|
Oops!
Sept 4, 2015 19:14:39 GMT -5
Post by Doug on Sept 4, 2015 19:14:39 GMT -5
Just once, before I lose what's left of my mind, I'd like to have the opportunity to vote for someone I think would be a great president. So far all I've been able to do is to try to figure out which of the candidates is likely to be less of a screw-up than the other. I have very little confidence that I have ever succeeded in achieving even that modest goal. As long as you vote for someone with a D or an R after their name you will never succeed. After all for the last 150 yrs we have elected Demopublicans and every election things get worse. You know after a 150 yrs of the Demopublicans screwing up the country it might be time to try something different.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 4, 2015 19:38:07 GMT -5
Post by lar on Sept 4, 2015 19:38:07 GMT -5
Just once, before I lose what's left of my mind, I'd like to have the opportunity to vote for someone I think would be a great president. So far all I've been able to do is to try to figure out which of the candidates is likely to be less of a screw-up than the other. I have very little confidence that I have ever succeeded in achieving even that modest goal. As long as you vote for someone with a D or an R after their name you will never succeed. After all for the last 150 yrs we have elected Demopublicans and every election things get worse. You know after a 150 yrs of the Demopublicans screwing up the country it might be time to try something different. I don't disagree with you, Doug. But it's unreasonable to believe that not having an R or a D in front of a candidates name is a qualification for office. Change to the complete unknown is not a satisfactory alternative to accepting the known, even if the known stinks. I'm forming my own flavor of the old John Birch Society; no one is qualified to be president except you and me. And I'm not so sure about you.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 4, 2015 19:43:10 GMT -5
Post by Doug on Sept 4, 2015 19:43:10 GMT -5
As long as you vote for someone with a D or an R after their name you will never succeed. After all for the last 150 yrs we have elected Demopublicans and every election things get worse. You know after a 150 yrs of the Demopublicans screwing up the country it might be time to try something different. I don't disagree with you, Doug. But it's unreasonable to believe that not having an R or a D in front of a candidates name is a qualification for office. Change to the complete unknown is not a satisfactory alternative to accepting the known, even if the known stinks. I'm forming my own flavor of the old John Birch Society; no one is qualified to be president except you and me. And I'm not so sure about you. True but having a D or R in front of a candidate's name is a guarantee that the candidate is not qualified for office. And the lesser of two evils is still evil.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 4, 2015 20:01:18 GMT -5
Post by lar on Sept 4, 2015 20:01:18 GMT -5
I think it's more a likelihood than a guaranty. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.
Right now, even though he took a pledge that he said he could later tear up, Trump is the most powerful potential independent candidate. Whether he has a D or an R in front of his name he's still Trump. I can't think of anything that would cause me to seriously consider voting for Trump. Wait . . . that's not true. Maybe if the Dems run Strom Thurmond.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 4, 2015 21:16:41 GMT -5
Post by Doug on Sept 4, 2015 21:16:41 GMT -5
I think it's more a likelihood than a guaranty. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. Right now, even though he took a pledge that he said he could later tear up, Trump is the most powerful potential independent candidate. Whether he has a D or an R in front of his name he's still Trump. I can't think of anything that would cause me to seriously consider voting for Trump. Wait . . . that's not true. Maybe if the Dems run Strom Thurmond. I couldn't vote for him as a D or R but maybe as an independent I'd think about it. Anything to screw up the criminal career politicians in DC would be a good thing. And he couldn't be any worse than the last 15 or 20 presidents (hell all of them since 1850s). I don't think you can count Trump as a Republican. Even as a Republican he's running as an independent. Running against all the Democrats and all the Republicans and all the backroom boys. Sanders is doing the same type thing running as an independent in the Democratic primaries. Maybe they will both get kicked out by the backroom boys and run as an independent team Trump/Sanders (I don't think you could get Trump to take a VP slot ) I'd even bet a Trump/Sanders independent ticket would stand a good chance of winning against Hillary and Jeb. That would be fun.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 5, 2015 11:38:16 GMT -5
Post by dradtke on Sept 5, 2015 11:38:16 GMT -5
