Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[forummm]

The table doesn't format well here, but Trump has more support among the GOP than any other GOP nominee since 1980 except Romney at this time in the cycle (in the month after wrapping up the GOP nomination). A caveat (perhaps an important one in this cycle) is that this excludes 3rd party candidates.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-voters-are-rallying-behind-trump-as-if-he-were-any-other-candidate/

GOP SUPPORT FOR …
1980 1988 1996 2000 2008 2012 2016
Republican nominee 74% 81% 79% 83% 84% 87% 85%
Democratic nominee 14 13 18 7 10 6 7


Combine this with a very beatable Clinton, and a Trump presidency looks very possible.

[nereo]

The table doesn't format well here, but Trump has more support among the GOP than any other GOP nominee since 1980 except Romney at this time in the cycle (in the month after wrapping up the GOP nomination). A caveat (perhaps an important one in this cycle) is that this excludes 3rd party candidates.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-voters-are-rallying-behind-trump-as-if-he-were-any-other-candidate/

GOP SUPPORT FOR …
1980 1988 1996 2000 2008 2012 2016
Republican nominee 74% 81% 79% 83% 84% 87% 85%
Democratic nominee 14 13 18 7 10 6 7


Combine this with a very beatable Clinton, and a Trump presidency looks very possible.

I'm very interested in seeing how this changes - if at all - after the conventions.

[thd7t]

The table doesn't format well here, but Trump has more support among the GOP than any other GOP nominee since 1980 except Romney at this time in the cycle (in the month after wrapping up the GOP nomination). A caveat (perhaps an important one in this cycle) is that this excludes 3rd party candidates.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-voters-are-rallying-behind-trump-as-if-he-were-any-other-candidate/

GOP SUPPORT FOR …
1980 1988 1996 2000 2008 2012 2016
Republican nominee 74% 81% 79% 83% 84% 87% 85%
Democratic nominee 14 13 18 7 10 6 7


Combine this with a very beatable Clinton, and a Trump presidency looks very possible.

The thing that hurts your argument is that Romney lost. A major factor in the 538 story is that the partisan divide has grown and crossover voting has diminished in recent cycles.

[forummm]

The table doesn't format well here, but Trump has more support among the GOP than any other GOP nominee since 1980 except Romney at this time in the cycle (in the month after wrapping up the GOP nomination). A caveat (perhaps an important one in this cycle) is that this excludes 3rd party candidates.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-voters-are-rallying-behind-trump-as-if-he-were-any-other-candidate/

GOP SUPPORT FOR …
1980 1988 1996 2000 2008 2012 2016
Republican nominee 74% 81% 79% 83% 84% 87% 85%
Democratic nominee 14 13 18 7 10 6 7


Combine this with a very beatable Clinton, and a Trump presidency looks very possible.

I'm very interested in seeing how this changes - if at all - after the conventions.

The poll is comparing data at this phase (when the nomination is locked up) and not after the convention. But the closer we get to the election the better the data should be.

The thing that hurts your argument is that Romney lost. A major factor in the 538 story is that the partisan divide has grown and crossover voting has diminished in recent cycles.

I'm not saying Trump will win. Just that the narrative of "Never Trump" and of all the GOPers refusing to support him is not exactly playing out. His support is very in line with all the prior nominees. People who have criticized him harshly have now endorsed him publicly. GOP senators are almost all falling in line. The voters clearly have as well. Having Clinton on the other side makes it very easy for them to set aside their differences with Trump. They might hate him. But they really hate her. Which is also stupid because she's basically a 90s moderate Republican in most regards. The whole point of the Clinton DLC/Third Way movement was to be not liberal. I think a Clinton presidency is better for the GOP than a Trump one for many reasons. For example, she will give them things they are largely OK with but can still spend 4 years campaigning against her (and successfully since most of the country hates and distrusts her). Versus Trump being a buffoon every day and doing who knows what and likely handing the presidency back to the Democrats in 4 years.

[thd7t]

The table doesn't format well here, but Trump has more support among the GOP than any other GOP nominee since 1980 except Romney at this time in the cycle (in the month after wrapping up the GOP nomination). A caveat (perhaps an important one in this cycle) is that this excludes 3rd party candidates.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-voters-are-rallying-behind-trump-as-if-he-were-any-other-candidate/

GOP SUPPORT FOR …
1980 1988 1996 2000 2008 2012 2016
Republican nominee 74% 81% 79% 83% 84% 87% 85%
Democratic nominee 14 13 18 7 10 6 7


Combine this with a very beatable Clinton, and a Trump presidency looks very possible.

I'm very interested in seeing how this changes - if at all - after the conventions.

The poll is comparing data at this phase (when the nomination is locked up) and not after the convention. But the closer we get to the election the better the data should be.

The thing that hurts your argument is that Romney lost. A major factor in the 538 story is that the partisan divide has grown and crossover voting has diminished in recent cycles.

I'm not saying Trump will win. Just that the narrative of "Never Trump" and of all the GOPers refusing to support him is not exactly playing out. His support is very in line with all the prior nominees. People who have criticized him harshly have now endorsed him publicly. GOP senators are almost all falling in line. The voters clearly have as well. Having Clinton on the other side makes it very easy for them to set aside their differences with Trump. They might hate him. But they really hate her. Which is also stupid because she's basically a 90s moderate Republican in most regards. The whole point of the Clinton DLC/Third Way movement was to be not liberal. I think a Clinton presidency is better for the GOP than a Trump one for many reasons. For example, she will give them things they are largely OK with but can still spend 4 years campaigning against her (and successfully since most of the country hates and distrusts her). Versus Trump being a buffoon every day and doing who knows what and likely handing the presidency back to the Democrats in 4 years.

That's a hard argument to make. 90's Republicans fought the policy proposals that Hillary was associated with very hard. I agree that they hate her, but for elected Republicans, it is because of the policies that she has worked for. Calling her a 90's Republican ignores what they were trying to do.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Just because people vote for something doesn't make it not authoritarian. Chavez in Venezuela did win an apparently legitimate election, but that doesn't make him not an authoritarian. (Yes, he's dead.)

To have a non-authoritarian government, you need the government, its officials, and its agents to be subject to rules. That's what concerns me about Trump and Clinton - they don't care about the rules, only the power.

Unfortunately the last two presidents have not helped on this front at all - Obama created the precedent that you can go to war without ever getting permission from Congress and then had the audacity to say it wasn't war, it was "kinetic military action." And even with the prospect of Trump having that power, I haven't seen many Democrats considering that perhaps Obama should have been made to follow the rules when he made the USA participate in the destruction of Libya. They'll start remembering checks and balances on Inauguration Day.

Careful, Shoulderthing, you have veered back on topic.  Will disagree that Obama was the first to claim that a war wasn't a war, but I agree that military action without regard for rules governing our country's entry into conflicts is moving in an authoritarian direction. I believe that the current partisan environment in the US is responsible for each party sometimes working against the interest of the nation. I do admit that I have trouble justifying this with my own very partisan views.
Trump and Clinton do appear to have preservation of power in mind (for what appear to be different reasons) and I consider it to be a serious concern.

Oh, he certainly wasn't the first! The War Powers Act was created for a reason. Obama (and Congress's refusal to impeach him for violating it) has made it meaningless. At least George W Bush had the decency to ask for Congressional permission for his execrable foreign policy ventures. "Kinetic Military Action" is when my attitude toward the President went from respectful disagreement to genuine distaste.

And now Hillary Clinton is running for President, with her fingerprints all over the Libyan catastrophe.

[forummm]

I'm not saying Trump will win. Just that the narrative of "Never Trump" and of all the GOPers refusing to support him is not exactly playing out. His support is very in line with all the prior nominees. People who have criticized him harshly have now endorsed him publicly. GOP senators are almost all falling in line. The voters clearly have as well. Having Clinton on the other side makes it very easy for them to set aside their differences with Trump. They might hate him. But they really hate her. Which is also stupid because she's basically a 90s moderate Republican in most regards. The whole point of the Clinton DLC/Third Way movement was to be not liberal. I think a Clinton presidency is better for the GOP than a Trump one for many reasons. For example, she will give them things they are largely OK with but can still spend 4 years campaigning against her (and successfully since most of the country hates and distrusts her). Versus Trump being a buffoon every day and doing who knows what and likely handing the presidency back to the Democrats in 4 years.

That's a hard argument to make. 90's Republicans fought the policy proposals that Hillary was associated with very hard. I agree that they hate her, but for elected Republicans, it is because of the policies that she has worked for. Calling her a 90's Republican ignores what they were trying to do.

The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.

Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.

Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.

The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.

[MoonShadow]

Amendment XXIV:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Notably, there is no prohibition in denying the "right" to vote based upon taxpayer status.

Doesn't that amendment rather clearly say that you can't deny someone the right to vote based on paying taxes?

You do have me there.

[thd7t]

While I would be hard-pressed to deny that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are allies of Hillary Clinton, their policies are not hers. The ACA was based on the Massachusetts healthcare law, passed in a state which had an insurmountable Democratic legislature and signed by a (then) moderate Republican governor.
Clinton has campaigned on women's health issues, climate change, and gun control. These would be difficult to confuse with Republican positions and are issues where she has campaigned to more than Sanders. In addition, if Clinton is Republican, Sanders runs right along side her, as their voting records match over 90% of the time. Clinton has been more hadwkish on foreign policy (and I disagree with her on this), but she also supported ending Congressional earmarks, against Sanders's opposition.
I believe that Sanders has done great things for the Democratic party and has forced Clinton to be a better candidate. I also believe that if he can make his voice and positions a part of the general election campaign, he may do more good in the long term.

[Malaysia41]

The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.

Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.

Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.

The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.

As usual, I agree 100% with the nut.

[MoonShadow]

The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.

Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.

Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.

The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.

As usual, I agree 100% with the nut.

And it's this kind of stuff that results in difficulty in seeing a practical difference between the two major parties.

[nereo]

The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.

Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.

Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.

The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.

As usual, I agree 100% with the nut.

And it's this kind of stuff that results in difficulty in seeing a practical difference between the two major parties.

Which brings up this philisophical point:  Perhaps the overwhelming majority of Americans agree on the majority of political issues in front of us, and we simply have learned to think we passionately disagree with the other side.

[randymarsh]

The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.

Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.

Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.

The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.

As usual, I agree 100% with the nut.

And it's this kind of stuff that results in difficulty in seeing a practical difference between the two major parties.

Which brings up this philisophical point:  Perhaps the overwhelming majority of Americans agree on the majority of political issues in front of us, and we simply have learned to think we passionately disagree with the other side.

I think there are some real and fundamental differences among Americans, but this just shows that we don't (if we ever did...) have 2 real parties. We mainly elect Batshit Insane Republicans and Republicans we call Democrats because they don't care who goes to which bathroom or think hurricanes are caused by homosexuality.

[nereo]

The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.

Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.

Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.

The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.

As usual, I agree 100% with the nut.

And it's this kind of stuff that results in difficulty in seeing a practical difference between the two major parties.

Which brings up this philisophical point:  Perhaps the overwhelming majority of Americans agree on the majority of political issues in front of us, and we simply have learned to think we passionately disagree with the other side.

I think there are some real and fundamental differences among Americans, but this just shows that we don't (if we ever did...) have 2 real parties. We mainly elect Batshit Insane Republicans and Republicans we call Democrats because they don't care who goes to which bathroom or think hurricanes are caused by homosexuality.

So that would be BIRs and RWCDs?  and Everyone knows el niρo causes homosexuality, not hurricanes...

[Glenstache]

The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.

Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.

Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.

The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.

As usual, I agree 100% with the nut.

And it's this kind of stuff that results in difficulty in seeing a practical difference between the two major parties.

Which brings up this philisophical point:  Perhaps the overwhelming majority of Americans agree on the majority of political issues in front of us, and we simply have learned to think we passionately disagree with the other side.

I think there are some real and fundamental differences among Americans, but this just shows that we don't (if we ever did...) have 2 real parties. We mainly elect Batshit Insane Republicans and Republicans we call Democrats because they don't care who goes to which bathroom or think hurricanes are caused by homosexuality.

So that would be BIRs and RWCDs?  and Everyone knows el niρo causes homosexuality, not hurricanes...

Apparently, it is actually hurricanes, not el niρo...
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/29/1104901/anti-gay-preacher-blames-hurricane-sandy-on-homosexuality-and-marriage-equality/

*facepalm*

[nereo]

I think there are some real and fundamental differences among Americans, but this just shows that we don't (if we ever did...) have 2 real parties. We mainly elect Batshit Insane Republicans and Republicans we call Democrats because they don't care who goes to which bathroom or think hurricanes are caused by homosexuality.

So that would be BIRs and RWCDs?  and Everyone knows el niρo causes homosexuality, not hurricanes...

Apparently, it is actually hurricanes, not el niρo...
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/29/1104901/anti-gay-preacher-blames-hurricane-sandy-on-homosexuality-and-marriage-equality/

*facepalm*

Well here's your problem - the correlation is backwards - hurricanes didn't create homosexuality, they were a response variable sent by God to deal with all that happy-brotherly (and sisterly) love.  But the question remains... how did it start???

note:  I can't believe these people exist.  I wonder how often they believe their own words.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

I think there are some real and fundamental differences among Americans, but this just shows that we don't (if we ever did...) have 2 real parties. We mainly elect Batshit Insane Republicans and Republicans we call Democrats because they don't care who goes to which bathroom or think hurricanes are caused by homosexuality.

So that would be BIRs and RWCDs?  and Everyone knows el niρo causes homosexuality, not hurricanes...

Apparently, it is actually hurricanes, not el niρo...
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/29/1104901/anti-gay-preacher-blames-hurricane-sandy-on-homosexuality-and-marriage-equality/

*facepalm*

Well here's your problem - the correlation is backwards - hurricanes didn't create homosexuality, they were a response variable sent by God to deal with all that happy-brotherly (and sisterly) love.  But the question remains... how did it start???

note:  I can't believe these people exist.  I wonder how often they believe their own words.

Worth reading for the participants in this discussion: I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup

It's very difficult to get a concept of what the mindset of the country as a whole is. None of us, living lives of an Incredible Volcano of Awesomeness, really has any idea. It's incredibly easy to mock people whose life experience we can't understand.

[GuitarStv]

I think there are some real and fundamental differences among Americans, but this just shows that we don't (if we ever did...) have 2 real parties. We mainly elect Batshit Insane Republicans and Republicans we call Democrats because they don't care who goes to which bathroom or think hurricanes are caused by homosexuality.

So that would be BIRs and RWCDs?  and Everyone knows el niρo causes homosexuality, not hurricanes...

Apparently, it is actually hurricanes, not el niρo...
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/29/1104901/anti-gay-preacher-blames-hurricane-sandy-on-homosexuality-and-marriage-equality/

*facepalm*

Well here's your problem - the correlation is backwards - hurricanes didn't create homosexuality, they were a response variable sent by God to deal with all that happy-brotherly (and sisterly) love.  But the question remains... how did it start???

note:  I can't believe these people exist.  I wonder how often they believe their own words.

Worth reading for the participants in this discussion: I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup

It's very difficult to get a concept of what the mindset of the country as a whole is. None of us, living lives of an Incredible Volcano of Awesomeness, really has any idea. It's incredibly easy to mock people whose life experience we can't understand.

It's even easier when the people you're mocking are working as hard as they can to do harm to others by being giant assholes.  I may not understand the life experience of a religiously motivated bigot, a Klan member, or a nazi.  In these cases though, mocking is a spontaneous disciplinary tool used to both inform people of and to reinforce socially valued behaviour.  It's effectively a spontaneous free-market solution to people being dicks.

[thd7t]

I'm not saying Trump will win. Just that the narrative of "Never Trump" and of all the GOPers refusing to support him is not exactly playing out. His support is very in line with all the prior nominees. People who have criticized him harshly have now endorsed him publicly. GOP senators are almost all falling in line. The voters clearly have as well. Having Clinton on the other side makes it very easy for them to set aside their differences with Trump. They might hate him. But they really hate her. Which is also stupid because she's basically a 90s moderate Republican in most regards. The whole point of the Clinton DLC/Third Way movement was to be not liberal. I think a Clinton presidency is better for the GOP than a Trump one for many reasons. For example, she will give them things they are largely OK with but can still spend 4 years campaigning against her (and successfully since most of the country hates and distrusts her). Versus Trump being a buffoon every day and doing who knows what and likely handing the presidency back to the Democrats in 4 years.

That's a hard argument to make. 90's Republicans fought the policy proposals that Hillary was associated with very hard. I agree that they hate her, but for elected Republicans, it is because of the policies that she has worked for. Calling her a 90's Republican ignores what they were trying to do.

The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.

Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.

Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.

The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.

I am inserting a comment that I made earlier in response to forum without quoting him. I really disagree that Clinton is simply a 90's Republican and that they opposed her simply to be obstructionist.

While I would be hard-pressed to deny that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are allies of Hillary Clinton, their policies are not hers. The ACA was based on the Massachusetts healthcare law, passed in a state which had an insurmountable Democratic legislature and signed by a (then) moderate Republican governor.
Clinton has campaigned on women's health issues, climate change, and gun control. These would be difficult to confuse with Republican positions and are issues where she has campaigned to more than Sanders. In addition, if Clinton is Republican, Sanders runs right along side her, as their voting records match over 90% of the time. Clinton has been more hadwkish on foreign policy (and I disagree with her on this), but she also supported ending Congressional earmarks, against Sanders's opposition.
I believe that Sanders has done great things for the Democratic party and has forced Clinton to be a better candidate. I also believe that if he can make his voice and positions a part of the general election campaign, he may do more good in the long term.

[deadlymonkey]

I'm not saying Trump will win. Just that the narrative of "Never Trump" and of all the GOPers refusing to support him is not exactly playing out. His support is very in line with all the prior nominees. People who have criticized him harshly have now endorsed him publicly. GOP senators are almost all falling in line. The voters clearly have as well. Having Clinton on the other side makes it very easy for them to set aside their differences with Trump. They might hate him. But they really hate her. Which is also stupid because she's basically a 90s moderate Republican in most regards. The whole point of the Clinton DLC/Third Way movement was to be not liberal. I think a Clinton presidency is better for the GOP than a Trump one for many reasons. For example, she will give them things they are largely OK with but can still spend 4 years campaigning against her (and successfully since most of the country hates and distrusts her). Versus Trump being a buffoon every day and doing who knows what and likely handing the presidency back to the Democrats in 4 years.

That's a hard argument to make. 90's Republicans fought the policy proposals that Hillary was associated with very hard. I agree that they hate her, but for elected Republicans, it is because of the policies that she has worked for. Calling her a 90's Republican ignores what they were trying to do.

The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.

Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.

Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.

The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.

I am inserting a comment that I made earlier in response to forum without quoting him. I really disagree that Clinton is simply a 90's Republican and that they opposed her simply to be obstructionist.

While I would be hard-pressed to deny that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are allies of Hillary Clinton, their policies are not hers. The ACA was based on the Massachusetts healthcare law, passed in a state which had an insurmountable Democratic legislature and signed by a (then) moderate Republican governor.
Clinton has campaigned on women's health issues, climate change, and gun control. These would be difficult to confuse with Republican positions and are issues where she has campaigned to more than Sanders. In addition, if Clinton is Republican, Sanders runs right along side her, as their voting records match over 90% of the time. Clinton has been more hadwkish on foreign policy (and I disagree with her on this), but she also supported ending Congressional earmarks, against Sanders's opposition.
I believe that Sanders has done great things for the Democratic party and has forced Clinton to be a better candidate. I also believe that if he can make his voice and positions a part of the general election campaign, he may do more good in the long term.

I agree that Clinton is not a 90s Republican.  She is however right of center, especially on economic and foreign policy issues.  30 years ago, she would be a prime Republican candidate.  Most of the issues she is on the left about are positions that have essentially been forced on her (Same sex Marriage for example).  It is indicative of how far the republican base has moved to the right, that the best the democrats can come up with (Sanders excluded) are actually right of center on most issues, especially when looking at what they have done/proposed vs rhetoric.

[Johnez]

When Trump ain't providing news, seems his delegates fill in nicely:

Riden explains that his views today go even further than those of the Continental Congress of 2009—his involvement in which he says he explicitly disclosed to the Trump campaign when he applied to be a delegate. Riden told Mother Jones in an interview that US leaders who violate the Constitution may have to be done away with: "The polite word is 'eliminated,'" he said. "The harsh word is 'killed.'"

link

Pedophiles, white nationalists, "Patriot" nuts....what is next?

[forummm]

I agree that Clinton is not a 90s Republican.  She is however right of center, especially on economic and foreign policy issues.  30 years ago, she would be a prime Republican candidate.  Most of the issues she is on the left about are positions that have essentially been forced on her (Same sex Marriage for example).  It is indicative of how far the republican base has moved to the right, that the best the democrats can come up with (Sanders excluded) are actually right of center on most issues, especially when looking at what they have done/proposed vs rhetoric.

I said "moderate" 90s Republican. A key distinction. And the bolded seems to agree  (although 30 years is mid-80s, it's pretty close). I also agree that you are right that many of her "liberal" positions are ones that arrived due to political calculus. Honestly, other than "I really, really want to be president", I'm not sure what any of her closely held personal beliefs are. Everything is a political calculation and there is no core theme that shines through consistently. The same is true of Trump of course--he's just much more inartful about it.

While I would be hard-pressed to deny that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are allies of Hillary Clinton, their policies are not hers. The ACA was based on the Massachusetts healthcare law, passed in a state which had an insurmountable Democratic legislature and signed by a (then) moderate Republican governor.
Clinton has campaigned on women's health issues, climate change, and gun control. These would be difficult to confuse with Republican positions and are issues where she has campaigned to more than Sanders. In addition, if Clinton is Republican, Sanders runs right along side her, as their voting records match over 90% of the time. Clinton has been more hadwkish on foreign policy (and I disagree with her on this), but she also supported ending Congressional earmarks, against Sanders's opposition.
I believe that Sanders has done great things for the Democratic party and has forced Clinton to be a better candidate. I also believe that if he can make his voice and positions a part of the general election campaign, he may do more good in the long term.

You're confusing today's crowd of Republicans and their significant movement to the right for the more reasonable moderates in the party that existed (alongside conservatives too) in prior decades.

She has actively campaigned for the WJC and Obama policies. She is clearly running now to be Obama's 3rd term. I haven't heard her say one negative thing about Obama's policies, except that she would be "more muscular" on foreign policy. She has promised to keep things roughly where they are. She gave speeches supporting the crime bill, saying we need to lock up all those urban "superpredators", etc. She implemented Obama's foreign policy. She voted for wars in the Senate. I think it's fair to link her to policies she has actively campaigned for (and continues to defend) and taken action to enact.

I never said she was an uber conservative or that she never has liberal positions. Just that she has a more moderate 90s Republican style set of positions.

Healthcare? George HW Bush said that we should let everyone buy into Medicaid (i.e. the public option). Hillary opposed that for a long time and then said she would support something similar for middle aged people--a flip flop in the past month or so.

Climate change? Well George HW Bush setup a cap and trade system to deal with pollution. The same system that is proposed now to deal with climate change. If it weren't for all the fossil industry money funding the GOP, they would be OK with a market-based solution like that now.

Gun control? I'm not sure what "liberal" things she's in favor of. Her positions are weak and widely supported by the country. It's just the crazy NRA (which is controlled by gun manufacturers and therefore only wants to drive up sales and no longer cares about things like safety because safety means fewer sales). GHWB tore up his NRA card when the NRA started going nuts. He also banned semiautomatics.

Women's rights? George HW Bush had to publicly be anti-choice, but it's widely believed he was privately in favor of choice. His SCOTUS appointment of Souter could be seen as ensuring that outcome. (Thomas is an interesting one--perhaps he was the only black Republican jurist of sufficiient stature to be nominated) GHWB also appointed a record number of women to positions. He wasn't liberal. A moderate 90s Republican.

She was a "Goldwater girl". She was on the board of Walmart while they were crushing unions. She's not a flaming liberal. She calculates her positions based on perceived political expediency.

[thd7t]

Forummm, you can't suggest that George W Bush was "publicly" one way and privately another. It's speculation. His actions argue very differently, particularly the nomination of Samuel Alito to the court. Bush also fought for the privatization of Social Security. On social issues, Sanders has not been a voice, but Clinton has pushed women's rights for decades. Referring to her support for Goldwater before she was 18 is simply ridiculous.

[MoonShadow]

It's just the crazy NRA (which is controlled by gun manufacturers and therefore only wants to drive up sales and no longer cares about things like safety because safety means fewer sales).

Is this what you really believe?  The Second Amendment Association is way more hardcore than the NRA.  I personally know active, lifetime members of the NRA that complain that they are too willing to compromise.

[infogoon]

Forummm, you can't suggest that George W Bush was "publicly" one way and privately another. It's speculation. His actions argue very differently, particularly the nomination of Samuel Alito to the court. Bush also fought for the privatization of Social Security. On social issues, Sanders has not been a voice, but Clinton has pushed women's rights for decades. Referring to her support for Goldwater before she was 18 is simply ridiculous.

I think he meant Bush The Elder.

[beltim]

Forummm, you can't suggest that George W Bush was "publicly" one way and privately another. It's speculation. His actions argue very differently, particularly the nomination of Samuel Alito to the court. Bush also fought for the privatization of Social Security. On social issues, Sanders has not been a voice, but Clinton has pushed women's rights for decades. Referring to her support for Goldwater before she was 18 is simply ridiculous.

Swing and a miss:

George HW Bush said that we should let everyone buy into Medicaid (i.e. the public option).

George HW Bush setup a cap and trade system to deal with pollution.

GHWB tore up his NRA card when the NRA started going nuts.

George HW Bush had to publicly be anti-choice, but it's widely believed he was privately in favor of choice.

GHWB also appointed a record number of women to positions.

Also, 90s Republican, not 2000s Republican

[thd7t]

Forummm, you can't suggest that George W Bush was "publicly" one way and privately another. It's speculation. His actions argue very differently, particularly the nomination of Samuel Alito to the court. Bush also fought for the privatization of Social Security. On social issues, Sanders has not been a voice, but Clinton has pushed women's rights for decades. Referring to her support for Goldwater before she was 18 is simply ridiculous.

Swing and a miss:

George HW Bush said that we should let everyone buy into Medicaid (i.e. the public option).

George HW Bush setup a cap and trade system to deal with pollution.

GHWB tore up his NRA card when the NRA started going nuts.

George HW Bush had to publicly be anti-choice, but it's widely believed he was privately in favor of choice.

GHWB also appointed a record number of women to positions.

Also, 90s Republican, not 2000s Republican

Wow, I totally misread that! GHWB did have pro-choice leanings in private, but his nomination of Clarence Thomas is his lasting legacy on women's health issues.
I won't say that Clinton is far from the center. I would prefer a more liberal nominee, but I believe that she will try to bring the country in a dramatically more progressive direction than any Republican would, including Trump.

[forummm]

It's just the crazy NRA (which is controlled by gun manufacturers and therefore only wants to drive up sales and no longer cares about things like safety because safety means fewer sales).

Is this what you really believe?  The Second Amendment Association is way more hardcore than the NRA.  I personally know active, lifetime members of the NRA that complain that they are too willing to compromise.

The NRA has shifted dramatically from what it used to be. Interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted too. Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago and now everyone seems to forget that the NRA used to agree that there isn't a constitutional requirement that anyone can have any weapon they want to at any time and not have anyone else know about it. The NRA used to be about gun safety and sportsmanship and hunting (it's even called the "Rifle" association and not "Machine Guns with 100 bullet Clips" association or "Handguns to Terrorists and Mentally Ill" association). Now it's about fearmongering and driving up weapons sales for the companies on their board.

In the 1930s, when the N.F.A. was debated, the N.R.A. president, Karl Frederick, effectively endorsed registration of all firearms and licensing of gun owners: “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” he once said. “I think it should be sharply restricted and only under license.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/opinion/gun-control-that-actually-works.html

[forummm]

I won't say that Clinton is far from the center. I would prefer a more liberal nominee, but I believe that she will try to bring the country in a dramatically more progressive direction than any Republican would, including Trump.

I think that might be true. But I really have no idea what Trump would do. And I'm not sure that Clinton would "move" the country in a progressive direction. I think she will largely be Obama's 3rd term. There will be some changes around the edges. Nothing too controversial. It will more be status quo.

Since she's a Democrat she has the dangerous ability to make big compromises and get the other Ds to sign off on them. Obama was ready to cut SS and MC but the GOP just couldn't get their members in line. If Trump proposed that, it would get filibustered. If Clinton backs it, we're hosed.

[forummm]

The table doesn't format well here, but Trump has more support among the GOP than any other GOP nominee since 1980 except Romney at this time in the cycle (in the month after wrapping up the GOP nomination). A caveat (perhaps an important one in this cycle) is that this excludes 3rd party candidates.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-voters-are-rallying-behind-trump-as-if-he-were-any-other-candidate/

GOP SUPPORT FOR …
1980 1988 1996 2000 2008 2012 2016
Republican nominee 74% 81% 79% 83% 84% 87% 85%
Democratic nominee 14 13 18 7 10 6 7


Combine this with a very beatable Clinton, and a Trump presidency looks very possible.

Now Paul Ryan says he'll vote for Trump. They are all falling in line. Trump could definitely win.

[nereo]

Now Paul Ryan says he'll vote for Trump. They are all falling in line. Trump could definitely win.

I think Clinton will still win Wisconsin.  That one vote shouldn't hurt too much :-P

[thd7t]

The table doesn't format well here, but Trump has more support among the GOP than any other GOP nominee since 1980 except Romney at this time in the cycle (in the month after wrapping up the GOP nomination). A caveat (perhaps an important one in this cycle) is that this excludes 3rd party candidates.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-voters-are-rallying-behind-trump-as-if-he-were-any-other-candidate/

GOP SUPPORT FOR …
1980 1988 1996 2000 2008 2012 2016
Republican nominee 74% 81% 79% 83% 84% 87% 85%
Democratic nominee 14 13 18 7 10 6 7


Combine this with a very beatable Clinton, and a Trump presidency looks very possible.

Now Paul Ryan says he'll vote for Trump. They are all falling in line. Trump could definitely win.

In his letter, Ryan stated that he agrees with Trump most of the time.

[MoonShadow]

It's just the crazy NRA (which is controlled by gun manufacturers and therefore only wants to drive up sales and no longer cares about things like safety because safety means fewer sales).

Is this what you really believe?  The Second Amendment Association is way more hardcore than the NRA.  I personally know active, lifetime members of the NRA that complain that they are too willing to compromise.

The NRA has shifted dramatically from what it used to be. Interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted too. Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago

Not this again.  I have, personally, presented plenty of historical evidence that this is not remotely the case, and that the 2nd was always intended to be interpreted as an individual right to bear arms.  Nor am I the only one that has presented you with this evidence, and here you go again.

and now everyone seems to forget that the NRA used to agree that there isn't a constitutional requirement that anyone can have any weapon they want to at any time and not have anyone else know about it.

The NRA still agrees with this position, which is why the 2nd Amendment Association thinks they are too soft.

The NRA used to be about gun safety and sportsmanship and hunting (it's even called the "Rifle" association and not "Machine Guns with 100 bullet Clips" association or "Handguns to Terrorists and Mentally Ill" association). Now it's about fearmongering and driving up weapons sales for the companies on their board.

They still are.

https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

In the 1930s, when the N.F.A. was debated, the N.R.A. president, Karl Frederick, effectively endorsed registration of all firearms and licensing of gun owners: “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” he once said. “I think it should be sharply restricted and only under license.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/opinion/gun-control-that-actually-works.html

Again, yes, the NRA is still in favor of gun restrictions.

[MoonShadow]

It's just the crazy NRA (which is controlled by gun manufacturers and therefore only wants to drive up sales and no longer cares about things like safety because safety means fewer sales).

Is this what you really believe?  The Second Amendment Association is way more hardcore than the NRA.  I personally know active, lifetime members of the NRA that complain that they are too willing to compromise.

The NRA has shifted dramatically from what it used to be. Interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted too. Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago

Not this again.  I have, personally, presented plenty of historical evidence that this is not remotely the case, and that the 2nd was always intended to be interpreted as an individual right to bear arms.  Nor am I the only one that has presented you with this evidence, and here you go again.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/firearms-in-the-home/msg1001489/#msg1001489

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted too. Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago

This is simply false.

[nereo]

Bizarre twitter post from Donald Trump:
I think the first female president of the USA will be @IvankaTrump a beautiful intelligent young genuine successful lady!"

I'm not sure if this is hyperbole or what, but I hope he understands she is not eligible to be POTUS.  If so, what does that really say about his earlier (false) assertions that Obama was not eligible (the whole "birther" movement). Or maybe he wants to amend the constutution? 

[GuitarStv]

Bizarre twitter post from Donald Trump:
I think the first female president of the USA will be @IvankaTrump a beautiful intelligent young genuine successful lady!"

I'm not sure if this is hyperbole or what, but I hope he understands she is not eligible to be POTUS.  If so, what does that really say about his earlier (false) assertions that Obama was not eligible (the whole "birther" movement). Or maybe he wants to amend the constutution?

I'm certain that constitutional amendments will be on President Trump's plate.  They will be required in order to fulfills his other promises . . . turning the US into a terrorist state by targeting non-combatants with military strikes, building a giant wall between the US and Mexico and forcing Mexico to pay for it, and implementing a state sponsored mandatory religious identity carding system.

[music lover]

Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...

The phrase "you can't fix stupid" certainly applies in this case. I honestly didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that clueless.

[deadlymonkey]

Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...

The phrase "you can't fix stupid" certainly applies in this case. I honestly didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that clueless.

Scalia did not invent the individual right to bear arms BUT an analysis of court cases at the state and federal level clearly show that the courts considered the second amendment to only prevent the FEDERAL government from regulating firearm ownership.  States were free to restrict or expand ownership as they saw fit in order to maintain the capability for a MILITIA. 

Some brief examples:
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.”

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), The Supreme court decided that the National Firearms act banning interstate transport of firearms was constitutional.  Specifically,  the Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 


Not until District of Columbia V Heller, (2008) did the supreme court change positions.  In a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right. Scalia authored the decision in this.

So in summary, courts for over 200 years ruled that the state governments can limit firearm possession.  Not until 2008 was an individual right to arms enshrined on a federal level.

[nereo]

Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...

The phrase "you can't fix stupid" certainly applies in this case. I honestly didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that clueless.

I'm not quite following this line of attack.  I think Forummm may have gone too far to claim that Judge Scalia 'invented' the individual right to bear arms, but his legal opinions on the matter have been very influential for the current interpretation of the second amendment.
The Article II (aka "the second amendment") says in it's entirety:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It directly references a Militia, and the right of the people, but does not specifically mention whether this is a right that can be extended to an individual, particularly one that is not a part of an active militia.
Scalia argued convincingly that if we are to be guided by the constitution we must consider the intent and scope at the time it was written. The argument there is that in the 1770s individuals kept rifles and firearms in their personal homes, and it was these individuals who banded together to form the militias (e.g. the "Minute Men").

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...

The phrase "you can't fix stupid" certainly applies in this case. I honestly didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that clueless.

Scalia did not invent the individual right to bear arms BUT an analysis of court cases at the state and federal level clearly show that the courts considered the second amendment to only prevent the FEDERAL government from regulating firearm ownership.  States were free to restrict or expand ownership as they saw fit in order to maintain the capability for a MILITIA. 

Some brief examples:
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.”

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), The Supreme court decided that the National Firearms act banning interstate transport of firearms was constitutional.  Specifically,  the Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 


Not until District of Columbia V Heller, (2008) did the supreme court change positions.  In a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right. Scalia authored the decision in this.

So in summary, courts for over 200 years ruled that the state governments can limit firearm possession.  Not until 2008 was an individual right to arms enshrined on a federal level.

It's called "incorporation" and it's why any parts of the Bill of Rights apply to states. It's a consequence of the Fourteenth Amendment. Heller and McDonald simply placed the Second Amendment on the same footing as the First and most of the rest of the Bill of Rights.

[GuitarStv]

[deadlymonkey]

Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...

The phrase "you can't fix stupid" certainly applies in this case. I honestly didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that clueless.

Scalia did not invent the individual right to bear arms BUT an analysis of court cases at the state and federal level clearly show that the courts considered the second amendment to only prevent the FEDERAL government from regulating firearm ownership.  States were free to restrict or expand ownership as they saw fit in order to maintain the capability for a MILITIA. 

Some brief examples:
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.”

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), The Supreme court decided that the National Firearms act banning interstate transport of firearms was constitutional.  Specifically,  the Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 


Not until District of Columbia V Heller, (2008) did the supreme court change positions.  In a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right. Scalia authored the decision in this.

So in summary, courts for over 200 years ruled that the state governments can limit firearm possession.  Not until 2008 was an individual right to arms enshrined on a federal level.

It's called "incorporation" and it's why any parts of the Bill of Rights apply to states. It's a consequence of the Fourteenth Amendment. Heller and McDonald simply placed the Second Amendment on the same footing as the First and most of the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Correct, but they did not incorporate until 2010 in McDonald v City of Chicago.  It does stand to reason that since 1868 when the 14th amendment was passed,  All of the other rights were incorporated but an individual right to bear arms was not.  Not until 2010 was that incorporated.  It could be a 150 year oversight OR it could be all the previous courts did not interpret the amendment to be an individual right but rather a state right for militias.  How you view that is probably just a measure of your politics. 


edit:  I feel that I should add that while I generally support individual ownership of firearms, I personally do not view that right as absolute or universal.

[forummm]

I was too brief and flip with the quick line about Scalia. It was a more concerted effort by many people, and led by the NRA. But it's still the case that interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted dramatically in recent decades. I know people get all up in arms (pun intended) about anything related to guns. And people like to present their interpretation (or some activist group's position that they want to believe) of complicated legal and historical issues as being The Way Things Have Always Been (or even if it wasn't it's The Way It Should Have Been). But the truth is that the law shifts based on the people who administer it and the times in which they live. And the 2nd amendment, which is anything but clear if you read it with an unbiased eye, is part of that shift. Other examples include interpretations of racial issues, sexual issues, and the balance of powers. Originally the 2nd amendment was about letting states have militias (as they did at the time) for various purposes. One common purpose was to have militias that enforced slavery laws and rounded up runaway slaves. There was also fear in those early days that the federal government could become tyrannical and that defense against it would be necessary. And since there was no giant standing federal army to provide for defense of the states, the state militias could serve that purpose. We've moved a long way from that in the last 250 years. And so has the gun technology.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

[Glenstache]

Inferring original intent of the framers is useful for context, and useful in understanding. However, times change and context matters. I think the concepts of liberty and expression are core themes of the framers, but there was much disagreement then (and now) about how to get there. Much of our history, and the successive amendments to the constitution can be viewed, at least in part, as the progression towards realizing those ideals as an ongoing experiment. The value in treating the Constitution with reverence is that is provides a framework by which we all play by the same rules that the rule of law has value in our society. To treat it as a sacrosanct document that cannot be interpreted is dangerous because, at the end of the day, it was in fact written by men and it is not a perfect document.

Thomas Jefferson recognized this.

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

I think that 19 years is a bit short to be useful. I do think that we shouldn't use original intent as some sort of magical wand to supersede current circumstance,and it would be incorrect to uniformly assume that was the intent of the framers either. This quote is from shortly after the Constitution was signed. I expect that MoonShadow would agree with the "act of force" portion of Jefferson's quote.

[sol]

So does anyone here really believe in an individual right to own arms of any sort, without restrictions?

I mean lots of people say they believe that, until you probe for details.  Very few people think private citizens should be allowed to stockpile fissile material, much less actual nuclear bombs, since the whole dirty bomb scares of the 2000s.  Can the mentally ill fill their suburban homes with tanks full of nerve gas?  How about a drone that sprays ricin over crowds, should you be allowed to carry that into an NFL game?

Most everyone believes that some weapons should be regulated and controlled, in the interest of public safety.  If I invented a $5 bomb that anyone could make and that could end all life on earth, the NRA probably wouldn't argue that children should have unrestricted access to such devices.

So most everyone agrees we need some restrictions.  Maybe not mental patients or children or convicted felons.  Maybe not super powerful bombs that could end humanity.  Maybe not in crowded places where innocent people congregate and are vulnerable to airborne pathogens.

Given those facts, isn't everything else just arguing over matters of degree?  When is a weapon a super weapon?  Who is declared mentally unfit?  What age is old enough?

Folks who get all worked up over gun control as some sort of violation of their personal liberty invariably WANT restrictions to those same liberties for other people.  It's a necessary precondition for the survival of society.

So maybe get off your constitutional high horse and admit were quibbling over details here?  OF COURSE the government has the right to restrict personal ownership of weapons, we just don't all agree over what weapons for what people at what times.  But it's not like the 2nd Amendment prohibits gun control.

[Glenstache]

So does anyone here really believe in an individual right to own arms of any sort, without restrictions?

I mean lots of people say they believe that, until you probe for details.  Very few people think private citizens should be allowed to stockpile fissile material, much less actual nuclear bombs, since the whole dirty bomb scares of the 2000s.  Can the mentally ill fill their suburban homes with tanks full of nerve gas?  How about a drone that sprays ricin over crowds, should you be allowed to carry that into an NFL game?

Most everyone believes that some weapons should be regulated and controlled, in the interest of public safety.  If I invented a $5 bomb that anyone could make and that could end all life on earth, the NRA probably wouldn't argue that children should have unrestricted access to such devices.

So most everyone agrees we need some restrictions.  Maybe not mental patients or children or convicted felons.  Maybe not super powerful bombs that could end humanity.  Maybe not in crowded places where innocent people congregate and are vulnerable to airborne pathogens.

Given those facts, isn't everything else just arguing over matters of degree?  When is a weapon a super weapon?  Who is declared mentally unfit?  What age is old enough?

Folks who get all worked up over gun control as some sort of violation of their personal liberty invariably WANT restrictions to those same liberties for other people.  It's a necessary precondition for the survival of society.

So maybe get off your constitutional high horse and admit were quibbling over details here?  OF COURSE the government has the right to restrict personal ownership of weapons, we just don't all agree over what weapons for what people at what times.  But it's not like the 2nd Amendment prohibits gun control.

If people were reasonable about it, it wouldn't be as effective a wedge issue as it is. Amongst those with strong opinions, the question comes down to if you are more afraid of the government coming after you (and your guns) or if you are afraid of those who are unbalanced and going after others with guns, or of the guns themselves (in some cases). The rest have half-thought opinions that are easily swayed because they are poorly formed. So, while you are correct, I don't think your line of thinking is really in line with how it is conceptualized in the public's minds, or what dog whistle words are used to frame the debate therein.

That people on this forum are quoting supreme court decisions and being generally reasonable about the discussion makes this forum an outlier in the discussion of firearms and second amendment rights.

[forummm]

So does anyone here really believe in an individual right to own arms of any sort, without restrictions?

Even Scalia's opinion allows for restrictions on a variety of factors.

If I invented a $5 bomb that anyone could make and that could end all life on earth, the NRA probably wouldn't argue that children should have unrestricted access to such devices.

Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/03/24/nra-rewrites-childrens-books-hansel-gretal-red-riding-hood-guns/82215368/

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/nra-advises-storing-guns-childrens-bedrooms

[GuitarStv]

Relevant to gun control discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWJrLkV8Ggg

[Midwest]

Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?

The NRA advocates for terrorists being allowed to buy weapons?