Who won the Democratic Debate?

[JbGaga 2,261]

I really felt it was a horrible debate and I felt bad for Martin Omalley, It was obvious NBC shut him out. He should really attack Clinton hard if he wants some traction in polls and spot light (God knows theirs alot there to attack). Its really hard to tell who "Won" Though. I dont feel like there was a clear winner.

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

10 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

....no

 

7 minutes ago, Mast said:

no  

Why not?

[Mast 980]

1 minute ago, ZacharyMark said:

 

Why not?

Because it simply hasn't. The Constitution is unique because the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. That means that the Justices can choose how to interpret the Constitution in certain cases, and it has been interpreted very liberally through history. You can thank the Constitution and Judicial Review for marriage equality.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

No one won.

[Mark 4,065]

I felt bad for the other one... and barely spoke. He shouldn't have joined tbh. It made him look bad. It's not his fault though.

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

4 minutes ago, Mast said:

Because it simply hasn't. The Constitution is unique because the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. That means that the Justices can choose how to interpret the Constitution in certain cases, and it has been interpreted very liberally through history. You can thank the Constitution and Judicial Review for marriage equality.

I wouldn't say that the Constitution has been used liberally for LGBT rights until recently. I'm referring to the idea that the document is in a way "living". Like you said, it is interpreted. It's been wrongfully used and things have been changed, long ago. 

[Mast 980]

Just now, ZacharyMark said:

I wouldn't say that the Constitution has been used liberally for LGBT rights until recently. I'm referring to the idea that the document is in a way "living". Like you said, it is interpreted. It's been wrongfully used and things have been changed, long ago. 

because LGBT rights weren't very resonant until recently. 

 

Can you please expand on the bolded part? When?

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

Just now, Mast said:

because LGBT rights weren't very resonant until recently. 

 

Can you please expand on the bolded part? When?

For example, anti-gay proponents. It has only been since now until our government has finally seen the "issue" as constitutional. Beforehand their Constitution has always made it illegal (unconstitutional). My argument is saying that the document is like capture the flag. Whatever group holds majority will use it to their advantage. And tbh, that is true because so many people say this and that about the Constitution without holding any understanding of how to actually interpret it.

[Mast 980]

5 minutes ago, ZacharyMark said:

For example, anti-gay proponents. It has only been since now until our government has finally seen the "issue" as constitutional. Beforehand their Constitution has always made it illegal (unconstitutional). My argument is saying that the document is like capture the flag. Whatever group holds majority will use it to their advantage. And tbh, that is true because so many people say this and that about the Constitution without holding any understanding of how to actually interpret it.

The creation of DOMA and similar bills had nothing to do with the interpretation of the constitution. That was solely based on politicians' views on marriage. Although DOMA was a federal law, the decision of marriage equality was still up to each individual state. The constitutionality of DOMA and other bills was not brought up to the Supreme Court until recently. You're misinterpreting Judicial Review. Politicians can interpret the constitution however they want, but they don't have the final say. Only the Supreme Court does, but they won't become involved unless summoned by popular demand. It doesn't matter which party holds the majority in Congress, because the Supreme Court is not affected by that.

 

 

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

5 minutes ago, Mast said:

The creation of DOMA and similar bills had nothing to do with the interpretation of the constitution. That was solely based on politicians' views on marriage. Although DOMA was a federal law, the decision of marriage equality was still up to each individual state. The constitutionality of DOMA and other bills was not brought up to the Supreme Court until recently. You're misinterpreting Judicial Review. Politicians can interpret the constitution however they want, but they don't have the final say. Only the Supreme Court does, but they won't become involved unless summoned by popular demand. It doesn't matter which party holds the majority in Congress, because the Supreme Court is not affected by that.

 

 

I guess I'm just talking about how people misinterpret the document and use it for their own political gain. Personally I've seen such arguments tossed around. It's the political atmosphere. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

10 hours ago, ZacharyMark said:

 

Why not?

The constitution in-and-of-itself is the framework for this country. Thus, it inherently cannot be "wrong like a billion times."

*facepalm*

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

13 hours ago, MJHolland said:

The constitution in-and-of-itself is the framework for this country. Thus, it inherently cannot be "wrong like a billion times."

*facepalm*

I was merely wondering and confused. The amendments made to the Constitution are what made it stronger. Sorry for not being up to par to your standards.

[socotra 3,357]

Hillary doesn't inspire the way Bernie does, and she lacks the energy and charisma Bernie has. Obviously she's legions ahead of the Republicans, but likewise legions behind Bernie. She is just another member of the Washington elite, and I do believe she is bought.

On Martin O'Malley, I don't think he was ever running to win, I think he's running to win future elections or be appointed in a potential Sanders/Clinton cabinet - which I think is very smart on his part, he's a solid statesman. I think he'd make a great VP choice for either Sanders or Clinton.

 

[FATCAT 60,888]

On 1/18/2016 at 11:05 PM, SISTERV said:

People that have been on welfare for decades. 

Looks like another attempt to just give stuff away.

Did you even watch the debate? Stop trying to hijack every political thread and go see a therapist.

[FATCAT 60,888]

On 1/18/2016 at 11:21 PM, MJHolland said:

Or because we have a constitutional amendment against it???

This is why I can't have political debates with you guys on this site. People like this make me so sad

I don't think they litterally want him to try and run again, they're just saying they'd vote for him again. But honestly, don't be so quick to judge. It's possible he's a young guy that's uninformed. The worst thing you can due is alienate him.