One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Trump is a real threat to the U.S. Constitution
Page 1 of 14 next> last>>
Sep 24, 2016 14:45:46   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
Steve Chapman

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his bankruptcies.

The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that unauthorized immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods — either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification ... and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible — as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.

Reply
Sep 24, 2016 14:51:55   #
missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore
 
What could possibly be worse than CLINTON ? What ?
Trump ? R U joking Slatten ?

Please tell me you are joking.
Shall we compare each's negatives ?
Over and over ad nauseam !

Plllllleeeeease.

Yes the man has warts. Clinton had that big purple
one removed from the side of her nose. Just joking.
Wart for wart , Clinton has to many to count and is
bought and paid for.
The end ........
slatten49 wrote:
Steve Chapman

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his bankruptcies.

The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that unauthorized immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods — either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification ... and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible — as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.
Steve Chapman br br For a Republican presidential... (show quote)

Reply
Sep 24, 2016 14:55:12   #
reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.
 
slatten49 wrote:
Steve Chapman

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his bankruptcies.

The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that unauthorized immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods — either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification ... and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible — as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.
Steve Chapman br br For a Republican presidential... (show quote)


Nice try , lame propaganda but what the hell , nice try .. I give it three thumbs

Reply
 
 
Sep 24, 2016 15:00:30   #
robmull Loc: florida
 
slatten49 wrote:
Steve Chapman

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his bankruptcies.

The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that unauthorized immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods — either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification ... and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible — as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.
Steve Chapman br br For a Republican presidential... (show quote)









Then why are there some 187 "card-carrying" Marxist commies {that "WE" know of} in our (D) Congress, 49??? NO (R's), {that "WE" know of}. And God knows how many pro-Sharia Law Muslims have sullied our Constitution by taking sacred oaths on our Holy Bible, or the Qur'an, {when THEIR original sacred oath, (that can't be broken), is to their 7th century Sharia and Allah}, and are now in un-vetted, "appointed" positions of power {AG, DOJ, HLS/FEMA, CIA, Senior Presidential Advisors, Cabinet, Intelligence Organizations, Czars? etc.}, now dictating (American/Sharia?) laws, rules and regulations to "infidel" America!!! How is THAT possible, 49??? Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TRUMP!!!

Reply
Sep 24, 2016 15:02:50   #
SinnieK
 
slatten49 wrote:
Steve Chapman

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his bankruptcies.

The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that unauthorized immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods — either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification ... and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible — as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.
Steve Chapman br br For a Republican presidential... (show quote)


This Steve Chapman is a troll and idiot. I am not sure he is for Hillary or he is for the Establishments which both are in the same pot.

Chapman said " people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not".

These are the words of the 'Globalist/warmongers/NWO/Establishments/Elitists/MIC the less than 0.001% of the population. So who the hell care what these people think; the country belong to 99.999%. So count the number.

Reply
Sep 24, 2016 15:27:40   #
JMHO Loc: Utah
 
Hillary is the REAL THREAT!!! Wake up!

slatten49 wrote:
Steve Chapman

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his bankruptcies.

The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that unauthorized immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods — either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification ... and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible — as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.
Steve Chapman br br For a Republican presidential... (show quote)

Reply
Sep 24, 2016 15:37:44   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
JMHO wrote:
Hillary is the REAL THREAT!!! Wake up!

Unfortunately, JMHO, they are both real threats. It is, IMO, a matter of picking your poison between the two...so, I choose neither.

Reply
 
 
Sep 24, 2016 15:47:35   #
missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore
 
It is a very risky world we live in . Risk have to be taken daily.
Choices in such matters have always been risky but never before
has the common man had such access to information. I would
venture to say with complete confidence that very few citizens
are without warts. You will never find wart-less people in politics.

Just look at history. Real history. For pleasure read .
" The decline and fall of practically everybody " by Will Cuppy.
Real stories of real giants of history. Weird and somewhat alarming
that all those giants of history were so damned strange. To me anyway.
It took him half a life time to gather all the data were as
today a quick internet search would provide the same
on just about anyone. Ourselves included.

slatten49 wrote:
Unfortunately, JMHO, they are both real threats. It is, IMO, a matter of picking your poison between the two...so, I choose neither.

Reply
Sep 24, 2016 15:51:05   #
JMHO Loc: Utah
 
That's your opinion. I disagree. Trump is no big threat, Hillary is a big threat. I admit that I am no Trump fan, but I don't think he is any threat...the LSM, GOP establishment, and Hillary campaign want you to believe that, but he's no threat.

slatten49 wrote:
Unfortunately, JMHO, they are both real threats. It is, IMO, a matter of picking your poison between the two...so, I choose neither.

