Possibly the best result of the End Birthright Citizenship movement:

[Rhea]

Trump, and now many other candidates want to have a discussion about changing or repealing the 14th amendment because "Times Have Changed™." Most of the people who oppose that are opposing it on the grounds that eliminating birthright citizenship has many real, current, quantifiable good reasons to continue.

Note, they are not arguing, "It's in teh constitution therefore it must always be true." No, they are arguing the merits and making a good argument.

Which is a fine conversation to have, IMHO.

And what's FABULOUS about that is that now we can point to that [repeal the 14th] movement and say, "hey, these discussions are good. Now let's discuss the 2nd amendment, shall we? What current real quantifiable good reasons are there to continue it?"

Because Trump, Jindal, Graham, walker and others have said the fact that it's in the constitution is not alone a good reason to keep it. It's okay to say, "times have changed."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Was the 14th Amendment personally handed to Ronald Reagan by Jesus? If not, it can't be compared to the 2nd.

 

[untermensche]

It just shows how phony all this talk about the Constitution from the right is.

The US right does not have a shred of decency. It is a grotesque monstrosity.

Bernie Sanders voted against the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It just shows how phony all this talk about the Constitution from the right is.

The US right does not have a shred of decency. It is a grotesque monstrosity.

Bernie Sanders voted against the invasion of Iraq.

But he voted to fund it, so his commitment to his principles stops short of the "actually doing something" level.

 

[untermensche]

It just shows how phony all this talk about the Constitution from the right is.

The US right does not have a shred of decency. It is a grotesque monstrosity.

Bernie Sanders voted against the invasion of Iraq.

But he voted to fund it, so his commitment to his principles stops short of the "actually doing something" level.

It is like the soldiers.

I was in the military. You go where you are ordered to go. You do what you are told to do.

Once the military was going you only hurt young men and women following orders by not properly funding them.

Bernie Sanders is the first serious presidential candidate on the left in my lifetime. Nader was on the left but he was never a serious, in terms of numbers, contender.

The nation has moved too far to the right fringe. Trump is evidence of this.

It is time to move left.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But he voted to fund it, so his commitment to his principles stops short of the "actually doing something" level.

It is like the soldiers.

I was in the military. You go where you are ordered to go. You do what you are told to do.

Once the military was going you only hurt young men and women following orders by not properly funding them.

That was a cheap and cowardly response on his part. He can't run as the guy against the war if he never took a single action against the war after his first vote and continuously supported it the entire time it was going on.

Is he also against the government violating people's civil liberties despite continuously voting against any money to get people out of their endless imprisonment at Gitmo?

 

[untermensche]

It is like the soldiers.

I was in the military. You go where you are ordered to go. You do what you are told to do.

Once the military was going you only hurt young men and women following orders by not properly funding them.

That was a cheap and cowardly response on his part. He can't run as the guy against the war if he never took a single action against the war after his first vote and continuously supported it the entire time it was going on.

Is he also against the government violating people's civil liberties despite continuously voting against any money to get people out of their endless imprisonment at Gitmo?

Bernie Sanders is a lot more than I thought possible.

Of course he is not perfect, only a lot better than Hillary.

If Gore gets in I may support him.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That was a cheap and cowardly response on his part. He can't run as the guy against the war if he never took a single action against the war after his first vote and continuously supported it the entire time it was going on.

Is he also against the government violating people's civil liberties despite continuously voting against any money to get people out of their endless imprisonment at Gitmo?

Bernie Sanders is a lot more than I thought possible.

Of course he is not perfect, only a lot better than Hillary.

If Gore gets in I may support him.

Ya, all I'm saying is that Bernie Sanders is a hypocrite and a coward. I'm not saying that he's not light years better than everyone else who's running and I do think it's sad that he doesn't have a chance.

His main problem is the same as his main appeal - he's not batshit crazy. This makes him competent while at the same time making him uninteresting.

 

[ksen]

It is like the soldiers.

I was in the military. You go where you are ordered to go. You do what you are told to do.

Once the military was going you only hurt young men and women following orders by not properly funding them.

That was a cheap and cowardly response on his part. He can't run as the guy against the war if he never took a single action against the war after his first vote and continuously supported it the entire time it was going on.

Good thing Sanders didn't just take a single action against the war and call it a day.

He voted against numerous DoD spending authorizations during the Iraq War.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That was a cheap and cowardly response on his part. He can't run as the guy against the war if he never took a single action against the war after his first vote and continuously supported it the entire time it was going on.

Good thing Sanders didn't just take a single action against the war and call it a day.

He voted against numerous DoD spending authorizations during the Iraq War.

So, he voted for some and against others. I guess I was wrong about him and he's mainly a wishy-washy flip-flopper who has no moral or intellectual center. I guess if he becomes President, he'll bomb something one day and then wander off and forget about it the next depending on which way the wind happens to be blowing.

Exactly the kind of indecisive dithering your country needs in a leader.

 

[ksen]

I accept your apology.

 

[untermensche]

Good thing Sanders didn't just take a single action against the war and call it a day.

He voted against numerous DoD spending authorizations during the Iraq War.

So, he voted for some and against others. I guess I was wrong about him and he's mainly a wishy-washy flip-flopper who has no moral or intellectual center. I guess if he becomes President, he'll bomb something one day and then wander off and forget about it the next depending on which way the wind happens to be blowing.

Exactly the kind of indecisive dithering your country needs in a leader.

The presidency has become institutionalized.

