Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Election 2020

Election 2020 (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2020, 08:07 PM
 
Here are the replacements:
DoD Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security: Ezra Cohen-Watnick
- One-time aide to General Michael T. Flynn
- Suspected of having leaked intelligence documents to Devin Nunes

NSA General Counsel: Michael Ellis
- One-time Chief Counsel to Devin Nunes
- Suspected of having leaked intelligence documents to Devin Nunes

Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Defense: Kashyap (Kash) Patel
- One-time aide to Devin Nunes
- Suspected of being a back channel for Ukraine policy and intelligence information
- Replaces Jen Stewart, who resigned yesterday, and who was purportedly going to facilitate DOD transition with Biden's team

DoD Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Policy: Anthony Tata
- Retired Brigadier General & Frequent Fox News contributor
- Claimed that Barack Obama is a Muslim and "terrorist leader"
- Promoted a conspiracy theory asserting that the CIA sought to assassinate Trump

Acting Secretary of Defense: Christopher C. Miller
- Special Forces soldier and commander in Iraq and Afghanistan
- NSC Counter Terrorism Advisor
- Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (appointed by Trump & approved by the Senate)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2020, 08:24 PM
 
Sounds like saggy diapers that leak.

Miller’s probably okay, but that’s just a guess. I know nothing about him other than what you just posted.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2020, 11:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That inaccuracy is why I bailed from the video.
I don't know why he picks on Roberts in particular. You surely can't be shocked that a liberal expects the supreme court to try to overturn Roe v Wade though? Its not like Trump hasn't been alluding to it for some time. Not to mention the Republican base.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 01:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I don't know why he picks on Roberts in particular. You surely can't be shocked that a liberal expects the supreme court to try to overturn Roe v Wade though? Its not like Trump hasn't been alluding to it for some time. Not to mention the Republican base.
And it is one of the tenets of the Federalist Society, to which the six conservative judges all have ties. IMHO you don't get on the list without having convinced them that you think Roe vs. Wade has been wrongly decided.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 09:21 AM
 
I think it was wrongly decided, but that doesn’t mean I’d flip it if I was on the Supreme Court. Precedent is a thing, and it’s been the precedent since I was an infant.

I’m personally pro-choice, but I don’t get to impose that on my reading of the law.

I also think gay marriage was wrongly decided, but I wouldn’t flip that either. I’m not going to go dissolving marriages.

I’m personally pro-gay marriage, but I don’t get to impose that on my reading of the law.

For one more example, I think the militia clause is material to the Second Amendment. I can’t drop it despite preferring the interpretation it’s irrelevant.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 11, 2020 at 09:47 AM. )
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 09:50 AM
 
Sorry to rain on the parade, don’t be surprised if this ends up in the House of Representatives where the Republicans control at least 26 state delegations, thus re-election for Trump.
45/47
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 10:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
For one more example, I think the militia clause is material to the Second Amendment. I can’t drop it despite preferring the interpretation it’s irrelevant.
I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I gather that one reading is that the "well-regulated militia" is what turned into the National Guard, so that clause is fulfilled, and nobody who doesn’t actually wish to join the "well-regulated militia" has any business owning guns at all.

So yes, you CAN drop it even if you think it’s not irrelevant.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 10:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I don't know why he picks on Roberts in particular. You surely can't be shocked that a liberal expects the supreme court to try to overturn Roe v Wade though? Its not like Trump hasn't been alluding to it for some time. Not to mention the Republican base.
I can be shocked if the liberal in question presents themselves as an authority on the court.

Alito writes the main abortion dissents. As I said, the ones I’ve read are wholly consistent with Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

This doesn’t mean it’s impossible for him to flip, but it blows the assumption he will out of the water.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 10:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I gather that one reading is that the "well-regulated militia" is what turned into the National Guard, so that clause is fulfilled, and nobody who doesn’t actually wish to join the "well-regulated militia" has any business owning guns at all.

So yes, you CAN drop it even if you think it’s not irrelevant.
They’re not a militia because the federal government can activate them. This makes them part of the country’s standing army, and the militia (at the time of the writing of the amendment) is explicitly distinct from the standing army.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 10:22 AM
 
Rundown on current Trump/GOP allegations and lawsuits. TLDR: All empty bluster and no proof.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 10:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Rundown on current Trump/GOP allegations and lawsuits. TLDR: All empty bluster and no proof.
Jesus Christ, man... what does this have to do with guns or abortion?

Stay on topic.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I gather that one reading is that the "well-regulated militia" is what turned into the National Guard, so that clause is fulfilled, and nobody who doesn’t actually wish to join the "well-regulated militia" has any business owning guns at all.

So yes, you CAN drop it even if you think it’s not irrelevant.
When the 2nd Amendment was written, the US didn't have a standing army. The Constitution had just been written, and the Bill of Rights was done to fill in gaps the state reps hadn't agreed on. The militia was the landowners-with-guns who came out when called. ie - George Washington's army.

White landowners all got to vote -> land ownership not essential -> white part removed (13th amendment) -> male part removed (suffrage movement) -> modern voters.

So the militia were the public with the right to vote. In my opinion, a case could be made that the right to bear arms could be limited to those with voting rights. I don't see other obvious big restrictions - it's clearly an individual right. Note that the "well regulated" part is a bit awkward, but we are all subject to lots of regulations today. So I suppose we're covered.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Sorry to rain on the parade, don’t be surprised if this ends up in the House of Representatives where the Republicans control at least 26 state delegations, thus re-election for Trump.
What about the court this summer saying that electors had to vote the way the majority of the state did?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
So the militia were the public with the right to vote. In my opinion, a case could be made that the right to bear arms could be limited to those with voting rights. I don't see other obvious big restrictions - it's clearly an individual right. Note that the "well regulated" part is a bit awkward, but we are all subject to lots of regulations today. So I suppose we're covered.
The problem with that is not the militia, it is the definition of "arms". Does the second amendment mean that I can own a tank? How about some nukes? If not, why? And - more importantly - if not, why can't we limit that right to anything more complex than a breech-loader?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 02:52 PM
 
Ah, that must be what the well-regulated is for. Regulatory paperwork is murder, even for large power companies owning fission reactors. Probably out of reach for citizens.

btw - some people do own tanks. This guy isn't even in the USA.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
What about the court this summer saying that electors had to vote the way the majority of the state did?

That applies to states that have "faithless electors" laws. This the "no candidate has 270+ electoral votes" scenario.
45/47
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 05:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I can be shocked if the liberal in question presents themselves as an authority on the court.
Is that what he's doing? He clearly has opinions about the court but I'm not sure that makes him a self proclaimed authority. He's just saying what he thinks a sufficiently empowered democratic administration ought to do with the court.
Theres enough conservatives to flip RvW without Roberts anyway so I while I see his relevance he's certainly not the end of the story.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 06:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
When the 2nd Amendment was written, the US didn't have a standing army. The Constitution had just been written, and the Bill of Rights was done to fill in gaps the state reps hadn't agreed on. The militia was the landowners-with-guns who came out when called. ie - George Washington's army.

White landowners all got to vote -> land ownership not essential -> white part removed (13th amendment) -> male part removed (suffrage movement) -> modern voters.

So the militia were the public with the right to vote. In my opinion, a case could be made that the right to bear arms could be limited to those with voting rights. I don't see other obvious big restrictions - it's clearly an individual right. Note that the "well regulated" part is a bit awkward, but we are all subject to lots of regulations today. So I suppose we're covered.
Connecting the militia with voting rights seems a bit of a stretch. You'd be closer to a legal argument if you said it should be interpreted as "White male landowners have the right to bear arms" (You know, like most of your cops seem to )
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 08:25 PM
 
Militias were about capturing escaped slaves far more than anything to do with securing voting rights.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 09:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think it was wrongly decided, but that doesn’t mean I’d flip it if I was on the Supreme Court. Precedent is a thing, and it’s been the precedent since I was an infant.
Precedent is only one of the tenets of the form of conservative jurisprudence that the Federalist Society and Antonin Scalia have popularized, and it is in tension with textualism and deference to the legislature (i. e. not being “judicial activists).

That’s the difference between e. g. Roberts and Gorsuch, they put the emphasis on different things. In the recent case on discrimination of homosexuals and trans people Gorsuch’s surprising decision, for example, can be explained by him prioritizing textualism over the other tenets of Scalian judicial philosophy. Roberts emphasizes deference to the legislature more strongly as can be seen by his decision not to invalidate the ACA. Of course, Supreme Court judges do not always choose the same tenet over the others and a lot of decisions are, frankly, colored by our own convictions. States’s rights is one thing that comes to mind.

Precedent also does change at times. The Second Amendment is a great and, historically speaking, recent example. Given that opposition to abortion is a very important factor to getting put on The Federalist Society’s list and it is one of the things that arguably motivates Republicans to continue vote for Republicans, this concern cannot be dismissed. Thing is, you don’t actually need to overturn Roe vs. Wade, it suffices to refuse taking cases of e. g. onerous restrictions on clinics that offer abortions.

Packing the courts with very conservative judges was a top-of-the-list-of-priorities item for Republicans, they have used it to great effect when campaigning, and now that the Trump administration has seated countless federal judges (appointments were stalled during the Obama years by the Senate) and appointed three Supreme Court judges, I think it’d be naïve to think that this had no effect on hot button topics like gun control or abortion rights.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m personally pro-choice, but I don’t get to impose that on my reading of the law.

I also think gay marriage was wrongly decided, but I wouldn’t flip that either. I’m not going to go dissolving marriages.

I’m personally pro-gay marriage, but I don’t get to impose that on my reading of the law.

For one more example, I think the militia clause is material to the Second Amendment. I can’t drop it despite preferring the interpretation it’s irrelevant.
Not granting rights is also an imposition, but for the most part you are imposing on a minority, which is felt less by society. Unlike most modern constitutions the American Constitution initially did not enumerate rights, because the American people were assumed to have these rights anyway. That’s why the Bill of Rights was initially not included. From that perspective it makes sense to me how on a macroscopic level these decisions turned out the way they did. Rather than granting other people rights, I think it is more accurate to think of stopping to take rights away from people. If two gay men want to get married, then this does not in any way, shape or form infringe upon any of my rights.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2020, 09:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Sorry to rain on the parade, don’t be surprised if this ends up in the House of Representatives where the Republicans control at least 26 state delegations, thus re-election for Trump.
That would be very dystopian and undemocratic. Would you support that?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2020, 01:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
So the militia were the public with the right to vote.
With this interpretation, the militia never ceases to exist.

I’m not sure they were looking at it this way. I think the militia ceasing to exist was something they did consider possible. That was the whole thought process behind writing protections for the militia into the Constitution. If the militia ceased to exist, the country would be forced to resort to a standing army, which they were dead set against.

If the militia is something which can cease to exist, I’d argue it has.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2020, 02:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
When the 2nd Amendment was written, the US didn't have a standing army. The Constitution had just been written, and the Bill of Rights was done to fill in gaps the state reps hadn't agreed on. The militia was the landowners-with-guns who came out when called. ie - George Washington's army.

White landowners all got to vote -> land ownership not essential -> white part removed (13th amendment) -> male part removed (suffrage movement) -> modern voters.

So the militia were the public with the right to vote.
I'm not an expert on the American Civil War, but I doubt it was just landowners who were fighting in the armies. The Union had formers slaves fighting on their side, and I am quite sure they did not own any land.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
In my opinion, a case could be made that the right to bear arms could be limited to those with voting rights.
I don't know, that seems like mistaking correlation for causation: rather than giving rights to the people, your proposal would give rights to (members of) militias.

Perhaps we have a different concept of what a militia is, but to me a militia is a non-standing people's army, where citizens get together in the time of need and fight against enemies. So rather than receiving a weapon issued by the state, you bring your own. With the rise of modern militaries, militias have become useless as a replacement for an ordinary army.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I don't see other obvious big restrictions - it's clearly an individual right.
As far as I know up until mid-last century or so bearing arms was not considered an individual right. The Supreme Court has shifted on this point and only within our lifetime did precedent change and gun ownership become an individual right. I'm not saying you have to agree with that conclusion, but I think this is pretty well-established historically.

Note that you don't need to enshrine gun ownership as a constitutional right for the individual to allow citizens to own guns. I cannot think of another country where gun ownership is a constitutional right. Yet, plenty of countries (e. g. Canada, Germany and Switzerland) have a comparatively large number of guns. Switzerland has a very strong gun culture like the US (although, of course, a very different one).
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Note that the "well regulated" part is a bit awkward, but we are all subject to lots of regulations today. So I suppose we're covered.
I don't know. Most fights about gun rights nowadays are about regulations and their enforcement. Self-professed proponents of (their reading of) the Second Amendment think that most regulation is infringing on a right, and even if there were some, they'd be completely arbitrary and ineffectual.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2020, 02:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
With this interpretation, the militia never ceases to exist.

I’m not sure they were looking at it this way. I think the militia ceasing to exist was something they did consider possible. That was the whole thought process behind writing protections for the militia into the Constitution. If the militia ceased to exist, the country would be forced to resort to a standing army, which they were dead set against.
That's my understanding as well.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If the militia is something which can cease to exist, I’d argue it has.
Agreed. The closest analogs today would be the national guard, although that comparison is also flawed.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2020, 03:19 AM
 
We had a standing army before the Civil War, though I think it was small. A core group, to expand upon when the need arose.

@Oreo, a key question about the 2A is who the "militia" is to the Framers. As I see it, they were the people who volunteered when the call went out for volunteers. ie - Washington's volunteer army. These were people we'd call "citizens" today, but the nation wasn't established yet. So call them "troublemakers" if you like - the Brits probably did. The people who mattered, who had a gun, and were free to volunteer. Meaning they weren't needed at home 24/7 to hunt bacon for the table.

As I read that, it indicates free people only (whites generally), men (exclusively or nearly so), and well-off enough to leave for weeks. That suggests land owner. A homeless person could leave for weeks, but would a homeless person have a gun? To my thinking, that translates to "citizen" today. As we have widened the scope of citizen over time (all races, all genders, land ownership optional), the militia is simply any citizen.

Omitting people in prison and children - you end up with a group that matches voters. Or rather, those eligible to vote.

So I used a bit of shorthand. If the reasoning above holds, the 2A "militia" matches "citizens eligible to vote". There are some differences in modern usage - some mental cases have been forbidden to own guns, but presumably can still vote. Might I point out, a whole lot of people voted for Trump, and they had to come from somewhere.
     
Digi07
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2020, 08:47 AM
 
elections are made so that the leader who is appointed can think about people and the best one and the educated one must win
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2020, 09:06 AM
 
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2020, 11:10 AM
 
Nitpick @ Reader,

The country was already established at the time of the writing of the 2A.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2020, 01:31 PM
 
Agreed. But at the time of Washington's volunteer Army, the country wasn't established yet. No citizens anywhere. Lots of British subjects, troublemakers, and malcontents who pour perfectly good tea into the ocean.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2020, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Thing is, you don’t actually need to overturn Roe vs. Wade, it suffices to refuse taking cases of e. g. onerous restrictions on clinics that offer abortions.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey defined onerous restrictions, at least up until Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

In the dissents I’ve read, the argument has been a very straightforward “restriction [x] is constitutional because it does not violate Casey”.

Again, this isn’t written in stone. Justices can do whatever they want. However, it strongly implies the conservatives on the court consider Casey to be water under the bridge.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 12, 2020 at 05:26 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2020, 05:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
@Oreo, a key question about the 2A is who the "militia" is to the Framers.
That’s the thing. I don’t think the Framers considered the militia a “who”, they considered it a “what”.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2020, 11:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
We had a standing army before the Civil War, though I think it was small. A core group, to expand upon when the need arose.

@Oreo, a key question about the 2A is who the "militia" is to the Framers. As I see it, they were the people who volunteered when the call went out for volunteers. ie - Washington's volunteer army.
So it seems at least the two of us have the same concept of militia.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
These were people we'd call "citizens" today, but the nation wasn't established yet. So call them "troublemakers" if you like - the Brits probably did.
That's what I mean with the “causation ≠ correlation” analogy: yes, in the sense you give I agree it is apt to call people who volunteer citizens. But not all citizens volunteer. You could be too old or too young to volunteer. Or you could be physically unfit. Or you could be a pacifist. Or you could help the effort in some other way, e. g. as a bureaucrat, organizer or as a medical professional.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
As I read that, it indicates free people only (whites generally), men (exclusively or nearly so), and well-off enough to leave for weeks. That suggests land owner. A homeless person could leave for weeks, but would a homeless person have a gun?
Is this a hypothetical or are you claiming this is a historically accurate depiction of what happened at one point during the history of America? I'm unsure about that.

If you are hypothesizing what was in the minds of the Framers, I'd say that this naïve picture was quickly overtaken by the reality that modern states need a professional, permanent military. And if this is what the Framers had in mind when crafting the US Constitution, I think you can make an argument that the Second Amendment is made obsolete by that development — no more militias, no more well-regulated militias.

(Again, plenty of countries have broad gun ownership without having this be an individual right derived straight from the constitution. So to me at least, the discussion of whether there should or should not be broad gun ownership, and under what conditions is separate from that.)
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
To my thinking, that translates to "citizen" today. As we have widened the scope of citizen over time (all races, all genders, land ownership optional), the militia is simply any citizen.

Omitting people in prison and children - you end up with a group that matches voters. Or rather, those eligible to vote.
Do we? What about the old? The infirm? The people who don't want to be part of a militia or military?
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
So I used a bit of shorthand. If the reasoning above holds, the 2A "militia" matches "citizens eligible to vote". There are some differences in modern usage - some mental cases have been forbidden to own guns, but presumably can still vote. Might I point out, a whole lot of people voted for Trump, and they had to come from somewhere.
I'd say a much more consistent delineation of whether or not you are a citizen is whether you can vote. And I think this is historically consistent: e. g. African Americans were not citizens, women were not citizens.

As an aside, to be honest, conservatives spend way too much time thinking about the Second Amendment and forget about e. g. the Fourth Amendment or making sure citizens can vote.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Doc HM
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2020, 07:28 AM
 
So Arizona joins the pile then.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2020, 11:07 AM
 
Trump going so hard on McCain and the military that McCain's widow backed Biden probably wasn't the best strategic move.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2020, 01:22 PM
 
from meghan mccain's twitter (!!!!)
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2020, 02:36 PM
 
I couldn't decide which thread to put this in either.

The MAGA March predictably ended badly... and was no where near a million despite the press office tweeting it was. Again trump had the opportunity to diffuse the situation but chose instead to revel in the attention driving by the crowd on his way to golf.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md...h-dc-protests/
( Last edited by andi*pandi; Nov 15, 2020 at 03:05 PM. )
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2020, 10:46 AM
 
It does appear that the GOP are trying to do an end run around voters and get electors to overturn michigan. Shady as hell.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2020, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
It does appear that the GOP are trying to do an end run around voters and get electors to overturn michigan. Shady as hell.
If its the GOP they'll likely succeed. If its just Trump, I think even the GOP have had enough by now.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2020, 06:35 PM
 
Mitt Romney calling Trump out, and Susan Collins being concerned, are not going to stop this. The GOP official twitter is retweeting conspiracy theories. They are all in.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2020, 06:55 PM
 
Which conspiracy theory? I went through a day or two and couldn’t find anything.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2020, 08:49 PM
 
Some of the judges Trump appointed don't seem to be the yes people he probably assumed they'd be. I'm guessing there are at least a few GOP legislators who won't help him either.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2020, 10:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Which conspiracy theory? I went through a day or two and couldn’t find anything.
Well, there’s the one where the company that makes voting machine software supposedly has ties to the late Hugo Chavez (and Cuba and China and George Soros) who came up with a plan for the company to “weight” votes in favor of Biden.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2020, 12:30 AM
 
Most publicly traded companies have "ties" to a whole lot of people. They're called "share-holders". You can connect most people who invest with most other people who invest, by finding a common company.

Trump and Obama are probably connected via the voting machine manufacturer. That must mean they conspire together.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2020, 07:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Well, there’s the one where the company that makes voting machine software supposedly has ties to the late Hugo Chavez (and Cuba and China and George Soros) who came up with a plan for the company to “weight” votes in favor of Biden.
The most hilarious part of that crackpot conspiracy theory: the algorithm “broke” because too many people voted.
That’s why a collection of Democrats and Republicans conspired to rig the mail-in ballots.

Also, the Democrat Party intern who designed the algorithm also forgot to include weights that made sure the Democrats would win the Senate and extend the lead in the House. Unpaid interns aren’t what they used to be anymore.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2020, 09:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Also, the Democrat Party...
*sigh*
Democratic Party.
"Democrat Party" is the FoxNews backhanded insult version.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2020, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
*sigh*
Democratic Party.
"Democrat Party" is the FoxNews backhanded insult version.
I do try to say it correctly, but have always been irked the correct way implies the Democrats have a monopoly on democracy.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2020, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Well, there’s the one where the company that makes voting machine software supposedly has ties to the late Hugo Chavez (and Cuba and China and George Soros) who came up with a plan for the company to “weight” votes in favor of Biden.
Did the official GOP Twitter tweet that? I only see a tweet with the “general” portion of Trump’s lawyer’s warbling press conference.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2020, 02:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I do try to say it correctly, but have always been irked the correct way implies the Democrats have a monopoly on democracy.
They kinda do at the moment, no?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2020, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
They kinda do at the moment, no?
Not really.

Regardless, I’ve had the issue for decades.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2020, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
*sigh*
Democratic Party.
"Democrat Party" is the FoxNews backhanded insult version.
I know. It was intentional in my post. I thought it increased the funny …
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:41 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,