• Democratic National Convention & Protests Super(delegate)thread - Goodbye, Bernie
    1,979 replies, posted
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50793317][url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/[/url] And even still, [B]empty promises are better than no promises.[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE][B]Trust Us:[/B] Politicians Keep Most Of Their Promises[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]There's a lot I can agree with for the Democrats platform, especially after adopting some of Bernie's policies. And they have actual plans for what they'll do instead of [B]"trust me."[/B] [/QUOTE] ?????
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50793339]?????[/QUOTE] I see you didn't even read past the headline.
[QUOTE=phygon;50793322]Some of sanders' policies made 0 sense to me, like his opposition to nuclear and GMO's as well as him wanting to ban microtrading for literally no reason.[/QUOTE] I've followed Sanders for some time, before he announced. His opposition to nuclear is one of the only things I don't like about him. (I couldn't care less about GMOs, and Sanders doesn't want a ban on HFT -- just a tax) To be fair, he never really made it a major issue of his campaign. It's just something I don't think he had a very good understanding of.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50793339]?????[/QUOTE] 538 aren't politicians.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;50793091]So she wants the Supreme Court to expand voting rights? To who? Felons or Illegals?[/QUOTE] Why shouldn't felons vote? Also voting rights isn't limited to giving the vote to people who currently don't have it, it's also about protecting the electoral process as it stands. [QUOTE=-nesto-;50793099]lmao she's stealing Trump's platform now. CHINA BAD[/QUOTE] That isn't Trump's platform. That's a stance he has. She has criticized China in the past. [QUOTE=srobins;50793110]Such as preventing anyone as corrupt as her from raking in millions of dollars from corporate investors and special interests in the future, establishing herself as the permanent ruler of the Clinton Dynasty until her death? I love that people actually give Hillary points for co-opting Citizens United into her platform after having used it to get elected in the first place. It's really great, she gets all the benefits of Citizens United, then once she's elected and no longer needs it, she can get rid of it and pretend to be a good person! Brilliant strategy![/QUOTE] [QUOTE=rilez;50793119]How is the candidate who took millions from Super PACs [B]in this primary[/B] not going to flop on Citizen's United? She already flopped. She already took their money. She's going to need more for the general election.[/QUOTE] You guys know the Citizens United ruling was specifically about attacking Clinton right.
[QUOTE=rilez;50793295]Bold aren't true. Sanders is also opposed to nuclear power and GMOs.[/QUOTE] [url]http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=820[/url] It literally changed just a few months ago. In Jill Stein's recent AMA when asked about her opinion on vaccines she wrote several paragraphs evading the question. Sanders is in favor of GMO labeling, not the Green's plan to put moratorium on them (and pesticides). I don't agree with the labeling as it's just supporting more fear of proven science, but he's never come close to suggesting a ban. I'm aware that Bernie is also personally against Nuclear power and that's somewhere I disagree with him. Thankfully, the rest of the Democratic party doesn't share that belief.
[QUOTE=srobins;50793110]Such as preventing anyone as corrupt as her from raking in millions of dollars from corporate investors and special interests in the future, establishing herself as the permanent ruler of the Clinton Dynasty until her death? I love that people actually give Hillary points for co-opting Citizens United into her platform after having used it to get elected in the first place. It's really great, she gets all the benefits of Citizens United, then once she's elected and no longer needs it, she can get rid of it and pretend to be a good person! Brilliant strategy![/QUOTE] I love that people box Clinton into an unwinnable scenario wherein if she doesn't do the thing you like she is corrupt and if she does do the thing you like she is corrupt and a phony.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50793355]You guys know the Citizens United ruling was specifically about attacking Clinton right.[/QUOTE] How does this change the fact that she used the ruling to her own advantage.
[QUOTE=rilez;50793434]How does this change the fact that she used the ruling to her own advantage.[/QUOTE] If the game changed to where you needed to accept money from SuperPACs in order to be elected, wouldn't you also use it if you wanted to remain elected?
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50793526]If the game changed to where you needed to accept money from SuperPACs in order to be elected, wouldn't you also use it if you wanted to remain elected?[/QUOTE] If only there were a candidate that managed to run a competitive campaign without excessive contributions from SuperPACs and special interest groups..
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50793526]If the game changed to where you needed to accept money from SuperPACs in order to be elected, wouldn't you also use it if you wanted to remain elected?[/QUOTE] We had a candidate in this primary who didn't, and with less name recognition and the weight of the party on his shoulders, he still came close.
[QUOTE=srobins;50793580]If only there were a candidate that managed to run a competitive campaign without excessive contributions from SuperPACs and special interest groups..[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=rilez;50793585]We had a candidate in this primary who didn't, and with less name recognition and the weight of the party on his shoulders, he still came close.[/QUOTE] And how many others haven't? Trump is the exception to the rule.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50793676]And how many others haven't? Trump is the exception to the rule.[/QUOTE] I thought we were talking about bernie? oh, you were talking about that OTHER singular candidate that was able to pull it off be it for different reasons within the same election. Sorry [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50790155]I know they're just rumors, I don't take them too seriously but its more interesting seeing what makes people think this way. Until a practicing doctor wants to make a claim just on visual evidence it can be dismissed. Hillary's seizure is referring to a minor freakout she had when the press swamped her with questions: [video=youtube;YMHOcmDVBP0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMHOcmDVBP0[/video] I don't know what that was about and I'm not qualified to call that a seizure but it was an odd response.[/QUOTE] As someone who has epilepsy... that looks like a microseizure, you get those before a really big one or they can be all you got. Also known as simple partial seizures, you stay alert throughout and when it ends you are still concious. Or it could be just her being a fucking weirdo, alien or a lizard... who knows with Hillary. more info on this site i guess [url]http://www.epilepsy.com/connect/forums/products-resources-helpful-links/over-40-different-types-seizures-revised[/url] [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=phygon;50791357]I wouldn't say it was stolen, he might have lost anyway. If she hadn't "cheated", it would have probably been 50/50[/QUOTE] No it woudnt have, through escalation mathematics he 'probably' would have won, theres no real way to know for sure but he was so close to being in a tie that i feel either the dem party was incompetent in snuffing his campaign or he would have won with a tight margin. From the emails i feel it was clear they were not incompetent, and were actively collaborating with Hillary's campaign. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=The Vman;50791483]So the RNC was conspiring against Trump as well. Like, the party committee having a preferred candidate isn't something I find shocking. I think that just goes to show how much stronger Trump's support is than Sanders'.[/QUOTE] or how more divided the republican race was, they basically had a ton of nominees, and trump was the only one sticking out with rates like 35%, with hillary and sanders it was brutal competition that could go either way, if trump had a candidate seriously opposing him he probably would have lost the nomination due to the party favouring that candidate. Bernie still pretty much came close to a tie.
