• 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!

Trump On Constitution: It Doesn't Necessarily Give Us The Right To Commit Suicide

I vote 3rd party in local and state elections, it wont accomplish anything at this time in a national election.

2004 Green Party candidate David Cobb told his supporters to vote Democrat in contested states, but vote for him in non-contested states. I think that is the best strategy that doesn't leave main-party supporters bitter.
 
That of course is the kind of attitude that keeps the dual party system afloat.

No it doesn't. It simply is the truth. Trying to make yourself feel better because you "vote your conscience" is just simply lying to yourself. You are actively helping the person you like less get elected.
 
Well all we have is your title serving as a direct quote (?).

It's somewhere in the lowlights compiled here.

Trump Vows to Trash the Constitution - Hit & Run : Reason.com


I don't see how CR applies to this. He's only discussing the topic - likely answering a question (perhaps? I don't know). The POTUS has a right to an opinion on all subjects. That's not the same as pushing laws, announcing veto with reasons, or giving an executive order, etc.

Of course he has a right to an opinion. We also have a duty as American citizens to be concerned when your next potential president openly states he is willing to ignore the Constitution if he feels its necessary.
 
If you have evidence to the contrary then please present it.

No, sir, you made the claim it was so. Present YOUR evidence. Not that you have any.
 
No, sir, you made the claim it was so. Present YOUR evidence. Not that you have any.

My claim is based on perception. When I see someone state something false I do the research and present the evidence that proves them wrong. I am not doing your homework for you.
 
My claim is based on perception. When I see someone state something false I do the research and present the evidence that proves them wrong. I am not doing your homework for you.

It's not my homework to do. It's your claim to support.

And you can't. It's just what you want to be true.
 
It's not my homework to do. It's your claim to support.

And you can't. It's just what you want to be true.

You responded to me. If you care so much about changing my perception then present the evidence. Otherwise, move on.
 
It's somewhere in the lowlights compiled here.

Trump Vows to Trash the Constitution - Hit & Run : Reason.com




Of course he has a right to an opinion. We also have a duty as American citizens to be concerned when your next potential president openly states he is willing to ignore the Constitution if he feels its necessary.

Trump's response? "You know−the Constitution−there's nothing like it. But it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, as a country, OK?"

Transcript:
The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence - CBS News

I see . . . now that I've read through it, etc.

The Constitution doesn't regulate and control how immigration is conducted. That power and authority is assigned to Congress. There are a series of acts that have been passed by Congress over the years that do direct and govern how we deal with immigration.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/...gration&url=/anncon/html/art1frag66_user.html

And these can and have been changed over the decades in response to crisis and various situations and shifting social concerns.

Now - unless your applying a separate amendment or article in the Constitution to this topic, I don't see how CR applies, here.

Trump's still an unqualified douche, though.
 
No it doesn't. It simply is the truth. Trying to make yourself feel better because you "vote your conscience" is just simply lying to yourself. You are actively helping the person you like less get elected.

No. I'm actively giving my vote to someone else and denying a vote to the person I don't like.

Nothing in there actively helps the person I dislike getting elected. The way you're viewing it is rather moronic.
 
Was wondering if anyone else noticed this bit from The Donald when he was interviewed on 60 Minutes. It is clear that he has a big enough ego to disregard Constitutional restrictions when in office. Shouldn't this concern constitutional conservatives?

Donald Trump is a fool who wants to be king. President Obama rules with royal decrees and Trump thinks he can do the same. If we'll just let Dishonest Donald be King he can save us. We can all have free casino cocktails till we're broke, he can lead the country into a bankruptcy where he makes billions and we go broke, and we can all get degrees from Trump University. He's a good con man, a good huckster, and that's the limit of his ability.
 
You responded to me. If you care so much about changing my perception then present the evidence. Otherwise, move on.

I don't care about changing your view. You can believe whatever you want without anything to support it. I'm simply highlighting that you DO believe it with no evidence.
 
No. I'm actively giving my vote to someone else and denying a vote to the person I don't like.

Nothing in there actively helps the person I dislike getting elected. The way you're viewing it is rather moronic.

I'm looking at it realistically. You are looking at it naively because all your vote does is give a vote to the candidate you dislike the most.
 
I'm looking at it realistically. You are looking at it naively because all your vote does is give a vote to the candidate you dislike the most.

No it doesn't. The only way I can give a vote to the candidate I dislike the most is by voting for said candidate.

At best you can say that by not supporting Trump Hillary may have a better chance at beating him and winning, but since I hate both anyways I'm still just better off supporting a third party candidate. That is looking at things realistically.

In any case, my point still stands and Hillary is not helped in any way whatsoever by me voting third party. Both she and Trump are denied a vote, and therefore, they both get the short end of the stick.
 
Last edited:
I'm looking at it realistically. You are looking at it naively because all your vote does is give a vote to the candidate you dislike the most.

Don't you call yourself an "independent"?
 
Don't you call yourself an "independent"?

Yes, as in I am not always going to vote for the same of the two parties. But to actually think your third party vote means anything, you are lying to yourself.
 
Yes, as in I am not always going to vote for the same of the two parties. But to actually think your third party vote means anything, you are lying to yourself.

I didn't say anything about a third party vote or whether it "means" anything, whatever you "mean" by that.

But to say that refusing to vote for one is a vote for the other isn't a very "independent" thought process. It implies that your vote rightly belongs to one or the other. Which is what you seem to think.
 
Same here. Unfortunately, the Republicans are nominating one of the few that I and many others don't trust more than Hillary. Hell, many Republicans have already said they are either voting Hillary, Libertarian, or not at all.

I always vote, and there is no way I would vote for Hillary. But then I'm not a republican.
 
I honestly don't think he's read the Constitution, much less understands it. But, maybe that's just me.

I honestly don't think he has read much of anything, much less understands much of anything regarding how government actually works. But, that isn't just me, is more than half the electorate.

He appears to be the most intellectually lazy person to seek national office since Sarah Palin.
 
Yes, as in I am not always going to vote for the same of the two parties. But to actually think your third party vote means anything, you are lying to yourself.
So....when you vote for someone other than in the 2 majors....it means something?
 
LOL! Yes, it had a lot to do with the Constitution, since according to the Constitution we are legally bound by the treaties we sign and the laws we pass for ourselves.

Our actions there violated at least two treaties and four of our own laws.

The Constitution gives the President power to make treaties, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur. Nothing in the Constitution prevents the U.S. from abrogating any treaty.
 
It's often hard to figure out just what Mr. Trump is trying to say. It sounds like he was picking up on the old quip, which has been attributed to more than one Supreme Court justice, that the Constitution "is not a suicide pact." Using the word "pact" gets the sense right--that Americans did not agree by creating the Constitution to let the U.S. go under, for example in a war with a foreign enemy, in order to observe the letter of that Constitution.

And of course they never agreed to that, because plainly the Constitution would mean nothing if there were no longer any United States. Where Trump seems to get it wrong is in talking about the Constitution giving us the right to violate it. It is a statist notion that government--particularly the U.S. government--gives us our rights. The Constitution is the guarantee of our rights, not the source of them. If we choose to violate or ignore it, we do it on our own hook.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom