The DNC convention thread -- all things convention go here

[RockyTop85]

I don’t blame all the worlds problems on attorneys. I did go big when I went one ( you ) and listened straight from the horses mouth about how sh!tty they are . I believe you . I never said we could have a government without you mules , my original post said to leave my rights alone . You got pissy and wanted me to know that I wouldn’t have any without attorneys. Sac up and toughen up . Like I said , I’m a southern white boy that’s a truck driver . If I can take the heat from that you can suck it up and take the heat from your chosen profession . Counselor.

I guess “without the word salad” was too much to ask. I accept your apology.

 

[0nelilreb]

I guess “without the word salad” was too much to ask. I accept your apology.

I didn’t apologize and won’t for telling you to sac up . How’s that for simple ? Lol

 

[RockyTop85]

I didn’t apologize and won’t for telling you to sac up . How’s that for simple ? Lol

Much better. Thanks.

I’ve decided to treat all backtracks and attempts to change the subject as apologies.

Honestly, I didn’t even make it to the part where you said to sac up and I’m not sure I even understand how that fits in the context of the discussion we were having. So it sounds like you both backtracked and changed the subject. I think the one acceptance covers both but I’ll accept again, if you think it’s necessary.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

I didn’t apologize and won’t for telling you to sac up . How’s that for simple ? Lol

You two love birds need to go & get a room sometime soon.

 

[NorthDallas40]

That's exactly my point. The gop abandoned principles and picked a reality tv star to 'own the libs'. Turns out that's a terrible choice

Nope. They abandoned a bunch of lack luster choices and decided the reality TV Star was the best available. That’s more of an indictment on the lousy vanilla characters and the status quo of the GOP than the reality TV star.

 

[0nelilreb]

You two love birds need to go & get a room sometime soon.

Get a room with a lawyer? I’d be safer staked out nakid in a clearing covered in honey with McDad standing guard .

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Get a room with a lawyer? I’d be safer staked out nakid in a clearing covered in honey with McDad standing guard .

Although, some lawyers can be good-looking or hot you know. I've seen it on TV once.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Repeating the same thing doesn’t make it correct.

Between 1875 and 2010, Chicago and the District of Columbia absolutely had the ability to restrict Gun ownership, because the second amendment wasn’t incorporated to the states and didn’t have much effect except with respect to the “well-regulated militia“ that’s set out in the body of the amendment.

In 2008, SCOTUS held that 2A applies to gun ownership for “traditionally lawful purposes,” such as home defense.

Afterwards, there was still a question of whether that applied to the states. McDonald incorporated that rule to the states.

You’re acting like there’s some long-standing recognition of the 2A that would have been gone but for Trump. For your narrative to be correct, the Heller rule would have had to have been universal since long before 2008 and be under recent threat from the Court. It wasn’t and it isn’t.

It’s the opposite. The trend since 2008 has been in favor of massive expansion of 2A by the Court.

The Supreme Court isn’t Congress where a particular issue tilts the other way as soon as you form a majority coalition on that issue. Look at the 2020 abortion case, for example.

Since Kavanaugh joined the court, SCOTUS has punted on 2A issues involving restrictions outside the home.

If I am interpreting what you are saying, which is until recent times the interpretation of the 2a wasn’t challenged at the state level, I agree with you. Until there were SCOTUS rulings in the book on the matter state’s could act Individually and force a challenge.

I think the most powerful statement from Heller is the definitive interpretation of the textual writing of the 2a. The amendment as adopted by the states retained the same wording but varied on punctuation. However SCOTUS clearly said the militia statement was merely prefatory while the “shall not be infringed” statement was operative and deemed an individual right.

 

[VFFL@THE BEACH]

Trump eventually suspended that policy. What's the issue today?

Another poster called Michelle Obama's and other DNC for false claims and post a fact check article.

