DonLever

Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Jaimito said:

Polls this far out for general election doesn't mean anything,

I don't need any actual proof hillary will fare better than bernie, she just will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Is not typical establishment politician which is refreshing, so he has been very popular.

He will appeal to northeast and western U.S while Hillary will do better in the South and middle America.

 

Not all democrats are liberal, so to more traditional and conservative democrats Bernie might not be the ideal choice.

She will do better with Hispanic and Black voters, unions, big businesses, southern vote, elderly and more conservative democrats.

 

At the end of the day she will be the president of the United States.

Trump is like a reality show and Cruz will not appeal to broad demographics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, inane said:

Yeah, lazy stereotypes be they racist or not. Do you think those are useful? Do they add value to any discussion? 

The purpose of dividing the population up into certain demographics is not to stereotype, or to say ALL people of that demographic will vote a certain way (although some people may think that way, it's not the way it's generally used in discussion).

The truth is, people of different demographics tend to have different issues that are important to them.  Young people tend to care a little more about the job market and tuition costs.  Black people tend to care about criminal justice reform etc.   While it would be wrong to say that ALL black people care about criminal justice reform or ALL young people care about tuition costs, or that they ONLY care about these issues or that they are the ONLY ONES that care about these issues, it would be equally foolish to not acknowledge these differences.  And black people actually want politicians to pay attention to black-specifc issues, and young people want you to pay attention to the "youth vote" and seniors want you to pay attention to them as well.  It's not racist to acknowledge differences between various racial groups, in fact it would be racist to do what many Republicans do; that is deny the experiences of black people that say still face institutional hardships that are specific to their race.

Edited by etsen3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that think Trump "Tells it like it is", the fact is that he generally tells it like it isn't. Case in point:

 

Quote

 

Donald Trump seems quite certain that the real unemployment rate is higher than the 4.9 percent that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported it to be. A lot higher.

“Don’t believe these phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment,” Mr. Trump said in his victory speech after the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night. “The number’s probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent.”

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2016 at 11:28 AM, Warhippy said:

Well, Americans firmly believe that socialism is stealing money from people to give to people.  That you're not allowed to keep your own wealth.

 

jesus was against greed and wealth and all for the redistribution of wealth to the poor.  Literal equality regardless of station or wealth

 

Which in effect is what Americans fear about socialism. That they will not be allowed to keep what they make, that their money will go to help those who don't have as much.

 

So by the current American belief of their definition of socialism jesus was a socialist

Jesus was against greed because people's attention will be focused on pursuing money instead of God. As for redistribution of wealth, the idea was that people gave out of their own free will. This is different from socialism as there is no fixed quota or regulation (taxes) to "redistribute wealth", as you used the term. Being rich itself is also not condemned, and working hard is encouraged. 

I get what you are saying but fitting the concept of socialism on Jesus is really not accurate. Everything he preached about was in relation to God, not really anything to do with politics. 

As for Americans, they probably have other issues in mind too. And yes, they generally believe in less taxes/smaller govt. 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

For those that think Trump "Tells it like it is", the fact is that he generally tells it like it isn't. Case in point:

 

 

lol, yeah. Roughly 100 million people out of work. If it was that bad, people would be jumping off buildings and selling pens like that Syrian refugee. "I even heard.. 42 percent" from who? The lunatics in the insane asylum or the voice in your head?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

lol, yeah. Roughly 100 million people out of work. If it was that bad, people would be jumping off buildings and selling pens like that Syrian refugee. "I even heard.. 42 percent" from who? The lunatics in the insane asylum or the voice in your head?

Err...including underemployment, perhaps?

And you trust government statistics because they would NEVER falsify their data, right?

 

Edited by CanadianLoonie
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CanadianLoonie said:

Err...including underemployment, perhaps?

And you trust government statistics because they would NEVER falsify their data, right?

Unemployment-Rate-The-Dollar-Vigilante.j

The claim was unemployment. And until someone can verify the contrary, "I heard.." isn't good enough.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, D'Angelo Russell said:

Jesus was against greed because people's attention will be focused on pursuing money instead of God. As for redistribution of wealth, the idea was that people gave out of their own free will. This is different from socialism as there is no fixed quota or regulation (taxes) to "redistribute wealth", as you used the term. Being rich itself is also not condemned, and working hard is encouraged. 

I get what you are saying but fitting the concept of socialism on Jesus is really not accurate. Everything he preached about was in relation to God, not really anything to do with politics. 

As for Americans, they probably have other issues in mind too. And yes, they generally believe in less taxes/smaller govt. 

 

Tell that to the Christian churches, especially the Catholic Church.  Is there an older political entity than the Catholic Church?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On ‎2016‎-‎02‎-‎11 at 3:13 PM, Mustapha said:

There is so much i love about the US and yet so much I dislike at the same time.

Their Constitution allows personal freedoms that make the ones in Canada pale in comparison. For better or worse, Americans have uninhibited free expression. Thanks, First Amendment. 

Yet, their tax system has been corrupted by corporate interests to the point that expanded social services will not be sustainable until the tax laws are overhauled.

In order for that to occur, I honestly believe that the US needs to undergo a modern French revolutionary-esque revolt. Even in France, it took a series of terrible events and fiscal blunders coupled with abysmal harvests to bring this about. Months of starvation and years of bitterness...

 

As wage inequality rises, I  have to ask, how poor does the public need to be? Can people today rise up and overthrow their government when its too easy to buy a McDouble for a buck, turn on 'The Voice' and worry about their mounting diabetes another day? 

I don't know how bad it will have to be this time around.

If you think Trump is bad for America, wouldn't you want to hasten the inevitable by electing him? Hillary might be their Diocletian,  holding the Empire together for a bit longer,  but only delaying its demise,  not saving it from destruction.

When you can print money and just continue to up the national debt, nothing will change and these events you speak of won't happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CanadianLoonie said:

Err...including underemployment, perhaps?

And you trust government statistics because they would NEVER falsify their data, right?

 

I generally trust government statistics. I don't know for sure whether they falsify or manipulate data or not but it is the best source of data we've got. In Canada, lots of good people are hired to gather and process these data. I certainly would not trust anonymous internet commenters with no experience in running an economy and no primary evidence on whether the government falsify their data or not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hugor Hill said:

I generally trust government statistics. I don't know for sure whether they falsify or manipulate data or not but it is the best source of data we've got. In Canada, lots of good people are hired to gather and process these data. I certainly would not trust anonymous internet commenters with no experience in running an economy and no primary evidence on whether the government falsify their data or not.

All of those "underemployment" and "real unemployment" claims are a smokescreen anyways. The 4.9% the the Bureau of Labor Statistics has posted uses the same criteria that Dubya and Reagan used when they were trumpeting their job growth "successes" during their terms.

This is simply a case of the GOP moving the goalposts in an attempt to paint Obama's tenure in negative light.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2016 at 10:23 AM, CBH1926 said:

Bernie Is not typical establishment politician which is refreshing, so he has been very popular.

He will appeal to northeast and western U.S while Hillary will do better in the South and middle America.

 

Not all democrats are liberal, so to more traditional and conservative democrats Bernie might not be the ideal choice.

She will do better with Hispanic and Black voters, unions, big businesses, southern vote, elderly and more conservative democrats.

 

At the end of the day she will be the president of the United States.

Trump is like a reality show and Cruz will not appeal to broad demographics.

That's what they said in 2008. Hillary's camp even started showing commercial with Obama in African garb when he visited Kenya to appeal to white Americans.

If the speeches she gave to Wall Street firms came out or if something damning comes out of this whole email scandal, she might just be the woman who lost the presidency twice. 

The race isn't over and there are a lot of people who feel the Bern. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I love my Canadian born Texas Senator, I proudly voted for Donald Trump in the Texas Republican primary today.

Edited by jmfaminoff
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8/10 mental patients believe Obama played a role in killing Scalia. Because an overweight 79 year old has never died of a heart attack before. Republicans like, Obama constantly tramples on the Constitution! Obama: it is my constitutional responsibility to appoint a new Justice. Now, Repugs be like, we must stop Obama from abiding by the Constitution!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

8/10 mental patients believe Obama played a role in killing Scalia. Because an overweight 79 year old has never died of a heart attack before. Republicans like, Obama constantly tramples on the Constitution! Obama: it is my constitutional responsibility to appoint a new Justice. Now, Repugs be like, we must stop Obama from abiding by the Constitution!

I'm a bit surprised that this issue isn't getting more attention. It's a huge deal for both sides and once again shows the hypocrisy of the GOP (and Mitch McConnell, in particular) CBC's Keith Boag wrote a very informative piece on this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/antonin-scalia-us-supreme-court-boag-analysis-1.3448944

 

Quote

 

Barack Obama has seen a few confrontations during his time in the White House but this one is historic. 

Every part of the American body politic is involved: the presidency, the Senate, the Supreme Court and the people. 

As his presidency winds down, the executive branch is careening toward a collision with the legislative branch over an appointment to the judicial branch — and in the middle of an election campaign.

How the country moves forward in the next few decades will depend on the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the composition of the court depends on the president who appoints the justices. 

Only hours after Antonin Scalia's death on Saturday, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was throwing down a gauntlet.

Justice Scalia's seat on the court should stay vacant until after the election, he said, so that the people can choose the president who nominates the judge's successor. It was strongly suggested McConnell will refuse to hold hearings on a nominee.

Obama Scalia

President Barack Obama has said he seeks to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, setting up a certain election-year showdown with the Republicans. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press)

The president picked up the gauntlet that same evening and said he would be sending his nomination for Scalia's replacement to the Senate for confirmation soon. 

It looks as though the defining issue of the election campaign has arrived.

Republican presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz said Saturday, "We're not going to give up the U.S. Supreme Court for a generation by allowing Barack Obama to make one more liberal appointee."

That's not just Ted being Ted; Democrats agree this is a struggle for the ages.

It was inevitable the presidential campaign would explode like this because so many of the judges on the court are so old: Scalia was 79, Stephen Breyer is 77, Anthony Kennedy is 79, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 82.

The next president might have to replace all four, something that hasn't happened since Richard Nixon was in the White House. 

Key cases coming up

What it means for the future can be gleaned from the past. Look at how consequential and divisive some of the court's recent decisions have been.

With some of its narrowest rulings — those decided by a 5-4 vote — the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed the legality of Obamacare, legalized same-sex marriage and gutted campaign finance laws.

In the immediate future it will consider abortion, immigration, birth control and affirmative action. 

These are not arcane issues for ordinary people.

So the Republicans know that by blocking Obama's court nominee in the Senate, they risk creating an issue that might hand the presidency to the Democrats in November.

Supreme Court Scalia

A group with 'People for the American Way' gather with signs in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, calling for Congress to give fair consideration to any nomination put forth by Barack Obama to fill the seat of Antonin Scalia. (Carolyn Kaster/The Associated Press)

Consider how some of the court's decisions have already played out on the stump.

Democratic presidential contender Senator Bernie Sanders has attracted an enormous following largely by attacking the Supreme Court's recent decisions on deregulating election campaign spending laws.

In one case, Citizens United vs. FEC, the Republican appointees on the court found that corporations have as much right to free speech as actual living, breathing people.

In another case, McCutcheon vs. FEC, the same judges declared that money has no corrupting influence in politics.

It's easy to imagine how the lanky, white-haired Sanders will play the latest news.

Leaning forward over his podium, elbows up, both arms reaching out to stab the air with long fingers, he'll warn that, if they get the chance, Republicans will only appoint more justices like the ones they appointed before — the ones who have already allowed corporations and billionaires to stomp around in heavy boots, trampling the sacred garden of democracy.

79507230

With many Supreme Court cases recently decided by a 5-4 margin, with Antonin Scalia leading the conservative majority, the next appointment could mean a shift in the balance of power. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The prose will only turn deeper purple when Obama reveals his nominee. Suddenly there will be a name, a face and a judicial record to gin up his case as well. 

