President Trump- The Implications

[swake]

I work hard at not being robotic with loyalty to a person because of political affiliation

[swake]

I work hard at not being robotic with loyalty to a person because of political affiliation

[swake]

I work hard at not being robotic with loyalty to a person because of political affiliation

[swake]

I work hard at not being robotic with loyalty to a person because of political affiliation

[guido911]

We really need a military parade, says Chuck Schumer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qULXpV9CWI

[BKDotCom]

We really need a military parade, says Chuck Schumer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qULXpV9CWI

To quote a youtube comment... a youtube comment! 

"There's a difference between veterans marching in a ticker tape parade and the showing off of military hardware that trump wants"

you know this, I know this.

[TeeDub]

I believe strongly in states rights, but also the Constitution that talks about states cannot abrogate or deny Federal rights.   Also could fall under interstate vs intrastate commerce considerations (gun sales).

Probably won't be the end of it, even if it is passed.  Will be many court challenges.

Even if it passes, you will still be subject to the randomness of state gun laws.   (ie. In Oklahoma, a gun buster sign has no meaning, it is just a feel good sign...   In Texas, signs have real meaning...  A properly placed 30.06 sign can earn you a misdemeanor and a 51% sign can win you a felony..)

[swake]

We really need a military parade, says Chuck Schumer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qULXpV9CWI

Mike Pence - North Korean military parade is "an ongoing provocation" and a Trump parade would be a "celebration".

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/pence-bashes-north-koreas-military-parade-endorses-trumps-083203429--abc-news-topstories.html

Can we try to be consistent with our parade outrage?

You want to know what kind of parade troops like? One where they ride on a flatbed trailer and wave at little kids with flag. You want to know what kind they hate? One where they march in formation for two hours in summer heat to walk by an orange man with an epic combover so that he can feel better about his tiny hands.

Which one is Trump going for?

[rebound]

I believe strongly in states rights, but also the Constitution that talks about states cannot abrogate or deny Federal rights.   Also could fall under interstate vs intrastate commerce considerations (gun sales).

Probably won't be the end of it, even if it is passed.  Will be many court challenges.

Agreed that guns are an interesting aspect to the general argument, relative to the ongoing debate(s) related to the second amendment.  Just took a few minutes to re-read some of the articles on the SCOTUS Obergefell decision in 2015 related to gay marriage reciprocity, and I see the gun issue being very similar.  (Caveat.  I'm not a lawyer, so I have no legal basis for that opinion.) 

Also, I'm not a rabid states-rights person.  There has to be a balance.  But I do think that states have the right to set up laws - even very restrictive laws - on issues that they see best fits their state.   A couple of these type laws, both related to CA, relate to auto emissions and poultry:

-  CA is much more restrictive than, say, OK, in emissions and such.  But cars can obviously be bought in other states and driven across state lines. Is it onerous on CA to demand greater emissions controls than other states?

- CA also has the new "free range egg" law, whereby all eggs sold in CA must meet requirements around more space for the chickens, etc.   Other states, which do not have these laws, have sued to stop this under the Commerce Clause.  (The pig people are also in on that, because CA is such a large market that if they do similar things with pork and beef, it will have a significant impact on those producers as well.) 

Almost all commerce these days is inter-state, so the Commerce Clause could be used to justify a significant takeover of states rights to regulate within their own borders.  (And, just to continue the thought experiment, what about simple marijuana possession?  "Hey, I bought it legally in CO, so it's legal in OK." Might be stretch, but it's the end-game to the erosion of state-specific laws.)

[heironymouspasparagus]

Even if it passes, you will still be subject to the randomness of state gun laws.   (ie. In Oklahoma, a gun buster sign has no meaning, it is just a feel good sign...   In Texas, signs have real meaning...  A properly placed 30.06 sign can earn you a misdemeanor and a 51% sign can win you a felony..)

Yep.  Gotta know where you are going, for sure.  That's why I have not been in Illinois for personal time in many years.  Wouldn't go there for business if not required by the job.  Gotta find another job....

[heironymouspasparagus]

Agreed that guns are an interesting aspect to the general argument, relative to the ongoing debate(s) related to the second amendment.  Just took a few minutes to re-read some of the articles on the SCOTUS Obergefell decision in 2015 related to gay marriage reciprocity, and I see the gun issue being very similar.  (Caveat.  I'm not a lawyer, so I have no legal basis for that opinion.) 

Also, I'm not a rabid states-rights person.  There has to be a balance.  But I do think that states have the right to set up laws - even very restrictive laws - on issues that they see best fits their state.   A couple of these type laws, both related to CA, relate to auto emissions and poultry:

-  CA is much more restrictive than, say, OK, in emissions and such.  But cars can obviously be bought in other states and driven across state lines. Is it onerous on CA to demand greater emissions controls than other states?

- CA also has the new "free range egg" law, whereby all eggs sold in CA must meet requirements around more space for the chickens, etc.   Other states, which do not have these laws, have sued to stop this under the Commerce Clause.  (The pig people are also in on that, because CA is such a large market that if they do similar things with pork and beef, it will have a significant impact on those producers as well.) 

Almost all commerce these days is inter-state, so the Commerce Clause could be used to justify a significant takeover of states rights to regulate within their own borders.  (And, just to continue the thought experiment, what about simple marijuana possession?  "Hey, I bought it legally in CO, so it's legal in OK." Might be stretch, but it's the end-game to the erosion of state-specific laws.)

That "dance" is what keeps our courts in business.  States Rights versus Federal has been the point of argument since the Constitution was ratified - and before!

[swake]

[guido911]

To quote a youtube comment... a youtube comment! 

"There's a difference between veterans marching in a ticker tape parade and the showing off of military hardware that trump wants"

you know this, I know this.

I have no idea what "I know" here. And I don't care. What I do care about is the bed wetting over this. Like it or not, Trump is president. And this is just another opportunity for the sore losers to b!tch again.

[swake]

I have no idea what "I know" here. And I don't care. What I do care about is the bed wetting over this. Like it or not, Trump is president. And this is just another opportunity for the sore losers to b!tch again.

Too bad he wouldn't leave all those women that he sexually assaulted alone, AMIRITE?

[swake]

In Russia news. Trump blocks the Democratic memo. Because, you know, it doesn't make him look good. Anyone still want to argue the Nunes memo was about anything other than obstruction and protecting Trump?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dem-fisa-memo-trump-today-2018-02-09-live-updates/