This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The justices on his list of 20 disagree with Obergefell and many have done so publicly.
I've said it elsewhere, but the rising cost of healthcare is one item that I think pushed Trumo to victory. The new rates, which showed shocking increases, were the real October surprise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005
I feel like it's a wolf in sheeps clothing, telling us not to worry about SS marriage. That it's safe. We would really like to believe him (fully knowing we're making a deal with the devil given his past history of pathological lying). We proceed cautiously only to realize the truth when it's too late.
Three things - no, the law was specifically an attempt to cause flag burning to fall into "yelling fire in a crowded theater"; I wouldn't support that either; and Trump just recommended we strip people of citizenship for burning the flag.
I don't find your first point that persuasive -- any law that singles out burning the flag as compared to any other activity seems problematic to me. The third point is decent but I'm still sticking with my original perspective that bringing up Hillary's bill is a sick burn.
A fourth: Hillary Clinton is now an elderly retiree who apparently enjoys taking her dog for walks in the woods. She is not some sort of foil or defense to Trump's insanity and corruption.
Clearly, the guy doesn't want to give up his 1st Amendment rights as a normal citizen. He will go on television when he wants to speak as President. Just like watching Westworld, you have to know which time period you're seeing, and Twitter is the big clue.
I'm in a SS marriage and have little to no concern. In fact, my nerves are probably calmer because Donald Trump won.
Well, with Trump's plan to improve infrastructure, hopefully a train ticket to a more civilized state with those services still intact will be pretty cheap!
You must not have received the memo telling you to speak of nothing but doom and gloom.
I remember when she did this. I was SO EFFING ANGRY. It soured me on Clinton for, well, pretty much forever. I think I understand what she was trying to do -- I think she was trying to stave off a constitutional amendment so offered this as a compromise. But this is something you should NEVER "compromise" about.
True, but they accepted a lot of money from places that do not agree with that decision. It feels a little hypocritical to me.
Who cares? It's not like Obama picked and nominated a bunch of moderates himself either. That's how the game is played but now people are getting all hysterical over it? This ridiculousness has to stop. Seriously a bunch of fear-mongering going on in here.
That's my favorite response to "no, you're wrong."
All I'm saying is that you guys are going WAAAAAAAYYYYY over the top in your rhetoric. It's okay to be concerned, it's not okay to fear monger and panic over things that haven't even been done that you only THINK he might do. He hasn't even been sworn in yet.
I don't know what to tell you HF. The fact that i did that was to stress the point, not fear monger - but I think you know that.
As a outsider looking in....you come off weak when you attack the messenger and not the message. Sticking to facts will generate more support.
Is this the kind of high brow arguments you guys have in the lawyer thread. Somehow I imagined the lawyer talk to be more, well refined.
Ok thats it, take this to the lawyer thread. We don't need any of your corpus delicti mumbo jumbo.
If the guy(or his people) is saying it...why shouldn't I believe he has a desire to implement it? And if he doesn't mean it...how is he any different than any other politician? Was there some sort of code book that we should have been looking at in regards to his rhetoric that explains exactly what he means before we voted him in?
The only thing that stinks more than fake progressiveness is progressiveness itself.Rohn Jambo said:
Some of the stuff that Trump has said he might do is really pretty terrible. I don't think it's an overreaction to get worried about the wall, the Muslim registry, jailing flag-burners, making #### up about winning the popular vote, profiteering from his office, and stuff like that.
She never would have appointed a Goldman Sachs guy in 100 years after the brouhaha about her speeches and you know it.
All true. He even has worked for George Soros. Seems more like a Democrat than a Republican. You should be excited.
Ha oh. Not now, he supported Trump in 2016, he was a Hillary supporter in 2008.
I repeat, Hillary would never ever have appointed a Goldman Sachs guy to run Treasury. Maybe someone else with Wall Street connections, but this nomination wouldn't have happened, as it would have resulted in a ####storm of bad press from both the left and right.
If you think Wall Street handed her scores of millions of dollars for free... well bless your lil' heart... the one who pays the piper calls the tune.
I agree with most of this, but it's just further proof of the underlying ignorance and underlying sexism Hillary faced in the campaign. She was vilified for her Wall st ties but when Trump does it, just a yawn from those same Hillary haters.
