|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
McCain promises GOP will indefinitely block ANY Clinton SCOTUS nominees
The whole Republican party needs to go. They've become actively opposed to democracy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paraphrasing and taking liberties here (a lot of liberties)...
Trump: Its going to cost 4 billion...they say 10, but I know how to build walls, and if you are smart...4 billion...4 to 6 billion... 6 billion...maybe 8 billion...'bout 10 billion...10 to 12 billion.
Expert testimony and federal data: If you use the lowest figure, which is a 35 foot high wall, construction will cost *meticulous details*, adding up to 25 billion. Maintenance for 7 years will double that, and this isn't even including getting the property to build this wall on in the first place.
Far more effective than walls are towers and machine gun nests. Even North Korea doesn't have a specific Wall it's entire border. It has a fence, a mine field, and lots of people with guns.
Probably be far more effective simply to put towers with machine gun nexts every mile to two miles. Add in a minefield and you'd have illegals going the same way they do on the Korean border. It probably would cut down a LOT more than a wall would.
Of course, you'd have to live with the thousands of deaths you caused (especially for the first one or two years) as you'd probably kill a lot of people.
The question would be how many would be Americans simply crossing over the Mexico/US border to other way as well?
Other thoughts, the most memorable wall along the border is the One China built...it's pretty well known. How well did that do to stopping invasions?
Also, if the US built a wall, would it be visible from Space. I think it would be longer then the Great Wall of China...though I'm not positive on that aspect.
Are you really advocating policing the border with lethal force? At this point I cant tell if you are serious or not anymore.
My main impression is that most voters are voting against the other candidate, not for their candidate.That's the impression I get when declaring my intended write-in support for Bernie. Both sides blow up at me and marshal arguments that amount to, "I'm afraid of other and you should be too; dumb###!"
Considering that Sanders ISN'T RUNNING, what you're doing is no more than a protest vote. It does come down to Clinton or Trump barring an event from some really bad movie plot, and the question is which of the two are you more comfortable seeing in office and which outcome does your vote contribute to?
Keep in mind that Ralph Nader pulled 100,000 votes in a state what Gore lost to Bush by only 500. And that state decided the election.
And before anyone chimes in, I'm NOT blaming Nader on this.
Are you really advocating policing the border with lethal force? At this point I cant tell if you are serious or not anymore.Paraphrasing and taking liberties here (a lot of liberties)...
Trump: Its going to cost 4 billion...they say 10, but I know how to build walls, and if you are smart...4 billion...4 to 6 billion... 6 billion...maybe 8 billion...'bout 10 billion...10 to 12 billion.
Expert testimony and federal data: If you use the lowest figure, which is a 35 foot high wall, construction will cost *meticulous details*, adding up to 25 billion. Maintenance for 7 years will double that, and this isn't even including getting the property to build this wall on in the first place.
Far more effective than walls are towers and machine gun nests. Even North Korea doesn't have a specific Wall it's entire border. It has a fence, a mine field, and lots of people with guns.
Probably be far more effective simply to put towers with machine gun nexts every mile to two miles. Add in a minefield and you'd have illegals going the same way they do on the Korean border. It probably would cut down a LOT more than a wall would.
Of course, you'd have to live with the thousands of deaths you caused (especially for the first one or two years) as you'd probably kill a lot of people.
The question would be how many would be Americans simply crossing over the Mexico/US border to other way as well?
Other thoughts, the most memorable wall along the border is the One China built...it's pretty well known. How well did that do to stopping invasions?
Also, if the US built a wall, would it be visible from Space. I think it would be longer then the Great Wall of China...though I'm not positive on that aspect.
This is not a statement in support of GWL's position, but we already police the border with lethal force. That's why border patrol agents are armed.
McCain promises GOP will indefinitely block ANY Clinton SCOTUS nominees
The whole Republican party needs to go. They've become actively opposed to democracy.
*Raises finger, then pauses*
...
Gimme a sec.
*Clink* ... *Glug glug glug*
Okay. I'm better now. This should be... interesting.
|
|
This is not a statement in support of GWL's position, but we already police the border with lethal force. That's why border patrol...Are you really advocating policing the border with lethal force? At this point I cant tell if you are serious or not anymore.Paraphrasing and taking liberties here (a lot of liberties)...
Trump: Its going to cost 4 billion...they say 10, but I know how to build walls, and if you are smart...4 billion...4 to 6 billion... 6 billion...maybe 8 billion...'bout 10 billion...10 to 12 billion.
Expert testimony and federal data: If you use the lowest figure, which is a 35 foot high wall, construction will cost *meticulous details*, adding up to 25 billion. Maintenance for 7 years will double that, and this isn't even including getting the property to build this wall on in the first place.
Far more effective than walls are towers and machine gun nests. Even North Korea doesn't have a specific Wall it's entire border. It has a fence, a mine field, and lots of people with guns.
Probably be far more effective simply to put towers with machine gun nexts every mile to two miles. Add in a minefield and you'd have illegals going the same way they do on the Korean border. It probably would cut down a LOT more than a wall would.
Of course, you'd have to live with the thousands of deaths you caused (especially for the first one or two years) as you'd probably kill a lot of people.
The question would be how many would be Americans simply crossing over the Mexico/US border to other way as well?
Other thoughts, the most memorable wall along the border is the One China built...it's pretty well known. How well did that do to stopping invasions?
Also, if the US built a wall, would it be visible from Space. I think it would be longer then the Great Wall of China...though I'm not positive on that aspect.
They do not shoot on sight and/or lay mines which is quite a difference no?
...This is not a statement in support of GWL's position, but we already police the border withAre you really advocating policing the border with lethal force? At this point I cant tell if you are serious or not anymore.Paraphrasing and taking liberties here (a lot of liberties)...
Trump: Its going to cost 4 billion...they say 10, but I know how to build walls, and if you are smart...4 billion...4 to 6 billion... 6 billion...maybe 8 billion...'bout 10 billion...10 to 12 billion.
Expert testimony and federal data: If you use the lowest figure, which is a 35 foot high wall, construction will cost *meticulous details*, adding up to 25 billion. Maintenance for 7 years will double that, and this isn't even including getting the property to build this wall on in the first place.
Far more effective than walls are towers and machine gun nests. Even North Korea doesn't have a specific Wall it's entire border. It has a fence, a mine field, and lots of people with guns.
Probably be far more effective simply to put towers with machine gun nexts every mile to two miles. Add in a minefield and you'd have illegals going the same way they do on the Korean border. It probably would cut down a LOT more than a wall would.
Of course, you'd have to live with the thousands of deaths you caused (especially for the first one or two years) as you'd probably kill a lot of people.
The question would be how many would be Americans simply crossing over the Mexico/US border to other way as well?
Other thoughts, the most memorable wall along the border is the One China built...it's pretty well known. How well did that do to stopping invasions?
Also, if the US built a wall, would it be visible from Space. I think it would be longer then the Great Wall of China...though I'm not positive on that aspect.
Yes that's a big difference. It's also not what you originally said. I get that you were responding to GWL's statement, wherein he basically advocated for "shoot-on-sight", but I'm a strong proponent of saying what you mean, rather than saying kind of what you mean and hoping everyone else has been following along well enough to make the connection.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will be voting for Bernie. Not interested in being all afraid and/or righteous and voting for one of the likely (virtually certain) winners. So, obviously I'm not comfortable with either Trump or Clinton.
What I find interesting is that your behavior is indistinguishable from that of a person who IS comfortable with either Trump or Clinton.
How so?What I find interesting is that your behavior is indistinguishable from that of a person who IS comfortable with either Trump or Clinton.
I will be voting for Bernie. Not interested in being all afraid and/or righteous and voting for one of the likely (virtually certain) winners. So, obviously I'm not comfortable with either Trump or Clinton.
Because you're pretty much advocating for the same result. Your write-in vote, won't even BE READ, unless your state comes in at a very close tie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of voting for someone else, here's John Oliver on Johnson and Stein, taking them as serious contenders instead of spoilers.
Speaking of voting for someone else, here's John Oliver on Johnson and Stein, taking them as serious contenders instead of spoilers.
To be truthful, he's discussing them more as contenders with each their own particular caveats that their supporters are overlooking, and even Oliver makes the statement that barring extremely unusual circumstances , that it is for all intents and purposes, a Trump/Clinton race.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just seems pointlessly contrary to me.
Oh boo hoo! My guy lost so I'm taking my vote and going home!
How very Cartman of you.
My point is those two are worthless, each in their own special way.
[Insert Orfamay's ever-enlarging aneurysm over false equivalences here] I despise both Trump and Clinton (for separate reasons), but it's absolutely not accurate to compare them as equals.
Because you're pretty much advocating for the same result. Your write-in vote, won't even BE READ, unless your state comes in at a very close tie.How so?What I find interesting is that your behavior is indistinguishable from that of a person who IS comfortable with either Trump or Clinton.
I will be voting for Bernie. Not interested in being all afraid and/or righteous and voting for one of the likely (virtually certain) winners. So, obviously I'm not comfortable with either Trump or Clinton.
Worse, since Sanders hasn't filled out paperwork to be a write-in candidate in any state, writing him in accomplishes nothing at all, not even as a protest vote. Such a vote won't be counted; it's the same as not voting for PotUS at all. If you want to make a protest vote (or vote to help a third-party hit the percentage needed to receive Federal funding & be in debates), vote for Stein... or Johnson or McMullen or one of the other write-ins registered in your state.
Quark Blast: I'd personally much rather you vote for Clinton to stop Trump, but if you're going to vote for someone else, at least pick a choice that will be counted.
Both - intentionally or otherwise - have not always been truthful... but one of them is much, much worse than the other.
Just seems pointlessly contrary to me.
Oh boo hoo! My guy lost so I'm taking my vote and going home!
How very Cartman of you.
Would it be anymore pointless then me voting for Clinton? I live in NY, where the 29 electoral votes are all going to Clinton, regardless of how I vote.
Yet somehow, if I were to announce I was voting for Clinton, people would not point out how useless it is, and compare me to Cartman. Most peoples votes are going to be pointless, why criticize some but not others?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most peoples votes are going to be pointless, why criticize some but not others?
If it brings you any solace, I'm silently criticizing everyone's vote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hillary Clinton’s email problems just came roaring back
Beats me, but this doesn't sound good:
"On Monday, however, the various issues associated with Clinton's email setup came roaring back. According to emails released by the FBI, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy asked the FBI to ease up on classification decisions in exchange for allowing more FBI agents in countries where they were not permitted to go. The words 'quid pro quo' were used to describe the proposed exchange by the FBI official."
Both - intentionally or otherwise - have not always been truthful... but one of them is much, much worse than the other.No, it's definitely intentional. A person cannot lie that many times and have it be accidental. Well, maybe if they're high on some cocktail of recreational drugs. Maybe.
Insert Orfamay's ever-enlarging aneurysm over false equivalences here] I despise both Trump and Clinton (for separate reasons), but it's absolutely not accurate to compare them as equals.I never said they were equal. Specifically I said, "My point is those two are worthless, ."
They are most definitely not equal. Though how that means they cannot both be worthless, you have not established.
worth·less
ˈwərTHləs/adjective
having no real value or use
Having no value = having 0 value. Both are allegedly worthless => both have 0 value. 0 == 0 --> true. You're directly implying that they are equivalent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Running Subtheme: Standing Rock
But this sounds good:
Breaking: Judge Rejects "Riot" Charges Against Amy Goodman in North Dakota
McCain promises GOP will indefinitely block ANY Clinton SCOTUS nominees
The whole Republican party needs to go. They've become actively opposed to democracy.
If the Dems get the majority back they will use the nuclear option to prevent that from happening.
If the GOP keeps the majority Clinton will use a recess appointment.
worth·less
ˈwərTHləs/
adjective
having no real value or useHaving no value = having 0 value. Both are allegedly worthless => both have 0 value. 0 == 0 --> true. You're directly implying that they are equivalent.
Are you implying that Trump (or Hillary) can't be worth less then zero?
Also, seriously? Do we really need to provide a criticism ratio whenever we mention one of these clowns?
How so?
If you are comfortable with either Clinton or Trump, you won't do anything that will influence the probability of one of them getting elected.
Whatever you choose to do on election day, your behavior is not going to tilt the outcome in either direction. You're indifferent to which of them is elected, since you don't want to try to influence their chances.
Here let me help you with this faux dialog as didactic device.
Quark: "I'm thirsty."
Cpt. BT: "Here my boy, have a crankshaft."
Quark: "Uh, no I said, 'I'm thirsty.'"
Cpt. BT: "Here my boy, have a look-see at the moon through my telescope."
Quark: "Those two offers are worthless, each in their own special way."
False premise. Both of those things are effectively equal in their lack of worth in the analogy. The same cannot be said for Trump and Hillary. They're incredibly different in terms of policy, so I'm not sure how it is that you came to your conclusion, unless your only knowledge of the candidates is from HuffPo or Fox-tier sources.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what the supreme court will have to say about the supreme court having to work with less than 9...
Looking forward to a SC justice ruling that their own appointment was valid..
Are you implying that Trump (or Hillary) can't be worth less then zero?
worth·less
ˈwərTHləs/
adjective
having no real value or useHaving no value = having 0 value. Both are allegedly worthless => both have 0 value. 0 == 0 --> true. You're directly implying that they are equivalent.
That depends on your scale.
Also, seriously? Do we really need to provide a criticism ratio whenever we mention one of these clowns?
Since one of them is going to be president, and they are not (as some people are trying to claim) effectively the same, yes.
I wonder what the supreme court will have to say about the supreme court having to work with less than 9...
Looking forward to a SC justice ruling that their own appointment was valid..
They'll have nothing to say. Unless a lawsuit works it's way to the proper channels.
And I'm pretty sure the response will be on the lines that while the President has the power to appoint, and Congress has the power to affirm, there is no time limit to either of these steps, written in the Constitution.
False premise. Both of those things are effectively equal in their lack of worth in the analogy. The same cannot be said for Trump and Hillary. They're incredibly different in terms of policy, so I'm not sure how it is that you came to your conclusion, unless your only knowledge of the candidates is from HuffPo or Fox-tier sources.Here let me help you with this faux dialog as didactic device.
Quark: "I'm thirsty."
Cpt. BT: "Here my boy, have a crankshaft."
Quark: "Uh, no I said, 'I'm thirsty.'"
Cpt. BT: "Here my boy, have a look-see at the moon through my telescope."
Quark: "Those two offers are worthless, each in their own special way."
K, let me try this.
If you burn your house down, does it matter if you do it lighting a match or short circuiting your space heater?
Again, false premise. How do you figure that they are both going to similarly "burn the house down"?
McCain promises GOP will indefinitely block ANY Clinton SCOTUS nominees
The whole Republican party needs to go. They've become actively opposed to democracy.
If the Dems get the majority back they will use the nuclear option to prevent that from happening.
If the GOP keeps the majority Clinton will use a recess appointment.
If the GOP keeps the majority, the Senate will never recess again.
Honestly, I'm not sure they'll be able to take the political pressure indefinitely or that they'll even live up to it, but it's possible. It will be a real breaking of the country, constitutional crisis kind of moment, especially as more Justices retire or die.
Perhaps not, but I could see a clandestine coup involving all the Dem caucus plus Kaine waiting for a district visiting time to jump in and have the capital police escort the few remaining republicans in to the chamber to get a cloture quorum.
Not likely sure, but on the table. Particularly if we are looking at a 7 or 6! justice SCOTUS situation.
If you burn your house down, does it matter if you do it lighting a match or short circuiting your space heater?
If your house is burning down there's a difference between using a teeny tiny little fire extinguisher and a 55 gallon tub of napalm.
Yes. A vote for Clinton would still be counted. A write in vote for someone not running would be the same as not voting. So yes, one vote is more pointless than the other.
Nah, he's right.
A protest vote in new york is a reasonable way to express dissatisfaction with the system. Its not going to hurt anyone.
McCain promises GOP will indefinitely block ANY Clinton SCOTUS nominees
The whole Republican party needs to go. They've become actively opposed to democracy.
If the Dems get the majority back they will use the nuclear option to prevent that from happening.
If the GOP keeps the majority Clinton will use a recess appointment.
If the GOP keeps the majority, the Senate will never recess again.
Honestly, I'm not sure they'll be able to take the political pressure indefinitely or that they'll even live up to it, but it's possible. It will be a real breaking of the country, constitutional crisis kind of moment, especially as more Justices retire or die.
Perhaps not, but I could see a clandestine coup involving all the Dem caucus plus Kaine waiting for a district visiting time to jump in and have the capital police escort the few remaining republicans in to the chamber to get a cloture quorum.
Not likely sure, but on the table. Particularly if we are looking at a 7 or 6! justice SCOTUS situation.
There's no cloture if no one schedules a nomination vote. Garland's nomination isn't being filibustered, they're just not considering it.
Filibuster is a minority tool. If the Democrats control the Senate, I'm confident they'll get someone through - perhaps not as liberal a someone as I'd like, but someone. If necessary, exercise what the Republicans called the Constitutional option back when they were talking about killing the filibuster.
I wasn't talking about a matter of overcoming a filibuster. I was talking about a situation where 47 democrat senators plus Kaine stuck around instead of going home to their states, and then dragging in at least 4 other republicans to meet quorum (using capital police at the direction of Kaine from the senate floor.) Then Kaine could still exercise his constitutional authority to preside over the senate. He could schedule the vote and proceed immediately if he chose.
Unlikely, sure. Untasteful, definitely. But facing the alternative of constitutional crisis? Perhaps necessary.
Yes. A vote for Clinton would still be counted. A write in vote for someone not running would be the same as not voting. So yes, one vote is more pointless than the other.Just seems pointlessly contrary to me.
Oh boo hoo! My guy lost so I'm taking my vote and going home!
How very Cartman of you.
Would it be anymore pointless then me voting for Clinton? I live in NY, where the 29 electoral votes are all going to Clinton, regardless of how I vote.
Yet somehow, if I were to announce I was voting for Clinton, people would not point out how useless it is, and compare me to Cartman. Most peoples votes are going to be pointless, why criticize some but not others?
And to be pedantic, a write in vote for Clinton won't be counted unless a tie forces the counting of write in votes.
And to be pedantic, a write in vote for Clinton won't be counted unless a tie forces the counting of write in votes.
In my state, all write-in votes are tallied and added to the election results before the election board certifies the election. You cannot ignore them.
Perhaps your state has different laws, but it's not likely. All ballots and all votes need to be accounted for.
I'd have to dig deeper, but I don't think that actually works.I wasn't talking about a matter of overcoming a filibuster. I was talking about a situation where 47 democrat senators plus Kaine stuck around instead of going home to their states, and then dragging in at least 4 other republicans to meet quorum (using capital police at the direction of Kaine from the senate floor.) Then Kaine could still exercise his constitutional authority to preside over the senate. He could schedule the vote and proceed immediately if he chose.
Unlikely, sure. Untasteful, definitely. But facing the alternative of constitutional crisis? Perhaps necessary.
Yeah. My understanding is that any senator can call for a quorum, at which point the clerk of the Senate does a roll-call vote to determine by voice response which senators are present.
Any Republican senator could call for a quorum, and then remain silent during roll call. The clerk would report the Senate inquorate, the motion would fail, and then Kaine would almost certainly be arrested for conspiracy to commit kidnapping as well as malfeasance in office.