Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
He's not exactly a Republican, and doesn't support all the Republican party planks. Paul Ryan said something to the effect that it's important that the GOP nominates a Republican, and shouldn't grant the nomination to someone who doesn't measure up.
If the people support someone who does not support the planks, then maybe they should take a hint and change the planks.
I disagree. I think it's better to stand for something and let the votes fall where they may. Don't nominate a guy simply because he's popular, or resonates with a particular electorate. Nominate who stands for the party's values. Let that other guy find the party he actually fits in.
Who should determine the party's values - other than the people who are actually IN the party? If the majority of party members say what their values are, isn't it up to the party to reflect that in their platform?
Should the Democrats be allowed to join the GOP without adopting the GOP's party planks?
Party leadership should determine the party planks. It should be up to the party leadership, too, to not nominate a candidate that stands for the party planks. Hell, any candidate that doesn't stand for the party planks shouldn't have even been allowed to run for the party's nomination.
Have to partly agree. People have to have something to count on. but these planks are WRONG and must be changed. Who is to change them ? Well I think if someone gets elected President he might just be qualified to change the planks.
You know, if Trump gets the chair, and doesn't start the religious shit about abortion and all that, he could revitalize the republican party. They aren't that great but they know math.
No President can do whatever they want. For example, Obama could write an EO right now banning all guns in private possession. Know what would happen ? Fucking nothing. First of all, there would be no budget to confiscate them, second of all the courts have already ruled and it would be immediately struck down. I know very few EO have been struck down by the courts, but this one surely would be.
Know what surprises me ? Nixon's wage and price freeze. Remember that ? Totally unconstitutional, but legal under Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction. Which we have been since the 1930s. There is no Constitution, and the only hand you hold in court is to threaten to reveal that fact. I have told of that concept before and will not reiterate it now.
Bottom line, the President is not a dictator, though the candidates might not know this. Checks and balances. And now, some people complain becasue republican congress has up and just said "We ain't approving ANYONE you propose for the supreme court". I believe that they believe that they are doing the job for which they were elected.
And maybe they are. If not we could lose our guns and a bunch of other rights. That court is what keeps the legislature and regulatory agencies in check. Without them we would be as fucked as Europeans. No freedom of speech, telly taxes, no guns even though there are animals running around. Fuck all that, we got this country BECAUSE we wanted away from that shit. And I intend to keep it that way. And if they are afraid to come here GOOD. Stay home.
If you want to buy a 1970s or 1960s car with a big block V8 and soup it up and drive like a maniac, and buy a gun and learn how to shoot, ad get like a thousand watt stereo and go drinking, come on over. But if you don't wat that life, stay where you are. And I wish you well, I really do. Just keep your ideology there. You come here you adapt to us.
T^T
|
RE: Roger Stone threatening Delegates in Cleveland? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread