Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[NorthNYMark]

I'll say this as a Hillary supporter--I totally get where Sanantonio is coming from. If the shoe were on the other foot (that is, if the GOP candidate were sane and able to speak in public without embarrassment, and the Dem candidate were a raving, erratic, childlike narcissist, but they both planned to appoint Supreme Court justices according to their respective party preferences), I admit that I would be very, very torn, and might be strongly tempted to vote for the narcissist, especially this year, when the deciding vote on the court will likely constitute the new President's first major responsibility. I believe that far too many people (and I include in that group those former Bernie supporters who plan to vote third party or not vote at all in this election) underestimate the crucial importance of the Supreme Court. During my adult lifetime, its balance has always been to the right, and the possibility of changing that could make make more lasting progress than anything else a President could accomplish, especially in this time of partisan gridlock. GOP voters like Sanantonio understand that, and are willing to vote for a candidate they don't like in order to prevent that change (and, most likely, tilt the court even further to the right in the event of further deaths or retirements). I wish voters on the left would be that savvy as well--with the Congress as it is, the most change a progressive President can make will involve the Court. I guess the one exception to this thinking would involve the all-important questions of war and peace. I'm assuming those conservatives who recognize that Trump is nuts but plan to vote for him anyway are hoping he'll let Pence take de facto control of foreign policy decisions.

[snyprrr]

Hillary is the most obviously evil, conniving, ambitious and power mad liar of a public figure I have ever seen. There is endless anecdotal evidence of what she is like in private, when she's not happy. That she was in charge of destroying the lives of the women that her husband raped is common knowledge, yet "Miss Piggy" gets the headlines.

Hillary takes oodles of cashola from Saudi Arabia. 'orfeo', Karl, how do you feel about what Wahabism has to say about liberal causes such as women, gays, etc etc???

HILLARY TAKES MONIES FOR FAVORS IS PROVEN IN LEAKED EMAILS.


WHAT IS HER SINGLE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT AS SECRETARY OF STATE?

Yeah, I'm in Australia.

It's funny. Because Americans never hear much about Australia and don't know anything about Australian politics, they assume that Australians must never hear much about America and don't know anything about American politics.

On the RoughForums, Australians are known as complete and utter sellouts to the globalist agenda, Obama-loving, white-guilt ridden. Port Arthur was a patsy and you allowed yourselves to be castrated.

TODAY- Chinese man stabs 19 to death in murder spree

[Madiel]

Port Arthur was a patsy and you allowed yourselves to be castrated.

Well, that is proof enough that you have no conception of Australian culture whatsoever. We're done.

[Madiel]

especially this year, when the deciding vote on the court will likely constitute the new President's first major responsibility.

Of course, that is only because the Senate has decided that it won't even consider the nominee presented by the current President, in March.

I've seen a heck of a lot of experts saying this is unprecedented. A few even suggesting it's bordering on unconstitutional.

But hell, if the Senate can refuse to look at a nominee for 9 months, what's to say they can't refuse to look at a nominee for 4 years?

EDIT: The American process for selecting judges looks insanely political from an Australian perspective, even without this. For many of our judges people wouldn't even know which side of politics they vote for. There hasn't been any controversy around a High Court appointment for a couple of decades.

[snyprrr]

Trump is nuts

You're insane







(you see how I did that?)


How do you not see that Hillary is not craven for war to satisfy the deep pockets? She had Qaddafi murdered, how does that not even enter the conversation? "Guns-to'rebels" ring a bell? Gun Runner Hillary?

And you think RichieRich is gonna get drunak and pissed and blow China up? LOL

TELL ME PLEASE, TELL ME HOW HILLARY IS SUCH A PACIFIST. PLEASE ASSURE SHE THAT SHE'S NOTNOTNOT THE TEMPERAMENT TO WANNA GO TO WAR WITH...mmm ... say, IRAN?