The president is surrounded by very persuasive members of the military and intelligence agencies. An experienced group of hawks. They are in a bubble.

You very well may see Sanders as president launching more drones than Obama.

But all we are allowed is the better of two sometimes bad choices.

Who would you rather see with that power? Hillary? Jeb? The Donald?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, he voted for some and against others. I guess I was wrong about him and he's mainly a wishy-washy flip-flopper who has no moral or intellectual center. I guess if he becomes President, he'll bomb something one day and then wander off and forget about it the next depending on which way the wind happens to be blowing.

Exactly the kind of indecisive dithering your country needs in a leader.

The presidency has become institutionalized.

The president is surrounded by very persuasive members of the military and intelligence agencies. An experienced group of hawks. They are in a bubble.

You very well may see Sanders as president launching more drones than Obama.

But all we are allowed is the better of two sometimes bad choices.

Who would you rather see with that power? Hillary? Jeb? The Donald?

I'd like to see the Donald. Witnessing the Kafkaesque surreality of a President Trump would almost be worth experiencing the damage that a President Trump would do.

The Presidency needs someone who isn't a hypocritical and cowardly waffler that stands for nothing more than what he thinks will make him popular on the blogs that day, so Sanders is out. The office requires someone with a strength of character and the ability to enact tough changes and Hillary Clinton is someone who almost got Bill Clinton to stop banging every woman he met. Let's not debase that accomplishment. It shows that she's an impressive woman who can get stuff done and that's what your country needs at its helm.

 

[ksen]

The Presidency needs someone who isn't a hypocritical and cowardly waffler that stands for nothing more than what he thinks will make him popular on the blogs that day, so Sanders is out.

Now you're just trying too hard.

 

[Bronzeage]

Bernie Sanders is a lot more than I thought possible.

Of course he is not perfect, only a lot better than Hillary.

If Gore gets in I may support him.

Ya, all I'm saying is that Bernie Sanders is a hypocrite and a coward. I'm not saying that he's not light years better than everyone else who's running and I do think it's sad that he doesn't have a chance.

His main problem is the same as his main appeal - he's not batshit crazy. This makes him competent while at the same time making him uninteresting.

I look at Bernie's dilemma this way: I've been in a few fights and I didn't like it. The worst I was ever hurt, was in fight I won. I'll do almost anything to avoid a fight, because I know there's no real winning. That said, once the fight starts, I'm in it and whatever it takes to make the other guy think he has made a big mistake, I'm going to do it.

Bernie can tell me I shouldn't do it, but once it starts, he better have my back, or I have no use for him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And what makes the Constitution infallible?

Situations change, sometimes the laws need to change with them. In the time of the Constitution being flooded by the poor wasn't an issue.

I'm not saying it should be changed, just that your argument against changing it is invalid.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The Presidency needs someone who isn't a hypocritical and cowardly waffler that stands for nothing more than what he thinks will make him popular on the blogs that day, so Sanders is out.

Now you're just trying too hard.

Ya, the Sanders guys aren't as easy as the Ron Paul guys were. That just came without effort. Give me a few threads to hone the Sanders stuff and it'll come off better.

- - - Updated - - -

Ya, all I'm saying is that Bernie Sanders is a hypocrite and a coward. I'm not saying that he's not light years better than everyone else who's running and I do think it's sad that he doesn't have a chance.

His main problem is the same as his main appeal - he's not batshit crazy. This makes him competent while at the same time making him uninteresting.

I look at Bernie's dilemma this way: I've been in a few fights and I didn't like it. The worst I was ever hurt, was in fight I won. I'll do almost anything to avoid a fight, because I know there's no real winning. That said, once the fight starts, I'm in it and whatever it takes to make the other guy think he has made a big mistake, I'm going to do it.

Bernie can tell me I shouldn't do it, but once it starts, he better have my back, or I have no use for him.

Exactly. Anything else just emboldens the terrorists and undermines America.

 

[RVonse]

Trump, and now many other candidates want to have a discussion about changing or repealing the 14th amendment because "Times Have Changed™." Most of the people who oppose that are opposing it on the grounds that eliminating birthright citizenship has many real, current, quantifiable good reasons to continue.

Note, they are not arguing, "It's in teh constitution therefore it must always be true." No, they are arguing the merits and making a good argument.

Which is a fine conversation to have, IMHO.

And what's FABULOUS about that is that now we can point to that [repeal the 14th] movement and say, "hey, these discussions are good. Now let's discuss the 2nd amendment, shall we? What current real quantifiable good reasons are there to continue it?"

Because Trump, Jindal, Graham, walker and others have said the fact that it's in the constitution is not alone a good reason to keep it. It's okay to say, "times have changed."

To be fair, isn't there a big difference between saying the constitution is wrong and saying that one of the amendments to the constitution needs to be changed?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

To be fair, isn't there a big difference between saying the constitution is wrong and saying that one of the amendments to the constitution needs to be changed?

It's meant as a mockery of the typical right wing position about how the 2nd Amendment is inviolate because it's in the Constitution.

 

[bilby]

And what makes the Constitution infallible?

Situations change, sometimes the laws need to change with them. In the time of the Constitution being flooded by the poor wasn't an issue.

Nor were breech-loading firearms with the ability to fire multiple shots without reloading. And one of those things is a reality today, and not a wild fantasy like the other one.

I'm not saying it should be changed, just that your argument against changing it is invalid.

The US constitution is revered far beyond its actual value in a number of ways. Your joke of a presidential election campaign (amongst many other things) could be dramatically improved by the modernising of your constitution.