The debates thread

[Spurminator]

Our lovely first lady

Seriously you've never touched a boob.

[Spurtacular]

You re s never stop complaining. Trump's campaign agreed to these moderators.

Again. The Presidential Debates Committee is beholden to the American people and not just Trump.
Their lack of standards is not good.

[Will Hunting]

Also why do this on a late night show with Hannity? If you're going to condemn white supremacists after all the media pressure, do it during a press conference where all of your media enemies are there to see.

(just to be clear I'm not saying he didn't condemn them, that statement is exactly what I said he should have said, it's just bizarre how he went about it)

[Spurtacular]

Seriously you've never touched a boob.

I'd ballpark it at one in three chumpettes have sucked .

[ChumpDumper]

Again. The Presidential Debates Committee is beholden to the American people and not just Trump.
Their lack of standards is not good.

you just shat on Trump's lack of standards for agreeing to the moderator

[Nathan89]

[ChumpDumper]

still trying to push the Hunter nothingburger

Stick to muh grievance.

[Bogie]

I'd ballpark it at one in three chumpettes have sucked .

look at the phobia

i can’t believe Joey has not woken up just to come here and tell you what a piece of you are, derp

[Bogie]

cool, now do the trump children

[Will Hunting]

I used to think Jimmy Dore was a genuine left winger who just hated the Democratic Party like I did, but he's gone full blown Tulsi hyping up every right wing boogeyman just to take a swipe at Democrats. Pretty soon he'll do a show about how mail-in ballots are fraudulent.

[Spurtacular]

I used to think Jimmy Dore was a genuine left winger who just hated the Democratic Party like I did, but he's gone full blown Tulsi hyping up every right wing boogeyman just to take a swipe at Democrats. Pretty soon he'll do a show about how mail-in ballots are fraudulent.

Yea, he doesn't swallow the corporate BS like you choose to do. Well not all of it anyways.

[Will Hunting]

Yea, he doesn't swallow the corporate BS like you choose to do. Well not all of it anyways.

says the guy who thinks Charles Koch has a cons utional right to buy elections

[Spurtacular]

says the guy who thinks Charles Koch has a cons utional right to buy elections

If you can cite something in the Cons ution that says people can't donate whatever amount, I'd like to see that.

[Will Hunting]

If you can cite something in the Cons ution that says people can't donate whatever amount, I'd like to see that.

The cons utions doesn't expressly prohibit it or provide it as a freedom. The right wing "originalist" SCOTUS justices decided to strike legislation limiting PAC donations by expanding the meaning of protected, 1st amendment speech to include the non-expressive action of a corporation spending money.

[Spurtacular]

The cons utions doesn't expressly prohibit it or provide it as a freedom. The right wing "originalist" SCOTUS justices decided to strike legislation limiting PAC donations by expanding the meaning of protected, 1st amendment speech to include the non-expressive action of a corporation spending money.

I have to agree with that decision. I don't want govt. telling people how to spend their money.

As it is, big government and big money are going hand and hand. But there are things such as term limits, tighter regulations on campaign funds, open transparency of money in this digital age, etc. which can be done to keep the process more honest though.

[Will Hunting]

I have to agree with that decision. I don't want govt. telling people how to spend their money.

As it is, big government and big money are going hand and hand. But there are things such as term limits, tighter regulations on campaign funds, open transparency of money in this digital age, etc. which can be done to keep the process more honest though.

The decision completely ignores what an "originalist" is supposed to be - someone who construes the cons ution as narrowly as possible and leaves legislation to the legislatures. Antonin Scalia and his ilk are originalists when it benefits them but then they become activist judges when it's left wing legislation they're looking to strike down.

Look at how much campaign spending has gone up since Citizens United. It was bad before but it's gotten exponentially worse. Kennedy's decision was also made on the faulty conclusion that PAC money was "independent" of the candidates and thus wouldn't corrupt them. I don't think the conclusion that PAC money would be "independent" of the candidate is a decision someone smart enough to be on the supreme court could ever reach in good faith. Furthermore, Kennedy assumed that there would be complete transparency as to where the money came from but his ruling actually led to billions in dark money being spent.

[Spurtacular]

The decision completely ignores what an "originalist" is supposed to be - someone who construes the cons ution as narrowly as possible and leaves legislation to the legislatures. Antonin Scalia and his ilk are originalists when it benefits them but then they become activist judges when it's left wing legislation they're looking to strike down.

Look at how much campaign spending has gone up since Citizens United. It was bad before but it's gotten exponentially worse. Kennedy's decision was also made on the faulty conclusion that PAC money was "independent" of the candidates and thus wouldn't corrupt them. I don't think the conclusion that PAC money would be "independent" of the candidate is a decision someone smart enough to be on the supreme court could ever reach in good faith. Furthermore, Kennedy assumed that there would be complete transparency as to where the money came from but his ruling actually led to billions in dark money being spent.

There's nothing in the Cons ution that says campaign contributions should be capped. That's as originalist as it gets.

[baseline bum]

Seriously you've never touched a boob.

Does every time in the shower tho

[Will Hunting]

There's nothing in the Cons ution that says campaign contributions should be capped. That's as originalist as it gets.

That's not how the law works. There can be separate legislation that limits campaign contributions as long as said separate legislation isn't uncons utional. The fact that it's expressly not written in the cons ution doesn't mean it's uncons utional.

Originalist means you construe the cons ution as literally and narrowly as possible (i.e., "speech" is literally speech and that's it) when legislation is being challenged in court. It doesn't mean you wipe legislation as uncons utional if it's not expressly written in the cons ution.

[Spurtacular]

That's not how the law works. There can be separate legislation that limits campaign contributions as long as said separate legislation isn't uncons utional. The fact that it's expressly not written in the cons ution doesn't mean it's uncons utional.

Originalist means you construe the cons ution as literally and narrowly as possible (i.e., "speech" is literally speech and that's it) when legislation is being challenged in court. It doesn't mean you wipe legislation as uncons utional if it's not expressly written in the cons ution.

Glad SCOTUS got this one right

[spurraider21]

I have to agree with that decision. I don't want govt. telling people how to spend their money.

As it is, big government and big money are going hand and hand. But there are things such as term limits, tighter regulations on campaign funds, open transparency of money in this digital age, etc. which can be done to keep the process more honest though.

so you're ok with activist judges as long as you agree with the outcome

[spurraider21]

That's not how the law works. There can be separate legislation that limits campaign contributions as long as said separate legislation isn't uncons utional. The fact that it's expressly not written in the cons ution doesn't mean it's uncons utional.

Originalist means you construe the cons ution as literally and narrowly as possible (i.e., "speech" is literally speech and that's it) when legislation is being challenged in court. It doesn't mean you wipe legislation as uncons utional if it's not expressly written in the cons ution.

thats like saying you cant make murder illegal because the cons ution doesnt say anything about murder

[Will Hunting]

thats like saying you cant make murder illegal because the cons ution doesnt say anything about murder

I don't think he understands the very basic relationship (and difference) between the cons ution and standard legislation that needs a simple majority vote

[Spurtacular]

so you're ok with activist judges as long as you agree with the outcome

I'm okay with Cons utional judges. There was nothing in the Cons ution that said caps on campaign contributions is uncons utional.

Don't try to make me out to be the subversive, pathological lite.

[Spurtacular]

thats like saying you cant make murder illegal because the cons ution doesnt say anything about murder

Actually, the Cons ution does say murder is uncons utional, dip .