The GOP has lost it's freaking mind

[PrincessCanopyShop]

Seriously this is what happens when you give the crazies the megaphone. Especially when the dude you allowed to take the megaphone is someone like Trump. So far he has insulted every person , race , gender or anything else that he can find who is not a rich white male. The real ignorance of this circus is that the paying customers, the ones who are praising Trump are not wealthy. They are low income whites who feel the slipping away of their "automatic first in line for everything". They had the first in line for good jobs for decades and now they have to stand in line with the rest of the US citizens for a place at the table. The top 1% don't give a shit who you are, you are nothing. He is the flag bearer of elitism. He thinks his billions give him a right to be first at everything. That is why he claims he won "person of the year". He didn't even come close in the online polling of the first round. Bernie Sanders won hands down.

[TheAthleteCompany]

Hello! Are there many constitutional conservatives around here? I'm not getting the sense that there are.

The only thing I really want to say is that just because you are voting for someone who is running as a republican, does not mean you like Trump. In my opinion, Trump is a terrible person, and would make a horrible president. There is maybe 25% of the GOP voters who like him, but the other 75% don't and many of them have said they will NEVER vote for him. He is hitting record numbers for the most unlike candidate since they began polling on it in the early 1990s, and it isn't even close.

[LocoBead]

Hi, Jayme. Most who post here are socialists...but, it started out as a conservative group. The party was crashed, and most of the conservatives have wandered away.

You are absolutely correct. I don't know anyone who is voting for Trump...and he isn't my choice. In the beginning I did understand why he was getting the attention. Enough already with being politically correct...enough with all the "feelings" in general.

Anyway, WELCOME!!!

[Former_Member]

Hello all. Didn't know I was a socialist! Good to know!

Clearly 'someone' is voting for Trump! And it is terrifying!

[LocoBead]

No, Crazy. As I stated before, Trump is not my choice. Truly, I'm embarrassed by the backing he has received. However, with so many promising to move out of the country if he's elected, there is a positive side to the prospect. :-p

Let's face it, Crazy, you haven't been posting much because you aren't a socialist, and actually take responsibility for your lifestyle choices. (I did say "most," right?) Others "feel" that society should cater to them while they pursue their "dreams." They think they should be paid to explore their creativity...they should have free college tuition, free healthcare, free food, free tampons, free birth control, free, free, free...and NO responsibility for their poor choices. And, they should have a livable wage even if they are too stinking lazy to aspire to more than flipping burgers for a living.

[Former_Member]

I didn't mean you specifically, Loco. Watched clips of the debate from last night. Scary dudes!

[CalicoSkiesMosaics]

I'm not liberal, conservative or inbetween. I'm a voter.

This is the one thing I truly dislike about the political system in the U.S. (not that it's unique to this country)

It's all about money.

The one good thing (the only good thing) about voting in Australia is that each party receives a set allocation of funds from the government to spend on the elections.

It does create a level playing field even if votes aren't worth the paper they're written on.

[FAIRLYGHOULISH]

I wish we had a system like that here, Fred. It's always been the position is sold to the highest bidder----who has the most money, the most backers, the most lobbyists, the most back handed dealers, the most blackmailers, etc...at least Trump has his own money. He will need cash for the general election but he has spent the least money of all the candidates that have been running this season. Hmm, election season----like deer season? Shoot who moves first? LOL

[fripparie]

I'm a constitutional conservative. I'd even vote for a Democrat if I ever got the assurance that, despite their ideology being different than mine, they'd follow the Constitution.

[FAIRLYGHOULISH]

I think we have no chance of getting someone who follows the Constitution. As soon as it is labeled a 'fluid document', it becomes moot.

[ChatsworthLady]

Here's a question for the strict-Constitutionalists here: Which of the following do you consider "valid" when arguing interpretations?

(a) The original Constitution as written
(b) All amendments to the Constitution (the most recent of which was ratified in 1971, other than the 27th which is essentially esoteric and took 200+ years to be ratified, LOL)
(c) SCOTUS case rulings/interpretations of (a) and/or (b)

Because as a person who does consider the Consititution to be a "living document" that does and indeed must take the overwhelming changes in our civilization and society into account, I include all three.

[FAIRLYGHOULISH]

A and B definitely. I have reluctance to C, sometimes the interpretations do not follow the spirit of the law. Depending on the political leaning of the judge, too many things can be 'made' to fit.
Amendments, for the most part, cover items that were not conceived of at the time of writing (digital downloads as an example), so I can see how they were necessary to cover the unforeseen.
I fear that personal bias can sway a ruling left or right, which I would not want either.
So I would have to restate my preferences:-A-all the time, B-most of the time, C-some of the time.

I hope that is clear as mud. LOL

[Former_Member]

How do we know what the "spirit of the law" was? Isn't that, in and of itself, up for interpretation?

As far as "the unforeseen"; it was definitely unforeseen, when the constitution was written, that we would have such advance weaponry that could kill/harm a crowd of people in minutes. That is why many Americans, myself included, believe that we need better gun control laws. I am not advocating taking away guns. I am advocating common sense gun control.

Who would decide when that "most of the time and some of time" should happen? In my opinion, it really has to be yes or no. Sometimes is just too ambiguous.

[FAIRLYGHOULISH]

@Ilene

We have common sense gun control laws. No one can buy a handgun or rifle without a background check. Contrary to myth, that is also true at gun shows, and gun shows have police patrolling constantly.

As for the 'some of the time' and 'most of the time'---that was my opinion.

By spirit of the law, I was thinking of the rights spelled out in the Constitution. The right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That has been stretched so much it screams. I take it to mean I have the right to control my own life, I am free to choose my own path to happiness.
I also have the right to protect the ones I love, the right to voice my opinion, the right to vote, and the right to gather with others to discuss situations so long as I am peaceful and respectful of everyone's else's rights. It does not mean I can vandalize, riot, kill, or ravage another's property because I want to. I cannot decide my opinion is more 'right' or more 'valid' than another's.
I can speak my mind and not worry about being dragged out into the street at night and shot. I can earn money at a job I choose and not worry I will have to share it with those who don't want to work. I can attend a church or not, enroll my kids in a school of my choice (within boundaries of finances and jurisdiction), and I can build what I want on property I own.
I can move from state to state or country to country if I choose and not be
told I don't have that right.
So I guess I got a little windy, but I think you will see my point of view.

And just for a WTH, I got a Henry .22 lever action rifle for Mother's Day. I love it. So I am all for gun control, that's why I practice.

[Former_Member]

Mary I agree with most of what you stated. Too long to go through every point but we are in agreement on most.

Yes, we should all have our liberties as long as they don't infringe on others liberties. No argument there,

What I was mostly trying to say was that we do need those that are educated in the constitution and the laws to interpret them when there is conflicted views. We will never have everybody agree on their meaning.

I will stand right beside you supporting your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[FAIRLYGHOULISH]

'''What I was mostly trying to say was that we do need those that are educated in the constitution and the laws to interpret them when there is conflicted views.'''

I completely agree.

[ChatsworthLady]

The problem I have is that there are states that have essentially no gun control laws; for example, New Hampshire. In another thread I mentioned the whacko anarchist ex-in-law who moved to NH some years ago. Over the holidays my son (who is in touch with his dad's family although I no longer am, by choice) told me that this cousin described on his webpage how he literally bought an AR-15 one evening while walking back home from the supermarket! Just "on impulse". Went into the gun shop, put down his money, and walked out with the gun and some ammo.

Now, this is a person who, to my certain firsthand knowledge, has the following things on his record in NY state:
(a) hospitalized as a teenager for a suicide attempt, spent 3 months in a psychiatric facility, and was subsequently declared a PINS (Person in Need of Supervision) by the court until age 18
(b) two drivers license suspensions for DWI involving property damage and would have lost it completely on the third instance if my then-husband, a lawyer "with connections", hadn't cut a deal to get him off the hook
(c) two arrests for illegal drug possession, and one case for dealing that got thrown out of court on a technicality
(d) three instances of Orders of Protection issued against him on behalf of 3 different girlfriends
(e) picked up by the cops after he stole 2 hunting rifles from his parents house, but not taken to court because his mother convinced his father to not press charges
(f) has articles on his website, and has expressed views on NH radio shows, advocating the killing of police officers, and is a self-proclaimed anarchist.

Now I may be wrong but IMHO a person with a history of violence, continuous drug and alcohol use since his early teens, and mental instability should NOT be able to just walk into a store on the way home from picking up bread and milk, and walk out carrying an assault rifle, ANYWHERE. Something is very wrong with that picture.

Here are the gun laws (ha) in NH:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Hampshire

What I find mindboggling is the phrase "There is no definition of "suitable person" in New Hampshire law" meaning that, as in my example, essentially anyone of any age can buy a gun.

[FAIRLYGHOULISH]

Chats---The AR15 is not a fully automatic weapon, it is a .223 round for shooting varmints. Think of it as a bigger version of a regular .22 rifle. So that, by itself, is legal.

The fact that this person could buy it is the fault of NY. His records should be on file and he SHOULD NOT have been able to buy it. The mental illness alone should have stopped it. If some of the other issues were only charges--not convictions--by law, that is not held against him.
Each state can teak the laws as they wish. I would say that NY and NH screwed up.
May I add that I also thought NY and NH would be the most strict on this. I'm surprised.

[FAIRLYGHOULISH]

Just to add---all fully automatic weapons (assault rifles) are banned in the US and have been since 1934, prompted by gangland crimes such as the St Valentine's Day Massacre.

[khmetalwork]

Guns are the third rail for Politicians, no one is ever going to take away guns if they expect to be or anyone else in their Political party re-elected.

It's a scare tactic drum beat, when Congress won't even move to prevent people on the Federal Watch List from buying guns, I think everyone can sleep easy with the knowledge that guns are here to stay and focus on the real issues facing the country instead of an imaginary mass gun confiscation.

[FAIRLYGHOULISH]

I have never worried about confiscation.

To me, the real issues are:
Fix the tax system---simpler, easy to use, less chance of hiding money
Fix Obamacare---it has caused a flood of part time temporary jobs that no one can live on
Fix---SS and Medicare, stop borrowing from them.
Fix ---Medicaid, I am in favor of drug testing to earn or keep benefits. Also, drop the 'extra' money every time some one pops out another kid. Birth control classes and products should be mandatory if receiving benefits.
I have to take a drug test to get a job, you should have to take one to get benefits.

[ManicManx]

Despite the fact that drug testing welfare recipients has repeatedly been proven to be a waste of money?

[FAIRLYGHOULISH]

Not entirely. Too many states opt for expensive testing when it could easily be done for around $30. You don't have to test everybody forever, just those that may have a criminal background or suspicious circumstances. If you also don't announce when the test will be, you would catch more violating the rules. The test would need to be random, unannounced until the day before and done in a lab setting to make sure there was no cheating. If a state spent $30 one time and saved $800 a month payout for 20 years then that would be a loss of $30 and a gain of $192,000.
It would seem a good gamble to me.

[Former_Member]

20 years?

[FAIRLYGHOULISH]

Just a number at random. I would think that some families on Medicaid may hit 50 years. The repeating cycle of mom, child, grandchild, great grandchild, great great grandchild, etc........

Do you have another number in mind?

A new paper by Gordon Dahl, Andreas Kostol, and Magne Mogstad looks at the important of “family welfare cultures,”

Their findings indicate that if parents become welfare dependents, the likelihood of their children eventually becoming welfare recipients also increases. Specifically, when parents are awarded DI, the likelihood that one of their adult children will participate in DI rises by 5 percentage points over the next five years, and 11 percentage points over the next decade. These findings suggest that a more stringent screening policy for DI benefits would not only reduce payouts to current applicants, but would also have long-run effects on participation rates and program costs. The results underscore how important accounting for intergenerational effects can be when making projections of how participation rates and program costs may be affected by program reforms.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/363284/welfare-dependency-perpetuated-one-generation-next-maybe...