2016 Presidential Race

[policemedic]

It is also a family consideration.

Nothing more important than that.

 

[DocIllinois]

It is also a family consideration. I have a granddaughter that I've only seen three or four times. She is her mother's little girl in so many ways. My daughter has picked up a lot of the British flavor when she talks, but there is no mistaking she is from the States. My granddaughter is 100% British when she talks, and I love to hear her talk. Spending time on "The Farm" has always been so relaxing, and low keyed. It is very rural, and no immigration issues thus far.

I'll have to make a decision within the year. Health issuses may be the deciding point.

The wife has continued to spout expletives and non-confidence over the current presidential candidates. On both sides.

Should we actually make the move back to Britain, we'd be happy to put you up should a visit to the malt whisky trail ever be in the cards.

We might also collaborate on the best home defense against @policemedic 's raving Islamic hordes.

 

[Marine0311]

The wife has continued to spout expletives and non-confidence over the current presidential candidates. On both sides.

Should we actually make the move back to Britain, we'd be happy to put you up should a visit to the malt whisky trail ever be in the cards.

We might also collaborate on the best home defense against @policemedic 's raving Islamic hordes.

RF1 is a great man and it would be an honor to put him up if you ever had him for a visit.



I have a healthy fear this year. This country needs to be righted back to a more centered approach.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Watching the Republican debate...what the fuck.

 

[TLDR20]

RF1 is a great man and it would be an honor to put him up if you ever had him for a visit.



I have a healthy fear this year. This country needs to be righted back to a more centered approach.

What do you think our country is right now? We have a pretty right wing congress, and a left wing president. That is a recipe for keeping things right in the middle.

On to other things, people from both sides act like our country is on the fast track to either a socialist Marxist hellscape, or some kind of right wing Hitlerfest.

Guess what? After 8 years of Bush, we were still here, after 8 years of Obama, we are still here. We will still be here despite Trump and his hair, or Bernie and his grumpiness, or gasp, that woman is elected. America stands strong because of her people, not the one person at the top of the government.

If you want change the presidency isn't where you should be voting, congressional elections are where shit gets done.

 

[racing_kitty]

...*snip*or gasp, that woman is elected. *snip*...

I thought Carly Fiorina dropped out. :-"

 

[AWP]

Guess what? After 8 years of Bush, we were still here, after 8 years of Obama, we are still here. We will still be here despite Trump and his hair, or Bernie and his grumpiness, or gasp, that woman is elected. America stands strong because of her people, not the one person at the top of the government.

I agree and I don't. I think what we're seeing from one presidency to the next is an incremental loss of (insert topic here). My concern regardless of who we elect is how will they set up the next guy and the next to erode our country. Once the gov't takes something it doesn't exactly give that back. If I have a ham and you ask for it, I tell you no. You ask for a slice and then another slice...because isn't a whole ham, right? Ask for enough slices and you have an entire ham.

I'm not concerned about one right/left anti-Christ, I'm worried about a Voltron anti-Christ over decades.

 

[Marine0311]

I agree and I don't. I think what we're seeing from one presidency to the next is an incremental loss of (insert topic here). My concern regardless of who we elect is how will they set up the next guy and the next to erode our country. Once the gov't takes something it doesn't exactly give that back. If I have a ham and you ask for it, I tell you no. You ask for a slice and then another slice...because isn't a whole him, right? Ask for enough slices and you have an entire ham.

I'm not concerned about one right/left anti-Christ, I'm worried about a Voltron anti-Christ over decades.

You said it better than me. The slippery slope is what worries me the most.

 

[Brill]

I agree and I don't. I think what we're seeing from one presidency to the next is an incremental loss of (insert topic here). My concern regardless of who we elect is how will they set up the next guy and the next to erode our country. Once the gov't takes something it doesn't exactly give that back. If I have a ham and you ask for it, I tell you no. You ask for a slice and then another slice...because isn't a whole ham, right? Ask for enough slices and you have an entire ham.

Obama's SCOTUS nominee will take the last slice of the 2A ham and it'll be done.

We may not have social policies like Denmark or Norway but Australia gun laws, here we come!!!

 

[TLDR20]

Obama's SCOTUS nominee will take the last slice of the 2A ham and it'll be done.

We may not have social policies like Denmark or Norway but Australia gun laws, here we come!!!

I don't think so. There is no precedent, and in fact there is a shit ton of precedent saying that our gun laws are g2g. Even a liberal slant doesn't change what the law says. Even my SPLC lawyer friends say that, and they are about as liberal as they come.

 

[Red Flag 1]

What do you think our country is right now? We have a pretty right wing congress, and a left wing president. That is a recipe for keeping things right in the middle.

On to other things, people from both sides act like our country is on the fast track to either a socialist Marxist hellscape, or some kind of right wing Hitlerfest.

Guess what? After 8 years of Bush, we were still here, after 8 years of Obama, we are still here. We will still be here despite Trump and his hair, or Bernie and his grumpiness, or gasp, that woman is elected. America stands strong because of her people, not the one person at the top of the government.

If you want change the presidency isn't where you should be voting, congressional elections are where shit gets done.

Concur^^^^^. Both houses are badly in need of leadership, that has been absent for the last eight years. Everything is about the party, with the few votes have been right down party lines. It would be refreshing to have a POTUS, and a Congress that has the good of the Nation in mind, and not the party demands.

Leadership from the White House would be nice-v-Executive orders to run the nation, and that has been the case lately. There is a lot at stake with this election, and the key is the voting public.

Rather than taking for Gospel what one media sourcs says, perhaps some due dilligence in looking at multiple networks and print media, will give a more complete picture. The voting public has been putting people in office by means of knee jerks, and no thinking. I really wonder if the voters even care much at all? The people in office now, simply reflect voting ignorance. Until that changes, things inside the Capital Beltway will remain an inane mess.

That's my $.02. Back into my wee cave in The Valley.

 

[Brill]

I don't think so. There is no precedent, and in fact there is a shit ton of precedent saying that our gun laws are g2g. Even a liberal slant doesn't change what the law says. Even my SPLC lawyer friends say that, and they are about as liberal as they come.

Really? Carry a concealed weapon for your protection in MD, NY, CT and see what happens.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Imagine this ruling without Justice Scalia but another liberal justice: vote would be 5-4 against and the Court would determine that you, as an American citizen do NOT have a guaranteed right to defend yourself within your home with a working firearm. (The argument has yet to be decided if this right extends to OUTSIDE your home).

"JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court. We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution."

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."

This statement is the "ghost of Christmas future" if/when the leftist control the court:

Justice Stevens:

"The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

He continues: "Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations."

How anyone can say the liberal agenda does not include overturning Heller v DC is unbelievable.

 

[DA SWO]

I don't think so. There is no precedent, and in fact there is a shit ton of precedent saying that our gun laws are g2g. Even a liberal slant doesn't change what the law says. Even my SPLC lawyer friends say that, and they are about as liberal as they come.

They are too the right of you politically?

 

[TLDR20]

I am pro gun, pro 2A.

They are too the right of you politically?

Really? Carry a concealed weapon for your protection in MD, NY, CT and see what happens.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Imagine this ruling without Justice Scalia but another liberal justice: vote would be 5-4 against and the Court would determine that you, as an American citizen do NOT have a guaranteed right to defend yourself within your home with a working firearm. (The argument has yet to be decided if this right extends to OUTSIDE your home).

"JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court. We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution."

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."

This statement is the "ghost of Christmas future" if/when the leftist control the court:

Justice Stevens:

"The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

He continues: "Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations."

How anyone can say the liberal agenda does not include overturning Heller v DC is unbelievable.

The point I was making, is the government isn't going to suddenly come after your guns. They may make it so you have to get a background check before buying an AR, may overturn stand your ground laws, but I don't think they are going to do anything much crazier than that. Public opinion is against enacting new laws and the courts cannot do things unilaterally.

 

[Brill]

The point I was making, is the government isn't going to suddenly come after your guns. They may make it so you have to get a background check before buying an AR, may overturn stand your ground laws, but I don't think they are going to do anything much crazier than that. Public opinion is against enacting new laws and the courts cannot do things unilaterally.

Ah, got ya. Fully agree with you on the above.

 

[TLDR20]

I thought this was pretty interesting. I can see what it is saying and have been guilty of some of the actions described myself.
What a divided America actually hears when Obama speaks

 

[DocIllinois]

I thought this was pretty interesting. I can see what it is saying and have been guilty of some of the actions described myself.
What a divided America actually hears when Obama speaks

From the article: '“Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get all the attention,” Obama warned.'


Funny enough, this is exactly how Mr. Trump is the leading Repub candidate and where Corey Lewandowski's genius lies.

Donnie's not the best man for the job, but he is the most bloviating and entertaining in an extreme manner. This is what currently captures the American public's attention and preference.

His impending candidacy is also a byproduct of having only three requirements to become President of the United States, IMO, none of which have anything whatsoever to do with qualification or experience in leadership, government service, formal study of politics of domestic/ world affairs, or even psychological maturity.

 

[DA SWO]

From the article: '“Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get all the attention,” Obama warned.'


Funny enough, this is exactly how Mr. Trump is the leading Repub candidate and where Corey Lewandowski's genius lies.

Donnie's not the best man for the job, but he is the most bloviating and entertaining in an extreme manner. This is what currently captures the American public's attention and preference.

His impending candidacy is also a byproduct of having only three requirements to become President of the United States, IMO, none of which have anything whatsoever to do with qualification or experience in leadership, government service, formal study of politics of domestic/ world affairs, or even psychological maturity.

Sadly, I agree.
I think we can wait until Nov to nominate a replacement. Let Hillary name a candidate the day after the election, then bring the Senate in for hearings.
Ironic that his death will probably increase the number of people who vote this year.

 

[AWP]

Hillary Clinton barks like a dog...

Hillary Clinton barks like a dog to slam Republicans - CNNPolitics.com

"I want to figure out how we can do that with Republicans. We need to get that dog and follow them around and every time they say these things like, 'Oh, the Great Recession was caused by too much regulation,' arh, arh, arh, arh," Clinton said, letting out a barking noise that caused the audience to laugh and some people to mimic her.

 

[TLDR20]

Sadly, I agree.
I think we can wait until Nov to nominate a replacement. Let Hillary name a candidate the day after the election, then bring the Senate in for hearings.
Ironic that his death will probably increase the number of people who vote this year.

I disagree. The POTUS should nominate someone and the senate should hear about it. Im pretty sure that is part of his job description.