Donald Trump
Comments
-
14 "Democrat" states passed laws and joined a pact to vote for the overall national popular vote winner, with 7 of them between 2009 and 2014.coopster_the_1st said:
That it is the losing side that are trying to change the system because they do not agree with the original democratic outcome but are happy with the system when they win.kingstongraham said:
What is it about trying to improve a system you object to?coopster_the_1st said:What is it about the losers who don't like the democratic outcome, then want to change the system?
The same people seem to go quiet on changing the system when democracy goes their way...
The world would be a much improved place if the losers were mature enough to accept the democratic outcome.0 -
You might like to read about how the current system is different to how it was first implemented.coopster_the_1st said:
I've just seen the losers trying to discredit the system as they did not like the last result.kingstongraham said:
But it is not working anything like they designed it to. As explained up thread.coopster_the_1st said:
That is the system, so that a large state does not have a disproportionate influence as explained further up-thread.pinno said:
When Clinton (H) got more votes than Trump and Trump became still became president because of the electoral college system, surely democracy is the 'looser'?coopster_the_1st said:What is it about the losers who don't like the democratic outcome, then want to change the system?
The same people seem to go quiet on changing the system when democracy goes their way...
The world would be a much improved place if the losers were mature enough to accept the democratic outcome.
It's happened before and will happen again but it is a check and balance built into the system by the forefathers. Hence the check and balance of the system required to change this.
They are no different to Trump and his attacks on the US postal vote system.0 -
If anyone was going to be unhappy with working to change the status quo to be more directly representative of people, I didn't expect it to be Mr Referendum.0
-
I see you are trying to swerve away from your own hypocrisy.kingstongraham said:If anyone was going to be unhappy with working to change the status quo to be more directly representative of people, I didn't expect it to be Mr Referendum.
You were one of the losers that refused to accept the democratic outcome of the Referendum. Why is it the same losers from that democratic outcome are the ones trying to now discredit the US electoral system? This is the sort of low -blow tactics that Trump engages in.-3 -
If you think the election should be done in the same way as it was in the first presidential election, there's a lot of current voters who wouldn't have a say.
Same goes for the UK if we never changed the rules.0 -
The losing side can't change anything so at most they can argue for change. However at this stage it's looking better for a Democrat in the Whitehouse so we'll see if they want to put any political capital towards a change or not. It's the other aspect of getting into the Whitehouse only being the start not the end goal that usually means only the most likely of their wish lists get traction.coopster_the_1st said:
That it is the losing side that are trying to change the system because they do not agree with the original democratic outcome but are happy with the system when they win.kingstongraham said:
What is it about trying to improve a system you object to?coopster_the_1st said:What is it about the losers who don't like the democratic outcome, then want to change the system?
The same people seem to go quiet on changing the system when democracy goes their way...
The world would be a much improved place if the losers were mature enough to accept the democratic outcome.
Unfortunately constitutional change as big as the electoral college system will need huge political capital such that as much as it's needed there's more that could get done more readily to get wins under their belt. It's not losers or winners wanting it, it is simply needed. No party has the suicide tendency to try for it. And you bet if the system fails you work in Republican benefits they'll scream to change it too but also forget about it when they get in.0 -
the Coopster we had at the weekend was quite sane, such a shame he did not do better handover notesbriantrumpet said:Pross said:This makes even less sense than your usual rubbish. Who are the losers of which you speak? Surely the musing above specifically referenced it being in the event of controlling both houses and the presidency. It would be very hard to call a Party with control of all three as being the losers even in your distorted universe.
Trolling rarely makes sense, except as trolling.3 -
he was just putting on an act after a slapping from the modssurrey_commuter said:
the Coopster we had at the weekend was quite sane, such a shame he did not do better handover notesbriantrumpet said:Pross said:This makes even less sense than your usual rubbish. Who are the losers of which you speak? Surely the musing above specifically referenced it being in the event of controlling both houses and the presidency. It would be very hard to call a Party with control of all three as being the losers even in your distorted universe.
Trolling rarely makes sense, except as trolling.my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny1 -
surrey_commuter said:
the Coopster we had at the weekend was quite sane, such a shame he did not do better handover notesbriantrumpet said:Pross said:This makes even less sense than your usual rubbish. Who are the losers of which you speak? Surely the musing above specifically referenced it being in the event of controlling both houses and the presidency. It would be very hard to call a Party with control of all three as being the losers even in your distorted universe.
Trolling rarely makes sense, except as trolling.
It's like Russian disinformation tactics: they feed you enough truth & juicy bits to make you think they are legit, so that they can sneak other disruptive messaging in amongst it that you are more likely to believe. Trolls suck you in by making you think they are engaging in discussion, when in fact the only purpose is to make you engage: the actual content of the argument is very much secondary, a means to an end.1 -
Did I sleep through the US election and the Democrats lost? It's the only way I can make sense of Coopster's latest rants about the losers.0
-
Haha, Top Trump Trolling from the Biden team.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/13157689587424911360 -
I'm really enjoying the hearings with Amy Coney Barrett. The Democrats are pretending they don't understand what a judge does. Whether she thinks abortion is wrong or not will not have any effect on her interpretation of the law which is exactly how a judge should behave. The reason why Roe v Wade was decided the way it was was because of the exact criticism they're now levelling at her: judges injecting personal opinion into judgments.0
-
You think she genuinely doesn't have an opinion by now on whether it was wrongly decided?nickice said:I'm really enjoying the hearings with Amy Coney Barrett. The Democrats are pretending they don't understand what a judge does. Whether she thinks abortion is wrong or not will not have any effect on her interpretation of the law which is exactly how a judge should behave. The reason why Roe v Wade was decided the way it was was because of the exact criticism they're now levelling at her: judges injecting personal opinion into judgments.
0 -
I'm sure she thinks it was wrongly decided (Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn't a fan either). What the Democrats are pretending to not understand is that you can disagree with an issue while still applying the law and coming to a conclusion you don't personally like. That's a good judge who does that. A bad judge tries to twist the law to their own personal preference.kingstongraham said:
You think she genuinely doesn't have an opinion by now on whether it was wrongly decided?nickice said:I'm really enjoying the hearings with Amy Coney Barrett. The Democrats are pretending they don't understand what a judge does. Whether she thinks abortion is wrong or not will not have any effect on her interpretation of the law which is exactly how a judge should behave. The reason why Roe v Wade was decided the way it was was because of the exact criticism they're now levelling at her: judges injecting personal opinion into judgments.
0 -
the sole reason the gop are hell bent on ramming through her nomination, even though they blocked even hearing obama's nominee in an election year, is that they have an absolute and well founded expectation that her personal opinions will influence her interpretation and judgementnickice said:I'm really enjoying the hearings with Amy Coney Barrett. The Democrats are pretending they don't understand what a judge does. Whether she thinks abortion is wrong or not will not have any effect on her interpretation of the law which is exactly how a judge should behave. The reason why Roe v Wade was decided the way it was was because of the exact criticism they're now levelling at her: judges injecting personal opinion into judgments.
both parties play the same game for the same reason: personal experience and opinion influences judges decisions
if it didn't, then when presented with the same evidence every judge would reach the same conclusion, they do not
qedmy bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Judges disagree all the time. It's turns out interpretation of the law is actually quite difficult which is why we don't just let anyone do it. It's why judges write opinions to explain their reasoning. But, if you want to criticise judicial activism then look no further than Roe v Wade.sungod said:
the sole reason the gop are hell bent on ramming through her nomination, even though they blocked even hearing obama's nominee in an election year, is that they have an absolute and well founded expectation that her personal opinions will influence her interpretation and judgementnickice said:I'm really enjoying the hearings with Amy Coney Barrett. The Democrats are pretending they don't understand what a judge does. Whether she thinks abortion is wrong or not will not have any effect on her interpretation of the law which is exactly how a judge should behave. The reason why Roe v Wade was decided the way it was was because of the exact criticism they're now levelling at her: judges injecting personal opinion into judgments.
both parties play the same game for the same reason: personal experience and opinion influences judges decisions
if it didn't, then when presented with the same evidence every judge would reach the same conclusion, they do not
qed
The Republicans want to put an originalist on the court. It has little to do with personal opinion. Scalia made decisions that he personally disagreed with. I'm sure they think ACB could vote to overrule Roe v Wade but that would be pretty easy considering it was a bad decision. If the USA wants to legalise abortion at a federal level then that's why they have a legislative branch of government.
0 -
-
I guess we should know the context of Nick's own views; he is opposed to abortion and thinks it's within the gov'ts rights to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
0 -
ACB is an enabler for men to hold dominion over women. NickIce thinks this is how it should be...rick_chasey said:I guess we should know the context of Nick's own views; he is opposed to abortion and thinks it's within the gov'ts rights to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
0 -
Didn't trump just get injected with aborted babies to cure his covid-19 .. ?0
-
Yes I am but I can separate law from my personal opinions. Overruling Roe v Wade would not mean abortion was illegal as it would revert to being a state issue.rick_chasey said:I guess we should know the context of Nick's own views; he is opposed to abortion and thinks it's within the gov'ts rights to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
If you think it's about 'telling women what they can do with their bodies'
1) You must support abortion right up until birth
2) There are an awful lot of women who want to tell other women what they 'can do with their own bodies'0 -
Yes I'm so anti-women that I'd prefer that they weren't killed before birth.darkhairedlord said:
ACB is an enabler for men to hold dominion over women. NickIce thinks this is how it should be...rick_chasey said:I guess we should know the context of Nick's own views; he is opposed to abortion and thinks it's within the gov'ts rights to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
0 -
I'm not getting into this debate. It was for context for those who maybe missed your own persuasions on this.
ACB or whatever her name is has previously been part of anti-abortion organisations, so it stands to reason that she will look to interpret the law in ways which makes getting abortions more difficult. Reducing the decision to a 'state level' is a way in which that happens.
If there is even a point of having the questioning in the first place, the point is to bring those views to the surface.0 -
Don't start with your 'you think the Government has the right to tell women what to do with their bodies' nonsense if you can't take the heat. That wasn't providing any context it was just you sniping.rick_chasey said:I'm not getting into this debate. It was for context for those who maybe missed your own persuasions on this.
ACB or whatever her name is has previously been part of anti-abortion organisations, so it stands to reason that she will look to interpret the law in ways which makes getting abortions more difficult. Reducing the decision to a 'state level' is a way in which that happens.
If there is even a point of having the questioning in the first place, the point is to bring those views to the surface.
You underestimate people's ability to take objective decisions (probably because you can't) or do you think every judge makes decisions that they morally agree with?0 -
Breaking news: judge who thinks drugs should be legalised sends man to prison for drug trafficking.0
-
lol oh the heat, the heat is so hot, it burns so much.
Either you're very naïve or just so partisan you're being obtuse if you can't see the issue.0 -
It's not like you to avoid debates you might lose...0
-
I think supreme court judges make decisions that believe they can legally and constitutionally justify.nickice said:
Don't start with your 'you think the Government has the right to tell women what to do with their bodies' nonsense if you can't take the heat. That wasn't providing any context it was just you sniping.rick_chasey said:I'm not getting into this debate. It was for context for those who maybe missed your own persuasions on this.
ACB or whatever her name is has previously been part of anti-abortion organisations, so it stands to reason that she will look to interpret the law in ways which makes getting abortions more difficult. Reducing the decision to a 'state level' is a way in which that happens.
If there is even a point of having the questioning in the first place, the point is to bring those views to the surface.
You underestimate people's ability to take objective decisions (probably because you can't) or do you think every judge makes decisions that they morally agree with?0
alright nick, calm down. 
