President Donald J. Trump

[136 or 142]

This is the attitude I'm talking about. You're a gnat.  You scream to be noticed.   If anybody else were to ask, I'd answer their questions but you are simply rude. My patience has run out.  I refuse to converse with you any further.

I may scream to be noticed, but I don't think I'm anywhere near as insane as most of the posters here.  Yet, you never seem to complain about them and you say if they asked you, you'd answer them.

I don't believe you.  I think you either can't handle having your stupid and mostly invalid opinions being challenged, or you don't have an answer.

[GravitySucks]

This is the attitude I'm talking about. You're a gnat.  You scream to be noticed.   If anybody else were to ask, I'd answer their questions but you are simply rude. My patience has run out.  I refuse to converse with you any further.

Just ignore him 21. In the past he has raised some interesting points, but he has resorted to personal attacks. Next he will be calling you Hitler.

[21st Century Man]

I may scream to be noticed, but I don't think I'm anywhere near as insane as most of the posters here.  Yet, you never seem to complain about them and you say if they asked you, you'd answer them.

I don't believe you.  I think you either can't handle having your stupid and mostly invalid opinions being challenged, or you don't have an answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jm4LoOaAWI

[onan]

Just ignore him 21. In the past he has raised some interesting points, but he has resorted to personal attacks. Next he will be calling you Hitler.

No, you're Hitler.   

Singling anyone out for personal attacks in this thread seems awfully biased.

[21st Century Man]

Just ignore him 21. In the past he has raised some interesting points, but he has resorted to personal attacks. Next he will be calling you Hitler.

It just isn't worth engaging him any further.  He obviously has an ax to grind with me and he has simply become insufferable.  I guess he is upset about Hillary flaming out and he has to take out his anger on somebody.  He can try someone else.  Anyway, he can sit and stew for all I care.  Thanks, GS.   

[136 or 142]

Just ignore him 21. In the past he has raised some interesting points, but he has resorted to personal attacks. Next he will be calling you Hitler.

Not that it bothers me, but if you have problems with personal attacks, will you apologize for writing this about me?:

"Now I know where you get all your arguments from. I knew you couldn't type that fast. Another PhD from the University of <Ctrl-c><Ctrl-v>"

Hypocrite.

[136 or 142]

It just isn't worth engaging him any further.  He obviously has an ax to grind with me and he has simply become insufferable.  I guess he is upset about Hillary flaming out and he has to take out his anger on somebody.  He can try someone else.  Anyway, he can sit and stew for all I care.  Thanks, GS. 

Stewing because you can't answer?  You really are full of yourself.

[21st Century Man]

I answered and you refused to accept my answer. I deferred to Justice Roberts and what he wrote in that decision regarding fundamental rights.  Unelected federal judges should not be deciding which rights were fundamental.  That should be the left to the states and the US Congress and I completely agree.  Get it.  Got it.  Good. I'm done with you.  Reading comprehension is obviously not your forte.

[analog kid]

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia




Was he alive then? I don't think you've thought this through.

Incidentally, that article says the FBI confirms that Russia is hacking us to meddle in our elections, but not specifically, they think, to elect Trump, but to disrupt the entire process. Trump just so happens to support foreign policy that is Putin's wet dream.

[136 or 142]

I answered and you refused to accept my answer. I deferred to Justice Roberts and what he wrote in that decision regarding fundamental rights.  Unelected federal judges should not be deciding which rights were fundamental.  That should be the left to the states and the US Congress and I completely agree.  Get it.  Got it.  Good. I'm done with you.  Reading comprehension is obviously not your forte.

You don't even realize this makes no sense.  It was Justice Roberts who wrote in his dissent that he did not believe marriage is a fundamental right.  He was the one deciding which rights are fundamental and which ones aren't.  Logic obviously isn't your forte, but I knew that already.

This leads back to the obvious question:  If marriage isn't a fundamental right, how come nobody got to vote whether you could get married or not?

[21st Century Man]

You don't even realize this makes no sense.  It was Justice Roberts who wrote in his dissent that he did not believe marriage was a fundamental right.  He was the one deciding which rights are fundamental and which ones aren't.  Logic obviously isn't your forte, but I knew that already.

From the Obergefell decision.  I put it in the first post which you apparently didn't read.

"Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry
because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law... Allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as 'fundamental'â€"and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determinationâ€"raises obvious concerns about the judicial role."

Geez.  He thought that the determination of fundamental rights should be left to the state and federal legislators.  I agree.  God, you are thick.  Nowhere in the Constitution or in the states was marriage mentioned as a fundamental right.  They left that for religious institutions to decide.

[GravitySucks]

From the Obergefell decision.  I put it in the first post which you apparently didn't read.

"Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry
because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law... Allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as 'fundamental'â€"and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determinationâ€"raises obvious concerns about the judicial role."

Geez.  He thought that the determination of fundamental rights should be left to the state and federal legislators.  I agree.  God, you are thick.  Nowhere in the Constitution or in the states was marriage mentioned as a fundamental right.  They left that to religious institutions.

Maybe you should have underlined the word unenumerated.

[Dr. MD MD]

I didn't write the initial post so I didn't want to answer for them.  This was what I was originally thinking though:

"Your denial of Trump's links with Russia reminds me of Boomhauser from King of the Hill.  You see loony conspiracies everywhere, while you don't even notice that your wife is cheating on you right under your nose."

Is that better?

Not really. I wasn't the one claiming that the Russians were involved. That was you. Doesn't that make you Dale Gribble in this case? 

[21st Century Man]

Maybe you should have underlined the word unenumerated.

I know. Good grief.  I thought he was brighter than that.  I guess I was wrong.

[analog kid]

Hundreds of prominent economists just contributed in an open letter to voters warning them not to vote for Trump

[GravitySucks]

Not really. I wasn't the one claiming that the Russians were involved. That was you. Doesn't that make you Dale Gribble in this case? 

[Dr. MD MD]

Hundreds of prominent economists just contributed in an open letter to voters warning them not to vote for Trump

That makes me want to vote for him even more. Those assholes have been ruining our country for years now. 

[136 or 142]

From the Obergefell decision.  I put it in the first post which you apparently didn't read.

"Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry
because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law... Allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as 'fundamental'â€"and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determinationâ€"raises obvious concerns about the judicial role."

Geez.  He thought that the determination of fundamental rights should be left to the state and federal legislators.  I agree.  God, you are thick.  Nowhere in the Constitution or in the states was marriage mentioned as a fundamental right.  They left that for religious institutions to decide.

I did read it.  Once marriage became a matter of public policy, it was subject to the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.  Given this, governments can't simply arbitrarily decide that marriage and all of the rights and responsibilities it entails would be allowed for some people and not for other people without having a valid reason to discriminate.   It was Justice Roberts who decided on his own, nothing to do with the Constitution, that marriage wasn't a right, fundamental or otherwise.  Justice Roberts was the one who was not abiding by the strict reading of the Constitution.

Is that too complicated for you to understand?  Should I write this in crayon for you next time or something?

[GravitySucks]

That makes me want to vote for him even more. Those assholes have been ruining our country for years now. 

There is a reason that 97% of all donations from federal government employees this year went to Democrats   

[21st Century Man]

I did read it.  Once marriage became a matter of public policy, it was subject to the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.  Given this, governments can't simply arbitrarily decide that marriage and all of the rights and responsibilities it entails would be allowed for some classes of people and not for other classes of people without having a valid reason.   It was Justice Roberts who decided on his own, nothing to do with the Constitution, that marriage wasn't a right, fundamental or otherwise.  Justice Roberts was the one who was not abiding by the strict reading of the Constitution.

Is that too complicated for you to understand?  Should I write this in crayon for you next time or something?

It is simply your opinion what you think of Robert's decision.  His dissent is a valid opinion and I agree with it.  There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage being a fundamental right.  It is not enumerated much less mentioned.  They left that for religious institutions to decide.  You can disagree but that doesn't make your opinion any more valid than mine.

Show me the passage in the Constitution where marriage is mentioned and I'll recant.

[Lilith]

Hundreds of prominent economists just contributed in an open letter to voters warning them not to vote for Trump

This article also says economists are leaning toward Hillary
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/01/news/economy/economists-letter-dont-vote-trump/ 

370 economists tell voters: Don't vote for Trump.


...but I'm not sure that the economy is as much of a concern as corruption is at the moment.

[Juan]

A new survey says 35% of federal employees will quit if Trump is elected.  A good reason to vote for him.

[136 or 142]

It is simply your opinion what you think of Robert's decision.  His dissent is a valid opinion and I agree with it.  There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage being a fundamental right.  It is not enumerated much less mentioned.  They left that for religious institutions to decide.  You can disagree but that doesn't make your opinion any more valid than mine.

Show me the passage in the Constitution where marriage is mentioned and I'll recant.

1.Then do you also agree that Americans (all or just those in your local area) should have got to vote on your marriage?

2.Show me where the Constitution says that the only rights protected by the due process and equal protection clauses are 'fundamental' rights or were the rights that were enumerated only at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

3.Why is his dissent a valid opinion?  You just yesterday pointed out a couple terrible decisions made by past Supreme Courts and past Supreme Court Justices.

[GravitySucks]

A new survey says 35% of federal employees will quit if Trump is elected.  A good reason to vote for him.

+1000

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

Speaking of the economy, I was watching C-Span the other day and they had an economist on (sorry don't rember his name) who said that regardless of who wins, there will likely be another recession during the next presidency.  Good times.

[136 or 142]

This article also says economists are leaning toward Hillary
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/01/news/economy/economists-letter-dont-vote-trump/ 

370 economists tell voters: Don't vote for Trump.


...but I'm not sure that the economy is as much of a concern as corruption is at the moment.

Nobody concerned about corruption would vote for Donald Trump.

[analog kid]

This article also says economists are leaning toward Hillary
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/01/news/economy/economists-letter-dont-vote-trump/ 

370 economists tell voters: Don't vote for Trump.


...but I'm not sure that the economy is as much of a concern as corruption is at the moment.

That's why it's important to keep the word "emails" in the headlines until the election.

Donald Trump Jr. in 2008: "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets; say in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

[136 or 142]

Speaking of the economy, I was watching C-Span the other day and they had an economist on (sorry don't rember his name) who said that regardless of who wins, there will likely be another recession during the next presidency.  Good times.

Well, if one economist says it, it must be destiny.

[136 or 142]

Affidavit in upcoming Trump rape case released

[Dr. MD MD]

Affidavit in upcoming Trump rape case released

So, we're supposed to trust a scumbag who admits she "rounded up" adolescents to be sexually abused by rich men?! Don't be too surprised when this gets thrown out.