Pages: 1 … 101 102 103 104 105 … 369

 

2017-01-13 04:53:05
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5622|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

you're changing your argument now. i don't care about clinton's business dealings. are you a constitutionalist or not? trump's hotel chains doing property and rent deals with companies that are chinese state-owned enterprises seems like a clear conflict of interests to me. seems that plenty of diplomacy could be lubricated that way.

also if you're a conspiracy nut about the clinton's finances, i'm sure you'll love how opaque and labyrinthine trump's business dealings are going to be for the next four years. scrutinizing clinton's email server will almost seem quaint.
There is a potential for corruption, yes, but it's not illegal for him to maintain his businesses. I'm not in the habit of supporting preventative police work, and I won't start now with him. Innocent until proven guilty.
the whole point of constitutional laws is to stop things getting to messy court trials. do you even understand how the constitution is used in the process of law? the emoluments clause ELIMINATES that potential. you are a tedious idiot.

also "preventative police work" what the duck are you even talking about?
Stop and frisk and other sorts based on stereotypes. Right now you're stereotyping Trump as a fat cat businessman who's going to sell his children into slavery for a buck. Get over your Marxist hangups you mong.

Last edited by Jay (2017-01-13 04:54:42)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2017-01-13 04:56:18
uziq
Member
+498|3716
dude can you talk about a single fucking thing?

to recap:

you're a strict constitutionalist who will fully misread the constitution regarding trump's business dealings.

he has businesses that do deals with foreign governments. the constitution has a clause explicitly forbidding state or federal holders of office from privately gaining from foreign entities.

you talk about 'oh it doesn't apply' (it does) and 'innocent until proven guilty' and  'preventative police work' as if you're making an argument.

are you a constitutionalist or not? seems not at the moment. perplexing as your line of reasoning is. i haven't said anything about him selling his children or me being a marxist. i cited the brookings institute for fucksake, that hardcore trotskyite cell ...

Last edited by uziq (2017-01-13 04:57:31)

2017-01-13 05:00:57
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5622|London, England

uziq wrote:

dude can you talk about a single fucking thing?

to recap:

you're a strict constitutionalist who will fully misread the constitution regarding trump's business dealings.

he has businesses that do deals with foreign governments. the constitution has a clause explicitly forbidding state or federal holders of office from privately gaining from foreign entities.

you talk about 'oh it doesn't apply' (it does) and 'innocent until proven guilty' and  'preventative police work' as if you're making an argument.

are you a constitutionalist or not? seems not at the moment. perplexing as your line of reasoning is. i haven't said anything about him selling his children or me being a marxist. i cited the brookings institute for fucksake, that hardcore trotskyite cell ...
I'm on topic, you're making shit up and stretching stuff to make a political point. I frankly don't care.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2017-01-13 05:04:17
uziq
Member
+498|3716
making shit up? i just cited a report. i am talking directly about a point of constitutional law that is highly relevant to this election.

you are now saying you don't want to enforce a clause in the constitution because you're against the principle of 'preventative police work'. it's beyond hilarious.
2017-01-13 05:09:42
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5622|London, England

uziq wrote:

making shit up? i just cited a report. i am talking directly about a point of constitutional law that is highly relevant to this election.

you are now saying you don't want to enforce a clause in the constitution because you're against the principle of 'preventative police work'. it's beyond hilarious.
You're fabricating dealings that could potentially happen in your head. None of it has happened. If it does happen, you prosecute him. This isn't that difficult to understand.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2017-01-13 05:18:42
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5622|London, England
And this is my main gripe with progressives: they live in a state of perpetual fear and paranoia, where imagined threats are just as real as actual ones, and preemptive laws must be written to snuff out any potential threat. They live in a constant Precautionary Principle state and it strangles them. I don't share your fears. I don't long for the couch and a calming, supportive voice to hold my hand.

Shit happens. You pick up the pieces afterwards.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2017-01-13 05:22:42
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6417|what

Jay wrote:

And this is my main gripe with progressives: they live in a state of perpetual fear and paranoia,


You can not be serious?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2017-01-13 05:22:56
uziq
Member
+498|3716

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

making shit up? i just cited a report. i am talking directly about a point of constitutional law that is highly relevant to this election.

you are now saying you don't want to enforce a clause in the constitution because you're against the principle of 'preventative police work'. it's beyond hilarious.
You're fabricating dealings that could potentially happen in your head. None of it has happened. If it does happen, you prosecute him. This isn't that difficult to understand.
you don't understand the point of constitutional clauses. they are there to prevent ever having to take something into a messy court. the whole point is that financial dealings are so labyrinthine that the court case would be an intractable affair. the idea is to make him divest of his business dealings up front so that the american people and court system aren't in a cat-and-mouse game with his accountants and lawyers for the next four years. it's a pretty simple principle, jay.

trump runs an international business empire. he is frequently involved in property deals, rents, hotel leases, etc., to foreign governments or their diplomats. he just bragged about turning down a $2 billion dollar deal with someone in dubai ffs.
2017-01-13 05:25:24
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6370|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

making shit up? i just cited a report. i am talking directly about a point of constitutional law that is highly relevant to this election.

you are now saying you don't want to enforce a clause in the constitution because you're against the principle of 'preventative police work'. it's beyond hilarious.
You're fabricating dealings that could potentially happen in your head. None of it has happened. If it does happen, you prosecute him. This isn't that difficult to understand.
Why have the second amendment - as long the the govt promises not to take anyone's guns why not just remove it?
You're fabricating dealings that could potentially happen in your head. None of it has happened.

