Republicans in Panic?

[Correll]

in what way will whites supposedly be permanently disenfranchised exactly..???

my question on how you think Whites will react to being permanently disenfranchised

^

RW goes on about it all the time. He likes to focus on the fact that demographics are likely to lead to the GOP being marginalized.

BUT, the GOP always wins the White Vote. It always represents the majority of the WHite vote and it's agenda and interests.


If the GOP is marginalized, then so is the majority of it's White Voters.

They will never again have their agenda or interests represented in national policy.

Thanks for proving once and for all that the GOP is the party of white people only.

Which is of course not what I did.

Why do you feel the need to lie?

 

[Ravi]

Again, what happens happens. If Hillary wins we get closer to the 2nd amendment being voided by the SC (and what a reaction THAT is going to be). If Trump wins we get ????????. Either way be ready for interesting times.

When is Obama going to take your guns?????????????????? It's almost been 8 years and it hasn't happened.

Do you think Hillary would appoint a SC justice who supports RKBA?

and considering I cannot get a CCW in NYC without proving to the NYPD I have a reason for one, my gun has already been taken.

You can't get the SC to rule a constitutional amendment void. You'd have to amend the constitution.

Wow it's just embarrassing to see an American who actually believes that the supreme court can void a constitutional amendment.

Where do these extremely stupid people come from?

Oh, Rly????

Forgot about this little gem of a decision....

Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What constitutional amendment did that void?

 

[Ravi]

in what way will whites supposedly be permanently disenfranchised exactly..???

my question on how you think Whites will react to being permanently disenfranchised

^

RW goes on about it all the time. He likes to focus on the fact that demographics are likely to lead to the GOP being marginalized.

BUT, the GOP always wins the White Vote. It always represents the majority of the WHite vote and it's agenda and interests.


If the GOP is marginalized, then so is the majority of it's White Voters.

They will never again have their agenda or interests represented in national policy.

Thanks for proving once and for all that the GOP is the party of white people only.

Which is of course not what I did.

Why do you feel the need to lie?

It's exactly what you did.

 

[martybegan]

When is Obama going to take your guns?????????????????? It's almost been 8 years and it hasn't happened.

Do you think Hillary would appoint a SC justice who supports RKBA?

and considering I cannot get a CCW in NYC without proving to the NYPD I have a reason for one, my gun has already been taken.

You can't get the SC to rule a constitutional amendment void. You'd have to amend the constitution.

Wow it's just embarrassing to see an American who actually believes that the supreme court can void a constitutional amendment.

Where do these extremely stupid people come from?

Oh, Rly????

Forgot about this little gem of a decision....

Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What constitutional amendment did that void?

In the seven-to-one decision handed down on May 18, 1896 (Justice David Josiah Brewer did not participate because of the death of his daughter),[13] the Court rejected Plessy's arguments based on the Fourteenth Amendment, seeing no way in which the Louisiana statute violated it.[6] In addition, the majority of the Court rejected the view that the Louisiana law implied any inferiority of blacks, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, it contended that the law separated the two races as a matter of public policy.[14]

If you were Black in the South, your 14th amendment rights went into the shitter. For all intents and purposes, the 14th amendment was null and void until segregation was overturned in the 50's and 60's.

 

[Correll]

in what way will whites supposedly be permanently disenfranchised exactly..???

my question on how you think Whites will react to being permanently disenfranchised

^

RW goes on about it all the time. He likes to focus on the fact that demographics are likely to lead to the GOP being marginalized.

BUT, the GOP always wins the White Vote. It always represents the majority of the WHite vote and it's agenda and interests.


If the GOP is marginalized, then so is the majority of it's White Voters.

They will never again have their agenda or interests represented in national policy.

Thanks for proving once and for all that the GOP is the party of white people only.

Which is of course not what I did.

Why do you feel the need to lie?

It's exactly what you did.

If the democratic party was somehow permanently marginalized, it would mean that the agenda and interests of the majority of blacks would never again be represented at the national level.

That would NOT mean that the Democratic Party is the party of Black People only.

Do you understand?

 

[Ravi]

Do you think Hillary would appoint a SC justice who supports RKBA?

and considering I cannot get a CCW in NYC without proving to the NYPD I have a reason for one, my gun has already been taken.

You can't get the SC to rule a constitutional amendment void. You'd have to amend the constitution.

Wow it's just embarrassing to see an American who actually believes that the supreme court can void a constitutional amendment.

Where do these extremely stupid people come from?

Oh, Rly????

Forgot about this little gem of a decision....

Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What constitutional amendment did that void?

In the seven-to-one decision handed down on May 18, 1896 (Justice David Josiah Brewer did not participate because of the death of his daughter),[13] the Court rejected Plessy's arguments based on the Fourteenth Amendment, seeing no way in which the Louisiana statute violated it.[6] In addition, the majority of the Court rejected the view that the Louisiana law implied any inferiority of blacks, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, it contended that the law separated the two races as a matter of public policy.[14]

If you were Black in the South, your 14th amendment rights went into the shitter. For all intents and purposes, the 14th amendment was null and void until segregation was overturned in the 50's and 60's.

That didn't void the amendment. And it was certainly a bad ruling that took years to overturn. I'm kind of surprised that you didn't agree with the ruling, btw. States Rights! Trains Rights, blah, blah, blah.

 

[Ravi]

in what way will whites supposedly be permanently disenfranchised exactly..???



^

RW goes on about it all the time. He likes to focus on the fact that demographics are likely to lead to the GOP being marginalized.

BUT, the GOP always wins the White Vote. It always represents the majority of the WHite vote and it's agenda and interests.


If the GOP is marginalized, then so is the majority of it's White Voters.

They will never again have their agenda or interests represented in national policy.

Thanks for proving once and for all that the GOP is the party of white people only.

Which is of course not what I did.

Why do you feel the need to lie?

It's exactly what you did.

If the democratic party was somehow permanently marginalized, it would mean that the agenda and interests of the majority of blacks would never again be represented at the national level.

That would NOT mean that the Democratic Party is the party of Black People only.

Do you understand?

Now you're telling me that the GOP wouldn't represent the rights of black people. You are getting repetitive.

 

[Correll]

RW goes on about it all the time. He likes to focus on the fact that demographics are likely to lead to the GOP being marginalized.

BUT, the GOP always wins the White Vote. It always represents the majority of the WHite vote and it's agenda and interests.


If the GOP is marginalized, then so is the majority of it's White Voters.

They will never again have their agenda or interests represented in national policy.

Thanks for proving once and for all that the GOP is the party of white people only.

Which is of course not what I did.

Why do you feel the need to lie?

It's exactly what you did.

If the democratic party was somehow permanently marginalized, it would mean that the agenda and interests of the majority of blacks would never again be represented at the national level.

That would NOT mean that the Democratic Party is the party of Black People only.

Do you understand?

Now you're telling me that the GOP wouldn't represent the rights of black people. You are getting repetitive.

The GOP has it's ideology and agenda. It's poor showing among blacks shows that this platform is NOT that of the vast majority of blacks.

The Democratic Party's does.

Yet, I do not try to claim that the Dems are the party of Black People only.

It would not be true, and would not contribute to any debate or discussion.

Why would I try such a tact?

Oh, to just slam the dems whether it is true or not?

No, I'm not that type of person.

 

[martybegan]

You can't get the SC to rule a constitutional amendment void. You'd have to amend the constitution.

Wow it's just embarrassing to see an American who actually believes that the supreme court can void a constitutional amendment.

Where do these extremely stupid people come from?

Oh, Rly????

Forgot about this little gem of a decision....

Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What constitutional amendment did that void?

In the seven-to-one decision handed down on May 18, 1896 (Justice David Josiah Brewer did not participate because of the death of his daughter),[13] the Court rejected Plessy's arguments based on the Fourteenth Amendment, seeing no way in which the Louisiana statute violated it.[6] In addition, the majority of the Court rejected the view that the Louisiana law implied any inferiority of blacks, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, it contended that the law separated the two races as a matter of public policy.[14]

If you were Black in the South, your 14th amendment rights went into the shitter. For all intents and purposes, the 14th amendment was null and void until segregation was overturned in the 50's and 60's.

That didn't void the amendment. And it was certainly a bad ruling that took years to overturn. I'm kind of surprised that you didn't agree with the ruling, btw. States Rights! Trains Rights, blah, blah, blah.

Your surprise is not surprising, given that you have the typical progressive trait of not being able to understand views other than your own beyond "that guy dumb and evil, unga bunga".

The amendment was not enforced due to the decision, thus was null and void until corrected by legislation. Technically it was never overturned, (Brown vs. Board of Ed was about schools, not trains) but is moot due to the federal legislation that ended the practice of segregation in general.

And State rights only go as a far as the constitution allows them. As a strict constructional federalist, I do see the 14th incorporating the Bill of Rights down to the State level.

 

[Valerie]

Calling if funny valerie is not much of a rebuttal.

What part am I wrong about?

"the WHite vote and it's agenda and interests."


and what's that agenda, exactly..?

It is varied and constantly changing.

NOT being discriminated against is a fairly stable one.

oh, i'm sorry did you think i was going to "debate" your silly delusions?

you're ascared of white people being systematically discriminating against in America and that is hilarious.

fear and loathing of colored people is not an appealing political platform to the rational majority, fool...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Seriously

There is no way anyone with a degree of intelligence could support Trump
There is also no way anyone who rejects bigotry could support Trumps antics

Trump's supporters are less educated than the average Republican voter.

http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/10/10-02-2015-2016-release1.pdf

But ...

He's speaking to the anxieties of the white, working middle-class. He's speaking to the Reagan Democrats. He's speaking to social conservatives who have not seen an economic advancement for the past two generations. And it's resonating.

True, and have NOT been brainwashed in the college indoctrination process.

A very interesting comment ^^^mindful of doublethink in 1984: Ignorance is Strength.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You can't get the SC to rule a constitutional amendment void. You'd have to amend the constitution.

Why? the SC created the right to abortion and gay marriage out of thin fucking air, what's to stop them from saying RKBA isn't really what the 2nd amendment was about?

You idiots opened this pandora's box where the SC basically has free reign to fuck with people, get ready to eat it.

Fucktard.

Are you taking idiot pills or something? The SC did NOT create gay marriage or the right to abortion. Those are inherent rights. THE USA cannot take away and inherent right without a compelling reason. There is NO compelling reason to say two same sex people can't get married, nor is there a compelling reason to say the government has the right over a woman's body.

The 2nd is an enumerated right. The only way to overturn it is a constitutional amendment.

Baby.

there is no "inherent right" to an abortion, I do not see it espoused in any texts, of any revolutions that had the goal of a free society. It's made up, flim flam, the imaginations of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers.

Gay marriage is another made up right, purely because 5 of 9 unelected lawyers decided to speed things up and overrrule the will of the people of several states.

and as for your last statement, I simply don't trust YOU or the government to stick to that view.

You idiots change your views on things faster than a cat in a small pet store changes his appetite.

the 2d applies to WELL-REGULATED MILITIA to defend the country (since there was no standing army at the time) and every justice until scalia knew that. but heller is what it is.... as stupid a decision as it is.

and I don't trust wingers with my rights. it's really simple. I guess it just depends on what your priorities are. of course, the difference is that no one has outlawed guns or tried to (since regulation is STILL ok even scalia said so in heller). yet, your guys routinely try to take away others' rights

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

 

[Valerie]

Why the GOP is Hesitant to Denounce Trump’s Bigotry

Why the GOP is Hesitant to Denounce Trump’s Bigotry | Latino Point of View

It’s up to voters to reject Trump and Carson’s bigotry - Business Insider

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/o...y-bigotry-threatens-first-amendment.html?_r=0

All You Need To Know About GOP Anti-Gay Bigotry For 2016

 

[Valerie]

Montel Williams goes to war against “paranoid” GOP “bigotry”

The Navy vet and talk show host told Salon he still considers himself a conservative, but not a Republican

“I wrote this piece because I’m at my wits end with the GOP,” he added. “I still consider myself conservative, but I long ago abandoned the party because I could see it being dragged down a path of intolerance and I see no place for myself, as a black American in the GOP proper, much less one who refuses to tell women what to do with their bodies, one who is a proud but responsible gun owner, one who as a matter of faith and principle cannot abide bigotry whether it be toward Muslims, LGBT individuals or anyone else.”

Montel Williams goes to war against “paranoid” GOP “bigotry” and takes Fox News down with it - Salon.com

 

[rdean]

If Republicans allow George Soros to choose their candidate as well as The Democrat Party candidate then, yeah, America loses.

Again.

I was really kind of hoping for some actual responses... you know, where people think.

Republicans think. They think they aren't crazy but we know better.

 

[martybegan]

Why? the SC created the right to abortion and gay marriage out of thin fucking air, what's to stop them from saying RKBA isn't really what the 2nd amendment was about?

You idiots opened this pandora's box where the SC basically has free reign to fuck with people, get ready to eat it.

Fucktard.

Are you taking idiot pills or something? The SC did NOT create gay marriage or the right to abortion. Those are inherent rights. THE USA cannot take away and inherent right without a compelling reason. There is NO compelling reason to say two same sex people can't get married, nor is there a compelling reason to say the government has the right over a woman's body.

The 2nd is an enumerated right. The only way to overturn it is a constitutional amendment.

Baby.

there is no "inherent right" to an abortion, I do not see it espoused in any texts, of any revolutions that had the goal of a free society. It's made up, flim flam, the imaginations of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers.

Gay marriage is another made up right, purely because 5 of 9 unelected lawyers decided to speed things up and overrrule the will of the people of several states.

and as for your last statement, I simply don't trust YOU or the government to stick to that view.

You idiots change your views on things faster than a cat in a small pet store changes his appetite.

the 2d applies to WELL-REGULATED MILITIA to defend the country (since there was no standing army at the time) and every justice until scalia knew that. but heller is what it is.... as stupid a decision as it is.

and I don't trust wingers with my rights. it's really simple. I guess it just depends on what your priorities are. of course, the difference is that no one has outlawed guns or tried to (since regulation is STILL ok even scalia said so in heller). yet, your guys routinely try to take away others' rights

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

 

[Valerie]

wake up thugs, GOP bigotry has become a national punch line...

 

[jillian]

Maybe you're not embarrassed; Trump and Carson leading in the polls for the Nomination for POTUS should embarrass all Americans, for such polling data reflects poorly on all of us.

Another denizen of the LWNJ echo chamber chimes in with inane talking points.....

you know, dear... i'm a lot of things. but a nutjob isn't one of them. in my view, you're wrong on almost every issue. and until the GOP dumps its loons on the right, no one like me (who DID vote for republican mayors and governors in the past) is going to ever vote for one of your candidates.

Sorry Jillian, but when you call everyone who supports Trump an uneducated bigot- you are a nut job.

I was wrong about Obama, but I was right about the Senate, the House and all of the state houses that Obama has handed the GOP. He has been a blessing in that regard.

There is no other explanation for supporting Trump other than being an uneducated bigot. Trump depends on both

Why are you being such a partisan jerk?

i'd hope not wanting to elect a bigot is a partisan issue.

I was kind of hoping that most republicans aren't bigots and would feel the same way.

of course, it seems you can't relate to thinking we shouldn't be represented by a bigot.

 

[Mac1958]

Since the GOP is essentially two parties right now, it's tough to say if it's in a panic, per se.

The "Freedom Caucus" side looks pretty excited, the rest of the party looks like they can't find their keys.

Bizarre.
.

 

[jillian]

Are you taking idiot pills or something? The SC did NOT create gay marriage or the right to abortion. Those are inherent rights. THE USA cannot take away and inherent right without a compelling reason. There is NO compelling reason to say two same sex people can't get married, nor is there a compelling reason to say the government has the right over a woman's body.

The 2nd is an enumerated right. The only way to overturn it is a constitutional amendment.

Baby.

there is no "inherent right" to an abortion, I do not see it espoused in any texts, of any revolutions that had the goal of a free society. It's made up, flim flam, the imaginations of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers.

Gay marriage is another made up right, purely because 5 of 9 unelected lawyers decided to speed things up and overrrule the will of the people of several states.

and as for your last statement, I simply don't trust YOU or the government to stick to that view.

You idiots change your views on things faster than a cat in a small pet store changes his appetite.

the 2d applies to WELL-REGULATED MILITIA to defend the country (since there was no standing army at the time) and every justice until scalia knew that. but heller is what it is.... as stupid a decision as it is.

and I don't trust wingers with my rights. it's really simple. I guess it just depends on what your priorities are. of course, the difference is that no one has outlawed guns or tried to (since regulation is STILL ok even scalia said so in heller). yet, your guys routinely try to take away others' rights

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

"strict constitutionists" didn't exist as a credible paradigm until rhenquist took the bench. and it wasn't an effective paradigm until scalia and his boys polluted our body of constitutional law. i'd refer you back to Marbury v Madison for a more rational and credible perspective on constitutional construction.

but I know that the wingers have been shouting this for years and have managed to infect public discourse with their propaganda.... which isn't very effective with a single judge or attorney I know... but seems to resonate with lay people.