Calax
-
Posts
8080 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Calax
-
-
Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now.It's not just Liberals... I mean the Arch Conservative Abraham (or was it Ibrahim?) Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus.
It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression.
And yet the current GOP call themselves the party of Lincoln. And it's not like Bush Jr was any better about paying attention to the Constitution given that he sent American citizens to Gitmo to torture them for information about AlQueda and others.
That said, in modern times, very few politicians at the national level respect and appreciate the U.S. Constitution, and it's likely that almost as few have even read it. Something that most of even the worst politicians at the national level in the 19th century had, and had done.
And yet you don't even seem to understand it yourself. You treat it as some sort of sacred text that shall never be changed because that's how it was, and how your founders created it. Never minding the fact that it was created with notes about how slaves counted for voting. And I'm not sure how you think Freedom of Religion is being misused, it's there to prevent the government from saying "We're Chrisitans, so hang up your stars and crecent moons, you're worshipping the cross or going to jail!"
Ultimately American student's don't study the Constitution because it doesn't really effect them day to day. The laws that do effect them are taught to them before they're six as part of standard socialization. After all, I don't think a 12th grader is going to argue their constitutional rights in front of a judge.. that's why we have lawyers. And most of the time those who think they are "properly educated" (as in they read what they wanted to) are usually just involved in the groupthink of their community. Ignoring the fact "Right to Bare Arms" didn't exactly have RPG's or Cannons in mind.
-
Funny how liberals suddenly find outmoded, useless Constitution when it's convenient.Ronald Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy 264 days before the 1988 election and made the case that it was the government's constitutional obligation to restore the Supreme Court to full complement.
It's not just Liberals... I mean the Arch Conservative Abraham (or was it Ibrahim?) Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus.
Also Mitch McConnal is trying to convince the world not to appoint until the election is settled now
-
Also Scalia's dead, so the Obama gets to pick a new justice.
And some of the candidates are already calling for Obama to not nominate the next Justice...
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/698634625246195712
Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.Because they want a Republican Justice on the bench... never mind that the Court still has to go through it's docket this year.
also this
-
What is a "significant other"?
-
What Bruce is thinking, while it does not stand up to factual scrutiny I'm afraid to say, is just another example of the political tribalism that is gripping the US. Like many of his supporters Bruce believes in Barack Obama. Like many he believes Obama is a good man who wants to do good things. And the too many people are willing to accept what they are told is good ends justified by bad means. Obama is "their" guy so it must be ok. It was the same during GWB's admin I am sorry to say. Too many people who favor the Republicans did not stand up to stop the Patriot Act. Indeed too many who should be a bit more libertarian in their thinking supported it. The left opposed it. Obama doubled down on it now the left likes it and the right hates it. If everyone had their heads on straight is would have been stopped.
Those on the left want Democrats in power. The don't necessarily like Obama using the IRS to destroy political opposition but if it gets more democrats in power the ends justify the means. But someday that weapon will be in someone's else's hand. Why does no one ever think of that?
Every overreach, every abuse, every right usurped and every freedom mitigated harms us all. That is evil. That so many go along with it because the temporarily like the result, or it's "their guy" doing it makes it tragic.
To quote Daniel Webster: "I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing."
You right, I do believe he is a good guy who wants to do good things. And he has done many good things, I can list them if you want to discuss them?
But don't you think using the word evil is hyperbole.....its just seems extreme?
What would you call using the IRS to shut down political organizations whose aims are opposed to his?
Oh, you mean that news story where they targeted both parties for further auditing but the media went around announcing they were bias and a bi partisan senate group declared they were clean?
But its very reassuring that they both support most of the fundamental ideals of Obama..which is a more equitable and fair society for all.
Bruce I just don't understand where you get the notion this is what Barack Obama is all about. How is a society where an agency of the government is used to undermine political participation of opposing viewpoints fair and equitable? How is a society where veterans are subject to addtional police scrutiny because of political opinions the administration THINKS they MIGHT have fair and equitable? How is a government that asserts it would be perfectly ok to kill it's own citizens with no due process if the leader of that government believes they are participating in terrorisim? How is is fair and equitable for an administration to use executive orders to make changes to laws passed by the legislature and signed by the executive years after the fact? How is is fair and equitable when every shred of electronic communication is being monitored by the NSA? How is it fair of equitable if the government can use the force of law to complel a citizen, as a condition of citizenship, to enter into a private contract with a 3rd party of the governments choosing?
There is nothing fair or equitable about that has been going on in the United States the past fifteen years.
The first item is about the above, The second two are born from the Bush presidency. The third I'd say is debatable and significantly better than just using a "signing statement" to ignore the laws as Bush did. The NSA was Bush's legacy, and the last bit wasn't what Obama wanted. Obama wanted a Single payer/public option built into the Affordable Care act, but that was forcibly removed by Republicans during their various votes on it.
So yeah, everything you declare to be his legacy, isn't really his legacy.
Also Scalia's dead, so the Obama gets to pick a new justice.
-
2
-
-
It's official, Fiorina & Christie are out.
Bom bom bom... another one bites the dust. And another one gone and another one gone and another one bites the dust.
Crazy lady was obvious, and I guess not getting noticed in New England (Christies territory) basically sealed his fate. Although Kasich was a surprise.
-
We did staple mirrors to the moon to provide hyper accurate readings of the place.
-
The game itself was actually decent, but everything around it?
Being me, I'd think that the half time show should be bigger than life. Coldplay aren't really a super star pop act... they're to indie to really make the entire show very special.
-
I did enjoy the "My parents porked during the superbowl" commercial.
-
I will back up Hillary in that I think she would end up being very good as an executive, and she'd end up carrying out and following on her personal agenda rather than what's politic. But because she's doing the politics on the road she's losing points.
The other part of it is that I think most of what would happen in a Clinton 2 presidency, is that Hillary would use Bill to push her agenda. And it's not like they have a vastly different political outlook or goals, it's just that Bill's got the ability to speak and the Charisma to pull things together, while Hillary sets the agenda and figures out what she can get going.
-
Look, the Clintons have street cred with minority communities. Victimized groups have long memories and the Clintons built up a lot of equity through their past deeds. Bill in particular knows and understands Black America. He knows the poor. For all his moral lapses, Bill Clinton comes across as genuine in his commitment to public service. Bill Clinton is also the best politician in the modern era. He understands how to get elected and how to run a government.
Throwing all useless cyncism aside, the Clintons aren't Machiavellian schemers whose endgame is to rule for the sake of maintaining power. Hillary's not nearly as likable or charming as slick Willy, but I believe her commitment to public service is as strong as Bill's.
Sanders is also genuine in his commitment to public service on behalf of the poor. But he'd make a terrible President for the sheer fact that he won't be able to get much done. He's a zealot, similar to Cruz and other Tea Party candidates, and zealots are just bad for Washington. Realist > Idealist.
The Clintons at the very least have history and know how to make things happen despite a hostile legislature. There will be a waiting cadre of experienced and talented staffers and Cabinet members to make the administration work.
And I think a lot of Hillary's intangability for the population really comes down to how her campaign portrays her. I've said it before, and will say it again, her experiance makes everything she says (unless she's caught almost totally off guard) come off as prepared.
So people don't like her because her speeches are prepared ?
You also support her Calax...sorry I forgot
No, people dislike her because she's to prepared. She's to perfectly political for them. They don't know that she'll do anything she says because she seems like she'd prefer to say what's correct (for her audience) vs what she thinks is actually right. That's where Sanders and Trump are scoring points, they don't care about traditional politics as they were, so they don't care that their ideas might not test well with men 18-45 (or whatever) but they still stick by them. Hillary has been in politics so long that she comes off as incredibly focus tested and always with the most political answer for her audience.
-
2
-
-
Look, the Clintons have street cred with minority communities. Victimized groups have long memories and the Clintons built up a lot of equity through their past deeds. Bill in particular knows and understands Black America. He knows the poor. For all his moral lapses, Bill Clinton comes across as genuine in his commitment to public service. Bill Clinton is also the best politician in the modern era. He understands how to get elected and how to run a government.
Throwing all useless cyncism aside, the Clintons aren't Machiavellian schemers whose endgame is to rule for the sake of maintaining power. Hillary's not nearly as likable or charming as slick Willy, but I believe her commitment to public service is as strong as Bill's.
Sanders is also genuine in his commitment to public service on behalf of the poor. But he'd make a terrible President for the sheer fact that he won't be able to get much done. He's a zealot, similar to Cruz and other Tea Party candidates, and zealots are just bad for Washington. Realist > Idealist.
The Clintons at the very least have history and know how to make things happen despite a hostile legislature. There will be a waiting cadre of experienced and talented staffers and Cabinet members to make the administration work.
And I think a lot of Hillary's intangability for the population really comes down to how her campaign portrays her. I've said it before, and will say it again, her experiance makes everything she says (unless she's caught almost totally off guard) come off as prepared.
-
If you repeat something enough people will come to believe it.I don't understand why the US media constantly talk about how Hillary Clinton has such an advantage with minority voters.
Like the fact she's a criminal.
That one remains to be seen. It's looking like she is.
Honestly... I can't help but think the entire thing is manufactured 90% of the way. It's the entire republican political machine hell bent on getting her out of the race because they knew for years she was the main option to be the presidential candidate (which is why Benghazi was constantly punched up for a year before the report saying "they did the best they could with what they knew at the time" appeared), so they could manufacture this "illegality" in the way a cop can manufacture a ticket or arrest for you at any given point in your life.
-
If you repeat something enough people will come to believe it.I don't understand why the US media constantly talk about how Hillary Clinton has such an advantage with minority voters.
Like the fact she's a criminal.
-
Rubio's debating techniques is bit too old school for me, but maybe it works in his target audience
Christie used that (almost that exact preset speech) to score some points. Half of Christies responses to Rubio were literally "see folks? He's a freshman senator who's got no executive experiance and who's had no need to deal with the consequences of his actions. He can't even DEBATE and instead throws out canned speeches!"
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/christie_assails_rubio_on_the_debate_stage.html
-
Well, I think Christie scored some points and managed to do a pretty impressive job of bodying Rubio in the debate. Cruz got off badly as well, while Carson was barely there.
Trump sounded like he's actually getting more serious about the general election than the primary because he threw out some things more in line with the Democratic party line than the Republican (specifically, repeal Obamacare and rebuild it under a single payer). Got booed by the crowd but ultimately didn't come off as much of an ass as before.
-
1
-
-
The moon landing was real but why haven't we gone back in decades?
Fun fact, if we did it now we'd be able to do it cheaper, and get a LOT more stuff up there.
-
Oh boy this debate is going to be fun... Ben Carson refusing to come out, while Trump basically going "ok, I'm not going out either"
-
We did go to the moon. There'd be no way to properly replicate this in any terrestrial environment
-
With 99% reporting Clinton has defeated Sanders by just 11 votes. This primary is going to be fun to watch. Hillary is going to go bat**** now that the mantle of inevitability is gone.
Cruz won on the GOP side but the split between him, Trump & Rubio was almost three way. The big winner here is Rubio I'd think because he did better than expected. Plus as the other "establishment" types start to drop out (which will probably start tomorrow) he will gain the majority of their support. I read Carson may drop out tomorrow but I'd guess Cruz stands to gain most of his supporters.
I don't think Hillary will lose it. I think Bill broke a touch during that speech but in general she seems like she's in it for the long fight.
I think Rubio is gonna end up as the Republican Nominee. Cruz can't take the north-eastern republicans (the more cosmopolitan groups who are less "GOD IS GREAT" and more "Spending probably needs to be curtailed") and doesn't have the broader appeal that Rubio (or even Trump) could pull in. And there's gonna be some rediculous thing that happens with Trump that'll knock him out of the race.
That said, I'm pretty sure they're gonna have fun with Winter Storm Kayla... (**** working in the morning is going to SUUUUUCKKKK)
-
You mean those victories when the US had the absolutely worst voter turnout ever?
-
Norway or the Netherlands.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XsWkwakVlA
Just gonna point out that this is an actual ad that's running right now. I think somebody failed at market research.
Ending Spending Action Fund is an independent organization that proudly supports candidates regardless of party affiliation who favor enhancing free enterprise and balancing our nation's budget. Learn more at EndingSpendingFund.com.
So is this video made to support Sanders or to support other candidates (aka Clinton)?
They're running against Sanders. I heard the radio version and it's constantly "REPUBLICANS WILL SAVE US! VOTE REPUBLICAN!" but doesn't mention any republican names. Only namechecking how terrible they think Sanders is, and how awesome republicans won't kill free enterprise.
Side note: Their webpage is from 2 years ago now, and I think I heard that their boss is the guy who ran td waterhouse.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XsWkwakVlA
Just gonna point out that this is an actual ad that's running right now. I think somebody failed at market research.
US Elections 2016
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
And yet they're the people who lead us, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. Meaning that the party line and leadership is going to be a significant factor in the US election in 2016. And that no matter what you think you know about the constitution or it's interpretation, that's worthless because you're just a random person on the internet/in the US who can effect the ultimate outcome, but can't control the choices within the election.