Donald Trump, Enemy of the Constitution

[revelarts]

Donald Trump, Enemy of the Constitution

https://reason.com/archives/2015/11/10/trump-vs-the-constitution/

as if very many care about the constitution anymore.
(what ever happened to the tri-corerned hatted folks)


Here's a question for you to puzzle over. Can you name the single most unconstitutional thing Donald Trump has proposed or endorsed so far in the 2016 presidential race?Not an easy question to answer, is it? Do you start with Trump's efforts to suppress immigration by gutting the 14th Amendment (https://reason.com/archives/2015/11/10/trump-vs-the-constitution/)? Or do you perhaps point to Trump's long war on the Fifth Amendment and its protections for property rights, as exemplified by Trump's embrace of boundless eminent domain powers for the government and Trump's own shameful record (https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/07/donald-trumps-shameful-eminent-domain-ab) of seeking to personally profit when government officials seize homes and businesses and then hand the bulldozed land over to crony capitalist real estate developers?
Either of the above could serve as an answer to my opening question. But when it comes to Trump's unconstitutional agenda, there are plenty of other noxious options to choose from.
<aside class="ad" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 14px; text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif;">
</aside>What about Trump's call for a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the United States? That stance manages to offend multiple constitutional principles in a single bound, including such bedrock concepts as religious liberty, due process, and equal protection.
Speaking of religious liberty, there is also Trump's belief that the government should have the power to close mosques (https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/20/donald-trump-has-now-trashed-the-1st-ame). Needless to say, the First Amendment plainly forbids the government from taking the truly authoritarian step of shuttering houses of worship, be they mosques, churches, synagogues, or temples.
In addition to protecting the free exercise of religion, the First Amendment also protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press. So of course Trump has come out against those two constitutional principles as well. Trashing free speech, Trump has said the government should be able to censor parts of the Internet. Trashing freedom of the press, Trump wants to gut libel law so that it will be easier for him to sue (and thus silence) those journalists who write unkind things about him. Just like a crybaby advocate of political correctness, Trump wants to hollow out the First Amendment in order to make a "safe space" for himself.
Because Trump is seeking the office of the presidency and hopes to soon wield the authority it contains, his disregard for constitutional limits on executive power is particularly troubling. Ominously, Trump has praised Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans, one of the more vile and indefensible episodes in American presidential history. Yet Trump has cited FDR's crimes (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-stands-barring-muslims-criticism/story?id=35640361) as an example worth following when it comes to Trump's own desire to single Muslims out for abuse. FDR "is a president highly respected by all, he did the same thing," Trump has bragged. To say the least, decent Americans should look on FDR's misdeeds and recoil. Trump seems to think FDR laid out a useful blueprint for future acts of government repression....

there's more of course Including his Idea to create new laws to SUE newspapers that he thinks are libeling him or things he supports. He's got no problem with the infringement of free speech 1st amendment there. Didn't people want laws like that too uses against fox news and right wing radio like Rush Limbaugh and Savage a while back?

That rag the National Review also has an article talking about why Trump is an enemy to the old out of date lefty suicidally PC constitution.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428208/trump-anti-constitutional-authoritarian

What has become of the “constitutional conservatives”? For seven years now, President Obama’s opponents have shouted righteously outside the White House. This president, they have argued, does not care about the law; his Democratic party, they have charged, has adopted a “will to power” approach to politics; and the media . . . well, the media has been complicit in the ruse. Offenses both small and great have been catalogued in horror. Obama has not only undermined the separation of powers, but he has arrested inconvenient video-makers, just like a fascist. He has not only unilaterally rewritten congressional law, but he has attempted to circumvent the right to bear arms, just as Adolf Hitler might. He has not only claimed powers that the Constitution clearly does not give him, but he has laid out plans to kill Americans without due process on their own soil. No departure has been too slight to invite protest.....

[red state]

When we needed an Allen West, we got "Trumped" near the end with two Cubans, two Yankees, an old rambling fool and a Mao jump suit wearing hag. Good grief....by all means bring back the good ole Constitution (including sending BIRTHED illegals that some here misread as Constitutional).

[Perianne]

When we needed an Allen West, we got "Trumped" near the end with two Cubans, two Yankees, an old rambling fool and a Mao jump suit wearing hag. Good grief....by all means bring back the good ole Constitution (including sending BIRTHED illegals that some here misread as Constitutional).

