All Things POLITICS 3.0

[Capn'O]

I reckon about a third of this country is strictly TV educated and actually does value celebrity that much. That he is a complete joke and one of the most odious celebrities of all time doesn't seem to matter. People really don't care about politics. They really are simply more comfortable with somebody they spent time with watching on a dreck reality show.

That's Mrs. 'O's theory about him. That a lot of his support comes from "hey - I know that guy." She tells me I'm thinking too hard about it which is usually my line.

She's probably right. Then he's got the control-alt-delete right, people projecting an establishment rebel onto the ultimate tool, and economic interest red ballot voters.

[CJackson]

The only reason why obama nominateed merrick garland is because garland is an anti second admendment zealot. And you dont get it. It shouldnt matter if youre a liberal, consevative, or centrist. The only thing that should matter is knowledge of the constitution.

And which Supreme Court judge would you say doesn't have that knowledge? As a matter of fact the only nomination in my lifetime who failed in those regards would probably be Miers.

Im not saying the judges now are underqualified, im saying that ideology has become the main critirea for nominating a SC judge, when it shouldnt be a critera at all. And becouse of that when it comes to making decisions in the SC we now see ideology trumping the constitution.

It is the judges role to interpret the constitution. You're trying to make it sound like there is a fixed interpretation regardless of ideological slant and that is impossible because interpretation is done by people not texts. People interpret texts and the constitution is not immutable. There are amendments for a reason.

That you are fixated on the 2nd Amendment is a sure indication you don't want any changes made to it. The right to bear arms was conceived before gatling guns and assault rifles and the odds it will be adapted to modern times.

If you say you don't want that to happen, then sorry you're not an objective non-partisan constitutionalist, you're just as much an ideologue as I am who wants changes to be made.

Your premise in inherently false. Every appointee is ideologically driven for the whole history of the U.S. and your argument sounds more like a ruse to defend what YOU want, not a purist viewpoint of constitutional law.

[CJackson]

I reckon about a third of this country is strictly TV educated and actually does value celebrity that much. That he is a complete joke and one of the most odious celebrities of all time doesn't seem to matter. People really don't care about politics. They really are simply more comfortable with somebody they spent time with watching on a dreck reality show.

That's Mrs. 'O's theory about him. That a lot of his support comes from "hey - I know that guy." She tells me I'm thinking too hard about it which is usually my line.

She's probably right. Then he's got the control-alt-delete right and people projecting an establishment rebel onto the ultimate tool.

She's right. Your wife is smart. I'm convinced this explains far more than any egghead sociological deconstruction of the body politic. Basically, America has a lot of dummies who only watch TV and that is all that was necessary to give them a fellow feeling with a silver spoon nincompoop who has zero in common with them.

It just turned weird once it became clear who was responding to Trump and like the truffle sniffing media whore he is there was no turning back once he figured out the sweet spot in his constituency was the overlap in the venn diagram where stupid TV fans and racist trash converged. That a bunch of them were both led to the projections on to Trump and his natural response is to love back those who approve him and the bond was sealed.

That's really what it is. Trump only wants to be told he's great. If fascists tell Trump they love him, well all he wants is uncritical attention so he jumped into bed with them. Trump's psychology is so perverse he really doesn't care who he is aligned with as long as they are pro-Trump so he ended up becoming the useful idiot of not only Putin, but of white supremacists. He is that sick.

[Oscirus]

Positive trump articles are getting way too hard to find but here we go:

No idea why he's aligning himself so hard with the Brexit movement, but ok

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nigel-farage-trump-clinton_us_57be523ce4b04193420d8286

Good old trump picking up dem democrat votes

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/08/24/veteran-democratic-consultant-why-im-voting-trump

[CJackson]

Positive trump articles are getting way too hard to find but here we go:

No idea why he's aligning himself so hard with the Brexit movement, but ok

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nigel-farage-trump-clinton_us_57be523ce4b04193420d8286

Good old trump picking up dem democrat votes

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/08/24/veteran-democratic-consultant-why-im-voting-trump

That second article has the guy saying he is toast now, but he compounds his situation by not itemizing a single reason why he supported Trump in the first place, only saying that he doesn't like Clinton. I mean if the only reason you are voting for Clinton is the SC selections then that is a reason. He gave not one. And for a guy who traffics in crafting public messages he fell flat on his face by offering no valid reason for his choice. He just lit a match and burned every bridge by basically say FU to everyone he ever worked with on his way out the door. No wonder he is toast.

[Oscirus]

Positive trump articles are getting way too hard to find but here we go:

No idea why he's aligning himself so hard with the Brexit movement, but ok

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nigel-farage-trump-clinton_us_57be523ce4b04193420d8286

Good old trump picking up dem democrat votes

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/08/24/veteran-democratic-consultant-why-im-voting-trump

That second article has the guy saying he is toast now, but he compounds his situation by not itemizing a single reason why he supported Trump in the first place, only saying that he doesn't like Clinton. I mean if the only reason you are voting for Clinton is the SC selections then that is a reason. He gave not one. And for a guy who traffics in crafting public messages he fell flat on his face by offering no valid reason for his choice. He just lit a match and burned every bridge by basically say FU to everyone he ever worked with on his way out the door. No wonder he is toast.

Yea it is a fairly lazy article that doesn't even bother to justify his vote. One does have to wonder why he even wrote the article.

[DaKnicksAreBack]

And which Supreme Court judge would you say doesn't have that knowledge? As a matter of fact the only nomination in my lifetime who failed in those regards would probably be Miers.

Im not saying the judges now are underqualified, im saying that ideology has become the main critirea for nominating a SC judge, when it shouldnt be a critera at all. And becouse of that when it comes to making decisions in the SC we now see ideology trumping the constitution.

It is the judges role to interpret the constitution. You're trying to make it sound like there is a fixed interpretation regardless of ideological slant and that is impossible because interpretation is done by people not texts. People interpret texts and the constitution is not immutable. There are amendments for a reason.

That you are fixated on the 2nd Amendment is a sure indication you don't want any changes made to it. The right to bear arms was conceived before gatling guns and assault rifles and the odds it will be adapted to modern times.

If you say you don't want that to happen, then sorry you're not an objective non-partisan constitutionalist, you're just as much an ideologue as I am who wants changes to be made.

Your premise in inherently false. Every appointee is ideologically driven for the whole history of the U.S. and your argument sounds more like a ruse to defend what YOU want, not a purist viewpoint of constitutional law.

Sure the constitution is up to interpratation, however SC justices need to interperate the constitution by channeling the founding fathers, not the political ideology they personally adhere to. As you know judges dont make amendments to the constitution - that is congress' job. I am pro second amedment, but i am not fixed on the second amendment as far as the supreme court is concerned, i was merely giving my opinion on why merrick garland was nominated. Congress didnt vote on him because scallia died during election season while obama was a lame duck and congress felt the voters should have a say in the matter. That and obama already got two justices confirmed. I lean right, but i certainly dont want a conservate activist judge. Give me a constitutionalist all day every day.

[duetta]

Judges arent legislators, its scary that you want them to take on that role.

Why not? How did we pass the three Civil War amendments? At the bayonet end of a Civil War musket.

The Framers of the Constitution made it virtually impossible to amend in any controversial area - and left us with no choice in 1861 but to go to the mattresses.

The Framers of the Constitution have been dead some two hundred years, and I can think of no good reason why modern men should remain the slaves of ancients.

The men who wrote our vaunted Constitution did not fight at Little Round Top, nor Iwo Jima or Normandy. They did not fight in Vietnam or Korea or the First World War. They did not get beaten or lynched in Mississippi or Alabama.

The fact is that Judges must interpolate the meaning of the Constitution for the modern age, or we be forced once more to go to the mattresses.

[Greenie]

Judges arent legislators, its scary that you want them to take on that role.

Why not? How did we pass the three Civil War amendments? At the bayonet end of a Civil War musket.

The Framers of the Constitution made it virtually impossible to amend in any controversial area - and left us with no choice in 1861 but to go to the mattresses.

The Framers of the Constitution have been dead some two hundred years, and I can think of no good reason why modern men should remain the slaves of ancients.

The men who wrote our vaunted Constitution did not fight at Little Round Top, nor Iwo Jima or Normandy. They did not fight in Vietnam or Korea or the First World War. They did not get beaten or lynched in Mississippi or Alabama.

The fact is that Judges must interpolate the meaning of the Constitution for the modern age, or we be forced once more to go to the mattresses.

That's what we have amendments for. Those are made to basically update the constitution. We all know the original constitution was not made for all. Hell, Black Americans were slaves at the time.

[DaKnicksAreBack]

Judges arent legislators, its scary that you want them to take on that role.

Why not? How did we pass the three Civil War amendments? At the bayonet end of a Civil War musket.

The Framers of the Constitution made it virtually impossible to amend in any controversial area - and left us with no choice in 1861 but to go to the mattresses.

The Framers of the Constitution have been dead some two hundred years, and I can think of no good reason why modern men should remain the slaves of ancients.

The men who wrote our vaunted Constitution did not fight at Little Round Top, nor Iwo Jima or Normandy. They did not fight in Vietnam or Korea or the First World War. They did not get beaten or lynched in Mississippi or Alabama.

The fact is that Judges must interpolate the meaning of the Constitution for the modern age, or we be forced once more to go to the mattresses.

Why would you want nine unelected people that will serve as long as they want without being challenged for their seats to write laws for the country?

[Greenie]

Judges arent legislators, its scary that you want them to take on that role.

Why not? How did we pass the three Civil War amendments? At the bayonet end of a Civil War musket.

The Framers of the Constitution made it virtually impossible to amend in any controversial area - and left us with no choice in 1861 but to go to the mattresses.

The Framers of the Constitution have been dead some two hundred years, and I can think of no good reason why modern men should remain the slaves of ancients.

The men who wrote our vaunted Constitution did not fight at Little Round Top, nor Iwo Jima or Normandy. They did not fight in Vietnam or Korea or the First World War. They did not get beaten or lynched in Mississippi or Alabama.

The fact is that Judges must interpolate the meaning of the Constitution for the modern age, or we be forced once more to go to the mattresses.

Why would you want nine unelected people that will serve as long as they want without being challenged for their seats to write laws for the country?

They don't have to answer to anyone. That's not good.

[Knicks_Fan2]

Why not? How did we pass the three Civil War amendments? At the bayonet end of a Civil War musket.

The Framers of the Constitution made it virtually impossible to amend in any controversial area - and left us with no choice in 1861 but to go to the mattresses.

The Framers of the Constitution have been dead some two hundred years, and I can think of no good reason why modern men should remain the slaves of ancients.

The men who wrote our vaunted Constitution did not fight at Little Round Top, nor Iwo Jima or Normandy. They did not fight in Vietnam or Korea or the First World War. They did not get beaten or lynched in Mississippi or Alabama.

The fact is that Judges must interpolate the meaning of the Constitution for the modern age, or we be forced once more to go to the mattresses.

Why would you want nine unelected people that will serve as long as they want without being challenged for their seats to write laws for the country?

They don't have to answer to anyone. That's not good.

By what mechanism would you make the federal judiciary accountable? The independence of the federal judiciary, in my opinion, is its greatest hallmark but of course a judge can be impeached if he/she is not on good behavior.

[CJackson]

Im not saying the judges now are underqualified, im saying that ideology has become the main critirea for nominating a SC judge, when it shouldnt be a critera at all. And becouse of that when it comes to making decisions in the SC we now see ideology trumping the constitution.

It is the judges role to interpret the constitution. You're trying to make it sound like there is a fixed interpretation regardless of ideological slant and that is impossible because interpretation is done by people not texts. People interpret texts and the constitution is not immutable. There are amendments for a reason.

That you are fixated on the 2nd Amendment is a sure indication you don't want any changes made to it. The right to bear arms was conceived before gatling guns and assault rifles and the odds it will be adapted to modern times.

If you say you don't want that to happen, then sorry you're not an objective non-partisan constitutionalist, you're just as much an ideologue as I am who wants changes to be made.

Your premise in inherently false. Every appointee is ideologically driven for the whole history of the U.S. and your argument sounds more like a ruse to defend what YOU want, not a purist viewpoint of constitutional law.

