It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[P@triot]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

She'll be president, not a dictator. She will still have to deal with congress. If the Republican leadership had any onions they won't let her run through them like BO does.

Of course that's true but there is a possibility of the Dems taking back the Senate, and the GOP doesn't have the balls to stand up for conservatism, as you stated.

Even so, it isn't too early to start thinking about resistance. Even if it isn't yet needed.

Actually, the American people should have been thinking about resistance and discussing a comprehensive strategy for it after Woodrow Wilson was sworn into office and started shredding the U.S. Constitution. That nightmare grew exponentially worse (as did the Great Depression thanks to the liberal policies) once FDR was sworn into office.

As you said many times Pred, resistance can take many forms. It doesn't have to be violence. One of the best things the American people could do is max out their tax exemption status so that they bring home way more than they should each week according to the tax code and then wait until the very last second possible to file and pay taxes to "starve the beast". That is a prime of example of being a law abiding citizen and yet resisting and making life miserable for those breaking the law and engaging in unconstitutional activity.

Another thing (even more simple and every bit legal) is just to shine a light on the corruption. Forums like this, sharing information about representatives and the illegal actions they are engaging in to enlighten the electorate. I think the ruling class needs to see that there is an educated and resistant electorate in America. That will go a long way in brining about change.

 

[flacaltenn]

Again you prove leftists don't know how shit works

I'd just like to say fuck you.

If you knew how shit worked.. Maybe you wouldn't get stuck on "fuck you"..

It's obvious from the claims that are made. Whether it's about "2/3 of all US Corporations pay no income tax" or "the voters have NEVER had a say in how delegates are assigned"... It's on display hourly...

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Scalia was an activist Justice, creating laws from the bench and putting his religious beliefs ahead of the Constitution. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Oh please...that is the exact opposite of reality and you know it. Antonin Scalia was the one Supreme Court justice who actually acted like a true justice. He put his own opinions aside and objectively accepted the U.S. Constitution for exactly how it was written. He is forever the shining example of exactly what a justice was intended to be.

By the way, vintage example of the modern day "bleeding heart liberal" there - celebrating the death of a good and decent man.

He was not a good and decent man, he was a bigot.

He called the Voting Rights act a "racial entitlement".

He said that perhaps Blacks should go to easier colleges because they can't compete with Whites.

He thinks deciding Capital Punishment and Abortion is easy? What does he base that on, the Constitution? No. He bases it on his Catholicism:

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”


Here, he fundamentally doesn't understand that SCOTUS is not deciding "social transformation", they are deciding Constitutionality:

“[T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

Here, he compares homosexuality to murder and animal cruelty - a view not based on Constitutionality but his religious beliefs:

“Of course, it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct…”


More, based solely on his religious beliefs and not the Constitution:

“[The Texas anti-sodomy law] undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. … So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery.”

Also, comparing homosexuality to beastiality and incest:

“State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

When asked about that comment he said this:

“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

It's not his job to be Moral Arbiter. It's his job to determine Constitutionality, and that's it.

“What minorities deserve protection? What? It’s up to me to identify deserving minorities? What about pederasts? What about child abusers? This is a deserving minority. Nobody loves them.”

Again, this has nothing to do with Constitutionality.


Scalia, professionally, was a shitty Justice and personally a shitty person.

Unfortunately, he was instrumental in protecting our right to bear arms.

So , would you be happy with a nice justice who is personally a great person who votes against our right to bear arms?


.

Ahh, so SCOTUS is illegitimate when you don't agree with them (Obamacare) but they are just dandy when you do (2nd).

And you Libertarians claim you're not Right-Wing dopes like those Republicans.

Well ,

there is NO SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED authority delegated to fedgov to operate an insurance scheme

on the other hand

we do have an extra-constitutional right to bear arms to defend our lives

See the distinction?

.

The 16th amendment allowed the federal government to collect an income tax, and the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare a tax. I don't like it either, but that is the legal justification.

 

[flacaltenn]

Except that's the way political parties work. It's the way they have always worked.At the very first Republican convention, Lincoln was not the front-runner and had only 39% of the popular vote, he won the nomination in the third round by rallying delegates to support him. By their nature, parties want to remain in power and do that by elevating the candidate they believe gives them the best chance to do so.There's nothing nefarious or secret about their goals. Any candidate can win but you have to play the game to get the support.

