US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[aygart]

Again, he was not expressly against the war in those quotes after the war began till much later.

He was pretty negative about it saying the cost was not worth it etc. Again this is simply that there is no real evidence either way. That is not quite a proven lie.

[Freddie]

Stop with Supreme Court already.

The Senate has to approve the appointment. GOP should focus on maintaining their majority there (which I believe is how Kochs are spending their money as well.)

[aygart]

If you can't understand the first one, you are being willfully blind

Citizens United as it was ruled on became more about the ability of corporations or others to pour unlimited money into politics through superpacs... the actual video against Hillary, which was presented as non-political but obviously was, was at that time understood even by the lower courts as being illegal. Any Republican would have brought the same suit if the video was directed against them. Her stance against CU is about shutting down superpacs, not the specific video which is water long under the bridge.

I think I know what you are trying to show but want you to say it outright before I disprove it.

This really sounds like it is about Super PACs:

During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union.[16] In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book.[17]

[good sam]

Trump supporters be like #RunNinaRun
#JillNotHill

[Yehuda57]

Constitutional freedom of the press does not preclude libel laws which can very constitutionally can be made stricter. The entire purpose of constitutional freedom of the press is to protect POLITICAL speech. Trump talking about libel laws is not POLITICAL speech. Dems in general look to limit POLITICAL speech (you are right that it is all Dems). She is very clearly saying that her criteria for SCOTUS appointments would include that they would reverse CU which won by one justice. That is very far from "not going to happen" and would change within A FEW MONTHS OF HER TAKING OFFICE with Scalia's replacement. Here you are focusing on libel laws but saying meh about criminalizing political speech. That is ridiculous.

Of course I am biased like everyone else in the world. That does not preclude your bias. That also does not mean that everything anyone says is a product of your bias. I have in these forums been quite critical of Trump and he is far far my first choice for POTUS. I fully agree with the characterization of "pick your poison" and my "support of Trump is only to the extent that he is not as bad as those like you who are blindly swallowing everything his opponents are saying are making him to be. By doing so you are showing that everything you are saying in this regard is a product of your bias.

A prime example of this is your statement that restricting Muslim immigration is unconstitutional. That is simply UNTRUE! The constitution does not protect citizens of Syria! The constitution allows discrimination against them and they are not entitled to due process either.

You know "the Muslim ban" includes deporting Muslims already legal American citizens on the basis of their religion, right? You know it includes registering Muslims as such, right?

You used the Iraq war to prove my bias, when the only "clear evidence" is that he was for the war *before* it started, and thus lies about it now. You have stated I am biased for buying left wing attacks. I am not a left winger and don't read lefty sites for the most part. You then stated I read Bill Kristol and therefore I am biased. I do not read Bill Kristol.

I agree with you that we are both biased. But somehow my opinions, even when backed up, are products of my bias, but yours are are not. Funny how that works. You have been anti Trump, so you are obviously being honest? I've been staunchly anti Hilary. You want to vote Trump because Hilary is evil? I can understand that. She is most definitely an evil liar who should not become president. Personally, I belive Trump poses a greater threat to the country, for many reasons stated previously.

When your anti Hilaryism leads you defend or excuse the indefensible and reprehensible, it should give you pause. And please, do may a favor and leave "biased" talk and media blaming out of it. You know full well Trump is the best source for Trump bashing there is.

[yoohoo]

We know Trump is crazy but....is any one here voting Hillary?

[aygart]

You know "the Muslim ban" includes deporting Muslims already legal American citizens on the basis of their religion, right?

No I don't. Source? I do know that Newt said some stupidity of the sort.

You know it includes registering Muslims as such, right?

You mean refugees? or Muslims already here? Again source?

You used the Iraq war to prove my bias, when the only "clear evidence" is that he was for the war *before* it started, and thus lies about it now. You have stated I am biased for buying left wing attacks. I am not a left winger and don't read lefty sites for the most part. You then stated I read Bill Kristol and therefore I am biased. I do not read Bill Kristol.

