• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Perhaps the most important Trump analysis yet.

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm stating that we shouldn't take away the Constitutional Rights of American citizens because a random government bureaucrat says so. You seem fine with that. If that's how you'd rather be ruled, then I'm afraid that you won't be very happy here, and recommend looking into moving to China, or Cuba, or perhaps a country that will be a better fit for you.



It doesn't ****ing matter if you like it or not. It's the Constitution. You don't get to pick and choose the pieces you like, any more than you, Trump, or any of the other liberals get to decide to toss the 2nd Amendment, The 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and the 6th Amendment. Conservatives understand this.



......

....

..

.....


I repeat my call for forbidding anyone who cannot pass the US Citizenship exam from being allowed to vote. You can't strip Constitutional Rights by statute.



Yeah. And for that security, we are each allowed to be armed. And the government isn't allowed to say that anyone who gets put into a database can have that right stripped from them without due process. And no, passing a law is not due process for stripping people's rights. That's why we have a Judiciary.



No we shouldn't. That we are having this debate indicates that half the country (or more) doesn't give two ****s about the Constitution or individual rights and doesn't understand the issues at hand. Stupid ass debates like this where uninformed Americans are easily swayed by demagogues is precisely why we have a Constitution in the first place.

Wow, whole lot of arrogance, lotta huff, very little puff.

You have yet to prove WHICH constitutional rights of which you so, dare I say it, [modern ]liberally speak. You cannot just use the words Constitutional as a buffer for stupid irrationalizations, brother. Just saying its Constitutional doesn't make it magically so. Prove you have a point, don't use the pfffttt, shrug your shoulders and a roll of your eyes method of "argumentation", prove your DAMN point, man.

I loathe insufferables. Try to get away with saying nothing of substance but who profess to stand on 'Principle'. Nobody, leastways myself, is wanting to take away an American citizen's rights here. Your interpretation of the Constitution may be different, but at least make your fricken case.

It very much DOES matter if the amendment was not ratified in the strict manners specified in OUR CONSTITUTION, pal... or should we, based on YOUR views, just toss the Constitutional method of amending the Constitution out? So righteous about the Constitution until it no longer fits your simplistic views, eh? Wastebasket material.

Based on your own criteria for allowance of voting privileges, you would not be allowed, my friend. BTW, where is that requirement in the Constitution? Gonna be that bureaucrat passing that regulation that would not allow yoursefl to vote, are ya? What an absolute perfect and ironic hypocrisy. Now I am sure you are a lib. They trap themselves like that all the time.

YES, American citizens are allowed to be armed. Does not say anywhere in our Constitution we have to allow our enemies access to guns while they are in OUR country. If I am wrong, please specify the Article and section. Unlike you, I am willing to discuss what you've got. So far, you got nuttin. Zilch nothing but vehemence in the face of questioning of your, so far, substandard views. The government can say all sorts of things about the rights of guests in our country.

Citizens have rights, foreign nationals do not have all those same rights. Should we not be able to deport folks if they are here illegally? Can we deport them if they are a member of a terrorist group? Where is all that in the Constitution again? Every national government has the inherent authority to protect the national public interest. Foreign nationals are, or can be, a matter of vital national concern. Its the role of the federal government to oversee matters of national concern... The courts, it seems, give basic citizen rights to all, but there are various classes. Whatever process Congress sees fit to provide to excludable aliens has satisfied the Due Process Clause. We should surely be able to make the rules for outsiders, especially in times of war. Another reason that Congress should probably look at declaring war against Islamic terrorism, from wherever the source.

No discussion? Crazy talk. First amendment freedoms are paramount to a free society. Why don't you regale for us the issues at hand that, you say, at least half of us, apparently, do not understand? The arrogance of such words are simply elitist [lib think], certainly we should be discussing all this in a society beset by threats from hard to identify sources that have vowed our future demise, dead set upon inflicting harm upon us.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
:lol: my links all demonstrated that Trump is guilty of everything you wished to accuse Hillary of, and you didn't want to deal with that. that's why you deleted them.
Dude, I told you exactly why I deleted them... its not like you cannot go back to YOUR own post and see them... right? They aren't mysteriously gone like the Clinton emails, right? I addressed everyone of your so called concerns... first you accuse me of not seeing, not hearing and then not speaking in some ludicrous cartoon form... then when I do, in spades and need to delete your almost useless links, you call me a liar. A moving target so you got make up stuff as you go along. Again, not a conservative trait.

And just so you know, I am up here in the mountains of Panama, the internet signal is often non existent, weak even when it is existent. So, it was a long process to go through each one of your hokey links... but if a poster offers me links, I do my best to take a look see. I will say that, while you have stated little of true substance, at least you are not one of the one line slingers that seem to be whores for the "Likes" here.

That said, you do need to change your lean... or possibly change your argumentation style.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,802
Reaction score
35,215
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wow, whole lot of arrogance, lotta huff, very little puff.

You have yet to prove WHICH constitutional rights of which you so, dare I say it, [modern ]liberally speak.

I'm not the one backing the Democrats big-government liberal push to restrict individual rights in the Constitution, bro. Trump is. ;)

You have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear weapons. That can't be taken away from without your 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment rights to Due Process. :) Prior to which the government is required by the 4th Amendment to actually have evidence demonstrating probable cause, and during which, the government has to honor your 6th Amendment right to legal representation, and the ability to call witnesses in your defense. Trump want to get rid of all that because - like other liberal Democrats - he doesn't value individual rights, he values government, and he thinks guns are kinda scary.

Nobody is wanting to take away an American citizen's rights here?

:lol: I guess you missed it. Donald Trump Joins Democrats In Post-Orlando Gun Control Push.

It very much DOES matter if the amendment was not ratified in the strict manners specified in OUR CONSTITUTION, pal... or should we, based on YOUR views, just toss the Constitutional method of amending the Constitution out? So righteous about the Constitution until it no longer fits your simplistic views, eh? Wastebasket material.

You don't get to chuck the 14th Amendment because you don't like it, any more than Trump gets to chuck the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments because he finds them inconvenient.


Based on your own criteria for allowance of voting privileges, you would not be allowed, my friend

Nah. I actually bothered to study this stuff, so I can pass it. Unlike the people who think that a Constitutional Right can be taken by Statute.

BTW, where is that requirement in the Constitution?

Determinations for the franchise are left up to the States (10th Amendment) with the exceptions that States cannot deny people based on their race/color/previous condition of servitude (15th Amendment), gender (19th Amendment), or age above the age of 18 (26th Amendment).

Now I am sure you are a lib. They trap themselves like that all the time.

:2funny:


All my critiques of Trump are from the right, because he is a liberal, but whatever :). It's the Trump Train, logic never got on board.

YES, American citizens are allowed to be armed. Does not say anywhere in our Constitution we have to allow our enemies access to guns while they are in OUR country.

Hey, guess who's in the database? American citizens. Guess whose 2nd Amendment rights they are talking about stripping? American citizens.


Hey, let's do a quick thread-poll. Everyone here that has worked with these databases regularly and professionally as a part of their job, please raise your hand.

[Raises Hand]

Gauge? Your hand raised?

If I am wrong, please specify the Article and section.

The 14th Amendment states that any individual in our country who isn't on Diplomatic Status (and thus not subject to our jurisdiction), regardless of their citizenship, cannot be denied Life, Liberty, or Property without their right to Due Process (5th Amendment) in the manner described above.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,802
Reaction score
35,215
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gaugingcatentate said:
Unlike you, I am willing to discuss what you've got.

No you aren't. You block quote, ignore, and then desperately try to divert.

The government can say all sorts of things about the rights of guests in our country.

....

.....

....


See, I also blame public education. Our citizenry is woefully ignorant.

Citizens have rights, foreign nationals do not have all those same rights.

