I don't know - there's a LOT of folks after the president right now!
I'll say it again - he may not be on the ballot come next November.
DT_popc1:News Article: Mueller Delivers Report on Russia Investigation to Attorney General
- Thread starter CharminTide
- Start date
- Status
I'll say it again - he may not be on the ballot come next November.
DT_popc1:
There is one thing good about the internet bamamc1, when when all these liberal democrats move out of the country after the next election, they can still be great Bama football and basketball fans.
Gipper is looking at what his party has become and saying, "Where did they get THAT stupid idea?"
[video=youtube;CD-Y2YxQzo0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=29&v=CD-Y2YxQzo0[/video]
I think you'll find out with the next election that it's just not liberal democrats who've had enough of Trump. I certainly don't fit that profile. In fact, I contributed to two Republican campaigns last year. How many did you contribute to?
Your question wasn't directed to me ---- but I'm PROUD to say I left the Republican Party YEARS ago and have remained NPA since.
Contribute to a campaign? When they start supporting animal shelters with their contributions......maybe then I will consider it. In other words - it isn't going to happen.....
They are all liars so I would not give any of them a penny. I've had enough of Trump also, but there is not a single candidate running at this time any better IMO, lesser of two evils. Maybe I'll change my mind before election time.
You might choose on the basis of the less dangerous and Trump is the most dangerous person this republic has seen since the Civil War. A lawyer's view...
He was the one who started throwing around the label "liberal democrat," apparently thinking anyone opposing Trump had to be one. That's not paying a lot of attention. I also contributed to two Democrats campaigns, made on the basis of the candidates running, not party, since I'm an Independent. BUT, Trump's downfall, if it occurs, will be independents and women, both areas where he's badly behind now...
Last edited:
I said "the republic," not the constitution. Now you mention it, he's also the most dangerous to constituted authority. His standing among lawyers is abysmally low, lower even than among black women, which is amazing. There're very good reasons for that. If you don't understand the dangers, then you can continue on with "what, me worry?"
As I was reading the above, I started to wonder why Abraham Lincoln would be held in such low esteem by African-American women. Then I realized you were talking about Trump.
Please don't mistake me for a Trump defender. I am a constitutional conservative and a fiscal reactionary. I have no party, because no party comes close to advocating such principles. Certainly Trump does not.
As for Lincoln, he closed around 300 newspapers because of what they printed, seriously considered the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for rendering (what the President considered) an incorrect opinion (and did arrest a federal circuit judge), and his administration arrested 14,000 people that the administration itself called "political prisoners,"* so I'm not Lincoln's biggest fan either.
Last edited:
One might argue that he was a product of his times, whereas Trump manufactures crises made to order...
Fair enough.
Lincoln was a lawyer, however and should have know better than to make this argument on suspension of the writ of habeas corpus:
The power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus is in Article I of the Constitution (i.e. it is clearly and exclusively a legislative power), something of which the Chief Justice reminded the President, and which prompted Lincoln to consider arresting the Chief Justice. Ward Lamon (a friend and confidant of Lincoln and U.S. Marshall at the time), later said that Lincoln had actually issued the arrest order, but he (Lamon) had declined to execute the order, because of the crap storm it would have precipitated.Lincoln said:
Lincoln did order the arrest of Merrick, because Merrick issued writs of habeas corpus to the parents of minors seeking to secure the release of their children from the army after those children had enlisted as minors without parental permission, which seems a fairly innocuous ruling. Lincoln was not above arresting judges who ruled incorrectly.
While I find Lincoln's act abhorrent, I would again point out the temper of the times and the contrast with the context of Trump's unconstitutional acts...
It will never happen, but there's been a little bit of discussion on Twitter regarding what I've pointed out about the primary system causing SOME of our problems.
"Bring back smoke-filled rooms."
I realize it doesn't guarantee a President will even be remotely competent (insert Warren Harding reference here)........but I would argue that the quality of candidates it produced was MUCH better than what our current one has produced.
Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump would not have any prayer at all under that system.
And I think it would be close to impossible for GW Bush to be nominated as well.
It would also prevent the selection of the likes of Eagleton, Ferraro, Quayle, and Palin as VPs.
Giving this "power to the people" has resulted in fascination with the nonexistent monolith called "the economy" while not taking into account the fact that the most important duty a President has to determine is whether we have war or not.
And that''s why under ZERO circumstances can I vote for this loose canon. In the nuclear age, it's sheer madness this guy is in charge.
wait, i thought the one of the big criticisms of hillary and the dnc is that she was pre-chosen by the party insiders with no thought of what the voters wanted.
But even you understand the difference between that being the process and PRETENDING we're having an election.
I have no problem with the argument, "Sanders isn't a Democrat," as he drove that point home as late as the Convention.
But that means he shouldn't have been permitted to create the illusion of an actual competition, either.
Yes, she got the most votes - but it wouldn't have mattered if she hadn't is the difference.
(FTR - the GOP started with the fear that Trump would run third party and take away votes to ensure Hillary won. That failure to stand up AT DAY ONE is their biggest failure here).
I have no problem with the smoke-filled room selection nor do I have a problem if she had been the nominee.
But let's not pretend what the DNC put on in 2016 was an actual contest for the party's nomination, either.
i think you are defining yourself into the conclusion you wish to reach. but, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things as it is in the past.
- Status
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 9
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 24
-