To add to my earlier post, a constitutional amendment can happen one of two ways: The amendment is proposed with a joint resolution of Congress receiving support of a full 2/3 of each house. It then must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. A constitutional convention can occur if it is called for by 2/3 of the states, as voiced by their respective legislatures. At a constitutional convention, everything in the document is potentially up for grabs. It could be rewritten from scratch if that's what the convention decides. The first will never happen because it's a total non-starter amongst congress. The second Trump proposed it, McConnell came out and said the Senate wasn't even going to consider it. It's an area where the President has no direct power, and the Senate/House hates the idea across both parties. The second has never happened before. Every existing amendment has happened through the first process. A constitutional convention can literally do anything it wants, and there's zero chance that the states take that kind of risk for something as wishy washy as congressional term limits.
And again, I actually think this is a good idea, but as a realist who has seen how our government works, I know it will never ever pass; more over, like I said, I don't think we'll see another constitutional amendment in our lifetime. It was a classic example of "shit I'll say I can do that I really can't but it doesn't matter because people will believe it anyway." This is why I think all those "drain the swamp" people who think he is going to end corruption in Washington are going to either be hilariously sad following his Presidency or that was just why they SAID they voted for him but in reality they just liked his "other" ideas (I.e. Get rid of all those scary brown people.)
Well, this will be interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...reince-priebus-donald-trump-white-house-staff Donald Trump Sunday named Reince Priebus as his White House chief of staff, rewarding a loyalist to his party and its long-serving chairman by making him his top aide in the Oval Office. Trump, however, also named Steve Bannon, the head of his campaign and of the far-right website Breitbart, as his “chief strategist and senior counselor”.
Also read that he's wanting to split time between the White House and Trump Tower (not unreasonable, especially if he spent weekdays at the WH and weekends at his house like people going to DC). I've read various things about Trump walking back the building the wall talk, not getting as extreme on LGBT issues, he wants to keep certain parts of Obamacare (staying on parents' health insurance until you're 26, can't deny due to pre-existing conditions).... I am cautiously optimistic about him now. A few years ago he was a democrat, and it's looking like all his talk was just pandering for votes. If his current path holds, I give it another week before the people who voted for him start protesting because he isn't doing what they thought. I just have this tingling feeling in my gut that he might actually be.... good? I hope I'm right. Even though he didn't get my vote, he is getting me a little excited right now.
Yeah, I don't really look at those as promising appointments... kind of the opposite direction I was hoping for.
Yea and the whole trump tower thing would be an unmitigated nightmare for the city of new York. There's no way to secure the area enough to make it completely safe. He has to be completely overwhelmed with everything right now and all these little shitbags are just so eager to have his ear because they know that he doesn't know shit about anything and could be easily manipulated by those around him. Steve Bannon? Really? Can't wait to see the wonderful ideas coming from that guy.
If I were going to compare Trump to any previous President, I'd compare him to Warren G Harding. That's not good. Basically he was an idiot and depended on his aids to make all his decisions. He claimed he would always consult the best and brightest. They proceeded to steal and be corrupt as fuck (see: teapot dome) while Harding himself was mostly clueless. He was known for being likeable to a large portion of the population and playing late night poker games with his buddies and drinking (note: he was President during the start of prohibition). He frequently flip flopped and changed his positions depending on who talked to him most recently. A famous quote: "I can't make a damn thing out of this tax problem. I listen to one side, and they seem right, and then—God!—I talk to the other side, and they seem just as right." He also had an affair (there is zero chance Trump isn't caught banging a maid or something). Based on his appointees so far, yeah, I see it going poorly.
To be fair, its tough to compare them when one completed (or somewhat completed) his term almost 100 years ago and the other hasn't been inaugurated yet. Anyone else catch Trump's 60 Minutes interview last night? The only thing that he (clearly) hadn't thought through was his Roe v Wade comment. "Women will just have to go to other states to get abortions," is probably going to haunt him, even though I (think) I knew what he was trying to say. He needs to let Ivanka do all the talking for him, shes much more eloquent and measured. It doesnt make much sense that he considered gay marriage to be settled law but Roe v Wade should go back to the states, but that's where we are. I don't agree with abortion, but even I don't agree with overturning it. I'm also not sure what the issue is with his illegal immigration stance. He wants to deport aliens that have committed felonies. Obama is already doing that and has deported 2.5 million of them. Whats the issue here? I understand that he needs to lay a roadmap for citizenship for everyone else and the vagueness leads to uncertainly and tension, and as it stands the plan is incomplete and is need of a detailed outline. The whole electoral college thing is silly and stinks of spilt milk. Lets discuss its merits when the Democrats aren't on day 6 of waking up triggered.
I think the main issue is the common perception of the Democratic party. A lot of people believe that Obama isn't doing anything of the sort and is just looking the other way, because "everyone knows" Democrats/Liberals love illegal immigrants. All he has to do is continue doing what Obama's already doing and he'll get credit for it.
Comments like this bug me because you act like democrats made up outrage culture or are the only ones who participate. How is that "war on Christmas" going, by the way? I tell every Fox News viewer I see happy holidays and giggle as they lose their shit and scream "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" In the most angry way possible.
I think a lot of the pro-choice crowd really fucks up the idea of abortion. No one agrees with abortion, and no one wants to have an abortion. I think the best way to deal with this is with education and better access to birth control. Because as we all know the following are illegal - gun crimes, drugs, etc. But people still do them. The best way to make abortions go away is to make it so people don't need them.
You realize the pro-life movement fights tooth and nail against education and birth control access, right? Because it sure as fuck isn't the pro-choice crowd that's clamoring for abstinence-only sex ed or the right for employers to select health plans that don't cover birth control.
I am cautiously optimistic until I look at the appointees. And fuck the labels....I am for a lot of what Trump says, like being tougher on illegal immigration. I am as liberal minded as they come because this country's safety net is a joke and got labelled a crutch. we need a functioning government and if you don't believe that, go to fucking Somalia and see how it works out. that said, I am all for some revisions of what we do about education, health care and immigration. not to mention someone needs to scare the fuck out of Russia and china... I am not for "belief guided" issues like abortion...and I can't fathom the logic that the conservative, small government party gets involved in that. The Republican mantra in my mind should be legalize everything. But for the love of Christ not the the epa. between climate change and the flint water crisis, please leave that shit intact. we can weather a four year storm of idiotic deregulation in finance or whatever, but climate change is real kids and it's not going to be wished away. Optimistic, but the people he's appointing remind me very much of the GW Bush years and that went tits up moment two. And I would give a testicle to hear George Carlin and Bill hicks discuss this election.
I do understand this, and like most things the truth lies in the middle of the spectrum. The vocal pro-life people think sex is bad, and all sex outside of procreation will lead to bad things. The vocal pro-choice people make it seem like everyone is having abortions all day long and this is a control over women issue. The truth is in the middle. I understand how people can be anti-abortion and not be hating on women. At the surface it really does seem like killing a baby. I don't agree with this. On the other hand I also see why it is a control over women issue. The people in the middle aren't the ones clamoring for abortions for all/abstinence for all. I'm sure at least 50% of the population falls in the middle. Instead of being militant about it, maybe we as a could come together and find a solution everyone is happy with (where people still have access to abortion, but people don't need to have them).
So dont let it bug you, its really that simple. The way you pivoted into a bizarre rant about Christmas and Fox News when we are discussing reactions to the election is puzzling. The point is, the time to discuss mechanism in which we elect a President is not when the Democrats are slowly recovering from a melodramatic reaction to a Trump presidency. I get it, you don't agree with what he stands for. I don't really like him either nor did I vote for him, but its important to give him a chance to do something and not to light torches and march on the White House because we don't like the outcome.
Uh, no, it's the pro-life crowd that's spreading that propaganda. Where are all these vocal pro-choice people you speak of? Audrey's probably the most vocal pro-choice person on this board and I don't recall her ever yelling "Abortions now, abortions tomorrow, abortions forever!" By far the most vocal people are the pro-life crowd; They're the ones out protesting Planned Parenthood all the time.
I think falling down the abortion rabbit hole is a bad idea. However, I think there is a false interpretation the pro-choice crowd gets and that is calling them "pro-abortion". You can be both pro choice and anti abortion. They aren't mutually exclusive. Its just that one group feels they shouldn't have a say over how a woman handles a pregnancy and the other group does.
Just watched the most recent Real Time with Bill Maher, and it was pretty interesting. Anyone else catch it?