Allen West you say? What a coincidence that he also supposedly assaulted that lying ho reporter from Breitbart.com, Michelle Fields.

Oh, and she also got assaulted and beaten by the police during the Occupy Wall Street Now protests.

Poor girl. She is always getting assaulted by those on the right.

[revelarts]

Small problem but goes a bit to the point of his ignorance and disregard of the Constitution.

Trump:
"I won't take a salary"

Constitution:
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
...
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Instead of saying He wants to run the country by the constitution Trump says he wants to run the country like business.
strike one but ok, a business, But if he's not paid and he's running it like business who's working for who?

[revelarts]

Paul Ryan’s Concern: Will Trump Respect Congress’s Power?
---That is, Will Trump act unconstitutionally and ignore congresses constitutional authority like Obama and W have---

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) said Tuesday that his team was in discussions with the Trump campaign about the powers of Congress, an area in which presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has raised eyebrows with his assertion of a muscular role for the president.

Republicans have repeatedly accused President Barack Obama of overstepping his bounds, most notably by taking executive actions to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. But with Mr. Obama leaving office in months, Republicans are now focusing on defending the constitutional prerogatives of Congress under the next president, and are seeking assurances that Mr. Trump is on board.
“One of our top concerns here as House Republicans is to restore the constitution,” Mr. Ryan told reporters on Tuesday. “We believe that this president has grossly exceeded his authority. He’s not the only president to do that — he is just the most recent president to do it and he has taken it very far — so yes, this is one of the things we are in discussions with our presumptive nominee about.”

[Gunny]

Paul Ryan’s Concern: Will Trump Respect Congress’s Power?



Will Hillary respect the law? That'll be a 180 from the last 30+ years.

[jimnyc]

Small problem but goes a bit to the point of his ignorance and disregard of the Constitution.

Trump:
"I won't take a salary"

Constitution:
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
...
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Instead of saying He wants to run the country by the constitution Trump says he wants to run the country like business.
strike one but ok, a business, But if he's not paid and he's running it like business who's working for who?

Why can't he run the country & not take a salary & defend the COTUS? I understand there are LOTS of things to discuss about the 2 potential candidates that have a shot of being in the WH - but because the man wants to decline the salary?

And Fwiw - George Washington took no salary - and Kennedy donated his to charity.

[jimnyc]

Will Hillary respect the law? That'll be a 180 from the last 30+ years.

Trump isn't perfect, but folks seem to very easily forget the shit this woman has made a career out of. It's not anyone's fault that no one could beat Trump, but that's what we have now. Personally, and I've said it before, I would vote for an inanimate object before placing Hillary in office. A KNOWN and PROVEN criminal. Someone who has ALREADY taken money, and from foreigners as well. She HAS blood on her hands, and that of a few Navy Seals.

The overwhelming majority of things that folks accuse Trump of, mistrust him of, fear he may do - she has already made a career out of.

I think he was the best choice almost from the get go. But when down to just him and Hillary? Sorry, he's just not as bad as her, not even if you went by the opinion of his biggest haters.

[revelarts]

Yep Hillary's a full on professional crook.
but let's not pretend that Trump is really "better".

the choice is not some version of crap vs crap. that you can just march on and deal with it.
It's ebola vs the plague.

I weary of people trying to tell me that Trump is the positive here.
that's untrue.

I probably wouldn't be so strident about it if supporters were more honest about his faults. rather than making excuses for nearly ever horror he displays, and waving around Hillary's dirty rags as worse.

If you want Trump fine but don't try to con me or yourselves that he's going to be GOOD for the country.

I'm pointing out that he's just bad. Ok maybe not as bad as Clinton, maybe. He's more of a wildcard. while Hillary has a known pattern of crimes.

But he's just rotten.
why can't the supporters just say well YES, THAT DOES SEEM Unconstitutional, but i HOPE he doesn't do that.
rather than pretend
he didn't really say it,
he didn't really mean it exactly,
It is constitutional if he does it,
but we have to or we'll die,
or Hillary's worse!

People act like i'm the bad guy for trying to promote the constitution.

[Gunny]

Trump isn't perfect, but folks seem to very easily forget the shit this woman has made a career out of. It's not anyone's fault that no one could beat Trump, but that's what we have now. Personally, and I've said it before, I would vote for an inanimate object before placing Hillary in office. A KNOWN and PROVEN criminal. Someone who has ALREADY taken money, and from foreigners as well. She HAS blood on her hands, and that of a few Navy Seals.

The overwhelming majority of things that folks accuse Trump of, mistrust him of, fear he may do - she has already made a career out of.

I think he was the best choice almost from the get go. But when down to just him and Hillary? Sorry, he's just not as bad as her, not even if you went by the opinion of his biggest haters.

My position is time to move forward. You know how I feel about Trump. I'd cut my arm off if it even tried to vote for Hillary. But you better plan for the pile on. Now the left is done watching the GOP destroy itself and we have a candidate, they are going to go after him. Fasten your seatbelt.

[jimnyc]

Yep Hillary's a full on professional crook.
but let's not pretend that Trump is really "better".

the choice is not some version crap vs crap. that you can just march on and deal with it.
It's ebola vs the plague.

I weary of people trying to tell me that Trump is the positive here.
that's untrue.

I probably wouldn't be so strident about it if supporters were more honest about his faults. rather than making excuses for nearly ever horror he displays, and waving around Hillary's dirty rags as worse.

If you want Trump fine but don't try to con me or yourselves that he's going to be GOOD for the country.

I'm pointing out that he's just bad. Ok maybe not as bad as Clinton, maybe. He's more of a wildcard. while Hillary has a known pattern of crimes.

But he's just rotten.
why can't the supporters just say well YES, THAT DOES SEEM Unconstitutional, but i HOPE he doesn't do that.
rather than pretend
he didn't really say it,
he didn't really mean it exactly,
It is constitutional if he does it,
but we have to or we'll die,
or Hillary's worse!

People act like i'm the bad guy for trying to promote the constitution.

We KNOW what Clinton has done over the past 30 years.

And while Trump has no political experience, and makes verbal gaffes - what has he stepped on thus far pertaining to the COTUS? Every side of the political aisle usually condemns the other of the same, every election. And "some" of it may be true, as they are usually career politicians. But Trump is not. I believe the worst he can be accused of thus far is his tough talk about things constitutional. And the majority of the time he refers to the courts and testing things - which is not unconstitutional.

Many have already charged him for stepping on the COTUS and want him removed from office for doing so, and maybe even charged with crimes. A little early IMO. You're ready to jump off of a bridge about the burning and shit on COTUS which he hasn't done anything at all to - and yes - all you have to run on is "yet".

Btw, you add a lot of weird things into your posts. I'm not reading back - but who said we need to do something or we would die?

[jimnyc]

My position is time to move forward. You know how I feel about Trump. I'd cut my arm off if it even tried to vote for Hillary. But you better plan for the pile on. Now the left is done watching the GOP destroy itself and we have a candidate, they are going to go after him. Fasten your seatbelt.

If Trump were killed or died, and Johnson took his place as the "primary" guy, he has my vote in a heartbeat. If Cruz were to come back - he has my vote in a heartbeat. If Cruz is not interested and it's ANY of the 17, they have my vote in a heartbeat. BOTH because any of them are better than Hillary AND because they are all less shit than Hillary.

[revelarts]

Even as much of the Republican political establishment lines up behind its presumptive nominee, many conservative and libertarian legal scholars warn that electing Mr. Trump is a recipe for a constitutional crisis.“Who knows what Donald Trump with a pen and phone would do?” asked Ilya Shapiro (http://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro), a lawyer with the libertarian Cato Institute.
With five months to go before Election Day, Mr. Trump has already said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations. He has threatened to sic federal regulators on his critics. He has encouraged rough treatment of demonstrators. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/us/politics/donald-trumps-heated-words-were-destined-to-stir-violence-opponents-say.html)
His proposal to ba (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-banning-muslims-from-entering-u-s/?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=Blogs&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click)r (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-banning-muslims-from-entering-u-s/?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=Blogs&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click) Muslims from entry into the country (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-banning-muslims-from-entering-u-s/?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=Blogs&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click) tests the Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom, due process and equal protection.
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?_r=0#story-continues-1)
And, in what was a tipping point for some, he attacked Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the Federal District Court in San Diego (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/us/judge-orders-documents-unsealed-in-trump-university-lawsuit.html), who is overseeing two class actions against Trump University.
Mr. Trump accused the judge of bias, falsely said he was Mexican and seemed to issue a threat.
“They ought to look into Judge Curiel, because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace,” Mr. Trump said. “O.K.? But we will come back in November. Wouldn’t that be wild if I am president and come back and do a civil case?” David Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post), a retired law professor who now writes for the Volokh Conspiracy (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/29/on-donald-trump-and-the-rule-of-law/), a conservative-leaning law blog, said those comments had crossed a line.


“This is how authoritarianism starts, with a president who does not respect the judiciary,” Mr. Post said. “You can criticize the judicial system, you can criticize individual cases, you can criticize individual judges. But the president has to be clear that the law is the law and that he enforces the law. That is his constitutional obligation.”

“If he is signaling that that is not his position, that’s a very serious constitutional problem,” Mr. Post said.
Beyond the attack on judicial independence is a broader question of Mr. Trump’s commitment to the separation of powers and to the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution. Randy E. Barnett (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/randy-barnetts-pet-cause-end-of-health-law-hits-supreme-court.html?_r=0), a law professor at Georgetown and an architect of the first major challenge to President Obama’s health care law (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html), said he had grave doubts on both fronts.
“You would like a president with some idea about constitutional limits on presidential powers, on congressional powers, on federal powers,” Professor Barnett said, “and I doubt he has any awareness of such limits.”
Republican leaders say they are confident that Mr. Trump would respect the rule of law if elected. “He’ll have a White House counsel,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, told Hugh Hewitt, the radio host, on Monday. “There will be others who point out there’s certain things you can do and you can’t do.”
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?_r=0#story-continues-4)
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who has become a reluctant supporter of Mr. Trump, said he did not believe that the nation would be in danger under his presidency.
“I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” Mr. McCain said. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania.”
“Our institutions, including the press, are still strong enough to prevent” unconstitutional acts, he said.
Mr. Post said that view was too sanguine, given the executive branch’s practical primacy. “The president has all the power with respect to enforcing the law,” he said. “There’s only one of those three branches that actually has the guns in its hands, and that’s the executive.”
Republican officials have criticized Mr. Obama for what they have called his unconstitutional expansion of executive power. But some legal scholars who share that view say the problem under a President Trump would be worse.
“I don’t think he cares about separation of powers at all,” said Richard Epstein (http://www.hoover.org/profiles/richard-epstein), a fellow at the Hoover Institution who also teaches at New York University and the University of Chicago.
<figure id="electoral-map-trump-clinton" class="interactive promo layout-small" style="margin: 7px 30px 15px 0px; position: relative; border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(226, 226, 226); padding-top: 15px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(226, 226, 226); padding-bottom: 15px; width: 180px; overflow: hidden; max-width: 300px; cursor: pointer; float: left; clear: left; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: nyt-cheltenham, georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">


(http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/04/upshot/electoral-map-trump-clinton.html)</figure>President George W. Bush “often went beyond what he should have done,” Professor Epstein said. “I think Obama’s been much worse on that issue pretty consistently, and his underlings have been even more so. But I think Trump doesn’t even think there’s an issue to worry about. He just simply says whatever I want to do I will do.”
Mr. Trump has boasted that he will use Mr. Obama’s actions as precedent for his own expansive assertions of executive power.
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?_r=0#story-continues-5)
“He’s led the way, to be honest with you,” he said in January on “Meet the Press (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-january-10-2016-n493596),” referring to Mr. Obama’s program to spare millions of immigrants in the country unlawfully from deportation (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/us/politics/obamacare-unlikely-for-undocumented-immigrants.html). “But I’m going to use them much better, and they’re going to serve a much better purpose than what he’s done.”
But Mr. Post said there was a difference between Mr. Obama’s view of executive power and that of Mr. Trump. “Whatever you think of Obama’s position on immigration, he is willing to submit to the courts,” he said. “There is no suggestion that he will disobey if the courts rule against him.”
Several law professors said they were less sure about Mr. Trump, citing the actions of another populist, President Andrew Jackson, who refused to enforce an 1832 Supreme Court decision (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/31/515) arising from a clash between Georgia and the Cherokee Nation.
“I can easily see a situation in which he would take the Andrew Jackson line,” Professor Epstein said, referring to a probably apocryphal comment attributed to Jackson about Chief Justice John Marshall: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
There are other precedents, said John C. Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who took an expansive view of executive power as a lawyer in the Bush administration. “The only two other presidents I can think of who were so hostile to judges on an individual level and to the judiciary as a whole would be Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt,” he said.
Both of those presidents chafed at what they saw as excessive judicial power. “But they weren’t doing it because they had cases before those judges as individuals,” Professor Yoo said. “They had legitimate separation-of-powers fights between the presidency and the judiciary. Trump is lashing out because he has a lawsuit in a private capacity, which is much more disturbing.”
Other legal scholars said they were worried about Mr. Trump’s commitment to the First Amendment. He has taken particular aim at The Washington Post and its owner, Jeff Bezos (http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/13/technology/donald-trump-jeff-bezos-amazon/), the founder of Amazon.
“He owns Amazon,” Mr. Trump said in February. “He wants political influence so Amazon will benefit from it. That’s not right. And believe me, if I become president, oh do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems.”...