Foreign nationals in our country cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the exact same protections as a US Citizen, as they fall under our Jurisdiction (14th Amendment). That is why, for example, we held captured enemy combatants in Guantanomo Bay instead of bringing them onto US soil, where they would instantly have the right to a Lawyer, to appeal, to speedy trial, to call witnesses in their defense, etc. (6th Amendment).

Should we not be able to deport folks if they are here illegally?

Absolutely.

Can we deport them if they are a member of a terrorist group?

Actually at that point we should imprison them, as under 18 U.S. Code § 2339B, supporting a terrorist organization comes with 20 years.

You know why we aren't grabbing up and deporting or imprisoning people here in the U.S. who are in the database? Because they haven't done anything that warrants it. Nearly 40% of the people on that list have no affiliation with any bad guy group whatsoever.

Every national government has the inherent authority to protect the national public interest

Sure. And in our form of government, wise to the fact that demagogues could easily sway crowds to overturn freedom in it's name, our Founders wisely prohibited our government from doing so in certain forms, among which are the violations of our rights without Due Process.

No discussion? Crazy talk. First amendment freedoms are paramount to a free society.

Bah. The Constitution is old and wasn't meant to threaten us, and stuff. You need to be put on a list where the government restricts your right to speak without permission. For our own protection.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,802
Reaction score
35,215
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Dude, I told you exactly why I deleted them... its not like you cannot go back to YOUR own post and see them... right? They aren't mysteriously gone like the Clinton emails, right? I addressed everyone of your so called concerns... first you accuse me of not seeing,

No, I accused you of ignoring them.... when you then did... because you don't want to deal with Trump's liberalism.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As I've already said (twice), probably either Johnson or Keniston.



Yeah - It's in one of those links that you chose to chop out and ignore ;). Everything - including the wall - is just a suggestion, because he's playing a part.



According to his own kid, yeah. Touchback Amnesty, with the "touchback" provision being the first thing likely to go in "negotiation". Because "the DREAMers convinced him" :roll:

...Back in 2012 Trump was attacking Mitt Romney - Mitt Romney(!) - from the LEFT on Immigration. That's who he is. Sure. But when they are 70, and convert roughly 30 seconds before deciding to run for the GOP nomination, and then convert back once they get that nomination, they didn't actually change. They just suckered you.
Gary Johnson happened to be my governor when I lived in Albuquerque, liked him a lot. I have about as good a statistical chance to win as he does and nobody but my friends, family, former students even know who I am.

Principled futility is the lover of Pyrrhic victories... but for the body count, hey, it feels wonderful.

Now, if everything is just a suggestion, how is it you can call Trump an authoritarian? As an authoritarian, as you know, he would just say then just do it. Textbook authoritarian, right? Trump knows he isn't someone with absolute power or else he would not admit that. Just telegraphing what he wants done, what WE want done... is the wall. One of your liberal leaning articles was about how implausible building the wall is, engineering wise. Hell, the Chinese built theirs that stretches over 13 thousand miles... did that over 2000 years ago man. Article seem to you it was kinda negative towards what Americans can do if they want to... I mean to you, the conservative you... negative at all? I currently live in the country where over a hundred years ago they, we, built this little canal here. Amazing, still working, huge technological, political, social, imagined to completion engineering feat.

See, to me, this is just another indicator of improper lean. I mean... Similar not the same, but its the way they were with Star Wars, remember? The outright impossibility of Star Wars, much less so the stated implausibility of a wall. The Wall.

Next? If memory correctly serves [ internet too slow to bother at the moment, so tell me if I am wrong] Your linked first article said Trump was NOT going to follow through with border wall and deportations, then along comes next article that says he deports all 11Million, like he said, lets some come back, the good ones, with a Z visa? Which is it... but this is only supposition mind you. Noticing the pattern of contradiction though? Of supposition, of negativity? Just not conservative, sorry. Now add some true substance or logic... then there's an assertion worth looking into maybe.

...

As regards changing one's positions/timing... well, he only has 10 seconds to bring the ball down the court before he gets a ten second violation, yano? And you tell me he took a whole 30 seconds before deciding to run? Blow the whistle at 'em, man. No, this is starting to get ridiculous, going after his finger and toenails next? Yikes, might force us on this side to look in detail at the canckles issue to properly counter, gurgle...uurp.

