|
Post by Fingerplucked on Oct 1, 2018 19:47:17 GMT -5
I think that if you take a good look at what Trump has been trying to do you might see that it is what you claim to want. This is the first year individual appropriation bills have been passed in a hell of a long time but Democrats have resisted. Trump is trying to restore the order presented in the constitution. Perhaps he could use your help. I might even add that much of the "grab of executive power" that everyone is complaining about with Trump is ironically merely the undoing of Obama's executive power grab that progressives had no problem with. Again, progressives are okay with a strong executive. Dictator, even. It's far more streamline when the goal is to "get things done". ![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51G1Vo0x08L._UX522_.jpg) John, $6.50 on Amazon.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 1, 2018 19:56:33 GMT -5
To John's point about a congress that sets law and policy: due to growing partisan paralysis over the past several decades, the U.S. Congress has become so ineffective that it can hardly agree on anything. We're way past p. 7 here, but I would just point out that weak and stumbling legislatures in other countries historically have led to public impatience and disgust, which have provided fertile ground for the ascendancy of despots. We don't need to start messing with the Constitution, in my view, but we do need a serious overhaul of our system, starting with an end of gerrymandering (maybe the most important reform needed, so the art of compromise can be restored), and revision of the budget process to restore the way Congress used to make law and policy: through individual appropriations bills, not the monstrosity called the Continuing Resolution. I'm seeing an easier way that's coming courtesy of Trump. The last 20 or 30 years has seen an incredible escalation in the Legislature's ability to punt to the Executive to get things done. Legislation is a pain in the ass and an open threat to political careers (Who me? I didn't vote for that. Sure, noone did. That's the point.) So we've perfected the punt to the Executive strategy. Also known as the Executive Order or the Supreme Court ruling (2 effective ways of getting your way without actually having to prove anything). Started in 2008 the wheels were set in motion with a court-enforced non-Congressional ammendment to a real law that had stood for 45 years. The amendment was needed because physics makes the intended outcome impossible to accomplish (and impossible to pass through Congress which has been tried and predictably failed). Literally, "U.S. v. God". The reversal effort will launch this year before Christmas. Once we get back to the fundamentals of making Congress pass legislation the scales will balance. Of course, maybe they'll still wimp out and never pass anything else. But niether will anyone else. Bang on. That's exactly what's been happening. Congress has been punting to the executive branch, which is exactly what led to "the Imperial Presidency" in the mid-70s. If Congress can't come up with a budget because of partisan gridlock, or preference for gabbing rather than legislating, or sheer laziness, or any other reason, the White House is only too happy to supply its own. And so doth executive power expand, by default.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 1, 2018 20:20:35 GMT -5
I'm seeing an easier way that's coming courtesy of Trump. The last 20 or 30 years has seen an incredible escalation in the Legislature's ability to punt to the Executive to get things done. Legislation is a pain in the ass and an open threat to political careers (Who me? I didn't vote for that. Sure, noone did. That's the point.) So we've perfected the punt to the Executive strategy. Also known as the Executive Order or the Supreme Court ruling (2 effective ways of getting your way without actually having to prove anything). Started in 2008 the wheels were set in motion with a court-enforced non-Congressional ammendment to a real law that had stood for 45 years. The amendment was needed because physics makes the intended outcome impossible to accomplish (and impossible to pass through Congress which has been tried and predictably failed). Literally, "U.S. v. God". The reversal effort will launch this year before Christmas. Once we get back to the fundamentals of making Congress pass legislation the scales will balance. Of course, maybe they'll still wimp out and never pass anything else. But niether will anyone else. Bang on. That's exactly what's been happening. Congress has been punting to the executive branch, which is exactly what led to "the Imperial Presidency" in the mid-70s. If Congress can't come up with a budget because of partisan gridlock, or preference for gabbing rather than legislating, or sheer laziness, or any other reason, the White House is only too happy to supply its own. And so doth executive power expand, by default. I've always known I've liked you. While I've always tended to be a conservative Republican, I've never tended to be a hard partisan. I'm more of an "Americanist" relishing the awesomeness of the system as designed. If you can properly get it through Congress- by hook, crook, or psychotic cat fight- it's the law of my land, too. What's really amazing right now is the nutty outsider seems to be the only one who gets it.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 1, 2018 20:20:39 GMT -5
This thread depresses me. We have lots of bright people on both sides who don't even seem to understand what the other side's concerns are. That doesn't bode well. But the other side isn't going away and we'd better get better at this.
|
|
|
Kavanaugh
Oct 1, 2018 20:38:17 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by theevan on Oct 1, 2018 20:38:17 GMT -5
This thread depresses me. We have lots of bright people on both sides who don't even seem to understand what the other side's concerns are. That doesn't bode well. But the other side isn't going away and we'd better get better at this. I see a bit of brightness above, Don. That said, I share your general pessimism. Happy Bunch, aren't we?
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 1, 2018 20:40:59 GMT -5
I should add, that I don't see our community as being this side and that side. I see it as a group of friends, people that I love. I generally like our discussions whether I find myself in agreement or not. And if I don't like a particular discussion I just pass it by. The Friendships trump the rest. And I certainly don't pick my friends according to political leanings.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 1, 2018 23:21:33 GMT -5
One of us is right. The other is wrong. Ignoring who’s who, where’s the harmony? I'm right and I can even prove it mathematically. "Right" in the sense that my thesis is that the Constitution as it exists is not compatible with a muscular, comprehensive, flexible national government. I'm not saying (well, I am, just not here) that a single, muscular, comprehensive, flexible national government isn't possible. It may be. (It isn't). Mathematically, I'd put it like this. The rules of logic include something called The Principle of Explosion. The simple definition of that is that once you let any logical inconsistency into an argument (of any form...mathematical, legal, physical, political), the results become entirely arbitrary and meaningless. That becomes highly relevant in the current kerfuffle because the outcome-based judiciary that the Left (now quite openly) advocates can only exist if it is willing to introduce logical inconsistencies into the law. You can't substitute some court's opinion of what is good and what is bad for what the law actually says without breaking the fabric of the law. It might feel good, and you might believe that the court is seeking a noble end. Doesn't matter. The structural damage done will inevitably be vindicated. The waves of discord that we are seeing now, in my view, are largely tied back to that sort of logical inconsistency being injected into the law, over a very long period of time. In particular, the use of the Commerce Clause as a universal grant of unlimited Federal authority, and the invention of "Substantive Due Process" as a universal grant of unlimited judicial authority. Those two things, I would say, have taken root and eroded the logical foundation of our legal system. When those two legal concepts are operative, there is no such thing as an impartial judge. All judging is outcome based. And if one is inclined to see things that way (if, for example, one is a "wise Latina"), then Kavanaugh truly is an existential threat. Not only is he likely to be highly restrictive vis-a-vis the Commerce Clause, his philosophy is entirely antithetical to "Substantive Due Process". That's the sort of thing that causes a US Senator to call Kavanaugh's supporters "complicit in evil" (right before criticizing Kavanaugh's temperament, natch.) There is no underestimating how corrosive that is. The whole point of the law and it's unique (former?) place of reverence in American culture is built on the public's perception of impartiality. The law is supposed to be a set of written rules, words that mean what they say, that are apply with absolute neutrality to everyone. You can not have outcome-based judging without eroding that perception.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 2, 2018 4:50:20 GMT -5
You are absolutely right, but I don't know why you think I don't include Obama among executives who have been aggrandizing power. Also, I think your barb about progressives (like me, I presume you mean) who define a successful congress as one that enacts major legislative packages like wars on poverty is misguided in two ways. First, I am not a progressive, and I absolutely do not so define congresses. In fact, when I was covering Congress in print and on the air, and when editing other people's copy, I used to insist people avoid saying things like "the House today failed to enact the so-and-so bill," when the more accurate wording was "the so-and-so bill failed an important test on the House floor today." You see the difference. Do you grasp the overwhelming magnitude of your exception in this approach? Yours is the correct approach. It is not the way news is being done. It hasn't been for 40 years now. The legitimate press has an agenda. The adversarial press is not legitimate to anyone but believers. The adversarial press convinces no new believers. All debates are settled by use of the legitimate press. Sometimes facts need to be conceded by the legitimate press. When that happens, small victories occur for the adversarial press. It doesn't happen often. It's not a conspiracy. It's not nefarious. It's how it should be. The press should report the way they think things are. The press is under no obligation to be fair and balanced when they do not believe the opposing position is correct. They are under no obligation to predict the possibility of a sunny day when they feel sure a storm is on the horizon. But even in this story, evidence that the press doesn't operate the way you wish it did (or as you would do it if you were editor): The press called Dr Ford a "credible witness". They did so from the outset of the story. But that is the question begged. The most that could have been said at the beginning would have been something like, "A witness has come forward. The senate will hear her testimony to decide if she is credible." But that's not what happened. The press declared her credible. Kavanaugh and the rest of America had to start from THERE to figure out some way to cast doubt on what the press had already declared credible before the hearing. But the press believed it. That's why they said it. Maybe they'll be proven correct in the end. Maybe evidence will show up to prove that the press was correct all along in their assessment that she was "credible". But as it occurred in real time it was the central question begged. But such an overwhelming majority (75%-95%) of those involved in the dissemination of news agree in ideology with the Democratic Party. It's not a conspiracy. It's education. It's culture. It's where we are. We are a failing democracy and we are past our tipping point. I doubt we can recover. When a bill is voted down in Congress, it's not Congress that failed anything. It's the bill that failed. Second, I am not talking about one side caving in on big legislative packages involving lofty principles. I am talking about splitting differences, for example in appropriations bills, in such a way that everyone walks away believing they have gotten something out of the deal. That's the kind of legislative compromising that has kept this country in business for more than 200 years - and without periodic shutdowns. For that matter, it's how the economy works. People making deals. People on either side who define that as "selling out," I suggest, are part of the problem. Right now we have a Congress - especially a House - full of people afraid that if they even whisper the word "compromise," they will be defeated in the next primary by somebody who talks an even more radically partisan game. And they probably will be. And that's the problem. But look at all that is in those bills. They generally consist of poison pills and conflicting issues inserted precisely to make opposition's re-election improbable. And, again, compromises are going to be necessary. But too often it is the compromises that contain the very thing that makes the result fail. It's the compromise that we put arsenic in the aspirin that is the problem. "SEE!!!....we TOLD you that aspirin wouldn't work!!" And mostly those compromises are about spending money we haven't had for half a century. When businesses compromise -- and they do (they negotiate) -- there is a big difference. They compromise and negotiate with the unavoidable possibility that the compromise could be fatal. Businesses know that the negotiation could lead to failure. Governments don't operate that way. If compromises lead to failure they just go into more debt, talk about how it was the other guy's demands that caused the failure, and double down on exactly what brought us the failure. There is no check on it. Yes. Overstatements. Generalities. I'm full of 'em. So, I can be dismissed because logic fallacy. It's the popular thing to do. It's the apologetic that allows us to keep believing what we want to believe. It's Haidt's CAN vs. MUST thing. Find any way to interpret the data so that we can keep on believing. Never tell ourselves, "okay, I get what he's saying."
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Oct 2, 2018 5:22:18 GMT -5
One of us is right. The other is wrong. Ignoring who’s who, where’s the harmony? I'm right and I can even prove it mathematically. "Right" in the sense that my thesis is that the Constitution as it exists is not compatible with a muscular, comprehensive, flexible national government. I'm not saying (well, I am, just not here) that a single, muscular, comprehensive, flexible national government isn't possible. It may be. (It isn't). Mathematically, I'd put it like this. The rules of logic include something called The Principle of Explosion. The simple definition of that is that once you let any logical inconsistency into an argument (of any form...mathematical, legal, physical, political), the results become entirely arbitrary and meaningless. That becomes highly relevant in the current kerfuffle because the outcome-based judiciary that the Left (now quite openly) advocates can only exist if it is willing to introduce logical inconsistencies into the law. You can't substitute some court's opinion of what is good and what is bad for what the law actually says without breaking the fabric of the law. It might feel good, and you might believe that the court is seeking a noble end. Doesn't matter. The structural damage done will inevitably be vindicated. The waves of discord that we are seeing now, in my view, are largely tied back to that sort of logical inconsistency being injected into the law, over a very long period of time. In particular, the use of the Commerce Clause as a universal grant of unlimited Federal authority, and the invention of "Substantive Due Process" as a universal grant of unlimited judicial authority. Those two things, I would say, have taken root and eroded the logical foundation of our legal system. When those two legal concepts are operative, there is no such thing as an impartial judge. All judging is outcome based. And if one is inclined to see things that way (if, for example, one is a "wise Latina"), then Kavanaugh truly is an existential threat. Not only is he likely to be highly restrictive vis-a-vis the Commerce Clause, his philosophy is entirely antithetical to "Substantive Due Process". That's the sort of thing that causes a US Senator to call Kavanaugh's supporters "complicit in evil" (right before criticizing Kavanaugh's temperament, natch.) There is no underestimating how corrosive that is. The whole point of the law and it's unique (former?) place of reverence in American culture is built on the public's perception of impartiality. The law is supposed to be a set of written rules, words that mean what they say, that are apply with absolute neutrality to everyone. You can not have outcome-based judging without eroding that perception. Thanks for proving my point.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 2, 2018 5:42:47 GMT -5
That's brilliant, Mr Faux
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 2, 2018 5:45:05 GMT -5
From Rod Dreher's blog:
Christine Fair is a Provost’s Distinguished Associate Professor at Georgetown University, and a troubled person, judging by her Twitter feed. For example:
This Georgetown professor is calling for the deaths of particular persons, in part because of the color of their skin, and expressing eagerness to abuse the corpses.
Meanwhile, across town at Catholic University:
Catholic University’s president suspended a dean whose comments on social media this week questioned allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. John Garvey, the president of the university, said Friday evening in an email to the campus that the remarks “demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to the victim.”
Will Rainford, the dean, had issued a written apology Thursday evening for a remark he made on his university Twitter account that he said “unfortunately degraded” one of the women who have accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault.
“Rainford’s tweets of the past week are unacceptable,” Garvey wrote. “We should expect any opinion he expresses about sexual assault to be thoughtful, constructive, and reflective of the values of Catholic University, particularly in communications from the account handle @ncsssdean. While it was appropriate for him to apologize and to delete his Twitter and Facebook accounts, this does not excuse the serious lack of judgment and insensitivity of his comments.”
Know what Rainford tweeted? This about Julie Swetnick, the Kavanaugh accuser (of very shaky credibility) who claims that he’s a gang rapist:
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Oct 2, 2018 6:11:32 GMT -5
For me, K didn't present himself at all well on thursday.
He failed to present himself as "supreme"-level material. (an understatement)
He botched the interview.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 2, 2018 6:18:38 GMT -5
He botched the interview. I thought so too. I thought his opening statement was good. In fact, much better than Ford's. And if he'd left it to that, I'd have thought it a grand slam and that the Democrat's plan was foiled by messing with the wrong guy. But as the senators started asking questions, every question asked should have been politely, calmly, and firmly answered, "I answered that in my opening statement, Senator." His comments about beer: I think it was a well-thought-out statement the first time. He interjected humor and actually played to America's overwhelming sensibility about beer drinking. But he didn't leave it at that. And every subsequent time he mentioned beer he undermined his opening statement. There's an old cliche "sober as a judge". He should have left the beer comments to the one, well-prepared statement.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Oct 2, 2018 8:56:13 GMT -5
My only comment on this thread, a (I thought) humorous post from Facebook:
"At every job interview when I cried and talked about how much I loved beer, I didn't get the job."
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 2, 2018 9:31:58 GMT -5
But even in this story, evidence that the press doesn't operate the way you wish it did (or as you would do it if you were editor): The press called Dr Ford a "credible witness". They did so from the outset of the story. But that is the question begged. That's what Eric Weinstein calls the "Gated Institutional Narrative". We are programmed by institutional narrative-making to automatically assume certain conclusions. It's the perfect sleight of hand. For example, you might read a story describing someone as "controversial", and inevitably the person being described is in fact the subject of considerable controversy. In that sense, the story stands up to scrutiny. Who could complain? It's flawless, circular logic: The subject is indeed a controversial person...according to the same people who use that adjective to describe him. Snopes will inevitably agree: TRUE! Once you recognize the GIN in action, you not only see it everywhere, but you understand its near-absolute asymmetry. It's the dog-whistle of the Left: Describe someone as "controversial" (or "embattled" or "disgraced", etc, etc, etc) and you trigger the correct response among the correct readers (fundamentally, you are triggering the reader to conclude that the person is "deplorable" and can therefore be summarily ignored), but it is always coming from the same direction: Ever see any stories about "Embattled Attorney General Eric Holder"? How about "Controversial Senator Cory Booker"? Of course not. John is exactly right that "credible" was used in precisely this way vis-a-vis Ford/Kavanaugh. The shameless hypocrisy is truly something to behold. Just yesterday, a report commissioned by Minnesota's version of the Democratic Party stated "an allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred". Well. So much for "credible" accusations. Of course, in that instance the man accused of improper conduct is Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison. What is one to conclude? Did Al Franken satisfy Minnesota's quota of politicians thrown overboard because of #MeToo? Or will we go through some heroic rhetorical gymnastics to explain why the accusation against Ellison is absolutely and completely unlike the "credible" accusation against Kavanaugh? It amazes me that, even after Trump's election, all of this wasn't made perfectly obvious. Those who promulgate the GIN (because, as John says, it's not conspiratorial. It's just a closed loop that only lets like-minded people into the circle), and those who's definition of being well informed means being fully conversant in the GIN as presented to them, have a massive blind-spot. You'd think they'd have seen it when Trump walked through it, but no. They responded by doubling-down. Here's a really clear example: According to the GIN, there are only two positions on immigration. You are either for open borders, or you are a racist. That's it. That is not only an absurd position, it no way comports with reality. In fact, I expect the majority opinion in America is something like "We love and are fascinated by people and cultures from all over the world, but also think we need to manage immigration in a way that makes cultural and economic sense for the US". But you never, ever see stories promulgating anything like that view. All you see are "Trump and his followers are RACIST!!" If you seek out reasonable, centrist discussion of immigration, you certainly won't find it in the NYT or MSNBC. That is the GIN in action. In this example, it simply erases the possibility that there is a such thing as a reasonable view of immigration policy. One way of making sense of all this is to visualize it as the death-throes of a set of doomed institutions. Those institutions who have historically mapped the events of the day into the approved narrative ("credible") are unable to compete with the emerging alternative, diffuse sense-making apparatus created by mass communication. New, lightweight, flexible alternative systems are emerging that compete directly with those legacy institutions. For example, Joe Rogan has over 3.5 million YouTube followers and does multiple long-form interviews a week (some well over three hours long), each of which will get upwards of one million views. His interview with Elon Musk got 14 million views. Those are just remarkable numbers, and the legacy institutions have no way to compete.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Oct 2, 2018 9:43:50 GMT -5
No, the guy is obviously over the edge, and does not deserve the position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2018 10:36:10 GMT -5
Darie and I talked about it. As a young woman with her first good job 25 years go, she was propositioned and harassed by more than one employee at the Kern County Superintendent of Schools. One supervisor told her that when a pretty young woman smiles at a man, that was in invitation for more than just a smile. Another supervisor replied that since the accused man in question went to his church, he could never have done such a thing. We both agreed that Kavanaugh could have shown some contrition, apologized for his actions from so many years ago, made reparations, and behaved in a dignified manner. He had a chance to do the right thing and failed miserably.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 2, 2018 10:40:22 GMT -5
Darie and I talked about it. As a young woman with her first good job 25 years go, she was propositioned and harassed by more than one employee at the Kern County Superintendent of Schools. One supervisor told her that when a pretty young woman smiles at a man, that was in invitation for more than just a smile. Another supervisor replied that since the accused man in question went to his church, he could never have done such a thing. We both agreed that Kavanaugh could have shown some contrition, apologized for his actions from so many years ago, made reparations, and behaved in a dignified manner. He had a chance to do the right thing and failed miserably. However, if he didn't do it (which it's looking more and more likely is the case), there's no reason to apologize. He's been viciously smeared by moral-less political partisans. He's got every right to be upset.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 2, 2018 10:48:12 GMT -5
I remember a woman lying about me so I believe Kavanaugh. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 2, 2018 11:06:10 GMT -5
|
|