Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by General Patton » Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:01 am
by stefano » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:40 am
seemslikeadream » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:44 am wrote:Trump clear and present danger
Trump refuses to say if he will accept election results
First time in the history of the United States
by RocketMan » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:01 am
by seemslikeadream » Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:12 am
Conservative Legal Scholars Decide Trump Isn't Worth It
Some believe Trump's big-government ideas outweigh his potential Supreme Court appointments.
PEMA LEVYOCT. 19, 2016 3:21 PM
Yin Bogu/Xinhua via ZUMA Wire
The presidential election could determine the ideology of the Supreme Court for a generation—and that's putting some Republicans in a bind.
Some, like former Republican House Speaker John Boehner, are supporting Donald Trump solely on the basis of the Supreme Court. "The only thing that really matters over the next four years or eight years is who is going to appoint the next Supreme Court nominees," he said recently. Trump knows this is one of his biggest selling points to conservatives. "I am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice [Antonin] Scalia," he said at the second presidential debate earlier this month. "People that will respect the Constitution of the United States."
But for conservative and libertarian legal scholars who have dedicated their careers to an interpretation of the Constitution that promotes limited government, Trump presents a conundrum. On the one hand, he promises to appoint justices like Scalia, whom they generally admire. On the other hand, if his campaign is any indication, a President Trump would trample this same vision of the Constitution with his authoritarian tendencies, including his policies against the freedom of the press and in favor of banning all Muslims from entering the United States. So is a Trump presidency worth supporting for the sake of Trump Supreme Court appointments?
For 29 "originalist" legal scholars, the answer is no. Originalists, such as Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas, believe judges should interpret the Constitution as it was intended when written, rather than as a living, changing document. On Monday, the group released a letter titled "Originalists Against Trump," which laid out their reasons for opposing the Republican nominee. "Many Americans still support Trump in the belief that he will protect the Constitution," the letter states. "We understand that belief, but we do not share it."
The letter addresses the issue of the Supreme Court, stating, "We also understand the argument that Trump will nominate qualified judicial candidates." But the scholars add, "We do not trust him to do so. More importantly, we do not trust him to respect constitutional limits in the rest of his conduct in office, of which judicial nominations are only one part."
Many of the most prominent conservative and libertarian legal scholars signed the letter, including Steven Calabresi, who co-founded the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. "If there is one person who in a certain sense typifies sort of the average Federalist Society member, it's hard to find someone who typifies it better than Steve Calabresi," says Ilya Somin, a libertarian professor at George Mason's Antonin Scalia Law School, who also signed the letter. Another signatory to the letter, law professor Jonathan Adler, is known as the legal mind behind the latest major legal challenge to Obamacare.
"The Supreme Court and the legal system have been one of the main arguments for holding one's nose and voting Trump," says Stephen Sachs, a Duke University law professor and one of the scholars who organized the letter. "I think it's important that people who feel that there are real problems with that argument speak up and say so. And I think that it was important that it come from a group of people who were committed to the original Constitution and to make clear that that is part of the ground of our objection."
Sachs was pleased that he was able to recruit legal heavyweights such as Calabresi to sign the letter. As a registered Republican who supported Marco Rubio in the primary, Sachs says he is willing to cast a strategic vote for Hillary Clinton if the polls in his home state of North Carolina—a swing state—show a close race.
To win over reluctant Republicans, the Trump campaign has put out a list of conservative lawyers whom Trump would consider nominating to the Supreme Court. But that list, which helped assuage some conservatives, isn't convincing to Sachs and the other signers of his letter.
Somin, of George Mason University, does not buy the idea that Trump's list of conservative potential justices will be enough to protect the Constitution from a Trump presidency. In fact, Somin has been using his platform at the Washington Post libertarian legal blog, the Volokh Conspiracy, to try to convince his peers to oppose Trump. As Somin explains, the conservative and libertarian legal world divides into three camps on the issue of whether to support Trump. The first camp believes that Trump is the lesser of two evils, based largely on his potential Supreme Court appointments. The second says Trump may make preferable Supreme Court appointments, but that this is outweighed by many other objectionable aspects of Trump's politics. The third camp–where Somin resides—believes that Trump would actually be worse for originalism in the medium and long term than Clinton.