Face it Starsky -- You're just a party animal that doesn't care about representative govt or issues or principles or political philosophies. You LOVE winning.. And the parties have conditioned you to believe you're a patriot and a freedom lover by helping them win. This will be ABUNDANTLY clear to you when the "hot war" breaks out.. And people take back the government from the "establishment". The tyranny will be "insiders" and their control of the process. And the mainstream media will be the largest "collateral casualty"..

With any luck -- it'll be here before 2017.

You don't know me dude. Your worldview is so cynical and jaded you can't even see reality anymore.Obviously you hate losing as you're hoping the world burns before the next inauguration.The system is now what it's been your entire lifetime. Nothing has changed. There is no tyranny and no corruption. It is what it is and what it's always been. No two candidates from any party are the same. Some are better than others but they're all different. Different priorities, principles and political philosophies even within a the same party. You aren't enlightened, you're inculcated into the RW loony fever swamp.

Did you seriously just say, "There is no tyranny and no corruption"?!? Wow... just... uh....wow. That is a special kind of naive that I can't even begin to wrap my head around.

I did. It's all about perspective. Yours is darkly warped and decidedly immature.

Yeah...uh....I can assure you that anyone who believes there is (and I quote) "no corruption" are the one's who have the decidedly warped and extraordinarily immature and naive perspective.

That....or they are just playing the good soldier trying to convince others of what they know not to be true in exchange for trying to "fundamentally transform" America into a Dumbocrat socialist nation so that they don't have to work and provide for themselves.

There is no denying you are one of the two. Since nobody could be so dumb, childish, and naive as to believe the former (even a liberal), I'm betting it's the latter.

CONGRESS can't even hold the bureaucratic minions responsible for incompetence, irresponsibility, or corruption.. They DEMAND stuff gets produced, and they are thwarted and rebuked. The tyranny is in safe protected bastions of political horsepucky. Like the parties and the obese and incompetent Federal Agencies.

 

[Contumacious]

So the real question is - why does the government, engaging in highly illegal activity - get a pass from you?

Name the illegality. And STFU about how you know the law better than SCOTUS.

I already did, but I'm more than happy to do it again. Here you go...

It doesn't matter that a Supreme Court stacked with political activist instead of justices ruled it "constitutional". One only read the U.S. Constitution to comprehend two things:

1. The federal government is strictly limited to 18 enumerated powers. Healthcare is not one of those powers. Cut & Dry. Black & White. So simple, only a liberal could be confused by it.
2. The federal government has zero authority in the U.S. Constitution to force the American people to purchase a good or service. That power simply does not exist.

Nobody can deny #1 or #2 above. Not you. Not Obama. Those are the cold hard facts - and they are indisputable. And then there is this little gem: Barack Obama insisted over and over and over in front of the American people that this was not a tax. When the bill was challenged before the Supreme Court, both #1 and #2 above were the arguments for why this was unconstitutional. So what did Barack Obama and his administration do? They then reversed course and said "wait...this is a tax...and the Constitution grants us the power to lay and collect taxes". So Obama either egregiously lied to the American people over and over and over, or he committed perjury before the Supreme Court by lying to them. But wait! It gets better! (I feel like an infomercial). Even if this was a "tax" (and it's not - that is the most absurd argument ever put before the American people as a tax is something used to finance the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government - a tax is not a new regulation and unconstitutional power) - all revenue bills must be generated by the House of Representatives per the U.S. Constitution. But the Obamacare bill which ultimately passed and was signed into law was generated in the Senate. So no matter how many lies Obama comes up with, it is still the most illegal, unconstitutional legislation ever created in U.S. history.

You do realize that every time you point to the Supreme Court ruling you are simply proving just how illegal this bill was, don't you?

#1 and #2 only serve to reveal your ignorance of the Constitution.

No, they don't. You fly your stupidity flag high and proud though..

Of course they do. Nothing in the Constitution says the government is limited to those 18 enumerated items. If they were, the government would not be allowed to fund the airforce, which of course, is not an enumerated power.

Excuse me dingle berry

Why write a Constitution if the government is free to do whatever it wants?

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[PredFan]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

She'll be president, not a dictator. She will still have to deal with congress. If the Republican leadership had any onions they won't let her run through them like BO does.

Of course that's true but there is a possibility of the Dems taking back the Senate, and the GOP doesn't have the balls to stand up for conservatism, as you stated.

Even so, it isn't too early to start thinking about resistance. Even if it isn't yet needed.

Too funny... the GOP doesn't have the balls to stand up for conservatism -- so conservatives fight back by trying to nominate one of the least Conservative candidates running.

No dumbass, the conservatives are trying to stop Trump. Do you even pay attention?

 

[Contumacious]

Oh please...that is the exact opposite of reality and you know it. Antonin Scalia was the one Supreme Court justice who actually acted like a true justice. He put his own opinions aside and objectively accepted the U.S. Constitution for exactly how it was written. He is forever the shining example of exactly what a justice was intended to be.

By the way, vintage example of the modern day "bleeding heart liberal" there - celebrating the death of a good and decent man.

He was not a good and decent man, he was a bigot.

He called the Voting Rights act a "racial entitlement".

He said that perhaps Blacks should go to easier colleges because they can't compete with Whites.

He thinks deciding Capital Punishment and Abortion is easy? What does he base that on, the Constitution? No. He bases it on his Catholicism:

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”


Here, he fundamentally doesn't understand that SCOTUS is not deciding "social transformation", they are deciding Constitutionality:

“[T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

Here, he compares homosexuality to murder and animal cruelty - a view not based on Constitutionality but his religious beliefs:

“Of course, it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct…”


More, based solely on his religious beliefs and not the Constitution:

“[The Texas anti-sodomy law] undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. … So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery.”

Also, comparing homosexuality to beastiality and incest:

“State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

When asked about that comment he said this:

“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

It's not his job to be Moral Arbiter. It's his job to determine Constitutionality, and that's it.

“What minorities deserve protection? What? It’s up to me to identify deserving minorities? What about pederasts? What about child abusers? This is a deserving minority. Nobody loves them.”

Again, this has nothing to do with Constitutionality.


Scalia, professionally, was a shitty Justice and personally a shitty person.

Unfortunately, he was instrumental in protecting our right to bear arms.

So , would you be happy with a nice justice who is personally a great person who votes against our right to bear arms?


.

Ahh, so SCOTUS is illegitimate when you don't agree with them (Obamacare) but they are just dandy when you do (2nd).

And you Libertarians claim you're not Right-Wing dopes like those Republicans.

Well ,

there is NO SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED authority delegated to fedgov to operate an insurance scheme

on the other hand

we do have an extra-constitutional right to bear arms to defend our lives

See the distinction?

.

The 16th amendment allowed the federal government to collect an income tax, and the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare a tax. I don't like it either, but that is the legal justification.

The 16th Amendment taxes income derived from wages . Not tyhe wages themselves. The Victory Tax of 1942 taxed source - wages.

.

 

[P@triot]

Oh please...that is the exact opposite of reality and you know it. Antonin Scalia was the one Supreme Court justice who actually acted like a true justice. He put his own opinions aside and objectively accepted the U.S. Constitution for exactly how it was written. He is forever the shining example of exactly what a justice was intended to be.

By the way, vintage example of the modern day "bleeding heart liberal" there - celebrating the death of a good and decent man.

He was not a good and decent man, he was a bigot.

He called the Voting Rights act a "racial entitlement".

He said that perhaps Blacks should go to easier colleges because they can't compete with Whites.

He thinks deciding Capital Punishment and Abortion is easy? What does he base that on, the Constitution? No. He bases it on his Catholicism:

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”


Here, he fundamentally doesn't understand that SCOTUS is not deciding "social transformation", they are deciding Constitutionality:

“[T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

Here, he compares homosexuality to murder and animal cruelty - a view not based on Constitutionality but his religious beliefs:

“Of course, it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct…”


More, based solely on his religious beliefs and not the Constitution:

“[The Texas anti-sodomy law] undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. … So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery.”

Also, comparing homosexuality to beastiality and incest:

“State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

When asked about that comment he said this:

“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

It's not his job to be Moral Arbiter. It's his job to determine Constitutionality, and that's it.

“What minorities deserve protection? What? It’s up to me to identify deserving minorities? What about pederasts? What about child abusers? This is a deserving minority. Nobody loves them.”

