The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Yep. *If* Trump gets his choice in appointed officials, and things rumored about months ago actually go forth, there's gonna be a reckoning coming that will shake up this entire planet. Power block of a mighty power (comes from above) which allowed this to happen. Israel will be in the middle, too, somewhere.

Doesn't matter if Trump gets his picks or not, he's still at the head of the table. Push comes to shove, he can tell anyone of them "Do this, or you're out the door".

Old saying.. "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, SHAME on YOU!"

I think you've got that one backwards.

[SoulReaver]

Do we allow the murder of innocent babies in the womb or not?

absitively not (it's better to allow them die as innocent children for lack of healthcare)

Those "[rusky] events" were fabricated reports ..

you must be confusing this with Hillary's phantom mails

[SGalisa]

Old saying.. "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, SHAME on YOU!"

I think you've got that one backwards.

It may be, but I can't confirm it. I've seen it quoted both ways, with the reverse --as you noted it-- claiming to be the actual, factual version (it was also mentioned that way by another website member on another forum many, MANY years ago, which I thought she had phrased it incorrectly, because it just didn't make sense to me that way..).
Ooops! (EDIT) Huffingtonpost agrees with your version.. (Please refer to the below article..)

"THE BLOG--Obama: Fool Me Thrice, Shame on Whom?"
Mary L. G. Theroux Senior Vice President, The Independent Institute
08/14/2013 08:27 am ET, Updated Oct 14, 2013

. . .
Obama's campaign promises and election gave me faith that he would lead us toward fixing the problems he outlined in his quest for votes. Many Americans felt similarly. Unfortunately, shortly after assuming power, he closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge.
. . .
The cynics among us might think President Obama's promises to institute reforms for enhanced privacy protections for the American people are simply a response to recent opinion polls showing that Americans are, for the first time since 9/11{/2001}, more concerned about civil liberties abuses than terrorism.

There's an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." So, do we believe the president now?

Presidential candidate Obama promised to bring an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to close Guantanamo, and end the use of torture, for which he was preemptively awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Yet rather than brokering a responsible transition from occupation to self-rule for Iraq — including promoting proposals such as partitioning the country for peace — Iraqis were essentially abandoned.
. . .

Anywho, I prefer my version better. It makes the *you* portion more guilty of deliberate deception, with a more gullibility emphasis on the *me*.

[Gatefan1976]

You go right on thinking that. Events in the real world say otherwise.

The electorate is the -PEOPLE-, not states or districts.
He LOST.

[Annoyed]

It may be, but I can't confirm it. I've seen it quoted both ways, with the reverse --as you noted it-- claiming to be the actual, factual version (it was also mentioned that way by another website member on another forum many, MANY years ago, which I thought she had phrased it incorrectly, because it just didn't make sense to me that way..).
Ooops! (EDIT) Huffingtonpost agrees with your version.. (Please refer to the below article..)



Anywho, I prefer my version better. It makes the *you* portion more guilty of deliberate deception, with a more gullibility emphasis on the *me*.

Oh, well, to each their own. But it should be much harder to fool someone twice, they should be on guard at that point, so if the same person is fooled again, he should have been watching for it.

[SGalisa]

Oh, well, to each their own. But it should be much harder to fool someone twice, they should be on guard at that point, so if the same person is fooled again, he should have been watching for it.

Unless *you* are prone to being gullible (like me). I don't expect people to be deliberately antagonizing others on fool-dom. I give them the benefit of *innocence* more often than I should. But some people, I've seen repeatedly fool everyone most of the time, and it's become challenging to figure out if that person is just jiving nonsense or telling the actual truth.. For that particular person, my *caution* radar goes up instantly now.

[Gatefan1976]

And as me and Annoyed have been saying.. Take out the illegal votes, the duplicate votes, the fraudulet votes (such as those machines in several states which recorded votes for hillary when someone was clearly selecting trump as explained in SEVERAL news stories).. Did she really win the pop vote?

There was -no tampering- with the machines, even trump admitted that (in an attempt to say that Russia had no influence in the election.)
Did she win the popular vote?
Yes, why yes she did, why do you keep stomping your feet and crying like a whiney libtard about it

Which is where the phrase being "borked over" came from..

Thurmond rule, remember that one, the beginning of this kind of behaviour?

Exactly Annoyed.. When the liberals do it, its all ok. If the right does it "Shame on them"..

No it's not. The two most -vocal- lefties here (FH and I) think that the SCOTUS should be non partisan. Some things should be above petty party politics, and the highest court in the land is the most important of those things.

Let's look at his stances shall we...
Guns - against
Abortion, Affirmative action and immigration - never weighed in on.
Environment - pro epa
Pro police though
Also he voted to remove the enemy combatant disclaimer on gitmo detainees..

Doesn't seem a good match for "everyone", more liberal than anything.

He should not -be- a good match for everyone, he should be impartial, that's the actual JOB of a judge, not to rubber stamp partisan ideals.

Especially when we have seen twitter feeds of liberals calling for the assassination of trump, i can't see HOW those dunces came up with that decision..

Hang on.
Twitter feeds of liberals assassinating trump -bad-
Trump himself he could commit murder and no one would care, and "second amendment solutions" to getting rid of Hillary -just rhetoric-
Of these two players, who has the power to make good on their threats?

[Gatefan1976]

I think you've got that one backwards.

She does.

[jelgate]

There was -no tampering- with the machines, even trump admitted that (in an attempt to say that Russia had no influence in the election.)
Did she win the popular vote?
Yes, why yes she did, why do you keep stomping your feet and crying like a whiney libtard about it


Thurmond rule, remember that one, the beginning of this kind of behaviour?

No it's not. The two most -vocal- lefties here (FH and I) think that the SCOTUS should be non partisan. Some things should be above petty party politics, and the highest court in the land is the most important of those things.


He should not -be- a good match for everyone, he should be impartial, that's the actual JOB of a judge, not to rubber stamp partisan ideals.


Hang on.
Twitter feeds of liberals assassinating trump -bad-
Trump himself he could commit murder and no one would care, and "second amendment solutions" to getting rid of Hillary -just rhetoric-
Of these two players, who has the power to make good on their threats?

The non lefties think it as well. It really ticks me off that the Supreme Court has been useless because of a congressional political move

[Gatefan1976]

The non lefties think it as well. It really ticks me off that the Supreme Court has been useless because of a congressional political move

Oh, I am sure the neutrals feel the same way Jel, I was just merely noting that -in this small sample size- It's not the lefties wanting the SCOTUS to be skewed in a direction, it's the righties.
However, I find it interesting that the righties assume behaviour on the left that they brazenly engage in themselves. I believe it is called projection

[Annoyed]

Unless *you* are prone to being gullible (like me). I don't expect people to be deliberately antagonizing others on fool-dom. I give them the benefit of *innocence* more often than I should. But some people, I've seen repeatedly fool everyone most of the time, and it's become challenging to figure out if that person is just jiving nonsense or telling the actual truth.. For that particular person, my *caution* radar goes up instantly now.

If it is to be worth anything, trust must be earned.

[Annoyed]

No it's not. The two most -vocal- lefties here (FH and I) think that the SCOTUS should be non partisan. Some things should be above petty party politics, and the highest court in the land is the most important of those things.

But who decides the centerpoint? Or how do you pick your non-partisan justices? No matter how you go about it, each side will try to influence the process.

For example, my ideal would be someone who reads the Constitution literally, just as it is written or amended. I'm willing to bet that your idea might be different.

[Gatefan1976]

But who decides the centerpoint? Or how do you pick your non-partisan justices? No matter how you go about it, each side will try to influence the process.

Of course they will try to influence it, much as their own personal views will influence it, you cannot eliminate that entirely, all you can try to do is minimise it.
As for the centre point, you use the constitution as the centre point.

For example, my ideal would be someone who reads the Constitution literally, just as it is written or amended. I'm willing to bet that your idea might be different.

I would not take that bet if I were you. For as many things where you feel the liberals are "over inclusive" in their reading of the constitution, there are just as many that the right are "over inclusive" with, the most glaring example of that is the 2nd.
I would be happy if the SCOTUS ruled on the constitution as written, but there should be a mechanism for issues to be highlighted by their decisions if they feel that a constitutional amendment should be brought before congress, rather than doing it themselves.

[Annoyed]

Are you saying you want to change process for amending it?

The bar for amendments was intentionally set very high, but possible. I think that is fine where it is. There are two processes in place already. Neither is easy, but it wasn't supposed to be changeable on a passing whim or by a small subset of the population.

[Gatefan1976]

Are you saying you want to change process for amending it?

The bar for amendments was intentionally set very high, but possible. I think that is fine where it is. There are two processes in place already. Neither is easy, but it wasn't supposed to be changeable on a passing whim or by a small subset of the population.

Nono, I think it should be -used- more. I have no real problems with it being difficult to adjust what amounts to the backbone of the US republic. I -do- have problems with it being rarely attempted.
Personally, I would think the best way to adjust the constitution "in general" would be via national referendum, rather than congress as congress is always skewed one way or another. Let the congress and the SCOTUS hammer out the laws, but put the generic question to the people.