Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 42 minutes ago, butterbumps! said: that's interesting. My suspicion is that filling various appointments would be something he'd want to personally oversee, and that his grotesquerie-- rather than establishment figures-- would be giving input. And given his obsession with besting the law (not to mention some decisions and principles he "admires," like Kelo; I mean, if anyone would go around declaring blight, tearing down that neighborhood and erecting monuments/ golf courses in honor of himself for "public good" it would be him), I'd suspect he'd be very keen to use his power to ensure laws that benefit him directly are upheld. I see these nominations at best as a gamble (for the conservative mainstream, that is). Exactly. I seriously doubt Pres. Trump will be nominating members of the Federalist Society if he likes the Kelo decision. Actually, that news is particularly depressing knowing that no matter who is likely to win I'm unlikely to like where they go judicially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I don't find him entertaining, at all. Maybe it's just me but I've never found Trump anything but irritating. During his fight with Rosie (the one in which he threatened to send models to seduce her girlfriend and break up her long term relationship) I had to stop listening to Jim Rome's sports talk radio program because his audience was in love with Trumps brand of bravado and the host kindly indulged them with repeated clips. I am with you, he isn't entertaining at all. At least I can listen to Rush (yelling at the radio the whole time). Trumps voice just pissed me off at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 13 minutes ago, Kalbear said: For the first time in its history USA today steps into the endorsement arena...and says vote for anyone but Trump. I recently read that a newspaper that had endorsed the Republican nominee for the last 100 years is now endorsing Clinton. Things are starting to look better for Clinton again. The media has been pummeling Trump pretty hard since the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Skynjay, I find Jim Rome irritating in a way very similar to Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: For the first time in its history USA today steps into the endorsement arena...and says vote for anyone but Trump. Did they make the endorsement in pie chart form? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. X Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Did they make the endorsement in pie chart form? *slow clap* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 This has to be a big deal right? Trump Foundation lacks the certification required for charities that solicit money. Quote Donald Trump’s charitable foundation — which has been sustained for years by donors outside the Trump family — has never obtained the certification that New York requires before charities can solicit money from the public, according to the state attorney general’s office. Under the laws in New York, where the Donald J. Trump Foundation is based, any charity that solicits more than $25,000 a year from the public must obtain a special kind of registration beforehand. Charities as large as Trump’s must also submit to a rigorous annual audit that asks — among other things — whether the charity spent any money for the personal benefit of its officers. If New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) finds that Trump’s foundation raised money in violation of the law, he could order the charity to stop raising money immediately. With a court’s permission, Schneiderman could also force Trump to return money that his foundation has already raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 27 minutes ago, Mexal said: This has to be a big deal right? Trump Foundation lacks the certification required for charities that solicit money. That's maybe the 4th shadiest thing about the Trump Foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 I don't see it. Trump is playing to a crowd that thinks any regulation is bad. A regulation on a charity, no matter how shady it is, is going to play to his base as a horrible abuse of power and further fuel the 'media is rigged' narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 That whole 'the media is Marxist' thing was one of Hitler's smartest conceptualizations, and has been serving right wing rhetoric well ever since. Just get people to buy that one thought, and you can thereafter pretty much count on a conceptual monopoly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 3 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said: That's an interesting thought. I'm pretty sure Trump won't nominate some shady mob lawyer to the Supreme Court and will just put forward whomever Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell ask him to, but with Trump you can never be sure. On a semi related note, I actually would prefer a slightly more moderate/civil libertarian Supreme Court, and if Kasich or Jeb had won, I'd consider voting Republican for that reason. It does seem like Roberts turned out to be somewhat more moderate than perhaps the Bush Admin intended. He could almost be called a swing vote couldn't he? But I think there would be yuge pressure on any Republican president to nominate a very conservative judge to ensure the court most definitely moves in the conservative direction. In that respect a wild card like trump could actually be a better bet for nominating someone who fits more in the moderate capacity, because president trump might well be willing to tell Republican congressional leaders to go screw themselves and he'll nominate who he wants not who they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Exactly. I seriously doubt Pres. Trump will be nominating members of the Federalist Society if he likes the Kelo decision. Actually, that news is particularly depressing knowing that no matter who is likely to win I'm unlikely to like where they go judicially. That certainly seems like a decision fraught with a lot of potentially bad consequences. This is where the claim that Trump is not part of the establishment gets totally blown out of the water. Surely, Kelo is very much an establishment decision and thus Trump's self-serving agreement with it makes him a definitively establishment candidate. How many movies have been made about the rich guy wanting to buy up all the land and the little guy doggedly holding out despite harassment and death threats. I guess there's no need to make these movies anymore because all the rich guy has to do it convince the civil authorities that his plan is a public good and thus eminent domain can be brought to bare. Then the little guy becomes the outlaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Trump has signaled his loathing of journalists and wishes there were some more expedient way to shut them up if he doesn't like what they write. Think a Republican Congress would stop him from getting those kinds of judges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 43 minutes ago, SkynJay said: I don't see it. Trump is playing to a crowd that thinks any regulation is bad. A regulation on a charity, no matter how shady it is, is going to play to his base as a horrible abuse of power and further fuel the 'media is rigged' narrative. But having a shady charity may be off putting to enough of the soft Trump support that they either don't vote or take their vote elsewhere, some may even go to Clinton. But honestly I have a hard time believing anyone who is seriously considering a vote for Trump regarding themselves as still open to being convinced to vote Clinton. At this point I think demoralising his soft support so that they don't turn out or vote 3rd party is the best Clinton can do. Same applies for soft Clinton support. Who among soft Clinton voters would really consider flipping for Trump? Even with a major October surprise, they'd have to be mostly thinking 3rd party is the way. It's a pity there isn't a really good 3rd party candidate. What would happen if a third party candidate won enough states to prevent either Trump or Clinton reaching the 273? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkess Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 32 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: It's a pity there isn't a really good 3rd party candidate. What would happen if a third party candidate won enough states to prevent either Trump or Clinton reaching the 273? It's 270 for the majority in the electoral college. If no candidate crosses the majority threshold, then the House of Representatives votes to determine the President and the Senate votes for the Vice President. They have to choose from the top candidates with the highest votes so they can't just pick whoever they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 34 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: It's a pity there isn't a really good 3rd party candidate. What would happen if a third party candidate won enough states to prevent either Trump or Clinton reaching the 273? JEB! Bush would be the next president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Just now, Starkess said: It's 270 for the majority in the electoral college. If no candidate crosses the majority threshold, then the House of Representatives votes to determine the President and the Senate votes for the Vice President. They have to choose from the top candidates with the highest votes so they can't just pick whoever they want. Thanks for the constitutional lesson. Not sure where I got that extra 3 electoral college votes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 1 minute ago, Pony Queen Jace said: JEB! Bush would be the next president. Surely only if he can prove he's Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Genuine attempted Voter ID Fraud - question is by agents of which Party? http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/he-fought-in-world-war-ii-he-died-in-2014-and-he-just-registered-to-vote-in-va/ar-BBwNJup RICHMOND — The FBI and local police are investigating how at least 19 dead Virginians were recently re-registered to vote in this critical swing state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 5 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: Surely only if he can prove he's Christian. Thought I had that joke on lock down, but Starkess swooped in with stupid facts and truths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.