Trump defeated by wind

[Gwadien]

Wrong link Job, that's the line of immigrants trying to get your job, wife, house and dog.

Queue to the Polish Plumbers in the UK convention?

 

[Raven]

Fucking ROFL!!

I see why @caLLous has picked you up on it a few times now. You've a habit of reading a post and then retrospectively going back and editing your original post. Only this time you've done that and still replied!

Fucking classic! At least you've got the Prime Minister firmly on your side m8

It's not my fault you sit here mashing F5 all day. I wrote a bit then expanded on it.

 

[Gwadien]

I find it interesting that I made a point about American politics.

Yet you managed to get 'Labour lefty bollocks into it'

Quite interesting.

My point was that they belong to the same party, yet they're so all dog eat dog, and will probably have one of those people they're ripping as their running mate.

 

[Scouse]

It's not my fault you sit here mashing F5 all day. I wrote a bit then expanded on it.

Yeah right. The post timings and your edited content support that, of course.

Seriously tho - are you close to raging again? I mean, this sort of behaviour's preceeded all of the recent quitters - you know, an inability to take a post on the chin, or retain a sense of humour...


Edit: BTW - I'm not a labour voter, just for the record.

 

[Gwadien]

Edit: BTW - I'm not a labour voter, just for the record.

Hypocrite.

 

[Scouse]

Hypocrite.

Racist.

 

[DaGaffer]

Trump threatening to sue his rival because he might not be American.

I find American politics disgusting sometimes, they're meant to be in the same fucking party.

This stage is pretty much 'how many buzzwords can you use to get supporters, but not follow through with those buzzwords, because when you're president, you're actually a pawn.'

To be honest, I'm a bit confused about how Ted Cruz can even stand given the whole "you have to be born in the US to be president" thing; he was born in Canada. And given Trump spent a small fortune backing the "truther" campaign about Obama's birthplace, its hardly surprising he'd have a go at Cruz. From what I understand, "natural-born citizen" isn't well defined, but you'd have to say Cruz is on shakier ground than Obama, who was born in the US and had one American parent (Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father).

 

[Gwadien]

To be honest, I'm a bit confused about how Ted Cruz can even stand given the whole "you have to be born in the US to be president" thing; he was born in Canada. And given Trump spent a small fortune backing the "truther" campaign about Obama's birthplace, its hardly surprising he'd have a go at Cruz. From what I understand, "natural-born citizen" isn't well defined, but you'd have to say Cruz is on shakier ground than Obama, who was born in the US and had one American parent (Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father).

It's just pathetic back handed tactics anyway, in the world we live today, what kind of rule is that?

I hope they amend rather than punishing Cruz for it.

 

[Raven]

Yeah right. The post timings and your edited content support that, of course.

Seriously tho - are you close to raging again? I mean, this sort of behaviour's preceeded all of the recent quitters - you know, an inability to take a post on the chin, or retain a sense of humour...


Edit: BTW - I'm not a labour voter, just for the record.

Actually, I pressed edit, wrote a bit. Took a phone call. wrote a bit more.

Not that it fucking matters one tiny bit!


aaaand, edit. Raging about what? I am confused, do you think I care what you say? You will argue over absolutely anything, its kind of hard to take you seriously, let alone care about your opinion.

 

[Scouse]

Not that it fucking matters one tiny bit!

Why are you posting about it then?

 

[DaGaffer]

It's just pathetic back handed tactics anyway, in the world we live today, what kind of rule is that?

I hope they amend rather than punishing Cruz for it.

Its the rule they have. Whether you or I agree with it is neither here nor there; their country, their call. On the scale of "fucked up domestic policies various countries have" it barely registers; bit like us being subjects and the Queen can't be Catholic (or publicly atheist).

 

[Wij]

Cruz should be disqualified from office purely on the basis that he openly states he will put his fairy tales above the constitution every time.

 

[Gwadien]

Don't get me wrong, the constitution is pretty amazing, it sets a precedent for a nation.

However, it does get outdated and I think this rule is one of them frankly.

I'm pretty sure when the constitution was made the thinking was that we don't get a British President or something who starts fucking us over.

It's a bit like have you practiced your longbow today @Wij ?

 

[Wij]

Don't get me wrong, the constitution is pretty amazing, it sets a precedent for a nation.

However, it does get outdated and I think this rule is one of them frankly.

I'm pretty sure when the constitution was made the thinking was that we don't get a British President or something who starts fucking us over.

It's a bit like have you practiced your longbow today @Wij ?

I would gladly practice it with rusty arrows dipped in dogshit and Ted Cruz's balls.

 

[DaGaffer]

Don't get me wrong, the constitution is pretty amazing, it sets a precedent for a nation.

However, it does get outdated and I think this rule is one of them frankly.

I'm pretty sure when the constitution was made the thinking was that we don't get a British President or something who starts fucking us over.

It's a bit like have you practiced your longbow today @Wij ?

Actually I'm increasingly of the opinion that written constitutions are completely useless in the 21st century. They are always out of date and just create work for lawyers and politicians, and who wants to give either group work?

 

[Wij]

Actually I'm increasingly of the opinion that written constitutions are completely useless in the 21st century. They are always out of date and just create work for lawyers and politicians, and who wants to give either group work?

Common Law is better?

 

[Raven]

The constitution is referred to and upheld as and when required, completely ignored the rest of the time.

You just need to listen to half the bollocks Trump comes out with on terrorists and exclusion based on religion.

 

[Wij]

Actually I'm increasingly of the opinion that written constitutions are completely useless in the 21st century. They are always out of date and just create work for lawyers and politicians, and who wants to give either group work?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSANTRnEBgg

 

[Gwadien]

Actually I'm increasingly of the opinion that written constitutions are completely useless in the 21st century. They are always out of date and just create work for lawyers and politicians, and who wants to give either group work?

I guess so, but again, when you have a open house with no established structure, there needs to be something which creates the foundation, Europe has a couple o' thousand of years to get used to it, 'Murica aint.

I suppose the most progressive way of sorting their selves out would be to have a group of people who meet regularly to 'update' the silly parts of the constitution as some kind of non-democratic & non-political.

THEN YOU MAKE YOURSELF A MONARCHY OR A OLIGARCHY.

So yeah, it's a difficult nut to crack.

 

[Job]

How do you know I have a dog?

Marked as possible immigrant.

 

[DaGaffer]

Common Law is better?

Inasmuch as it evolves more quickly, yes.

The constitution is referred to and upheld as and when required, completely ignored the rest of the time.

You just need to listen to half the bollocks Trump comes out with on terrorists and exclusion based on religion.

Totally disagree, and and I wasn't just referring to the US Constitution. Lots of countries have constitutions, and in most, changing them is a big deal. Ireland still has a ton of ridiculous shit on the books because it was written in the constitution.

 

[Wij]

The constitution is referred to and upheld as and when required, completely ignored the rest of the time.

You just need to listen to half the bollocks Trump comes out with on terrorists and exclusion based on religion.

A POTUS needs to truthfully say the following:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[Wij]

Inasmuch as it evolves more quickly, yes.



Totally disagree, and and I wasn't just referring to the US Constitution. Lots of countries have constitutions, and in most, changing them is a big deal. Ireland still has a ton of ridiculous shit on the books because it was written in the constitution.

8th Amendment :/

 

[Raven]

Inasmuch as it evolves more quickly, yes.



Totally disagree, and and I wasn't just referring to the US Constitution. Lots of countries have constitutions, and in most, changing them is a big deal. Ireland still has a ton of ridiculous shit on the books because it was written in the constitution.

Ah, so Trump hasn't said he would like to exclude muslims based on them being muslims, directly contravening the constitution.

Righto.

Not to mention the 1st amendment in general is shat on, pretty much every day.

 

[DaGaffer]

8th Amendment :/

Exactly. And article 40 is why we still have blasphemy laws in 2016.

 

[DaGaffer]

Ah, so Trump hasn't said he would like to exclude muslims based on them being muslims, directly contravening the constitution.

Righto.

He can say what he likes (1st Amendment), doesn't mean jack until he tried to implement it, as has been pointed out by tons of commentators and lawyers.

 

[Wij]

Exactly. And article 40 is why we still have blasphemy laws in 2016.

Not really. I understood they were unenforceable until the Defamation Act. Why not just leave them as such to get round the need for a referendum?

 

[Raven]

Yes... So he (and his moronic supporters) are completely ignoring it...

Besides which, the first amendment is routinely ignored by law enforcement in the US.

Talk about gun control and all they have to do is shout about the constitution.

 

[Wij]

Yes... So he (and his moronic supporters) are completely ignoring it...

Besides which, the first amendment is routinely ignored by law enforcement in the US.

Talk about gun control and all they have to do is shout about the constitution.

Reading all about the SCOTUS bloke who died the other day he nixed the whole idea of Gun Control by taking an 'Originalist' stance on what the constitution says about arms. Shouldn't that have meant only 18th Century arms then? :/

 

[Raven]

Well, it should yes, as demonstrated by a really good anti-gun video (that I will find later) but it doesn't really work like that in reality.

As it is, anyone can own guns that fire a stupid amount of bullets a minute because the constitution intends militia to be able to own guns that can perhaps fire 2-3 bullets a minute, if you know what you are doing.