Again, this has nothing to do with Constitutionality.


Scalia, professionally, was a shitty Justice and personally a shitty person.

Unfortunately, he was instrumental in protecting our right to bear arms.

So , would you be happy with a nice justice who is personally a great person who votes against our right to bear arms?


.

Ahh, so SCOTUS is illegitimate when you don't agree with them (Obamacare) but they are just dandy when you do (2nd).

And you Libertarians claim you're not Right-Wing dopes like those Republicans.

Well ,

there is NO SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED authority delegated to fedgov to operate an insurance scheme

on the other hand

we do have an extra-constitutional right to bear arms to defend our lives

See the distinction?

.

The 16th amendment allowed the federal government to collect an income tax, and the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare a tax. I don't like it either, but that is the legal justification.

That is completely and totally nonsensical. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court could easily rule that it is ok to hang black people. Would that mean it is ok? Really?

I find it so tragic that so many American's are completely ignorant of the U.S. Constitution and the law. Just because someone is elected to Congress or someone is appointed to the Supreme Court, it does not give them unlimited power. They cannot do whatever they want. Their authority is still restricted by the U.S. Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

He was not a good and decent man, he was a bigot.

He called the Voting Rights act a "racial entitlement".

He said that perhaps Blacks should go to easier colleges because they can't compete with Whites.

He thinks deciding Capital Punishment and Abortion is easy? What does he base that on, the Constitution? No. He bases it on his Catholicism:

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”


Here, he fundamentally doesn't understand that SCOTUS is not deciding "social transformation", they are deciding Constitutionality:

“[T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

Here, he compares homosexuality to murder and animal cruelty - a view not based on Constitutionality but his religious beliefs:

“Of course, it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct…”


More, based solely on his religious beliefs and not the Constitution:

“[The Texas anti-sodomy law] undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. … So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery.”

Also, comparing homosexuality to beastiality and incest:

“State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

When asked about that comment he said this:

“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

It's not his job to be Moral Arbiter. It's his job to determine Constitutionality, and that's it.

“What minorities deserve protection? What? It’s up to me to identify deserving minorities? What about pederasts? What about child abusers? This is a deserving minority. Nobody loves them.”

Again, this has nothing to do with Constitutionality.


Scalia, professionally, was a shitty Justice and personally a shitty person.

Unfortunately, he was instrumental in protecting our right to bear arms.

So , would you be happy with a nice justice who is personally a great person who votes against our right to bear arms?


.

Ahh, so SCOTUS is illegitimate when you don't agree with them (Obamacare) but they are just dandy when you do (2nd).

And you Libertarians claim you're not Right-Wing dopes like those Republicans.

Well ,

there is NO SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED authority delegated to fedgov to operate an insurance scheme

on the other hand

we do have an extra-constitutional right to bear arms to defend our lives

See the distinction?

.

The 16th amendment allowed the federal government to collect an income tax, and the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare a tax. I don't like it either, but that is the legal justification.

The 16th Amendment taxes income derived from wages . Not tyhe wages themselves. The Victory Tax of 1942 taxed source - wages.

Furthermore - the left in their infinite ignorance - fail to realize that the authority to lay and collect taxes is to run the federal government. The federal government is strictly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution to 18 enumerated powers - such as defense, the Patent Office, etc. Therefore, the taxes are only legal if they are used for those items the federal government is responsible for.

The federal government cannot create a bill permanently outlawing free speech and claim "it's a tax" like they nonsensically attempted with Obamacare. A tax is used to pay for their responsibilities, not create unlimited power. By liberal "logic" the federal government can pass into law tomorrow a bill which grants men the unlimited right to rape women indefinitely - so long as they refer to it as a "tax" since the "16th Amendment gives the federal government the power to create taxes". That is not a tax. Obamacare is not a tax (it's a new government power and program). You can't create new programs and new powers so long as you call them a "tax". This is a special kind of stupid that only a liberal could embrace.

 

[Synthaholic]

It wasn't a 9-0 decision.

Neither was Heller: 5-4.

So that decision is illegitimate, too?

Where did anybody say that? Do you know how to tell when someone is getting their ass handed to them in a debate? When they edit what someone else posted (as you have done every time you've responded) in hopes that anyone else just joining the board will not see the entire statement in its full context and when you have to put words into the other person's mouth (as you have done every time you've responded). Why do you feel the need to edit what I wrote? They are my words - why can't you leave them be? Oh that's right - they unequivocally prove that you are not only wrong, but that you also have no idea what you're talking about.

To answer your disingenuous question - the vote tally doesn't make a ruling "illegitimate" - ignoring the U.S. Constitution in favor of political activism (like Sotomayor, Kagen, and Ginsburg do) is what makes a ruling "illegitimate".

No matter how many times you desperately grasp as straws - it doesn't change the fact that the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government 18 enumerated powers and healthcare is not one of them, or the fact that the Barack Obama Administration committed perjury before the Supreme Court, or the fact that the bill originated in the Senate and revenue bills must be created in the House by law, or the fact that the federal government has zero authority in the U.S. Constitution to force the American people to purchase a good or service.

Game. Set. Match. Thanks for playing Syn. Now get all angry, swear, and edit everything that was said since you can't dispute these realities on their merits.

What was the point of you saying it wasn't a 9-0 decision, then?

 

[Synthaholic]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

She'll be president, not a dictator. She will still have to deal with congress. If the Republican leadership had any onions they won't let her run through them like BO does.

Of course that's true but there is a possibility of the Dems taking back the Senate, and the GOP doesn't have the balls to stand up for conservatism, as you stated.

Even so, it isn't too early to start thinking about resistance. Even if it isn't yet needed.

Too funny... the GOP doesn't have the balls to stand up for conservatism -- so conservatives fight back by trying to nominate one of the least Conservative candidates running.

No dumbass, the conservatives are trying to stop Trump. Do you even pay attention?

I thought the "establishment" was trying to stop Drumpf?

You all should coordinate your talking points.

 

[Synthaholic]

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court could easily rule that it is ok to hang black people.

That wouldn't be Constitutional, so they wouldn't decide that way.

But if, in your fantasy (wet dream?), if they did Congress would pass a law preventing it. Because Congress is accountable to the people, and SCOTUS is accountable to the Constitution.

 

[PredFan]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

She'll be president, not a dictator. She will still have to deal with congress. If the Republican leadership had any onions they won't let her run through them like BO does.

Of course that's true but there is a possibility of the Dems taking back the Senate, and the GOP doesn't have the balls to stand up for conservatism, as you stated.

Even so, it isn't too early to start thinking about resistance. Even if it isn't yet needed.

Too funny... the GOP doesn't have the balls to stand up for conservatism -- so conservatives fight back by trying to nominate one of the least Conservative candidates running.

No dumbass, the conservatives are trying to stop Trump. Do you even pay attention?

I thought the "establishment" was trying to stop Drumpf?

You all should coordinate your talking points.

Really, it's no wonder you morons are liberals. I'm impressed that not only do you idiots not know anything, but to be this ignorant you'd have to purposely and intentionally AVOID learning.

 

[Contumacious]

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court could easily rule that it is ok to hang black people.

That wouldn't be Constitutional, so they wouldn't decide that way.

But if, in your fantasy (wet dream?), if they did Congress would pass a law preventing it. Because Congress is accountable to the people, and SCOTUS is accountable to the Constitution.

All three branches are accountable to WE THE PEOPLE who are the guardians of the Constitution.

.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court could easily rule that it is ok to hang black people.

That wouldn't be Constitutional, so they wouldn't decide that way.

But if, in your fantasy (wet dream?), if they did Congress would pass a law preventing it. Because Congress is accountable to the people, and SCOTUS is accountable to the Constitution.

All three branches are accountable to WE THE PEOPLE who are the guardians of the Constitution.

.

I am less convinced that they are accountable to us.

Donald Trump is a promoter, not a politician and he threatens the control base of the RNC, all the guys and gals who have been pecking their way up the political ladder while feeding at the public trough. Now they see some guy who is threatening to take it all away. A lot of real conservatives, not necessarily Reps, are fed up with going along with the RNC choice.

They told us that RINO McCain could win, then it was Romney, 2 guys who were entrenched GOPers. And they flamed out. They wanted Jebbie, voters said no, then they tried Rubster, no thanks. So their last ditch effort is Teddy. They say come on, he called Mitch McConnell a liar on the senate floor, he isn't one of us.

But despite the RNC having control of the rule book, Donald just hangs around, that can't knock him out.

