[Cap'n Tightpants]

Trump is "all talk"? If he was, the Left's panties wouldn't be in a bunch right now, and Trump is very popular with the blue collar working class, though I will admit most Dems don't associate with such folks, so they're unlikely to know or understand that. As for the rest, you essentially made my case for me. Politically he's shockingly similar to Teddy, so far. We'll have a better gauge of him in a year or so, however.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Trump is "all talk"?

Yes, Trump is a chicken hawk, something that Roosevelt was not. (And yes, way to take my post out of context. ) And the similarities to Roosevelt don't help to understand what Trump will do and how he will govern. Judging by the shit show put on display right now, Trump may not be in office for very long.

[Paco500]

'Trump is the new Teddy Roosevelt" idea has been floating around the right-wing news sites over the last few days- the typical sources CPT gets his talking points from. Unless you want to argue with an Infowars true believer, you can pretty much ignore.

[subego]

Is it my imagination, or has he already aged 10 years?

[andi*pandi]

Maybe they've stopped the Botox.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Trump is "all talk"? If he was, the Left's panties wouldn't be in a bunch right now, and Trump is very popular with the blue collar working class, though I will admit most Dems don't associate with such folks, so they're unlikely to know or understand that. As for the rest, you essentially made my case for me. Politically he's shockingly similar to Teddy, so far. We'll have a better gauge of him in a year or so, however.

The "left's" panties are in a wad because he's being played for the fool that he is, by Bannon, who is engineering a coup! Do you really believe that a man who acts like a six year old, with his twitter outbursts, where he insults world leaders, and causes stock price dips, is Presidential? Do you really believe that a man who speaks at a fifth grade level, and who has the intelligence and attention span of an ant, and who has aides assigned to him to keep him focused, is Presidential? Do you really believe that a man who, before he is even sworn in, makes an arbitrary phone call to the president of a nation that we don't officially recognize, thus pissing off a world superpower, and who's Secretary of State nominee threatens that superpower with not letting them access to islands China has built in the South China Sea, once again pissing off that superpower, is Presidential? Do you really believe that it's okay for him to set up an unannounced meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan, and have his daughter in the room, hawking her products to them, and with no other State Department officials present, and that's Presidential? One could write a book (I'm sure there are many being worked on as we speak) about the utter incompetence of this boorish, crass, buffoon!

Next thing I know you're going to tell me he didn't lie about bringing jobs back, because they've been replaced by automation,while he won't set an example, and have his and Ivanka's overpriced crap, made here so he can profit more, but he has his supporters best interests at heart!

Next thing I know you're going to tell me he didn't lie when he said crime is rampant, when, IN FACT, violent crime and homicide have declined 50% in the last twenty five years, and you're safer today than in the last 40 years. Or maybe you're going to tell me that the vast majority of the approximately 3100 terrorist attacks committed since 9/11 were committed by radical Islamists?

To your point about his supporters; of course they're going to support him. People who are adults who think at a fifth grade level, and have zero critical thinking skills, want nothing more than to believe that a billionaire suddenly changed his entire life of fleecing everyone he can, and, after decades of "grabbing them by the pussy" has suddenly found Two Corinthians, and has their best interests at heart! A boor who who regularly stiffs the contractors who do work for him (a new case was filed last week), and who flits from one business failure to another, making sure that he has good lawyers who leave him holding bags of money while everyone else gets left with pennies on the dollar, surely has Joe Schmoe's interests at heart, right? A man who took credit for the Carrier fiasco, which Pence engineered, and which is still going to result in more layoffs, surely has those people in Indiana's best interests in mind, right? His supporters don't read; they no doubt don't know that, days after the deal that "saved" about a thousand jobs, Carrier announced that they were taking the seven million in tax savings, investing a few million of their own to further automate their factory in Indiana, and LAYING OFF MORE PEOPLE ANYWAY, but Minority President Doofus has their best interests at heart.

You'e hilarious; you should do stand up.

[OAW]

^^^

Well don't hold back! Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

'Trump is the new Teddy Roosevelt" idea has been floating around the right-wing news sites over the last few days- the typical sources CPT gets his talking points from. Unless you want to argue with an Infowars true believer, you can pretty much ignore.