BTW-


AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH(hold on, yea, this makes me mad, so, anyhow)


PLEASE TELL ME

seeing that Trump's progeny all married TheTribe, and both of the CANTdidates are suckers of the Yissyrel wang so that there is "no sunlight", so, since they BOTH


BOTH                                     BOTH

BOTH

                        BOTH

                                                    BOTH


ARE IN THE POCKET OF



(said unmentionable)



THEN PLEASE TELL ME

how either of them is not going to do that bloodthirsty nation's bidding and... AT LEAST go to war with....mmm... Irag again?? iRAN? sYRIA? sUADI?


A GOOD WAR IS WHAT THIS CUNTRY NEEDS, SOLDIER!!!!!!!



YOU'VE TRIGGERED MY CAPS LOCK!! AAHHHH!!!!

Well, that is proof enough that you have no conception of Australian culture whatsoever. We're done.

sorry, I was just saying, Aussies should have guns

[Mirror Image]

Let me say, snyprrr, you should stay away from political threads. It seems you're completely out of your element here.

[snyprrr]

Of course, that is only because the Senate has decided that it won't even consider the nominee presented by the current President, in March.

I've seen a heck of a lot of experts saying this is unprecedented. A few even suggesting it's bordering on unconstitutional.

But hell, if the Senate can refuse to look at a nominee for 9 months, what's to say they can't refuse to look at a nominee for 4 years?

EDIT: The American process for selecting judges looks insanely political from an Australian perspective, even without this. For many of our judges people wouldn't even know which side of politics they vote for. There hasn't been any controversy around a High Court appointment for a couple of decades.

We're ONE VOTE away from them taking our GEE YOU ENN ESS away, and that's what we don't want, but you seem to. We don't want you to. You don't like us opposing you by any means. We will, and we must, oppose you to the very end.

[snyprrr]

Let me say, snyprrr, you should stay away from political threads. It seems you're completely out of your element here.

Not at all. You'll come to love Trump, you'll see!

You see, I'm one of those who wouldn't have bailed out the banks in 2008. I would have took the pain, and, surely, we would be in a much better place now. But, no...

WHY DO ALL THE BILLIONAIRES LOVE HILLARY IF SHE IS FOR "THE POOR"?

Just a question, John.

"Hillary, as an American Citizen, how will the TPP benefit me?"

Why do you hate Trump, John?

[NorthNYMark]

Of course, that is only because the Senate has decided that it won't even consider the nominee presented by the current President, in March.

I've seen a heck of a lot of experts saying this is unprecedented. A few even suggesting it's bordering on unconstitutional.

But hell, if the Senate can refuse to look at a nominee for 9 months, what's to say they can't refuse to look at a nominee for 4 years?

EDIT: The American process for selecting judges looks insanely political from an Australian perspective, even without this. For many of our judges people wouldn't even know which side of politics they vote for.

Yep--it is insanely political, and I wonder whether many non-US folks (or even many US folks) realize just how much power the Supreme Court has. In any case, your question about what there is to stop the GOP dominated Senate from keeping the Court seat vacant for 4 years is a good one, and it is indeed one that scares me. But I think she'll find a way to get the vacancy filled--heck, since the majority of district courts of appeals are now more left-leaning, the GOP Congress may be more willing to try their luck with Merrick Garland (a moderate on many issues, and whom they generally respect) than leaving the lower court rulings stand in the event of a tie, which is the current situation. Now, with the possibility of a Trump presidency, they have no political incentive not to wait. After November, the incentives shift.

[SimonNZ]

Snyprr: I haven't been around long enough to know what your other nine and a half thousand posts are like, beyond what I've seen on this thread. Is this your typical posting style?

Also: I think the best way for you to confirm that those rednecks you overheard in that imaginary bar really are "castrated puppies" would be to go over to their table and ask them. Then you can be sure.

[snyprrr]

Here I was trying to Post something meaningful, and you all trolled me and I lost my focus and now I can't remember what glorious morsel I was going to brighten your day with. Fuck.

You guys aren't even any fun anymore. You know Trump's going to win and you are all hatey.


GIVE ME WHAT I WANT AND I WILL GO AWAY

Give me just one day, where all you guys do is rag on Hillary. Not one peep about Trump for 24 hours. Then you can go on with your business and I'll stop Posting here,... I mean all of us, lol!!! (I WILL try to reign them in, it's hard as you know quite well)

Snyprr: I haven't been around long enough to know what your other nine and a half thousand posts are like. Is this your typical posting style?

Also: I think the best way for you to confirm that those rednecks you overheard in that imaginary bar really are "castrated puppies" would be to go over to their table and ask them. Then you can be sure.

I mean, do you not know typical redneck white guilt manifested? It's so 1989. Trust me, I'm sure of what I heard, however, I do believe right now, concerning this very topic of RichieRich, that, a myriad of peoples are saying one thing, but, I just have this sneaky sneaky feeling that come lever time, it's going to be a catastrophic landslide against Nurse Rachet.


And no, this is not my usual style. I drank myself into a blackout hours ago.

[snyprrr]

If I wants to get drunk and shit up the place on account of you guys being so mean to wasshissface, then pffft!!!

[Madiel]

sorry, I was just saying, Aussies should have guns

And Aussies don't think that. We understand the science that says that guns used for "protection" don't actually work and increase the chance of death, particularly suicide. We don't have some fantasy about protecting ourselves from our own government.

Australians are not against guns for farmers and hunters and the like, but the notion that citizens of cities should be carrying weapons makes no sense and we wouldn't feel safer doing it. We'd feel less safe. And statistically we'd be right.

But please, you should feel free to live in a bubble where you focus on the 1 in 23 times a gun is used right, and not the 22 in 23 times that it goes horribly wrong. Feel free to speculate on how all those people in Port Arthur wouldn't have died if only someone in the cafe was armed.... and had lightning reflexes and was watching the door instead of tucking into a burger.

[zamyrabyrd]

Nurse Rachet

Lady Macbeth with a needle!
Frankly, though, I think there will be a rerun of 9/11 in the next 6 weeks that may be a big game changer.

[Que]

OK, guys and girls.  This thread is hard to keep up for any moderator, and for me personally at times not always very enticing to read (rather depressing actually)
But it is also comforting (and scary at the same time) in the fact that it shows that complete political chaos and institutional decay is not limited to Europe....

Anyway, proceedings here are - predictably - quite heated...
But please remember: no name calling in respect to other members and no meaningful debate can take without mutually respectful attitudes.
Play the ball, not the (wo)man!

~ end of service anouncement ~ 

Q

[Madiel]

Seen on a friend's Facebook page:

A sitting U.S. President gives the eulogy for a former Israeli prime minister while a wannabe president is tweeting at 3 am asking the American people to look at sex tapes of a former Miss Universe.

[Herman]

Yes, that is the binary choice I meant.  The deciding issue for Republicans is which of those two candidates do they trust with the Supreme Court.  The choice is obvious.

You are aware, aren't you, that a Prez can't just stack the SCOTUS, without winning the approval of the Senate?

Apart from the fact or opinion that Hillary is not (just like Obama) a wild liberal Democrat, but a moderate who would have suited the GOP equally well say, in the 1970s, she will have to propose SCOTUS candidates that make it through the Senate hearings.

[zamyrabyrd]

A sitting U.S. President gives the eulogy for a former Israeli prime minister while a wannabe president is tweeting at 3 am asking the American people to look at sex tapes of a former Miss Universe.

Exactly, really petty and stupid of DDT.
Obama gave a surprisingly good speech. Don't suppose he wrote it though.
Billy boy (smirk) had to make an appearance. No other former US presidents came although as Obama mentioned there were 10 since JFK who were in office while Peres was in a governmental capacity.

