The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Liquid]

Almost every dictatorship in the world has or has had a token constitution embodied in law. Yes, even that one in Godwinland. As @huskeR32 says, not upholding it makes it very, very worthless very, very quickly.

 

[Dotini]

If the US Constitution is declared worthless and invalid by...whom?...then what?

If we cannot rely upon the courts to uphold the law, then who or what does?

 

[BobK]

If the US Constitution is declared worthless and invalid by...whom?...then what?

If we cannot rely upon the courts to uphold the law, then who or what does?

That's spelled out rather clearly in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

 

[huskeR32]

If the US Constitution is declared worthless and invalid by...whom?...then what?

 

[Dotini]

I don't see a small state or amalgamation of small states abandoning the Constitution. They are well served by it. Perhaps California might if it becomes frustrated by the Electoral College?

 

[Biggles]

The constitution is embodied in law, and not in men. Men will come and go, but the constitution endures.

Have you forgotten about postmodernism? There is no such thing as law separate from men (and, of course women ... & non binary genders etc.). I would say that the history of the United States over the last 200 odd years pretty much bears this out.

 

[Dotini]

In a land without a valid and well-supported constitution, rule may be enforced by transitory kings or dictators, i.e., men.

 

[Joey D]

Romney has voted and reportedly it wasn't for Trump. I wonder how many other Republican senators are doing something similar? I can't see them voting for Biden, but I can see them voting for a third-party candidate, that way they can say "well we didn't vote for Trump, but we didn't vote for his opponent either!"

 

[FerrariF1GT]

I could see people like Romney - Republicans who don’t like Trump but not confident in Democrats either - voting either Libertarian or Constitution. Romney seems like a ‘socially liberal, economically conservative’ type, which is how I’d TLDR the Libertarians’ platform. The Constitution Party seems to be pretty conservative both socially and economically from what I know about that party.

 

[Blitz24]

I dropped off my mail-in ballot in the mailbox today and while I voted for Trump in 2016 (due to not trusting HRC), I decided to push for support for a 3rd party in the future and voted for the Libertarian candidate.

 

[Keef]

In a land without a valid and well-supported constitution, rule may be enforced by transitory kings or dictators, i.e., men.

You mean like how Putin snagged himself another 15 years of power after only three years of trying?

voting either Libertarian or Constitution.

They certainly would not vote for parties which thoroughly disapprove of their existence to begin with, that's for sure. At least by voting Democrat, politics as they know it will continue. If a Libertarian were to ever get elected, Republicans and Democrats would be be scrambling to make sure it never happens again, as if they haven't rigged it against them enough already. But I'd wager that if the people actually shifted that direction, both current major parties would be on their deathbeds anyway.

 

[Danoff]

In the 1930's, a frustrated President Roosevelt attempted to "pack" the court, but was thwarted somehow.

They (I think it was just one) gave in to preserve the nation. Not so much "thwarted" as "won".

The pushback for Trump in this thread is preposterous. The president said you don't have rights which are guaranteed in the constitution, and in doing so effectively instructed the people who would trample those rights to do precisely that.. And it wasn't a gaffe or a mistake, he meant it, and he has been systematically undermining just about every element in the constitution since he took office. And some people, who I think might even call themselves "Americans" seem to not give a flying poo.

That pretty much sums up how we got here.

 

[huskeR32]

And some people, who I think might even call themselves "Americans" seem to not give a flying poo.

"Normal" Americans, no less. We can now apparently add "caring about Constitutional rights" to the abnormal column.

 

[Dotini]

Continuing to be disgusted by both parties as I have been for 30 years, I'm casting my ballot for Jorgensen and Cohen of the Libertarian Party..

 

[TexRex]

Honest question, if someone killed someone very important to you do you:
A: Want to see the killer dead as soon as possible?
Or
B: Wait 5 years for the court to sentence them to a death sentence they'll probably die from old age before the state gets around to them because it's more about the prison making money than about actual justice?
Or
C: Hood justice and do it yourself?

Holy moly. Sure, it's an appeal to emotion--which is an informal logical fallacy--but just look at those loaded answers made available to choose from.

For four years (plus his original election campaign), Trump has played on fears that his opponents will come for your Constitutional rights (mainly 2A and 1A). He's just removed your Constitutional rights (under 5A) in a sentence.

But then 1A and 2A have taken hits under Trump as well. Sure, 1A has been hit much, much harder, but I know staunch gun rights advocates aren't thrilled about how policies like the bump stock ban have been implemented, even in the unlikely event that they're tolerant of the ban at all.

 

[McLaren]

Holy moly. Sure, it's an appeal to emotion--which is an informal logical fallacy--but just look at those loaded answers made available to choose from.