You're incorrect, yet again. I read it on RealClearPolitics back in November and have been thinking about it since.

Gingrich: Donald Trump Is One-Third Teddy Roosevelt, One-Third Andrew Jackson, One-Third P.T. Barnum | Video | RealClearPolitics

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The "left's" panties are in a wad because he's being played for the fool that he is, by Bannon, who is engineering a coup!

Take your own advice.

You'e hilarious; you should do stand up.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You're incorrect, yet again. I read it on RealClearPolitics back in November and have been thinking about it since.

Yes, I'm sure it's a total coincidence that this 'narrative' has been making the rounds of your favourite sources of true believer talking points just as you decided to bring it up here.

Congratulations, I suppose, on only taking a day to find a reference to it from November so you can pretend to be an original thinker.

You are a mystery. Troll or fantasist? I wonder if we will ever know.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Yes, I'm sure it's a total coincidence that this 'narrative' has been making the rounds of your favourite sources of true believer talking points just as you decided to bring it up here.

What you're "sure" of doesn't mean anything, since I don't frequent the sites you're talking about (I do listen to Lauren Southern's podcast occasionally). I get my news from Reuters and the AP wire almost exclusively, with the rest filled out with some Twitter.

Congratulations, I suppose, on only taking a day to find a reference to it from November so you can pretend to be an original thinker.

It's the first time I've had the chance to come back to the PL, I don't have time to sit here all day.

You are a mystery. Troll or fantasist? I wonder if we will ever know.

You're no mystery at all, just another ill-tempered kid who takes his life's frustrations out on internet strangers. You're our embodiment of 4chan.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

What you're "sure" of doesn't mean anything, since I don't frequent the sites you're talking about (I do listen to Lauren Southern's podcast occasionally). I get my news from Reuters and the AP wire almost exclusively, with the rest filled out with some Twitter.

Of course, which is why you are always citing Reuters and the AP and never right-wing nut and fringe news sites. That makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It's the first time I've had the chance to come back to the PL, I don't have time to sit here all day.

Your voluminous post count would indicate otherwise. I'm thinking the frantically searching for a rebuttal is the most likely scenario. Or the internet went out in your doublewide?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You're no mystery at all, just another ill-tempered kid who takes his life's frustrations out on internet strangers. You're our embodiment of 4chan.

I'm a damn old kid, but ok. I've never actually been on 4chan so I'll have to take your word on that.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You're no mystery at all, just another ill-tempered kid who takes his life's frustrations out on internet strangers. You're our embodiment of 4chan.

Wait - who posted a Countryball "autistic screetching" meme?

[The Final Dakar]

The alleged transcripts of his calls with Australia and Mexico are pretty wild.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Wait - who posted a Countryball "autistic screetching" meme?

I have no idea what that has to do with Paco's abusive streak, are you trying to say that the "countryball" meme is abuse?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Of course, which is why you are always citing Reuters and the AP and never right-wing nut and fringe news sites. That makes perfect sense.

I often do, though usually I find local affiliates of the major networks, because there's nothing to post from the wire except blocks of text.

Your voluminous post count would indicate otherwise. I'm thinking the frantically searching for a rebuttal is the most likely scenario. Or the internet went out in your doublewide?

Ah, the old "you post a lot" rebuttal. I do, but in blocks and usually once per day (around lunch time, right before my siesta). If you hang out on here all day long waiting to reply then I salute your... umm... tenacity.

I'm a damn old kid, but ok. I've never actually been on 4chan so I'll have to take your word on that.

They'd love you, you'd fit right in.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I have no idea what that has to do with Paco's abusive streak, are you trying to say that the "countryball" meme is abuse?

...

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

4chan.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

...

I got it from Twitter, but if you saw it on 4chan then I will bow to your... umm... "expertise".

[subego]

Am I the only one who would admit to sorta liking 4chan?

That said, I was introduced to Countryball (as Polandball) on Reddit.

[besson3c]

I still want to know where all of the right-wing constitution lovers are?

I guarantee you if the constitution was threatened like this in 2016 or the second amendment was threatened you guys would have a field day.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I still want to know where all of the right-wing constitution lovers are?

