Trump might win !!!!

[rareboy]

So some people see the writing on the wall and are looking to put as much distance as possible between them and the SS Trump as it sinks.

His political director is bailing on him with only a little over two weeks until Armageddon. Given that he is part of a shaky, failed ground game campaign structure...he probably knows that he'll be on the list of people that Trump blames.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...ical-director-steps-back-from-campaign-230120

 

[nsguy2]

Apparently "Step Back" is the new "You're fired" in Trumpneyland.

Donald Trump’s national political director will “step back” from his role overseeing the Republican nominee’s ground game with less than three weeks to go before Election Day, Politico reported Thursday.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[nsguy2]

Spin Witches, DEPLOY!

The video, which was just released earlier this week and made by conservative activist James O'Keefe of Project Veritas, was paid $10,000 by the Trump Foundation in May of 2015 - one month before Trump's announcement of candidacy.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...paid-activist-filmmaker-james-o-keefe-n670381

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Historically the proper number of states has been achieved at least once and Congress has ignored them. If the Constitution is read strictly, and states can't rescind their call, then we currently actually have more than enough states issuing a call for a convention! If the states can rescind, thirty-one states have a current call for a convention.

Given those numbers, it isn't at all inconceivable that on the occasion of some national disaster three more states would issue a call and we'd be over the required number regardless of the rescinding issue.


BTW, exploiting asteroids isn't wishful thinking -- there are three companies in the world currently organized to do just that which are on track with their plans. If they remain on track, then by 2040 we will have three additional moons for the earth (or, if a moon base gets established, possibly our natural moon will have a moon or two of its own).

 

[Kulindahr]

Spin Witches, DEPLOY!

The video, which was just released earlier this week and made by conservative activist James O'Keefe of Project Veritas, was paid $10,000 by the Trump Foundation in May of 2015 - one month before Trump's announcement of candidacy.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...paid-activist-filmmaker-james-o-keefe-n670381

How do you pay a video? They can't exactly open bank accounts.

Or are videos now people, too (my friend)?


<sigh>

Sloppy writing, sloppy editing.

 

[gsdx]

How do you pay a video? They can't exactly open bank accounts.

Or are videos now people, too (my friend)?


<sigh>

Sloppy writing, sloppy editing.

Oh, I misread his post. I thought it said that the Trump Foundation paid James O'Keefe $10,000 to make the video.

My bad.

 

[nsguy2]

How do you pay a video? They can't exactly open bank accounts.

Or are videos now people, too (my friend)?


<sigh>

Sloppy writing, sloppy editing.

No, videos aren't people and ,no, you can't pay a video - anymore than a human can breed with an orangutan.

You can, however, easily give $10,000.00 to the individual whose actions law enforcement refers to as "highly selective editing of reality".

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh, I misread his post. I thought it said that the Trump Foundation paid James O'Keefe $10,000 to make the video.

My bad.

I think that's what it's supposed to mean, but apparently the writer/editor is linguistically challenged.

 

[TX-Beau]

Historically the proper number of states has been achieved at least once and Congress has ignored them. If the Constitution is read strictly, and states can't rescind their call, then we currently actually have more than enough states issuing a call for a convention! If the states can rescind, thirty-one states have a current call for a convention.

Given those numbers, it isn't at all inconceivable that on the occasion of some national disaster three more states would issue a call and we'd be over the required number regardless of the rescinding issue.


BTW, exploiting asteroids isn't wishful thinking -- there are three companies in the world currently organized to do just that which are on track with their plans. If they remain on track, then by 2040 we will have three additional moons for the earth (or, if a moon base gets established, possibly our natural moon will have a moon or two of its own).

Yeah, that sounds like projection of your opinion onto fact. We DON"T have 31 states with a what, standing call for a Constitutional convention.

 

[TX-Beau]

How would that even work? So I get Texas and OK, and some other States with wingnuts to call for a convention to add an amendment barring women from being nasty, and what, POOF convention on that issue? Because no other state can ever "rescind."

Yeah, that sounds like bunk.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, that sounds like projection of your opinion onto fact. We DON"T have 31 states with a what, standing call for a Constitutional convention.

No, it's according to the U.S. government, which due to rules passed by the House of Representatives last year required all such calls to be compiled and tracked; the list and texts of such calls are kept by the clerk of the House. It even lists them by topics; for example, if states can't rescind their calls, there are now 34 states that have called for a constitutional convention to compose an amendment requiring a balanced budget (26 if they can rescind), eleven states have called for a convention to make an amendment concerning polygamy, fifteen states have called for a convention to address an amendment to limit income taxes.

The Constitution says nothing about specifying topics, which leads to a consensus that such a convention would be able to address any topic named by any state that had called for a convention; that would mean that such a convention at the moment would have the above issues plus campaign finance reform (most significantly addressing Citizens United), direct election of the President, and others -- but three states have called for a general convention, which could throw it wide open.

So officially, depending on one's view of whether states can rescind, Congress may already be derelict in its duty to have such a convention. It remains in limbo because neither side wants the matter to go to court, the one because it doesn't want rescinded calls to count and the other because it does, and they're both afraid the issue will go against them.

 

[Kulindahr]

How would that even work? So I get Texas and OK, and some other States with wingnuts to call for a convention to add an amendment barring women from being nasty, and what, POOF convention on that issue? Because no other state can ever "rescind."

Yeah, that sounds like bunk.

Nothing will go forward until someone gets the Supreme Court to rule on whether or not states can rescind their call, because Congress isn't going to do its duty until someone kicks them in the butt (or even if someone does, given the behavior of the House of Representatives in recent years).

The really crazy position is the one that says that even calls asking for amendments which have since been adopted still count, because they didn't call for a regular amendment process but a convention. in that case, the count is 48 states calling for a convention (topics include what is now the Fourteenth Amendment, and Prohibition, for example).

But yes, if states can rescind, and the total is at present just 31, if three 'red' states decided to call for a convention to draft an amendment to require the borders to be fortified (not an implausible event), we'd be undeniably over the limit. At that point we'd find out if Congress really considers itself to be subject to the Constitution, because the sort behind such an amendment would be just about certain to sue Congress if it didn't act as the Constitution requires. And if SCOTUS followed the text as written, we'd end up with a convention required to address all the sorts of amendments states have called for, but able to address any it felt like. It's the final part that scares people.


BTW, interestingly there have been resolutions introduced to call for a convention to amend the Constitution to do away with the option of a constitutional convention (none have ever passed, I suspect partly due to the irony of the resolution).

 

[opinterph]

… such a convention would be able to address any topic

I’ve heard that such a convention could also rescind and replace the entire Constitution.

 

[Kulindahr]

I’ve heard that such a convention could also rescind and replace the entire Constitution.

The text of the Constitution, Article V, doesn't allow that:

"The Congress, ... on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress...."

It only provides for making things part of the Constitution. But since the only part of the Constitution that are specified as not subject to amendment is that of equal representation in the Senate, effectively the Constitution as it stands could be entirely supplanted. So while it couldn't rescind, it could effectively replace.

 

[TX-Beau]

No, it's according to the U.S. government, which due to rules passed by the House of Representatives last year required all such calls to be compiled and tracked; the list and texts of such calls are kept by the clerk of the House. It even lists them by topics; for example, if states can't rescind their calls, there are now 34 states that have called for a constitutional convention to compose an amendment requiring a balanced budget (26 if they can rescind), eleven states have called for a convention to make an amendment concerning polygamy, fifteen states have called for a convention to address an amendment to limit income taxes.

The Constitution says nothing about specifying topics, which leads to a consensus that such a convention would be able to address any topic named by any state that had called for a convention; that would mean that such a convention at the moment would have the above issues plus campaign finance reform (most significantly addressing Citizens United), direct election of the President, and others -- but three states have called for a general convention, which could throw it wide open.

So officially, depending on one's view of whether states can rescind, Congress may already be derelict in its duty to have such a convention. It remains in limbo because neither side wants the matter to go to court, the one because it doesn't want rescinded calls to count and the other because it does, and they're both afraid the issue will go against them.

Yeah, I'm still not buying it. If that was actually the way the law worked, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas would have us in a "Constitutional Convention," every frikkin' year over abortion, or hating gay people, or enshrining tax cuts for rich people, or some such shit.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, I'm still not buying it. If that was actually the way the law worked, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas would have us in a "Constitutional Convention," every frikkin' year over abortion, or hating gay people, or enshrining tax cuts for rich people, or some such shit.

That's the way the law is written -- the question is whether the PTBs care about the law.

But just a few states wouldn't have us in a convention "every frikkin' year", because once the convention is held and the issue in a state's call is addressed, that state has to make a new call for a convention. So one view is we need to do it and get it out of the way while the list of issues called for is reasonable, and prevent other states from adding idiotic crap to the table. At the moment, no state has called for an anti-abortion amendment, or a marriage amendment, so the thing to do might be to have a couple of states quickly issue a call affirming the few issues that are on record -- balanced budget, privacy, ERA, strengthening the Fourth and Fifth amendments, etc. -- and get Congress to call the convention promptly before any other calls are made, and shut other calls out because the convention has started.

Do it that way, and we'd never have to worry about the idiotic issues, because there is no way on God's green earth that a few 'red' states are going to convince thirty others to call for a convention again when we just did one.

 

[TX-Beau]

That's the way the law is written -- the question is whether the PTBs care about the law.

But just a few states wouldn't have us in a convention "every frikkin' year", because once the convention is held and the issue in a state's call is addressed, that state has to make a new call for a convention. So one view is we need to do it and get it out of the way while the list of issues called for is reasonable, and prevent other states from adding idiotic crap to the table. At the moment, no state has called for an anti-abortion amendment, or a marriage amendment, so the thing to do might be to have a couple of states quickly issue a call affirming the few issues that are on record -- balanced budget, privacy, ERA, strengthening the Fourth and Fifth amendments, etc. -- and get Congress to call the convention promptly before any other calls are made, and shut other calls out because the convention has started.

Do it that way, and we'd never have to worry about the idiotic issues, because there is no way on God's green earth that a few 'red' states are going to convince thirty others to call for a convention again when we just did one.

So now we have it, YOU think that the PTB have ignored what YOU think the law is, and for the record, Texas has called for a Constitutional Convention for several silly things that no one has - quite rightly - payed any attention to.

 

[Kulindahr]

So now we have it, YOU think that the PTB have ignored what YOU think the law is, and for the record, Texas has called for a Constitutional Convention for several silly things that no one has - quite rightly - payed any attention to.

It's not what I think -- it's in the Constitution.

And until SCOTUS decides whether states can rescind their calls, there's no way to say if the PTBs are ignoring the law.

As for Texas, well:

1899 -- General Convention
1901 -- Direct Election of Senators
1963 -- Mode of Amendment (not sure what that's about)
1963 -- Apportionment of Legislature
1963 -- Proportional Electoral College
1965 -- Apportionment of Legislature (2)
1967 -- Federal Revenue Sharing
1973 -- School Management
1977 -- Balanced Federal Budget


Those are the only ones listed anywhere. The House clerk doesn't list the 1977 one, which is interesting. That list apparently doesn't regard those before 1967 as valid, either (or just isn't bothering to list them).

Now, various governors have made all kinds of calls, but the Texas legislature hasn't acted on them, or that list could look like something from Looney Toons.

 

[TX-Beau]

Your entire argument rests on the idea that the Constitution does not explicitly say that states can "rescind." But then the Constitution doesn't explicitly say they can't either now does it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your entire argument rests on the idea that the Constitution does not explicitly say that states can "rescind." But then the Constitution doesn't explicitly say they can't either now does it.

No, it doesn't -- I gave the figures for either way, and clearly set out that we need SCOTUS to settle the issue.