Besides, would never ever want to be accused again of falsely and maliciously putting ellipses to very good use by reducing parts of what you post...

So this should suffice. but I ll give you the gist as far as I can before, whichever comes first, nodding off or...
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, I accused you of ignoring them.... when you then did... because you don't want to deal with Trump's liberalism.
What have I ignored? I have spent considerable amount of time wading through the junk articles you have sent... all ostensibly making your point, well, until you read them and see they are only fluff anti Trump pieces that confirm your bias but fail to make it over the finish line into the truth of the matter.

Thing is, you are more liberal than Trump... you just don't seem to realize it.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
...

You have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear weapons. That can't be taken away from without your 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment rights to Due Process. :) Prior to which the government is required by the 4th Amendment to actually have evidence demonstrating probable cause, and during which, the government has to honor your 6th Amendment right to legal representation, and the ability to call witnesses in your defense. Trump want to get rid of all that because - like other liberal Democrats - he doesn't value individual rights, he values government, and he thinks guns are kinda scary.



:lol: I guess you missed it. Donald Trump Joins Democrats In Post-Orlando Gun Control Push.








Nah. I actually bothered to study this stuff, so I can pass it. Unlike the people who think that a Constitutional Right can be taken by Statute.



Determinations for the franchise are left up to the States (10th Amendment) with the exceptions that States cannot deny people based on their race/color/previous condition of servitude (15th Amendment), gender (19th Amendment), or age above the age of 18 (26th Amendment).



Fortunately others are allowed an opinion. Don't want government bureaucrats doing that for us, remember?

Your article proves Trump what?

“Democrats pressed ahead Wednesday with plans for new gun controls after the Orlando shooting, and even enlisted an unlikely potential ally —*Donald Trump, who said he’s open to a discussion about banning firearm sales to those on the government’s no-fly list.

“And*Mr. Trump, Republicans’ likely presidential nominee, posted a Twitter message saying he would meet with the National Rifle Association*to talk with them about the issue.


Being open to a discussion should not be blanket interpreted as to take away rights. Discussion should be encouraged, figure out ways one MIGHT limit potentially dangerous foreigners on the list. Then, Trump going to the NRA to discuss? Don't think maybe they MIGHT advise him a bit differently... its discussion, man... no taking away rights statements.

Hoping that there is a supervisor overseeing your important watch-list database work. Kangaroo logic, jumping to outlandish conclusions leaves a bit to be desired.

We should be handcuffed as to what limitations placed on questionable guests? In times of peril, thats suicidal/stupid. A liberal interpretation that should be revisited. Aliens, like any guest, should abide by special guest rules. Guests invited into my house understand some things are simply, justifiably off limits. Should not even be discussing this eh? totalitarian much?

Yessir, whatever you say... for I am but a mere lowly citizen. Sorry, I don't do the kow tow thing.

Your asserted criteria of gun rights--- that even all guests in our country should be able to own, coupled with state franchise determination, would that mean a state wanting to open up suffrage rights in Federal elections to, lets say, illegal aliens... that'd be ok? US elections where everyone of age is able to vote? Would you be against a statute taking away that right? Have you been against the Federal law doing just that?

Oh, sorry, we should not discussing that either, eh?.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You don't get to chuck the 14th Amendment because you don't like it, any more than Trump gets to chuck the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments because he finds them inconvenient.

:2funny:


All my critiques of Trump are from the right, because he is a liberal, but whatever :). It's the Trump Train, logic never got on board.



Hey, guess who's in the database? American citizens. Guess whose 2nd Amendment rights they are talking about stripping? American citizens.


Hey, let's do a quick thread-poll. Everyone here that has worked with these databases regularly and professionally as a part of their job, please raise your hand.

[Raises Hand]

Gauge? Your hand raised?



The 14th Amendment states that any individual in our country who isn't on Diplomatic Status (and thus not subject to our jurisdiction), regardless of their citizenship, cannot be denied Life, Liberty, or Property without their right to Due Process (5th Amendment) in the manner described above.

The 14th amendment chucked because I don't like it? Nah. Should be chucked because it was not passed in a manner in any way consistent with the legal/prescribed ways detailed in our Constitution. We have OUR CONSTITUTIONAL right that amendments be passed properly. Doesn't fit your liberal agenda, eh?

You said you could pass your test because you have actually studied these things? You know then the 14th was passed under duress [not legal] after entire duly-elected state governments were dismissed, replaced with ones selected and more willing, entirely inconsistent with the Constitution and the basis of our founding, our values... well, that's a whole 'nother thread...so you show little beyond surface knowledge, even less in intellectual curiosity/independent critical thinking. But you get to pick and choose which are and are not the applicable Constitutional prerogatives. The rest of us can have no say, eh? Should not even discuss it.

My loathing of the 14th for its illegit lineage aside, its a simple enough document. With individual eyes and an individual brain I don't have to rely on group think to inform me as to what it says. First, its all about giving rights of citizenship. Why would the framers of the amendment even do that if everyone, no matter from where, already has the same rights as all Americans? Wouldn't make sense. Second, its addressing state jurisdiction, not federal. Feds can/should make laws which protect American citizens from foreign threats... wish it could protect us from poorly reasoned liberal interpretations.

You from the right? Here espousing mostly liberal Constitutional court interpretations, shallow understanding of the amendment process/history [generally lib traits], apparent quick perusal without reflection of the perception being given rather than reality in the linked articles. Then add the occasional totalitarian dictate.

No, I do not/have not worked government databases... btw, are foreign nationals on our watch list databases, too? I am pretty sure there are. Could we isolate those, data wise? Might it be prudent to exclude some from certain rights of citizens?

Damn, sorry again, forgot we should not even be having these discussions.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No you aren't. You block quote, ignore, and then desperately try to divert.
....
.....
....
See, I also blame public education. Our citizenry is woefully ignorant.

Foreign nationals in our country cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the exact same protections as a US Citizen, as they fall under our Jurisdiction (14th Amendment). That is why, for example, we held captured enemy combatants in Guantanomo Bay instead of bringing them onto US soil, where they would instantly have the right to a Lawyer, to appeal, to speedy trial, to call witnesses in their defense, etc. (6th Amendment).

Absolutely.

...

You know why we aren't grabbing up and deporting or imprisoning people here in the U.S. who are in the database? Because they haven't done anything that warrants it. Nearly 40% of the people on that list have no affiliation with any bad guy group whatsoever.

Sure. And in our form of government, wise to the fact that demagogues could easily sway crowds to overturn freedom in it's name, our Founders wisely prohibited our government from doing so in certain forms, among which are the violations of our rights without Due Process.

Bah. The Constitution is old and wasn't meant to threaten us, and stuff. You need to be put on a list where the government restricts your right to speak without permission. For our own protection.
Yes, and you cut and paste to allow presenting the context as you want it defined, often not the way I fully framed it [see example below]. Ignore what exactly? Guilty on diversion. I have diverted to the truth, you keep linking articles that contradict each other, that only tangentially are associated with your assertions, often proving your own premise false.

Your less than reasoned views = exhibit #1 one in your own condemnation of public education.

Am oh too familiar with the goings on regarding Gitmo.

We can deport people. See, your cut/paste left out the pertinent question, right? Where does the Constitution allow deportation? Is it some federal statute that could then be construed to take away peoples rights?

Should we not be able to deport folks if they are here illegally? Can we deport them if they are a member of a terrorist group? Where is all that in the Constitution again?

See what you did there? Talk about ignore/divert. Funny, you eliminated the whole need to prove, for the things you are unconcerned about, where the Constitution might, under your premise, with a statute steal rights from people, including guests in our country.

Under your liberal reasoning , any alien in this country, legal or illegal, can purchase/own a gun and this right cannot, by any statute, be taken away or limited... but deportation, also not mentioned in our constitution and yet a statute can deprive someone of their liberty to live in the US? How exactly do you square the one, not the other?

Your link to the article on just how far off is the watch list... invalid argument for not having the real potentially dangerous aliens only, restricting them being able to easily obtain weaponry to do us harm. More an argument for cleaning up the database. Sounds like, if you are one of the ones involved or knowledgeable in this agreed upon area of great concern, someone needs to start doing their proper job, man. Need to get it right, to stop screwing around with innocent people's lives. Indeed.

Again, cannot have your cake and eat it, too. You posed the problem of people on the watch list not being alerted to that fact and not having the ability to defend themselves, but when I countered that they should be alerted, you had an excuse for that.

You just want to complain, mainly about Trump. You certainly do not seem to want to solve the problem, nor even discuss it, being off limits to you. That is not a viable alternative, sticking your head in the sand.

We should worry less about the rights of those potentially dangerous people on the watch list... this after the proper folks getting busy and doing their jobs cleaning up that list, put it in the order. It should help protect us for chissakes.

Federal paychecks and jobs should be on the line if that cannot be done properly. You talk about public education, and again I can agree... but wow, sounds like its pretty bad, ostensibly worse, in your area of employment.

Wow, there you go with that liberal totalitarian talk again. So, I don't agree with you so I should be silenced. Hmmm... Is that the sound of the printer clacking away busily in database central I hear, or is that the distinct sound of goose stepping boots?
 

solletica

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
6,073
Reaction score
926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That trash took multiple deferments to avoid military service when his country was at war, and then mocked POW's.

Vietnam imbroglio was silly and pointless. Refusing to serve in it was therefore the patriotic thing to do.

He's not an American hero. He's a loudmouth.

He's a loudmouth and an American hero. trump took a pathetic party and wrecked it to the point of it possibly never coming back on the national level.

Because of trump, there will no more GOP Presidents for at least 20 years. Explain to me or anyone else how that can't be heroic.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,802
Reaction score
35,215
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Vietnam imbroglio was silly and pointless. Refusing to serve in it was therefore the patriotic thing to do.

He's a cowardly liar :shrug: It wasn't patriotic to seek to serve one's self instead of the country.

He's a loudmouth and an American hero. trump took a pathetic party and wrecked it to the point of it possibly never coming back on the national level.

Because of trump, there will no more GOP Presidents for at least 20 years. Explain to me or anyone else how that can't be heroic.

Welp, there you go, Conservative, et. al.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,802
Reaction score
35,215
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gary Johnson happened to be my governor when I lived in Albuquerque, liked him a lot. I have about as good a statistical chance to win as he does and nobody but my friends, family, former students even know who I am.

So? If your priority is to vote for the person that has the best chance of winning :shrug: vote for Hillary.

how is it you can call Trump an authoritarian?

...Because he is one? When your instinct is to propose Authoritarian solutions, when you claim Authoritarian powers, when you raise up Authoritarian values... you're an Authoritarian. Trump proposes strengthening the Central Government while limiting individual rights, he telegraphs that he clearly intends to run roughshod over the other branches of government and the value that he praises most often is not "limited government" or "liberty" or "freedom" or "Constitutional restraint" but "Strength". Authoritarianism is the defining feature of the Trump movement.

As an authoritarian, as you know, he would just say then just do it. Textbook authoritarian, right?

Oh. You mean he would argue that he could force the military to commit war crimes against innocent civilians, because that's what he thinks "leadership" is?

Just telegraphing what he wants done, what WE want done... is the wall. One of your liberal leaning articles was about how implausible building the wall is, engineering wise. Hell, the Chinese built theirs that stretches over 13 thousand miles... did that over 2000 years ago man.

Sorta. It took them centuries. And they didn't have to contend with EPA Impact studies (which take years), Conservation suits (which take years), and Eminent Domain suits (which take years).

And the Chinese Wall failed. Repeatedly.

Because the solution to a $10 Billion Wall is a $40 ladder.

