2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I know . . . I didn't mean you

Manach wrote: »

I've not fully read all the US constitution nor read a book explicitly on it, but I'd guess (comparing it to the Irish) it enumerates the delegation of powers as well as duty and responsible to citizens and not specifically mention immigration?

To enact any law solely on the basis of ones religion is unconstitutional.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

To enact any law solely on the basis of ones religion is unconstitutional.

The constitution only applies to people within the jurisdiction of the constitution.

BRexit and Trump. I guess people want to be nationalist. Unfortunately if you are nationalist, that makes you xenophobic and racist.

Hong Kong racist against China?
Catalonians anti Spain?

I think America has every right to ban who they like, white, black, yellow, Islamic, Jewish or what ever. Bad for international relations, but totally their choice.

Open Borders don't work. Assimilation doesn't work.

My biggest issue of all, is that the people who fought religion so much in Europe, who wanted all our traditions changed, are now defenders of Islam and it's practices and oppression of women.

Feminist and male feminists arguing that men get 1.1c more than women an hour. While certain parts of the community force women to cover every bit of skin and are not allowed to look at other men for any reason.

You don't have to like everyone. You don't have to accept other people's behaviour in public. You don't have to welcome everyone. Treat your country like your home. Would you let a man throw a table cloth over his wife in your home and tell her not to speak?

To many people try the be warriors of justice. But more than willing to ignore the injustices the people they champion commit.

Maia Dunphy, "celebrity", is among those trying to block free speech and have Katie Hopkins banned from the Late Late Show. Apparently supporting Trump is just so offensive to her fragile frame.

Yet, Maia married Johnny Vegas, a man himself hounded by the same kind of witch-hunters she now counts herself a member of!

Six ‘pallbearers’ brought the young woman on stage, and he quipped that they should ‘finger’ her as they carried her. And when she started giggling on stage, he jokingly threatened to kick her in the ribs to stop her moving.

But writing under the headline ‘Since when is sexual assault funny?’, O’Hara said: ‘It didn't come across to me as a joke - and near to where I was sitting, no one was laughing. Eventually Vegas crouched down beside the nervous girl and started stroking her breasts while repeatedly saying, “don't ****ing move”. Then he ran his hand up her leg and began pulling her skirt up.

‘What I heard was an audible sharp intake of breath from the audience as they realised that the woman was getting much more than the kiss Vegas had told her to expect.’

http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2008/05/01/6719/did_johnny_vegas_go_too_far%3F


Such hypocrites, these "stars"....

Amazingfun wrote: »

Maia Dunphy, "celebrity", is among those trying to block free speech and have Katie Hopkins banned from the Late Late Show. Apparently supporting Trump is just so offensive to her fragile frame.

Yet, Maia married Johnny Vegas, a man himself hounded by the same kind of witch-hunters she now counts herself a member of!



http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2008/05/01/6719/did_johnny_vegas_go_too_far%3F


Such hypocrites, these "stars"....

Protests against democracy in the US.
Protest against free speech.

Some people want to hear or allow what suits them and not accept the decision of the people.
They should look at themselves and be ashamed.

RobertKK wrote: »

Protests against democracy in the US.
Protest against free speech.

These things are not happening. Unless you count any protest against the government as a protest against democracy.

Not saying I agree with the protests but you have some level of hyperbole in your post. Realistically they will achieve nothing, I guess a show that the man does not speak for a decent proportion of the country and that many people don't want him representing him. Maybe to make a point that many don't endorse his views which would be a decent cause. Hopefully they get people into smaller positions looking to enact what they want on a local level before building up to elections in 2?years time and the big one in 4. That would achieve more. I reckon a protest would be better suited to when he does something dumb. I can't see why you would get overly upset about them either (unless something gets out of hand and even then it is just the violence part that should be disagreed with). If people want to vent and protest I don't have an issue with it.

Guess it might show some in the Senate that people might want a close eye on him but I can't see it influencing any of them.

Nabber wrote: »

The constitution only applies to people within the jurisdiction of the constitution.

Your posts tangents off into areas of nationalism, race and sex. Religon is the issue I am discussing.

The first amendment prohibits the enacting of laws targeting one religion over another.

Emerson v. BoE

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' . . . That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not true. Bush et al. tried that with the prison at Guantanamo Bay, which they specifically set up off US soil in the belief that they could deny constitutional protections to foreign nationals outside the US. The Supreme Court slapped them down in Boumediene v. Bush, holding that the detainees had a constitutional right to habeas corpus.

From Wikipedia: "On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5–4 majority, holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of that right."

Trump's proposed Muslim ban would violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment by explicitly disapproving of one religion and implicitly favoring other faiths. One could make a strong argument that if the constitutional protection of habeas corpus applies to foreign nationals outside the US, then so do the protections of the First Amendment.

Since freedom of religion is a foundational idea of the US which stretches back even further than the "founding fathers," I doubt that's a legal fight Mr Trump would like to fight. Looks bad, right? Which is why, I suppose, they "clarified" and finally scrubbed his statements (or tried to).

Amazingfun wrote: »

So, looks like The Great Wall of Trump is a go :-)

Immigration heavy-weight Kris Kobach is on the Team, and I am delighted. Kobach is a very good man, and will be prepared for the years of wailing and knashing of teeth that will accompany the project:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/10/the-wall-is-going-to-get-built-immigration-hard-liner-joins-trump-transition/

The vast majority of illegals enter via airplane and overstay visas etc
The wall which I doubt is even feasible will cost billions and only stop a small proportion of them. Only those without access to an invention called the ladder.

RobertKK wrote: »

If Hillary had won and Trump supporters were doing this it too would be a protest against the democratic decision.
No point trying to cover it up, it is a protest against democracy and the will of the people.
America is always split, there is never a lot between the candidates, unless you get a Reagan 1984 election where it was such a landslide, Trump was even competitive in Minnesota which Mondale won in 1984.

I agree, save the protests for when they have a specific issue/policy they disagree with.
I feel if the election is not rigged (which Trump went silent on) then protesting is not a good look. It achieves nothing and just makes people look like bad losers and in essence is a protest against the democratic decision of the people.

I just think it looks like a protest against democracy and lots of people have been arrested at these protests for doing more than just protesting, and in the end achieves nothing.

Obama also had a pretty big win in one of his. Oddly enough the Republicans have only won most of the votes twice in my life time (1988 and 2004) but that is a random aside. I don't see what it being close a lot has to do with it. I am cool with peaceful protests (any more is a big no obviously) even if I don't get why. That does not mean it is a protest against democracy (in my view). It is a chance to show their disaproval at the result. They have to accept it-they don't have to approve of the result. It not being a good look is besides the point entirely. I don't think that needs to be considered for a protest (peaceful parts anyway). I also don't see how it is a protest against free speech as it seems to be using that particular right.

I did admit it will achieve nothing and anything other than protesting is right out. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth as that was what I was worried Trump supporters would do. To see it from people I associate myself with (through similar views) just makes me feel so completely let down.

As far as I can see it voices their unhappiness with a decision. I don't really know where they want to go with it if I am honest as it won't change the election result and they are aware of this fact.