Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (2 Viewers)

[RBM]

RBM, should late term or partial birth abortions be permissible in the event of hydrocephalus, in which the baby will be brain dead and it's birth, usually by classical caesarean, could prevent the mother from ever being able to have more children?

Yeah I'd sign off for that. And in cases where it can fatally harm the mother. But Sanders makes no distinctions.

 

[timschochet]

RBM, should late term or partial birth abortions be permissible in the event of hydrocephalus, in which the baby will be brain dead and it's birth, usually by classical caesarean, could prevent the mother from ever being able to have more children?

Yeah I'd sign off for that. And in cases where it can fatally harm the mother. But Sanders makes no distinctions.

What Sanders says is that it should be a decision that is left up to the doctor and the pregnant woman and that the government shouldn't be involved.

 

[RBM]

RBM, should late term or partial birth abortions be permissible in the event of hydrocephalus, in which the baby will be brain dead and it's birth, usually by classical caesarean, could prevent the mother from ever being able to have more children?

Yeah I'd sign off for that. And in cases where it can fatally harm the mother. But Sanders makes no distinctions.

What Sanders says is that it should be a decision that is left up to the doctor and the pregnant woman and that the government shouldn't be involved.

Anybody that is ok with it except in dire cases is a lunatic. Are we done with this? It's getting annoying.

 

[timschochet]

Personally RBM I agree with you- not lunatic necessarily, but to me having a partial birth abortion (which I define as an abortion within days or hours before birth) for casual reasons is immoral. It's simply wrong IMO.

But putting aside the question of how often this actually happens (I suspect it's very rare) the question is who decides in such situations whether or not health concerns are for real? Do we let the doctor and mother decide, or do we have the government involved? I prefer the former.

 

[rockaction]

rockaction, what Fiorina said about Planned Parenthood wasn't an opinion or an argument, She stated that she personally watched a video and described what she saw in that video. What she said doesn't exist. There is no video that shows what she described. That's what made it a lie, not the bigger issue about PP. if she had said, "this is what I believe PP is doing", and had not mentioned a video, then it would not have been a lie.

We've got another Breitbart/Blaze situation on our hands where they're offering big money to prove her wrong, just like during the health care bill.

I'm eating popcorn and waiting. She's doubled down on the comments.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/17/watch-the-video-planned-parenthood-and-its-media-allies-deny-exists/

Could be she lied. Could be she was being hyperbolic. Could be she told the truth. :shrugs: We'll see.

Wow. Quite the source there.

CNN?

Look, you can keep insisting she lied on a message board and pair yourself with Amanda Marcotte and others who don't know what she saw on the tapes, or you can...well, I've got a good bead on what you'll do.

 

[rockaction]

CNN:

The clip does show what appears to be a fully formed fetus on an operating table with its legs twitching. But the clip Fiorina references is not part of the CMP sting video but was instead taken by another anti-abortion group and was added to the sting video. The Center for Medical Progress, however, doesn't explain where the fetus video was shot, so it's not clear whether it was taken at a Planned Parenthood clinic. For its part, the women's health organization has flatly denied the accusations.

VERDICT: True, but misleading

Politifact:

We rate her statement Mostly False.

 

[timschochet]

CNN:



The clip does show what appears to be a fully formed fetus on an operating table with its legs twitching. But the clip Fiorina references is not part of the CMP sting video but was instead taken by another anti-abortion group and was added to the sting video. The Center for Medical Progress, however, doesn't explain where the fetus video was shot, so it's not clear whether it was taken at a Planned Parenthood clinic. For its part, the women's health organization has flatly denied the accusations.

VERDICT: True, but misleading



Politifact:



We rate her statement Mostly False.

Politicfact says mostly false. I say, even based on CNN's description, it's a flat out falsehood, because she accused PP of doing something that they're not doing.

 

[rockaction]

That's great, but there's really no distinct arbiter that claims outright falsehood according to two fairly neutral news fact-checkers (though I've always had trouble with Politifact). One even says "True."

I rate my own statement upthread:

Mostly accurate

 

[Uwe Blab]

CNN:

The clip does show what appears to be a fully formed fetus on an operating table with its legs twitching.

Just a choice that goes on thousands of times a day between a woman and her doctor. Nothing repugnant, morally or societally, going on here. Just cowardly turn the other way folks, go on with your day, and pretend they aren't vanquishing another human being.

"I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...." /Mugatu

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

66% of Trump supporters think Obama is a Muslim.

 

[jamny]

Rubio, Rubio, Rubio.

Why can't you just relax. There's no doubt he would be so much higher in the rankings if he stopped with the canned responses.

 

[Steve Tasker]

1. True, but socialism (he's actually a social democrat) is an economic principle, not a state of sanity.

I've seen a lot of comments here about this. Can someone explain to me what the difference is? Serious question.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I miss Romney.

I wonder how he would have fared against Trump on that stage.

Romney would want to bet $10,000 and Trump woulda replied "Make it a million"

-QG

 

[rockaction]

1. True, but socialism (he's actually a social democrat) is an economic principle, not a state of sanity.

I've seen a lot of comments here about this. Can someone explain to me what the difference is? Serious question.

There are varying degrees of socialism, but socialists set prices, wages, and production of goods within the domestic economy by central planning. Social democrats believe, generally, in hybrid market and planned solutions to social problems, including high tax rates, nationalized health care, high minimum wages, etc. It's really the amount of government interference in regard to the economy, with social democrats favoring market corrections rather than setting market functions. It's a large difference.

