Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Felya]

Its only a "Fact" because the election chief (Who is also a staunch Trump hating Democrat) said so. Do you just believe what youre told without question or proof? Guess you dont believe in if there is smoke there must be fire or if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, its a duck. But youd say well the guy in charge said it was really a porcupine so its a porcupine

Yea... it’s only a fact if Trump approves... there is a word for it...

[PhaelixWW]

The Supreme Court doesnt get to supercede the Constitution and the Constition states that we have the right to assemble. It doesnt say we have the right to assemble unless a governor thinks its a bad idea or unsafe. And that statement was when it still had a majority liberal amount of justices who dont care about the Constitution anyway. They always rule on emotion or "what should be right" rather than the Constitution

What are you blathering on about? There are absolutely limitations on Constitutional rights. There must be a "compelling state interest" and the limitation must be "narrowly tailored" to the specific danger, but they do exist.

[Orlong]

*Just starts snickering in amusement* Thanks for showing you don't understand what the Supreme Court does, as well as not understanding the Founder's intentions when it came to the Constitution.

They interpret the Constitution when necessary, but there is nothing to interpret about a straight forward sentence that leaves no room for context such as:

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

They only thing that could possibly need interpreted is how peaceful peacefully is. There is nothing about going to church that isnt peaceful (when they shut down churches they also broke the freedom to practice religion). There is nothing about going to a high school football game that is not peaceful, nor is there anything about going to a restaurant and eat that isnt peaceful

- - - Updated - - -

What are you blathering on about? There are absolutely limitations on Constitutional rights. There must be a "compelling state interest" and the limitation must be "narrowly tailored" to the specific danger, but they do exist.

Where does it state that in the Constitution? I dont mean what did the court say about limitations. There is nothing written into the Constitution saying its ok to ignore parts of it as long as its for a good reason or if it seems to be the right thing to do. The only thing it says is if you dont like it or want to change it, heres the process. It doesnt say get the SCOTUS to override it. If you want limitations then vote on them using the process written in the Constitution

[Waniou]

They interpret the Constitution when necessary, but there is nothing to interpret about a straight forward sentence that leaves no room for context such as:

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

They only thing that could possibly need interpreted is how peaceful peacefully is. There is nothing about going to church that isnt peaceful (when they shut down churches they also broke the freedom to practice religion). There is nothing about going to a high school football game that is not peaceful, nor is there anything about going to a restaurant and eat that isnt peaceful

- - - Updated - - -



Where does it state that in the Constitution? I dont mean what did the court say about limitations. There is nothing written into the Constitution saying its ok to ignore parts of it as long as its for a good reason or if it seems to be the right thing to do. The only thing it says is if you dont like it or want to change it, heres the process. It doesnt say get the SCOTUS to override it. If you want limitations then vote on them using the process written in the Constitution

It's not very peaceful to spread a virus that's killed 200,000 people in America and a million worldwide.

[Polyxo]

They interpret the Constitution when necessary, but there is nothing to interpret about a straight forward sentence that leaves no room for context such as:

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

They only thing that could possibly need interpreted is how peaceful peacefully is. There is nothing about going to church that isnt peaceful (when they shut down churches they also broke the freedom to practice religion). There is nothing about going to a high school football game that is not peaceful, nor is there anything about going to a restaurant and eat that isnt peaceful

- - - Updated - - -



Where does it state that in the Constitution? I dont mean what did the court say about limitations. There is nothing written into the Constitution saying its ok to ignore parts of it as long as its for a good reason or if it seems to be the right thing to do. The only thing it says is if you dont like it or want to change it, heres the process. It doesnt say get the SCOTUS to override it. If you want limitations then vote on them using the process written in the Constitution

Okay. No limits then. We all have the right to assemble in your living room at 3 am.

[Orlong]

And courts have repeatedly upheld the right to restrict gatherings for public health reasons. Get over it. And nobody is stopping people from practicing any religion, just from spreading a virus.

Really, because our Governor just got his shot down:

Judge Stickman explained in a 66-page opinion his analysis of the evidence, factual findings and his rationale in holding that the restrictions violate the right of assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment. They also said the judge was correct in finding that the stay-at-home orders and business closure components of the governor's order violate the due process clause and the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

[Zaydin]

Trump is saying on Twitter that he's opposed to any rule changes for the debates meant to reign in his behavior.

He also maintains his delusion that he won the debate.

[beanman12345]

Trump is saying on Twitter that he's opposed to any rule changes for the debates meant to reign in his behavior.

He also maintains his delusion that he won the debate.

law and order president.

[Zaydin]

law and order president.

Well, if the CPD goes ahead and changes the rules and Trump uses that as an excuse to not show up, Biden should show up, ask 'Where's Trump?' and then spend the rest of the time answering questions and jumping on Trumps bloated stomach.

[Thepersona]

Trump is saying on Twitter that he's opposed to any rule changes for the debates meant to reign in his behavior.

He also maintains his delusion that he won the debate.

This will not bode well for him onto the 2nd debate, if he really thinks he won.

[PhaelixWW]

Where does it state that in the Constitution? I dont mean what did the court say about limitations. There is nothing written into the Constitution saying its ok to ignore parts of it as long as its for a good reason or if it seems to be the right thing to do. The only thing it says is if you dont like it or want to change it, heres the process. It doesnt say get the SCOTUS to override it. If you want limitations then vote on them using the process written in the Constitution

What a childish notion.

Limitations must come into play when one right comes into conflict with another. But as they are both rights, the concept of "strict scrutiny" has been evolved to limit the limitations, as it were. Anything beyond the scope of strict scrutiny must be Amended through the normal process.

[Templar 331]

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

200,000 dead Americans isn't free.

[Thepersona]

200,000 dead Americans isn't free.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong here.

It's 210.000+ dead americans, and counting

[Polyxo]

Really looking forward to seeing Steve Scully patiently chastising Trump and threatening to cut his mic.

[Breccia]

Trump is saying on Twitter that he's opposed to any rule changes for the debates meant to reign in his behavior..

He has two choices.

1) Comply.

2) Cower in fear.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, if the CPD goes ahead and changes the rules

Get it right: the CPD is not changing the rules. The CPD is enforcing the rules. Trump is the one who broke the rules. Well, more than Biden, Wallace was very clear.

Hope we can all agree on that one.

[Zaydin]

He has two choices.

1) Comply.

2) Cower in fear.

- - - Updated - - -



Get it right: the CPD is not changing the rules. The CPD is enforcing the rules. Trump is the one who broke the rules. Well, more than Biden, Wallace was very clear.

Hope we can all agree on that one.

I suppose I phrased things poorly. The CPD is considering changes to allow the moderator to enforce the rules and Trump is balking at that.

I won't be shocked if Trump uses this as an excuse to not show up for the remaining debates, claiming the whole thing is rigged against him. Joe Biden can then show up and spend the entire time jumping on Trumps bloated stomach.

[Machismo]

The Supreme Court doesnt get to supercede the Constitution and the Constition states that we have the right to assemble. It doesnt say we have the right to assemble unless a governor thinks its a bad idea or unsafe. And that statement was when it still had a majority liberal amount of justices who dont care about the Constitution anyway. They always rule on emotion or "what should be right" rather than the Constitution

- - - Updated - - -



Pretty much a list of Bush Officials who were ticked off that Jeb didnt get elected and have Hated Trump since before he was elected. Also the majority of them have been labeled as RINOs since well before Trump was in office so it doesnt surprise me. They are exactly the swamp creatures we wanted to get rid of. Now if we could only get rid of the Loch Ness Monsters of the Swamp

Are you fucking serious?

That is literally their job, rule on the constitutionality of laws, based on the United States Constitution. They are the end-all interpreters of it. Now, you may disagree with their ruling, but that is where such things stop. You cannot appeal further... SO, for all intents and purposes, the SCOTUS is the United States Constitution in living form.

Considering you want to ban small portions, gay marriage, and pineapple on pizza (along with plenty of other inane shit) you are simply being a lying hypocrite.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump is saying on Twitter that he's opposed to any rule changes for the debates meant to reign in his behavior.

He also maintains his delusion that he won the debate.

Trump is free to not show up to the rest of them. Biden can still show up, make it a 2-hour joke fest about how the adults finally get to have a reasonable talk, and can lay out his plan without interruption of petulant children.

Of course, we know Trump won't back out, because his ego cannot take the shot.

[Felya]

Pretty much a list of Bush Officials who were ticked off that Jeb didnt get elected and have Hated Trump since before he was elected. Also the majority of them have been labeled as RINOs since well before Trump was in office so it doesnt surprise me. They are exactly the swamp creatures we wanted to get rid of. Now if we could only get rid of the Loch Ness Monsters of the Swamp

The choice to use a fictional monster is solid... the inhabitants of this swamp Trump talks about, exist just as much as Loch Ness.

[postman1782]

Yeah, and I dont believe its a mistake either. Its the election chief appointed by our left wing Nazi Governor (who mulitple times has been told by the courts that his orders to stay home are unconstitutional because they violate our constitutional right to assemble, yet he keeps appealing saying it saves lives (doesnt matter if its a good idea or if it saves lives, its unconstitutional). that claims it was a mistake. Sorry I dont take his word for it. You dont accidentally throw away 9 ballots that just happen to have been opened and all have Trumps name on them. Also if it was a mistake why did they fire the worker who did it and why did it take until it was all over the news for the firing to happen

Nazis are right wing. And everything else you said is bullshit.

[Breccia]

\
I won't be shocked if Trump uses this as an excuse to not show up for the remaining debates\

He has good reason to, yes. He didn't debate last time, he shouted. And that won't work this time.

The other side of that idea, however, is he would admit cowardice and defeat by not attending. And I still hope the CPD would allow Biden to debate an empty stool, though that might depend on how far in advance Trump flakes.

Trump's only good option is to defend his record on the merits. Problem is, if I remember correctly, the next debate's a town hall format and he can't control the questions.