Are they starting to realize how little faith their "base" has in them? I doubt it since they keep spitting in their face.

Also, I am not convinced he can't beat Hillary

 

[P@triot]

That wouldn't be Constitutional, so they wouldn't decide that way

Bwahahahaha! Obamacare isn't Constitutional, but that didn't stop the Supreme Court. Neither was their gay marriage ruling (the Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch - they have zero power to create law which is the responsibility of the legislative branch - and Congress didn't pass any legislation on gay marriage junior). Oops! As always, you illustrate your fundamental lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the government and in doing so, prove all of my points for me.

 

[Crixus]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

Well, going to jail is not a real good option. Those cops need the space for really bad folks, so if at all avoidable it should be avoided. No one takes anyone seriously for going to jail, mostly they are just considered a pain in the ass.

Simply ask questions of the political guys. Folks were doing that for awhile, but since political silly season kicked off all anyone of any philosophical bent is to busy trying to be outraged. That's the second thing we could do. Stop being outraged all the time. That's kind of how the man keeps us down. The third thing we could do is realize some things.

1. What gay folks do is no one's business but theirs.
2. Deal with the fact abortion won't be abolished.
3. No one, not even Donald Trump will fix it. That and realize politicians lie, Trump is a politician and has been lying. Instead of hollering on a message board go Do something.
4. Folks need to realize our government has to stop spending money and,
5. Realize the jobs all the politicians say they will bring back will never come back.

 

[koshergrl]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

Well, going to jail is not a real good option. Those cops need the space for really bad folks, so if at all avoidable it should be avoided. No one takes anyone seriously for going to jail, mostly they are just considered a pain in the ass.

Simply ask questions of the political guys. Folks were doing that for awhile, but since political silly season kicked off all anyone of any philosophical bent is to busy trying to be outraged. That's the second thing we could do. Stop being outraged all the time. That's kind of how the man keeps us down. The third thing we could do is realize some things.

1. What gay folks do is no one's business but theirs.
2. Deal with the fact abortion won't be abolished.
3. No one, not even Donald Trump will fix it. That and realize politicians lie, Trump is a politician and has been lying. Instead of hollering on a message board go Do something.
4. Folks need to realize our government has to stop spending money and,
5. Realize the jobs all the politicians say they will bring back will never come back.

If "what gay folks are doing" is putting men in our bathrooms, targeting businesses, and "reaching out" to our children, it is our business.
The law that led to the legalization of abortion is bad law and abortion is a human rights violation. We will keep trying to get it abolished. That's what we do.

 

[P@triot]

But if, in my fantasy (wet dream), they did Congress would pass a law preventing it. Because Congress is accountable to the people, and SCOTUS is accountable to the Constitution.

Once again.....Bwahahahaha!!! First you state that the Supreme Court decides what is law and what isn't, and that they wield ultimate power. Then you come back and state that if they didn't something unconstitutional that you support (like authorizing the hanging of black people), that Congress could override them? I think you need to make up your mind. Either the Supreme Court trumps Congress or Congress trumps the Supreme Court. You can't have it both ways depending on which bizarre and inconsistent point in your mind you are trying to support.

 

[Crixus]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

Well, going to jail is not a real good option. Those cops need the space for really bad folks, so if at all avoidable it should be avoided. No one takes anyone seriously for going to jail, mostly they are just considered a pain in the ass.

Simply ask questions of the political guys. Folks were doing that for awhile, but since political silly season kicked off all anyone of any philosophical bent is to busy trying to be outraged. That's the second thing we could do. Stop being outraged all the time. That's kind of how the man keeps us down. The third thing we could do is realize some things.

1. What gay folks do is no one's business but theirs.
2. Deal with the fact abortion won't be abolished.
3. No one, not even Donald Trump will fix it. That and realize politicians lie, Trump is a politician and has been lying. Instead of hollering on a message board go Do something.
4. Folks need to realize our government has to stop spending money and,
5. Realize the jobs all the politicians say they will bring back will never come back.

If "what gay folks are doing" is putting men in our bathrooms, targeting businesses, and "reaching out" to our children, it is our business.
The law that led to the legalization of abortion is bad law and abortion is a human rights violation. We will keep trying to get it abolished. That's what we do.

As you should. No bones with that.