2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

PopePalpatine wrote: »

OK, since I'm not a passenger on the Trump Trainwreck, I retract my statement. She IS 18 though, I can't really give out to her.

My beef is not with the law or with her, it's with media bias. Another example, Ivanka Trump been asked numerous times from the media about her father's bad treatment of women, yet Chelesa Clinton has only been asked once about the same regarding her father and enabling mother, and the question was framed in a way so she only had to respond to what Trump's has said.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

My beef is not with the law or with her, it's with media bias. Another example, Ivanka Trump been asked numerous times from the media about her father's bad treatment of women, yet Chelesa Clinton has only been asked once about the same regarding her father and enabling mother, and the question was framed in a way so she only had to respond to what Trump's has said.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that he attempted to brush off a question by asking if the interviewer was on her period.

Or if it had anything to do with the fact that he said that women should be prosecuted for having an abortion (though he later retracted this).

Or if he has had much more of a reputation than Clinton in this regard.

Edit: or the fact that Bill Clinton is in fact not running for president.

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

Former US representative Mark Foley was seen in the front row at a Trump rally yesterday. For those that don't know Foley was forced to resign from Congress in disgrace for sending sexually explicit text messages to teenage congressional aides. It's likely that the two know each other through Trump's rumoured NAMBLA activities.

Do the candidates get to choose who turns up at their rallies?

For example the father of Omar Mateen, the Orlando night club murderer was at a Hillary Clinton rally and was behind her and in view of the world and he is a Taliban supporter.
He said he is a member of the Democrat party. So I guess if you are a member you can just turn up at these events.

Imagine if this was at a Trump rally...

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that he attempted to brush off a question by asking if the interviewer was on her period.

Why is it only women can joke about the way they sometimes act when on their period?

Or if it had anything to do with the fact that he said that women should be prosecuted for having an abortion (though he later retracted this).

MATTHEWS: What should the law be on abortion?

TRUMP: Well, I have been pro-life.

MATTHEWS: I know, what should the law -- I know your principle, that’s a good value. But what should be the law?

TRUMP: Well, you know, they’ve set the law and frankly the judges -- I mean, you’re going to have a very big election coming up for that reason, because you have judges where it’s a real tipping point.

MATTHEWS: I know.

TRUMP: And with the loss of (Supreme Court Justice Antonin) Scalia, who was a very strong conservative...

MATTHEWS: I understand.

TRUMP: ... this presidential election is going to be very important, because when you say, "what’s the law, nobody knows what the law’s going to be. It depends on who gets elected, because somebody is going to appoint conservative judges and somebody is going to appoint liberal judges, depending on who wins.

MATTHEWS: I know. I never understood the pro-life position.

TRUMP: Well, a lot of people do understand.

MATTHEWS: I never understood it. Because I understand the principle, it’s human life as people see it.

TRUMP: Which it is.

MATTHEWS: But what crime is it?

TRUMP: Well, it’s human life.

MATTHEWS: No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion?

TRUMP: Look...

MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge.

TRUMP: It’s a -- no, no...

MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?

TRUMP: Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and conservative Republicans would say, "yes, they should be punished."

MATTHEWS: How about you?

TRUMP: I would say that it’s a very serious problem. And it’s a problem that we have to decide on. It’s very hard.

MATTHEWS: But you’re for banning it?

TRUMP: I’m going to say -- well, wait. Are you going to say, put them in jail? Are you -- is that the (inaudible) you’re talking about?

MATTHEWS: Well, no, I’m asking you because you say you want to ban it. What’s that mean?

TRUMP: I would -- I am against -- I am pro-life, yes.

MATTHEWS: What is ban -- how do you ban abortion? How do you actually do it?

TRUMP: Well, you know, you go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places --

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

TRUMP: But you have to ban it.

MATTHEWS: You banning, they go to somebody who flunked out of medical school.

TRUMP: Are you Catholic?

MATTHEWS: Yes. I think...

TRUMP: And how do you feel about the Catholic Church’s position?

MATTHEWS: Well, I accept the teaching authority of my church on moral issues.

TRUMP: I know, but do you know their position on abortion?

MATTHEWS: Yes, I do.

TRUMP: And do you concur with that position?

MATTHEWS: I concur with their moral position but legally, I get to the question -- here’s my problem with it...

TRUMP: No, no, but let me ask you, but what do you say about your Church?

MATTHEWS: It’s not funny.

TRUMP: Yes, it’s really not funny. What do you say about your church? They’re very, very strong.

