This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Now that Donald Trump has won...

13468912

Comments

  • Congress decides these things, not Trump.

    The GOP controls congress.

    Trump will not in a million years veto anything that comes out of the GOP congress. If FADA or anti-abortion nonsense comes through, he will definitely sign it.
  • edited November 2016

    Normally I'd agree, but Trump has basically zero allegiance to the GOP. He's going to do literally anything he wants, which I read as whatever polls highest. So if we want abortion access louder than the anti-abortion people, we're probably going to get it.

    Pretty much my view too.

    If it polishes the Trump brand, it will be supported. If it tarnishes the Trump brand, it will be opposed.

    One extra note: if something is controversial he will likely proclaim it to be a state rather than federal issue and attempt to wash his hands of it.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • "State rather than federal" means that LGBT and reproductive rights disappear in most of the "red" states.
  • HMTKSteve said:

    I think his point is that if Trump moves to the center and the media/Democrats double down on what a horrible person he is it is a sign of cognitive dissonance because they are refusing to change their view of him when he changes his stances.

    That would make sense, if you took that post in a vacuum.

    But Adams has been posting the entire election about how trump is an amazing grand wizard or some shit, and how he's never wrong, when he is wrong he's actually doing it intentionally just to manipulate you, because he's always ten steps ahead because he's better than everybody else except for Scott Adams who can understand him because he's an even greater wizard.

    In light of all the shit he's been saying the whole time, his point isn't that - his point is "Neener neener you all said I was crazy, but trump won, which means that all my lunatic ramblings about how he was a super genius magic man were obviously correct, and now calling him a horrible person just means you can't accept that."

    Also, don't forget, Adams has been a Trump supporter from day one. He claims otherwise, but he's been playing hype man for Trump the whole time, and couching that with "I don't really like trump, but..." (and occasionally paranoid rambling about how he'll be assassinated if he doesn't support Hillary) is about as convincing as a kid with a face half covered in frosting telling you they didn't eat the cupcakes.
  • Churba said:

    HMTKSteve said:

    I think his point is that if Trump moves to the center and the media/Democrats double down on what a horrible person he is it is a sign of cognitive dissonance because they are refusing to change their view of him when he changes his stances.

    That would make sense, if you took that post in a vacuum.

    But Adams has been posting the entire election about how trump is an amazing grand wizard or some shit, and how he's never wrong, when he is wrong he's actually doing it intentionally just to manipulate you, because he's always ten steps ahead because he's better than everybody else except for Scott Adams who can understand him because he's an even greater wizard.

    In light of all the shit he's been saying the whole time, his point isn't that - his point is "Neener neener you all said I was crazy, but trump won, which means that all my lunatic ramblings about how he was a super genius magic man were obviously correct, and now calling him a horrible person just means you can't accept that."

    Also, don't forget, Adams has been a Trump supporter from day one. He claims otherwise, but he's been playing hype man for Trump the whole time, and couching that with "I don't really like trump, but..." (and occasionally paranoid rambling about how he'll be assassinated if he doesn't support Hillary) is about as convincing as a kid with a face half covered in frosting telling you they didn't eat the cupcakes.
    I love all of this...
  • I was about to play devil's advocate, but I just can't (that is to say I can but I just don't have the heart right now) Fuck Scott Adams.
  • Adams is what you get when you don't socialize with actual human beings at all. A man with his head up his own ass.
  • edited November 2016
    Churba said:

    In light of all the shit he's been saying the whole time, his point isn't that - his point is "Neener neener you all said I was crazy, but trump won, which means that all my lunatic ramblings about how he was a super genius magic man were obviously correct, and now calling him a horrible person just means you can't accept that."

    I love that part where there's no way that critics can be right: they're either clueless or have cognitive dissonance. Amazing point of view there.
    Post edited by Nine Boomer on
  • edited November 2016

    I love that part where there's no way that critics can be right: they're either clueless or have cognitive dissonance. Amazing point of view there.

    It's not even scratching the surface of his absurd ideas. This is also the man who, in one of his books, spent most of a chapter talking about how you can't prove gravity exists, it might just be that everything is just constantly doubling in size and what we think of as gravity is really inertia.
    Or that fossils and the fossil record are "Bullshit"(despite not being a creationist) and that all Paleontologists and Evolutionary biologists are obviously wrong somewhere because it keeps setting off his bullshit detector, and his BSD is so finely tuned that obviously it's them and not the fact that he's a complete layman.

    And then there's also the really troublesome crazy shit he says, but let's leave it on a light note for now.

    He's an odd combination of ideas that clearly have had quite a bit of thought put to them, but with a failure in the error-check process that would normally make you go and look for more information, recognize that you don't know something, or that you could be wrong. He's like the shop-floor demo unit for that particular Engineer type woo-woo. (Despite not, at any point, ever being an engineer)
    Post edited by Churba on
  • Rym said:

    "State rather than federal" means that LGBT and reproductive rights disappear in most of the "red" states.

    And yet you're fine with State level marijuana law...
  • edited November 2016
    Greg said:

    Rym said:

    "State rather than federal" means that LGBT and reproductive rights disappear in most of the "red" states.

    And yet you're fine with State level marijuana law...
    Drug legalization isn't even in the same ballpark as LGBT and reproductive rights. I'm fine with states having different alcohol laws too (I just don't like to visit those states).
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • Andrew said:

    Greg said:

    Rym said:

    "State rather than federal" means that LGBT and reproductive rights disappear in most of the "red" states.

    And yet you're fine with State level marijuana law...
    Drug legalization isn't even in the same ballpark as LGBT and reproductive rights. I'm fine with states having different alcohol laws too (I just don't like to visit those states).
    Its about precedent. Permitting these nullifications paves the way to those.
  • edited November 2016
    Greg said:

    Andrew said:

    Greg said:

    Rym said:

    "State rather than federal" means that LGBT and reproductive rights disappear in most of the "red" states.

    And yet you're fine with State level marijuana law...
    Drug legalization isn't even in the same ballpark as LGBT and reproductive rights. I'm fine with states having different alcohol laws too (I just don't like to visit those states).
    Its about precedent. Permitting these nullifications paves the way to those.
    I don't buy into slippery slope arguments. Personal rights aren't equivalent to regulation and control of trade goods (clearly in the state's purview)
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • Andrew said:

    Greg said:

    Andrew said:

    Greg said:

    Rym said:

    "State rather than federal" means that LGBT and reproductive rights disappear in most of the "red" states.

    And yet you're fine with State level marijuana law...
    Drug legalization isn't even in the same ballpark as LGBT and reproductive rights. I'm fine with states having different alcohol laws too (I just don't like to visit those states).
    Its about precedent. Permitting these nullifications paves the way to those.
    I don't buy into slippery slope arguments. Personal rights aren't equivalent to regulation and control of trade goods (clearly in the state's purview)
    I don't see it as a slippery slope as much as a double edged sword. It's a weapon we wield against conservatives, but they can wield it back. The solution is not to ignore the doubled edge, but to set up a system that dulls it.
  • Is that not why we have the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
  • If States are permitted to overturn the Supremacy Clause the Amendments are irrelevant. Let me put it this way: what is the point of having a Union if it cannot enforce the laws it creates?
  • The supremacy clause only comes into play when there's a conflict between state and federal law in the courts. Nullification isn't that. As I'm sure you know, nullification is concerned with this question: Is a federal law constitutional? The pot legalization laws don't say that the federal classification of pot as a controlled substance is unconstitutional (or the various federal criminal statutes regarding pot sale, production, and use), but that pot is decriminalized under state law and can be sold within the state's borders despite that federal classification.

    Prosecutors can still bring a claim against someone under federal law, just not under state law. If they went after a defendant in a way that created a conflict between the state and federal laws, then obviously the federal law would trump (though probably not in the trial court), and the state law would probably be deemed unconstitutional. That just hasn't happened yet.
  • Nullification is the contradiction of State and Federal law.
    Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional.
  • The state has to deem it unconstitutional for it to count as nullification. That hasn't happened for the pot laws (to the best of my knowledge). As such, the pot laws aren't nullifying federal law.
  • So long as a State executes a law in contradiction with Federal law, it is a case of Nullification. Any act made to suspend Federal authority can be considered part of it. During westward expansion, many States made treaties with Indians that were nullifying the Feds' exclusive authority over international treaties. In the 1950s, it was the defense made by the governor of Arkansas to disregard Brown v Board of Ed. The best parallel for marijuana law is (also my favorite) the Nullification Crisis of 1830, when South Carolina passed a measure outlawing Federal authorities from enacting the tariff. In all of these cases, no State authority found it in violation of the Constitution, however they were in direct violation of the law and therefor the Supremacy Clause.
  • In each of those situations the state was expressly telling the Feds to go fuck themselves. With the pot laws, all they are doing is removing "possession, use, or production of pot" (or some combination of that) as a state level crime. The states here are not telling the Feds to go fuck themselves, just that there is no state law claim against someone who sells, produces, or uses pot.
  • The same could be said of same sex marriage bans.
  • Greg said:

    The same could be said of same sex marriage bans.

    Andrew said:

    Personal rights aren't equivalent to regulation and control of trade goods (clearly in the state's purview)

  • Banta said:

    Greg said:

    The same could be said of same sex marriage bans.

    Andrew said:

    Personal rights aren't equivalent to regulation and control of trade goods (clearly in the state's purview)

    There's a moral difference, but legally? Not in the slightest. Interstate commerce is an enumerated power. Drug trade is without a doubt under Federal jurisdiction.
  • Greg said:

    Banta said:

    Greg said:

    The same could be said of same sex marriage bans.

    Andrew said:

    Personal rights aren't equivalent to regulation and control of trade goods (clearly in the state's purview)

    There's a moral difference, but legally? Not in the slightest. Interstate commerce is an enumerated power. Drug trade is without a doubt under Federal jurisdiction.
    WRONG. Legally there is a huge difference. Depending on the type of right you are infringing upon, there are different legal tests to determine if the restriction is constitutional. Personal rights explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution (yes, Amendments are officially part of it) have a much higher bar that reasonable restrictions on trade goods. You have to show a much more pressing need for the restriction, and even then there are some rules you pretty much have to follow for the courts to uphold it.

    Don't talk out your ass about legal distinctions if you haven't actually studied Constitutional law.
  • Nuri said:

    Greg said:

    Banta said:

    Greg said:

    The same could be said of same sex marriage bans.

    Andrew said:

    Personal rights aren't equivalent to regulation and control of trade goods (clearly in the state's purview)

    There's a moral difference, but legally? Not in the slightest. Interstate commerce is an enumerated power. Drug trade is without a doubt under Federal jurisdiction.
    WRONG. Legally there is a huge difference. Depending on the type of right you are infringing upon, there are different legal tests to determine if the restriction is constitutional. Personal rights explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution (yes, Amendments are officially part of it) have a much higher bar that reasonable restrictions on trade goods. You have to show a much more pressing need for the restriction, and even then there are some rules you pretty much have to follow for the courts to uphold it.

    Don't talk out your ass about legal distinctions if you haven't actually studied Constitutional law.
    My point was that they both fall under jurisdiction of the Federal government. I didn't mean that they have the same process for repeal.
  • Greg said:

    Nuri said:

    Greg said:

    Banta said:

    Greg said:

    The same could be said of same sex marriage bans.

    Andrew said:

    Personal rights aren't equivalent to regulation and control of trade goods (clearly in the state's purview)

    There's a moral difference, but legally? Not in the slightest. Interstate commerce is an enumerated power. Drug trade is without a doubt under Federal jurisdiction.
    WRONG. Legally there is a huge difference. Depending on the type of right you are infringing upon, there are different legal tests to determine if the restriction is constitutional. Personal rights explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution (yes, Amendments are officially part of it) have a much higher bar that reasonable restrictions on trade goods. You have to show a much more pressing need for the restriction, and even then there are some rules you pretty much have to follow for the courts to uphold it.

    Don't talk out your ass about legal distinctions if you haven't actually studied Constitutional law.
    My point was that they both fall under jurisdiction of the Federal government. I didn't mean that they have the same process for repeal.
    It has nothing to do with repeal. If it's unconstitional, then it's unenforceable. No repeal needed.

    Federal jurisdiction doesn't mean the tests/standards/whatever are the same. Just because both categories of rights can be impacted by or dominated by Federal law doesn't mean they get the same standard of review. They're not equivalent. Period.
  • edited November 2016
    Nuri be like:
    image
    Post edited by GreatTeacherMacRoss on
  • Well, if I've learned anything from this election it's that you have to shout obnoxiously over everyone else for what you say to be accepted. Polite and correct are apparently insufficient. Bring on the bossy bitch labels, world, cuz you're about to see a lot of them.
  • Nuri said:

    Well, if I've learned anything from this election it's that you have to shout obnoxiously over everyone else for what you say to be accepted. Polite and correct are apparently insufficient. Bring on the bossy bitch labels, world, cuz you're about to see a lot of them.

    Good, frankly it's required.
Sign In or Register to comment.