there's more at the link

You can HOPE for the best but don't pretend that BASED ON WHAT TRUMP has SAID (which is all we have to go on since he has ZERO political history) there's no cause for serious concerns.

[Elessar]

Why can't he run the country & not take a salary & defend the COTUS? I understand there are LOTS of things to discuss about the 2 potential candidates that have a shot of being in the WH - but because the man wants to decline the salary?

And Fwiw - George Washington took no salary - and Kennedy donated his to charity.

I was about to cite that, Jimmy. Others have done that as well:
George Washington (term 1789-1797) refused to accept a salary. At his first inauguration, George Washington added the “so help me God” to the end of the oath of office.

Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) donated all of his presidential salary to charity, and was the first of all presidents to donate his salary to charity. When he first got into politics, he decided to never accept money for performing any public service, so that no one would ever accuse him of corruption. He only took the presidential salary because he was required to do so by law. (Interesting considering he was an orphan whose first job was picking bugs off potato plants, for which he was paid a dollar per hundred bugs. He also was a mine worker.)

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) donated his salary to charity.

So...according to Rev, not accepting the salary yet donating it is against the Constitution? Bullshit. They still get taxed on it.

[Gunny]

there's more at the link

You can HOPE for the best but don't pretend that BASED ON WHAT TRUMP has SAID (which is all we have to go on since he has ZERO political history) there's no cause for serious concerns.

See. This is where you go off the rails. Who the Hell do you think is going to read all that shit? Why don't you try listening instead of pasting War and Peace? We're all too busy for that crap. I don't even work and I'm too busy for that novel you pasted.

You're not making a point. Here's how to make a point:

Some like Trump. Some don't. Some of us will do anything to keep Hillary out. Some won't. Pretty damned simple.

Nobody's changing their minds at this point. You bitching about him ain't accomplishing jack shit.

[Elessar]

See. This is where you go off the rails. Who the Hell do you think is going to read all that shit? Why don't you try listening instead of pasting War and Peace? We're all too busy for that crap. I don't even work and I'm too busy for that novel you pasted.

You're not making a point. Here's how to make a point:



Act of desperation...completely off the rails.

[revelarts]

See. This is where you go off the rails. Who the Hell do you think is going to read all that shit? Why don't you try listening instead of pasting War and Peace? We're all too busy for that crap. I don't even work and I'm too busy for that novel you pasted.

You're not making a point. Here's how to make a point:

Some like Trump. Some don't. Some of us will do anything to keep Hillary out. Some won't. Pretty damned simple.

Nobody's changing their minds at this point. You bitching about him ain't accomplishing jack shit.

yep, that's the problem to many low information voters just going off of gut feelings.

somehow we think we can pick the leader of the free world without having to think or read jack.
just watch OX news let them tell you what to think.

but hey gunny, no worries. just SKIP my post man. no need to tell me my post are long. I post them i KNOW how long they are. You're not telling me or anyone else here anything with you're pitching and moaning.
Except that you like complaining about long post on important issues you don't want to read about.

so what's you're point really.
obviously I'm not stopping so you're wasting your time complaining behind every post longer than 2 sentences.
And i really don't get the line both and Elesar use over and over that "you (i) don't listen"
shouldn't you say "you don't agree" why do you and elesar think that if someone doesn't agree with you that they aren't listening?
or does "you don't listen" really mean "STHU."?

And BTW just because you don't like to read doesn't mean everyone is YOU.
Think about that for few minutes fellas.

