Am I the Crazy One?

[DGS49]

I am unfortunately a political junkie and even though I try to screen out some of the bullshit I'm still inundated with political ads and arguments at this time in the four-year cycle.

This evening I've been watching the VP debate, and I wonder why Vance in particular is not bringing up any Constitutional issues. Let me mention a few, just for fun:

• The Supreme Court has declared quite unambiguously that abortion is an issue for the States, and NOT the Federal government. President Trump has stated as clearly as possible that he agrees with that decision. Why the fuck are they arguing about Federal abortion policy?
• They are arguing about a possible law that makes paid family leave a mandatory obligation for U.S. employers. Congress has NO POWER to demand that private employers pay for work not done/time not worked. IT CANNOT HAPPEN. Why is Vance not pointing that out?
• On the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), why was it not mentioned that the whole thing is unconstitutional? Congress has no power to get into the health insurance business.
• On child care questions, what the ever-loving fuck? Where does the Federal government get the obligation to pay for child care, or for housing? Nowhere.

It seems like they consider it a losing proposition to even mention Constitutional constraints on what the President and Congress can do. I don't get it.

 

[mamooth]

• The Supreme Court has declared quite unambiguously that abortion is an issue for the States, and NOT the Federal government. President Trump has stated as clearly as possible that he agrees with that decision. Why the fuck are they arguing about Federal abortion policy?

The Republicans are hellbent on a federal ban. Sometimes they admit that, other times they lie about how much they want it.

It's good for the Democrats to highlight what the Republican position actually is, and how weird and creepy it is.

• I don't get it.

That's because you've listened to Vance-like barking kooks peddling nonsense about the Constitution. Even the current corrupt SC isn't that far down the crazy hole.

 

[toobfreak]

This evening I've been watching the VP debate, and I wonder why Vance in particular is not bringing up any Constitutional issues.

I've not started watching the debate yet, but it does not surprise me. While Vance has a good heart, he doesn't impress me as the most erudite person. It will not surprise me if he loses the debate much as Trump did by fumbling over issue after issue, missing opportunity upon opportunity.

In the end, if Trump wins the election, it will only be because Harris and Walz are just SO DAMNED BAD.

 

[excalibur]

The Republicans are hellbent on a federal ban. Sometimes they admit that, other times they lie about how much they want it.

It's good for the Democrats to highlight what the Republican position actually is, and how weird and creepy it is.


That's because you've listened to Vance-like barking kooks peddling nonsense about the Constitution. Even the current corrupt SC isn't that far down the crazy hole.

Not.

And SCOTUS would toss it if it ever passed both Houses and Trump signed it (and he says he would veto any such bill).

 

[progressive hunter]

I am unfortunately a political junkie and even though I try to screen out some of the bullshit I'm still inundated with political ads and arguments at this time in the four-year cycle.

This evening I've been watching the VP debate, and I wonder why Vance in particular is not bringing up any Constitutional issues. Let me mention a few, just for fun:

• The Supreme Court has declared quite unambiguously that abortion is an issue for the States, and NOT the Federal government. President Trump has stated as clearly as possible that he agrees with that decision. Why the fuck are they arguing about Federal abortion policy?
• They are arguing about a possible law that makes paid family leave a mandatory obligation for U.S. employers. Congress has NO POWER to demand that private employers pay for work not done/time not worked. IT CANNOT HAPPEN. Why is Vance not pointing that out?
• On the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), why was it not mentioned that the whole thing is unconstitutional? Congress has no power to get into the health insurance business.
• On child care questions, what the ever-loving fuck? Where does the Federal government get the obligation to pay for child care, or for housing? Nowhere.

It seems like they consider it a losing proposition to even mention Constitutional constraints on what the President and Congress can do. I don't get it.

I think the lack of constitutional discussion speaks for itself,,

anyone that thinks either party really cares about the constitution is misguided at best,,

 

[Moonglow]

I am unfortunately a political junkie and even though I try to screen out some of the bullshit I'm still inundated with political ads and arguments at this time in the four-year cycle.

This evening I've been watching the VP debate, and I wonder why Vance in particular is not bringing up any Constitutional issues. Let me mention a few, just for fun:

• The Supreme Court has declared quite unambiguously that abortion is an issue for the States, and NOT the Federal government. President Trump has stated as clearly as possible that he agrees with that decision. Why the fuck are they arguing about Federal abortion policy?
• They are arguing about a possible law that makes paid family leave a mandatory obligation for U.S. employers. Congress has NO POWER to demand that private employers pay for work not done/time not worked. IT CANNOT HAPPEN. Why is Vance not pointing that out?
• On the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), why was it not mentioned that the whole thing is unconstitutional? Congress has no power to get into the health insurance business.
• On child care questions, what the ever-loving fuck? Where does the Federal government get the obligation to pay for child care, or for housing? Nowhere.

It seems like they consider it a losing proposition to even mention Constitutional constraints on what the President and Congress can do. I don't get it.

Oblamacare was ruled Constitutional or were you an idiot that day also?

 

[candycorn]

I am unfortunately a political junkie and even though I try to screen out some of the bullshit I'm still inundated with political ads and arguments at this time in the four-year cycle.

This evening I've been watching the VP debate, and I wonder why Vance in particular is not bringing up any Constitutional issues. Let me mention a few, just for fun:

• The Supreme Court has declared quite unambiguously that abortion is an issue for the States, and NOT the Federal government. President Trump has stated as clearly as possible that he agrees with that decision. Why the fuck are they arguing about Federal abortion policy?
• They are arguing about a possible law that makes paid family leave a mandatory obligation for U.S. employers. Congress has NO POWER to demand that private employers pay for work not done/time not worked. IT CANNOT HAPPEN. Why is Vance not pointing that out?
• On the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), why was it not mentioned that the whole thing is unconstitutional? Congress has no power to get into the health insurance business.
• On child care questions, what the ever-loving fuck? Where does the Federal government get the obligation to pay for child care, or for housing? Nowhere.

It seems like they consider it a losing proposition to even mention Constitutional constraints on what the President and Congress can do. I don't get it.

Its almost as if conservatism is a bygone relic of a hateful past and those who cling to it are self-marginalizing. Most nations try to be better for their citizens. Conservatives hate that.

 

[Moonglow]

Its almost as if conservatism is a bygone relic of a hateful past and those who cling to it are self-marginalizing. Most nations try to be better for their citizens. Conservatives hate that.

I can remember how bitter they were.

 

[two_iron]

Well, it was 3 on 1 again, and the Tampon fucked himself in front of 3 billion people on the Tiananmen Square lie. They even went back to it a second time and he still stood there with his dick in his hand like a drooling fucktard.

He lied about Stolen Valor because he "doesn't speak good English" and he lied about Tiananmen Square because he's a "knucklehead".

Nobody tunes into that tedious schtick for hard-hitting analysis, they're looking for a gotcha moment ("You'd be in jail!" or "I don't know what he said, and I don't think he does either."). And they got it.

TamponTimmy makes Kumstain look like the smart one... and yes, I realize how ridiculous that premise sounds.

 

[Moonglow]

Well, it was 3 on 1 again, and the Tampon fucked himself in front of 3 billion people on the Tiananmen Square lie. They even went back to it a second time and he still stood there with his dick in his hand like a drooling fucktard.

He lied about Stolen Valor because he "doesn't speak good English" and he lied about Tiananmen Square because he's a "knucklehead".

Nobody tunes into that tedious schtick for hard-hitting analysis, they're looking for a gotcha moment ("You'd be in jail!" or "I don't know what he said, and I don't think he does either."). And they got it.

TamponTimmy makes Kumstain look like the smart one... and yes, I realize how ridiculous that premise sounds.

I see JD wore his eyeliner.

 

[two_iron]

I see JD wore his eyeliner.

I don't think so, but is that something that makes you touch yourself?

Don't you dare answer that, you substandard shit missile.

 

[The Duke]

I've not started watching the debate yet, but it does not surprise me. While Vance has a good heart, he doesn't impress me as the most erudite person. It will not surprise me if he loses the debate much as Trump did by fumbling over issue after issue, missing opportunity upon opportunity.

In the end, if Trump wins the election, it will only be because Harris and Walz are just SO DAMNED BAD.

Trump is just what America needs. (IMO)

Unless somebody made a time machine and went back and got George Washington and brought

him to the present day and got his opinion on everything. That would be better.

 

[candycorn]

I can remember how bitter they were.

Remember the Hobby Lobby ruling? I think you were here at the time.
The ruling was about employers paying for birth control in their healthcare plans. Specifically the ruling said Hobby Lobby didn't have to pay for IUDs but oral pills were still on the list. The conservatives here (in a simpler happier time) were high fiving one another as if they had just split the atom or something.

Supremes: Hobby Lobby wins

Closely held corporations can have a religious viewpoint.

www.usmessageboard.com

It just goes to show how much the GOP has regressed in the last 10 years.

 

[Concerned American]

I've not started watching the debate yet, but it does not surprise me. While Vance has a good heart, he doesn't impress me as the most erudite person. It will not surprise me if he loses the debate much as Trump did by fumbling over issue after issue, missing opportunity upon opportunity.

In the end, if Trump wins the election, it will only be because Harris and Walz are just SO DAMNED BAD.

I think he could have done better, but in spite of a bit of mod bias, I think Vance cleaned Walz's clock.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I am unfortunately a political junkie and even though I try to screen out some of the bullshit I'm still inundated with political ads and arguments at this time in the four-year cycle.

This evening I've been watching the VP debate, and I wonder why Vance in particular is not bringing up any Constitutional issues. Let me mention a few, just for fun:

• The Supreme Court has declared quite unambiguously that abortion is an issue for the States, and NOT the Federal government. President Trump has stated as clearly as possible that he agrees with that decision. Why the fuck are they arguing about Federal abortion policy?
• They are arguing about a possible law that makes paid family leave a mandatory obligation for U.S. employers. Congress has NO POWER to demand that private employers pay for work not done/time not worked. IT CANNOT HAPPEN. Why is Vance not pointing that out?
• On the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), why was it not mentioned that the whole thing is unconstitutional? Congress has no power to get into the health insurance business.
• On child care questions, what the ever-loving fuck? Where does the Federal government get the obligation to pay for child care, or for housing? Nowhere.

It seems like they consider it a losing proposition to even mention Constitutional constraints on what the President and Congress can do. I don't get it.

I am with you brother. Education, healthcare, abortion, social security…..they all should be the purview of the state and local governments. Why should tax payers send their money to the federal government to provide policy and services best handle by states, cities, counties and towns? Give the tax money directly to those political leaders with boots on the ground, those who live in the communities and have a clear picture of the unique needs of their constituents.

 

[The Duke]

I think he could have done better, but in spite of a bit of mod bias, I think Vance cleaned Walz's clock.

The moderators were downright hostile, but Vance and Walz did pretty good.
I say Vance won.
Walz has about 5x the brains of Harris. Okay, maybe only 3x.

 

[para bellum]

What was the viewership? No one cares about the VP debate...

 

[cnm]

Give the tax money directly to those political leaders with boots on the ground, those who live in the communities and have a clear picture of the unique needs of their constituents.

The US needs more Louisianas.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The US needs more Louisianas.

I have no idea what that means or how it relates to my post. I assume you have some sort of prejudice against people in Louisiana.

 

[IM2]

I am unfortunately a political junkie and even though I try to screen out some of the bullshit I'm still inundated with political ads and arguments at this time in the four-year cycle.

This evening I've been watching the VP debate, and I wonder why Vance in particular is not bringing up any Constitutional issues. Let me mention a few, just for fun:

• The Supreme Court has declared quite unambiguously that abortion is an issue for the States, and NOT the Federal government. President Trump has stated as clearly as possible that he agrees with that decision. Why the fuck are they arguing about Federal abortion policy?
• They are arguing about a possible law that makes paid family leave a mandatory obligation for U.S. employers. Congress has NO POWER to demand that private employers pay for work not done/time not worked. IT CANNOT HAPPEN. Why is Vance not pointing that out?
• On the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), why was it not mentioned that the whole thing is unconstitutional? Congress has no power to get into the health insurance business.
• On child care questions, what the ever-loving fuck? Where does the Federal government get the obligation to pay for child care, or for housing? Nowhere.

It seems like they consider it a losing proposition to even mention Constitutional constraints on what the President and Congress can do. I don't get it.

Maybe you need to take a class on the constitution that isn't taught at the militia meetings.