Whoever the nominee is will undoubtedly say the court was wrong on the campaign finance rulings.

Republicans aren't likely to want to run against that. They can see the reaction Sanders gets from Democrats when he decries the impact of Republican judges on the country's politics.

It's the same reaction Donald Trump gets from the Republican base when he rails against billionaires and the pernicious influence of their money on democracy.

Unwritten 'Thurmond Rule'

So of course the Republicans are trying to reframe the issue of appointments as an issue of principle instead.

Obama is too close to the end of his presidency to be allowed a consequential decision such as the lifetime appointment of a top court judge, they say.

Democrats made the same argument near the end of George W. Bush's presidency and the case seemed weak then too. The U.S. Constitution does not define a period after which the president loses his authority to appoint.

USA-ELECTION/CRUZ

Republican presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz has said he will filibuster any Supreme Court nominee made by outgoing U.S. President Barack Obama. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

There is murmuring about a so-called "Thurmond Rule" that supposedly prohibits Senate confirmation of appointments six months before the end of a president's term. Or is it after June in the president's final year?

No one knows for sure because the rule isn't written down anywhere, certainly not in the constitution.

It doesn't even seem as though it would apply, given that a confirmation could be all done and dusted before either of the Thurmond clocks ran out.

But expect to hear more about all of it this political season.

And don't be shocked if the U.S. Supreme Court still has a vacancy a year from now. Or if McConnell, having won his battle with Obama, nevertheless has to confirm the Obama nominee in 2017, under the next president.

 

Apologies for the size. Couldn't be bothered to try and reformat.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply put

 

The Scalia issue could indeed hand the Dems the white house.  Could indeed hand them the opportunity to appoint no less than 1 to possibly 4 more appointed supreme court judges.  All could be democrats.

 

The funny thing about Scalia is that he was the loudest single voice trying to keep church and state together and was accused numerous times of allowing conflict of interest and personal bias sway his decisions in cases regarding corporations and state vs corporations.  The sad thing is, it was always quite blatant but he was almost untouchable really.  As are all the SCJ's

 

I like balance I really do, but appointing a bunch of liberals or democrats might be the best and only way to ensure major issues like this are not handed back to the lower courts but instead dealt with on the spot and start finding that they rule in favor of the people instead of making claims that "corporations are due the same legal rights as individual human beings" only to then find that "corporations are not subject to those laws as corporations are not in fact human beings"

 

That reference was for a major landmark case that saw a major US corporation attempted to be tried AS a human being for poisoning people, only for Scalia to rule that as it is a corporation with a board, stakeholders and no physical body it was as such not able to be tried as a human being.  But then he also said that animals and the planet earth are not subject the same laws as human beings even though corporations are; because there is no manifest physical body or cognizant entity to stand in defense of itself.

 

And now you know how screwed up US law is and has been over the last few decades.  Corps are people that aren't people depending on what happens.  

 

(also it has been proven numerous times that both republican and democratic nominated judges enjoy massive perks and donations/fundraising from major corporations and wealthy private citizens)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Jeb Bush is showing his Texas colors...

Posted a photo of a gun on Twitter, with the caption "America". My guess is that he was trying to jump on the Trump-esque 'say something controversial' bandwagon.

Can't argue that it's what America is all about, but you can argue that it's not something to brag about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2016 at 10:51 AM, Tortorella's Rant said:

lol, yeah. Roughly 100 million people out of work. If it was that bad, people would be jumping off buildings and selling pens like that Syrian refugee. "I even heard.. 42 percent" from who? The lunatics in the insane asylum or the voice in your head?

It wouldn't suprise me if the government found ways to skew the exact number to be better in thier favor. In in society alone I am sure for instance many of us who knows someone not working right now. Many students don't work and simply use student as thier occupation, the country accepts that even though the individual doesn't make money off of it. I don't think it is as high as Donald Trump says it is but I doubt that it is so low either.

Edited by smokes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.