Alright, I'll concede on the Citizen's United argument, but after having done research, I've found Hillary to be more consistent with her words than people parrot. She could actually do some good to the country with the policies she's proposed. I also don't know how anyone with a brain can support Trump, with how often he flat out lies, goes back on his word, distorts the truth, and completely lacks any plan.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50793934] No it woudnt have, through escalation mathematics he 'probably' would have won, theres no real way to know for sure but he was so close to being in a tie that i feel either the dem party was incompetent in snuffing his campaign or he would have won with a tight margin. From the emails i feel it was clear they were not incompetent, and were actively collaborating with Hillary's campaign. [/QUOTE] They were clearly collaborating but it's not as if they threw away Bernie votes or anything so serious. It was definitely fucked up and I'm not voting Democrat this year because of it (maybe ever again to be honest) but it's not like bernie had it in the bag as some people pretend.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;50793091]So she wants the Supreme Court to expand voting rights? To who? Felons or Illegals?[/QUOTE] I can understand for felons since majority of them are still US citizens, but illegals? They're not US citizens, why should have right to vote for US elections?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50770691]Where would you want me to start? Even if they are making money, most of the money feeds into the cartels or coyote groups that brought them over. Not to mention that a severe effect on the US economy, mostly at the state level, has been occurring as more and more low-level jobs are being taken by illegal migrants, and we no longer have the bootstrap jobs which give people some history in the job market. So yeah, it's fairly shitty all around. Just allowing them to come here feeds the illegal activities of other groups, and giving suddenly amnesty to 11.5 to 12.5 million people is fucking stupid and will most likely cause even further problems for all parties down the road.[/QUOTE] Do you have a source for the funds going to the cartels/coyote groups? Also, your point wasn't about them taking out jobs, your point was that the jobs they are getting are slave labor. If the jobs are slave labor, why would Americans do them as bootstrap jobs if not for the darn immigrants? Wouldn't it be a problem if Americans were working in slave labor anyways?
why is the thread called "goodbye bernie"? he's not going anywhere
[QUOTE=evilweazel;50793308]Call it arrogance, but I'm not surprised. [B]It has flaws, but[/B] it's still the most influential country in the world. Especially the UK. Special relationship and etc. Plus, names of big people make big head lines, regardless of borders I've heard more information about royal babies and royal weddings than my ancestors would be comfortable with, if I'm being honest[/QUOTE] Thought you were going to say 'is still the most democratic' or 'best' for a second, my euro centralist brain was already triggering. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=phygon;50793322]Some of sanders' policies made 0 sense to me, like his opposition to nuclear and GMO's as well as him wanting to ban microtrading for literally no reason.[/QUOTE] No candidate is perfect, then there is a massive void... and then there’s Hillary and Trump. I haven’t made a secret of preferring my personal cyanide to be trump, but contrary to a lot of facepunchers who are into shillary and violently claim trump is leagues worse, i do believe trump and Hillary are evenly matched for different reasons. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=rilez;50793346]I've followed Sanders for some time, before he announced. His opposition to nuclear is one of the only things I don't like about him. (I couldn't care less about GMOs, and Sanders doesn't want a ban on HFT -- just a tax) To be fair, he never really made it a major issue of his campaign. It's just something I don't think he had a very good understanding of.[/QUOTE] You should care more about GMOs if world hunger or even the price of farmed produce is relevant to you... Most produce bought in a store or supermarket is a GMO, almost all canned and processed food is a GMO. lets assume GMOs get heavily taxed to the point of non economical or heaven forbid... banned we simply cannot produce enough food to feed everyone on US soil... thats a big problem. Besides, the health negatives are pseudoscience and GMO's actually grouped together are healthier if you take into account that a lot of GMOs have the purpose of being immune to pests, so less pesticides have to be used and some GMOs have added vitamines that are not common in the regions they are cultivated like golden rice. Golden rice alone saves hundreds of thousands of people from a slow painful death every year, and help millions of people who wouldn’t die but be constantly sick without it. Now imagine there are grains currently in production that produce insulin for rural mass fabrication of the stuff... or potatoes that grow in what is basically desert sand... needing hardly any watering due to their ability to preserve water to the extreme. Or crops specifically bred to allow humans to grow them in space and get a fully nutritional meal out of the minimal surface area. The biological revolution is afoot, and there is either slowing it down and having other countries decide what is 'legal' and 'moral' or there is regulating and subsidizing and being the pioneers in the field... Who wants to create a lot of high tech jobs? I fucking do... [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;50793379]I love that people box Clinton into an unwinnable scenario wherein [B]if she doesn't do the thing you like[/B] she is corrupt [/QUOTE] Like accepting money from big coorporations she is supposed to 'bring to heel' in the current political platform? [QUOTE=Raidyr;50793379]and [B]if she does do the thing you like she is corrupt and a phony.[/B] [/QUOTE] You mean like switching from con to pro gay marriage months before starting her campaign and then running on being 'the pro gay candidate'? heres a clue, Donald fucking trump was for gay marriage in a 'its their freedom to do that' kind of way since the fucking 90s... but then again he is not running on that issue, Hillary is... Not saying Donald isn’t fake, just that Hillary is by all accounts, way 'faker'...
