|
Trabisnikof posted:I think Texas's law applied only to Blacks marrying non-Blacks. But I'm too lazy to look up the exact wording. miscegenation laws typically applied to any non-white minority trying to marry a white person, which was the main reason why it was stuck down (it wasn't "separate but equal" since other races could marry each other).
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
bpower posted:Wow, southern whites had a nice little fascist police state going there. No wonder they're pissed since the 60s. Don't worry, the powerful southerners learned they already had all the tools they need without needing the overly racist ones. And the poor white remains on the caboose of the train but it ain’t him to blame computer parts posted:miscegenation laws typically applied to any non-white minority trying to marry a white person, which was the main reason why it was stuck down (it wasn't "separate but equal" since other races could marry each other). And in the case of the Texas law, it prevented marriage between blacks and non-blacks (aka whites) and allowed the marriage of Anglos and Mexicans. Edit: yeah Blacks and Filipinos couldn't marry whites in Texas: http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_258/Lecture%20Notes/american_antimiscegenation.htm Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:I think that would describe the entire Oklahoma democratic party, me included. Maybe you could extrapolate that to other traditionally red states? It is in line with European liberal politics. And east coast Rockefeller Republicans. Who are probably slightly to the left of the Oklahoma Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
For beauty pageant owner, no apology.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Joementum posted:For beauty pageant owner, no apology. He's saying the countries largest (likely by a huge margin) Spanish language shouldn't be allowed to show the presidential debate because they think one of the candidates is an rear end in a top hat? If that's the criteria most networks would be disqualified.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Now he has banned Univision from using his golf course.  quote:In the letter, Trump writes to Falco, "Please be advised that under no circumstances is any officer or representative of Univision allowed to use Trump National Doral, Miami—its golf courses or any of its facilities. Also, please immediately stop work and close the gate which is being constructed between our respective properties. If this is not done within one week, we will close it."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
I think we now know his ISIS plan. No yooooge classy golf courses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
He also doxed a Univision anchor http://www.politico.com//blogs/media/2015/06/trump-publishes-jorge-ramos-phone-number-209568.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
magiccarpet posted:He also doxed a Univision anchor Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Anyone know what some of these people said when the SCOTUS ruled in favor of individual gun ownership rights regarding the second amendment?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
magiccarpet posted:He also doxed a Univision anchor Jesus, what a whiny bitch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
I cannot think of two more diametrically opposed people in terms of seriousness and credibility than Jorge Ramos and Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Someone should take guns grits and gravy and shove them up pedophile apologist and enabler huckabees rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
I guess we knew it was going to be crazy when Trump announced, but this is beyond anything I imagined. I thought he would have some self control, but obviously I was a childish fool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Star Man posted:What was fun was Dubya campaigning in 2004 that he would ban same-sex marriage whike Cheney would try to avoid the question because his daughter is a lesbian. Cheney outright broke ranks and publically supported gay marriage and opposed Bush's proposed constitutional amendment during the 2004 campaign. He still said it should be up to individual states but I think your characterization is unfair.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
You think you're going to get tired of watching Trump knock over his pile of blocks and yell "You can't play anymore because it's my Nintendo and I'm saying you can't use it!" but nope, it only gets funnier and funnier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Donald Trump owns and I am so happy he is officially a 2016 GOP Presidential Contender
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Theory: the other candidates are deliberately trying to keep their numbers low to avoid getting invited to a debate with Trump. Think about it 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So did Obama? It's almost as if there's another candidate that's been in favor of gay marriage since the late 90s or something 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
So did I miss one, or is Jeb! the only one that isn't pushing for a constitutional amendment?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
McGlockenshire posted:So did I miss one, or is Jeb! the only one that isn't pushing for a constitutional amendment? Ted Cruz isn't. He's calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
I don't think Marco has said anything has he?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
"Kids I am running for president" Jindal has a solution to Supreme Court Get rid of it quote:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bobby-jindal-get-rid-of-scotus
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Didn't he say this about someone else in regards to a different golf course, only for it to come out that he just sold his name to the course and had no control over who they could ban?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Ted Cruz isn't. Has that ever happened? I mean, since the 1700's?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
