A Pittsburgh Penguins Hockey Message Board
http://www.fifthavenueforum.com/forum/
http://www.fifthavenueforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=19
Voting for some doesn’t mean you like them as a person. That shouldn’t be difficult to understand.I mean, it's only the single most reliable predictor of reelection odds, so...
This is disturbingly accurate re: methey vote for him because they don't want to vote for the other person and have strong interests in the SCOTUS and cabinet appointees...and will just always vote R. I really think this is the majority of trump voters - and some of them will lean in with their tacit support and get into superficial disputes because of scorekeeping and being put on the defensive.
voting for trump could mean a lot of things.
-single issue voting on matters like guns/immigration
If the damn Democrats keep pushing an assault weapon ban, they can kiss all hope of reclaiming PA goodbye...
What must drive you insane is that you know, if Oprah was elected president and she wanted a privilege tax on white men, people in this thread would have the same, “yeah that’s dumb, and this situation is f’d, but I’ll still vote for her” response. But that’s not what happened. It’s YOUR side that did it first. You elected the populist before we had a chance to. And now you’re painted as some sort of dimwit, even though you’re certain the other side would do the same - because of all those ancillary voting drivers.This is disturbingly accurate re: methey vote for him because they don't want to vote for the other person and have strong interests in the SCOTUS and cabinet appointees...and will just always vote R. I really think this is the majority of trump voters - and some of them will lean in with their tacit support and get into superficial disputes because of scorekeeping and being put on the defensive.
Seems like something that would absolutely require SCOTUS support. That’s not happeningDems are constantly told that Pres Trump (and by default any president) has little power and can't really accomplish anything dramatic or dangerous and that we need to calm down and ride it out. So why would we believe that as soon as any D gets in office they'll take our guns?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... eapons_BanSo why would we believe that as soon as any D gets in office they'll take our guns?
Dems are constantly told that Pres Trump (and by default any president) has little power and can't really accomplish anything dramatic or dangerous and that we need to calm down and ride it out. So why would we believe that as soon as any D gets in office they'll take our guns?
could a congressional act override prior SCOTUS rulings?Dems are constantly told that Pres Trump (and by default any president) has little power and can't really accomplish anything dramatic or dangerous and that we need to calm down and ride it out. So why would we believe that as soon as any D gets in office they'll take our guns?
I don't think I've ever said that. In fact, you have my permission to believe that when any candidate for public office says, "If you elect me, I promise to do X," then that candidate will in fact do X (or at least make a sincere attempt to do X) in the event he or she is elected.
Reasons to believe that Ds will ban guns:
1. They're all promising to do it.
2. They've done it before.
3. An AWB bill pending in the House already has 200 Democrat sponsors.
Well said. We are in a totally fcked two-party system. Hell, the last time a third-party won states in a general election was 1968, and that was George Wallace running for the AIP taking a bunch of southern states. I just don't envision a scenario where that will ever change.Voting exclusively by party lines isn’t a choice we all made. It’s something we’ve been forced into because Congress is broken.
could a congressional act override prior SCOTUS rulings?
I thought Heller addresses #1?could a congressional act override prior SCOTUS rulings?
No, but: (1) the SCOTUS has not specifically ruled on whether an ban on semi-auto rifles or standard-capacity magazines would be constitutional, so that would be no barrier to the passage and attempted enforcement of such a ban; (2) the same candidates who are promising to take anti-gun action are also promising to appoint judges to the SCOTUS who would be hostile to the RKBA and who would presumably vote in favor of gun bans, if not vote to overrule cases like Heller outright.
Kids in border camps are 9 times likelier to die of flu. Trump’s team won’t vaccinate them.
Customs and Border Protection will not distribute flu shots to detained children or adults and has yet to respond to medical professionals' concerns.
Not directly, no. The Heller case held that the 2A represents an individual right, and that right, at a minimum, extends to the ownership and use of handguns within one's home. Therefore, Washington D.C.'s total ban on operative handguns in the home was unconstitutional. The Court also said that the "arms" encompassed by the 2A are "those in common use for lawful purposes." The subsequent McDonald case held that the 2A also applies to the states. That is the total extent of the Court's rulings to date. Beyond handguns, the Court has not ruled that any other arms are covered. While folks like me certainly believe that semi-automatic rifles are "in common use for lawful purposes" (and have been for more than 100 years), some lower courts have already ruled to the contrary. So questions like these are still open:I thought Heller addresses #1?
Yeah, the republicanshttps://www.cnn.com/2019/08/21/politics ... index.html
Anyone here want to undo birthright citizenship?
Sane people.https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/21/politics ... index.html
Anyone here want to undo birthright citizenship?
Yup, most European countries don't have that policy because it is patently stupid. Birthright tourism is literally a thing. Not an invented right wing thing, but actual travel packages in nice American hotels where you will be invited to give birth.Huh. I've never looked it up, but TIL that birthright citizenship is very much a New World thing. Just about every country in North and South America has "jus soli" citizenship, and hardly any countries anywhere else do. The only countries in Europe that offer birthright citizenship are Luxembourg and Azerbaijan.*
Whether Azerbaijan is in Europe or Asia or both is something open to debate.
Yes. Just like most issues there are fringe people that want it for terrible reasons.I don’t think anyone would argue that those pregnancy trips should not grant citizenship. But I think the opposition to birthright citizenship goes well beyond the obvious case.