Next? If memory correctly serves [ internet too slow to bother at the moment, so tell me if I am wrong] Your linked first article said Trump was NOT going to follow through with border wall and deportations, then along comes next article that says he deports all 11Million, like he said, lets some come back, the good ones, with a Z visa?

Actually no. The touchback-amnesty provision basically checks to see if any of them have committed additional felonies, etc., while in our country, and then lets' everyone that hasn't back on an expedited, front-of-the-line basis. So all those immigrants that are terkin the jerbs? They're still going to be here. In the millions. But now they've got Amnesty, and can bring their family across with them, also in an expedited manner.

As regards changing one's positions/timing... well, he only has 10 seconds to bring the ball down the court before he gets a ten second violation, yano?

Yeah. So maybe he should figure out which goal he's running for before he starts running? Because he keeps changing direction, and somehow, oddly, as he's wrapped up the GOP nomination, he keeps' changing back into the liberal he was 30 seconds before he decided to run for the GOP nomination.


Besides, would never ever want to be accused again of falsely and maliciously putting ellipses to very good use by reducing parts of what you post...

Interesting choice. Trump fans on twitter use ellipses to target Jews.



But I continue to find your assertion that opposing universal healthcare, raising the minimum wage, raising taxes, and increasing the size and scope of the federal government are all liberal positions. :) Tell me more about how defending those things makes you a conservative.
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This could be the first election where nearly everybody votes against a candidate rather than for one. If the democrats want to win, they need to indict Hillary and make Biden the democrat candidate. If the republicans want to win, they need to change the convention rules and put someone other than Trump on the ticket. Otherwise it's too early to tell which of the lousy candidates will win. Most likely the one best at getting voters to the polls. Personally, I won't vote at all and will leave it to others. I'll adapt to whatever the government does as I always have.
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
116,245
Reaction score
11,405
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
He's a cowardly liar :shrug: It wasn't patriotic to seek to serve one's self instead of the country.



Welp, there you go, Conservative, et. al.

Your opinion noted and as usual lacks basic logic and common sense but more personal attacks. You therefore have zero credibility
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,802
Reaction score
35,215
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Your opinion noted and as usual lacks basic logic and common sense but more personal attacks. You therefore have zero credibility

:lol: I can link and demonstrate my claims. You cannot say the same :)
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
116,245
Reaction score
11,405
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
:lol: I can link and demonstrate my claims. You cannot say the same :)

Good, expect to see those links where Trump had legislative or national security authority thus implementing things that would hurt the American people. I anxiously await those links
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am expecting that Hillary will get indicted, but maybe the kind of Justice I desire is not going to be in the Hillary same as Obama justice department.

Even if she isn't indicted comma pretty sure Trump has a pretty good chance of winning. You may think differently, but then again you think differently , you are all about principled futility.

As regards being an authoritarian, we have one at office right at the moment comma and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Hillary as regards being an Authoritarian, we have one in office right at the moment, and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Hillary will be just as bad if not worse than Obama.

Besides which, you'll have the mainstream media, the American people and the other two branches of government that should be unwilling to allow him anything particularly authoritarian.

As regards strength, we could use some politicians with a little bit of strength comma in the right directions. We know those right directions are nowhere close to the way Hillary has her head turned.

War crimes against innocent civilians? You mean like the ones our fathers and grandfathers committed more WWar II to win against fascism, Nazism, militarism? Think radical Islam is a lesser evil?
Somebody has to have the balls to understand that's some innocent folk on the other side are going to get hurt as well, not just our innocent Folk.

Remember all those folks, innocent folks, jumping off a 110 story building?

Wars are messy , unfortunately for the innocent.

The wall? Impact studies and Conservation,? On the Border is where we can use some strength and real Authority... executive Authority used to help the American people and expedite what we want, not hinder us.

$40 ladder my ass, that's just plain stupid talk. It won't just be the actual physical wall. We are little bit more sophisticated than the Chinese were two thousand years ago. Good Lord man, do you have no confidence in America any longer?



Sent from my iRULU_V3 using Tapatalk
 
Top Bottom