Somin questions whether Trump would actually appoint the originalist judges he has proposed. Trump's promised Supreme Court appointments seem to run contrary to elements of his agenda—which is why Somin believes Trump might abandon his list and pick justices more friendly to his policies. "He has a long list of constitutionally dubious policies he wants to promote," Somin says. "So presidents very rarely if ever appoint Supreme Court justices who are likely to vote against important parts of their own agenda, and it seems to me unlikely that Trump would be more eager to curb his own powers than other presidents are. In fact, rather the contrary."
Beyond judicial appointments, Somin believes a Trump presidency would do more damage to the originalist project than a Clinton presidency would. His argument is simple: If Trump becomes president, he will move the Republican Party in the direction of big government and populism. If the GOP stops being the party of limited government, there will be no party left to appoint originalist judges in the future. "Much better to lose one or two or even three Supreme Court justices than to permanently lose one of the two major parties to the kind of ideology that Trump promotes," he says. "Parties try to appoint justices who are at least roughly in accordance with their broader agenda. And if the broader agenda of the Republican Party moved toward big-government nationalism, which is where Trump wants to move it, then over time you will get Supreme Court justices" who share that view.
Somin would like to cast a vote for libertarian Gary Johnson on Election Day. But if the polls in his home state of Virginia are close, he is willing, like Sachs, to cast a strategic vote for Clinton—who would be sure to appoint justices with a constitutional interpretation antithetical to Somin's, but who at least has the advantage of not being Donald Trump.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... nstitution
Published on
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
byCommon Dreams
Trump Will Let Nation Know If Election Was Rigged Once He Sees Who Wins
Republican nominee tells debate audience he'll "keep you in suspense" about whether he will accept election results
byJon Queally, staff writer
Donald Trump on Wednesday night refeused to say if he will accept next month's election results. (Photo: YouTube/Screenshot)
Asked directly and repeatedly during Wednesday night's debate, Donald Trump refused to say whether or not he will accept the election day results if he loses to Hillary Clinton on November 8th.
"I will look at it at the time. I'm not looking at anything now," Trump said when asked by moderator Chris Wallace about the Republican candidate's recent comments about the election being "rigged" against him.
"If you look at your voter rolls, you will see millions of people who are registered to vote" who should not be, said Trump. He then went on to declare that he also considers the process rigged because Clinton "should not be allowed to run" because of the controversy surrounding her State Department emails.
Wallace followed up to Trump's response by referencing the "tradition" in the United States "of the peaceful transfer of power and that no matter how hard fought a campaign is at the end of the campaign that the loser concedes to the winner" and then the country "comes together for the good of the country" to move forward. He then asked, "Are you saying now you're not prepared to commit to that principle?"
"What I'm saying," Trump responded, "is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense."
At this point, Clinton interjected, "That's horrifying."
She continued, "Every time Donald thinks things are not going his direction, he claims whatever it is is rigged against him... This is a mindset. This is how Donald thinks. And it's funny, but it's also really troubling."
Watch the exchange:John Nichols @NicholsUprising
John Adams accepted peaceful transfer of power in 1800. That's been the standard for 216 years. Now Trump says: "I'll keep you in suspense."
9:14 PM - 19 Oct 2016
868 868 Retweets 1,103 1,103 likes
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/1 ... s-who-wins
British artist sues Trump campaign over anti-refugee 'Skittles' tweet
By Sharon Bernstein October 19, 2016
(Reuters) - A British artist is suing U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, saying the campaign illegally used his photograph of a bowl of brightly coloured Skittles candies to illustrate its position against bringing Syrian refugees to the United States.
David Kittos, who came to the United Kingdom as a child refugee from Cyprus and is now a British citizen, said he was offended by the use of the image in a campaign message tweeted by Trump's son Donald Trump Jr., which compared Syrian refugees to poisoned candies.
"If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful?" the message said. "That's our Syrian refugee problem."
Above the message, Donald Trump Jr. added: "This image says it all."
In his lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in federal court in Chicago, Kittos named both Trumps, as well as the campaign and Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence as defendants. Trump faces Democrat Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 presidential election.
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the lawsuit.
U.S. admission of Syrian refugees has long been a politically sensitive issue, although the country has admitted far fewer than many close allies. Trump has said violent militants could enter the country posing as refugees.
In 2015, Democratic President Barack Obama announced plans to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees this year, sparking fierce criticism, mostly from Republicans who said the plan could put Americans at risk. His administration said in August it would meet that goal.
The Donald Trump Jr. tweet, posted in September, prompted a response from the William Wrigley Jr. Co, a subsidiary of Mars Inc, and the maker of Skittles, which said the company did not feel the analogy was appropriate.
"Skittles are candy," said spokeswoman Michelle Green. "Refugees are people."
In the lawsuit, Kittos seeks unspecified financial damages and an order barring the campaign from further use of the image.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/british-arti ... 20118.html
by seemslikeadream » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:42 am
OBAMA SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER REQUIRING LOSER OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO LEAVE COUNTRY
By Andy Borowitz , OCTOBER 19, 2016
PHOTOGRAPH BY RON SACHS-POOL / GETTY
WASHINGTON (News Satire from The Borowitz Report)—In an Oval Office ceremony on Wednesday morning, President Barack Obama signed an executive order requiring the loser of the 2016 Presidential election to leave the country forever.
“This will help the healing begin,” the President said.
The executive order calls for the loser of the November 8th election to depart the country on the morning of November 9th and never return.
“Whoever that turns out to be,” the President said.
Obama acknowledged that the executive order marked a departure from American electoral tradition, but added, “A lot of good will come of this.”
The two most recent losers of U.S. Presidential elections, John McCain and Mitt Romney, issued a joint statement in reaction to the executive order. “We’re O.K. with it,” the statement read.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz ... ve-country
Trump Ally Alex Jones Suffers Debate Meltdown Over “Lying Whore” Hillary Clinton
TIMOTHY JOHNSON
Conspiracy theorist and prominent Donald Trump ally Alex Jones ranted throughout his livestream of the third presidential debate, calling Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton a “lying whore” and “monstrous pig” and claiming that he is mentally “synced” with Trump.
After a Trump attack line on Clinton during the debate, Jones said he was “about to say that” and then claimed, “we’re like synced, there isn’t any wires in our ears, literally, to each other, but we’re synced with common sense.” His rant then devolved into screaming at Clinton, “You’re a criminal monster. We have the emails. You want our guns. You lie about everything. You’re a monstrous pig picked by the globalists to curse this country”
Trump previously praised Jones and his “amazing” reputation during an appearance on Jones’ radio show. Jones is a self-identified founder of the 9/11 Truth movement and promotes numerous conspiracy theories, including claiming that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and other national tragedies were events staged by the government. He has previously marveled at how “it is surreal to talk about issues here on air and then word-for-word hear Trump say it two days later.”
by FourthBase » Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:14 pm
RocketMan » 20 Oct 2016 03:01 wrote:This whole pre-emptive panic about "concession being the bedrock of American democracy" is pitiful.
Gore should not have conceded.
Kerry should not have conceded.
That is not democracy.
Trump is misdirecting, but that's no excuse to jump on some bandwagon.
I don't get it, SLAD, you're willing to pull the temple right down on yourself just to see Trump lose? What about principles, what about, hell, consistency..?
What I want to know is, if we accept that at least the elections of 2000 and 2004 were, yes, RIGGED, and said rigging was not addressed by the body politic... then what exactly is guaranteeing that ALL elections thenceforward will not be rigged with impunity? How exactly are we to know for certain that when Mrs. Clinton is dubbed president, she will not have won by vote rigging?
by seemslikeadream » Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:51 pm
FOR TRUMP, THE ELECTION IS RIGGED IF A “NASTY WOMAN” CAN WIN
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-david ... an-can-win
Donald Trump accused of sexual misconduct by 10th woman
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... an-accuser
New Accuser Tearfully Alleges Trump Assaulted Her at U.S. Open: He Said, ‘Don’t You Know Who I Am?’
http://people.com/politics/new-accuser- ... -who-i-am/
OCT. 20, 2016, 9:21 A.M.
Another woman accuses Donald Trump of groping
Michael A. Memoli
Another woman has come forward accusing Donald Trump of making unwanted sexual advances, saying the decades-old encounter left her feeling shame and disgust.
Speaking at a New York news conference Thursday, Karena Virginia described leaving the U.S. Open tennis tournament in Flushing, N.Y., in 1998 and as she waited to be picked up, she noticed Donald Trump among a group of men looking at her and commenting on her appearance.
Trump then approached her, grabbed her right arm and touched her breast, she said. When she flinched, he responded: “Don’t you know who I am?” Virginia said.
“I felt intimidated and I felt powerless.”
Virginia, joined by attorney Gloria Allred, insisted she had not come forward at the behest of any rival campaign. Many advised her not to speak out, she added, for fear that Trump would attack her as he has other women who have come forward with similar stories in recent days.
"Perhaps he will label me as just another nasty woman,” she said, referring to a Trump put-down of Hillary Clinton in Wednesday's debate.
But Virginia said she felt it her “duty as a woman, as a mother, a human being, and as an American citizen to speak out and tell the truth about what happened to me.”
She and Allred said they did not intend to file any criminal complaint.
During the debate, Trump said that the recent other accusations had been debunked and insisted no one had greater respect for women than him. Neither he nor his campaign has responded to the latest charge against him.
Trump Galvanizes 'Nasty' Women Voters with Extreme and Incoherent Abortion Stance
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was applauded for her compassionate defense of women's rights
byLauren McCauley, staff writer
Donald Trump's misogyny was once again on full display Wednesday night, with the Republican nominee going so far as to call rival Hillary Clinton a "nasty woman" during the final presidential debate. But, the candidates' answers regarding abortion and the Supreme Court were the most revealing in terms of who would work to uphold the rights of women and would prove to be their "worst nightmare."
When asked by moderator and Fox News anchor Chris Wallace if he wanted the court to overturn the seminal abortion ruling Roe v Wade, Trump dodged, saying that he "will be appointing pro-life judges" who would likely overturn the decision, and send it "back to the states."
Alternately, Clinton declared her solid support for Roe v Wade, which, she said, "guarantees a constitutional right to a woman to make the most intimate, most difficult in many cases, decisions about her health care that one can imagine."
She continued:
And in this case, it is not only about Roe v Wade. It is about what is happening right now in America. So many states are putting very stringent regulations on women that block them from exercising that choice to the extent that they are defunding planned parenthood which, of course provides all kinds of cancer screenings and other benefits for women in our country. Donald has said he is in favor of defunding planned parenthood. He even supported shutting the government down to defund planned parenthood. I will defend planned parenthood. I will defend Roe v Wade and I will defend women's rights to make their own healthcare decisions. We have come too far to have that turn back now. And indeed, he said women should be punished. There should be some form of punishment for women who obtain abortions. And I could just not be more opposed to that kind of thinking.
Following up, Wallace asked Clinton "how far you think the right to abortion goes," referencing her vote against a ban on "late-term partial abortions."
Though many politicians across the spectrum have treated the issue of late-term abortion as a political third rail, Clinton did not back down, saying that these decisions are "often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make"—and not to be made by the U.S. government.
"Because Roe v Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case," Clinton said. "The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who have, toward the end of their pregnancy, get the worst news one could get. That their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term. Or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions."
Fall Fundraising Banner
According to a CNN focus group of undecided voters, it was the Democratic nominee's best moment in the debate.
New York Times' writer Emily Bazelon said she "felt a small thrill" after Clinton made that statement. "More than at any big moment since the convention, Mrs. Clinton owned her feminism," Bazelon wrote. "She sounded like the first woman running for president, defending other women—our autonomy and our control of our own bodies."
Others responded in kind:
In his response, Trump leaned on "strictly political," and "fictitious" language peddled by the anti-choice community, declaring: "If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month you can take baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby."
Clinton lambasted her rival for using "scare rhetoric," while Trump's repeated assertion even prompted conservative commentator Glenn Beck to remark:
"This is not how any abortion procedure works," wrote Slate's Christina Cauterucci. "Trump's frightening explanation highlights why it makes more sense for women to make medical decisions with their doctors, rather than bloviating sadists who aren't sure how babies exit the human body."
Trump's statement "was right in line with his dangerous worldview, where women are less than equal and do not have any form of bodily autonomy in our health care decisions, or in our interactions with men as demonstrated by his boasts about sexually assaulting women."
—Ilyse Hogue, NARAL Pro-Choice America
Cauterucci continued:
Clinton has a way of making this issue sound as urgent and as real as it is for women who've had, considered, or been denied abortions. This isn’t a theoretical situation that concerns some unknowable group of people, some demographic entity. This is about women, about us. It's one of the major differences between this presidential election cycle and every other one. When men discuss abortion among themselves, as they do in far too many policy discussions, it takes on a detached air of philosophical principles. When Clinton's on the stage, it becomes about flesh and blood: women's bodies and their most private, sacred rights to determine the courses of their own lives. Of all the reasons it benefits the nation to have more women in politics, this may be the biggest—the shift of women's lives from the realm of hypotheses into the real world.
The abortion exchange was not the only time women's issues took center-stage on Wednesday evening. In addition to declaring Clinton a "nasty woman," Trump also deflected questions about recent sexual assault allegations, saying those claims were "totally false," and declaring that his accusers are seeking "ten minutes of fame."
Women responded to Trump's performance both by owning his derogatory remarks with a "Nasty Woman" t-shirt to raise money for Planned Parenthood as well as with an reinvigorated get-out-the-vote campaign.
In a statement responding to the debate, Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, applauded Clinton's "compassion," and understanding of "the complex, unique, and deeply personal choice each woman faces when considering an abortion," saying: "She's our champion for reproductive rights for a reason."
"On the other hand," Hogue continued, "Donald Trump proved yet again that he's a woman's worst nightmare." His "factually inaccurate statements on abortion care," she said, "was right in line with his dangerous worldview, where women are less than equal and do not have any form of bodily autonomy in our health care decisions, or in our interactions with men as demonstrated by his boasts about sexually assaulting women."
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/1 ... ion-stance
by JackRiddler » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:55 pm
seemslikeadream » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:44 am wrote:Trump clear and present danger
Trump refuses to say if he will accept election results
First time in the history of the United States
by Wombaticus Rex » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:58 pm
General Patton » Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:01 am wrote:It's not too late to join me in the no one elected bunker
by seemslikeadream » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:25 pm
by RocketMan » Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:10 pm
So I think thats a very serious threat that needs to be paid attention to and when Trump and his surrogates are repeating this thing about voter fraud and double voting and things like that they actually are talking about a real voter suppression project. One thats being carried out by the republican party to purge hundreds of thousands of people, possibly millions of people from the roles, using a completely faulty system. Those people mostly African American and democratic party voters. So there really is a serious voter fraud or voter suppression act taking place but it is being done by the republican party.
That being said, I think that the immediate focus on this point, I was watching MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, all of them. The big story they are running with right at the conclusion of the debate was this idea that Trump might not recognize the results of the election. But the reason that they are so completely focused on that point is not because hes really wrong that the elections in the United States are rigged in a lot of ways, unfair in a lot of ways. The reason that everyone united against him was because the elections themselves are just supposed to be as every media outlet has said, the peaceful transfer of power. The peaceful transfer of power from one representative of the rich and elite to another representative of the rich and the elite.
The job of the president is to manage these common affairs and common interests of this sector that sits at the very top of society. So for Trump to be calling that into question was a major offense to the elites of the society who want the election to go down very without any issue and so people keep accepting it as a legitimate process when in reality its really not.
by 8bitagent » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:30 pm
by SonicG » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:54 pm
by Harvey » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:42 pm
Time to reiterate a point that no one else – I promise you – is making. Paul Ryan is discrediting Donald Trump’s allegations that the election will be “rigged.” And yes, that serves Ryan well, because it makes him look like an adult next to the tantrum-threatening Donald. Ryan is lining himself up for 2020. And yet… the sci fi thriller side of me has another explanation. That Ryan is pooh-poohing the likelihood that the PRESIDENTIAL election will be rigged… so that no one will look to closely at the election he really cares about…
…which is the equally important panoply of races for Congress and state assembly, all over the nation! Think about it. Assume for a moment that the voting machines in many red states - which have no paper receipt systems for precinct count auditing (paper-audits exist in most blue states) - can be altered almost at-will. And why not? Without auditing, what is to stop the mostly-republican owners of voting machine companies from having a back door and using it?
Then they will not use that power to try to fix an already lost election for the White House. They do not want scrutiny or attention focused lower down. Even though those lower down races are where the real power in the nation (and corruption) can be found.
by 8bitagent » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:44 pm
SonicG » Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:54 pm wrote:I would think that unless it is close enough to make it worthwhile to go to the supreme court, Trump and his minions won't do shit to contest what looks to be a fairly huge upset. Trump won't spend millions on fighting it and very few of big Republican donors are behind him, so I can easily see Trump saying that he will just fight it by starting a cable network, with someone else's money natch, giving Scott Baio and Check Woolery programs, and seeing that flounder magnificently in a few months. Besides a few nuts who might cause some "right-wing terrorism", most of his minions have no background in political organizing beyond typing away furiously at Breitbart or whatever...*Not to minimize the backlash of the most demented of his followers who are well-armed and have a fetish for violence...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 167 guests
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Site design by Likely Arts based on "Deluxe" by Artodia.