Either you support the constitution or you don't, make up your mind.
Fuck Israel
2017-01-13 05:25:44
uziq
Member
+498|3716

Jay wrote:

And this is my main gripe with progressives: they live in a state of perpetual fear and paranoia, where imagined threats are just as real as actual ones, and preemptive laws must be written to snuff out any potential threat. They live in a constant Precautionary Principle state and it strangles them. I don't share your fears. I don't long for the couch and a calming, supportive voice to hold my hand.

Shit happens. You pick up the pieces afterwards.
are you a constitutionalist or not? because i would say the entire point of having a written constitution to refer to is a 'precautionary principle'. the ENTIRE point of having legal legislation in place as an authority to refer to is PRECAUTIONARY. all those freedoms the constitution grants you which you exercise every day without fear of having to prove yourself in court ...

fuck me you are dense.

Last edited by uziq (2017-01-13 05:27:33)

2017-01-13 05:28:17
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6370|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

And this is my main gripe with progressives: they live in a state of perpetual fear and paranoia, where imagined threats are just as real as actual ones, and preemptive laws must be written to snuff out any potential threat. They live in a constant Precautionary Principle state and it strangles them. I don't share your fears. I don't long for the couch and a calming, supportive voice to hold my hand.
Um, didn't you participate in the invasion of a foreign country, to snuff out a - wholly imagined - potential threat?
Is it the right or the left which is constantly wheeling out the trivial issue of Islamic terrorism on the other side of the world to keep you morons in a state of perpetual fear?

'Conservatives' tend to be the most radical, not progressives.
Fuck Israel
2017-01-13 05:42:10
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5622|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

And this is my main gripe with progressives: they live in a state of perpetual fear and paranoia,


You can not be serious?
Their whole worldview is one of fear. Every policy action is about controlling the world around them in order to make it more predictable and, in their eyes, safer. Fear of guns, fear of rednecks, fear of crime, fear of encountering different beliefs, fear of the unknown. It's the primary reason they're going ballistic over Trump. He doesn't fit into the stereotypes they have of the conservative white guy, and the unpredictability of it is making them preemptively shit the bed.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2017-01-13 05:44:08
uziq
Member
+498|3716
stop obfuscating the simple point with your tired bullshit dilbert.

jay fundamentally doesn't understand why the constitution is used as a legal document. he doesn't understand how much it would cost in time, money and human labour to take everything to court. he rails against 'precautionary' and 'paranoid' progressives, when the entire ethos of a constitution is intrinsically precautionary. there is no other way to describe it. it enshrines certain things as explicit first principles and inviolable conditions. you know, so for instance a (non-paranoid) right-wing militia nut doesn't have to go to court every single time he exercises his right to own or carry a gun.

what jay is saying is beyond stupid. he proclaims himself a constitutionalist and then invalidates the central legal point of a constitution. he says trump is exempt from an explicitly defined clause, one which, when read literally and in the spirit of scalia and his new poster boys, would find trump in serious legal wrong. yet jay says it doesn't count. it should be tried in court and argued out. in short, trump should make bend the constitution to his novel and idiosyncratic reading.

jay fundamentally doesn't know what he's talking about here. he starts moaning about preventative policing as if stop and frisk policies at the street level somehow have a bearing on using a constitution as a legal authority. stop going on about the iraq war. you are muddying the argument with your ranting bullshit.
2017-01-13 05:48:29
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5622|London, England

uziq wrote:

stop obfuscating the simple point with your tired bullshit dilbert.

jay fundamentally doesn't understand why the constitution is used as a legal document. he doesn't understand how much it would cost in time, money and human labour to take everything to court. he rails against 'precautionary' and 'paranoid' progressives, when the entire ethos of a constitution is intrinsically precautionary. there is no other way to describe it. it enshrines certain things as explicit first principles and inviolable conditions. you know, so for instance a (non-paranoid) right-wing militia nut doesn't have to go to court every single time he exercises his right to own or carry a gun.

what jay is saying is beyond stupid. he proclaims himself a constitutionalist and then invalidates the central legal point of a constitution. he says trump is exempt from an explicitly defined clause, one which, when read literally and in the spirit of scalia and his new poster boys, would find trump in serious legal wrong. yet jay says it doesn't count. it should be tried in court and argued out. in short, trump should make bend the constitution to his novel and idiosyncratic reading.

jay fundamentally doesn't know what he's talking about here. he starts moaning about preventative policing as if stop and frisk policies at the street level somehow have a bearing on using a constitution as a legal authority. stop going on about the iraq war. you are muddying the argument with your ranting bullshit.
Ok
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2017-01-13 05:49:29
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+644|3984

Jay wrote:

fear of crime, fear of encountering different beliefs, fear of the unknown.
Donald Trump just won an election by scaring people as much as possible about Mexicans and Muslims. Clinton didn't have deporting Muslims and building walls as part of her platform. The GOP has had nothing but fear and hate to run on. The liberals have only been interested in healthcare and college lately.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2017-01-13 05:49:57
uziq
Member
+498|3716
damn those precautionary progressives, drafting up legal constitutions so that no one could misrepresent or abuse their system in the future!
2017-01-13 05:54:33
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5622|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

fear of crime, fear of encountering different beliefs, fear of the unknown.
Donald Trump just won an election by scaring people as much as possible about Mexicans and Muslims. Clinton didn't have deporting Muslims and building walls as part of her platform. The GOP has had nothing but fear and hate to run on. The liberals have only been interested in healthcare and college lately.
Both sides do it. The left has their own doom and gloom shit too. "If you don't pass this environmental bill the polar ice caps will melt tomorrow and all the polar bears will die and your grandchildren will curse your name" blah blah blah. Protesting pipelines and using fear of leaks as the justification. Anti-vaxxer idiots like Kennedy pushing fear of autism on parents. Random Malthusians proclaiming the end of the world if we don't curb population growth. Fear is a useful political weapon but it's an awful basis for legislation.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2017-01-13 05:57:35
uziq
Member
+498|3716
trump is going to face an impeachment trial in his second year. you heard it here first. i just cast some tea leaves. jay isn't going to understand why. it will confuse him.
2017-01-13 05:58:21
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,054|7036|PNW

At this point the thread might as well be renamed to "Presidential Election 2020."
2017-01-13 05:58:30
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5622|London, England
If he is, he is.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2017-01-13 05:58:35
uziq
Member
+498|3716

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

fear of crime, fear of encountering different beliefs, fear of the unknown.
Donald Trump just won an election by scaring people as much as possible about Mexicans and Muslims. Clinton didn't have deporting Muslims and building walls as part of her platform. The GOP has had nothing but fear and hate to run on. The liberals have only been interested in healthcare and college lately.
Both sides do it. The left has their own doom and gloom shit too. "If you don't pass this environmental bill the polar ice caps will melt tomorrow and all the polar bears will die and your grandchildren will curse your name" blah blah blah. Protesting pipelines and using fear of leaks as the justification. Anti-vaxxer idiots like Kennedy pushing fear of autism on parents. Random Malthusians proclaiming the end of the world if we don't curb population growth. Fear is a useful political weapon but it's an awful basis for legislation.
when's the last time malthusians were in mainstream politics? that was a victorian scare.
2017-01-13 06:00:08
uziq
Member
+498|3716

Jay wrote:

If he is, he is.
very wise m8

again what i'm saying is that, as a self-proclaimed constitutionalist, you should be aggravating for it. trump is literally in contravention of a clause of the constitution. yet you don't care. so much for your shiny gold intellectual labels, mr legal constitutionalist.
2017-01-13 06:02:32
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+644|3984
Environmentalists are tiny part of the left. None of that shit even came up during the election. The liberals living in big cities by and large couldn't care less about the environment in rural America. Bernie ran on free college not saving trees in Minnesota.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2017-01-13 06:03:38
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5622|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:


Donald Trump just won an election by scaring people as much as possible about Mexicans and Muslims. Clinton didn't have deporting Muslims and building walls as part of her platform. The GOP has had nothing but fear and hate to run on. The liberals have only been interested in healthcare and college lately.
Both sides do it. The left has their own doom and gloom shit too. "If you don't pass this environmental bill the polar ice caps will melt tomorrow and all the polar bears will die and your grandchildren will curse your name" blah blah blah. Protesting pipelines and using fear of leaks as the justification. Anti-vaxxer idiots like Kennedy pushing fear of autism on parents. Random Malthusians proclaiming the end of the world if we don't curb population growth. Fear is a useful political weapon but it's an awful basis for legislation.
when's the last time malthusians were in mainstream politics? that was a victorian scare.
They're still prevalent here. They come at it obliquely, but there's a strong no-growth undergirding to the conservation movements because they fear population growth will end the world.

There are enough old hippies and spiritual types that read, or read about, "The Population Bomb" that it still colors their views.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2017-01-13 06:05:14
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5622|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Environmentalists are tiny part of the left. None of that shit even came up during the election. The liberals living in big cities by and large couldn't care less about the environment in rural America. Bernie ran on free college not saving trees in Minnesota.
Obama's legacy will be of expanding the EPA and dealing with climate change. Do you really think it has no impact on politics?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 … 101 102 103 104 105 … 369

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard