• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Voting for Trump based on SCOTUS and valuing the constitution.

Do you honestly think Trump knows/understands the constitution and values it more tha

  • Total voters
    42
Anthony60 said:
I almost stopped reading after that. I was pretty sure you were going to go on about insignificant, off topic BS. But I continued anyway. And I was right. You are just so lost.


This just doesn't make any sense at all. Why would anyone defend her as she does things that are completely in the opposite direction of what this country was founded on? Just makes no sense. Insignificant crap.


This is just bizarre. It's like a baseball team that has a player that bats .160 with 4 home runs and 12 RBI a year, and then thinking the fans should defend keeping him because he does do some things right. That's a foolish way to look at it. The player is a failure, like the Clintons in relation to this country.

I don't even know what you are trying to say here.


You have done this? How many times has this happened to you? You can't seriously think I believe this. LOL! I'm a conservative, not sure what you mean by a "right winger". What is that?
That is so exceedingly foolish. They are failures. We don't want them. All failures in humanity, in liberty, in freedom. Guilty of stepping on those "beneath" them. Corrupt, all, to the bone. Who the hell cares if they had a day where they didn't screw over someone? What, do you want to give Hitler an award for the parts of his life that he didn't cause deaths? That's just sick.
Click to expand...

The entire point is that one cannot judge another based only on the bad or on the good - one must take everything into account...and y'all simply refuse to do that; even worse, y'all pretend that there's nothing, absolutely nothing, that the Clintons or Obamas have done that was ever good and right. Hell, when the First Lady came out and encouraged people to drink more water, the Right accused her of promoting socialism!

Worst of all, y'all don't even realize how far gone y'all are. I'm fairly moderate as liberals go, and I agree with Republicans on some issues - on the football field of political life, I'm on the liberal 40-yard line...if the football field were measured as it was back when Bush 41 was president. Thing is, y'all done moved the goalposts out past the stadium bleachers out to somewhere in the parking lot, so to YOUR eyes, the fifty yard line ought to be where your goalposts were to begin with!

Maybe that's a clumsy metaphor, but y'all have lost the perspective you need in order to see that the Democrats have not lurched far to the left (especially on fiscal issues), but the GOP most certainly has lurched waaaaay the heck to the right...and y'all are expecting us to meet you halfway when the halfway is a heck of a lot closer to what "all the way" used to be.
 
apdst said:
Ok, so you do not want to defend The Constitution, per your oath. Gotcha, sport.
Click to expand...

OK, so you do not want to grasp that the "no regulations for guns at all" stance of the Right is a relatively new thing in our nation's history...that those who were closer to our nation's founding felt a lot better about gun control than you do.

And worst of all, y'all don't realize that this whole doggone kerfluffle wasn't started by the Right! It was started by the gun manufacturers who figured out a way to make a heck of a lot more money - to co-opt the NRA - and it worked!
 
Glen Contrarian said:
OK, so you do not want to grasp that the "no regulations for guns at all" stance of the Right is a relatively new thing in our nation's history...that those who were closer to our nation's founding felt a lot better about gun control than you do.

And worst of all, y'all don't realize that this whole doggone kerfluffle wasn't started by the Right! It was started by the gun manufacturers who figured out a way to make a heck of a lot more money - to co-opt the NRA - and it worked!
Click to expand...


OH here we go with the baseless gun manufacturer conspiracy theories again.

The NRA represents gun owners, not manufacturers, the industry has their own lobby group called the NSSF. The NRA supported one too many gun laws which resulted in the membership clearing the dead wood from the board of directors in the 1970s.

The NRA represents the members. Evidentially you don't know history as well as you think
 
EMNofSeattle said:
OH here we go with the baseless gun manufacturer conspiracy theories again.

The NRA represents gun owners, not manufacturers, the industry has their own lobby group called the NSSF. The NRA supported one too many gun laws which resulted in the membership clearing the dead wood from the board of directors in the 1970s.

The NRA represents the members. Evidentially you don't know history as well as you think
Click to expand...

Really?

Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.

The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.

Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business.

And:

The NRA gets tens of millions of dollars from gun manufacturers, through a variety of channels, not just checks but advertising in NRA publications and special promotions the manufacturers run. For instance, every time someone buys a Ruger, the company donates $2 to the NRA. Buy one from Taurus, and they'll pay for a year's membership in the NRA.

