President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

here you go...

 

He’s just another Right Wing Talk Radio wan be, who can use spelchek

 

This is an SJ.com-level ad hominem attack here:

The former GOP congressman, who once voted to repeal the “assault weapons” ban and never once “stood up” to the boogeyman NRA when there was any political risk, tells us he’s a “reasonable” conservative who believes in the Second Amendment.

Who gives a fuck what Joe Scarborough said or did previously? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

Yeah. It would be unconscionable for Trump to pardon anyone involved in his campaign, or who worked in his administration.

Doing so should not only be grounds for impeachment, but should render anyone who would do do a political outcast for the remainder of their days.

In one of his final acts before leaving office at noon today, Clinton also pardoned his own brother, Roger, convicted of a drug charge; Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros; four people convicted as a result of the investigation conducted by special counsel Kenneth Starr; and eight people convicted following an investigation of the U.S. Agriculture Department.

Clinton Pardons McDougal, Hearst, Others

 

Really interesting column about the media's tendency to mislead.

Can you point me to the passage in Heller that holds this:

Heller, though, found that the Second Amendment protected weapons “in common use by law-abiding citizens.” The AR-15 clearly meets this criteria.

 

could not resist

 

sorry, I always go to twitter after here and there is always something about the things that we have been discussing.

 

We need to know who the panelists are. If they're just campus Young Republicans or spawn of his donors, this is another sock puppet show. Not that he'll invite any of the students that have been calling him out all weekend.

 

The workforce participation crowd complaining about misleading statistics.

Hilarious.

 

I'd guess this is what he's referencing, which is on page two, thought it is part of the spelling out of the case, and not the decision itself:

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

 

When did he do this?

For context, Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and sanctioned Russian individuals and entities for election interference.

 

And now can you find something from the decision itself and not the syllabus?