ban would be challenged by the 1st amendment not the Civil Rights Act AFAIK.
 
Carolina Red said:
Yes they do if they are on US soil.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if that's true

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...o_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html

"In 1952's Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists. "In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit," Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in his concurrence. "One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court."

But Trumps ban is about stopping immigrants from entering the US.
 
Carolina Red said:
I'm aware. Which is why I brought up the question in regards to constitutionality... The ban would require a law that could come into conflict with the free exercise of religion.
Click to expand...

This is what I thought too till the post above.
But I know the US SC has a lot of questions about standing: so, who would be able to sue against the law as the injured party?
 
Carolina Red said:
I'm aware. Which is why I brought up the question in regards to constitutionality... The ban would require a law that could come into conflict with the free exercise of religion.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's true. Not even sure if would require a law or act of congress. I believe the president has the power to issue an executive order to not allow immigrants from select countries.
 
The main thing to consider in the Court's upholding of deportations (1952) or restrictions for immigration (1972) is that they were in the context of the Cold War. Would today's court make the same decision?
 
Last edited:
Kyonn said:
I'm not sure that's true. Not even sure if would require a law or act of congress. I believe the president has the power to issue an executive order to not allow immigrants from select countries.
Click to expand...
I'm referring to a law like the Chinese Exclusion Act.

In regards to an executive order, wouldn't it need to be based on an existing law?
 
Raoul said:
Goldman is now forecasting a mild UK recession in early 2017 due to Brexit.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/26/gold...-2017-downgrades-global-growth-forecasts.html


The U.K. is likely to enter a "mild recession" by early 2017, following its vote leave the European Union (EU), Goldman Sachs economists wrote in a report released Sunday.


The bank's economists also downgraded its global growth forecast by0.1 percentage point to 3.1 percent in 2016.

U.K. gross domestic product (GDP) would take a 2.75 percentage-point hit in the next 18 months from the cumulative effects of "increased uncertainty and deteriorating terms of trade," Goldman Sachs' Jan Hatzius, Jari Stehn and Karen Reichgott wrote.

Goldman's forecast for GDP growth in the U.K. this year was 1.5 percent, a 0.5 percentage-point drop from its previous forecast, while the bank's prediction for U.K. growth next year is 0.2 percent, a 1.8 percent decline from its previous forecast.

The economists listed three "economic transmission mechanisms" from the shock Brexit vote.

"First, the UK terms of trade are likely to deteriorate, especially if it becomes harder to export high-value added services (including financial services) to the European Union," the note said.

"Second, the uncertainty about the long term is likely to weigh on UK growth in the short term as firms hold off on investment...Third, outside the UK the main transmission channels are weaker UK demand for imports and—much more importantly—a tightening of financial conditions via a stronger exchange rate and lower risk asset prices."
Click to expand...

If it hits even a little earlier:

cannotunsee15.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.