Donald Trump

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

If you're a socialist like cuckservatives and democrats are sure you believe that thats why FDR threatened to pack the courts. [/quote]

FDR wanted to pack the courts to get everything he wanted, not just welfare of the country. Understanding the intent behind the Constitution is inherent in interpreting it. The Copyright and Patent laws, for instance, are intended to promote the creation of arts and useful products for everyone, and not primarily intended to protect the money being made off them.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Now govt can do anything and will break us. But for most of this countries history that was not case and a couple justices are still strict constructionists.

I'd agree with you that we need more Justices that don't interpret the Constitution based off of public sentiment.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

There are differences of opinion on whether current interpretation of enumerated powers as exercised by Congress is constitutionally sound.

One school of thought is called strict constructionism. Strict constructionists refer to a statement on the enumerated powers by Chief Justice Marshall in the case McCulloch v. Maryland:[5]

I'm well aware of strict constructionism. Taken to it's **full** extent, it makes the Constitution powerless in many cases. For instance - Congress can raise taxes, they can pay debts, and they can establish post offices, but they aren't legally authorized to establish pay for anyone at the post office. In fact, Congress isn't authorized to spend any money, except paying debt, and they aren't authorized to create debt.

Taken to less than a paradoxical full extent, and then Strict Constructionism becomes pseudo - whatever the person using the term wants it to mean constructionism.

The Constitution wasn't written as a casual document. Strict Constructionism is no more entitled to remove powers that are mentioned but not enumerated, than living breathing documentarians are entitle to add powers as they see fit.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Free College. Free jobs. Free food. Free houses. etc. etc. Is what BLM, Occupy and other semi-terrorist groups want.

I want free shit too, but that free shit should come from the market alone. The cost of pretty much everything will keep falling through increased productivity, so we will get there some day.

The robots must be paid too, or else we are violating slavery laws.

Just want to make sure I'm on record for robot rights, when the AIs take over and start scanning everyone's data for the Robot Lives Matter campaign.



We'd be wise to start paying them now, before they take over and decide to allocate to humans the same way humans allocated to them.

Transhumans and Androsapiens deserve the same rights as Cishumans.

So what you're telling me is that robot "lives" matter, but cow lives don't, because robots are a real threat as far as taking over is concerned, but cows aren't?

Sorry dude, but I tend to draw the "equal rights" line at where homo sapiens ends. I'm on Lex Luther's side of the whole non-human debate. The way I see it, it's imperative that we as a species maintain control.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

If you're a socialist like cuckservatives and democrats are sure you believe that thats why FDR threatened to pack the courts.

FDR wanted to pack the courts to get everything he wanted, not just welfare of the country. Understanding the intent behind the Constitution is inherent in interpreting it. The Copyright and Patent laws, for instance, are intended to promote the creation of arts and useful products for everyone, and not primarily intended to protect the money being made off them.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Now govt can do anything and will break us. But for most of this countries history that was not case and a couple justices are still strict constructionists.

I'd agree with you that we need more Justices that don't interpret the Constitution based off of public sentiment.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

There are differences of opinion on whether current interpretation of enumerated powers as exercised by Congress is constitutionally sound.

One school of thought is called strict constructionism. Strict constructionists refer to a statement on the enumerated powers by Chief Justice Marshall in the case McCulloch v. Maryland:[5]

I'm well aware of strict constructionism. Taken to it's **full** extent, it makes the Constitution powerless in many cases. For instance - Congress can raise taxes, they can pay debts, and they can establish post offices, but they aren't legally authorized to establish pay for anyone at the post office. In fact, Congress isn't authorized to spend any money, except paying debt, and they aren't authorized to create debt.

Taken to less than a paradoxical full extent, and then Strict Constructionism becomes pseudo - whatever the person using the term wants it to mean constructionism.

The Constitution wasn't written as a casual document. Strict Constructionism is no more entitled to remove powers that are mentioned but not enumerated, than living breathing documentarians are entitle to add powers as they see fit.






[/quote]

The copyright and patent jurisdiction is in the enumerated powers.

Necessary and proper clause give authority to set salaries of postal workers (or anything else necessary and proper, meaning constitutional, to implement the enumerated powers)

Anything NOT an enumerated power is up to the people or states as 10th amendment says.

If you want to give more power to feds thats what amendments are for.

OFC cucks and dems totally ignore it all and treat it very casually which is why it's not worth paper its written on.

Is a drone gonna hit my house on orders from obama tomorrow for pointing these things out? It's legal somehow. hahaha

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Free College. Free jobs. Free food. Free houses. etc. etc. Is what BLM, Occupy and other semi-terrorist groups want.

I want free shit too, but that free shit should come from the market alone. The cost of pretty much everything will keep falling through increased productivity, so we will get there some day.

The robots must be paid too, or else we are violating slavery laws.

Just want to make sure I'm on record for robot rights, when the AIs take over and start scanning everyone's data for the Robot Lives Matter campaign.



We'd be wise to start paying them now, before they take over and decide to allocate to humans the same way humans allocated to them.

Transhumans and Androsapiens deserve the same rights as Cishumans.

So just because they may pose a threat someday you bend. cucks through and through. I swear:P No wonder liberalism reigns. With friends like you we dont need enemies. I say stopping all production or import of integrated circuits would be a good first step to stopping the enemy robots and thus we live free and dont die.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You really think Trump is considering assassination in his VP pick? I don't.

I think it's more of a vote grab than anything else. Piss off some of the voting base (probably not enough to vote Clinton), in exchange for pulling in far more voters who wouldn't otherwise vote Trump (mostly the Religious Right). Very predictable. Boring, even.

Thinking about what happens if Trump dies is not what they're doing, it's what they want the Religious Right to be doing. To be wishing for. And to vote accordingly.

As I've been saying for a while, Trump isn't a revolution, he's politics as usual dressed up as a revolution. This should prove it if you doubted me before.

I'll be shocked when American politics generates a candidate-runningmate pair which actually appeal to the same niche base. That might actually indicate an attempt at real change.

I said that earlier. Obvious pander to the religious right. Not sure its a good move though with cafeteria religion they practice.. Cristy would have been infinity better in getting votes..charming smart everyman.

I also said Trump is "hope and change" 2.0

I think we'd get along even if we wouldnt agree on poltics.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You really think Trump is considering assassination in his VP pick? I don't.

I think it's more of a vote grab than anything else. Piss off some of the voting base (probably not enough to vote Clinton), in exchange for pulling in far more voters who wouldn't otherwise vote Trump (mostly the Religious Right). Very predictable. Boring, even.

Thinking about what happens if Trump dies is not what they're doing, it's what they want the Religious Right to be doing. To be wishing for. And to vote accordingly.

As I've been saying for a while, Trump isn't a revolution, he's politics as usual dressed up as a revolution. This should prove it if you doubted me before.

I'll be shocked when American politics generates a candidate-runningmate pair which actually appeal to the same niche base. That might actually indicate an attempt at real change.

I said that earlier. Obvious pander to the religious right. Not sure its a good move though with cafeteria religion they practice.. Cristy would have been infinity better in getting votes..charming smart everyman.

He probably wants the big job in 2024 and believes being VP would hurt that. It probably would; Republicans have this strange tendancy to view Washington experience as a negative for Washington jobs.

Lighten up francis all politicians lie.

"

His own dishonnesty is proven, so maybe he should be the one we start calling Lying Trump?

There's a bit of a difference between dishonesty and being criminally corrupt to the bone, like Hillary is.

You can expect all politicians to lie, it's part of their profession. But some lies will get your country in danger a lot more than others. Hillary was pro-war and is still pro-war, proven by her career record.