And the lesser of two evils is still evil. You keep saying that, and I suppose it's true, but it doesn't really mean anything. If have to swallow a stinkbug or a pile of shit, I'll take the stinkbug.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 5, 2015 11:50:19 GMT -5
Post by millring on Sept 5, 2015 11:50:19 GMT -5
...and every election things get worse. Not actually. Little, if anything, is really worse. The only thing that's significantly worse -- and measurably so -- is the national debt, and nobody seems to care about that. In fact, in that "all economists agree" sense of the way politics is discussed and presented to us by the Krugmans of the world, the debt isn't a problem we can't fix by spending more. But we're doing damn fine on credit. There isn't a single thing you can point to that would indicate any weakness in this total reliance on adding to the debt to give us everything we want. I just saw a facebook meme today -- one of many of its kind -- talking about what a fantastic success the Obama administration has been. It checks off a list of about ten things that the administration has bought us on credit. Things aren't worse. The credit believers have won such an overwhelming victory in the debate over how economies work that the Democratic Party is actually embracing Socialism by name. Why not? Thatcher's famous snark about "socialism works until you run out of other people's money" has been as thoroughly discredited as "trickle down economics". Socialism works and is the wave of the future. We have discovered that we don't need "other people's money" when we've got credit. Just ask Paul Krugman.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 5, 2015 11:56:59 GMT -5
Post by Doug on Sept 5, 2015 11:56:59 GMT -5
And the lesser of two evils is still evil. You keep saying that, and I suppose it's true, but it doesn't really mean anything. If have to swallow a stinkbug or a pile of shit, I'll take the stinkbug. But that's not the question. The question is stinkbug, pile of shit or McDs hamburger(unknown).
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 5, 2015 12:12:15 GMT -5
Post by fauxmaha on Sept 5, 2015 12:12:15 GMT -5
The singular reason for Trump's rise is that he treats the media like a dog treats his chew toy, and it is absolutely joyous to watch.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 5, 2015 12:15:33 GMT -5
Post by lar on Sept 5, 2015 12:15:33 GMT -5
I think a lot of what Millring wrote is right on the money, if you'll pardon the expression.
"All economists agree" is a little like saying that all scientists agree. It's not true and it's dangerous thinking.
I've lost faith in both economics and science. Both have become fields that are rife with politics. As soon as that happens, the game changes. Our government relies on both science and economics to form policy. Both have been tainted by politics. Combine that with elected officials, at every level, who can't see beyond winning the next election and it's a recipe for disaster.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 5, 2015 12:25:12 GMT -5
Post by millring on Sept 5, 2015 12:25:12 GMT -5
But what disaster?
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 5, 2015 15:08:25 GMT -5
Post by dradtke on Sept 5, 2015 15:08:25 GMT -5
The singular reason for Trump's rise is that he says what Republicans think but are afraid to say out loud.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 5, 2015 16:06:27 GMT -5
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 5, 2015 16:06:27 GMT -5
The singular reason for Trump's rise is that he says what Republicans think but are afraid to say out loud. I'm not actually a Republican but Trump appears, to me, to be a Democrat's caricature of a Republican so I'm still thinking he's a Clinton plant. As to the purpose of this thread, I've given it some thought since I don't have a dog, or god, in this fight and I'm unsure. The constitution requires freedom of religion, not from religion, Is secular atheism a religion? Religion is, I believe (so to speak), a set of values that one takes on faith without being able to prove their validity. As such, I think atheism qualifies (is that Atheism?). Democrats frequently refuse to obey laws they think are wrong and some of them go to jail over it (MLK comes to mind but there's some talk that he was a Republican). She could be a martyr to a cause but that's her decision. No one ever actually made a law legalizing gay marriage. If the court stuck to its job and didn't take on more power than it was originally given, she wouldn't have to make the decision for herself. I may have to vote Libertarian in hope the constitution will be restored but that would require more than just a President.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 5, 2015 17:41:28 GMT -5
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 5, 2015 17:41:28 GMT -5
1) Especially in the historical context in which the First Amendment was devised, freedom-of required freedom-from religion. Disallowing any religion to be "established" (which has a specific legal meaning) by Congress is the first step toward a genuinely secular polity.
2) A belief system that does not include assertions or claims about supernatural entities is not a religion. It might be shoddy, evidence-free, self-indulgent or -serving, or fucking nuts, but it's not a religion unless and until it bases its claims on some supernatural order of reality.
3) Atheism is the denial of propositions about the existence of deity. It is not a religion (no matter how well- or ill-formed its denials) any more than a vacuum is an atmosphere.
3.a) Secularism is a political position about the relationship between the official public and private spheres. It is not a religion, and some (privately) religious people are secularists.
4) The job of the Supreme Court is precisely to rule on the constitutionality of laws. That is the "power than it was originally given."
5) A number of states have indeed made positive laws recognizing gay marriage--Minnesota, for one, and Iowa for another. You can look it up. And Kentucky's governor ordered state officials to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, which isn't quite the same thing as making a law, but it does indicate the connection between the SC and the behavior of state officials.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 5, 2015 18:17:54 GMT -5
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 5, 2015 18:17:54 GMT -5
1) Especially in the historical context in which the First Amendment was devised, freedom-of required freedom-from religion. Disallowing any religion to be "established" (which has a specific legal meaning) by Congress is the first step toward a genuinely secular polity. 2) A belief system that does not include assertions or claims about supernatural entities is not a religion. It might be shoddy, evidence-free, self-indulgent or -serving, or fucking nuts, but it's not a religion unless and until it bases its claims on some supernatural order of reality. 3) Atheism is the denial of propositions about the existence of deity. It is not a religion (no matter how well- or ill-formed its denials) any more than a vacuum is an atmosphere. 3.a) Secularism is a political position about the relationship between the official public and private spheres. It is not a religion, and some (privately) religious people are secularists. 4) The job of the Supreme Court is precisely to rule on the constitutionality of laws. That is the "power than it was originally given." 5) A number of states have indeed made positive laws recognizing gay marriage--Minnesota, for one, and Iowa for another. You can look it up. And Kentucky's governor ordered state officials to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, which isn't quite the same thing as making a law, but it does indicate the connection between the SC and the behavior of state officials. Thanks but I'm sure you trained many lawyers to argue the opposite side of each point.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 5, 2015 18:23:40 GMT -5
Post by Doug on Sept 5, 2015 18:23:40 GMT -5
Usurped
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 5, 2015 18:29:31 GMT -5
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 5, 2015 18:29:31 GMT -5
Never took on lawyer-training. Teaching cats that random objects on a table are not toys is hard enough. I leave apologetics and litigation to the apologists and litigators. I belong to the research-and-analysis department. (There's a whole chapter in the departmental handbook about the impossibility of fixing invincible ignorance.)
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 5, 2015 18:29:57 GMT -5
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 5, 2015 18:29:57 GMT -5
Usurped Them and whose army?
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 5, 2015 18:35:24 GMT -5
Post by coachdoc on Sept 5, 2015 18:35:24 GMT -5
PS. Is the wench still in the slammer. I sure hope so.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 5, 2015 18:51:57 GMT -5
Post by Doug on Sept 5, 2015 18:51:57 GMT -5
Usurped Them and whose army? I just went back and read it and there is nothing about judicial review in Article 3. A power usurped by the court in 1803 Marbury v. Madison. If a power is not enumerated(listed, delegated to) then the government (all branches) are forbidden from doing it. 9th and 10th Amendments. So any power the government has that is not listed as something the government can do has been usurped. Judicial review properly belongs as a power of the states. Maybe it should have been listed in Article 3 but it wasn't. But then judicial review is only the start of government usurpation easily 95% of what the federal government does is not things that are listed.
|
|