Reply
Sep 24, 2016 16:01:50   #
oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
 
slatten49 wrote:
Unfortunately, JMHO, they are both real threats. It is, IMO, a matter of picking your poison between the two...so, I choose neither.


Hot damn, am I glad to see that you aren't going to vote for Hil liar y. Of course, you will be voting for a loser if you don't vote for one of them or not voting for President, since nobody else can win 270 electoral votes.

I am so in support of most of what Trump has said about immigration and surely as all hell about anchor babies. I know when the 14th Amendment was written and what it was aimed at. Leaners can't handle the fact that it was the children of ex-slaves it was aimed at and surely not at the children of illegals in the 21st century. That Amendment wasn't aimed at those who are using it these days but it has been used by illegal aliens so much of the time when lawyers of the left lean have told them about what they could do with it.

I have never been for Trump except for the fact that he and I are all of the things Hil liar y said we were and although I fear him I fear her a lot more and have to reason that if he wins the Republican Party will remain in control of Congress. Have you given any thought to what or who Hil liar y might appoint to the Supreme Court and how long the GOP members of the Senate will wait around to install one of them? I don't view Trump as a conservative but don't think he will try to get in one who will break the 4 - 4 tie the "wrong" way often.

Speaking of the Court I have to keep on wondering why so many people refuse to see what Roberts set up when he voted for Obamacare and declared it an illegal taxing law. Why didn't the GOP people in Congress take his decision about all those new taxes in a law that originated in the Senate when the Constitution says tax laws had to originate in the House? Was it the RINOs that kept recognition from happening?

No I don't see Trump as being as much of a threat to the Constitution as Clinton. He is only that threat if the Congress continues to sit on their thumbs and let the Executive branch sail on as they have. There were a number of people in those 17 that I would have preferred but our fool method of nominating knocked them out of the race. I do wish we were voting for Cain for his second term against Obama for his third term.

I forgot to mention that I am not in favor of importing any more Muslims than we have. I am sure that most of them will go along with Sharia when the time comes. I don't think there is such a thing as a moderate Muslims where that religion thing is concerned. That is going to be a real battle when the time comes and don't want my family to have to live through it.

Reply
Sep 24, 2016 16:53:38   #
Gatsby
 
slatten49 wrote:
Steve Chapman

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his bankruptcies.

The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that unauthorized immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods — either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification ... and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible — as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.
Steve Chapman br br For a Republican presidential... (show quote)


For a Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton has shown an unprecedented and;

well documented history of "Explosively Violent Outbursts of Rage", spanning the past 25 years.

You would really trust that deranged psychopath with the Nuclear Launch Codes?

Had even one of her many acts of "domestic violence" against Bill been proven in court, she would have been [and should be]

forever barred from possessing a firearm.

And You really want to hand Her the Nuclear Launch Codes?

Reply
 
 
Sep 24, 2016 17:05:31   #
missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore
 
Good point and a non vote is a vote for her.


Gatsby wrote:
For a Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton has shown an unprecedented and;

well documented history of "Explosively Violent Outbursts of Rage", spanning the past 25 years.

You would really trust that deranged psychopath with the Nuclear Launch Codes?

Had even one of her many acts of "domestic violence" against Bill been proven in court, she would have been [and should be]

forever barred from possessing a firearm.

And You really want to hand Her the Nuclear Launch Codes?
For a Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Cli... (show quote)

Reply
Sep 24, 2016 17:28:43   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
slatten49 wrote:
Steve Chapman

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his bankruptcies.

The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that unauthorized immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods — either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification ... and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible — as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.
Steve Chapman br br For a Republican presidential... (show quote)


If anyone wants to know what President Trump would do on Tuesday, March 2017 - they'll have to wait until Tuesday March 2017 to see - then expect him to undo that and do something completely different on Wednesday March 2017.

Reply
Sep 24, 2016 18:11:10   #
Gatsby
 
lpnmajor: You need to quit sampling the meds....

Reply
Sep 25, 2016 08:19:27   #
ssgtgood
 
slatten49 wrote:
Steve Chapman

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his bankruptcies.

The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that unauthorized immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods — either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification ... and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible — as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.
Steve Chapman br br For a Republican presidential... (show quote)


What a bunch of bullshit. You've got to be kidding me, Hillary in the Oval Office would be a travesty. She SHOULD BE IN PRISON.
Semper Fi

Reply
Page 1 of 14 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.