Deleted User Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 I understand that you disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage, but I haven't particularly seen you provide any compelling reason. It seems to me that if 5 Supreme Court justices (including a conservative) supported the notion that it's protected under the Constitution, then that conclusion probably isn't as far-fetched as your behavior suggests. Regardless, we've already gone through all the proper channels. You act as if it would be appalling for your friends to be upset with you for wanting to delay the issue even more, but you're the one trying to put their lives on hold for no particularly good reason. Not everyone welcomes hatred. Many of us are just trying to live our lives. I'll address the rest of your post later on, but you obviously don't get what I'm saying. I don't disagree with the ruling. The reason it should not have been made though, is quite simple. The role of the supreme court is and always has been specifically to interpret the constitution. The issue of same sex marriage is NO WHERE specified in the constitution, therefore it is not their duty to make such a decision. Enacting nationwide same sex marriage to be legal is akin to writing legislature, something which is left to... y'know the legislative branch, not the JUDICIAL, not the EXECUTIVE (as the Obama administration might have you believe), the LEGISLATIVE. By taking this power out of the hands of the states, the Supreme court is going beyond their boundaries and enacting legislation across the country. The 'Conservative' Justice which voted with the 4 liberal ones was Kennedy. Who's consistently been the swing vote, and relatively moderate voter. The Supreme Court has had unwritten guidelines that it should have 4 liberals 4 conservatives and the moderate likely swing vote. Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas were the conservative justices. In the past, presidents I believe certainly tried to maintain this balance in order to preserve the will and integrity of the people in a sense. It's certainly not appalling, I just believe in the foundation that this country was built on, the constitution. Which does appear to hold much weight compared to personal opinions in today's modern society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) The Supreme Court did interpret the Constitution. The way they interpreted it implies that the legal status of same-sex marriage was an effect of existing laws/amendments, not a new piece of legislation. Those existing laws/amendments are just now being properly enforced. Edited March 5, 2016 by Eviora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 5, 2016 Author Share Posted March 5, 2016 Fair argument - but it's very paper-thin. Firstly, there is no direct amendment that addresses any form of marriage in the first place. What this means is, their interpretation of the Constitution in this case caused the effect of legislation from the bench. There's no national law on marriage - but the first inkling of it now after this case is this - you better not say one can't marry those of the same sex. Secondly, this civil rights case differs then those about race or gender in that it holds genuine implications on the dissenters' first amendment right to advocate a marriage deemed appropriate by God as a part of free exercise - and practice their faith in adherence to whatever Scripture they use. Meaning, the result is that officials that were not voted on by the American people changed the legislature of the country. That isn't the job of a Supreme Court justice either way you slice it, and it removed 'We the People' from the democratic process. That's referred to as 'judicial activism' and it's BAD Constitutional interpretation regardless of the positives and negatives the resulting ruling brings. This left the Constitution in a horrible predicament that has been followed by various assaults on religious adherents' first amendment rights in protection of LGBT members' fourteenth amendment rights - and vise versa. Since the 1st Amendment directly includes the phrase "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" with regard to religious liberty - you can't adequately remove the Church from such a state issue when it crosses into violating a theists' 1st amendment rights. That's why passing an amendment to the Constitution is tenfold more of a better approach and why personally - I don't mind if this case is overturned until it happens. I can tell you this vote that -would- directly affect my friends in the LGBT community. If the time ever comes to vote on a marriage amendment, and it included the protection of rights for same-sex couples - I would vote 'YEA' - despite it being deemed a sin to engage in homosexual acts. I understand you're not as confident in the American government as I am, but I'm a little surprised seeing as the Democrats are the more stable of the two parties and they support much of your favored legislature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Oh, I wouldn't be opposed to such an amendment for clarity's sake. But I'm afraid it's your argument that's paper thin. The first amendment protections for the free exercise of religion end where other people's rights begin. If you truly value completely free exercise for ALL religions you'd have to allow for ones that involve all sorts of lawbreaking. Literally any act would be on the table as long as you could justify it with "'cause my religion says so". Some religions discriminate based on sex and/or gender. Slave owners used to use the Bible as justification. As such, there is no meaningful difference between this civil rights case and those that came before it. Of course, people are free to say whatever they want about marriage - they just don't get to force it upon everyone else in their state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 6, 2016 Author Share Posted March 6, 2016 Except for the fact that without a Constitutional amendment the only thing stopping the states from having same-sex marriage bans voted on -IS- this court ruling and -not- a law! That's because the 10th amendment would be the closest thing to national marriage laws in the country - and it has absolutely nothing to do with marriage and instead gives unspecified powers in the Constitution to the states. That's why until last summer, Marriage bans were very much constitutional. While slave owners have used the Bible to defend slavery the closest CONSTITUTIONAL protection of slave ownership was found in the 10th Amendment - which, like marriage, has absolutely nothing to do with slavery. I'm keeping my Bible on the shelf here - the Constitutional analysis clearly shows that there -are- religious liberties at the national level and there is -NOT- a definition of marriage to enforce upon the nation in the Constitution at all. In reality, it's YOUR "right to marry one of the same sex" that doesn't actually exist and only seems like it does because of the limitations the Supreme Court put on the 10th amendment right for the states to BAN some forms of marriage. This is a problem that Chief Justice Roberts cited in his dissenting opinion in Obergefell. The supporters don't really GET a bookend on the issue because the Court closed it for them - while in the process of robbing the American people of being a part of the outcome. Again, the job of a Supreme Court Justice is -not- to legislate from the bench. As to rights being limited. Yes they are. For example, domestic Muslim terrorists can't legally wage jihad against the United States because it violates their victims' WRITTEN right to life and is seen as an act of treason - regardless of the viable argument that prohibiting jihad is an infringement on the Muslims' first amendment rights. Yet again, the right to marry one of the same sex is NOT written - so there is no "right of others" present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 It looks more like the right to marry one of the same sex does exist based on the fact that it's being done in 50 states. But I certainly would support an amendment legalizing same-sex marriage for the extra protection it would offer. You can keep saying "Constitutional analysis this" and "written law that" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that it's basic decency, not the Constitution, that entitles people to the rights I describe. And denying them those rights for any reason, including reverence to that document, is equally harmful. Discrimination is discrimination, even if it's written into some state level definitions, and human rights are intrinsic within any meaningful conception of morality, not subject to the whims of any entity. No amount of conservative propaganda negates the harm you do by trying to cut off people's rights in pursuit Constitutionality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 6, 2016 Author Share Posted March 6, 2016 First of all, I'm not going to rehash the morality argument again. Thanks for the laugh though. Secondly, I'm not opposed to amending the Constitution to where your rights are protected - so if anyone out there is reading my responses and is casting me as someone who is remotely interested in doing so, you are misinterpreting my intent. However, I find it humanly indecent of the Supreme Court to deny my voice when it comes to the governance of this country. I find it humanly indecent for government power to be abused in any direction of the political spectrum, including my beloved conservative approach. I find it humanly indecent when someone outstretches their bounds and then doesn't do their part to clean up their own mess. This was never about abolishing the Obergefell ruling. This is about making the Constitution a respectable document that looks out for ALL of it's citizens against abusive government action. I'm sorry that an issue so important to you came through abusive government, but if you care about human rights - the right to free exercise is also a human right. The notion that you absolutely need to defend this broken court decision to reach your goal is incorrect. We can do this the right way - and it's this kind of thinking that will forever inadvertently leave the LBGT community and the Religious Right on the offensive with no real peace. Keep it up, Lib. I'll be at the table waiting to work with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 (edited) We can do this the right way - and it's this kind of thinking that will forever inadvertently leave the LBGT community and the Religious Right on the offensive with no real peace. Keep it up, Lib. I'll be at the table waiting to work with you. No you won't. We've already done this through the court system - one of the proper channels. SCOTUS was far from the first court to arrive at the ruling it did. Instead of being at the table, you're trying to invalidate the fruits of our efforts because they don't fit into your personal view of how the Constitution should be interpreted. And, incidentally, I won't take the bait by reciprocating your ruder comments. Edited March 6, 2016 by Eviora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 6, 2016 Author Share Posted March 6, 2016 The proper channel for LAWMAKING is the LEGISLATIVE branch. What the Supreme Court did was a step forward for one side that was achieved through erroneous methods. I can at least admit it was a step forward. This isn't a personal view of the Constitution. Justices do not make laws. Period. End of the discussion. Please stop trying to falsely incriminate others simply because their view doesn't match yours and you feel threatened by people that disagree with you. Back to your scheduled PRIMARY RACE discussion - Cruz has officially won Kansas and Maine. Trump and Clinton take Louisiana, and Sanders takes Nebraska. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 (edited) The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they struck down some they deemed unconstitutional. As you know. Edited March 6, 2016 by Eviora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosesong Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 Ok, reminder to all participants of this thread that the purpose is to discuss the Presidential Primaries. Should you wish to discuss other things, like the Supreme Court's role in the legalization of marriage equality, you need to make a new thread. Thanks, and back to the regularly scheduled programming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 6, 2016 Author Share Posted March 6, 2016 Thank you, Rose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickCrash Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 To prevent this from turning into a flame war again, I'd encourage you to continue the discussion in personal messages. As Jericho meme'd this is going in loops. The thread will lose interest with limited political discussion, but Rose is correct here, the roles of the Supreme Court are not connected to the original discussion. As for the Trump video, the elections have significance. People are not that naive or simpleminded to think decide on a whim. If that were correct, I'd suggest dropping every other notion and turn education free for all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 6, 2016 Author Share Posted March 6, 2016 Paths to the nomination: Clinton - The Former Secretary of State doesn't have to change what she is doing. Her popularity with minority voters will carry her in the south and west to several state victories and her common sense liberalism will look very attractive to the super-delegates she's been able to steal from Sanders - even in states Sanders has been winning. So long as she maintains a sizable lead over her challenger, those supers won't flip on her and she should be the Democratic nominee. She needs to train her eyes on the Republican candidates and start gravitating back to the shallow left - and at this point, not only Mr. Trump, but also Senator Cruz - as Ted and Co. have a possibility of causing Donald to fall short of the delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination and the RNC may determine another candidate as opposed to Trump. Sanders - Bernie is quickly running out of time - and here's his predicament. Minority voters that are not college students are breaking massively for Clinton across all 50 states. Without puncturing that stronghold of Hillary's Sanders will lose states that have sizable minority populations easily - and Sanders needs to pull those upsets in order to make a case to Hillary's super-delegates and have them flip prior to the convention. If he can cause them to fiip - he can most certainly cause a convention vote and win the Democratic nomination - but he can't coast and expect to be leading Hillary in the electorate enough for that to matter. --- Trump - Trump is probably in the best spot any candidate in this election because he's the only Republican that can win with the needed delegates to secure the nomination before the convention. However, with three opponents going after him he doesn't have time to focus his fire at Hillary Clinton just yet. With a very splintered GOP - Trump needs to focus on knocking Senator Marco Rubio out of this race by winning the state of Florida and essentially solidifying a one on one against Ted Cruz. Doing so will put the establishment very much out of this race and will force them to either pick super-conservative Cruz or common-sense conservative himself and could possibly put Trump over the threshold he needs. Cruz - Senator Cruz is in the best spot for a Republican candidate not named Trump - and after his solid night last night, if he were able to win the state of Florida, he would once again be ahead of Trump in delegates as it's a Winner-take-all state. He's caught in a tough spot here however. If Rubio wins Florida, the other senator will stay in the race as the map looks friendlier to him. If Trump wins Florida however - yes, Marco should drop out - but Donald takes 99 delegates and expands his lead over Cruz going into to that same stretch. The Cruz camp wants the 1-on-1 with Donald, so they will be gunning to take votes away from Marco there, but they would benefit from either surprising the nation and stealing the Ohio primary on the same day from both Trump -and- Ohio Governor John Kasich - or at least helping Kasich win Ohio and stopping the bleeding. Rubio - If he doesn't win Florida, he needs to drop out of this race - and he's not even favored to do so. Kasich - John is actually a possible dark-horse for the upcoming Michigan primary - but he's so far behind in delegates to date that he needs to also win Ohio - a win that if he doesn't get he has said he would end his campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greed_Demon Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 we all know trump won this shit! he is playing all of the candidates like puppets. He may have the vocabulary of a fucking three year old but lets be honest here he is smarter than all of these robotic corporate tools. All he does is make the other candidates look like angry talking heads while he himself will look all rational and "real". I have watched all of those "debates" and you can literally see Trumps puppet strings controlling everybody. my favorite moments are ted cruz trying to stand up to donald but instead gets smacked down looking like a sad puppy. No WONDER this guy might be our president! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 8, 2016 Author Share Posted March 8, 2016 Someone who talks tough doesn't automatically make a debate won my friend. Last night, Senator Marco Rubio picked up the territory of Puerto Rico, and Senator Bernie Sanders won the state of Maine almost 2-to-1. The Democrats also had a debate on Sunday - and it was a good debate between the two candidates, but not a very good debate for the Democratic voter base, who perhaps wanted to see more contrasts from Hillary with the Republican P Speaking of Flint - that city has been dealing with a toxic water crisis due to the negligence of several local and state government officials. The city was told it was safe by the state to swap water sources from Lake Huron to the local Flint River to cut down transport costs multiple times by their government officials and the result was a high increase of lead poisoning that has resulted in various negative effects in Flint, from stunted growth, to poisoning. Both Clinton and Sanders called for the governor of Michigan - a Republican - to resign or be fired - but both were very hesitant to condemn failures that were also brought about by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - a national government body responsible for protecting the United States against environmental crises. This was the most disappointing moment of the debate for me - because this is a purely ideological hesitation on both candidates' accounts. The EPA is a target of frustration by Republicans due to being a part of "Big Government" and is something GOPers claim can be handled by the states. If you can so boldly claim the state governments are to be shaken up following a crisis, do the same for the national government bodies as well, Dems. Consistency is a huge plus regardless of political placement. Another disappointing exchange was a question raised about racial blindness both candidates may have - as the FBI head claimed "Everyone is a little bit racist". I don't know how the question was supposed to be answered, but Clinton's answer didn't reveal her own blind spots and the question had to be asked twice by the moderator - while Sanders beat around the bush and pointed out the racial blindness of Washington D.C. taxi drivers as opposed to himself. I do understand the risks of answering the question too boldly - such as saying "I still hold a degree of racism towards stereotypical looking African Americans" - due to such an answer being detrimental (especially for Sanders) to garnering votes from that voter bloc - but it was a sheer reminder that establishment or not, both candidates know how to evade questions. The biggest winner of the night however, may have been Donald Trump - even though he was touched on at the end of the debate. Because of the fire being mostly concentrated at each other, the Republican whose success can also be attributed to the Democrats voting in open primaries was able to avoid taking many blows at all. Some Democrats are worried that the Republicans legitimately do have the cross-over votes going their favor because Trump appears to be the most moderate candidate in the race.arty as opposed to Sanders and Clinton locking horns. Bernie had a great debate in that he was able to challenge Hillary - and perhaps the most alarming to me as a potential reluctant Hillary voter in November - Bernie Sanders made much more sense than she throughout the night. Hillary was able to nail Sanders on several issues where he may not have been as "leftist" as he claims, and it amounted to another "Which is the bigger progressive" debate instead of a capitalized chance for Hillary to look presidential. Starting with gun control issues - Hillary Clinton looked to be even more to the left than Bernie did, supporting (In my opinion wrongfully) the ability to sue and hold gunmakers accountable for deliberate mass shootings. Sanders, who had voted against such legislature in the Senate, defended his vote by saying that holding gun manufacturers liable for murders virtually leads to the stoppage of gun manufacturing in America. In this instance, Sanders was able to gain a lot of personal respect points from me - a conservative looking to avoid a Trump disaster if possible. Sanders also was able to provide a much more understandable answer to a question about fracking. In this instance, Hillary seemed to support limited fracking depending on the environment regulations (which she did cause me to deem as reasonable as a conservative) that are put in place and took a very long time beating around the bush to reach a conclusion that indicated as such. Sanders just went for the jugular - "Anderson, let me give you a much shorter answer - No, I do not support fracking." Although Sanders and I disagree on this issue, I do hold value in the straight answer and wish the candidates would be more direct. However, Sanders also lost some points when Clinton was able to nail him to voting AGAINST the bailout of the auto industry - especially with his answer of advocating the stock markets themselves should have been responsible for fixing the auto industry. In Michigan - where the debate was held (Flint, MI) - the auto industry is a huge moneymaker and job creator in the state - and I would assume Democrats are looking for a candidate that would be willing to help that industry out. --- Donald Trump's three major success points: The Early Voter: One of the major claims about Trump supporters is that they are very hard to dissuade. This has translated into the Donald hammering his opponents in entry polls throughout the race - and has caused much of his success in the days leading to the day of the primary as opposed to the day of. Trump's army of supporters tends to vote early - and his opponents tend to make significant gains late. See Marco Rubio's stopped-short surge in Virginia, or Ted Cruz's storm in what looked to be a landslide victory earlier on in Louisiana. The next state up, Michigan, has to be leery of a strong late deciding bid for John Kasich - as it currently looks like another big win for Trump...for now. The Conservative/"Reagan" Democrat - otherwise known as Nixon's "Silent Majority": "Conservative" and "Democrat" are two things you probably don't usually put together in today's political map, and with due respect to history, they weren't two things you generally put together during the election victories of Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon either - but Reagan and Nixon were able to receive voter's aid from many right-leaning Democrats throughout their campaigns. If you take a look at a recent support sign Trump supporters have...: ...you'll see a reference to the "silent majority" - a group of people President Nixon referred to as -not- being a part of the times' counterculture movements and did not oppose the Vietnam War. Trump's greatest successes come during primaries that are referred to as "Open" - meaning that Independents and Democrats are allowed to pick up Republican ballots and vote in Republican primaries in this case. Reagan Democrats are typically much more conservative than their more vocal liberal brethren - with strong vested interests in strong national security and immigration (which is the "it" issue in the Trump campaign!), along with possible social issues such as the protection of religious liberty. Roughly 1/5th of voters that identify as Democrat also identify as "Pro-Life", which is a rough estimate of how many "moderate" Democrats that are willing to support Republicans should the rhetoric of their nominee be too divisive to include that voter's concerns. With regards to the bluster of Trump's campaign - the "silent" majority would be a very fitting cause for concern for the #NeverTrump movement as well as the Democratic Party. Trump's vocal voters have done a good job of giving what appears to be an apparent limit on support for right now, but at the same time he has drawn many new Republican votes. This could be the key group that stiffly challenges Hillary (or Bernie) for the general election should Trump win. The "Primary" States: The third and final bit of evidence for Trump's success is that he is extremely more proficient in primary states as opposed to caucus states - Nevada notwithstanding. Primaries favor the "Get in, vote, get out" nature and favor those who wish to vote in secret as opposed to being caught standing in a group of supporters at a full caucus. The caucus system is a bit more aggressive and out in the open - lasting for several hours and allowing for candidates' representatives to meet with voters to sway them from other candidates and sell their own. Trump voters in primary states don't feel the pressure of having to answer for some of Trump's weaker (or more brash) statements and positions, and thus it's more inviting to support Trump at a private voting primary than it is to do so at a caucus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monochrome_Complex Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) Trump winning is like the ultimate downer ending. Zero good will come out of it and it'll make Bush era look like the golden years Real talk: people who want Trump to win presidency are either shortsighted fools or filthy bigots. And TBH I don't think he'll win presidency nor deserves to for multiple reasons, for one because he'll run into a similar problem(among others) Romney had: only whites(generally speaking, of course there's nonwhites as well but much fewer in comparison) are really interested in voting him(appealing to racist white grandparents won't win you presidencies anymore) and he's turning off way too many non-whites, particularity Latinos(Mexicans especially HATE this dude, and for good reason lol) and Blacks(mainly due to his disgusting supporters) which are becoming more crucial demographics in elections with each passing year. White voters are so split usually that getting a big majority is tough and simply not reliable enough to guarantee a win, something Republicans realize more and more but utterly fail to grasp how to do. They know Trump isn't the way to do this though which is another reason why they're so against him being the pres candidate,as it only further alienates these demographics in future elections, since you'll suffer the (continued)stigma of being a party for regressive white bigots. And Lol @ silent majority. There's a very particular group of people who call themselves that and let's be real, they fit EXACTLY into the point I'm talking about. Edited March 10, 2016 by Monochrome_Complex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 11, 2016 Author Share Posted March 11, 2016 Yes, Trump doesn't bode well with minorities. I think with regards to Donald, the more correct assertion is that they are actually shortsighted as opposed to bigoted - unless you want to assert that the Democratic Party is more bigoted than the Republican Party... I would be inclined to agree that Mr. Trump does perhaps the strongest in the Dixieland area, but it isn't the Republican Party that should be blamed for his success. 43% of Trump voters are registered Democrats. 40% are undecided. 36% are Independents, and 29% of Trump voters are actually listed as Republicans. (the following percentages are indicative of Trump's share of all self-identifying GOPers - which means they would tell you that they are Republicans by may not be necessarily registered as such.) Maybe they are silent because their colleagues are supporting genuine LIBERAL politicians and are being vocal about it - while the voters themselves genuinely disagree. The highest percentage of Trump voters actually claim that they are Republicans and are -actually- registered in the party of Hillary and Bernie. If Trump can swipe a significant amount of voters away from the Democrats - that's something that the Democratic Party should be leery of should he win the nomination. There's also the opposite, that Republicans are also genuinely leery about. Meet Ross Perot, the super rich Texan that ran the most successful third party campaign ever - knocking Republican George H. W. Bush out in favor of Bill Clinton. Mr. Trump - should he defect and run Independent or even WIN and cause the Republicans to find a surrogate third partier of their own - fits the bill. Be it smart approach from the Democrats in exploiting their rival party by throwing their weight to support their own candidate, or be it people that are genuinely ditching the Dems in order to 'Make America Great Again' - the Blues are the ones most responsible for Trump's success. Yes, Trump polls strongly among low-educated voters, but the race would genuinely look a lot closer if all primaries were closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Or it could be that Democratic voters are temporarily switching sides to vote for Trump in the primary in order to sabotage the Republicans in November. Or maybe people just like Trump 'cause he's an anti-establishment reality TV star. It's hard to determine exactly what's going on. Instead of making poorly-supported claims about who is responsible for Trump's success and sparking a tangential debate that you may later call on a moderator to quell, maybe you should stick strictly to the topic at hand. If nothing else, I imagine we can all agree that Rubio is done. =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 12, 2016 Author Share Posted March 12, 2016 Excuse you? I have never called on a moderator to quell anything. I warmly embrace debate so long as it stays is in the ballpark or isn't intended to damage another person's image. Ask around, I enjoy argument. Those points are not poorly substantiated. I never said the Trump voting Democrats had a particular motive - just that they were there. I also said that his voters tend to vote early and are stronger in primary states as opposed to caucus states. Check any major news source. Check any given data. Listen to Trump's claims about his campaign. "We're bringing in many new people." - the real world that actually exists supports my claims. I've thought Rubio is done for a while now. --- Speaking of Trump, how about that Chicago rally that got shut down. On the one hand, I can appreciate the protester's right to to their own 1st amendment rights - but it's a beautiful illustration of where rights need to be limited. No right should limit the rights of others or contradict each other. Not only was Mr. Trump robbed of a right to speak tonight - but the people that bought a ticket (supporter to opposed non-violent listener) were also robbed of the right to listen and decide for themselves. Trump is also responsible for incendiary rhetoric that has proven to have escalated with each rally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted User Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Trump was not robbed of the right to speak tonight. He chose not to speak for fear of his own well being. Harming Trump is not their right no matter how much any of those protestors disagree with him. I'd like to know if there were any immediate threats made known to Donald and company prior to the event, or if it was just speculation by Trump, his team, and the secret service. If there were, then Donald was threatened and those responsible should face punishment. The ruling on the right of free speech is null at the point of imminent lawless action. This includes threats of violence, or the intent to incite violent acts from others. If there was no such threat made, then he just got stage fright, but in all honesty I don't think that to be the case. Protesting is one thing, making threats of violence is not ok. Before you go spewing your holier than thou mantra about how Trump supports torture or warfare, every single candidate in this race does in some form or another, it comes with the territory of being a politician. Is it justified or not? That's for you to decide and a whole different argument which truthfully is more a philosophical one than a political one. Note: Trumps says "I didn't want to see anyone get hurt." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 12, 2016 Author Share Posted March 12, 2016 There was actually a Facebook image rolling around that anyone that manages to kill Trump in Chicago would have their bond paid for by a GoFundMe account. Given that a large scale protest followed such image (which looked rather harmless in itself) - I wouldn't put it past anyone if there was a genuine threat of violence had Trump showed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mde2001 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Excuse you? I have never called on a moderator to quell anything. I warmly embrace debate so long as it stays is in the ballpark or isn't intended to damage another person's image. Ask around, I enjoy argument. I can definitely confirm that Hunter likes argument. I've had quite a few arguments him over politics in the past, and they're usually pretty enjoyable. Honestly, in terms of the actual politics, I'm more likely to agree with you Evoria, than I am with Hunter, but you really shouldn't accuse Hunter of getting a moderator to quell debate. Rose was just reminding people that it is important to stay on topic in a thread and the supreme court's jurisdiction over legalizing same sex marriage isn't particularly relevant to this topic specifically. In terms of Donald Trump getting threats- I have to admit I am disgusted. I loathe Trump, but I still think it is completely unacceptable that he was unable to speak because of potential violence. People of both sides should be mature enough to be able to protest without resorting to threats of harm. The people who are doing this are losing all of their moral high ground by deciding that they will be idiots rather than convey their displeasure in a more responsible way. There are so many reasonable grounds to attack Trump's policy on that it just shows lack of awareness to decided that brute strength is the only way to express yourself. I really hope Trump doesn't win. I can't stand him as a person or a candidate but that is no reason to threaten to protest violently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 15, 2016 Author Share Posted March 15, 2016 The the victor go the spoils. The unfortunate GOP candidate that won Washington D.C. was none other than Marco Rubio. Wyoming also began distributing delegates on Saturday - with Ted Cruz garnering 9 of the it's initial 12 in what was a landslide initial voting process. Rubio and Donald Trump each picked up one a piece. Cruz also picked up one of Guam's delegates - with the rest remaining undecided. Perhaps most telling of Saturday's voting was that Trump finished extremely poorly. In D.C. - he barely edged out Ted Cruz to avoid dead last (which isn't very surprising). Wyoming favored Cruz immensely, as Ted is the only candidate to have campaigned in the state. Marco Rubio came in a distant second over the national front-runner, again putting Donald in 3rd place. John Kasich finished in a very competitive second place in D.C., but floundered elsewhere, only picking up delegates in the District of Columbia contest. --- The Democratic Party also had a contest, with Hillary Clinton proving her might in distant territories over Bernie Sanders. The battleground on Saturday was the Northern Mariana Islands, near Guam. --- Bernie Sanders has officially been introduced into the Republican "Wrestlemania" atmosphere that Donald Trump dominates - following a rather one-sided statement from the Bern that instead of rightly disavowing his "supporters" at the Trump rally fiasco in Chicago was used as a semi-rightly attack on Trump himself. Trump in return began to mock Sanders as he addressed the now commonplace protesters at his rallies following Friday night, addressing them as "Bernie's people" and pointing out campaign gear from the Vermont Senator in the crowds. Bernie - and fellow Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton - both laid the entirety of the blame at Donald Trump's feet for his violent dynamic - along with Republican rivals Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich to a fair extent. Sanders is likely to become a constant target of Trump's. The liberal protesters have long been a staple at Trumps rallies now, so it will be interesting to see if the Bern continues to try and motivate the base while in Trump's crosshairs or if his supporters hurt him as he tries to overtake Hillary for the Democratic nomination. Marianas - Clinton Wyoming - Cruz Washington D.C. - Rubio Guam - Cruz* --- So, it's the eve of 'Super Tuesday II' - and the bell may be tolling for two more GOP candidates this time around. I do have a bit of an open letter here though. My primary vote went to one of the gentlemen whose campaign is on life support - and in the wake of the absolute madness that has ensued the weekend leading up to this morning I can firmly say I am proud to have cast that vote, no matter how irrelevant it may have been even within the boundaries of the Lone Star State. Two, maybe even three years ago - if you were looking for the next maverick conservative to potentially ascend to the White House, Marco Rubio was the guy I had my hopes on. My first encounter with Rubio's presence was in - I believe - 2013, when he gave the GOP's response to President Obama's 'State of the Union' address that year. For those of you that don't know, the party-out-of-power gets the follow up speech - usually from a separate location - after the active President on a yearly basis. That year, the Grand 'Ole Party tapped the Florida senator, who had been sitting in his chair after pulling a upset, come-from-behind victory for it only two years prior, barely approaching the 40 year old threshold. The theme of his rebuttal - was the problems associated with a country that was quickly witnessing a growing federal government body. In that speech, on television, he committed the deadly sin of stopping mid speech and reaching for a water bottle, resuming only after taking a sip. At the time, it was humorous because the camera was very close on his face and it made him look goofy and uncomfortable. It also made him look human. Humility is a value that if I didn't take on, I would be a very monstrous person and would try to spin every mistake as a "win" (Sound like one of the other people running for Republican Party?) rather than learn, apologize, and repent. and the left would take that incriminating water lunge as the epitome of it's rival party. Amidst the laughter, I came to respect the following efforts the Floridian made as a legislator. Senator Ted Cruz's favorite attack against Marco during this election cycle for example, is on what is known as the 'Gang of Eight' bill. The bill focused on a comprehensive immigration reform that included a path to citizenship, more security, and fast tracking skilled immigrants to citizenship. The immigration bill has yet to pass the House and it's uncertain it will make it to the House floor. The eight draftees of the bill were split down the middle of the two parties - 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats - with Rubio being one of the four GOP reps. It was as if Henry Clay had risen from the grave and taught today's government officials a lesson in one of the most important tools anyone aspiring to make it big in Washington should have - Compromise. The bill has not succeeded, as it's predecessor in 2007, to this point. It has cleared the Senate floor, but it is unknown if the House of Representatives will even consider it. To be quite fair here, this is where Republicans - like Senator Ted Cruz - have been very finicky and the pursuit of the most conservative policy regarding immigration is to be blamed for stalling. It's become a damning mark on Rubio's campaign that he even dared to rub elbows with Democrats in order to pass such a bill considering the issue is a hot button one for the right, but it's one that personally, I will always respect. Marco Rubio - when he announced his bid for the presidency as I figured he would watching that rebuttal to the SOTU address in 2013 - was the embodiment of hope that we would find a Republican that would make conservatism a passable, attractive viewpoint to have for more people and would encourage everyone in Washington to work together after years of Republicans committing the political equivalent of streaking 100 yards down the football field and Democrats misinterpreting bi-partisanship as blackmailing conservatives with the help of today's no-compromise social justice agenda and sizable left wing base. I pulled the lever for someone that shares my values and my love for all people of this country. I pulled the lever for someone that is a true patriot, and I pulled the lever for someone who cared about being constructive as opposed to obstructive. My hopes rest on a senator [Cruz] who shares my values, and isn't well liked in Washington -because- he is willing to obstruct in the name of conservatism. Such daring has it's place - but his electability hinges on him being willing to make sacrifices. Sacrifices I know Rubio would have made (and perhaps in the greatest long shot, still can make) if he were to become President of the United States of America. I am content, regardless of how badly Donald Trump may beat him in his home state, with Marco Rubio as my representative in this GOP race. Never more so than when he had the guts to openly say that it was "getting harder every day" to support Trump. I'm not beholden to the Republican Party. I'm beholden to the principles that made America great - which means Hillary Clinton does have a point when she says Trump is off the mark in asserting he's going to make it so "again." Never more so than when he had the guts to say he would stay in the race even after a potential egg-laying at home for the sole purpose of doing everything he can to ensure Donald Trump doesn't become President. Foolhardy for the party? Perhaps. It doesn't matter to me, as it is well with my soul. Thank you Senator Rubio for being bold and for inspiring me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 (edited) So ends Marco Rubio's presidential bid. Clinton and Trump are starting to look really, really inevitable. Edited March 16, 2016 by Eviora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.