[revelarts]

Even Dick Cheney and Bill O'Riely say Trump is the wrong side of the constitution, common sense and american tradition in trying to ban a religion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8cAFKP8emI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-OMW9BbHyE

[Gunny]

yep, that's the problem to many low information voters just going off of gut feelings.

somehow we think we can pick the leader of the free world without having to think or read jack.
just watch OX news let them tell you what to think.

but hey gunny, no worries. just SKIP my post man. no need to tell me my post are long. I post them i KNOW how long they are. You're not telling me or anyone else here anything with you're pitching and moaning.
Except that you like complaining about long post on important issues you don't want to read about.

so what's you're point really.
obviously I'm not stopping so you're wasting your time complaining behind every post longer than 2 sentences.
And i really don't get the line both and Elesar use over and over that "you (i) don't listen"
shouldn't you say "you don't agree" why do you and elesar think that if someone doesn't agree with you that they aren't listening?
or does "you don't listen" really mean "STHU."?

And BTW just because you don't like to read doesn't mean everyone is YOU.
Think about that for few minutes fellas.

Y'think? I'm hardly a low information voter. While I don't like Trump, I hardly have a hard-on for him like you. As a matter of fact, I'm intelligent to know when to cut my losses and move on. You're still stuck in last year.

Say what you want. But I'm going to say what I want as well. Try to catch up with the rest of us. The GOP debates are over. If you look at any of my post prior to the last dropout they all say the same thing. So stop trying to sound superior by cutting and pasting a novel. Dealing with reality works. This is what we got unless you want to sit home, vote 3rd party or vote for Hitlery. You ain't half as smart as you think you are. So why don't you quit your bitching and listen to those of us with some common sense?

[jimnyc]

Even Dick Cheney and Bill O'Riely say Trump is the wrong side of the constitution, common sense and american tradition in trying to ban a religion.

Did they say that he HAD done anything as of yet though?

My thinking would be that, if anything, a much harsher stance on incoming refugees, all of them, and then even more when it comes to anyone coming from a war torn country or one known to have a lot of terrorists. But I doubt he would literally ban ALL muslims, nor would he be able to do so all by his lonesome anyway. Pretty much the same with deporting every last illegal dirtbag in our country.

And he's not trying to ban an entire religion, like it can never exist here again. While his proposal is still huge, he's NOT talking about banning/eliminating an entire religion, at least not in such a manner you would have others believe.

[revelarts]

..

Say what you want. ... So why don't you quit your bitching and listen to those of us with some common sense?
..say what you want.... but shut up and listen to us with sense..
LOL!
you're a piece of work.

[Gunny]

..say what you want.... but shut up and listen to us with sense..
LOL!
you're a piece of work.

Trying to get you to wake up, bubs. You're late to the game. It's time to play it to win, not lose. You're not helping anyone nor anything. And as I said, you are free to express yourself. But so am I.

And a geek like you who obviously doesn't understand common sense and logic has some nerve saying ANYONE is a piece of work.

[revelarts]

Trying to get you to wake up, bubs. You're late to the game. It's time to play it to win, not lose. You're not helping anyone nor anything. And as I said, you are free to express yourself. But so am I.

And a geek like you who obviously doesn't understand common sense and logic has some nerve saying ANYONE is a piece of work.

does listening to your version of "common sense" mean i have agree with you.
Yes or No.

that's a yes or no question.

[Gunny]

does listening to your version of "common sense" mean i have agree with you.
Yes or No.

that's a yes or no question.

Already answered in in my last two posts. Say what you want mean "no", you don't have to agree with. You also don't have to be nasty about it. That's not a requirement either.

[gabosaurus]

Trump is the enemy of civilized humanity. He does get support from paid underlings and a network of crazy old white people. :p

[Gunny]

Trump is the enemy of civilized humanity. He does get support from paid underlings and a network of crazy old white people. :p

Anyone who is the boss gets support from paid employees and campaign contributions from wealthy people.

Might want to look to your own. Where does Hillary's money-grubbing agree with her campaign stance? Oh yeah. It doesn't. Complete 180 between what she does and what she says.

[jimnyc]

Anyone who is the boss gets support from paid employees and campaign contributions from wealthy people.

Might want to look to your own. Where does Hillary's money-grubbing agree with her campaign stance? Oh yeah. It doesn't. Complete 180 between what she does and what she says.

Funny how Trump won with record numbers in many places, most ever for a republican - and she wants to continue and continue to toss out the "old white people" crap. Gotta wonder if she has an issue with white people, or if just maybe, just maybe it was another troll post?

[Gunny]

Funny how Trump won with record numbers in many places, most ever for a republican - and she wants to continue and continue to toss out the "old white people" crap. Gotta wonder if she has an issue with white people, or if just maybe, just maybe it was another troll post?

Let's break out the "play under review" guy. Would you NOT call Hillary and old white person?

[jimnyc]

Let's break out the "play under review" guy. Would you NOT call Hillary and old white person?

She looks like an 80 year old white "man" that 'might' also be transgender. We'll just call her Caitlarry. :)

[Gunny]

She looks like an 80 year old white "man" that 'might' also be transgender. We'll just call her Caitlarry. :)

Have to disagree. Old white men couldn't sport half of her ass. :laugh: She tries to hide the Capitol rotunda under Maude's hand me down pants suits which just makes her more of fraud. She has to yell every lie she tells. She's made all her money from Wall Sreet and foreign countries but now she's against it. She put TS material on an unsecure server, a criminal offense. The list goes on. There is NOTHING about her that is even remotely right.

Oh, and she's whiter than I am by far.

[Elessar]

Have to disagree. Old white men couldn't sport half of her ass. :laugh: She tries to hide the Capitol rotunda under Maude's hand me down pants suits which just makes her more of fraud. She has to yell every lie she tells. She's made all her money from Wall Sreet and foreign countries but now she's against it. She put TS material on an unsecure server, a criminal offense. The list goes on. There is NOTHING about her that is even remotely right.

Oh, and she's whiter than I am by far.

I was going to stay away from this thread, you have it well in hand. Reading through a page-long reply that never goes to
answer the question posted gets boring.

Everything you say is accurate, though.
But this one I could not avoid: Yeah, the last time she got meaningful exercise was when she "dodged sniper fire in Kosovo"!:laugh2:

[gabosaurus]

Funny how Trump won with record numbers in many places, most ever for a republican - and she wants to continue and continue to toss out the "old white people" crap. Gotta wonder if she has an issue with white people, or if just maybe, just maybe it was another troll post?

Trump's primary support comes from white males over the age of 35. That is about the only demographic where he holds a solid edge. If you go to a Trump event, the vast majority of the audience is white males.
Trump ran up record number in GOP primaries because many Republicans were upset at their party establishment. It does not indicate anything about how that will translate to the general election.
Trump is hugely unpopular among women, minorities, immigrants and those under the age of 25. They don't care about Brexit. They don't care that Hillary is a crook who possibly endangered national security. They don't care who is the well-heeled establishment candidate.
They don't like Donald Trump.

[Elessar]

does listening to your version of "common sense" mean i have agree with you.
Yes or No.

that's a yes or no question.

When have YOU ever answered a question without cut and paste, disjointed crap that takes
15 minutes to figure out?

You could not answer yes or no if you had to.

[Gunny]

When have YOU ever answered a question without cut and paste, disjointed crap that takes
15 minutes to figure out?

You could not answer yes or no if you had to.

Don't anyone take this wrong. I have nothing against revelarts. HOWEVER, he'd have never passed freshman journalism. He's not an effective communicator. Add to that he gets bitchy if you criticize him. He doesn't know his audience. We're all f-ing old and need glasses just to see the screen. Then he's got a page of micro ant font that's someone else's work. Half of us regulars are military. Get to the point. The idea is to make your argument and use a link as support. NOT post someone else's work as your argument.

I don't come on here to talk to a wall of someone else's words. If it makes rev feel any better, I don't read jimnyc 's lengthy stuff either. I don't have the time for one thing. But Jim will at least defend his position with his own opinion. I can google news if I want to read articles.

I want to know what YOU think. And nobody's got to be nasty about it when they get questioned. We're all different. That's the whole point here. We don't have to agree, nor even get along. But we ARE all adults. People do a lot of things I don't like. I can't stand sig lines that are bigger than the post.

It's about tolerance of others.

[Elessar]

Isn't there also an issued with 'copyright' when using someone else's material?

I will provide a link or reference. One forum a few years back got into deep
kimchee for not obeying copyright laws.

[jimnyc]

I don't read @jimnyc (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1) 's lengthy stuff either.

My stuff isn't that bad!! Usually I stay within restrictions for articles, unless I think "more" is pertinent. My opinions usually aren't that long, a couple of paragraphs at most, usually. Sometimes you have to read SOMETHING. But when opening, I try to offer an article, and make my opinion known on what I'm posting.

[Gunny]

My stuff isn't that bad!! Usually I stay within restrictions for articles, unless I think "more" is pertinent. My opinions usually aren't that long, a couple of paragraphs at most, usually. Sometimes you have to read SOMETHING. But when opening, I try to offer an article, and make my opinion known on what I'm posting.

At least you post in normal size font so I can see it. And as I said in my last post, I'm not picking on anyone. Y'all do what you want. My opinion was simply in response to another person. I know for a fact a LOT of people think I m harsh foul-mouthed. But you have to admit ... ain't got to guess what I'm thinking. :laugh:

[jimnyc]

At least you post in normal size font so I can see it. And as I said in my last post, I'm not picking on anyone. Y'all do what you want. My opinion was simply in response to another person. I know for a fact a LOT of people think I m harsh foul-mouthed. But you have to admit ... ain't got to guess what I'm thinking. :laugh:

I think you're just getting old

[Gunny]

I think you're just getting old

F*cker. We got a library right up the road if I want to read a damned book. :slap:

[Elessar]

I think you're just getting old

Asshole!:laugh2:

[revelarts]

When have YOU ever answered a question without cut and paste, disjointed crap that takes
15 minutes to figure out?

You could not answer yes or no if you had to.

If I got a strait question relevant to the topic i post.
And a one word answer PROVED my point.
I could.
But i like to point to evidence of what i say since you guys tend not to believe it anyway.
and you guys don't seem to think much of people's opinions who i haven't been in the military, or stood the line with a weapon etc. etc.. (unless they haven't been in the military but still agree with you)
So i like to show that I'm not just pulling opinions out of thin air.
But that it's based on principals, evidence and or law, pragmatics and logical.

you know, like in real debate.

but Yeah I could just post stuff like:
"I'm right and you're wrong Elessar plus you're ugly and have salt water on the brain if you don't agree with me. "
but somehow i don't think you'd like that either.

[Elessar]

If I got a strait question relevant to the topic i post.
And a one word answer PROVED my point.
I could.
But i like to point to evidence of what i say since you guys tend not to believe it anyway.
and you guys don't seem to think much of people's opinions who i haven't been in the military, or stood the line with a weapon etc. etc.. (unless they haven't been in the military but still agree with you)
So i like to show that I'm not just pulling opinions out of thin air.
But that it's based on principals, evidence and or law, pragmatics and logical.

you know, like in real debate.

but Yeah I could just post stuff like:
"I'm right and you're wrong Elessar plus you're ugly and have salt water on the brain if you don't agree with me. "
but somehow i don't think you'd like that either.

You proved nothing at all. Since when is on-line discussion Real Debate?

Real Debate is when a Moderator poses a question / subject and controls the proceedings.
Cut and paste references hardly support direct, personal answers. They only reflect the ability
to search quickly for arguments, no original statements from You, to support your "Debate".
Isn't that plagiarism? Copyright Law violation? I give links and references on posts, but what
I say in things like this come from ME...not someone else's thoughts or writings.

[Gunny]

You proved nothing at all. Since when is on-line discussion Real Debate?

Real Debate is when a Moderator poses a question / subject and controls the proceedings.
Cut and paste references hardly support direct, personal answers. They only reflect the ability
to search quickly for arguments, no original statements from You, to support your "Debate".
Isn't that plagiarism? Copyright Law violation? I give links and references on posts, but what
I say in things like this come from ME...not someone else's thoughts or writings.

You are mostly correct. As long as a link is posted there is no copyright violation.

A debate however IS controlled by a moderation. The moderator asks person A question. That person has x amount of time respond. The same question is then asked of person B. That person has x amount of time to respond. True debate is not about "me against you" which is what this political circus has turned into. It's more like a professional wrestling match.

For that very reason, I've been calling for the GOP to knock this crap off for 3 since the 90s. Calling anything on an internet message board a debate is a joke. Jim has actually come closest with his one on one debate subforum.

And as I've stated time and again, I've no problem with making an argument and using a short cut n paste (3-4 paragraphs) and a link to support YOUR argument. When your argument IS the cut n paste, it tells me you don't think for yourself. You let others think for you. I can go on google and cut n paste all day. If I want to read articles, I can hit google and news.

This is about interactions with others. You're not interacting when you just paste a novel. I can paste Edgar Rice Burroughs. Not a lot of brainpower in hitting copy, then paste.