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50795078]Thought you were going to say 'is still the most democratic' or 'best' for a second, my euro centralist brain was already triggering. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] No candidate is perfect, then there is a massive void... and then there’s Hillary and Trump. I haven’t made a secret of preferring my personal cyanide to be trump, but contrary to a lot of facepunchers who are into shillary and violently claim trump is leagues worse, i do believe trump and Hillary are evenly matched for different reasons. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] You should care more about GMOs if world hunger or even the price of farmed produce is relevant to you... Most produce bought in a store or supermarket is a GMO, almost all canned and processed food is a GMO. lets assume GMOs get heavily taxed to the point of non economical or heaven forbid... banned we simply cannot produce enough food to feed everyone on US soil... thats a big problem. Besides, the health negatives are pseudoscience and GMO's actually grouped together are healthier if you take into account that a lot of GMOs have the purpose of being immune to pests, so less pesticides have to be used and some GMOs have added vitamines that are not common in the regions they are cultivated like golden rice. Golden rice alone saves hundreds of thousands of people from a slow painful death every year, and help millions of people who wouldn’t die but be constantly sick without it. Now imagine there are grains currently in production that produce insulin for rural mass fabrication of the stuff... or potatoes that grow in what is basically desert sand... needing hardly any watering due to their ability to preserve water to the extreme. Or crops specifically bred to allow humans to grow them in space and get a fully nutritional meal out of the minimal surface area. The biological revolution is afoot, and there is either slowing it down and having other countries decide what is 'legal' and 'moral' or there is regulating and subsidizing and being the pioneers in the field... Who wants to create a lot of high tech jobs? I fucking do... [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] Like accepting money from big coorporations she is supposed to 'bring to heel' in the current political platform? You mean like switching from con to pro gay marriage months before starting her campaign and then running on being 'the pro gay candidate'? heres a clue, Donald fucking trump was for gay marriage in a 'its their freedom to do that' kind of way since the fucking 90s... but then again he is not running on that issue, Hillary is... Not saying Donald isn’t fake, just that Hillary is by all accounts, way 'faker'...[/QUOTE] Not saying Clinton isn't a flip flopper but she's had some degree of support of gay marriage in her lifetime, and months before her campaign? She announced full support of gay marriage back in 2013. Also I'd like to see where you're getting your information about Trump from because he has CONSISTENTLY been against gay marriage and LGBT rights and even stated he would consider appointing a supreme Court Judge to overturn the gay marriage ruling. So where are you getting your misinformation from? I'm really glad you can't vote here.
[QUOTE=phygon;50794133]They were clearly collaborating but it's not [B]as if they threw away Bernie votes or anything so serious.[/B] It was definitely fucked up and I'm not voting Democrat this year because of it (maybe ever again to be honest) but it's not like bernie had it in the bag as some people pretend.[/QUOTE] Yes they actually did, its documented in cali young people (bernie voters, overwhelmingly on average) were on order of the party organization given 'en masse' provisional ballets... that means 'they still haven’t fully counted those votes today' ballets... in the state that was going to make or break bernies campaign... 705,000 provisional ballots were handed out, tallies as it stand say between 40 and 65% of those were given those based on age and party registration date. out of 2.5 million voters. thats 28%, most of those are already counted by now but it wont make a shred of difference... the spoils are already spent. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50795152]Not saying Clinton isn't a flip flopper but she's had some degree of support of gay marriage in her lifetime, and months before her campaign? She announced full support of gay marriage back in 2013. Also I'd like to see where you're getting your information about Trump from because he has CONSISTENTLY been against gay marriage and LGBT rights and even stated he would consider appointing a supreme Court Judge to overturn the gay marriage ruling. So where are you getting your misinformation from? I'm really glad you can't vote here.[/QUOTE] He isnt been consistently against it, he even suggested to ammend the constitution to allow for gay marriage. [URL]http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/9/28/read-donald-trumps-advocate-interview-where-he-defends-gays-mexicans[/URL] [URL]http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914[/URL] also On the issues ranks him moderately in favour, stating some rhetoric he said that could be counted against or is against some forms of implementations, but mainly he is counted as mildly in favour. [URL]http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm[/URL] You can say he is a flipflop... id agree, he talks differently to different people, but hes been saying far more in favour then against, and started talking about being in favour far far ffffffaaarr earlier then hillary. You cannot make the statement that he has CONSISTENTLY been against, it would be a blatant lie. ... [B] Oh and i get to vote in the brussels embassy, so your fucking loss you twat.[/B] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight]
I'm curious as to why you need to amend the constitution to allow for gay marriage. The constitution already allows it in the first place.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50795166]Yes they actually did, its documented in cali young people (bernie voters, overwhelmingly on average) were on order of the party organization given 'en masse' provisional ballets... that means 'they still haven’t fully counted those votes today' ballets... in the state that was going to make or break bernies campaign... 705,000 provisional ballots were handed out, tallies as it stand say between 40 and 65% of those were given those based on age and party registration date. out of 2.5 million voters. thats 28%, most of those are already counted by now but it wont make a shred of difference... the spoils are already spent. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] He isnt been consistently against it, he even suggested to ammend the constitution to allow for gay marriage. [URL]http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/9/28/read-donald-trumps-advocate-interview-where-he-defends-gays-mexicans[/URL] [URL]http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914[/URL] also On the issues ranks him moderately in favour, stating some rhetoric he said that could be counted against or is against some forms of implementations, but mainly he is counted as mildly in favour. [URL]http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm[/URL] You can say he is a flipflop... id agree, he talks differently to different people, but hes been saying far more in favour then against, and started talking about being in favour far far ffffffaaarr earlier then hillary. You cannot make the statement that he has CONSISTENTLY been against, it would be a blatant lie. ... [B] Oh and i get to vote in the brussels embassy, so your fucking loss you twat.[/B][/QUOTE] The issue is that he said that 16 years ago. I personally don't think that what someone said over five years ago reflects what they now think, unless it's been consistent. Times change and so do people. The problem with Trump is his inconsistency. He may have been in favor of it back then, but he now says so many things without meaning it that I don't know where his stance is on it -- nobody does. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] In writing my last post, since I'm constrained by the truth, I was doing some research on Trump and found the [url=http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all]ghostwriter for "Art of the Deal" denouncing Trump[/url] with many very interesting tidbits about his personality. [quote]Starting in late 1985, Schwartz spent eighteen months with Trump—camping out in his office, joining him on his helicopter, tagging along at meetings, and spending weekends with him at his Manhattan apartment and his Florida estate. During that period, [b]Schwartz felt, he had got to know him better than almost anyone else outside the Trump family.[/b][/quote] [quote]For research, he planned to interview Trump on a series of Saturday mornings. The first session didn’t go as planned, however. After Trump gave him a tour of his marble-and-gilt apartment atop Trump Tower—which, to Schwartz, looked unlived-in, like the lobby of a hotel—they began to talk. But the discussion was soon hobbled by what Schwartz regards as one of Trump’s most essential characteristics: [b]“He has no attention span.”[/b][/quote] [quote]He asked Trump to describe his childhood in detail. After sitting for only a few minutes in his suit and tie, Trump became impatient and irritable. He looked fidgety, [b]Schwartz recalls, “like a kindergartner who can’t sit still in a classroom.”[/b] Even when Schwartz pressed him, Trump seemed to remember almost nothing of his youth, and made it clear that he was bored. Far more quickly than Schwartz had expected, Trump ended the meeting. [b]Week after week, the pattern repeated itself. Schwartz tried to limit the sessions to smaller increments of time, but Trump’s contributions remained oddly truncated and superficial.[/b][/quote] [quote]There was not a single call that Trump deemed too private for Schwartz to hear. [b]“He loved the attention,” Schwartz recalls. “If he could have had three hundred thousand people listening in, he would have been even happier.”[/b][/quote] [quote]This year, [b]Schwartz has heard some argue that there must be a more thoughtful and nuanced version of Donald Trump that he is keeping in reserve for after the campaign. “There isn’t,”[/b] Schwartz insists. “There is no private Trump.” This is not a matter of hindsight. While working on “The Art of the Deal,” Schwartz kept a journal in which he expressed his amazement at Trump’s personality, writing that [b]Trump seemed driven entirely by a need for public attention.[/b][/quote] [quote]After hearing Trump’s discussions about business on the phone, Schwartz asked him brief follow-up questions. He then tried to amplify the material he got from Trump by calling others involved in the deals. But their accounts often directly conflicted with Trump’s. [b]“Lying is second nature to him,”[/b] Schwartz said. “More than anyone else I have ever met, [b]Trump has the ability to convince himself that whatever he is saying at any given moment is true, or sort of true, or at least ought to be true.”[/b][/quote] [quote]Schwartz says of Trump, “He lied strategically. He had a complete lack of conscience about it.” [b]Since most people are “constrained by the truth,” Trump’s indifference to it “gave him a strange advantage.”[/b][/quote] [quote]In his journal, Schwartz wrote, [b]“Trump stands for many of the things I abhor: his willingness to run over people, the gaudy, tacky, gigantic obsessions, the absolute lack of interest in anything beyond power and money.”[/b] Looking back at the text now, Schwartz says, [b]“I created a character far more winning than Trump actually is.”[/b][/quote] [quote][b]Schwartz told me that Trump’s need for attention is “completely compulsive,” and that his bid for the Presidency is part of a continuum.[/b] “He’s managed to keep increasing the dose for forty years,” Schwartz said. After he’d spent decades as a tabloid titan, “the only thing left was running for President. If he could run for emperor of the world, he would.”[/quote] [quote]In “The Art of the Deal,” Trump describes Roy Cohn, his personal lawyer, in the warmest terms, calling him “the sort of guy who’d be there at your hospital bed . . . literally standing by you to the death.” Cohn, who in the fifties assisted Senator Joseph McCarthy in his vicious crusade against Communism, was closeted. He felt abandoned by Trump when he became fatally ill from AIDS, and said, “Donald pisses ice water.” Schwartz says of Trump, [b]“He’d like people when they were helpful, and turn on them when they weren’t. It wasn’t personal. He’s a transactional man—it was all about what you could do for him.”[/b][/quote] [quote]In December of 1987, a month after the book was published, Trump hosted an extravagant book party in the pink marble atrium of Trump Tower . . . the next day, when [Schwarts] and Trump spoke on the phone. After chatting briefly about the party, [b]Trump informed Schwartz that, as his ghostwriter, he owed him for half the event’s cost, which was in the six figures.[/b] Schwartz was dumbfounded. “He wanted me to split the cost of entertaining his list of nine hundred second-rate celebrities?”[/quote] I'm totally digressing, but I found this article really interesting and very telling of Trump's personality. And people trust [i]him[/i] more than Hillary? He's a complete sociopath.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50795433]I'm curious as to why you need to amend the constitution to allow for gay marriage. The constitution already allows it in the first place.[/QUOTE] It would pretty much guarantee for gay marriage to never be outlawed in any US state. Federal law can always be changed or removed, but changing or removing Constitutional Amendment in USA? Never been done.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;50795564]It would pretty much guarantee for gay marriage to never be outlawed in any US state. Federal law can always be changed or removed, but changing or removing Constitutional Amendment in USA? Never been done.[/QUOTE] What is the 21st Amendment?
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50795569]What is the 21st Amendment?[/QUOTE] My bad, just Googled that. Never knew manufacturing and sale of alcohol was Constitutionally banned. Still, making is Constitutional Amendment is an extra safety net to protect gay marriage. There's a good reason why many European countries banned gay marriage Constitutionally, it makes it almost impossible to repeal the ban.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;50795598]My bad, just Googled that. Never knew manufacturing and sale of alcohol was Constitutionally banned. Still, making is Constitutional Amendment is an extra safety net to protect gay marriage. There's a good reason why many European countries banned gay marriage Constitutionally, it makes it almost impossible to repeal the ban.[/QUOTE] It makes it impossible up until it gets popular support, like in Spain, United Kingdom or Ireland. I'd still be very fearful of letting the Republicans have control over the Supreme Court - they could very well overturn the Gay Marriage decision, considering their manifesto.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;50793233]You really think he'll bathe the world in nuclear hellfire because someone made fun of his hands?[/QUOTE] Here is a scenario : Trump attempts to remake iran nuclear deal despite it having no glaring issues. Trump threatens to nuke iran if they dont do what he wants since he has poor diplomatic skills. Iran is forced to actually develop nuclear weapons out of self protection. Depending on how the last step went, iran may already get attacked by the us, maybe even nuked, or if not, iran now has nuclear weapons
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50795456]The issue is that he said that 16 years ago. I personally don't think that what someone said over five years ago reflects what they now think, unless it's been consistent. Times change and so do people. The problem with Trump is his inconsistency. He may have been in favor of it back then, but he now says so many things without meaning it that I don't know where his stance is on it -- nobody does. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] In writing my last post, since I'm constrained by the truth, I was doing some research on Trump and found the [url=http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all]ghostwriter for "Art of the Deal" denouncing Trump[/url] with many very interesting tidbits about his personality. I'm totally digressing, but I found this article really interesting and very telling of Trump's personality. And people trust [i]him[/i] more than Hillary? He's a complete sociopath.[/QUOTE] That was not the question though... The question was who was pro gay marriage first and is it factual to say trump was consistently against it... And in that context hillary comes out woefully behind. The reason i trust trump more is because hillary is far more competent, they are both very dangerous in their own merits but one is hallowed by her party as the second coming and no opposition will be tolerated and the other is a blubbering baffoon that is begrudgingly given the nomination while a snickering, trolling anti establishment majority voted him in... Rather have the second one and 4 years of trump antics embarrassment of the nation while he cannot get any compromise to pass if his life depended on it... His ego wont allow anything but complete victory and he is in a hostile political environment. Trust me, on my life... Those launch codes are staying inside the football. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;50795433]I'm curious as to why you need to amend the constitution to allow for gay marriage. The constitution already allows it in the first place.[/QUOTE] To make it impossible for retardicans to repeal the vote willy nilly.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50795943]The reason i trust trump more is because hillary is far more competent, they are both very dangerous in their own merits but one is hallowed by her party as the second coming and no opposition will be tolerated and the other is a blubbering baffoon that is begrudgingly given the nomination while a snickering, trolling anti establishment majority voted him in... Rather have the second one and 4 years of trump antics embarrassment of the nation while he cannot get any compromise to pass if his life depended on it... His ego wont allow anything but complete victory and he is in a hostile political environment. Trust me, on my life... Those launch codes are staying inside the football.[/QUOTE] 4 years (or even 8) will be wasted. this is valuable time that could be spent on trying to save the environment, improve lgbt rights, fix the economy, reform law, etc if people vote in trump we'll see a stagnation of these at best. at a time when things like global warming have to be taken seriously, having an anti-intellectual president who thinks global warming is a chinese hoax in power will make your grandchildren really fucking resent you
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.