W/r/t Bernie Sanders, he has on numerous occasions called himself a democratic socialist, which says, to me (considering Sanders knows of which he speaks) that he's more socialist than social democrat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

 

[TobiasFunke]

It appears that the phrase "Pretty solid assessment" has lost all meaning now While there is plenty to bag on the GOP for, that opinion piece is far from "Pretty solid assessment".

Man, I can't believe you saw through my attempt to pass that off as a reasoned and balanced review of the GOP candidates!

But here's the thing- every single fact on which that opinion piece relies is 100% true. All of those ideas were put forward by one or more candidates. Not once did anyone mention that those ideas are totally insane and irresponsible and for the most part also very costly. Carly Fiorina really is an inept failed CEO with no experience in public service who threatened a good portion of the planet with war during the debate (OK, maybe not half of the planet, that was a bit of an exaggeration). And she really was only like the 8th craziest person on that stage. Donald Trump really is a reality TV star whose campaign pitch is essentially his track record of withdrawing personal profits from failed business investments. It's true, all of it. You may not think the assessment is solid (of course it isn't), but the basis sure is.

Regarding the bolded, I did not hear either of the following put forward by a candidate during the debate:

• Making the personal beliefs of county officials the highest law of the land
• Deporting thousands of people per day until the United States is entirely emptied of non-citizens

1. The Supreme Court is the highest law of the land. Huckabee thinks a county official should be able to ignore their ruling when it conflicts with her personal beliefs. If you think the personal beliefs of a county official should supersede the Supreme Court you are saying that those beliefs are now the highest law of the land.

2. That is literally Trump's position on immigration. He's espoused it many times. He plans to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants or those that have overstayed their visas and he plans to do it in "18 months to 2 years." He was asked about this plan during the debate and he doubled down on it (while avoiding the question of just how he'd do it and pay for it). That one seems pretty clear, actually.

 

[RBM]

It appears that the phrase "Pretty solid assessment" has lost all meaning now While there is plenty to bag on the GOP for, that opinion piece is far from "Pretty solid assessment".

Man, I can't believe you saw through my attempt to pass that off as a reasoned and balanced review of the GOP candidates!

But here's the thing- every single fact on which that opinion piece relies is 100% true. All of those ideas were put forward by one or more candidates. Not once did anyone mention that those ideas are totally insane and irresponsible and for the most part also very costly. Carly Fiorina really is an inept failed CEO with no experience in public service who threatened a good portion of the planet with war during the debate (OK, maybe not half of the planet, that was a bit of an exaggeration). And she really was only like the 8th craziest person on that stage. Donald Trump really is a reality TV star whose campaign pitch is essentially his track record of withdrawing personal profits from failed business investments. It's true, all of it. You may not think the assessment is solid (of course it isn't), but the basis sure is.

Regarding the bolded, I did not hear either of the following put forward by a candidate during the debate:

• Making the personal beliefs of county officials the highest law of the land
• Deporting thousands of people per day until the United States is entirely emptied of non-citizens

1. The Supreme Court is the highest law of the land. Huckabee thinks a county official should be able to ignore their ruling when it conflicts with her personal beliefs. If you think the personal beliefs of a county official should supersede the Supreme Court you are saying that those beliefs are now the highest law of the land.

2. That is literally Trump's position on immigration. He's espoused it many times. He plans to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants or those that have overstayed their visas and he plans to do it in "18 months to 2 years." He was asked about this plan during the debate and he doubled down on it (while avoiding the question of just how he'd do it and pay for it). That one seems pretty clear, actually.

Thought he actually said they'd be gone "the next day"

 

[The Commish]

I miss Romney.

I wonder how he would have fared against Trump on that stage.

Romney would want to bet $10,000 and Trump woulda replied "Make it a million"

-QG

He'd have devoured Romney on the secrecy of his financials. He'd have just kept bringing them up. Comedy gold.

 

[TobiasFunke]

CNN:

The clip does show what appears to be a fully formed fetus on an operating table with its legs twitching.

Just a choice that goes on thousands of times a day between a woman and her doctor. Nothing repugnant, morally or societally, going on here. Just cowardly turn the other way folks, go on with your day, and pretend they aren't vanquishing another human being.

"I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...." /Mugatu

Are you saying that thousands of times a day a woman and her doctor do something that results in a fully formed fetus on an operating table with its legs twitching?

If you think that's what's happening then you are taking crazy pills. There are maybe 3,000 abortions a day. According even to this anti-abortion website around 90% of them are first trimester abortions. Nobody would call a first trimester fetus "fully formed." In fact according to that same website 65% of abortions happen within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. A 7 week fetus doesn't even really have legs- certainly not ones you could see twitching on an operating table since the entire fetus is roughly the size of a blueberry at that stage.

I'm about as sympathetic to the pro-life cause as a pro-choicer can be but the movement would be well-served if it stopped with the ridiculous exaggerations and hysterics and at least was in the general vicinity of actual facts.

 

[Slapdash]

Amazing how fast Carson is rising.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Religious conscience may indeed carve out exceptions to certain Supreme Court rulings.

Rand Paul has the biggest constitution boner on the planet and even he says that this Davis/Religious exemptions stuff is in the wrong here.

 

[Uwe Blab]

CNN:

The clip does show what appears to be a fully formed fetus on an operating table with its legs twitching.

Just a choice that goes on thousands of times a day between a woman and her doctor. Nothing repugnant, morally or societally, going on here. Just cowardly turn the other way folks, go on with your day, and pretend they aren't vanquishing another human being.

"I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...." /Mugatu

Are you saying that thousands of times a day a woman and her doctor do something that results in a fully formed fetus on an operating table with its legs twitching?

If you think that's what's happening then you are taking crazy pills. There are maybe 3,000 abortions a day. According even to this anti-abortion website around 90% of them are first trimester abortions. Nobody would call a first trimester fetus "fully formed." In fact according to that same website 65% of abortions happen within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. A 7 week fetus doesn't even really have legs- certainly not ones you could see twitching on an operating table since the entire fetus is roughly the size of a blueberry at that stage.

I'm about as sympathetic to the pro-life cause as a pro-choicer can be but the movement would be well-served if it stopped with the ridiculous exaggerations and hysterics and at least was in the general vicinity of actual facts.

But the fact that this goes on at all at this level and is so staunchly defended should tell you everything you need to know about "your" side....framing it solely as a women's health issue while conveniently ignoring the 10,000 pound elephant in the room. Each time the science advances and we can get a better look at what goes on the womb and when the heart beats, brain function, etc the more surprised we are to see how early it does and how wrong we've been. And how barbaric the "choice" really is. I truly believe this is one of those issues that history will back on and be disgusted at how we allowed it.

I fall left on many issues of the day, but I continue to be amazed that the left continues to ignore/defend the ultimate in "those that can't defend themselves".

Total hijack, I know. Back to the clown car that is the GOP field.

 

[TobiasFunke]

CNN:

The clip does show what appears to be a fully formed fetus on an operating table with its legs twitching.

Just a choice that goes on thousands of times a day between a woman and her doctor. Nothing repugnant, morally or societally, going on here. Just cowardly turn the other way folks, go on with your day, and pretend they aren't vanquishing another human being.

"I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...." /Mugatu

Are you saying that thousands of times a day a woman and her doctor do something that results in a fully formed fetus on an operating table with its legs twitching?

If you think that's what's happening then you are taking crazy pills. There are maybe 3,000 abortions a day. According even to this anti-abortion website around 90% of them are first trimester abortions. Nobody would call a first trimester fetus "fully formed." In fact according to that same website 65% of abortions happen within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. A 7 week fetus doesn't even really have legs- certainly not ones you could see twitching on an operating table since the entire fetus is roughly the size of a blueberry at that stage.

I'm about as sympathetic to the pro-life cause as a pro-choicer can be but the movement would be well-served if it stopped with the ridiculous exaggerations and hysterics and at least was in the general vicinity of actual facts.

But the fact that this goes on at all at this level and is so staunchly defended should tell you everything you need to know about "your" side....framing it solely as a women's health issue while conveniently ignoring the 10,000 pound elephant in the room. Each time the science advances and we can get a better look at what goes on the womb and when the heart beats, brain function, etc the more surprised we are to see how early it does and how wrong we've been. And how barbaric the "choice" really is. I truly believe this is one of those issues that history will back on and be disgusted at how we allowed it.

I fall left on many issues of the day, but I continue to be amazed that the left continues to ignore/defend the ultimate in "those that can't defend themselves".

Total hijack, I know. Back to the clown car that is the GOP field.

I think you're wrong about a couple things here. First, I don't think late-term abortions on demand- let's say after 32-34 weeks or so, where you could accurately decribe the fetus as "fully formed," are "staunchly defended" by very many people. I'm opposed to them myself. Second, I don't think very many people would frame that solely as a women's health issue at that stage of pregnancy. I also think it's a bit insulting to say that pro-choicers "ignore the 10,000 pound elephant in the room." Everyone- even the most avidly pro-choice, places a value on a fetus once it has implanted, whether they consider it human or not.

That's why I say the pro-life movement might be well served to be a little more realistic in its declarations about what a fetus is and is not and what an abortion is and is not. I think many, even most pro-choicers are not in favor of legalized abortions up to the moment of birth for everyone, people like me, but we're turned off to any sort of compromise or rational discussion by this bombastic rhetoric that equates us all to genocidal maniacs because we consider an embryo at 6 weeks to be something fundamentally different than a living breathing crying infant child.

 

[rockaction]

Religious conscience may indeed carve out exceptions to certain Supreme Court rulings.

Rand Paul has the biggest constitution boner on the planet and even he says that this Davis/Religious exemptions stuff is in the wrong here.

That's fine. But it's not definitively factually accurate nor lunacy to claim that she might be in the right under current law.

For more on the Davis issue, see, e.g.: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/

 

[timschochet]

Amazing how fast Carson is rising.

I think there's a few things going on here: first, evangelicals in Iowa are always strong. Huckabee won in 2008 and Santorum in 2012. Evangelicals love Carson and they have been supporting him for a couple of years.

I think some moderate Republicans also like Carson because they don't know anything about some of his more extreme social views, but they like that his tone and persona is moderate, quiet, and intelligent, as opposed to so much bombast from a lot of the others. Like Trump and Fiorina, he has never held public office, and apparently that is considered a plus right now by almost ALL Republicans across the board.

Finally, Carson is black. Very few black men have run for President on the Republican side, and I believe conservatives are sick to death of being called racist simply for opposing liberal solutions to racial problems. The vast majority of conservatives are not racist, so they are excited by a black candidate who shares their POV.

 

[The General]

Who is taking Carson seriously? Some rambling about building 2 walls when he was asked a direct question about why Trumps plan to kick everyone out was not realistic, tithes replacing the tax system, prison turns people gay.

I have not heard him say anything that makes sense. Only seen parts of the debates so I'm sure I'm missing a lot.

I get the Fiorrina lady getting traction, she at least put together some red meat talking points and looked the part.

 

[the moops]

Wish this Ahmed thing had gone down before the debate so we could have witnessed some hilarity with this crew being asked about it

 

[bigbottom]

It appears that the phrase "Pretty solid assessment" has lost all meaning now While there is plenty to bag on the GOP for, that opinion piece is far from "Pretty solid assessment".

Man, I can't believe you saw through my attempt to pass that off as a reasoned and balanced review of the GOP candidates!

But here's the thing- every single fact on which that opinion piece relies is 100% true. All of those ideas were put forward by one or more candidates. Not once did anyone mention that those ideas are totally insane and irresponsible and for the most part also very costly. Carly Fiorina really is an inept failed CEO with no experience in public service who threatened a good portion of the planet with war during the debate (OK, maybe not half of the planet, that was a bit of an exaggeration). And she really was only like the 8th craziest person on that stage. Donald Trump really is a reality TV star whose campaign pitch is essentially his track record of withdrawing personal profits from failed business investments. It's true, all of it. You may not think the assessment is solid (of course it isn't), but the basis sure is.

Regarding the bolded, I did not hear either of the following put forward by a candidate during the debate:

• Making the personal beliefs of county officials the highest law of the land
• Deporting thousands of people per day until the United States is entirely emptied of non-citizens

1. The Supreme Court is the highest law of the land. Huckabee thinks a county official should be able to ignore their ruling when it conflicts with her personal beliefs. If you think the personal beliefs of a county official should supersede the Supreme Court you are saying that those beliefs are now the highest law of the land.

2. That is literally Trump's position on immigration. He's espoused it many times. He plans to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants or those that have overstayed their visas and he plans to do it in "18 months to 2 years." He was asked about this plan during the debate and he doubled down on it (while avoiding the question of just how he'd do it and pay for it). That one seems pretty clear, actually.

1. I disagree with your characterization. Allowing an individual a religious accommodation while ensuring that the law is still fully enforced is not the same thing as saying the individual's religious belief is now the highest law of the land. No one on the stage suggested that the same-sex couples in that county should be denied a marriage license because of Kim Davis' religious beliefs.

2. No it's not. You do realize that "undocumented immigrants" is not the same thing as "non-citizens"? Words have meaning.

 

[timschochet]

Who is taking Carson seriously? Some rambling about building 2 walls when he was asked a direct question about why Trumps plan to kick everyone out was not realistic, tithes replacing the tax system, prison turns people gay.

I have not heard him say anything that makes sense. Only seen parts of the debates so I'm sure I'm missing a lot.

I get the Fiorrina lady getting traction, she at least put together some red meat talking points and looked the part.

Somewhere between 10 and 15% of all likely Republican voters, and a lot more in states dominated by the evangelical vote, such as Iowa.

 

[GoFishTN]

Amazing how fast Carson is rising.

I think there's a few things going on here: first, evangelicals in Iowa are always strong. Huckabee won in 2008 and Santorum in 2012. Evangelicals love Carson and they have been supporting him for a couple of years. I think some moderate Republicans also like Carson because they don't know anything about some of his more extreme social views, but they like that his tone and persona is moderate, quiet, and intelligent, as opposed to so much bombast from a lot of the others. Like Trump and Fiorina, he has never held public office, and apparently that is considered a plus right now by almost ALL Republicans across the board.

Finally, Carson is black. Very few black men have run for President on the Republican side, and I believe conservatives are sick to death of being called racist simply for opposing liberal solutions to racial problems. The vast majority of conservatives are not racist, so they are excited by a black candidate who shares their POV.

I'm not sure where this ranks in your list of stupid statements, but it's up there.

 

[timschochet]

Amazing how fast Carson is rising.

I think there's a few things going on here: first, evangelicals in Iowa are always strong. Huckabee won in 2008 and Santorum in 2012. Evangelicals love Carson and they have been supporting him for a couple of years. I think some moderate Republicans also like Carson because they don't know anything about some of his more extreme social views, but they like that his tone and persona is moderate, quiet, and intelligent, as opposed to so much bombast from a lot of the others. Like Trump and Fiorina, he has never held public office, and apparently that is considered a plus right now by almost ALL Republicans across the board.

Finally, Carson is black. Very few black men have run for President on the Republican side, and I believe conservatives are sick to death of being called racist simply for opposing liberal solutions to racial problems. The vast majority of conservatives are not racist, so they are excited by a black candidate who shares their POV.

I'm not sure where this ranks in your list of stupid statements, but it's up there.

Really? You think it's stupid to suggest that white conservatives are excited by a black conservative?

 

[GoFishTN]

Amazing how fast Carson is rising.

I think there's a few things going on here: first, evangelicals in Iowa are always strong. Huckabee won in 2008 and Santorum in 2012. Evangelicals love Carson and they have been supporting him for a couple of years. I think some moderate Republicans also like Carson because they don't know anything about some of his more extreme social views, but they like that his tone and persona is moderate, quiet, and intelligent, as opposed to so much bombast from a lot of the others. Like Trump and Fiorina, he has never held public office, and apparently that is considered a plus right now by almost ALL Republicans across the board.

Finally, Carson is black. Very few black men have run for President on the Republican side, and I believe conservatives are sick to death of being called racist simply for opposing liberal solutions to racial problems. The vast majority of conservatives are not racist, so they are excited by a black candidate who shares their POV.

I'm not sure where this ranks in your list of stupid statements, but it's up there.

Really? You think it's stupid to suggest that white conservatives are excited by a black conservative?

Did you miss Alan Keyes and Herman Cain? Yes, it's stupid.

 

[rockaction]

It appears that the phrase "Pretty solid assessment" has lost all meaning now While there is plenty to bag on the GOP for, that opinion piece is far from "Pretty solid assessment".

Man, I can't believe you saw through my attempt to pass that off as a reasoned and balanced review of the GOP candidates!

But here's the thing- every single fact on which that opinion piece relies is 100% true. All of those ideas were put forward by one or more candidates. Not once did anyone mention that those ideas are totally insane and irresponsible and for the most part also very costly. Carly Fiorina really is an inept failed CEO with no experience in public service who threatened a good portion of the planet with war during the debate (OK, maybe not half of the planet, that was a bit of an exaggeration). And she really was only like the 8th craziest person on that stage. Donald Trump really is a reality TV star whose campaign pitch is essentially his track record of withdrawing personal profits from failed business investments. It's true, all of it. You may not think the assessment is solid (of course it isn't), but the basis sure is.

Regarding the bolded, I did not hear either of the following put forward by a candidate during the debate:

• Making the personal beliefs of county officials the highest law of the land
• Deporting thousands of people per day until the United States is entirely emptied of non-citizens

1. The Supreme Court is the highest law of the land. Huckabee thinks a county official should be able to ignore their ruling when it conflicts with her personal beliefs. If you think the personal beliefs of a county official should supersede the Supreme Court you are saying that those beliefs are now the highest law of the land.

2. That is literally Trump's position on immigration. He's espoused it many times. He plans to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants or those that have overstayed their visas and he plans to do it in "18 months to 2 years." He was asked about this plan during the debate and he doubled down on it (while avoiding the question of just how he'd do it and pay for it). That one seems pretty clear, actually.

I guess the Supreme Court once felt the same way about it that Huckabee did, within the context of the Davis case, anyway.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/24/religious-exemptions-a-guide-for-the-confused/

1. What’s with religious people getting exemptions? I thought the Supreme Court said that wasn’t required. For most of American history, courts generally didn’t see the Free Exercise Clause as requiring exemptions for religious objectors. But in Sherbert v. Verner(1963), the Supreme Court said that such exemptions were presumptively required, unless the government could show that denying the exemption was necessary to serve a compelling government interest.Then, in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court changed its mind, by a 5-to-4 vote. The Free Exercise Clause, the court held, basically just banned intentional discrimination against a particular religion or religious people generally. With a few exceptions (such as for churches’ decisions about choosing their clergy), religious objectors had to follow the same laws as everyone else, at least unless the legislature specifically created a religious exemption.The lineup in that ruling, by the way, was interesting: conservative Justice Antonin Scalia joined by conservative Justice William Rehnquist, moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, moderate Justice Byron White, and moderate liberal Justice John Paul Stevens voted for the nondiscrimination rule. Moderate conservative Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — joined by liberal Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun — disagreed, and wanted to preserve the Sherbert constitutional exemption regime.

But wait. Congress didn’t agree with Smith, and so it enacted — by a nearly unanimous vote — the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which gave religious objectors a statutory right to exemptions (again, unless the government could show that denying the exemption was necessary to serve a compelling government interest). In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the court said this exceeded congressional power over the states, but RFRA — pronounced “riffra” — remains in effect for the federal government.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I have met a Carson supporter (his support is soft at this point).

He is not the stereotype of what you'd think (i.e. not someone that would reflexively do it out of some weird political correctness), an IT professional. He was most intrigued by Carson's outside status.

Maybe not representative, but I found it interesting.

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

So this happened:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a38055/marco-rubio-staffer-punches-rand-paul-staffer/

Short video. Awesomely random.

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

The one and only time I will ever link a Breibart article:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/18/internal-emails-rubio-campaign-manager-initially-glad-aide-sucker-punched-rand-staffer-now-admits-was-wrong/

-QG

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

So this happened:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a38055/marco-rubio-staffer-punches-rand-paul-staffer/

Short video. Awesomely random.

-QG

Does the woman push him first? Confused what's going on there.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It appears that the phrase "Pretty solid assessment" has lost all meaning now While there is plenty to bag on the GOP for, that opinion piece is far from "Pretty solid assessment".

Man, I can't believe you saw through my attempt to pass that off as a reasoned and balanced review of the GOP candidates!

But here's the thing- every single fact on which that opinion piece relies is 100% true. All of those ideas were put forward by one or more candidates. Not once did anyone mention that those ideas are totally insane and irresponsible and for the most part also very costly. Carly Fiorina really is an inept failed CEO with no experience in public service who threatened a good portion of the planet with war during the debate (OK, maybe not half of the planet, that was a bit of an exaggeration). And she really was only like the 8th craziest person on that stage. Donald Trump really is a reality TV star whose campaign pitch is essentially his track record of withdrawing personal profits from failed business investments. It's true, all of it. You may not think the assessment is solid (of course it isn't), but the basis sure is.

Regarding the bolded, I did not hear either of the following put forward by a candidate during the debate:

• Making the personal beliefs of county officials the highest law of the land
• Deporting thousands of people per day until the United States is entirely emptied of non-citizens

1. The Supreme Court is the highest law of the land. Huckabee thinks a county official should be able to ignore their ruling when it conflicts with her personal beliefs. If you think the personal beliefs of a county official should supersede the Supreme Court you are saying that those beliefs are now the highest law of the land.

2. That is literally Trump's position on immigration. He's espoused it many times. He plans to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants or those that have overstayed their visas and he plans to do it in "18 months to 2 years." He was asked about this plan during the debate and he doubled down on it (while avoiding the question of just how he'd do it and pay for it). That one seems pretty clear, actually.

1. I disagree with your characterization. Allowing an individual a religious accommodation while ensuring that the law is still fully enforced is not the same thing as saying the individual's religious belief is now the highest law of the land. No one on the stage suggested that the same-sex couples in that county should be denied a marriage license because of Kim Davis' religious beliefs.

2. No it's not. You do realize that "undocumented immigrants" is not the same thing as "non-citizens"? Words have meaning.

1. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. But before we do, give a listen to Santorum and Jindal from the JV debate on the Kim Davis thing. Second video there- worth it just for Pataki's facial expression when Santorum starts talking about the Columbine girl.

2. Ah I see what you're saying. I hadn't caught that. Of course the actual position is still totally insane, but that bullet point wasn't an accurate summary of it. Should have undocumented immigrants instead of non-citizens.

 

[QuizGuy66]

And one more - and yeah probably the only time I'll link this website as well:

http://freebeacon.com/politics/rand-paul-staffer-gets-punched-barely-doesnt-fight-back/

-QG

 

[ffldrew]

So this happened:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a38055/marco-rubio-staffer-punches-rand-paul-staffer/

Short video. Awesomely random.

-QG

Hardly what I would call getting Cold cocked - more like a Melo slap

 

[QuizGuy66]

So this happened:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a38055/marco-rubio-staffer-punches-rand-paul-staffer/

Short video. Awesomely random.

-QG

Does the woman push him first? Confused what's going on there.

Oh it's Zapruder level stuff and really a sideshow to as sideshow to a sideshow but it made me laff

-QG

 

[TobiasFunke]

It appears that the phrase "Pretty solid assessment" has lost all meaning now While there is plenty to bag on the GOP for, that opinion piece is far from "Pretty solid assessment".

Man, I can't believe you saw through my attempt to pass that off as a reasoned and balanced review of the GOP candidates!

But here's the thing- every single fact on which that opinion piece relies is 100% true. All of those ideas were put forward by one or more candidates. Not once did anyone mention that those ideas are totally insane and irresponsible and for the most part also very costly. Carly Fiorina really is an inept failed CEO with no experience in public service who threatened a good portion of the planet with war during the debate (OK, maybe not half of the planet, that was a bit of an exaggeration). And she really was only like the 8th craziest person on that stage. Donald Trump really is a reality TV star whose campaign pitch is essentially his track record of withdrawing personal profits from failed business investments. It's true, all of it. You may not think the assessment is solid (of course it isn't), but the basis sure is.

Regarding the bolded, I did not hear either of the following put forward by a candidate during the debate:

• Making the personal beliefs of county officials the highest law of the land
• Deporting thousands of people per day until the United States is entirely emptied of non-citizens

1. The Supreme Court is the highest law of the land. Huckabee thinks a county official should be able to ignore their ruling when it conflicts with her personal beliefs. If you think the personal beliefs of a county official should supersede the Supreme Court you are saying that those beliefs are now the highest law of the land.

2. That is literally Trump's position on immigration. He's espoused it many times. He plans to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants or those that have overstayed their visas and he plans to do it in "18 months to 2 years." He was asked about this plan during the debate and he doubled down on it (while avoiding the question of just how he'd do it and pay for it). That one seems pretty clear, actually.

I guess the Supreme Court once felt the same way about it that Huckabee did, within the context of the Davis case, anyway.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/24/religious-exemptions-a-guide-for-the-confused/

1. What’s with religious people getting exemptions? I thought the Supreme Court said that wasn’t required. For most of American history, courts generally didn’t see the Free Exercise Clause as requiring exemptions for religious objectors. But in Sherbert v. Verner(1963), the Supreme Court said that such exemptions were presumptively required, unless the government could show that denying the exemption was necessary to serve a compelling government interest.Then, in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court changed its mind, by a 5-to-4 vote. The Free Exercise Clause, the court held, basically just banned intentional discrimination against a particular religion or religious people generally. With a few exceptions (such as for churches’ decisions about choosing their clergy), religious objectors had to follow the same laws as everyone else, at least unless the legislature specifically created a religious exemption.The lineup in that ruling, by the way, was interesting: conservative Justice Antonin Scalia joined by conservative Justice William Rehnquist, moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, moderate Justice Byron White, and moderate liberal Justice John Paul Stevens voted for the nondiscrimination rule. Moderate conservative Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — joined by liberal Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun — disagreed, and wanted to preserve the Sherbert constitutional exemption regime.

But wait. Congress didn’t agree with Smith, and so it enacted — by a nearly unanimous vote — the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which gave religious objectors a statutory right to exemptions (again, unless the government could show that denying the exemption was necessary to serve a compelling government interest). In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the court said this exceeded congressional power over the states, but RFRA — pronounced “riffra” — remains in effect for the federal government.

I am familiar with that line of case law and with RFRA. The Court carving out exemption from generally applicable statutes and regulations for religious beliefs is not remotely the same thing as a county clerk creating an exemption for herself from a Supreme Court decision that includes no such exemptions. All due respect my friend, but you're way way off the mark here.

 

[timschochet]

Amazing how fast Carson is rising.

I think there's a few things going on here: first, evangelicals in Iowa are always strong. Huckabee won in 2008 and Santorum in 2012. Evangelicals love Carson and they have been supporting him for a couple of years. I think some moderate Republicans also like Carson because they don't know anything about some of his more extreme social views, but they like that his tone and persona is moderate, quiet, and intelligent, as opposed to so much bombast from a lot of the others. Like Trump and Fiorina, he has never held public office, and apparently that is considered a plus right now by almost ALL Republicans across the board.

Finally, Carson is black. Very few black men have run for President on the Republican side, and I believe conservatives are sick to death of being called racist simply for opposing liberal solutions to racial problems. The vast majority of conservatives are not racist, so they are excited by a black candidate who shares their POV.

I'm not sure where this ranks in your list of stupid statements, but it's up there.

Really? You think it's stupid to suggest that white conservatives are excited by a black conservative?

Did you miss Alan Keyes and Herman Cain? Yes, it's stupid.

I didn't miss them. I wish to heck I had.

 

[GoFishTN]

Amazing how fast Carson is rising.

I think there's a few things going on here: first, evangelicals in Iowa are always strong. Huckabee won in 2008 and Santorum in 2012. Evangelicals love Carson and they have been supporting him for a couple of years. I think some moderate Republicans also like Carson because they don't know anything about some of his more extreme social views, but they like that his tone and persona is moderate, quiet, and intelligent, as opposed to so much bombast from a lot of the others. Like Trump and Fiorina, he has never held public office, and apparently that is considered a plus right now by almost ALL Republicans across the board.

Finally, Carson is black. Very few black men have run for President on the Republican side, and I believe conservatives are sick to death of being called racist simply for opposing liberal solutions to racial problems. The vast majority of conservatives are not racist, so they are excited by a black candidate who shares their POV.

I'm not sure where this ranks in your list of stupid statements, but it's up there.

Really? You think it's stupid to suggest that white conservatives are excited by a black conservative?

Did you miss Alan Keyes and Herman Cain? Yes, it's stupid.

I didn't miss them. I wish to heck I had.

Stupid was harsh, my apologies.

 

[Amused to Death]

Wish this Ahmed thing had gone down before the debate so we could have witnessed some hilarity with this crew being asked about it

It broke the day of. Someone in the early debate compared it to the Kim Davis situation (persecuting the Christian vs. the public outcry of a Muslim).

 

[timschochet]

Amazing how fast Carson is rising.

I think there's a few things going on here: first, evangelicals in Iowa are always strong. Huckabee won in 2008 and Santorum in 2012. Evangelicals love Carson and they have been supporting him for a couple of years. I think some moderate Republicans also like Carson because they don't know anything about some of his more extreme social views, but they like that his tone and persona is moderate, quiet, and intelligent, as opposed to so much bombast from a lot of the others. Like Trump and Fiorina, he has never held public office, and apparently that is considered a plus right now by almost ALL Republicans across the board.

Finally, Carson is black. Very few black men have run for President on the Republican side, and I believe conservatives are sick to death of being called racist simply for opposing liberal solutions to racial problems. The vast majority of conservatives are not racist, so they are excited by a black candidate who shares their POV.

I'm not sure where this ranks in your list of stupid statements, but it's up there.

Really? You think it's stupid to suggest that white conservatives are excited by a black conservative?

Did you miss Alan Keyes and Herman Cain? Yes, it's stupid.

I didn't miss them. I wish to heck I had.

Stupid was harsh, my apologies.

No worries. But I honestly do think his color plays a part. Just as it played a huge part for Democrats who voted for Barack Obama. We can pretend all we want that we're a color blind society, but we're not.

 

[bigbottom]

It appears that the phrase "Pretty solid assessment" has lost all meaning now While there is plenty to bag on the GOP for, that opinion piece is far from "Pretty solid assessment".

Man, I can't believe you saw through my attempt to pass that off as a reasoned and balanced review of the GOP candidates!

But here's the thing- every single fact on which that opinion piece relies is 100% true. All of those ideas were put forward by one or more candidates. Not once did anyone mention that those ideas are totally insane and irresponsible and for the most part also very costly. Carly Fiorina really is an inept failed CEO with no experience in public service who threatened a good portion of the planet with war during the debate (OK, maybe not half of the planet, that was a bit of an exaggeration). And she really was only like the 8th craziest person on that stage. Donald Trump really is a reality TV star whose campaign pitch is essentially his track record of withdrawing personal profits from failed business investments. It's true, all of it. You may not think the assessment is solid (of course it isn't), but the basis sure is.

Regarding the bolded, I did not hear either of the following put forward by a candidate during the debate:

• Making the personal beliefs of county officials the highest law of the land
• Deporting thousands of people per day until the United States is entirely emptied of non-citizens

1. The Supreme Court is the highest law of the land. Huckabee thinks a county official should be able to ignore their ruling when it conflicts with her personal beliefs. If you think the personal beliefs of a county official should supersede the Supreme Court you are saying that those beliefs are now the highest law of the land.

2. That is literally Trump's position on immigration. He's espoused it many times. He plans to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants or those that have overstayed their visas and he plans to do it in "18 months to 2 years." He was asked about this plan during the debate and he doubled down on it (while avoiding the question of just how he'd do it and pay for it). That one seems pretty clear, actually.

1. I disagree with your characterization. Allowing an individual a religious accommodation while ensuring that the law is still fully enforced is not the same thing as saying the individual's religious belief is now the highest law of the land. No one on the stage suggested that the same-sex couples in that county should be denied a marriage license because of Kim Davis' religious beliefs.

2. No it's not. You do realize that "undocumented immigrants" is not the same thing as "non-citizens"? Words have meaning.

1. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. But before we do, give a listen to Santorum and Jindal from the JV debate on the Kim Davis thing. Second video there- worth it just for Pataki's facial expression when Santorum starts talking about the Columbine girl.

2. Ah I see what you're saying. I hadn't caught that. Of course the actual position is still totally insane, but that bullet point wasn't an accurate summary of it. Should have undocumented immigrants instead of non-citizens.

1. In all fairness, I only watched the Varsity debate, so my comments were only with respect to that debate. That said, I watched the sections of the JV debate you linked, and I didn't hear anyone (even Santorum) support "making the personal beliefs of county officials the highest law of the land." Again, liberties were taken with those bullet points in order to spin what was actually said into something that wasn't. That said, I fundamentally disagree with Santorum's argument that the Supreme Court was acting beyond the scope of its constitutional powers.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It appears that the phrase "Pretty solid assessment" has lost all meaning now While there is plenty to bag on the GOP for, that opinion piece is far from "Pretty solid assessment".

Man, I can't believe you saw through my attempt to pass that off as a reasoned and balanced review of the GOP candidates!

But here's the thing- every single fact on which that opinion piece relies is 100% true. All of those ideas were put forward by one or more candidates. Not once did anyone mention that those ideas are totally insane and irresponsible and for the most part also very costly. Carly Fiorina really is an inept failed CEO with no experience in public service who threatened a good portion of the planet with war during the debate (OK, maybe not half of the planet, that was a bit of an exaggeration). And she really was only like the 8th craziest person on that stage. Donald Trump really is a reality TV star whose campaign pitch is essentially his track record of withdrawing personal profits from failed business investments. It's true, all of it. You may not think the assessment is solid (of course it isn't), but the basis sure is.

Regarding the bolded, I did not hear either of the following put forward by a candidate during the debate:

• Making the personal beliefs of county officials the highest law of the land
• Deporting thousands of people per day until the United States is entirely emptied of non-citizens

1. The Supreme Court is the highest law of the land. Huckabee thinks a county official should be able to ignore their ruling when it conflicts with her personal beliefs. If you think the personal beliefs of a county official should supersede the Supreme Court you are saying that those beliefs are now the highest law of the land.

2. That is literally Trump's position on immigration. He's espoused it many times. He plans to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants or those that have overstayed their visas and he plans to do it in "18 months to 2 years." He was asked about this plan during the debate and he doubled down on it (while avoiding the question of just how he'd do it and pay for it). That one seems pretty clear, actually.

1. I disagree with your characterization. Allowing an individual a religious accommodation while ensuring that the law is still fully enforced is not the same thing as saying the individual's religious belief is now the highest law of the land. No one on the stage suggested that the same-sex couples in that county should be denied a marriage license because of Kim Davis' religious beliefs.

2. No it's not. You do realize that "undocumented immigrants" is not the same thing as "non-citizens"? Words have meaning.

1. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. But before we do, give a listen to Santorum and Jindal from the JV debate on the Kim Davis thing. Second video there- worth it just for Pataki's facial expression when Santorum starts talking about the Columbine girl.

2. Ah I see what you're saying. I hadn't caught that. Of course the actual position is still totally insane, but that bullet point wasn't an accurate summary of it. Should have undocumented immigrants instead of non-citizens.

1. In all fairness, I only watched the Varsity debate, so my comments were only with respect to that debate. That said, I watched the sections of the JV debate you linked, and I didn't hear anyone (even Santorum) support "making the personal beliefs of county officials the highest law of the land." Again, liberties were taken with those bullet points in order to spin what was actually said into something that wasn't. That said, I fundamentally disagree with Santorum's argument that the Supreme Court was acting beyond the scope of its constitutional powers.

Yeah, I think Huckabee had previously said something along the lines of Davis should be free to ignore the ruling so I assumed he was the one who had said something similar during the debate itself, but he didn't say anything quite that radical. But when I googled it I found the Jindal and Santorum nonsense.

 

[bigbottom]

Wish this Ahmed thing had gone down before the debate so we could have witnessed some hilarity with this crew being asked about it

It broke the day of. Someone in the early debate compared it to the Kim Davis situation (persecuting the Christian vs. the public outcry of a Muslim).

When Ahmed made his public appearance, I wish he had come out to Eye of the Tiger. Given that there was a tiger on the pencil box, as well as his Sudanese descent, it would have made a bunch more sense than some lady from Kentucky and her hubby in overalls.

 

[rockaction]

I am familiar with that line of case law and with RFRA. The Court carving out exemption from generally applicable statutes and regulations for religious beliefs is not remotely the same thing as a county clerk creating an exemption for herself from a Supreme Court decision that includes no such exemptions. All due respect my friend, but you're way way off the mark here.

From Sept. 8th. Seems like Volokh says that if she limits her claim, she should or might be granted the exemption under Kentucky's RFRA. Make of this what you will. I don't practice.

But if Davis sues in state court, seeking a declaration that she can issue licenses and certificates without her name — as a Kentucky RFRA-based exemption from the Kentucky statutory requirements for what must go on her license — I think she’d have a good case. The federal district court rejected her Kentucky RFRA argument on the grounds that the requirement doesn’t much burden her beliefs...But though I agree that her religious convictions can’t excuse her from issuing marriage licenses altogether, I think the judge erred in the rest of the analysis in this paragraph. If Davis believes that it’s religiously wrong for her to issue licenses with her name on them, ordering her to do that indeed burdens her religious beliefs, enough to trigger the Kentucky RFRA. And giving her the more modest exemption from the include-the-court-clerk’s-name requirement might therefore indeed be required by the Kentucky RFRA. (The federal district court’s conclusion about the inapplicability of the Kentucky RFRA won’t be binding on state courts, because that conclusion came in a preliminary injunction hearing; such conclusions on preliminary injunction generally lack so-called “collateral estoppel” effect on future hearings.) - Eugene Volokh

 

[Rove!]

So, has this thread come back to normalcy talking about the GOP and the debate? Unfortunately I was unable to see the debate last night and was looking for good, honest reviews.

It was simply unbearable being in here last night with the lefty hater jerk-off going on.

You are such a turd.

You're going to start this again? C'mon, man. Don't hijack this thread like you did the last one.

When you go to Applebees, do they give you 15% off for being 80 and a humorless ####, or just for being 80?

I actually sort of thought his hatred was funny in this case. This thread has sort of been a lefty hater jerk-off since Page Five or so.

Can you blame them for wanting to avoid any attention on the two lunatics currently seeking the Dem nomination?

Give us three FACTUALLY SUPPORTED positions where Bernie is a lunatic.

The rich don't pay their "fair share" in taxesThe US was founded on racist principles

College education is a right.

Our biggest problem is too many options in the deodorant aisle