[Karl Henning]

Not that the gentleman who raised the point will be persuaded even by a conservative opinion (worth quoting in full):

Trumpkins' Supreme Court excuse crumbles

Jennifer Rubin, 22 September

Republicans straining to justify support for Donald Trump cling to the notion that the Supreme Court is a good enough reason. Along with many other conservatives, we have previously explored some reasons why it is not — e.g., the ship has sailed on gay marriage and abortion; national security overrides judicial concerns; Justice Anthony Kennedy would still be there for a fifth vote against conservatives. Yesterday, Trump added two powerful grounds for abandoning the hoax that he will deliver a strong conservative court.

First, while apparently attempting outreach to African Americans — more realistically, trying to appeal to white audiences who harbor African American stereotypes — he declared that he would support a nationwide stop-and-frisk policy. Think about that, conservative admirers of the 10th Amendment. It's not up to the president in our constitutional system to tell local police what they should and should not do. That should tell you something about Trump's pathetic ignorance about our Constitution. (It ranks up there with saying his sister the judge "signs" bills.) Moreover, the practice has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal court in Trump's own state. Surely he has heard about it?

It's a tad embarrassing when the socialist mayor of New York has a better grasp of the law than the GOP presidential nominee. (Bill de Blasio said Trump's proposal was "appalling" and declared, "he's either ignorant about the history of the city or he's lying about it.")

In addition to de Blasio's suggestions, it may be that Trump intends to ignore the court ruling, or alternatively, force opponents to file suit when he tries implementing stop-and-frisk everywhere else. Maybe all of these explanations apply. In any case, it makes Trump apologists who spout "But the Supreme Court!" argument look ridiculous. (It is noteworthy that he backtracked this morning saying he was talking about Chicago. He wasn't, but in any event he's still proposing the president micromanage local police forces in ways that have been ruled discriminatory.)

All of that would be bad enough. However, Trump also let on that he is going to add names to that supposedly inviolate list of potential Supreme Court nominees — none of them he could name without a teleprompter, no doubt — thrust under his nose by well-meaning conservatives. He declared that he would pick from a list of 20 names — not the 11 he previously listed. Well, he did previously suggest that he might appoint political backer and high-tech mogul Peter Thiel. (Liberals would be happy with him, I suppose, since he is an ardent defender of gay rights.) Trump could have forgotten the number of judges on the list (11? 20? whatever?). If so, it tells you something about how important this is to him.

One is tempted to shake the Trumpkin self-deluders by the lapels and cry, "You've been scammed!" It would, unfortunately, do no good. It is hard to imagine even they, who claim to care about the court, actually believe Trump would appoint judges (not only to the Supreme Court but at the district and circuit court levels) to their liking on anything like a consistent basis. It would no doubt take a nanosecond for him to "trade" a Supreme Court justice for Democratic support for some other priority that is also an anathema to conservatives (e.g. federal child care, tariff legislation).

Let's get real here. Pro-Trump leaders of conservative groups (including evangelicals) and conservative pundits using the Supreme Court to justify their support for a candidate entirely ignorant of and dismissive of legal restraints are kidding themselves and misleading others. They should be honest: They are supporting Trump out of blind party loyalty, careerism (including keeping conservative audiences from shrinking even further than they have), irrational moral equivalence between Trump and Hillary Clinton or because they actually like one or more of his policies (e.g., rounding up 11 million immigrants). Should they be ashamed? By their support for Trump they've demonstrated they are beyond shame — and reason.

Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.  Follow @JRubinBlogger

[Karl Henning]

Nor will this matter to those whose objection to Clinton is that she is "dishonest," while those objecting seem to have an inexhaustible capacity for falsehood from El Tupé, but Daniel Dale (@ddale8) of the Toronto Star tweets daily the falsehoods which come forth from the podium, and against which the Tuperos file not a single protest on behalf of the truth, that bedeviled truth which is such a prominent stage-prop in their show of fury against Clinton.