For NeverTrumpers: An appeal to not vote Hillary over Trump

[Colirio]

1. Trump's morals do not align with my own. 

 

2. Trump's political beliefs do not align with my own conservative beliefs. 

 

3. Trump will not win the Republican nomination. They simply have no intention of doing so and you are deluding yourself to think otherwise. 

 

These things being true, why should I even concern myself about having to vote for Trump? 

 

I get it. You are afraid to let the conservative vote be split and "Ross Perot" another Clinton into office the same way they got in there the first time. 

 

The way I see it, Trump IS the Ross Perot of this election, not the other way around...

[anatess2]

37 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It actually is, or else he wouldn't have gotten that far in the first place. Lawyers forums don't have much weight in the real world. 

 

It's not.  He just hasn't gotten sued yet.  Once he does and the SCOTUS rules... then it's settled.

[anatess2]

39 minutes ago, Colirio said:

1. Trump's morals do not align with my own. 

 

2. Trump's political beliefs do not align with my own conservative beliefs. 

 

3. Trump will not win the Republican nomination. They simply have no intention of doing so and you are deluding yourself to think otherwise. 

 

These things being true, why should I even concern myself about having to vote for Trump? 

 

I get it. You are afraid to let the conservative vote be split and "Ross Perot" another Clinton into office the same way they got in there the first time. 

 

The way I see it, Trump IS the Ross Perot of this election, not the other way around...

Specify 1 & 2 and we might have a conversation.  Do you think Cruz' political beliefs align with your own conservative beliefs?

[Guest MormonGator]

28 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

It's not.  He just hasn't gotten sued yet.  Once he does and the SCOTUS rules... then it's settled.

It's a wild goose chase. It's like the "birthers" who claim Obama was born in Kenya. Argue if you want to, jump up and down, but it's pointless. 

[anatess2]

23 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's a wild goose chase. It's like the "birthers" who claim Obama was born in Kenya. Argue if you want to, jump up and down, but it's pointless. 

It's not pointless... and I'm not jumping up and down.  I simply believe he is not natural born... in light of the San Bernardino 2 example I gave.

Edited April 19, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It's not pointless... and I'm not jumping up and down.  I simply believe he is not natural born... in light of the San Bernardino 2 example I gave.

Universal usage of the word "you". 

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Universal usage of the word "you". 

Applies the same way.

By the way, if it was pointless, Obama wouldn't have needed to insist he was born in Hawaii.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Applies the same way.

By the way, if it was pointless, Obama wouldn't have needed to insist he was born in Hawaii.

And the birthers really stopped the Obama presidency in it's tracks, didn't they? 

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And the birthers really stopped the Obama presidency in it's tracks, didn't they? 

Of course not.  Obama showed his birth certificate from Hawaii.  Now, imagine where it would have gone if he showed a birth certificate from Kenya?  He would be spending the first 2 years of his Presidency defending himself infront of the SCOTUS.  Which would have been great for Ted Cruz because then it would be settled.

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Of course not.  Obama showed his birth certificate from Hawaii.  Now, imagine where it would have gone if he showed a birth certificate from Kenya?  He would be spending the first 2 years of his Presidency defending himself infront of the SCOTUS.  Which would have been great for Ted Cruz because then it would be settled.

That's why it's a moot point. No one cares about his birth certificate. Reasonable people care about the issue, character, etc. 

Edited April 19, 2016 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

Okay a lot of people think Trump is a recent Republican/conservative... they usually use that to counter when somebody points out Reagan was a liberal even signing the biggest abortion legalization law in California before Rowe vs Wade... they usually say, Reagan has been Republican/conservative for a while before he ran for the Presidency.

Here's Trump in the 1988 Republican National Convention.  This shows 3 things:  1.) He was conservative then.  2.) He is Republican because his views align with the Republican party, not because he has some kind of loyalty to Republicans, 3.) He talked then the exact same way he talks now - that is, he did not go through some political transformation to talk the way campaign managers/advisers tell him to talk.  He had no problem telling Larry King that he is supporting Bush/Quayle with heaping praise for both, especially Quayle but had no problem telling Larry King fat chance that they're gonna win in New York.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

Here's the beginnings of his tax plan with a healthy dose of his ideas on Economic Recovery.

1991 - still talking the exact same way we hear him talk today.... facing Congress on how to improve the economy... and this shows why he believes raising the income tax of the top income earners actually helps the economy because it incentivizes investments - investments remain low tax... then investments will come from the people instead of the banks.  This is consistent with his tax plan today where he proposes lowering the tax brackets but keeping the progressive tax system with the high income earners having a tax bracket higher than middle and low income earners -  instead of having a flat tax as Cruz proposes.  Note:  his top tax bracket in his campaign tax plan is lower than Kasich's by 3%.  This video also explains the bubble of the 80's and has some nuggets that explains the bubble of 2000's.

 

 

 

This is his tax plan today:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

[anatess2]

49 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That's why it's a moot point. No one cares about his birth certificate. Reasonable people care about the issue, character, etc. 

It is not a moot point.  Just like Bill Clinton lying about sex under oath is not a moot point.  It is all about Constitutionality.  There is nothing moot about upholding the Constitution.

Edited April 19, 2016 by anatess2

[LeSellers]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

During the founding, women were not expressly granted citizenship.  So, a one-parent citizenship is the minimum requirement in addition to being born within US soil.

They were not expressly denied citizenship, ether, so the assumption is that they were granted citizenship implicitly, exactly the same way men were. There is no express grant of citizenship to anyone in the Document. However, the idea of citizenship was not a federal question, but one of the states' prerogatives.

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

my kids are natural born having their father an American citizen and the kids born on American soil.

Our children were all born to an USmerican father and a Canadian mother. I am fairly sure they qualify, but there is a question. Vattel was a little ambiguous on the matter (and French treats the word parent primarily as meaning "father", but could include either or both parents). In one place here uses parent in the singular and it obviously  means father, but elsewhere he uses the plural, meaning both father and mother.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

It's not.  He just hasn't gotten sued yet.  Once he does and the SCOTUS rules... then it's settled.

SCotuS can rule one way, and then the other. The question is never "settled".

Lehi

Edited April 19, 2016 by LeSellers

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

SCoTuS can rule one way, and then the other. The question is never "settled".

Lehi

It's a heavier burden to prove otherwise when there's precedence.

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

SCoTuS can rule one way, and then the other. The question is never "settled".

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

It's a heavier burden to prove otherwise when there's precedence.

Yes. That wasn't the thrust of my observation. Settled means something. SCotuS can and does change its collective mind.

That's one reason we should give up the myth that only SCotuS can "define" the Constitution. We are all responsible for figuring that out. While it is true that our personal opinions won't have the force of law, it is important to do so because common sense is usually better than legal opinions.

Further, each branch of the federal government (the congress, the executive and the states) has both the obligation and the right to determine the constitutionality of a law and enforce its determination. The president by refusal to enforce the law (little as I like O'bama's use of this tactic), the congress by refusing to fund it (as it should have by defunding O'bamaDon'tCare), and the states by refusing to acknowledge federal law by enforcing it at the state level.

Lehi

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

See, the birther case is settled because there is nothing the birthers can do about it in the case of Obama. You can't go back in time and not allow him to be president. 

In the case of Cruz, his lawyers would have said "Gee Ted, this won't hold up via the constitution so you can't run." He wouldn't have wasted everyones time-including his own.  

[Just_A_Guy]

I think the Harvard Law Review article makes some cogent points re the Naturalization Act of 1790, though.  The birther (I use the term for brevity, not as a pejorative) argument seems to revolve around the notion that Congress can't create "natural-born citizens" by statute; but here's the first US Congress--including most of the guys who actually drafted the "natural-born citizen" language of the Constitution--saying that it can.

At any rate, it would be more than a little ironic for folks who threaten a breakup of the Republican Party if their guy has the election "stolen" from him, assume that American civic life will continue all hunky dory if SCOTUS unseats an elected US President.  Doubly so, since a goodly number of these folks generally claim to reject the constitutionality of judicial review.

[LeSellers]

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

a goodly number of these folks generally claim to reject the constitutionality of judicial review.

I don't know who you are talking about, since I have seen no one who "reject(s) the constitutionality of judicial review." I do not accept the idea that only SCotuS has that duty. The other branches have the same duty, and so do we, the people.

Lehi

Edited April 20, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

38 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I don't know who you are talking about, since I have seen no one who "reject the constitutionality of judicial review." I do not accept the idea that only SCotuS has that duty. The other branches have the same duty, and so do we, the people.

Lehi

 

You must hang out with saner people.   I get the "Marbury-was-an-illegal-usurpation" bit quite often.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Doubly so, since a goodly number of these folks generally claim to reject the constitutionality of judicial review.

Is there good reason to believe that Marbury was constitutional? Was judicial review standard English practice for the magna charta or something?

I don't pretend that there is any hope, realistically or even in legal theory, that the Supreme Court can or will give up the practice. But if it was not a naked power grab, I would like a more accurate characterization of the decision. The fact that the Constitution explicitly delegates all non-specified powers to the states seems to work against a constitutional interpretation, though of course I am neither an attorney nor do I play one on the interwebs.

[Just_A_Guy]

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

Is there good reason to believe that Marbury was constitutional? Was judicial review standard English practice for the magna charta or something?

I don't pretend that there is any hope, realistically or even in legal theory, that the Supreme Court can or will give up the practice. But if it was not a naked power grab, I would like a more accurate characterization of the decision. The fact that the Constitution explicitly delegates all non-specified powers to the states seems to work against a constitutional interpretation, though of course I am neither an attorney nor do I play one on the interwebs.

My sense is that Marbury itself is pretty logical--the Constitution itself does supersede conflicting federal and state statutes by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, and in applying any law the judiciary must recognize this or else the Constitution becomes utterly toothless.  

At some point we got off track as SCOTUS became drunk on its own power and warped into a super-dictatorship, but I don't think Marbury represents that moment.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[mirkwood]

20 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

At some point we got off track as SCOTUS became drunk on its own power and warped into a super-dictatorship,

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for them. 

[anatess2]

Okay...

So Cruz just got mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination through bound delegates.  Hope he stays alert and prepares himself for a defense for the possible stiletto to his back from the "establishment".

And Romney finally signaled that their anti-Trump efforts are starting to show futility (although the 100-day plan to take Trump down is still ongoing).

So... here are some Trump character referrals: