Iowa Caucus
-
I don't think a more conservative candidate would work out well for Republicans.
Instead of doubling down on old social policies maybe they need to update some of their beliefs?
That has been the argument for many years. If only the republicans would become more like the democrats. Then we could re-name the republican party to the democrat lite party.
That has been the argument for many years. If only the republicans would become more like the democrats. Then we could re-name the republican party to the democrat lite party.
Well if they wish to be obsolete then they can continue the stance of not at least being pragmatic about social issues. They would likely get more voters if they appealed to working class wallets and economics. Dems wouldn't have the "oh no the war on (insert group here)" issue and would have to actually talk money which likely puts them at a disadvantage.
-
That has been the argument for many years. If only the republicans would become more like the democrats. Then we could re-name the republican party to the democrat lite party.
If only the republicans could let go of the 50s values they're hanging on to, they could be a modern party.
If only the republicans could let go of the 50s values they're hanging on to, they could be a modern party.
If that's the goal.
I suppose the Catholic Church would be more popular in the Middle East if they accepted Sharia law.
Not to worry Chris, many things the world has believed in over the years will slowly be changing.
I guess if your pursuit is change for the sake of change, you are in luck.
1984 or Brave New World, pick your poison.
Hey there might even be some traditions that fellow your age might not like to see destroyed. Who knows.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Reporter: Donald, you keep saying you'll make this country great again, how exactly do you plan to do that?
Trump: You know that's a great question, I get that kind of question all the time, just the other day I was speaking to someone who asked me exactly this question and I'll tell you the same as I told him, there are serious problems with this country, we're letting too many people in, china is laughing at us, and Obama, Obama, he is so weak. If it were me, China would know who they're dealing with. I would stand up to China. I'm great at making deals and if I'm president, China will be paying us to sell their stuff here!
Crowd: wooooo!!!!
Rinse and repeat for every question trump faces.
Reporter: Donald, you keep saying you'll make this country great again, how exactly do you plan to do that?
Trump: You know that's a great question, I get that kind of question all the time, just the other day I was speaking to someone who asked me exactly this question and I'll tell you the same as I told him, there are serious problems with this country, we're letting too many people in, china is laughing at us, and Obama, Obama, he is so weak. If it were me, China would know who they're dealing with. I would stand up to China. I'm great at making deals and if I'm president, China will be paying us to sell their stuff here!
Crowd: wooooo!!!!
Rinse and repeat for every question trump faces.
But it did work for Obama with the slogans of hope and change. His lofty speeches about bringing the country together only to be the biggest divider for president we have had. His talk about working across the isle with the republicans when he has tried to force his polices on us with illegal executive actions. Trump is making promises now and they are empty until they are delivered on. Obama has a bunch of those empty promises that will not be happening in his 2 terms, not even close.
-
If only the republicans could let go of the 50s values they're hanging on to, they could be a modern party.
If that's the goal.
I suppose the Catholic Church would be more popular in the Middle East if they accepted Sharia law.
Not to worry Chris, many things the world has believed in over the years will slowly be changing.
I guess if your pursuit is change for the sake of change, you are in luck.
1984 or Brave New World, pick your poison.
Hey there might even be some traditions that fellow your age might not like to see destroyed. Who knows.
WSS
If that's the goal.
I suppose the Catholic Church would be more popular in the Middle East if they accepted Sharia law.
Political parties aren't religions (as much as the republican party seems to be trying to be)
Not to worry Chris, many things the world has believed in over the years will slowly be changing.
Things that used to be believed that have been proven false will no longer be believed. How amazing.
I guess if your pursuit is change for the sake of change, you are in luck.
Who said change for the sake of change? Nothing is perfect. Nothing could not stand to be improved in some manner. We don't live in a global (multiplanetary?) utopia, so yeah, things need to be improved.
1984 or Brave New World, pick your poison.
I have that Iron Maiden album. Pretty sweet.
Hey there might even be some traditions that fellow your age might not like to see destroyed. Who knows.
Like the browns losing?
WSS
-
Reporter: Donald, you keep saying you'll make this country great again, how exactly do you plan to do that?
Trump: You know that's a great question, I get that kind of question all the time, just the other day I was speaking to someone who asked me exactly this question and I'll tell you the same as I told him, there are serious problems with this country, we're letting too many people in, china is laughing at us, and Obama, Obama, he is so weak. If it were me, China would know who they're dealing with. I would stand up to China. I'm great at making deals and if I'm president, China will be paying us to sell their stuff here!
Crowd: wooooo!!!!
Rinse and repeat for every question trump faces.
But it did work for Obama with the slogans of hope and change. His lofty speeches about bringing the country together only to be the biggest divider for president we have had. His talk about working across the isle with the republicans when he has tried to force his polices on us with illegal executive actions. Trump is making promises now and they are empty until they are delivered on. Obama has a bunch of those empty promises that will not be happening in his 2 terms, not even close.
But it did work for Obama with the slogans of hope and change. His lofty speeches about bringing the country together only to be the biggest divider for president we have had. His talk about working across the isle with the republicans when he has tried to force his polices on us with illegal executive actions. Trump is making promises now and they are empty until they are delivered on. Obama has a bunch of those empty promises that will not be happening in his 2 terms, not even close.
On Obama's promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/
I think it would be unrealistic to expect any president to keep every promise, simply because it's so damn difficult to get things through, especially a 'revolutionary' president such as Obama. Let alone Bernie.
Illegal executive actions? What's illegal about them?
-
That has been the argument for many years. If only the republicans would become more like the democrats. Then we could re-name the republican party to the democrat lite party.
Well if they wish to be obsolete then they can continue the stance of not at least being pragmatic about social issues. They would likely get more voters if they appealed to working class wallets and economics. Dems wouldn't have the "oh no the war on (insert group here)" issue and would have to actually talk money which likely puts them at a disadvantage.
Well if they wish to be obsolete then they can continue the stance of not at least being pragmatic about social issues. They would likely get more voters if they appealed to working class wallets and economics. Dems wouldn't have the "oh no the war on (insert group here)" issue and would have to actually talk money which likely puts them at a disadvantage.
To me to be pragmatic about social issues is to avoid what Todd Aiken did but not to give up those values. Since Roe v Wade every presidential election has put a pro choice democrat against a pro life republican. A big part of the republican base are Christians who will not stay with the party if they flip on social issues like abortion. I became a republican on social issues at first and later came to agree with them on economic issues as well. The socialist policies the democrats are pursuing is just going to be shared misery. Let people prosper in this country and we all prosper.
-
Well if they wish to be obsolete then they can continue the stance of not at least being pragmatic about social issues. They would likely get more voters if they appealed to working class wallets and economics. Dems wouldn't have the "oh no the war on (insert group here)" issue and would have to actually talk money which likely puts them at a disadvantage.
To me to be pragmatic about social issues is to avoid what Todd Aiken did but not to give up those values. Since Roe v Wade every presidential election has put a pro choice democrat against a pro life republican. A big part of the republican base are Christians who will not stay with the party if they flip on social issues like abortion. I became a republican on social issues at first and later came to agree with them on economic issues as well. The socialist policies the democrats are pursuing is just going to be shared misery. Let people prosper in this country and we all prosper.
To me to be pragmatic about social issues is to avoid what Todd Aiken did but not to give up those values. Since Roe v Wade every presidential election has put a pro choice democrat against a pro life republican. A big part of the republican base are Christians who will not stay with the party if they flip on social issues like abortion. I became a republican on social issues at first and later came to agree with them on economic issues as well. The socialist policies the democrats are pursuing is just going to be shared misery. Let people prosper in this country and we all prosper.
I, and many others like me in and around my generation, would be democrat by default because of the social values. If the republicans gave up the futile battle against abortion, and gay marriage, and all that stuff that makes people like DieHard feel uncomfortable (sorry old chap
), and stop digging their heels in over climate change, there'd be a shit ton of new voters, probably including me. But if I'm going to vote for a bought and paid for candidate that has largely the same financial policy regardless of party, I'm going to vote for one that at least has 21st century views on things. -
But it did work for Obama with the slogans of hope and change. His lofty speeches about bringing the country together only to be the biggest divider for president we have had. His talk about working across the isle with the republicans when he has tried to force his polices on us with illegal executive actions. Trump is making promises now and they are empty until they are delivered on. Obama has a bunch of those empty promises that will not be happening in his 2 terms, not even close.
On Obama's promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/
I think it would be unrealistic to expect any president to keep every promise, simply because it's so damn difficult to get things through, especially a 'revolutionary' president such as Obama. Let alone Bernie.
Illegal executive actions? What's illegal about them?
On Obama's promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/
I think it would be unrealistic to expect any president to keep every promise, simply because it's so damn difficult to get things through, especially a 'revolutionary' president such as Obama. Let alone Bernie.
Illegal executive actions? What's illegal about them?
When the executive branch of our government tries to make law that is illegal. The legislative branch makes laws.Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund
-
On Obama's promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/
I think it would be unrealistic to expect any president to keep every promise, simply because it's so damn difficult to get things through, especially a 'revolutionary' president such as Obama. Let alone Bernie.
Illegal executive actions? What's illegal about them?
When the executive branch of our government tries to make law that is illegal. The legislative branch makes laws.Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund
When the executive branch of our government tries to make law that is illegal. The legislative branch makes laws.Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund
So is it executive actions themselves that are illegal?
-
When the executive branch of our government tries to make law that is illegal. The legislative branch makes laws.Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund
So is it executive actions themselves that are illegal?
-
I know that if the Republicans gave up on the social issues, I would be firmly Republican. Fiscally, I am on board with them but I don't give a squirt of piss about social issues based on religious dogma.
-
To me to be pragmatic about social issues is to avoid what Todd Aiken did but not to give up those values. Since Roe v Wade every presidential election has put a pro choice democrat against a pro life republican. A big part of the republican base are Christians who will not stay with the party if they flip on social issues like abortion. I became a republican on social issues at first and later came to agree with them on economic issues as well. The socialist policies the democrats are pursuing is just going to be shared misery. Let people prosper in this country and we all prosper.
I, and many others like me in and around my generation, would be democrat by default because of the social values. If the republicans gave up the futile battle against abortion, and gay marriage, and all that stuff that makes people like DieHard feel uncomfortable (sorry old chap
), and stop digging their heels in over climate change, there'd be a shit ton of new voters, probably including me. But if I'm going to vote for a bought and paid for candidate that has largely the same financial policy regardless of party, I'm going to vote for one that at least has 21st century views on things.I, and many others like me in and around my generation, would be democrat by default because of the social values. If the republicans gave up the futile battle against abortion, and gay marriage, and all that stuff that makes people like DieHard feel uncomfortable (sorry old chap
), and stop digging their heels in over climate change, there'd be a shit ton of new voters, probably including me. But if I'm going to vote for a bought and paid for candidate that has largely the same financial policy regardless of party, I'm going to vote for one that at least has 21st century views on things.Well said
-
You'll have to bear with me, this whole monarchic system of rule isn't really something that exists here, so I'm not completely up to speed on it.
So Obama, or any other president, issues executive orders, and these can be challenged in the supreme court (which makes sense). So how many executive orders have been overturned in the supreme court? Apparently that 13 times defeated thing is bogus:
-
To be fair, outside of HRC I think they all lack detail. Likely because they don't know what's there. Trump has a tax plan, veterans plan, pay for the wall plan that are about as detailed as the next guys.
How are you going to avoid the projected deficit blow up from your stupid tax plan? (everyone, "Idk cut some stuff")
How are you going to rule the supreme court ruling on gay marriage unconstitutional when the bible isn't the constitution? (Cruz, "idk lol")
What are you going to do after you repeal obamacare and take health coverage away from millions? (everyone, "idk lol something obamacare killz jobs")
What are you going to do with isis? ("see if sand glows in the dark")
Sanders is also lax on a lot of detail. Policy positions are more important than excessive detail. It takes several months, several people to collaborate on a bill or any sort of plan to work out all the details - and many times it's all for nothing anyway.
---
And executives orders still have to be within the law - they can't be unconstitutional or anything like that. The supreme court could overrule them, and 2/3 of congress could shut them down too (to avoid a veto)
-
You'll have to bear with me, this whole monarchic system of rule isn't really something that exists here, so I'm not completely up to speed on it.
So Obama, or any other president, issues executive orders, and these can be challenged in the supreme court (which makes sense). So how many executive orders have been overturned in the supreme court? Apparently that 13 times defeated thing is bogus:
You'll have to bear with me, this whole monarchic system of rule isn't really something that exists here, so I'm not completely up to speed on it.
So Obama, or any other president, issues executive orders, and these can be challenged in the supreme court (which makes sense). So how many executive orders have been overturned in the supreme court? Apparently that 13 times defeated thing is bogus:
It is not bogus:
Supremes Smack Down Obama Administration 9-0 For 13th TIME SINCE 2012The nine members of the Supreme Court have now unanimously smacked down the position taken by the administration of President Barack Obama over a dozen times since January 2012.
The number of total and humiliating defeats rose to 13 this particularly unlucky week after three cases went against the executive branch by a tally of 9-0, notes John Fund, writing at National Review.
In one case, NLRB v. Noel Canning, the Court unanimously rebuked President Obama for his three unconstitutional attempts to declare the U.S. Senate in recess when, in fact, the Senate was not in recess.
-
Oh well if the daily caller said Obama is bad, then it must be true...
-
You'll have to bear with me, this whole monarchic system of rule isn't really something that exists here, so I'm not completely up to speed on it.
So Obama, or any other president, issues executive orders, and these can be challenged in the supreme court (which makes sense). So how many executive orders have been overturned in the supreme court? Apparently that 13 times defeated thing is bogus:
USA Today Supreme Court shutouts reveal reckless decisions: ColumnYou'll have to bear with me, this whole monarchic system of rule isn't really something that exists here, so I'm not completely up to speed on it.
So Obama, or any other president, issues executive orders, and these can be challenged in the supreme court (which makes sense). So how many executive orders have been overturned in the supreme court? Apparently that 13 times defeated thing is bogus:
Ilya Somin 11:46 a.m. EDT July 23, 2013When the White House loses cases 9-0, the president is going too far.http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/22/supreme-court-losses-column/2576625/
-
USA Today Supreme Court shutouts reveal reckless decisions: ColumnYou'll have to bear with me, this whole monarchic system of rule isn't really something that exists here, so I'm not completely up to speed on it.
So Obama, or any other president, issues executive orders, and these can be challenged in the supreme court (which makes sense). So how many executive orders have been overturned in the supreme court? Apparently that 13 times defeated thing is bogus:
Ilya Somin 11:46 a.m. EDT July 23, 2013When the White House loses cases 9-0, the president is going too far.http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/22/supreme-court-losses-column/2576625/
USA Today Supreme Court shutouts reveal reckless decisions: ColumnIlya Somin 11:46 a.m. EDT July 23, 2013When the White House loses cases 9-0, the president is going too far.http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/22/supreme-court-losses-column/2576625/
That wasn't an executive order though, right? I mean, that was department of agriculture vs a farmer - not exactly Obama in his ivory tower as you'd like to portray?
-
USA Today Supreme Court shutouts reveal reckless decisions: ColumnIlya Somin 11:46 a.m. EDT July 23, 2013When the White House loses cases 9-0, the president is going too far.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/22/supreme-court-losses-column/2576625/
That wasn't an executive order though, right? I mean, that was department of agriculture vs a farmer - not exactly Obama in his ivory tower as you'd like to portray?
That wasn't an executive order though, right? I mean, that was department of agriculture vs a farmer - not exactly Obama in his ivory tower as you'd like to portray?
In Horne v. Department of Agriculture, a decision issued in June, the justices unanimously rejected the Obama administration's argument that raisin farmers did not have the right to go to court to contest the seizure of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of raisins. The Fifth Amendment states that the government must pay "just compensation" whenever the government takes private property for "public use." But the administration claimed that farmers could not even raise the takings issue in court without first enduring lengthy delays and paying a $483,000 fine.
This is one of the cases which I was glad to see the Supremes rule 9-0 against Obama on as being unconstitutional.
The Supremes will soon be hearing the case about Obama's use of executive order in granting amnesty. Obama himself said he did not have this authority 25 times but he did it anyway.
-
So, it wasn't an executive order? And not directly from Obama? OK, it's not looking like an executive order was defeated by the supreme court here.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login