MATTHEWS: They’re allowed to -- but the churches make their moral judgments. But you running for president of the United States will be chief executive of the United States. Do you believe...

TRUMP: No, but...

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman.

TRUMP: Yeah, there has to be some form.

MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What?

TRUMP: I don’t know. That I don’t know. That I don’t know.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

TRUMP: I don’t know.

MATTHEWS: You take positions on everything else.

TRUMP: Because I don’t want to -- I frankly, I do take positions on everything else. It’s a very complicated position.

MATTHEWS: But you say, one, that you’re pro-life, meaning you want to ban it.

TRUMP: But wait a minute, wait a minute. But the Catholic Church is pro-life.

MATTHEWS: No, let’s not talk about my religion.

TRUMP: No, no, I am talking about your religion. Your religion -- I mean, you say you’re a very good Catholic. Your religion is your life. Let me ask you this.

MATTHEWS: I didn’t say very good. I said I’m Catholic. And secondly, I’m asking -- you’re running for president.

TRUMP: No, no...

MATTHEWS: I’m not.

TRUMP: Chris -- Chris.

MATTHEWS: I’m asking you, what should a woman face if she chooses to have an abortion?

TRUMP: I’m not going to do that.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

TRUMP: I’m not going to play that game.

MATTHEWS: Game?

TRUMP: You have...

MATTHEWS: You said you’re pro-life.

TRUMP: I am pro-life.

MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion.

TRUMP: And so is the Catholic Church pro-life.

MATTHEWS: But they don’t control the -- this isn’t Spain, the church doesn’t control the government.

TRUMP: What is the punishment under the Catholic Church? What is the...

MATTHEWS: Let me give something from the New Testament, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." Don’t ask me about my religion.

TRUMP: No, no...

MATTHEWS: I’m asking you. You want to be president of the United States.

TRUMP: You told me that...

MATTHEWS: You tell me what the law should be.

TRUMP: I have -- I have not determined...

MATTHEWS: Just tell me what the law should be. You say you’re pro-life.

TRUMP: I am pro-life.

MATTHEWS: What’s that mean?

TRUMP: With exceptions. I am pro-life. I have not determined what the punishment would be.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

TRUMP: Because I haven’t determined it.

MATTHEWS: When you decide to be pro-life, you should have thought of it. Because...

TRUMP: No, you could ask anybody who is pro-life...

MATTHEWS: OK, here’s the problem -- here’s my problem with this. If you don’t have a punishment for abortion -- I don’t believe in it, of course -- people are going to find a way to have an abortion.

TRUMP: You don’t believe in what?

MATTHEWS: I don’t believe in punishing anybody for having an abortion.

TRUMP: OK, fine. OK.

MATTHEWS: Of course not. I think it’s a woman’s choice.

TRUMP: So you’re against the teachings of your church?

MATTHEWS: I have a view -- and a moral view. But I believe we live in a free country, and I don’t want to live in a country so fascistic that it could stop a person from making that decision.

TRUMP: But then you are...

MATTHEWS: That would be so invasive...

TRUMP: I know, but I’ve heard you speaking...

MATTHEWS: So determined of a society that I wouldn’t be able -- one we are familiar with. And Donald Trump, you wouldn’t be familiar with.

TRUMP: But I’ve heard you speaking so highly about your religion and your church.

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

TRUMP: Your church is very, very strongly, as you know, pro-life.

MATTHEWS: I know.

TRUMP: What do you say to your church?

MATTHEWS: I say, I accept your moral authority. In the United States, the people make the decision, the courts rule on what’s in the Constitution, and we live by that. That’s why I say.

TRUMP: Yes, but you don’t live by it because you don’t accept it. You can’t accept it. You can’t accept it. You can’t accept it.

MATTHEWS: Can we go back to matters of the law and running for president because matters of the law, what I’m talking about, and this is the difficult situation you’ve placed yourself in.

By saying you’re pro-life, you mean you want to ban abortion. How do you ban abortion without some kind of sanction? Then you get in that very tricky question of a sanction, a fine on human life, which you call murder?

TRUMP: It will have to be determined.

MATTHEWS: A fine, imprisonment for a young woman who finds herself pregnant?

TRUMP: It will have to be determined.

MATTHEWS: What about the guy that gets her pregnant? Is he responsible under the law for these abortions? Or is he not responsible for an abortion?

TRUMP: Well, it hasn’t -- it hasn’t -- different feelings, different people. I would say no.

MATTHEWS: Well, they’re usually involved.

Or if he has had much more of a reputation than Clinton in this regard.

You're kidding... Right?

Edit: or the fact that Bill Clinton is in fact not running for president.

Bill is a major part of the campaign and will have a role in her administration, and the questions of Hillary being an enabler are valid, no?

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Why is it only women can joke about the way they sometimes act when on their period?

Yes that is totally the appropriate moment to joke. How often do women running for office joke about their periods? Trump can joke all he wants but he entirely dismissed that woman's question because she was a woman. How can you not see that that is offensive?

I am starting to love this line someone had on twitter (paraphrased).

Trump supporters "I love how honest he is and how he says what he means".

Trump: "Something silly"

Trump supporters "He didn't mean that."

And yes Clinton has the bigger rep there. Can you imagine how hard to Republicans would attack someone who has lead Trump's lifestyle?

Surely the question on Bill should be similar to that of Trump's wife as they are going for similar positions?

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, reality's pro-liberal -- or in the case of this contest, pro a degree of moderation and sanity -- bias kicking in again. You really can't expect your wild and woolly assertions of a fringe-right "normal" about "scandals reaching a fever pitch" to be taken in the least bit seriously.

Even the experts agree Time Magazine is considered highly liberal.

"On the liberal end, Newsweek had an astonishing rating of 72 -- that's 33 points more liberal than the House median. Other highly liberal outlets included The New York Times, Time magazine, the CBS Evening News, Robert J. Barro USA Today, and NBC Nightly News. These scores ranged from 62 to 64, about 25 points above the House median. For viewers seeking truly "fair and balanced" reporting, the best outlets were ABC Good Morning America and NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The ADA scores for these programs were 39 and 41, respectively. Places moderately left of center were CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown (49), The Washington Post (53), NPR's Morning Edition (55) and ABC WorldNews Tonight (55)."

http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/04_0614_liberalmedia_bw.pdf

I've heard Harvard scholars called many things, but "wild and woolly" was never one of them.

B_Wayne

Amerika wrote: »

Most of the GOP know Patti and Ron Jr are flaming liberals and were a political embarrassment to Ronald Reagan. What the two of them say has no effect on republicans. I’m sure Patti and Ron Jr will be drug out from under the covers, once again in this election cycle, when the media needs something for their Daily Two Minutes Of (Trump) Hate. But notice the media has no problem embarrassing a Republican president with his children, but the pictures and story of the president's daughter smoking pot at Lollapalooza are pretty much non-existent from the media.

I won’t post pictures of her here, because she is still too young to understand how a public display of something illegal from someone in her position can hurt not only her but those around her who love her.

And I'll stop bashing the biased media, when the media stops being biased.

I have massive problems with the press going after the children of politicians. It's tabloidish, it's happened with numerous children of presidents. It's could be particularly detrimental to their mental health if they're a young adult or teen, it's not a time where anyone should be blasted by the press.

So yeah, I have massive problems with people going on a rant about the terribly ordinary lives of teens...

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Even the experts agree Time Magazine is considered highly liberal.

"On the liberal end, Newsweek had an astonishing rating of 72 -- that's 33 points more liberal than the House median. Other highly liberal outlets included The New York Times, Time magazine, the CBS Evening News, Robert J. Barro USA Today, and NBC Nightly News. These scores ranged from 62 to 64, about 25 points above the House median. For viewers seeking truly "fair and balanced" reporting, the best outlets were ABC Good Morning America and NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The ADA scores for these programs were 39 and 41, respectively. Places moderately left of center were CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown (49), The Washington Post (53), NPR's Morning Edition (55) and ABC WorldNews Tonight (55)."

http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/04_0614_liberalmedia_bw.pdf

I've heard Harvard scholars called many things, but "wild and woolly" was never one of them.

Just because Billy is banned from posting here doesn't mean you can get away with posting that outdated rubbish. The only biased major news organisations of note at the moment are Daily Kos, Fox, and Breitbart. You know this of course since Billy posted that many times, how convenient of you to forget it.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Just because Billy is banned from posting here doesn't mean you can get away with posting that outdated rubbish. The only biased major news organisations of note at the moment are Daily Kos, Fox, and Breitbart. You know this of course since Billy posted that many times, how convenient of you to forget it.

I disagree with your contention that Daily Kos, Fox, and Breitbart are the only biased major new organisations of note, and contend the analysis from Harvard still holds true today.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

I disagree with your contention that Daily Kos, Fox, and Breitbart are the only biased major new organisations of note, and contend the analysis from Harvard still holds true today.

Even though the authors have far more recent research that shows you to be completely wrong?

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Even though the authors have far more recent research that shows you to be completely wrong?

I'm sorry, but I do not know of the research you are referring to.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Even the experts agree Time Magazine is considered highly liberal.

Time Magazine is now "highly liberal"?

Jesus. No wonder he's losing by a landslide.

Exeggcute

The DNC leaks show that the likes of CNN, MSNBC etc are every bit as biased as Fox and Breitbart.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Yes, there is a foul.

https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf

None that I'm seeing in any of that. She isn't a minor, she wasn't on federal lands, she wasn't crossing a state line, and she wasn't shooting anyone or driving a car. Again - no foul.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

None that I'm seeing in any of that. She isn't a minor, she wasn't on federal lands, she wasn't crossing a state line, and she wasn't shooting anyone or driving a car. Again - no foul.

I guess we have different interpretations of the final paragraph then, although I believe my interpretation is the one that would stand up in a court of law.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

I guess we have different interpretations of the final paragraph then, although I believe my interpretation is the one that would stand up in a court of law.

There's absolutely nothing in the final paragraph that implies any wrongdoing in this case (which involves no federal jurisdiction - as I've already said). If you believe otherwise, can you tease it out, because I suspect you know this to be the case, and are bluffing. Specifics please.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

There's absolutely nothing in the final paragraph that implies any wrongdoing in this case (which involves no federal jurisdiction - as I've already said). If you believe otherwise, can you tease it out, because I suspect you know this to be the case, and are bluffing. Specifics please.

The last paragraph of tha latest Department of Justice’s Memorandum for All United States Attorneys
Subject: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement

As with the Department's previous statements on this subject, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion. This memorandum does not alter in any way the Department's authority to enforce federal law, including federal laws relating to marijuana, regardless of state law. Neither the guidance herein nor any state or local law provides a legal defense to a violation of federal law, including any civil or criminal violation of the CSA. Even in jurisdictions with strong and effective regulatory systems, evidence that particular conduct threatens federal priorities will subject that person or entity to federal enforcement action, based on the circumstances. This memorandum is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. It applies prospectively to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in future cases and does not provide defendants or subjects of enforcement action with a basis for reconsideration of any pending civil action or criminal prosecution. Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution, even in the absence of any one of the factors listed above, in particular circumstances Where investigation and prosecution otherwise serves an important federal interest.

That seems pretty clear what the federal law is, regardless of what states enact. I have already noted the summary of the US federal law on marijuana, as provided from the White House.

Did you also know employers can legally fire employees for smoking marijuana, if they have a policy against drug use, even in a state like Colorado where they have made it legal?

LostinKildare

Amerika wrote: »

I won’t post pictures of her here, because she is still too young to understand how a public display of something illegal from someone in her position can hurt not only her but those around her who love her.

Oh, please. If you're sincere in your concern for Malia Obama, then why did you bring it up at all?

Anyway, I'd wager most Americans would rather their kid had a sneaky toke at a music festival than turn out to be the type that slaughters elephants and leopards for fun.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I do not know of the research you are referring to.

Yes you do as it's been posted multiple times in this thread.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Yes you do as it's been posted multiple times in this thread.

Please refer to K-9's post #9785.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Please refer to K-9's post #9785.

Now that you've seen the post I guess we won't have to listen to you parroting nonsense about media bias unless you're referring to Fox or Breitbart (which you are very fond of linking to)

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Now that you've seen the post I guess we won't have to listen to you parroting nonsense about media bias unless you're referring to Fox or Breitbart (which you are very fond of linking to)

What is the source of the data? Is it from Harvard which I had posted, as you stated their authors have updated the research?

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

The last paragraph of tha latest Department of Justice’s Memorandum for All United States Attorneys
Subject: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement

As with the Department's previous statements on this subject, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion. This memorandum does not alter in any way the Department's authority to enforce federal law, including federal laws relating to marijuana, regardless of state law. Neither the guidance herein nor any state or local law provides a legal defense to a violation of federal law, including any civil or criminal violation of the CSA. Even in jurisdictions with strong and effective regulatory systems, evidence that particular conduct threatens federal priorities will subject that person or entity to federal enforcement action, based on the circumstances. This memorandum is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. It applies prospectively to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in future cases and does not provide defendants or subjects of enforcement action with a basis for reconsideration of any pending civil action or criminal prosecution. Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution, even in the absence of any one of the factors listed above, in particular circumstances Where investigation and prosecution otherwise serves an important federal interest.

That seems pretty clear what the federal law is, regardless of what states enact. I have already noted the summary of the US federal law on marijuana, as provided from the White House.

Did you also know employers can legally fire employees for smoking marijuana, if they have a policy against drug use, even in a state like Colorado where they have made it legal?

It's entirely clear from the document that federal law - which they conveniently list - regarding marijuana in states where it's been legalised, most certainly doesn't apply in this case - again, she's not on federal land, she's not crossing a state line, she's not engaged in violent crime, she's not driving while under the influence, etc etc. So no - there's nothing in the final paragraph, including the highlighted, and perfectly reasonable, statement that they will continue to enforce federal law, that has anything to do with the situation under discussion - there's nothing to enforce. The additional distraction about employee laws is so much of a red herring.
As I suspected. You were bluffing. No foul here.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

What is the source of the data? Is it from Harvard which I had posted, as you stated their authors have updated the research?

Sorry, it's from other authors that you quoted earlier in the thread.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Sorry, it's from other authors that you quoted earlier in the thread.

Thanks. Can you note my post number so I can go back and look at it? I tried finding it but realized there are so many posts I've made recently that I suffer from overposting. Can't wait till this election is over.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

It's entirely clear from the document that federal law - which they conveniently list - regarding marijuana in states where it's been legalised, most certainly doesn't apply in this case - again, she's not on federal land, she's not crossing a state line, she's not engaged in violent crime, she's not driving while under the influence, etc etc. So no - there's nothing in the final paragraph, including the highlighted, and perfectly reasonable, statement that they will continue to enforce federal law, that has anything to do with the situation under discussion - there's nothing to enforce. The additional distraction about employee laws is so much of a red herring.
As I suspected. You were bluffing. No foul here.

I still don't agree as you don't need to be only on federal land to fall under federal laws.

Any legal eagles here who can make a judgement on this?

Also, the feds not enforcing federal law does not make a law null and void, by the way.

Akrasia

K-9 wrote: »

I see Hillary is now reaching out to the many Republicans who are having second thoughts about Trump. A number of high profile Republicans have come out in support of her recently.

This is exactly the opposite of what Trump needs. Lots of people a few weeks back thought he'd a good chance of winning over dissatisfied Democrats but he has shown he doesn't have the temperament to do it.

An election is as much about mental toughness as anything else, often it's about who makes the least mistakes. That's what the Time cover captures.

It's interesting that Clinton is happy to reach out to disaffected republicans, but seems to give the two fingers to Bernie supporters at every opportunity.

It's sad that this election is between a republican in blue clothing, and Donald Trump.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Any legal eagles here who can make a judgement on this?
Also, the feds not enforcing federal law does not make a law null and void, by the way.

I'm not a legal expert but i live in Washington state where marijuana is legal.

As far as i know the situation is that the various federal agencies usually rely on state law enforcement to process arrests, provide logistical support etc.

Without that cooperation they can't really do any "enforcement". There is no federal crime of simple marijuana possession for instance, you'd be charged locally after being arrested, but obviously that infrastructure no longer exists in cannabis legal states.

InTheTrees

Akrasia wrote: »

It's sad that this election is between a republican in blue clothing, and Donald Trump.

Expanding Obamacare, women's rights, minority voting rights, gun control.

If you think Clinton even remotely resembles a republican you're not paying attention.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

The last paragraph of tha latest Department of Justice’s Memorandum for All United States Attorneys
Subject: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement

As with the Department's previous statements on this subject, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion. This memorandum does not alter in any way the Department's authority to enforce federal law, including federal laws relating to marijuana, regardless of state law. Neither the guidance herein nor any state or local law provides a legal defense to a violation of federal law, including any civil or criminal violation of the CSA. Even in jurisdictions with strong and effective regulatory systems, evidence that particular conduct threatens federal priorities will subject that person or entity to federal enforcement action, based on the circumstances. This memorandum is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. It applies prospectively to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in future cases and does not provide defendants or subjects of enforcement action with a basis for reconsideration of any pending civil action or criminal prosecution. Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution, even in the absence of any one of the factors listed above, in particular circumstances Where investigation and prosecution otherwise serves an important federal interest.

That seems pretty clear what the federal law is, regardless of what states enact. I have already noted the summary of the US federal law on marijuana, as provided from the White House.

Did you also know employers can legally fire employees for smoking marijuana, if they have a policy against drug use, even in a state like Colorado where they have made it legal?

It's funny how you don't mind the federal government legislating against something you support. I thought you were for states rights to legislate on everything not explicitly named in the constitution.