Sure the constitution is up to interpratation, however SC justices need to interperate the constitution by channeling the founding fathers, not the political ideology they personally adhere to. As you know judges dont make amendments to the constitution - that is congress' job. I am pro second amedment, but i am not fixed on the second amendment as far as the supreme court is concerned, i was merely giving my opinion on why merrick garland was nominated. Congress didnt vote on him because scallia died during election season while obama was a lame duck and congress felt the voters should have a say in the matter. That and obama already got two justices confirmed. I lean right, but i certainly dont want a conservate activist judge. Give me a constitutionalist all day every day.

EVERY appointment has an ideological component and to suggest there ever was or can ever be a single appointment to any court that does not have that component is not realistic.

I agree there is distinction to be made between an activist judge and one that vows to respect the constitution, but even the purest constitutionalist does not operate in a vacuum and even if they genuinely claim to pursue some form of objectivity they cannot do so entirely.

Regardless of how they perform their duties once placed on the court, those who appoint them will still always be looking to the judge's past rulings to select them and thus there will always be some aspect of ideology in play.

[CJackson]

Po widdle Ann Coulter, sniff sniff


Coulter: If Clinton wins, 'no hope for any Republican ever winning another election'

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ann-coulter-trump-clinton-win-227304

By Nick Gass

08/23/16 08:07 AM EDT

Forget about the speculation of Donald Trump potentially starting a media company if he loses to Hillary Clinton in November, Ann Coulter said Tuesday, suggesting that if the Manhattan businessman fails to stop Clinton's election, the likes of talk-show hosts and Fox News will be made obsolete.

"I've been recommending that since the Mexico debate in his speech to get fair coverage. But I'm not sure it's worth it," the conservative commentator remarked on CNBC's "Squawk Box," explaining, "Because look, if he loses, Hillary has edge."

Asked whether she would want to go into business with Trump, Coulter responded, "I would love to go into business with him."

"If Hillary wins … she has said, Tim Kaine has said, amnesty for all illegal immigrants," Coulter said. "We know that's 30, 40 million. She's going to throw open the southern border. She's going to more than quadruple the number of Muslim refugees we bring in."

Coulter then declared that "there will be no hope for any Republican ever winning another election."

"There's no point to what I do, what talk radio hosts do, what Fox News does," she said. "Nobody goes to the game when you can't win."

[King of Canada]

Po widdle Ann Coulter, sniff sniff


Coulter: If Clinton wins, 'no hope for any Republican ever winning another election'

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ann-coulter-trump-clinton-win-227304

By Nick Gass

08/23/16 08:07 AM EDT

Forget about the speculation of Donald Trump potentially starting a media company if he loses to Hillary Clinton in November, Ann Coulter said Tuesday, suggesting that if the Manhattan businessman fails to stop Clinton's election, the likes of talk-show hosts and Fox News will be made obsolete.

"I've been recommending that since the Mexico debate in his speech to get fair coverage. But I'm not sure it's worth it," the conservative commentator remarked on CNBC's "Squawk Box," explaining, "Because look, if he loses, Hillary has edge."

Asked whether she would want to go into business with Trump, Coulter responded, "I would love to go into business with him."

"If Hillary wins … she has said, Tim Kaine has said, amnesty for all illegal immigrants," Coulter said. "We know that's 30, 40 million. She's going to throw open the southern border. She's going to more than quadruple the number of Muslim refugees we bring in."

Coulter then declared that "there will be no hope for any Republican ever winning another election."

"There's no point to what I do, what talk radio hosts do, what Fox News does," she said. "Nobody goes to the game when you can't win."

Coulter is nuts about immigrants. She said the exact same thing about Canada recently too, basically saying that the Liberals only won because of the votes of the muslim refugees, which is completely nuts. She's not very deep.

[CJackson]

Po widdle Ann Coulter, sniff sniff


Coulter: If Clinton wins, 'no hope for any Republican ever winning another election'

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ann-coulter-trump-clinton-win-227304

By Nick Gass

08/23/16 08:07 AM EDT

Forget about the speculation of Donald Trump potentially starting a media company if he loses to Hillary Clinton in November, Ann Coulter said Tuesday, suggesting that if the Manhattan businessman fails to stop Clinton's election, the likes of talk-show hosts and Fox News will be made obsolete.

"I've been recommending that since the Mexico debate in his speech to get fair coverage. But I'm not sure it's worth it," the conservative commentator remarked on CNBC's "Squawk Box," explaining, "Because look, if he loses, Hillary has edge."

Asked whether she would want to go into business with Trump, Coulter responded, "I would love to go into business with him."

"If Hillary wins … she has said, Tim Kaine has said, amnesty for all illegal immigrants," Coulter said. "We know that's 30, 40 million. She's going to throw open the southern border. She's going to more than quadruple the number of Muslim refugees we bring in."

Coulter then declared that "there will be no hope for any Republican ever winning another election."

"There's no point to what I do, what talk radio hosts do, what Fox News does," she said. "Nobody goes to the game when you can't win."

Coulter is nuts about immigrants. She said the exact same thing about Canada recently too, basically saying that the Liberals only won because of the votes of the muslim refugees, which is completely nuts. She's not very deep.

She's a female Trump, a truly odious and vacuous individual

[JohnStarksTheDunk]

i was merely giving my opinion on why merrick garland was nominated.

Garland was nominated primarily as a f*ck you to the Republican Congress. He was basically saying "See? I nominated someone non-controversial, whose qualifications cannot be questioned, and you still won't consider it." The irony is that they may end up trying to confirm him anyway, knowing that Obama could withdraw the nomination so Hillary can choose someone more left-leaning.

Congress didnt vote on him because scallia died during election season while obama was a lame duck and congress felt the voters should have a say in the matter. That and obama already got two justices confirmed. I lean right, but i certainly dont want a conservate activist judge. Give me a constitutionalist all day every day.

These are the reasons they gave, but we all know that's not why. First of all, "lame duck" generally refers to a politician whose successor has already been chosen. Obama nominated Garland in March, which is 8 months before the election and 10 months before he will leave office. The fact that he already chose two justices is meaningless. It's his job as president, and voters DID have a say in the matter, when they elected him to office -- TWICE.

[DOLPHIN2020]

So basically the election is already decided. Trump has lost and mrs Clinton has won might as well pack it in for now. Go dynastic politics! Chelsea in 2034..

[CJackson]

So basically the election is already decided. Trump has lost and mrs Clinton has won might as well pack it in for now. Go dynastic politics! Chelsea in 2034..

That's very silly. If Trump wasn't such a twat there would be a whole other scenario. Clinton is not inheriting anything, but she sure has benefitted from the Republican nominee being a foul-mouthed idiot.

Will you say Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. in the White House wasn't dynastic politics? I think the public said no to Jeb so there's your answer to that "dynasty".

Historically, there have always been families that have produced politicians. You think that is unique?

[guardplay320]

Judges arent legislators, its scary that you want them to take on that role.

Why not? How did we pass the three Civil War amendments? At the bayonet end of a Civil War musket.

The Framers of the Constitution made it virtually impossible to amend in any controversial area - and left us with no choice in 1861 but to go to the mattresses.

The Framers of the Constitution have been dead some two hundred years, and I can think of no good reason why modern men should remain the slaves of ancients.

The men who wrote our vaunted Constitution did not fight at Little Round Top, nor Iwo Jima or Normandy. They did not fight in Vietnam or Korea or the First World War. They did not get beaten or lynched in Mississippi or Alabama.

The fact is that Judges must interpolate the meaning of the Constitution for the modern age, or we be forced once more to go to the mattresses.

Why would you want nine unelected people that will serve as long as they want without being challenged for their seats to write laws for the country?

Ideally, that would not be happening and laws would start from congress. That said, the purpose of the original founders was also not for control of the house to be essentially rigged by local government gerrymandering of districts. Changing The House right now would take more time sadly then changing the Supreme Court.

There are plenty of things broken with the system. In my eyes, despite these 9 people being "unelected", they are elected by the President and ratified by the Senate, two areas where voices of the people are heard more than The House.