*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[TheSpoonald]

That's so absurd I'm not even going to respond. You elect whole candidates. I'll let you figure out what that means. Trying to figure out which policies are supported by what % of his constituency is an absurd way to govern. Just fuck off with your whole argument.

[Poopadoop]

That's so absurd I'm not even going to respond.

He says in the lead to his response.

You elect whole candidates. I'll let you figure out what that means. Trying to figure out which policies are supported by what % of his constituency is an absurd way to govern. Just fuck off with your whole argument.

The point is you can't figure out which policies are supported by what % of his constituency, not that you should try to.

So, your simple-minded idea that 'a vote for Trump is a vote for everything Trump says' is not true then? Or do you believe that every one of his 2016 policy ideas should be followed through on?

And if they aren't followed through on, whose fault is that? Mueller?

Just fuck off with your whole argument.

The mask is slipping, if there ever was one. Careful there ragey Joe.

[TheSpoonald]

So, your simple-minded idea that 'a vote for Trump is a vote for everything Trump says' is not true then

The supreme court upheld Obamacare using this exact same "simple-minded" idea. I'm just going with precedent.

If you're telling me the election of 2016 was not many things, and that one of those things was not a referendum on a wall....just gtfo

[Poopadoop]

The supreme court upheld Obamacare using this exact same "simple-minded" idea. I'm just going with precedent.

Not up on the story behind this, but Imma going to go out on a limb again and suggest that that is with great likelihood a gross oversimplification of how the SC ruled on that case.

[TheSpoonald]

Not up on the story behind this, but Imma going to go out on a limb again and suggest that that is with great likelihood a gross oversimplification of how the SC ruled on that case.

From the chief justice's opinion

Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation's elected leaders. "Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government" requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if "the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated." United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

If the Chief Justice of the Supreme court takes that kind of humble and deferential position, then what kind of self-aggrandized pathological narcissist do you have to be to say "Actually no, the voters are wrong. I know better and I say a wall is immoral. Plus ladders are a thing"

[Poopadoop]

From the chief justice's opinion

Our permissive reading of these powers is explained 1) in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation's elected leaders. "Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government" requires that we strike down an 2) Act of Congress only if "3) the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated." United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. 4) It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

As i suspected, you've allowed yourself a very specific and wrong interpretation of what happened.

1. "In part" means there were other considerations at play, the relative weighting of each could only be determined by a thorough reading of the decision.

2. This was an Act of Congress, not a promise by a president, they are referring to (the fact the act happened to fulfill a presidential promise is irrelevant because the SC is mentioning only the Act of Congress and does not consider whether or not the act was done to fulfill a presidential promise or not - likely because the SC is not retarded).

3. The issue they are referring to here is whether the Congress has the authority to pass law, which the SC concludes it obviously does.

4. The last point is made in reference to laws that are passed by elected officials. It is definitely NOT the SC saying 'whatever promises those elected officials made must inevitably become law'.

[TheSpoonald]

As i suspected decided before even hearing the argument,

FYP

1. "In part" means there were other considerations at play, the relative weighting of each could only be determined by a thorough reading of the decision.

So go thoroughly read it. It basically says "We the SC find that the ACA is unconstitutional. The individual mandate is illegal, and congress doesn't have that power.......BUT.......America voted for it and we're not here to overrule that. That's not our job. So you know what....we're going to interpret the individual mandate as a tax. And congress has the power to levy taxes"

Don't you think that's weird since most politicians supporting ACA sold it as "not a tax"? So actually what you have here is the SC saying that the election results dictate policy. It doesn't really matter that congress fucked it up...that's what people want, so they have it.

2. This was an Act of Congress, not a promise by a president,

Look, either take my word for it, or go read the decision yourself. The SC decided that congress's act was unconstitutional. In order to uphold the law, they had to rely on their perception that the election of 2008 was a referendum on healthcare.

3. The issue they are referring to here is whether the Congress has the authority to pass law, which the SC concludes it obviously.

Please go read the opinion. If you're gonna make dumb, uninformed claims like the bolded, please try to know what the fuck you're talking about.

4. The last point is made in reference to laws that are passed by elected officials. It is definitely NOT the SC saying 'whatever promises those elected officials made must inevitably become law'.

No. It's the SC saying "the elected officials fucked it up, but this is what the people wanted and we know that because these officials got elected in the first place"

[Poopadoop]

If you're telling me the election of 2016 was not many things, and that one of those things was not a referendum on a wall....just gtfo

Do you really want to keep digging yourself this hole?

First, you (seem to) acknowledge the very simple fact you can vote for a candidate without wanting everything that candidate promises.

Then, you argue that, in this special case of the Wall, voting for Trump meant wanting the Wall.

You conclude that 1) there's no inherent contradiction between your two premises; and 2) anyone who points them out can fuck off.

Given that 2) is nothing more than a symptom of cognitive dissonance, let's focus on 1). Do you see why voting for Trump does not automatically equate to a vote for the Wall?

[TheSpoonald]

Do you really want to keep digging yourself this hole?

I really don't get why it's not clear to you.

First, you (seem to) acknowledge the very simple fact you can vote for a candidate without wanting everything that candidate promises.

yup

Then, you argue that, in this special case of the Wall, voting for Trump meant wanting the Wall.

Nope

You conclude that 1) there's no inherent contradiction between your two premises;

Nope

and 2) anyone who points them out can fuck off.

Yup

1). Do you see why voting for Trump does not automatically equate to a vote for the Wall?

yup

Now tell me why it matters. We elect whole candidates. That means when you vote for a candidate, you're voting for the whole thing. Even the policies you don't like. If you voted for Trump, you voted for ALL of Trump. There's stuff Trump has done that I don't like, or wouldn't have supported if that were the only issue I was voting on. So what?

If you're trying to say that Trump doesn't have a mandate to build a wall because maybe possibly potentially some of his supporters might possibly maybe not be fired up about the wall, then please maybe potentially possibly GTFO

[Poopadoop]

something something arrrrrggggghhgghgh!!!

Your argument seems to have evolved from 1) 'we voted for the Wall' to 2) 'Trump has a mandate to build the Wall'. In effect, Trump has a mandate to do w/e the fuck he wants within the bounds of his office. So sure, 2) is correct in that sense.

Not the same as saying 'most americans want a wall.' however.

[TheSpoonald]

Your argument seems to have evolved from 1) 'we voted for the Wall' to 2) 'Trump has a mandate to build the Wall'. In effect, Trump has a mandate to do w/e the fuck he wants within the bounds of his office. So sure, 2) is correct in that sense.

Not the same as saying 'most americans want a wall.' however.

you've reducticus el bananino'd me again. Either use a real quote from me or fuck off

[Poopadoop]

Looking into the future here I admit, but if (when) banana gets himself banned again, will we months later see a new account called TheWufald?