Roy Moore in Alabama looking like hes going to be a lunatic.

[jem]

Your view is solid. Although I am anti immigration because I am anti democrat and establishment republican.

Its a matter of degree. How much damage would democrats do again if they had a chance.?

Importing a few million more democrats might prevent anti establishment republicans from ever getting elected.

we all sense we are at a tipping point for this generation.

Have you guys even considered in some ways a democrat congress is good for Trump and Bannon.

Getting eatablishment republicans out of congress benefits Trump and Bannon for so many reasons. If establiments are replaced by idiots, like Moore, who will support dumb ideas like national religion and ant immigration legislation, or democrats that will support things like infrastructure and, believe it or not, universal healthcare they win on both sides. Getting any of those things is hard with establishment republicans.

Bannon is not opposed to taxing the rich and spending on social programs. His main thing is nationalism (mixed with racism) from an anti globalism perspective and anti immigration.

A lot of republicans don’t know where the train they’re riding is going.

 

[Cuddles]

Hehe, if Democrats managed to flip Alabama it would undoubtedly make this whole year the most bizarre in political history.

 

[Tom B]

If the democrats flip Alabama, then racism and the kkk are on the rise in Alabama.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

constitutional rights. (by the way... that law may. )


.

Jem said:

"I don't have a problem with a Judge being a serious about all laws.
Unless its time for jury nullification... arguably he is doing his job as a non liberal judge to take laws and codes seriously as long as they don't conflict with constitutional rights. (by the way... that law may. )"

I rise to challenge the assertion by some that the "flag law" is North Korean-like in nature (referring to another post on this, not jem's) be obscure or anything like that, or that it is or unconstitutional.

The law/code (Title 36 U.S. Code sec. 171) contains no penalties for not complying with it, and has no enforcement provisions. It is only advisory to people who want know what the recommended procedures are for showing respect for the flag during ceremonies etc (what do I do if the National Anthem plays but there is no flag there to salute type of thing and do I have to take the flag down when it rains, what do I do if I am a soldier but not in uniform, do I salute or put my hand over my heart or whatever). As I said, there are no penalties and it is entirely proper for the government or organizations who have an interest to call for uniform procedures and guidance.

Some of this is confusing to the modern lefty who cannot understand why one would want to play the National Anthem of fly the flag anyway- especially if there is no law requiring it.

Not to get too persnickety, but the law/code language also uses the words "should" rather than "must" in regard to recommended actions.

The Alabama senator/judge is on his own with whatever he thinks and argues. I don't enter into that.

sigh.

Just say no to North Korea.

 

[jem]

thank you...

I take back my caveat

please strike... "(by the way... that law may. )"

and judge moore now does not seem kooky at all. just a patriot throwing his knowledge of the law around... in slightly overbearing way.

Jem said:

"I don't have a problem with a Judge being a serious about all laws.
Unless its time for jury nullification... arguably he is doing his job as a non liberal judge to take laws and codes seriously as long as they don't conflict with constitutional rights. (by the way... that law may. )"

I rise to challenge the assertion by some that the "flag law" is North Korean-like in nature (referring to another post on this, not jem's) be obscure or anything like that, or that it is or unconstitutional.

The law/code (Title 36 U.S. Code sec. 171) contains no penalties for not complying with it, and has no enforcement provisions. It is only advisory to people who want know what the recommended procedures are for showing respect for the flag during ceremonies etc (what do I do if the National Anthem plays but there is no flag there to salute type of thing and do I have to take the flag down when it rains, what do I do if I am a soldier but not in uniform, do I salute or put my hand over my heart or whatever). As I said, there are no penalties and it is entirely proper for the government or organizations who have an interest to call for uniform procedures and guidance.

Some of this is confusing to the modern lefty who cannot understand why one would want to play the National Anthem of fly the flag anyway- especially if there is no law requiring it.

Not to get too persnickety, but the law/code language also uses the words "should" rather than "must" in regard to recommended actions.

The Alabama senator/judge is on his own with whatever he thinks and argues. I don't enter into that.

sigh.

Just say no to North Korea.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Have you guys even considered in some ways a democrat congress is good for Trump and Bannon.

Getting eatablishment republicans out of congress benefits Trump and Bannon for so many reasons. If establiments are replaced by idiots, like Moore, who will support dumb ideas like national religion and ant immigration legislation, or democrats that will support things like infrastructure and, believe it or not, universal healthcare they win on both sides. Getting any of those things is hard with establishment republicans.

Bannon is not opposed to taxing the rich and spending on social programs. His main thing is nationalism (mixed with racism) from an anti globalism perspective and anti immigration.

A lot of republicans don’t know where the train they’re riding is going.

While I don't agree with a lot of the adjectives you use, your point about a convergence of the populist/nationalist right and the populist left is spot on. Trump's election was based on it.

Trump's problems with congress have stemmed from the fact that he has been forced to work within the existing party framework. That in itself is ironic since he represents the repudiation of that structure.

 

[jem]

I would also state we are at not risk of having a national religion because that really was what the anti establishment clause was about. it was not to stop some religious ideas being in govt it was to stop the feds from adopting a national religion the way some states had ties to specific protestant churches.