Nobody’s mentioned gun control but that seems to be a major issue among Clinton opponents. They believe she will figure out ways to work around the Second Amendment and enact strict gun control laws.
Just like Obama did.
She won’t get anything of any gravity done. It will be 4 more years of Obama-esque dysfunction.
Yeah, i don’t understand how Clinton can be a threat to gun ownership, because, as we were repeatedly promised by the second amendment crowd, all the guns have been taken by Obama.
I absolutely reject your premise.
Scalia, in particular, has authored a number of decisions that run counter to the “far-right conservative,” desired outcome but are mandated by the text. I’d suggest that the left wing of the Court, in contrast, is quite willing to admit that the text is secondary to the evolving standards of decency argument – that is, the lefties are open about their desire to sublimate the text to their notion of better social outcomes.
I believe that a strict construction of the text is most consistent with our notions of self-governance, because it means that when we pass a law, or a constitutional provision, we, the people, have decided what it means, and a future court will not change the meaning sua sponte to comport with what those judges feel is an evolved standard of decency.
The 5-4 vote is not an indicia of rightness or wrongness no matter which side triumphs. I always acknowledge the necessary finality of the Court’s decisions, regardless of the bitterness of the dissent. My point is that the underlying interpretive methodology should be always to give precedence to the text as opposed to the evolved standards of decency that the judges believe they can perceive.
I think i see a problem here.
You wanted no personal attacks, so you placed your question in the Pit instead of in elections.
You wanted no personal attacks, so when two hours had passed on a Sunday without a response, you decided to insult the very people from whom you were seeking explanations.
The pantsuits and frocks will need some tweaking, yes. How many Blackberries are hiding in there? Those must be taken away. Texting and pics to Bill and Chelsea only. And selfies to get concensus on “does my ass look big in this?” I suggest black and gray only, with black tops best.
In my opinion, she’d love to do that, and would do that if the opportunity arose, but I doubt that the opportunity would arise.
All other things being equal, of course, I would prefer not to have a president that wanted such a thing.
But in this election, all other things are not equal, and so to avoid a worse outcome I am willing to accept a president that wants such a thing.
Why is that interesting? Are you under the impression that there are any Trump supporters on this board? The Dope has done everything it can to drive away anyone even a tad right of center. The number of remaining conservatives is so small, you could list them by name. Not even Bricker is a Trump voter. Why didn’t you just name the supporters in your title?
How have you acquired the delusion that “Trump supporter” and “conservative” are even remotely related? Trump himself isn’t even conservative, he’s a carnival barker. Entirely different things. This is completely aside from the other delusion that conservatives are systematically persecuted here by TPTB.
Trump ran on the Republican platform because he correctly perceived that that’s where almost all the rubes were. He was more than happy to dump them and run as an independent, and would have, if that had gotten him further. He could also have run as a Democrat, but there weren’t nearly enough stupid rubes to support that.
I have felt tremendous hostility here based on my conservative views.
I agree that systematic persecution by “the powers,” is not an accurate claim, but neither is it correct to imagine that the SDMB is welcoming, or even neutral, to conservative posters. And I’m not talking about attacks on conservative positions, but attacks on me, personally, because I am conservative. Those type of attacks have been emblematic of participation here.
Why is that something to fear, and how would it damage your country?
Because abortion is homicide and I believe in protecting the lives of innocent human persons to the extent possible.
Actually I do. And I did. Now buzz off.
Okay, it upsets you. But that’s your personal opinion on the matter. What I wanted to know was how your country would be damaged by it.
Depends.
You certainly get to attempt to dictate – that is, you can announce rules for the thread until your fingers turn blue.
But at least to my thinking, “to dictate,” implies both the issuance of directives and enforcing compliance with them. In this, D’Anconia is correct: you cannot accomplish this.
So it all depends on what you mean by “to dictate.”
Interestingly, there is exactly one thread participant where you do have the power to enforce your dictates: your own conduct is certainly subject to your dictates.
Even there, however, your power fails – you flouted your own guidance.
I kind of think 'countenancing / facilitating the killing of innocent human persons" is a form of damage to the country in and on itself. At the very least, there are lots of unborn humans who are ‘damaged’.
So–why don’t you direct some of that hostility toward Hillary? Please explain how she will damage the country in four years. Or eight years.
Do you just dislike “pushy” women?
What form does this damage take? I live in a place where abortion is legal from conception to birth and we seem to tick along nicely. What would improve should women be forced to bear children against their will?
In general, more murder is seen as a bad thing and if you think (Like Hector St. Clare) that abortion is murder does this really need further explaining?
Some people believe forcing women to bear children even when they don’t want those children is a lesser evil than murdering babies.
Just for the record, I myself am a staunch supporter of a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, but while I disagree with those who believe abortion is murder I don’t have a problem with understanding their desire to outlaw it.