I guarantee you if the constitution was threatened like this in 2016 or the second amendment was threatened you guys would have a field day.

I know I'm not really who's being asked to play, but I'm bored, and I like to hear myself type.

I want the final ruling on whether this Executive Order is constitutional to be based on an honest, constructionist assessment of the law in question. If that's done, it's a victory for the Constitution, regardless of whether said ruling matches my philosophy.

I think the Second Amendment applies to the militia. That is my honest, constructionist take. I would have preferred that's how the SCOTUS ruled despite by philosophical belief in the vital importance of an armed citizenry.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think the Second Amendment applies to the militia. That is my honest, constructionist take. I would have preferred that's how the SCOTUS ruled despite by philosophical belief in the vital importance of an armed citizenry.

We are the militia. At the time the 2nd was written, the militia was the armed (white) landowners who answered the call to help. Washington's militia grew and shrank based on who could be away from home, how bad the weather was, and how the battles against the redcoats were going.

The militia was basically those who could vote. In the centuries since, we've expanded the right to vote to non-landowners, non-whites, and women. Today, we use the word "citizen" to refer to this group. SCOTUS got it right.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

We are the militia. At the time the 2nd was written, the militia was the armed (white) landowners who answered the call to help. Washington's militia grew and shrank based on who could be away from home, how bad the weather was, and how the battles against the redcoats were going.

The militia was basically those who could vote. In the centuries since, we've expanded the right to vote to non-landowners, non-whites, and women. Today, we use the word "citizen" to refer to this group. SCOTUS got it right.

I'm happy to go down that road, but there's one monster pothole right from the outset... that wasn't Scalia's argument.

IIUC, the core of his decision is what I used to think was correct, which is the sentence pretty unambiguously states the militia is a justification for the right and no more. Which, to a modern reader it does. That's why I used to hold the position.

After being prompted to look into the (heavily Latin inspired) grammar of the time, the relationship between the two halves of the amendment are a bit muddier, and before you know it, we're down the rabbit hole.

[reader50]

It's my argument, written an hour ago. Scalia has been dead for nearly a year. I'll reread the SCOTUS ruling at some point, but they got it right in my opinion. Even if they used a different path.

[subego]

I just wanted to get the Scalia part out of the way so if it comes back up I'm not blindsiding the discussion.

IIUC, there was no federal militia at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights. Militias were entities of the individual states, and operated at the pleasure of state governments.

There was nothing stopping a state from dissolving the militia. Militias were entities, and there was no assumption they existed beyond those entities.

This flies in the face of the Constitution establishing the militia is just an extension of "the people".

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

Am I the only one who would admit to sorta liking 4chan?

That said, I was introduced to Countryball (as Polandball) on Reddit.

Shhh. Don't disagree with the Narrative, its operatives will troll you all over the forum if you dare.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think the Second Amendment applies to the militia. That is my honest, constructionist take. I would have preferred that's how the SCOTUS ruled despite by philosophical belief in the vital importance of an armed citizenry.

I believe it would, honestly, if the punctuation was different.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I believe it would, honestly, if the punctuation was different.

A large portion of my argument is a change in grammar has occurred since it was written. There used to be multiple ways to read that sentence construction, so context is required to determine which one.

Since that time, two of the three have fallen out of favor, leaving the one which makes sense to us now.

The sentence itself doesn't provide enough context, but the floor debate on the amendment provides at least some evidence it was intended with one of the now defunct constructions. That's certainly what I think one should take away from all the debate over whether the amendment should have had a conscientious objector clause. What purpose would the clause serve if the militia portion of the amendment was only expository?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

It doesn't exist in a vacuum, to get an idea of their intention other writings from the framers must be taken into account, particularly the Federalist Papers. Citizens of the USA are the militia, the militia is the American People, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[The Final Dakar]

Can we not derail this thread with yet another second amendment discussion?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It doesn't exist in a vacuum, to get an idea of their intention other writings from the framers must be taken into account, particularly the Federalist Papers. Citizens of the USA are the militia, the militia is the American People, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I'm trying to rely exclusively on writings of the time, I just get a different reading.

Hamilton argues in Federalist 29, using all caps no less, the officers of the militia are to be soley and exclusively appointed by state government.

This is the exact opposite of the idea the militia is extra-governmental.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Can we not derail this thread with yet another second amendment discussion?

We can, but I'd feel more inclined with an "it would be appreciated" rather than "**** your polite conversation".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

We can, but I'd feel more inclined with an "it would be appreciated" rather than "**** your polite conversation".

I'm not going to apologize for being exasperated by certain subjects consistently detailing threads. Just because you were discussing it politely doesn't make it any more relevant.

I also try to be mindful of when i do the same so no one has to ask me.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

That's why we can't have nice things, IMO.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm not going to apologize for being exasperated by certain subjects consistently detailing threads. Just because you were discussing it politely doesn't make it any more relevant.

I also try to be mindful of when i do the same so no one has to ask me.

The politeness implies willingness to accommodate, and the way I am mindful is to accommodate it there's a problem.

If this isn't enough to temper exasperation I shall endeavor in the future to be mindful of the eggshell-like sensitivity being demanded.

[Waragainstsleep]

What were we supposed to be talking about again?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

What were we supposed to be talking about again?

Oven mitts, I think?

[The Final Dakar]

Trump offers to ‘destroy career’ of Texas state senator at meeting with sheriff | TheHill

!

[andi*pandi]

Since this is a drinking thread, I propose that we all post a drinking gif anytime Trump does/says/tweets something stupid.

[The Final Dakar]

My library isn't the deep

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Since this is a drinking thread, I propose that we all post a drinking gif anytime Trump does/says/tweets something stupid.

Terrible idea, if we posted that EVERY time he does something stupid, it would look like this in a few days. Gifs don't last forever you know.

[Paco500]

I just realised that you said we should post a different image every time he did something stupid. Which makes my above post (and me if I'm honest) look stupid. But I'm leaving it up because I thought it was funny and I'm having a shit day and I want to laugh.

[subego]

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Trump offers to ‘destroy career’ of Texas state senator at meeting with sheriff | TheHill

!

By the way, subego, this is over civil forfeiture. (I'm under the impression you're not a fan)

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

By the way, subego, this is over civil forfeiture. (I'm under the impression you're not a fan)

Let me guess...

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not saying the regs are wrong, I'm saying there's a legit argument.

MOSTLY kidding.

[The Final Dakar]

Yemen revoked US rights to perform counter terror operations after how the last op went down.

Frankly I'm surprised trump hasn't tweeted about this.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

By the way, subego, this is over civil forfeiture. (I'm under the impression you're not a fan)

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Let me guess...



MOSTLY kidding.

The general record of civil forfeiture has been poor, so I'd probably be on board with legislation reeling it in.

[The Final Dakar]

Disregarding its record, isn't it a gross violation of due process?

[The Final Dakar]

So, Trump yesterday wen after Nordstrom because they made Ivanka look bad. Par for the course. But then the White House twitter account retweeted it. What does the White House care about Ivanka's product line or Norstrom?

But for matter to really go to the next level, this happened: Kellyanne Conway Tells Fox News Viewers to ‘Go Buy Ivanka’s Stuff,’ ‘Go Buy It Today’ | Mediaite

This is one of Trump's senior advisor's doing a QVC level pitch in a news interview. It's ****ing surreal.

[The Final Dakar]

Trump says business friends 'can't get loans' because of Dodd-Frank | TheHill

“We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank because, frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine, who have nice businesses who can’t borrow money. They just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow, because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank,” Trump said at a Friday morning meeting with CEOs from a number of companies.

Populist.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So, Trump yesterday wen after Nordstrom because they made Ivanka look bad. Par for the course. But then the White House twitter account retweeted it. What does the White House care about Ivanka's product line or Norstrom?

But for matter to really go to the next level, this happened: Kellyanne Conway Tells Fox News Viewers to ‘Go Buy Ivanka’s Stuff,’ ‘Go Buy It Today’ | Mediaite

This is one of Trump's senior advisor's doing a QVC level pitch in a news interview. It's ****ing surreal.

How about Amway products in every classroom?