The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Trump might win !!!!

Just going to note that as of today....Hillary has an 88.1% of winning the election and the Dems have a 73.8% chance of winning the Senate.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=2016-senate-forecast

Numbers will still likely change over the upcoming the final debate and as a result of the last of the grenades being lobbed by either side...but we're getting close to the time when it would be statistically impossible for Trump to close the gap and he seems to be offering no credible way of doing it.
 
The fact that he is blaming someone new everyday for a "rigged" election really isn't doing him anyway favors.
 
^ He hates to lose, and this is the only way he can justify it, at least in his mind.
 
DantheManFL said:
Even when Trump loses, we're still stuck with the obstructionist Congress. :(

Republicans May Block Any Of Clinton’s Supreme Court Nominees, McCain Says
So much for letting the people and the next president decide. #-o

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-hillary-clinton-supreme-court_us_58050653e4b0162c043d4c9a?section=&

VOTE BLUE!
Click to expand...

While I despise McCain, I fully endorse the notion that the Senate should be held by the opposition party to that of the president.

Though if Hillary found nominees who fully support the Second Amendment, she could get them passed just about regardless of what their other views were; the NRA wouldn't care what their views on abortion or government-run health care or gay rights or anything else were. If the GOP keeps the Senate, she ought to go that way and firmly establish the rest.
 
If in the next few weeks Trump gets a little weirder and really alienates enough people we might see at least the Senate go to the Dems.
On occasion after a grid lock government it is good to have a green light and accomplish a few things, rather than just pay these people.
 
Question,
If the Democrats has won everything,
Is that mean the democrats can change all the laws it want to change ?
 
Telstra said:
Question,
If the Democrats has won everything,
Is that mean the democrats can change all the laws it want to change ?
Click to expand...

With the right mix of accumulated POWER, um ... Yeah!

The trick is getting enough votes to shift the balance of the separations between "The Executive (President)", "The Legislative (Congress)", and "The Judicial (Supreme Court)".

The way The Constitution defines those powers, achieving a majority in all three is not all that likely, given term overlaps, etc.

However, it could happen, and on rare occasions has.

Not likely this time around, though.
 
rareboy said:
Just going to note that as of today....Hillary has an 88.1% of winning .
Click to expand...


MSNBC was reporting today two different projections, 92% and 95% Chance of Hillary winning. I'm hoping for an implosion on Trump's part and we see a 50 state landslide victory for Clinton.
 
Alistair said:
MSNBC was reporting today two different projections, 92% and 95% Chance of Hillary winning. I'm hoping for an implosion on Trump's part and we see a 50 state landslide victory for Clinton.
Click to expand...

I heard two different numbers for the Senate, too: 73% chance the Dems will take it, and a 68% chance the GOP will keep it.

If Trump should somehow win,. I hope it's the first; if Clinton, I hope it's the second.
 
Telstra said:
Question,
If the Democrats has won everything,
Is that mean the democrats can change all the laws it want to change ?
Click to expand...

Within the restraints and confines of our constitution, with said constitution being subject to the interpretation of the Supreme Court.
 
^ It is also worth pointing out the rules of the House and Senate make any kind of wholesale change of laws rather difficult. The legislation has to go through committee where it can be stalled and even on the floor there are procedural rules to slow things to a crawl. Any administration with a majority in the legislative branch really only has two years to make changes...because the mid-term elections...particularly if the party in power was making changes not broadly supported by all votes would likely mean the House and Senate tipping back to the other party.
 
Can two-thirds of the states not call for Constitutional amendments, also?
 
TX-Beau said:
The likelihood of that ever happening are vanishingly small.
Click to expand...

We're hovering at between two and four states short of a call for such a convention right now, depending on whether or not it's judged constitutional for a state to rescind its call. The question is which states haven't issued such a call, something I don't know offhand and aren't going to look up right now because my internet is running so slow (probably thanks to the recent storms)(slow as in I could watch the letters of the above quote appearing across the screen in a row instead of all at once).

Other states have hesitated for two reasons: a couple are waiting to be the last one to take it over the top and so make the history books (yes, politicians can be that ridiculous), while more are uncertain just what powers such a convention would have, fearing it could just trash the existing Constitution and start over, making the outcome totally unpredictable.

My favorite proposal already put forth for such a convention is one to totally scrap all the court decisions about the Bill of Rights and make chipping away at them much more difficult; my second favorite is one to add certain rights to the enumerated ones, foremost among them privacy (though I would love to see one defining all the rights of the Bill of Rights as pertaining to individual citizens only, not to corporations or churches or unions or anything except associations formed for the explicit purpose of citizens uniting to exercise their rights on a specific issue).
 
There isn't any chance of a constitutional convention. It is simply a hurdle too high. We have very weak consensus even within the two parties, but less once something as broad at the constitution comes into play.

It's a nice thought, but wishful thinking, like exploiting asteroids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top