And:

From a small-town pharmacist to a commercial pilot, it's not just gunmakers that are funding the National Rifle Association’s political battles.
The organization's overall revenue, which includes membership dues, program fees and other contributions, has boomed in recent years – rising to nearly $350 million in 2013. The majority of this money funds NRA initiatives like member newsletters, sporting events and gun safety education and training programs.
These help the NRA recruit new members and spread its pro-gun message. But to influence laws and keep its chosen leaders in power, it has a separate pool of money to use.
A CNNMoney analysis of federal campaign finance records shows that much of this money comes from everyday Americans. And these contributions, which the NRA uses to keep pro-gun lawmakers in office, are on the rise.

And:

Between then and 2011, the Violence Policy Center estimates that the firearms industry donated as much as $38.9 million to the NRA's coffers. The givers include 22 different gun makers, including famous names like Smith & Wesson, Beretta USA, SIGARMS, and Sturm, Ruger & Co. that also manufacture so-called assault weapons.

Some of that funding has given the NRA a direct stake in gun and ammo sales. As Bloomberg noted in its January article, Sturm, Ruger & Co. launched a campaign to sell one million guns, and promised to donate $1 of each purchase to the group. Since 1992, MidWay USA, which retails gun supplies including ammo and controversial high-capacity magazines, has allowed its customers to round up each of their online and mail orders to the nearest dollar, and automatically donate the extra to the NRA. Together with other companies that have joined the effort, MidWay has helped collect more than $9 million for NRA. MidWay's owner, Larry Pottfield, also happens to be the the group's largest individual donor.

In other words, anyone who doesn't think the gun manufacturers aren't in bed with the NRA...is either lying, or is very, very naive.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Really?

Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.

The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.

Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business.

And:

The NRA gets tens of millions of dollars from gun manufacturers, through a variety of channels, not just checks but advertising in NRA publications and special promotions the manufacturers run. For instance, every time someone buys a Ruger, the company donates $2 to the NRA. Buy one from Taurus, and they'll pay for a year's membership in the NRA.

And:

From a small-town pharmacist to a commercial pilot, it's not just gunmakers that are funding the National Rifle Association’s political battles.
The organization's overall revenue, which includes membership dues, program fees and other contributions, has boomed in recent years – rising to nearly $350 million in 2013. The majority of this money funds NRA initiatives like member newsletters, sporting events and gun safety education and training programs.
These help the NRA recruit new members and spread its pro-gun message. But to influence laws and keep its chosen leaders in power, it has a separate pool of money to use.
A CNNMoney analysis of federal campaign finance records shows that much of this money comes from everyday Americans. And these contributions, which the NRA uses to keep pro-gun lawmakers in office, are on the rise.

And:

Between then and 2011, the Violence Policy Center estimates that the firearms industry donated as much as $38.9 million to the NRA's coffers. The givers include 22 different gun makers, including famous names like Smith & Wesson, Beretta USA, SIGARMS, and Sturm, Ruger & Co. that also manufacture so-called assault weapons.

Some of that funding has given the NRA a direct stake in gun and ammo sales. As Bloomberg noted in its January article, Sturm, Ruger & Co. launched a campaign to sell one million guns, and promised to donate $1 of each purchase to the group. Since 1992, MidWay USA, which retails gun supplies including ammo and controversial high-capacity magazines, has allowed its customers to round up each of their online and mail orders to the nearest dollar, and automatically donate the extra to the NRA. Together with other companies that have joined the effort, MidWay has helped collect more than $9 million for NRA. MidWay's owner, Larry Pottfield, also happens to be the the group's largest individual donor.

In other words, anyone who doesn't think the gun manufacturers aren't in bed with the NRA...is either lying, or is very, very naive.
Click to expand...

It turns out NRA members buy guns, maybe you weren't aware of this, but a good way to advertise is to go to groups of customers.

The NRA is more powerful then the manufacturers, not the other way around, ask the investment group that owned smith and Wesson before the backlash to agreeing with Clinton's justice department to restrict their sales all about that.

S&W signed an agreement with Clinton, the NRA informed their members, the result was Smith and Wesson very nearly went under, they had to repudiate that agreement after defaulting on bond payments and being purchased for less then a fifth of their previous value.

That's because us consumers drive the market, not the other way around.

Nothing you linked disproves what I posted, or proves what you initially posted, that the NRA represents the industry, the NRA is not the industry lobby. They lobby for the membership, in most cases the members interests line up with the industry, and it's certainly not in the industry's interest to jerk around the NRA members. Again ask S&W
 
Glen Contrarian said:
OK, so you do not want to grasp that the "no regulations for guns at all" stance of the Right is a relatively new thing in our nation's history...that those who were closer to our nation's founding felt a lot better about gun control than you do.

And worst of all, y'all don't realize that this whole doggone kerfluffle wasn't started by the Right! It was started by the gun manufacturers who figured out a way to make a heck of a lot more money - to co-opt the NRA - and it worked!
Click to expand...

You don't grasp, "shall not be infringed"?

You claimed to have taken an oath to protect The Constitution. I guess that means you only want to protect the parts you agree with.

How did the gun manufacturers create unconstitutional gun regulations? How does that help them sell guns?
 
Van Basten said:
Not exactly.

Hillary is a Yale trained lawyer. She knows the constitution, the question is how much does she care about what the document entails? I'd say she does and cares enough until you get into those strangely bipartisan endeavors of suspending our rights to fight terrorism. The question of "caring" is dripping with ideology though, those of us with more left leaning interpretations are going look like we don't care compared to the other side of the spectrum or the moderate camp. Not to mention, all of us look like blood-lusting, kid kicking Bolsheviks to strict constructionist types.
Click to expand...

Knowing the Constitution but not agreeing with what it says, as well as not keeping your oath to preserve, protect, and defend it, make Hillary Clinton more than equally applicable to what GC posted. I agree with what he said about Trump, as well, which is why I'm not voting for Trump. However, for you to try to defend Hillary, based on the Constitution, is absolutely worrisome to me that you actually believe she is a defender of the US Constitution. "No fly no buy," ring a bell? And that's just one of many.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
There you go again, ignoring the clear context of the preparatory phrase, which was put there the full knowledge that one of the most contentious points of the Constitutional Convention was whether to have a standing army at all. The preparatory phrase clearly implies that if there's no standing army, then we would still have a well-regulated militia in order to defend our country.

But y'all ignore that...even though our firearms HAVE been regulated for much of our nation's history:

1837

Georgia passes a law banning handguns. The law is ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court and is thrown out.

1865

In a reaction to emancipation, several southern states adopt "black codes" which, among other things, forbid black persons from possessing firearms.

1871

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is organized around its primary goal of improving American civilians' marksmanship in preparation for war.

1927

The U.S. Congress passes a law banning the mailing of concealable weapons.

1934

The National Firearms Act of 1934, regulating the manufacture, sale and possession of fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns is approved by Congress.

1938

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.
Click to expand...

The NFA violates the Second amendment Sadly FDR's pet toads were afraid to overrule their master. Your posts are clearly indicative that you despite honest americans being able to own guns
 
Beaudreaux said:
Knowing the Constitution but not agreeing with what it says, as well as not keeping your oath to preserve, protect, and defend it, make Hillary Clinton more than equally applicable to what GC posted. I agree with what he said about Trump, as well, which is why I'm not voting for Trump. However, for you to try to defend Hillary, based on the Constitution, is absolutely worrisome to me that you actually believe she is a defender of the US Constitution. "No fly no buy," ring a bell? And that's just one of many.
Click to expand...

Even "agreeing with what it says" is chalk full of ideology.

My point was that she knows the constitution and you don't seem to disagree, that was the whole of it. The rest of my post was more just supplementary.

Also, I never called her a defender of the constitution. I don't think she's a destroyer of it either, but not a defender, no.
 
Van Basten said:
Even "agreeing with what it says" is chalk full of ideology.

My point was that she knows the constitution and you don't seem to disagree, that was the whole of it. The rest of my post was more just supplementary.

Also, I never called her a defender of the constitution. I don't think she's a destroyer of it either, but not a defender, no.
Click to expand...

Your point, was that I was wrong, which you said by stating "Not exactly." I was not wrong. I was simply describing an observation about Mrs. Clinton that you evidently did not like. Which was, and still is, related solely to what GC said, to which I replied. Neither of which had anything to do with whether Trump OR Clinton "knows the constitution (sic)."

Here's what GC said:

How anyone who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution - as I did and still uphold - could ever vote for Trump, I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...

Here's what I said in my response to his post:

Good point, which applies even more when discussing Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

Notice that neither he, nor I, made any description whatsoever as to why his or my observation were accurate, or in what they were based. Everything in your following response...

Not exactly.

Hillary is a Yale trained lawyer. She knows the constitution, the question is how much does she care about what the document entails? I'd say she does and cares enough until you get into those strangely bipartisan endeavors of suspending our rights to fight terrorism. The question of "caring" is dripping with ideology though, those of us with more left leaning interpretations are going look like we don't care compared to the other side of the spectrum or the moderate camp. Not to mention, all of us look like blood-lusting, kid kicking Bolsheviks to strict constructionist types.
Click to expand...

... had nothing to do with either his or my post. I did get a chuckle, however, out of your characterization of "blood-lusting, kid kicking Bolsheviks ..."

In other words, this entire discourse which you have started with me, is based on nothing but assumptions and implications you made on your own.
 
Of course not. He's a Democrat saying what he needs to say to get investors for his next bankruptcy. When he talks about prohibiting companies from legaly merging and prohibiting companies for sending manufacturing to other countries--not his manufacturing, of course--and putting a tariff on foreign goods he's showing a typical lack of knowledge and interest in our country works. We have a king now and Trump wants to be the next liberal king who passes laws, repeals law, and rules us with a phone and a pen without interference from the Congress.
 
Anthony60 said:
That's more of a Marxist/Socialist/Statist way of thinking. You try to invalidate the Constitution by saying everything is open to interpretation. What is a document worth at that point?
Click to expand...

Much of the Constitution is open to interpretation. That's why courts and judges are charged with determining the constitutionality of laws. Liberal judges will interpret differently than conservative judges. They must do so because the original wordings do not apply to all cases unambiguously. That's just a fact.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Your point, was that I was wrong, which you said by stating "Not exactly." I was not wrong. I was simply describing an observation about Mrs. Clinton that you evidently did not like. Which was, and still is, related solely to what GC said, to which I replied. Neither of which had anything to do with whether Trump OR Clinton "knows the constitution (sic)."

Here's what GC said:



Here's what I said in my response to his post:



Notice that neither he, nor I, made any description whatsoever as to why his or my observation were accurate, or in what they were based. Everything in your following response...



... had nothing to do with either his or my post. I did get a chuckle, however, out of your characterization of "blood-lusting, kid kicking Bolsheviks ..."

In other words, this entire discourse which you have started with me, is based on nothing but assumptions and implications you made on your own.
Click to expand...

Fair point, my bad.
 
LaylaWindu said:
I agree, IMO when discussing Trump there's nothing that makes me feel he values the constitution over his personal feelings or that he even understands it.
Click to expand...

What does the Supreme Court have to do with Trump's personal opinion? If he wins and nominates someone who won't uphold the Constitution then that's a failure of Congress. Your statement and the question really don't have anything to do with each other.
 
AlbqOwl said:
You are asking me to vote on Trump's motives or what he values or how much he understands of the Constitution. To be privy to such information is above my pay grade I'm afraid. I don't know and I don't really care what his motives are or what makes his heart go pitter pat. I am only interested in what he does or will likely do as President should he be elected. And he has pledged to appoint constitutionalists to the high court and has submitted a list of potential appointees all of whom would pass muster on that score. Since I know Hillary's list would not include ANYBODY I would want on the high court (or any court), I have no qualms about voting for Trump.
Click to expand...

Nope, sorry I didn't ask you any of that. :shrug:
 
Anthony60 said:
You can ask any question you want, you can't restrict people's answers. I'll answer any way I want.
Click to expand...

Who said I could' certainly not me I only pointed out you made up your own question and answered it and it has nothing to do with mine. I totally agree I am free to ask what 2+2 is and you are free to answer potato is my favorite veggie. Good luck!
 
Glen Contrarian said:
How anyone who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution - as I did and still uphold - could ever vote for Trump, I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...

You're such a stellar Constitutionalist, it gives me pause. :lol:
 
upsideguy said:
Trump may be the most ignorant person ever to get this close to the White House. Among the knowledge prerequisites that we expect of a POTUS, he is also grossly deficient on his understanding of the Constitution.

Donald Trump vs. the Constitution: A guide – POLITICO
http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/26/the-real-threat-to-the-constitution-is-t

View attachment 67209008
Click to expand...

Understanding is of little importance when you lack basic respect for it, as Hillary does.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Well, that's the way I read your question in the OP.
Click to expand...

You have a very active imagination then and added a whole bunch that wasn't there in any form. Oh well good luck to you.
 
LaylaWindu said:
This question was motivated by another thread that was addressing the argument of voting for trump on the basis of SCOTUS selections and upholding the constitution. Many feel thats a weak argument to support Trump because he hasn't shown that. Does anyone here honestly believe that trump knows the constitution, cares about it and respects it? And then with that he will place it and care about it ABOVE his own personal wants, needs and feelings. So I guess I have to shrink that question somehow.

Do you honestly think Trump knows/understands the constitution and values it more than his own wants/feelings?

Yes
No
Click to expand...
I would not be surprised if Trump has no more than a 6th grade understanding of the Constitution. I believe he respects it even less. His whole life has been about skirting the rules to get what he can when he can, so it's naive to think he's somehow changed.
 
radcen said:
I would not be surprised if Trump has no more than a 6th grade understanding of the Constitution. I believe he respects it even less. His whole life has been about skirting the rules to get what he can when he can, so it's naive to think he's somehow changed.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree and I think his understanding is probably less than 6th grade. IMO I bet he just sees it as rules that are sometimes in his way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom