How Moderates Can Transform American Politics, Part 1: Finding Common Ground
What could the left and right possibly have in common when they’re engaged in a fight-to-the-death struggle for the future direction of American politics? You might be surprised. In fact, by emphasizing common values and objectives, we moderates could pull this squabbling nation away from the brink of civil war. Of course, we’ll probably need a bully pulpit (like the Presidency or at least a popular cable TV show) to make our voices heard, but why not start here:
1. Emphasize our common identity as Americans. We’ve splintered into mutually hostile tribes, and we desperately need to re-establish our sense of nationhood. The flag belongs to everyone, not just white conservatives. While respecting the rights of individual groups to advocate for their interests, we all need to start de-emphasizing our differences and thinking about what we have in common. Agreed?
2 Promote a humane, unifying brand of populism. There’s nothing wrong with populism in principle. (Think of those classic Frank Capra movies that celebrate the dignity of ordinary folks.) But today’s populist movements, right and left alike, are a different story: extremist, divisive, authoritarian and ugly. They’re awash in hatred, and we need to reject them in favor of a more decent, universal (and yes, moderate) brand of populism. That means transferring unwarranted power and influence away from self-appointed elites and returning legitimate power to the people and their elected representatives.
3. Keep our politicians honest. Any conscientious American, right or left, would agree that powerful lobbyists have no business bribing our representatives to do their bidding. We need to establish blind trusts so that politicians have no idea who’s funding their campaigns. Any representative caught performing quid pro quo favors must be removed from office. It would probably take a Constitutional amendment to enforce such a measure, but simply pushing for it could unite the right and left.
4. Extend Congressional representatives’ terms. With their measly two-year terms, members of the House are continually in campaign mode. We need them to stop hunting for cash and focus on lawmaking. I’d suggest a term of six years (like our Senators) along with a limit of two terms. Again, this would require a Constitutional amendment, but we can do it together as a trans-partisan project.
5. Maintain a reasonably strong military. We shouldn’t have to spend more on defense than the next 12 nations combined. We shouldn’t meddle in other nations’ conflicts or launch unnecessary, open-ended wars against guerrilla fighters who never surrender. Simply maintain a military powerful enough to act as a deterrent to aggressions against the United States and its allies.
6. Treat all classes without favoritism. The essence of a fair society — and probably the thorniest item on this list when it comes to finding common ground. Here’s a reasonable vision of an equitable society: raise taxes on the rich during periods of widening wealth inequality; eliminate tax shelters and corporate subsidies. Maintain Social Security, Medicare and other essential safety nets; no American should go broke paying medical bills. Shun double standards, including the fashionable notion that it’s acceptable to demonize white males without being considered racist or sexist. (A fair society doesn’t demonize anyone.) Make every effort to support equal opportunity without demanding equal results.
7. Improve our criminal justice system. Police and inner-city residents need to develop mutual trust and respect. Police can start by using non-lethal weapons to stop unarmed criminals and suspects. Just as important, we need to break the school-to-prison cycle that effectively ruins the lives of too many young inner-city men. Schools need to educate more effectively… students should be taught to focus on long-term goals… prisons shouldn’t be profit centers. Stop incarcerating people for minor crimes like possession of marijuana.
8 Stop thinking about race in collective terms. Just as not all blacks are thugs or unwed mothers, not all whites are automatically privileged or racist. Is it so difficult to view members of other races as individuals rather than interchangeable representatives of their tribe? Apparently so, and we have to do better. Our differences stem from our individual traits; our common humanity binds us together. This one is essential.
9. Control immigration wisely and humanely. Open borders are out of the question; the populations of distressed nations are exploding, and we can’t accommodate the overflow. But let’s clarify the legal path to entering the U.S., welcome legal immigrants and treat illegal ones humanely without giving them a free pass.
10. Consider both sides of a story. People on the left and right tend to follow the prescribed attitudes of their politically orthodox peers and their sanctioned media outlets. We need to emphasize that ideologies are like second-hand clothes. Self-respecting thinkers need to formulate their ideas by examining the arguments on both sides of an issue. At the very least, it will be a mind-opening experience, and our country could use more open minds. Right?
11. Stop politicizing everything! You name it, the ideologues have politicized it: guns, climate change, religion, women’s bodies, Civil War monuments, transgender bathroom rights. These issues have nothing to do with the affairs of state, and yet we know at a glance how the partisans will be lining up. Again, this is the result of indoctrination by left- and right-wing echo chambers and the influence of like-minded peers. We need to help ratchet down the rhetoric, point out the dangers of hyper-politicizing, and lead our ideological friends toward the sanity of a world where history is history and people are free to flirt (as long as it’s consensual, of course).
12. Socialize across the political divide. Americans have been self-segregating along ideological lines, socially as well as politically. Too many progressives shun conservatives as “deplorables,” just as too many conservatives mock progressives as “libtards.” Even our physical communities tend to be politically segregated. We need to start mingling again. We might even discover that we like some of the folks on the other side, and we’ll no longer regard them as a faceless threat. This one is mandatory.
Of course, not everyone will agree with this reasonable 12-point plan for restoring some semblance of unity to our fractured republic. That’s their misfortune, but we can’t let it become our misfortune. The most extreme extremists among us are hellbent on sowing discord and even civil war, and we’ll probably have to write them off as incorrigibles. If we don’t want the United States to splinter into warring camps, we’ll need to marginalize the extremists who have been polarizing the country with their willfully distorted narratives, memes, amen corners and fear-mongering rhetoric.
Our job, if we choose to accept it, is to win back the hearts and minds of reasonable Americans who have been seduced by the Siren songs emanating from the far right and far left. They don’t have to embrace moderate politics, but they should be able to embrace their fellow Americans again.
Next: How Moderates Can Transform American Politics, Part 2: Building a Movement
THE NEW MODERATE 
1). We can be as diifferent as we wish – iin our own lives. In our churchs, and civic groups,
Pretty much everywhere that does nto involve force – aka government.
We can celebrate out unique identity as transexual model railroad enthusiasts or whatever else floats our boars.
When we chose to act through government we can only do those things that have near unanimous support.
It is not our common identity that needs emphasized. Diversity is not our problem it is one of our major assets.
It is our efforts to impose our small group identity on all.
Believe me, I’m a staunch individualist. But I think we also need to restore a sense that 300 million individuals can feel a sense of kinship with their fellow Americans.
You titled the post “Common Ground” – that is the key.
We do have common ground. It is ONLY that common ground that government can opperate in.
But it is important to realize that “common ground” is not what 50% of us +1 beleive.
It is what 80-90% of us beleive.
Nor do we need to “find” common ground – in the sense that we need to change anything except our willingness to impose what is NOT common ground on others by force.
Common ground is those things we ALL agree on.
Those do exist.
There are not 10% of us that think rape should be legal.
That think one man should be able to own another.
Our problem is not that we have no common ground.
It is that right and even more so left are prepared to impose was is NOT common ground on all of us by force.
2). Power needs returned to individuals. Not our elected representatives.
Our problems, much of what divides us, is the efforts of one group or another to gain power and use that power over others.
I completely emotionally understood Sen. Graham’s remarks at the Kavanaugh hearing.
But what he was saying was WRONG.
The answer to the abuse of power by one side iis NOT the abuse of power by the other.
The answer to the left’s end’s justifies the means approach to everything is not for the right to adopt the same ends justiifies the means approach to everything.
Given what the left has done to our politics – Graham and republicans would be fully understood in retailiating in the same way. But that road leads to hell.
Our confliicts will not improve so long as our government continues to have the power iit currently has in our lives.
So long as that power exists – even if by some miracle we briefly manage to use it for good, the power itself will be so attractiive that those who want that power will quickly go after it doing whatever ti takes to get iit, and bring us at war with each other.
The split in this country today is about how to use government power.
That plit will remain in some form as long as the power remains.
3). Absolutely positively never happening.
Nothing we have ever done of this nature has ever worked.
It can not work. The attraction of power is too great.
If you killed off all those currently seeking to rent the power of government – they would be replaced by others. If as an example completely barring the rich and business from any influence in politics was actually a good idea and you succeeded – so different group would step in.
One of the problems with the ideology of the left, is the beleif that there iis some pure interest group that should weild power – environmentalists, consumer groups labor unions, …..
Power corrupts – Lord Acton.
Even Tolkien gathered this.
Galadriel was tempted but refused the ring of power. No one can wield power over others without being corrupted by it.
The entire LOTR trilogy is the quest to DESTROY the ring of power. No One – not Gandalf, not Galadriel, not Boromier, and in the end not even Frodo can avoid being corrupted by power.
The only good government is LESS government.
4). Stop paying congressmen and senators. Our political representatives need to spend more time in their communities, with their family – working , and less in congress.
Regardless, the objective is not to give those in washington more time to screw us over, but less.
But for a few things I want democrats to take over the house in November.
Divided government is a good thing. Grid lock is a good thing.
The more campaigning these guys must do, the less time they have to screw us over.
“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session”
Excellent piece, Rick (unsurprisingly, of course). I don’t absolutely agree with every detail, but in sum, and even mostly in the parts, I think your points are brilliant and worthwhile.
I would add that the idea of socializing across the political divide has become a radical concept, largely due to the efforts of politicians, activists and pundits. Both sides have contributed to this, but the left side of the political spectrum has ratcheted up the idea of political correctness, which silences conservatives, not only in academia and media, but in everyday “polite”conversation.
I say this, not because I want to blame the left entirely for the acrimony in even our social discourse, because I have seen fire-breathing right wingers go on the attack as well…but I think that, if we are to begin to have free and open conversations about critical issues facing the country, conservatives ~ particularly moderate conservatives ~ need to feel free to speak their minds, without fear of being called racist, misogynist, etc. etc. Liberals need to listen to their friends with an open mind.
You know me, and you know that many of my close, long-time friends hold political views that are very different from mine. I have been able, on many occasions, to have open and honest conversations with them, about hot-button issues like abortion, Trump, immigration, and, lately, even Kavanaugh.
Each time, we have found common ground. Granted, the common ground is often limited, but …it’s there. I don’t know if it’s generational, or just a matter of trusting one’s own friends, but I think that the key is in listening, and trusting that the other side has good reason for believing what s/he believes. We all have a backstory to our beliefs.
Online, it’s a different story.
Priss – I am always encouraged by your well-thought comments. If there is any hope of finding reasonable solutions between right and left, it will be from people like yourself who are willing to dispassionately discuss issues. I am willing, from my side, absolutely.
You are the perfect example of an open-minded person, Bill. and living proof that someone with strongly held positions can still be open to listening to strongly held positions from the other side. I value that immensely.
If we average people decide that we’re not able to discuss these things, we’ll never be able to solve our problems. Moderates all talk about compromise, but the prerequisite to compromise is a belief that the other side is acting in good faith, and identifying the reasons behind their own priorities. If we’re just shouting at each other, we’re not moving closer to compromise, we’re moving farther away.
TV ratings, internet clicks, and political donations (not to mention votes) are driven by scandal and division. It takes considerable effort to overcome the emotion generated by demagoguery and media sensationalism, and sit down over a meal and just discuss.
The distinction between the left and right today is not about “going on the attack”.
It is that too many of those on the left will take political disagreement as a justification for destruction.
We are hearing and seeing calls from the more extreme on the left to confront those on the right – in their work, where they eat, in their homes and where they sleep.
Everyone right and left is not the same. Further there are dangerous extremists on both sides. But the odds are that a heated political discussion between someone on the right and someone on the left are far more like that the person on the left will seek to get the one on the right fired, or try to disrupt their lives.
This is even true on the left when two lefties disagree with each other.
Deviance from dogma is not tolerated.
We have seen this before – in the USSR and in the PRC and other socialist states.
One of the reasons that many do not get flipped out over the lack of precision of Trump’s remarks is specifically because of this.
Trump is taking on the bullies of political correctness – the press, and the left.
Those of you on the left seem to think that Trump is obligated to meet some impossibly high barrier of accuracy in his remarks – but do not hold those he is confronting to the same standards.
The left has inverted the burden of proof – whether in court or a senate hearing – or a presidential press conference the accused must get things perfect. The accusers are free to lie their ass off wiithout consequence.
To Jay and Grump and DD – yes Trump’s rhetoric is emotional, and sloppy and lacks precesion – BTW that is NOT lying. All inaccurate statements as not lies. Regardless, Trump even actually lies on occasion. But his lies are just words. There is a huge diifference between Trump’s purported lies and
Lying about an attempted rape.
Or making a promise about Obama Care that you clearly never had any intention of keeping, but that you clearly intended people to believe and knew that if you did not promise you would not be able to get approved.
The truthfulness of ones remarks is important.
We care about truth – because of its effect on subsequent action.
Relying on “if you want you can keep your doctor” – had bad real world consequences.
Some portions of Ford and Kavanaugh’s testimony has real world consequences that could be bad or good.
Whether Ford is lying about lie detectors is not important. But whether she can be trusted to testify accurately under oath is very important with respect to whether we can believe the single important allegation that she makes that WILL have real world consequences.
It is not only important that she is telling the truth, it is important that she provide verifiable details as that is how we assess the reliability of her testimony.
And on of the problems with Ford’s testimony is that today most of us grasp that it is more likely that someone from the left would make up an allegation like this to torpedo someone they do not like, than it is that someone on the right would do the same.
An ideology that justifies means with hoped ends incentivizes immoral means.
Thanks, Priscilla. When I think about our class reunions, I’m sure we have plenty of classmates at opposite ends of the political spectrum. And yet I never detect any animosity, because we can see (and appreciate) our classmates as individual personalities and not representatives of this or that tribe. That’s the key. Unfortunately, the Internet tends to emphasize our opinions at the expense of our unique personalities. When people choose sides online (often for fear of offending their best friends by straying from the accepted wisdom), their individual personalities almost disappear. I agree with you that progressives tend to be less accommodating than conservatives in this department.
Rick;
The internet is defiintitely different from personal contact.
It is not a substitute for that .
But it is of value. Even the differences have value.
I would disgree with your assertion that the internet makes us lemmings.
I think the opposite is true – it allows us to express ourselves passionately without so much fear of being judged by our friends and coworkers.
While regulars here have become close in ways we could not with face to face relationships.
We have also expressed ourselves in ways we could not in face to face relationships.
AND there are mahy ways relationships here are inferior.
But TNM and the discussions and even much of the confliict is an asset.
Rick, all good ideas, but I think the answer lies in your first statement when you said “Of course, we’ll probably need a bully pulpit (like the Presidency or at least a popular cable TV show) to make our voices heard”
The presidency, no, but a cable TV station along with simultaneous radio broadcast by moderate announcers. There would need to be some unique way to get moderates interested in watching the news, but I think that could happen. As was pointed out in earlier comments in the previous post, about 30% of the people are conservative, another like amount are liberal, leaving 40% in the middle.
If the majorith are left out, how do we get them involved?
Ron: It’s unfortunate that so many moderates are politically apathetic. As Yeats wrote, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” (I’d modify that to pit moderates against ideologues.) I suppose leftists and right-wingers have so many media outlets because it’s easy to give voice to extreme opinions. They’re clear-cut, easy to digest, and usually entertaining. Moderate ideas are by definition more nuanced, and they can shift as a counter-balance to crazy ideas that are gaining momentum on the right or left. (That’s why I refer to myself as a “boat balancer.”)
I should probably try to promote The New Moderate more assertively than I do, but after ten years a certain fatigue sets in — along with a sense of resignation about changing people’s thinking.
“along with a sense of resignation about changing people’s thinking. ”
And at a time when trying to moderate people’s thinking is at a high point of need.
But your right about left, right and moderate speech. Who is Collins Kavanaugh speech going to motivate? Not many other than the left against his appointment.
Yeats was wrong.
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
All that is necessary for the triumph of Evil is for the Good men to do nothing.
On the GOP side at least, moderates like Graham and Collins ~ and even Flake ~ have energized the Republican voters in a way that Trump could not. I think that they both believe that Democrats have been seriously attempting to capsize the “boat,” and that their own boat balancing actions had to be more exceptional and upfront. From my own moderate conservative viewpoint, they represented political moderates very well, and convinced me that they could balance what many fear is the growing populism (or what many call “trumpism”) in the party with old-fashioned republicanism.
Sorry Priscilla – Graham is just not moderate.
His remarks on the SJC were incredible and needed to be said.
II beleive my differences with him are political rather than ethical – like my differences with Sessions. But we are talking about the only republiican who is more of a war monger than Clinton.
.
Thanks, Rick, for your continuous efforts to bring us together. Would that the media would stop giving the incorrigibles the loudest voices. Keep going! Hugs, K
>
Thanks, Kate! (Is this the same Kate who went to Woodrow Wilson School and watched me imitate Jimmy Durante in front of the class on numerous occasions?)
7,9,10. Those are possible, especially 10. 12 sounds nice, but… I’ll be the villain. I have no old friends who got seduced by trump or today’s version of the gop, so its hypothetical, but I see no deeper sign of a person’s character than their beliefs. I would likely cut ties with a person who fell into trump’s orbit. I had friends who supported Bush/Cheney and it did not matter to me. trump is a bridge too far.
Last night trump not only mocked Ford at a rally but made the statement that “these people are evil.” Which people he meant exactly is not clear, but I take his words personally, as say, Ron and Priscilla took the deplorables thing personally.
I was disgusted last weekend by SNL mocking K’s tears. Its bad enough that entertainers would use their position to be publically cruel. The POTUS doing it? Right, Rick, like I am going to view someone who admires trump in a friendly way. That is Not going to happen! Being able to tell right from wrong is a qualification for friendship. I have friends who are decent conservatives, they saw through trump immediately. That means that I have the right friends in the first place.
The age of trump is an age where your #12 is in serious trouble.
There will never be a moderate political movement. Moderates are not into movements. Moderates are a sort of a balancing fluid that acts to pull the pendulum back from its extremes at elections. When the elections are between two horrible choices, that mechanism cannot work. Social media and the left/right media are moving us to a state where we are only likely to have horrible choices at the national level, barring some miracle.
“There will never be a moderate political movement”
I agree with that, grump. And I agree with the reason that you give, which is that moderates are not into “movements.” I think that people who are into movements, are people who believe in tribes, and we have a lot of tribes these days. Trump has not created them, he has merely identified the tribes that have been excluded by progressives, and built a constituency of people who believe that they have been, and will continue to be, left in the dust bin. Even worse, they believe that they’ve been blamed for the problems that the progressives claim that they can solve with social justice. There are an awful lot of people out there, grump, occasionally even you, who have noted that social justice can quickly turn into mob justice, and they have decided that they want no part of progressivism.
I think that the real #Resistance should not be the attempt to overthrow a duly elected president, but should center around attempts to bring together people that are genuinely concerned about certain issues, and encourage them to engage with each other. If the news media were to see that as its mission, I think that we could make some headway. CNN occasionally hosts town halls . There have been some good ones in the past, although the gun control one after Parkland was more of an anti-gun rally, and not helpful Fox and MSNBC have hosted them in the past, as well. I think it would be great if the networks would encourage political debates. The media plays such a HUGE (YUGE?) role in this, and they have, of late, done much more harm than good.
And, let’s give credit to our own host here. Rick puts himself out there all the time, knowing that he’s going to take shots from both sides, but we generally stay civil….until he’s gone, that is! I follow some other bloggers who encourage commenters to disagree, but without trolling each other. It’s not really possible to eliminate the kinds of pot shots that we all take when talking about emotional issues, but it’s possible to discourage it.
Being in my 70’s has taught me the importance of keeping things simple in looking for answers to the political environment we now find ourselves. Looking back over the years I was able to witness the many different changes our society has gone through and the many questions that arose out of those changes. I like you have tried to find ways to resolve many of these issues but trying to keep things simple stumbled upon probably what is the best way to find resolve with one another is to follow the 5th Habit of Steven Covey’s book “The Seven Habits of Hight Effective People” and that is “Seek First to Understand, then to be Understood”.
The slow shift towards attacking Ford was inevitable.
Ford will be increasingly aggressively attacked as more information comes out questioning her testimony.
What is wrong about this is that we are fighting an issue in the court of public opinion that should not be decided here.
This just exposes the flaw in the left’s majoritarianism.
Bring all of life into the scope of government and then make all government decisions majoritarian and the result will be the politics of personal destruction.
That is the inevitable consequence of the left’s political approach.
When you make public opinion a part of every decision making process, you assure that once it becomes possible to do so, one side will savage whoever they need to win.
The only difference between the attacks on Kavanaugh and those on Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick – are that Kavanaugh is a minor public figure.
But the others chose to enter the public arena
Their only protection against personal attacks is their credibility, as they lose that, they will be attacked.
Trump’s attacks on Ford are not the problem, once this was made into a public circus – and Trump did not make that choice, the rest has been inevitable.
“There will never be a moderate political movement. Moderates are not into movements.”
Of course not. This is why the exercise of power in government needs to be limited and difficult.
It will ALWAYS be the passonate the “extreme” that will seek to have government act.
Further on rare occasions they will be right.
Your conception of moderate is an ideology that is guaranteed to nearly ALWAYS be WRONG,. Your moderate is a deliberate choice to select the middle option – because even though it’s not right, it is also certain to be less wrong than one of the choices.
That is not inherently bad. Nor is it inherently good. It is sometimes necescary to determine the correct choice rather than settle for half bad/half good.
Grump, I would hope you would remember that I have said many times that I do not like Trump. I have said I like some of his policies, specifically supporting the economic policies passed by congress, Trade policies, eliminating so many ridiculous government regulations and stopping illegal immigration at the border while sending many illegals back to their home country. I also have said there are some illegals that should be made legal like the dreamers that are more American than our past president, except they don’t have the birth certificate.
If there was any other person that promoted the policies that Trump promotes, I would vote for them in a heartbeat. Trump, it really depends on the opponent. Another Clinton, a Warren or Booker, yes I would vote for him, only to be one that would be one blocking vote to a disaster economically for the country and stopping identity politics in its track. If a moderate democrat, then a choice between the Libertarian and that candidate.
Check out #walkaway. He says it well on how I view the current democrats.
I did not see nor have not heard his speech. I can imagine it given his “little hands” crap during the election. He probably mocked everything she said and more so. Just like Obama getting involved with race issues like in Ferguson, a President should stay out of that crap, but Trump can not do that. He has to be the last word in anything, no matter good or bad words.
What he is doing is energizing the actual “deplorables” that support that crap. But you can support Trumps policies without supporting Trump. Sometimes you have to swallow castor oil to eliminate bureaucratic BS, which is what many have to do with Trump.
“But you can support Trumps policies without supporting Trump.”
Exactly! (not that I do). I have no problem with that. Pat Riot may be in the same group. You have said many clear things about how you see trump himself and I have never had any question about your view of him personally.
There is trump the man, as a person. I part ways completely with people who admire trump the man, his character, minimize or rationalize his worst behaviors etc.
There is the behaviors of trump, his way of talking, his way of communicating, his way of dividing and working people up, enraging them. I part ways with anyone who admires that.
Then there is the policies of trump divorced from the man and his behaviors. I am OK with people who make either dichotomous choice between trumps policies (most of which I do not agree with) and progressive policies, (most of which I do not agree with.) if that is all it is, policy. Some policies, like separating children from their parents and over the top enforcement on illegals sicken me more than, say tax cuts.
The two things that are uniquely trumpian policywise from what another gop president would do without dragging us down into the gutter are his negotiations with NK, which at this point I have to give him credit for, although I think its 60/40 that lil kim pulls away the football as trump goes to kick it and this is all just part of lil kims strategy to acquire all of Korea without a war. Still, talking with NK has a better chance than not talking and prior to this the conventional wisdom was not to talk so throwing convention to the winds seems to be an improvement in this case.
The second thing is China, where I see what the stakes are and understand why it feels good to use the trade stick on China, but my premonition is that this is going to create a long term huge problem for decades and work out badly for all.
Sorry Rick I have dragged your thread straight to trump again. Its like trying to escape the gravity of a black hole, it just sucks you in.
“I part ways completely with people who admire trump the man, his character, minimize or rationalize his worst behaviors etc.”
Where are those people ? I have not met them.
You seem to think they are everywhere – that anyone who is not frothing over the last Trump tweet is one of them.
We had the choice between two people of bad character in 2016.
The country held its nose and picked Trump.
II think character matters. The country does not. Clinton’s popularity ROSE after he lied under oath and had sex with an intern in the oval office.
Bill Clinton is an abysmal human being. He is much worse than Trump both because of what he has actually done, and because he is so easily able to persuade people otherwise.
We may not think Trump is a rapist, but even he admits to having been a horn dog.
But like it or not Clinton was a good president. Not perfect, definitely dispecable.
But the country improved significantly while he was president.
That is NOT true of Bush who I increasingly respect as a person, while increasingly beleive was a horible president.
It was NOT true of Obama – who I DID respect as a person while being a bad president, who I am increasing losing respect for as a person.
Trump is never going to gain my respect as a person.
But he is increasingly looking to be a good president – potentially better than Clinton, though there is a long way to go.
He is far from perfect on policy. On some policies I vigously oppose him.
But I am NEVER getting a presiden I agree with on everything.
So no – I am not interested in your or anyone else’s daily attacks on his character.
Though I do not think he has 666 tattooed under his orange comb over, he is not someone I would want dating my daughter. Regardless, tomorrows “Trump is a bad person” tweet, is not going to convert me or pretty much anyone else.
Most of us understand Trump’s negatives. We are also capable of seeiing that he has been a pretty good president thus far.
That could change – and if iit does Trump is toast.
But the outrageous trump tweet of the day is NOT goiing to get us there.
I part company with you on this garbage that Trump is the source of our divisions.
The polarization according to Pew began in 2008, not 2016.
Trump’s election is the consequence of the left becoming ever more extreme.
Absolutely Trump has capitolized on those divisions.
Trump was elected because the left has labeled half the country as hateful haring haters, and Trump has stood up and given them a voice.
Trump’s election is the predictable response to the growing intolerance of the left.
Further while I do not know what will happen in 2018 – if the left continues to be fixated on hatred of others, on blaming others, Trump iis not merely wiining in 2020 he is winning big.
I might use different adjectives, and I am less sure than you about the outcome in Korea,
but otherwise I completely agree.
Obama had the opportunity to make efforts with NK – he did not.
I doubt Clinton would have.
I doubt another republican would have.
China is incredibly complex. Trump and Tarrifs are a tiny part of the challenges facing China.
Most of which have very little to do with the US.
You are completely wrong regardiing China – primarily because you make the Tarriifs a far bigger issue than they are.
Regardless of Tarriiff’s the US and China will grow closer. It is in their interests, and it iis unavoidable.
China is struggling because it has gone about as far as it can go by offering iits people economic freedom without political freedom. Trump has NOTHIING to do wit that.
That is the most consequential problem in china today.
Further it is a cap on further economic growth, and political unrest in china can rapidly get out of control if the government can not deliver on increasing standard of living.
If China gets things right – it will be an increasingly important super power in the future.
That will inherently create conflict with the US. But that is not inherently bad.
The difference between America and China is planning. While America is planning for 5-10 years and anything further out than that makes many call politicians “nut heads”, the Chinese are planning on how they will be the superior country 20-40 years.out.
There are myriads of books on China.
Somewhat directly on your point is Ronald Coases “How China became capitalist”.
To give you a clue – it absolutely positively was NOT PLANNED.
Post Mao chinese leaders did grasp they needed to learn how to be more prosperous.
They did lots of research explored many many options – pretty much all of which failed.
But they made one change that worked – and they did not even make it consciously.
They became – mostly after the fact, more tolerant of experiments, outside of government.
One of the earliest started just before Mao died.
China was importing food. It could not feed the people. All over people were hungry.
It was not as bad as during the great leap forward, but it was bad.
In one out of the way village the people got together and decided that in addition to the communal rice farms that everyone was supposed to help with, they would allow each family a small amount of land to produce food for their own consumption.
I am sure you have heard this story before – it happened at James Town. It happened at Plymouth, It happened with the Kulak’s in the USSR.
Wherever it was allowed – it worked incredibly – and it worked in china.
This was not the first time this was tried – in China or elsewhere – I mentioned the Kulack’s deliberately.
It is what happened next that mattered – in the past – in the USSR, in the PRC, those people who tried this – sometimes even when government encouraged it, were punished.
With Mao Dead, and people starving the key leaders – I beleive Deng Xio Ping, decided to do something communists do not typiically do – and ignore it.
They diid not encourage it, they did not punish it, they just ignored it. That is all.
Deng wanted to do more, but preventing the “capitalist roaders” from being punished for not startving like everyone else was the best he could do.
Anyway when the communists did not punish this, word spread, the “experiment” grew in in a few years China went from importing food to exporting. Today China exports nearly as much food as the US.
Since Mao’s death this story in different forms has repeated itself over and over.
The “secret” to China’s prodigious growth since Mao’s death is NOT planning, it is freedom.
Ignoring people who are doing things in violation of the prevalent ideology is a form of limited freedom. And China shows us what small increases in freedom can do.
If you are in doubt – read Coases. The book is excellent and an easy and fun read (for economics).
If you still have doubts – I would recommend “The commanding heights:The battle for the world economy”, this is both a book and a 6hr BBC/PBS special.
One I would absolutely never beleive came from BBC/PBS.
Regardless, “the commanding heights” will show you that the same thing that occurred in China has occured elsewhere in the world – to varying degrees since WWII.
Universally greater economic freedom has resulted in much more rapiid growth – in China, in India, in the UK, in Itally, in Poland. in Uraguay.
Anywhere it has been tried with the improvement scaling with the degree of freedom and the duration with whiich freedom was permitted.
Central Planning fails – even in china
This is the core economic and political lession of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Ron,
You do not understand.
Today it is not acceptable to merely “not like Trump”
You must accept – no embrace, put on a pussy hat and march to have Trump forcibly removed.
Trump is the anti-christ, the end of civilization as we know it.
You are not permitted to even think that ANYTHING he does is anything less that pure evil.
You must accept that iif Trump and Obama did exactly the same thing – that when Trump did it, it was evil, and when Obama did it, it was good.
You and I are not on the same side of some issues – such as Trade regarding Trump.
Our differences do not make one of us evil. They do not make being wrong on that issue the end of the world. Or the collapse of western civilization.
I am still trying to sort out the recent Canada Mexico Trade deal.
It is near certain that I think it is inferior to the US unilaterally dropping all barriers to trade with Canada or Mexico.
It is near certain that it is NOT the greatest thing silence sliced bread as Trump is selling
Oh God No!!! Trump is “Lying”
It appears that it is an improvement over NAFTA – though I think a small improvement.
So we have spent 3 years ranting about Trump as a threat to the entire world, and after all the end of the world rhetoric – including Trump’s we get something that though not the salvation of the world, is still a small improvement.
In other words ZERO justification for the Trump hysteria.
Ultimately I expect EXACTLY the same with China – after more sabre rattling.
Pretty much everything I have read suggests that Trump has a much stronger negotiating position that China. That a “trade war” will hurt China more and faster than the US.
That doesn’t make it a good idea, or mean that I support it.
But I just can not get worked into a lather because Trump is risking a small stupid thing in order to get a small improvement and to look good to his base.
The “big deal” – which I do not understand why has not been made already is the US UK deal.
That one is trivial – absolute free trade between the US and UK,
Anything that meets their regulations is presumed to meet ours – and visa versa.
Americans can buy Britsh Drugs, or foods, The British can buy US products – without restrictions.
US Blue collar labor will absolutely buy that.
We do understand that free trade benefits everyone – so long as those trading with us are white engliish speaking people of approximately the same income.
We will agressively compete with the briitish for their markets – and they will for ours, and we will know we are both better off for it.
We will not be ranting about jobs going overseas or the British “dumping” cheap products built with cheap labor.
That deal should have happened a year ago. May should have been falling all overherself to get it. It would have given her incredible leverage with the EU.
One of the undercurrents to Brexit is that Britian has been and remains primarily a trading nation. EU rules significantly constrain about 1/3 of the trade that the UK is capable of.
EU membership makes UK trade with the US and the rest of what was the british commonwealth harder and more expensive.
In the 80’s the European market was more valuable to the UK than its other foreign markets.
As the standard of living in China and India rises they become increasingly important trading partners, and the relative value of trade with the EU diminishes.
I think that there is no US/UK free trade deal primarily because too many politicians in the UK are too tied to the EU.
Great post.
“The difference between America and China is planning. While America is planning for 5-10 years and anything further out than that makes many call politicians “nut heads”, the Chinese are planning on how they will be the superior country 20-40 years.out.”
Exactly! I said that a while back and dave typed contradictions for days. But, you are correct. They think in much longer terms and their system makes that kind of thinking possible.
I am not sure we are really planning for more than a year here. Democracy and planning seem to be poorly compatible.
Nope, Grump, Ron, is NOT correct – as much as I might respect his POV.
China does plan. But that has NOTHING to do with their success.
In fact EVIDENCE demonstrates that central planning does not work.
This is not even a close call.
You can read Hayek from 70 years ago, or Friedman, or Coase, or the Frazier institute today.
You can look at the data on Sweden from before the 50’s, from the 50-s to the 90’s and from the 90’s to the present. you can look at the data for any country anywhere at any time.
With almost no exceptions for any country, any group of countries, any time period, standard of living rises faster the smaller government is atleast down to government at 20% of GDP.
Probably that remains true down to 3-5% of GDP – but our data below 20% is poor.
This is not even a close call.
BTW this is not merely a factor in government it is a factor in business.
Large businesses get many advantages from the economies of scale.
But they also have disadvantages – one of those is that their long term and relatively rigid planning model has a negative impact. The effects on business are less pronounced than government, and there are other factors that assure that a free market will always have a mix of different size businesses,
But the fact is central planning has benefits and negatives and the larger the scale the larger the negatives become.
China’s “planning” is absolutely a difference between it and the US.
That planning has both negative and positive effects.
On NET it is a significant DISADVANTAGE, not an advantage.
This entire debate reflects the common error that nearly all progressives make in their arguments.
They confuse the fact that almost every action that can possibly be considered has positive effects, with a positive net outcome.
We can do many things such as restrict speech that will absolutely reduce discrimination.
But there actions will have impacts beyond discrimination and those will be primarily negatiive. Many will be quite large but also only visible when we have the oportunity to do side by side comparisions, which is rare – so we use statistical regressions to determine what the impact of the “unseen” is.
Regardless, the point is everything has positive effects, That should never be confused with being net positive. Any action in which you are only looking at the benefts, you are near certaiin to make a bad choice.
Grump. Thanks for the alert. Ducks are sometimes not well informed.
dhlli: all you comments on the last thread are pure obfuscation- as usual, and I couldn’t care less about your RE and estate travails, that wallpapering over down wash here in NYC the home of slum lords and King Tax Cheat Donald Trump.
If you do not care to actually know something about real estate or taxes then you would be wise not to post idiotic comments on those subjects.
This obfusaction meme is tiresome garbage.
It is self evident that you do not care about fact, that if the facts contradict your view that then whoever provided the facts must be “obfuscating”.
Does Trump go to an enormous amount of trouble ot reduces his taxes ? Absolutley.
He has an army of lawyers bookkeepers and accountants to do so.
If he actually violated the law – atleast a few would know, and when threatened they would rat him out. Further Trump is not stupid, he understands this.
Look at what Manaforte’s professionals assistants did – folded at the mere hint of interest in themselves by Mueller.
That is less likely to work with Trump – there are more people, and these are bigger firms.
You can not get them to lie for Trump, you can not get them to lie for the government.
You lack judgement. If you hear a negative story about someone you do not like, you just beleive it. You do not trouble yourself with thoughts such as “that does not make sense”.
Get a does of healthy skepticism.
The only way to bring Americans together, is to get rid of Trump. Period.
Trump is a divisive cancer, infecting the body politic. When a divisive unethically unbalanced irrational liar is president, expectations of moderate ameliorateion are futile.
You can eliminate trump entirely and our divisions will still remain.
At the moment we are fighting because the left has lost the power to impose its will on the rest of us by force.
Had clinton been elected – we would have a right angered by the left’s use of power to impose their will on the rest of us by force.
The divisions would remain.
I would further note that it is not our divisions that are important.
It is th willingness of the left to impose iits will by force.
The title of this is finding common ground – that is trivially easy.
Of course we have common ground.
We may not all beleiive that Kavanaugh attempted to Rape Ford,
But NO ONE beleive that attempted rape is a good thing or that Kavanaugh should be on the court if he did.
On absolutely everything that purportedly divides us – there is ALWAYS common ground.
But that common ground is LESS that what the left wants. And rather than seeking to persuade, the left seeks to destroy and silence.
There is a HUGE gulf between “common ground” and “the will of the majority”, and a larger one between our “common ground” and there wishes of the left.
I can not think of anything we fight over that is not one faction – almost always the left, seeking to force what is NOT part of our “common ground” on to all of us.
We do not need to find “common ground” that already exists.
All we need to do is agree not to use force outside of that common ground.
“Trump is a divisive cancer, infecting the body politic. When a divisive unethically unbalanced irrational liar is president, expectations of moderate ameliorateion are futile.”
Yup.
If you get rid of Trump you will end up with something worse.
Trump is not the cause of our division.
The causes are the willingness of the left to impose its wiill on the rest of us – by any means necescary and their willingness to use any tactic to silence those who disagree.
Trump is a reacton to that.
THAT is what divides the country.
Get rid of Trump – the problem with remain.
We were fighting HERE over mostly the same issues, before Trump was anything more than a comic possiblity.
One of the things the fight over Kavanaugh is doing – is bringing the GOP back together.
Many #neverTrumpers have gotten behind Kavanaugh.
Many #nevertrumpers are understanding that the left is seeking the destruction of the country, and at the moment Trump is their primary obstacle.
Increasingly the GOP is coming to “the enemy or my enemy is my friend”.
I am surprised at the persistance of the left. and the ability of the left and those like yourself to maintaiin this level of spittle spewing malignancy for so long.
But ultimately this burns out. hatred only carries you so far.
#walkaway. Check itnout on Facebook or you tube. Worth watching.
“If you get rid of Trump you will end up with something worse“
Bullshit
Pretty much guaranteed.
AGAIN Trump’s election was not a fluke.
While there are many factors – the prime one is the anger of large parts of the country with the left for labeling them as hateful hating haters.
Just to be clear – not because of Hillaries statement that was just one expression of what most of those not on the left know – the left hates everyone who does not kowtow to their ideology.
The modern left is NOT the left of the 60’s or 70’s or 80’s.
They are intolerant. They will shout down those who disagree. They will invade their work. their homes, their private spaces. They will engage in violence if necessary to achieve their ends.
Lots of us – many who did not support Trump have fought this through The Obama administration.
Republicans picked up nearly 4000 elected offices at the federal and state level across the country from 2008 through 2016. That was not a fluke or an accident – it was a political response to what they were seeing from the left.
It is likely that any republican would have won in 2016. But Republicans picked Trump primarily because he is trump. Because he is the in your face response to the lefts in your face politics. Republicans were tired of Romney’s.
If you take out Trump – even if you manage to do so in a way that people accept as legitimate – which is highly unlikely, you will still has myriads of angry trump voters to contend with.
Trump is actually the natural consequence of the successes and actions of the left from atleast 2008 through 2016.
If Trump did not exist – politics would have created him eventually.
You should feel lucky that Clinton lost. The backlash in another 4 years would have been worse.
You keep comparing Trump to Hiiter.
While there are many flaws in that comparision,
Hitler, Mao, Musolinii, Stalin. Castro, Franco, ….
All followed periods where the government of their countries was failing – usually but not always leftist government.
Regardless, when there is chaos, we look for strong men to lead – the worse the chaos, the more authoritarian we look for.
Trump or no Trump there are several possible futures right now.
The left actually wins – bringing an even worse economy than the Bush/Obama years.
While will result in backlash that elects someone worse than you think trump is.
The left collapses and restructures significantly abandoning its politics of personal destruction.
The right continues to strengthen.
The left wins and manages by hook or crook to hold power.
This results in violence.
Threaten a conservative while they sleep = as the left is now advocating, and you are going to get shot.
You do not grasp that while the left is the great threat to the country today,
as they go farther and farther – they guarantee that the final word will come from the right.
Either politically or if the left illegitimately thwarts politics through violence.
“If you get rid of Trump you will end up with something worse.”
Don’t worry, no one would vote for you. 🙂
😆😆😆😆😆😆
Here we have some new people noting how reasonable things are here and you have to go off into ad hominem and personal insults.
He just wants to save those new people wasted time by letting them know what a long winded tedious annoying boring person you are. 🧛♂️😏
For any new comer to the site, if you don’t want to read what others post, just hit the delete button on your email and it disappears easily.
Please don’t try using wordpress comment section to read and keep up. It is impossible, no matter who is commenting.
His remarks and yours do more to discredit yourselves than me.
“long winded tedious annoying boring”
Are facts more important than your feelings about my posts.
Sometimes(often) there are alot of facts.
Sometimes the facts are tedious
Facts can be annoying.
Facts can be boring.
They are still facts.
Insulting them or me, does not support your or any other relevant argument.
It is ad hominem – and argument to the person.
Even if true it is fallacy, though it is rarely true.
We can not possibly ever find common ground, reach agreement, even manage your prized compromise, if your idea of discussion is to attack the other person rather than their argument, to attack the other person rather than present your facts, and your argument.
So if we brought back someone like Obama, we would be united? No way.
Just getting rid of Trump will not do it. Give us an alternative the conservatives will jot gag on as badly as prigressives gag on Trump. Then we can have a discussion. Just saying getting rid of Trump is just blowing hot air.
We do not need to “come together”.
All we need to do is to quit trying to impose our will on each other by force.
Our “common ground” is what it is. It is those things that we actually agree on.
It is the Least common denominator of our values.
It is the domain in which we can agree to use force against violations.
But every value that those on the left or the right Wish was part of out “common ground” iis not.
We can persuade those on the other side to include out values into the “common ground”, but we can not force it.
Further you can not create common ground by compromise.
The right can not compromise with the left to allow infringement on the rights of gay bakers in return for infringing on our rights with a stronger police force.
“coming together” means recognizing that there are few circumstances that justify the use of force outside our “common ground”.
Trump is cancer.
I’m not the only one who thinks so.
“Best-selling author and conservative columnist @MaxBoot tells the @MoJoPodcast the GOP is racist, the Iraq War was wrong, and Trumpism is a cancer. Listen: bit.ly/2NZXvzw”
Calling people a cancer – is just a great way to connect and influence people.
Some of us want to talk about issues.
What actions of Trump as president offend you ?
Who knows, maybe we can find some “common ground” ?
Regardless, the election is over. Trump won.
your not getting rid of him by assassinating his character.
Nor will that likely work in 2020.
Get past the name calling and deal with substance.
No, that does not mean the last Trump tweet that has you frothing.
“No, that does not mean the last Trump tweet that has you frothing.”
You froth rather well yourself, to the tune of millions and millions of words of frothing about the left, among other frothing irritations of yours, here, e.g.:
“Many #nevertrumpers are understanding that the left is seeking the destruction of the country, and at the moment Trump is their primary obstacle.”
No Dave, no one, right or left wants to destroy the country, that is first class frothing.
It clearly drives you crazy that others have different opinions than you do. Your millions of words are your reaction to your frustration that we do not see things the way you do.
Get over yourself.
We can froth if we want to and you are the last person to be in a position to tell us not to, libertarian.
You are engaged in tedious word parsing.
Actually some on the left really do wish to destroy this country.
Regardless, they absolutely wish to make this country into something radically different that will fail.
Large portions of the modern left have been enamoured even advocating venezuelan socialism. It takes very little retrospective examination to find the left fawning over Venezuelan socialism.
We can engage in word games as to whether those people WANTED the destruction of the US – it is a farce to pretend that had they had the power to do what they wished – destruction would have been the outcome.
There are things that the right WANTS that will have bad outcomes.
But the right given absolutely everything they WANT would at best send the country back to the 50’s culturally. That would not be good. It also would not be the horror that is Venezuela right now.
That you continue to pretend that the Left does not dwarf the right as a threat flies in the face of reality.
Maybe it is foaming and frothing to spew 10.000 words of facts, logic reason noting in multple different ways your error on these issues.
But it is also reality.
Get a clue. There is reality, and there is ideology. Some ideologies are wrong – always, some are wrong sometimes. some may be right all or most of the time.
The left is angry, the right is angry, I am angry.
There may be little difference in our anger.
Being angry – emotional says nothing about fact or fiction,
Ford and Kavanaugh both made strong emotional appeals.
That had ZERO to do with their credibility.
The error is not in having emotions. it is in pretending that emotions are arguments.
It is in pretending that your emotions are a justification for the use of force against others.
You are free to rely exclusively on emotions to make decisions completely within your own life. You are not free to use emotions to justify the use of force against others.
That is not merely a characteristic of the left, it is fundimental to the ideology of the left.
And it is the road to destruction.
“It clearly drives you crazy that others have different opinions than you do. Your millions of words are your reaction to your frustration that we do not see things the way you do.”
You are free to have whatever oppinions you wish and I am free to disagree.
So long as the direct effects of your oppinions and their actions are confined to yourself any debate is accademic – and I enjoy that debate – but you are still free to do as you please.
Where you are acting or empowering others to act – using force, against others, we are beyond the realm of mere oppinions.
You should trivially understand that you may not kill others because in your oppinion the world would be better with them dead.
Accept that and you have accepted the social contract – that you are allowed to restrain the freedom of others, when their exercise of that freedom – their ACTS, directly infringe on your freedom or that of others. It also means you may not use force however you wish. You may not do so because lots of others support that use of force.
The use of force is justified in protecting the rights of individuals, not infringing on them.
That is more than an oppinion, it is central to the existance of government.
It is logic that has never been refuted.
There is not a single valid argument in your response.
In fact you have said nothing beyond that long posts annoy you.
So what ? There is no principle or rule of logic that dictates that something is more or less true based on word count, or based on your annoyance.
I think your non-de-plume is perfect – you are not looking for the truth, you are looking to be offended.
Those might sometimes overlapp. But they are not the same.
https://www.law.com/2018/10/03/900-law-profs-say-kavanaugh-lacks-judicial-temperament-in-letter-to-senate/
And they appeared before him in court ?
Get a clue – that is not happening. That would be political suicide for the GOP.
Recent polls indicate Kavanaugh has 60% support for confirmation, if the FBI does not turn up anything.
Not sure if this is still on twitter or not. Liberals at their best.
?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1047075299995918336&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs.yimg.com%2Fos%2Fyc%2Fhtml%2Fembed-iframe-min.2d7621e2.html
Ron, Yes, that cartoon was vile. Partisans lose all perspective and are capable of anything.
But, its not Liberals, its SOME liberals.
SOME conservatives heaped shit and abuse and threats on a kid who decided to become politically active on gun control following having his classmates blown away in one of the endless series of school massacres. The kid had been hiding in a closet or something while a gunman blew his friends and classmates away just a short time previously and SOME conservatives had no sign of a heart whatsoever and went after him like a gang of bullying goons. Even some supposedly nice people jumped on the bandwagon.
The use of qualifiers, not just when writing but also when thinking in the first place, would keep people from lumping all members of some group together and building the case that every single liberal or conservative or white or black person or catholic or muslim is just like the worst examples. That blanket blaming is of course is an important step to lowering oneself into the septic tank.
Senators Sasser, Flake, Collins, McCain, Corker, and Murkowski, among others did not spring from nowhere, they are conservatives, came from conservatism, and represent conservatives with honor and decency. There is still a good heart beating in conservative thinking, it just needs to be rescued from the example set by the POTUS and his deplorables.
Exactly the same goes for the liberal side.
The good eggs have to speak up and lead and criticize indecency that arises on their own side. The ones who do that are on the list of politicians I respect.
Bret Stephens, NYT Never-Trumper, who has written many, many highly critical articles on Trump, both before and after his election:
“For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it. I’m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday.
I’m grateful because Trump has not backed down in the face of the slipperiness, hypocrisy and dangerous standard-setting deployed by opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I’m grateful because ferocious and even crass obstinacy has its uses in life, and never more so that in the face of sly moral bullying. I’m grateful because he’s a big fat hammer fending off a razor sharp dagger” ~ Bret Stephens, NYT 10/4/2018
It’s not easy to get Bret Stephens to say anything positive about Trump, and even harder to get the NYT to print it.
But the Democrats have succeeded in making Stephens grateful that Trump is our president. And he uses exactly, EXACTLY the reasoning that so many reluctant Trump supporters have used, that is, that Trump does not back down in the face of bullying and character assassination, as Republican moderates have done in the past. Just as your parents and teachers taught you, standing up to bullies is the only way to defeat them.
Moderates don’t have to be centrists. Moderates don’t have to be cowards. Moderates don’t have to be appeasers. Glad to see that moderates like Lindsey Graham and Bret Stephens get it.
My biggest problem with Trump is his mouth. He goes for a couple weeks without saying something offensive and then goes and gives a speech that I am almost going to say is designed for “deplorables”.
What he said about Ford was offensive and unacceptable. I can only believe anyone that would think that funny , acceptable and anything but bullying can only be one that Clinton described as “deplorable”.
One thing for certain, when F and K began getting all the attention, Trump had to do something to redirect attention to himself. He is like the bratty kid, needing all the attention good or bad.
I fully agree with your first two points.
As too your last – I am still waiting to see, but I am inclined to beleive that Trump played this entire mess perfectly – in terms of politics and votes.
It appears K is getting confirmed – so he wins on that.
And the GOP bases is very fired up now.
Dem’s can not get more fired up than they were – that is the cost for crying wolf constandtly.
Eventually they will get demoralized.
Numerous pundits have observed that in this fight Trump has brought the GOP back together behind him, and brought most #nevertrumpers into the fold.
The entire Kavanaugh debate has been incredibly stupid and dangerous – particularly because of they way that it has been structured – and the blame for that rests with democrats.
If Kavanaugh actually did what Ford claims he should not be confirmed, he should be removed from the 5th circuit and he should be disparaged fro the remainder of his life.
IF they are false – while Ford has something to answer for, absent proof or knowing politically motivated lies, she is not the problem. She can be decent and wrong.
But democrats can not. Why ?
Because the standard is NOT who is more beleiveable.
Because process – what we call due process actually matters.
Because you can not jump from accusation to conviction based on your “feelings” about credibility.
Because an accusation is just plain not sufficient even a credible one.
But there is a huge danger to republicans in this.
Not a thing I have said above will matter, if strong corroboration emerges.
The odds of that are tiny.
But unfortunately we do not care about process, we do not care that the left jumped from accusation to conviction, if ultimately the accusation proves true.
The left’s misconduct is only apparent and offensive so long as there is significant doubt about the accusation.
Yes, I apologize. My keying entered faster than my mind was thinking.
I should have said “Liberal media” at its finest.
And there I believe one could debate between most an all.
Many liberals themselves do not think like this.
But also, many good people who are consistently exposed
to stuff like this gecome immune to the problem it causes.
Just as those that search out,bfind and read far right media become
immune to human issues that exist in the country.
Priscilla, I have no idea why you put your trump propaganda as a reply to my comment, since it had precisely nothing to do with my point. But, I guess you had to find some place to put it.
Here, since you want to talk is a view from my universe.
“We all know that the president cannot lead us through this time,” Sasse said. “We know he is dispositionally unable to restrain his impulse to divide us.”
https://www.omaha.com/news/politics/in-emotional-speech-ben-sasse-says-he-told-trump-to/article_537dc762-1cb2-5378-9cd5-b0507e0b1cf2.html
In looking up Sasse’s comments I also got a link to “Ben Sasse is being a real Ben Sassehole about Kavenaugh.” That and more is what someone like Sasse was doomed to hear for actually being both a decent voice and a gop senator. Get in line Ben, shape up.
You will probably enjoy reading that one.
I like Ben Sasse. A lot. Any article referring to any senator as an asshole is not one that I would bother to read, despite my attempts to read opinion from both sides. Nevertheless, thanks for the gratuitous insult, grump 😉
And puzzling that you think that Bret Stephens is a author of Trump propaganda.
Who would you name , other than Joe Manchin, as a moderate on the Democrat side? And what opinion writer, similar to Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat, from the liberal side of the spectrum, has written a column questioning the political circus that the Kavanaugh confirmation has become?
I’m not saying that they don’t exist. But that was my point, clumsily made as it may have been. And my questions are genuine…where are the moderates on the left?
Stephens has been critical of Trump in the WSJ, and the NYT.
He is just not a rabid #never trumper – and that makes him a trump sycophant.
Wow, so the poltical parties bludgeon their members to vote party line!
Do you think that is unique to Republicans ?
Regardless, why is it particularly important to know what Sasse asys about something when we are capable of our own Judgement ?
Did Sasse provide new information ?
Do you make up your mind by polling Ben Sasse ?
Eh, no need to apologise, but you did give me a chance to get on one of my favorite soapboxes, ha I should thank you.
“But also, many good people who are consistently exposed
to stuff like this gecome immune to the problem it causes.”
Yes, in biochemistry its called “saturation of receptors.” For example, its why when you walk into a pine forest it smells great for 5 minutes and then you hardly can smell the pine scent after that.
Its why I do not watch the news and read little more in print than the daily headlines on most days. I do not want to be part of this desensitized population that thinks for example, that SNL mocking K’s tears was funny.
Grump interesting analogy to the pine forest. And so true.
Rick listed all these things he believes that moderates could bring to heal America.
I have another after listening tobsome talking heads discussing Booker, K and the FBI investigation. My thoughts:
Moderates are just as likely to vote Democrat as Republican. Democrats are just as likely to turn out and vote for a centrist as a far left liberal. So if moderates willturn out in the 2020 primaries and participate in the democrat primary, vote for a moderate and not far left candidates like Sanders or Booker, maybe there would be chance a moderate could win. And I am not talking about a Hillary fake moderate.
“Moderates are just as likely to vote Democrat as Republican.”
I beleive the middle tends to go slightly to the right. But not consistently
“Democrats are just as likely to turn out and vote for a centrist as a far left liberal.”
Nope. Both parties need to “motivate their base” and their bases is away from the center.
“So if moderates will turn out in the 2020 primaries and participate in the democrat primary, vote for a moderate and not far left candidates like Sanders or Booker, maybe there would be chance a moderate could win. And I am not talking about a Hillary fake moderate.”
Sorry, not happening.
But I wish you were riight.
I did not watch SNL – I am told they were not funny – if they had you laughing that is wrong.
Laughter is good.
But I would not confuse humor with facts. Just as I would not confuse emotion with facts.
“He goes for a couple weeks without saying something offensive and then goes and gives a speech that I am almost going to say is designed for “deplorables”.”
For about a week statements I read as being made by trump had such a different tone and grammar, they were intelligible, did not sound idiotic or unreasonable, etc. that I suspected someone else was writing them, or that he has another completely different manner of speaking and only uses the usual one because it is effective in stirring up jerry springer type reactions from the audience that profit him. I do not know which it was but I suspect it was the first, someone else wrote them. I thought that maybe, just maybe he could finally be growing a bit.
Then he went back to form.
Grump, he plays to his audience. When in D.C. he is playing to America. When on the stump, he knows most of the attendees are going to be those that love the “deplorable” label and wear it proudly.Few that dislike Trump will attend a Trump rally.
He can turn on a dime and never faulter. He called Kim Rocket Man one day and shortly later was playing nice.
The media also plays gotcha – more with trump than others.
But to some extent with everyone.
If a politiician says something that can be turned into an out of context sound bite that makes them look bad – the media will run with it.
I heard his speech. What I heard was not a sound bite. It was not bad, it was dep!orable. You DO NOT make fun of a woman who has been sexually assaulted, yesterday or 36 years ago.
But I guess a man who uses power to cover up sexual misconduct in his past would be mentally incapable of understanding that fact.
I have said I did not vote for Trump. I have said when he runs for reelection, I would have to consider my vote given the candidates running against him. After that unforegivable attack on Ford, there is no way I would vote for him. Its either the Last bertarian or a blank space on my ballot.
He should have directed his obnoxious comments toward the democrats.
I wonder how many feel the same as I do. If the presidential election where this year, we might find out. Probably few will remember in 2020.
My point was general not specific.
Some of Trump’s remarks regarding Ford were wrong.
Though it was inevitable that someone was saying them just as it was inevitable that stories – maybe true maybe not would come out undermining Ford’s credibility.
Trump’s words bother me – alot, sometimes. I did not vote for him either, and it is unlikely I will. But that does not make any of his opponents better.
If someone put a gun to my head today and said you much vote – and it must be for Trump or an electable democrat. I can not think of any democrat that would get my vote.
Trump is not a particularly good person. He is better than Bill Clinton, but of recent presidents, that is about it.
But he has actually been a good president – so far. Better that every president since Reagan except Clinton.
I wish our presidents were good people.
I wish our good presidents were good people.
Many are not.
There is no relevant reason to pay much attention to Trump’s rhetoric.
Most of the time he is counter punching those who deserve what they are getting – I really do not care.
I am much more concerned about what he does.
” So if moderates will turn out in the 2020 primaries and participate in the democrat primary, vote for a moderate and not far left candidates like Sanders or Booker, maybe there would be chance a moderate could win. ”
Somehow getting moderates to vote in primaries of both parties would be the best thing that could happen to our politics. If there would be one moderate dem vs several progressive dems then he moderate should win.
A moderate dem candidate would likely beat trump and very possibly in a landslide. So far no moderate dem is making any signs of getting a campaign going. I can only hope there will be one, and only one, electable moderate dem in the dem primaries.
As a tangent to that, I am so sick of the SC war that I wish they would just confirm K and let the voters react how they will next month and in 2020. Might be a pyrrhic victory getting K confirmed. Who knows?
The thing that has been shown in 2008 and 2012 is conservatives did not turn out for more centrist candidates. One wonders what might have happened had the Democrat candidate not been Obama who energized the minority vote.
So given that belief that a moderate GOP cant win, then that leaves the democrats to try.
And when Ibsay moderate, I am talking about a candidate that believes in staying out of your life. Both socially and fiscally. Minimal government involvement.
2008 was altered by the Financial crisis.
McCain was ahead until the market started to tank, and he never recovered.
So change the rules.
Get open primaries.
Look it up. Most all states that count have open primaries.
That is why we got screwed with Trump
Then make the case for a different way of electing presidents.
“Then make the case for a different way of electing presidents.”
I have in the past. I have said it is time for closed primaries.
Until 1968, primaries for the most part were beauty contest. The nominee did not even have to participate in a primary because the party elders picked the candidate. I have tried hard to find any historical information as to when states adopted open primaries and in this case the internet is useless. Guess 5 different ways of searching for that info is not what it needs, nor is using 2 different search engines including duckduckgo.
My point is democrats should choose democrats, republicans should select republicans and those that are indepentent and do not want to register in one party or the other should be required to vote for that person the parties selects.
This could well create further division between further left and further right candidates. My personal belief is Cruz and Bush would have been the last men standing had all primaries been closed. Basically the christian conservatives V establishment republicans. Is that good or bad, no one knows and its just speculation on my part. But we would not have had Trump IMO.
And I also believe that the parties should do away with super delegates and have the nominee picked by the primary outcomes based on percent of vote, not winner take all..Would that have made a difference in the democrat selection. Might not, but it would have been much closer and more individuals may have voted in the later primaries due to the closeness of the delegate count. Again, speculation on my part.
Last, distribution of electoral votes. Eliminate the winner take all in states and allocate based on how the congressional district voted.So for instance, instead of Clinton getting all 55 of California electors, Trump would have won 7 since he won 7 districts in 2016.. Would that have made a difference in the final count? Yes, slightly, but not enough to change the outcome. But it would be more representative and might create some excitement for republican candidates to spend time in swing California districts and Democrats in swing Texas districts.
Ever happen. Hell no, the parties are too invested in what they have now.
Many of our “political” choices do not have “right” answers – almost the entire electoral process – outside the presumption that our leaders should be elected, is an example.
We have all kinds of different ways that we run elections.
There is absolutely no “right” or “wrong” to this.
BUT change how we run elections and you WILL change who has power.
The complex arrangements our founders conducted are deliberate attempts to make concentrated power difficult.
We are free to change that – but those changes will have consequences.
Even all the smoke filled rooms and political corruption of the past had both good and bad consequences.
One of the good ones is that as much as it was corrupt and empowered some groups.
IT still made the excercise of power more difficult than today.
Open primaries gave us Trump!
Please note the analysis concerning open primary, moderate to liberal independent voters and the impact on New Hampshire outcome. I also suspect from other information I have read this same trend holds true for the next habdful of primaries, at which time money began drying up for other candidates.
https://www.inquisitr.com/2782846/trumps-new-hampshire-primary-victory-terrifies-progressives/
I also suspect Trump would not have won and the impact of NH would have been different had another won. Its all about momentum.
If you do not like Open Primaries – fine. I was not actually advocating for them.
If you do not like the current method of electing the president find something better, convince people and change the law or constitution.
“And when Ibsay moderate, I am talking about a candidate that believes in staying out of your life. Both socially and fiscally. Minimal government involvement.”
Is there such a democrat? If there is he is not about to run for POTUS.
And I would cheerfully have one the moderate republicans who have broken with party ranks, but those people are going to be lucky to keep their seats let alone be able to run for POTUS.
Ergo, any moderate candidate for potus is only going to be moderate relatively speaking, probably no dem that you could support and no republican that I would be happy with.
Moderate at this point when speaking of a candidate for a party nomination only means not one of the Real extremists. Just a little bit right- or left-wing is the best one could hope for.
“And when Ibsay moderate, I am talking about a candidate that believes in staying out of your life. Both socially and fiscally. Minimal government involvement.”
There is such a republican – “Rand Paul”.
Or you could vote for Gary Johnson.
“But, its not Liberals, its SOME liberals.”
Ignoring the missuse of “liberal” – absolutely.
And you are correct that “some” on the right engage in the same tactics.
At this moment in time the balance:
The frequency of bad conduct,
the breadth of the targetting
the portion of those doiing the targeting
Are ALL far worse on the left.
While Fred Phelps is dead – there remain others like him.
But you can not “shake a stick” wiithout hitting a leftist (NOT AT ALL LIBERAL) who is prepared to call half the country “hatefull, hating haters” for political disagreement.
The cartoon was repugnant – not because it targeted Kavanaugh – he is a big boy, and chose to enter the public arena, but because it targeted his children who did not.
I have not seen the SNL skit, but I do not care that they targeted Kavanaugh.
My understanding is that it was not funny. That is a different problem, the left has lost any sense of humor.
David Hogg, chose to make himself a public figure. There is no difference between “going after” him and “going after” Kavanaugh.
II have no problem attacking a public figure.
But I expect that you will do so accurately,
Not because you are not free to make false claims.
But because you will be accurate if you wish me to beleive you in the future.
The left, the media, NYT are suffering – not because they are “going after” public figures on the right, but because they are wrong frequently, and because they “go after” more than public figures, they go after everyone.. The left is smearing ordinary people. That is a giant political mistake which will bite them on the ass.
NPR just completed surveys indicating that the Kavanaugh fight has totally energized republicans. That the republican base is now as likely to vote as democrats.
If that is true and remains so through November the left can kiss any blue wave goodbye.
Further GOP enthusiasm is rising. Democratic enthusiasm may have peaked.
“NPR just completed surveys indicating that the Kavanaugh fight has totally energized republicans. ”
Earlier today, most were reporting Flake and Collins were speaking positive to the lastest information, but something happened. Collins is back in the “I dont know” and Flake is a maybe.
IMO the best result for the Nov 2018 elections will be a no vote on K. I also think that is bad for the country because it further divides us and I dont think the democrats ever thought it would get this far. I think they thought Trump woukd cave or the GOP would not have united like they did.
But the GOP and Trump stood strong, unlike so many things the GOP collapses on, providing the GOP with a major energizer if this seat iscstill open.
This is a political observation – NOT a personal position.
But I think if republicans do not confirm Kavanaugh – they are in danger of being abandoned by their base.
We are still reading tea leaves. but my assessment is that D’s tried to game things, and have gotten beaten badly.
They may have harmed their own support.
Regardless, they have energized republicans.
At this point the question is how bad is this for democrats.
What happened at Hogg’s school was horrendous.
But that experience does not make his views on an issue of law, rights or even politics more credible.
You do not get a free pass to step onto a bully pulpit, make yourself a public figure and avoid criticism for spouting poorly informed nonsense, just because some emotional event happened to you.
Victim’s deserve understanding and support. They do not however have automatic intellectual credibilty.
You may not justify the use force against others by your feelings.
PERIOD, FULL STOP.
The right sometimes does that.
That is ALL the left does.
The left is and will remain the largest threat.
Historically they have always been the greatest harm.
You list a bunch of moderate republicans and heap them with praise.
They have done good things.
They have also done bad.
I greatly respect John McCain – he was a hero. But he was far from perfect, and I can make a long list of his flaws and errors.
Being centrist or whatever you want to call middling has ZERO correlation to being right.
You rant about “extremism” as if it is an absolute given that the mid point between two competing views or policies is where the truth lies.
That is FALSE – The truth lies where the facts dictate, sometimes, left, sometimes right, sometimes in the middle. In fact in most issues of controversy it is LESS likely to be in the middle than anywhere else.
My “moderate” is not about compromise, is not about centrism. It is about making the best possible choices – going where the facts dictate without reference to party.
I am with the left on innumerable issues. While at the same times at odds with them on the METHODS employed to accomplish those issues.
I am often with the right on reducing government – but not on many many other things.
Further I find myself frequently supporting Trump – or not attacking him.
Not because he is right in what he says, but because I support his actions – even if I do not support his reasons.
The point is whatever you want to label it, the alternative to left and right and our current political divisions in not deifying centrism.
It is going where the facts ALL the facts lead. It is getting things correct – not getting them left, right or center.
“And my questions are genuine…where are the moderates on the left?”
Terms. Moderate and left are hard to mix even if no one knows what they mean exactly.
Lets say, where are the moderate Dems? They exist one can find them by looking up the house and senate ratings in ideological order. But those people with rankings like 60% conservative or liberal are all but anonymous and are not running for POTUS, or if they do, they get laughed at, there was one on the dem side running against clinton and sanders, I can’t remember his name can you?
Maybe the question we want to know the answer to is “who is a relatively moderate politician, who is still charismatic enough to get votes, on either the gop or dem side who is willing to run for POTUS?”
If there was such a person would moderates vote in the primaries enough to give such a person a chance?
Yes, my answer to you was sharp, I admit. Why? My answer going to be old tired territory. Your political ideas are reliably gop partisan and are an example of what I think has gone wrong in our country. In this case I was posting about an idea, he very opposite of your idea of politics as I see it, the idea that a few gop senators were breaking ranks with party loyalty and don’t I wish there would be more like them on both sides trying to do something more high minded than the partisan shitfest. Your post in response to mine was just a yay trump isn’t he marvelous message.
Priscilla, there is no point in the yay trump universe and my universe trying to talk. I am not interested in the yay trump universe, its dead to me.
Or maybe you could accept that NO ONE is every getting the leaders they want – no matter what they want, and if we are inherently going to put dangerous people in office, maybe we should reduce the power of government.
I do not entirely agree with Ron.
I think he is wrong on a few things – and he and I have debated – with facts, arguments and reason those things.
But if being mostly correct is the same as being a reliable GOP partisan – then Ron is “guilty” and should be proud.
Rather than fixate on adjectives, maybe you should consider facts.
I would greatly prefer that congressmen of both parties voted the facts, logic reason.
If they did, I think we would have little trouble getting supermajorities on everything.
Of course if we followed facts, logic and reason – little of what the right wants and none of what the left wants would pass congress.
I have no idea what your idea of “high minded” is – I do not think you do.
I think someone has integrity who follows the facts, logic, reason. Who protects the rights of those accused and does not make a public spectacle of accusers.
Republicans are not good at that. Democrats do not try.
No one here is in the “yay trump universe” though some are suffering from TDS
“Your post in response to mine was just a yay trump isn’t he marvelous message.”
It was not, grump. It was an attempt to make the point that Stephens, who thinks very much like you, when it comes to Trump, recognized that the kind of hyper-partisan, evidence-free accusations that dragged this process into the mud, were only blunted by Trump, who knows how to mud fight.
You are so tribal in this, yet so convinced that I’m the tribal one, that you won’t acknowledge that this debacle was not Trump’s fault in any way. He is the president, he nominated a candidate for the Supreme Court, and then, until it became a freaking 3-ring circus, stayed out of it entirely. Once the demand for the FBI was made, he had to be brought back in, because the FBI is in the executive branch, and had already declined to investigate.
He had a couple of choices ~ he could have pulled the nomination, he could have refused to order the reopening of the background check, he could have done nothing…. (he also could have kept his mouth shut, but that’s asking too much, I guess)
From that point, we can discuss. Except that you won’t. Because Trump.
Priscilla – much of the tactics or the left, the democrats and those here are so Mccarthyite.
“Do you know or have you ever defended Trump over anything ?”
I am deeply tired of adding to my posts which everyone already thinks are to long the nbumerous disclaimers that I did not vote for Trump, and do not support some of his policies or some things he has said.
This is a game the left plays. Having defeated McCarthy they have borrowed and expanded on his tactics.
Everything is not about Trump. In fact most things are only about Trump, because he is doing them or because he is accused of that.
If something is bad – it is bad if Obama does it, it is Bad if Trump does it.
If something is good , it is good if Trump does it, it is Good if Obama does it.
For the left, for the democrats, for too many here.
The act does not matter in an of itself.
The good or evil of an act depends solely on its relation to Trump.
We can not discuss right and wrong independently, as it is impossible to get past the effect Trump has on so many peoples views of right and wrong.
And of course, “If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.”
And Bill’s “When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn’t like it. I didn’t inhale and never tried it again,”
Bill Clinton has told many lies.
Few involved the use of force against others.
If you like your heath insurance you can keep it.
is radically different from
I did not inhale.
Both are lies, that is where the similariy ends.
I did not have sex with that woman (under oath),
Is the same as
I drank beer in HS and sometimes got inebrieated, but never blacked out
Assuming you can prove Kavanaugh blacked out from drinking.
Both may be lies under oath, both should disqualify the speaker from political office if false.
If you like your doctor you can keep them
is similar to
I did not sexually assualt anyone
or more accurately
I will not sexually asault anyone.
Both are statements about the use of force against others and are far more serious.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/opinions/rand-paul-suffer-intimidation-and-threats-kelley-paul/index.html
“Bill Clinton has told many lies.
Few involved the use of force against others.”
A “few’ is too many.
Thanks to all who contributed to Rick’s post. I’ve been in search of an intellectual exchange of ideas on politics free of hateful rhetoric, and name calling. This exchange was very thought provoking.
Dearley, welcome. But dont jump to conclusions….. “I’ve been in search of an intellectual exchange of ideas on politics free of hateful rhetoric, and name calling”
We have good exchanges, but we do have some that resort to that which you seek to avoid.
But that seems to be isolated to 2-3 individuals that keep those exchanges between themselves for the most part. Most exchages are above board.
And although the site is “The New Moderate”, the ideologies range from moderate California and Vermont to moderate North Carolina (conservative) libertarian to moderate Pennsylvania libertarian .And that results in a vastly different definition of ” moderate”.
Mostly the ad hominem, spittle and venom here is low. Regardless, it is NOT that heavily tilted in a single direction.
This is a forum were strong oppinions – regardless of the ideology can be expressed without universally being shouted down by one side or the other.
No ideology controls TNM and no ideology is censored.
If you are looking for rainbows, clouds and unicorns, this is the wrong place.
If you are looking for a monoculture where your views will be reflected back to you and deviation is not tolerated – this is the wrong place.
Well Ron, I just revisited this exchange and wanted to thank you again for the “heads up”. I see what you mean. 🙃
Welcome! Stick around. Most comments are well thought out and I have learned much from our forum. Getting the e-mail notifications allows for an easy way to determine the actual temperament of the comment and can be deleted quickly. But disagreements do happen since we have the never Trumpers to the small government libertarians (of which I seem to lean)
But it would be nice for some new thoughts to enter into the discussions. We have had some enter and when they don’t find complete support for their thinking, they disappear.
There is nothing wrong with disagreement – even passionate disagreement.
There is a great deal wrong with trying to silence anyone – even Nazi’s
Defamation as a substitute for argument is not so hot either.
Though there is plenty of that here – we are not even close to what occurs on most popular boards.
Glad you found us, Dearley. We do have heated exchanges here, and I’ve given up trying to moderate them. (In fact, I’ve pretty much given up trying to convince anyone to shift deeply held beliefs.) But by Internet standards, this is a civil, lively and well-informed group.
“All minus one”
https://heterodoxacademy.org/mill/
Passionate disagreement is a positive good.
It is personal attacks and insults that are destructive.
I’d like to reiterate “well informed”. I see, more and more that we are becoming more galvanized than ever in our political minds. Perhaps that’s naive. I’ve never been as engaged before as I am now. Maybe it’s just always been this bad. I’m glad I found you too.
According to Pew we were edging slowly together politically until 2008.
It should not be surprising that the more government does, the more conflict we will have.
I have strongly blamed the left for out current hostility. Which self evidently significantly predates Trump. There are innumerable arguments that support that. Conflict is intrinsic to modern progressive ideology.
But anyone regardless of party seeking to expand the power of government is inherently increasing conflict. Everyone is never going to agree on what we do through government and the more government does the less we will agree. This would be true – even if it were the right seeking to grow government
Grump. Thanks for the alert. Ducks are sometimes not well informed.
Here come the judge: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-john-paul-stevens_us_5bb67a9fe4b01470d04fe12b
When Steven’s gets accused of kiddie diddling we will see how he reacts.
The FBI didn’t investigate any of the recent claims about Kavanaugh lying under oath.
“Here’s a list of the people who we know have not been interviewed:
A suitemate of Kavanaugh’s has now told the New Yorker he remembers hearing at the time about the incident Deborah Ramirez has recounted. Ramirez, who has been interviewed, had claimed that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a dorm party at Yale. The suitemate, Kenneth G. Appold, now says he is “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told the culprit was Kavanaugh. He does say he never discussed this with Ramirez, but he claims an eyewitness described the episode to him at the time. Appold has tried to share this story with the FBI, but there’s no indication the FBI is willing to hear from him.
A classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Georgetown Prep now strongly challenges one of Kavanaugh’s assertions under oath. The person told the New Yorker that he heard Kavanaugh talk repeatedly about Renate Dolphin as someone “that everyone passed around for sex” (the witness’ words), and even heard Kavanaugh singing a rhyme that included the words “you wanna get laid, you can make it with REE-NATE.” Kavanaugh (and many others) described themselves in their yearbook as a “Renate Alumnius,” but Kavanaugh has denied under oath that this was a sexual reference, claiming, ludicrously, that it was intended to show “affection.”
This classmate is not named by the New Yorker. But he put his name on a statement to the FBI and Judiciary Committee that makes this claim, and he is prepared to talk to the FBI. There is no indication this happened.
James Roche, one of Kavanaugh’s roommates at Yale, has written a piece for Slate that claims Kavanaugh lied under oath about his use of slang and his drinking. Roche claims that Kavanaugh “regularly” blacked out. Roche has offered to talk to the FBI, but there’s no indication this happened.
Roche also pointedly added of Kavanaugh: “He said that ‘boofing’ was farting and the ‘Devil’s Triangle’ was a drinking game. ‘Boofing’ and ‘Devil’s Triangle’ are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.” Roche concluded that Kavanaugh “has demonstrated a willingness to be untruthful under oath about easily verified information.”
NBC News reports that the FBI has not contacted dozens of people who could potentially corroborate the allegations against Kavanaugh or testify to his behavior at the time. This includes many people who knew either Ford or Ramirez at the time, and people who actually approached the FBI offering information.
The Post reports that Ramirez’s lawyers provided the FBI with a list of more than 20 people who might have relevant information, but “as of Wednesday, Ramirez’s team had no indication that the bureau had interviewed any of them.”
Blasey Ford’s legal team today put out a list of additional people who have not been contacted by the FBI, some of whom were prepared to corroborate that she had in the past discussed being the victim of a sexual assault by a federal judge.
Neither Ford nor Kavanaugh have been interviewed by the FBI. As the Brookings Institution’s Susan Hennessey points out: “It is inconceivable they could close a real investigation without re-interviewing Kavanaugh.””
(From Washington Post)
Trump said that the FBI was going to be allowed to investigate anything they believed they needed to. Was that really true? Or just another lie? Did someone in the white house staff set the narrow limits? Seems hard to believe that the FBI on their own volition would choose such a limited scope.
I am entirely sick of the whole SC war, I wish it had never happened, its done damage to everything and some of both the dem and gop senators have behaved miserably.
Unfortunately to someone like me who is just sick of the entire shebang and wishes we could just stop this and try to repair the damage somehow, this is going to continue no matter what happens. Confirm K and the digging will still go on as it did over the years with bill clinton until every detail of K’s life has been fought over like ground in some back and forth boundary in Europe. It will take years, maybe decades.
This could have been more or less settled by doing a comprehensive investigation, which they clearly did not. So, great, be very clever, say you will investigate and then carry out a very limited very quick survey. Things will only stay in this sick state or get worse.
I would not want to be a gop senator or a member of his/her family who votes against K, the loonies would overrun their lives.
Believe it or not Jay I wish they gop will just confirm K and take credit with their supporters and catch hell from the rest of us that will be in the air for a very long time and catch up with them in the course of time.
Among the villains in my book is Cory Booker, who lost all control of his rhetoric and the likes of Orin Hatch, who described Ford as “an attractive witness” and when questioned changed his adjective to “pleasing”. Term limits.
Who am I supposed to choose between a group of ancient oblivious white men and a group of screaming protesters?
Had trump followed Sasse’s advice and chosen someone more moderate then we would not be here. But, trump must divide us, its his nature.
Grump, you and I both are sick of this circus. IMO it will not end either.
What better for Nancy Pelosi to have as speaker to discredit republicans than investigations of both the president AND supreme court justice. And both may result in impeachment proceedings.
One thing it has done, unified a large number on bothbsides that the FBI is as useful as teets on a bull. While the rights thinking comes from the Comey and Clinton issues, the left’s now comes from the K background checks.
And one has to wonder, if they missed everything that he is accused of, how effective is any background check they perform on those in sensitive positions?
Ron there is plenty of evidence that the BI worked HARD to bolster Ford’s story and failed.
I will happily beat the FBI.
But not for an impossible task.
I believe there is plenty of evidence that the FBI was motivated to take Kavanaugh down if they could.
We do not need another open ended Mueller investigation.
That is the job of the press.
Ron, this did not make me doubt the FBI, it made me doubt if they were allowed to do their job or were greatly limited from above.
Did Pelosi’s way of dealing with this protect Ford’s interests, safety, and well being? No! Did Avenatti’s way of dealing with this protect Swetnick? No! Did the highly limited investigation, whoever it was that limited it, and it is hard to believe that such limitations originated anywhere but in the WH, protect K’s reputation? No!
K, Ford, Swetnick are all pawns to be sacrificed by people who have an agenda. K, Ford, and Swetnich are now in the meat grinder, forever.
Grump, I suspect you may not agree with my thinking, but I place all this mess at the feet of Shumer and Feinstein.
So here is how that conversation might have taken place.
July 2018,
F, “Chuck, I have a letter from X that says K molested her while in HS.”
S, “thats good, we can use it against K if we need it.”
F, “but Chuck, the FBI is doing background checks now and if I can get X to agree to a confidential investigation now, we can share that with the rest of the committee and stop his nomination if anything is found”
S, “but we are not sure what X says is true or not. But what we can do is keep this as a feather in our hats and pull it out if it looks like K is going to get approved.”
F, “And if there is not enough GOP defectors to stop his nomination?”
S, ” Diane you know the GOP always caves in when something that would be this negative comes up. Once you release that information as a last minute “gotcha”, the GOP will run from K like mice when the lights turn on in the basement of the capital building”
F, “but wont that further divide the country that is already so divided and possibly energize the GOP electorate”
S, “division is GOOD! Insures we have a voice. Energizes our base and our base is bigger than their base. Then we can stop Trump and let Pelosi begin impeachment hearings. Might not go anywhere, but further divides us and make for GOOD press!”
F. OK then, I won’t tell anyone other than our Judiciary members and make sure they know to keep quite. No FBI investigation now and then we will spring this on them if needed”
S “right, if we can’t stop him up front, we can do it at the last minute. Those GOP members will never know what hit him or them.Collins, Murkowski and Flake will run from him in a heart beat and that will keep our turncoats, Manchin and Heidcamp, in our voting block. Then we can block any further nominations until after the election when I become majority leader. Paybacks are hell unless your the one paying back, then they are most enjoyable”.
Had the investigation occurred in July/Aug, all of this would have been investigated as part of a “complete” background check as all Feinstein would have had to do was give them the letter and even the president might not have known until after the background check come out and he read it. Had their been truths verified, then he could have pulled the nomination if he so desired or the judiciary could have voted no to his confirmation.
Grump – I do not have much sympathy for Swetnick.
Get into bed with Avantti – and you know what you are getting.
Regardless, she did not privately forward her allegations to the Senate, she made them publicly. When you do that you can expect public scrutiny and public criticism.
As to the investigation – it was never going to satisfy you unless they “got Kavanaugh”.
Another week another 100 witnesses, another half dozen stupid allegations, would not change anything.
The FBI investigation was never going to change anything. – because it is nearly impossible to corroborate ancient history. Which is one of the reasons for coming forward earlier.
Well, no, I do not have a bug in Feinsteins office, which is what I would need to judge this product of your own ideas about things. Anyone can speculate and their political beliefs will provide the form that the speculation takes.
I could write long juicy speculations about a lot of the people I regard as bad actors. Its just an exercise in creative writing.
Grump, just the act of voting assumes some form of speculation on how you assume a candidate will vote on issues. So speculating on that or what they may have said to each other is somewhat the same.
With that, I will take back EVERYTHING I said about Feinstein after listening to Collins outstanding (IMO) speech. In that she said the F letter was leaked and no one knows who leaked it. So until that is finalized, I take back what I have said since the circus began. Problem is, not one news outlet and specifically Fox and NPR/PBS said Feinsteins office did not do that.
While there are something’s Feinstein clearly bears responsibility for.
Sitting on the allegation, not bringing it to the SJC is one – and there are others – I think it is time for Feinstein to retire – Grassley and Hatch too.
Feinstein should not be blamed for what can not be established atleast to the same standard as necescary to dismiss Kavanaugh.
BUT democrats as a whole can be blamed, There were few with access to this letter,
and those are all democrats.
The thing is, if Feinstein believed the charges, or even felt that they should be investigated, why didn’t she go to Grassley and say, listen, we’ve got a big problem here? The Senate Judiciary Committee has its own investigators ~ that’s been true for decades, and they can also ask the president to reopen an FBI background check, as they did last week. If Feinstein had fulfilled her responsibility as ranking member of the committee, back in July, instead of recommending Ford to a couple of activist lawyers who started orchestrating her allegations as a political hit job, this may have been a different process.
So, I guess I’m not as willing to let Feinstein off the hook for this circus. If Democrats wanted a full, months long FBI investigation, the time to request it was months ago, not after the confirmation hearings ended.
I read today, that the FBI discovered that Ford’s friend, who was supposedly at the party, has said that she felt pressured by Ford’s legal team to change her story. That’s witness tampering, and it’s what happens when a mob is running the show. (Linking HotAir, a moderate conservative site, because the original article is behind a paywall) https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/05/wsj-ford-ally-pressured-keyser-change-story/
Priscilla, thanks for this link. Collins referenced this in her 45 minute bit by bit analysis of this whole mess. More people should take the time to listen to it before chastizing her for her support. And I was not that familiar with her prior to this address, but if that is the analysis she does with most important decisions, I respect her and the Maine voters forelecting her in a more independently liberal state.
Too bad we could not figure out how to get a third party ticket of Manchin/Collins or Collins/ Manchin
Feinstein bears some responsibily for the circus.
Democrats as a whole bear FULL responsibility.
The left, democrats and others – even here, seem to think that iit is moral to drag others through the mudd.
If democrats though “boofing” meant “anal sex” – why were they asking about it ?
IF “the devils triangle” is sexual rather than alcoholic – why were they asking about it ?
If Georgetown Prep students comments were ment to imply that Renate was easy – why were Senators asking about that.
With each of these, they are only relevant – if they were non-consensual AND true.
Everything that the left, Democrats and some here, claim Kavanaugh lied about are things they should have been ashamed of bringing up.
“You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
In their efforts to “get Kavnaugh” – myriads of people have been slimed, and made public spectacle of things long past, things of no known truth, and if true not relevant.
The story of Ms Ramirez should be a horrible embarrassment to her. But she brought it up herself.
Kavanaugh actually appoligized for even the hurtful implications of comments in the Georgretown prep yearbook and the harms to others this circus brought about.
Rather than skulk back into their caves – democrats sought to wallow in filth and innuendo,
the very things you want to be true even though they are dubious, in order to “get kavanaugh” reflect badly on you.
It is wrong when law enforcement and investigators try to twist peoples arms.
It is not witness tampering.
Well, I’m no lawyer, and you’re married to a defense attorney extraordinaire 😉 So, maybe it’s not witness tampering. But it sure as heck seems like it, and, if it’s not illegal, it’s immoral, as you say.
I do not consult my wife on posts regarding the law.
I post for myself. I sometimes talk about her – I am very proud of her, and to be her husband, and of what she does. We share alot of views. We do not share all our views.
We do talk with each other about law – ALOT. Mostly about her cases.
I provide her with many things – most of which she is very very food at on her own.
But two perspectives are better than one, and what I concur with her and what I disagree, helps he improve her own already excellent arguments.
The law must be read narrowly.
It is totally impossible to expect law enforcement to completely preclude their own views about politics – or anything else from influencing the way they do their jobs.
We should expect them to try. We should not expect perfect success.
As I understand the effort to get Leyland to change her statement, it is typical of an officer with a perspective – it happens all the time – and “republican” officers do it too.
I have no problems with people being upset about it. I expect that there should be some consequences for the agent. Good government requires constant vigilance.
But this is not a crime. I do not even think it should cost her job.
That does not make it right.
Everything that is “wrong” should not be illegal.
Our standards for agents of government should be higher than those for others (not lower as so many seem to think) Though even I would be far faster to fire police officers for behavior bordering on criminal than to convict them. We should all remember that the appropriate consequence is NOT always criminal prosecution.
One of the problems with the recent Kavanaugh mess, is that Too many allowed the importance of the act being alleged to dwarf rational thought on the strength of the evidence.
The standard for Kavanaugh should not have been “beyond a reasonable doubt”, it also should not have been – any allegation that can not be immediately refuted is sufficient.
I do not know whether Ford is telling the Truth (or Kavanaugh). I choose to beleive both – because I can not and likely never will be able to absolutely disprove either.
I could absolutely be wrong about that. Kavanaugh could be a thwarted rapist. Ford could be a politically motivated liar. It is unlikely we will ever know.
We have to figure out how to come to grips with things we can not know for certain.
Emotionally charged decision making and massive efforts at defamation are NOT the answer.
Trump’s remarks regarding Ford were a mistake. Though a small one from a justifiably upset and frustrated president. Just as Kavanaugh’s testimony was that of an angry innocent man – not a dispassionate judge. On that Thursday – he was a man falsely accused, not a judge and that is the standard that should apply.
The same with witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
Doing your job within the actual constraints of the job should never be a crime – even if one group does nto like your choice. The left is criminalizing politics.
I really do not like Manafort. But thinking someone is a sleezy political profiteer, does not make them a criminal.
Manafort stands accused of witness tampering.
Sorry, sending a news article that supports your claims on other matters to a potential witness NOT NAMED BY THE PROSECUTION, is not witness tampering.
Using the justice system to criminalize a defendants efforts to defend themselves – that borders on criminal.
I do not want a country where Trump firing an FBI director that pretty much everyone had problems with, who was clearly playing pollitical games – if not partisan political games is obstruction of justice.
I do not want a country where a defendant’s efforts to find supportive witnesses can be charged as a crime – much less convicted.
I do not want a country where an FBI Agent who pushes a little too hard to get a witness to modify their statement is committing a crime. That doesn’t mean that is right or free of consequences.
I do not want the law being politically weaponized.
It is bad enough that we have weaponized politics.
Andre McCarthy has an excellent editorial on Kavanaugh, and the Trump investigation.
And the political warfare of the left.
The fact that you, I or anyone else, thinks that someone is a bad person, or has done bad things, is not sufficient justification to direct the investigatory (or any other) power of government at them. If the left wants an investigation of Trump – find something credible. Thus far you have nothing.
Did Trump prohibit the FBI from investigating rumours that the man in the moon heard someone say that heard someone else say Kavanaugh blacked out one time ?
Even James Comey said the FBI was up to this – of course the same James comey under oath told congress that the FBII had reviewed 650,000 of the emails on Abendin’s laptop in 2 days (when they had actually only looked at about 3500, and many have STILL not be reviewed)
Everyone knew the day that the Senate agree to the FBI investigation that we would have a week of batshit crazy allegations, and that no matter what democrats would claim the investigation was not sufficient.
“This could have been more or less settled by doing a comprehensive investigation, which they clearly did not. ”
No it could not have been settled.
Many of us beleive they did do a “comprehensive investigtion”.
In fact no investigation was necescary, what was done, while likely done well was for show.
It was near impossible the FBI could add or subtract anything to what we already knew.
Because we just are not going to be able to know what happened 36 years ago, and lots of people saying they heard something wiill not change that.
Grump, I will suggest to you that confirming Kavanaugh is NOT going to make republicans happy. Dem’s have kicked a hornets nest, and there is going to be retribution.
I am not speaking for myself, but from our recent political history.
I do not doubt much of what you say of the left is true – but those on the right are even angrier. They have been borked and high tech lynched and now Kavanaughed.
The supreme court is no place for ideology – not even moderate ideology.
I would further note that Kavanaugh IS the moderate on Bush’s list.
He is near certain more “moderate” than Gorsuch.
But Kavanaugh does appear – and I hope that proves true, to be intent on reading the constitution as it was written.
IF that is a problem for you – that can be corrected – Amend the constitution.
That is the ONLY legitimate way to change iits meaning.
I am not a fan of either Hatch or Booker, but really ?
Compliments are somehow in the same realm as insults ?
I have no idea what the FBI did and did not investigate.
Regardless their focus would have been on Ford’s testimony – if they could corroborate some of it, that would make here claims more credible.
That is the fundimental issue.
The claims that Kavanaugh “lied” are complete garbage.
They reflect the mangling of english that is so common when you have made up your mind.
Differences of opinion are NOT lies.
If you want to use these broad defnitions of “lie”
Then I guess we should prosecute Ford because 4 people say her story about the party is wrong – and that is actually a difference on a matter of fact not oppinion.
If YOU wish to be considered credible – start using the same standards for the people you support and those you do not.
“A suitemate of Kavanaugh’s has now told the New Yorker he remembers hearing at the time about the incident Deborah Ramirez has recounted.”
Do you know what hearsay is ?
In this instance you are dealing with double hearsay.
“Ramirez, who has been interviewed, had claimed that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a dorm party at Yale. ”
No that is not what Remirez claimed. She claimed that a person that she could not identify exposed themself to her while she was drunk off her ass and surrounding by plastic penises.
That a third person that she also can not identify said call the person she beleives exposed themselves to her “Kavanaugh” as he left.
“The suitemate, Kenneth G. Appold, now says he is “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told the culprit was Kavanaugh. He does say he never discussed this with Ramirez, but he claims an eyewitness described the episode to him at the time. Appold has tried to share this story with the FBI, but there’s no indication the FBI is willing to hear from him.”
I was told by an unidentified third party is HEARSAY. It is not evidence of anything.
It is not admissible.
“A classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Georgetown Prep now strongly challenges one of Kavanaugh’s assertions under oath. The person told the New Yorker that he heard Kavanaugh talk repeatedly about Renate Dolphin as someone “that everyone passed around for sex” (the witness’ words), and even heard Kavanaugh singing a rhyme that included the words “you wanna get laid, you can make it with REE-NATE.” Kavanaugh (and many others) described themselves in their yearbook as a “Renate Alumnius,” but Kavanaugh has denied under oath that this was a sexual reference, claiming, ludicrously, that it was intended to show “affection.””
Is this really where you want to go ? Then Beto O’Rourke can drop out now.
First you are one again dealing with HEARSAY. And just to be clear, there is not an actual conflict with Kavanaugh’s testimony. But you would have to understand the difference between “I said something” and “I did something”.
Kavanaugh testified that things were SAID that should not have been SAID.
“This classmate is not named by the New Yorker. But he put his name on a statement to the FBI and Judiciary Committee that makes this claim, and he is prepared to talk to the FBI. There is no indication this happened.”
You have the list of people the FBI interviewed ?
If the person is unnamed by the New Yorker how is it that you know they are named to the FBI and Judiciary committee ?
“James Roche, one of Kavanaugh’s roommates at Yale, has written a piece for Slate that claims Kavanaugh lied under oath about his use of slang and his drinking. Roche claims that Kavanaugh “regularly” blacked out. Roche has offered to talk to the FBI, but there’s no indication this happened.
Roche also pointedly added of Kavanaugh: “He said that ‘boofing’ was farting and the ‘Devil’s Triangle’ was a drinking game. ‘Boofing’ and ‘Devil’s Triangle’ are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.” Roche concluded that Kavanaugh “has demonstrated a willingness to be untruthful under oath about easily verified information.””
The “boofing” claim has been beaten to death and thoroughly debunked. There are no credible factual references from the time. I have heard of no one who has even found an actual reference to “boofing” from the time.
There are alot of similar “slang” from that period and other periods that innumerable different meanings.
I am slightly older than Kavanaugh – I am not familiar with either term in either alleged context in the 80’s
There is no way you can claim that you know the meaning of some phrase in a yearbook based on your own oppinion of what you thought it meant 40 years ago.
Regardless, you will beleive what you want.
“NBC News reports that the FBI has not contacted dozens of people who could potentially corroborate the allegations against Kavanaugh or testify to his behavior at the time. This includes many people who knew either Ford or Ramirez at the time, and people who actually approached the FBI offering information.”
I am sure that the FBI has not contacted dozens of people – who exactly like those you cite above have nothing relevant to add.
“The Post reports that Ramirez’s lawyers provided the FBI with a list of more than 20 people who might have relevant information, but “as of Wednesday, Ramirez’s team had no indication that the bureau had interviewed any of them.””
Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t.
There are 330m people in the US – most were not interviewed by the FBI.
Everyone was aware when Flake asked for an investigation limited to the credibile allegations before the senate, that democrats were going to try to manufacture a limitless investigation.
“Blasey Ford’s legal team today put out a list of additional people who have not been contacted by the FBI, some of whom were prepared to corroborate that she had in the past discussed being the victim of a sexual assault by a federal judge.
Neither Ford nor Kavanaugh have been interviewed by the FBI. As the Brookings Institution’s Susan Hennessey points out: “It is inconceivable they could close a real investigation without re-interviewing Kavanaugh.”””
And Hennessey would be wrong.
Ford and Kavanaugh testified under oath. They were cross examined thoroughly.
The FBI’s job was to seek corroboration of Ford’s story.
Not to do a brand new background check on Kavanaugh looking nto every idiiotic allegation that came in over the transome.
Whatever the FBI actually investiigated, there is very little doubt the press will spend a great deal of effort trying to find actual damning proof against Kavanaugh.
If you beleive the FBI screwed up or that the investigation was limited – you can count on the fact that not only will the left wing nut media say that repeatedly, they will engage in herculean efforts to PROVE serious misconduct.
If they do – Kavanaugh is dead. That has always been true.
I do beleive the FBI did their job – we already know that one agent tried to strong arm Leland into retracting or weakening her claim that she did not know Kavanaugh.
But no they did not interview every human who ever heard of Kavanaugh.
But the NYT and WaPo are free to do so.
If there is actual evidence that actually corroborates any misconduct. and even if there isn’t – we will all hear about iit.
Ron, I love your story. I have always liked F and have always thought CS to be a sleaze.
Oh, and of course the FBI was constricted and some day the document doing that may come out.
Meantime, I am in mourning for the country I love, but no longer respect. Trump and the unprincipled people in Congress, and that now includes Collins (Flake is, well, a flake) have taken away my faith in this government, and that includes Dems.
I have no idea what constraints were put on the FBI – though the public direction they received from the SJC was – to investigate the credible allegations before the SJC and to complete that investigation in a week.
I would be interested if there were other constraints.
I am not interested in claims that the FBI did not investigate the meaning of early 80’s slang, or try to determine precisely what sometime inebriated 36 years ago means.
Nor am I interested in the allegations of people who did not come forward until after the circus started, and are making allegations that are hearsay and speculation, without any corroboration.
There are only rare instances in which hearsay is admissible – for good reason.
Much of what you claim was not investigated is hearsay. It is not evidence.
This is worth everyone reading.
This was such a terrific speech ~ I didn’t know Collins had it in her! So rational and thoughtful, and very well delivered.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/susan-collinss-declaration-of-cowardice/2018/10/06/ee262620-c991-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.45f042672dfc
I agree with DM, although I did not watch SC’s speech.
You need to watch it. She talked about American values, the importance of due process and the presumption of innocence. Also talked about the dangers of mob rule. And given her position as a pro-choice, liberal Republican from New England, she took a political risk. Calling her a coward is pretty despicable, in my opinion. But then, the Washington Post tried its best to destroy Kavanaugh, so I get it.
I have not watched most of it yet.
But some of the issues are trivial.
There MUST be a burden of proof and it MUST rest with the accuser.
The proper standard is NOT beyond a reasonable doubt – where ones life liberty or property are not threatened.
But it MUST be higher than mere accusation – when government is involved.
At a bare minimum the 14th amendment would require equal protection and due process.
I have stated before K has no right to a job on the supreme court.
That remains correct. Further I do not think there is any issue related to how a senator makes their decisions that is subject to judicial review. i.e. if Schumer says his reason is something completely wrong, there is no remedy but to elect a different senator.
Put simply the standard is up to each senator.
That said – it is still logically – if not justicably a standard higher than mere accusation or the system fails.
Given that an accusation is insufficient – Kavanaugh’s confirmation should not hinge on Ford.
Because Ford has not offered more than a mere accusation.
The senate should have cross examined her far more critically – but there was way too much posturiing and fear related to appearances to do the job correctly.
Kavanaugh’s testimony – beyond denying the accusation and providing his diary was near irrelevant.
It is NOT Kavanaugh’s credibility that matters – it is F’s.
This is not “he said, she said”. This is “she said, no one confirms anything”.
There remain exceptions to the fact that this fight has brought the right together.
There will also remain some points of contention.
Sasse is sort of correct that Trump is the wrong person to lead this crusade.
But he did lead it. Further Sasse did not.
I have noted that republicans had a significant risk in this.
While Trump was in fact right to defend Kavanaugh – though he should not have gone after Ford, being right would not have mattered if further corroboration was found for Ford’s accusation.
Trump took a risk. and has thus far proved right.
Sasse did not. Your republican moderate heros did not.
There is a public fight going on right at this moment be between the past leadership of the ACLU and the present leadership.
The ACLU came out against Kavanaugh for legal reasons – which BOTH past and present ACLU support.
But the ACLU also came out against Kavanaugh over the Ford accusations.
Ira Glasser and the ACLU of the past noted that ACLU is about “Civil Liberties”
They are specifically about the presumption of innocence and protecting the civil rights of even those who are repugnant – such as Nazi’s
Trump came out on the side of the past ACLU, not the current progressive ACLU
I doubt Trump did so out of high minded civil liberties reasons. At best Trump was arguing that priviledged white males are entitled to their civil rights.
He was RIGHT, but missed and probably still does that EVERYONE is.
But the question is
Where was Ben Sasse ?
Where was Jeff Flake ?
Where were your heros ?
Where was the ACLU ?
Where were democrats ?
You can demand an investigation. That is not the issue.
But Trump and only a few others, gave Kavanaugh the presumption of innocence.
It is unfortunate that Trump would only do so for priviledged white males.
But that is alteast a start.
The cure for the lack of civil rights of the oppressed is the OLD ALCU,
It is NOT to take away everyone’s.
It is certainly not to place the accuser over the accused merely because the accuser is some protected class.
So sorry Grump – this is not over yet, and could still blow up.
But if it does not, Trump has won – big time.
Your hero’s have been found wanting.
And this will likely have very broad implications.
It enhances Trump’s credibility and political power on EVERYTHING.
Even though the Mueller investigation and Trump/Russia, and the FBI/DOJ issues were all back burner they are likely to move to the front.
If you have been paying attention things expanded beyond Rosenstein and the DOJ/FBI were meeting with DNC lawyers regarding the Steele Dossier in Oct. 2016.
That is trouble.
Pricilla, I did and my opinion still jibes with DM.
Grump.“This could have been more or less settled by doing a comprehensive investigation, which they clearly did not. ”
Your right! Had this been done when the democrats received the info, they would have received the information they wanted, the FBI would have had more time if there was anything further to review, the whole committee would have received a more comprehensive report and the country would have been saved from the Feinstein, Shumer and Co. circus.
Too bad thatvdid not happen. The country would be better off. But the demkcrats would still be protesting.
I am not sure this would have merited FBI investigation had Feinsten brought it forward 2 months ago. But that is a choice of the SJC – and I beleive a single senator can refer something to the FBI.
But even if the FBI did a fully blown investigation then the results would have no different – the likelihood of being able to add to Ford’s credibility is near zero.
Democrats did as they did – because this is what they want.
It appears they are reaping the whirlwiind.
Could it be extremists are winning since shows like this attract millions. Maybe moderates could stop watching and theyvwould go off the air, taking away one avenue to spit unacceptable rhetoric.
Anyone raising kids today should ge scared!
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/3/donald-trump-jr-rips-whoopi-goldbergs-rape-rape-po/
Polanksi actually did EVERYTHING Kavanaugh has been accused of – and there is no doubt.
His victim was I beleive 13 at the time – there is no such thing as consent for 13 year olds anywhere, regardless she did not consent.
Polanski gave her Qualudes.
Polanksi is a rapist.
He is also a deeply troubled person – he survived the holocaust as a child but his family was murdered.
His preganant wife was murdered by the Manson Gang.
He is also an incredibly creative director.
I can have lots of sympathy for him.
But he is still a rapist.
https://www.newsweek.com/ben-shapiro-genius-academic-hoax-exposed-liberal-arts-colleges-dont-care-1155013?amp=1
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/leftists-weaponize-investigations-for-political-gain/
This is not quite the same as the pew data – who hates who is not the same as who has moved farther from the center.
Witness Tampering.
Neither the FBI Agent – nor Manafort are guilty of witness tampering.
Though I do note the agent is retired – so was not part of the FBI investigation.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/christine-blasey-ford-friend-witness-tampering/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=5bb9a19604d3011fb5544de9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
The Ford stuff is getting very messy.
One of the 17 Holton-Arms graduates that signed the letter saying they beleive Ford was lifelong freind Monica McClean.
Ford’s former boyfreind has provided a sworn statement that Ford provided advice to a friend taken a lie detector to join the FBI. That Friend was Monica McClean who was living with Ford at the time. McClean denies ever being helped to pass a polygraph.
McClean quit the FBI in 2016 suddenly just prior to Trump taking office.
Ford wrote the letter to Feinstein on July 30 – McClean was at Reboth with Ford on that day.
Ford testified she wrote the letter alone, and had no help.
McClean is the Former FBI agent who contacted Keyser trying to get her to change her story.
McClean’s lawyer was a ranking lawyer at DOJ in the area of National Security. He was involved with the Carter Page wiretap.
That layer resigned from DOJ shortly after McCabe was put on leave by the FBI.
There are also less direct connections between McClean and Schumer.
McClean’s partner while she was at SDNY is currently working on the Cohen case.
Micheal Bromiwich – one of Ford’s pro-bono attorney’s is the former assistant to Andrew McCabe.
It is easiier to beleive some conspiratorial possibilities than to beleive Kavanagh attempted to rape Ford.
But more importantly it is easy to beleive that Ford and her friends and legal team – all well connected with the FBI tried hard to orchestrate the FBI investigation in the expectation they could control it.
This also explains why the democrats are not attacking the FBI.
Who knows what the answer is. With two distinct news outlooks playing to their 35%-40%, only division will continue.
Stories like this will be “breaking news” on Fox and conservative sites. Stories like this will be “breaking wind” on CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. Both will play to their base.
What I fear is we will never know answers. Ford will be the false accuser for one group. K will be the sexual deviant drunk for others.
The never Trumpers will continue to post negative comment, true or false. If its on twitter, facebook or anywherenon the internet, it has to be true. Others will say “Fake News, Lies” no matter if documentation exist to show otherwise.
The question becomes one of how to fund and maintain a truely.middle ground news outlet that only reports actual documented supported stories and when that does jot exist, then both sides of the issue is reported and debated without yelling and guest talking over each other.
“The question becomes one of how to fund and maintain a truely.middle ground news outlet that only reports actual documented supported stories and when that does jot exist, then both sides of the issue is reported and debated without yelling and guest talking over each other.”
Yep, you nailed it. Almost the only news analysis stories I actually read these days are in The Hill, and only those that do not have inflammatory titles or sound like porn directed at one side or another. I look at the headlines for the other sources, left and right, and sigh or snicker. Paywalls keep me out of places I don’t want to go anyhow.
I loath trump just as much as the The Washington Post and NYTimes do but they have oversaturated my receptors, they need to calm down, its not helping.
Bill Clinton is a more dispicable human being than anyone has alleged regarding Trump.
Yet as much as I loath him, he was a mostly good president.
George Bush(both) was by near all accounts a good person. GHWB was even heroic.
But they were bad presidents.
Obama was a bad president. I once thought he was a good person, but I am increasingly skeptical of that.
In an election I try to vote for the candidate with good character.
Thus far I beleive that I always have.
I am so glad that in 2016 I had a choice besides Trump and Clinton even if my choice could not win.
I reserve the right to vote for the lessor evil and hope not to have to ever do so.
Though I fully expect to vote libertarian in 2020, and fully expect Trump will win big.
Forget Ford, she is collateral damage. The real issue should have been BK lying to the committee.
“Forget Ford, she is collateral damage. ”
I do not know the truth – and anyone who claims to is lying.
But what evidence we have is increasing the probability that Ford is not only not credible but a deliberate setup.
“The real issue should have been BK lying to the committee.”
Actual lies by Kavanaugh to the SJC would be a big deal.
I have read nothing yet that is not a difference of opinion.
Further what is self evident is that you are unwilling to consider anything without factoring in your personal prejudices.
Any standard that makes BK’s testimony “perjury’ – is far worse when applied to Ford.
Whatever standards you are going to use – use them consistently.
If some aquaintance or distant roommate of K’s statement that K was frequently drunk (which does not contradict K’s testimony) or that he had blackouts – which is an opinion from a third party are going to be considered dispositive by you – then the testimony of F’s boy freind of almost a decades that she had advised Monica McClean on the workings of a lie detector test is far more so.
I doubt we will ever know the complete story. And if it does come out, the parties will be off on other stories and this might get reported on page 10, section B in the paper.
Hopefully something else will come out about a completely different subject so we can all move on. We have hashed this one out with no agreement. Some believe K, some believe F, some believe something happened to F, but not by K , some believe the GOP are the scourge of the earth, some believe the democrats played F, but one thing for certain, we are never going to agree!
“I doubt we will ever know the complete story.”
Maybe not, but the revelations regarding McClean are coming increasingly close to reaching “more likely than not”, that F is not merely mistaken, but actually lying and McClean is the person behind all of this.
McClean’s involvement in everything – from start to finish is extremely troubling.
McClean’s connects to the “get Trump” cotiere inside the DOJ/FBI is deeply troubling
“I do not know the truth – and anyone who claims to is lying.”
Is the friend lying too?
She emphatically denied that story, and insisted no one coached her because she NEVER took a lie detector test.
You’re still an opinionated putz who gushes unsupported conclusions based on filtered nonsense.
“Is the friend lying too?
She emphatically denied that story, and insisted no one coached her because she NEVER took a lie detector test.”
Presumably by “freind” you mean McClean.
If you have a statement by McClean that she has never taken a lie detector test – that would be a serious problem for YOU and McClean. I do not beleive you that she has said that.
McClean worked in DOJ and FBI. She took ATLEAST two polygraphs, and probably more.
Many security clearances require a polygraph. McClean worked in areas that near certain required a polygraph for her clearance. Further I am pretty sure McClean has admitted she was Polygraphed. She has DENIED that Ford helped her – though she has not done so in a sworn statement, the boy freind has said Ford did coach McClean in a sworn statement.
For most of us sworn statement trump statements to the press.
“You’re still an opinionated putz who gushes unsupported conclusions based on filtered nonsense.”
I do not beleive anything in the post about McClean is not a FACT.
The only oponion – which I left to you, is whether the FACTS come together in a way to cast doubt on Ford, or worse still suggest that we are past bad recollection and into deliberate political lying.
In my OPINION the FACTS are very close to suggesting exactly that.
The more we learn about McClean the less room there is for innocent explanations of the fact that she is all over this and connected to pretty much everyone.
You’re right, I overstated the never took ANY lie detector test.
This is what she said, per Fox News:
““I have NEVER had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime,” McLean said.”
And if you think any of Ford’s testimony under oath is intentionally fallacious but yet don’t complain about the untruthfulness of Kavanaugh’s testimony (he’s being investigated for that by his own Federal Court Judges) it’s fruitless to discuss any of this further with you.
AGAIN – what is it that you think Kavanaugh lied about ?
Mostly I hear 2 claims:
That some witness contradicts Kavanaugh regarding drinking.
I have read lots of statements that purportedly contradict Kavanaugh regarding his drinking – they do not. Any difference is of oppinion or spin. Kavanaugh admitted to getting inebriated more than he should. He denied ever blacking out. Given what an alcohol blackout is the only person who can know would be you. If someone claims they know Kavanaugh blacked out – they do not. Maybe they are right, but only Kavanaugh knows. Pass out and black out are not the same. Kavanaugh did not quantify his drinking – beyond more than he should. That can not conflict with other judgements about how much Kavanaugh drank.
The other is about the 1980’s meaning of some slang words. No one has – nor will they ever establish with certainty the meaning of those words in 1982. The “urban dictionary” is neither authoratative – NOTHING can be authoritative on the meaning of slang, nor does iit go back to 1982.
I had just graduated from College in 1982. I can not tell you for certain the meaning of those words in 1982. Further there is credible evidence that Kavanaugh’s understanding was at the time shared by some others – that is all that is required to disprove any claim that he lied.
Put simply II have heard no credible claim that Kavanaugh has lied.
In the specific instance of a Supreme court nominee the standard should be pretty high.
A serious misrepresentation regarding his drinking would disqualify him.
But just so you are clear – a serious misrepresentation of his drinking would NOT be lying under oath – unless the extent of his drinking was germain.
In this instance it is not. The claim who,what,when, where claim is Ford’s not Kavanaugh’s.
The argument that he was so drunk he blacked out and does nto remember is both legally ludicrous and irrelevant. Until you have an accurate who, what, when and where, you do not get to speculate about a failure to recall because of blackouts.
The left’s idiotic claim here is that – this event happened – we do not know where, or when, but the reason Kavanaugh denies it is because at the time he was backed out and he is lying about that. That is logical garbage.
Ford is the accuser – making a specific justicable claim is her obligation. If that claim is false – that is lying under oath and possibly perjury. Mis-remembering – is a legitimate defense.
But it is starting to look as if McClean and Ford concocted this entire story when Ford was with McClean in Rehobeth in late July 2018. Thus far that appears to be the FIRST time that Ford placed Kavanaugh’s name to here allegation. That is also the FIRST documented instance of the allegation or past sexual abuse in any form. All prior allegations regarding this event are uncorroborated assertions by Ford. It is highly likely she refered to this in therapy in 2012. But documentation of that exists and we have been denied it. Ford tells us she told other people earlier – but we have no one saying she told them eariler.
I beleive we have one roommate from NC that speculated that Ford had experienced something that put her into a funk, and that the roommate told her to get her act together.
Regardless, if you can not document Ford making any reference to this prior to July 2018, the more we are finding out the less credibility her actual claim has. The more this looks manufactured.
At this point I do not think it is manufactured. I think something did happen to Ford somtime in the 80’s. But I do not beleive much more than just that – something happened to ford in the 80’s. But that beleif has been erroded by the information about McClean.
Until finding out about McClean I though the possibility this was a completely calculated politically motivated lie was very low. Now I think it is over 30% – that is that this did not happen at all. And possibly another 30% that something actually happened and McClean was told about it – possibly years ago, and that McClean came to Ford in July and said – could we say that Kavanaugh was the person who did this to you ?
If that is the case – we likely will never prove it.
But I am not sure we are done finding things out, and who knows what will turn up yet.
So I would not be so sure that Ford is in the clear.
I am not slightly interested in trying to accuse Ford of lying in the same way you seem to want to accuse Kavanaugh. I am not going to accuse Ford of lying over “differences of oppinion”.
If as an example the therapists notes come out and Ford’s story to the therapist is significantly different from what she wrote – as an example she says it was in the mid eighties or late eighties or some other point that flatly contradicts her testimony – that is not something that should be prosecuted.
If we establish that Ford coached McClean – or someone else regarding a lie detector test – I would not prosecute that. Ford not should be held to that kind of standard of accuracy for events 30 years ago.
But that works both ways. She is also not entitled to be taken credibly just based on her word over events 30+ years ago.
Jay there are a bunch of disciplinary complaints filed against K since he was nominated.
That does nto mean there was/is an investigation.
I would further note that a disciplinary complaint about a judge has to meet specific requirements – I know, I have filed one.
It can not be a crime – criminal compaints are filed elsewhere.
It can not be a complaint about an error regarding the law
that is what appeals are for.
Nearly all are legal ethics complaints specifically related to the handling of cases.
As an example – if he had exparte communications with prosecutors.
Any complaints that do not fit that legal ethiics scope will be ignored.
My guess is that all the complaints against K will be ignored.
I doubt any are being “investigated”.
Yes it is fruitless to discuss much of this further.
It is transparently obvious that your concept of right and wrong, of true and false is so colored by your biases that you are unable to reason consistently.
You see lies and perjury in differences of spin.
You pick who you are going to beleive or diisbeleive – not based on facts, but based on what gets you the end you desire.
Because you loath Trump and Kavanaugh, you convert the remote possibility that some accusation is true into fact, and beleiive anything anyone says that appears to support your unfounded conclusion.
You are unable to judge those you like or support by the same standards.
When you are prepared to treat the evidence or the law with regard those you support, the same as you do those you loath – then it will not be fruitless to have a discussion.
This sane view reflects my own thoughts, and I assume those of Duck and Grump (and Rick too); but the remaining die hard idiots on the right will of course stumble along with denials and rationalizations as they chew at Tom’s divorce from GOP duplicity like elderly geriatrics with ill fitting false dentures.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/tom-nichols-why-im-leaving-republican-party/572419/
#walkaway.
Chec it out.
You are likely correct that your view is coincident with that of others.
But you continue to read other peoples minds.
You can not speak for others without their permission, they get to speak for themselves
and you can never know what is in their heads, only their words.
I find Mr. Nichols remarks compelling – and his article requires but one change – replaciing republican with democrat.
The attempts to accomplish their will through “raw power” have been primarily those of democrats.
It is democrats who do not explain why they are doing as they do, or asserting that they are doing so – merely because they can.
Republicans had more than the “raw power” to bar Garland a heariing. They had the constitution, the traditions of the senate and the so called “biden rule” – i.e. the past history of DEMOCRATS.
Barring Garland even a hearing was extremely political – but it was still political within the constraints of the law, the rules, and tradition.
Arguably the behavior of democrats was to – the tradition of Bork, Thomas, and now Kavanaugh.
I have no argument with any democrat who voted against Kavanaugh because they did not like his view of the constitution. I think they were wrong, but as Graham pretty much made clear – they have guaranteed that is the way the senate will operate in the future.
But I can not support any party that offers uncorroborated accusations as the basis for ANYTHING.
I would further note that whatever the breaches of law, tradition or the constitution that republicans have done, have been entirely patterned after those of democrats.
All the significant rule changes the republicans have taken advantage of were done by democrats.
I really do not like McConnell, but he resisted “going nuclear” for years.
Reid did not. McConnell merely chose not to go back.
While the freedom of the senate to iignore a presidential nomination started near our founding, Biden is famous for formulating it as a rule.
McConnel did no more than take advantage of it.
Graham just put democrats on notice – in the past he and other republicans voted YES for democratic appointments so long as they were qualified – regardless of ideology.
Most appointments by democratic president get supermajorities to confirm.
That era has ended. Republicans did not end it democrats did.
I am neither republiican nor democrat, Republicans are wrong on many issues.
But democrats have entirely lost their minds. Further they are among the worst hypocrits in the world.
What is most damning about Mr. Nichols editorial is that it has many excellent points.
But he has completely and obviously misidentified the sole party of raw politiical power.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/susan-collinss-declaration-of-cowardice/2018/10/06/ee262620-c991-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.45f042672dfc
Jay, I agree with 98%t of what Nichols said.
I go back even further to my first presidential vote for Ike.
And, I will vote for every Dem I can in future elections, unless of course Trump switches parties. That means I may vote for some bad Dems. So be it, the Reps have ruined our Republic, and now I want revenge any way I can get it including making contributions to some Dems.
BTW: If Ford is out any pocket money, I will send a check if there is a fund for her.
However, I will not switch my registration, since I am hoping that this being NYC, there may be some Trump opposing Rep that runs in a primary (can’t vote in NY unless you are in the party of the candidate).
P.S. I also think that the Dems stink on ice. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Mel+Brooks+they+stink+on+ice&&view=detail&mid=B906F49FD07D9F2E0AC2B906F49FD07D9F2E0AC2&rvsmid=AD06D531EF00849B9B21AD06D531EF00849B9B21&FORM=VDQVAP
Some science and memory
Ginsberg on confirmation process.
I’ve always admired RBG, despite my disagreeing with her politics and judicial opinions 99% of the time.
But she’s a brilliant woman, a intellectual heroine of the left, and has always seemed more than willing to speak her mind, even sometimes when she probably should have kept her thoughts to herself. That’s one of the things I most admire about her ~ she doesn’t weasel word her way through controversial topics. She’s even admitted falling asleep during the state of the the union addresses, because she had too much wine at dinner (and because the speeches are so boring).
She seems to be in extremely poor health these days, yet she’s hanging on to her seat on the high court, probably because she hopes to make it until Trump is no longer president and, maybe, because she wants to keep working.
She was one of 4 justices, the others being Kagan, Alito, and Thomas, who came to watch Kavanaugh’s swearing-in by Roberts. Anthony Kennedy was there as well. It’s just the kind of thing that I would expect of her, and I hope that all of the #resisters who’ve been calling Kavanaugh a serial rapist, a liar and exulting over the fact that they “ruined his life” take note that one of their own icons went out of her way to treat Justice K with dignity and respect.
I am very disturbed by Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh.
If true he should not be on the court.
All the rest of this is garbage.
Neither K nor F should have their testimony torn appart in the way it is being done EXCEPT to address credibility – and fundimentally only F’s matters.
She is making the accusation, and her credibility must be sufficient to disqualify K BEFORE you look at anything K has said on this.
The other accusations – either do not have an actual claim – Ramirez’s I think I saw a penis, and someone told me it was K’s while I was drunk odd my ass was not worth the Senate’s time.
The Avenatti allegations were pointless. they did not actually state an offense.
Prior to this circus NO ONE was saying anything negative about K’s character. In fact he has had myriads of supporters of his character on both sides.
Many keep saying – just nominate another Gorsuch. Gorsuch graduated from Georgetown Prep AFTER Kavanaugh. In terms of character – there is not alot to distinguish them. Frankly K had MORE positive character references from both sides. There is absolutely no reason these allegations could not have been made about Gorsuch – or anyone else.
The prior attacks WERE on his politics and ideology.
Of those on Trump’s list – Kavanaugh is MOSTLY more of a libertarian conservative, than the rest – that makes him on the LEFT side of Trump’s list.
Kavanaugh is MOSTLY more likely side with the left than any other current justice on the right – including Gorsuch.
Like Gorsuch he is an originalist – though I expect to find their originalism to be fairly different – just as we are seeing that Gorsuch’s originalism is not that of Scalia.
Regardless, if the left is going to oppose anyone who is going to read the constitution and the law as written – no republican nominee is ever getting confirmed.
I have a great deal of admiration for RBG – but her jurisprudence has no foundation, and that means she can sometimes be very right and sometimes very wrong.
True objectivity does not exist, but the courts – particularly the high courts are charged with being as objective as humanly possible.
Approaching objectivity must be rule based – otherwise we do not have predictable outcomes and that means we are lawless.
Originalists understand that
RBG does not. The result is her efforts at objectivity rest on the jello of her ideology.
Yes, she looks to be “hanging on”. Should Trump get to appoint her replacement – which is likely, we are looking at political armageddon.
Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy, and it is likely that Trump and Kennedy had an understanding that if Kennedy stepped down Trump would replace him with Kavanaugh.
That is part of the nonsense in all of this.
Just about every other possible Trump nominee would be WORSE for democrats than Kavanaugh.
I think this was a gargantuan politiical blunder on the part of D’s.
Not merely has it incredibly energized R’s immediately before midterms,
but it is another in the long list of reasons that republicans have for not trusting democrats.
That was the key to Graham’s speach.
Murkowski traded her no vote with another yes vote and voted present.
While in here instance it was with a republican senator, that is still a tradition and part of the civiility of the institution.
If some senators commits to that and fails to follow through – the tradition will end, regardless of party.
Just about every breach of traditions and institutional ciiviility we have seen started on the left. Democratic politicians do not seem to grasp the value of institutional civility,
of rules.
And yet so many here and elsewhere on the left keep pretending the inciviliity is with the right.
Even Bill Maher gets that spraying spittle at republicans while they dine out is just stupid.
And as Dana Loesch pointed out disturbing the sleep of someone who likely has a glock in a gun case under their bed is a very bad idea.
Regardless, this idea that making life hell for those who disagree with you is acceptable, oriiginates with the left, and is close to unique to the left.
Yet too many here think the right is the problem ?-
“Murkowski traded her no vote with another yes vote and voted present.
While in here instance it was with a republican senator, that is still a tradition and part of the civiility of the institution.”
Joe Manchin also bucked his party.
Both of these votes are refreshing to see.
Why?. Because they were sent to Washington to represent the interest of the people in their states. Alaska has a sexual assault rate almost three times that of the lower 48. She voted the interest of her constituents. The opposite was true of Manchin. He voted the positive since the evidence did not support going againstbthe wishes of his constituents.
Now many would say voting to support your constituents interest left the station years ago. Could be, but when a huge percentage of your state asked you to vote a certain way, it is nice to see that happen every now and then instead of cowering to Shumer or McConnell like most do.
I think that most good senators (and there are more “bad”ones these days, I’m afraid) balance party loyalty with individual responsibility. Manchin votes overwhelmingly with Schumer and the Democrats, Murkowski votes more often than not with Republicans. (Of course, Murkowski ran on a write-in campaign, and defeated the GOP nominee, so she is more of an independent than most).
I don’t have a problem with party politics, until the party line itself becomes toxic, as I believe the Democrat line became in the Kavanaugh fight. The whole sordid episode was handled badly enough, but what tipped it over into toxic territory was the Democrat’s unquestioning acceptance and promotion of Michael Avenatti and the bizarre Julie Swetnick accusation.
The idea that a college sophomore would repeatedly attend high school parties where gang rape was routine, and young boys were regularly drugging girls and spiking the punch bowls, in order to facilitate these rapes, went far, far into the unbelievable realm. Swetnick claimed to have attended more than 10 of these parties, yet she never told anyone. Even more unbelievable, NO ONE ever told anyone about them ~ not the more than a dozen victims, not the bystanders that supposedly watched the “rape trains” of boys going into bedrooms to rape the drug-impaired girls… NO ONE. And then, after being granted a nationwide interview with NBC (none of the women defending K got anything like that), Swetnick basically recanted the whole lurid story, saying that she merely saw K standing around the punch bowl with other boys. Wow, that’s a shocker – a boy at a party standing around a punch bowl with his friends!
But the Dems and the media totally ran with this smear, and I think, as many have said, it was what turned the tide in favor of K, especially among genuine moderates like Susan Collins, who has not been a party-line voter in the past. And it may have convinced Manchin that his goose was cooked in WV, if he voted with a party that embraced a charlatan like Avenatti.
Priscilla, yes Manchin votes more with democrats than GOP. Yes, the opposite for Murkowski.
And to me, thats a good thing. I think that is why they get reelected. The senate has always been a more moderate deliberative body where members have to appeal to a broader view of voters, while the house has always been more divided due to the populist views held by more members and representatives being elected by much more agend driven voters.
For instance, Manchin goes against demicrats on many energy issues, while voting for programs like the ACA. Many are employed in coal and depend on piss poor insurance since insurance companies have policies where the average person in WVT can not afford it.
Is there anyone who thinks the allegations from Avanti were not helpful to Kavanaugh and republicans they were so bad ?
So much for the claim this was all spontaneous.
If George Sorros and others wish to pay “organizers”, that is fine by me.
But can we can the fake outrage because Trump and others point it out ?
A view of what to expect moving forward.
It is interesting to note that the changes in the court as a consequence of replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh will be small.
The changes in the LEFT are going to be huge.
The hypocracy of the left knows no bounds.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/07/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-confirmation-roe-gun-control-abortion-column/1557875002/
I would further note that one of the predicted changes is a demand for judicial bipartisanship.
And argument made here constantly. On similar but not identical to an argument I make constantly.
The obective of the court (and congress, and government as a whole) should NOT be getting the consent of both parties. It should be infringing on the rights of the least number of people without their consent. It is not whether you are republican or democrat that matters.
I would absolutely support changing SCOTUS such that in any case that involved a conflict befween the powers of government and the rights of individuals – that a 5-4 majority is NOT sufficient to rule FOR the state.
But Note I am NOT saying all decisions that disrupt the status quo must be 6-3 or greater.
That is close to what we have already in the senate, and it is a failure.
I am saying that all exercises of government power require a supermajority.
If as an example the court is trying to determine if a warrant is necescary for a search.
a 5-4 vote that no warrant is needed should mean a warrant is required, because government did not get the 6 votes needed to infringe on a right.
Interesting, even with Trump comments about Ford, this trend shows how him not being the center of attention and running his mouth can impact peoples views.
There is one person that might be able to get to him and convince him to cool the rhetoric until after the election. His daughter.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history
Is your objective to get Trump to behave better as a person or to better impact republicans ?
I am not sure those are the same.
I was disturbed by Trump’s attacks on Ford, but I have read elsewhere they were politically necescary and effective – that as the Senate could NOT go after Ford, he needed to.
I think he waited until she had been weakened enough that his attacks were more credible.
But all fo that is political.
Whether it was effective or not, it was wrong.
Of course the democrats attacks on Kavanaugh were equally wrong – whether they were effective or not.
The ends does not justify the means.
But I would note that part of Trump’s appeal to republicans is that he is not burdened with republican morality. This is also part of the reason he is so hated by democrats – Trump basically uses alinsky tactics against the left.
My thoughts. Those that like his bullying others and being an obnoxious ass is going to support the GOP regardless. Those that this is a turnoff (like me) might stay home or vote against him. I dont have a problem with him campaigning for candidates. I dont have a problem with him pointing.out the negative positions opponents hold. I do have a problem with him just running his mouth, not saying anything of substance other than personal attacks and playing to the deplorable label. Those that wear the “Proud Deplorable” label will always vote for him and his party.
But look at the trends in that chart. When he is presidential, his approval increases. When he is an ass, his approval is negative 5 to >12. And the news now is the best election projections for GOP than for months. Seems like there is a correlation.
I understand. But that does not appear to be how the world is working.
There are now “hit peices” on Collins from the left.
Which is typical of cults. Local evangelical churches split over tiny differences, and then send each other to hell over them, while being freindly and accomidating to churches that are miles appart in beleifs
This is true of the left – where deviation is not tolerated.
Collins is not on the left, she is merely a moderate republican who chose to vote for the rule of law, rather than the rule of the mob.
Now the left has “targeted” her. Wouldn’t you think that they should want to build bridges with Collins ? Even if she did not vote as they hoped on Kavanaugh, she is far more likely to than say Graham. You would think if they were going to “target” someone it would be graham.
Do democrats think the way to win elections is to attack Collins ?
Republicans disagree, but mostly they do not send each other to hell.
That is primarily a left feature.
Apparently Antifa is running portland now – with the mayor’s permission, directing traffic and harassing motorists.
Paul Romer – whose work I have occasionally cited just won the Nobel Prize in Economics.
I expect that Kavanaugh’s appointment will result in different outcomes for cases going forward. But not the end of the world scenario’s the left imagines.
Gorsuch is already having an effect, the court on the whole is more libertarian.
That is somewhat unifying. Libertarians are neither conservatives or progressives.
They may not be the “moderate” that TNM wants, but they reflect different values.
My sense is that Kavanaugh is less liberarian than Gorsuch but more so than Kennedy, Alito, or roberts.
We shall have to see what happens, but I would not expect earth shaking changes.
We are not going to see Rowe overturned. We are not going to see a return to the lochner era. we are likely to see a reversal or limiting of “chevron deference”.
We are likely to see the court limiting the freedom of the executive to interpret the law as they please and more of the court requiring congress to fix its mistakes.
We are likely to see less preferential treatment of unions.
We are likely to see more religious freedom
We are likely to see more scrutiny of overreach on campaign finance.
The left will paint all of these as the end of the world but taken in whole they will not change the world.
Astronaut Mark Kelly found out about the left quickly.
He quoted Churchill – “In Victory, magnanimity” and was instantly pummelled by the left for referencing an evil racist
Churchill was not perfect – particularly by today’s standards.
But it is likely that western democracy would no longer exist but for him.
Churchill bet the entire british empire and its people just to delay Hitler long enough for the US to be roused from its sleep.
As Churchill noted, the period from 1939 to 1942 was Britain’s “finest hour”.
Clinton is STILL less popular that Trump and would STILL lose to him if we repeated the election today.
Yo those of you with Trump Derangement Syndrome – no matter how bad you think Trump is – most of us STILL think Clinton is WORSE.
There was a poll on twitter – additted not “scientific”.
If you could redo the 2016 election – AND know for certain that whoever you voted for would win who would you vote for ?
56% – Gary Johnson.
34% – Trump
7% – Clinton
3% – Stein
Well I don’t need a do over! I was on the popular side in this poll before it was the majority.
But that does not change anything, now or in future elections.
The Twitter poll is just interesting. The Gallop poll much more meaningful.
As Turley noted – losing candidates typically get MORE popular after the election.
The left and the media have spent 2 years blaming Trump for every evil they can think of.
They have been selling this garbage about the russians rigging the election.,
They have investigated the crap out of Trump,
And nothing has changed. HRC would still lose if the election were held again today.
While to some extent this is about Trump and it is about Clinton.
No matter what the left does – Trump is not actually perceived as any worse.
No matter what the left does – Clinton is not actually perceived as any better.
But it goes beyond even that.
Democrats controlled the whitehouse since 2008.
They controlled both the house and senate in 2009 and 2010
And the Senate through 2014.
The election was not just Trump vs. Clinton it was Republicans vs. Democrats.
And voters decided they did not want the democrats running the govenrment.
The left has lost because they are not wanted.
And they remain unpopular.
This is not some Portland Antifa extremist. This is a writer on one of the most popular shows in the country.
But given that Colbert called Trump “putin’s ‘c##k holster'”
this is a not a reflection of the extreme left, but that the whole left is extreme.
“Just Another Crooked Landlord”. Why expect much from him?
NYT is behind a paywall so I can not get at this article.
But why bother – the author has demonstrated total cluelessness within a few lines.
What is a crooked landlord ?
How is it that you can significantly “cheat” someone in letting apartments ?
If you rent an apartment and feel you have been cheated – leave. If you can not find something better – then you are not being “cheated” you are getting the same thing as everyone else. In addition to leaving you have fairly simple legal remedies – and in some places like NYC fairly extensive ones. Which would explain why NYC – like every other place that thinks it is tipping the balance back to even has housing shortages, and crappy public housing.
On rare occasions participants in free exchange actually do “cheat” each other.
It is rare, because people only engage in free exchange when the odds heavily favor a positive outcome.
Getting less than you hoped for – is not getting cheated. Just as getting more is not cheating.
@ dhlli, 12:49
Trump Is Just Another Crooked New York City Landlord
I see his type all the time. Here’s what tenant advocates in the city have learned about how to fight him.
By John Whitlow
Mr. Whitlow is a tenant lawyer and a law professor.
Oct. 4, 2018
The folk singer Woody Guthrie once wrote a song about life in an apartment owned by a particularly odious landlord whose business practices consisted of a brew of dodgy bookkeeping, race-baiting and corporate welfare: “Beach Haven ain’t my home!/No, I just can’t pay this rent!/My money’s down the drain, And my soul is badly bent!”
Beach Haven, of course, is the apartment complex built by Fred Trump, a place that Guthrie called “Trump’s Tower.” Fred Trump’s management of Beach Haven is also one example among many of the shady dealings and outright deceptions documented in the recent exposé about the Trump family’s real estate empire.
The story proved what anyone familiar with New York real estate has long known. Donald Trump is a homegrown creature, a species well known and justifiably loathed by most New Yorkers — the unscrupulous landlord. The rest of the country may be in a constant state of shock when confronted with the tornado of news that whirls around the Trump administration. But tenant advocates know what he is doing. More than a stooge for Vladimir Putin or the embodiment of a disgruntled — and mythical — white working class, Mr. Trump is at his core a landlord, turning a handsome profit while the rest of us live in increasingly precarious conditions.
As a tenant lawyer, I regularly interact with landlords in the city’s housing courts. They make a killing by taking advantage of a rigged system. They extract as much wealth as possible from hard-working people trying to hang on to the places they call home, with little regard for the common good or the social fabric of our city. They take advantage of tax subsidies to renovate old buildings and construct new ones, and they engage in a range of practices, lawful and unlawful, to raise rents above the threshold beyond which tenants lose the protections of rent stabilization. And they regularly discriminate against tenants on the basis of race, language, national origin and immigration status.
Much of the outrage generated by the reporting on the Trump family’s finances has focused on tax evasion, which is immense and possibly criminal, and on the myth that Mr. Trump is a self-made man. But it is no small thing that the Trump empire is built on the same kinds of predatory practices that tenants and tenant advocates deal with every day: inflated costs for repairs, which are passed on to tenants in the form of rent increases; lax government oversight over building conditions and rent levels; and racial divisiveness.
Just as the Trump family built its wealth through price-gouging and discrimination against tenants in the complex and easily manipulated regulatory environment of New York City, the Trump administration is now engaged in a scaled-up version of the same project: tax cuts for the already wealthy; the gutting of the administrative state; and a white-nationalist-inspired immigration policy.
I once represented a group of tenants in Bushwick, Brooklyn, who came home one day to find that major sections of their rent-stabilized building had been gutted. Their landlord cared little about the health and safety of his tenants — he wanted to force them out and convert the building to high-end apartments. When the residents didn’t accept the paltry buyouts he offered, he took them to court. But the tenants decided to stay and fight. They made connections with neighbors whom they barely knew. They joined a community-based organization that worked for tenants. After months of organizing, litigation and news conferences, we won, and the tenants were able to stay in their apartments, with rent abatements to compensate for the conditions they endured.
There is a long history of New York City tenants coming together to organize against landlords like the Trump family. These efforts have been most effective when tenants have constructed multiracial coalitions and have relied on tactics from rent strikes to eviction blockades to cooperative housing to strategic litigation. As we confront America’s landlord, the lesson we can draw from this history is that we must organize creatively and fight to save the place we call home.
John Whitlow is a tenant attorney and a professor at the City University of New York School of Law.”
Like I said he is a sleaze, and many people defend him. Hmmmmmm, birds of a feather……….
And Woody Gutherie songs are reality ?
Woody Gutherie dies in 1967
Donald Trump graduated from College in 1968.
If you can not afford your rent – then you should move somewhere you can.
No one else is obligated to provide you with decent housing at their cost.
Is your idea of a “cheating landlord” is someone who will not give you what is theirs at the price you wish to pay ?
The Gutherie song claims Beach Haven is expensive and excludes blacks.
That is a good reason for a protest song.
It is no basis for law, nor is it even an allegation of “cheating”.
No the story did NOT “prove” anything, like your guthrie song it “accuses” (badly)
But typical of the left – an accusation is the same as guilt.
Regardless I do not doubt that many New Yorkers loath their landlords.
The left has encouraged people to beleive they are entitled.
I am a landlord. If I charge rents higher than the market – no one will rent my apartments.
I am in serious financial trouble is can not maintain a 90% occupancy of my unts.
I frequently do not evict people who ware behind on their rent – not because I am a sucker – which I am, but because, I am better off if they pay most of the time, or most of the rent, than I am evicting them.
My tenants are at the top of the lower quintile, they have jobs or SS, or both, but do not have bank accounts or credit – if they have any credit it is bad. My tenants have lots of trouble paying their rent. I work hard – mostly because it is in my interest to get them assiistance when they are in trouble – from the government, from local churches, from charities.
I have repeatedly come to agreements with local churches and chariities that if they would pay 50% of a tenants arrears that I would not evict them for atleast a year – so long as they continued to pay rent moving forward.
I like to think I do this because I am a nice guy. But I also know that it is n my own self interest to do so.
Everytime a tenant leaves for whatever reason I lose 1 months rent – always.
Most of the time I lose two, once in a while I lose as much as 6 months rent.
That is alot of money.
n the meantime I have to pay taxes, mortgage, utilities, insurance, pest services, maintenance.
I do not make money on my apartments – and I lose alot of money if you factor in my time.
It works out primarily because they are an investment.
The value appreciiates. The neighborhood improves.
I have met alot of landlords. I have met many who evict much faster than I.
I have never met one that “cheats”.
It is very nearly impossible.
When you rent – you get a lease. that is a contract. While I get to write it, no matter how I write it I can not exclude the requirement that the apartment iis habitable.
I can go to court and force my tenants to pay rent or leave.
They can go to court and force me to maintain the property if i am not.
Further if a tenant complains to the local buiildings department, even if the complaint itself is bogus the inspector will always find something they want me to do.
These things are true everywhere.
Your evil landlords are a fiction. Everyone thinks that their apartment costs too much.
That is probably true – more than 1/3 the cost of my apartments is in taxes and city/county fees and those go up all the time – and rents with them.
Again – Donald Trump’s real estate ventures are:
Comercial properties – are you saying he is ripping off citibank ? Do you even care ?
Very high end residential – are you saying he is ripping off rich people ? Do you even care ?
This is nonsense. It is like the stupidity of inner city blacks who think that somehow it is republicans that have made their neighborhoods cesspools.
Even though in most of those places no republican has held power in 75 years.
Numerous people who actually know something about Taxes (and facts) have come foreward and noted that absolutely everything Trump has done with regard to his taxes has been “above board” – not because he is some great honest guy, but because you can not operate otherwise at the level he has been his entire life.
He has armies of lawyers and accountants, and bookkeepers.
It is near certain that these OVERTLY sought to minimize his taxes.
It is near certain that everything he did was with the full knowledge of the IRS and the state and local taxing authorities.
At his income level you are audited for all taxes every year.
The criminal tax evasion claim is less credible than the Swetnick organized gang rape scheme.
But reason is not an attribute of lefties.
In your personal example – what is the issue ?
Most leases run for a year. In most states they automatically renew month to month.
Most leases have provisions for exactly the situation you described.
A tenant is exactly that – a tenant. They are NOT an owner. Their “rights” are what the lease specifies. If you do not like a clause in a lease – get it struck, or rent somewhere else.
You are not obligated to rent a specific apartment.
I have already told you I own a building. The neighborhood is improving.
Someday I am going to either sell the building or convert it to a more valuable use.
It is after all MY BUILDING. I have paid for it. I maintained it over the years.
I really really hope that at some point in the future it is worth more as a home or as professional offices. or any other use that increases its value.
Absolutely guaranteed if that day comes I will be looking to move quickly to transform it to that new use.
If you do not want to be removed from the place you live because the owner has found a better use for that place than as your apartment – then BUY YOUR OWN HOME.
In my community you can buy a cheap house in the city for about 40K
That is about 250/month in mortgate and another 250 to cover taxes and insurance.
You will have to establish moderate credit. that is not all that hard.
If you are a first time home buyer you can get an FHA or VA loan for 3% down – that is little more than the deposit on an apartment.
If you buy your own home YOU will have to maintain it. Or hire someone to do so.
I noted you specified “rent stabilized.
There is nearly a century of economic literature on rent controls.
It is abslutely universally BAD.
What is absolutely guaranteed everythere there have been rent controls with no exceptions, is:
Shift of landlords rapidly to high end rentals that are NOT covered by rent control.
Incredibly high demand for rent controlled apartments resulting in their being doled out as poliitical favors – do you think it was an accident that Charlie Rangle had two rent controlled apartments in Manhattan.
The complete collapse of housing stock for poorer people.
Do you understand that EVERYWHERE, EVERYTIME, Rent control has proved disasterous.
Rent control data is the primary data for the broader economic research that ALL priice controls and subsidies fail.
These are things that something like 98% of all economists agree on.
In fact real economic data indicate that pretty much every time the left says
“evil cheating unscrupulous …. – there ought to be a law” that the results of such laws are disasterous.
We have a major huricane about to hit Florida. Politicians are already warning people – not to
“gouge prices” or look to profit off the disaster.
This is just plain total stupidity. What you want is exactly the opposite.
We know right now almost everything that is going to be in short supply as soon as the storm dies down.
Water, pop tarts, foods that do nor require cooking or refridgeration,
gasoline
generators,
plywood,
…
What we want is everyone from Walmart and Home Depot – which are abslutely heavily mobilized already to joe doe in Alabama who thinks he can make a buck by driving a trailer of bottled water, or gasoline or generators.
The more people do that the lower the price will be and the more of what people need they will have after the storm.
Laws against price gouging encourage people to horde.
You want the price of bottled water as an example to go up – so that people to not buy more than they need depriving others who need it more.
All of this is well understood by anyone with half a brain, but not by those on the left.
Leftism is a religion with no basis in reality.
Just like your nonsensicle “cheating landlord”
“There is a long history of New York City tenants coming together to organize against landlords”
So long as the state stays out of it – beyond enforcing the rule of law, preventing either side from using violence to get their way, enforcing contracts – regardless of who that favors,
I am all for people coming together.
Protest, Boycott.
This can be a very effective market tool.
But it is important that it remain in the market – not government.
In a free market both sides are under pressure to resolve the issues.
I have at most academic interest in when these tactics have been effective.
If you want to go on a rent strike – fine with me.
But I am going to expect that your lease is enforced – and that means I am likely evicting you.
As you “confront america’s landlords” maybe you should pause to consider – no one has to be a landlord.
If being a landlord is not a good investment – landlords will invest in other things – stocks as an example.
The fewer landlords their are the higher rents will go.
You are free to do as you wish, but you are looking to cut off your nose to spite your face.
IF you want less more expensive housing – then “confront your landlords”.
If you want to ensure that landlords are the least scupulous people – continue to call them slumlords, and cheaters, and crooks.
Even where something is a reasonable investment – people do not invest in things where they are maligned.
I really do not care who Mr. Whitlow or anyone else is.
CUNY is the #125 ranked law school in the US.
UofP is #7.
It is hard to find people more progressive than law school professors – I would note there are some left law professors who are brilliant.
Tribe was excellent until he completely lost his marbles with Trump’s election.
Derschowitz remains one of the premiere civil liberties attorneys in the US.
Mr. Whiitlow is an associate professor. He looks barely as old as the laws he thinks Trump broke, Regardless according to CUNY his field is community development.
Here is his CUNY page – it pretty much screems left wing nut.
It doesn’t even riise to Nasim Taleebs IYI – intellectual yet idiot.
http://www.law.cuny.edu/faculty/directory/whitlow.html
As I pointed out repeatedly – the statue of limitations has long expired – even gthe State of New York one. Of course I was told I was wrong and did not know what I was talking about – until I cited both the federal and state law.
I get very tired of this crap. You all pretend I am some fake “know it all”, and arrogant, and must always be right.
Being right is pretty easy. Do not speak or write unless you actually know for certain that what you are saying or writing is correct.
You would not have to do that very long before grasping that the left is pretty much always wrong about everything.
There is a reason for that – the ideological foundation of the left rests on a contradiction.
That contradiction screws leftists up in everything.
All you have successfully proven is that Mr. Whitlow does not know what he is talking about.
Most of Trump’s real-estate ventures are commercial – not residential.
Do you think that the big companies that you seem to think are also crooked, are getting cheated by Trump ?
What about all those wealthy oligarchs that Trump is selling FL Condos to ? Do you think he is “cheating” people with small armies ?
Maybe Trump ran for President because he needed the secret service to protecting from all the wealthy russians he “cheated” ?
But wait that can’t be true – because you beleive the Russians bought the election for him.
It is pretty easy to come up with this lame crap – if there is no requirement that any of the stuff you say actually make sense.
Like claiming that dozens of women came back to parties where they were drugged and gang raped many many many times – and no one, not a single soul ever questioned this, called the police or anything.
When you call someone else a rapist, or a hateful, hating, hater, it is not necescary to have evidence. It is true just because you say so. What have facts and reality got to do with it ?
If you feel something – it must be true. If it fits what you want to beleive – it must be true.
To all of your defensive and ignorant (of NYC rental RE) remarks. BS.
You are in your little bubble wherever you are. You don’t know any cheating landlords? LMAO, come to NYC and get educated on how to cheat and steal from tenants and use the courts to delay and obfuscate, pay fines and continue to screw tenants who can’t find anywhere else to go to find a landlord like you with a halo over his head.
You are a babe in the woods compared to NYC slumlords and the Trumps and Kushner’s of the world. Read up on the subject, or talk to NYC tenants and landlords (they will cry their hearts out) to you before you spout about what you don’t know.
Challenge: Now try to keep your stupid rebuttal comments to less than 10,000 words.
“Challenge: Now try to keep your stupid rebuttal comments to less than 10,000 words.”
Try to keep your stupidity sufficiently small iit does nto require 10,000 words.
So your response to facts, logic reason is:
Appeals to authority – obviously an article by an associate professor – little more than an adjunct, at a third tier law school, that manages to get published in the NYT is more credible that actual facts and law.
Various diifferent personal attacks.
Obviously I would actually rents apartments to people in a class far below anything Trump deals with – I am in a “bubble” and clueless.
Has Mr. Whiitmore even run a rental property ? Have you ?
Appeals to authority are fallacy, but even so – I have not yet seen a basis to accept that a community organizer is an authority, much less you.
But of course I am the one in a bubble ?
“You don’t know any cheating landlords?:
I do not even know what that term means – you lob it out there without defining it.
Regardless, I am sure that landlords who do not attempt to follow the law (something that is not possible), that do not honor their contracts exist.
There are a small portion of people who lack integrity in ever field. Though by far the largest number are in government – both as politicians, and civil servants.
As to actually knowing a real cheating landlord – nope.
I know landlords I do not like. I know ones who operate differently than I do.
The closest I can recall to a “unscrupulous landlord” was one who gave me a good reference on a very mentally disturb and lousy tennant in the hopes I would rent to them.
Unfortunately I did. It took me a year, several police calls, and the loss of other tenants to get rid of him.
I know landlords who rent to people that are likely drug dealers – because they actually pay the rent. I don’t. But I also do not think it is my business what my tenants are up to – so long as they do not harm my building or their neighbors.
I have rented to drug addicts – not intentionally, but oddly they proved good tenants.
I once likely rented to a couple of hookers – again not intentionally, but they were still good tenants.
Renting in the area I rent means broad exposure. I have rented to blacks, hispanics, gays, musilms, red necks. college kids, all kinds of different tenants.
I also know the landlords in my city who have gotten in trouble.
They are all the ones who rent down market from me.
You can rent a room in my city for $200/month – that gets you a bed room and a shared bath.
That is not an arrangement that tends to work well – share a toilet with several tenants and it is pretty much guaranteed to get clogged and overflow.
I know several landlords who do that. Typically there are no leases, no credit checks, no record checks, they receive payment up front, and iif you fail to pay at the start of the next month, they lock you out.
But for $200/month – you have a room that is warm and dry – a place to sleep.
I do not want to be them, but they are providing a service.
But for them, these people would be homeless.
BTW Landlords do not use the courts to delay – tenants do.
If I go to court – it is to get MY apartment back from you – or to get paid.
In my state that takes 60 days – iit can take longer, but for a tenant to draw the process out longer, they must escrow unpaid rent with the courts, and that never happens.
The courts are not that friendly a place for landlords.
BTW – why does it matter to the landlord that you can not find somewhere else to go ?
If I signed a contract with you – I am obligated to hold up my end of that contract – you are obligated to hold up yours. That includes leaving when I ask you to in a manner permitted by contract.
Finding another place to stay is your job.
I never promised to take you in for life.
You are not my family or my friends.
You are someone I agreed to provide an apartment to for a fixed period of time in return for money. That is all. I have no obligation to you beyond that.
If you need charity – look to a church.
What is it that a landlord is seeking to delay ?
What is it that a landlord is seeking to obfuscate ?
How is a landlord “screwiing” tenants – you have an apartment – you are supposed to pay for it. If you do not like that, you are free to leave.
You are obligated to find the place you wish to stay – not the landlord.
If McDonald’s sells you a burger every day for a month, is it then obligated to provide you free burgers for life ? Merely because you can not find someone else to sell you burgers at the price you wish to pay ?
Most of the Landloards I know are pretty much like me.
Yes, NYC slumlords – like the jewish guy who took $100/month to let people stay in really crappy places where people shot heroine and the toilets overflowed.
NYC closed him down – and his tenants were homeless – because no one else would provide them a crappy place for $100/month and they would not pay more.
Someone murder him. Does that sound right to you ?
I am pretty sure Trump and Kushner are only renting commercial and high end residentail spaces in NYC – obviously that makes them evil cheating slumlords.
If you want to do some research of your own try
I would also suggest reading the reiviews. Particularly the on familiar with the milwaukee market and who knows what happed after desmond left words.
I do not BTW care if tenants (or landlords) cry their hearts out.
Ultimately being a landlord is an investment. It MUST be as profitable as putting the same money into the stock market – or no one will ever be a landlord.
I put an additional “investment” of 50K in. I Break even on rents and expenses – give or take a few dollars. I get a small break on my taxes because the IRS accounting show me losing money. So that small tax break is “profit” – it is not much. In addition as the building appreciates in value – it has not done that since I bought it, that appreciation is profit. Finally the morgate gets paid and each month I own a tiny bit more of the buildings – that is my real profit. That amounts to about 4000/year, My IRA is currently making 5% so that iis a little better than the IRA, but not much. But that does not count the fact that I have alot of work to do, and no one pays me for it. So I probably would have been better off putting my money into stocks.
And you should seriously think about that.
ANY Investment with higher risk than the stock market that can not consistently deliver higher returns than the stock market – will go away.
People will not be landlords if they can not make sufficient money at it.
This crap has to stop. America needs to have a conversation at the root level, not in Washington where a bunch of suits get on a commission, spend a ton of money, write a paper and then do nothing. Race relations in this country have deteriorated in the last 10 years, along with the relationship whites have with whites on social media. We have to stop profiling, kneeling, demonstrating and bitching about something in state or federal governments not doing anything to fix a problem and fix it at the local level. No black man should be questioned because he has two white kids with him. Hell he could be married to a white woman and these could have been kids he adopted from her previous marriage.
See something say something should not cover white kids with black men unless the kids are resisting him in someway that indicate they are in trouble. And that would go with white, Hispanic, native american etc. We spend way too much time bashing one another on politics where the energy could be well spent on educating people on race relationships.
And blacks need to stop attacking whitey every time something like this hap[pens and begin a conversation where two sides can talk. Nothing happens without a conversation, not in Washington where the liberals want everything to take place, but in peoples own “backyard”. Schools, churches, civil organizations, etc.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/babysitting-black-woman-calls-police-male-babysitter-white-children-195623674.html
It’s going to get worse, not better Ron.
Trump Cancer is spreading.
Bye bye truth.
Bye bye couth.
Hello loutishness, boorishness, creepiness.
This happened to me 15 years ago – was that Trump’s fault ?
I am pretty sure it was my obnoxious neighbors.
Ya, Know, other people who think that they have the right to but into lives other than their own. I really found it odd that a couple that had drunken fights out on their lawn at 3am, were so interested in what was happening in my home more than 100 yards away.
Regardless, Trump is not the cause of this. The left is.
Though Trump is CAUSED by this.
I presume that you think Trump is responsible for the violence and anarchy in portland over the past several months.
I guess that Trump is also responsible for the fact that the largest single reason that gets someone onto the “exhonerated list” having spent decades in prison are false allegations of rape usually disproven by DNA.
I told you my wife’s personal story. I have also told you that she is a public defender doing criminal appeals. Over several decades she has been directly involved in two cases on the exhonerated list.
In one instance she noted a newspaper story about a recently arrested serial rapist whose MO sounded remarkably like that of one of her past clients.
She called the same detective that investigated her own case 35 years ago, and he looked into it, and the serial rapist confessed and they were able to match DNA and her former client was released.
In that case within a few days of the assault the victim identified the wrong person.
The world is not perfect – get over it.
Get past pretending it is.
We do not get all the answers.
Everything is not knowable.
Oh, and I understand that Hillary tells us that – her husband’s accusers are different – all women must be beleiived – except them.
The left is over their head in hypocracy.
Yes, there are things that have to stop.
No race relations have not deteriorated.
The most that can be said for race relations in the US in the past decade, is that minorities, particularly blacks thought that the election of a Black President would fix all their problems.
Just as they have thought that black policemen, block police commissioners, black mayors would. Yet nothing change. Why ? Because if you expect your life to improve there is only one person that can bring that about – YOU.
Racism continues to exist in the US, and it will likely continue forever.
But it is for the most part relatively inconsequential.
No, we do not have to stop, kneeling, protesting, speaking out.
But a fundimental part of “protesting” is that it does not work unless the rest of the world sees your problem as a problem.
DD link to an NYT article about Trump as a cheating landlord.
No matter what your landlord is doing – if there are 10 others who would gladly rent your apartment for what you are paying under the same conditions are you have – then by definition you are not being cheated.
If football players wish to kneel during the national anything – that is their peragotive.
If fans choose not to attend or watch the games and teams can not afford players – that too is a peragotaive.
Freedom – means exactly that. It means you can do what you please short of actual harm to another. But the rest of us are free too. If you wish to leave your apartment because you think you are being cheated – leave. If 10 others are ready and willing to take your place – you were not being cheated.
FREE, FREE.
You are free to not read this. Your remarks are pure BS, remarkably long and tedious. But, then again, you are happy in your “do anything” bubble’.
LMAO.
“FREE, FREE.
You are free to not read this. ”
That is correct.
I am also free to read it and demonstrate the error of whatever you post.
Regardless, I have not tried to silence you, only point out your errors.
“Your remarks are pure BS,”
The evidence you have thus far presented is “I say so”
Not a valid argument.
“remarkably long and tedious.”
Possibly – many of the issues you over simplify or get wrong are in reality tedious and complex.
“But, then again, you are happy in your “do anything” bubble’.”
Still presuming that you are able to read the minds of others.
Still blatantly misrepresenting what others say.
I have not EVER said you are free to do anything you please.
I have provided a pretty clear guide for what you are free to do and what you are not free to do.
You have offered absolutely no basis for your decisions regarding what others are not free to do – yet, you are sure you are permitted to impose your choiices on others by force.
And you are clueless that without justification – that is immoral.
“LMAO.”
ditto
My kids are both Asian. I get funny stares and questions all the time. Sometimes from people who are minorities. Of course sometimes, the opposite is true – and people are friendlier to me because of my kids.
The world is that way.
It is reasonable for someone to be suspicious of an adult with kids who are different from them. She asked questions. He refused her questions – which he was free to do, but that legitimately raised her level of suspicion.
I was questioned by a police officer 15 years ago because I was out shoveling snow with my 6 year old son, and he threw a tantrum and threw himself on the ground. I grabbed his hand, hauled him back to the house and swatted him on the bum through three layers of clothes including a snow suit. A neighbor called the cops, and I had to answer some questions.
The officer apologized saying he had children of his own – but the law required him to ask, and to check on the kid. He did, and all was good.
I did not get 400K twitter views, and spark a national debate.
I think the woman in this instance was overly paranoid. But that happens.
In the end there are a huge amount of judgment calls here.
Lewis was within his rights through this.
But sometimes asserting your rights, rather than letting someone ask questions is going to be viewed as suspicious.
I know you do not believe in common sense, but common sense should tell someone if two kids are walking calmly with an adult, gets in the car without tantrum and show no signs of ” abduction”, then they should mind their own business. Would he have been approached had he been white with these two kids? Think about that! Would be have been approached had the kids been black? Think about that! He was approached and questioned because there was no way a black male adult should be with two white kids, period! Is that how you and dduck believe should happen? Why not question every male with a kid, regardless of race?
The black response will be outrage, demonstrations, kneeling and other actions that do no good. The response should be grass roots education to eliminate responses where blacks should not be with white kids, not actions resulting in negative reactions like this.
I do not beleive that common sense is definable.
Further particularly where one is talking about a decision with broad impact, what most people call “common sense” weighs only the obvious seen first order effects and ignores the unseen 2nd and 3rd order effects which are often larger.
“Common sense” should NEVER be used as a basis for government decision making,
In the context of individual choices all its flaws are less consequential.
The amorphous definitiion is irrelevant – as you are making choices for yourself.
The 2nd and 3rd order impacts of individual choices are nearly always much smaller than the first order effects – while the opposite is nearly always true with regard to societal choices.
Atleast part of that is because in individual choices force is not involved.
I am not going to debate when you should and should not be “suspicious” – many of the queues can not be put into some set of rules.
Clearly the woman in this case misread things. At the same time though Lewis was within his rights, he was doing so in a way to increase suspicions.
Would he have been approached if he was white ? It is less likely.
At the same time I am white, my kids are not, and II have had to deal with this.
So the answer is that race influences this, but it is NOT dispositive.
Overall our society is far more suspicious of younger black males.
Unfortunately that suspicion is justified.
I am not a big proponent of police.
I do not have a problem with “profiling”.
We know that certain types of crimes are nearly always committed by certain types of people.
We should not be prioritizing Grandma as a potential suicide bomber.
One of my problems with the police and profiling is that they litterally testify in court that NOT fitting the profile makes you suspicious – basically that not being suspicious is suspicious because you are deliberately trying not to be suspicious.
I am always dubious of people who are sure they know what others are thinking.
As to your black male with two white kids argument.
Well that is in the real world actually unusual. And we are always and rightly suspicious of the unusual.
I am not so concerned about people or the police being suspicious over “profiling”.
I am much more concerned about what should be to the greatest extent bright line rules for police conduct – for the use of force.
It appears in this instance the police behaved properly. Their intrusions into Mr. Lewis were poliite and limited.
I was not concerned about the police answering a call for a suspicious individual with two kids.
My issue is the fact that a black male has to be doing something wrong if there are two white kids with him.
And I can not believe I am debating the merits of this with two distinctly different people with two distinctly different political views. You (Extreme Libertarian) and dduck (very much left wing). Maybe Collin Kaeperneck is right about our racist nation when even the left wingers find this acceptable.
Why not question every male with kids – because that would require a police state.
The very thing you call “common sense” – which in some forms means, trying to reduce the scope of a problem, means you do not waste alot of effort looking for problems where they are not.
“Profiling” is merely focusing on the highest probabilities. All of us do that – including police.
It is NOT wrong even as a basis for suspicion. BUT it is NOT sufficient to justify the use of force.
I expect as an example that the police will follow the cars that have the greatest odds of being drug mules. I would not permit them to pull them over and search them merely because they fit the drug mule profile.
The response may be black outrage.
And there would be a different response if this woman or the police ignored this and this kids ended up abducted and killed.
As I said before knowing when to be more or less suspicious is not trivially expressable as written rules.
We do not want formal rules for when we can be suspicious.
We do want formal rules for what that suspiicion justifies.
The police asked lewis questions – I beleive he was in his home with the kids at the time.
Had he refused to answer and refused to allow the police to question the kids – the poliice would have been done.
They would have had slightly more latitude had they encountered him in public.
Regardless, THAT is where we want rules.
The rules are not about what can make our hair tingle, but on what we are permitted to do about that.
“Why not question every male with kids ”
That was sarcasm!
Sorry I missed the sarcasm.
This does NOT appear to be triggering riots and mass outrage.
It is not – because most of us understand suspicions about young children alone with men.
And are more suspicious when the races are different.
Suspicious only because he was black. White= good. Black = Suspicious.
thank you all for educating me more on what black males go through. I will be more open to their complaints in the future.
Ron
I am sympathetic to Mr. Lewis.
In a “perfect world” this should not have happened.
But in a perfect world there are no child abusers.
I think in general we have significantly erred in or heighten suspicions of everything having to do with children.
Absolutely it is more likely someone will be suspicious when an adult male is alone with children of other races. There is a SMALL increase in the likelyhood that something is wrong. It is even more likely when the male is black. That probably is not justified as I am not aware that black men are especially more prone to assorted forms of child abuse.
But again the world is not perfect.
It is difficult to tell the difference between reasonable concern and racism.
And in fact both can exist concurrently.
The police seem to have handled this well.
Mr. Lewis seems to have dealth with the police well.
He is angry – that is not unreasonable.
But this is not a burn the place down incident.
” The response should be grass roots education to eliminate responses where blacks should not be with white kids, not actions resulting in negative reactions like this.”
A+++ for common sense. Now, how do we get you in charge of something?
You replied to me, but quoted someone else.
I am not opposed to “grass roots education efforts” – or anything else people do on their own or in voluntary groups.
I am not opposed – even when I think what they are seeking to accomplish is stupid or wrong – so long as they do not seek to use force aka government.
Ron;
Many things are changing – slowly.
Trumps support from minorities – though abysmal, is still better than prior republicans, and growing.
Many minorities are starting to grasp that much of this disparate justice, racism, is occurring in black cities with black mayors, and black city counsels with black police cheifs and black officers, all democratic.
Increasingly minorities are asking – could republicans actually be worse ?
So the woman was wary and yes, suspicious at seeing an unusual scenario. So what?
The cops were courteous and the situation was resolved. I don’t know if the woman apologized, that would have been nice, but better to be cautious than sorry.
Next time you see what appears to be an abandoned backpack at an airport, by all means remember “if you see something, say something”.
Other than that, I agree, we need to have better relations with those of other ethnicities AND women.
I am white.
My kids are asian.
Almost exactly this has happened to me.
Obviously there are elements of “race” involved. but it is not inherently racism.
Regardless, there is no perfect calculus for when we should be suspicious and when we should not.
Lewis was fully within his rights to be as uncooperative with the woman as he was.
But that increased the odds of this outcome.
Fortunately no one was shot. That often happens when the police are called – even on innocent people.
“Fortunately no one was shot. That often happens when the police are called – even on innocent people.”
What OFTEN happens is you spout BS.
You have statistics ()I know, they lie) of how many times police are called and how many wind up with shots fired at the callers?
Oh, and please, include the ones where the police wind up being the one shot at.
There are approximately 100 instances a year in which police are shot in the line of duty.
Policing is a dangerous job. But it is still a job – a choice, not a right.
You do not get to put others into heightened danger to reduce your own danger.
If you can not live with that – do not take a job as a police officer.
I have a significant number of friends in law enforcement. And know even more people.
Many are good people, a few are complete assholes.
With few exceptions you can presume those in Swat teams are the latter.
The last thing you want n a police offiiicer is comone who enthusiastically beleives their job is going to war with the bad guys.
Most police badges are inscribed – “protect and serve”
That is the job.
“With few exceptions you can presume those in Swat teams are the latter.
The last thing you want n a police officer is someone who enthusiastically believes their job is going to war with the bad guys.”
Well I wonder how many would survive a standoff with a criminal with multiple guns armed with just a pistol and a protect and serve badge.
“Well I wonder how many would survive a standoff with a criminal with multiple guns armed with just a pistol and a protect and serve badge.”
Outside the movies this almost never happens.
The real world is not “miami vice”.
The most common instance in which we se weapons like AR-15’s being used – is school shootings. That is because we have made such an issue of them.
These guys want to be remembered and using a weapon that scares us helps assure that.
In my entire life I recall a single incident in my county in which a criminal had a weapon like an AR-15.
The overwhelming majority of criminals have cheap and usually stolen weapons that are not particularly reliable.
What should be amazing is that with about 300M guns in the US, with millions in a gun culture with very capable weapons that it is so rare that these are ever used in crimes.
A police office with a standard issue police handgun has far more firepower than any criminal
These are standard police weapons.
https://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/popular-guns-for-law-enforcement/
A Glock 19 is about a $750 handgun.
Most criminals would not pay that much for a weapon.
I would refer you to Balko’s book linked above.
He provides statiistics on the frequency with which police actually encounter a gun of any kind in a swat raid – it is rare.
Further the most common instance in which they find a gun AND there is an attempt to use it, is when they make a mistake and hit an armed person who is not a criminal at 3am.
That iis when the shooting actually happens.
Most real criminals do not even move towards a weapon in the presence of police.
Real criminals anticipate the possibility of confrontation with police.
They are not “surprised” at 3am in the same way ordinary people are.
Real criminals rarely go for a gun in a police raid. That is a death sentence, and they know it.
Those criminals who have guns have them either:
To protect against other criminals.
To threaten ordinary people with.
Most of the encounters with police that involve the actual use of guns, are not criminals like drug dealers or bank robbers.
They are some guy who tries to kill his family or a neighbor and gets confronted by the police.
These are generally not “criminals” in the organized sense.
And they are generally not part of the “gun culture”.
The former mayor of my city has about 10,000 guns of different kinds in his basement.
He also has about half a dozen working revolutionary and civil war cannon,
My community is famous for having about 2 dozen real canons for the 1812 overature on the 4th of july. The Boston Pop’s has been after out cannon squad for decades.
You may have even seen our canon in movies like “glory”.
These are the type of people the police are NOT going to be able to deal with.
But they are almost never actually violent.
Yes, absolutely, if you are in an airport, go drag in the police over a backpack that some guy who really needed to go to the restroom left in their seat.
When was the last time you heard of a bomb going off in a US airport (outside the movies) ?
You can not get to most of any airport without being xrayed and anally probed.
Yet even in the years BEFORE massive airport security – your fears were fiction in the US.
But god forbid we should not be scared shitless of the near impossible.
“You can not get to most of any airport without being xrayed and anally probed.”
Your best one liner ever. I have got to raise my hat to you on that one.
Lets assume that Rosenstein was “sarcastic” as he has claimed.
When Page Strzok, and McCabe discussed this with Baker – they were not being “sarcastic”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/top-fbi-lawyer-we-took-rosenstein-talk-of-bugging-the-president-very-seriously
Since e seem to wish to talk about potential justices “perjuring” themselves in confirmation hearings.
Kagan was solicitor General prior to nomination and was asked about her involvement in a number of specific cases headed to SCOTUS. In at least one instance she denied knowledge of the case – beyond possibly having seen a memo from the WH.
she was asked to recuse from that case – and did not. It has subsequently turned out that she did much more than read a memo, that as SG she had personally created the WH strategy for the case. Amazing things like emails often come from FOIA requests.
Ginsburg’s confirmation was substantially more distance, but there is circumstantial evidence that she was directly involved in a number of cases that she denied any knowledge of.
These are far more substantial allegations that differences of opinion over the extent of Kavanaugh’s alcohol consumption, or the precise meaning of slang terms 36 years ago.
What does it take to get those of you supporting the left to ap0ply ANY standards consistently.
If you want to impeach Kavanaugh. Be my guest. But start procedings against every other judge and justice that similar allegations can be made of.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/09/uc-davis-title-ix-me-too-sex-hook-up
This case is causing political apoplexy – and may be reheard with Kavanaugh as the deciding vote.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/09/gorsuch-and-sotomayor-fault-congress-for
No one – but particularly republicans want to look “soft” on sex offenders – though most people do not understand that SORNA’s life time sex offender registration applies to people who are convicted of public urination in some states or worse, cover underage teens who text suggestive pictures of themselves.
Complicating this are the arguments.
Both the ACLU and many conservative groups are arguing to strike SORNA down on “non-delegation” grounds – that congress could not delgate its law making powers to the executive.
That should be pretty clear from the constitution and separation of powers.
BUT no successfull non-delegation case has been made since 1935.
The obliteration of separation of powers was concurrent with the mass expansion of the commerce clause. and the start of the mass expansion of the federal government.
The left would like to see SORNA overturned – but not 0n non-delgation grounds.
The right would like to see SORNA upheld – but the non-delegation doctrine restored.
Why should we expect congress to do their job. If they did, then something could be used in a campaign ad against them.
Can’t have that! They might not get reelected. So let the suits that are not elected make the rules.
“FREE, FREE.
You are free to not read this. Your remarks are pure BS, remarkably long and tedious. But, then again, you are happy in your “do anything” bubble’.
LMAO.”
Hey everyone. If you don’t like what Dave posts, there is a delete routine on e-mail.
On yahoo mail it is in the center top of the screen.
On G-mail it is the 4th icon over on the top of the mail page.
Use that and you don’t have to read Daves comments if you don’t want to.
You are free to do what Ron says. Although, the effusion of words will still be in the blog and may cause you to get lost in the chain of comments.
Hey libs why should I be “forced” (his favorite word after free) have to take extra steps to avoid his droppings. Like dog s—, the dog’s owner is responsible.
You keep misusing words like “force”.
As I have said many times before – most humans think in words, when you mangle the meaning of words, you muddy your own thought.
No one “forces” you to read this blog.
You do not need to read my or anyone else’s posts,
NOR are you “forced” to delete them either.
You can skip them, and you can do so easier than you can read them.
I am hard pressed to think of a scenario in which you must not expend significantly more effort to read a post that to not read it.
I delete all posts, after I have read them.
So deleting a post is something I am going to do – whether I read it or not.
No force involved. No extra effort involved.
There is also no right of yours involved.
There is no right only to recive the specific posts you want.
There is a right to filter them – and you must do that yourself.
Logic is clearly not your forte.
“Like dog s—, the dog’s owner is responsible.”
Actually that would be wrong.
You are responsible for dealing with the shit from your dog, when you take your dog onto someone else’s property.
I would note that if deer shit on your lawn – that is your problem.
I would further note that the evidence is that cleaning up dog shit is environmentally unsound.
It is done purely for human aesthetic reasons.
In the case of TNM you have consented to be exposed to the messages that are there whatever they may be, when you visit with your web browser or even more affirmatively ask TNM to send you any replies.
You were not obligated to do either.
You are free to filter.
You are claiming that either Rick has a duty to provide you with only those comments you want – Rick has no such duty.
Or that you can impose a duty not to speak on me. Again false.
Regardless, it is stil lyou looking to impose force on someone else because of your prefence.
You are narcissistic, again that should not surprise as progressivism is inherently narcissistic.
“You are narcissistic, again that should not surprise as progressivism is inherently narcissistic.”
As usual, you are wrong. Not about the narcissistic element you seem to perceive. I don’t care what you think, it is of little consequence; you spread your manure over so wide an area, that it is of little note.
What you are wrong about, for the record again, I am not a progressive. They, as most of the right and ultra libertarians like you, stink on ice.
So try again to pigeon hole me and the other more moderate folks on this bloated blog. You can’t because you like all extremists are befuddled by your inbred tribal minds.
“I am not a progressive. ”
If it quacks like a duck.
Give me your definition of a progressive and I will see if I quack to it.
You say you are not – why not ?
However I define progressive, you are going to claim that definition is wrong.
How do you define it ?
If you want a definition from me, that would be the beleif that you can make the world a better place through the use of force against those who are not using force, not harming others, and keeping their commitments”.
I am not sure that early 20th century progressives would use the same words – but they would use the same meaning. The betterment of society through government – the improvement of the human condition through science, technology and economics advanced by government.
I would note that is indistinguishable from socialism.
Modern progressives might not run from either defintion, but mostly their ideology rests on philosophical garbage – the beleif – because it is nothing more that pretty much everything is a “social construction”, this is ultimately a nihilist system – and it is self contradictory.
If you look up social construction – hopefully you will find it pretty repugnant.
There is no means of separating right from wrong. No social construciton can be superior to another – though progressives will tell you otherwise.
When you play this game that something is just an oppinion and imply that all oppinions are equally – you are buying into social constructionist and progressive claptrap.
“So try again to pigeon hole me”
I take you at your word.
Are you saying you do not mean what you say ?
“and the other more moderate folks on this bloated blog.”
If you do not like the blog you are free to leave.
“You can’t because you like all extremists are befuddled by your inbred tribal minds.”
I offer facts – none of which you have made any effort to rebut – and I am beffuddled ?
You offer naked assertions – things people – mostly on the left beleive without the slightest thought or evidence. But you offer no proof, no evidence, not even argument.
Nothing but appeals to bad authorities, and “because I say so”.
According to nat geo’s DNA analisys, I am significantly Irish, with some scandanavian, and some german, and a bit of askanazi jew – the rumours about my great grandmother are probably true. But we did not find any black, so the rumours about Miscegenation in the welsh mountains are probably not.
Regardless I am not inbred. All you are offering is ad hominem – still not argument.
And I am oh so tribal. Have you ever been to a gathering of libertarians ? Pretty much the oposite of a tribe.
“If you do not like the blog you are free to leave.”
You insufferable boor, how dare you tell me “I am free to leave”.
Who the f—- do you think you are, some self-appointed gate keeper.
“You insufferable boor, how dare you tell me “I am free to leave”.
Who the f—- do you think you are, some self-appointed gate keeper.”
Who am I ? someone who respects the actual freedom of others.
Read your own stupid response. Talk about F’d up meaning.
The only thing I have ever “threatened” you with is choice – the free choices you actually have. Not those you wish you had.
This is the same stupid logic you are using regarding “cheating landlords”.
Anyone who does not have the choices they want, must be being “forced” into something.
In this particular instance I have nor have claimed to have any power over your choices. I have merely noted what they are.
You constantly bitch and moan, I have taken you at your word that you are not happy wiith how things are, and informed you of what you have to be an idiot not to know – that you are not obligated to suffer. That you have free choices.
That they are not the ones you want is your problem, and not one of my making.
You see force where is is not, and do not see it where it is.
As I said you are progressive.
“If you want a definition from me, that would be the belief that you can make the world a better place through the use of force against those who are not using force, not harming others, and keeping their commitments”.
Not even close.
Now give me short, non-rambling definition, if you can. And, please don’t whine that I am “forcing” you.
I am happy with the defintion I provided.
If you do not think that is the defintion of “progressive” – fine.
It still fits you – obviously.
You claim I am using force against you by telling you that you have choices.
Then you demand I define progressive for you.
Then you reject that definition and demand another.
All while not committing yourself to anything.
Whatever that makes you – it is not good.
AMEN!
They left out: Don’t like abortions? Don’t get an abortion.
They also left out
“Don’t like murder, don’t murder anyone!”
While I do not cleanly fall into either pro-choice or pro-life,
unlike you I am able to grasp that there are rights and serious moral issues at the core of abortion.
So you out because I tell you that you have choices – that you are not being forced
And you pretend that telling you that you have choices is the same as force.
And after that you order me to provide you with a different definition of progressive – because you do not like mine.
Does your hypocrisy know any bounds ?
I am fine with the definition I provided.
That defintion fits you well, and even if you wish to pretend that is not the definition of progressive, it is not a definition I would want to fit me well.
As is typical – you bring no facts, no logic, no reason, no actual argument.
At best – you make assertions that you never support.
Even that is rare. Mostly you just spray insults as if they are arguments and make demands.
You are not obligated to make a credible argument – and no one else is obligated to beleive you.
Democrats hoping to capitalize on the purported Republican “war on Women” being out the big guns – Bill and Hillary are hitting the campaign trail.
Are democrats entirely clueless ?
If you think there was anything to capitalize on, any positive grain for democrats in the Kavanaugh hearings democrats would hide the Clintons in the basement and claim to have killed them.
Why when you are trying to sell “believe women” would you put forth HRC who has been slutshaming women with far more credible allegations – even actual rape allegations against Bill.
Why when you are trying to feature Trump and Kavanaugh as the embodiments of misogyny would bring out Bill Clinton ?
Democrats might as well be using Bill Cosby to accuse Trump and Kavanaugh.
II am not sure about Kavanaugh, but there is little doubt that trump is misogynist.
But even if true the allegations against Trump and Kavanaugh fall short of Bill Clinton.
Further We all grasp that Democrats want to go to war, We can fight about who started what incivility. But again – wouldn’t anyone but a political idiot lock the clinton’s in the cellar ?
Are democrats actually trying to lose the midterms ?
Purportedly Trump and the Clinton’s were once freinds.
Is this actually some secret Trump plot to destroy the democratic party ?
If so – why are democrats going along with it ?
A surprising and unanimous decisions from the UK’s highest court.
Since you like CUNY so much here is a study from CUNY that indiates that uber and lyfte have reduced drunk driving fatalities in NYC by 25%.
There are similar studies accross the country.
In portland the effect was 60%
https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=gc_econ_wp
Atlantic article about a very interesting survey or the political views of americans.
I do not presume that because the majority responds some way on a poll that means that is what we should do.
Regardless, this study strongly suggests that Trump won despite the fact that people do not like him, because we do not like what he is fighting against even more.
I also found it interesting that the smallest political group – progressives, was the most homogenous – almost exclusively affluent and whites with advanced college degrees.
My read is that minorities are being exploited – increasingly unsuccessfully by highly educated elite whites.
The 2nd finding – that overwhelming majorities of americans oppose “hate speach”. also shows why we have the near civil war that we have right now.
Those on the right are using our disliike of political correctness to divide voters and people from the left. Those on the left are using “hate speach” to divide voters from the right.
Pushing opposition to political correctness is relatively tame. But trying to use hate speach as a wedge requites at least verbal violence. It requires calling people racist, misogynist – haters. This is a dangerous strategy which can not be sustained.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
There was an interesting interview this morning locally with a lady who has two sons in school. She has been a like long democrat from a family of generations of democrats, but after the judge K fiasco, she said she was now going to vote GOP. She said she believes something happened to Ford, but she also believes it was someone other than K and the way the dems tried railroading him showed her the democrats will believe a woman any time she says sexual abuse. She said she does not want her sons raised in a country where a man is guilty before being proven guilty.
Most all media regurgitates the story that women will vote overwhelmingly for democrats because of the K outcome. I would like to see polling of women for the following demographics….married/single….age….children/no children…….son(s)/daughter(s)/Both son(s) daughter(s)
I suspect the results would be different than what the media is spreading.
The polling I am seeing suggests that the effect of the K confirmation is:
Voters overwhelmingly blame Democrats for the circus
Single women do not thing K should have been confirmed and are more likely to vote Democrat as a result.
Married Women think K should have been confiirmed and are more likely to vote republican.
Men thing K should have been confirmed and are more likely to vote republican.
Which polls are you looking at. Would like to see those.
I thought I linked to some of them in prior posts.
Things move so fast it is hard to go back.
Most of what I find in the way of Polls is from RCP.
If you look there a day or two before my post you might find a poll or a story about a poll
I would further note polls are weird.
I beleiive I noted – 80% of people oppose political correctness, at the same time as 80% of people oppose hate speach.
That is not necescarily a conflict, but it can not be resolved without some explanation.
You can not as an example oppose political correctness AND support LAWS against hate speach – without conflcit.
But you can beleive that it is wrong to make hate speach a crime, AND wrong to say hateful things.
I would further note I take polling with a grain of salt
It is useful to know what others are thinking.
But we should not decide what we do based on polls.
Polls are binary – black white. Peoples views are nuanced – have values.
I though the study on Political correctness and hate speach was interesting.
Here we have two values that are nearly but not quite diametrically opposite, and yet the polling is showing people with logically irreconcilable positions – 80+% opposeing PC and 80% opposing hate speach.
The contradiction is not resolveable, but it diminishes significantly if we weight each of these,
if we look at how strongly people reject political correctness and how strongly they reject hate speach and what they think political correctness and hate speach are.
My point is that polls provide information, but they do not really tell us what decisions people will make – because each point that is polled also has a weight a value.
People do not like Trump, They do not like Clinton – Trump won the election.
Their disapproval of Trump as a single data point was not sufficient to predict the election.
I do nto know what is going to happen in November. I do not think that anyone does.
I think we have seen enough error in polling for 2016 and brexit that there are things the polls are not accurately reading.
It appears near certain that the GOP will hold the senate, they have 49 seats that are locked.
They need to win only 1 seat of those that are not.
It is likely they will gain a very small number of seats – there are too many democratic seats up, and too many of them are in heavily read states.
The house is completely unpredictable.
Trump has republicans making gains amount minorities.
Not huge gains, but still gains.
The democratic claim that republicans must get overwhelming support from whites to win has an obverse – democrats must get overwhelming support from minorities to win.
Small inroads by republicans into minorities are life threatening to democrats.
That is why the vitriole about Candiice Owen’s and Kayne West.
Don’t Walk, Run productions – a pretty conservative YouTuber, that somone on twitter linked to has a bunch of videos “debunking” assorted democrating positions.
He is pretty heavily tilted and some of his “facts” are wrong or do not mean what he claims, and sometimes he makes the same errors he critiicises,
But he has come up with myriads of interesting points.
The “father” who was cruelly deported to mexico, ultimately would have been deported by Obama (and many similar were), further he could have solved his problem anytime from 2006 through 2014. He was married to a US citizen, all he had to to was voluntarily leave for a month, and apply for permanent residency as the spouse of a US citizen and he would have proforma been granted permanent residence status. He completely ignored everything for almost a decade – the Obama administration practically pleaded to get him to leave and apply, but he refused. Once the court finally ordered him deported in 2014 he was pretty much screwed. He will likely now be denied permanent residence because he was convicted of staying here illegally.
Another point he made is that we have seen 2 years of new stories and video about neo nazi’s and the KKK and their violence.
There are 3 times as many members of MS-13 in the US right now, and they are responsible for orders of magnitude more violence than the KKK and alt-right, but we get few stories – because violent illegal aliens do not fit well with the narrative the left press wishes to sell.
The left’s appeal to people is that facts do not matter, it is feelings that matter.
If Dr. Ford made her case emotionally – then Kavanaugh is a rapist.
With the possible exception of Max Boot, the recent democratic debacle over Kavanaugh has unified the GOP – bringing many #nevertrumpers back.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/09/never-trumper-democrats-went-gonzo-kavanaugh-now-hand-red-hat/
The net political effect is still to be determined.
But:
Democratic approval has peaked and is slowly declining.
The democratic edge in the generic ballot is declining.
RCP is still projecting a wash in the senate – because they average polls over a long period, but in most Senate polls repubicans have gained, democrats have lost and in several close races results have flipped. Something siimilar is happening in governors races were democrats should have had large gains, but it looks like those gains will be small.
Significant majorities of people beleive Ford – and Kavanaugh. Further they are very unhappy, and the blame has been placed almost entirely on democrats.
Ivory Tower left elitists have zero credibility.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/10/grievance-studies-academia-fake-feminist-hypatia-mein-kampf-racism-column/1575219002/
The Russians aren’t the only ones with fake Facebook ads: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/technology/fake-news-online-disinformation.html
“On Thursday, Facebook said it had identified 559 pages and 251 accounts run by Americans, many of which amplified false and misleading content in a coordinated fashion. The company said it would remove the pages and accounts. Among them were Right Wing News, which had more than 3.1 million followers, and left-wing pages that included the Resistance and Reverb Press, which had 240,000 and 816,000 followers.”
“Right Wing News also used Facebook ads to spread its content through other Facebook pages. In June, the Daily Vine, an American-run Facebook page linked to Right Wing News, published a Facebook ad for a false story that claimed that 412 Muslim men in Michigan had been arrested in the “largest bust in U.S. history.” (The Department of Justice investigation that the story was based on revealed a network of 412 people involved in opioid-related crimes, but they were neither exclusively Muslim nor based in Michigan.)
Facebook said the ad was paid for by Right Wing News and was allowed according to its rules, which let American citizens and residents place political ads. Though Facebook has since taken down The Daily Vine page, and the ad is no longer running, it was viewed as many as 50,000 times between June 19 and June 20, according to Facebook’s metrics. The Daily Vine could not be reached for comment.
Ms. Martinez said Facebook taking action against Right Wing News and other domestic disinformation networks would stem some of the flow of false content — but only for a little while.
“There is little to stop them from spawning off as a new page, or account, and just starting to build their network again,” she said. “They can just keep trying to get around Facebook’s rules.”
Lefties get in the act also: “The Resistance is a left wing page that Facebook said it would remove.”
Are you desparate to PROVE that the left owns social media executives ?
Why do you beleive this garbage ?
“Facebook said it had identified 559 pages and 251 accounts run by Americans, many of which amplified false and misleading content in a coordinated fashion. The company said it would remove the pages and accounts. ”
So Zuckerberg is now litterally the truth police ?
Are these accounts spreading false and misleading content ?
Near certaily. So has the NYT and WaPo. Are we going to “remove them” ?
Do you understand how free speech works ?
Free spee requires us to allow people to speak, even to LIE.
It is not just about the right of people with offensive views to say what they want.
It is about the right of all of us to have available to us all viewpoints.
We do not have to listen, but no one has deprived us of the ability to listen to any viewpoint that we chose.
You are offended by being called a “progressive” – and yet you argue this total progressive bullshiit ?
The point of Free speech is that each of us as individuals gets to deciide on our own what we wish to beleive is true or false – that neither Mark Zuckerburg nor the government get ro decide what iis true for us.
The fact that you can look positively on this means you have not grasped the significance of pretty much every dysoptian novel ever written.
What is hllarious is that you do this at the same moment that the story breaks that some academics have just reveiled the entire area of grievance studies as a ludicrously stupid sham.
You want to censor some face book accounts that you do not like.
But it iOK for the majority of prestigious social science journals to publish deliberately made up nonsense – because they can not ditunguish it from everything they publiish all the time ?
If you want to play this game – go find ANY clip of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
This is a woman with a college degree in economics who can not do simple math.
It there someone here who thinks that 40% of 330M is over 200M ?
Or that 58M – mostly part time employees and college students is the same as 200M ?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated that over 200M people in the US – 40% of the population earn under 20K/year. That is just one example. Every time she opens her mouth what comes out is trivially wrong.
Should we censor her ? If we are going after the Daily Vine or RWN – shouldn’t we go after similar total garbage from an extremely high profile political candidate ?
I never heard of “the Daily Vine” before, and barely heard of RWN. What do they have 3 people in the country who might have been deceived by them ? Pretty mich every has heard of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez amd has heard something totally completely ludiicrously stupid that she has said – and an enormous portion of people have even bought it.
IF Free speach is so dangerous it must be censored – we should start with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez not some organizations no one has heard of.
Facebook is a private actor and as such is supposed to be free to censor their forum as they please. This is actually false because the DMCA actually requires them to be content neutral and if they are not, they are no longer subject to the DMCA safe harbor provisions.
Put simply Facebook can not be sued for defamation or subject to legal penalties for their content so long as they excercise no editorial control of that content. The moment they do start to pick and choose what they will allow, they are then responsible for what they allow.
I disagree with the DMCA – it is wrong, it should have been found unconstitutional.
But ignoring that – all Facebook engaging in censorship is going to do is prove the conservative claim that facebook and other social media companies are politically biased.
And Oh, using left wing nut logic, the efforts of FB to purge right leaning politcal content would be an illegal campaign contribution.
So Facebook purges the groups that are functioning as watchdogs on law enforcement – and this is your idea of something good ?
Censorship NEVER ends well.
Trump Will Likely Benefit from a Massive New Loophole in the Tax Bill
By Laura Beckerman
October 11, 2018
Last year’s tax reform legislation disproportionately benefits the wealthiest Americans, including President Trump. However, Trump’s ongoing refusal to disclose his tax returns ensures that Americans cannot know the full extent to which the new tax legislation directly benefits Trump. For example, a newly discovered loophole shows Trump could benefit even more than previously known–one that could make some of his foreign income functionally tax-free. The President’s lack of transparency raises questions about his motives for supporting the bill and is yet another reason why presidential candidates and presidents typically disclose their tax returns to the American public.
One of the giveaways to millionaires and billionaires in the Trump tax bill allows shareholders in Subchapter S corporations, also known as “pass-throughs” (because the income passes through the corporation to the shareholder’s income tax return, instead of being taxed separately at the corporate level) to only pay tax on 80% of that income. Not only is this a giveaway to the wealthiest among us, but it will also likely benefit President Trump enormously, as the many entities that fall under the umbrella of The Trump Organization are likely pass-through corporations.
But, another lucrative loophole, one designed precisely for businesses that are organized as pass-throughs and make money abroad, has largely escaped notice. President Trump has numerous foreign-based entities, such as DJ Aerospace Limited incorporated in Bermuda, Turnberry Scotland LLC incorporated in Turnberry, Scotland, TIGL Ireland Enterprises Limited incorporated in Doonbeg, Ireland, and THC Barra Hotelaria TLDA incorporated in Brazil, are likely pass-throughs, which means that this loophole will almost certainly directly benefit him. This new loophole allows shareholders of pass-through entities to pay zero tax indefinitely on their foreign income. This is even more generous than the terms afforded to Subchapter C Corporations, the corporate form commonly used by publicly traded companies, whose income is taxed at the corporate level. Under the new tax bill, C Corporations receive a not-too-stingy eight years to spread out the tax liability for foreign income. Rather than spreading out payment of income tax over eight years, Shareholders of S Corporations pay not a penny in tax on unlimited amounts of foreign income until an indefinite point in the future when the S Corporation dissolves, the S Corporation liquidates substantially all of its assets, or until the shareholder decides to transfer the shares or dies. See 26 U.S.C. 965(i)(1)-(2).
*********Even the death of the shareholder, however, may not trigger payment of tax. The law allows heirs of Subchapter S corporations stockholders to step into the shoes of the taxpayer and continue to defer the tax indefinitely. See 26 U.S.C. 965(i)(2)(C). Furthermore, it is not clear whether the IRS can even assess the tax to the shareholder until the S Corporation dissolves, liquidates its assets, or the shares are transferred.”******
Here that Trump kids, your dad is as “smart” as your granddad Fred.
Trump is 72. According to Forbes he is worth 3.1B. If he lived another 20 years.
and earned nothing more, no interest, no other income, he would have to spend 295,000 per second to spend all of his money before he died.
250 years ago Adam Smith came to the realiization that most of the rich have more money than they could possibly spend by far. That their efforts do nothing more than benefit others, no matter what they might want.
Gates, Bezo’s, Buffet, Trump – all of the super rich have their wealth invested – where iit produces jobs, goods and services for the rest of us.
You keep claiming you are not a progressive – yet pretty much every argument you make is progressive.
I do not give a damn about Trump’s money. I am not so stupid that I beleive that whatever he has somehow comes at my expense. I am smart enough to grasp that the opposite is true.
Money exists for one of two reasons – because we have produced more actual wealth – in which case you should be looking at who has that wealth, they are the ones who benefited,
Or from inflation, which is just government making your money worthless.
The only real value to money is its ability to be exchanged for wealth.
If you do not want “loopholes”, that is easily accomplished – impose a flat tax. Everyone pays the same rate, no loopholes, no deductions, no exceptions, no government subsidies.
Are you actually so stupid as to think that Trump wrote the tax bill ?
Have you heard of this thing we have in the US called “congress” ?
You bemoan Trump’s “lack of Transparency” – certainly our government should be more transparent. But the “loopholes” you cite are the consequence of legislation passed by congress that was debated publicly by congressional committes for months, that was published for more than a week, that was publicly voted on.
What is your idea of Transparency ?
Subchapter S corporations have existed for more than a century.
They have never been taxed.
In fact no form of business except a subchapter C corp has every paid taxes.
Small businesses are not taxed, S corps are not taxed, llc’s are not taxed, llp’s are not taxed.
Partnerships are not taxed, sole proprieterships are not taxed.
But the profits of each of these are ALL taxable income to whoever owns those businesses.
That is not new.
That too is actually a serious mistake. The profits of businesses should NEVER be taxed – until they are actually transfered to people.
The recent tax reform also PARTLY fixes some of the stupidest aspects of US tax law – the foreign business idiocy you reference.
The jurisdiction of the US – including the IRS is the teritory of the US.
We are not the government of the world.
If you sell croissants in France – any profits you make are taxable by the French.
Of all the countries in the world ONLY the US is so stupid as to tax foreign income.
That iis income some other country has already taxed.
Why would we do such a stupid thing ? If Apple has made 80B dollars selling iPhones elsewhere in the world – shouldn’t the US want to encourage Apple to bring that money back to the US where it can create new jobs and investment ?
Or should we have high taxes on foreign income – which we can not tax until that money returns to the US – because we have zero sovereigniity in foreign countries ?
Or worse should we encouage US businesses to move out of the US so that they are not subject to US taxes at all ?
How is it that Trump or any other rich person will benefit from even more money they will never spend on themselves.
Bezos has essentially bailed out the Washington Post – Would you rather it folded ?
He is spending Billions on Blue Origin. Is he benefiting personally from that ?
The objective is to create WEALTH not MONEY.
The primary purpose of money is to aquire personal wealth.
Anything else benefits someone else.
Lets make this simple.
There are many ways to fund government. Many ways to tax.
ALL are economically destructive. Therefore to reach the highest standard of living the spending and therefore taxes of government should be as low as possible.
No matter how you tax, no matter who you tax we are all poorer when those taxes reduce standard of living rather than increase it – the greatest benefit to all occurs with government spending greater than 0 but less than 20% of all production.
Again all taxes reduce standard of living.
However you tax – there should be only one form of tax.
If you separately tax income and sales, you create double taxation – that means you create artiificial incentives to act on specific ways solely because of taxes.
That inherently reduces standard of living.
All taxes are not equal.
The most economically harmful taxes are taxes on capital. That is ALL business taxes of any kind and that is all upper margin taxes on wealthy people
This is NOT about “fair shares” or what you wish. It is about how taxes work.
Taxes on Capiital harm EVERYONE, and they harm those NOT RICH more than they harm the rich.
The least economically harmful form of taxation is consumptions taxes – sales taxes.
That does nto make them good – all taxes are bad. Sales taxes are the most regressive form of taxes – they burden the poor more than anyone else.
But depite that the budren the economy the least and therefore standard of living rises the fastest for ALL.
If I were god. If I had written the laws of economics and human behavior. I might have done so differently.
But this IS how things actually work. Ranting that “it is not fair” is stupid. Fair or not we are all better off with the tax arrangements that the left likes the least, that appear to be the most “unfair”
You pretend there is some special treatment for SubChapter S corps in estates.
There is not. Income is taxable when it becomes the income of a person.
Assets – things that people inherit are not taxed – because they have already been taxed ONCE.
If an estate stays arround for a long time – then it is inherently the same as a trust.
Regardless, while it exists if it has income, it is obligated to pay taxes on that income.
When the already taxed assets of an estate are distributed they are not taxes.
One of the things the left and Trump agree on is that foreign enemies lurk all arround us.
And yet both are wrong in dealing with them.
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/10/12/washington_really_needs_fredric_bastiat_right_now_103446.html
Kaitlin Bennet – the female reporter in this story is a Conservative 2nd amendment advocate she was interviewing protestors at a Trump Rally.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-dems-tired-of-all-the-losing-you-should-be-20181010-story.html
Who cares? It’s not yet clear. But if any substantial fraction of Swift’s 112 million Instagram followers does care — yes, I said 112 million — and acts on her advice, we could see a real impact on Nov. 6. Swift’s audience is young; I don’t have any data, but I wouldn’t be surprised if their average age were roughly “22.”
You have lost the thread so I do not know what this is in response to.
Whoever Swift is 112M people is 1/3 of the US, it is nearly ever voter in 2016, it is more people than exist in the country under 30 and this is for someone I have not heard of on a platform that is 2nd tier.
There are not that many Trump haters in the entire country.
“I do not have any data” – what is new – you never do, about anything.
The “fun” president: “The President says a lot of things,” Kudlow told reporters on the drive outside the White House, where Trump’s advisers are often found in the mornings, cleaning up this or that remark from the President. “He has a lot of fun.”
And here, we have the “funny” commenter/poster.
Near everyone in the planet aggrees that Trump’s tweets should be more reserved.
Of course I can make a long list of people I used to respect from the left that the exact same could be said of.
Trump was wrong when during the campaign he suggested at a rally that he might pay the legal fees of any supporters who got into fights with hecklers.
Too my knowledge that is the closest to “inciting to violence” Trump has gotten.
Any violence or actual conflict at Trump ralliies is from heckler’s.
That is generally true of those on the right – even the ones I do not like.
The alt-right groups at Charlottesviille stayed within police lines. The counter protestors crossed them to engage in violence.
There was no actual violence from the right during Tea Party Ralliies – they actually cleaned the DC mall as they left OWS was belligerent and violent even among themselves and left excrement and dirty needles. The cleanup around the ICE building that is the epicenter of the anarchy in portland iis going to be expensive.
When is the last time a republican shot a bunch of democratic congressmen ?
Find me a Republican Senator calling a judge evil ?
Find anything from a republican equivalent to the speeches, tweets, on the record remarks of leading democrats.
Maxine Waters, Cory Booker and now Hillary Clinton are not Fred Phleps – and I do not recall even him calling for actual violence – he expected God to do that for him.
When EVER have republicans harassed democrats at restaurants ?
At their homes ? In the middle of the night ?
When has a republican leader called for doing that ?
When has any republican protest group burst through police barriers ?
This is what happens when you have no moral foundation.
When your concept of right and wrong rests in feelings, not reason.
There is alot wrong with the right – but the only people listening on to those on the left are those on the left.
The media spent yesterday frothing about Kayne West. I heard black talking heads saying dozens of things about a black man on national TV that any republican would have been “lynched” for doing – yet the media did not even notice their own hypocrisy.
It is a crime for a black man to like Trump and speak out.
I do not personally put stock in celebrty political oppinions. I expect no more political cohenerce from Kayne than I do from Meryl Streep – I do not like his music and I love her films. Neither makes much sense talking politics – but they are free to do so.
The media only finds it necescary to defame one of them.
You are not going to make progress bemoaning Trump’s uncouth speach so long as the much of the media is not merely biased but a fully owned wing of the DNC.
The other big debate was whether people who broke through multiple police lines, ripped up the signs of protestors who disagreed with them, chased senators and representatives into their offices and stalked them in the corridors of the capital, chased people into restaurants, were merely protesting or whether they were an “angry mob”
We have seen these things before – the Nazi’s staged riots. As did the Bolsheviks
Is that were this ends ?
Republican violence is EXPLICIT
That is the best you can do ? A local republican candidate ?
Did you actually watch the video ? Wagner was perfectly clear he was speaking metaphorically – listen to the whole video. It is quite clearly NOT an explicit threat, nor a call to violence. Still the language was wrong and he should not have used it.
Regardless, this IS where things are going and once again it is democrats dragging us there.
Wagner is republican and wrong – but republicans will ultimately echo democrats.
Violence begets violence.
“If Our Opponents Bring Knife to a Fight, ‘We Bring a Gun'”
That would be the democrtic president EXPLIICTLY threatening those who cross him – atleast using your meaning of “explicit, more importantly iit was a call to violence.
Wagner called others to VOTE, Obama was calling others to bring a gun.
TEN YEARS AGO.
How many times TEN YEARS AGO was Sarah Palin “burned in effigy”, or “Lynched” ?
Certainly you can find stupid things said by both parties – I am sure you can find some republican city counselman who has said something stupid.
But we are talking a democratic president, senators, congressmen, Attorney General’s, DNC chairs,
About the only sane Democrat at the moment seems to be Michelle Obama.
I do not care that much about the rhetorical violence. I think that the language of Holder, Obama, Booker, Waters and Wagner is self punishing.
That does not mean I will not call attention to those making fools of themselves, nor note that it is and has for a long long time been democrats.
Have prominent republican comics choreographed beheading a democratic president ? Or called him a “cock holster for putin” ? Have prominent republicans in the entertainment industries publicly mused about assassinating a democratic president ?
The left and the media do not even blink at that.
You do not even understand that it is immoral.
What I am concerned about is that more actual violence is coming.
Democrats are desperate and are going to continue to escalate.
Nor will this remain mostly one sided forever.
“he was speaking metaphorically”
So am I when I say Death to the GOP.
I am not looking to defend Wagner. He is an idiot who is going to manage to lose badly to a highly unpopular democratic governor in a state Trump won.
Regardless, Wagner was engaged in nothing different from Boxers preparing for a match – or are you going to condemn Ali ?
This is also little different from Trumps attack’s on the press.
I do not care if Sienma says she is going to wipe the floor with McSally
I might prefer different language.
But Wagner did NOT tall republicans to actually go out and stomp on Wolf’s face.
Trump did NOT actually tell people at Trump rallies to beat up hecklers.
He did however say that he longed for the old days when someone who came in and stated hitting others left on a stretcher.
The remarks of democrats are in myriads of ways different.
I personally beleive that free speach should be absolute – that even incitement to violence should not be a crime.
That does NOT however mean I think it is moral.
If you label someone else as evil – you had better be able to demonstrate that is true.
If you facilitate actual violence against others who are not themselves engaged in actual violence – you are morally repugnant.
When you talk about killing someone – and you actually mean you wish to kill them – rather than legitimately defeat them in some conflict such as politics, then you are immoral.
Recently the addresses and cell phones of several republican senators were “leaked” and published resulting in increased threats and actual violence.
No democrats has condemned that.
There has been some investigation – and it is clear this information was posted by democratic staffers in the house of representatives.
I beleive that Since Trump’s election – more democratic operatives have been arrested and prosecuted for things like leaking classified information than anything Mueller has managed.
Glenn Simpson is taking the 5th and refusing to testify.
Rosenstein refuses to tell congress the same things he Told Trump about his involvement in wiretapping the president, despite the fact that Trump has said he should do so, that even saying so publicly not under oath would be fine.
“Any violence or actual conflict at Trump ralliies is from heckler’s.”
What about Dickhead Donald’s suggestive call to violence against a single heckler:
“You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out in a stretcher, folks,” he said after a protester interrupted a Las Vegas rally in February 2016. “I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell ya.”
Yes, Trump threatened a heckler, once.
Here is the actual video of Trump’s remarks.
This was a person who was being removed for punching other people.
If you actually listen to the entirety of Trump’s remarks.
He says – they can punch us – but we can’t fight back.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/23/donald-trump-nevada-caucus-republican-cruz-rubio
“Find me a Republican Senator calling a judge evil ?”
Find me another President in the last 100 years calling a judge incompetent to hear a case because of his ethnic heritage, as DunderHead Donald did to Judge Curial.
Trump was not president at the time.
Regardless, still apples to oranges.
We have to listen to you and the left conflate Trump with Hilter and Nazi’s all the time.
Even the 2016 remarks you cited – are NOT what you claim.
Trump longed to be able to FIGHT BACK against a violent heckler.
That is the problem with your entire garbage.
In your world it is OK for people to be violent against those you do not like.
It is not OK for people to defend themselves.
Dave, no one will ever be able to debate with the left the merits of K’s confirmation because they know deep down Feinstein was the bad guy in this issue. They have to make K the bad guy because they need a bad guy and he is their chosen target. Its all about the election.
So if Feinstein (SF) had taken Ford’s (F) letter to Grassley (G) and given this info to the rest of the committee, then all could have received FBI report. SF would have received info if F’s claim had merit ir not. G could have shared info with Trump. All could have had private meetings with K. If anything showed he did this, then his nomination could have been pulled. Had it not shown anything other than unsubstantiated claims, then it would not have been part of the official committee hearings.
But that is not good politics. In an era where a man is guilty if the woman says he is guilty without corroborating evidence or witness, good politics demands underhanded actions to make someone the person to lynch so it becomes an election year issue.
Now the argument will be that she was asked not to share the letter. The left claims this and S claims she did not leak it to the press, so she shared it with someone. And if she did. then she violated F’s request. If she did not, then she leaked it with or without F’s permission.
I coached my daughters soccer teams until they started playing for their high school and stopped playing club soccer. I have said a number of times in the past couple years there would be no way in hell that I, an adult male, would ever coach females in this era of ” he did it he is guilty” mental environment. The risk far exceed the rewards today that did not exist just a few years ago (90”s).
Did Trump call for violence against Curial ?
He asked a Judge who was a member of a Hispanic organization that has in the past engaged in violence and is overtly racist – you do know what “La Razza” means ?
To recuse himself.
There was nothing wrong with that request.
It was politically stupid, and not going to happen.
“When has any republican protest group burst through police barriers ?”
Five pro-life supporters were found guilty In January of trespassing and interfering with police at an abortion clinic in West Bloomfield.
And this: “NEW YORK (AP) — America’s abortion clinics experienced a major upsurge in trespassing, obstruction and blockades by anti-abortion activists in 2017, according to an annual survey by an industry group.
The National Abortion Federation report chronicled a litany of actions that ranged from coordinated trespassing efforts by abortion opponents, repeated brick-throwing at windows of a Cleveland clinic and an attempted bombing in Illinois.”
Please don’t be disingenuously Dopey enough to suggest they weren’t GOP protestors
Or that Alt Right violent loonies like James Field who rammed his car into protestors in Charlottesville, killing one of them, are not Trumpanzee GOPers.
“Five pro-life supporters were found guilty In January of trespassing and interfering with police at an abortion clinic in West Bloomfield.”
I know they are increasingly rare – as democrats have chased them out of the party – but pro-life does NOT mean republcan.
Pro-lifers are more likely to be catholic than anything else, and again until recently catholics were overwhelmingly democrats.
As to your annual survey – NYC also reported a huge surge in hate crime reports iin 2017.
Interestingly – the number of successful hate crime prosecutions had a very small increase – why ? Because there was a huge increase in false reports.
We have seen this throughout the country since Trump was elected.
There has NOT been some massive increase in riight wingbuts doing rascist hateful things.
There has been a massive increase in left wing nuts trying to make it appear as if right wiing nuts are doing racist hateful things.
I specifically asked you about politics.
But then as a left wing nut you believe EVERYTHING is about politics.
Abortion is an extremely difficult – possibly unanswerable moral question that politicians have stupidly involved themselves in.
There is an answer to the question whether human life begins at conception.
I do not know that answer.
You do not know that answer.
Just like what are the origins of the universe – we can only speculate.
But that does not alter the fact that there is an actual answer.
One side of the abortion debate (or possibly both) is with near certainty WRONG.
We may not know which, but that is still true no matter what.
Though I do find your jump to abortion quite interesting.
The virulence with with the left is responding to Trump is pretty much EXACTLY how pro-life groups respond to abortion.
Some at the extremes – such as Eric Rudolph are willing to kill – violating their own purported principles. A slightly larger group are willing to picket – even get arrested – to trespass, to cross police lines.
Though I would note that few of these are doxxing pregnant women, following them to their homes and protesting.
Or do you not recognize a difference between picketing a business you do not like – such as PP and pro-lifers, and doxing people and pickettiing their homes ?
I would further note that pro-life groups – particularly catholic pro-life groups, and particularly those protesting at your abortion clinics – are also protesting at executions.
That makes them pretty far from the republican mainstream.
I believe the last time nuns and other pro life groups protested in front of the supreme court – they were physically attacked by pro-choice groups.
You are correct – democrats have tried to purge pro-lifers from their party.
Apparently less successfully than I had thought.
https://www.democratsforlife.org/
Regardless, you are talking about a relatively stable conflict that has existed in US politics for decades that iis not particularly changing. Even Kavanaugh is unlikely to significiantly change abortion in America.
James Fields – you mean the schizophrenic ?
There is no fundimental difference between Fields, and most of the school shooters – except possibly one thing. It is hiighly unlikely that Holmes planned anything.
He was a mentally unhealthy person attracted to fringe groups who found himself being teargassed and pissed on and having rocks thrown at him and like paranoids tend to do he whigged out.
As has been demonstrated here repeatedly – he did not actually kill anyone. Heyer was not struck by his car – though others were.
At worst he scared her to death – just as those in antifa scared the crap out of him.
I would note that but for Heyer’s death which raised emotion over fact, the story of Charlottesville would have been quite diifferent.
It would have been of left wing groups breaking through police barriers to mace, piss on, and throw rocks at people they hate.
It would have been about the state goverenor, and city government that ordered the police to stand down and leave the marchers unprotected.
It would have been about the state and local government that forced the markers to run an antifa gauntlet TWICE
All of that happened BEFORE fields whigged out.
So how many right wingers were throwiing stones, piss or mace at those who broke through the police lines at the supreme court or the capital ?
How many right wingers were physcially pummeling Hodgkins before he opened fiire on republicans ?
How many republiicans had physically assaulted Madona or Johnny Depp before they publicly fanatsiized about assassination ? Do you think that if anyone had made the same remarks about Obama they would not be in jail ?
How many republicans maced Sen. Booker or Waters or Holder before their remarkers ?
We have a long hiistory of leftist political violence in the US dating back to the SLA, the Weatherunderground, The SDS,
That would be ignoring the leftist violence throughout the world in the 20th century
All predating what is going on today.
You used pro-life protestors at an abortion clinic – who were primarily engaged in civil disobedience not violence.
Did McConnell suggest they engage in violence ? Ryan ?
The fish rots from the head, whatever the stench emanating from Trump – it does not compare to the the left.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/37068/our-attack-merely-beginning-antifa-vandalizes-nyc-hank-berrien
Salena Zito – not a Trump fan but a reporter willing to venture outside the blue bubble and find out what people outside the bubble were thinking has reported:
The anxiety, the fear, the conflict is confined entirely within the blue bubble.
That out in flyover country – even democrats manage to get along with their neighbors.
That people outside the blue enclaves regardless of party are substantially more capable of talking with each other – even about politics.
RCP now has Republicans clearly holding the Senate with 50 seats counting every race where republicans are ahead by 8pts or more.
And is currently predicting a GOP pickup of 1 senate seat if there are no tossups.
Following reports from Turkey, which seem to be accurate, of the Torture and murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate in Turkey, Trump, signaling his stance on the matter, remarked he doubted the US would do much about it: The Saudi’s are spending billions of dollars on US military hardware, and the Trump Hotels in their country are really profitable – so why make waves.
All the members of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, feel differently (but one: hint: a 5’8” faux libertarian) They have moved to hold Saudi Arabia accountable under the Global Magnitsky Act, which gives the president the legal authority to institute a travel ban and asset freeze on human rights violators in any country.
All those who believe Trump won’t squirm out of anything but a cosmetic scolding, raise your hands.
Jay what the hell are you talking about? Do you really want us getting involved with an issue between two countries that we have questionable relationships with? Can we afford to risked military bases in Turkey or SA? Should we support Turkey which has almost become a dictatorship or SA that supports other terroristic actions?
Are you really saying we should stick our nose into this? Haven’t we done enough of that crap already?
How about SA and Turkey settling their own diplomatic problems!
Too late? Coincidence or maneuvering between us and our so-called friends
Turkey- sleaze and Saudis- very rich murderers.
NYT: Mr. Brunson’s release coincided with the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident and journalist who was a columnist for The Washington Post, inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Turkish officials say they have video and audio evidence that Mr. Khashoggi, a United States resident, was killed, and his case may have led Turkey to seek to repair relations with Washington to secure its help in confronting Saudi Arabia, analysts said.”
Ron’s post on this was excellent.
But “Argh Trump!”.
Pretty much no matter what is done – The left will blame Trump.
Mr. Khashoggi is a US resident – he is not a citizen. He is a darling of the left at the moment – because the left has not seen a radical muslim they do not fawn over.
That is not a justification for what PROBABLY happened to him.
But it is also not a justification for the US to get into this.
I hope Trump is smart enough to stay away from this mess.
Everything about Kossoghi is disturbing.
IF something evil was done to him by the Saudi’s and that seems likely – that is pretty bad.
Even in the unlikely event the Saudi’s did nothing – SA is incredibly far from sainthood.
And our current relationship is wierd. The current regime is the most enlightened regime in SA in my lifetime – by a long shot. But that does nto make them good people.
Throughout the Mideast it is impossible to find any country that meets western standards of decency. Even Israel only looks good in comparison to those who surround it and would destroy it.
Then we have Kossoghi himself – while he is clearly at odds with Saudi Rulers, he is also an advocate for the muslim brotherhood.
Then we are getting much of our information from Erodegan in Turkey.
While it is likely what Turkey is providing is true, We are not talking about white nights here.
The Saudi’s are doing bad things to their own people – but less bad than they were in the past. They are also actively engaged in a civil war in Yemen that is horrifiic.
So is Iran.
Trump (probably Kushner) got Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel last march.
That is enormous and will have positive consequences in the mideast for decades to come.
So what exactly is it you suggest we do ?
I do not BTW have the answers. My advice would be for Trump to stick to his campaign promises – he has defeated ISIS, now we should get out of anything where we have no national interests – that means Afghanistan.
Further the US GOVERNMENT should get out of the arms business.
If US companies wish to sell weapons or anything else to countries that are not currently actiively our enemies – let them. They can also take the public political flack for doing so.
Where was all the rage when thi happened on American soil?
https://qz.com/985439/watch-turkish-leader-recep-tayyip-erdogans-bodyguards-beat-up-protestors-in-washington-dc-after-meeting-with-trump/
Erdogan is a thug and he has done plenty of harm to people that speak out against him.
Has someone here defended Erdogan ?
One of the problems with the Khossaggi story iis that siignificant parts caome from Erdogan.
“The Trump administration is considering a new family separation policy. Stephen Miller is determined to act, arguing that separating kids from their parents deters illegal border crossings. ”
Metaphorically speaking, Fuck Trump up the rump
I am not going to comment on a policy without actually knowing it.
But I can ask you some things:
Do you want open borders or do you wish to have some limits to immigration ?
If you actually want open borders – then you are very libertarian – even most libertarians do not, certaintly republicans and democrats don’t.
Regardless, if that is what you want, then you are hoinf to have to be open to discussing how to deal with the consequences of that.
I doubt that you do – so there is ltte reason to discus that further with you.
Assuming you do not want unlimited immigration, then you need to discuss what the limits are.
No one on the left has any willingness to have that discussion. That is both hypocritical and immoral.
Presuming that you do not want limitless immigration, then you are going to have to accept that incentivizing immigration from those you do not intend to let in is just plain stupid.
Miller is saying that he wants to stop families with children from trying to cross our borders illegally. Frankly most of us probably think that dragging your children 1000 miles subjecting them to drug dealers MS-13, Coyotes and the trials of hostile nature is pretty irresponsible for an adult today.
If you were a US citizen and subjected your kids to that – you would lose them.
I would further note that though we should treat illegal immigrants humanely – if we are not just going to let them in, at the same time it is actually stupid and cruel to give them hope – if there is no hope, to prolong their departure if they are not going to be able to stay, to make being apprehended crossing the border attractive.
Whatever you incentivize – you will get more of.
I am not going to comment on specific immigration polices that have no details and may or may not occur.
But generally – if we are not going to allow these people into the country – we should get rid of them quickly and in as unpleasant a fashion as we can still do humanely. As it is inhumane to give them false hope or to incentivize their actions.
There is a small group that wants to reduce all immigration, a small group that want open borders and a large group that want immigration reform. I tried finding any info specific to those questions, but it is not present when I do search. Looking at other polls shows that buried in other questions.
What we get from Washington is NOTHING! What we need is immigration reform. It is my understanding that there are limits on total immigrants and per country immigrants. Those should be removed or drastically changed. If we need construction workers or computer nerds, then that should have more influence on immigration than random limits by country. Then if the reforms make entry easier for those we need, the law should also become stronger against those entering illegally.
But doing something takes away an election issue. There is no way Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Shumer will ever ALLOW their members to vote for immigration reform. They want that front and center, at least until 2020 election is over. And the Trump haters can keep attacking him on his immigration policies because it is good politics.
And that goes for any key issue, not just immigration if it is an issue that makes a difference in votes.
Ron;
Mostly am not interested in the demographics of the politics of immigration – though there is an enormous portion of the country that would be happy to make any of the “deals” the republiicans have offered.
The one thing the Republicans have going for them is that most people really do want RULES. They do not want arbitrary chaos – which is really what the democrats offer.
My expectation is that right or left – if you have a position on immigration that you can rationally explain and defend it.
Not as some hodgepodge collection – but an actually cohesive position on immigration.
If you wish to ACTUALLY support open immigration – do so OPENLY, and then be prepared to defend it. Be prepared to explain how you are going to make the rest of our system work with what would likely be 100M new immigrants in less than a decade.
If you are not prepared to do that – then you are just thoughtlessly spouting some religious beleifs you picked up from your political cult.
My personal position is something very close to “open boarders” and I AM prepared to defend that. AND to make the other changes necescary.
At the same time – that is NOT going to happen politically. Nor is anything close to it.
I keep getting accused of being some kind of rigid ideologue – yet I am the one trying to work out an alternative to what I think it is the morally, and practically right approach – open borders, and to weigh the lessor options.
If you are not going for “open borders” – you have already accepted that immigration is going to require DISCRIMINATION.
If we will not accept everyone – we are going to have to say NO to some.
Who are you going to let in. Who are you going to say no to.
How many are you going to let in.
How difficult are you going to make getting in.
How are you going to deal with those who you are not going to let in, who are still going to find their way in anyway. In every arrangement by which you say no to some, Those you say no to are going to try to get in illegally – how are you planning to deal with that.
If you have not considered and ANSWERED these and other related questions – then you have not thought much about immigration and your opinion has little value.
I do not agree with Trump and republicans on immigration.
BUT to a large extent they have answered all my questions.
That means it is possible to discuss, debate, negotiate on those items that are most important to me.
The other aspect of the republican position is that they are striving towards something workable – towards a position consistent with the rule of law.
Democrats have no real position. They claim not to be for open borders – but all their positions on immigration boil down to “lets let in those who we respond to emotionally”
If that is your position – those who want in are going to get very good at plucking your heart strings.
If you announce that we are going to favor families with children – the border will get flooded with families with children. If you are going to favor unaccompanied children – you will near instantly see 100’s of thousands of unaccompanied adults. We saw this during the Obama administration where even hints that policy changes were being considered resulted in surges in those who might qualify under the new policies.
Right now we rant over “child separation” – yet in many instances we no very little about these “families” crossing our borders. The lefts “poster child” from the last “spat” turns out to be a child that was taken from her father who had custody without his permission.
In many instances these are not “families” these are near random collections of adults and children constructed to appear to be a family.
Further, why does one drag their children thousands of miles to cross the US border – subject them to drug dealers, violence, sexual assault, deserts, lack of food, or water ?
Is that responsible parenting ? Any US parent who did that would have their children removed from them. Yet we bemoan child separation ?
All or nearly all US immigrants are “economic immigrants”. They are not fleaing real violence or repressive regimes – not that the places they are fleeing are paragon’s of modern civilization.
That is not to be scoffed at – we should WANT those who have faced great hardship to get here to make a better life for themselves.
But we should not pretend these are victims of something.
They are at most victims of luck – they were not born in the US. That is all.
Regardless, immigration requires making tough choices – if you want open borders you have to be prepared to sacrifice the “safety net” or atleast severely restrict it.
That is a “tough choice”.
If you can not do that – then you have other tough choices.
Just constantly wearing your heart on your sleeves and bemoaning the poster child of the moment who can not get in means that you are not capable of reason.
And I am not interested in your viewpoint.
Well I have not thought completely through with all of what I would propose in an immigration reform bill since I have little doubt it would ever happen. You take away a major campaign issue.
But the three things I have a position on.
1. Anyone raised in America stays in America. They are more American than our last president was when he was in his 30’s since he was a foreign raised American citizen just because he had a birth certificate. He was American for about 15 years, they are American for 25-30+ years.
2.We need to look at needs based immigration and what professions coming to America benefit America.
3. If you have few restrictions, how do we address the welfare issues of those without work skills, language barriers and health issues? When economic downturns occur, who supports immigrants that cant support themselves.
And then we have the issues with language.Do we make all agencies provide services in English, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, French, German, etc or can we require immigrants to learn our language like immigrants from the early 1900’s did because they were proud to be in America.(As stated by my grandfather from Sweden many years ago)
Immigration reform is not going to happen because democrats have ZERO interest in actually making tough choices. They want chaos in immigration. They do not even want open borders.
This is why reform was not possible when democrats were in power. You will never get a reform bill that democrats will agree among themselves on.
Much less with republicans.
So long as there is chaos, the left will always be able to find some group to champion.
And that is what the left is after – to be able to hold this group or that and bemoan heartless republicans. Immigration is not a problem to be addressed for the left, it iis a political weapon that does not exist iif the problem is resolved.
I’m pretty much in agreement with everything you said, Ron.
And you’re right, neither party will seek a ‘moderate’ solution to the problem.
There isn’t a “moderate” solution.
There a bunch of overall choices – each of which has a very real cost that you can not pretend away.
You can not do that if you are on the left, the right or the middle.
You want open borders ? Then you are either going to fail as a nation or you will have to triage the safety net. Those can not coexist – without moving the problem of iiscriminating against people to citizenship or the safetynet.
If you back down from open borders – you are going to have to make other choices – discriminate.
The left is unable to address immigration because it does nto want to solve the problem – party because they think it is politial leverage and partly because it forces the left to confront a core ideological failure.
As to right, or center or whatever. There are infinite choices from open borders to Xenophobia. Most if not all can not work, but the failures of most are small and probably can be tolerated for a long time.
Regardless, there is no “correct choice”, nor even a choice that is inherently morally superior.
Agree, Turkey sucks, Saudis suck (9/11 assisters).
Both should be condemned when they do wrong. But this act by the Saudi’s is abominable: luring, murdering someone inside a facility that has diplomatic immunity.
But Trump will let it slide. Could this be why Nikki resigned? She & Trump was informed the day it happened, and she was told ‘so what’?
So what! That’s between the Saudis and Turks.
We do not actually know what has occurred.
We have good reason to believe Khoggi entered the Saudi Embassy, but not certainty.
We have some reason to believe he was tortured and killed – but the source of that information is Erdogan – not a reliable source.
Finally, though this does not justify murder. Khoggi was a Saudi. He did NOT have immunity.
He was also a US Person – NOT a US Citizen – our responsibilities for US person’s not Citizens outside the US and inside that of the country of their citizenship is near non-existent.
If this is true – which is likely – it should be condemned. But there is little more that we can or should do.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/jamal-khashoggi-disappearance-means/Keep this in mind: defending Trump paints you in a corner, as morally corrup.
Your link keeps taking me to an article in 2009 about Planned Parenthood funding.
“Keep this in mind: defending Trump paints you in a corner, as morally corrup.”
Absolutely and obviously FALSE.
I am prepared to defend the civil rights of Hitler or Pol Pot.
I am prepared to defend Mao Zedong – when he is actually right.
It is never immoral to defend what is right, or what is true, even when it is offered by someone who is actually evil much less someone who is merely wrong sometimes.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/witches-ritual-hex-brett-kavanaugh_us_5bc0efaae4b0bd9ed559feff
This has absolutely nothing to do with anything we are discussing.
And at the same time absolutely everything.
Haidt on the problem with identity politics.
Good, and short.
This is very very good. Every few minutes Haidt makes an excellent point every few minutes – too many to count. But well worth listening to.
Even more from Haidt
One of his most interesting observations is towards the end.
Who benefits from the modern culture of political correct victimhood ?
SWM – Straight White Men – because they are the only group denied safe spaces, the only group that has to survive in an adverse and hostile environment, they are the only group that is going to get stronger rather than weaker.
The SJW culture harms those it seeks to help and empowers those it seeks to destroy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H20jwYq8WI
IBD tends to lean republican. But I found this article quite interesting.
It also ties with what Salena Zito has been saying – that the view from inside the blue bubble is quite different from that of the rest of the country.
Zito’s bubble is mostly geographic – red state Democrats are not “drinking the coolaide”
But IBD is essentially postulating that the leftists that control the democratic party and much of the media are disconnected from the rest of the country.
It should be self evident even from comments here that there are competing views of the world. That those on the left see the world one very specific way while the rest of us – not necessarily in agreement with each other, are still not seeing that same very specific world of the leftist democrats.
Read the comments here and elsewhere or listen to the media. This iis not really about two different competing world views. Those of us not on the left do NOT see the world the same from person to person. But equally important we grasp and understand that others do not see the world as we do. We not only see our own world, but we have some capaciity for trying to see that of others – including to some extent that of leftst democrats.
But the converse is not True As the IBD article notes, the Kavanaugh fight appears to have been a badly timed strategic blunder, The left presumed the rape allegations would provide a wedge issue that would separate some women and some moderates from the GOP. And if you listened to the left and the media you would beleiive that was true, that was what has happened. But Republican voter enthusiasm has risen significantly and is now either stable or rising. While democrats peaked and appear to be in a significant decline.
It is likely that the games regarding Kavanaugh had ZERO effect on the democratic base.
And ZERO effect on the republican base. But each parties base is less than 1/2 of their voters. That leaves an enormous number of voters both democrats republicans and independents outside either parties base. Indications are the net effect of the Kavanaugh circus on them was negative for democrats.
Things could still change before the election – and polls are notorious for underestimating the strength of republicans. Further in pretty much all elections republicans gain strength from September through the election. If elections were held in July or August Republicans would always lose.
But even if my crystal ball proves wrong. Zito’s observations and the slightly more partisan ones of IBD are still correct. Left Democrats and the media are disconnected from the people outside there own narrow base. They may on occasion reach them. But they do not know them. They do not understand them, They are barely cognizant of their existance.
Whether it is HRC’s deplorables remarks or Page’s remark that Clinton should win 100M:0
The left’s perception that people who think like them even exist is shallow.
Yes, the left knows some people vote republican. But they are completely unable to understand why. Therefore they have to make up these stupid claims like Raciism, or Russian interferance, or mysogyny or Wolf Whistles or fake news on FB.
It is not that there is absolutely zero evidence that these delusional reasons exist. It is the left is incapable of getting past that mostly they are noise. That as Cassius said “The flaw is in ourselves and not our stars”
The left lost in 2016 because voters rejected the left. Absolutely it was a narrow thing. Absolutely if any of a dozen things had not happened – it could have gone the other way.
But the left is not capable of seeing that if any of another dozen things had not happened it could have been a Trump landslide. Trump came within a small number of votes of winning the entire rust belt. And fairly close to adding NH and NV to his win column.
But I am not posting specifically about the election – that is just the example.
The fact is the left – more than any of the rest of us (and we all have this problem) is incabable of seeing any views but its own.
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/kavanaugh-confirmation-midterm-election/
For those of you fixated on the “Trump is the worlds biggest liar” narrative,
You should consider this article. This is what those of us not of the left and the media see.
https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/opinion/opinion-trump-could-most-honest-president-modern-history/OXB2mc5xGuCL5YKPTMKUaN/
Whatever the truth value of Trump’s latest late night Tweet.
Trump has kept a YUGE number of campaign promises, and nearly died trying to keep the rest.
He has kept ones that I wish he had not. But the fact that he kept them is meaningful.
I disagree with Marc Thiessen on one thing – it is not “too early to tell”.
Trump’s other brags – what the left calles lies may be far less true than he claims.
But can not think of a President in US history that has done so well keeping their campaign promises in their ENTIRE term. Trump has not been in office 2 years and he has kept a very large portion of his.
I keep trying to point out to others here that Trump is a businessman, and credibility is the ONLY currency of business. The idiotic dark view that all too many have of business obscures this. We trust that when we buy a burger at McDonalds we will get very near what we expect. Free markets would not survive if those engaged in exchange did not feel they had come out ahead atleast 90% of the time – possibly more.
You do not really beleive you are cheated most of the time.
If you did you would not engage in free exchange.
The media and several of you here want to rant about Trump’s decades of business.
And yet myraids of people are willing to lend Trump Billions of dollars or invest in his projects.
Those do not always succeed – despite Trump’s bragadocia. But they do more than well enough to make the overwhelming majority of his creditor’s happy.
Credit – the amount of money that strangers will loan you is virtually identical to trustworthiness.
It does not mean you never lie. But it does mean that you are incredibly honest about what is important – like repaying creditors, like keeping significant promises.
I do not like Trump. I do not agree with him.
But increasingly I trust him. Even when I wish he would not, he keeps his promises.
I know exactly where I stand with him.
Does anyone beleive that Clinton or Sanders would have even try to keep their promises ?
Many of us were praying that they were the liars that nearly all politiicans were – because we thought Clinton would win, and we were iin deep shit iif she actually did what she prmissed.
“Kushner Paid No Federal Income Tax for Years, Documents Suggest
Confidential documents reviewed by The Times indicate that Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, probably paid little or no income tax from 2009 to 2016.”
I know some of you don’t have access to NYT articles, including one self-proclaimed and proud landlord, so I am giving you the last paragraph from the progressive leaning NYT’s article. If it is important enough to see the rest, please feel free to buy tomorrow’s NYT.
“At least in part because of that perk, the Kushners’ property sales in the period covered by the documents — totaling about $2.3 billion, according to Real Capital Analytics, a research firm — generated little or no taxable income for Mr. Kushner.
Last year’s tax legislation eliminated that benefit for all industries but one: real estate.”
Judge Hand: “Is this what you meant?”
And this is worth reading too
(The NYT allows a limited number of free reads; if you switch to other browsers you can side step the pay wall for a while)
Jay, instead of sharing tweets and articles, could you take the time to explain why we should be involved in this.
Are we the worlds cop? I fail to understand your concern. He was not American unless you think anyone living in America is American. He was a foreign journalist assigned to an American office. Again Saudi Arabia is a weak ally if even that. They practice Wahhabism, a strict form of Islam, with few rights for citizens. Turkey is basically a dictatorship. Should we get involved with every person murdered by their government and demand answers from that government?
Other that TDS driving your thoughts, please explain your concerns.
The story is interesting, and we should weigh how to factor it into our relationship with SA particularly if what is likely true becomes more certaiin.
Personally I would prefer that govenrment stay out of it, and US citizens theough the market expressed their support or displeasure towards SA.
But giiven that we must act through government – there is NO right answer.
SA is NOT the good guys.
They are also unfortunately far from the most evil actors in the mideast.
Do we punsh one bad actor – so that another gains power ?
“Personally I would prefer that government stay out of it, and US citizens through the market expressed their support or displeasure towards SA.”
I could care less. Jay is just making this an issue here because of his TDS. Anything hitting twitter remotely connected to Trump by any source will make it here if it is negative news.
His reaction to Trump is like the extreme right that had an anal hemmorrage when Obama bowed dow to Saudi King Abdullah, on April 1, 2009 in London.
I understand the Jay/TDS issue and ignored it – Jay’s TDS is self evident.
I addressed the separate question of Trump/No Trump what should we do ?
We – meaning our government should do little. We should follow George Washington’s advice and stay out of the affairs of other countries.
Unless K was a US citizen – rather than a US resident, our government should at most strongly condemn this.
But our citizens are free to do as they please.
The other issue that some do not realize that think we should have interfered with this case is Trump was in the middle of negotiating a release of the Pastor from Turkey. Maybe not saying much had to do with the finalization of that issue.
Most likely no one will ever know.
The US government should focus on things inside the purview of government and inside our interests.
That does not mean we can not be angry and denounce the misconduct of other nations.
But it means we should confine government actions to those involving US citizens or clear US interests.
Nor does that mean that americans on their own are not free to express our outrage, or to alter our conduct.
I have zero problem with US ciitizens boycotting SA, or boycotting companies that deal with SA.
Possibly the only time that the US government should meddle with trade – foreign or domestic is when there iis a true national security issue iinvolved.
MAYBE that is true regardiing NK and Iran, it is not in this instance.
That does NOT mean that I am not upset by the possibility that the Saudi’s murdered and dismembered someone in their embassy as an action of government.
What is alleged – and appears likely is horrendous.
“I have zero problem with US citizens boycotting SA, or boycotting companies that deal with SA.”
But that is not what our snowflake society wants. Too many want government making decisions for them. If people don’t think this is an American issue, like me, then why should government get involved?
You are not quite right.
Progressive snowflakes DO NOT want to abdicate choice to government.
Though they want Government to make the deciisions. they want government to make for ALL only their deciisions.
That is tyranny.
So long as there is an “If” this remains interesting but no basis for action.
I am not sure it will ever be a basis for action.
Are you going to war with SA ?
Are you going to sanction them ?
Are you goin to sanction them for Yemen ?
Are you going to sanction Iran for Yemen ?
Maybe we should just get government out of all of this and allow americans to decide on their own, individually whether they wish to punish SA and how.
If thiis bothers you – find our what gas stations use oil from SA and quit bying there.
Is that illegal?
If so, why has the IRS ignored this?
If not, demand your legislator introduce legislation to change the tax code ifnyou dont like the law.
REMEMBER….Presidents do not legislate. They do sign or veto. Congress legislates. So could it be that Richard Blum and others like him may have some influence over congress and that is why real estate was left off the table?
Note: Diane Feinstein is married to Richard Blum, real estate magnate worth between $1B to $2B.
Ron. Is Blum a crook also? I wonder if the contribution’s that RE and other rich magnates make to politicians helps write the tax code.
Answer” Do bears s___ in the woods?
I have no idea if he is a crook or not. But he is married to a career politician, so the odds may support that. I don know.
But what does that have to do with the article? It was about writing down real estate using IRS guidelines.
I pay taxes – if I ask my congressmen to cut taxes – is that illegal and II a crook ?
If some congressmen promises to cut taxes – and I donate heavily to him – because of that promise, am I a crook ?
If what I am doing is legal does it become illegal if I am 10, 100, 1000 times richer ?
As best as I can tell your argument is that Blum and Kushner and any other rich person who actively seeks to reduce their taxes is by your definition a crook.
At some point you will have to explain to us how rich someone must be before otherwise legal acts become crimes
Kings murdering Commoners.
https://apnews.com/41ad79bae592483da6d20115eda2cec9
“Trump’s business relationships with the Saudi government — and rich Saudi business executives — go back to at least the 1990s. In Trump’s hard times, a Saudi prince bought a superyacht and hotel from him. The Saudi government paid him $4.5 million for an apartment near the United Nations.
Business from Saudi-connected customers continued to be important after Trump won the presidency. Saudi lobbyists spent $270,000 last year to reserve rooms at Trump’s hotel in Washington. Just this year, Trump’s hotels in New York and Chicago reported significant upticks in bookings from Saudi visitors.”
“Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million,” Trump told a crowd at an Alabama campaign rally in 2015. “Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.”
What are the Vegas odds on anything from Trump The Glorous for the Saudis but a cosmetic grouch?
Just some more TDS.
Jay your concerns are being addressed. Nothing further unless this is another Judge K situation, guilty until proven innocent.
The Federal Government literally bought property from Washington while he was president.
The broad reading of the emoluments clause that the left is pushing has NEVER been upheld by any court prior to Trump. That is over 250 years.
Most of these Emoluments cases have been diissmissed by federal courts.
I beleive one still remains but the court has narrowed that to meaninglessness.
If you do not like this – change the constitution.
Dave, I could care less if a president owns a business and through a business deal with a foreign government that business makes money. If Michael Bloomberg runs for president and is elected, then his businesses can generate revenues from foreign transactions. I have no doubt in my mind at all some investigative reporter for a conservative news agency would find illegal transactions, just as I have no doubt a liberal investigative reporter would find that of Trumps organizations.
My sharing the link on the court case was to inform Jay that his concerns was being addressed and hopefully settled shortly. But nothing in our judicial system is “shortly” anymore.
If Bloomberg were elected – there would not be these ludicrously stupid Emoluments clause court cases. There were none regarding Clinton as Sec State. No president has ever faced this kind of garbage before. Aside from the last one announced all but one have been dismissed and that one narrowed to meaninglessness.
My issue is the once again politically bent interpretation of the constitution.
An Emolument is a payment in return for an advantage – essentially a bribe.
The Emoluments clause does not prohibit free exchange having nothing to do with government. It does nto even prohibit exchange between an office holder and government itself – as seen in GW’s dealings with the Federal government.
If the emoluments clause as written is different from what people want today – change the law or change the constitution.
I have no problem with the press digging into Trump’s businesses – any more than I have a problem with their digging into those of Clinton.
But I have a problem with manufacturing noe interpretations of the law or constitution.
This is a part of exactly why the law and the constitution MUST be read as written.
That is the only way that provides us with a single meaning that all of us can know ahead of time what iit will be. We do not have to agree that is what the law SHOULD be, but we can all knew what it is.
Changing the meaning of the law by political machinations within the courts is IMMORAL.
It is essentially the same as retro-active law. It means you can not know when you at whether what you do is proper or not – because the court could read the law or constitution differently tomorrow.
If you do not like the law as it is – fine. I quite often do not like it as it is either.
But there is a process for changing bad law or flaws in the constitution.
And the Russians gave Bill Clinton 500K for a 30min speach and that did not bother you a little.
Worse still they gave over 100M to Clinton’s charity while Clinton was Sec. State and while she was making decisions regarding Russia.
I am not even sure what your claim is here.
Except Trump is evil because he has done things with large amounts of money that you wish you had.
Khossogi is not a commoner. He is also not a king.
Regardless, though the story is interesting – and each of us is personally free to make choices as to how to act,
There is still no clear proper response.
I have no clue if this is true.
I do know that if NYT has Kushner’s taxes – someone broke the law.
Didn;t we have enough of that lawlessness during the Obama administration ?
Nor do I know whether Kushner should have paid taxes either.
If he did not pay personal taxes, that means he did not have personal income.
Is that illegal ? No actually it is not.
Can we dispense with the fake indiraction ?
If you wish to praise or defame someone – DO IT DIRECTLY.
As to the reference to Learned Hand – yes, this is EXACTLY what he meant.
There is no taxation scheme that can be devised that does not have winners and losers.
There are schemes that infringe on rights more and those that infringe less.
Fund government by a flat tax on consumption is propably the most efficient.
It also incentivizes government best to keep taxes down.
BTW – Kushner does not have a vote in the house or Senate.
I am mostly going to ignore your remarks – not because they are right or wrong, but because they are 2nd or 3rd order.
The absolute first criteria you really must decide – is how many people are you allowing in.
Because without deciding that – in at least a general way, you can not work out many other issues.
The numbers are critical because those strongly effect other choices.
If the number of legal immigrants is small – their effect on other things is also small.
If the number of legal immigrants is small it does not matter how you decide birth right citizenship, or paths to citizenship, or rights to entitlements or ….
If you go all the way to near open borders – then myriads of other issues such as citizenship and entitlements become absolutely critical.
As to “who” you allow in – it does not matter alot to me.
But you – whether left or right need to face up to the fact that you are DISCRIMINATING.
If as you say you allow those who have been raised here to stay – you are incentivizing illegal immigration and you will get more of it.
If you make the path to citizenship too easy – no matter who you let in you wiill incentivize illegal immigration and you will get more of iit.
Every choice you make will incentivize those who wish to come here to try to fit that framework – lying and cheating if necessary.
Even rumours of changes in our immigration laws – radically alter incentives.
Further no matter what chocies you make – there will always be some group you must say no to.
Are you going to allow those who fought iin the US military to stay ? to become citizens ?
Are you going to allow those who went to college to stay ?
Do we want smarter people ?
Do we prefer christians ? Jews ? Muslims ?
What about asians over hispanics ? over blacks ?
What of people from nations that have experienced disasters ?
What of very poor nations ?
What of very backward nations ?
What of very repressive nations ?
What of people who are oppressed ?
What constitutes “oppressed” ?
Given that the left has made a cult fetiish of viictim worshiip – we are going to encourage everyone in the world who wants into the US to self identify as a victim.
Even if you say you wish to allow people in based on some kind of merit system.
Who are you to play god, to decide who has merit ?
Just to be clear – I am not mailigning people for making these tough decisions.
What II am trying to point out is that There is no answer to immigration that does NOT involve playing good. There is no answer that does not pick winners AND LOSERS..
Whatever choices you make it will be trivial to call you “heartless”
We should not forget that government regulations pretty much always have unintended consequences.
Ban The Box regulations have resulted in an increase in discrimination against young black men.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2812811
A conservative response to Saudi homocidal hijinks:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/prudence-is-the-right-response-to-the-khashoggi-affair/
It is not often that I disagree with Rand Paul.
But I oppose sanctions – against Russia, Against Iran, Against NK, and against SA.
Trade is between people NOT countries.
Khashoggi is not a US citizen, while the US as a government can be justifiably angry.
We are NOT the world’s policeman and should not be intervening.
We should move towards following George Washngton’s advice and stay out of the affairs of foreign nations.
By your purile logic the nations of the world were right to ignore the German round up and slaughter of the Jews since it wasn’t their Jews being exterminated.
And the Cubans fleeing Cuba in leaky boats should have been left to drown, because they weren’t American citizens and therefore it was none of our affair.
Before Germany started slaughtering Jews – it invaded poland.
That is an act of war against a a peaceful neighbor and that is what started the war.
That is ALWAYS going to be a justification for war.
As to the “slaughter” of the jews – the Germans actually gave the west signifiicant oportunities to accept german jews.. – the West went out of iits way to make that impossible.
The “final solution” did not arrise until AFTER the Germans failed to be able to deport jews.
We did nothing to stop the killing fields in Cambodia, we did nothing to stop the extermination of 80M people in china and another 40 in the USSR. We did next to nothing to stop genocide in Rwanda.
Whatever the answer with respect to jews in germany it is the SAME as the myriads of other instances in which we sat idly by.
You counter also fails reduction ad absurden.
As noted above – but also right down to Khaggoshi.
If we are obligated to start a world war over Germany murdering 7M of its own people,
Are we not obligated to go to war because SA killed one of its own people ?
“Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.”
I guess you did not read the part of my comments that said that individuals are free to do as they wish.
If you wish to take a boat out to help Cubans – I may join you.
I would end our system of entiitlements and open our borders.
So even if no one went out to help cubans if they made t to the US and could take care of themselves they could stay.
You continuously seem to thnk that Libertarans have not thought of all these scenatious and more.
Robert Nozick has evaluated the correct ethical response to hypotheticals more complex and difficutl that you have ever dreamed.
This morning I read a number of letters to the editor in our local paper. Most of these letters had to do with the Judge K issue. Many were of concern to me not because of the out come of that issue since that has been decided, but the thinking of those writing the letters. Maybe that thinking has always existed and just not voiced in the past. But now that it has been voiced, I wonder where we really are headed.
Basically the jest of the comments can be summed up in one writers comment ” When you go to court, you are found guilty or not guilty. You are not found innocent. It just means not enough evidence was presented to prove you committed the crime, it does not mean you are innocent.”
I always thought one was presumed innocent until proven guilty. Is that not part of the constitution and the UN declaration of human rights?
Seems to me we are wading into deep waters where one is eventually going to have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt their innocence to be found “not guilty” with thinking like this developing.
The authors of your letters are correct as are you.
Further we must distinguish between the law and everything else.
Our legal system finds you guilty or not guilty – and the standard is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – anything else does not justify the use of force to take one’s freedom or property.
The assumption of innoence is different though related. It means the courts can not justifiiably act as if you have been found guilty prior to having done so.
Much of what courts do prior to trial as an example VIOLATE that principle.
Much was made in the manafort case of Manafort violating court orders or bail conditions.
The constitution guarantees reasonable bail – it is a right. The courts have very limited ability to apply conditions to a right.
Courts can order prosecutors around – they are elements of the government. They have no legiitimate authority to order the defendant to do anything but continue to abide by the existing law. They can not gag the defendant or his lawyer.
But all of the above iis specific to Criminal courts.
As an individual in your own private conduct not involving the use of force – you are not obligated to presume innocence.
Even in the courts – outside of criminal matters the standard of proof is NOT beyond a reasonable doubt.
Much was made – even by me that the Kavanaugh confirmation is much like a job interview – and it is. The standard is NOT beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is no automatic presumption of innocence.
But there are things that are different between a confirmation and a job interview.
A supreme court confirmation is a government action – and therefore MUST conform to due process and equal protection.
As a practical matter we can not have a process where a mere accusation is sufficient to guarantee one result.
Finally – our senators and congressmen within the confines or the law and constitution are free to acts as they please – including making circuses of confirmation hearings.
And voters are free to chose how they vote.
It appears that the choices of democrats regarding the Kavanaugh confirmation are being weighed by voters in this election – and democrats are being found wanting.
In 2016 voters had the oportunty to weigh the choices of republicans regarding Garland, and they did NOT find republiicans wanting.
Posters here constantly bemoan the lack of political power of moderates and independents.
That is BUNK. Those of us not sychophants of one party or another. Those NOT part of the “base” ultimately decide nearly all elections.
Democrats and republicans alike must try to keep their base happy.
But they can not win elections without gaining the support of the majority OUTSIDE their base.
Democrats can rant about Garland from now to the end of days.
But voters – MODERATE Voters did NOT chose to punish repoblicans.
MODERATE voters decided that Republican conduct was eiither legitimate or sufficiently inoffensive as to not alter their vote.
But the same iis not happening regarding democrats and Kavanaugh.
So if I dont want to hire blacks, I can asked them if they were ever accused of a misdemeanor or felony and based on that, I can use it to decline employment?
Good to know.
In many parts of the country right now the opposite is true.
You CAN NOT ask a job applicant if they have a criminal record.
But you can choose not to hire anyone you think might.
If you are denied the oportuniity to know, you can not stop people from presuming that blacks and minorities are more likely to have records.
Not asking has proven statiistiically more harmful to minoritiies than asking.
Is OJ Simpson innocent of the two murders a jury judged him innocent?
Legally innocent isn’t factually innocent.
A criminal jury found Simpson NOT criminally guilty.
A civil jury found him likely responsible for their murder.
Both likely got it right.
Factually innocent is something entirely different.
OJ is likely the only living person who knows whether he is factually innocent.
As the Ford/Kavanaugh facts have been offered it is possible that NO ONE knows whether Kavanaugh is “factually innocent”.
One of the problems is that for a case 36 years ago – no one – including the alleged perpetrator and victim is certain to know the fact.
Ron, we are wading into polluted waters up to our noses. The swamp has now become the SWAMP. World leaders are encouraged by our president, who in turn was encouraged by Putin and the populists being elected to do whatever they want. Can you blame MBS for doing in Turkey (also a bad actor led by Erdogan) and others like Netanyahu to just roll over people as they have always done, but now with a silent cheerleader.
I’m not going to convince you, and especially Dhlli, that the whole K episode with K was disastrous episode in our country that was already partly divided. And it was all aided and abetted by the Dems.
Innocent until proven guilty does not apply anyway in this case, it was a job interview.
“I’m not going to convince you, and especially Dhlli, that the whole K episode with K was disastrous episode in our country that was already partly divided. And it was all aided and abetted by the Dems.”
Agree 100% with first sentence. But second sentence should read “And it was all caused by how Senator Feinstein handled the accusation”.
I stick with saying Dems. As you had in one fictitious scenario, Chuck told DF to hold off, there could have been others, who knows. Or, possibly DF was obeying Ford’s request for confidentiality.
Still a mess for the country and Antifa is helping the Reps with their antics and violence. https://abc7ny.com/politics/ny-gop-headquarters-vandalized-ahead-of-far-right-speaker/4469290/
Meantime, we are stuck with BK for a possibly long time; lock the liquor cabinets.
dduck, that is a bunch of BS and you know it. What we did in high school has nothing to do with the type of person we are today, unless you were Mr. Goody Goody,Southern Baptist or attended Liberty University/Brigham Young. One only needs to attend college football games to see how much drinking goes on with kids and the security people don’t do a thing until someone gets out of line. They are blind to the drinking. And back then, the drinking age in some states was 18, so it was legal for them to be drinking until sometime in 1984.
What I would like to see completed is an investigation as to who leaked that letter. It was not leaked until the day or two after it got to the FBI. Feinstein says she was not the one, her staff did not do it, so it must have been the FBI because everyone else says they did not have a copy of the original, only the redacted copy.
And if it was the FBI, then we still have a huge problem in a department of justice that can not follow the law.
But as long as we have everyone with TDS looking for anything and everything, nothing is going to be looked at like it should be.
By the way, I heard that the Mueller Investigation is winding down. People reassigned to his work are returning to their original jobs. Some information is being reassigned to regional FBI offices. So it appears that little has been found in the way of federal issues based on the timelines now being followed.
It is beyond a reasonable doubt that the ciircus was caused by democrats.
It is not even more likely than not that responsibilty fell on Feinstein. There are numerous possible sources by which the press could have gotten Ford’s letter – aside from Fenstein.
ALL implicate democrats.
Consistency is not your Forte.
First is was the rest of the world scorned us because of Trump aka Putin sock puppet.
Now it is the rest of the world is following us because of Trump aka Putin sock puppet.
Maybe you should make up your own mind about things with less regard for the rest of the world.
Get a clue – there are bad actors in the world.
If you were rational you would recognized that while Trump wields more actual power than anyone else in the world, he has done far less evil than any of the bad actors you are noting.
Frankly you should look carefully at Putin – and erdogan, and SA, and ….
First as evil as each might be, there are few that reach the level of evil of many past villians.
As our standard of living rises it becomes increasingly hard for tyrants to thrive.
Next – whatever we might think of our leaders and our country – there really are few places and leaders in the world that are better.
The left is ranting about Trump’s immigration polices. Name a country in europe that has more “enlightened” immigration ?
The same is true of our issues regarding race. We continue to discriminate for myriads of reasons, but systemic discrimination is small to non-existant in the US. Almost nowhere else in the world can say that – not even europe.
There is no country as diverse.
Trump did not accomplish this (nor did Obama), and contra the left he is not making them worse.
In fact under Trump improvement is greatest for minorities in this country – and the least for progressive elites.
“Innocent until proven guilty does not apply anyway in this case, it was a job interview.”
undertand the merits of that argument. Though the argument itself is flat out wrong.
What is true is that Kavanaugh has absolutely no right to become a supreme court justice – just as no one has a right to a job.
The logic is absolutely correct regarding Kavanaugh.
It is however wrong with respect to the rest of us.
The senate can accept or reject a nomination as it pleases.
But it may not use the confirmation process as a trial by combat or as a gauntlet to be run or as a means of defaming anyone who aspires to an appointment.
When a part of government participates in defaming someone – even someone “applyiing for a job” – we are outside the norms of a “job interview”.
If you want a job somewhere – is it typiical for you to have to face criminal accusations broadcast to the entire planet to secure that job ?
The senate is not the same as a court – t can chose its own standard of proof.
Absent a threat to life liberty or property – the presumption of innocence and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard need not apply.
Arguably each senator is even entiitled to their own standard.
What is true though is that the “all accusations much be beleived” standard will result in no one ever again being confirmed for anything.
It is not Kavanaugh that is entitled to the presumption of innocence, it is the american people.
Need a stock tip? Invest in luxury yacht companies.
Why would anyone on earth trust anyone on the left on anything having anythiing at all to do with economics.
This whole video is pretty good – though the point I am looking to raise is just after 15:30
Just to be clear. Prior to about 1500 just about EVERYONE lived in abject poverty.
The development of merchantiilism (not even actual capiitalism) in the west at that time suddenly quintulpples the standard of living for everyone in the west.
Starting in the mid 1700’s (in the west) the birth of capitaliism put standard of living on an exponential increase. Subsequently the rest of the world slowly adopted free markets – with the same sudden near vertical rise iin standard of livin iin each country as it shifted to freer markets.
There are no exceptions. Absolutely the rich got richer. The richest people have become rich beyond beleif. BUT at the same time the poorest people on earth today are richer than the kings of a few centuriies back.
f Trump’s tax cuts were actually only for the rich – you would still be better off.
And that is what we are seeing.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/16/trump-approval-rating-african-americans-rasmussen-poll/1013212002/
Whoops, this should have been in my last comment about left and right violence:
And the Faux Fucks at Fox lied about it.
“Proud Boys’ Violence Spills Onto New York City Streets – Fox News Blames Antifa
Fox claimed, ‘Antifa strikes again – swords and vandalism at New York GOP office,’ suggesting the violence came from the left, despite the fact that Proud Boy’s founder Gavin McInnes appeared with the sword.”
Jay there is video – FROM ANTIFA.
McInnes brought a Samari Sword to the event – it was PART OF THE EVENT.
This was PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED BEFORE THE EVENT.
The video CLEARLY shows Antifa attacking and McInnes group defending themselves.
And as soon as McInnes and his group had sufficient ability to do so they safely retreated.
But the left and NYT as always are trying to paint a different story.
partly helped by the fact that the Antifa attackers were almost exclusively physically diminutive and McInnes security people looked like Jarheads.
Which begs the question of how stupid can the left be ?
Why is it that 98lb whimps deliberately choose to attack 220lb marines with swords ?
Still can not get into NYT.
Regardless there are police reports and video.
Not personally a McInnes fan, and have no idea why anyone would invite him anywhere.
Regardless, the location was vanadlized by Antifa, prior to the event, and notes were left telling the “proud boys” to expect violence if McInnes spoke – he did.
When he left, he and his escort were attacked. They successfully overpowered their attackers and left.
Even the video provided by Antifa shows this.
Various Antifa members repeatedly charging McInnes security, getting diispatched and chased away and returning to try again.
McInnes people did not initiate anything, and quickly after the initial encounter they regrouped and left. They did not chase anyone.
Put simply even near neo-nazis behave better than democrats.
“Put simply even near neo-nazis behave better than democrats.”
Even for you this is pretty amazing spin.
Lets give you a little intelligence test:
Choose:
A. Your take on these events, which began with the invite from the Republican club to a white supremacist organization to speak, is persuasive and after reading your explanation New Moderate denizens now understand that “near neo-nazis behave better than democrats.”
B. You sound like a nut.
I have already taken plenty of actual intelligence tests.
I have no problem with a Club inviting McInnes to speak.
We should here viewpoints that challenge our own.
Read John Stuart Mill – you can not know someone else is wrong and you are right unless you listen to what they say.
I have no idea whether Proud Boys iis actually racist or whatever else you toss at them.
I do know that their “about page” – below does not sound at all like you describe.
They claim they are not ever right wing extremists.
http://officialproudboys.com/proud-boys/whoaretheproudboys/
They could be lying – or you could be badly informed.
Given that the left calles everyone they disagree with racist. I can not take such and accusation as meaningful.
Maybe we should go here McInnes speak – so that we can actually find out if any of these claims are true – isn’t that how one would evaluate this.
Or should we beleiive left wing buts when they call anyone to the right of Sanders Racist – well “because”
Regardless what aspect of McInnes behavior yesterday was wrong ?
As I understand it the event was not about politics, but WWII in the pascific, and McInnes broaght a japanses sword to and event on a specific japanese ritual suicide.
BTW what idiots who are unarmed attack someone holding a samurai sword ?
Well, Ron, if I am BSing, and I’m not, then you are blind to the risk that all or some of the things we have heard about BK MIGHT be true. I am willing to forget HS, but cannot totally ignore college and his, in my opinion, out of control response in the committee hearing to Ford and the bashing he was taking by the Dems. OK, the big thing is lying to Congress with his Clinton like “it depends what is is”. I called out BC for lying and I call out someone getting a LIFETIME appointment.
Call that BS, I know I am not. What I am is cautious as possible when it comes to SC folks.
And yes, I think SC judges should keep their mouths shut, they are despicable.
What is the “risk that some of the things said about BK might be true ?”
While I will 100% agree that if what Ford or Swetnick accuses is true Kavanaugh does nto deserve to be on the Supreme Court.
Just as if What Hill said regardng Thomas is true – Thomas does nto deserve to be on the supreme court.
But we do not know the actual truth of any of these allegations.
But both Thomas and Kavanaugh now are. Thomas has not proven to be some friend of perverts and rapists, are you expecting Kavanaugh to be ?
The allegations – if true are about their character – not about their ability.
Just as Trump and Clinton both appear to be good presidents despite bad character.
I still believe anita Hill. I also think that before Gorsuch Thomas was the most libertarian justice on the court.
The risk is that a man of bad character gets on the supreme court – well that has happened many times before. it does not nvolve any risk of bad decisons.
So what s the “risk” that you are concerned about ?
Kavanaugh is unlikely to make decisions differently whether the allegation is true or false.
Supreme Court justices should keep their mouths shut.
But increasingly they do not – whether Sotomayor or Ginsberg or Scaliia or Stevens.
I would note that BOTH Kagan and Ginsberg were at Kavanaugh’s private swearing in.
Most of the “conservatives” were not.
Grump: You are giving nuts a bad name. dhlli is Kanye West with a keyboard.
Wondering when someone would bring up Kanye.
Of course we have to paint Kanye as nuts.
Otherwise how do we excuse all the talking heads calling him a house nigger, or uncle tom.
or calling his visit to the white house vaudeville blackface.
You can think what you want of Kanye. You can make whatever accusations you wish – true or otherwise. He is more successful than his leftist detractors – and honestly more coherent – no matter how nuts he might sound.
No matter, he is saying something you do not like, supporting someone you do not like.
He must be taken down.
Some label must be applied – racist, misogynist, ….
Didn’t the media get totally wigged out because Trump mocked a (quite able) parapelegic reporter who was heckling him ?
Why don;t the same rules apply to all those often black talking heads on the media.
Presuming as they claim that Kanye must be disturbed – I thought the left required that we understand those with issues – not insult them and call them names on national TV.
How exactly is what they are doing, what YOU are doing different from what Trump was accused of with the disabled reporter ?
The only difference I can see is that West might actually be a real threat to the left.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/411414-trump-denies-offering-1-million-for-warren-dna-test-even-though-he
Trump along with your lying and cheating traits, you are one cheap f____. Pay the million, that when you add in the $7.50 your “foundation” gave to the boy scouts total 1mil and $7.50 of charitable giving and will put you in the front of the line when you get to St. Peter’ Gate.
LMAO
I have no idea what Trump offered nor whether he is or should be morally or ethically obligated to honor it.
I do know that despite the hype Warrens test is a Failure. She has less than 1/2 the indian genese of the average white american. The Boston Globe article has Math errors – she is possibly approx 1/1024 some form of indian. I have not checked my DNA but the odds are 3 out of 4 that I have more Indian DNA than she does. There is no indian group/tribe in the US that would accept her as a member based on 1/1024th Most do not accept 1/32 which is what the BG article claims in error.
So what does Warrne owe the rest of us for this Fauxcahauntus nonsense.
Or are we all indians now ?
I would further remind you that she used her purted heritage to get her jobs ar UofP and Harvard.
She iis no diifferent from the white firefiighters who claimed to be part black to get a job.
Along with witches, maybe the left might want to avoid Warrens ancestral claims also. And this is when the media was honest.
http://www.pollysgranddaughter.com/2018/03/elizabeth-warrens-white-great.html
He didn’t offer the $1M for her to take a test, he offered the $1M for her to take a test that PROVED that she was an Indian.
Unless you’re a believer in the one-drop theory, her test results proved that she is definitely NOT Native American. As it turns out, she’s about as white as can be.
I think that this dopey controversy is 100% Warren’s fault ~ she faked being a minority to get ahead, and she’s been lying about it ever since. She should have just said that her family always told her that she was part Cherokee, and that she believed it until she took a DNA test. Everyone would have just forgotten about it and moved on.
This was an own goal on her part.
Just as Joe Biden plagiarizing writings years ago and that issue being old news, so too will this be old news when she runs. No one will care and if she is the nominee, she wont even need to respond to Trump calling her Pocohantas.
We shall see.
But I think it is near certain you are wrong.
One talking head noted – Trump is not the one going to destroy Warren with this.
To get to Trump she is going to have to get through a primary.
Just as the “birther” stuff regarding Obama was started by Sidney Blumenthal from Clinton’s campaign, Warren will be “scalped” over this by democratic opponents before getting to Trump.
I think Trump would be absolutely ecstatic to have Warren as a political opponent.
I have personally met Warren when she taught at UofP – she taught my wife. She taught business law – and she was NOT nearly as left as she paints herself today.
But she has chosen to place herself just to the right of Sanders.
And like Clinton she is in bed with wall street and big business at the same time she is publicly decrying them.
The Fauxcahontus meme will play extremely well – because like clinton it is trivial to paint her as two faced, insncere, and not trustworthy.
The most important story is that she LIED in the hopes of personal advantage.
About the same time as this story first arrose there was a story about two firefighters who lost their jobs – and then got them back by changing their race to african-american.
They were eventually caught, fired, charged and prosecuted.
I am sure they could have had a DNA test done and found they were 1/1024th african-american or some minority – just about every white person in this country is.
Warren’s “indian” genes are so low that you have to go to england to find people with less.
Further – Warren was not matched against “american indians” or “Cherokee” as she claimed to be. But Mexican, chilean, and peruvian DNA – as there is no source of sufficient “american indian” DNA to distinguish genes that are unique to american indians.
Indian tribes do not use DNA to establish membership.
In many instances even where a person can prove far closer biological ties to a tribe, they are still rejected, if they are sufficiently disconnected from the culture.
1/32 indian “blood” is not typically sufficient – if you have spent 5 generations living entirely n a white world.
Warren initially claimed that her grandmother was discriminated against for being part cherokee – that should be obvious nonsense at this point.
I honestly do not understand why having had the DNA test, Warren was stupid enough to go public and make a campaign add.
What politician in their right mind wants to go out of their way to publicly say
“See, I am 1/1024th not a liar” ?
Politicians and public officials making me sick recently:
hillary and her idiotic why be civil? comments. Will she ever just go away?
Minnesota Senate candidate Karin Housley and her 2009 flat out racist comments on Michelle Obama (thankfully, she is losing). How many gop officials have I now heard claim that comparisons between Obama and Michelle to various primates is no big deal, just good clean natural political fun? Not buying it. Every time some liberal says or does some stupid thing that puts liberals in the worst light, I cringe. I wonder, do conservatives ever do the same? I suspect that some do. Way to go people, work double hard reinforcing all the worst stereotypes, the internet will make you famous for a minute.
Georgia Senator David Perdue grabs a student’s camera away after being asked about voter suppression, claims he thought the student wanted a “selfie.”
And, the number one winner for a public official making me want to puke is: Idaho Fish and Game commissioner Blake FIscher
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/411364-idaho-fish-and-game-commissioner-criticized-for-smiling-photos-from
I really have got to stop opening the news headlines.
Oh, and lets not forget the Metropolitan Republican Club and their featured guests the Proud Boys. Brilliant, show them who you are. Republicans of character must be mortified.
And, as a sort of liberal I am, as always, disgusted by the goons of Antifas who believe they have a right to use violence. trump wants to be more popular? Let him use his presidential resources to further the prosecution of those guilty of antfas violence, the goons of the far left.
I’d cheer him for that.
But what kind of Republican organization invites a proud racist organization as their guests? Yes, they have the right of free speech. Having a right and using it intelligently judiciously are two separate things. This is what we need more of, the far right vs. the far left fighting in the streets.
Idiots, we are surrounded by idiots, its the largest organization in the world, their members are everywhere.
Grump: It’s all legal and the animals had free choice to hide from him.
The Rep club also was just fostering free speech so as to be an example to the formerly Snowflake colleges (now they are mobs) that shout down or block anyone that tis not a liberal.
I don’t know if this relates to the baboon Hunt by the US idiot ( and I don’t respect humans who hunt animals with high tech guns from a distance; only kill hat you’re gonna eat) – but baboons are considered pest scavenger animals in Africa, deserving population reduction.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-baboons-cape-town-conservation-south-africa/
Or maybe instead of presuming that there are multii-layered hidden agenda’s – as I said before I am not a McInnes fan – and he definiitely does NOT strike me as someone capable of the 3 level deep plotting you are attributing to him.
Regardless, McInnes is apearently a WWII in the Pacific Buff and was invited to participate in a re-enactment of a specific event during WWII – hends the samurii sword.
We saw at Charlottesville that the alt-right is capable of deliberately baiting the left.
We also saw that the left is stupid and easily bated.
And we saw that the press is so owned that they will misrepresent the aggressor as the defendor.
Just as we are seeing now – and even hear.
At Charlottesville – where the alt-right deliberately provoked the left,
The deliberately the night before went on campus with their tiki torches and stirred things up, trying to assure that the next day their would be plenty of counter protestors,
The alt-right at Charlottesville was deliberately seeking to be attacked by the left at the march the next day. They had hoped to have created a situation where they were certain to be attacked, and certain to be viewed as the victim while at the same time being capable of defending themselves.
While I do NOT share the same values as the alt-right, I do not have the slightest problem with this tactic. Ghandi and the civil rights movement used it all the time.
The only distinction is that the alt-right took steps to be able to defend themselves – they brought shields and helmets. Some such as the New York Militia even brought guns.
The marchers at Charlottesville missed four things in their planning.
First that the approach used by Ghandi and MLK works best iif you DO NOT defend yourself, if your opponent beats, bloodies and even kills you – hopefully on national TV.
Next that the media controls the narrative and the difference between th aggressor and the defendor is as small as the camera angle and the tone of a story.
Third that law enforcement was controlled by the left and order to withdraw. The distinction between aggressors and defenders would have been crystal clear had the leftists had to go through the police to get at the alt-right. These alt-right groups understood the police might not protect them – hence their shields and helmets. They did not understand the effect that would have on perception.
And finally that if someone on the left gets hurt – that must occur as part of direct conflict initiated by the left. The entire narrative changes is so little as one mentally disturbed member of your group, panics and does something stupid.
I have been in conflicts where I have had to stand up tall go toe to toe with those on the other side and essentially say “hit me”. Though the context was “legal” rather than physical the rules are still fundamentally the same.
You can not blink, and you can not make a mistake – not even a small one.
You must keep the pressure on the other party, waiting for them to make a mistake, but you can not slip, you can not even appear to be angry. You have to be particularly vigilant with respect to the above if you are already in an environment that is prejudiced against you.
As we see here with this McInnes visit.
Apologists for the left are working overtime to blame republcians, to blame McInnes/
If Armed Nazi’s were invited to a republican club in NYC, and came and on the way out were attacked by Antifa and some antifa protestors were killed – the actual responsibility would rest with antiifa.
One of the stupid arguments that the left and too many here are making – is that somehow Republicans are responsible for the viiolence of the moment.
The core of the argument is that Republiicans are responsible because they are bad people.
If someone Heckles Trump and starts fighting with others at the event
the media, the left as a whole ignore the fact that iit was the heckler who inciited viiolence, and even the heckler who actually started the violence.
In the world of the left – and too many here, it is OK to provoke, and even initiate violence – if you and the media portray you as “the good guys”.
Everything is relative, there is not such things as right and wrong. It must always be judged in some context.
We now have Clips of Whoppi Goldberg on the view arguing that Polanski’s rape of a 13 year old was not “rape rape” that the fact that she was 13 and he was 40 does nto matter, that she was drugged does nto matter. The fact that bad things happened to Polanski matters and justify his conduct, the fact that he beleiived that the judge was going to renigge on the sweetheart deal he had been given and that justified fleeing and somehow means he is not a rapist. This is the same Goldberg who on the same show years later is arguing that What Ford alleges is clearly true and that Kavanaugh’s actions are “rape rape”.
Women lie – when they accuse prominent leftists such as Bill Clinton,
But not when they accuse without evidence someone on the right.
It is not the facts that matter, it is who is being accused and who is doing the accusing that matters to the left.
The same people HERE who were telling us all that photographs of Franken grabbing the breasts of a women who is asleep are not sufficient evidence, are telling us that the accusation without evidence denied by everyone who was purportedly there is sufficient to call what is described as very nearly the same thing – forcibly grabbing a woman through her cloths without her consent rape.
If you do not believe that the photo’s of Franken groping Tweeden are sexual assault, then you are not free to believe Ford.
But everything for the left – and too many here is about WHO, not about WHAT.
If you are on the right and accused – you are guilty. If you are on the left and your conduct is established beyond at doubt – then you had good intentions.
If McInnes is attacked by leftists – it is his fault – always, no matter what – because he is a racist – because we say so, and that makes everything his fault.
MCINNES would not be my first choice as a guest. But he has more marbles than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – aside from actually trying to sell socialism after it has failed everywhere – have you ever watched her on n an interveiw ? If she ever does anything that is not a puff peice, she is toast.
I will bet McInnes can atleast add. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a degree in economics yet can not manage simple math.
I am no fan of McInnes – but as always the left labels anyone to the right of Clinton a racist.
Regardless, unless you think that non-lefties must take being pummeled, responsibiility for the viiolence rests SOLELY with Antifa.
So someone you do not like comes to a club you do not like to speak about Japan, and left wing nuts acost hiim on the way out and this iis somehow his or republiicans fault ?
BTW I absolutely support scheduling unpopular speakers. I want to know What people like McInnes have to say – I want to know if they are as ie as you clam.
IIf you have not heard and listened to an oppiinion, you can not morally criticise it.
“I am no fan of McInnes – but as always the left labels anyone to the right of Clinton a racist.”
I knew I could get you to do this Dave and it was as easy as I thought it would be. McInnes is a racist. It has nothing to do with the left labeling anyone.
“McInnes has referred to himself as a “western chauvinist” and started a men’s organization called Proud Boys who swear their allegiance to this cause.[52][53][54][55][56][57][excessive citations] In 2003 McInnes said, “I don’t want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, English-speaking way of life.”[58]”
(Ironically, he calls himself a libertarian).
“Judaism and anti-Semitism
In March 2017, during a trip to Israel with The Rebel Media, McInnes made controversial comments defending Holocaust deniers, accused the Jews of being responsible for the Holodomor and the Treaty of Versailles, and said he was “becoming anti-Semitic”. He later said his comments were taken out of context.[67] McInnes also produced a video for Rebel called “Ten Things I Hate about Jews”, later retitled “Ten Things I Hate About Israel”.[68][40][69]””
As i said – I do not agree with McInnes. Your cites do NOT prove racism.
The prove that he has views that you do not like.
Go look at the list of values the Proud boys espouse on their website – they are very libertarian. The question is whether they believe and adhere to what they claim to believe.
If not that would make them something else – democrats.
So McInnes might be anti-semitic to some degree – the current DNC is pretty hostile to jews.
Sienma spoke very favorably of witches – should we burn her at the stake ?
People in public life should be held accountable for what they say.
But few remarks are a political death sentence. Past views are important – but less important if they do not appear to be current.
Sienama’s problem right now – is not her extremist past. It is the perception of voters that her current moderate persona is a facade – that the past is the real Sienama.
That problem is of her own creation.
As I noted – I am not a fan of McInnes.
For reference I find Farakahn more offensiive, and Sharpton about as offensive.
McInnes has the virtue of being right about many things.
I am not the arbiter of what is libertarian, but if “proud boys” actually adhere to the princiiples they list – they are atleast as “libertarian” as “bleeding hearts libertarians”, or Cass Sunstein who has also on occasion self-identified as libertarian.
I disagree with him alot to. But To some extent he is libertarian.
Ocasio-Cortez is a democrat – that is atleast as at odds with being democrat as McInnes is with being libertarian.
I am not personally big on the cultural or Immigration facets he fixates on. Nor can I tell for certain from his web site exactly what he means by some of the things he says that offend you.
As an example – I think assimilation is a good thing. But I do not think that government has any business in it. I also think diversity is a good thing. They are competing values.
Neither is inherently right or wrong.
Democrats opposed immigration for much of the past. Labor has a long history of opposing immigration and labor has traditionally been democratic. McInnes appears to be reflecting a set of blue collar values that were those of many democrats before the last election.
I do not agree with those – but they do not make McInnes the next Adolph Hilter.
Ii have a majro problem with the agressive deliberate effort of the left to completely discredit the west and the enlightenment and to try to write iit out of history.
Absolutely figures from Columbus through Jefferson were repugnant by modern standards.
They STILL change the world – and for the better. They participated in the slow advance of the western cultures and values that have inarguably made the world a far better place today, and improved our lives in a very short period of time in ways that have NEVER happened before.
India, Greece, China, Persia all had everything that the west had going for it AND MORE, china was more wealthy than the entire rest of the world through 1900. /it was more technologically advanced – it is likely the chinese reached the new world more than a century before the west.
The only thing “magical” about the west – the reason that merchatilism – a shity economic system that was STILL far better than anything that preceded it, and then later free markets suddenly exploded was the VALUES AND THOUGHT of the west – the rise of the concept of the individual, of individual liberty.
I would not use “western chauvanism” – but absolutely the west should be studied – warts and all, but the bottom line still MUST be – that the western values of individual liberty are inseparable from the sudden exponantial improvement in the human condiiction.
The modern left seeks to deny that – the objective is NOT to dismiss Jefferson or Locke, or Columbus, but to dismiss entiirely the notion that the values that the west first raised to prominence are themselves to be dismissed.
They are not – If that is what McInnes means by “western chauvanism” – I would prefer different terms.
If you have not studied Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, Locke, Theroux or their peers and their thoughts – iif you have substituted the leading lights from the rest of the world – for all yous laudable scholarship you remain ignorant of the most important thought in human history.
Well this is interesting. I appreciate you sharing this information. Just another case of the GOP nominating candidates that can’t keep their damn mouths shut. Delaware witch, the doofus in Nevada, the “can’t get pregnant from rape” idoit from Missouri, the ass in the White House (better than the bitch that the democrats outdid the GOP that time). But I have to wonder if we had an honest media, would we not see more on the left with pea sized brains like the GOP with them making dumb comments also.
But what I find interesting is the Idaho issue. I looked up Baboon hunting and that is big time hunting in Africa year around. Just one site out of many.
http://www.africahuntlodge.com/baboon_hunt_package.asp
Apparently they have the same problem with baboons as we have in many states with deer. Being over run with the animals.
I hate to say it, but I wish we had year around hunting for deer in North Carolina, at least a couple years. They have become so over populated, you cant drive 10 miles in the fall without seeing 3-4 laying along the roads where they have been hit by cars. And the state can pick them up one day and the next there will be another laying there. 20 years ago we never saw that other than in eastern NC along interstates.
Oh, the media are full participants. I have tuned out the WaPo as completely as the Huff Po, simply complete inability to keep their powder dry. Here, in Vt we have a moderate GOP governor who is well liked who is the only thing keeping us from total Dem control, at least for the last two years. The local papers are working furiously trying to find anything they can manufacture in the way of a negative story on him. Which is why, jeez, it was now decades ago, that I went to war with the Vermont papers and got right up in their faces, and they in mine, I am still quite proud of that phase.
OK, here is some actual good news and it jibes with my own experiences:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
80% dislike PC. Yes, the other 20% are predominantly progressives, which is among the top ten reasons that I may be a little liberal but i will never be progressive and generally I wish their movement would wither and vanish.
Liberal – one who values liberty highly.
The modern left is illiberal.
These are not the same people as those behind the berkeley free speach movement in the 60’s . These are not the people who fought for civil liberties.
The modern left iis not about freedom.
The modern left has replaced the marxist fixation of class and class warfare with a fixations on a heirarchy of victimization – intersectionaliity
It is about weakness and about making us weaker. Humans are anti-fragile – we grow and grow stronger from stresses. Our muscles, our minds grow stronger because we are subject to stresses. As we have made our homes cleaner and more insular – we have developed more and more allergies – we become more fragile as we are more protected – not stronger.
The modern left seeks to make us weaker not stronger.
Even the demographics – of the 20% of people who do support “Political correctness” the largest group of these are affluent highly educated whites.
Modern leftism is the most actually racist group in the world today.
If victims and the oppresed must be protected – there must be a protector – and that is of course those highly educated afluent whites.
On multiiple levels the culture of victimhood, and oppression makes those victims weaker not stronger. This is a model for infinite power and tryany.
This is what Proud Boys lists as their values.
Maybe they are “racist” – but if so you must be arguing they are “crypto-racists” and that description fits the elite on the left quite well. Pretending to be one thing while actually being the opposite.
Minimal Government
Maximum Freedom
Anti-Political Correctness
Anti-Drug War
Closed Borders
Anti-Racial Guilt
Anti-Racism
Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment)
Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)
Glorifying the Entrepreneur
Venerating the Housewife
Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism
Ron, this is not a good time to be bringing up witchcraft as D’s are having problems of their own.
🙉🙈🙊….😀😀😀
So I am clear – calling politicians animals is repugnant ?
https://whyweprotest.net/attachments/donald-as-a-pig-jpg.259854/
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=trump+calls+rosie+o%27donnell+a+fat+pig&&view=detail&mid=BA9CA217C95F498E5BEABA9CA217C95F498E5BEA&rvsmid=64986DA4DE223673FA1764986DA4DE223673FA17&FORM=VDQVAP
Oink, oink.
You have made my point.
If something is wrong – then it is wrong no matter who does it.
It is wrong if some republican candidate does it.
It is wrong if Trump does it.
It is wrong when those on the left do it.
I am fully prepared to condem Trump and the GOP candidate
Are you prepared to condem everyone on the left who has have anything to do with this antropomorphic Trump cartoons ? Anyone who has laughed at them ?
aside from “if republiicans do it, it is wrong” – what is your actual standard ?
I certainly can not tell, and pointing out that Trump compared ODonnel to a pig
makes rather than refutes my question.
It makes it clear that you are only offended when republicans insult democrats.
That the reverse is acceptable.
That your concept of right and wrong is situational, and condictioned on who does something rather than what iis done.
That you are lawless.
are we having a contest to see what Politician is the stupidest ?
I vote for Kyrsten Sinema and her letters inviiting a coven of witches to a protest that turned violent.
Finding stupiidity in the past of politicians is shooting fish in a barrel.
It is an incredibly bipartisan sport.
The interesting thing in the Sinema issue is the difference in how the left responds to stupidity compared to the right.
Witch references doomed O ‘Donnell. What Sinema has said and done does not seem to have impacted but a handful of votes based on polling.
I know how I interpret this.
The differences are simple – Sienma is on the left – past idiotic conduct is excusable.
ODonnell was not she must be batty.
We are seeing the same with Kanye.
I only watched a bit of the Kanye Oval Office, It did not particularly mean anything to me. I am not into Rap or Hip-Hop and not a west fan. The behavior of celebritiies is often wierd.
What did strike me was the immediate incredibly racist response from the media.
Had Anne Coulter or Ben Shapiro made similar remarks about a democratii black entertainer – they would have been completely politically finished for ever.
Milo Yiannopoulos failed to sufficiently condemn priests having sex with Male teens and he has close to vaporized. I did not agree with him on some things, but his voice was refreshing. I found him alot like Bill Maher – though less smug and pseudo intellectual.
He was a political comic exposing the hypocrisy and making fun of his political opposites.
But one slip off the edge of political correctness and he is gone.
I think Sinema is in serious trouble – but I think this was inevitable.
Her past is much more left than she claims to be at the moment. She sold herself as a moderate, as a bridge, and being able to work with republicans – she HAD TO, as AZ is a pink state. She had to long ago in the campaign pre-emptively address her past racicalism, disown it and explain how and why she changed.
People DO Change.
People also pretend to be what they think they need to be to get elected.
And being found inauthentic is the kiss of death to a candidate.
Sienama may not be so tarniished as ODonnel – though I am not sure the allegations are not sufficiently close that she should be. but I think she has lost – barring catching McSally in bed with a 13yr old girl – and even that might not be enough.
What is different is that ODonnell was permanently finished.
Sienama will be back.
Associateing with witches is more acceptable for democrats than republicans.
Democrats do not have standards.
Further when a republican does something strange – they are crazy, nuts, bi-polar disturbed – witness how the media iis painting Kanye.
Kanye West – who has received as much critical acclaim as Dylan, who was a darling of the media and entertainment industries – until he made Trump friendly remarks – this person is mentally disturbed sufficiently that he is just a few missed pills short of homeless and on the streets. Huh ?
I do not place a lot of weight in the political expression of Celebrities.
I can like their music or performances and ignore their politics.
I think Deniro and Streep are incredible actors – and I will likely see anything they do.
But Deniro just aparently went on a rant that included explicit references to overthrowing the government at a recent public appearance.
I am not hearing half the media pontificate on whether he needs to adjust his meds.
Why ? Because when someone on the left does something crazy – it is justified – because the world is crazy, because well, …. Republicans. When someone on the right behaves similarly – they are racist, or crazy or slapped with some other label that demands disregarding them forwever.
Ron, come on. That article says nothing. White if you look white and don’t claim any Indian blood. So what?
BTW: Obama is 1/2 white so 100 years ago, if he killed an Indian would they say he was white or he was black. Obviously his color would prevail in that case.
dduck, I made a comment concerning idoitic statements after a post by grump made about candidate stupid comments. I referenced witch statements by Odonnell and Dave commented that Democrats might want to avoid witch comments based on something Senima (AZ) said about witches. I then found this article about Warrens ancestral claims and made that comment about avoiding that also.
I was thinking when you claim you are indian and the best is 1/128th then some political marketing guru would make hay with political ads against her and that newspaper article would be in that 30 second ad to lend proof to their message.The best that one can find is scientific proof that there are indian markers and one scientist said maybe 8 generations ago, that would be 1/128 (if EW is counted as 1) or 1/256(If EW parents are counted as 1).
Warren’s DNA has 0.098% markers that are unique to american indians.
The average white american has TWICE that.
All that matters is that Warrens claim to be cherokee is without any reasonable basis.
I beleive the DNA tests demonstrate that Warren has 1/2 the indian DNA of the average white person – i.e. she is WHITER that I AM.
And that any connection between her and any indians – probably not cherokee is atleast 6 and as much as 10 genations in the past. That is a long long time.
I think I can trace my family to my great-great-great-great-great grandfather. He was a union calalry captian in the civil war. But I have no clue who he married or almost anything else about his life. I do not credibly beleiive Warren does either.
So who is monitoring and billing the Trump campaign for all these flights?
Surely since the Trump WH has not filled many, many positions, in government (yes judges that the Dems oppose too) it must be a daunting job, oh unless that WH just tells them, which are WH business or campaign related. Yeh, that’s probably the way it’s done.
I mean, if you can’t trust what the head of a country, say, for instance SA when they flatly say something like an assassination did not take place or like Putin denying any election interference at that conference, who can you trust.
And, I ain’t boofing. You can look it up. (It has to do with kayaking in 1982).
There are pretty rigid rules on this and there have been since atleast the 70’s.
Whereever Trump travels for whatever reasons the resources necescary for him to continue to function as president are paid for byt he US government.
While all aspects that are political – campaign related are covered by the presidents political party. Even the cost of AF1 for the trip is covered by the party. I beleive that even the cost of the secret service is prorated and partly charged to the party.
Trump does not personally have anything to do with this. Much of it is worked out by the permanent whitehouse staff – not political appointees.
This was the same for Obama.
With respect to SA – we have an allegation – one that appears to be reasonably strong.
We need more than that before we should act.
You are constantly telling me that Trump is incautious, imprudent.
Yet in every instance were he says “if” or delays condemnation waiting for evidence rather than allegation – then you whig out.
I am upset with Trump over the strikes against Syria in respons to the recent chemical weapons attack. The evidence is NOT sufficiently strong that an actual chemical weapons attack occured, there is a fair amount of evidence that the entire thing was faked, no credible organization has investigated and found actual victims, the video has a fairly small number of people showing the wrong symptoms – and on and on.
But Trump;s retaliation was very real. People died.
The fact that Assad is not a good guy – is not justification for killing people without being sure you are right.
Lets say that the US gets evidence that the kidnappers/murders are on a plane to SA, and no innocents are on board – and we destroy that plane.
Is the evidence we have at this time sufficient to justify that action ?
If you can not answer yes, then you can not fault Trump for qualifying his condemnation.
Which is already great enough to wreak havoc on mideastern markets and raise the spector of an oil embargo and skyrocketing oil prices – that is not happening, but that doesn’t prevent speculation.
SA has already been severely harmed by this. LEts hope they are actually guilty of something .
Due process is not supposed to be punishment, then verdict then trial
Ron, I don’t like Warren, and I don’t like this stupid rule giving advantages to people because they have some genetic background other than being obviously white.
How warren could secure an advantage is not what I would like. I sorta think SOME people should get a little break entering college but am not firm on that.
The world is unfair, and I’m glad that in NYC I was, as a poor kid, could get into CUNY. I think now the costs have gone up substantially, but you still get a worthwhile cost break.
However, I don’t know if the educational quality is as good as when I attended in 1957.
dduck couple of comments.
1. When I made that comment about Warren, I really was not trying to begin a conversation about her. (I think if we are both around in 2020 during the election, we will have lots to say about her then)
2. I agree with everything you said about education. I had the same experience in California when attending a state college for not much more than the cost of books. ( And that was in 1964-1968.
3. The same thing that screwed healthcare cost in this country also screwed educational cost. Since the 1978, the cost of living has increased about 400%. Healthcare has increased 600% and college education costs have increased 1120%. The two things that healthcare and education have in common is the involvement of government in reimbursement for both. There was no incentive for healthcare providers to control cost for much of my career in hospital financial management since the government paid for 50%+ of our cost without asking questions. In education, the government is guaranteeing loans for students at lower interest rates for most of those years between 1978 to 2018. If the students had easy money, what incentive did universities have to control costs? And what incentive did students have to work and pay for part of their education when they could get good cheap money easy?The same incentive as healthcare providers. None. So here we are with a crisis looming in both and the government, which screwed up the system to begin with, is trying to insert itself further into the system which is only going to mess it up further. Like I said many times, the problem we have with healthcare is not the reimbursement system, it is in the roots of the healthcare system and that is the government. Same with education. And when I reference government in this case it is the feds thinking Washington can cure anything. The only thing Washington can do well is screw up a wet dream.
Get government out of education. Then you can make your own choices.
Adjusted for inflation education costs have risen 400%.
Government guaranteed student loans did absolutely nothing except increase the cost of education and saddle graduates with debt.
Qualiity has declined – and all of that money has been put into administration.
The ratio of students to professors has increased. Full Professors are nearly extinct, Colleges rely nearly completely on associates and adjuncts. But the ration of administrators to students and increased dramatically.
This is exactly what you get when management has money to spend and nothing to account for. Similar things happen in private industry under the same circumstances.
One of the most critical features of the free market is that it incentiivizes all the things we want. And punishes what we do not.
The student loan business is a total racket. Colleges get billions of dollars, lenders are subsidized by the government, so they have nothing to lose.
Students are loaded up with tens of thousands in non-dischargeable debt, which many of them will never be able to pay off. If they default, the government will garnish their wages, seize their income tax refunds, and in some cases, take away their drivers licenses.
The student loan debt bubble is over a trillion $….and taxpayers are basically on the hook for all of it, if it bursts.
There is plenty of economic literature demonstrating that if you subsidize something you do NOT reduce the cost, the amount of the subsidy gets added to the cost and profits or expenses increase to consume the subsidy.
Education is just a glaring demonstration of that.
Government guaranteed student loans have done nothing except increase the cost of education and saddle students with debt.
They provide no benefit to poor people, and in fact are harmful.
We should not expect diifferently – look at public education.
It costs as much for a student in publiic school as one in excellent private schools.
It costs as much in places liike DC or NYC as the very best private boarding schools in the country. Public school in my community costs nearly 3 times what the equivalent private catholic school does. A bit over half what good local private schools do, and about the same as a local elite private school with a national reputation.
Eliminate my school taxes and I could have afforded to send my kids to very good private schools for the same money. Only school costs are for 12 years. School taxes are for a lifetime.
The explosive increases in price that we have seen in healthcare and education have never occured without government involvement. Free markets can not sustain explosive long term price increases. In fact in a truly free market a short term price spike is nearly always followed by a complete collapse in prices usually to a price lower than before.
Even if I can not persuade you that a priori regulation is a bad idea. There are no examples of government involvement is prices – subsidies, etc. that do not end very badly.
When government involves itself in prices in almost anyway, it radically distorts incentives, and normal market self regulation of prices just does not work anymore.
This is trivial.
Government – and ONLY government must be absolutely blind to race, …..
In every other arena people are free to make choices as they wish – ncluding bad ones, iincluding racist ones, so long as they do not use force aganst others, keep any binding commitments they make, and do not actually harm others.
If Harvard wants to diiscrimiinate against asians – that is NOT the business of government. It is the business of alumni, and students and those who wish to protest or boycott harvard.
As the left culture of intercestionality increases t will become impossible to make ANY decisisons.
If you have one slot who gets it – the disabled indian woman or the transgendered black ?
You would need computer programs to make choices to acheive “fair”
And that is just dealing with mostly immutable traits – what about things that are not traits – do we need to demographically balance for economic advantage ? How do we measure all of this ? Further we know that IQ is the strongest predicator of success we have – if we deliberately choose a student body that is more diverse but of lower average IQ – we are harming society as a whole, we are reducing our future success.
Decisions like these DO NOT belong in the hands of government.
We know where this road ends – see nazi germany.
It does not matter what set of traits you characterize as deserving preference – iif you make that decision within government you will slowly move towards evil.
Baboon Shooter resigns, apologizes…
“Idaho’s Fish and Game commissioner Blake Fischer resigned Monday after facing backlash for sharing photos he took with animals he killed during an African hunting trip.
Fischer said in his resignation letter to Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter (R) that he “made some poor judgments.”
“I recently made some poor judgments that resulted in sharing photos of a hunt in which I did not display an appropriate level of sportsmanship and respect for the animals I harvested. While these actions were out of character for me, I fully accept responsibility and feel it is best for the citizens of Idaho and sportsmen and women that I resign my post,” Fischer wrote in the letter.”
I guess now we must purge TR from the pantheon of progressive leaders.
As a kid I hunted rabbits and ground hogs with a bow and arrow – am I permanenty barred from public office ? I never caught any does that let me off the hook ?
I really like veal – I guess I am back on the hook.
“As a kid I hunted rabbits and ground hogs with a bow and arrow – am I permanenty barred from public office ? ”
Had you posted pictures of dead rabbits and ground hogs like people do today, yes you would be barred due to others being offended that you would kill rabbits and ground hogs. Snowflake live and let live.
As a serious comment, I dont think anyone, especially government officials, that are dumb enough to post pictures on social media that are anything but someone in a family, friend or scenic background picture are smart enough to be in a government job. How many times does one have to hear that a person posted something on social media and there was massive backlash that caused that person a problem to realize social media is not your friend.
Did this guy not think the anti-hunting population was not going to go bat shit crazy when he posted pictures of dead animals? Had he posted pictures from a hunt in the states with dead Bambi , someone would have lost their mind over that also.
But in this day and age where everyone is so self centered and pictures of your meal is thought to be of interest of others, not posting pictures like this will cause extreme SMW syndrome (Social Media Withdrawal) resulting in tremors and severe sweats.
So because I am a BAD hunter – and never managed to hit anything I shot at – I am still permitted to hold public office.
That makes perfect sense
I do not think some Idaho game commissioner thought that his social media pages were significant enough for national attention.
Again we do not know all the facts here.
I do not see the need for a game commission.
But presuming we have one – why is it we would NOT expect them to feature hunting and fishing on their web sites ?
“Had he posted pictures from a hunt in the states with dead Bambi, someone would have lost their mind over that also.”
I have almost never met anyone like that, but they must exist somewhere, everything does. Vermont is the most liberal state in the union and its also one where hunting is quite a big deal, deer, moose, bear, there is a bounty on coyotes. None of the liberals seem to be having any problem with any of it other than a few objections to moose hunting on the grounds that it consists of walking up to a moose from a few yards away and blasting it to kingdom come. But almost everyone understands that you can’t have moose rambling all over the roads.
The idaho hunters, who were board members and a former commissioner calling for this commissioner to resign, were they snowflakes losing their shit? Idaho gun owner/hunting snowflakes? They seemed to be sincerely disgusted. At some point overuse of the word snowflake makes the word meaningless.
Actually, the one thing that does get objected to in Vermont is people coming right into your front yard to hunt or even to shoot a deer right in front of you, which can and does happen if you have not posted your land, some hunters lack any common sense. I was under the dash of my car once changing a fuse and I looked up and there were two hunters 50 feet away on my lawn. Well, my land wasn’t posted so they thought they had the right. Can I go and do whatever I damn please on Their front lawn since they don’t have a sign, maybe do an oil change or something?
And about once a year, a hunter shoots some person, often a relative, usually fatally, because they thought it was a deer. And they never get punished by the court system much. That makes people a bit cross. Damn snowflakes.
.
There are individuals everywhere that are going to object to any hunting of wild animals. If hunting big huge wildlife is unacceptible, why is the the first site that came up on a Google (reportedly left leaning site) search?
https://www.africanskyhunting.co.za/trophies/giraffe-hunting.html
Not sure what other animals he killed, but I would bet if you searched google you would find safaris that targeted those animals also. In addition, searching objections to deer hunting provides a few sites that object to that and any hunting. Did not read any, just looked for sites.
But the issue goes back to my social media comment. If the picture is not food or pictures other than family or scenic, share them on e-mail to close friends only that you know wont share with anyone else. Putting stuff on social media is insane.
Yes, some hunters are assholes and they are becoming more common. All of our property is posted and that does not always help. But we dont have too many locals coming on without permission due to my wifes father years ago. He had high-powered rifles. Not sure the caliber, but the cartridge was quite large. Sounded like cannons. The property slopes down to a creek where the deer migrate and the hunters took up residence, then slopes back up a high hill, totally covered in trees. That area was used for target shooting, clay pigeon shooting, etc. Well when he took those guns out and started firing about 30-40 ft above hunters illegally on the property and they heard those winging overhead, it did not take long for the word to get around to stay off Xxx’s property or you’ll get shot. My brother-in-law still target shoots (AR-15, high capacity clips), so the word is still around and locals stay off. Its the town folk that think they can do whatever they want that gets the crap scared out if them when they are where they should not be. They are surprised that some people are still protective of open property.
So people are no longer free to use their own personal social media n ways that might offend others ?
all of facebook is one giant “safe space” ?
Some people are offended by two males kissing – does that mean you should only exchange those pictures by email ?
Some people are offended by transgendered people – I guess those pictures must be banned too.
“So people are no longer free to use their own personal social media n ways that might offend others ?”
People are free to use it however they want.
Other people with access are free to react in whatever manner they believe is right.
Employers are free to react to people reacting to the social media posts.
Employer are free to terminate employment of employees causing negative views of the employer.
Employees terminated are free to hire legal advice on how to get job back.
In this case, this individual represented the state in concerns of wildlife preservation. The actions were unacceptable to many based on American norms and the state found the reaction of many brought negative coverage to the division he headed and most likely told him he would be terminated if he did not resign.
He exercised his freedoms
People exercised their freedoms
His bosses exercised their freedoms.
State HR policies were enforced
He resigned.
He is free to appeal, with or without legal action.
All decisions one makes has consequences.
I believe he was on the “game commission” .
Game is things you hunt. “Wildlife preservation” is secondary – both in terms of a “Game commission” and even in terms of government overall.
The objectiive of humans is what is best for humans.
Wildlife preservation is important because:
It might be important to human survival.
It is something humans choose to value.
We have deliberately chosen to elimnate Small Pox fromt he face of the earth – we certainly are not “preserving it.” We are trying to do the same with other diseases like polio.
We have the technology today to completely eliminate mosquito and Tse Tse fly born diseases. Doing so requires the complete eradication of Tse Tse flies and several species of mosquitoes. We have genetic technology to do so. Thus far we have chosen not to – primarily because of uncertainty about the side effects.
And it feels like “playing god”
But we are playing god when we dam a river or build a house.
You can not appeal a resignation.
I do not think there is an HR issue here at all.
This is overall not that important to me – except pointing out the incongruities.
In fact I have absolutely ZERO problems with people protesting anyone in any political office for any reason at all – even reasons I think are stupid.
That said much of what we beleive about “the environment” is complete claptrap.
There is no aspect of human knowledge that iis self evidently more ill informed, and full of more garbage science, or where people continue to believe nonsense that was long ago refuted.
Malthus dead for centuries still quickly recognized the error of his ways, but the modern left and environmentalist have not.
The stossel video I linked only includes a few of the well established environmentalist nonsense. Though it is pretty good at demonstrating that environmentalism is a religion.
The goal is NOT to preserve the environment. It is to inflict by force specific values and a way of life on people.
There are myriads of examples of this – but Stossel’s video hits two that are Rhinocerous based.
It is now possible to synthesixe Rhino horn that can not be distinguished from the real thing.
We can then flood the market, destroy the value of rhino horn which will make it no longer cost effective to poach Rhino’s
But the left hates this idea. Their real objective is NOT to save Rhino’s
It is to change people.
We see the same in myriads of areas.
Allowing private ownership of Rhino’s iin South Africa – brought several Rhino’s back from near extinction – but “environmentalists” do not want Rhino’s as a source of products for humans – even if that assures the survival of Rhino’s.
Can you name a single animal tat humans are free to own, that produces something we value that faces extincion ? Of course not.
Ronald Coase was not thinking species facing extinction when he worked out coases law.
Coases Law states that:
If something can be traded.
If there are strong property rights.
If transaction costs are sufficiently low
Free Markets will lead to Pareto Efficientcy – basically the optimal outcome where any change will result in a net decrease in total satisfaction.
And that this is true REGARDLESS of the initial allocation.
Coases law says many many things.
It says the best results for “wildlife preservation” is private ownership and unrestricted trade.
It also says that “income inequality” is nonsense – or better put that the satisfaction maximizing distribution of wealth, income, …. will occur with the rule of law, and otherwise government staying completely out of it.
Dave, I dont give a hoot if the guy got fired, resigned or left for whatever reason. He was free to do what he did and the state was free to do what they wanted to do following any legal and approved state policies.
I never said people were not free to post any crap they wanted.
What I did say, which I will modify slightly since I dont want to go through all the comments to find the original, is anything but benign fully clothed family or scenic.pictures are pictures someone may get all bent out of shape over. Once there are enough upset people seeing the pictures, then there are consequences. This man felt those consequences.
I then mentioned something about stupidity. If you are stupid enough to post something on social media knowing that something can set off an avalanche of criticism by others for any reason, then that stupidity should preclude you from government service.
I dont think he should have resigned for shooting baboons. Whatever their age. They are worse than coyotes that we have here because they are in much more aggressive toward humans.
Trespassing is illegal. It is also a violation of someone else’s rights.
Trespassing is illegal – even if you do not have a sign.
In most states the sign determines whether the crime is a felony or a misdemeanor.
When you start claiming that Trump has made things so much worse and start citing statistics – you should keep incidents such as this in mind
The Data from the NYC Human Relations commission has seen a huge jump in accusations of racial or discriminatory conduct. It has NOT seen an increase and prosecutions – because nearly all the increase is false reports.
Yeah, there is no such think as voter Fraud.
“The Proud Boys are a violent, ultra-nationalist group that promotes anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and anti-woman views. Although the group officially rejects white supremacy, members have nonetheless appeared at multiple racist events, with a former Proud Boy organizing the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. The group rallies around anti-left violence, and members of Proud Boy chapters in the Pacific Northwest have participated in public marches while wearing shirts that glorify the murders of leftists by Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.
Previous McInnes speeches in New York have been marked by violence. In February 2017, New York University’s College Republican club invited McInnes to speak on campus, and 11 people were arrested in fights outside the event, including Proud Boy Salvatore Cipolla, who attacked a journalist covering the event.
McInnes frequently champions violence, particularly against the left.
“I want violence, I want punching in the face. I’m disappointed in Trump supporters for not punching enough,” McInnes said on his webshow.
On another occasion, he called for an attack on a woman.
“This woman—yes, I’m advocating violence against women—this woman should be punched in the face. Shouldn’t be by a man, maybe by another woman, her twin sister, should just punch her in the face. Or maybe mace her. Yeah. I’m pro-free speech, I don’t want her ever to be censored, but this woman needs to experience a little bit of violence.”
McInnes also uses his show to spout racial slurs, especially the n-word, and call for attacks on transgender people. “Choke a tranny. Get your fingers around the windpipe,” McInnes said on his show, according to Newsweek. A self-described misogynist, McInnes has argued against women in the workforce and claimed sexual harassment does not exist.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nypd-looks-to-charge-9-proud-boys-with-assault-for-manhattan-fight
OK, Fine, these are people Republicans Should be inviting to speak. Seems they have a message that is interesting and pertinent to their members.
And they should find as many whiter than white right wing blonder than blonds with chainsaw rhetoric, racist humor, and conspiracy theories a la Housley, Ingraham, Coulter, Kelli Ward, and on and on to be their candidates and spokespeople and news anchors. Then they should complain about being labeled.
Well, its not how I would run a party, but what do I know?
You quoted someone – but I can not tell who.
“The proud boys are violent”
That should be easy to establish – have they been charged by the police ?
Is there video of them starting an attack ?
In fact is there video of ANY no-left GROUP attacking anybody ?
Words have meaning. Just saying somethiing does nto make it the truth.
“Anti-muslims” – based on what ?
That trope is hung arround the necks of any group that opposes female genital mutilation or restrictions on immigration from countries with problems with islamic terrorism.
The Southern Poverty LAw Center iis the normal source for such claims and they just lost a multi-million dollar law suite because they defamed someone and “anti-islam”
“Anti-immigrant” – that appears to be true – they want to end or severely reduce immigration.
They openly say this on their web site. That is good reason to beleive what they say about themselves above what others say about them – particularly when they “others” are overreaching
II do not agree with that. But it s a view help by much, possibly most of the country.
“anti-woman” – don’t know – and I doubt your cite does either. Their website does not support this. But it does support the claim that they atleast argue that people who wish to relate in traditional gender roles should be tolerated.
We have debated Charlotte repeated. James Field is mentally disturbed.
Beyond Fields paniced flight, and Heather Heyer’s heart attack, the Charlotteville march reflects badly on the LEFT – not the marchers.
I do not share the values of those marching.
But even actual nazi’s shoud be allowed to march.
At Charlottesvlle – the government orded the police to “stand down” as a result left wing nuts broke through police barriers and attacked the marchers.
The markers were well prepared for this and defended themselves effectively without police protection.
It seems in your world view that no one whose views offend you should be allowed to march and speak. that the police should only protect people that you agree with.
How is all of this relevant ?
While some of your “facts” about PB appear to be wrong or just oppinions without foundation,
It would not matter whether you were right or not.
People on the extreme left should be free to walk the streets to organize marches to got to meetings without being physically assaulted.
You seem to be arguing that if someone offends you enough they are no longer entitled to the protection fo the law, that the social contract does not apply to them, and that you are free to initiate violence against them merely because you disagree.
I do not think that is really what you beleive – but that is what you are arguing.
More importantly – THAT is the actual argument of the left. And that argument is actually evil, immoral and leads to violence and tyranny.
“I want violence, I want punching in the face. I’m disappointed in Trump supporters for not punching enough,” McInnes said on his webshow.
If he has said that – he is wrong. That makes hiim indistingushable from Eric Holder.
Well except for one thng – McInnes is a right wing unknown.
Holder was the Attorney General of the United States.
On another occasion, he called for an attack on a woman.
“This woman—yes, I’m advocating violence against women—this woman should be punched in the face. Shouldn’t be by a man, maybe by another woman, her twin sister, should just punch her in the face. Or maybe mace her. Yeah. I’m pro-free speech, I don’t want her ever to be censored, but this woman needs to experience a little bit of violence.”
Again – this just makes him liike Holder – though I would like the context of this.
Was McInnes advocating violence against a random woman – I doubt that.
A woman who he disagreed wiith ? That makes him Holder.
Or someone who had initiated violence against others ? That makes his remarks advocacy of self defense.
I would further note that so much of the “quotes” we read in the press are wrong or out of context that I am not inclined to beleive something just because you quote it.
All day yesterday Trump’s $1m offer to warren was being quoted – without the “if it proves she is an indian”. I think Trump SHOULD give $1M riight now – I think it would be a brilliant political move. But I think he should giive iit to some group like “the cherokee nation” that has said Warren is NOT indian.
Regardless, my point is the left is constantly miis quoting, quoting out of context, or ediiting quotes, and that often significantly changes their meaning.
McInnes is certainly not someone I want as a friend. Maybe he is as your quites paint him,
though I take that with a large grain of salt.
He still should be free to go places without being physically assaulted
And you completely fail to grasp that.
“McInnes also uses his show to spout racial slurs, especially the n-word, and call for attacks on transgender people. “Choke a tranny. Get your fingers around the windpipe,” McInnes said on his show, according to Newsweek. A self-described misogynist, McInnes has argued against women in the workforce and claimed sexual harassment does not exist.”
I guess I have to accept your word that these things are true. Though relying on the press for accurate reporting on anyone on the right is stupid today.
Again – this does not change whether he should be able to walk the streets without being attacked.
“https://www.thedailybeast.com/nypd-looks-to-charge-9-proud-boys-with-assault-for-manhattan-fight:”
Again – we are to trust a news story about what MIGHT happen in the left wingnut city run by DeBlasio ?
Unless someone has different video than that provided BY ANTIFA – Antifia Attacked McInnes as he departed.
Unless Self Defense is a crime in NYC thiis should be pretty pen and shut.
“OK, Fine, these are people Republicans Should be inviting to speak. Seems they have a message that is interesting and pertinent to their members.”
It is my understanding that McInnes attended an event that was a presentation about a specific historical occurance during WWII which McInnes has a great deal of interest and possibly knowledge.
I have read nothing about whether he was “invited” or “invited to speak” or even whether there was any speaking per say.
Based on the news which we have to take with a grain of salt – he showed up at a public meeting on a topic of interest to him.
This could be inaccurate – but I have heard nothing to establish clearly that McInnes was invited to speak.
“And they should find as many whiter than white right wing blonder than blonds with chainsaw rhetoric, racist humor, and conspiracy theories a la Housley, Ingraham, Coulter, Kelli Ward, and on and on to be their candidates and spokespeople and news anchors. Then they should complain about being labeled.”
If they are being labeled inaccurately – they have every right to complain.
There is no doubt that McInnes is not someone I would endorse – neither is Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren – and yet democrats “invite” them to speak all the time.
Neither party is run especially well.
But the Democratic PARTY is the one advocating violence.
There is a gigantic gulf between McInnns and Holder or Waters, or Maddona, or Depp, or DeNiro. Further no one is physically attacking democrats inciiting violence. No one iis diisrupting them in their homes, or as they eat.
If someone hunts to eat, fine. Hunts coyotes that endanger their pets and maybe children, also fine. Goes to africa to kill animals by the family just because they love to kill, to destroy life, then that is different. Did Africa have a Giraffe problem as well and a water buffalo problem etc.? What that asshole Idaho Game commissioner did was so far from sporting or necessary that even a unanimous group and Idaho hunters/members of the game commision thought it was grotesque and that he should resign. And he did. Great.
I’d worry about having someone with such a violent need to kill around.
TR. I read his biography this year and was stunned by the energy, intellect, and determination of the man. I was also appalled by his bloody need to kill animals by the thousands for sport and go to war for sport to kill people just for the physical joy of it, that side of his character is repulsive to me. Mark Twain was with me on that one.
The issue is far more complex than you pretend – and it is typical of the left to look at something from the surface and get it wrong.
I am not a hunter aside from some limited bow and arrow hunting as a kid.
I do not enjoy it.
But I know people who are, and I know alot of the actual facts.
The majority of wildlife and endangered species preservation in this country and the world is done by …. HUNTERS.
Twain had a problem with TR because of his violence towards brown skinned HUMANS
Regardless I used TR speciifically because he was PROGRESSIVE.
If we barred from government everyone who did something that offended someone else,
we would have no government.
Just to be clear – I am not defending this guy – I do not know him – and neither do you, and neither does the media.
I am attacking this stupid narrative what we should all be outraged over some small fact taken out of context.
I am attacking what is a COMMON technique of the left – the politics of outrage.
This is unfortunately a very effective tool.
My guess is this guy SHOULD be a game commissioner – specifically BECAUSE he resigned.
But that is a guess. I do not know the facts – nor do you. And I know that the media is just giving us a tiny portion – just enough to make us angry. And that is the problem.
And that is why the media is owned by the left, and that too is a problem.
I’m going right now to the TR townhouse on E. 20th St., and throw bricks at it. You should not give a gun to a NYC kid and expect him to act properly, like defending his life or protecting his Mom from people wanting to pinch her ass.
Seriously, these were different times, and didn’t we get rid of all those pesky carrier pigeons and “roaming’ buffalos have been limited. Now we just kill 83 black bears or so in NJ and a few garden destroying deer here and there.
Really seriously, it ain’t what you do it’s how you do it, whether posing with baby animals you have killed or bragging about pussy you have grabbed.
Really, really seriously, not all hunters are bad, and they used to have to eat what they hunted or starve.
Avoid veal and products where animals are densely cooped up under disgusting conditions or become a vegan.
dduck, there are few animal products you can eat today that the animals are not raised in inhumane conditions. Other than cattle raised on ranches, anything else is raised in conditions that should be unacceptible. Chickens for eggs cooped up in cages, hogs raised with just a few sq ft of space, etc. And the when cattle go to slaughter, dont discuss that process with the weak of heart. Few producers are interested in raising food in acceptable conditions.
Now the Idaho hunter shot baboon families. In that part of the world, they want that. They want baboons gone. Big, small, they are a health issue, dangerous and a pest. Like coyotes here. The garaffe hunts take the animal, skin it for the hide, the meat is processed, some goes to resturants, some to market and some to locals. Little goes to waste as in Africa, they find a way to use most of it. Same with any big game for the most part.
Everything this guy did was acceptable under African norms. Under American acceptable behaviors, it was not.
I don’t think much giraffe meat goes to ‘locals’ Ron.
That’s a PR myth.
It’s considered exotic game meat, and is filet mignon EXPENSIVE.
(If you want to try some Giraffe Jerky it’s available on line, for about $299 a lb.)
If you can buy it online as “food” – then it is food.
The fact that it is exotic, does not change that.
One of the expected changes that will occur as a consequence of being able to factory produce meat without live animals is a shift in the meat that we eat.
Currently the meat we eat is based on what animals are easiest to domestcate and raise.
Not what is the best food for us.
In the future we may eat lots of giraffe or monkey meat – whatever tastes real good and is most nutritious.
Crimes are exclusively about WHAT you do.
Rape is rape, murder is murder. There is no legal rape if you do not pose with your victim.
There are many may many things that people are offended by that are legal.
That is perfectly fine – so long as that personal offense is not translated into law.
If “pussy grabbing” – whatever that actually refered to is a crime – prosecute and convict.
If it is not – you are free to use it as the means of deciding who to vote for or against.
We are free to be offended by whatever we like. We are free to vote based on that offense.
We are NOT free to infringe on the rights of others.
dhlli: Just curious, what’s your favorite movie comedy, I’m guessing War and Peace or Psycho.
No, I’m not “forcing” you to answer but it might tell us what kind of humor you like.
Off the top of my head I can not name a “favorite comedy movie”.
Currently I love “the good place” – but that is a series not a movie.
Also the simpsons.
I loved Colbert, John, Oliver, John Stewart – the whole commedy central team – as COMICS, I do not confuse them with news or facts.
I loved Faulty Towers – as well as alot of other British commedies.
There were Monty Pyrhon movies so that counts.
“The Aristocrats” had me laughing until I nearly died.
Douglas Adam’s books.
Burn after reading was hilarious.
It is not possible for you to force anyone to do anything through a blog comment.
But you do frequently either imply that you can, should be able to or lament that you cant.
ALL are morally wrong.
Meat is a necescary element in the human diet. It is extremely difficult for people who do not eat any to maintain their health.
It is likely that sometime during my children’s life time – and possibly even my own, that all meat will be produced in factories – that we will no longer raise cows or chickens.
When that occurs the populations of farm animals in the world will plumet.
In fact most “farm” animals – only exist to provide food for humans. They did not exist as they are in nature and serve no purpose besides feeding us.
This is for those that are swift of mind: “I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child, well nursed, is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally…”
It is entirely possible that future meat will be factory produced human tissue.
dhlli: Thank you for providing that comedy list. It appears you may have a sense of humor.
Blog comments are a poor media for communicating humor or emotion
There have been numerous instances on TNM Including some of my own attempts where sarcasm has fallen flat
None of us a Johnathan Swyft
Jay ,no idea where the meat goes. Just read this from one of the hunting sites. First part of article covered what they did.
http://huntingafricasbiggame.blogspot.com/2012/10/processing-bull-giraffe.html
From the post it appears that all big game hunting results in meat that is eaten by someone.
So the argument that this hunting is pure sport is false.
I am hard pressed to think of an animal that we eat that is endangered or has gone extinct.
In fact the opposite tends to be true. Buffalo were brought back from near extinction and now their meat is avaiable in many grocery stores.
Gavin McInnes was invited by the Republican club. Its their choice, but like all things political its a choice that will be fair play for comment and opinion. I’d say that this was a revealingly bad choice. If I were the democrats I would use this story for all its worth. Likewise If I were the republicans I would use the Middlebury riot and the Dartmouth BLM library invasion for all they are worth. These events mean something important about the groups who were involved.
“New York’s Republicans are divided on whether or not it was a good idea to invite Gavin McInnes and his frequently violent gang of Proud Boys to the Metropolitan Republican Club, after the appearance sparked street clashes between protesters and the far right hate group in the Upper East Side on Friday night.
After initially blaming the violence on “radical leftists,” GOP gubernatorial candidate Marc Molinaro acknowledged in an interview with the Daily News on Tuesday that he is “a bit ashamed” by the Metropolitan Republican Club’s decision to invite McInnes. Molinaro—who uses the Metropolitan Club as his campaign headquarters—accused McInnes of inciting violence, adding that “the institution was wrong [to invite him] and I think we were wrong not to call it out for what it is.”
In addition to espousing racist, misogynistic and Islamophobic views, McInnes has repeatedly encouraged members of his group to commit violence, and bestows the highest rankings on Proud Boys who have beat up left wing protesters. He was initially invited to the Republican club to perform a skit depicting the killing of Japanese socialist Inejiro Asanuma, whose murder on live television in 1960 is considered an “inspiring moment” by the Proud Boys founder.
Other GOP leaders, meanwhile, have been far less willing to distance themselves from the Proud Boys’ brand of belligerent ultranationalism. A state Republican party spokesperson, Jessica Proud, told Gothamist, “we condemned ALL political violence and the views of McInnes. Antifa is by no means an innocent party here.” For the most part, Ed Cox, Chairman of the state GOP, has directed his anger toward Governor Andrew Cuomo’s perceived indifference about the vandalism of the club.
The Metropolitan Republican Club has stood perhaps most forcefully behind McInnes and the Proud Boys. On Sunday, the group put out a statement touting their support for free speech, adding that “Gavin’s talk on Friday night, while at times politically incorrect and a bit edgy, was certainly not inciting violence.”
Members of the club have also come to the defense of McInnes’s First Amendment rights—defined, in this case, as his right to reenact a political assassination in front of a paying audience at the New York City Republican headquarters. During a press conference held by City Council Speaker Corey Johnson on Monday, an irate state Senate candidate and Metropolitan Club member, Pete Holmberg, interrupted Johnson to declare, “I hate Gavin McInnes, but I will defend his right to speak! That’s the First Amendment, Corey.”
While both Cox and Molinaro have stressed that it was the Metropolitan Club’s decision to invite McInnes, the close connection between the club and the GOP establishment has continued to generate controversy for local Republicans. On Tuesday, Bklyner revealed that Ian Reilly, Executive Committee Chair of the club, also works for state Senator Marty Golden’s reelection campaign. Reilly previously defended the decision to bring McInnes to the club, telling Gothamist last week—before the event—that he had no misgivings about the invitation because the Proud Boys founder is “part of the right.”
Asked whether the campaign took any issue with Reilly’s support for McInnes, a spokesperson for Golden’s office said they were not concerned.
“Ian Reilly is the Campaign’s Office Manager, and will continue to serve in that role, as he has capably and professionally for several months,” said Michael Tobman, a campaign spokesperson. “He is also Executive Committee Chair of the Metropolitan Republican Club, an old & distinguished political club. Mayors, Governors, and Presidents have been active in the institution. Ian is also, and has proven himself time and time again, my friend.””
http://gothamist.com/2018/10/16/ny_gop_mcginnes_proud_boys.php
“Gavin McInnes was invited by the Republican club. Its their choice, ”
That is likely true – but we do not at this time actually know that.
We know there was an event about WWII and Japan and that GM attended.
“but like all things political its a choice that will be fair play for comment and opinion.”
That would be true – iif we knew it.
It is relevant to evaluatng the Manhattan Republican Club.
It is not relevant with regard to the actions of those outside the club.
“I’d say that this was a revealingly bad choice.”
Not especially. I would likely go to hear GM. Just as I would likely go to hear Ocasio-Cortez.
I do NOT expect that only people with uncontroversial views should ever be provided a forum.
“If I were the democrats I would use this story for all its worth.”
I would too – but it is not worth much – unless you are one of these safe space left wng nbuts who beleives that no views challengng your own should ever be expressed.
“Likewise If I were the republicans I would use the Middlebury riot and the Dartmouth BLM library invasion for all they are worth.”
Absolutely – and those are worth more.
In fact ALL these events have a common theme – the left being willing to use ANY MEANS NECESCARY to silence those they do not wish to hear.
That is even the message you completely miss from Charlottesvlle.
Which is actually worse – because we are dealing wth a public forum which GOVERNMENT proviided, and GOVERNMENT may not discriminate against viiewpoints – as Middlebury and Dartmouth,, and the MRC can.
You can as an example pass judgement on Middlebury for invting Murray, or MRC for nviting GM – if they did.
But the unte the right groups had an absolute right to speak at the government provded forum at Charlotesvlle.
The failure to protect the marchers, the failure to allow them to speak are GOVERNMENT VIOLATIONS of their first amendment rights.
Worse those choices appear to have been DELIBERATE.
Government was obligated to protect the marchers and allow them to speak even iif they were surprised by the crowds etc. But WORSE they expected trouble and the police were ordered to STAND DOWN.
“These events mean something important about the groups who were involved.”
Maybe – but that meaning is relatively small.
The meaning of consequence was that the left will resort to ANY MEANS NECESCARY – including violence to silence those they do not like.
Absolutely you can find a few similar instance regarding the right, but they are small and rare, and more frequently than not misrepresented.
Trump was wrong to hint that crows should respond to violent hecklers with more violence.
Particularly when security was present.
But advocating for what is iinherently imperfect self defence or even matchiing violence wiith even more violence iis NOT the same as initiating violence.
Even at Charlottesville – the Tikki torch march the night before was done deliberately to rile the left – in the hope and expectation they would turn violent the next day.
That is NOT moral – but it IS legal.
And the next day the left did respond with violence.
Had the police done their jobs – the left would have had to cross manned pliice lines to get at the marchers. Instead the police “stood down” the barriers were iin place but there was no one to prevent the left from breachng them – which they did and attacking the marchers.
During the entire march and subsequent retreat I have not see a single video of clashes between marchers and the left that was not taking place inside of the barriers defining the march route. I have not seen any video of any of these alt-right groups crossing the barricades.
In fact the only thing that appears to have kept things from getting even worse was the presence of the ARMED New York Millitia, which for a significant portion of the march got between the left and the marchers doing the job the police should have done.
The left seemed less inclined to cross barriers to start conflict with marchers carrying AR-15’s.
Mr. Molinaro’s views are completely tangential. He is entiitled to them – but they do not change the facts.
Even if as you say McInnes was “invited” – Antifa was NOT!
The violence occured outside the MRC. I have seen nothing thus far that does not make it clear that Antifa initiated it.
Whether GM and “the proud boys” were prepared for it, even wanted it is irrelevant.
As I noted in another post – the “unite the right” protestors at Charlottesvile WANTED the left to attack them – and the left obliged.
Ghandi WANTED the british to attack his people – and the British obliged.
Martin Luther King WANTED the authorities to attack black marchers – and they obliged.
The party initiating the violence is ALWAYS wrong.
They are wrong even if the other side says mean things, taunts them and in any non-violent way treats them badly.
“In addition to espousing racist, misogynistic and Islamophobic views, McInnes has repeatedly encouraged members of his group to commit violence, and bestows the highest rankings on Proud Boys who have beat up left wing protesters. ”
You and others keep repeating this – but you have STILL not actually established it.
Something is not a fact – just because it is said.
You may even succeed at demonstrating this – but you must do more than just assert it.
Celebrating western culture is NOT racism.
Opposing immigration is NOT racism.
Celebrating traditional gender roles iis NOT racism.
Criticising Islamic terrorism is NOT islamophbia.
You need to demonstrate that McInnes has encouraged his members to INIITIATE violence.
Otherwise his remarks are no different from Obama’s “If they bring a knife we bring a gun”
I am uncomfortable with Obama’s remarks. But Absent demonstration actual inciitement to violence – and taunting the other side – though WRONG is not illegal, and is not incitement to violence.
Just to be clear – you can demonstrate that GM is a thoroughly repugnant person – something you have thus far faiiled. That STILL makes the problem with Antifa, as they not only initiated the violence – they are open about having done so.
While you have not established that GM is a racist, mysoginist, islamophobe,
If you actually managed – that is NOT sufficient.
The right to self defense, as well as the criminality of initiating violence against others are BOTH core american values. In fact they are core requirements for civilization and the rule of law.
We can get by in a society where people are racist, misogynist, and islamophobic.
We can not survive where that is a justification for inciting violence.
This is not a contest of who is the better person who is closer to the angels.
If you initiate violence against another – you are in the wrong.
There is no acceptable justification for private violence except self defense.
NONE!!!!!!
There is no “punch Nazi’s” exception to the rule of law.
“Other GOP leaders, meanwhile, have been far less willing to distance themselves from the Proud Boys’ brand of belligerent ultranationalism.”
This is more leftist claptrap. It is all tangential garbage.
It is all YOUR stupid nonsense that somehow the violence of the left can be justified by someone else’s beleifs. That is not merely immoral – it is also illegal.
This garbage comes directly from the communist playbook.
Attack your enemy for their failure to “denounce” whatever your favorite villian of the moment is.
It is stupid and it is WRONG.
We each get to chose what issues are important to us at the moment.
The world is full of evils of various scales.
One is not iinherently evil, if in the past few minutes you have not denounced some other group that your opponent has labeled as evil.
Antifa initiated violence and they openly admit that.
Everything else is of little consequence.
If they did so against Jeffrey Dahmer – THEY are still responsible.
You can not escape responsibility for violent acts, because the person you targeted was offensive.
Antifa is not merely “by no means the innocent party”
They are the ONLY guilty party.
McInnes words are an entirely differnet matter and iinconsequential with respect to the CRIME that occured.
This garbage about getting a long list of republicans to “denounce” McInnes, is nonsense.
No one needs to “stand behind” McInnes – as noted absent evidence that he or the proud boys initiated the violence – they are IRRELEVANT.
You can not attack Mother Theresa, you can not attack Jeffrey Dahmer.
Even if GM “incited violence” – those who acted, are still responsible.
Further legally “inciting violence” does NOT mean insulting your opponents until they respond with violence. It means exhorting your supporters to ATTACK FIRST.
No ine is DEFENDING McInnes – they are defending the rule of law,
This is not even a first amendment issue as:
McInnes was “speaking” about WWII and Japan.
The attack occured AFTER the event OUTSIDE the MRC.
““Gavin McInnes was invited by the Republican club. Its their choice, ”
That is likely true – but we do not at this time actually know that.
We know there was an event about WWII and Japan and that GM attended.
“but like all things political its a choice that will be fair play for comment and opinion.”
That would be true – iif we knew it.
Dave, we ain’t lookin for the freakin Principia Mathematica of Bertrand Russell here, we do not need several hundred pages to put 1+1 +2 on a firm foundation. The Republican Club has stated that they invited him.
As to the rest of your typing project, “Wasted words, never been heard.”
BTW your “i” key has been sticking for quite a while know, which is pretty wonderfully ironic.
Grump – much of what you claim to “know” or “has been stated” – is indirect references in media articles. The typical reporters accuracy in language is worse than that of Trump’s tweets – we have lots of evidence of that.
While some of the things I addressed are nits – and likely will be confirmed.
Still only an idiot today takes anything n the media at face value.
Unless the media actually quotes someone – and even then the person who actually makes the decsions – it is near certaiin that what s beng reported is an impression of the facts – not the actual facts – in other words it is true in the same way Trump Tweets are true.
In the event the media quotes someone – it is near certain that the quote is out of context and partial.
As an example half the quotes yesterday about Trump’s offer of a $1m bet with Warren omtted the part were Trump said – “and the test proves she is indian”
You can treat that however you wish. In my oppinion that is deliiberately deceptive.
So if you do not “get it” I as well as a significant and increasing portion of the public does not accept anything n the news uncritically. What is supposed to be straght reporting today should be read as an oppinion peice. It usually takes mulitple sources from dfferent perspectives to get to the truth.
“Dave, we ain’t lookin for the freakin Principia Mathematica of Bertrand Russell here, we do not need several hundred pages to put 1+1 +2 on a firm foundation. ”
Read/don’t your choice
“BTW your “i” key has been sticking for quite a while know,”
I know. Laptop KB’s are a PITA to replace.
I do not specifically know about “Proud Boys” but most of these “alt-right” groups are NOT part of the right – they are SOCIALISTS.
If you actually look at most of their platforms, they seek socialism – usually of a nationalist variety and usually highly discriminatory.
But even using your own labels – raciist, mysoginist islamophobic socialism is STILL socialism
Dave makes some excellent points, the most important of which is that McInnis is entitled to say whatever he wants, unless he is specifically inciting violence. I think that, while he has repeatedly encouraged the Proud Boys to stand their ground, I haven’t seen evidence of incitement to violence. Proud Boys are a group that insists that white men are not the enemy and that the West, specifically the US, has created a superior culture. They are chauvinists in the true sense ( chau·vin·ism/ˈSHōvəˌnizəm/: 1. exaggerated or aggressive patriotism.”public opinion was easily moved to chauvinism and nationalism”
synonyms: jingoism, excessive patriotism, blind patriotism, excessive nationalism, sectarianism, isolationism, flag-waving; More
2.excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for one’s own cause, group, or gender.)
So, in my opinion, they are no different than Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, LaRaza, and other identity groups, except that they are made up of the one, single group, that the Marxist idea of intersectionality excludes~ that is, white men.
The problem we face is the intentional, political division of our own culture into groups seeking to be “the oppressed.” You cannot have “oppressed,” without and “oppressor,” and, right now the “oppressors” are WHITE MEN. That’s just the unfortunate place that we find ourselves. If you are a white man, you cannot escape the fact that you are the oppressor, and you can’t be accepted as a friend or ally to the oppressed, unless you accept your privilege.
Intersectionality does not accept individualism. So any “oppressed” person who sides with the “oppressors,” becomes the enemy. We must always believe victims. Due process is a tool of the oppressors.
“I have not seen any evidence of incitement to violence.Proud Boys are a group that insists that white men are not the enemy and that the West, specifically the US, has created a superior culture. ”
Oh, good grief, its worse than I even thought. You have finally graduated, you are the real deal. Now you are as wacky as denial dave, who wrote thousands of words to try to evade the obvious point that McInnes was invited by the Republican club. An excellent point? No, really no. This kind of flat out denial of reality is fascinating in a really creepy kind of way. You two go live in your alternate fact universe together, you can be happy together there. McInness’s own words that I posted could not more clearly be incitement to violence.
“I’ll repost them, so you can go through your weird routine of defending them:
“McInnes frequently champions violence, particularly against the left.
“I want violence, I want punching in the face. I’m disappointed in Trump supporters for not punching enough,” McInnes said on his webshow.
On another occasion, he called for an attack on a woman.
“This woman—yes, I’m advocating violence against women—this woman should be punched in the face. Shouldn’t be by a man, maybe by another woman, her twin sister, should just punch her in the face. Or maybe mace her. Yeah. I’m pro-free speech, I don’t want her ever to be censored, but this woman needs to experience a little bit of violence.”
McInnes also uses his show to spout racial slurs, especially the n-word, and call for attacks on transgender people. “Choke a tranny. Get your fingers around the windpipe,” McInnes said on his show, according to Newsweek. ”
These are McGinness’ own words. They are vile. Denying their meaning is vile. You are vile. Welcome to today’s GOP.
I have had no trouble as a liberal seeing the evil in PC and the actions of college rioters. I have been truly repulsed by the anarchist scumbags of antifa and I want to know why they they are not being effectively rounded up and prosecuted. I am ready to applaud even trump if he would organize that. You two nuts, on the other hand are ready to write an absurd legal brief for the Proud Boys. When their nine violent members from the other night get arrested you and Dave can get together and go bail them out. You won’t find me doing the same for the three anarchists.
You see Priscilla, we are different you and me, two different species and there is no bridge that is going to be ever built between our moral and fact universes.
Wasting words on either of you two true-believing right-wing nut denialists has been my own fault and doing any more of that in the future would be triple my own fault. I feel sorry for both of you.
Now, you are probably going to say that I have lost my shit, how sad and uncalled for. No Priscilla, its you have have lost your shit, your moral compass at all, its been replaced by right wing propaganda, which is now running your universe. You and Dave are going to live out your days like this. Ugg.
Oh, relax, grump, I have not lost my shit. I guess I’ll have to wait until both the far right and the far left cause widespread violence, before I come back and tell you “I told you so.”
My moral compass says that, as long as we provide a platform for leftist violence, while condemning right wing violence, there will continue to be violence on both sides, and that it will get worse. I am no fan of McGinnes, but what he says essentially is, “if you try to crack my skull, I’ll try to crack yours”. It’s a fairly unsurprising response to the kind of mob mentality and rhetoric that we’ve seen from the left. Frightening, but unsurprising. It means that we’re spiraling down.
It’s inevitable that the downward spiral will continue, if we encourage with a primitive tribal approach to political disagreements, instead of openly debating them. It’s the brownshirts and AnTiFa from the 30’s all over again.
I’ve observed that history repeats itself. I’ve observed that people will not sit still forever, if they believe that their rights and freedoms are taken away. I’ve observed that, increasingly we are being told that some people in our country can flaunt the law, while some are not even granted due process. It’s the sans-culottes system of justice, and it does not end well.
And you come back at me and call me immoral, because I say that a toxic Marxist brand of politics underlies this violence, and that toxic nationalism is an inevitable response? Look around the world ~ look at Europe. It’s not just here.
Anyway, I could not care less that you think I’ve “lost my shit.” Don’t read my posts, if you don’t want to be disagreed with.
“My moral compass says that, as long as we provide a platform for leftist violence, while condemning right wing violence,”
Maybe you are being charitable.
But most of the tme the left s trying to create a false moral equivalence between relatively tame right wing rhetoric and ACTUAL violence on the left.
There is not much right wing violence.
n time there likely will be
NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch pointed out that it is a really really stupid to harass her n her sleep. She has a glock in the gun case under her bed.
The left will not win this conflict.
The only question is whether we chose freedom or tyranny as the means of defeatng the left.
“Oh Good Grief” – what you call the obvious point is NOT established, NOT relevant, and a deliberate effort to duck the relevant issue.
#1 Antifa initiated violence
#2 to silence a point of view
it would not matter if GM was the devil incarnate.
There is no proportionate responsibility justification for violence
The entre argument you are making s leftist excuses and falure to take responsblty.
You complain about my words – we have reams from you all seeing to deflect from the ONLY important issue,
This is another of many examples of unjustified left wing violence
Everything else s just excuses.
There is no moral equivalence.
Looking for one s itself immoral
You are right you lve n a different universe – one that does not have any moral foundation
Trying to justify violence by blaming the victim is vile
f GM was Hitler – Antifa would still be wrong.
The rest would stll be whnny excuses and efforts to deflect.
“Now, you are probably going to say that I have lost my shit, how sad and uncalled for.”
f you do not want to be called a leftist – qut parroting leftists.
You are not clairvoyant you do not know what others think or well say.
I am a free speech absolutst – as far as I am concerned you should be able to legally “incite violence”. That does not mean you can not be otherwse held accountable.
Pricilla, here is the inciter candidate, now the inciter president. You think some of his supporters might support his remarks, I think some might as there are always “followers” like this McGuiness guy.
That is why top politicians and others with big megaphones need to watch what they say and do. Trump has no indication of having any control over either and since he can turn on a dime (even in the same speech or interview) who can blame some more impressionable people from acting out what they perceive as sanctioned actions.
duck, I totally agree. Trump was a candidate when he did this ~ he was talking about a protestor, and he was wrong to even imply that punching or hitting someone was accceptable.
However, he has not said anything like this since being elected…while elected Democrats have encouraged harrassment and even physical violence in the name of opposition to Trump and his party. I won’t go through the litany of GOP congress people, cabinet members, and staff, who have been threatened , harrassed, and attacked. Rand Paul was on the baseball field when an unhinged Democrat opened fire, and nearly murdered Steve Scalise…and Senator Paul himself was seriously injured by a crazy neighbor who disagreeed with his politics. He has said :
““I fear that there’s going to be an assassination. I really worry that somebody is going to be killed, and that those who are ratcheting up the conversation … they have to realize they bear some responsibility if this elevates to violence.”…
“When people like Cory Booker say get up in their face … What he doesn’t realize is that for every 1,000 persons who want to get up in your face, one of them is going to be unstable enough to commit violence.”
I’m glad that we can agree that ALL politicians need to tone it down, not only Trump, and that includes Hillary “we can’t be civil until we’re in power” Clinton, Eric “we kick em” Holder, and Maxine “create a crowd and push them, and tell them that they’re not welcome anywhere” Waters.
I enjoy a piece of the current environment. In many respects, I felt the same extreme mental stress of the Obama administration (ODS) that Jay and others are experiencing with their Trump derangement syndrom (TDS). Nice to know that can be shared.
HOWEVER, I do not remember the right ever responding to Obama and the democrats like the democrats have with the GOP in power. There was much negative talk. but how much physical inuendo as we have today?
If there was, please remind me.
He bemoaned that no one could punch back. That’s NOT the same. Not even close.
That s more like “they bring a knife we bring a gun” unacceptable ? Maybe – both.
incitement – nope.
You say Trump can “turn on a dme”
For the most part he has been very consistent.
He has done what he sad he would do.
He s only dangerous – f you think what he promised s dangerous – hs voters dd not.
What do you see as “incitement” ?
Trump complaining that he has to be civil to someone who s violent ?
We can argue about whether we agree with Trump’s remarks. But there s no call to ntate violence
Self Defense.
Actually watch the video
What GM may or may not have said at other times and places is relevant to one’s assessment of him.
It is completely irrelevant to the events at the MRC.
If GM advocating lynching blacks on youtube, that would NOT justify antifa’s initiation of violence at the MRC.
This is a common left wng nut false narative
Your judgement of someone else’s speach and values does NOT ever justify misconduct.
There is no “they were a bad person” justifiicaton for violence, rape or murder.
Proud Boys and the Alt-Right generally are absolutely racist and misogynist – in the same sense that BLM and many feminist groups are.
They are a collection of whiners seeking to blame all their problems on victimization.
These Alt-Right groups tend to reflect white male 20-30 year olds without a college education, who can not get a good job, and see women and minorities getting preference over them for the few jobs there are.
They are pathetic, but they are less dangerous and evil than the myriads of more numerous victimization cults of the left.
Trying to call them racists and misogynist in a sense beyond whining about their own victimization requires mltiple disconnects from realty.
It requiires beleiving they are far more powerful than they are.
There were more antifa in boston the week after charlottesviile than alt-right in the entre US
t requres this lunatc beleif that everything anyone you do not lke says is a crypto dog-whistle.
it requres beleving that when they say something – they really mean something quite different.
This means of labeling someone as racist because of what you claim s ther hidden message, is politically perfect, but otherwise stupid and dangerous.
f you get to judge others based on what YOU get to say they actually mean, you can ALWAYS pant your opponents as evl and your frends as good.
it is a permutaton of the typical leftst garbage of judgng people by what you thnk they mean, rather than what they actually say or even more meanngfully what they do.
One of the things these alt-right groups tend to have n common and n common wth actual Nazi’s is that they are socalsts
They are expecting government remedes for their personal problems. Many are quite explctly lke Nazi’s advocatng for socalst causes.
I don’t believe Proud Boys espouse socialism, Dave. They consider themselves warriors against PC and 3rd wave feminism. They are not explicitly racist, and in fact, withdrew from the Charlottesville Unite the Right march last year when they learned that white supremacists and Nazis would be there. I think that we’ve reached a rather critical point where we all need to be very precise in calling names. If we’re going to call someone “racist” that person should have said or done something that was, in fact, racist. If we’re going to say that Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist, there should be evidence that he raped someone. If, like grump, we’re going to call someone immoral, there should be an agreed upon definition of right and wrong…not just an ideological or political disagreement. Gavin McGinness happens not to be a racist or a Nazi. He is a controversial nationalist, who has said some very provocative things. But, accusations of racism and actual racism are often two very different things these days.
I was speaking about the alt-right generally.
Though we keep getting sucked into t am not fixated on what the proud boys believe
t is irrelevant
We keep getting sucked into this “its ok to punch Naz’s” garbage.
t s not
We are not at odds.
What we are seeng in our politics today s the predictable (and predicted) failure of intersectionality and postmodernism’
You can not scale the cult of victimhood – there must always be an oppressing majority, once you actually become the majority – you are inherently by your own values the oppressor.
Further becoming the majority requires labeling ever larger portions of the electorate as hateful hating haters.
Just as in the USSR, PRC and even the french revolution, when the “oppressed” gan power – they become the oppressors. That s inevitable when you fixate on “fairness” or “equality” rather than liberty, t s also why the american revolution is unique
“Just as in the USSR, PRC and even the french revolution, when the “oppressed” gan power – they become the oppressors. That s inevitable when you fixate on “fairness” or “equality” rather than liberty, t s also why the american revolution is unique”
Yes, I agree with that.
Rick ask how we can find common ground. Well we won’t find it with this one.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/over-1000-hondurans-head-for-us-border-in-mass-migration-march-report
Those like Dave favoring open borders and myself that favor a complete closure of borders, along with a complete re-writing of immigration laws will probably never agree.
What we are going to hear is how inhuman we are to these individuals when we say you stay in the camp waiting for a hearing (which I think is asinine also under its current form) or return home. The liberals are going to blast the administration through the media while they refuse to work with the administration in immigration reform.
Just to be clear Ron, Open Borders s the best arrangement – but t REQUIRES other significant changes to work. Changes that are NOT gong to happen.
I have more respect for the right than left on immigration as the right is prepared to confront and make the hard choces. The left wants to pretend they do not exst.
Dave, “The left wants to pretend they do not exst.”
For the left they dont exist. It is a very easy choice to say “come on in, no problem”. And the estimate there are about 2000. The left sees 2000 additional votes plus offspring votes in the future.
They go low and we kick them: Anderson was not the only GOP candidate attacked. First-time state representative candidate Shane Mekeland suffered a concussion after getting sucker punched while speaking with constituents at a restaurant in Benton County. Mekeland told the Free Beacon he has suffered memory loss—forgetting Rep. Anderson’s name at one point in the interview—and doctors tell him he will have a four-to-six week recovery time ahead of him. He said he was cold cocked while sitting at a high top table at a local eatery and hit his head on the floor.
https://freebeacon.com/politics/two-gop-candidates-assaulted-minnesota/
Anyone ‘proud’ of this guy or his people – is &&$&*$ up *&$#*#* !!!
https://twitter.com/VicBergerIV/status/1052373743165681664?s=20
Do you have to be “proud” of someone to oppose those who assault them ?
most of your video – aside from the ominous musc GM says “fight back”
‘I’m angry. Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”
Maddona
To be clear – just as at Charlottesville, GM and the alt-right want to be attacked by the left, and then to beat the crap out of them
That’s wrong, but legal.
The left can “beat” GM by not starting a fight
98lbs antifa wimps would be smart not to pick fights with 180lb bodybuilders.
Just as the left would be wise not to disturb dana loesch sleeping
Self defense remains a right even for those who hope you will attack them, and for those with guns.
.
Has GM murdered someone ?
Your poster s free to call on fox and CRTV to avoid GM
Though how does that serve the left ? Don;t you want Fox and CRTV to dscredt themselves by featuring GM ?
Regardless – though legal fndt interesting that the left seems to think they should deprive anyone they do not like of a job.
Not some alt-right wing nut – a CA professor stealing and then assaulting prolfe protestors and she s now being honored by the university.
Left college prof’s seek to rescind Sen. Collins degree.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/05/24/federal-documents-indicate-harvard-repeatedly-reported-elizabeth-warren-native-american/OZdiCFhjx5CCH3Es0sREHM/amp.html
This s Fox so of course some of you will not even bother to read t.
Regardless the story’s compelling and contrasts to the trump investigation
Wth Clinton the FBI) falls all over themselves trying not to find anything – even when a judge refers Clinton staff to them for perjury.
Wth Trump – associates are charged with lying when no one can figure out what the le was
Does anyone on the left give the slightest damn about the rule of law ?
(s (t ok wth all of you that the Obama FB( was quite obviously politically corrupt ?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-department-provided-clearly-false-statements-to-derail-hillary-clinton-doc-requests-federal-judge-says
( Guess 60 minutes (s a criminal enterprse
All but 2 states permit single party consent to a recording
As always the left (s willing to expand a law infinitely.
There s no conflict – because there s no crime.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article220193095.html
Trump has nominated several openly gay people to a variety of positions
So much for being homophobic
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-nominates-openly-gay-conservative-federal-appeals-court-n920831
So do those of you defending the left, and the conduct of social media
Ok wth this ? Acceptable to publish the names and addresses and DOB’s and other personal data of federal agents – because you do not like the polices they enforce ?
Pretty sure that’s a federal crime.
https://farleftwatch.com/twitter-allows-antifa-to-dox-ice-agents-and-their-families-despite-being-reported-numerous-times/
This s long but pretty interesting. The source s somewhat questionable, and the style s the typical left guilt by association – though there are some actual facts that are deeply troubling, beyond the quilt by association attack on Podesta and the clintons
But a major part of whats interesting s that so much of what s being sad here about Clinton/Podesta s also what the left s currently saying about Trump.
You do not have to believe this video, but please do not try to sell me the very same allegations being made about clinton here only replacing clinton with Trump
Just one of dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of how anyone doing business with Republicans (they don’t even have to be voting for them!) are becoming targets of a crazed mob of Democrat activists. This is an article about a restaurant owner, who rented out his place for a Marsha Blackburn meet-and-greet:
“Courtney said he’s been called a Nazi, an abuser, had his life threatened and said his staff has been verbally attacked.”
https://www.wilsonpost.com/community/blackburn-backlash-shocks-mt-juliet-restaurant-owner/article_313833ee-d226-11e8-9d8e-d386ca26eea3.html?fbclid=IwAR199ogdNXEdpWsbv60FCtam350NBFQbwMlfuPF6ePg2_sFCiWjrQ9MEt1U
This is in Tennessee ~ not exactly the hotbed of violent protest. But in the nevertrump world, just supporting a Republican is grounds for destruction.
Priscilla, TN is like many other southern conservative states. Their legislative leaders have instituted any number of initiatives that recruited new companies into states with many coming from states like IL., CA and NJ. People in high tax states wanted lower taxes, so many followed the companies to new locations. Now those people want the politics of their old states, leading to crap like this. Years past, Blackburn would have not been in a tight race and this would not have happened. NC’s bathroom bill would never have been required had it not been for the libs in Charlotte who moved in with the big banks moving in from CA and NY. Texas would not be having the senate race with polling showing Cruz barely over 50% without CA residents following CA business to Texas.
Would be nice if liberals would stay put and not move to better states and then try to make them like their old states.
You have a pont. But would note that though the move from blue to red s makng red states pink it is also making blue people pink
it would be nice if those moving from dysfunctional blue states to workng red states or counties ds not insist on turning them into the messes they left.
Dave, sorry, I cant buy people moving out of Illinois, California, New Jersey and other blue states turning them purple. Never happen.
it is the blue people moving to the red states that are becoming pink or purple.
The migration leaves blue states fewer and fewer and bluer and bluer.
Contra to the clams here and of the left, the country as a whole s getting more moderate and more libertarian (SLOWLY)
One of the reasons that the Kavanaugh fight failed for Dems s that most people do not care about SCOTUS – for good reason.
it is near certain that SCOTUS will NOT reverse Rowe. The worst that will happen is
SCOTUS permitting states to totally ban abortion after 18W – like sweden.
Gay rights and gay marriage are not gong away – even f the court reversed Obergefell – whch will not happen, most states will not change.
As much as they should the court s NOT going to reverse Wickard.
There will be no BiG changes.
Fundamentally nether the courts nor the legislature can change society – we must o that on our own.
despite the ranting of the left and the media
Assorted racism discrimination etc are the lowest they have ever been.
Perfect – no! But more laws are NOT going to fix our problems
SCOTUS could block every single new law passed n the next 20 years – and not seriously offend most people.
And this is not just about SCOTUS
Republicans could defund PBS and PP, and build the wall and even repeal PPACA,
and the world would not come to an end and voters would not revolt.
Republicans must stay out of the way of the economy, and go slowly on dismembering the entitlement state and otherwise they are fine
One of the things n one of Zito’s more recent articles on “fly-over” country is that outside of progressive enclaves of the city most people are happy and dong fine and we are NOT unable to work things out
Don’t care about protests and boycotts, but violence s different
Any assertion that there s party between R & D s nuts
McCaskill’s looking to try to jal OKeefe for dong what 60m does all the time.
The left seems to think that they get to make and change the rules to suit
RCP is now has the senate at +3 GOP
That has MO and FL as R wth MT, WV, iN, NJ going D
Still 3 weeks but the trend s red.
Well Joe Manchin is not a big loss when it comes to many GOP issues. Somewhat of a throwback politician from 30 years ago.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/sen-manchin-often-votes-with-trump/
Has the media provided this info?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/news/there-are-more-job-openings-than-unemployed-people-e2-80-94-and-that-e2-80-99s-bad-news-for-retailers/ar-BBOw8Xn
7 million job opening from healthcare to retail.
6 million unemployed
What is the GOP doing to promote this information?
If you are unemployed and capable of working, why are you unemployed?
Once again the GOP is tweeting away useful information that is not getting out to the public.
What happens when Pelosi takes control of the House?
Anything but total stagnation?
Aren’t those jobs almost all at, or near the minimum wage?
Or part time jobs, at minimum wage?
None of which can support a single individual?
I just looked up some of those holiday retail jobs, at local shopping malls. Almost all are minimum wage. But they often do include employee store discounts (cynical laugh).
UPS has holiday part time openings if you need some extra Xmas spending dough, Ron:
“UPS is hiring individuals to work as part-time Package Handlers. This is a physical, fast-paced position that involves continual lifting, lowering and sliding packages that typically weigh 25 – 35 lbs. and may weigh up to 70 lbs. Part-time employees usually work 3 ½ – 4 hours each day and workdays can vary (Monday – Friday) or (Tuesday – Saturday) depending on the building needs. Package Handlers typically do not work on holidays. Please note that these opportunities are part-time only working approximately 17 1/2 – 20 hours per week.”
Starting pay is about $10 an hour. That’s about $200 a week, if you don’t rupture anything…
Those holiday part time jobs with UPS have been around for a long time, Jay. pre-Trump, pre-Obama.
The difference is that pre-Obama, they were mostly filled by HS and college kids, working to make Christmas money. During the Obama years, the kids didn’t get hired, because there were so many adults desperate for jobs. Now, with manufacturing jobs on the increase, there will likely be more minimum and low wage job opportunities for teenagers.
The laws of supply and demand are immutable.
Business will adapt to the labor pool supply.
When there are lots of high skill people seeking jobs
Busness will not hire low skill people
When low skill wages are too high – business wll automate.
What will NOT happen is paying more for work than t is worth.
Jay, not really all low end. Sorry the MSNBC talking points are not complete, but your not alone, many people fall for their fake news.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.a.htm
These are rounded numbers.
Manufacturing 500,000
Transportation 275,000 (Most truckers, not low end wage , student drivers $40k, ave experienced $65k, many over 100k for long haul)
Financial services 425,000
Professional and Business services 1,300,000
Health Services 1,100,000
Government 600,000
That is about 1/2 of the jobs not in business that would have many low end wage earners. And in those industries, a percentage of them would also be higher income. My son has been spending many weeks out of town managing restaurants where the company can not find qualified managers and he is extremely well paid, not low end.
Trucking: That industry wants an end to federal rules that require CDL drivers to be 21. Those leaving HS would go into training if over 18.
Health Services: RN shortage 7.2% of demand or about 225,000 of the 1.1 of health service openings.
Hope this gives better info than the media.
it s quite rare to have a surplus of low wages jobs
False and irrelevant. Generally the available jobs require skills the available labor is mostly unskilled.
A full time MW job pays 15K/year. That is plenty to support a single unemployed person.
The average 4th Quintile family has 2.5 full time – that is almost 40K at MW – that s more than enough to support a family fairly well
if you are currently unemployed and have skills – there are more jobs than people by far for skilled labor
if you have no skills and no education you have no business starting a family
Finally most of the jobs available are not bottom jobs and will provide training.
We are very close to the point where Ui just can not go down further, we are pst the pont where wages start to rise – and they are.
i have a friend who started a “holiday job” at FexEx 2 years ago.
He was making 11.25 before xmas.
Part time meant – as many hours as you will take.
Part time also meant f you do not qut before xmas you will have a full time job next year
These jobs are taxing, and borng and UPS/FEDEX/…. are demanding and rigid – f you are late you are fred.
But if you can deal with rules and working steadily – no dawdling for 8-10-12 hrs, you will get well pad for unskilled labor.
When UPS says up to 35lb – they mean it. You will get fired for lifting more.
if paying a higher wage was a trivial solution to labor problems – wages would be higher.
No business will ever for long pay an employee more than the value they produce.
Alot s made of Amazon’s shift to $15. What people fail to grasp is that near certain means Amazon already knows they can shift the workforce from lower pad lower skilled to fewer higher pad higher skilled
A different headline for the amazon announcement would have been – Amazon will no longer hre employees who can not produce $15K/hr.
Higher wages are BAD NEWS for low skill unemployed workers.
McD’s can shift to a higher wage model easily – hire the same people who work at appleby’s or other places that pay more. They will need fewer of them.
Look around at grocery stores and fast food – a significant portion of their employees are senor citizens.
They get to work on time, work hard, are only looking for part time and are skilled.
Look at the data on seattle which s destroying ts services industries with a higher MW.
You can not repeal the laws of supply and demand.
Another registered Rep has seen the light: “While he may have something to offer the state of Kansas, this is not the year. This year, we must come together to support Laura Kelly,” Hayden said. “I’ve been a registered Republican for over 50 years. I seldom vote for Democratic candidates, but in this race, I strongly support Laura Kelly.”
Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article220180385.html#storylink=cpy
Me too.
Now if Hillary would just disappear, maybe the Dems can do a better job with our support.
duck, Hayden is a nevertrumper who voted for Hillary. He’s a registered Republican the same way I’m a registered Democrat (which I am, by the way).
I do agree that the Democrats would be much better off if Hillary would disappear, but it ain’t gonna happen.
I am a never Trumper registered Rep and I also voted for HC. we need more of us.
BTW, what Trump said “when he was a candidate” does count. Or did all the people that voted for just ignore all his remarks and “promises”.
Words matter when the world is full of impressionable people and those listening for overt suggestions and/or dog whistles.
Just as HC’s and Holder’s remarks count. See the article I posted above about Anderson and Mekeland, both Reps that were attacked.
The atmosphere is toxic in the land and Trump is the first (his campaign) and worst (ignoring or rationalizing the acts of strong men including Putin, Erdogan, MSB, Sisi, etc.)
“we need …”
You do not get to decide that.
You get to decide what you need.
I get to decide what I need.
What “we” need is the aggregate of everyone’s individual choices
What candidate Trump sad s relevant – and we already voted, so our aggregate assessment on those things has already been made.
Words do matter – i did not vote for Trump
He was still elected and as Obama said – elections have consequences.
Trump’s voters are entitled to get what they voted for – even if you and i oppose
EXCEPT for those things that government can not do just because they were voted for.
Whenever talk about the requirement that what government does must be justified
That means even the winners of an electron can not do what s not justifiable.
What the winners are justified if they are left, they are justified f they are right.
What the left may not do when they wn, the rght can not ether. t
Actual attacks are more than words.
There is not you said violent thngs so i can do violent thngs trade off.
The atmosphere is toxic because the left can not grasp that they lost because they failed
Because voters rejected another 8 years of Obama.
Because bg government does not work and we all know t.
He becomes the latest major GOP official along with former Gov. Bill Graves and former U.S. Sen. Nancy Kassebaum to support the state senator from Topeka.
Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article220180385.html#storylink=cpy
dduck your TDS. is clouding your thinking. Read this article and you will see why the former governors are supporting the democrat. This guy is a nut case.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/kris-kobach-ruined-the-2018-kansas-gop-primary-just-like-he-ruins-everything-else.html
They would not be supporting him no matter who from Washington was in his corner. Yes, Trump supporting him is unacceptable, but Trump has never supported a moderate like Colyer who favored Medicaid expansion, objected to the voting laws voted in by the legislature and other extreme legislation. Colyer was closer to a Kasich than a Trump.
And I have referenced idiot candidates that the left and right have picked in primaries. Add this one to Deleware, Nevada, Alabama and Missouri.
And IMO this is only going to get worse. Giving uneducated and uninformed people that only listen to the likes of MSNBC and FOX (after 7:00 pm) is like hiring a chef for a prime restaurant that never cooked a meal in their life. Nothing good occurs. They listen to these extreme talking heads, believe all that flows from their mouth and vote for the likes of Trump, Clinton, Warren, Booker, Kobach , Moore, thinking they are qualified because they support the extreme positions held by the media. You need a license to drive, hunt and operate a boat. Most states require a person to demonstrate a knowledge of that subject to be approved to do it, but anyone can vote without a clue as to what the candidates represent.
I would prefer that Democrats and Republicans state and national parties picked the candidates as the past few elections have demonstrated the electorate does not have the sense of a mosquito to pick good people to run.
Warren/Booker or Booker/Warren 2020👍👍👍👍👍
if D’s take over the house – nothing will get done .
And i think that is great
Ron, I’m not going to waste time: yes I know both parties pick bad candidates, like Trump and Clinton. They suck, but do you think in this tribal environment that the Libertarians can produce the kind of candidate we both would respect and follow. I don’t.
But, now we are in scorched earth territory. Trump has to go say many of us Dems, Reps and Indies. I wish you libertarians would join us. I sincerely think he will ruin the country I wish to live in. Yes, I know decorum can be just a veneer, but I guess I am old fashioned, I like someone that shows some class, no not a Clinton, I might add. I have never liked the Trump type, never will, he is a consummate liar and cheat and I don’t think he even knows that about himself or even cares. Oh sure, he might have some perceived “wins”, but his ego trumps all and the hell with the country, it is just the vehicle to give him power and money which is all he really cares about.
dduck, I only vote Libertarian when the GOP candidate is so bad I can not vote for them. Today I voted early. In NC we vote for appeal court and state supreme court judges and they are identified by party. (They tried non partisan judge seats so they began advertising their “Progressive” or “Conservative” principles). One position out of about 30 total had one Libertarian running. I did not vote for him because the GOP candidate was well respected.
However, unless the democrats change and begin running moderate candidates like Manchin, there is no way I can vote for a democrat. I cant vote for someone who will put Ginsberg’s, Kagan’s and Sotomayor’s on the SC . I cant vote for someone who supports sanctuary cities. I cant vote for someone who will cramb piss poor tin can cars on us so the Chinese can continue to spew out pollution worse than anything ever seen in California at the height of CA bad air. Or raise our gas prices so the Chinese can continue producing cheap shit products and running our manufacturing out of business. I cant vote for someone who will slap land owners with regulations where they cant plow a dry field for 9 months because it collects water in the winter because it is considered wetland. Or Christmss tree growers in NC with streams on their property cant move rocks 20ft from the stream due to EPA regulations. And I cant vote for someone that forces people to buy a service or product owned by a private company so they can pay for others to buy that same product (Obamacare).
Sorry dduck, if Trump runs again, its a blank space in my ballot or a libertarian vote because I believe any negatives Trump generates will be far less lasting than anything Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer can devise and get approved by whatever individual the democrats nominate.
“Trump has to go” – that was decided by the 2016 election – and those who believed that LOST.
in 2020 you get to try again.
instead of foaming at the mouth – come up with a good candidate and a platform that people will believe and trust.
Trump has NOT changed since 2016.
Trump and Republicans overstate the accomplishments since 2016
HOWEVER they have still done much better than Obama.
Ultimately that is what matters. Put forward an alternative to TRump that we believe will do even better at raising our standard of living
But you are not going to win selling the same failed approaches of the left.
Absolutely Trump cares about power as does HRC and RNC and DNC – that is what poltcs is about regardless of party.
But if you thnk Trump cares about money – somethng he already has more than he can spend you are nuts.
My point about Hayden is that he has chosen Trump-hate over policy, and so I can’t trust that any candidate that he endorses would support policies that I believe would be good for the country. I understand that many people hate Trump (it’s kind of obvious!) but why would I vote for someone, simply because they prioritize personal hatred of the president over actual policy proposals?
Hayden served in a Republican administration, and certainly would normally be someone whose endorsement might mean something to someone like me, but he’s lost credibility, in my opinion, because his TDS now outweighs everything else.
Trump can be vulgar and mean-spirited, he often acts like a jerk, and says things that seem to be impulsive and dishonest. On the other hand, Democrats like Chuck Schumer, shed crocodile tears over immigration policies that they themselves supported before Trump became president, want to raise taxes, want to allow China to continue destroying our economy, want to allow Iran to continue its nuclear weapons program, etc. etc. Plus, the only thing that they all promise to do if elected is to make the next 2 years a gigantic, pointless circus, by trying to impeach the president.
For the life of me, I don’t see how that does anything but assure that Trump will be re-elected, and we’ll continue this insane bedlam for 4 more years.
So my point was not to denigrate anyone’s personal choice to be nevertrump…it was just to say that nevertrumper endorsements, such as Hayden’s, will not likely change anyone’s vote.
.
My fixation on the left is primarily because as an ideology, as a set of principles it is structured to assure destruction.
Right now we are fighting over whether the unruly behavior of the left is somehow justified by misconduct by the right.
This and myriads of similar debates occur because we are too immersed in the bankrupt and self contradictory nonsense of the left.
In many instances the left pretends that expression other than that it sanctions is to vile or dangerous to be heard. The sin committed by most of the purported right wing extremists that the left has sought to silence is that their speech is persuasive. Charles Murray must be silenced because he credibly argues that all differences in outcome are not the consequence of oppression. That people are different. That they are individuals, that they have different skills, drives and abilities, that we are not equal. More partisan speakers such as the Coulter’s, Yanopolis’s, DeSouza’s, Shapiro’s must be silenced not so much because of their own purportedly extremist views but because they powerfully shred the philosophy, ideology, and arguments of the left. You do not have to agree with the world view of any of the most “radical” speakers in the right to agree that they incredibly effectively devastate that of the left.
Where the left has power it silences those who challenge it. There is only one truth – its truth, no other views can be expressed.
When the left seeks power it demands to be listened to. The claim then is there are two sides to everything, and that those sides are somehow equal. That accusation is proof, that any idea no matter how poor not be given equal time and equal consideration to what ever idea that it challenges.
The absence of absolute truth is NOT the absence of truth. The probabilistic nature of everything is not the equality of all purported facts, or all points of view, or all arguments.
The right of free expression is not a right to equal consideration to bad ideas.
We get this garbage everywhere even here on TNM.
The world is not perfect. People are not perfect. Lying, cheating, stealing, and the unjustified use of force cross all ideologies.
But they do not do so equally. The “alt-right” is not “good-people”, nor are they the neo-nazi thugs of my youth, nor are they consequential. There is more left wing violence in any single city in the US than all the alt-right put together.
We barely get reporting of antifa’s takeover of parts of portland, its shutting down a federal facility, the failure of the mayor to allow the police to restore order, the harrassment of motorists, citizens, tourists – people with no political interest at all, who just wish to be able to use the streets of the city.
It is barely noted when protesters storm and break through barriers at the capital, or Supreme court, destroy property, and harrass others – sometimes peaceful counter protestors, sometimes just ordinary uninvolved people.
Yet, if a few people in a crowd shout vulgar insults at Nancy Pelosi that somehow is parity for the mostly uncovered left violence.
For the most part I hope D’s take the house. I support divided government.
But the thought of Schiff taking over the HPSCI is terrifying.
Schiff tweeted that a republican representative was a dog-whistling racist xenophobe who hated Koreans.
Rep. MacArthur responded with a family photo including his two adopted Korean Children
Republcans are not “the good guys”, but way too many democrats are “the bad guys”
https://twitter.com/tmac4congress/status/1052996155271987200
I used to support divided government as well, Dave. Not with these Democrats, though.
The value of Democrats controling the house s not that they are sane or reasonable, it is that nothing will get done
it is more important to me that congress do nothing than the far less likelyhood they do something of value
i Have only one issue if D’s take the house – that is that the investgaton into the Obama administration DOJ/FBi/CiA corrupt actions during 2015-2017 will likely die
in the house committee chars have subpeona power. n the senate the ranking minority member must sign off on a subpeona
i do not give a damn f D’s are stupid enough to investigate the crap out of Trump
But i do want further housecleanng at DOJ/FBi/….
it was recently revealed that the judge n the clnton/state department FOiA case refereded Cheryl Mill to the FBi for perjury – that referal died – why ? Why ? Perjury is fundmentally black letter law. if a judge feels there s perjury – there pretty much is – but there was not even an investgaton.
BTW Perjury is far MORE serious than “lying under oath’
it s near certian that a referal for perjury will result n atleast a conviction for a lessor charge.
Perjury requires a willful lie about an issue at controversy, an opportunity to correct, a failure to correct and an adjudication relying on the false testimony.
innaccurcy in the amount of beer one drank 35 years ago can not ever meet the standard requred for perjury.
“i Have only one issue if D’s take the house – that is that the investgaton into the Obama administration DOJ/FBi/CiA corrupt actions during 2015-2017 will likely die
in the house committee chars have subpeona power. n the senate the ranking minority member must sign off on a subpeona”
Ok, what investigation? I dont remember seeing or hearing anything about that. But like I have said for a number of years, the GOP are amateurs when it comes to communicating.
And what difference does it make if chairs have subpoena power or not. Sessions DOJ ignores most anything they get, then stonewalls with heavily redacted information. With everyone who has left the administration, Trump should have started with the weasel.
“Ok, what investigation? I dont remember seeing or hearing anything about that. ”
You are not following the work being done by Nunes, Gowdy, Jordan, Meadows, and others in the house ?
We would not know about Strzok, Page, Ohr, McCabe, Baker, The Rosenstein rant, Fusion GPS, the CIA spying on the Trump campaign, but for house subpeona’s and compelled testimony before the house.
Grassley and Burr have been doing similar work in the Senate – but far less effectively due to the rules of the Senate.
I really do not care much about the investigations into Trump/Russia collusion. These have not only failed miserably, but because of the house investigations I noted, have revealed their own corrupt roots.
Absolutley Republicans are worse at communicating.
“You are not following the work being done by Nunes, Gowdy, Jordan, Meadows, and others in the house ?”
I have not been following most national news, TV, written or whatever. I watch local news and dont really listen to the stuff going on nationally for the most part. Most all of it is predefined talking points that much is gray in truth or not. I do watch financial news and when they also get away from finance and onto other stuff, I am distracted by things like TNM.
That does not mean I am out to lunch on key information, but all these investigations have become a total waste of money and nothing has happened where someone is charged for crimes of importance. I have no idea if the investigations you list are political games or if they are really going to produce a significant outcome where people go to jail and change the culture in DC or if they are just fake investigations to make political news. And when I say significant outcomes with people going to jail, I dont mean because they lied to the FBI,etc. I mean actual crimes the investigation was designed to find.
There are a few sites that provide timelines of every known aspect of the CIA/DOJ/FBI efforts to interfere with Trump.
These are extremely useful and important as when you look at what was done, what was known who did it and exactly what order it happened in, it is self evident that every argument defending the “investigation” is false.
More things are being added all the time.
Recently we have learned that the FBI – James Comey adamantly disagreed with the purported Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian interference.
We have also had stories for a long time that the assesstment itself was OUTSIDE normal channels and was not a “17 agency” assessment, but merely the product of the oppinions of two key Obama cabinet members.
Slowly the HPSCI is whittling away at any argument that the warrants on Page as well as the basis for the investigation ever had any source aside from the Steele Dossier.
We have learned that the FBI fired Steele but then continued to work with him through cuttouts.
We have learned that the shouting match between Rosenstein and McCabe where Rosenstein talked about the 25th amendment and wearing a wire – was in a meeting with several others.
Honestly I am loosing track of all the facts that are slowly being added to all of this.
It is however self evident that as Trump says this was a “with hunt” – i.e. that The Obama administration targeted Trump in december of 2015.
That they did so long before the Steele Dossier – that they were quite literally channeling Beria – and starting with a person and then looking for a crime – which is unconstitutional.
That no information EVER came through the US Intelligence community regarding Trump and Russia – that the only source of that was the Steele Dossier.
That not only did CIA and FBI conduct improper investigations, but that they found norhing.
Another more recent revalation – though hinted at earlier is that the Judge in the JW FOIA case that essentially broke the Clinton private email server, refered Cheyl Mill to the DOJ/FBI for Perjury and not onlly did the FBI do nothing, but they subsequently allowed Mill to serve as Clinton’s lawyer in a matter that she herself was being investigated about.
I can go on – but the known facts do not leave room for an innocent explanation.
“And what difference does it make if chairs have subpoena power or not. Sessions DOJ ignores most anything they get, then stonewalls with heavily redacted information”
As Nunes has noted repeatedly – everything that the house is asking for is eventually going to be made public. The only quesiton is when.
What we are seeing is the traditional response to a scandal – to resist and stall and delay such that the truth leaks out in tiny bits each of which can be spun. the objective is to assure that sufficient number of significant revalations do not occur at the same time such as to create broad outrage – particularly from those in the middle or even your own supporters.
That has been one of the interesting comparisons.
The entire Obama administration fought every effort of the house and senate at oversite as existential warfare – and despite Trump’s directives to the contrary, that continues through today.
Conversely despite nonsense from the Press Trump has actually cooperated incredibly in the Trump/Russia Collusion investigation.
Periodically you get a story where Mueller and his team acquired information that they were probably not entitled to generally through brute force – despite the fact that they were dealing with cooperating parties, and you get stories implying that Trump and Manafort and … are hiding something – because they are angry about early morning raids or about being blindsided. The presumption by the press, the left, and Mueller is that everyone they target is hiding something. That their inability to find anything in what they receive through cooperation is somehow proof that there are other evil deeds being hidden.
As an example the entire raid on Cohen was rooted in the presumption that there was something illegal in the non-disclosures that were aquired from Daniels and a few others.
Cohen will likely eventually go down as a result – but on tax evasion charges related to his taxi businesses in NYC having nothing to do with Trump.
Avanatti and Daniels have not only lost their defamation suit against Trump, but been ordered to pay Trump’s legal fees.
They entire Daniels mess has always been interesting prurient fodder, but there is no crime. Their absolutely never should have been an investigation.
There is a legal question regarding whether the NDA that Daniels agreed to is binding – that rest mostly on bad lawyering by Cohen. Even so, there is a strong possibility that it will be upheld. Daniels accepted payment, and knew what that payment was for. The claim that it is not binding because Trump did not sign is legal garbage. I can pay you 200K to remain silent about aardvarks. If you breach, because you freely accepted the 200K you owe me the damages. Aardvarks need not be party to the contract. Where a contract is badly constructed the courts are supposed to find the most reasonable reading of the contract, not toss the whole thing.
My point is that the warrant for Cohen’s records was “improvident granted”. There was no crime.
In all these investigations – Mueller and company have brought the full force and power of the US government to bear against small players who do not have the ability to withstand that even if they are actually innocent.
I do not think that Manafort and Cohen are “good guys” Cohen in particularly is likely a criminal.
But it is actually wrong – evil, for the US government to tear apart someone’s life – even that of a “tax evader” based on allegations of crimes that are on their face ludicrous.
And that is wrong – evil, even when in doing so the government comes up with something.
Nancy Pelosi purportedly had to face a GOP “mob” yesterday.
They shouted “communsm sucks” as well as “f#$k democrats”.
Pelosi and her staff were able to work their way through the crowd – no one beat them or detained them. They were able to enter a locked door – without anyone forcing their way in
A few people banged loudly on the door until it was opened.
No police were called.
Somehow this s purportedly equvalent to brakng through polce barrers and physcally assaultng opponents.
I can’t believe it is already presidential 2020 guessing time. While Trump has been raking in the bucks for more than a year now, the Dems are coming out of the woodwork to try and be the 2020 shining knight that will slay the dragon Trump.
Well, so far Warren Kamala and Booker look like losers to me. But, I’m willing to vote for someone that is an outsider and bows those three out of the water, for me.
She is, a Hindu, a warrior and a DNC critic: Tulsi Gabbard.
Ok, rip her apart, Libertarians and Reps.
Remember you heard it hear on TNM first.
https://www.politico.com/st…
OK duck, dont tempt us like that. You throw out a name of someone from the furthest reaches of America and ask us to tear her apart. The only thing I know is she is a D and I think from HI. Other than that (as Col Klink used to say) “I know nothing!!
Does she support government run healthcare? (PPACA)?
Does she support Medicare for all?
Does she support government infringement on private landowners use of land, ie EPA controlling land use?
Does she support sanctuary cities?
Does she support individuals being made to pay into unions by force?
Does she support Federal laws making marijuana, cannabis oil and medical marijuana illegal?
Does she support the Paris accords placing unfair regulations on America while allowing China to increase spewing crap into the air until the late 2030’s, then slowly reducing that. (Estimate is 2060-2070 before they get back to 2016 levels).
Does she support forcing Americans to buy cars that cant get you on a family vacation since electric cars have significant mileage restrictions?
Does she support SCOTUS nominees like Gingsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor.
Does she support rolling back tax regulation that has led to significant job growth in high paying jobs?
Fill me in and then I will comment.
She probably is against everything you are for. That’s for starters.
But she is still better than the three front runners I mentioned and she appears not to be a phony. Your laundry list of questions, I can’t answer, but keep an open mind as this is a long shot, and the big Dems will probably shoot her down anyway, they wanted HC to roll to victory without any opposition. Tulsi did not and she resigned from the DNC over that.
Question: does character mean anything nowadays or is it all trench warfare among Reps, Dems and Libertarians.
I get the feeling tribes don’t give a shit about anything, just support their guy/gal despite lack of character (for want of a better word). An honest person doesn’t stand a chance, only a typical shill stands a chance.
I don’t care I may throw away my vote, screw the issues and the rich bastards that are running this country.
For others that may question, I am defining character is the moral traits of the individual.
If the question comes down to two individuals with somewhat equal policies and one has good character traits and the other bad character traits, I will pick the one with good character traits. However, if one is if great character, but the policies are in total opposition to the policies I want for the country and the other is of very questionable character, but the policies will lead to economic growth, will insure laws on the books are enforced and people are not forced into actions detrimental to their freedoms, I will support that person without hesitation.
Jimmy Carter was of great character, but his policies were bad for the country. Bill Clinton ( the 90’s version) was of very bad character, but his policies and presidential actions were very positive for the country. If I had to decide today which to pick and both would act in the same manner as they did while in office, I would vote for Clinton.
And that is the dilemma. The left could run Father Flanagan (aka Spencer Tracy) and if he supported those things I listed, and the only other candidate was Trump, it would be either a blank spot on my ballot or a vote for Trump. If my state was strong Trump and no question he would take the state electors, then it would be blank. otherwise I would vote for Trump.
To me, its all about policies and agenda. Character is secondary because the character is gone in 4 or 8 years. The policies, if a result of legislation, and their affects last for many years past the administration.
Good character is moral conduct.
At the least that is not using force to violate the rights of another.
Sexual assault is the use of force to violate others rights.
Sexual harassment is a use of lessor force to violate others rights.
False accusations – particularly of illegal acts are the attempt to use the force of govenrment to violate the rights of others – those are also immoral.
Actual Failure to keep commitments – particularly reciprocal commitments (contracts) to others is immoral.
One of the legitimate roles of govenrment is to adjudicate these.
An accusation of the unjustified use of force to violate ones rights by another is serious
We can not always establish the truth – and when that is the case the benefit regarding the law, must go against punishment. Government may not punished the accused absent a high standard of proof. Nor may the government punish an accusation as false absent a high standard of proof.
Government also sorts out disputes over whether a contract has been fullfilled.
The unjustified use of force to violate the rights of another is black and white immoral.
There are other actions that are immoral – reflections of bad character.
That are outside the scope of government. We are free within our own lives to act in reaction to our own judgement of the character of others. We are not free to use the force of government against those hose character we judge as immoral outside the scope of the law.
The law is abslutely about morality. It is about when the use of force is justifiable in response to conduct that is deemed as immoral. All moral judgements do not justify the use of force.
Character means a great deal to me.
I do not think I have ever voted for someone whose character I questioned at the time.
I did not vote for Trump.
But innumerable people of bad character have won elections – even to president.
Many people of good character have been not so hot presidents – Carter as an example.
Many people of very bad character have been good presidents – Clinton.
Regardless, the election is the moment that I get to express my views on character.
There is no requirement of good character for those in government in the constitution.
Once elected, I can continue to complain about a politicians character.
But I can only demand their removal based on unconstitutional actions – until the next election.
I do not expect to vote for Trump in 2020.
I do expect he will win – by a significant margin.
Further THUS FAR regardless of his character, he has been a better president than any since Reagan. It is still early but if that continues – he will win in 2020 by a landslide.
The question is not what does Rep. Tulsi Gabbard support.
It is what will Candidate Tulsi Gabbard have to support to win a democratic nomination.
Regardless, I am not much interested in debating Gabbard. If she is reasonable which I beleive she may be, she can not win a democratic nomination.
“The question is not what does Rep. Tulsi Gabbard support.
It is what will Candidate Tulsi Gabbard have to support to win a democratic nomination.”
And that is the problem we have with politics today. Do you want to be president so bad you will abandon your core beliefs? ( DDUCK! ) In my opinion, this is a character flaw that might make me think about voting a different way because you have no idea what you are going to get.
One thing about Trump, you knew up front without question what you were going to get. That is why I voted for Johnson.
“One thing about Trump, you knew up front without question what you were going to get. That is why I voted for Johnson.”
Absolutely 100% agree.
But I would further add,
More so than any other politician in my life time, more so than possibly any other president EVER, Trump has either kept his camapign promises or tried extremely hard to do so.
We get all of this “Trump lies” ranting.
Not about anything of substance.
That is extremely important. It is why his core support is pretty much unwavering.
It is also why ultimately the GOP has been and will “rally” arround him.
And with a strong economy in 2020 why he is guaranteed to win – BIG!
Dave you keep talking about good economy in 2020. The feds have $4 trillion they are reducing in QE funds. The world has $13T that is winding down. Those are funds that central banks own that normally is owned by others. All if these banks are beginning to wind those down. So we have close to $1T in current deficit that has to be sold and a percentage of the $4T is being released. All bought by others like China, investors, etc.
The only way to attract buyers with increased debt hitting the market is to increase interest rates. A 1% increase in rates will have a significant impact on economic growth. And it will increase the deficit per year by 20% or more. So much for Trumps nickel program to reduce the budgets by 5 cents on each dollar.
And Trumps bully pulpet cant do anything about the other $9T hitting markets when other countries wind down. A1% rise between now and 2020 is not unreasonable. Less that 25 basis points per quarter between now and 2020 election.
If the foundations of the economy are actually strong – if the growth is truly organic, and if the correct current interest rate is 1% higher – while that will have winners and losers it will NOT have a dramatic economic impact.
I know Trump is angry with the Fed. I beleive that Trump should have picked Taylor rather than Powel to run the Fed. But I think Taylor was a BETTER choice. I do not think Powell was a bad one.
There are alot of “if’s in my statement above. – but I actually think they are all true.
I would note that the stock market is having trouble this year – but the economy itself is not.
We need to be careful about presuming the DJIA is a strong economic predictor – it does have value, but it reflects only the top of the public corporation portion of the economhy.
The DJIA did well during Obama. The economy did not.
My IRA would prefer Obama to Trump.
The rest of my finances would not.
Anyway I do not know what the economy will do. Though Trump periodically threatens to do stupid shit with the econmy – mostly his government is pro-economhy.
The Trump regulatory changes have a small economic impact that compounds slowly over time.
Some portions of the tax cuts have a small impact that compounds over time.
But must of the tax cuts has a large initial impact that diminishes over time – unless there are corresponding spending cuts.
You are absolutely correct that much of the world is facing a weaker economy right now than the US. This is one of the reasons that Trump is successfully renegotiating trade deals.
Trump can afford to risk the US economy because it is stronger an because the negative impact on other contries of a trade war will be larger.
Declines elsewhere in the world will impact the US – but not as badly as elsewhere.
Trump will be better off in 2020 with a strong global economy.
But a better than Obama US economy with a worldwide recession is also possible.
I do not have anything particular to say about Tulsi Gabbard.
What little I know of her is better than most politicians.
Regardless, I do not expect to see her as a consequential candidate.
It is highly unlikely that she can build sufficient support from the democratic base to be a credible candidate without moving significantly to the left.
Both parties have the problem that their candidates must cater to their parties base to advance in primaries, and to win a general election must persuade voters that they did not mean what they said to win the primaries.
This poses less of a problem for republicans – because the “extreme” republican positions are far less offensive than those of the left.
Tulsi Gabbard would be a very attractive candidate for the Dems. I wouldn’t vote for her, because, on policy, she would likely be too far to the left for me. But I agree that she would be a better choice than Booker, Harris, or Warren. She doesn’t appear to be in lockstep with the party, but I have not heard her criticize its current mob tactics yet.
dduck. Thought you might be interested in this. Came through on a facebook post.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/5851308114001/?fbclid=IwAR0RZ_uE84n_00Cd5881SXwaMU4VF4zMtcj-olLMjUjIVask8dve0FyOgPI#sp=show-clips
Just the way she presents herself, she would be a formidable candidate and I bet she would be locked and loaded for any Trump crap thrown her way. Bleeding orifices, Dog faces, etc will not cut it with her. I would imagine she has been around enough to make Trump the low energy, small hands guy. IMO.
however, she is also a skillful politician. She answered all his questions with non-answers.
She’d get my vote over any of the Dems recently mentioned as potential presidential candidates…
And she did answer the last direct question asked her: that 37 wasn’t too young to run for President …
I would note that though her attack on Tribalism was good, immediately before that she was on this riff about fixing all that is wrong in our communities.
That “feels” good. But it is not actually the job of government. And what we hopefully learned from the 20th century is that it is not a job that govenrment can do or is any good at.
If you want jobs, if you want rising standard of living, if you want better and cheaper healthcare, if you want to improve education – or anything else. We actually know how to accomplish that.
GET GOVERNMENT OUT.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’
Ronald Reagan
So long as Gabbard is advocating for government solutions to all our problems then her rant against tribalism is disingenuous.
It is not “bi-partisan” to say – we should solve our conflict by agreeing to cooperate to do what I want to do.
There is only one party that beleives that it is entitled to win every conflict – regardless of elections, regardless of the rights of others. That is the democratic party.
I keep telling you all here that to use force collectively – and that is what government is, the collective use of force. Your actions must be justified and they must have super-majoritarian support.
Anything less guarantees permanent conflict.
I would note from Gabbard’s wikipedia page,
She supports that Syrian Assad Government,
She has defended various indian politicians who purportedly had roles in roiting that lead to deaths and fraud and corruption.
She supported the Iran deal.
She opposed TPP – but she was not specific about why. She claimed it benefitted Wall Street too much – that just shows a misunderstanding of economics, and because it had too many secret provisions that benefitted special interests – that is likely to be true, but I can not evaluate her remarks without citing the specific provisions she opposes.
She opposed the invasion of Iraq, for reason I can get behind.
In the past she has said our anti-terrorist position should focus on fighting terrorists – not regime change – that is why she opposes removing Assad. But that is NOT consistent with her views on Sauid Arabia.
She opposed the DAPL because it runs NEAR indian reservations.
BTW Steve Bannon is a big fan of Gabbard.
I though she presented well.
But her reasoning and logic were crap.
If you really and truly want to go Washington’s farewell address – which I would, then DO IT.
If you are going to make a non-interventionist argument – then do that and OWN IT.
I would likely do much of what she says we should do.
But I am not going to hide from the fact that doing so would have bad consequences both for us and for the region.
I would also like to know where she is regarding Iran. Absolutely every problem she notes with Saudi Arabia exists with Iran – in spades.
If she was standing up to Obama and his deals with IRan – then she impresses me.
If not she is just another political hypocrit arguing for “my team” not principles.
Put differently:
you can be actually non-interventionist – and lots of people get killed.
you can pick the Saudi’s as an Ali – and lots of people get killed.
you can pick the Iranians as an Ali – and lots of people get killed.
The Saudi’s are not “wonderful people” but they are arguably the lessor evil.
But if you are going to have US involement in the mideast then her vilification of Saudia Arabia is garbage.
Yes they are a bad actor – pretty much everyone in the mideast is.
The Isreali’s are saints in comparison to every other country in the mideast.
And even the Israeli’s just do not live up to western standards.
Absolutely the Saudi’s leave a great deal to be desired – so do the Iranian’s the Syrian’s the Libyans and the Egyptians – the other major powers in the region.
I would SORT OF agree with her that the US government should get out of the arms business. But what I mean by that is let Lockheed and Boeing and Ratheon and ….. strike their own deals. Our government should not facilitate arms deals.
But our businesses should sell whatever they want to whoever they want.
If you actually allowed that – they would likely take over arms sales throughout the world rapidly.
Yemen is a mess. But pretending it is a Saudi only problem is garbage.
Yes, bad things are happening. People are dying.
That tends to get even worse when one side in a conflict backs out.
Their supporters get slaughtered.
Would Gabbard have opposed Lincoln’s blockade of the south ?
Oh, those nasty Dems, they listened to Clinton and Holder and they are going “lower”.
What’s good for the groper is good for the goosers.
dd – there is plenty of misconduct on both sides. No party, ideology, profession has a monopoly on lying, cheating, stealing or the unjustified use of force.
That does not mean there is parity, equivalence, equality.
A significant portion of those on the left believe that they are free to use any means necessary to accomplish their goals.
While the concept of law and order, the rule of law is deeply ingrained in the right, strong in the rest of us and nearly absent in the left.
The right (even the extremists) historically resorts to violence when they perceive law and order as breaking down.
The right does not see violence as a justifiable means to any end, only as a response to chaos.
Clinton and Holder are not particularly “instigators” of violence. They are merely putting to words, the heart of the left.
While nearly every counter example that has been offered – Trump, even McInnes, are reactive uses of force.
Trump has lamented, that his followers can not “punch back”.
McInnes has promised that when the left swings at him, they will walk away a bloody pulp.
Trump and McInnes are not as of yet reflections of the right. Holder and Clinton are reflections of the left.
Even raising McInnes to a stature to compare to Holder and Clinton reflects the deep problems with the left – and not just the extreme left.
McInnes is comparable in consequence to the leaders of Antifa. No the former attorney General of the US, not the Former Secretary of state.
This link goes with the lower comment.
http://www.tmz.com/2018/10/20/senator-mitch-mcconnell-confronted-restaurant-protesters/
I can see me confronting him, but not in this manner. But it pisses me off when he calls Social Security an entitlement! It is only an entitlement because he, and 99 other senators each year have screwed over the program for years and allowed a total mismanagement of the funds. Any time any change was proposed by either party it was political suicide to support it.
Now with the problems those programs face, anything like privatizing the funds for people under 46 and allowing people to direct how these funds are invested is attacked by either side if they are the ones not proposing the changes.
Why the hell we cant do what Chile did in 1980 is financial incompetence. That system might not be perfect, but it sure as hell beats what we have here now.
I am not going to defend McConnell on SS as I do not know enough about his fistory on the
subject.
Regardless, Social Security is an Entitlement – there have been numerous efforts by an assortment of republicans – more recently Dick Army to get the law and the courts or the law to establish some aspects of Social Security and Medicare as contractual rights – i.e. because I paid SS government has contracted with me for benefits.
The courts have absolutely rejected that.
You must pay SS taxes. Period. You receive no contractual rights in return.
When subsequently government provides you with SS or medicare – it is an entitlement, no different from welfare. The fact that there are formulas in the law for your benefits based on what you have paid in is irrelevant.
So McConnell is correct – SS is an entitlement.
He is also correct that it is one that will bankrupt the country if we do not bring it under control.
Further it is inevitable that something will be done about SS and Medicare.
The consequences of SS and medicare reform will be bad – immoral. But they will be worse the longer we wait.
The left has made in our names promises that can not be kept.
We need to face that, and find the least immoral and harmful fix possible.
Dave, I am not going to argue legal mumble gumble with you concerning SS.
You can base your beliefs on legal wrangling if you want.
To me there a key points in SS.
1. I paid into SS.
2. My employer paid into SS.
3. The legislation was written where these funds were to be “invested” and over the years this was to be made available for my use after retirement.
4. Government did not perform the fiduciary responsibility required to insure funds earned a market rate of return.
5. Government saw a huge pot of money and used it to offset deficits.
6. Every attempt since the 80’s to fix SS and make it self sufficient, or revise our pension system like Chile did in 1980, politicians have made that a political death sentence for any one supporting those changes.
So, if one takes money, does not insure the funds are invested, wastes the money and then claims SS is an entitlement and blames retired individuals for the financial mess heading down the tracks, they are nothing but a snake. And McConnell should tell the truth and stop lying.
With respect to the law my key point is that the courts are not going to “solve” anything for us, and even if they did you will not like what they do.
Your beleifs about SS are super-majoritarian.
It does nto matter it that is not what the law is so long as overwhelming amajorities of people beleive otherwise.
HOWEVER – what we BELEIVE is not possible.
It is a political death sentence to try to touch SS.
It is a death sentence for the country if we do not.
Ultimately something has got to give.
I am not a big McConnell fan, but he is closer to telling the truth about SS than most significant politicians today.
Dave you are 99% correct about McConnell. It is going to be devastating one way or another when the system Collapses. But SS was NOT an entitlement when it started. People paid in, employers paid in, funds earned money, funds less that income was to flow out !
Congress over the years abdicated their fiduciary responsibility by not updating the program and by raiding the program and paying rates of return on IOU’s that most any person would never invest in if they even had a half assed investment advisor.
Congress made it an entitlement only because they were afraid of making decisions good for the country instead of their careers and perpetuated a fraud on working citizens saying those were our funds under the ” Federal Insurance CONTIBUTION Act”.
“But SS was NOT an entitlement when it started”
False – the basic structure and process is unchanged. The tax rates have changed.
It is absolutely true that from start through today SS was SOLD by politicians as a government managed retirement program – your money in, your money out.
But that was not nor is not what it is.
The formula for benefits IMPLIES that – sort of.
As I recall your monthly SS is determined by your income in your three highest paying years NOT your total contributions.
Regardless that is set by law and regulation and can be changed easily.
Charles Ponzi’s infamous investment that “bilked” investors that lead to the name “ponzi scheme” was not an actual ponzi scheme. In fact the scheme would have worked had Ponzi’s growth in investors not exceeded the capacity of the underlying investment to generate profits. Ponzi’s actual “investment” was esentially currency triage using a price difference in the value of postage stamps between the US and itlay.
But it required physically transporting the stamps from italy to the US and then cashing them in. At the time that required transatlantic steamships.
But Social Security is an actual Ponzi scheme where the returns of investors withdrawing are paid by the investment of investors entering. It is unsustainable, and unstable. It is a miracle it has worked this long. FDR actually understood the risk of SS and that it was a Ponzi Scheme and resisted it for several years.
What did Chile do, Ron?
Basically they shifted from a SS like ours to a system that is privately managed, much more like a 401 retirement. The government can not get to the money to waste it like ours can. Certain people in 1980 were able to stay in the old system or convert their actuarial determined amounts into the new system. Workers contribute 10% by law into the new investments. Not sure what employers have to contribute if any.
They do have problems, not due to mismanagement of funds, but for two reasons. Many in Chile still dont pay in and the law was written to allow investment managers to charge 1% administrative fee, much higher than most all multi million dollar fund cost.
We need to freeze SS where it is. Anyone over 45 the amount you and your employer paid in would be transferred to your investment account. Then the 15% you and employers pay in would go into an investment account that by law would be unavailable except for catastrophic occurances. Upon your death, those funds would become part of your estate. Those under 45, an amount you and employer paid in would be transferred to the investments over a predefined time period based on your age.
Those already retired would continue with the current plan. Once the amount you begin withdrawing more than you paid in, it would be charged to a government budget item as an
Social Security entitlement. Any other funds withdrawn not covered by taxes paid in would be charged to an entitlement budget line item. Call it “Congressional Mismanagement of Pension Fund Cost.”
I am not sure that Chiles system remains as initially implimented.
But it was in place much as you described for 30 years.
During that time Chile went from one of the poorest countries in South America to the richest.
Their Private SS is only one factor – but a big one.
Yes they have problems – but they have outperformed every government system in existance. If that is “problems” – please sir, can I have more.
When you see your payroll taxes and there are “employer” taxes listed – change those to “employee” taxes.
There is no such thing as a business tax. Taxes are always paid by people, not businesses.
All corporate taxes, all taxes one business in any form are pssed down one way or the other to employees or consumers. Without exception.
All payroll taxes are paid by employees – regardless of what they are “labeled”.
Chile famously privatized their equivalent of US social security.
The results were absolutely incredible – not only did it provide far better for retirement, as well as being an asset that could be passed on to kids, but it boosted the chilean economy as the money had to be invested rather than spent by government.
I am not sure where chilean stands today – as the post Pinochett conservative government was eventually replaced by relatively moderate socialists who vowed to end private SS.
But the data gained over decades was phenominal.
But it is trivial to look at the US.
There is no 35 year period of US history where a Dow Jones indexed fund with the equivalent of SS tax contributions of just about anyone would not produce double the benefit of SS Further real SS actually depends on people dying and losing SS.
While a private IRA or something like it is an asset that can be inherited.
And finally private investment raises our standard of living.
Public spending lowers it.
I do not like McConnell at all. That does not justify this conduct.
This reflects a systemic problem with ideological roots.
This type of conduct is considered justified by many on the left.
Even those on the left who would condem it – do so because it looks bad, not because it is wrong. Right and wrong for those on the left are rooted in feelings and intentions.
McConnell is wrong on numerous issues – therefore he is evil, and therefore he is not entitled to the protection the social contract affords us from the use of force by others.
Even if McConnell has committed no evil act – the subjective judgement of those on the left as to his intentions justify breaching the social contract and subjecting him to violence.
Those on the left engage in violence not merely because they are angry about politics.
But because they do not have any moral foundations. The concept that political differences do not justify the use of force is not in their ideology.
The right is less cohesive ideologically than the left. Conservatisim is inherently a preservation of the status quo. It is rooted in the premise that what is and has been for centuries is more likely true that todays new idea.
But core to both the right and libertarians is “the rule of law”.
Violence by the right is reactive. It is not justified by the intents of one’s opponents, it is not justified by the error in one’s opponent’s beliefs. Violence for the right – no matter how much they might seek it out, is only justified by the unjustified use of force.
McInnes will beat you to a pulp – when you swing at him.
Trump laments that his followers can not do the same.
Those on the right rarely initiate violence.
They are not pacifists, they are not non-violent.
But their use of violence is not lawless. It must be justified by the actions – the use of force, of others.
Sorry Ron. Character matters and this is where we part ways and disagree.
I understand completely, but then your perspective on what government should and should not do is very different than mine, so that may play a role in our decisions.
So let me ask you this. Lets say a candidate on the left is exactly like Trump, but holds the views of government run healthcare, strong EPA regulations, will reenter the Paris accords, supports a womans right to choose and supports sanctuary cities and catch and release programs as well as many other progressive positions in the agenda.
Then you have one that has impeccable moral standards, supports a strong conservative position and supports the christian right agenda. Will do everything they can to ban abortions except to save the life of the woman. Will work to make illegal the morning after pill. Will send troops to the southern border and will make their first priority a wall from the eastern border of Texas with Mexico all the way to and trough California and off the cost 500 yards. They will imprison illegals in prisons in the southern states where open beds are available, remaining their until deportation or their hearing is heard.. Only parents with kids will be in the detention centers and will stay there until their hearing are heard. And will make sure that the next three SCOTUS appointments will support every agenda item listed or they will not be nominated. And at this time, the congressional party in control is like today, both of their party, so no problem getting the agenda through and SCOTUS approved.
Which one will you vote for?
Neither.
That said – either could still end up being a good president – depending an what they actually DO.
Further each will likely do things that I oppose vigorously. Things that are wrong – both practically and morally.
Ron’s Hobbesian choice: As the person you have chosen to believe, Kavanaugh, has said: ‘It’s a hypothetical question that I can’t begin to answer in this context.”
I’m so disgusted with all of the parties, that I am willing to take a chance on an “honest” person, for example Tulsi. It could be someone I think is honest from any party, that has a “chance” of winning. I made a mistake voting for Perot, so I have that caveat for my next thrown away vote. I know, I’m dreaming and extremely naïve about politics, I admit that.
I don’t want to have another lousy choice like Trump and Clinton, both of which I detested.
I voted for Perot – I do not regret that.
I have voted for many candidates that have lost – republicans, democrats and libertarians.
I do not regret that .
Any vote for a “losing candidate” is “wasted”
I have also voted for Johnson twice.
It appears that Bill Weld is the likely 2020 libertarian.
I am angry at him because I think he F’d up the libertarians in 2016 and cost them 1-2% more of the vote that would have put them in a stronger position for 2020.
But if he is the libertarian candidate – I will likely vote for him.
He is a good person – he has character, even if on some issues I disagree with him.
What did Weld do that cost votes?
Weld encouraged libertarians to vote for Clinton.
It was really weird, I beleive it was in September or October of 2016 as the election came to a head. Weld who was the Libertarian vice presidential candidate wrote editorials endorsing Clinton.
As I understand things now.
Johnson is running for the NM Senate as a libertarian, with no plans to run for president in 2020. Weld is working to restore the Trust of libertarians and run for President in 2020 as a libertarain. Austin Peters ran for the MO Senate as a republican and lost to Hawley and plans to remain in the republican party as a libertarain republican so he is not running in 2020. that leave John MacAphee – who is certainly the most colorful possible candidate.
You should look up some of his political adds from 2016 on youtube, they are very entertaining.
They are not however going to encourage the view that Libertarains are NOT the party of crazy.
Johnson/Weld 2016 bumper sticker
Johnson was no better a person than Clinton (either) or Trump. Nixon was certainly worse.
Trump will not be the person with the worst character to occupy the white house.
Not by a long shot.
Despite his character, he – like Bill Clinton may prove to be a good president.
Harding was only president briefly. He was by all accounts corrupt.
But he was a very good president, and he was succeeded by Coolidge who was boh a man of good character and a good president.
Hoover was inarguably a man of good character.
He was a horrible president.
Character matters greatly.
Is character determined by what we feel ?
Is character determined by what we intend ?
Is character determined by what we say ?
Is character determined by what we do ?
As Justice Stewart said: “I know it when I see it”. In my case when I think I see character.
dduck, I would say that both Bush 43 and Obama were people of good character. Not as good as Carter, but nothing I know of that really stands out. Yes Obama had a drug problem when young and Bush had a drinking problem. So what, they did not while in later life. Bush was chastised for his service(or lack of). So what, We were not protecting America during Nam and we had not been attacked. Damn lies that got us there and anyone able to avoid serving during that time, more power to them.
However, both of these presidents were anything but good. Yes Bush rallied America after 9-11 and then got us in endless wars, one trying to finish what daddy didn’t do. I dont blame 2008 on Bush, that was caused by years of congressional mismanagement and terrible legislation. Banks to big to fail grew from 1990 through the mid 2000’s. Obama was awful, from Obamacare all the way through his pen and paper signatures on E.O.’s.
So I am one willing to overlook character, because it does NOTHING of substance and look at the results of an administration as the important issues needed.And yes, one ass grabber in the white house is worth many times one GI’s life in war. If that is what it takes to keep us out of messes like Bush and Obama got us in, more power to them. And if for some reason Trump sends troops to countries other than to protect the lives of those already there, then I will view him with lessor eyes than Bush or Obama.
Rather than saying X has good character – define good character then it will be easier to agree on whether someone has good character.
I would have said Obama had good character prior to 2017, but much of what watergate style political corruption of the Obama administration is tied to the whitehouse and to him personally.
Prior to 2017 I would have said that people like Lehrner and Holder and Clinton were politically corrupt, but that Obama was not.
But Strzok and pages texts explicitly note that from late 2015 on the whitehouse and Obama specifically initiated the Trump russia investigation and that he wanted updates on a near daily basis.
That makes me more suspicious that the other political corruption scandals did not stop at lower agencies.
As they say – the fish rots from the head.
Further good character is a solid moral framework and a commitment to it.
Morality and empathy are NOT the same thing.
one of the things we should have learned from the failures of communism and socialism is that wearing (or pretending to wear) your heart on your sleeve does not make you a good person. That myriads of immoral people claim to advocate for the oppressed, for victims.
One aspect of character is keeping your commitments.
“If you like your doctor you can keep them”
Or promising that PPACA would save money and reduce health insurance rates and costs.
Good intentions can not be assumed, and do not make up for failure and causing real harm.
Good Character. I define that as being honest and possessing integrity. Integrity to me is doing what you say you are going to do and in business, supporting people that you manage when they follow your orders and company policies and something goes wrong when that takes place.
What does “honest” mean ?
If you ask me for personal information you are not entitled to I am either not answering you or making something up.
I do not consider that dishonest.
I think that honesty is telling the truth – when other parties are entitled to the the truth, particularly when doing so may have a personal cost.
That is honesty about what you are asked.
There is also honesty about what you offer.
Making false accusations is always dishonest.
Absolutely if you provide information that others rely on – and you know they are going to rely on it, you need to back them up when the information is right, and own responsibility when it is not. I do not think that is spoecific to business.
I can not see a distinction between integrity and honesty.
Read the article below all the way to the end – it is long.
Then tell me is Katie Meyler a person of good character or one of bad character ?
https://features.propublica.org/liberia/unprotected-more-than-me-katie-meyler-liberia-sexual-exploitation/
No Katie Meyler was not one of good character in my mind. She was doing the right things until(as it says) “he and Meyler had had an intimate relationship, and she kept him in place even after having reason to suspect his predilections.”
One of good character would have brought this to the attention of the board immediately and recommended his (at least) suspension from the job until an investgation was completed. She put the girls in harms way to protect a school that was allowing this harm to continue.
Just as I said Feinstein should have brought Fords letter to the attention of the whole committee immediately, I can’t have one set of standards for one person and another for a different person.
I am not disagreeing,
But I would note that when Ebola hit – Meyler rushed in to help at great personal risk.
You can say that she did that to burnish her tarnished image – maybe that is the case.
But that is not a good enough reason for me to risk ebola.
I am not saying Meyler has good character either.
But I am saying that character is about much more than good intentions.
Meyler clearly had good intentions.
She also worked very hard to do good.
She checks off pretty much every box the left has for “good person”.
And in the end – no, I do not think Meyler has “good character”
I do not think that anyone who puts others at risk or who disregards the rights of others has good character – not even if they have all the other attributes of a good person, not even if their reasons for doing something are good.
We know that it is likely that Obama took drugs – possibly some serious ones.
We do not know that he had a “problem”.
We also know that Bush took drugs as well as having an alcohol problem that he has admitted.
Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard in 1968.
He was a fighter pilot – with very high ratings.
He inquired about transfering to vietnam but was told he did not have sufficient experience and by the time he did the fighter he flew would be retired and he would have to retrain for another.
By 1972 Bush had fullfilled his required flight committments but was still 2 years away from discharge. Bush was discharged in 1974.
Almost all the “controversy” regards his service from 1972-1974. This is the tail end of his service and he had already fullfilled his primary committments.
It was not unusual for guard members on the last 2 years of a 6 year comittment to have limited duty or to be given assignments that are essentially time filling.
To create a controversy over Bushes service you have to presume that he mad a 6 year active duty committment – which he did not.
Starting in 1968, you had to be someone “connected” to get into any National Guard unit. They had so many wanting to join they closed their wait list. If he had not been on the wait list for a few years, then he jumped someone else to get in. But with daddy in political life, that was not hard to do. Someone else could go to Nam and die.
Bu that is the way it works in any situation. To get what you want, it helps to have connections and then you get special handling.
Different state guard units had different circumstances.
Is there someone claiming that George W. Bush was not “connected” ?
You also have to have “connections” to get into the naval academy
is someone pissing on McCain because he would not have gotten accepted but for his father or Grandfather ?
I was “connected” enough to get into the naval academy. And would have but my vision was beyond waivers.
There were many ways to avoid Vietnam if you were even middle class. Ask Bill Clinton.
Even if you were not – join the military in a specialty that would avoid combat.
In the 50’s my father “joined” the army with the specific purpose of avoiding being drafted to go to Korea.
Most of the critique of GWB’s service int he guard is related to his last two years.
Those were NOT atypical.
I think that Bush was a good person – particularly later in life.
I think he was a bad president.
Thats what I said also.
2008 had nothing to do with Bush.
Though there was lost of bad mortgage and housing law – starting with Carter’s toothless CRA in the 70’s and continuing throught the Clinton and Bush administrations.
Those laws and regulations did not cause the housing crisis, though they may have made it worse or harder to deal with.
The crisis was caused by bad monetary policy at the federal reserve – just as the great depression was caused by similar monetary errors.
“Those laws and regulations did not cause the housing crisis”
Depends on who you talk to. My wifes brother-in-law was president of a regional savings and loan in this area. He said around 2000 we were heading for a huge collapse of the housing market because they were made to make loans to people that could not afford them, That was because if your market area had 30% minority residents, your loan portfolio should have 30% minority loans. Those people worked in the textile and furniture industry and did not make enough to qualify for loans, so unique loans were developed so they could qualify. Then to sell the loans, they had to bundle them into large mortgage sales and hope that no one noticed. They did not until all hell broke loose in 2008.
Being more precise – laws such as the CRA did not create a credit bubble – the Fed’s easy money policies did. Where there is a credit bubble there will eventually be a serious problem – a collapse.
The assorted housing laws and regulations were a significant factor in directing that credit bubble to housing. But they did not cause the bubble.
No one loans their own money to people who can not afford to repay it.
Even the rich and investors and businesses working with shareholders money (other peoples money) do not lend it to people that are likely not to be able to repay.
Such loans can only occur on any significant scale if government is pumping large amounts of excess money and therefore credit into the market.
Just to be clear – I am NOT trying to defend those laws and regulations.
They were abysmally stupid.
Further they were certainly going to have bad effects.
But they did not create the credit bubble and without that there would have been no housing bubble, and no financial crisis.
Exactly HOW this played out was determined by many factors including bad laws and regulations.
That we were going to have a recession when the credit bubble burst was a given.
That crisis was going to be in whatever portion of the economy conditions – such as bad laws and regulations drove the excess credit too.
Dave really? “No one loans their own money to people who can not afford to repay it.”
Are you really this nieve?
20% down payments changed to little to no down payments.
Loans designed to meet income levels at high rates of.interest.
Short term loans refinanced because people could not qualify long term loans .
Loans evaluated for percent chance of repayment and the portfolios sold were bundled to hide the ones with low chance or repayment.
Most all of this was designed to allow minorities to buy homes they could not afford.
No I am not naive – it does not happen.
Please read what I wrote.
I did not say private investors do not occasioanlly write bad loans.
But they do not loan money expecting that it will not be repaid.
Every loan has a risk, and that risk is NORMALLY factored into the interest rate.
So called “sub prime” loans have a higher interest rate – as they should, they are riskier.
When government is not invovled a sub prime loans will occur, but they will be fewer and at a higher interest reate reflecting the fact that some larger portion of them will fail.
Even prime lonas fail sometimes – but at a lower rate.
As to the “rule changes”
So long as people are loaning their own money – even though rule changes can have bad effects, they can not tank the economy.
What they can do is tank the loan market.
No matter what governments rules are lenders will not loan their own money if the odds are higher they are going to lose it. So no matter how egregious government makes the rules – the only effect will be that less loans are made.
UNLESS lenders are not lending their own money. Or unless lenders can borrow money from the goverhment at low enough rates to compensate for the higher risk of the loans they are writing.
The purpose of bundling was N?EVER to hide anything.
It was purely to distribute risks.
Even then the bundles were commonly risk rated.
There were bundles of lower risk mortgages and bundles of higher risk ones.
People buying MBS;s had the ability to buy whatever risk return ratio they wanted.
None of this would have been the slightest problem absent the fact hat massive easing of money supply provided huge amounts of government money allowing banks to invest in mortgages using the governments money.
Absent the flood of money none of this would not have happened.
ALWAYS when money is tight that money seeks the best possible risk reward ratio’s – that does nto mean no one takes risk – even high risk. It means that no one takes high risk with low rewards. That only happens when there is too much credit available.
When the available money exceeds the supply of good risk reward ratio loans
Money conforms to the laws of supply and demand too.
The more money available to loan the more the market will produce supply to meet that demand for loans. When there are not enough quality loans the market will produce more low quality loans to meet demand.
But when the market is not flooded with credit – things are more balanced.
That does not mean no mistakes occur. But it does mean that there are never systemic mispricing of credit.
More broadly it is ALWAYS bad to push the market in one direction. ALWAYS.
Free markets are dynamic – they go up and down they are constantly shifting, they go one way for a while and then the other. This is NOT random and it is good not bad. It is constantly seeking the sweet spot in a dynamic world. There are small overshoots quite often, but they are balanced by undershoots. Systemic error remains small. ALWAYS as a market moves towards optimal those betting against the market decrease, ALWAYS as a market moves away from optimal they increase. Got any bet on the market there is ALWAYS someone betting against it. This is a major factor in the self regulation in the market.
Only government can push the market consistently in one direction – through and past optimal.
Only Government assumes that ever more of something generally good is inherently better.
Only government assumes that everything should be linear rather than curved.
And Only government can distort the market without it self regulating – because government is force.
“Most all of this was designed to allow minorities to buy homes they could not afford.”
There were larger problems in the sub prime market.
But the ENTIRE mortgage market was out of whack.
More prime loans were being written than should have been more purportedly solid investors were speculating because money was easy and more prime mortgages defaulted than should have.
Absolutely the largest failure was subprime. But the fact that higher default rates permeated the market means the cause can not be specifically reduced lending standards.
Just to be clear I am NOT saying that bad lending standards were not a serious problem. I am not saying they did not make things worse.
I am only saying they are not a CAUSE.
All the things you blame were bad, and wrong and even immoral and made things worse.
But they were not CAUSES.
People lend money to make money.
With only a few rare exceptions that is the driving force behind lending.
Without rules and regulations so long as lenders may not use force to “collect” on loans – except their government, they must choose who to lend money to and what interest to charge based on their probability of profiting from the loan.
And that is precisely what we want.
We want lenders to assess who they are lending to.
We want them to choose those most likely to succeed – to take the money they are loaned and in one way or another use it to make even more.
They objective of ALL aspects of free exchange – including lending is to produce more value with less human effort.
That is the definition of higher standard of living.
It is ALSO the definition of PROFIT.
A free unregulated market – with only a few rigid laws:
You may not use force to profit.
You must keep your agreements.
You must make whole any you harm,
will always be incentivized not merely to have individuals profit, but to have everyone profit.
MBS’s were not created to “hide” the bad mortgages in the market.
They were created to distribute the risk. Which they are actually good at,
They are much like insurance. people pooling their resources so that no one gets stuck with all the losses – so that everyone gets a share of the winners as well as the losers.
The problem is that while MBS’s like insurance REDUCE individual risk.
They do not reduce systemic risk. In fact they incentivize increasing systemic risk.
Fire insurance does NOT increase the likelyhood of a fire.
But MBS’;s do encourage lending to people who can not repay.
Still the big problem is NOT the MBS, but the excess credit.
I am not willing to overlook character.
Despite the fact that we have had good presidents of bad character and bad presidents of good character, I still think that character counts.
Hitler is an example of a person of bad character who was a good leader for many years.
But who ultimately was disastrous.
People of actually good character often make bad leaders.
People of bad character often make good leaders.
But really really horrible things only occur when people of bad character have power.
I absolutely have my eye on Trump.
But I am not fixated on the daily tweet nonsense that the left is.
Almost the entire GOP field of candidates in 2016 (except Graham) ran as foreign policy non-interventionists.
Trump vowed to bomb ISIS to hell and get out. He also vowed to leave afghanistan.
There was aparently an incredibly heated exchange with “the generals” over afghanistan about a year ago. Trump wanted OUT, and they gave him no plan for getting out.
But eventually he accepted their plan. As president the buck stops with him. At the same time this is clearly not what he wanted.
Trump seems readily willing to threaten the use of force, and even to use it.
But he has thus far been very careful about the use of force.
He is willing to use large amounts of force – over a short period of time.
He is not willing to get the US into further long term committments.
He has thus far strongly avoided “low intensity conflicts”.
It appears highly unlikely that Trump is going to suck us into another protracted war – in the mideast or elsewhere.
At the same time he is willing to use force quickly and decisively.
I do not agree with his uses. I beleive that the evidence supporting the claim that ASSAD used chemical weapons a 2nd time after Trump pummelled him the first time was very poor.
That said thus far he has proven more adept at foreign policy and the use of the US military than any president since Bush I
“There was apparently an incredibly heated exchange with “the generals” over Afghanistan about a year ago. Trump wanted OUT, and they gave him no plan for getting out.”
Didn’t Colin Powell saw something like “you break it, your going to own it”? Well Bush broke it, Obama made it worse until it got somewhat better and now it is where we either maintain what there is there and hope the Afgahnies can take over or we leave and those that we fought take over. What were all those lives lost for? Its a tough situation to be in, but right now it appears the generals are correct (SO FAR).
Afghanistan and Iraq were fundimentally different.
The Taliban had both before and after the fact roles in 9-1-1.
We were entitled to destroy them.
We were not obligated to give the Afghani’s good government.
We had no justification for going to Iraq.
The generals are NOT correct.
The afghanis will not have good government until the afghani people want it and are willing to oppose – with force if necescary those who do not.
We can not make that come about, and our presence makes that less likely.
It is near certain that our departure will produce bad results.
Absent staying for decades that is happening anyway.
We are expending blood and treasure to delay the inevitable.
If you do not know what it is, then you have little credibility on your assessment of it.
Then you are doing no differently from my Grandmother who voted for the most handsome candidate.
I think character is important.
Websters defines character as moral excellence and firmness
I think that is a good starting point.
As I have noted before – morality rests on individual liberty – you can not have morality without liberty.
Therefore anyone seeking to infringe on the liberty of others – absent sufficient justification has poor character.
I think that being about to act morally even when it is easy not to, or when it is incredibly hard to act morally. When doing the right thing comes at high cost, while doing something else has no cost – I think that is the epitome of character.
Keeping commitments is character.
“If you like your doctor you can keep them” – is NOT good character.
Conversely Trump’s efforts to keep the campaign promises that he made – even those I do not agree with are good character.
Trump’s daily tweets which often have a weak relationship to the truth are not good character. But in the scale of things what he tweets is far less important than what he does.
I think that having a different public position and private position is a sign of very bad character.
Trump sometimes changes his mind – sometimes he is beaten into changing his mind, often he tries to pretend that the did not change his mind.
But he does NOT have two positions – a public on and a private one.
I know it when I see it is exactly what we do NOT want in the courts.
A MODERATE Democratic Opinion:
(Will any established Democrat running for President mimic it?)
Clever, this shyster is trolling for Trump voters at the same time he will try to appeal the more left liberals
We can agree that Micheal Avanatti is a disaster to anything he touches.
Democrats should run like hell away from him – as should republicans.
Jay who is Michael Avenatti?
There might be a few democrats, but they will have to get Pelosi and Shumers permission to voice those positions or their seats on important commissions will be taken away.
Ron, I am a little doubtful on Obama and Bush II. They were typical politicians very swayed by the winds their parties pushed at them.
But was there anything in their personla character like Trump that made them of bad character.
I would also ask what is it about Trump that constitutes bad character ?
Just to be clear – I am not defending Trump’s character.
But it is actually important to establish what constitutes good character and what is bad character and why.
I am offended by alot of Trump’s remarks. They are inappropriate – for the president and for anyone. But if you asked me how important that was to “good character” I would have to say not very.
I am offended by Trump’s treatment of women. But if we disregard the completely incredulous claims. he is just not in the same league as Bill Clinton, he is certainly not in the same league as most of those who ran afoul of #metoo. This is more important to me, but Trump’s bad conduct in this area is less than others like Clinton.
Of course it is worse than Bush or Obama.
Trump has proven to be one of the most trustworthy presidents in my lifetime – possibly ever.
He has kept most of his campaign promises, and those he failed at he tried vigorously and may still. This BTW does NOT surprise me.
Those on the left and far too many of the rest of you think business==crooked.
but that is bunk. It is extremely rare for someone to survive long in any position of responsibility in the market if they do not deliver on commitments.
The Bernie Maddoff’s are very rare – and even he delivered on his commitments until he no longer could.
Many of the mythical “robber barons” weren’t
Micheal Miliken went to jail for promising that Junk Bonds had more value than assumed.
History as shown that “they did”. No one lost money by following Miliken’s advice.
Though many lost money by starting to follow his advice and then losing faith.
People like Rockefeller get very rich by making the rest of us far better off.
Ultimately those involved in Enron were found to be inept and lacking judgement, and having gambled too big. But all the criminal charges were eventually tossed – because there was no crime.
Bad character can be defined as dishonesty. Lying is being dishonest. I can’t list everything he has said that is a lie. One can look that up themselves.
Bad character can also be defined as lacking integrity. One who diminishes another through bully type comments is lacking integrity in my mind. Trump saying Rubio had little hands as a reference to another part of his anatomy being small is unacceptable to me, but thats politics. That would not rise to lack of integrity, but close. However, comments like “Look at that face!” “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” when referring to Fiorina. He then lied the next couple days and said he was not talking about Fiorina.
So he personally attacks someones face and then lies and said he did not when it was on record. That is a lack of integrity X’s 2 for one instance.
I do not think “bad character == dishonesty”.
You can be honest and still have bad character.
You can also misrepresent some things and not have bad character.
But dishonesty is common among people with bad character.
I would further note that it matters what you are not honest about , why and what the consequences are.
It also matters what you consider a “lie”.
The vast majority of what the left and media whig out over regarding Trump are NOT flat out lies. They are overly broad generalizations or mischaracterizations, spin, oppinions or statements on incomplete information.
That does not inherently make them “honest”.
As an example Trump has said something about “terrorists” in the recent “caravan”.
There is atleast one story somewhere suggesting ISIS members in the caravan.
That story is probably false, and Trump has exagerated it.
At the same time he is not committed to it.
So is that “dishonest” ? How dishonest is it ? How important is it ?
When you say something that you know is false, and you expect others to rely on – particularly personally rely on, and doing so is to their personal detriment – that is bad character. It is worse when you have a personal stake – when whether others rely on your statement directly effects you.
Except in the most broad sense much of that is just not true about much of what Trump says that is purportedly lies.
“If you like your doctor you can keep them” – that is significant – relying on that harmed people, and people relying on it benefited Obama and democrats.
Suggestions there are terrorists in the caravans is not especially significant.
No harm is going to come to those who rely on that.
No significant benefit accrues to Trump.
Even at making the statement Trump can know – those who hate him will not beleive. Those who like him would likely oppose the caravan anyway.
No one changes their position based on relying falsely on Trump.
There is no actual harm whether the statement is true or false.
The point I am making is all conduct is not equal.
All bad conduct is not equal.
All bad conduct is not equally bad character.
I think Trump’s relationship to women is offensive.
But it is not on the scale of Weinstein or Clinton.
I am hard pressed to think of an instance where Trump went after anyone who did not go after him first. That is not bullying.
Quite often his responses are uncouth, or excessive. When attacked he tends to respond much harder than he was attacked. Sometimes that crosses lines.
Horseface was stupid – as some others have pointer out it also questions his own judgement – after all he went out with Daniels.
Regardless, Trump is not someone I would want to have a conversation with. Drinks, Dinner.
That says nothing about whether he is trustworthy.
I am trying to move from standards, to facts, to evaluation and judgement.
Rather than trying to make a judgement and then find standards and facts that fit.
This hard to do for all of us.
It is easy if you are on one side to judge your opponents unfavorably and your supporters favorably .
It is much harder to judge those on our side and those we oppose by the same standards.
It is harder to tilt our judgement based on ideology when we start from the bottom.
When we decide what is acceptable and what is not FIRST – without reference to people or politics, When we decide both principles, and also value – weight before applying them to people or instances.
This is part of why I am so hard on the left.
Socialism MUST violate the liberty of individuals – that is inextricable to any form of central planning, and socialism requires central planning.
We can argue over whether democrats and the modern left are socialsts.
But it is impossible to argue they are NOT central planners.
And again central planning always infringes on our rights.
This is foreseable. If you are on the left either you grasp that you are trading liberty for some common good – and then you dam well better deliver on that common good (which almost never happens), or you are completely ignorant. Neither reflects good character.
Put more simply left ideologies are inherently evil. The fact that the left is often quite good at wrapping them in beautiful clothes does not alter their underlying nature. The fact that many on the left wish to infringe on the liberty of others for what they believe is a good purpose, does not alter the underlying moral failure of the left.
We may not infringe on the rights of others – even the few, for the good of others – even the many, except under rare instances where that can be justified.
Conservatism does not have this intrinsic moral failure.
Conservatism inherently is the politics of going forward SLOWLY.
They are often wrong, but they are never INHERENTLY wrong.
Neither the left nor the right has a corner on good people.
But the ideology of the left ALWAYS provides false justification for bad conduct.
The right has no ideology, but their guiding principle – “go slow”, does nto autmoatically provide false justification for bad conduct.
Leftism incentivizes evil. Conservatism does not.
Because of this when we start with moral foundations and determine principles of morality FIRST and do not apply them to people until we have established those principles, and there weight, we inherently find that the left fails much more consequentially than the right.
It is ideologically and in terms of incentives on the wrong side of good conduct.
“Jay who is Michael Avenatti?”
Please tell me that is sarcasm ?
Google “porn lawyer”
Nope not sarcasm. No idea who he is. Like I said, I have basically tuned out all the crap on national news as 90% is lies and the other 10% is questionable. I catch headlines and tune into stuff I am interested in like the K hearings
Committees, not commissions. I had just finished reading articles about local commissions in our local paper,
I have little problems with Avenatti’s statement – except that it is nearly meaningless.
What does a “Strong border” mean ? Trump makes it clear what he means.
No democrat has taken a coherent position on the border.
What does “must allow legal immigration” mean.
The US has had about 1M legal immigrants per year for decades.
Lastly – Avenatti ? Seriously ?
“”Trump’s grand promise to pay $1M to charity in exchange for Senator Warren’s DNA test fits the textbook definition of an ‘offer to enter into a unilateral contract.'”
https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/it-would-be-so-perfect-if-elizabeth-warren-sued-trump-over-their-dna-test-stand-off/
“I’m going to get one of those little [DNA testing] kits and in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims she’s of Indian heritage … ‚” Trump said. “And we will say, ‘I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.’ ”
Donald Trump
Honestly the DNA test has proven disasterous for Warren.
Warren has slightly more “american” DNA than white people born in england today.
She has about 1/2 that of the average white american.
She MIGHT have an “american” ancestor – 6-10 generations back.
There is absolutely no tribe in this country that would accept you on that basis.
Both Trump and Warren have made a mistake regarding DNA tests.
You can not test for relationship to any north amaerican indian trib with DNA today.
We do not have a database with enough unique north american DNA markers.
The test Warren took matched her against south american groups – such as peruvian indians that have much larger numbers.
This is probalematic as 3 were 3 major mass migrations to North America.
North american indians are from the last. South and central americans are fromt he prior two.
Warren made a serrious mistake – she took a test that today can not verify the claim she made – and the results are embarrasing.
If you wish to accept her claim to be part native american based on this.
Nearly every white person in this country can check the “native american” affirmative action box.
I would note that Warren claims she has never sought any advantage from that.
That is FALSE Harvard;s diversity director – himself and actual american indian, said that Harvard used professors and students self identification in their reporting. Because Warren listed cherokee as part of her background Harvard reported her to the federal government that way and met an assortment of federal and court ordered diversity requirements on that basis.
Further there have been people jailed for caliming to ba “affrican american” for the purposes of qualifying for affirmative action who had more than 1/1024 african americna DNA.
Now Personally I think Trump should donate $1M to the Cherokee nation as a means of ending this. But that is because if he does it right he gets another story about Fauxchantas out of it and that is easily worth $1M.
Noun
1.
welcher – someone who swindles you by not repaying a debt or wager
Synonyms: welsher
Related Words
chiseler, chiseller, gouger, grifter, scammer, sharper, sharpie, sharpy, swindler, welsher
Add all of the related words to Trump’s resume.
As is typical of the left you make allegations with ambiguous information.
With respect to the Warren DNA test offer – Warren failed to establish that she is indian.
Only a blind left wing zealot thinks that Warren’s DNA tests have not proven that she is a liar and a fraud. Most rational people wonder why after getting the results she revealed them rather than hid them, or why she bothered to get them in the first place. Today it is possible to track families back sometimes to the founding using census records. I have been able to track my own families back to before the civil war. Warren could have quietly done some geneological research – or hired someone else to do so, and known ahead of time that she was not going to find indian heritage in the 6 generations closest to her.
I do think that Trump should give $1m to charity – he can easily afford it. But I think he should pick the charity himself and do so in the way that is most politically beneficial to him and harmful to warren. I think he should do so because it is $1m that can be very well spent gain advantage over warren.
But there is no obligation to do so. Warren clearly failed to prove using DNA tests that she is an “indian”. If she tried to sue him – like Stormy Daniels she would end up paying his legal fees.
That any on the left think otherwise just demonstrates their ignorance.
If you are trying to refer to other events in Trump’s history – then you can be specific.
But you fail to grasp some fundimentals of business.
If you do business with someone, and they do not deliver on your expectations, you do not do business with them again. Free exchange is voluntary. You do not have to do it.
Fool me once shame on you, foll me twice shame on me.
Further if two people do business and one does nto live up to common expectations – others will not do business with you in the future.
If McD’s poisoned even a few percent of its customers, or sold burgers without the meat a small portion of the time or cheated on the sizes of servings
McD’s sales would tank, no one would do business with them.
Business – particularly construction is messy. There are often conflicts. There are often unforeseable problems. Sometimes serious conflicts develop between parties to a contract and the conflict ends up in court. But whether a conflict ends up in court and regardless of ay legal outcome, the mere knowledge of a conflict impairs ones ability to do business in the future.
Put simply no one suceeds in business the way Trump has if they lie cheat or steal.
You can get away with that once or maybe twice. You can not get away with it all the time. or most of the time, or even some of the time.
No one will do business with you.
On ebay do you buy from a seller with an 80% positive rating ?
You should read about whole foods ceo john MacKay.
He started as a left wing nut.
He is now an incredible outspoken advocate of free enterprise.
Among other things he has noted repeatedly that because exchange is voluntary,
because no one has to sell to you or buy from you, no one will sell to you or buy from you unless they beleive they will be better off AFTER the sale.
Free exchange does not occur unless BOTH sides beleive they are better off AFTER the sale.
That is impossible but for one thing – humans are not identical, they are not equal, they do not have the same wants and needs and abilities.
To succeed in business I must offer you something you want MORE than what you give me.
IF I can not do that I fail.
IF you do not trust me – there is no exchange, and I fail.
If I cheat you and others find out – no one else will trade with me and I fail.
Absolutely there are humans who will lie cheat and steal. But contra the left they are more rare in business than anywhere else. Because trade is voluntary and even a suspicion that you are untrustworthy means no one will deal with you.
Conversely all government professions – from teachers and law enforcement through politics are more likely to attract those who lie cheat and steal. Because it is much harder to get caught. Because dealings with government are NOT voluntary, you can not walk away.
If warren sued Trump she would lose – and like Daniels would end up paying Trump’s legal fees.
The fact that you have a site that is stupid enough to pretend that there is law to support this just proves how bad left wing nut law is.
While I think Trump should give $1M to the cherokee to keep fauxchantas in the news,
Here comes the Judge: And if Judge Kozinski were anything but a federal judge with life tenure, he’d most likely be out of a job by now.
Last week, The Washington Post reported the allegations of six women who had worked for the judge as clerks or staff members, and who accused the judge in detail of crude behavior and sexual harassment.”
Hmmm, I wonder how he behaved in college.
dduck, is this the ninth circuit court judge that his term ran out in 2014 and he left the court, also under investigation? Why was it in the Post now? That was 4 years ago. Did Trump nominate him for another seat on the court somewhere else?
That’s him, Kozinski.
‘Cause of the times, bodies are being dug up. BC, HW, etc.
P.S. he, unlike BK, bragged about his “knock record” in college
And 99.5% of America is jot following this and ax long as the media is wasting its time on this, Russia is off the news. In fact, I dont think I have heard any news teasers on Russia for almost 6 weeks.
Kozinski is almost 20 years older than Kavanaugh.
He was appointed while Kavanaugh was in HS.
He was in UCLA in the late 60’s.
His parents were jewish holocaust survivors in Romania.
Kozinski was 9th circuit. he was generally regarded as one of the great legal minds of this time.
He was also controversial pissing off both right and left – he made alot of enemies.
He was investigated several times. Probably because he pissed off powerful people.
The WaPo story appears to be about old events.
I had thought had died when he retired.
I have no idea whether the accusations were credible.
If they were they should have been prosecuted.
But that does not alter his stature as a great legal mind.
NY Times. Sorry. It threw up a paywall. Could only read the first few lines.
Kozinski retired over these allegations in July of 2017.
I have no idea whether the allegations are credible or even consequential.
My wife clerked for a federal judge who was a raging sexist – but that was the norm at the time.
Kozinski was in the past in hot water over porn on his computer.
Att he same Time Kozinski is probably the most libertarian federal judge.
His disents in 9th circuit cases are incredible and famous. He is a strong defender of the 4th amendment and a strong proponent of individual rights over government.
That is not an excuse for sexual harrassment – in the event that he actually did harrass someone.
But claims of sexual harrassment do not change in the slightest the tremendous contribution of Kozinski to the law.
Anyone think if a pro Trump group showed up at a Maxine Waters,/Clinton/Holder led rally they would get treated like this?
https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/black-lives-matter-activist-speaks-at-pro-trump-rally
Wow, Ron, that was terrific. Now if the extremes of both parties could do that, it would be wonderful.
Thanks
Hopefully this will get a good distribution on social media. But I doubt it. Only thing on social media seems to be more hate.
The current Democrat party seems to run entirely on hate and division, and lack any sort of platform. I keep reading that they are going to “fix healthcare,” by creating a state-run “Medicare-for-all” plan, but none of the candidates are explaining how they’re going to pay for it. Especially, if they’re going to encourage armies of migrants to storm the border and become Medicare-for-all recipients.
Speaking of which, the migrant army currently planning to force their way into the US, are moving at a rather rapid pace, especially for 7000 people who are supposedly starving and in need of clothing and medical care. I’m guessing that, in between photo ops. they’re being transported by something other than shoe leather.
https://apnews.com/c3eaa50bbf8a4cdf9fc5c0952225e1bc
Meh. So, they’re 1000 miles away, after a week and a half? Where are they eating? Where are they eliminating? (that’s rhetorical, you don’t need to answer) How are the babies and children that they have brought with them to secure their release into the US being fed and cared for?
7000 people don’t log 1500 miles in less than 2 weeks, without significant funding and transportation.
If Sorros or Steyer wish to fund something like this – fine. It is their money.
But the same is true of Koch and Adleson and …
It is hypocritical to demand that D’s not spend their own money on things that offend you while getting upset when the D’s demand that you can not spend your own money as you please.
There are already photo’s of many of these people getting paid.
That is pretty much all anyone needs to know.
Trump is of course using this – but so what. It is there it is real, it is happening. It is even scarry.
If this changes peoples votes either way – that is called PERSUASION, and it is perfectly legitimate.
That was terriffic – and that WAS the extremes of both parties.
What it was NOT was the media and politicians.
I would also note that the BLM speaker – whether he tailored his message or not, offered a very LIBERTARIAN message – frankly he was excellent.
If his remarks really tracked BLM and both sides would LISTEN to each others. progress could be made.
BLM people tend to exagerate the problems they face. MAGA people tend to exagerate the goodness of the police.
The fact is that police violence and police treatment of blacks has improved greatly.
But there are BAD COPS. BLM sees too many cops as bad. MAGA sees too few.
But everybody actually agrees that bad cops should go.
And, remember, whether you are black, white, Hispanic or Asian, being a cop is dangerous and you never know who will attack you.
Another wonderful Trump lifetime judge appointee. This one can’t lie about the accusations.
Swift Justice: New Appellate Judge Courts Trouble With Traffic Cops WSJ
Ryan Nelson has racked up more than a dozen speeding tickets; ‘maybe he will bring a little bit of empathy to recidivists’
By James V. Grimaldi and Alexa Corse
Oct. 19, 2018 11:51 a.m. ET
Ryan D. Nelson is a man in a hurry—really, in a hurry.
It’s not just that Mr. Nelson, an Idaho attorney, has leapfrogged over the U.S. District Court bench to garner President Trump’s lifetime appointment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. Nelson also has been cited for speeding a dozen times over the past two decades—eight times…
I think lots of speeding tickets is a qualification for a federal judicial appointment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_D._Nelson
“I think lots of speeding tickets is a qualification for a federal judicial appointment.”
So you do know how to do sarcastic.
Humor – not sarcasm.
I have no problems with 28 traffic tickets in something like 30 years.
Though I think that Nelson made on serious mistake.
Not hiring a lawyer.
I fight nearly every ticket I get and I win most of the time.
A bit less than half the ticket is dismissed,
The rest it is substantially reduced.
That is reasonable since most of the time the police are WRONG – particularly about speeding.
Given the way Radar actually works, and the way police beleive it works – no police officer should ever be allowed to use radar.
I beleive Nelson has a “not carrying ID” charge – this is a new one and nuts.
Having a drivers license and carrying it are NOT the same thing.
Worse this was not an offense in the past.
It has become commonplace recently – AFTER police have gained the ability to check everything online. Further apparently Nelson doesn’t have a smart phone.
I can pull my license, registration, insurance on my phone.
You are a fair person. SARCASM
Hiring an attorney for traffic violations is worth the cost in most states. For instance, good friend got ticket for 65 in 55. He did not see the changed speed limit sign. Had he paid the ticket, insurance rates would have increased for at least 3 years. Hired attorney,, ticket downgraded to faulty equipment and paid attorney and court cost, both less than increase in insurance rates.
According to NTHSA data people traveling 5mph below the speed limit are 3 times more likely to have an accident than those traveling 15mph above it.
As with everything else people are not the same, they are not equal. The conception that there is one speed at which each person should travel is nonsense.
We also know that traffic flow is worse and accident rates are highest when rates of travel are uniform.
A person pulling away from you is not much of a danger. A person dropping behind you is not much of a danger. The person traveling right next to you at the same speed in your blind spot is very dangerous.
Throughout the world there is a great deal of evidence that our transportation system works best WITHOUT controls.
I have addressed this before, but highway engineers have learned – often from signal failures or other system failures that most traffic control systems (and traffic laws) are inefficient and make things more not less dangerous.
We do not need to stop at an intersection – though we usually do need to slow down
We are often safer if we do not slow to a stop, than if we do.
We can sometimes design intersections and the roads so that they work WITHOUT signally systems.
In the US we litter our roads with road signs – not just advertisements, but commands and recommendations. All these take our eyes OFF the road.
We know that we are often safer without them than with them.
Finally, I have never met a single person who religiously follows all the traffic rules.
Inherently all of us know that those laws are overbearing – that they are wrong to some extent.
The difference between the guy with 28 tickets in 30 years and most of the rest of us, is that the former is less hypocritical.
Tell me that Nelson has injured people by driving to fast or whatever, and you have my attention.
Tell me that he flagrantly violates minor regulations that nearly all of us violate but less flagrantly – and I do not care.
In fact I think that may make him MORE qualified.
“I have no problems with 28 traffic tickets in something like 30 years”
How many were moving violations?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-end-could-be-near-for-house-investigation-of-trump-russia-investigators
Most tickets were for speeding.
“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never accept blame; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; repeat it frequently enough people will believe it.” 1/2
Hitler’s psychological profile in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services. 2/2
-Joe Scarborough
The GOP is claiming the Ds are “inciting violence” less than a week after @RealDonaldTrump celebrated Republican Rep. Greg Gianforte’s “body slamming” a reporter.
-Rich Galen
Donald Trump’s strategy as midterms approach: lies and fear-mongering.
-Daniel Dale
I presume you think there is a theme here ?
Not only are high profile D’s inciting violence – but most political violence is from D’s
Every example regarding Trump is reactive, not proactive.
Lamenting that your supporters can not punch back is not inciting to violence.
The “body slammed” reporter in the Gianeforte case had tresspassed repeatedly, was tresspassing at the time, and was in Gianeforte face.
Put simply he refuses to take no for an answer and continued to push agressively.
Gianeforte over reacted.
But it should not surprise that the left would try to create parity.
You seem to think punching nazi’s is OK.
Regardless, the clearly expressed objective of democrats – as well as the gianeforte reporter is to provoke violence or silence through force intimidation or threat of force.
The mere fact that you think there is some parity makes it clear you have no moral foundations.
BTW what is it that Trump is lying and fear mongering over regarding midterms ?
There really is a mob of 7000 immigrants and growing marching towards the US border.
Hitler was a smart politician, Trump is just a Gonif: Someone known to be shady or untrustworthy, a bamboozler or trickster.
Trump goes full Nazi at his rally in Texas just now:
“There’s this word — nationalist. I’m not supposed to use it, but I’m a nationalist. I’m a nationalist…Use it, use it.”
He said he was a nationalist, not a globalist. He did not say he was a white nationalist, or a nationalist-socialist. It’s a real shame that actual definitions have been perverted by politics. So, here’s a definition from Wikipedia for you:
“Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty (self-governance) over the homeland.”
How is that “full Nazi”?
I think there is some reason to be concerned about Trump’s “nationalism”.
There is a difference between MAGA and where Trump is on Nationalism.
At the same time the NAZI comparison is just stupid.
Yes, the Nazi’s were “nationalist” just as they were socialist.
Trump is not a socialist.
He is not threatening to annex Canada and occupy Mexico.
“I think there is some reason to be concerned about Trump’s “nationalism”
I’m fine with a US president who is an open supporter of the US, and American values, which include equality for all.
Trump tapped a sentiment in the electorate that was longing for expression.
MAGA is brilliant. It is like Reagan’s “it’s morning in america”.
Obama’s eight year US apology tour was an embarrassment.
The US is far from perfect. But we are “exceptional”. Our history is a self selecting arrangement to cherry pick the best the brightest, the entrepenuer, the innovator, the self made person.
This is also why we need to take care about immigration.
We WANT people to want to come here to make their fortunes.
We want this to be the land of opportunity.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
We want those who wish to come here – with nothing, expecting nothing but oportunity.
We are whigging out over this caravan right now.
But if it we could say “Come if you want”
But there is no free ride,
If we could allay the fears of those who think more immigrants somehow means less for the rest of us.
If these 7,000 or 70,000 were assured of nothing.
If they were free to come but had to take care of themselves.
Is there anyone who would say no ?
I personally have lots of work I would hire someone else to do.
But I can not – that work is not worth to me what I would have to pay someone to do.
But if some immigrant agreed to do it for what I am willing to pay.
If I did not have to deal with all the complexities of being an employer.
If I could just say here is this thing I want done and this is what I will pay for it,
I could easily put some people to work.
And if no one will take the work I have to offer for what I am willing to pay – no one is harmed.
Hilter never won an election against an opponent.
Trump did. I think that Trump is obviously the better politician.
As to the rest – both the voters and the facts demonstrate otherwise.
The fact that you do not trust someone does not make them untrustworthy.
The core of your argument – which you do not seem to grasp is that anyone who does not completely share your view of Trump has been duped.
You want to bemoan the divisions in the nation – that would be best acheived by contemplating the possibility that half the country may not be the bambozzled idiots you are implicitly asserting.
And get a clue – when you accuse Trump of being a bambozzler, trickster, you are calling half the country dupes – and they are not so stupid as to not understand that.
If you do not understand that when your politics require everyone who disagrees with you to be stupid or evil – merely because they disagree with you, without actually making an argument demonstrating their error, that at the very least you are going to alienate people and lose.
“without actually making an argument demonstrating their error, that at the very least you are going to alienate people and lose.”
Lose what? The country is already lost, Trump is seeing to that.
“Lose what? The country is already lost, Trump is seeing to that.”
You make my point – no the country is not “lost”.
The country is in some ways better under Trump, and in some ways worse.
On net thus far it is better – that is what higher growth means.
In some ways the country was better under Obama in others worse. On net it was worse.
Further these vary based on region and individual.
Blue states did well under Obama, they are not under Trump.
Red states did less well under Obama they are better under Trump.
Overall states are better under Trump.
Interestingly the data so far has minorities doing better under Trump.
Regardless, this goes all the way down to individuals – some are doing better some worse.
There is no change in policy that does not have winners and losers.
But progressive policies ALWAYS underperform free market policies over the long run for nearly all groups.
The country is NOT lost. Some people have suffered. Some people were going to suffer if HRC was elected – there are ALWAYS winners and losers.
Even the things that Ron and I worry about – spending, the debt, deficits.
They are bad. They are NOT the end of the world.
If the US reaches a point where Social Security and medicare fail completely,
it will not be a hollocaust, and no matter how bad things are they will ultimately fix themselves. In fact we could quite rapidly end up better off.
There is recent economic studies of the conversion of various socialist countries to free markets. Much(but not all) of this is as the USSR collapsed, as a rule quick brutal sudden conversions resulted in the highest overall standard of living the quickest. Those countries that stalled – particularly those countries that tried to “plan” the transition – such as Russia performed horribly.
The Failure of SS will be bad. It will NOT be the end of the world.
The country is not lost – period, certainly not because of Trump.
My concern is not about Trump – it is about the democratic party.
We need a robust atleast 2 party system. The more extreme that democrats are the less checks and balances there are on republicans.
Yes we need a strong 2 party system, but dont blame the demise on the left.
In 1977, there were 14 republican senators that voted for programs supported by the American Conservative Union less than 50% of the time. Ted Stevens, Lowell Weicker, Charles Percy, James Pearson, Charles Mathias, Edward Brooke, Clifford Case, Jacob Javits, Mark Hatfield, Bob Packwood, John Heinz, Richard Schweiker, John Chafee, and Robert Stafford.
In 1987, that number was 9. Lowell Weicker, David Durenberger, Mark Hatfield, Bob Packwood, John Heinz, Arlen Specter, John Chafee, Robert Stafford, and Dan Evans.
In 1997, that number was 5. Susan Collins, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Arlen Specter, John Chafee, and Jim Jeffords.
Now that number is one. Susan Collins. Lisa Murkowski is sometimes approached to vote for moderating positions, but she has over a 60% ranking by the ACU.
The same trend holds for democrats. Today they are down to 3 that will cross party lines. Joe Donnally, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin.
The election of Trump magnified the leftward movement in the democrats. The Tea Party movement was front and center in the rightward movement of the Republicans.
But have no doubt, both are responsible for the demise of the centrist in congress.
“In 1977, there were 14 republican senators that voted for programs supported by the American Conservative Union less than 50% of the time. ”
I do not care whether senators voted for programs supported by some group.
I care whether there individual votes were wise.
Nor do I think there is great value in much of what congress does.
I favor divided government because it is very hard for divided government to get anything done. We do not need lots of new laws.
I think that the core of conservatism – which IS not the core of libertarianism is NOT ideological but IS compatible with libertarianism
which is essentially “go slowly” is reasonable. We should not disturb arrangements that already exist and have worked for hundreds of years without a great deal of consideration – even if they are flawed.
I would also note that the objectives of “conservatives” today are significantly less than those of conservatives in the past.
The culture war is over. The left has essentially won. Mostly that is appropriate.
There are still issues at the edges.
Afirmative action is wrong – you can not fix discrimination by forcing discrimination.
We should not be forcing people to associate with each other outside the public sphere – and by that I mean government. Various forms of equality are “before the law” they are not real.
We are not actually equal and our society would not work if we were.
Most of the fights today are over the use of government to socially engineer – and even those mostly at the fringes.
Tea Party Cinservative Joe Walsh:
We got it – you have found some obscure republican to insult Trump who is very much like Trump.
Have you bothered with the rest of Walshes twitter feed ?
Except for the occasional attacks on Trump, he pretty mush IS Trump.
NO ONE has a right to come into this country illegally. And we have every right, as a sovereign nation, to secure our borders.
Democrat-run, gun control-ruled Chicago this afternoon: Six people shot outside a church, leaving a funeral.
Smh.
Look, Trump may just be fear mongering for political reasons, but our intelligence agencies & law enforcement agencies have always been very concerned about Islamic terrorists infiltrating groups of illegals coming across our Southern border.
Trump at rally just now:
Trump: “Ted’s opponent in this race is a stone-cold phony named Robert Francis O’Rourke.”
This is the way a Presidentof the US demeans opposition candidates?
Playing to the mob like this IS HITLERESQUE!
This *#@$*&# needs to be removed from office.
Sooner the better.
The lying lump of crap can’t help himself:
Trump:” 50,000 people we love outside. “
Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo tweets: “About 3,000 folks outside enjoying rally.”
Do these quibbles over numbers really matter to you ?
Is this the deficit ? Or some other numbers that actually matters.
The fact is that Trump gets huge numbers at his rallies.
He quite often exagerates those numbers, but the press quite frequently errs in fact checking them – often quite deliberately.
One of the more recent involved a reporter showing empty seats in a photo of a Trump rally taken 3 hrs before it started.
In the current rally – there were hundreds of people lined up more than 24hrs in advance.
The pictures are on Twitter.
I do not personally understand why someone would line up 24hrs ahead for a political rally for anyone. Not unless the rolling stones were playing.
But my inability to understand does nto make it false.
Grow up – Trump is far more popular than you are prepared to admit.
Though less popular than he claims for himself.
Regardless, the media started this garbage about crowd size with the Tea Party.
It would be meaningful if they did not credulously report huge crowds for left gatherings where whatever the actual numbers are – the photo’s show very close to the same numbers as the conservative groups they claim are lying.
This entire crowd size mess is stupid and childish.
Trump should not be so fixated on exagerating crowds.
The appropriate response of the media should be to ignore these.
But as is typical of lefits pawns you continually try to make mountains out of molehills.
If you subjected Obama to this kind of nit picking he too would come off as a massive liar
Obama on Sarah Palin 10 years ago
“You know, you can put lipstick on a pig,” Obama said, “but it’s still a pig.”
“This is the way a Presidentof the US demeans opposition candidates?
Playing to the mob like this IS HITLERESQUE!
This *#@$*&# needs to be removed from office.
Sooner the better.”
You’re as full of shit as usual.
There was no reference to Palin in the remark AT ALL.
It was a response to McCain’s argument he represented ‘change.’
You’re pepuating the same kind of Bullshit as the anti Obama Birthers.
Why? Because you can get away with it.
The entire world knew exactly who he was talking about.
In fact the crowd applauded and made clear they understood the remark was about Palin,
And Obama made no effort to correct.
Even the media and SNL picked up on it and associated the lipstick on a pig remark with Palin.
No appology – EVER, no attempt to correct EVER.
Obama made a completely separate reference to McCain’s “change” argument.
Sorry but that fails the laugh test.
Of course I can get away with it – because it is true.
Your hero’s have clay feet.
The Birther stuff originated with Sidney Blumenthal and Clinton’s campaign – who was ALSO involved in the Benghazi lie, the clinton email scandal, and the Steele Dossier.
Then we have Harry Reid’s assorted jabs at Obama.
We can trade political insults going back centuries. But any claim that Trump is somehow the originator of the nasty political insult or that he is unique is garbage – and if you do not know that your are either blind or paying no attention.
LBJ circulated a rumor attacking his opponent in a Texas election. Johnson, it’s said, wanted to spread the story that his opponent liked to have sex with barnyard animals. One of LBJ’s aides said, “We can’t prove he’s a pig f—-r.”
“I know that,” replied Johnson. “I just want to hear him deny it.”
Wow! did pointing out that your hero’s have clay feet – that they are no different from Trump touch a raw nerve ?
You are the one trying to make the argument that Trump is somehow unique.
Further you have cried wolf too many times.
Every republican since atleast Nixon has been accused by the left of being racist.
It is a given that in any election practically down to dog catcher, the democratic candidate and party is going to claim that the republican is a racist, or supports race policies, or is engaged in dog whistles or …
You would think the KKK have 65m members today if you actually beleived the left.
You created Trump. He was smart enough to grasp that if he ran as a republican he was going to be painted as a hateful hating hater no matter what. He just said F’it and did to democrats what they do to everyone else.
“How many were moving violations ?”
Don’t care.
Has he had lots of accidents ?
Has he harmed or injured others ?
That I care about.
Nazi = National SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY.
Godwin’s Law (a response to argumentum ad Nazium and reductio ad Hitlerum, or a Hitler Card) was formulated by attorney Mike Godwin, former general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, in the 1990s, and states: “ ” As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
Godwin’s law does nto apply to real nazi’s.
Regardless, “anonymous” and Joe Scarboro raise the topic.
If you do not want innaccurate Nazi’s references corrected – do not make them.
Problem is yours not mine.
So interesting, what we hear, what they want us to hear and what is! Heard in a two minute segment on financial news program….
1. Who knew Honduras and Guatemala had pro American governments?
2. Who knew Honduras has offered incentives for people in caravan to return?
3. Who knew that Zelaya was a leader in the anti Honduras group funding the caravan?
4. Who knew the caravan was funded by pro Castro/Chavez groups?
5. Who knew if Trump cuts funding to Guatemala and Honduras, it weakens the pro American governments and strengthens the anti American/cartel government movement?
Seems to me the answer has to starts with Mexico. Somehow, they need to stop these individuals before they get close to the border. Our asinine law where “one foot/ask for asylum” allows an individual to stay here encourages this behavior. And with 7000, it has to be catch and release. Where do you house 7000 people, some with kids, and not have the media make it a human rights issue?
Foreign relations are complex – if you can not get that from this – then you should from the Khassoghi mess.
Absolutely nothing is simple.
Can we trust Erdogan whose intelligence services are the source for pretty much everything we know about what happened ?
We have evil actors all over the mideast engaged in power politics
Ultimately I think this is a win for Trump.
He does not need to do anything.
OK let me say it in a different manner. People in USA watching our news.
“Oh those poor people. And look at those poor kids. We need to make sure they receive food, medical care and support so they can find places to live once they get here. The conditions they Are leaving must be awful.”
They have NO IDEA what those people are leaving and who is funding this.
Now I ask you why would the cartels and socialist leaders fund this just before American elections?
So long as force is not being used, I do not care who is funding this or why.
Those people moving northward must beleive they are getting something.
Whether it is Sorros’s money or the small possibility of a better life in the US – I do not care.
AGAIN the only reason that anyone should be whigged out over these people – 7,000 or 7m crossing our border is because we beleive that they presence in the US will make US less well off.
If it were possible to guarantee they had no negative effect on existing jobs, and did not increase government spending, or crime – who would care ?
Let me posit a hypothetical.
What if 7,000 of them crossed into the US.
And every single one of them got a $5.hr job mowing grass,
And all those jobs were with people who would never hire someone to mow their grass for more.
All of them get jobs – but only jobs that would not have existed but for their low wages.
None of them end up on entitlements of any kind.
None of them are criminals.
NOW are you opposed to this ?
What if there number was 7M instead of 7,000 ? but everything else was the same ?
While I am with Trump that we can not allow them in with things as they are.
The problem is not with the immigrants, it is with our system of entitlements and wage controls.
You damn well better believe I care about them coming into this country.
1. They do not want to assimilate into American culture. They want America to change to support their customs.
2. They dont want to learn english, they want America to provide them special treatment with duel language from phones systems (press 1 for english….) to schools with bilingual teaching programs.
3.They demand America feed them, house them and provide medical care when they enter (I say illegally, but taking advantage of the one foot program.)
4. They ARE law breakers. We have immigration laws. FOLLOW THOSE!!!!!!!
5. We have f’en liberal politician promoting this crap by passing state laws allowing people to break federal laws with their sanctuary city programs.
No politician wants to fix this problem. its one hell of a political issue to energize voters, more so on the left.
I lived next door to an hispanic family that moved into a middle class white neighborhood in southern California. He was sergeant or lieutenant on the LA sheriffs department. He spoke two languages. He and his hispanic wife was there for my mother when my dad stroked out. He picked me up at the LA airport when I was on emergency leave from the Navy. He was part of the community and expected nothing different from any others in the community. He was always the first to help when one needed help.
That can not be said today. they want help, but do not want to become part of the community. They want their own community and want no outsiders coming into it. They are much more racist than most whites in America.
Come here legally, learn our language and become part of America. Just as my grandfather did when he immigrated from Sweden and forbid Swedish to be spoken in his home because ” we are in America now, SPEAK ENGLISH “
You seem to know an awful lot about what immigrants want.
You also seem to beleive you are free to judge them based on you guesses as to what they want.
I doubt they are thinking about assimilation one way or the other.
They are thinking about better jobs and taking care of their families – just as hundreds of years of immigrants to this country have done in the past.
They do not want to learn english – you know this how ? It matters why ?
It is rare for first generation immigrants from anywhere to learn more than a smattering of english. I have no problems with our laws, our government operating exclusively in english.
Canada’s experience with a dual language system has been disasterous.
Nor should laws require businesses or anyone else to cater to those with other languages.
But ultimately they will – again like generations of immigrants before.
They are obligated to conform to our laws – which should be as minimal as possible.
They are free to have whatever culture, or religion they wish so long as they obey our laws.
I am not aware of them demanding sustinace for the US.
Regardless, as I already said – they have no right to that – nor do we.
Further the hypothetical I asked – one which is actually acheivable. asks you whether you would oppose them if their coming her imposed no cost on the rest of us.
If they were not entitled to jobs, or minimum wages, or medical care and if we knew for certain that no one already here would lose a job or wages or anything because of them.
I am trying to divine you actual objection to immigrants.
I am not asking about stupid progressive laws and policies.
BTW I have no problems with sanctuary cities, but I do have a problem with actual interferance with federal agents executing the law. And I have a problem GENERALLY with the federal government subsidizing cities or states or anyone.
I suspect this “caravan” is going to “energize” voters more on the right than the left.
The left is unreasonable and hysterical.
But that is not what I asked.
The purpose of my hypothetical was to get you to think about why you are opposed to these people immigrating.
We can have a debate over whether and how the conditions in my hypothetical can be implimented. If we can not meet those conditions, we can debate the numbers that we choose to allow to immigrate, and of those numbers wo we pick.
The story you tell of your hispanic neighbor and how things are different today is wonderful and touching, and the same story has been told over and over for hundreds of years.
Immigrants to the US – have nearly always tended to cluster together – they are strangers in a strange land. They nearly always came here for a better life, for opportunity for them and their children, but after arriving it is HARD here. As you note they do not speak the language, they do not know the customs, they are less comfortable with “outsiders”.
That has always been true and over time it works out.
The actual statistical evidence is that hispanic immigrants assimilate almost twice as fast as prior immigrants – even the jewish, irish and italians. But it usually takes 3 generations.
Further though there is some truth to your “racism” claim, the opposite is also true. Hispanics are far more likely to intermarry with other races. hispanics are responsible for the dilution of racial purity in the US, for breaking down the barrier between black and white.
My ancestors came from Ireland and Germany.
I live in central PA an incredibly heavy german area. The amish and menonites here still speak Pennsylvania dutch – a german dialect that is no longer spoken in germany – that is 300 years after they arrived.
They are culturally insular as you claim the hispanics are.
For most of US history we have few if any immigration laws – if you wanted to come – you came. But you had to pay your own way and you got nothing from the government on your arrival. If you could not find what you needed to survive – you starved.
Our ancestors were not for the most part any more welcome than those in this caravan.
OK, I am on a roll. Newspaper article this morning reported that the Trump administration is considering allowing states to offer a package of different health insurance plans based on consumer wants.
What the hell are states involved with “allowing” you or I the opportunity to buy whatever insurance we want to purchase? Why cant insurance sell national policies that spread risk nationally and normalize rates nationally? States have totally screwed up insurance and allowed insurance companies to cherry pick who they sell to. For instance, United Healthcare sell a Group of Medicare Advantage plans. They are not all available statewide, only sold in certain counties. UHC cherry picked the profitable counties. They also cherry pick states where they are profitable for all their products. Some states they dont even sell to customer.
I am not so free enterprise and libertarian that some insurance requirements should not be in place. I know insurance will screw over people who use their services and make huge claims of how they benefit people on advertising to sell policies. I know that pre existing conditions is important as well as being able to change employers and not lose coverage which if uncontrolled will be the first thing insurance will discontinue. ALL insurance company leadership is right there with used car salesmen and politicians in screwing people.
But we need to change the system. Medicare for all will not work. There is not enough money available. Obamacare does not work. Single men, LGBTQ and +50’s should not have to pay for policies with maternity care. But we do need a system where insurance can sell and price policies nationally. The feds can set minimal standards such as portability and preexisting conditions. But if I want to buy a plan that covers 100% of everything and my son wants to buy a plan where he has an HSA and after $10,000 the insurance pays, that should be available.
Finally, Amazon does not charge one price in NY and another in Texas for their products. GM prices cars nationally. Pfizer prices drugs nationally. Insurance should also be priced nationally.
There is no sane reason that insurance companies can not offer whatever insurance they wish or that consumers should need government permission to buy the insurance they choose.
But that is not how things are under PPACA,
Nor is it how things were before PPACA.
But PPACA does create one opportunity for those of us that want greater freedom.
By federalizing health insurance law, the left has made it easier for Trump and the federal government to undermine state regulation.
“By federalizing health insurance law, the left has made it easier for Trump and the federal government to undermine state regulation.”
But they are not addressing the problem. According to the Nat. Assoc. of Ins. Commisioners, state insurance commission state agencies employed 12,500 individuals in 2000. They generated $10.4 billion for states in taxes, fees and other revenue raising skeems , of which $880 million went to regulating ins. companies and the other $9.6B went into general state funds. And I would suspect in 18 years this amount has increased considerably.
I am not sure what you intended with the numbers you provided.
But the entirety of regulation is a non-productive cost.
i.e. it is a reduction to our standard of living. Worse still the people with jobs regulating are not engaged in creating value.
You understood completely. And they are using insurance premium taxes to fund other state programs to the turn of $9.6B. So that increases premium cost since insurance companies are not going to eat that cost.
This plus the fact that national experience can not be used in calculating rates. That is why some states, many with fewer subscribers have 20%-30% rate increases and others with larger pools have increases of 5%. Might be that you put everyone in one pot, the national rate increase would be 7%-8%. And then eliminating the sugar daddy insurance taxes in states, the increase might be even less.
First you tell me that the government SHOULD make special a prior rules for the insurance industry because of getting screwed and scammed – things that more precisely expressed are already a posteri illegal.
Then you tell me that the extremely expensive non-productive machinery of government to accomplish your purposes has not only failed, but it has often been coopted by the very people you sought to control.
This should not surprise anyone.
Given the freedom to do so will some insurance companies try to “cherry pick” the healthy clients ? Absolutely.
But real markets are complex. Harry Winston did very well selling jewelry to rich people. But Sam Walton did far far far better selling pretty much anything cheap to everyone.
We should not whigg out because some companies will try to focus on highly profitable sub markets. They are still competition and you can only get so large and so profitable doing so.
There are businesses that exist nowhere else int he world but Manhattan – are they “cherry picking” – certainly. Is there something wrong with that ? Nope.
Insurance companies are in the business of making money.
To do so they have to provide people with something they value.
The less valuable the insurance a company offers they less money they will be able to charge.
Pre-existing conditions has ALWAYS been a trivial problem to solve.
There are myriads of ways – each with different costs.
Regardless, if addressing pre-existing coverage is valuable to people – the market will provide it.
If you buy your insurance yourself rather than through your employer then it is portable.
Further if you buy it yourself and the insurance company breaches you can sue.
You are actually precluded by law from suing your insurance company if you are insured through a 3rd party.
“We need a system that ….”
The answer to that is ALWAYS and ONLY free markets.
Go to the grocery store and check out the cereal aisle.
If someone wants it – the choice is there.
No the feds shoudl not set minimal standards – nor should the states.
The only role of government should be to compel the parties to honor whatever agreement they make.
You do not get to say how things SHOULD be, nor do I nor does anyone else.
You noted Amazon and GM and nationwide pricing. There is no SHOULD to that.
It exists because it is beneficial to amazon and GM.
One of the reasons that fee for service phone service went away – being billed for each call and at different rates, was because the cost of billing exceeded the cost of providing the service.
There are no SHOULD’s. There is what we want and what it costs to provide.
We match what we want and what we are willing to pay, and providers do the same and each of us chooses the best value based on our own circumstances.
I personally think that subscription medical care is likely the wave of the future. But our existing laws and insurance work against that.
Regardless “what I think” is a good idea should never be dictated.
The market – that is each of us will chose. the less rules the more freedom to be creative to experiment. And that is what drives costs down or value up. That is the ONLY thing that drives costs down and value up.
“You do not get to say how things SHOULD be, nor do I nor does anyone else.”
When you have a complete industry, service or producer that have a proven history of f’in over people and the choice is you can buy X and get f’ed by them or Y and get screwed by them (and list every last one of them here), or you risk it and dont buy one of there scam products and you risk financial ruin, the yes GOVERNMENT SHOULD SAY HOW THINGS WILL BE!
Your libertarian free to screw the public philosophy is inappropriate in this case.
If a company wants to sell insurance in America, then America sets the standard for what it will allow. AND THOSE SHOULD BE MINIMAL, not all encompassing like Obamacare.
In an actual free market no business of industry can F’;over people.
Businesses, including insurance offer a product or service.
You can take it or leave it. You can get it from A or from B or not at all.
You do not have a right to that good or service.
When you buy the good or service – you have a right to what you were promised.
If you do not receive that THEN government may force the other party to deliver the value it promised in return for the value you paid.
You are not entitled to more than promised.
There is no need for new law or regulation to require participants in free exchange to deliver on their commitments.
There is no special rules needed for health insurance.
There is no aspect of a free market that is somehow unique or special.
Everything is the voluntary exchange of value for value.
So long as the exchange is voluntary and so long as all parties deliver the value they promised there is no means to “f;over” anyone.
You are right. You can take or leave it.
Thats like having a choice of buying a Chevy Corvair ,Ford Pinto or walking (if you live where there is not public transportation). Both choices are bad and can cause death. Walking is safest, but most difficult. But in you world thats the choice. In my world of.limited government, certain standards are needed. In this case, safety standards in cars, minimum provisions for insurance.
I cant be as trusting ax you are that companies alwsys do the right thing. In my eorld, many companies did not get large and build cash reserves by doing what is right.
Walking is significantly more dangerous than driving – though 90% of pedestrian fatalities are in accidents with cars.
“Walking is significantly more dangerous than driving – though 90% of pedestrian fatalities are in accidents with cars.”
Thanks. You make my point even more valid.
“I cant be as trusting ax you are that companies alwsys do the right thing. In my eorld, many companies did not get large and build cash reserves by doing what is right.:”
Of course you are as trusting as me – you are just not conscious of it.
Do you eat at McD’s ? Do you buy food at the grocery ? Do you buy things on ebay ? Amazon ?
All of that requires an enormous amount of trust – usually of lots of people you do not know, and typically companies big and little.
Please do not get me wrong – bad actors exist, but they are (and always have been) incredibly rare. – they make the news because they are rare.
There is significant economuc work done a couple of decades ago demonstrating that even when a business deliberately seeks to do evil, so long as it is operaty as a business – i.e. that it is operated to make a profit, and so long as there is a free market – government is not proping it up, that bad actors will become good actors or they will fail.
Another recent economic study found that ever were there was only one provider in the market – i.e. no ACTUAL competition, so long as there was not a government protected monopoly that the “monopoly providers” prices still had to be competitive – generally being about 5% higher than if they had competition. Why Because even monopolies have compatition in a true free market – that competition is anyone who vould enter the market if the profits became attractive.
There have also been nymerous stories in the news about price fixing.
Again this happens, but it is rare and the economic data finds it unsustainable.
Price fixers have a serious problem – it requires collusion. Collusion inherently means working with people who are NOT trustworthy. Further it requires BEING untrustworthy.
The result is price fixing schemes do not last long unless there is some external threat – usually government keeping everyone in line. Price fixing requires that people who are already cheating beleive that no one will cheat on the price fixing even though price fixing is a form of “prisoners dilema” – everyone does well if no one cheats. but if anyone cheats the FIRST person to cheat gets a great deal and the rest get screwed.
If you wish to breath in america – does the government get to set the rules ?
There is no difference between “a business” and people.
Businesses are just a convenient construct for the way people engage in free exchange.
Do you think that people do not have the RIGHT to trade their labor for what someone else offers if they wish ? The constitution bars all government interference in contracts, and all free exchange is a contract.
Language matters – what is “screwed” ? What is “scammed” ?
If it means not getting what you hoped – that is your problem.
If it means not getting what the other party agreed to in return for what you provided – that is breach of contract and government may legitimately enforce that contract.
I can not think what else “screwed” and “scammed” might mean.
Regardless, we do not just get to go – “the outcome was not what I wanted, therefore someone else must have done something bad, and because that sometimes happens government can impose ap prior rules and those who have done nothing wrong that interfere with their rights and freedom”
We punish acts, not your hurt feelings. If you have been harmed by another, you are entitled to be made whole, but you are also obligated to demonstrate the harm – naked assertions are not sufficient.
I was like Jay is with Trump when it came to Obama. Just because he had a birth certificate did not make him qualified to be president when he was in all ways, other than a piece of paper, an immigrant.
But there are times with everyone you can find something where agreement is possible. With this, I have to say I do agree with obama.
What a horrible racist Obama was then. Worse that Trump.
But seriously – he is wrong. Punishing employers is particularly stupid.
Why does government have the right to decide who I can hire and what I must pay them ?
Of course we can agree with him, it is a common way that politicians spoke, and maybe felt about the subject.
I would say most people would like illegal immigration, and that includes those that fly in and overstay their visas, which I believe shows greater numbers than those swimming the Rio Grande be minimized.
Doesn’t change anything since I also agree with Mussolini that trains should run on time.
REAL Sweden
Is the left or the right racist ?
Interesting, not much reaction on TNM to the bombing packages. Ho hum, just another Dem fake bomb program to make trump look bad.
RE Bombs: I did not say anything since you, Jay and Dave have already had a significant discussion over who is worse in their extreme actions toward politicians.
My comment now. No politician should be the target of any physical attacks, no matter who they are or what they support. No one, especially politicians, should incite physical attacks, be it Trump, Holder, Waters or any other. Mental attacks are fine. That’s what politicians do.
And when I say incite, I mean incite others to physical violence.
Bombs:
Anyone bombing anyone (or using other forms of violence) is despicable and criminal.
It does not matter what their politics.
It is difficult to address the “bombing” of the moment as we know too little.
I tried to think of an actual right wing bomber EVER, and the only one I could think of was Eric Rudolf and he targeted abortion clinics.
Every single other bombing was either left wing, or a nut.
Well I guess you could call islamic fundimentalists “right wing”,
But the left seems to want to own them.
Incitement:
I would not make incitement a crime. I would be absolute on free speach.
That does NOT mean there is not speach that I would consider immoral – and incitement is certainly not moral. But it should not be illegal. Particularly as trying to decide what is “incitement” and what is not is tricky.
It has been argued here that Gavin McInnes’s remarks constitute incitement to violence.
That is a rather twisted argument as incitement means provoking supports to initiate violence against your enemies. It does not mean saying something so offensive your enemies try to attack you.
But if you are going to use the latter as the definition of incitement – then Clinton, Holder, Waters, Obama incited violence – and they got it.
If I was using left wing nut logic, I would be arguing that Clinton, Obama etc. are responsible for this – in the same way the left has argued that McInnes is responsible for being attacked.
But I have already argued that McInnes’s offensive rhetoric is NOT a justification for violence.
Clinton, Obama’s Holder’s, .. violent rhetoric are also NOT justifications for someone to send them bombs
Begging for violence is a moral failure – not a criminal one.
Acting violently is a crime.
The “bombs” all had Rep Wasserman-Shultz as the return address.
While I doubt Wasserman-Shultz is bombing Clinton and the Obama’s, probably we should wait for ATF to tell us who perpitrated this.
It is near certain they will do so quickly.
Trump has already condemned this – as should anyone.
But it is early to make assumptions.
As an example most if not all of the recent swastika’s and bomb threats to Jewish organizations that were blamed on the right turned out to be setups.
Most of the time this type of violence is from disturbed people.
The unibombers manifesto was very left wing. But no one blamed the left for Kazinsky
because nuts is nuts.
“But it is early to make assumptions.”
Really? Obama did. #Ferguson 😈
(Sarcasm!!!!!)
There are things we can know with certainty are true.
There are things we can know with certainty are false
Most of the time and for most things we do not have sufficient information for certainty.
My real world job involves determining what can be known with certainty, and then trying increase the certainty of those things we do not know.
In that job quite often what appeared to be true and what was ultimately proven true are not the same. But in my work there are not people trying to deliberately mislead.
Politics and international relations differ only in that efforts to mislead are common – both before and after the fact.
Whether it is actions such as the hacking of the DNC or whatever happened to Khassoghi, it must be considered that those who acted did so with the deliberate intention of hiding their culpability and blaming others. Often casting the blame on others is the primary goal. Further it must be assumed that after the fact those investigating and reporting will have their own political agenda. Some will merely allow their personal biases to color their investigation and reporting, a few will deliberately deceive to accomplish their political agenda.
Whether it is what happened to Khassoghi,
The DNC email leak
The Kavanaugh attempted rape allegation,
The recent pipe bombing’s
It is important to sort out what is actually known as a fact, and remember that before and after the fact efforts to deceive are involved.
I do not think it is likely to be a democratic fake.
It is most likely to be a nut job.
But there have been many instances were sometimes democrats or more often just people with a different agenda framed republicans.
So why not wait until we know ?
We have seen this jumping to conclusions with Khassoghi.
It appears that it is likely that The Saudi’s did kill Khassoghi, but for several days the only evidence was a audio that no one outside the turkish government heard that purportedly was Khassoghi being murdered in the SA embassy.
Erdogan/Turkey is NOT a trustworthy source.
It is becoming more certain that SA is responsible as SA sacks those purportedly involved.
Does anyone think in todays environment of on demand TV, 45 second microwave soup, smart device photos , projected election results before 10% of the vote is counted and short attention spans that are driving down interest in golf and baseball that we wont jump to conclusions. That the media wont jump to conclusions. And then if it is not what they concluded, they will just floss over the actual story?
I dont. People demand conclusions. If you want ratings or to sell script, you conclude or you dont survive. “Tell me now because tomorrow I will be on to something else” society.
Of course we want to know. It is OK to want to know. It is OK to demand to know.
But law & order and CSI are false. Out law enforcement can not determine exact point of origin from a spec of dust in 4 minutes. Most of the time they can not do the types of forensics we see on TV at all.
Recently a person was exonerated even though the FBI matched his thumb print to one found at the scene, despite having an alibi when several years later another criminal with no alibi had his prints matched to the same thumb print.
Even when we do not have intelligence services deliberately trying to mislead us, we are still frequently honestly mislead.
A part of my job is the evaluate what is known when something is not working as expected, and find and correct the problem. It is not uncommon to misidentify the actual problem or important information multiple times before determining sufficient facts with sufficient certainty to point at the actual problem. Again no one is deliberately trying to deceive, and usually there is little effort to politically skew the investigation, and still it is difficult.
Outside my job – including here. I watch people jump immediately to the conclusion they want to be true on little or uncertain evidence. I watch as people are unable to distinguish between that evidence which has a high probability of being true and that which is less credible. I also watch as we jump to conclusions only to subsequently determine those are wrong, with that later correction getting little attention.
We have the bus slasher in Portland whe spewed racial epithets, killed two and injured a third – This is reported as political and racial violence emanating from Trump’s MAGA “incitement”, yet when the killer’s background is examined further his social media is fully of socialist and democratic propaganda, and what ultimately proves true is that he is just a paranoid schizophrenic self medicating with alcohol.
But the media has moved on and most are left with the impression that there are all these right wingnut slashers out there.
Just about every mass shooter there ever was, was initially linked by the media to the right.
None of that has ever held up.
James fields is mentally ill, linking his actions to politics is itself insane.
People like Bill Ayers or antifa who treat violence as a legitimate means of acheiving political goals are NOT mentally ill. And it is NOT an accident that nearly all truly political violence originates from the left.
It is not accidental that the French revolution guillotined political enemies.
It si not accidental that leftist movements and regimes throughout history murder those who disagree or speak out, that they even murder their own over tiny differences.
Is this unique to the left – no. But it is rare outside the left. And we forget that fascism whether you think it was left or right was born out of socialism.
Dave, your Portland bus slasher example is exactly what I was referring to when I said the media would floss over the truth because it did not fit their narrative. And I add that goes for Jay’s “Twitter News Network” where one will see hundreds of tweets about the right wing extremist attacks, but none that he can share when the true mental illness is released.
All of this pertains to Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Fox, MSNBC and all other news networks. None care about the truth. All care about their agenda. In this, how can anyone expect anything other than what we have.
The Bus slasher is relevant for many reasons – because most of these “oh my god right wing violence” claims run pretty much the same.
Something bad happens. We assume that it is some right wing nut. The press is all over it.
Gradually the fact discredit the “right wing nut” narrative and the story dies.
There may be a correction somewhere – but it is somewhere obscure.
This is bias in the media.
When you blame something on some group – there is atleast a moral obligation to broadcast that you were wrong as widely as the initial blame.
But better still – do not jump to conclusions.
When you here a media claim of right wing violence typically:
It turns out to be someone with mental health issues – often with as much left wing stuff in their social media as right.
It turns out to be somebody making a false claim to avoid blame for something else.
It turns out to be someone on the left trying to manufacture fake right wing misconduct.
The stupid sonofabitch just doesn’t get it:
“WASHINGTON — When President Trump calls old friends on one of his iPhones to gossip, gripe or solicit their latest take on how he is doing, American intelligence reports indicate that Chinese spies are often listening — and putting to use invaluable insights into how to best work the president and affect administration policy, current and former American officials said.
Mr. Trump’s aides have repeatedly warned him that his cellphone calls are not secure, and they have told him that Russian spies are routinely eavesdropping on the calls, as well. But aides say the voluble president, who has been pressured into using his secure White House landline more often these days, has still refused to give up his iPhones. White House officials say they can only hope he refrains from discussing classified information when he is on them.”
This is the same hypocrite lying low life who keeps letting his rally crowds yell “lock her up” about Hillary’s insecure home server, on which she never once personally posted an email.
“on which she never once personally posted an email.”
Jay, there were hundreds of thousands of emails on that server.
Not only those of HRC, but also abedin, and most of Clinton’s ranking staff at State.
The entirety of HRC’s email communication as sec state was on that server.
If you are correct – which I am fairly certain is provably false, the only reason there are no emails “posted” by HRC is because she had someone else hit send.
All the communications of Trump are NOT top secret or a security breach.
The man tweets repeatedly every day.
There is no difference between a tweet and a phone call.
if Trump needs a secure iphone to communicate on – NSA will provide one.
They provided a secure blackberry for Obama – it cost $10M.
Hillary wanted one too. NSA said NO! you are not the president.
You keep bringing up Clinton’s mail server as if there is some parity.
Clinton’s mail server had atleast 60K personal emails on it.
No one is claiming those were an issue.
Clinton like Trump is actually allowed to have a personal life.
Trump’s communications are not ALL secret classified or government business.
Further there is one other way in which Trump (and Obama) is uniquely different from Clinton. The entire law regarding the handling of classifed information does not apply to the president, because the president has the authority to release classified information on his own whim.
If Trump wishes to call friends on his iPhone and talk to them – that is not an issue.
If the chinese want to spy on his iphone conversations – such is life.
I actually doubt they can. In fact I doubt any communcations from the whitehouse are easily spied on – even those that are NOT classified.
It is near certain that the whitehouse has its on internal microcell (or actually many of them),
and all wireless communications are routed to relatively secure nets almost immediately.
It is highly unlikely that the Chinese or anyone else can get close enough to the whitehouse to pick off any cell traffic inside.
To be clear – this is NOT the same as the classified government networks.
But it is highly unlikely that the “insecure” networks inside the whitehouse are easily listened to.
This is a NEGLIGENT SECURITY BREAK!
Impeach the nitwit!
“This is a NEGLIGENT SECURITY BREAK!”
No it is not. Unless Trump is calling people on his iphone that have security clearances and talking about classified matters there is no security issue.
There were two issues with clinton.
First she essentially stole government communications.
Clintons communications as Sec. State belong to the federal government not her.
They could not be removed from government control.
The 2nd is that Clinton communicated classified – even top secret information to uncleared people over the internet.
That is a violation of espionage laws.
The president can not violate that law.
And there is no claim that Trump is having classified converstations.
This is a complete non-issue.
That you do not grasp it speeks poorly of you.
The same occured with Obama.
It is not an issue.
There is no difference between Trump talking to friends on an iphone and Trump tweeting.
Even the worst case that aides are afraid of – Obama actually did.
He shared top secret information with HRC from HIS persnal email account to her personal email account while HRC was in Russia and it is absolutely certain the Russians intercepted it.
You will note there was no big cry for Obama’s head.
Because the president can handle classified information however he pleases.
The Sec. State can not.
If passing an FBI background check was necescary for HRC to be president – she could not have been The FBI will never approve HRC for a security clearance again.
But the president does nto have an FBI background check to get a clearance. He does not need one. All executive power vests in the president.
HRC can still be president.
It is the only job in the federal government that she can now get.
“CIA Director Gina Haspel listened to audio purportedly capturing the interrogation and killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, giving a key member of President Trump’s Cabinet access to the evidence used by Turkey to accuse Saudi Arabia of premeditated murder.
Haspel, who departed for a secret trip to Turkey on Monday, heard the audio during her visit, according to people familiar with her meetings.”
From Washington Post
I think given the actions of SA it is likely that the Saudi’s killed Khassoghi.
But NOTHING we have thus far is dispositive.
Why am I supposed ot beleive Haspel listend to the Turkish audio just because WaPo says so. Is there a source ? Was someone else present ? How do they know what Haspell listened to ? Did Haspel say she listened to this ?
And lets say we can confirm all of the above – how does Hapsel know that the audio she heard is actually audio of what it claims to be ?
The most fundimental question of all – why do you buy this kind of garbage ?
This entire mess is difficult, if Erodegan publicly released the audio it STILL would likely be impossible to verify.
All the evidence – including the audio is circumstantial.
And the strongest evidence is that the Saudi’s are behaving as if somebody screwed up and killed Khassogi.
The circumstantial evidence is not meaningless. But it is also not dispositive.
It changes the probabilities (and not by much) it does not prove anything.
There are two important reasons to beleive Khassogi is dead and SA killed him.
He has not turned up alive.
The Saudi’s are behaving as if they killed him.
That is pretty much it.
The audio would be trivial to fake, or worse still the Turks could have abducted Khassoghi after leaving the embassy, killed him, recorded the murder and blamed it on the saudis.
The only reason that is no longer a possibility is because SA is behaving as if they killed K,
You are incredibly guilible regarding these type of things.
When we are dealing with the intelligence agencies of nations, you can not presume that ANYTHING is as it appears to be.
Whether it is Khassoghi or the DNC emails – you seem to jump right for the bait.
One the most compelling reasons that it is highly unlikely that the Russians hacked Clinton’s emails – and Mueller should be smart enough to grasp this is because the tools used were Russian tools.
If the russians do something and leave their fingerprints on it – they intended for us to find those fingerprints.
What is more likely when the signs point to a specific country secretly doing something bad is that it is being made to look as if they did something bad by someone else.
We have covered this ground before. You can not trust the direction that circumstantial evidence points in anything involving foreign intelligence services.
As an example, we now know that the US developed the Stuxnet virus to screw with iranian centrifuges. But the virus was made to look as if the israeli’s did it.
And for several years the suspicion was that the israeli’s did it.
I beleive it was the snowden information that made it clear that it was the US not Israel.
Few people actually suspected the US.
DUBAI/ISTANBUL (Reuters) – Saudi Arabia’s public prosecutor said on Thursday the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the kingdom’s Istanbul consulate was premeditated, reversing previous official statements that the killing was unintended.
Is the “public prosecutor” actually “official”.
Regardless, as I said before the strongest evidence we have is that the Saudi’s are not denying that Khassoghi was killed.
What we have from Turkey could be a real audio of the murder, or it could be something manufactured by the Turks. There is no way to know and no inherent trust in Turkey.
Czn someone explain why we have our pants in a wad over this issue? There are leople killed daily around the world. Heads cut off, stoned, electrocuted, hung, whatever which way. Poor people,brich people, politicians, etc. When are we giung to start minding our own business? Might we start by passing a federal law or amending our consitution to ban capital punishment in this country?
Because the left and the media are actively seeking to manufacture anti-trump issues.
The perception of the left and the media is that there is a symbiotic relationship between Trump and the Saudi’s,
That Trump will be reluctant to cross the Saudi’s because it might harm him to.
Further that as with Russia it will ALWAYS be possible to say that whatever Trump’s response is, that it is insufficient.
But for one thing this is a win-win issue for the left.
That one thing is that as you note, most of us do not care.
Khassoghi is not an american. He is not a hero- despite the left’s efforts to paint him as one.
While he opposed the Saudi Royal family, he favored Muslim Brotherhood stile islamist government.
He should not have had to die for that – but people die all the time.
In the mideast particularly life is cheap.
Ultimately most americans grasp it is not in the US interests to do more than condemn these actions.
But the left will preach to the choir and condemn Trump further for insufficiently condemning SA.
International relations means dealing with bad people.
With the Putin’s, and Kim Un’s of the world.
“Because the left and the media are actively seeking to manufacture anti-trump issues.”
Then why spend time debating unimportant issues that impact no one in America and only serves to promote more anti-Trump comments with no chance of an honest debate. Every minute spent on this is a wasted minute of ones life never to be recovered for use toward productive outcomes.
This mess, or the blow up of all, is part of the Erdogan “show”.
He hollers he bemoans the poor journalist Khasshogi, meantime his dictatorship has marginalized his country’ own journalists, many of which are in jail, and who knows if some of them may have had fatal a “accidents”.
They say that somewhere on the world a journalist is killed every four days.
Dictatorships and repressive regimes, including some we call our ‘friends”, are constantly attacking, in some manner, their journalists. Here we have “the enemy out there’.
Frankly, I feel for K’s family, but I think Erdogan has blown this out of proportion so he can blackmail SA and also get brownie points, which he needs, from the U.S. and others.
A despicable, but cleverly evil guy, E, has also caused economic problems at home which he wishes to paper over; this affair has given him a lot of paper.
It’s like watching the Sapranos – you don’t know who to route for killing who first…
You may be right.
There is certainly no good reason to Trust Erdogan.
Unfortunately the Saudi’s are not particularly trustworthy either.
Particularly in affairs of state we should never forget the likelihood that intelligence forces and deliberate efforts to deceive and mislead are involved.
Nor that the media will pick a narrative after the fact and go with that regardless of the facts.
Khassoghi was not some journalistic hero. That does not justify what likely happened to him.
One of the more disturbing aspects of modern politics is the lefts bizarre embrace of islam and leap into the complexities of mideastern politics.
The left is notoriously anti-religion. Yet it champions extremists from a religion that makes Jerry Falwall and Fred Phelps look like left wing nuts.
I do not understand how in the lefts heirarchy of victimhood, women, lgbt’s, minorities are ranked below the most mysoginist, homophbic and racist groups in the world.
Worse we are not talking about a minority religion, but the most numerous religion in the world.
The Lying Lump Keeps Bullshitting.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/analysis/2018/10/24/a-handy-guide-to-donald-trumps-23-most-frequent-campaign-rally-lies.html
Did you actually read these ?
Yes, 1.6 B is just for some border fencing, … right.
I will be happy to sell you some fencing for 1.6B.
1.6B is between 1/4 and 1/10th of the anticipated total cost of “the wall”.
It is not 1/1024 – the possible amount of Warren’s DNA.
Further Trump’s supporters know that Trump is confronting a mountain of obstacles being thrown up. They are not under any delusion that Trump is claiming that the rest of the wall is going to be easy.
There are myriads of ways to calculate the trade deficit. I have seen legitimate numbers as high as 600B/year BEFORE Trump was elected.
The problem with Trump’s claim is NOT with his numbers.
It is that Trade deficits do NOT net negatively impact out economy or jobs.
Further if precision with numbers is relevant – than Obama’s tall tales about ObamaCare are the biggest lies of all time.
The graphs I can find on “asian-american” unemployment contradict your article.
AA UI was lower in 2005 by a smidgen, otherwise it is currently the lowest it has been in the 20 years I could find data for.
The article is correct that Obama signed something.
It is also correct that Trump much more greatly expanded the opportunity for veterans to get health services outside the VA.
Given that I think the military budget should be reduce to about 1/3 its current size, why do I care about a dick measuring contest between Trump and Obama ?
Why do I care that Trump is bragging about something he should be ashamed of ?
Regardless defesne spending under Obama peaked at nearly 20% of GDP,
It is now closer to 13%. I would celebrate that and demand more cuts.
With respect to polls – we know that the polls were wrong on Brexit, and on the 2016 election.
Whether the polls are deliberately biased is a more difficult question.
They have certainly been wrong. Historically polls have consistently underestimated the strength of the right.
Do you really want to get into a debate over what constitutes a manufacturing job ?
All that “Iranian money” had strong claims against it by third parties.
In a system that followed the rule of law, those funds could not have been turned over to IRan until all the claims against them were paid.
The US Steel CEO has anounced atleast 6 plant restarts since Trump was elected.
Some of those are the consequence of aquistitions.
Wow! Politicians exagerate ! News at 11.
Please identify a single claim in all of these that is any different from those of Obama ?
Most of these are fights over statistics. There is some statistic out there that matches Trump’s claims. Just as there was always some to match Obama’s
But both are cherry picking what makes them look the best.
BTW nearly all “statitisics” sited by politicians are bogus – quite often “made up”.
More recently the claim was repeated that only 2% of rape complaints are false.
The source for that is Susan Brownmillers book in 1968.
She provided no citation. The few places we have data sugest that false reports run from 11-40%. Yet this 2% number is repeated as if it is carved in stone.
Read Radley Balko’s “the rise of the warrior cop” he goes through the many claims used to support ever more draconian drug laws.
Most of those do not even pass the laugh test. Many of the claimed statistics – that made their way into our legislative history or even SCOTUS decisions are logically impossible often by orders of magnitude.
Absolutely Trump exaggerates.
Where were you calling Obama a liar that must be impeached based on pretty much the same exaggerations over 8 years ?
When you are going to use the same standards for judging all politicians I will take you, the left, the media far more credibly
BTW it is inarguable at this point that the economy is doing better than it was under Obama.
And it is particularly doing better for minorities and those in red states.
Whether that will continue remains to be seen.
My recollection is that the only person who has spoken publicly about bombing was Madonna.
You provide a link to an article that tries to rake Trump over the goals for exaggerating his accomplishments and then you offer a cartoon that exponential larger does exactly what you accuse Trump of ?
Naw, Dave’s right! Trump never lies…
No Trump tariffs; this happened in a vacuum:
“There were ZERO U.S. soybean exports to China last week, typically one of the strongest export weeks of the year. The administration’s #tradewar is an unfolding disaster for North Dakota soybean farmers.”
Those farmers voted for Trump.
Think they will vote for him again?
Jay, there are winners and losers in any administration. I dont have any numbers, but I suspect there have been as many winners as losers in the trade war. Dave wont agree since he supports shipping all of our manufacturing to China where they can produce a cheaper piece if crappy product that is a waste of money, but like lights, if you want your house lit up to see, you buy whats avaliable. you
Now I know you would not share this, but I will.
https://freebeacon.com/politics/pelosi-collateral-damage-dont-share-view/
Wonder how Joe Manchin will take to this?
I constantly fixate on words and meaning.
Pelosi makes this about respecting the dignity and worth of american people.
So what do those words mean ?
With the left it is enough to say I respect you, or you have worth, or you have dignity.
If more is needed – pass some laws to require others to treat people in specific ways.
Respect at the barrel of a gun is no respect at all.
We all here the stories/jokes of fast food employees who spit in the food of bad customers.
It is easy to smile and “respect” someone to their face, yet give them no respect at all.
Once again the left thinks everything is an entitlement.
Respect is earned. The basic dignity and worth of a human is not all that much.
When you impose as an entitlement by force what really must be earned, you make us all less well off.
Nor do you create respect by driving discrimination and disgruntlement underground.
We have fought here about “the proud boys”. While there are few that would defend some of their views, they are the natural reflection of the efforts of the left to silence those views.
You can through force make a baker bake a cake for you.
You can not make them put their heart and soul into it. You can not make them bake a great cake, even a good cake.
Nor really in the end can you even make them bake a cake.
So long as people have any freedom at all they can circumvent laws compelling “respect”.
Respect, dignity, worth are all things that are earned.
They are not entitlements.
The problem with Pelosi’s words is that there will be consequences – but not likely those she presumes.
Humans route arround laws that interfere with their liberty.
That increases cost and lowers standard of living,
but you can not make a free people think as you wish.
Trying will make what you seek to destroy stronger not weaker.
I keep saying this over and over but those on the left – even here are not listening.
Trump’s election was a CONSEQUENCE of the intolerance of the left.
The problem with Pelosi’s remarks is that she presumes the power to impose her will by force on others for what she beleives is good cause, and fails to grasp that there will be resistance, a backlash. And that the easiest response is to take from Pelosi and the left the power to impose their will by force.
We do not have an actual trade war yet, More like a Trade skirmish.
The “losers” will always be the people of the nation imposing a tarriff on others.
In the case of china’s soy tarriff’s – that would be the chinese people, not US farmers.
The chinese will pay higher prices for soy.
Soy framers will only be marginally effected.
There is not a global glut of soy. There is not a global glut of farm produce.
Supply and demand are close to in sync. A shift of soy from elsewhere to china means a new market open to US soy farmers. Overly prices will go up slightly, due to a less efficient supply chain, that is all.
That does NOT make tariffs a good idea.
But in the modern global economy they are easily circumvented.
I have not said Trump never lies.
I have said that he is the most trustworthy president we have ever had – even if I wish he were not. He has kept a large protion of his campaign promises and continues to try to keep the rest and likely will succeed with most.
I really do not are – nor do I think most other people do about whether Trump says a crowd of 50K is a crowd of 30K.
Most of what you call “lies” is bragging, and in most causes if is not LITTERALLY true, but it is usually figuratively true.
The economy is stronger – whether Trump’s precise numbers are perfectly accurate.
I am releived to learn that Tarriffs are a negotiating strategy.
I found it very hard to beleive based on Trump’s education and life that he actually beleives Tarriffs are a good idea.
Regardless, if the tarriffs endure I will oppose them.
If the economy tanks – Trump is scrwed.
If it continues to grow – the left is screwed.
Whether Tarriffs remain or not.
“Think they will vote for him again”
Yes, Soy supply is very close to soy demand.
If the US does not sell soy to china someone else does.
And if farmers in brazil sell to china at slightly higher than normal prices – the clients they would have sold to otherwise buy from the US
The laws of supply and demand are immutable. Not even Trump tarrifs can choke them.
The above does not make Tarrifs “good” It just means the harm – inculding to US soy farmers is small
WSJ is behind a pay wall. But there is enough visible to get the part where Trump says his Tarriffs are a negotiating strategy.
Which thus far appears to be the case.
If this is your idea of a “lie” then we should have impeached the entire Obama administration.
I seem to recall “Benghazi was a spontaneous protest”.
Just about every prominent member of the administration parrotted that during an election berated Romney for saying otherwise and were lying and knew it at the time.
How stupid are you?
If he says there are NO tariffs and then says tariffs are a negotiating tactic, how does that negate the NO tariffs lie?
President Lump of Excretion lied, got caught in the lie, offered an explanation for the lie, but didn’t admit he lied. Wouldn’t you say that’s the strategy of a disingenuous deceitful duplicitous douche…
“how does that negate the NO tariffs lie?”
You get incredibly pissed when I expect half that precision in your language.
So are you saying that Trump is half the liar that you are ?
Imprecise language is not lying.
It is invalid argument.
Most of us grasp that
“there are no tarriffs, tarriffs are just a negotiating tactic”
does not mean “there are absolutely positively no tarriffs of any kind, not even a pennies worth, not for any purpose, not ever, absolutely not.
I was going to continue with Trump should probably speak with more precision.
But even that is not true.
Do you really want 30min everytime Trump speaks ?
Even that would not help as you lefties creatively edit what he says anyway.
For a day we got to listen to “trump bet Warren $1m that she would not take a DNA test”.
Skipping the final clase “that proves she is an indian”.
Then we got to listen to another couple of days of Trump owes Warren $1m because she proved she was an indian.
If Trump had tried to argue that 1/1024 genes tied to SOUTH AMERICAN indians proved he was cherokee, every lefty and fact checker would have been screaming “pants on fire”, Nose has grown to 3ft. Lie, Lie, Lie
When you are consistent and precise in your own use of words. When you are not subscribed to an ideology that can not survive precise word use,
then this inconsequential snarking about Trump will have some meaning.
Where were you over “if you like your doctor…”
Where were you over “Benghazi was a spontaneous riot”
Where were you over “women should be beleived ”
Where were you over …..
You are looking to play games with language.
The examples I cited above from Obama and Clinton, all reference remarks where people were harmed – they lost insurance coverage they had for years and liked.
They were raped,
They died,
They were falsely accused.
I am not so stupid I hold others to standards I can not meet myself,
or my enemies to standards I would not expect of my friends.
Point out where you have held any non-republican politician accountable for a misstatement that inconsequential ?
Jay, we can trade these things forever.
Please name some statement that Trump has made that the american people have relied on to their detriment ? Something like “if you like your doctor you can keep them”
As to Tarriffs – since when have democrats opposed them ?
The only reason the left seems to oppose tarriffs at the moment is because Trump is imposing them.
Absolutely he really is imposing them.
At the same time it is pretty clear that he is doing so as a negotiating tactic.
If the negotiating tactic fails we may be stuck with them.
But we will burn that bridge after we cross it.
None of this is different from the lies Obama told us about the negotiations with Iran.
Regardless, I could see why I might be offended by Trump’s tarrifs if they endure. But I can not understand why you care – beyond TDS.
If Trump came out as Prochoice tomorow, I think the entire left would become pro-life, because they can not agree with Trump on anything.
And you would be right there saying “see Trump lied” about god knows what stupid thing.
Regardless the debate is not over whether Trump “lies”.
ALL politicians lie.
It is over whether we can trust him to keep actual committments.
Thus far that appears to be true – even for committments I wish he would not keep.
No other president EVER has done the job he has keeping campaign committments.
Is there some message we were supposed to get from your Tweet ?
After James Hodgkinson shot up the republican congressional baseball team,
Republicans – even those shot and shot at, IMMEDIATELY pointed out that the fact that the shooter was a “bernie bros” was NOT a reflection on democrats or Sanders.
For a couple of days we had no clue who this bomber was, yet without knowing the entire left and media ASSUMED it was a Trump supporter and went from their to blame Trump and Republicans.
I linked to an article by Andrew MacCarthy on the bombs who noted this ONLY happens when those on the left are “targeted”
When someone on the right is actually attacked we all unite to disown violence, and to assure everyone that the violent political rhetoric of our opponents was NOT the cause or justification of any violence.
When someone on the left is spoken ill of that is immediately compared to Nazi’s
When there is actual violence – long before the facts are known the press and the left have blamed the right.
Look at charlottesville.
The courts ordered that the alt-right groups were allowed to march.
The governor and the mayor order the police to stand down – not to protect the marchers.
Police baracades were setup on the route of the march – but there were no police at them.
Those on the left broke through and attacked.
Yet because the alt-right were prepared to defend themselves the left and the media portrayed them as the aggressors.
Then some paranoid kid who has had to run a guantlet of counter protestors, throwing rocks and urine and spraying him with mace, loses it and runs down some counter protestors in his car causing one of them to have a heart attack and die,
And to nearly the entire country the story is about the violence of the right.
The left is the epitome of hypocracy.
So the SJC investigated Swetnick’s claims quietly and found she was not credible.
They aske to interview Swetnick or to have her testify and she refused.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/chuck-grassley-refers-michael-avenatti-julie-swetnick-doj-for-criminal-investigation
Here we have NYT publishing the assassinations fantasies of those on the left.
How is this not far worse than anything any republican Trump included has ever done ?
How is this not worse than even what those like Gavin McInnes purportedly do ?
Designated Survivor, the American political drama television series, has been on for two seasons, watched by millions. If someone tries to blow up the White House or US Capitol Building, you going to blame ‘Hollywood?’
What about the 1962 movie The Manchurian Candidate, you blame JFK’s assassination on Hollywood too?
We are not talking “war of the worlds here”.
We are talking about Hollywood and the media advocating for assassination,
How is it that you manage the cognitive dissonance in your own remarks ?
I can probably find half a dozen posts on this page where you take Trump to task for lamenting that his supporters can not punch back.
Where you tell all that Gavin McInne’s remarks are unacceptable and criminal.
Make up your mind what your legal and moral principles are.
If you want to defend free expression – then do so consistently.
If you want to tell us all that hate speach is wrong – then you should be self censoring.
I have been pretty clear.
I do not think any speach is ever criminal.
I do not think government has any business in the content of what we say.
But lots of speach is immoral.
I will defend someone else’s legal right to say things that are immoral and protest them for doing so.
What of you ? Your standards change from speaker to speaker.
The only values you have are left good – right bad. The issue is irrelevant.
Your do not even try to pretend that is not your values.
This is pretty damning.
The DOJ is now arguing in court that it can not release the information that The House has requested and that Trump has directed that they do, because doing so would be obstruction of justice.
If the Mueller investigation is legitimate – how would that be the case ?
There is the further allegation in this article that the entire purpose of the Trump/Russia collusion investigation was as a job security program for many in the DOJ/FBI.
That the investigation never was serious, that none of those involved ever bought it. That the FBI/.DOJ’s interest int he Steel Dossier and ever Carter Page was primarily as leverage against a possible Trump presidency.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/10/26/doj_ties_a_trump_fisa_release_to_obstruction.html
Major important announcement!
The ASZ (American Society of Zombies) has announced they are closing all offices in the D.C. metro area. They have been unable to find any brains in the area.
Sorry guys!! Had to do it.
Have a good weekend
And the C.E.U is moving, involuntarily, to Vienna from its preferred base in Budapest.
Another strongman that Trump admires and a man he hates- Soros.
Trump University can now move in and occupy the empty space.
And we are concerned about education and the CEU in Hungary why? Isnt this an issue for the Hungarian people to address?and
So regulations forced on American citizens and businesses by government not through legislation, but by presidents is fine, but not in Hungary?p
So why be concerned about it in Hungary, but not here?
Sarcasm. Any pal of Trumps is an enemy of mine as is any “university” with his name on it.
Although, I do like the exteriors of Trump’s buildings. There I said something nice about him. 🙂
dduck, I often wonder what it would be like to have a Jonson/Weld administration. Can you imagine the right and left having to team up and attack a common enemy? They would have to live on valium to keep their sanity. But then, maybe a large number of Americans would not need it since neither the Bitch nor the Ass would be in office,.
Hello, this is your president using the emergency broadcast network. We have a national emergency. All patriotic citizens need to immediately spread the news that the mail bomber has been caught and turned out to be an under cover employee of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This dreadful situation truly was, as my colleagues at Fox news accurately reported, a false flag conspiracy to steal the midterm election.
Trump= “”I did not see my face on the van. I don’t know, I heard he was a person that preferred me over others, but I did not see that.”
Wanna bet some idiot will say that was truthful, was looking at the tires..
https://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/headlines/bomber_van_closeup.png?itok=VsNUoTve
Now you presume to know what other people have seen, even though you were not present ?
BTW, what does it matter ?
Should we remove Sander’s from the Senate because James Hodgkinson was a vigorus supporter ?
Or do would Sanders be lying if he said that he did not know that jeremy Christiansen (the portland bus slasher who was purportedly a white supremist) had Bernnie all over his social media ?
You and the press are playing stupid games.
This guy has a history of violence. I will be shocked if he does not have a history of mental health issues.
Trump, asked if he will call the Obamas or any of the other targets: “They wanted me to, but I think we’ll probably pass, thank you very much.” (via CBS)
This guy is a classless lump of manure.
The story below is representative.
Trump has called the family of every soldier killed while in office.
Trump speculates correctly that Obama did not.
And after proving Trump right WaPo claims Trump is wrong because Obama wrote letters and visited cemeteries and hosted dinners.
These are not the same thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/17/trump-ask-general-kelly-if-he-got-a-call-from-obama-when-his-son-died/?utm_term=.561468d797b6
So you are saying that Barak Obama is a fragile wall flower who will collapse because someone sent him a fake bomb that the Secret Service intercepted long before him ?
This is just more of the left’s stupid gotcha journalism.
“See we proved Trump is vile, because when we stuck a stick up his but and tried to get him to play puppet he did not do exactly what we demanded.
Trump has been vigorously denouncing this since the first package.
He through the FBI/DOJ into overdrive to catch this guy. Sessions had to change his schedule so FBI investigation teams could borrow his plane.
Further they found this guy incredibly quickly.
Proof that the DOJ/FBI can check out fake rape allegations in a week, and that they did not need 2 years to find that Clinton had violated the espionage act, or that there was no Trump Russia collusion.
The real question is why we can not have the same guys that caught this bomber working on all the other cases that have taken years.
Asked to disavow the suspect Trump did not reply. I am long past expecting presidential behavior from Trump unless he is reading a statement from a teleprompter written by some sane person in his office ( in other words, the ” resistance”) and that moment of sanity always passes followed by reversion to the real Trump. It’s his supporters who I blame, the see no evil hear no evil base of the GOP. I have real contempt for their unswerving accceptence of absolutely anything he does. Those are the people who are destroying our fabric.
“Those are the people who are destroying our fabric.”
Our fabric is woven by many different threads of society. In the 70’s, the same was being said about the hippies and anti-government movement individuals.
All through history, there has been those accusing others of destroying what America stands for. I can say the same about progressives destroying America. It just depends on the playbook used to make it happen.
Its just one is very visible and one very hidden.
Both are unacceptable, but in this society today where moderates could care less, we have what we have or could have had. Both suck.
I will have no trouble if a progressive becomes POTUS seeing the damage they would do with their Scandinavia fantasy and trying to shove that down the throat of the non utopians.
Roby’s rant is just a game – much like jay’s parsing.
Both before and after the aprehension of the Bomber Trump repeatedly called these fake bombings despicable.
Apparently Trump did not repeat that verbatum on one of the many times he was asked by many reporters and somehow that is meaningful ?
Many of us are tired of this
:I stuck my hand up Trump’s ass, and he refused to say precisely what I wanted him to, at exactly the moment I demanded, therefore he is an evil liar. ”
DFo those on the left and in the media not grasp they discredit themselves not Trump ?
Trump in asshole mode, only hours after bomb ‘suspect’ arrest:
So you expect the presidents every waking moment will be occupied by thoughts of this bomber even AFTER he has been caught ?
BTW – I would criticise Trump’s remarks – in that they are too harsh and prejudge the case.
We have been through this witrh Obama, as well as prior presidents.
The courts have ruled that as the highest law enforcement in the nation the remarks of the president in a criminal case have bearing.
Atleast one case was dismissed because the president said too much about his personal views publicly before the trial.
The left is arguing that Trump firing Comey and attacking Rosenstein and calling the investigation a witch hunt is somehow obstruction of justice.
That goes both ways. Trump’s calls to bring the full weight of the federal government on the bomber and calling him despicable, is the same kind of “obstruction of justice”.
Just as with Comey etc, it is NOT illegal. But it is often improper.
But had Trump done anything less than suggest this guy should have his skin peeled the Left would have eviscerated him.
As we see Roby is taking him to task for not providing a sufficiently emotional response to one of the myriads of reporters who asked about this.
There is lots of video of Trump denouncing this – before and after.
There was enormous pressure from Trump on DOJ/FBI to catch this guy yesterday – and they did.
Your moaning merely proves that nothing will make you happy.
That whatever Trump does it will be wrong to you.
A few weeks back the fed chairman said “The really extremely accommodative low interest rates that we needed when the economy was quite weak, we don’t need those anymore. They’re not appropriate anymore. Interest rates are still acommodative, but we’re gradually moving to a place where they will be neutral. We may go past neutral, but we’re a long way from neutral at this point, probably.”
One thinks these words are benign. But are they really? On Oct 3rd, the stock market hit an 52 week high of 26,828, 72 point short of 27,000. Today the market closed at 24,688, just short of a 10% correction, all happening with drastic up and down movements, some with 800 point swings interday, after Powell made these remarks.
Why? When he says the fed is accomodative, he references easy money that now has fed rates of 2.25%. This is a 1% increase since October 2017. Mortgage rates have increased from 3.9% to 4.9% during that same period. Housing sales have drastically declined. He states that the fed will move from accomadative to neutral, meaning a fed rate of 3.4%. Given another increase of 1.15% in the fed rate, that increases mortgages from 4.9% to 6%. This effectively prices a huge portion of the country out of the housing market.
So why is this important. 1. The fed is moving too fast. They are not letting the markets absorb the impact of the interest rates already put into place. Once those hit and then future rate hikes take effect, the impact is a severe slowdown in the economy. Interest rates increase, bond values decrease, stocks decline, assets values of individuals decline.
There is little in the market that is causing the severe fluctuations as much as the manipulation of fund rates at this point.
So for all the Trump haters, remember this when the economic environment declines before blaming Trump. He has already called out the fed for their actions. Remember the late 70’s when the fed did nothing and inflation ran rampant. The opposite impact can take place with an over zealous fed ratcheting down the economy through high interest rate.
And when he said “We may go past neutral”, that can spook grandma who knows nothing about the stock market, but sounds bad.
Be ready for more declines in the market for the next few weeks and then wait.
There is little doubt the Fed rate is too low. That is very dangerous.
I have no idea whether the fed is moving too fast.
What I do know is that leaving control of money in the hands of the Fed is and alsways has been a mistake.
Prior to the Fed, this was controlled by congress and the markets.
They dealt with it poorly.
That said the evidence is that the Fed has don no better than what preceded it.
The frequency of downturns is slightly less, but the scale is larger.
Further the advent of Central banks has radically changed the operation of markets.
The NORM is that the economy is slightly deflationary. This is a reflection of the fact that as productivity goes up prices go DOWN.
Over the course of the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries very mild deflation was the norm.
This was very good as over time most things held their value.
Since the advent of Central banks inflation is the norm. Inflation compounds so while deflation over the course of a century was rarely more than 2 digits, Inflation over the same period of time runs 4-5 digits. Compounding does that.
Inflation masks the real behavior of the economy. And it steals from those on fixed incomes.
IF we must have a federal reserve, monetary policy should be set by Rule – like the Tailor rule. The Fed rates should change DAILY to reflect DAILY market changes – rule based systems can do that, and the Federal Reserve Board can meet periodically to determine if the rule needs tweaked.
I would further note that the problem regarding the communications of the Fed is not what is said – but how little is said. It massively amplifies the significance of the words.
I am not happy about what is happening in the markets – as I have some money in the markets. At the same time – this should have been expected since the early Obama administration. Fed and Obama policies favored big business over small and favored profits over investment. The results had stock prices increase much faster than the economy recovered. Right now the market is adjusting. The economy is growing faster, the Trump administration favors SMB’s rather than big business and investment over profits.
The result is a decline in the value of stocks.
I expected this since Trump was elected.
If all this is is a response to the Trump changes in the economy then the drop in the stock market is inconsequential.
The real concern is that we are long overdue for a recession. Maybe a mild one, but still it is rare we go this long.
I suspect one is NOT in the offing, but that is because the Obama recovery was so weak.
The Fed’s changes decrease the likelyhood of a recession in the near future at the expense of lower immediate growth, and particularly lower stock prices.
The dangerous scenario is monetary growth exceeding real economic growth.
That is what produced the great depression and the great recession.
We do not want that.
I can not find the post of whoever said that Trump claiming to be building the wall is lying.
2.5M is not alot – though this is an important location.
You can agree or disagree over whether we should
You can certaiinly make the argument that Trump has not built much wall so far.
Though he has covered a larger portion fo the souther borader than Warren’s indian ancestry.
The fact is that he is still doing it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dhs-unveils-trumps-first-completed-border-wall-project-walls-work
I favor building a wall, hiring many more border patrol officers, eliminating the “one foot policy ” and placing military on the border to stop illegal immigration, but why waste it on California.
California wants illegal immigrants. So lets let the illegals enter California where they are welcome. Lets stop directing them into Arizona and Texas where the welcome is not as great. If you open the border in California it will allow reassignment of assets to areas that want their southern border closed.
I notice that you and the blabbermouth never mention or respond to the visa overstays, which are more numerous “illegal immigrants”, I think.
Most of these whiter and richer folks don’t pick the fruit and vegetables or work in meat/fish processing occupations, BTW.
Correct me if I am wrong.
dduck, Sometimes the internet is useless. I found only information that shows about 12 M illegals in 2017 and 700,000 visa overstays for 2017.
Could you share the info you are referencing?
I beleive the government estimated number of illegal immigrants in the US is 11M. But a recent study by Harvard estimates that it is twice that.
You continue to think that ad hominem and efforts to silence constitute valid argument.
They do not and they accomplish nothing beyond diminishing you.
I do not have a strong position on precisely what our immigration laws should be EXCEPT that if we are not going to have open borders AND the elimination of the entitlement state that requires, then we must come up with an arrangement that works.
If you wish to increase enforcement actions regarding visa overstays – fine.
I do not care if you deliberately choose to change immigration laws to favor poor, and poor skilled south american and african immigrants.
What I care about is that you consciously confront the actual issues.
That you get past the pretense that you can not do whatever you please without consequences.
The best solution is off the table – neither the right nor the left are going to consider it.
And even it is not perfect.
Absent that like it or not we must make choices.
I think the immigration debate reflects the entire moral philosophical failure of the left in a perfect nutshell.
IT is trivia to take any group seeking to come to the US and have empathy for them.
It is trivial to paint them as downtrodden victims. it is trivial to paint their circumstances as unfair.
It is trivial to do this – because all these and more are all true.
But in the end you must CHOOSE.
There are many possible choices,, but every single choice you make CLEARLY benefits some and harms others.
There is a reason that Trump’s immigration stand has brought the lower classes in large numbers to the GOP. Because those people feel they are competing with immigrants for jobs, resources, and even survival.
Regardless, any choice you make has winners and losers.
The left fixates on “discrimination”.
There is absolutely no way to resolve our immigration issues, there is not even a way to mitigate them without doing that one thing the left considers completely wrong – discriminating.
Immigration most clearly reflects the absolute ideological failure of the left.
You can not build society on comparative grievance. You can not substitute equality for liberty.
Any scheme rooted in equality inherently becomes a grievance competition.
“That you get past the pretense that you can not do whatever you please without consequences.”
We have a society today led by politicians that believe there are no consequences. Just look at the last two presidents. One ruled by E.O against congressional agendas ( unlike B Clinton) and that gave us Trump. Now we have Trump with his big mouth that is giving us an even greater divided country and moving the democrats even further left. He finds nothing wrong with this. I dont believe the right has moved further right since that took place with the tea party. But it has energized radicals on the right.
Few will agree with me. Many “so called” christians that say they are christian conservatives say Trump ” is not a perfect man, but the perfect man for the job”. BS! Yes, he has reversed most of Obama dictatorial actions by cancelling his E.O.’s. He has supported congressional actions to improve the economy, but he has also greatly divided the country.
On the other hand, we have a far left democrat party that believes in an economic model and social programs that have bankrupted other countries. They believe force is acceptable on the many for the good of the few (ie Obamacare). They refuse to accept any GOP proposals, no matter how much good they may do.
You can not ignore the constitution, but most politicians think you can. And it will only get much worse before it gets better. The house will flip. The house will investigate everythinG Trump/GOP And that will do nothing but further divide America.
Again Trump is a product of our political divisions not the cause.
The Tea Party was a left shift – i.e. towards the political center, not a right shift.
The Tea Party was a de=emphasis of social conservatism and a re-emphasis of fiscal conservatism.
Trumpism is NOT the same as the Tea Party – Trumpism is a different shift towards the middle. Trumpism incorporates blue collar democrats and their values into the republican party.
Further Trumps ability to do so rests on the fact that Democrats moved further left FIRST.
Again Trump, Trumpism, all the current vitriole are the CONSEQUENCE of the politics of hate that has been practiced vigorously by the left over the past decade and the shift left of the democratic party.
You confuse cause and effect.
Get rid of Trump and you will likely make things worse. Regardless you will not get rid of the fact that half the country is tired of being called hateful hating haters by the left.
There are not two hands here.
Whatever you might say about Trump – and much of it may be true.
He remains a consequence not a cause.
I think Trump revels in his role, but at best he perceived that half the country was fed up with being bullied and defamed by the left and realized he could politically benefit by championing them. By bullying the bullies.
The problems of the left are much deeper than economics.
When politics fixates on equality that does not exist, grievance and jealousy rather than liberty the results are uniformly the same – violence and bloodshed.
Ron, you need to stop sipping 80-proof whiskey before posting stuff like this.
If you don’t stop the flow of illegals into California, what makes you think they’re here they won’t continue to migrate to other states, as they have always done.
And polls over the past few years have consistently showed large majorities of Californians (me included) don’t favor open borders, and do favor deporting those here illegally:
https://www.onenewsnow.com/national-security/2018/04/24/polls-prove-ca-not-cozy-with-illegal-aliens
And yes, spending huge amounts of money yearly for added patrols along the border will slightly reduce the number of illegals crossing into the US; but spending BILLIONS to build and maintain a 30 foot high wall will do little to deter illegals from breaching it when Home Depot is selling 32 foot portable aluminum extension ladders for under $300 and climbing rope for 50-cents a foot. A wall also will increase illegal entry by boat along the coastline (life preserver vests at Kohl for $19.95] and single engine plane to ferry undocumented immigrants into the U.S. (already a problem) will increase as well.
I was in favor of increasing fencing along stretches of the southern border, but only in select areas, but after thinking it through i think they will do more harm than good.
Jay, what changed?
https://calcoastnews.com/2010/03/70-percent-of-californians-want-illegal-immigrants-to-stay/
I cant find anything to show these numbers have changed much.
As for the wall, maybe we need to contract with a Russian company. They seem to know how to build barriers that keep people from crossing certain lines. Did it for years until Reagan convinced them to tear them down.
Jay;
Your reply atleast started rational and reasonable.
I would be happy to have a discussion with you about how to deal with immigration.
I would also note that republicans would be happy to have the same discussion with democrats.
But republicans have tried and been played twice before, so they are understandably skeptical of the left’s continued insistance that we resolve issues like dreamers and family separations, and whatever they find heart rending at the moment, and postpone the actually hard issues of how to address the problem til later, or never.
You say a wall will be costly and will not work.
A wall will be costly. The numbers are all over. I am reluctant to say that your $30B number is insane – even though it is nearly 6 times what Reagan wanted, and nearly 4 times what Trump asked for. Regardless, it is government, I am fully prepared to accept that it will cost far more than those on the right claim – if you are prepared to admit that EVERYTHING government does will cost far more than claimed.
As to whether it will be effective – again we can have a discussion – produce your support for that. It is my understanding that the portion of wall that was built in California decades ago dramatically reduced illegal immigration in that region. And what was built there was overall pretty crappy.
But I would be happy to listen to any data that you have to the contrary.
Though I would note your Homedepot ladder and ropes argument is farcical.
Have you ever climbed a 30′ aluminum ladder ?
I have had to paint a house on a 30′ ladder. It is scary as shit.
Have you tried to drag one miles through the desert ? You can’t just strap one on the roof of a prius.
Regardless a wall will not prevent illegal immigration.
It will merely substantially reduce it.
There is no such thing as prevent.
ICE has a budget of 6B/yr, CBP has a budget of 14B/year.
If a wall reduces costs by 1B/yr it has a 30 year payback.
Regardless, I am not persoanlly fixated on a wall.
I am not fixated on any specific solution.
But I am demanding that the left not be allowed to weasel out of the fact that immigration requires making difficult choices. It requires saying NO to people who can make an emotionally appealing argument.
Addressing immigration requires openly confronting the fact that ultimately we must discriminate, and that is NOT a bad thing. Ultimately we must choose.
We must choose between hatians and nigerians, and chinese.
We must choose between those persecuted for their beleifs and those enduring economic hardship.
We must choose between poorer less skilled less educated immigrants and better off higher skilled better educated immigrants.
Ultimately you are going to have to say NO!!!! To someone.
You are going to have to confront that equality is hypothetical, that even the hierarchy of grievances makes for an impoverished society.
I do not have a personal commitment to anything with respect to immigration.
Except that I am not going to allow you to do whatever you FEEL like and pretend it has no consequences.
If your post is an example of your “thinking it through” – please stop thinking, your are going to break something.
We can debate whether a wall can pass a cost benefit analysis.
There is zero debate that it will significatly reduce illegal immigration.
Absolutely people will find many ways to circumvent it. But none of those will be easy, and increasing the level of difficulty will substantially decrease illegal immigration.
US airlines carry about 2.5M passengers a year.
There are about 1M illegal immigrants per year.
There would have to be the equivalent of on 747/hr 24x7x365 to fly 1M illegals into the US/year.
The wall designs are intended to make the use of ropes and ladders difficult.
When you manage to haul that $300 home depot ladder miles through the desert, scale a 30’s wall with it, negotiate the barbed wire and electric fence at the top, do not get caught by the cameras and sensors, and then you are going to climb down a 30′ rope ?
You are going to manage all of this with families and young children ?
You are going to manage it without killing yourself and getting caught ?
You are correct that a wall will not stop everyone.
But it will make it impossible for 1M people to cross each year.
If we are unable to discuss the other changes that are necessary to actually make “open boarders” work – and the left has not made even the slightest pretense of that.
Then whatever we do must be an inherently a messy compromise that will have all kinds of complications.
I do not personally care alot about the exact structure of any alternative – except that it should work better than what we have.
One of the problems is that the left is not even willing to honestly enter the debate.
They are unwilling to admit there are questions. That the choices they want come with consequences.
Currently the left seeks to abolish ICE. So long as you do not have open border with no immigration laws, you need to enforce what laws you have.
“Abolishing ICE” is the slogan of idiots.
Sit down and debate and discuss the immigration law we will have – whatever that law is will have to be enforced.
Anything short of open borders requires securing the borders.
Even unlimited immigration requires securing the borders – so long as we maintain our drug laws.
We are not getting rid of Minimum Wage laws. We are not getting rid of entitlements. We are not getting rid of drug laws.
We are therefore going to have border security to enforce whatever laws we have.
One of the decisions that needs to be made is how many legal immigrants we are accepting per year. 100,000 ? 1M ? 3M ?
Over the past several decades legal immigration has slowly risen to an average of 1M/year.
With illegal immigration less consistent but at nearly the same numbers.
These are rough, and particularly with illegal immigration – people come and they go.
Illegal immigration is most strongly economically driven. When conditions in the US are good, and those elsewhere are bad illegal immigration rises.
Regardless, the left needs to answer how many people we are going to allow to legally enter the US each year, and how we are going to stop further illegal immigration. Otherwise you have defacto open borders which is actually a very bad policy.
We also need to decide who we are allowing to immigrate legally.
That we must chose is made clearer if we impose a limit on the numbers we accept.
Setting limits is important because it is limits that broadly guide our choices.
As an example if we are accepting refugees – what constitutes a refugee ?
The left is currently claiming those in this caravan are refugees.
So what does refugee mean ?
Do we have the same sympathy for those fleeing a civil war as those looking for a better job ? Those fleeing near certain death, or religious persecution ? What of those fleeing a natural disaster ? Whatever you determine constitutes refugee status you can presume that those who wish to come here will be highly incentivized to claim to fit that criteria.
Ultimately we will have to make decisions – to say no as well as to say yes.
The flood of unaccompanied children during the obama administration was a response to an Obama policy change making it easier for children to get in.
Our media coverage effects immigration too. The handling of families was little different under Obama, but the coverage under Trump was higher and this drove increasing families with children in the hope that the media coverage would trigger policy changes.
I am not proposing specific answers – there are no perfect answers.
Inevitably we will have to revisit this over and over again – so long as we are going to say no to anyone we must have immigration law and enforce it.
I am not personally a huge proponent of a wall. But from the information I have gathered, those places in the US where we have built a wall have several orders of magnitude lower illegal immigration. Put simply it is expensive, but it does work. Though I would be careful about pretending it is a miracle cure. People are inventive at circumventing obstacles – that is a very good thing.
I believe that it has been possible for both sides to work something out regarding immigration for well over a decade.
Both sides have failed – because the politics of their own bases favors sustaining the conflict rather than solving the problem. But the higher burden is on democrats as they have been the least reasonable.
We have a couple decisions to make. They are easy for mentally competent individuals to make.
1. Update the current immigration laws to allow more into the country legally and remove illegals fast. This would include letting immigrants to stay here without a birth certificate if they can prove they have been here longer than 15 years or they can prove they graduated from a high school in the states or they have citizen children. (May be some other exceptions to add that I did not consider). Those here illegally would be removed within 30 days.
or
2. Eliminate all border restrictions and let in anyone if laws are not going to be enforced.
What we have today is a joke perpetuated by the politicians that refuse to consider any changes to laws that are ignored and flaunted in the faces of people who expect laws to be followed.
Ron,
No one is going to do what is right – get government out of everything – immigration, and the safety net.
After that I am not so concerned about exactly what is done regarding immigration.
I am more concerned about the hypocracy – particularly that of the left.
Since some of you are trying to sell Europe.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/free-speech-sharia-european-court-of-human-rights-ruling/
Has the European Court of Human Rights always existed since WW2 or is this just since the EU formed? I find it perplexing that there can be individual countries with individual constitutions and be controlled like this.
There is a reason for brexit.
The predecessor to the EU was the common market.
That was essentially a free trade agreement covering europe.
I beleive that started a decade or so after WWII and continued until the EU replaced it.
The EU is a gigantic mess. It most closely resembles the US colonies under the articles of confederation but without the same broadly shared culture and with both weaker and stronger federalism concurrently.
Ron re visa overstays: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/visa-overstays-outnumber-illegal-border-crossings-trend-expected-continue-n730216
Sooooo, what about it. Why are these people not “hoards”, caravans fom the sky, and who knows how many “bad people”.
Well you have pointed out an issue that makes immigration an issue that government can not control. If this is a reliable study and does not rely on a late 90’s government study concerning illegal immigration, but in fact does have updated information, then the answer can only be open borders with no limits on immigration or visitors coming and going from America.
This just proves that government is impotent in controlling any illegal activity amoung those desiring to act in an illegal manner. Only those that follow the laws dictates before the law goes into affect would be the ones following those laws after enactment.
I find the study likely suspect.
But that is irrelevant.
Visa overstays are a trivial problem to solve – grant less visas.
You want to devote resources to going after those who overstay their visa’s – go ahead.
I can demonstrate to you that you are not comparing apples to apples.
But it does not matter – I will be happy to have ALL laws enforced without discretion.
That is the surest route to the elimination of bad laws.
I want ALL laws enforce without discretion.
And I want the dramatically fewer laws that being able to do so would require.
As to the “hordes”.
Thousands of people marching to the border poses a threat of armed confrontation and something evil happening. There is no good outcome.
If Trump capitulated and allowed the caravan’s to cross
He would be impeached by the right near instantly.
The caravan of a couple of thousand would be followed by the caravan of a couple of hundred thousand.
Someone far worse that Trump would end up in power.
There are now emails between Avanti and NBC as well as between NBC and the source that puportedly corroborated the Swetnick allegations.
Only they do NOT. In fact the source explicitly and repeatedly denies everything regarding Kavanaugh and almost everything Swetnick said.
Apparently it is True that Swetnick went to some wild parties.
Further there is increasing evidence that Swetnick has a long history of false allegations of this type.
There are several big points here:
NBC reported independent corroboration – when there was none and they knew it.
Avanti lobbied NBC heavily to run the story and when the corroborating source did not corroborate Avanti persuaded NBC to go forward – claiming another source which he never identified or produced.
Several here want to spew and froth over “lies”
Well this is a lie of consequence.
NBC could have run the story without corroboration and admitting that – Ronan Farrow did that with the Rameriz story which remains uncorroborated.
But they did not. They ran the story and claimed it was corroborated.
They knew when they ran it that was false, worse the purported source subsequently went on air and denied everything – and NBC did not correct the story.
This has been commonplace with the media. It is worse under Trump, but it has been true forever. Further the media not merely runs stories that do not meet professional journalistic standards, but the standards are applied ideologically.
Similar stories with better support about those on the left will never run.
But weak stories that favor the left or harm the right will always run.
The Steele Dossier did not come from Clinton – until it did.
The FBI did not use it to get warrants until it did.
Micheal Cohen had secret meetings in Chekloslovakia – until he did not.
Often NYT fact checkers berate Trump for repeating NYT headlines as if they were true.
“There are now emails between Avanti and NBC as well as between NBC and the source that puportedly corroborated the Swetnick allegations.”
Dave, you need to give up.
1) None of this matters to the left.
2) The House will flip and Pelosi will make sure the house is investigating Trump for impeachment and not this.
3) Sessions will block anything the senate ask for in relationship to Swetnick, Steele or anything else they ask for.
4) Anything that does come out through leaks will be covered as completely as the Bengahzi and email investigative reports that barely made a ripple in the swamp pond of D.C.
5) Trump keeps giving the media too much to digest, so they don’t cover the important stuff.
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
One of the most important assessments that one needs to make is whether Trump is a cause or a consequence.
If Trump is a first order cause, eliminating him will “fix” things – whatever that is.
If Trump is a consequence, eliminating him will make the problems worse.
Much of my diatribes regarding the left are premised (correctly) on the fact that Trump is a reaction, not a cause.
If one bothers to search for it there is much discussion of the moral failure of the left.
The thought that underpins modern progressivism is if anything worse than that which communism rested on.
There was alot wrong with the left in the 60’s and many of their ends were the same as those of the left today. But there is are vast differences between the modern progressive left and that of 5 decades ago. Today’s left does not respect civil rights, or any individual liberties.
I expected that Clinton would be elected in 2016. I expected another 4-8 years of Obama socialism lite. I expected further the further erosion of our standard of living, and destruction of the rule of law that would entail.
I expected that all of this would increase the anger and resolve of much of the rest of the country, and that ultimately This socialism lite, this politics of hate and destruction, this ideology of heirarchical victimhood would fail sufficiently that it would be rejected soundly.
My fear was that often our response to chaos and lawlessness is to choose actual tyrants.
Those on the left should seriously ponder if Trump is a cause or a reaction,
If he is a reaction – destroying him will at best buy a short respite. It is near certain that the follow on to Trump will be a real tyrant, will be a real racist.
Too much chaos brings about a demand for law and order imposed strongly by force.
It is this that brought Musolini to power, It is this that brought Franco, Peron. The argentinian Junta, Stalin, Pinochet, Mao, Hitler, ….
Chaos is all too often followed by Tryannts offer a return to law and order.
I think it is absolutely crystal clear that Trump’s election is a reaction to the overreach of the left. I think there is substantial evidence of that.
But it does not matter.
If I am wrong and the left destroy’s Trump that will diminish conflict.
IF I am right it will dramatically increase it and increase the probability of an actual tyrant.
To Ron, dhlli: Sorry, I don’t find any merit in your comments that visa overstays are not as much of a problem as Rio Grande swimmers. I see the possibility that you consider the “brown” people more of a problem than the mainly non-brown visa caravans.
And, what a brilliant solution: issue fewer visas, because that will cut down on visa illegals.
Of course, Trump is already doing that and has cut down on the potential immigrants that helped our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. What a miserable p_____ .
Wow, I wonder if you think having fewer gun permits and fewer AK47/AR15 type weapons would result in fewer mass shootings. Nah, of course not. Silly me the person that wants to be a mass shooter will still find a way to get a proper gun for the job.
Visa overstays are not that smart, they will just stay home.
dduck12
So your response is to mischaracterize what Ron and I said and then to presume that we are racists ?
What is the appropriate response to an idiot calling you a racist based on bad speculation about thoughts and motives that they can not possibly know ?
Why is i
dduck12
So your response is to mischaracterize what Ron and I said and then to presume that we are racists ?
What is the appropriate response to an idiot calling you a racist based on bad speculation about thoughts and motives that they can not possibly know ?
Can you read ?
I guess that you like typical leftists have no argument so you fall back on accusations of racism.
When you accuse someone else of racism without basis – that speaks about you not them.
I have no idea who is overstaying their visa’s – I would presume that would be “brown people” too.
BTW are my children “yellow people” ?
Did you actually read what I wrote about people overstaying their visa’s ?
Clearly not. I am not sure you even read what you write.
Regardless it does not make sense.
Your not interested in what other people say – and that is fine,
But you are very interested in defaming them because of what you think they think – which is NOT fine.
You do not like some idea I offered ? Fine, come up with a better one.
But then you have not paid attention to much of what I have written – which is primarily an attack on the left for being unwilling to propose solutions. To take ownership of a problem and its solution. You are not interested in trying to do anything about immigration.
You do not want to solve the problem. You do not want to have to make a difficult choice – or someone might call you racist.
There are several million AR-15’s in the US right now.
Are you planning on confiscating them ?
If not you are just looking to do something to feel good not actually solve the problem.
AU & NZ have near identical populations.
They had near identical rates of mass killings prior to the AU gun confiscation.
A decade later they STILL have the same rates of Mass Killings.
Put simply the most draconian change in gun laws ever had ZERO effect on mass killings.
There is lots and lots of data. There is poor support for the claim of gun nuts that guns make us safer, and no support for the claims of the left that gun laws make us safer.
The rates of violent crime in the UK are nearly that of the US – and London is now banning knives.
So you want a draconian solution to a relatively small problem, that will not work, and everyone else is stupid for not agreeing ?
Jay, I have no idea why you were the first I thought of when I saw this😂😂😂😂😈😈!
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kzjkkx/trump-pee-on-me-statues-new-york-dogs-vgtrn?fbclid=IwAR0QiKnkFYnT0psGPLS1uh5KkGdMXqAh9oX9fZwphf8NcntVlFVkeVRvEBw
Thanks for thinking of me and my two dogs…but we’re not that far from the Hollywood Walk Of Fame, and if they restore Trump’s star, we will pay it a visit…
https://www.google.com/search?q=dog+peeing+trump+hollywood+star&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS692US692&oq=dog+peeing+trump+hollywood+star&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.15877j1j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=paB3VOu4yEPwDM:
Given that it is CA I would presume you have to clean up after your dog.
Regardless, if this makes you happy – great.
Are you rpepared to accept that those on the right are free to express their distaste for Hillary or Obama in the same way ?
I seem to recall that through the Obama presidency anyone who even disagreed with Obama was obviously a racist.
Regardless I do not have a problem with your expressing political disagreement and disgust – so long as you permit the same to everyone.
I have noted that the big deal over conservative or even libertarian speakers coming to college is that to the left it is “shitting in their cathederal”,
and as I recall you went bonkers and accused me of all kinds of things.
Yet, litterally having dogs shit on Trump busts – that does not run afoul of the same standards ?
If we could get rid of the hypocracy of the left, all of this would be alot easier.
It was a joke, Smuckalong.
“It was a joke”.
I do not care.
If you want to have your dog poop on Trumps star or pee on Trump busts – that is fine with me.
Trump is fair game for political humor.
My problem is with the hypocracy of the left.
Dog’s can pee over Trump busts – and that is ok with the left.
But say anything funny about Obama and you are a racist.
The statutes do not look much like Trump.
Otherwise I think the idea is great.
At the same time I want an apology from the left for anyone who they frothed and foamed about for disparaging Obama.
So you guys get all bent out of shape because a few thousand dirt poor people might make it to the U.S. border, but see little wrong with the visa overstays which you claim not to know what that is and doubt the NBC Report as flawed. Perhaps this more rightie source will help.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/22/visa-overstays-biggest-problem-illegal-immigration/
I will take your word that you are not racist or more sympathetic to the visa folks, if you can explain why the border crossers are more dangerous/harmful/lawless/moochers/terrorists/job takers, whatever. What is it????
Why doesn’t your guy Trump ever mention or diss the visa overstays. If he is not a racist, then why isn’t he worried enough about some coming in as terrorists.
Five of the 9/11 bombers were overstays!!!!!
NEWSFLASH…..Trump IS NOT “my guy”. One can be anti “socialist ,liberal ,tax, spend and give away” democrat and at the same time be anti Trump!
Or one can be critical of somethings Trump does or says and supportive of others.
As well as critical of somethings Obama has said or done and supportive of others.
“Or one can be critical of somethings Trump does or says and supportive of others.
As well as critical of somethings Obama has said or done and supportive of others.”
If this is a piece of what might be considered moderate, then I am proudly “guilty”.
dduck, so here is a reenforcement of another comment I have made before, but will make it immigration specific.
Southern border, northern border, boat people, plane people, visa over stays , any illegals.
J UST ENFORCE THE LAWS AND STOP THE POLITICAL RHETORIC. Simple!
Either that or repeal all immigration laws if elected leaders decide not to enforce what elected leaders passed in the past.
“So you guys get all bent out of shape because a few thousand dirt poor people might make it to the U.S. border”
Personally, I do not care very much at all.
At the same time you do not seem to grasp that not only is it a big deal to alot of people.
In fact it is a huge deal to the left, and no matter what it does not end well.
I have told you repeatedly Goverment is FORCE.
All Law ultimately results in FORCE.
Eventually this “caravan” reaches the US border.
If it attempts to cross there are only two possible outcomes – the use of force against these people – possibly deadly force. Or capitulation by those tasked with stopping them – in other words lawlessness.
“but see little wrong with the visa overstays which you claim not to know what that is and doubt the NBC Report as flawed. ”
I have no idea what you are talking about. Further you do not know what you are talking about.
Murder and rape are both crimes. We do not allow people to get away with murder because there are also people who commit rape.
Your own source asserts that Obama ignored the problem of overstays completely, and Trump is trying to crack down.
Worse your own article points out that the worst offenders for overstays are from the countries Trump’s EO suspending issuing visa’s targeted.
Regardless, you are making this stupid argument that because the right is seeking to compat rape and murder and the left is seeking to allow both rape and murder, that somehow the right is hypocritical, because at this moment the right targeting murder is more visible.
The only hypocrisy is yours.
Taking me at my word would require that you have actually read what I have written.
Given your total misrepresentations of that you clearly have not.
You are not obligated to read what I write.
Having failed to do so you do not get to make up what you think I beleive.
Trump by EO targeted the countries where dangerous potentially terrorist “visa over stayers” came from – and you wigged out.
Nor does this lunatic racist argument hold up. Many, most, nearly all those “over staying their visas” are “black people”, and “brown people” and “yellow people”
Not only is your argument false, but were it actually correct, it still would not be racism.
Further the article points out the obvious solution – which you laugh at.
Grant fewer visa’s to those countries where 20% overstay their visa’s.
“if you can explain why the border crossers are more dangerous/harmful/lawless/moochers/terrorists/job takers, whatever. What is it????”
I do not need to explain anything.
The fact that there are rapists, does not mean that government should not prosecute murderers.
The rule of law requires that the law is enforced as written, regardless of who it is being enforced against.
I have repeatedly advocated in myriads of contexts that all our laws should be enforced without discretion. That would include immigration laws. That would include illegal border crossers and “visa overstayers”.
It is partly by enforcing laws without discretion that we learn which laws are bad laws and should be repealed.
Our attention is focused at the moment on a “caravan” of thousands marching towards our border – because they have deliberately sought to call attention to themselves.
I expect that those in government charged with dealing with people already inside the country ilegally – which would include visa overstays are doing their job quietly to the best of their ability.
Meanwhile less quietly we are addressing the public problem of the “caravans”.
There is also the issue of “the dreamers”
I guess to avoid being hypocritical we should start deporting them too!!
DD in the end there will be an actual debate about our immigration laws.
Difficult choices will have to be made.
Just to be clear there are almost no immigrants from “white countries” – legal or otherwise.
There are almost no “visa overstayers” from ‘white countries”.
We could bar all “white people” from visa’s, green cards, immigration. and not put a tiny dent in immigration.
In the end you are going to have to decide how many people you are going to allow into the country. And nearly all those people will be “non-white”.
You are going to have to decide between black, and brown, and yellow.
You are going to have to decide between dirt poor and skilless and doctors, and college grads.
You are going to have to decide between christians and muslims.
You are going to have to decide between those persecuted in their countries and those who just seek a better life.
You are going to have to decide between kids who have lived here all their lives and kids living in poverty in other countries.
In the end you are going to have to make decisions.
You are going to have to make TOUGH decisions.
You are going to have to make decisions that by YOUR OWN TERMS are racist.
Dreamers….That is a very easy decision for me. Once again, I have said this before, but will say it again for clarification.
If you graduated from high school in the USA, you get your green card and our given preference in citizenship processing. These people are more American than our previous foreign raised ” immigrant” president. A piece of paper does not make you “American” in my opinion. Being raised for much of your early developmental life does.
Agree.
Most people are sympathetic to Dreamers.
I am not especially.
There are a billion kids across the world who have to deal with far shittier things that being drug to the US given an excellent education and sent back to a country they do not remember.
The point is NOT that I do not have sympathy for the “dreamers”.
It is that they are no different from any real moral or factual basis than any of myriads of people who would also like to come to the US.
I have made a big deal about the fact that unless we are prepared to wall off our social safetynet from imigrants. end birth right citizenship OR end the social safetynet and end laws like minimum wage laws, open borders will bankrupt the country.
I would prefer open borders. That is the “right” solution. I have zero problems with “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,”
But that is how it has to work – your in america – your free. That is it. You are entitled to nothing more. See what you can make from that.
But we are not doing that.
And the moment you say we can not accept everyone who wishes to come here – you are going to have to make choices – difficult choices.
DD wants to pretend I am racist against “brown people”.
He is clueless.
My point is not that you have to choose asians, or indians, or visa overstayers.
It is that you have to choose.
Anything less than anyone means saying no to ALOT of people.
The left is unwilling to do what it would take to accept everyone.
AND unwilling to make the difficult choices if you do not.
That is the case because their ideology is morally bankrupt.
I do not have a problem with your propsal regarding dreamers.
Though I would point out even to you, that you can not wish the difficult choices away.
If you allow alot of dreamers to stay – you are either saying no to others, or you are moving closer to bankrupting the country.
Any choice you think is “easy” just makes some other choice all the harder.
In the end there is no “right” to be an american – even for those of us actually born here.
But there is an obligation not to bankrupt the country
All I need to do is go onto twitter, and I can find the nonsensical arguments you are making – and there obvious refutation.
You pretend that everything is about race.
Only a tiny portion of those from outside the US traveling here, to vacation, for an education, for a job, or to live are white.
Outside of central and south american the largest group of immigrants to the US are from asia. Last I checked the Chinese, Vietnamese, and Indians are not white.
Sayoc a hopped up on steroids native american sent fake bombs to mostly white demcrats and somehow that is racism ?
You pretend contrary to the evidence that Trump is not seeking to deport anyone in the US illegally – regardless of how they got her, as well as to reduce immigration from nations where people routinely overstay their visa’s you ignore the fact that nearly all visa;s – overstayed or not are issued to people who are not white, and yet somehow also seeking to stopped thousands of people from forcing their way accross our borders is racist ?
Grow up. Everything is not about race.
Everyone who disagrees with you is not a racist.
But those who see race at the center of every issue and who call others racist over political disagreements are RACIST.
“Five of the 9/11 bombers were overstays!!!!!”
Let me say that AGAIN, since it is being ignored as is the greater point, that visa overstays are largely ignored (we are focusing on the caravan, where rapists and murders are ready to pounce on us). Oh, sure, those that decry government overreach and rules, say the government is on top of the potential visa rapists and terrorists. They have not been for years and years, going back to 2001 and until now.
Let’s face it you “don’t have to explain” anything, especially obvious problems. Oh, and please, don’t hide in the bushes by throwing us examples of other obvious problems; that is just sending up a smoke screen (but I fully expect it anyway because you have no answer.
Again: Five of the 9/11 bombers were overstays!!!!!
P.S. The vast majority are white: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/03/homeland-security-produces-first-estimate-of-foreign-visitors-to-u-s-who-overstay-deadline-to-leave/
Keep wringing your hands about the caravan and keep ignoring the overstay problem it’s called keeping your eye on the hole and not the donut.
So here is a question concerning this specific group in the caravan. They have stated that their port of entry will be Tijuana/San Ysidro . Their desire is to immigrate into California.
Each illegal immigrant cost $7,352 per year in California. This covers all services such as education, healthcare, housing, etc. So 7,000 coming to America will cost Californians an additional $51,500,000 per year. And most will remain in California for a number of reasons, one large one being the Hispanic population equals the Caucasian population statewide and in many areas is by far the largest percentage.
So lets assume the leaders supporting these individuals prevail and most gain entry. Where will California house 7000 men, women and children? How do they add that many children into California schools? How does California cover the additional $51 M in cost? I know $51M is a drop in the bucket compared to the $20 billions they already pay, but still it is additional cost.
Does California legislators just add that to other unfunded liabilities that will be paid for from future revenues?
You’re right, Ron – all those people will cost us a lot of taxpayer money.
But nowhere near the amount you’re suggesting.
They are coming to the southern border to seek asylum. And per past recent statistics 70% will be refused permanent residence, and expelled.
“The asylum system is being inundated with claimants who simply cannot all be processed in a reasonable time. A huge share of these applicants will be rejected, probably upwards of 70 percent. They will be deported, or return home voluntarily. But in the meantime, they make it harder for the court system to respond to valid claims of asylum, and in many cases cost U.S. law enforcement significant time and resources..”
Here’s the interesting article about it… you need to read it through to get the full picture.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/09/data-indicates-illegal-immigrants-exploiting-u-s-asylum-policies-false-claims/
So while they are waiting asylum determination, where are they held? The San Fran Cronicle reported that about 80% of immigrants that seek asylum pass their “fear” portion of the test which can take a few weeks. They are then scheduled a court case, which at the current time can take years. While waiting for their court date, they are released with tracking devices.
What was left out of the article was where the stay, who supports them while waiting for their court date and how many actually show up for their hearing. Of those, about 20% actually get to stay. But they are sold the story that once released for the court date and missing that, the odds of deportation is very low. Just remove the tracker. And with over 1000 people at the Tijuana entry, adding another 7000 is going to almost paralyze the system.
You are right that they are not getting in.
But they are still going to cost money.
Someone will have to pay to educate the kids, further they will have to be housed and fed.
One of the reasons for Trump’s separation of Children from parents is that there are court enforced agreements that prohibit the fed’s from detaining Children for more than something like 30 days. If the children are with their parents releasing the children requires releasing the parents.
But if the parents are held, and the children are placed elsewhere the government can expedite the deportation process and get them out in 90 days. The norm is that it takes years because once released it takes years to find them.
If you catch an illegal immigrant within 100miles of the border and you detain them until a hearing you can get rid of them in 90 days.
It is not the money that is the problem.
If these are really over and above the norms for immigration in a given year for CA,
the facilities just will not exist and it will take time to build them.
A school typically takes 3 years from the decision to build it until it opens.
18months to design and bid and 18months to construct.
Private fascilities take about half that time, but it is not possible to speed up government processes.
“Th vast majority are white “? Did you actually read the pew article ?
Out of Pew’s 415K – the actual number is about 650K – otherwise your argument that this is a more significant problem that border crossings dies, 120K are from the EU, and 95K are from CA. that is a plurality at best. It is not the vast majority.
Further fromt he other source you provided – those coming from “non-white” countries are far more likely to overstay – 20% from places like Nigeria while it is about 1% from EU.
You keep harping on Overstays as if it somehow proves Trump is a charlatan.
Lets just accept everything you claim as fact – despite the fact that your numbers do not add up.
SO ?
All you have done is demonstrated that there is twice as much reason to be concerned about illegal immigration.
You have not made the problem smaller, you have made it bigger.
Nor have you demonstrated “racism”.
The border patrol in TX is concerned about those who iilegally cross the border in TX..
Not the color of their skin.
Why do you think this is meaningful ?
If you pointed this out to any Trump supporter, they would be going after Visa overstays too.
You seem to think you have found evidence of racism or hypocracy.
All you have found is exactly what Trump and his supporters have claimed.
Our immigration system is broken.
Three separate right wing nuts have committed their racts inspired by the rhetoric of trump and his friends in the conservative media in a few days. The result, a terror campaign against Democrats and CNN, two random black citizens murdered, hand a synagogue mass murder (by a nut in a frenzy over the dreaded caravan). Trump rallies continue on the same in level of vitriol and yes hate. The GOP talking heads and loyal base will be outraged that anyone believes there is a connection.
Roby, I think one small step from the democrats would be to put forth some individuals like Manchin, Warner and other moderate speaking members and make them the face and voice of the party. Shumer, Pelosi, Booker, Warren, Sanders and especially Obama and Clinton just stoke the fires of extreme actions in those with that smoldering in them. Hell, they can make my blood boil.
Warner is not moderate. He is another of these deep staters who see Trump conspiracies wherever he turns.
He is another tlike Schiff who claims to have seen proof of snipes.
AGAIN
What is your standard ?
Define what you think is acceptable rhetoric and apply that standard uniformly.
It does not matter how you set that standard – to “get Trump”, you must concurrently indict half the democratic party and the media, as well as the prior administration.
Get a clue Roby YOU are the problem.
This all started before Trump. Trump is the consequence of the left accusing everyone they disagree with of Racism.
Even your current post is nothing more than an effort to SILENCE.
Anyone not a left wing nut would gather that the current source of anti-semitism is the LEFT.
BDS is not a republican policy.
It is not the republicans who are pretending that 1B muslims a significant portion of whom are intent on wiping jews from the face of the earth, raping, mutilating and subjugating women are somehow an oppressed minority.
It is not republicans that struck a deal with Iran whose official policy is still the destruction of jews.
It is not republicans who are hanging out with Farrakhan and other open anti-semites.
If the standard for anti-semitism is as you and the left wing nut media make it – any criticism of a person who is nominally a jew – then the left is the most anti-semitic group in the country.
Once again you are playing this lunatic game that you are entitled to silence others by pretending that what they say is twice removed from some ism that you condemn.
Get a clue EVERYTHING is twice removed from some ism that you condemn.
If Trump should not have said the things that you claim are the motivation for some bad acts – then neither should the democrats.
Trump did not advocate violence towards the list of Democrats that Sayoc targeted.
In fact each was targeted because of things THEY said.
Apparently by your standard it is OK to lie and incite violence,
But calling out those who lie and incite violence is immoral even criminal.
All you want is to silence anyone who disagrees with you.
“The GOP talking heads and loyal base will be outraged that anyone believes there is a connection.”
So once again you are calling half the country vile racists.
How well is that working for you.
It is precisely that which has divided the country over the past decade – your jumping to frame every disagreement as racism, misogyny and hate.
You do not seem to grasp that you have made yourselves the party of hate.
“Trump rallies continue on the same in level of vitriol and yes hate.”
Then you should not have problems finding examples to support your claim.
Absolutely Trump and Republican candidates seek to win their elections.
If that is now “vitriol and hate” then all politics is “vitriol and hate”.
Your problem is not with Trump it is with yourselves.
This sums it up nicely. those of you who don’t agree are hopelessly blind to current reality.
We have had two really shiitty presidents in the last 10 years. I remember the violence perpetuated by Obama with his racist comments following situations like Ferguson. When he said “In too many communities around the country, a gulf of mistrust exists between local residents and law enforcement . Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement — guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness” he was declaring the police officer guilty, thus supporting the violence in Ferguson. He then said during the rioting in Ferguson “there was no excuse for excessive force by police”.
As others have consistently pointed out that they believe Trumps comments are ones to incite violence, they forget their president did the same. They feel today the same as I did when Obama was making his race baiting comments and indirectly promoting violence just like Trump.
But they overlook that happening, the same as the right overlooks Trump promoting violence today.
Maybe it time to stop overlooking either party promoting violence.
I didn’t overlook Obama’s faults – I was a LOUD critic; I vociferously spoke out against his black-favoring statements; I said he was an ineffective international policy president; I was initially against Obama care (but changed my mind after talking with many who were using it and found it satisfactory).
But Trump is multitudes worse.
Obama was frequently inept; Trump is constantly divisive.
I was going to provide a longer list of contrasts between the two, but I’ve decided not to bother. If you don’t know by now how detrimental to the long term welfare to the nation this Trump Debacle presidency is to the nation, nothing’s going to change your mind.
I’ll leave you with a tweet quote from arch conservative Tea Party Joe Walsh – he voted for Trump, then quickly came to his senses when he realized what a disaster he was:
“This President has absolutely no interest in speaking to ALL the American people. He is not capable of healing. He is not capable of unifying. That’s not who he is. That’s not who he’ll ever be.”
ObamaCare – every government program benefits someone.
If that is your criteria for acceptable then you will find socialism acceptable – because someone will benefit.
Go look at the pew data – the divisions in the country predate Trump.
The current gulf opened during the Obama administration and is the result of a left shift of democrats in the center.
Trump can not cause division that predates him.
Beyond that – the “divisivness” of Trump’s presidency is that he is keeping his campaign promises.
Are you saying that voters should not expect those they elect to keep their campaign promises as doing so might divide the country ?
Further nearly all of what Trump has done as president has been to roll back the federal government to increase individual liberty.
If that is divisive – the problem is with those who think it is.
Healing is easy.
Quit assuming you are entitled to further abridge the freedoms of others.
Accept that and we will all get along swimmingly.
Regardless, you are not free to blame the rest of us, because you have been thwarted at infringing on our liberty further.
Lincoln was a pretty divisive president too.
Obama spoke to ALL americans – he said “elections have consequences – screw you”.
Jay, I have said this many times, but will repeat it one more time.
1. I DID NOT vote for Trump.
2. I WILL NOT vote for him in 2020.
If I am around in 2020, Iwill make a decision at that time on who to vote for.
They do not care.
You are not in full blown Frothing at the mouth Trump Derangement, therefore you are evil.
You are allowed free speech – only if that speech conforms to the ideological line.
And god forbid you should see Trump as anything less than evil incarnate.
Or worse still actually successful at anything.
Furgesson is not the worst remarks by Obama.
What you quote is essentially true.
Further there actually is/was substantial evidence in Furgesson that the police were targeting minorities – just not to kill them. The use of assorted summary charges to bleed poor minority people dry in furgesson was reprehensible. The revenue from fines was about 1/3 of the budget in Furgesson.
My problem with many of Obama’s remarks regarding law enforcement is that he always went for race.
We have problems with law enforcement – ones that have and continue to improve, but at their core they are not race driven.
Examine Trump’s rhetoric. Establish in some measurable fashion what you beleive constitutes incitement to violence – I do not care how you set the criteria, just set it.
Write it down so that we can use whatever criteria you use to measure Trump to measure Pelosi, Waters, Biden Schumer, …..
And no matter what – the left will prove more rhetorically violent by a long shot.
“Maybe it time to stop overlooking either party promoting violence.”
Or maybe it is time to focus on what people do rather than what they say
Kristol starts off well but goes of the rails at the end.
There is no morality without individual liberty.
Where has Trump infringed on your liberty ?
What has Trump done to our national character ?
To our civic life ?
The left is not entitled to have the rest of us agree with them.
Nor do they have an ownership interest in the whitehouse.
What is an offense to our national character, to our civic life is the refusal of the left to abide by the legitimate results of an election.
The list of prominent figures on the left that have utter the most contemptible and violent statements is incredibly long.
Please tell me what prominent republicans talked about assassinating the president or blowing up the whitehouse while Obama was president ?
You can not even find remarks from Trump that compare to those of prominent figures on the left.
dduck12 • 4 hours ago
If Tump isn’t driving the hatred/violence, he is influencing/enabling the heavier rhetoric which then may indeed motivate more impressionable people towards violence.
I don’t discount the acorn’s effect in “The Sky Is Falling” fable.
Please cite the specific comments that Trump has made that you think constitute incitement to violence – including the full quote.
Whatever Trump comments you find it will always be trivial to find many prominent figures on the left whose comments are worse.
Today we are told that Trump is responsible for Tree of Life because of Trump’s anti-semetic remarks ?
Purpotedly the remarks blaming Soros for funding the caravan.
Soros ? Really ? There are more people on the right think he is a nazi than know he is a jew.
Further Soros is an openly anti-semetic jew.
The Trump is anti-semetic meme just does not pass the laugh test.
Its not like his daughters husband who is also his primary ambassador at large to the mideast is jewish or something.
“Please cite the specific comments that Trump has made that you think constitute incitement to violence – including the full quote.” GFY
Soros ? Really ? There are more people on the right think he is a nazi than know he is a jew.” GFY again.”
“Further Soros is an openly anti-semetic jew.” GFY three times.
I give you a C on the last two.
So responding to a request for evidence – evidence of something that you claim is being done constantly and openly is “GFY” ?
And you expect to be taken credibly.
“GFY” is not an argument. It is however hate speach.
You have been doing very well at spewing hate today.
You have accused Ron and I of being racist against “brown people” and repeatedly told me to “GFY”.
Why by your own standards is that not vile hate speach ?
Over and over you make the same mistake.
You decide based on emotion who is right and who is wrong, and then construct your arguments against them.
“The rule of law, not men” is John Adam’s formulation of the logical rule that standards come FIRST.
That we decide WHAT is right and wrong, before we decide WHO is right and wrong.
To do otherwise is tyranny.
To do otherwise is hypocrisy.
It will always be possible to shred your arguments – because at your core you chose WHO you hate not WHAT you hate.
I asked you for examples of Trump “hate speach” – not because Trump has never said anything offensive. But because it is trivial to find far more offensive things said by PROMINENT leftists and democrats that you not only do not condemn but actually celebrate.
Put simply you are a hypocrite.
From the Kavanaugh hearings you would have thought that Georgetown Prep was a hotbed of debauchery – or maybe it is just more “fake news”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/georgetown-prep-kavanaugh-confirmation-media-circus-damage/
GFY= Go Find Yourself. You are all knowing about all things, so that should not be difficult.
If I gave examples, you would say “they are trivial”, so why should anyone waste their time. GFY.
I am a hypocrite. Thanks, that’s better than a self obsessed know it all, twister of all, idiot.
LMAO
“GFY= Go Find Yourself. You are all knowing about all things, so that should not be difficult.”
I do not claim to “know all things”. I am just not so stupid as to constantly speak without verifying what I say first. Being right, does not require intelligence or arrogance.
In the information age it just requires not making claims you have not checked first.
“If I gave examples, you would say “they are trivial”, so why should anyone waste their time. GFY.”
That all one ever gets from you – excuses.
Everyone is supposed to accept your oppinions on what – your personal authority ?
Expecting that you can substantiate what you claim – that is some great burden ?
Expecting you to be able to make and argument at all – much less one not a morrass of fallacies – that is beneath you ?
“I am a hypocrite.”
Yes, that is what it is called when your standards vary depending on who you are passing judgement on.
“Thanks, that’s better than a self obsessed know it all, twister of all, idiot.
LMAO”
The only vice that cannot be forgiven is hypocrisy. The repentance of a hypocrite is itself hypocrisy.
William Hazlitt
There are three things in the world that deserve no mercy, hypocrisy, fraud, and tyranny. Frederick William Robertson
Hypocrisy is not a way of getting back to the moral high ground. Pretending you’re moral, saying you’re moral is not the same as acting morally.
Alan Dershowitz
Logic allows for no hypocrisy and no vagueness.
Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.
Edmund Burke
So before the Kavanaugh hearings were over NBC knew that Avanti was lying and failed to report it.
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/27/nbcs-kate-snow-heres-didnt-publish-story-avenattis-2nd-witness-now/
As you wig out over the latest purported Trump outrage you should think about this article and consider that most of american is happy and ignoring you and your outrage.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-26/road-trip-america-takes-us-beyond-news-media-politics?srnd=opinion
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2018/10/howie_carr_zip_your_lips_don_t_blame_trump
As we see more and more automation, cashless transactions, we reduce racism.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/10/shopping-black-past-present-future.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
At the same time – how are we going to explain differences in racial behavior when transactions are being conducted by neutral technology ?
Back to tweeting this morning that the fake news media is the “enemy of the people”. Jeez, I wonder how one of his supporters could possibly have gotten the idea to send a bomb to CNN?
The left has been calling anyone that disagrees with them – hateful, hating haters, as well as racists. I wonder where Hodgkinson got the idea to murder republican congressmen ?
Get a clue. The only people who “get the idea” who to kill from someone else are deranged.
So it is not acceptable to criticise others ?
I guess it was unacceptable for President Obama to call on his supporters to “punish our enemies” ?
Jeez, I wonder how his supporters could have got the idea to riot, to break through police barriers, to mace people who disagree with them,
I guess this is your idea of acceptable conduct ?
Shortly after reading some words about unity, trump calls one of the recipients of his supporters mail bombs, Steyer, “a stumbling lunatic”. The GOP continues to see no reason to blame trump for the state of the national political atmosphere. Yes, his mail bombing supporter is a nut. When the POTUS follows up on the actions of a violent nutty supporter by hurling undignified abuse at his target, who is the nut, who is doing the most damage?
Now, I know that there are those here who will think my question is unreasonable and go to the usual task of so whatting, and look what someone else saiding, rationalizing, etc. It will be a pathetic fail.
So recieving a fake mail bomb from someone hopped up on steriods, gives you moral authority ?
Greffenburg attempted to kill Hitler with a bomb – did that make Hilter into a hero ?
Did that make him immune from criticism ?
Are you incapable of logical thinking ?
Resorting to actual violence over political differences is wrong no matter who does it and no matter who is the target.
Being the target of political violence does NOT make one any more or less moral than before. It does NOT make one more or less subject to criticism than before.
Just as the assorted left threats directed at Trump do not make Trump more or less moral.
This cult of vitimhood that the left worships is a logical disaster.
“Who is doing the most damage ?” – YOU.
You are exactly like Trump – actually worse.
You hurl insults, but you have no interest in an honest debate about the issues.
Trump atleast addresses issues in between insults.
“Now, I know that there are those here who will think my question is unreasonable”
No you do not know what other people will think.
“and go to the usual task of so whatting, ”
No you do not know what others will do.
“and look what someone else saiding, rationalizing, etc. It will be a pathetic fail.”
If you were not a gigantic hypocrite it would be possible to have a discussion with you.
We could actually compare Trump’s rhetoric and that of Obama or Pelosi, or Waters, or …
We could debate standards for what is and is not acceptable and we could measure democrats and republics alike according to those standards.
But you are not interested in standards.
You are not interested in what is moral and what is not.
You are just interested in advantage over those you hate.
The oppinioons of hypocrits have no moral weight.
That is why the “whatting” and “rationalizing” .
Are Trump’s remarks offensive ? As offensive as every other politician who has said the same things.
Are Trump’s remarks the cause of violence ? To the same extent as those of every other politician who has said the same things.
As you stood silent or even applauded when Obama, or Clinton or Pelosi, or most of Hollywood insulted anyone who disagrees with them and offered overtly violent rhetoric,
you do not have any moral authority to condemn others.
I respect journalists like Glenn Greenwald – even though I often disagree with him.
Because his standards do not change with each administration.
He condemns Trump for the same things he condemned Obama and Bush.
That earns respect, they earns moral authority.
Hypocrisy earns you “whatever”.
Yes, the synagogue shooter hates trump for the reason that Trump’s nationalism isn’t explicitly racist. So, trump is blameless,right? Unfortunately, trump seizing on the caravan and spouting hisusual lies and conspiracy theories, while receiving the enthusiastic amplification of his message from his people at Fox news, all that right wing bullshit Did wind a lot of people up, including the shooter. Yes, the lies and conspiracy theories that our POTUS and his allies in the conservative media do create a climate of hysterical anger and fear. History will not forget this , sugar coat it, or Fox spin it.
Roby, I agree with you concerning Trumps rhetoric and prime time Fox. But watch MSNBC and CNN and try to listen with an open mind, the same as I do when I might hear pieces of Fox. All are stoking hate!
I dont agree with Malcolm X much, but do with this. Everyone should understand what he is saying.
“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”
― Malcolm X
So hearing those with TDS or those regurgitating verbatim Trump speech, the media has won control.Their control goes far further than guilt or innocence.
Ron, you and I at least try to escape from the war of the cults and their media helpers. I will not say that I have not been at all brainwashed, but at least I see the process and can try to escape it or over ride it. Unfortunately, whatever came before trump, today the issue is first of all and unavoidably the trump problem. Tomorrow, (I mean when he is gone) I have no illusions, the same war will continue in a different way. All the same I will welcome any dignified intelligent well meaning person if one of either party can follow after trump. Being a less divisive leader than trump will be allowed bar. We can all pray for the miracle of an actually decent and talented POTUS.
“All the same I will welcome any dignified intelligent well meaning person if one of either party can follow after trump.”
Roby, I hate to say, but there does not seem to be any Kennedy’s, Carter’s, Reagan’s or 41’s to fill the “dignified intelligent well meaning” person that shows any interest in running for that position in government.
One can hope that the democrats will look at moderate America and choose someone that will represent all of America, much the same as Reagan when he captured a large number of centrist democrats and women’s votes.
I have the hope that special interest and identity political nominations do not happen again and that nominations are a result of good policies.
1. We can not continue to be the worlds cop. We can not control what others do.
2.We can not continue to sell out to insurance companies disguised as “help” for middle and low income America at the expense of others by forcing some to buy a product that only increased profits for insurance companies.
3. We can not continue to support global climate initiatives that penalize American citizens and business, but allows the world largest polluters to continue to increase pollution output for another 15-20 years before they are required to begin reductions.
4. We can not continue to allow other countries to take advantage of our free trade policies, while closing their markets to our products.
5. And last, we can not continue to spend at a level that is eventually going to run the well dry and force massive disruptive changes.
If one looks at how Trump was created, all of these are special interest programs, except #1, that forces others to do something they would not normally do. Had most of these not happened and the direction if the democrat agenda not been force, Clinton would be president.
I could go on, but wont.
1) Agreed
2) Markets in everything.
3) There has never been a malthusian claim that has been true Global Warming is no exception. Ignore it. If it actually is a problem it will solve itself. If it is not, it will go away.
Based on current evidence I would bet the planet will be colder in 30 years than it is today.
4). Actually we can. The winner is always the country with the least trade barriers.
5). Then we will face massive distruptive changes. But we will survive.
Roby – you have not escaped any cult.
You are solidly in one.
Read your own arguments here.
You are unwilling to get into any real debate – facts, logic, reason.
Your entire position on everything is emotion and beleif, and your concept of debate is to spew fallacy, particularly insults and appeals to emotion.
Even in the post I am responding to – you presume that others are part of a cult.
Most anyone who disagrees with you is part of a cult.
Labeling someone as part of a cult, or racist, or mysoginist or a hater, ….
Means that you do not have to confront their arguments, with facts, logic reason.
Trump is pretty easy to dismantile – though neither you nor the media can manage, further as easy as he is – he is actually closer to correct, to facts, logic, reason than you are.
No you do NOT see the process. The only thing you need to do to escape the religion, the cults, is to actually think. To use your own mind, to be willing to face up tot he contradictions in your own values and beleifs.
If you look for them they are not hard to find. Though they are often hard to admit and hard to resolve.
The first thing I would suggest is consistency
This I can ignore “whatever came before” – is a logic trap that drowns you in your own hypocracy.
Of course we need to confront the problems of the moment – and the actual problems of the moment are pretty much NOTHING that the left is wigged out over.
Absolutely there is racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, and various other issues today.
But they are ALL miniscule compared to the past.
If you want actual racism – in the south up through the 50’s white men could rape black women with complete impunity. That continued even after the lynchings ended.
Please do not try to sell me the bunk that racism is worse than it has ever been. Or even particularly bad.
The most serious problems we face as a nation today is that our government is consuming almost half of what each of us produces, and not delivering value even a tiny fraction of that.
Worse still – it is consuming what we will produce in the future – because that is what national debt is – a promise to reduce our future standard of living in return for whatever we are wasting today.
Almost no one is confronting those problems.
Immigration is difficult – but it is not in principle complex.
We can choose to let everyone who wants to in, or choose any subset less than that.
But without other changes, the more we allow in the quicker we go bankrupt.
I really do not care much what choice you make regarding immigration..
But I care greatly that you do not again saddle us all with another of the long line of progressive boondoggles. that mortgage our future because you want your cake and to eat it to, and you are incapable of making hard choices, and worse still accuse any who will of being evil hateful racists.
There is no “trump problem” of consequence.
The media and the left have been trying hysterically to manufacture one since the election.
And have failed.
We are doing better thus far than the past 8 years.
The “most vulnerable among us” are particularly doing better.
Less than perfect – certainly, but not the sky is falling blather than comes from the media and the left.
We survived Clinton, we survived Bush, we survived Obama, we will survive Trump.
And we will likely be better off for it.
The sky is not falling the world is not ending.
Of course the same war will continue without Trump.
It will continue so long as you and those like you believe that you can infringe on the rights of others by force.
It will continue so long as you and those like you continue the politics of hate, of trying to silence disagreement.
“Of course the same war will continue without Trump.”
There is a new war brewing. Come the middle of January, a war will break out between Nancy Pelosi and the “new breed” house democrats. This will go along way in what direction the house goes with its agenda.
I suspect Pelosi and her mafia will maintain control. With that, Jarrold Nadler will most likely become Judiciary Chairman and begin imoeachment proceedings against Judge K. since there is more information to impeach K such as sexual assualt, lying to congress or even testimony concerning his years with Bush. Or, they could go aftef Trump.
Either way, their is one thing good to come out of this. Absolutely nothing of importance will come out of congress for two years. No budget, jo tax chages, no increases to s pending, nothing!
Come 2020, my crystal ball shows the democrats taking complete control and then “Katie bar the door”! Everything Trumpnhas done will be reversed and everty thing Obama did will be put back in place.
Assuming D’s take the house, which decreases in likelihood every day,
There absolutely will be a holy war in the democratic party.
True blue state D’s have campaigned on a war on Trump.
But D’s taking the house requires ALOT of D’s to get elected from Districts Trump won – even by double digits. And Democrats running in those districts are running totally different campaigns. They are running on cooperating with Trump, on bi-partisanship.
Both groups can not keep their promise.
Further if D;’s take the house everyone will be watching – and that means moderates, and independents. They will be expecting cooperation, not obstruction – and they will be expecting cooperation with Trump and a tempered version of his agenda.
My personal read of the tea leaves is that D’s come close but do not take the house.
While R’s win between 3-5 seats in the Senate.
Elections close the closer we get.
I think the polling errors in 2016 remain, and our polling is underestimating republicans.
Further Democrats have peaked. They are just not picking up more voters, they are not polling higher then they are now, and they may go down a bit.
Republicans have been uneven since the Kavanaugh hearing,
but uneven with a general upward trend.
I think a .5% shift right now would tip the house back to R’s.
But no matter who controls the house, they are likely to do so by the skin of their teeth.
There will be no extra votes.
It will be very hard to get anything done.
One of the other big deals will be if the D’s retake the house do they restore earmarks and other forms of pork ?
Two comments.
1. Come to NC. Race for house seat. District carried by Trump by sizable margin. District has about 10% more GOP voters. District won in 2016 by 13% margin. This year polls show dead even race. Democrat running on everything anti-Trump. Tax cut favored rich. Health insurance changes cut preexisting conditions, removed kids from insurance, increased premiums. So in a district 10% greater GOP registration, won by sizable Trump margin, candidate running against Trump and has good chance of winning.
2. Also, NC turnout in early voting surpassing early voting in 2016, with much greater democrat turnout based on surveys after voters leave polls.
Ron;
I do not know what will happen in this election.
The Tea Leaves are running all over the place.
Further I am not mostly fixated on this election.
Beyond the fact that D’s will attempt to end the inquiry into the corruption of the DOJ/FBI/CIA/State that occured under Obama which is the worst act of political corruption I am aware of in US history and can not be allowed to ever happen again.
And yet as is typical with drawn out investigations, criminal corruption becomes accepted and normal after a long enough period.
What I am most concerned about is the future.
Contra the narrative of the left we are NOT facing the end of the world.
Trump is not even close to a traditional conservative, and even if he were, even if every fear of the left magically came true – which is thoroughly impossible.
If abortion were returned to the states, if Obamacare was repealed, if gays were driven back into the closet, if …….
All that we would have is a return to the 60’s – NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.
Nor is it actually possible. We are not going backwards – at least not much.
Trump is actively trying to purge recent progressive failures, and those are numerous.
Conservatism is NEVER the threat that progressivism is.
Conservatism is STOP, with maybe a little “go back”.
Progressivism is “to boldly go where no one has gone before”.
As an individual philosophy progressivism is the future.
As a collective one it is blood death and destruction.
History is clear on this.
Throughout the left, the media, as well as many posters here we get this constant.
“Trump is the end of the world.”
It should be self evident that he is not.
We have heard the sky is falling for two years and yet the sky remains as solid as ever.
I have not been fully in agreement with any president in my life.
I have not been fully in disagreement with any president in my life.
I am unhappy about many things Trump. I was also unhappy about many things Obama, and Bush and Clinton and ….
The country survived all of them.
In all instances it thrived – but it thrived MORE under Reagan, and Clinton and thus far Trump, and less under Nixon and Ford, and Carter, and Bush I, and Bush II, and Obama.
You should read the stories by those Reporters like Salena Zito that actually bother to report on red states, and pink states and purple states – flyover country.
The country is not divided. Only a few blue states are having an aneurysm.
Most of the country is reasonably content.
Most of the country is at peace.
One reporter traveled the country and noted that outside the blue zone, politics is muted,
If you go into a bar or a home – the TV is not playing FOX or CNN, most people are not paying attention to the news. They are happy living their lives. They are not fighting with their neighbor. They do not even know what their neighbor beliefs about politics.
Most of the country does NOT have people protesting, marching, engaged in violence.
To the extent there is an “angry right” it is those who live in deep blue cities where there is no tolerance for descent.
The republican party will have some things to think about post Trump – but that is nothing new. Republicans actually are a bigger tent by far ideologically than democrats.
The left worships diversity of race, or gender, but in all other ways one must conform. Republicans have much greater diversity of oppinion.
Hopefully post Trump the GOP will move away from merchantilism, but we shall see.
There will be no republican civil war.
Democrats have a much more serious problem.
To win elections outside a few deep blue enclaves, they have to back away from the divisiveness, from the elitism, from the extreme leftism.
But that extremist left core owns the party.
Democrats are in serious danger of becoming a minor party – and but for this “fake” TDS likely already would have had to re-evaluate or die.
No Roby – you do not welcome intelligence.
When EVER have you been interested in an actual intelligent discussion about any topic ?
Frankly I could argue your side with more intelligence than you do.
Because you do not WANT intelligent discussion.
As you do with words all the time – you have redefined intelligence to mean – agrees with me.
Pick a topic – any topic, and persuade me. Use facts, logic, reason.
No ad hominem, no appeals to authority, no appeals to emotion, none of the myriads of other fallacies that are the only substance to the arguments you make.
Dignity, respect – those are things you earn. They are not things you are entitled to.
A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
Your existance, your feelings, your sense of entitlement do not create an obligation in others.
You want respect – earn it. You want dignity – act dignified.
Trump is not dignified. H/e is a near perfect mirror for the left, for the media, for you.
Frankly he is less frothing and foaming and full of hate than you are.
There is little that we need from government or POTUS.
Decency and talent might be nice, but they are not required.
Almost nothing is required.
The danger does not lie in what POTUS does not do, but it what POTUS does.
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical”
Adam Smith.
That is, a low bar. I used a nuclear option to lock myself out ofTNM and most news sites forever on my computer. So, only my cellphone remains as the devil’s plaything and I have been sending that to work with my wife most days. My cell is recognized by word press as Roby, rather than trump. I keep trying to escape this insanity but shit keeps happening.
Roby, stay with us, You offer a more moderate view on issues and help mellow the growing pissing contests that is growing here like all social media sites where logical debate cant happen due to personal attacks.
Roby;
It sounds like you have made wise choices avoiding news and the media – though apparently not completely.
I do not mean to be presumptuous – but I do not think your mental health is well served by following the media.
Disconnect and you can join the hundreds of millions in flyover country who understand the sky is not falling.
For me all this politics is an escape. It is mostly not a stressor. My stresses are not some fear that the country is going to hell. I am 60, I am past buying any of this malthusian garbage.
Yes, shit keeps happening. but the world is slowly getting better not worse.
Bad things do happen – but mostly not to each of us.
Your odds of getting killed by a mass shooter are small. Your odds of actually knowing a victim of one are small. But you will know dozens of people who go through both the good and the bad of ordinary lives.
You can work yourself to a lather over Trump – who most certainly will not ever directly and significantly impact you or most anyone you know, or you can go enjoy your life.
I would prefer a real open honest debate – facts logic reason, with you.
But I am not you. And as I said this is an escape from the real world for me.
For you it seems to be more harmful.
Rather than grump. The auto fill did that. I tried to use the nuclear option on my cell but site block does not have a password option in it’s cell version. So I need to send this thing away in my wife’s purse in the morning or I do this. I want to live somewhere without cell service, deep Alaska or something.
If you are really looking for advice on how to disconnect – get a flip phone.
“All are stoking hate!”
We part company here – everyone you disagree with is not spewing hate.
To the extent that actual hatred is being spewed today – it is by the left.
It is not hatred to enforce our laws.
It is not hatred to disagree over policies.
The left, the media and many here, pretend that any disagrement with them makes you racist. That is hatred.
Actually calling people Nazi’s who are not Nazi’s – that is hatred.
Malcolm X has a point – but ultimately he is wrong – particularly today.
Wer have a billion sources of information.
No one has the power to make the guilty innocent or to control the mind of the masses.
There is no such thing and the mind of the masses.
There are hundreds of millions of people who each have a mind of their own.
While many of them are not that good at using their minds, that mind is STILL theirs.
They are often wrong, they are often stupid. But they are rarely “tricked” enmasse.
The idea that there is a “the masses” which can be manipulated – is leftist pablum.
It is another of the ironic hypocracies of the left.
The left is for democracy – until they do not get their way, then “the masses” were deluded.
Evil Russians stole the election by deluding “the masses”
Therefore the elites must make choices for them.
I may not like the choices that others make – but so long as they are not free to use force against me, my dislike of their choices does not matter.
Respect individual liberty – rights, and “the masses” can screw up government most any way they please.
The fact that people do not make choices as I would like them to, does not mean they are under the control of some evil “other”
“Unfortunately, trump seizing on the caravan and spouting hisusual lies and conspiracy theories, while receiving the enthusiastic amplification of his message from his people at Fox news, all that right wing bullshit Did wind a lot of people up, including the shooter.”
There is nothing going on in mexico ? 10,000 people are not marching toward our border seeking to claim asylum because …. there countries are “shitholes” ?
Last I checked that was not a legitimate basis for asylum.
Is Soros funding them ? Someone is handing out cash – there is video of that.
Someone is providing for 10.000 people hundreds of miles from their homes.
Its not like Soros has not funded protest before.
What happens when they get to the US border ?
The optics of US boarder patrol agents – or the US military shooting these people are horrible.
If they get in – now who is going to feed them ? Shelter them ?
If they get in the next caravan will be 1M not 10,000.
I do not need a conspiracy theory to know they did not march a couple of thousand miles to politely turn around and come back.
I do not honestly know what “lies” trump or Fox are saying about this caravan.
Nor do I care much. Does it matter alot whether a few ISIS members have infiltrated them ? Or MS-13 ?
I would note that something like 2 orders of magnitude more people are killed in the US by MS-13 than in mass shootings each year.
There are several times more MS-13 members than “white supremicists”.
And Antifa is an order of magnitude larger than MS-13.
History will not forget this. But it will be little more than a comma in the history books.
Agreed, some modicum of civility and decorum would be nice. There are ways to say things to opponents that don’t have to be crude and crass.
“Agreed, some modicum of civility and decorum would be nice.”
Might be nice but it is not required.
Fortunately very little is actually required of a President.
It is what they do that is beyond what is required that creates the problems.
“There are ways to say things to opponents that don’t have to be crude and crass.”
There likely are – you have not managed so well here.
Shoudl we expect far better from the president ?
Regardless – tell me what your standard is ?
Should the president not talk of “enemies” – meaning those of different political views ?
Trump has done so – but so did Obama, where were you then ?
If you compare Trump’s rhetoric to that of the left – long preceding him,
he is tame in comparison.
One of the reasons for standards – is because it is all to easy to see your side in a conflict as always right and the other as wrong, until you use a set metric to make comparisons.
Any metric Trump fails – and that is not difficult to find, the left fails worse and first.
Set whatever standard you wish.
Then we will compare Trump, and Obama, and Clinton and …. to it.
Trump is loathed by the left – because he takes their attacks and gives them back.
Most republicans do not fight back, or they go on the defensive at these nonsensical accusations.
Ron, as far as staying with you I don’t seem to be able to stop myself. Jay and dduck say things that I mostly agree with, Dave and Priscilla make such an absurd defence of truly bad actions that they only make me wish I could actually join the left, and then there is your case, where you and I are like two brothers, one reluctantly sucked into the north side of the civil war and one sucked into the south side and we both see how stupid thisstate of affairs is, can’t escape it completely, but are still on good terms. It’s the most valuable thing I get here.
The best way I could use this site would be to have a filter against the right wing rationalizers and limit myself much more than I seem able to. The odds that I will completely quit seem low judging by history. But if I get up when my wife does I am sending this devil’s toy away for the day. That at least works!
“Dave and Priscilla make such an absurd defence of truly bad actions”
If that were true you would have no problem at all overcoming them with facts, logic and reason.
Much of what passes for argument on the internet – and even here, is obvious fallacies, primarily ad hominem, appeals to emotion and appeals to authority.
Much of what you, Jay, and DD argue – the left would have soundly rejected 50 years ago.
Re-read your own post. Is there an argument ?
You are full of judgement,
You pronounce that the arguments of others are absurd,
you rant of civil war,
You bemoan rationalization – which apparently means any counter argument you can not overcome.
Make your case.
It is crystal clear that whatever you believe is NOT self evident, at least half the country does not agree. That means you must actually make a persuasive argument. Unfortunately some people are persuaded by appeals to authority, or emotion or ad hominen.
But I am not, and historically fallacious appeals have only transient though sometimes bloody impact.
I would further suggest – GET OUT OF YOUR BUBBLE.
One of the great things about the current era is that some of the greatest living minds in any subject are readily available to all of us.
You can read the economic thought of the top economists in the world.
Go ahead – read Keynes, But read Hayek, Friedman, Coase and myriads of others.
On law, go read Randy Barnett, and Lawrence Tribe (but not on twitter)
Rather than listen to ill informed idiots right or left. Rather than listen to talking heads on the news who are no better, go out and read the best and the brightest.
Follow Sam Harris, and Eric Weisman, and Jordan Peterson and Johnathan Haidt.
And myriads of others who actually know their stuff.
While you are at it read the classical thinkers – read marx and hegel, but read Smith and Bastiat, and Theroux, and Mill,
Read Milton and Dante,
All the above and much much more is readily available to you for free.
Read it and you will find that much of what you call “rationalizing’ or absurd, is the core of western thought for the past 4 centuries.
What is absurd is that so many are so poorly educated that they are oblivious to it.
Dante has a quote for those who are sucked into the vortex of your self-serving redundant motor mouth ramblings:
“All hope abandon, ye who enter here.”
If you have read Dante’s trilogy – kudo’s.
Try
“Never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep…”
― John Milton, Paradise Lost
To whom it may concern, the official visa overstay statistics are questioned:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/06/06/uscis-uses-questionable-overstay-report-to-justify-policies/
What is clear is that the government is abysmal at any task you assign them.
That wise people would not presume they will do better in other areas.
I have no idea whose statistics are right. There is a 50% difference in the numbers between the Forbes article and the Pew one.
I have no special reason to doubt Warren and no reason to Trust DHS.
At the same time I have no special reason to Trust Warren either.
There is an awful lot of politics in all government statistics.
Thanks for the link Jay. So, if I read correctly, there are much fewer visa overstays. OK, I accept that, sorry I was wrong.
But, five of the 9/11 bombers were definitely overstays and never returned to their countries.
If I were a terrorism planner, I would not send my people in via the land “invasion”. Anyone dispute that, besides our professional naysayer.
Trump, that conniving lump of shit, is sending 5,000 US troops to the Mexican border this week, including helicopters and heavy equipment to intercept the arrival of two caravans of migrants walking toward the border. This is another cynical political ploy by President Craphead to stir up his base.
Here’s what the last of a few sensible voices from FOX has to say about it.
No one is coming to get them, it’s all hysteria? That would be very funny except for the slaughter of innocents in Pittsburgh.
He’s talking about the false flag propaganda caravan invasion scare, Roby – it has nothing to do with the Pittsburg shootings.
The pittsburg shooter justified his actions because he believed the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society was assisting the caravans. And because he beleived Trump was weak and in thral to the jews and would not do anything.
To the extent Trump has any responsibility for the pittsburg shooting it is because he was friendly to jews not because he was anti-sematic.
So yes the shooting and the caravans are tied together.
I do not know exactly what will happen with this caravan – and no one else does either.
Hopefully something will turn them arround before they try to cross.
Because if they do the probability of violence is very high.
Of course a confrontation will serve republicans.
Regardless, Trump was elected on a platform of securing our borders.
You can cast this however you want, There is no possibility Trump is allowing these people to just cross. It would be political suicide.
I would further note, that this is likely a lose lose politically for the left.
There is almost nothing that can happen here that will not increase republican votes.
Money, money. Where are the 5,000 troops going to live? Foxholes, pup tents, at houses of residents not too far from the border? Hmmm. And for an “invasion” aren’t there some other expenses like walls, ditches, lights, barbed wire, etc.
Wow, Trump could also build the Trump Border Hotel and rent rooms to the troops and the other invasion from FOX, MSNBC, CNN, etc.
Your tax dollars at work. LMAO
Word is there are 5000 military that are providing logistical support. Helo pilots, drown pilots, heavy personnel carrier drivers, etc etc. They are banned by law from interacting with migrants so their purpose is to relieve the border patrol to reposition manpower from the back lines to front lines. They are being positioned in states with a number of military bases, so most will be in barracks on those bases. Not hard to transport troops by helo as that is what helos are for. The media will say all the costs of this personnel will be cost to stop the immigrants, but beware, statistics don’t lie but liars can provide statistics. These are mostly active duty (already a cost) and the bases already are built (already a cost). The personnel already eat food and have healthcare (already a cost), so most is just cost moving from one operation to another. And the cost of operating the equipment would be operated somewhere else. Military hardware does not sit on the ground much or stationary much.
Ron, so preparing for the invasion, absent any helicopter or other transportation accidents, will not cost very much. Hmmmm. I think I will wait for the NYT and WPO to pounce on this with there own invasion of accountants and reporters.
It will cost more than Ron projects.
But you will never get the correct information.
First the military is notoriously bad at accounting.
Then you will never find the cost with the cost to keep these units in their current locations properly deducted.
Nor will your get the proper cost for delaying whatever they are doing.
NYT and WaPo will likely provide numbers. But they will have no meaning.
And that is only partly because of their bias.
I would also ask – why do you think reporters are good at accounting ?
I do not think that reporters are particularly good at anything that requires knowledge outside of the narrowest scope of journalism.
Pay attention.
He didnt say the reporters would be doing the accounting.
Reporters will consult accountants,, and report those findings.
Just as they consult lawyers to report on legal matters.
Helicopter and truck transportation costs are going to be astronomical.
It’s a waste of money and resources.
Bush andObama both sent the National Guard to the border, remember?
That was two exercises in futility.
Dumb dumb should have waited until the final destination of the caravan was determined, and then sent some troops to help prevent any of the caravan from illegally crossing the border.
There is NOTHING troops can do to stop the remainder of the walkers from requesting sanctuary.
This will be a mess no matter what Dispicable Donny does.
And That’s what happens when you have a nightmare disaster President.
What matters is not the words in some post.
It is what NYT and WaPo will actually do.
Go read about the Trump tax story by NYT – no accountants involved.
3 reporters locked themselves in a room with lots of financial records for half a year trying to make sense of them.
The “accountants” at NYT and WaPo handle NYT and WaPo’s finances. Not anything related to stories.
And all that ignores the fact that the DoD’s financial records are indecipherable.
They are required by law to account for every single dollar, yet over the course of a decade there is more than $1T is DoD spending that is not accounted for.
And I am not talking black budget. I am talking about just lost through fiscal incompetence.
I do not expect the reporters at NYT to be any better than those keeping records at DoD and I have zero expectation that either will bring in someone who actually knows what they are doing.
You can call it whatever you want – labels are free,
But the reality is pretty trivial.
Either we have meaningful immigration laws or we do not.
Throughout the world there are 750M people who would like to immigrate to the US.
If an additional 0.1% of those decide to try in one year – we are F’d.
Border Patrol, ICE, everything will collapse.
You will have two choices – actually defend the border with the military and GUNS and kill people crossing the border, or give up and let anyone who wants in.
There is a reason that Trump is doubling down here. There is a reason he is threatening birth right citizenship – even if I think he is wrong. There is a reason he is calling in the military.
If we lose control of this, it will get very bad very fast.
Purportedly there are other “caravans” forming in central and south america as we speak.
When Trump “separated” families – the number of families attempting to cross the border Droped dramatically. When Obama changed the policy on unaccompanied minors – suddenly 10’s of thousands of children were at our borders.
Incentives matter.
Further when the media starts showing 10,000 people camped at our door or worse camped just inside our borders, I can pretty much guarantee you that the majority of americans will not care how much the military is costing.
The national guard has already been in place for some time.
The guard gets called because they are not as constrained in what they can do as the actual military.
It is my understanding that the military is being used to provide support functions – that is what the guard was doing. So that they can move more border patrol and guardsmen to the actual border.
The announced destination of the caravan is Tiajuna – just accross from San diego
But forces are being deployed accross the border, so that border patrol staff and national guard can be moved where needed.
Further these people need to be inplace and trained on the job they are doing, and those they are replacing need to be in placed and trained for the new task they are doing long before the caravan arrives.
Yes this is likely to be expensive.
Ove course you could substantially reduce the costs by “building the wall”.
It is far easier to stop 10,000 people with $300 ladders and ropes from the Tiajauna Home Depot, who are trying to scale a 30′ wall then it is to stop 10,000 people crossing an open border wherever they please.
I have no idea what will actually happen here, but yes there are things that can be done.
The current handling of asylum seekers is based on a consent decree NOT law.
Trump could ignore the consent decree. It is likely that some court could grant an emergency Temporary injuction, but that probably could be appealed quickly – possibly directly to the supreme court.
Trump probably can not use troops to deal with the migrants inside US borders.
But he can use troops to stop the migrants inside Mexico – and he does not need either the courts or congresses permission to do so.
Unless the mexicans agree to it, I do not expect that. But Trump could make it in their interests to agree. And Mexico does not care alot – these are Not Mexicans.
Even the bar against using troops inside the US border, probably has enough wiggle room if Trump produces a national security finding.
Again lower courts will likely intervene, but they will also likely lose.
Fundimentally what can be done really depends on the courts, which are likely to interfere, and likely to either be overruled by appelate courts or overruled by SCOTUS rapidly.
Though even predicting the courts here is fraught with error.
It is one thing for a progressive judge to stick his neck out when we are fighting about family separation. It is entirely another when the results of the judges order could be a flood od hundreds of thousands crossing our border in a few weeks.
Why do you think reporters are even good at reporting? There are not many Bernsteins or Woodwards left these days. Truth is nit a required qualification.
I do not think reports are good at reporting.
When you see the numbers, just break them down between fixed cost and variable cost. The game has always been to report total cost for any operation by both left and right reporters. So if they reassign a staff sergeant from Fort Drum to the Chula Vista Customs and Border Patrol Station and that person is there for 2 months, is that $5,500 new cost? Same with Helo’s. If they fly training flights out of San Diego Air National Guard station and then use those flights in border patrol operations to meet the required flight hours for pilots, is that added cost?
Remember , figures dont lie, but liars can figure!
There are conflicting incentives accross the board that will affect reporting.
The units being deployed are likely deliberately trying to call every cost they can unique to these operations – because that increases their budget.
While Trump is likely to want them to call everything part of their ordinary costs.
Regardless, the cost of this is not going to be much of a red flag.
If this turns violent no one is going to care about the cost.
Can we get real – even Trump can not build motels in a week.
From NYT today: “But in June 2006, President George W. Bush spent $1.2 billion to deploy National Guard troops to border states to deal with drug violence over two years. The Government Accountability Office, which is the investigative arm of Congress, estimated it cost $120 per person per day for operations and maintenance costs during that deployment.
Had the 2006 operation lasted 45 days, it would have cost $28 million to support 5,200 troops — or $35 million in today’s dollars.”
Some say that there will be folks arriving at the border after Dec. 15th (the 45th day). Hmmm, guess we better extend to get those slow invaders.
I have decided there is nothing we will ever agree on. We spend days debating the USA sticking its nose into a Saudi reporter getting killed in Turkey. I argue we are not the worlds cop. I get push back that we need to be involved in the worlds problems whatever the cost.. Now we have our own issue, I argue the cost is worth defending the USA border and now “cost” becomes an issue.
By the way, when Obama sent NG units to the border for a few weeks in 2020, the estimated cost was $1.6B.
Like I also said, I think until congress stop f’ing around and just stops blocking anything Trump proposes, including immigration, we just need to let them into Califirnia where they are welcome and let them stay there. This group and any others coming behind them.
You do not have the magic decoder ring
Trump evil
Obama good
With that you can make everything else make sense
You do not need standards or consistancy
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/shots-fired-into-gop-campaign-office-in-florida/
“But in June 2006, President George W. Bush spent $1.2 billion to deploy National Guard troops to border states to deal with drug violence over two years.
Dont forget 2010 NG units to border.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/29/jeff-sessions-protesters-speech-946585
Yes, I mostly agree with this conservative assessment of the immigration conundrum.
It’s as though an asteroid storm is heading for Earth, and there are no answers sufficient to deal with it.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-happens-when-the-caravan-gets-here/
This just shows what an awful government run school system we have in the USA. While people learn about safe sex, we now have most media oulets going apoplectic over this issue. Do they not learn anything in school about government?
So, calm down! Reigh in the TDS. Trump is just running his diarrhitic mouth to fire up anti-immigrant followers and get them voting. He cant do it!
14th Amendment Section 1.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Once anyone, other than one with diplomatic immunity, is in the USA, you are covered by the jurisdiction of the USA and states. Take it to SCOTUS and Trump will have an anal hemmorrage when all the strict constitutionalist on SCOTUS upholds the words in the 14\th.
Ron,
I agree with your read of the 14th amendment. But this issue has come up on other blogs, and there are many arguments that this need not be applied to illegal immigrants.
One argument is that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the normal fashion. That is why the children of diplomats are not US citizens.
They are still bound to obey our laws, just as their diplomat parents.
Regardless, whether we can legally or constitutionally do this we should NOT do this.
I think there would be far more support for stopping them from crossing.
For closing some ports of entry.
For placing those who managed to cross in detention camps and deporting them immediately or with minimal process.
For using the military in some form to secure the borders.
Again I would remind everyone that GOVERNMENT IS FORCE.
This is not going to be resolved by polite words.
At the very least it will be settled by the credible rhetorical threat of force.
More likely it will be resolved by REAL FORCE. Possibly violence, maybe people getting killed.
The left has traditions of non-violent mass protest where the objective is to get government to respond with violence.
That worked for Ghandi, It worked for MLK.
It may work here. But there is a very strong possibility it will not.
Ghandi and MLK depended on the fact that it was NOT the bulk of the population that was threatened. It was entrenched power – remote British rules are priviledged whites in the south.
I am hard pressed to think of an instance where one mass movement butted head long into another. It is american poor minorities and blue collar workers who will be threatened by these caravans.
Those on the left do not grasp that in this instance Trump owns alot of THEIR BASE.
Yes, Trump is using this with respect tot he election.
But Trump did not form the caravans, and does not control the fact they are happening now.
As Scalia said “The constitution is not a suicide pact”.
It is not predictable what SCOTUS will do when they perceive an existential threat.
Remember the Court ruled against Koramatsu – repeatedly.
To be clear – the court SHOULD uphold birth right citizenship.
I am not sure they will.
Jay, FYI. You might find NYT worthy of paying for online access. Others do not. Please try using some other site for information sharing other than NYT or Wash. Post. They want payment to read their propaganda.
Ron, the NYT allows a number of free articles per month per browser.
To get around the pay wall you can switch to other browsers once you hit the limit. Or you can erase your browser cookie history, which can be a pain in the ass, which is why I switch browsers. At any rate, it works for me on the iPad.
And it seems I’m also able to read NYT articles/stories via links on Twitter without evoking the pay wall.
That’s me; I hit wrong post comment tab
I can understand the appeal of this.
But it has not worked in Europe. Their immigration problems are much worse than ours.
Absent birth right citizenship immigrants take forever to “assimilate” into the country.
In europe immigrants remain non-citizens for generations. They maintain an identiy independent of that of the country. They do not develop ties to Germany or France. They are typically hostile to the country of their birth.
There are many things where “the US is the only country in the world”.
Some of those – such as birth right citizenship are things that we should be proud of.
I also think this is a political mistake on Trump’s part.
While there are many conservatives and Trump supporters who want this,
I do not think this move is popular – even among Trump supporters.
At the very least it does not likely have plurality support of the country as a whole.
The approaching caravan will give Trump the justification for acting unilaterally.
But this is not the most effective and accepted move he can make.
There are many stepps he can take, most of which will result in near instant conflict with the courts. But will likely have broad popular support.
I think the vast majority of people can support absolutely stopping these caravans from crossing. the boarder. Hopefully without violence.
There are constraints on Trump’s use of the military within US borders.
But many would support playing fast and loose with those to stop this.
Arguably he could send the US military into Mexico to stop them just short of the borders.
The constraints on the US military exist ONLY inside the US. Outside the US Trump can direct them as he pleases – atleast for 90 days.
Trump might even be able to get Mexico to agree to allow US soldiers to work with Mexican forces to stop the caravans. Otherwise putting US soldiers in Mexico would be an act of war.
Alot of the information is interesting.
But the article misses some things.
Part of this is about our view of what america is.
But more important still are the practical issues.
Essentially open borders which is the defacto result if well allow mass immigration, will tax not merely our government but our society incredibly.
How are you going to feed, cloth educate, find jobs for, etc. a sudden mass influx of poor low skilled immigrants ?
This is not an impossible task. It is not even a difficult one. But it is impossible or atleast incredibly difficult within the constraints government currently imposes on us.
Further it will have an impact – a HUGE impact on current citizens – particularly poor citizens.
Youtube has video’s of single women making 50K a year bitching that they can not afford to take care of their families and are on food stamps and other assistance.
Existing low skill poor people will have to compete for work with low skill immigrants who will take far less and will think they are rich – and relatively they will be.
If there are no jobs for these people, those low crime rates skyrocket.
Those low crime rates likely skyrocket anyway. These people are coming from countries where violence and lawlessness are norms. They may be trying to escape that, but they can not help but bring alot of it with them.
The article notes that americans have no tolerance for family separation and many other policies that would help streamline the process of returning these people.
Faced with 10,000 at the border and caravans of hundreds of thousands forming, the tolerance of americans is likely to change rapidly.
Further there could rapidly be multiple legal and constitutional crisis that could seriously damage the country.
As noted Trump – and about half of americans are just not going to tolerate this.
Trump is already purportedly mulling an EO that ends birth right citizenship.
I understand the problem but that is still a mistake. Further the courts are likely to intervene.
But that is the least problem.
Trump could use national security powers to issue EO’s empowering the military to stop this, and/or to expedite hearings or just automatically deport those caught crossing the border.
Almost certainly that would provoke a response from the courts.
That would provoke anger from the population.
The conflict we see now would be tame.
Real Racism not the fake stuff the left bitches about, will almost certainly emerge.
Not “white supremist” racism. But the racism of poor and often minority americans whose livelyhood is threatened by even poorer immigrants.
There are plenty of answers. They are just not pleasant and they are going to tear us apart even more.
Well we are over 1000 comments and my hand held device is taking forever to access, so now I am on the desk top and its only taking a minute or two to load this site. Guess I will have to hold off commenting much more until Rick finds time to set up another thread. But wanted to share this as this coming from USA Today is a surprise. Gannett is not normally known for its moderate stories.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/29/donald-trump-robert-bowers-racist-anti-semitic-synagogue-shooting-column/1800755002/?fbclid=IwAR3h3QVEOl1ZeVtUxf07aHU4fK-3S0tiY8xNVWGDPdKAUi59igJgRldFeOY
Once again the site is clogged and confusing to navigate because of its enormous pile of words. Some call it a caravan of words while some say invasion. Either way, we could use another new thread. May I suggest that it could be just a title subject, and we will fill in with cogent and original thinking and opinions.
Here are some off the cuff titles from the progressive duck mind:
Does having a touch of American Indian blood make you smarter. Do progressives think electronic devices for their children that are over 1-year old will get them into better private schools, or os paying their way in with cash better. When will we get a presidential campaign that lasts less than three years. And, quack, quack, quack. 🙂
anyone know how we can contact Rick to post a sentence on a new thread?
This is shown as his email address on the About Rick tab:
rickbayan at verizon dot net
Which I guess means rickbayan@verizon.net
“This will be a mess no matter what Dispicable Donny does.
And That’s what happens when you have a nightmare disaster President.”
How exactly is this mess Trump’s fault ?
Is Trump paying these people ?
Once again the absolute stupidity of the left.
Trump has ZERO to do with creating this problem.
To the extent the problem is not natural and/or economic it is the consequence of the left incentivizing it. These people are coming because they beleive they have a better than ordinary chance of succeeding and getting in.
That beleif is likely false. There are probably lots of false rumours flying in the caravans.
But even false rumors that are beleived by masses usually have some basis. The beleif that the courts or the left is going to let them in.
Trump did not create that impression – those on the left and the progressive courts did.
I do not know what Trump is going to do.
But this is an area where he has very broad popular support.
I have said many times that Obamacare was a give away to insurance companies. Most people argue that it is not because ” legislation requires that 85% of premiums have to be used for medical payments”.
But what most people overlook is the requirement that almost everyone must have insurance and that insurance had to cover many services that many would not use. For instance, my son, single, lives in home that was grand parents, no mortgage, high 5 digit income, could buy catastrophic insurance after huge deductible, had to buy insurance with expensive premium through employer to avoid fine. Doesnt have medical cost. His premium went directly to insurance company bottom line. Remember, this was not Obamacare policy that had 85% payout requirement.
So in 2010, right around the time Obamacare was beginnng Aetna had quarterly profits of around $400 million. Today, Aetna reported quarterly profits of $1B. Some from growth in Medicare Advantage plans, but also much from other subscibers. And this is being repeated by UHC , the Blues and other insurance companies.
I say it again and Jay will disagree. Many people got screwed by this law and no one other than the insurance companies benefitted. Those that got Obamacare coverage paid the cost plus 15% for their coverage. Many had to buy insurance that only doubled or tripled insurance company profits like my son.
But that is what both the Pelosi/Shumer led democrats and the McConnell led GOP do, screw the people for the benefit of the chosen few. Its just the democrats can sugar coat their actions and make believers out of those screwed the most much better than the GOP does when they do the same.
There is only one way to drive prices down and value up of anything
Free markets
Nothing else has ever worked
Obamacare was never designed to drive prices down. It was to get more people covered by insurance, increase insurance profits and to begin the process to have one plan nationally sold by insurance companies that would cover a region of the nation. IE UHC the west, Aetna Southeast etc etc. That would get to the one payer the left wanted and also get the insurance companies supporting the initiative.
And when Nancy takes control of the house, you can bet they will pass legislation to reverse everything Trump has done to gut Obamacare and make choice available again.
If not down then up
Pelosi cAn not accomplish anything aside from gridlock which I have little problem with
Any laws passed remain passed
Eve with the house and senate
Democrats can not override a veto
Any trump EOs will remain at least until 2020
The issue I complain about is people buying thus cool aide. And no one taking the time to report actual facts, including the idiots running the GOP party other than talking points. When the “ass” was adopted as the mascot of the GOP, it was the perfect choice.
The gop mascot is an elephant
The ass is democrats
OOPs, Well their all asses in my mind.
“The now-famous Democratic donkey was first associated with Democrat Andrew Jackson’s 1828 presidential campaign. His opponents called him a jackass (a donkey), and Jackson decided to use the image of the strong-willed animal on his campaign posters. Later, cartoonist Thomas Nast used the Democratic donkey in newspaper cartoons and made the symbol famous.”
Keep this in mind: though the two party names have stayed the same for nearly 200 years, the values, beliefs, ideologies of both have shifted, blurred, flip-flopped back and forth many times. The only consistency is inconsistency.
In this election cycle, Republican equals Trumpism.
Democrat equals Non Trumpism.
If you’re dumb enough not to voteStraight Democratic, you’re too dumb to vote.
“Columnist Max Boot — a former Republican — writes in the Washington Post that there’s one thing to do if voters are as “sick and tired” as he is of the current political environment: “Vote against all Republicans.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/sick-and-tired-of-trump-heres-what-to-do/2018/10/31/72d9021e-dd26-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html
““Columnist Max Boot — a former Republican — writes in the Washington Post that there’s one thing to do if voters are as “sick and tired” as he is of the current political environment: “Vote against all Republicans.””
Jay sorry but I can’t do this. I have a mind of my own and vote for the person I believe can do the best job for the country. If this happens to be a democrat, republican or libertarian, so be it.
Right now the democrats would march us lock step right back into the socialist programs like Obamacare that they sold the country out to the insurance companies by forcing people to buy plans they will never use, ie single men buying obstetrical coverage They would reverse all the decisions Trump has made by getting us out of unfair trade agreements as well as drastically unfair climate agreements where China and India can continue to INCREASE their level of pollutants until the late 2030’s and then start cutting, getting back to 2015 levels much later , like 2060 or 2070, while we have to cut ours now. And many other idiotic programs that only screw Americans would be passed such as medicare (actually Medicaid) for all..
Right now, other than Trumps mouth, that can not enact anything, the country is heading in the right direction for the most part.
Oh yes, those on the left will regurgitate MSNBC’s talking points and talk about how violence is caused by Trump and his followers, but they won’t say anything about those on the left that perpetuate the same. They really forget fast about issues like the shooting of Republicans at a congressional ball game. And lets not forget what CNN’s Lemon, who is black, said about Americas greatest terrorist threat is white men. I doubt many on the left will call that a racist remark, but had a white guy said Americas greatest terrorist threat is a black man, ALL HELL WOULD HAVE BROKEN OUT.
So give me Joe Manchin or someone close to his political persuasion, and I most likely would vote for him in a heart beat. Run someone like Warren, Clinton, Sanders, Ellison, Booker and the likes and I can not run fast enough from their socialist government agenda.
Now on the border issues, I agree with democrats at this time that the border should be open and anyone comes in, as the laws that are on the books are not being enforced. Politicians are picking and choosing which ones to enforce and that should not happen.
last, some interesting reading.
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/author-14th-amendment-removes-all-doubt-what-persons-are-or-are-not-citizens?fbclid=IwAR0w5t9NUKHkRMg6QK4GmBm8JSfxOjbkctRvga9C4jWPGSxOigWPwkSv6rg#utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_campaign=b-14thAmendAuthorItRemovesAllDoubtReCitizenship
Correct on the shifting identities of the parties
Beyond that each and every contest is different
To the limited extent we can generalize
Republican = conservative
Democrat = progressive
Though if that were accurate no one should ever vote Democrat
But it is not that simple
Individual races are about specific candidates
And like 2016
Sometimes both choices are bad
I have already voted
I voted for Democrats
Republicans
And libertarians
Depending on specific people and races
You keep citing max boot
He is a neo con
Think dick Cheney and hillary Clinton
Is that really what you want to associate yourself with ?
What is “trump is” ?
I support staying out of foreign conflicts were we have no serious interest at stake
Trump meddles more than he promised and more than I want but less than any president since Reagan and less than any 2016 candidate except rand paul
I support free trade
Not trump Ian mercantilism
Not clintoian corporatist trade deals
We still have to see how trump plays out on trade but thus far the end results have been freer trade
Trump has reversed our relationships with Saudi Arabia and Iran
Neither are good guys
We should likely disassociate with both
But Iran is more of an enemy than as
No has a long way to go
But it is a start
Both parties are wrong on immigration
But democrats could resolve the issue any time in the last 10 years that 5hey wanted
Not perfectly – that is not happening
D’s Seen
M to think leaving immigration unresolved is p9litically good for them
I think that is a huge mistake
We will see
Trump has simplified and cut taxes
Not perfectly but well
I oppose his military increases
I support every spending cut he has made
There should be more much more
I fully support his deregulatory efforts
I fully support his ending obama’s Unconstitutional EOs
Even when I think congress should legislate to match
One of the problems both parties are having is that pace administered by trump is becoming more popular it is also not failing as bad
Essentially trump has made most of ppl a optional and voluntary
And that is working better
Trump has also ended the Obama apology tour
While trumps embrace of the term nationalism is disconcerting
His embrace of the concept of American exceptionalism is welcome
You should not be president if you do not beleive in American exceptionalism
Further despite the negative relationship with the left and the press trump has brought optimism back to the nation
We are past the nearly Cartesian malaise of Obama and that is good
The economy is improving particularly for minorities and the working class
Oddly trump is an incredible working class president
In fact the class relationships of the parties are inverting
For Democrats were the populist working class party while republicans were the party of the elites
Today democrats are increasingly 5he party of elites while trump is is making the gop the working class party
Despite the best efforts of the left and media neither trump nor republicans are the party of hate
Today’s primary source of hate is from the left
Trump is not doing a good job of messaging that he is not racist and his misogyny does not help
Despite the messaging failure the facts are that it is the left that is becoming increasingly hateful, racist, anti-Semitic
It is practically laughable that the party that has fawned over Iran been hostile to Israel
Teetered on anti-semitisn in dealing with many trump appointees
Maligned Kushner and so much more wants to blame trump for bowers
If I must choose trump Obama or Clinton
I will hold my nose and pick trump
And it is not even close
Ford has a go fund me campaign with over $1m which she is drawing from
Despite having all of her expenses covered by someone
Either the sic or pro bono lawyers
Kavanaugh has a699k go fund me campaign which he refuses to accept
So Ford outdid Brett. So what. I don’t care.
I know you do not care
You lack any discernment
Know it is not about who raised the most
It is about integrity
Ford was substantially more wealthy that Kavanaugh at the start
Though neither is hurting
Ford had no expenses of any consequence in making her accusations
Her legal fees were provided pro bono
Her travel and security was covered by the sac
Yet she has a 1m go fund me account that she can do with as she pleases
And she intends to
In addition there are book and movie deals in the offing
As well as speaking engagements
Kavanaugh turned down 600 k raised for his costs without his permission
His reward – a low six figure a year federal job
That he would have gotten anyway
Maybe ford was not in this for the money
We will never know
She was truthful when she testified no one paid her
But they have now
We tend not to like bought and paid for testimony
Memory refreshment:
Kavanaugh is a deceptive prevaricator. Who refused to answer direct questions under oath.
Ford isn’t a SCOTUS JUDGE.
Kavanaugh is a phononous balonus.
You are a (fill in the blank Ducky).
Memory refreshment
Ad himinem is not truth
Uttering an insult is not speaking truth
We have been over Kavanaugh nauseatingly
There is no misrepresentation
I would suggest reading the article by the Georgetown prep provost
Who noted the picture painted by the left of Georgetown prep was not true EVER
That neither Kavanaugh nor other students acted as accused
I would note that Kavanaugh graduated at the top of his class
Graduated cum pause from Yale graduated from Yale law and clerked for justice Kennedy
You do not manage this if you are getting blackout drunk
Currently there is a stink because of rape allegations against meuller
Mueller has demanded an fbi investigation of the lawyers behind his accuser
There does not appear to be any more to the mueller accusation than the accusations against Kavanaugh
Except that the mueller accusation is about events 10 not 35 years ago
Meuller has responded that he passed an fbi background check before this allegation
That alone refutes the allegation
Kavanaugh passed 6 fbi background checks
Including the most rigorous we do
For those with access to nuclear codes
No jay
There is no credible challenge to kavanaugh’s integrity
Those who have persuaded themselves otherwise
Are engaged in wishful thinking
You beleive claims against those you do not like because you want to
Because you decided they were evil first and therefore the allegations must be true
That is what john Adam referred to as the rule of man
What labeling Beria meant when he said find me the man I will find you the crime
The rule of law means weighing actual evidence
It means requiring that accusations meet at least a more likely than not standard of proof
You clearly can not do that
As I have mentioned here
Use whatever standards you want to “get” trump
Stick to those standards whatever they are and you get half the left
Additional information concerning my comment about health insurance and being a sell out to insurance companies. In 2017, Kaiser did a study.
Findings:
Average single insurance yearly premium for coverage paid by a combination of employee/employer $6,670 .
Study found that an estimated 1,000,000 people did not want coverage. These were not the ones that could not afford it, it was the ones that basically wanted to self fund medical cost.
Easy math. $6,670,000,000 additional income for insurance companies that did not go into the 80% payout requirement of the ACA.
Anyone wonder why insurance company profits have skyrocketed since the ACA went into effect and why they fight against Trump changes?
Conservatives care told to open our eyes as to what is happening. The same advice can be given to those that blindly follow Pelosi and her minions who force people to buy something they do jot want.
dhlii: on your assessments of Trump, and holding your nose: when something smells bad you should address the cause of the foul odor, not ignore and embrace it, because the smell wipes off on you.
You remind me of Cotton Mather. An educated prolific politically influential Puritan minister, author, and pamphleteer, history has judged him as a defective intellect for abysmal poor judgement. Adept at constructing sophisticated logical arguments, they nevertheless led to absurd conclusions, based as they were, on superstitious opinions.
Your political opinions and judgements are also based on false political, economic, and social superstitions. