|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 25, 2020 12:33:14 GMT -5
A left wing Israeli newspaper? They're even anti-Israel. We wont have a conversation then.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 25, 2020 12:34:36 GMT -5
"Trump's not a politician. . . ."
What part of "pursued nomination, campaigned for office, lied about his opponent, won an election, formed an administrative apparatus, nominated judges, continued to lie about his opposition, accepted a second nomination, and is currently running for a second term" don't you understand, Bruce?
Ronald Reagan "wasn't a politician," either, until he was one.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Oct 25, 2020 12:35:18 GMT -5
When exactly was the country at the peak of it's greatness Bruce and what made it great? What Democratic actions destroyed that greatness? Was it Social Security? Medicare? Civil rights legislation? USDA monitoring of food processing plants? Restrictions on environmental toxins in the water supply and air? Gender equality? Suffrage? I am curious.
What changes specifically would you make to restore that greatness if you had Carte Blanche power to do so?
I must admit that the 50's were pretty sweet if you were a white Christian male.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Oct 25, 2020 12:40:42 GMT -5
Well, that was nicely reasoned out, Michael. I definitely don't agree. But that's OK. I'll never be a 2A champion or NRA supporter. Much much more bad than good comes out of assault weapon ownership, and sleasy easy gun show purchases. Guns/weapons have been regularly regulated in this country for at least the last hundred years. I'm not against the 2A. It's the law. But I am against the loosey goosey (Lucy?) application of ownership rights. But that being said, I wouldn't waste much breath on the issue. But the whole Hunter Biden thing, and the Biden sexual thing you raise, to me are just attempts by the Trump circle to deflect attention from his own personal egregious behaviors. Trump trumps all. Good people can be found on both sides of the 2A argument, to be sure. That said, I’m using the CA opinion because it’s something that I know enough about to have a solid, long-term grasp of the arguments, and the levels of scrutiny applied to them by the panel. As I say, if one doesn’t like Trump’s appointments, that’s their business, so long as they realize that decent people can and do disagree for valid reasons without turning into ogres. Aaand, as to allegations of harassment, that’s more a “me too” thing than a Trump dirty dealing thing. No doubt that folks in Trump’s corner are doing backflips to paint Biden with anything that can stick, but the harassment/assault allegation geyser was a result of Biden announcing candidacy, and many of the accusers are lifelong democratic party faithfuls and progressive organizers—no way can that be pinned on Bannon or Giuliani (Rudy, not the more productive Mauro). Point being, Biden is a bully. Is he more of a bully than Trump? I don’t know that any of us are in a position to know that, if we are intellectually honest. We might *feel* like Trump (or for that matter Biden) is a bigger dick, but the feelings are all brought to us 3rd and 4th hand, by moneyed interests. To the best of my knowledge, nobody here has lived with or worked with either man. Biden is certainly a lot more polished—but I’ve seen first hand that polish can be weaponized. My point is that I wouldn’t want either man in my house. So I have to look at track record and policy, and hold my nose—and my vote counts for as much and as little as everyone else’s on this forum, popular or unpopular though it may be, in tribal terms. @dhanners55 , thanks for a *thoughtful* and detailed post. Some great points, most of which I agree with. For sure, protection from Iran is a consistent backdrop in current ME politics—and the Trump admin, like it or not, has more street cred there than the Obama admin—with which a theoretical Biden presidency is closely aligned, for obvious reasons. As well, anyone in the ME doing anything with America is probably being bribed, true. History is extraordinarily kind to that opinion. That said, Trump is the guy who blew up Soleimani, not Obama, Bush, or Clinton, and that carries weight. In addition, I’m sure you are familiar with honor cultures, having spent time in and among them—possibly even stateside. Search “ Zayed bin Hamdan al Nahyan.” david , since I’m typing anyways, I may as well answer a question you posed, in general, directly: “ Is this the guy you want running your country?” No. No it’s not. However, I prefer Trump to the current Democratic Party, which I view as radicalized, as it has shifted hard left, and away from people like me—who have traditionally voted D and have decades long track records of engaging in fund raising activities in support of Democratic Party candidates. Harris is considered the most liberal member of the senate. By definition, that’s far left—at least so far as representation. Biden is old enough to be a moderate/centrist, but his attempts at walking back from tacit support of radical movements come too late (Yo! Silence is violence; the message cuts in all directions uniformly), and his own campaign platform has moved to embrace the wider party’s leftward shift. Considering the record of the DNC in regards to king (queen) making, there is a very good argument that anyone who cares about the future of the D P has a moral obligation to vote against the folks that the party elite are propping up. In short, a vote for Biden/Harris is like cooing “who’s a good dog... niiiice doggie!” at your pooch when it shits on the carpet, and expecting different behavior. (And where is Tulsi’s career at now, anyways? One can see a lot by looking.) Remember, Clinton 2 over the preferences of the grass-roots party gave us Trump in the first place. Do not make me post Jonathan Pie again, because I will, and his rant is—sadly—as valid today as it was at the sunset of 2016. I need no more evidence than the fact that Harris is on the ticket. JMO, worth no more, or less than anyone else’s.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 25, 2020 12:42:40 GMT -5
When exactly was the country at the peak of it's greatness Bruce and what made it great? What Democratic actions destroyed that greatness? Was it Social Security? Medicare? Civil rights legislation? USDA monitoring of food processing plants? Restrictions on environmental toxins in the water supply and air? Gender equality? Suffrage? I am curious. What changes specifically would you make to restore that greatness if you had Carte Blanche power to do so? I must admit that the 50's were pretty sweet if you were a white Christian male. Well you can start with the Civil Rights shit your guys voted against. Actually, most of the bad stuff you "know" about the U.S. you learned from lies and revised history by democrats. You're not worth the time.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 25, 2020 12:48:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 25, 2020 13:02:48 GMT -5
I'm curious, Michael--Biden a bully? An actual, in-person bully, as distinct from a politician who might find fantasy bully-talk useful in a stump speech? (For example, beating up on Trump if they were in high school together.)
I'm pretty much Biden's contemporary, and I understand that urge and that fantasy, because that's how I was taught to deal with actual bullies--to hit back. I also figured out the limits of that kind of policy in cases where the bully might be a sociopath or psychopath or just really powerful. (Also that hitting back migh result in an injured hand.)
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 25, 2020 13:11:29 GMT -5
"People are saying," "I've heard," "what if?", "what about?"
And the topper, "I saw it on the internet."
Innuendo, as they say, and out the other.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Oct 25, 2020 13:37:01 GMT -5
I'm curious, Michael--Biden a bully? An actual, in-person bully... He’s been captured on cell phone video saying things to voters that I wouldn’t say in a million years, and I’m not afraid of a verbal rumble. I guess by my standards, he’s a bully. Others with different standards might not agree. One thing I think you and I can agree on: neither of us would have ever touched a student the way he has touched subordinates and others whom he was in a position of power over. Currently, he’s an old man showing a disarming frailty. But that wasn’t always the case. But, I don’t really have a dog in this particular fight. I’ve already stated too much, over the months, that both candidates for POTUS are not at the level of character development that I expect out of my inner circle, or even work colleagues. So fuck both of those guys. Policy over personality, or sit this one out. I don’t see another choice. To be fair, it’s not unusual to be a “lesser evil” voter. This time is only unusual in the degree. Again, everyone has an opinion. Agree or disagree at your pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 25, 2020 13:51:16 GMT -5
At any given point in time, choices are finite. Right now we get to choose between two actual sets of politicians. The personalities and probable behavior of those politicians (and their allies) are on view. Whether one feels one has a dog in the fight, the outcome will have real effects on everyone in the nation--and some of those outcomes have already been seen over the last four years.
This isn't a beauty pageant or a sporting event, despite the way we might talk about it. Whatever Joe Biden might have been in the past, the issue is what he can be for four years (or however long he might last in office). We've seen what Trump has been for his entire pubic life and what he has done in office so far--and there is no evidence that he will be any better in a second term, with nothing left to lose and a Supreme Court that he has managed to pack with what he assumes are sympathetic judges. (Though there are those probably-not-joking remarks about a third term, which signal pathological ambition and disregard for the Constitution.)