I don't know who you read and don't read but every single thing you have been saying is a regugitation of either the left-wingers or the #nevertrumpers. There are plenty of very legitimate reasons to be against Trump, but your examples have been mostly the worst possible exageration/interpretation of what he said and come straight from those sources. To use the Iraq war where he was at most reluctantly for it and was against it very shortly after it started when there is very little source material about it either way as a source of his lying is just another example of this. Go find a real lie-there are plenty of them.

BTW, if you want to read about Trump foriegn policy from a different perspective see here by a former US ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan. He has a bit of experience in these areas and wasn't left to die by the current administration.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-emerging-trump-doctrine-17176

[aygart]

Her stance against CU is about shutting down superpacs, not the specific video which is water long under the bridge.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-citizens-united-struggle-is-deeply-personal-for-clinton-2015-9

"I want to tell you, Citizens United was about me," the Democratic presidential front-runner said last month in Iowa. "Think how that makes me feel. A lot of people don't know that, but the backstory is eye-opening."

[ExGingi]

Your point #3 is completely untrue. I advise you to brush up on American history.

Indeed? Don't you think that's a little overreaching? After all I wrote significant power, I didn't say that the POTUS doesn't affect anything else, but anything else can change by the next election, and might not have that much of a lasting effect, unlike the generational effect of SCOTUS decisions.

When a strong leader sits in the oval office, the world trembles. A strong leader does not need to lift a finger or fire a single bullet in order to bring law and order. The Soviets were terrified of Ronald Reagan. The Viet Kong were terrified of Richard Nixon. Heck, the Soviets even feared JFK, whom by today's standards would be called a "Right wing nut" by Bernie supporters.

Obama made America look weak. He made threats to Syria and they called his bluff. ISIS runs around doing whatever the hell it likes, raping, pillaging, terrorizing, cooking people alive for fun, and Obama authorizes a few drone strikes to make it look like he's being "tough". He emasculated the U.S. Army. Military officers report having their hands tied behind their back because of Obama's radical Leftist policies.

Agreed 100%. But in this specific case I don't think either of the candidates might garner much global respect.

Blame the Supreme Court all you like, but it was Obama who led the charge for the government to acknowledge gay marriage and transgender bathroom and locker room rights. It was Obama who instigated the violent Black Lives Matter movement by coming out and saying that Trayvon Martin could have been his son, and that the death of thug Michael Brown who robbed a store and tried to take the gun of a police officer "stains the heart of Black children". Obama, a sitting U.S. president, defended a criminal. This gave Blacks all the ammunition they need to riot and attack, and eventually shoot and kill police.

Here too, I agree with you, but for the fact that the SCOTUS passed Obamacare with an argument even the administration didn't come up with, and that was Roberts!

So tell me again how it only matters who the president nominates for the Supreme Court?

It has to be viewed in context.
In this cycle, both candidates have MAJOR flaws. And I challenge anyone to state with certainty what Trump might do (or for that matter, might even be able to do - running for POTUS is very different than actually holding that position).

It is extremely hard to decide based on the issues or on personality - they both have yooooge negatives. So that's what leaves me with SCOTUS, which to use the analogy brought by Dan, is Russian roulette with 6 live chambers vs, Russian roulette with some blanks (exact number up for debate).

[aygart]

Just for some humor....
http://www.theonion.com/article/hillary-clinton-holds-infant-grandson-upside-down--53381

[CS1]

.....
It is extremely hard to decide based on the issues or on personality - they both have yooooge negatives. So that's what leaves me with SCOTUS, which to use the analogy brought by Dan, is Russian roulette with 6 live chambers vs, Russian roulette with some blanks (exact number up for debate).

+100
exactly what it comes down to -- as mentioned in the title of the thread. We are in golus; this place is poison.
We do the best that we can to clean and elevate; that's why we were sent here on earth. Trump's poison will be more diluted when his intelligent, paid White House intelligent staff and experienced employees come in and complete tasks and accomplish a lot within their first 100 days. I listened to Trump's entire speech and his loud, unwavering support of the greatest allies, the State of Israel.