It's not surprising it's forgotten, but forgiveness is always an option.

 

[TexRex]

It's not surprising it's forgotten, but forgiveness is always an option.

Sure, forgiveness, but also justice. And by that I mean actual justice, for all parties involved, because the criminal justice system functioned as it should and nobody had their rights violated in the process of holding the appropriate individual(s) to account for their action(s), rather than some skewed interpretation of justice that puts greater emphasis on not justice as part of an appeal to emotion.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

the President just took away your rights. You... don't seem to care.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is now moot. These are the rights you no longer have:

You

You

the Fifth Amendment does not exist.

Trump decided that no American has 5A rights.

Trump has played on fears that his opponents will come for your Constitutional rights

Wait, what? Who's playing on who's fears?

I thought the goal posts were way back there about Trump saying something. Guess I better get ready for those death squads.

 

[McLaren]

Accuses someone on moving the goal posts whilst they remove the goal posts, replace it with a basket, miss the shot, and declare themselves a strike.

 

[TexRex]

Hole in one.

 

[Blitz24]

Hole in one.

Upon further review, the goal stands. Touchdown Red Sox.

 

[TexRex]

Upon further review, the goal stands. Touchdown Red Sox.

[In French accent, softly over PA system] Ace.

 

[NotThePrez]

I thought the goal posts were way back there about Trump saying something.

Considering the fact that you gave an answer to a question nobody asked, then tried to skew your response as if it answered the question(s) actually asked of you, you have literally zero room to talk.

Guess I better get ready for those death squads.

Good to know that you're cool with having your constitutional rights erased, then.

 

[Boston77]

I can see your 5 hole.

 

[ryzno]

I can see your 5 hole.

I thought it was the 2 hole.
Oh wait...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Guess I better get ready for those death squads.

You mean a point where federal agencies perform extra-judicial killings in states?

 

[UKMikey]

Wait, what? Who's playing on who's fears?

OMG, this speech is so ironic.

 

[Tornado]

You mean a point where federal agencies perform extra-judicial killings in states?

Well he was already fine with federal agents abducting people without cause and throwing them through the court system to try and force something to stick, and he was okay with federal agents tear gassing peaceful protestors so Trump could do a publicity stunt targeted at him; so even before he spent two pages trying any way he could to weasel out of answering questions about Trump authorizing Judge Dredd law enforcement I would have assumed he would be okay with federal agents killing people as a matter of policy regardless of if he was willing to admit it. So long as they were people Trump didn't like, of course. LAW AND ORDER.



Trump saying the quiet part out loud on this is just an extension of the things Trump had already been doing, and it's not like any of that didn't have his base tripping over themselves to defend it. Like, realistically, did anyone actually expect Chrunch to respond any different to this?

Wait, what? Who's playing on who's fears?

That would still be the right, who are still trying to paint the Biden/Harris ticket as Super Communists based on reasoning even Fox News won't put up with when Trump tries to claim it in interviews with them.


You've been told this already as well, when you tried to repeat them as if anyone who posts in this subforum would be dumb enough to buy them.

 

[Famine]

Wait, what? Who's playing on who's fears?

Trump, yours. I mean, you quoted it (in among several instances of the word "you" for some reason).

We've seen him time and again talk about how the Democrats, or his rivals in Republican primaries/caucuses, will take away your guns and your 2A rights, playing on your fears to get your vote (and then banning bump stocks).

Then he says 5A literally doesn't exist, and you either don't notice or don't care. Or, like the Republican Party, are now so invested in Trump, you're scared of looking ridiculous and wave little Trump/Pence flags regardless of what he does.

I thought the goal posts were way back there about Trump saying something.

Yes, he said that Americans don't have any 5A protections. That's still the exact same thing I've said in every post on the topic, while you take punts at other things like who died, whether Trump ordered it, and "death squads" - and the Obama/Al-Awlaki thing you thought was a gotcha, but hadn't noticed I brought up first.

Guess I better get ready for those death squads.

Nobody but you has said anything about "death squads". Again, this is SOP - you bring up something nobody else said and hope we won't notice you're still flailing around and doing anything to avoid responding to the questions.

I suspect the answer is "Yes I'm okay with no longer having any 5A protections, because it's Donald Trump and not the evil left-wing Democrats."


I suppose it's good preparation for when he takes a dump on 20A and 22A, and you have to pretend that's okay too.

 

[Scaff]

Honest question, if someone killed someone very important to you do you:
A: Want to see the killer dead as soon as possible?
Or
B: Wait 5 years for the court to sentence them to a death sentence they'll probably die from old age before the state gets around to them because it's more about the prison making money than about actual justice?
Or
C: Hood justice and do it yourself?

None of the above.