I simply quoted the article that points out the false claims by the DNC. Both administrations put kids in cages. According to the article, the Obama/Biden did it for child safety and Trump/Pence as a means of separation

 

[RockyTop85]

If I am interpreting what you are saying, which is until recent times the interpretation of the 2a wasn’t challenged at the state level, I agree with you. Until there were SCOTUS rulings in the book on the matter state’s could act Individually and force a challenge.

I think the most powerful statement from Heller is the definitive interpretation of the textual writing of the 2a. The amendment as adopted by the states retained the same wording but varied on punctuation. However SCOTUS clearly said the militia statement was merely prefatory while the “shall not be infringed” statement was operative and deemed an individual right.

I think this is right.

Pre-2008: it was generally up to the states.
2008-2010: kind of up in the air because DC, the municipality involved in Heller, isn’t a state.
Post-2010: any “traditionally lawful purpose” is sufficient to keep a firearm in your home in any state.

If the court had shown a propensity to wantonly overturn case law when the makeup of the court tilts, it would be a better argument that Trump saved the second amendment.

However, even if a hypothetical liberal appointee had been so inclined, Kagan has not been so (recently) even on traditionally “liberal” issues. She sided with Alito and (I think) Roberts in the Ramos case this year where and they argued stare decisis should prevent the court from mandating unanimous jury verdicts.

She has some less favorable 2A rulings and her musings rely a lot on how old a particular case is, so there’s room for her to side with Ginsburg et. al. to overturn Heller, but I’d have to see it to be convinced it would happen.

 

[VFFL@THE BEACH]

In the recent stump speeches and campaign ads that I've seen, Trump is going back to the fear-mongering well, once again. You can expect to hear more rhetoric regarding "low income housing moving to the suburbs," as an attempted appeal to white voters with college degrees, who Trump has been struggling with. Trump might as well be shouting "I WILL KEEP N***ERS OUT OF YOUR SUBDIVISION!" into a bullhorn, but I guess that's still referred to as "dog whistling". Trump's shtick revolves around the division of identity politics and race-baiting. Trump appeals to the lowest common denominators of his base - white resentment and fear. However, this tends to work best with the uneducated, not with the people he needs more support from this election. Trump is getting killed with white women who have a college degree.

For the most part, I agree with you but trump has appealed to more than just the lowest common denominators. He was elected President, all be it from the electoral college and not popular vote. That dosen't happen without some broader support.

The question will be in 2020 will the Republican base come out and support him?

In 2016 trump was a wild card with no real record and republicans were absolutely repulsed by Hillary. Even if they didn't like trump they sure as hell couldn't vote for hillary. So, 2 choices vote for trump or not vote.

Looking at poll data now, says that trump is in huge trouble. Not far ahead even in SC. However, trump certainly pulled it out in 2016. Lindsay Graham is in a dogfight of an election in SC.

 

[ajvol01]

Another poster called Michelle Obama's and other DNC for false claims and post a fact check article.

I simply quoted the article that points out the false claims by the DNC. Both administrations put kids in cages. According to the article, the Obama/Biden did it for child safety and Trump/Pence as a means of separation

Are you certain the separation under Trump wasn’t done to follow the law?

How did you decide the motivation of the separation? The MSM said so?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I think this is right.

Pre-2008: it was generally up to the states.
2008-2010: kind of up in the air because DC, the municipality involved in Heller, isn’t a state.
Post-2010: any “traditionally lawful purpose” is sufficient to keep a firearm in your home in any state.

If the court had shown a propensity to wantonly overturn case law when the makeup of the court tilts, it would be a better argument that Trump saved the second amendment.

However, even if a hypothetical liberal appointee had been so inclined, Kagan has not been so (recently) even on traditionally “liberal” issues. She sided with Alito and (I think) Roberts in the Ramos case this year where and they argued stare decisis should prevent the court from mandating unanimous jury verdicts.

She has some less favorable 2A rulings and her musings rely a lot on how old a particular case is, so there’s room for her to side with Ginsburg et. al. to overturn Heller, but I’d have to see it to be convinced it would happen.

Ok I think we agree.

And with regard to the impact of Heller just look at the multitude of states moving towards constitutional carry now. Gun control legislation has swung at the state level recently but not in a direction that the gun grabbers wanted. I think that’s a reflection of time in the rear view mirror on Heller (and Macdonald). Could be wrong though I am all the time according to my wife

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Michelle Obama: Children Are ‘Torn From Their Families And Thrown Into Cages.’ Her Husband Built The Cages.

Former first lady Michelle Obama claimed on Monday night that the Trump administration was taking children from their families and throwing them into cages but failed to mention that her husband, former President Barack Obama, was the one who built them.

Michelle Obama claimed that “right now, kids in this country are” watching “in horror as children are torn from their families and thrown into cages.”

The Associated Press said that Michelle Obama’s remarks were “a frequent and distorted point made widely by Democrats.”

“But what she did not say is that the very same ‘cages’ were built and used in her husband’s administration, for the same purpose of holding migrant kids temporarily,” the AP reported. “Trump used facilities that were built during the Obama-Biden administration to house children at the border. They are chain-link enclosures inside border facilities where migrants were temporarily housed, separated by sex and age.”

“At the height of the controversy over Trump’s zero-tolerance policy at the border, photos that circulated online of children in the enclosures generated great anger. But those photos — by The Associated Press — were taken in 2014 and depicted some of the thousands of unaccompanied children held by President Barack Obama,” the report continued. “When that fact came to light, some Democrats and activists who had tweeted the photos deleted their tweets. But prominent Democrats have continued to cite cages for children as a distinctive cruelty of Trump.”

Michelle Obama: Children Are ‘Torn From Their Families And Thrown Into Cages.’ Her Husband Built The Cages.

 

[LouderVol]

Repeating the same thing doesn’t make it correct.

Between 1875 and 2010, Chicago and the District of Columbia absolutely had the ability to restrict Gun ownership, because the second amendment wasn’t incorporated to the states and didn’t have much effect except with respect to the “well-regulated militia“ that’s set out in the body of the amendment.

In 2008, SCOTUS held that 2A applies to gun ownership for “traditionally lawful purposes,” such as home defense.

Afterwards, there was still a question of whether that applied to the states. McDonald incorporated that rule to the states.

You’re acting like there’s some long-standing recognition of the 2A that would have been gone but for Trump. For your narrative to be correct, the Heller rule would have had to have been universal since long before 2008 and be under recent threat from the Court. It wasn’t and it isn’t.

It’s the opposite. The trend since 2008 has been in favor of massive expansion of 2A by the Court.

The Supreme Court isn’t Congress where a particular issue tilts the other way as soon as you form a majority coalition on that issue. Look at the 2020 abortion case, for example.

Since Kavanaugh joined the court, SCOTUS has punted on 2A issues involving restrictions outside the home.

What do you mean it wasnt incorporated to the states?

 

[RockyTop85]

Ok I think we agree.

And with regard to the impact of Heller just look at the multitude of states moving towards constitutional carry now. Gun control legislation has swung at the state level recently but not in a direction that the gun grabbers wanted. I think that’s a reflection of time in the rear view mirror on Heller (and Macdonald). Could be wrong though I am all the time according to my wife

The Obama administration, particularly his first term, had an even bigger negative impact on state-level democrats than Trump is having on republicans. I think they lost something like 700 seats, compared to maybe 400 under Trump.

Couple that with the fact that coronavirus and civil unrest are sucking all of the oxygen out of the news cycle to the extent that no mass shooting has made headlines in almost a year and there is a little more slack in the line right now than usual.

 

[VFFL@THE BEACH]

Here’s my 2 cents .. the Dems better focus on or come up with some policy that gets people’s attention on the other side of November, this virus play will eventually end and when the curtain comes down , somebody either party better be ready for Act -1 scene -1 . We (as a populous ) are going to be out of money , businesses are going to be shut down and unemployment will continue to be through the roof . I think the liberals are only and I mean only focused on one goal . Promising or even making free education/ health care possible , will not help the 800 pound gorilla sitting in the room . If you don’t come up with some meaningful solutions we will be back here in 4 years or 8 and the left will loose all majority plus the Oval Office . ( IMO)

Presidential elections should always be about policy. Unfortunately, they are not about policy all the time.

Dems should have more of a policy platform but I don't think it will come down to policy. Dems will be very empathetic to covid, BLM, ect.

Trump being trump makes it hard for moderate Republicans to support him.

 

[VFFL@THE BEACH]

And Trump actually beat them all in an open contest. I was as flabbergasted as anybody but the results were clear. The GOP voters were not happy with their status quo candidates and took a hard pass on all of them.

I think it was more of too many "establishment" candidates splintered the vote.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I think it was more of too many "establishment" candidates splintered the vote.

And I think you’re completely wrong. Not a single establishment candidate was effective enough to ignite the GOP base. Not one. That’s on the candidates and party not the voters.

And we see the exact same situation across the aisle with the ticket the Democrats are offering. DC is completely out of touch with Main Street across party lines.

 

[RockyTop85]

What do you mean it wasnt incorporated to the states?

The bill of rights and subsequent rights-preserving amendments were initially held to only applicable to the federal government.

Since the passage of the 14th amendment, portions have been “incorporated” or made applicable to states.

This has been done “selectively” or one piece at a time. There’s some rationale for why that is the case, but I’m not well versed in it.

 

[LouderVol]

The bill of rights and subsequent rights-preserving amendments were initially held to only applicable to the federal government.

Since the passage of the 14th amendment, portions have been “incorporated” or made applicable to states.

This has been done “selectively” or one piece at a time. There’s some rationale for why that is the case, but I’m not well versed in it.

I very always thought because of the 14th states couldnt supersede the US Consitution.

Considering it was passed in 1868 I would think its had enough time to trickle thru the system vs some grandfathering.

The ability of states to ignore parts of the US consitution before 68 or amendments being "incorporated" blows up a lot of arguments that the Confederacy couldnt secede.

I always took it as: the areas the US Consitution doesnt touch, states can touch. The areas it does cover, cant be restricted further (guns in this case). Not sure if they can exactly make things "more free", but I dont know if that has been challenged.

Now if it's simply a question of what the 2nd amendment means to an individual, vs a militia, I could see there being some question. I just dont see an angle for incorporation post 1868.

 

[RockyTop85]

I very always thought because of the 14th states couldnt supersede the US Consitution.

Considering it was passed in 1868 I would think its had enough time to trickle thru the system vs some grandfathering.

The ability of states to ignore parts of the US consitution before 68 or amendments being "incorporated" blows up a lot of arguments that the Confederacy couldnt secede.

I always took it as: the areas the US Consitution doesnt touch, states can touch. The areas it does cover, cant be restricted further (guns in this case). Not sure if they can exactly make things "more free", but I dont know if that has been challenged.

Now if it's simply a question of what the 2nd amendment means to an individual, vs a militia, I could see there being some question. I just dont see an angle for incorporation post 1868.

I just know what happened. I don’t know why it happened the way it did and don’t have time to look it up now. The McDonald v. Chicago opinion might be a worthwhile read if you’re interested in why it wasn’t fully incorporated before 2010.

 

[C-south]

Oh wait. They can’t. Why? Lawyers.

You’re welcome, too.

Why are lawyers needed to interpret a piece of paper that everyone can?

 

[TNVOLNAVY]

The online viewing numbers were huge. Huge I tell you!

 

[LouderVol]

I just know what happened. I don’t know why it happened the way it did and don’t have time to look it up now. The McDonald v. Chicago opinion might be a worthwhile read if you’re interested in why it wasn’t fully incorporated before 2010.

I am not arguing. I guess I am just working from the preconceived notions from civic classes, which may not be what's in practice.