2016 Presidential Race

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's funny (And hilarious) whenever I hear Elizabeth Warren call the Donald a "Fraud"

No problem "Pocahontas." Point taken. :D
 
Shit! I just re-read this! Very misleading! My apologies that my crappy wording appeared to implying that Clinton advocated the hypothetical scenario below. My point is if the USG and States can regulate firearms they SHOULD regulate religion because it can e just as dangerous as a firearm...a hammer...a knife...or a rope.

-------------------------

Hillary has said that the Executive branch has always had the right to regulate the Constitution :rolleyes: (remember she IS a lawyer).

EDITED: So let's assume that...Given this "fact" and supported by DOJ's regulation of the 2nd Amendment, the USG then has the right to regulate RELIGION. (The 1st Amendment only says the Government may not establish or favor a religion...in other words, ones right to a religion shall not be infringed.)

The USG EDIT: WOULD THEN have the right to conduct background checks, collect fingerprints, etc of anyone who wishes to attend a particular mosque (e.g. a place where a know radical Imam preaches).

States therefore EDIT: WOULD have the RIGHT to regulate how many times a week a person can attend mosques, which mosques can be in their states, the number of worshipers at any given time, and even which sermons/schools are considered "dangerous".

States also WOULD have the right to determine WHY someone wants to attend a mosque.

Given the above "rights" (EDIT: e.g. that the Exe has the right to regulate) as espoused by Hillary Clinton and her views on the Constitution, how could you vote anyone but Trump or Johnson?

For fuck's sake people, self educate! :p

My fault: should have included some links. I'm a news junky so I assumed it was well-known.


Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment right to bear arms

Agreed. Anything in this thread about a candidate's alleged beliefs or comments should at minimum have a source, at best a link or video. I cannot keep up with the he-said/she-said anymore; no way do I have time to research comment accuracy before I reply to to it. Definitely not a knock on @lindy , this thread is full of unsourced comments.

My apologies to you, @Deathy McDeath , and Board at large. I never intended to imply that Hillary said she planned to regulate Islam but rather, the President HAS ALWAYS had the power to regulate the Constitution and THEREBY, one would conclude, religion.

Yep, sounds stupid if you replace gun laws with religion.

CLINTON: If it is a constitutional right, then it — like every other constitutional right — is subject to reasonable regulations. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms. So I think it's important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right. I have no objection to that. But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regulatory, responsible actions to protect everyone else.

------------

Did she just advocate Trump's call to ban Muslims from known terrorist locations?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CLINTON: If it is a constitutional right, then it — like every other constitutional right — is subject to reasonable regulations. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms. So I think it's important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right. I have no objection to that. But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regulatory, responsible actions to protect everyone else.

------------

Did she just advocate Trump's call to ban Muslims from known terrorist locations?

What would even lead you to conclude that? That has to be one of the biggest reaches I have seen recently here. Good to see the not-so-silent minority speaking for their boy though.

The constitutional argument is one thing that unites me on both candidates (who at this point I dislike nearly equally which I thought wasn't possible 3 months ago). Trump gives no shits about free speech- remember when he said he wanted penalties for press that speak bad about him? Or how about the latest one where he wants to ban reporters that report things he doesn't like? And yea, I know, the post is a piece of shit paper, they treat him unfairly, WHAAAAAAAAAAA. Not the point. If Pres Obama said the same thing that Trump has, the conservative world would have a collective conniption fit.

And now the above Hillary position that show at the very least she's willing to "massage" the constitution to suggest/pass legislation? Great.

We have one candidate that blatantly disregards the constitution and our country's rulings and the other wants to surreptitiously change the constitution for her own personal agenda.

All that being said- Trump needs to figure his crap out, because he's singlehandedly handing the election to Clinton at this point.
 
What would even lead you to conclude that? That has to be one of the biggest reaches I have seen recently here. Good to see the not-so-silent minority speaking for their boy though.

The constitutional argument is one thing that unites me on both candidates (who at this point I dislike nearly equally which I thought wasn't possible 3 months ago). Trump gives no shits about free speech- remember when he said he wanted penalties for press that speak bad about him? Or how about the latest one where he wants to ban reporters that report things he doesn't like? And yea, I know, the post is a piece of shit paper, they treat him unfairly, WHAAAAAAAAAAA. Not the point. If Pres Obama said the same thing that Trump has, the conservative world would have a collective conniption fit.

And now the above Hillary position that show at the very least she's willing to "massage" the constitution to suggest/pass legislation? Great.

We have one candidate that blatantly disregards the constitution and our country's rulings and the other wants to surreptitiously change the constitution for her own personal agenda.

All that being said- Trump needs to figure his crap out, because he's singlehandedly handing the election to Clinton at this point.

Trump gives no shits about free speech
Are you saying the media should not be held responsible for libel? Because he is a public figure that he has no right to confront libelous claims in the media? That has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.
ban reporters that report things he doesn't like
He specifically says "I won't kick reporters out of White House press briefing room," opposed to the current president that has done just that
 
Are you saying the media should not be held responsible for libel? Because he is a public figure that he has no right to confront libelous claims in the media? That has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.

He specifically says "I won't kick reporters out of White House press briefing room," opposed to the current president that has done just that

I would throw around phrases like libel lightly. Libel needs to prove that the published statement was a lie, and was stated as a fact, not an opinion. I haven't seen too many examples of Trump being libeled
 
I would throw around phrases like libel lightly. Libel needs to prove that the published statement was a lie, and was stated as a fact, not an opinion. I haven't seen too many examples of Trump being libeled

Libel being a legal term would suggest there is a legal process to arbitrate. The point is that he can't be libeled being a public figure.
 
@amlove21 , my point was if a candidate believes the Executive branch has the authority to regulate the Constitution, there are no limits.

My post was totally hypothetical yet IS based on regulations levied on the 2nd Amendment. There are no laws prohibiting the hypothetical scenario.

I guess we accept the Muslim refugees and "hope" some change their hatred for the West or we deny their entry until proper checks are completed. In the case of no data, I say no entry. The welfare of the masses override the welfare of the few.

“Islamic Refugee” With Gas Pipeline Plans Arrested in New Mexico Border County - Judicial Watch
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you saying the media should not be held responsible for libel? Because he is a public figure that he has no right to confront libelous claims in the media? That has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.

He specifically says "I won't kick reporters out of White House press briefing room," opposed to the current president that has done just that
First off, agree with @TLDR20 , Trump hasn't been libeled, and it literally has everything to do with free speech. Your speech isn't free when you have to worry about some weak willed crybaby yelling "LAWSUIT!!!" every time his press isn't favorable.

For as much as Trump is heralded as an "anti-PC behavior" guy, he sure does pull the SJW "YOURE ASSAULTING ME YOURE BULLYING ME IM TRIGGERED IM TRIGGERED" card a lot. He has historically thin skin when it comes to criticism and goes off the deep end when it happens. Secondly, I think Pres Obama limiting the press during his official duties is wrong as well. That fact, however, doesn't absolve Trump, it makes them both equally wrong.

BL- To express your desire to hold the press legally culpable for saying things that make you personally angry and you're running for an office that could grant you the actual power to do so, it's an attack on freedom of the press and free speech.

@amlove21 , my point was if a candidate believes the Executive branch has the authority to regulate the Constitution, there are no limits.

My post was totally hypothetical yet IS based on regulations levied on the 2nd Amendment. There are no laws prohibiting the hypothetical scenario.
I like thought experiments and hypotheticals- I use them all the time, here and in life. The problem is when we just throw shit out there and don't label it as such. I disagree with your point- or at least the way you put it.

Example- "Hillary Clinton is saying that the executive branch has the authority to regulate the constitution- DD HILLARY JUST SAY THAT BLACK PEOPLE SHOULD BE SLAVES AND WOMEN SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO VOTE????"

See? That's intellectually dishonest. Defending it as a hypothetical after the fact is as well.
 
First off, agree with @TLDR20 , Trump hasn't been libeled, and it literally has everything to do with free speech. Your speech isn't free when you have to worry about some weak willed crybaby yelling "LAWSUIT!!!" every time his press isn't favorable.

For as much as Trump is heralded as an "anti-PC behavior" guy, he sure does pull the SJW "YOURE ASSAULTING ME YOURE BULLYING ME IM TRIGGERED IM TRIGGERED" card a lot. He has historically thin skin when it comes to criticism and goes off the deep end when it happens. Secondly, I think Pres Obama limiting the press during his official duties is wrong as well. That fact, however, doesn't absolve Trump, it makes them both equally wrong.
As @ke4gde has said, free speech has to do with the government.

Amazing you don't see the political game that Trump is playing with the press.. to think it's some sort of affront to freedom of speech is seriously myopic. To suggest that it is equally wrong for an actual sitting president to ban members of the press to that of a candidate is crazy.

BL- To express your desire to hold the press legally culpable for saying things that make you personally angry and you're running for an office that could grant you the actual power to do so, it's an attack on freedom of the press and free speech.
You are again characterizing what is happening poorly by saying that he wants to hold the press culpable for just saying mean things about him. He wants to hold them to the truth. The whole point of libel. Regardless if he has been libeled is moot because he is a public figure.
 
I like thought experiments and hypotheticals- I use them all the time, here and in life. The problem is when we just throw shit out there and don't label it as such. I disagree with your point- or at least the way you put it.

Example- "Hillary Clinton is saying that the executive branch has the authority to regulate the constitution- DD HILLARY JUST SAY THAT BLACK PEOPLE SHOULD BE SLAVES AND WOMEN SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO VOTE????"

See? That's intellectually dishonest. Defending it as a hypothetical after the fact is as well.

No, I don't see your point. Why would she not? What did she mean in that interview?

There's no other way to understand my post as anything but hypothetical. Deathly & oh-rah asked for supporting documentation which I provided but after the fact and then I tightened up my argument. DAYS later you come along, and accuse me of click bait.

How you could equate my post, which you obviously did not read, to the above is ridiculous. How does that even parallel regulating firearms with regulating religion as did mine?

Clinton has expressed her belief that the Executive can regulate the laws but she only has the power to enforce laws. Based on that, she would certainly make Obama's EO over reach look tame.
 
President Obama has put out less EO's than any 2 term president in the last century.
No, I don't see your point. Why would she not? What did she mean in that interview?

There's no other way to understand my post as anything but hypothetical. Deathly & oh-rah asked for supporting documentation which I provided but after the fact and then I tightened up my argument. DAYS later you come along, and accuse me of click bait.

How you could equate my post, which you obviously did not read, to the above is ridiculous. How does that even parallel regulating firearms with regulating religion as did mine?

Clinton has expressed her belief that the Executive can regulate the laws but she only has the power to enforce laws. Based on that, she would certainly make Obama's EO over reach look tame.

Executive Orders
 
@amlove21 , my point was if a candidate believes the Executive branch has the authority to regulate the Constitution, there are no limits.
It should be pointed out that she did not say that the executive has the authority to regulate the constitution. She said that the second amendment is subject to regulation just like any other constitutional right, which is correct. The word "executive" is never mentioned, and in fact Clinton was talking about historic 2nd amendment regulations in the context of legislative and judicial actions (specifically DC v. Heller, and the "gun tax" of the 90's). It's a bit of a reach to infer that she was somehow tipping her hand on executive gun control in this interview.

Here's the transcript of the section of the interview I'm referring to in its entirety:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about the Second Amendment. As you know, Donald Drumpf has also been out on the stump, talking about the Second Amendment, saying you want to abolish the Second Amendment.

I know you reject that. But I -- but I want to ask you a specific question.

Do you believe that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it's not linked to service in a militia?

CLINTON: I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulation.

So I believe we can have common sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment, and, in fact, what I have proposed is supported by 90 percent of the American people and more than 75 percent of responsible gun owners.

So that is exactly what I think is constitutionally permissible.

And once again, you have Donald Drumpf just making outright fabrications, accusing me of something that is absolutely untrue. But I'm going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loopholes, closing the online loophole, closing the so-called Charleston loophole, reversing the bill that Senator Sanders voted for and I voted against, giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers. I think all of that can and should be done and it is, in my view, consistent with the "Constitution."

STEPHANOPOULOS: And the "Heller" decision also does say there can be some restrictions.

But that's what I asked.

I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?

CLINTON: If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms.

So I think it's important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right -- I have no objection to that. But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regularity, responsible actions to protect everyone else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How far would you go on that?

Back in -- back in 1993 -- I don't want to show it right here -- you actually came out in support of the gun tax.

Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you react to a 25 percent sales tax on hand guns and on automatic weapons?

CLINTON: I'm all for that. I just don't know what else we're going to do to try to figure out how to get some handle on this violence.

We will look at your proposal and be happy to talk with you about it. I'm speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you still believe that?

CLINTON: What I was saying back then was that we have a lot of public health costs that taxpayers end up paying for through Medicaid, Medicare, through uncompensated care, because that was in the context of the push for health care reform and that we needed some way to try to defray those costs.

And I'm not going to commit to any specific proposal. I was speaking personally then. I would have to consider any proposal in light of how it interacted with all the others that we want to continue to advocate for, particularly, as I said, comprehensive background checks.

But that was in the context of health care.

When you have mass shootings, you not only have the terrible deaths, you have people who are injured. You know, I was just in San Bernardino yesterday. And I met some of the survivors. One woman who was shot twice, who's had a series of surgeries. Two other women who were cowering in abject terror by the terrorists' unbelievable assault on their co-workers.

What they talked to me about is where do they get the financial support to deal with both the physical and the emotional trauma?

You know, is it workman's comp support, which is one of the arguments?

Is it private insurance?

Is it because they work for the county, something the county should pay for?

There are real costs that people incur because of the terrible gun violence epidemic.

And we have to deal with it. And I'm going to be looking for ways to deal with it. I'm not committed to anything other than what I've said in this campaign.

But I do want people to ask themselves, can't we do better than have 33,000 people killed every year by guns and many thousands more injured?

And I take[sic] we can.
 
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about the Second Amendment. As you know, Donald Drumpf has also been out on the stump, talking about the Second Amendment, saying you want to abolish the Second Amendment.

CLINTON: And once again, you have Donald Drumpf just making outright fabrications

@Deathy McDeath I'm sure you didn't do this, but do you have a link to the transcript?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top