It seems like this week the Supreme Court has really put republicans in a tough spot. Jeb seems to be the only one who put out a response that's not going to completely gently caress him. I mean, what the gently caress are they supposed to do? We already know people like Huckabee and Santorum will never be the nominee but even people in these top slots seem still hosed. You're going to have a pissed off conservative base that demands nothing less than full loyalty to every point, but that's not going to win you moderate votes. However, the candidates start trying to appeal more moderate, they're base is going to feel hosed over and they'll come across as flip-floppy (billday.jpg) and not strong for conservatives or moderates. It just feels that conservatives are proper hosed right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Has that ever happened? I mean, since the 1700's? Not even then. Because the convention in the 1700s was convened to write the constitution, it wasn't convened under Article V (because it didn't exist.) There has never been an Article V Convention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:It seems like this week the Supreme Court has really put republicans in a tough spot. Yea it's almost like basing your platform on endless extremist rhetoric backfires really easily as soon as the public begins to turn away from that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:"Kids I am running for president" Jindal has a solution to Supreme Court Its a race to the bottom. No, seriously the only people who are going to get behind this are the ones who've voted GOP for 40+ years. Anyone with the slightest liberal tendency is going to look at them as a "holy gently caress what is wrong with these people" I cannot wait for the debates when this comes up, and the candidates have to backtrack or fully commit to abolishing the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
McGlockenshire posted:So did I miss one, or is Jeb! the only one that isn't pushing for a constitutional amendment? im pretty sure lindsey graham said that "we should respect the judges decision" but i might be hallucinating
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:"Kids I am running for president" Jindal has a solution to Supreme Court Hahaha man is he desperate. And just think: these ploys for attention might have worked if we didn't have the yoogest, most luxurious candidate already in the race.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea it's almost like basing your platform on endless extremist rhetoric backfires really easily as soon as the public begins to turn away from that poo poo. My roommate and I were talking about it and it just really feels like there is no way for conservative running to salvage their candidacies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Not even then. Because the convention in the 1700s was convened to write the constitution, it wasn't convened under Article V (because it didn't exist.) There has never been an Article V Well then that just makes a great idea even better Mordiceius posted:My roommate and I were talking about it and it just really feels like there is no way for conservative running to salvage their candidacies. Should we start expecting a landslide win for Dem's in 2016?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Not even then. Because the convention in the 1700s was convened to write the constitution, it wasn't convened under Article V (because it didn't exist.) There has never been an Article V This alternative is right out of the Mark Levin book and Levin was touting it yesterday on his radio show. You have to marvel at the hypocrisy of people who claim that they love the Constitution so much that they have to write a new one to save the old one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
I feel like the Republicans are running on just pure spite now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
radical meme posted:This alternative is right out of the Mark Levin book and Levin was touting it yesterday on his radio show. You have to marvel at the hypocrisy of people who claim that they love the Constitution so much that they have to write a new one to save the old one. No, the concept of a national convention is totally in the Constitution, and theoretically is an option for amendment proposition. It's just never ever ever even once been used in the history of the U.S.. edit: oh wait, I think I misunderstood you. Sorry!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Well then that just makes a great idea even better Nah, a win is still the likely outcome but the right is gonna pick Jeb or Marco, someone who appeals to moderates without looking like a mildly retarded door to door seed salesman (sorry Scott  ) and they'll put up a decent fight. Hillary is real bad at campaigning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Should we start expecting a landslide win for Dem's in 2016? no
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:My roommate and I were talking about it and it just really feels like there is no way for conservative running to salvage their candidacies. The ACA ruling was pretty beneficial to their campaigns because it means they can still make a plank of their platforms shouting over each other to see who hates Obamacare the most. If the subsidies got struck down the republicans would have gotten blamed, and they'd have to start figuring out the "replace" part of "repeal and replace." Gay marriage is harder, as they all now have to throw in behind an increasingly unpopular position. The smarter ones will dog whistle with "state's rights" and "religious freedom," but it's still an uphill battle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
killary will win by about a 4-6 point margin in the PV and maybe pick up another Obama 2012 state but that has very little to do with her or jeb bush
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:27
|
|