2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Ed Anger]

Canada sucks

[garbon]

Canada sucks

Something that unites all Americans.

[alfred russel]

A Constitution is just a piece of paper.

Great. How does that at all illuminate the question about *why* the US Constitution is held in such high regard?'

The question is "why is the Constitution regarded as more than a piece of paper in the US," and your reply is "it's just a piece of paper."

I think BB was just looking for an opening to post:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

Canada, supremacy of God, and the rule of law.

It is the BB holy trinity in half a sentence. I'm guessing the second half doesn't mention pleated pants, or he would have quoted that too.

[Legbiter]

Debate was a bit of a snoozer. Clinton managed to stay upright, Trump didn't do anything too interesting. 

[Barrister]

A Constitution is just a piece of paper.

Great. How does that at all illuminate the question about *why* the US Constitution is held in such high regard?'

The question is "why is the Constitution regarded as more than a piece of paper in the US," and your reply is "it's just a piece of paper."

I think BB was just looking for an opening to post:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

Canada, supremacy of God, and the rule of law.

It is the BB holy trinity in half a sentence. I'm guessing the second half doesn't mention pleated pants, or he would have quoted that too.

[garbon]

Debate was a bit of a snoozer. Clinton managed to stay upright, Trump didn't do anything too interesting. 

When Icelandic trash fail to understand America.

[garbon]

nastywomengetshitdone.com now redirects to Hillary's website.

[Valmy]

A Constitution is just a piece of paper.

Great. How does that at all illuminate the question about *why* the US Constitution is held in such high regard?'

The question is "why is the Constitution regarded as more than a piece of paper in the US," and your reply is "it's just a piece of paper."

I think BB was just looking for an opening to post:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

Canada, supremacy of God, and the rule of law.

It is the BB holy trinity in half a sentence. I'm guessing the second half doesn't mention pleated pants, or he would have quoted that too.

Canada. Supremacy of God. Rule of Law.

That will ring BB's heraldic badge with the emblem of pleated pants in the middle.

[Jacob]

But to speak of the US election, here's a not bad article on Clinton's strategy for crushing Trump:

The dominant narrative of this election goes something like this. Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate who is winning because she is facing a yet weaker candidate. Her unfavorables are high, her vulnerabilities are obvious, and if she were running against a Marco Rubio or a Paul Ryan, she would be getting crushed. Lucky for her, she's running against a hot orange mess with higher unfavorables, clearer vulnerabilities, and a tape where he brags about grabbing women "by the pussy."

There's truth to this narrative, but it also reflects our tendency to underestimate Clinton's political effectiveness. Trump's meltdown wasn't an accident. The Clinton campaign coolly analyzed his weaknesses and then sprung trap after trap to take advantage of them.

Clinton's successful execution of this strategy has been, fittingly, the product of traits that she's often criticized for: her caution, her overpreparation, her blandness. And her particular ability to goad Trump and blunt the effectiveness of his political style has been inextricable from her gender. The result has been a political achievement of awesome dimensions, but one that Clinton gets scarce credit for because it looks like something Trump is doing, rather than something she is doing — which is, of course, the point.

It began in the first debate. "Donald," she kept saying. No one quite knows why Trump so loathes the sound of his first name, but he does. He quickly tried to shame Clinton into showing him more respect. "Secretary Clinton -- yes, is that okay?" he said, after she once again called him Donald. "Good. I want you to be very happy. It's very important to me."

Clinton's next answer: "In fact, Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis..."

Each debate has followed the same pattern. Trump begins calm, but as Clinton needles him, he falls apart, gets angrier, launches bizarre personal attacks, offers rambling justifications for his own behavior, and loses the thread of whatever question was actually asked of him.

You can read the whole article here: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/19/13340828/hillary-clinton-debate-trump-won

[garbon]

I also liked this one.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/19/13288594/new-silent-majority

There's a new "silent majority," and it's voting for Hillary Clinton
Trump voters and Bernie Bros get all the press, but it's Hillary voters who are going to win.

In a 1969 speech, then-President Richard Nixon directly addressed the "silent majority" of Americans who he hoped would support his middle path policy on Vietnam. The speech itself, if you read it, is rather banal and unremarkable, but the turn of phrase came to be a powerful icon of the politics of the era. At a time when American society seemed in many ways to be pulling apart, Nixon argued for stability.

And with that phrase, he offered recognition to the large number of Americans who were neither Black Panthers nor Klansmen, neither war hawks nor hippies, just basically normal middle-class white people who rejected Jim Crow without embracing Black Power, disliked the war but disliked communism even more.

Nixon's presidency itself descended into oblivion, but his silent majority of hard hats and conformists carried forward, dominating American politics for the rest of the 20th century. Under George W. Bush, Republican rhetoric took a different turn — more overtly pious and messianic — but in the wake of Bushism's self-discrediting collapse, Nixonian themes have strongly reemerged under the leadership of Donald Trump.

Trump-branded signs intoning the slogan "THE SILENT MAJORITY STANDS WITH TRUMP" festoon his rallies, and optimistic writers invoke the notion of a silent majority to tout theories that the polls are undercounting Trump voters.

But though Trumpniks are certainly the demographic descendants of Nixon's white working-class silent majority, the basic reality is that they are anything but silent. Trump's rallies are, as Trump would be the first to tell you, enormous, raucous affairs. He brings in big ratings. He attracts constant coverage, and so do his supporters, in the form of endlessly writerly explorations of the agonizing anxieties of "Trump Country" communities afflicted by everything from deindustrialization to opiate addiction to an influx of immigrants from the Dominican Republic.

Nor, crucially, are the Trumpniks a majority. Polls give every indication that Hillary Clinton is going to beat Trump, just as she beat Bernie Sanders — who also drew larger rally crowds and more think pieces than she did — in the Democratic primary. Clinton crowds aren't as big, and her voters aren't as loud or as interesting to the media. But there sure are a lot of them. And it's about time we acknowledge them and their emergence as a new silent majority that reelected America's first black president and is poised to elect its first woman.

The new silent majority is minorities and educated women

...

[lustindarkness]

BB you are arguing that the BNA is very similar the US Constitution legal substance so you can then highlight how it is treated very differently in the two cultures, in response to a question about why the Constitution is viewed the way it is in the US.

What point are you trying to make?

A Constitution is just a piece of paper.

IIRC it is 4 pages, not one.

[Martinus]

Canada is founded on the principle of supremacy of god and his name is Justin Trudeau.

[grumbler]

A Canadian Constitution is just a piece of paper.

FTFY.  I wouldn't expect a Canadian to understand that some constitutions are much more than paper; after all, 100% of the constitutions Canada has had have been mere pieces of paper.  Before 1982, the Canadian  constitution was subject to change at the whim of the British Parliament.  Even today, it is relatively easy to amend, compared to the US constitution, because it is seen as a mere piece of paper, not a contract between the people, the states, and the federal government.

[Legbiter]

Canada. Supremacy of God. Rule of Law.

That will ring BB's heraldic badge with the emblem of pleated pants in the middle.

[Malthus]

This thread is for talking about Trump taking a greasy shit on the democracy established via the US Constitution for the whole world to see, not for you guys arguing about the US Constitution's alleged magnificence.