Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

1…193194196198199…330

Comments

  • #5852
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,732 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Indeed. Let's forget that The Donald was having regular sex with a porn star while his wife was giving birth to his son. And that he subsequently cheated on his wife and the porn star by having regular sex with a model. Admirable.

    How was he cheating on the porn star? Explain?


  • #5853
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,379 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    markodaly wrote: »
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Indeed. Let's forget that The Donald was having regular sex with a porn star while his wife was giving birth to his son. And that he subsequently cheated on his wife and the porn star by having regular sex with a model. Admirable.

    How was he cheating on the porn star? Explain?
    You didn't hear of this? Amazing. It was all over the MSM.


  • #5854
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,379 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    markodaly wrote: »
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    So 78% of African American men disapprove of The Donald? That makes sense.

    If Minorities, even a minority of them are turning to the GOP rather then the Democrats, it is worrying in the long term for the Democrats.

    They have long alienated the white vote, especially the working class vote. If they start losing black and hispanic votes then they really need to change tact.

    Looking at 2018 polls for November, where they should be shoe in to regain control of Congress, they are actually behind.
    No. The Republicans are actually 6% behind the Democrats.


  • #5855
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,548 ✭✭✭weisses


    markodaly wrote: »
    If Minorities, even a minority of them are turning to the GOP rather then the Democrats, it is worrying in the long term for the Democrats.

    They have long alienated the white vote, especially the working class vote. If they start losing black and hispanic votes then they really need to change tact.

    Looking at 2018 polls for November, where they should be shoe in to regain control of Congress, they are actually behind.

    What have republicans done for the white working class ?

    Its Trump who appealed to them with vague promises he cannot keep, but I don't consider trump a republican


  • #5856
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,732 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    You didn't hear of this? Amazing. It was all over the MSM.

    I know the story, but it doesn't mention that he was cheating on the porn star.
    Or you like to make up a bit of fake news yourself?


  • Advertisement
  • #5857
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,732 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    No. The Republicans are actually 6% behind the Democrats.

    Link?


  • #5858
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,379 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    markodaly wrote: »
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    No. The Republicans are actually 6% behind the Democrats.

    Link?
    You first. You claimed the Republicans were ahead.


  • #5859
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,640 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    The sad part is, with the Gerrymmandering by the GOP, the Dems need to be 11% ahead, if memory serves me.


  • #5860
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,379 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    markodaly wrote: »
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    You didn't hear of this? Amazing. It was all over the MSM.

    I know the story, but it doesn't mention that he was cheating on the porn star.
    Or you like to make up a bit of fake news yourself?
    Ah calm down now. You're starting to sound like certain narcissist who also refuses to read the MSM. Let me help. Google Karen McDougal.


  • #5861
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,437 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    But isn't that what the "arch originalist" Scalia did with his finding in the Heller vs DC case 10 years ago?

    He introduced a completely new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that was totally different to how it had been viewed for the proceeding how ever many years.

    Did he? Was there any countervailing ruling? The whole point of Heller was that it was the first time that SCOTUS ever took a direct look at the issue. It would certainly not have been the first ruling by a court to grant an individual right to arms, for example, a Kentucky court ruled that a prohibition on a sword concealed in a cane violated the citizen’s right to bear arms back in 1822. (Being pre-incorporation, though. It relied on the slightly different State Constitution which said “keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State” )

    Many, many pages have been written on the subject, and oftentimes the result of any particular writing resulted in a conclusion which the author wanted to reach in the first place, or, perhaps better yet, the lens through which one views the ruling. If you are an originalist, you are going to look at it through an originalist lens and say “that’s exactly how originalism is supposed to work”, if a constructivist, “that is a case of constructivism”.

    Part of the problem is that our understanding of the country has morphed over the last 200 years, the way we think about life. Read the below through an originalist lens.