The fact that he did NOT mention the word Palestinians tell us that he determined to do what is 100% correct for our security and not worry about what other people think.

[ExGingi]

The fact that he did NOT mention the word Palestinians tell us that he determined to do what is 100% correct for our security and not worry about what other people think.

The biggest problems on that front usually emanate from TLV, and not from WAS.

Question for all those attacking Trump here: Do you consider the alternative any better? For swing state voters, a vote for anyone other than Trump is likely a vote for HRC. Is that what you want? I must be missing something, if we all agree on the Russian Roulette with 6 vs less than 6, how is there even a question in anyone's mind? What am I missing?

[CS1]

Trump is taking his pro-Israel stance seriously. Recent news -- Trump  Appoints Second Orthodox Jew to Head His Israel Advisory Committee: http://jewishmediaagency.com/trump-appoints-second-orthodox-jew/

[Baruch]

This is your looking through biased lenses like every single one of your statements. Within DAYS of the start of the war he was very clearly against it so you are bringing an "I guess so" to make the case that he changed in the 3 days after the war started. That is ridiculous. If it would be him saying that about Hillary in an opposite situation you would be calling him a liar for it.

Why do you always argue - by questioning the other persons biases. Talk substance. We're all adults here.



(Oh, I forgot, you're a Trumper )

[zale]

Indeed? Don't you think that's a little overreaching? After all I wrote significant power, I didn't say that the POTUS doesn't affect anything else, but anything else can change by the next election, and might not have that much of a lasting effect, unlike the generational effect of SCOTUS decisions.

The Supreme Court doesn't sit around and come up with new laws. They vote on matters brought before them. The Left, led by our president, come up with new "progressive" ideas. Only when there is opposition to their crazy ideas does it get taken to the Supreme Court, who then decides whether the next Leftist agenda is constitutional or not.

Agreed 100%. But in this specific case I don't think either of the candidates might garner much global respect.
Here too, I agree with you, but for the fact that the SCOTUS passed Obamacare with an argument even the administration didn't come up with, and that was Roberts!
It has to be viewed in context.
In this cycle, both candidates have MAJOR flaws. And I challenge anyone to state with certainty what Trump might do (or for that matter, might even be able to do - running for POTUS is very different than actually holding that position).

If Obama never created and shoved Obamacare down our throats, Justice Roberts would never be brought into the picture. True, he sealed the deal, but all that means is that the SCOTUS is your LAST HOPE once a sitting president acts like a dictator, not something to think about as an initial consideration. Have a decent president, and you won't have to worry about the Supreme Court. It does not make sense to hedge your bets against the country's last fallback option when a dictator is in the White House. It makes far more sense to consider who should be in the White House in the first place.

It is extremely hard to decide based on the issues or on personality - they both have yooooge negatives. So that's what leaves me with SCOTUS, which to use the analogy brought by Dan, is Russian roulette with 6 live chambers vs, Russian roulette with some blanks (exact number up for debate).

I agree. These are the worst choice of candidates for a general election that I can remember.

[aygart]

Why do you always argue - by questioning the other persons biases. Talk substance. We're all adults here.



(Oh, I forgot, you're a Trumper )

Are we all adults here? I have written 99% about very specific issues and reasons with one line saying that he is misinterpreting a specific item but I am only arguing by questioning biases? How about we go through your "very substantive" posts here and see how they have been.

BTW, I am not a "Trumper" I simply see him as the lesser of two evils and see that many like yourself are simply swallowing the opposing narrative hook line and sinker.

My 6 year old son told me that another kid told him, that Hillary's gonna kill the yidden, and Trump is gonna kill the Arabs.
Who on this thread's son was my son talking to?

3 a.m. | The SIMPSONS

Blaming the negative image of Trump as being the fault of the media, reminds me of this clip of Chris Rock (warning: lots of language) skip to 7 minutes in. (BTW, it's the best 8 minutes in comedy history)

What I don't understand is, even regarding policy Trump is a liberal. The choice is between an insane lowlife reactive narcissistic scam artist con man - LIBERAL. And a fake corrupt annoying liberal.

A president reacts to world events. Look how he reacts! Don't you realize how dangerous he is?!

I never knew that there were so many dumb people out there.

And don't try to paint my reaction as a biased reaction, I've never felt this way about anyone supporting anyone before.

I've voted for president - Republican my whole life.

Defend his latest comments. Please defend it. And show how you too are a lowlife, (or your so far up Trump's tuchis, you can see Chris Christie's feet)

Very substantive one there.

I am no fan of Hillary. In fact I can't stand her.
But Trump is the lowest form of humanity.

If you still support Trump, go to a doctor and have your head, heart and soul checked.

"A man you can bait with a tweet, is not a man you can trust with nuclear weapons" -Hillary Clinton('s speech writer)

I love it!

Hillary is terrible. Trump is a despicable, vomit inducing, crass trash bag!

Really? Someone who goes around insulting people and acting like a fool doesn't make you not want him to be president?
Mimicing disabled people, talking about his 2 year old daughter's private parts on national television, saying McCain is not a hero bec he got captured, not releasing his tax returns, insulting a rival's wife's looks.

He is a despicable human being!

Shame!

Donald Trump is dangerous. He is indecent. He is a clown. He is a con man. Shame on anyone considering voting for him for president.

These are just going back a few days.

[CS1]

.....
BTW, I am not a "Trumper" I simply see him as the lesser of two evils and see that many like yourself are simply swallowing the opposing narrative hook line and sinker.
Very substantive one there.
...

same. Not a Trumper. But as Dennis Prager says, "Given The Alternative, I’ll Take Trump" http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/given-the-alternative-ill-take-trump/2016/07/31/

LIVE Trump Conf in OH: https://www.yahoo.com/news/video/yahoo-news-special-report-180000670.html

[yoohoo]

Trump is taking his pro-Israel stance seriously. Recent news -- Trump  Appoints Second Orthodox Jew to Head His Israel Advisory Committee: http://jewishmediaagency.com/trump-appoints-second-orthodox-jew/

like a month ago

[ExGingi]

The Supreme Court doesn't sit around and come up with new laws. They vote on matters brought before them. The Left, led by our president, come up with new "progressive" ideas. Only when there is opposition to their crazy ideas does it get taken to the Supreme Court, who then decides whether the next Leftist agenda is constitutional or not.

True to an extent. Laws must start in the house. The POTUS can try to push an agenda, and can also veto.

Laws can be written, re-written, amended, repealed, etc. etc. and that happens all the time. BUT, when the SCOTUS rules on something, that's established law and cannot be repealed or amended. It can last a generation or more.

If Obama never created and shoved Obamacare down our throats, Justice Roberts would never be brought into the picture. True, he sealed the deal, but all that means is that the SCOTUS is your LAST HOPE once a sitting president acts like a dictator, not something to think about as an initial consideration. Have a decent president, and you won't have to worry about the Supreme Court. It does not make sense to hedge your bets against the country's last fallback option when a dictator is in the White House. It makes far more sense to consider who should be in the White House in the first place.

I agree. These are the worst choice of candidates for a general election that I can remember.

When you have terrible choices, you must resort to your last hope.

As a P.S., I would love to see a constitutional amendment on the agenda, requiring members of congress to pass a test on the content of a proposed bill before being eligible to vote on it (or alternatively, that no bill is allowed to be more than 30 pages long - we live in the era of soundbites, let's govern accordingly). I think we would end up in a much better situation than the current mess if that would be the case.

[aygart]

As a P.S., I would love to see a constitutional amendment on the agenda, requiring members of congress to pass a test on the content of a proposed bill before being eligible to vote on it (or alternatively, that no bill is allowed to be more than 30 pages long - we live in the era of soundbites, let's govern accordingly). I think we would end up in a much better situation than the current mess if that would be the case.

The more realistic way to get something along those lines will be in house/senate rules.