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Oct 25, 2020 14:03:15 GMT -5
When exactly was the country at the peak of it's greatness Bruce and what made it great? What Democratic actions destroyed that greatness? Was it Social Security? Medicare? Civil rights legislation? USDA monitoring of food processing plants? Restrictions on environmental toxins in the water supply and air? Gender equality? Suffrage? I am curious. What changes specifically would you make to restore that greatness if you had Carte Blanche power to do so? I must admit that the 50's were pretty sweet if you were a white Christian male. Well you can start with the Civil Rights shit your guys voted against. Actually, most of the bad stuff you "know" about the U.S. you learned from lies and revised history by democrats. You're not worth the time. So basically you bailed on the question. Not sure if I could answer it either. I am almost 76. It might interest you to know that the first Democratic presidential candidate I ever voted for was John Kerry in 2004. I want everyone to be happy Bruce and if immersing yourself in a seething stew of pathologic hatred of all Democrats does it for you I'm good with it. Be well Bro.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Oct 25, 2020 14:28:16 GMT -5
Whether one feels one has a dog in the fight, the outcome will have real effects on everyone in the nation--and some of those outcomes have already been seen over the last four years. Couldn’t agree more. And please realize that the dog and hunt I am talking about is debating the rapacious personalities atop both party tickets. Of course I have a dog in the overall governance of America hunt—I do have to live here, along with everyone else of modest means of working age. As to packing, 1, I do not agree with your assessment of the value of the Trump appointments. Certainly, ACB is an impeccable choice, and an asset. I want the legislature to do the legislating, and the court to judge—when needed—based on law and case law. Also, I don’t think “packing” means what you imply in the above post. Nominating of judicial appointments—as is required (“shall”) by the constitution, to be confirmed by the Senate, is not packing. Changing the number of judges in an effort to influence the (alleged) ideological direction and decisions of the court is the definition of packing, and only one side is threatening to do that, since *borking no longer produces the desired results. You, of all people, know that words mean things. And with that, I think my life needs more guitar, and less defending things I didn’t actually say. Happy Holidays, everyone. * www.lexico.com/definition/bork
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 25, 2020 15:40:06 GMT -5
OK--"packing" is the wrong word, given what FDR tried. So I'll go for "stacking," which is quite defensible, particularly after McConnell's maneuvering to block an Obama candidate and the unholy alliance of the Federalist Society and McConnell and his Senatorial allies to build a supermajority of "originalists" in the mold of Scalia. ACB is "impeccable" in the PR sense of offering minimal grabbing surfaces for opponents, and the combination of fast-tracking and her deployment of the demurral strategy during the confirmation hearings means she's unstoppable. (There are arguments as to the bogus nature of "originalism" around, but that's a slightly different conversation.)
BTW, it would be helpful to have a pointer to whatever examples of Biden's bullying behavior are pubicly accessible, so I can make my own evaluation of it. I mean, some of the current "evidence" as to his family's corruption comes from Veritas-connected operatives, which means it's not as dependable as might be desired. A fella likes to do his own checking.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 25, 2020 15:46:15 GMT -5
God forbid justices should hew to original intent wherever possible!
My issue is that the court(s) has assumed power way beyond its proscribed role.
As has the Executive branch.
Not their fault, especially. Congress keeps rope-a-doping. They have filled the vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 25, 2020 15:58:55 GMT -5
When exactly was the country at the peak of it's greatness Bruce and what made it great? What Democratic actions destroyed that greatness? Was it Social Security? Medicare? Civil rights legislation? USDA monitoring of food processing plants? Restrictions on environmental toxins in the water supply and air? Gender equality? Suffrage? I am curious. What changes specifically would you make to restore that greatness if you had Carte Blanche power to do so? I must admit that the 50's were pretty sweet if you were a white Christian male. I'd be satisfied if Progressives simply picked a year when they'd accomplished what they need to accomplish and stop there. Personally, I'd be content with any time before 2006. No, CO2 can't be eliminated. That's a pipe dream. No, you can't spend endlessly. No, you can't expand the government to eliminate every minor inconvenience in life. No, nobody's ever going to live forever. And it's not because I say it. It's because the planet was never set up to work that way. Sorry. So pick your year when you're satisfied and are going to stop coming back for more. We'll see if you can do that.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 25, 2020 16:04:40 GMT -5
God forbid justices should hew to original intent wherever possible! My issue is that the court(s) has assumed power way beyond its proscribed role. As has the Executive branch. Not their fault, especially. Congress keeps rope-a-doping. They have filled the vacuum. The deal with the Devil. Surrender your responsibilities to legislate to the Administrative State you created and settle in to cushy and lucrative (witness the Biden kickback scheme) lifetime gig. We'll see if Trump survives long enough to break it for good.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 25, 2020 16:16:15 GMT -5
"Original intent" is not a single entity or position, and in any case, the assumption that a body of "intent" that was designed, in part, to accommodate slave-holders might make such "intent" something to look hard at. Then there's the matter of the Court having the role of determining what "intents" really do fit the letter and spirit of the Constitution, perhaps starting with Marbury v. Madison, in which the Court itself established its role as final arbiter. Cases that get as far as the SC are necessarily in need of interpretation--which means either that the meaning of the Constitutional language is not clear; or that there are internal conflicts between parts of the document and/or its previous readings; or that something has changed in the social-political environment, and that demands a sorting-out. The most stubborn or egregious situations eventually get addressed by amending the Constitution--a deliberately long and difficult process. Meanwhile, Jim Crow and segregation ruled the South, unions were criminal conspiracies, and states were free to enforce blue laws and regulate sexual behavior between consenting adults, and so on. Faithful adherence to some of the late-18th-century notions behind the Constitution (and the thinking of state lawmakers that are deferred to in it) would mean supporting all manner of narrow, inhumane, and now-discredited notions about sexuality, gender "nature," race, and so on. And as an essay I read this morning points out, where in the Constitution does it give Congress the power to establish an Air Force? www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/originalism-barrett/616844/
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 25, 2020 16:22:48 GMT -5
Well you can start with the Civil Rights shit your guys voted against. Actually, most of the bad stuff you "know" about the U.S. you learned from lies and revised history by democrats. You're not worth the time. So basically you bailed on the question. Not sure if I could answer it either. I am almost 76. It might interest you to know that the first Democratic presidential candidate I ever voted for was John Kerry in 2004. I want everyone to be happy Bruce and if immersing yourself in a seething stew of pathologic hatred of all Democrats does it for you I'm good with it. Be well Bro. I didn't have time to consider your greater question but since Football sucks just now: I'd force the federal government to return to the original design wherein the legislature makes laws but only if there's a super-majority in the senate that approves the law. The executive enables the law to be imposed and enforced, assuming the legislature funded it. The Supreme court settles disputes by applying the current law or possibly declaring it unconstitutional in which case the law is temporarily void and goes back to the legislature to fix it if possible but the ruling has nothing to do with anything else and does not de-facto create a different law. If there was a previous constitutional law in place it goes back to being the current law. The 10th amendment would be re enforced such that the federal government is only responsible for those few things the constitution gave it responsibility for and all else is state or local or individual responsibility. The Constitution has an inbuilt change mechanism but again it is difficult, intentionally and requires a super-majority of the states to adopt the change. IMHO, the Constitution should be read using 18th century English as it was written word meanings. You're not supposed to be able to just change things to suit any current fads. Are there warts? Yes but there's a procedure to fix them and you shouldn't apply today's amoral morals to the 18th century people who wrote the Constitution. It's inconvenient, as Obama said but it's make that way intentionally to protect the federation. It's not majority rule and freedom in an individual right by design. Now, can one of you Constitutional lawyers show me where the original racism and bigotry is? The country is founded on freedom for the citizens as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 25, 2020 16:29:16 GMT -5
"Original intent" is not a single entity or position, and in any case, the assumption that a body of "intent" that was designed, in part, to accommodate slave-holders might make such "intent" something to look hard at. Then there's the matter of the Court having the role of determining what "intents" really do fit the letter and spirit of the Constitution, perhaps starting with Marbury v. Madison, in which the Court itself established its role as final arbiter. Cases that get as far as the SC are necessarily in need of interpretation--which means either that the meaning of the Constitutional language is not clear; or that there are internal conflicts between parts of the document and/or its previous readings; or that something has changed in the social-political environment, and that demands a sorting-out. The most stubborn or egregious situations eventually get addressed by amending the Constitution--a deliberately long and difficult process. Meanwhile, Jim Crow and segregation ruled the South, unions were criminal conspiracies, and states were free to enforce blue laws and regulate sexual behavior between consenting adults, and so on. Faithful adherence to some of the late-18th-century notions behind the Constitution (and the thinking of state lawmakers that are deferred to in it) would mean supporting all manner of narrow, inhumane, and now-discredited notions about sexuality, gender "nature," race, and so on. And as an essay I read this morning points out, where in the Constitution does it give Congress the power to establish an Air Force? www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/originalism-barrett/616844/So I take it you're good with Amy Coney Barrett?
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Oct 25, 2020 17:15:15 GMT -5
So basically you bailed on the question. Not sure if I could answer it either. I am almost 76. It might interest you to know that the first Democratic presidential candidate I ever voted for was John Kerry in 2004. I want everyone to be happy Bruce and if immersing yourself in a seething stew of pathologic hatred of all Democrats does it for you I'm good with it. Be well Bro. I didn't have time to consider your greater question but since Football sucks just now: I'd force the federal government to return to the original design wherein the legislature makes laws but only if there's a super-majority in the senate that approves the law. The executive enables the law to be imposed and enforced, assuming the legislature funded it. The Supreme court settles disputes by applying the current law or possibly declaring it unconstitutional in which case the law is temporarily void and goes back to the legislature to fix it if possible but the ruling has nothing to do with anything else and does not de-facto create a different law. If there was a previous constitutional law in place it goes back to being the current law. The 10th amendment would be re enforced such that the federal government is only responsible for those few things the constitution gave it responsibility for and all else is state or local or individual responsibility. The Constitution has an inbuilt change mechanism but again it is difficult, intentionally and requires a super-majority of the states to adopt the change. IMHO, the Constitution should be read using 18th century English as it was written word meanings. You're not supposed to be able to just change things to suit any current fads. Are there warts? Yes but there's a procedure to fix them and you shouldn't apply today's amoral morals to the 18th century people who wrote the Constitution. It's inconvenient, as Obama said but it's make that way intentionally to protect the federation. It's not majority rule and freedom in an individual right by design. Now, can one of you Constitutional lawyers show me where the original racism and bigotry is? The country is founded on freedom for the citizens as far as I can tell. Fair enough. Thanks
|
|