    200 years ago, the federal government was supposed to be very limited in scope and duty. The only purpose that the Federal Government may have had in an armed citizenry would be military, as issues like self defense were not the federal government’s concern. Similarly, the issue of overthrowing the government in 2A referred to the overthrowing the federal government. Incorporation, the idea that the Federal Constitution applied in any way to the States has not been invented yet, that was a post-war invention after the 14th Amendment. Further, the Bill of Rights did not grant rights, it was a list of rights in particular which already existed that the Federal Government could not touch, even under a Federal excuse. As a result, yes, someone in 1840 in, say, Pennsylvania had the right to free speech. But not because of the First Amendment, because the First Amendment had no legal influence over Pennsylvania law, the right of the Philadelphia Times to print what it wanted was protected by Article 1, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

    Heller almost came backwards. Thus, although the Fed 2A was intended to apply as a protection against the Federal Government actions, it came about as an individual claim against local government because of the nature of Washington DC, a special legal entity which had not been created at the time the Bill of Rights was written and which had no State identity. Thus, curiously, the nature of the right to arms to individuals had to be determined even before they needed to decide if the 2A needed to apply to the States. (Another reason that Heller was so closely watched, it was the first time SCOTUS had attempted to define a constitutional right from scratch in any form).

    So, back 200 years we go. Again, the point of view back then was that people had the rights from the get-go. Constitutions did not grant rights, it protected them. One of those pre-existing individual rights was the right to self defense. Thus, in 1792, when the Militia Act mandated that everyone have a gun suitable for military purposes, there was nothing in the act about only using them for militia purposes. It was a given that all those guns would be used, it didn’t have to be specified. What did have to be specified was that whatever else the guns were used for, they had to be militarily capable as that was at the time the only thing the Federal Government cared about. What folks did with guns on their own time was their concern, or the concern of the States. Hence you have phrases like Kentucky’s one above from 1792, or Vermont’s “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State” from 1777, which pre-dates the Federal Bill of Rights.

    From this perspective, absolutely Scalia is ruling from an originalist position. What did it mean 200 years ago, and what does the text say?

    Now, if you’re more of a constructivist, the idea of divorcing 2A from modern political/legislative realities is a bit odd and is obsolete. For some 150 years, we have become used to the Bill of Rights applying to all people and all governments, Federal, state and local, the idea that the federal government should not concern itself with the day to day business of people is a bit of an aberration. Ergo, the idea that one can look at 2A and come up with something counter to what “common sense” (at least from a constructivist perspective”) says and apparently read more into the right than the text says must surely be a case of creative constructionism itself, no?

    Of course, there is far, far more to it than just the above, and legal minds far greater than mine have been arguing over which method is more correct for years and will continue to do so. But there is little dissonance between Scalia’s Heller ruling and originalism, if you are looking at it as an originalist to begin with.
    What could the outcome be of a hypothetical referendum about the second amendment in the US? ..... Is there a clear majority either way you think ?

    Probably depends on the text of the referendum. The population of the US as a whole would probably split pretty close on a simple repeal, slightly leaning against. The populations of the States, however, I would expect to be very much a majority in favor of keeping it, or even strengthening it.


  • Advertisement
  • #5862
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,732 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Ah calm down now. You're starting to sound like certain narcissist who also refuses to read the MSM. Let me help. Google Karen McDougal.

    OK. Not sure what you are on about now.

    I get how he cheated on his wife with a porn star, yet you say he cheated on the porn star with someone else.

    Does that mean he was cheating on the porn star because he was married?
    I think you are very confused to what cheating is.


  • #5863
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,193 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    markodaly wrote: »
    OK. Not sure what you are on about now.

    I get how he cheated on his wife with a porn star, yet you say he cheated on the porn star with someone else.

    Does that mean he was cheating on the porn star because he was married?
    I think you are very confused to what cheating is.

    What is the point you are making?

    That as he was not in a legitimate relationship with the porn star he was cheating on his wife with it some how makes it better that he was also banging another woman on the side (at least)

    Or is it purely the pathetic semantic you are arguing?

    Either way it's not a good look tbh.

    No Donald did not cheat on the porn star, he simply cheated on his wife who had recently given birth to his child with a porn star, and at least one more women.

    Well done Donald

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • #5864
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,379 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    markodaly wrote: »
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Ah calm down now. You're starting to sound like certain narcissist who also refuses to read the MSM. Let me help. Google Karen McDougal.

    OK. Not sure what you are on about now.

    I get how he cheated on his wife with a porn star, yet you say he cheated on the porn star with someone else.

    Does that mean he was cheating on the porn star because he was married?
    I think you are very confused to what cheating is.
    I was being facetious when I said that The Donald was cheating on his pregnant wife when having an affair with a porn star and he cheated on the porn star by simultaneously having an affair with a model. Obviously this distinction is very important to you so, to clarify, he had an affair with a porn star and a model at the same time and at a time when his wife was pregnant and had just given birth.

    Any news on those polls showing the Republicans leading the Democrats?


  • #5865
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,930 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    I can't help but think that its the end game for this shítfest.

    The hysteria whipped up about "spygate" (ugh), the more blatant lies which contradict video footage, the obvious pardon messages, the Camp David retreat with his family (minus Melania who has gone missing!?!) and now the latest, a 20 page letter sent by Trump's lawyers to the Special Counsel's office wherein its claimed that basically, the President is above the law, the last bastion for someone who knows they are guilty... aka the Nixon defence. From the NYT..


    "President Trump’s lawyers have for months quietly waged a campaign to keep the special counsel from trying to force him to answer questions in the investigation into whether he obstructed justice, asserting that he cannot be compelled to testify and arguing in a confidential letter that he could not possibly have committed obstruction because he has unfettered authority over all federal investigations.

    In a brash assertion of presidential power, the 20-page letter — sent to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and obtained by The New York Times — contends that the president cannot illegally obstruct any aspect of the investigation into Russia’s election meddling because the Constitution empowers him to, “if he wished"

    I'm no legal expert but that's bullshít to me. It is clearly meant to impress those that still support him, despite everything.

    The question now is why Trump's lawyers have leaked this (because Mueller doesn't leak).

    It has to because subpoenas are close. Maybe Donny Jnr first.

    Btw, in usual Trump style, he has shot himself in the foot as the letter now admits what we knew all along but was denied, Trump senior wrote that statement about the Russia meeting in Trump Tower (as per Fire and Fury). This was denied 5 times(!) by Seculow and SHS.


  • #5866
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 8,045 ✭✭✭Christy42


    I am not sure of the legalities of that letter. On the chance that they argue it successfully it would be the end of any notion of checks and balances in the US. It would be carte blanch for the US president to do whatever they want and shut down any investigation.

    Italy still has issues politically which I feel stem from the mad power grab that comes from claiming immunity to investigations.

    Having said that Donald's lawyers have not managed a stellar record in court so far so I don't think it is likely they will win.


  • #5867
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,930 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Christy42 wrote: »
    I am not sure of the legalities of that letter. On the chance that they argue it successfully it would be the end of any notion of checks and balances in the US. It would be carte blanch for the US president to do whatever they want and shut down any investigation.

    Italy still has issues politically which I feel stem from the mad power grab that comes from claiming immunity to investigations.

    Having said that Donald's lawyers have not managed a stellar record in court so far so I don't think it is likely they will win.

    Article II, section 3 of the constitution says he should obey the law, so i think/hope its clear cut


  • #5868
    Hande hoche!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Hande hoche!


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »

    Any news on those polls showing the Republicans leading the Democrats?


    Will have a stab at answering this as remember it doing the rounds last week. It referred to a Reuters poll with less than 2000 responses. Think it was an outlier in general. Anyway here's a link to peruse.


    http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM1212Y17/type/week/filters/PD1:1/dates/20170601-20180523/collapsed/true


  • #5869
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,379 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Hande hoche! wrote: »
    Will have a stab at answering this as remember it doing the rounds last week. It referred to a Reuters poll with less than 2000 responses. Think it was an outlier in general. Anyway here's a link to peruse.


    http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM1212Y17/type/week/filters/PD1:1/dates/20170601-20180523/collapsed/true

    It is an outlier. Here is a poll of polls that shows the 6% gap I quoted.


  • #5870
    Hande hoche!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Hande hoche!


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    It is an outlier. Here is a poll of polls that shows the 6% gap I quoted.
    Considerable narrowing of the gap. Going to be an interesting midterm election.


  • #5871
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Hande hoche! wrote: »
    Considerable narrowing of the gap. Going to be an interesting midterm election.

    I think the Dems are going to be left disappointed.


  • Advertisement
  • #5872
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,379 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Hande hoche! wrote: »
    Considerable narrowing of the gap. Going to be an interesting midterm election.

    Well, not really. The current average is roughly the same as the 12 month average. It also includes quite a few Rasmussen polls which are notoriously pro GOP and The Donald. It certainly will be interesting. I hope the GOP is hammered but I'll take them losing the House and a loss in the Senate.


  • #5873
    Hande hoche!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Hande hoche!


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Well, not really. The current average is roughly the same as the 12 month average. It also includes quite a few Rasmussen polls which are notoriously pro GOP and The Donald. It certainly will be interesting. I hope the GOP is hammered but I'll take them losing the House and a loss in the Senate.
    Could see them losing the house or barely holding on. Have a perverse feeling that the Republicans will actually up their Senate majority.


  • #5874
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,379 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Hande hoche! wrote: »
    Could see them losing the house or barely holding on. Have a perverse feeling that the Republicans will actually up their Senate majority.

    Well, they elected The Donald so anything is possible. Hope you're wrong!


  • #5875
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,437 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    2/3 of the Senate seats up for re-election are Democrat. Of the 17 currently considered toss-ups, five are held by Republicans. A Republican gain in the Senate is far from unlikely. https://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/

    The figures are far less favorable in the House.


  • #5876
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I think the Dems are going to be left disappointed.


    Deservedly so. They have done practically nothing to take advantage of the chaos Trump has caused. Weak leader. Nothing to address the issues uncovered in the presidential race. No real challenge to Trumps lies and misinformation. They just seem spineless.


  • #5877
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,379 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Deservedly so. They have done practically nothing to take advantage of the chaos Trump has caused. Weak leader. Nothing to address the issues uncovered in the presidential race. No real challenge to Trumps lies and misinformation. They just seem spineless.

    Imagine if they were being led by Obama or Bill today.


  • #5878
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,193 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I think the Dems are going to be left disappointed.

    As is often the way, if there is a party that excels at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory it is the Democratic party

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • #5879
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,830 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Steve Bannon is still around, doing an interview with Fareed Zhakara on a CNN "special". As I've just switched the TV on, the interview has been on for some time now and is in an Ad break. Fareed say's he's going to ask Steve in the next part if the GOP took over Don or if Don took over the GOP.


  • #5880
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 8,045 ✭✭✭Christy42


    everlast75 wrote: »
    Christy42 wrote: »
    I am not sure of the legalities of that letter. On the chance that they argue it successfully it would be the end of any notion of checks and balances in the US. It would be carte blanch for the US president to do whatever they want and shut down any investigation.

    Italy still has issues politically which I feel stem from the mad power grab that comes from claiming immunity to investigations.

    Having said that Donald's lawyers have not managed a stellar record in court so far so I don't think it is likely they will win.

    Article II, section 3 of the constitution says he should obey the law, so i think/hope its clear cut
    Yeah I get he would still be legally obliged to obey the law. However if he were to successfully argue he has the power to shut down any investigation it would be irrelevant.

    It would be like saying x is illegal but we are never allowed check if you did x. Sure x is illegal but as long as you didn't do x in front of the police you would be fine doing x without fear of punishment.


  • Advertisement
  • #5881
    Hande hoche!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Hande hoche!


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Steve Bannon is still around, doing an interview with Fareed Zhakara on a CNN "special". As I've just switched the TV on, the interview has been on for some time now and is in an Ad break. Fareed say's he's going to ask Steve in the next part if the GOP took over Don or if Don took over the GOP.
    Take it that it was quite mild, all in all? Can't see anything on their website front page. They love to blazon "10 shocking things", "bombshell" etc. if it's particularly notable.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement