This is exactly what is wrong with the GOP....(hopelessly outdated goals)

a reply to: olaru12

' he isn't anti establishment. He is intimately connected to the establishment.

This puzzles me too. I think the establishment victory here is in it's battle to have citizens focus only on the 'government facit' of the establishment, as if just fixing government will make everything right again. Meanwhile all the other facits of the establishment cruise on at full tilt.

His role is a continuation of his Reality show...to what ends?

Pushed as a comedy celebrity reality show. I suppose that to many it was nothing more than that, just pablum, just entertainment. However there were other ends to which it might have served. One of which was to impregnate in the minds of folk who would even watch that stuff in the first place, the image, the meme, the experience of Trump as the Big Boss. The final boss. I know I first heard of that program and this was immediately clear to me, that he, somewhere down the line would run for prez.

To me his phony anti establishment rants seem contrived and designed for shock value to entertain his devotees.

Phony indeed.

What a laugh. I LOVE how the author of that article not-so-cleverly obscures the true meaning of what he's saying by some half-assed word-smithing:

controls on abortion: he means outlawing abortion. Controls, yea right.

protection of marriage: he means outlawing gay marriage

reform of the healthcare market: he means getting rid of the Affordable Care Act whether there is a viable alternative or not

In both instances, public opinion has never solidified on a national scale. This is why they fell upon the SCotUS to begin with.

Now, if the states had the right to form their own laws by vote/referendum... some would and some would not. This would be the perfect outcome because there could be no gripes. But we just don't do that... the ability of states to form their own laws has long since been washed away.

Oh... btw, this has nothing to do with the old 'state's rights' argument. This comes down to the function and ability of state governments and populations to make their own laws on subjects NOT covered by the US Constitution

I do agree there. Both issues seem pretty obvious to be more state than federal decisions. But I'm not much into revisionist history. A valid point though.

I don't think it is naive that folks think Trump is anti-establishment. On the flip side, I think it's naive to assume Trump is "working for" anyone other than himself. If he really was a Trojan horse, sent in to destroy the GOP, then well...job well done...and if they are that kind of player, well. I'm sure we've all already been screwed for years, and will be down the road as well.

So, what are the options? Well, we could go for bought and paid for shills like Hillary, Cruz, Rubio. All would be akin to re-electing Obama for the next 4 years, because these all answer to the same corporate puppet masters.

Or, we could go for Bernie. Nevermind that he's never had a steady job until his 40's, and then it was politics. Or that in all his years of politics, he's been a "B" employee at best, only sponsoring bills to name Post Offices. Or that he's a year shy of life expectancy, so better like his VP choice! (and of course, the DNC will never end up putting him on the ballot)....

So, really, seriously....if you want to shake up the status quo, there's only one option I see. (which won't even matter, as the GOP will ensure his support is split up, so in the end, Hillary will be elected). At this point, all I can hope for is a strong enough showing to at least keep the establishment up for a few nights of fitful sleep.

a reply to: Edumakated

Trump is a prominent business man. So getting your photo taken with other prominent people makes you part of the establishment? I'm a nobody, but I've been photographed making small talk with a billionaire. I guess that makes me part of the establishment?

Sorry, you are reaching.

What? Taking a picture? That was from his wedding. The Clinton's were wedding guests at the Trump's wedding. You're making senseless excuses.

a reply to: Gazrok

Why are we no longer allowed to have differing personal opinions and beliefs on things once the Court has ruled on them?

Do our brains stop where the state starts?

originally posted by: Gazrok
If Trump has the majority support, but the GOP pulls something, I'll be happy to help with the self-destruct...not only will I still vote for Trump if he runs independent, but I'll also be sure to vote AGAINST any Republican on the ballot they tried to "save" in such a way. I doubt I'm alone in this.

S&F

And, no, you're not alone.

I don't blame the Republican party, but I sure am fed up with all the seated RINOs. I honestly think it'd take a revolution to see any real change. Even Trump doesn't have the stones to say that in public.

Trump is the anti-establishment. How can we tell? Usually the RNC would be screaming for voters to get in line for the one with the highest delegate total. They are actually risking gop civil war.

Gingrich says he's not part of the secret society. The establishment has been blindsided.

a reply to: NthOther

Why are we no longer allowed to have differing personal opinions and beliefs on things once the Court has ruled on them?

Do our brains stop where the state starts?

It's posts like this that really make me scratch my head in bewilderment sometimes...



Opinions and beliefs are based on emotion/morality.

Supreme court rulings are based on constitutional law.

There's a huge difference between the two. The supreme court is there to ensure the upholding of constitutional law for all citizens as a whole, it is not there to pander to emotion/morality/opinions/beliefs of a select group of citizens.


If you're wanting to reinterpret/change rulings based on emotion/morality rather than constitutional law, then you had better take it up with your forefathers... because apparently they didn't get it right. Otherwise, it is the job of the supreme court to correctly interpret that piece of paper for you.

So either you trust the supreme court to know what it's doing... or you need to completely dismantle the entire process into something that's, instead, based more on emotion rather than constitution.


Is the USA going to uphold the constitution for all (pro-constitution) or isn't it (anti-constitution)...?

I guess it's up to you guys (the voters) to decide what you want to do with that piece of paper sitting in the National Archives bldg.

a reply to: CranialSponge

So your answer is a long "yes"?

Or you want us to change the law based on and using solely the law, without any personal morals, opinions, or beliefs of any kind?

We just have to "trust them", and stop thinking?

STOP THINKING?

I always thought that people were substituting the state for God. I see more evidence of it every day.

a reply to: CranialSponge

It's posts like this that really make me scratch my head in bewilderment sometimes...

Opinions and beliefs are based on emotion/morality.

Supreme court rulings are based on constitutional law.


There's a huge difference between the two. The supreme court is there to ensure the upholding of constitutional law for all citizens as a whole, it is not there to pander to emotion/morality/opinions/beliefs of a select group of citizens.

While I (think) I get the gist of what you are saying, am I to believe that once a person becomes a Supreme Court Justice they are somehow above being a human being? Somehow once they are clad in the BIG robe, they are no longer susceptible to the shortcomings and biases of everyone else? Is it not common knowledge that there are "liberal leaning justices" and "conservative leaning justices?" If you believe that, how can you explain why the death of Scalia and the vacant seat is such a politicized issue?

Further, and I ask you this sincerely, do you think there is literally no such thing as an "activist judge"...?

Lastly, I would suggest that you do a quick search of "List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions." You may be surprised to learn that the Supreme Court that you suggest is there to uphold the constitutional law for citizens as a whole (as you put it) evolves over time.

If a person wants to believe that a member of the Supreme Court is somehow "above" human failures, biases and shortcomings, feel free. Personally, although I will live within the laws and precedents set by them until such time as they are changed, I will look at each scenario and analyze it with all information available to me and form my own "opinions." You know, like when we hear "it is the opinion of the court..."

a reply to: olaru12 I know he was absolutely establishment, I know that because he says it over and over from the beginning. Trump bought Hillary, who will buy Trump ? no one.

a reply to: NthOther

Whether or not I agree with any specific issue... I'm always SHOCKED that people will so quickly hand the control over their lives to "government" on the premise that they are somehow infallible. As if someone that becomes part of the Borg Collective (Star Trek TNG term) somehow is smarter, more efficient, more moral than an individual, thinking person.

a reply to: NthOther

So what's the solution ??

Let each and every individual citizen cherry pick and interpret parts of the constitution based on their own personal likings ?

OR

Elect a group of individuals (ie: the supreme court) to do the job ?


You either have faith in your constitutional law processes, or you don't.

a reply to: eluryh22

Is it not common knowledge that there are "liberal leaning justices" and "conservative leaning justices?" If you believe that, how can you explain why the death of Scalia and the vacant seat is such a politicized issue?

If there's a big problem with prejudice/corruption at the supreme court level, then obviously there must be a big problem (prejudice/corruption) with the electoral process...?

Food for thought.

a reply to: CranialSponge

No. You change it. You don't throw your hands in the air and say, "F# it, the Court says so, so I guess I won't have an opinion on it anymore."

Why does this only apply to "conservatives", by the way? The Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the individual, but we still have people working feverishly to do everything they can to subvert it.

By your logic, shouldn't the gun grabbers have shut their pie holes long ago?

a reply to: NthOther

No. You change it.

Change what ?

The constitution ?


If you don't agree that all citizens should have the same equal rights as what's stated in the constitution, then by all means make some amendments.

But until then, the supreme court has to (as best as they can) uphold what's already currently written in the constitution as it stands.

I think what's killing the party is that so many republicans think that the party has dedicated their lives to fighting for: controls on abortion, protection of marriage, reform of the healthcare market. or those have been the three pillars of the party platform, or the most important issues. they didn't really care about reforming the healthcare market until obamacare came into play, if he didn't come up with obamacare they'd still be insisting that the old system was working just fine. I don't really believe that abortion or the protection of marriage was such a big deal to them more than a few decades ago. originally, the were more about conservative spending and pro-businessI I believe. if they wanted marriage protected, it was only because it was more cost effective to have around.

maybe I am wrong here, or my memory is just bad, but the republican party of today has strayed far from what it was when I first entered a voting booth. back then, I probably voted for just as many republicans as I didn't democrats. And, quite frankly, the democrats were the first to lose favor with me. but now, the republicans scare the crap out of me and if I have to chose between the two parties, I'd go with the dems.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: eluryh22

Is it not common knowledge that there are "liberal leaning justices" and "conservative leaning justices?" If you believe that, how can you explain why the death of Scalia and the vacant seat is such a politicized issue?

If there's a big problem with prejudice/corruption at the supreme court level, then obviously there must be a big problem (prejudice/corruption) with the electoral process...?

Food for thought.

Well, IS THERE a big problem with prejudice/corruption at the supreme court level or NOT?!?!?

Now I'm asking YOU because in your previous post you stated...

Supreme court rulings are based on constitutional law.

The supreme court is there to ensure the upholding of constitutional law for all citizens as a whole, it is not there to pander to emotion/morality/opinions/beliefs of a select group of citizens.

You essentially indicated that us unwashed masses should take what the Supremes say and accept it as gospel, as the Truth.

Adding the footnote of "Food for thought" doesn't absolve you of supporting your original position, nor does it pass on the baton of providing insight to support your opinion to someone else.

a reply to: eluryh22

Well, IS THERE a big problem with prejudice/corruption at the supreme court level or NOT?!?!?

I don't know, is there ??

You're the one living there, not me... so you would know better whether or not your supreme court is corrupted.

And if it is, as you seem to be saying... then I guess the corruption needs to be fixed then, yes no ?


The supreme court is there to uphold constitution law (personal opinions/emotions/beliefs are supposed to be set aside)... and if that's not what's happening, then fix the process that's causing the problem.

a reply to: Gazrok

Gay marriage is long over-due.
Abortion should be a states right issue.
Obamacare is a failure and needs to be over-turned.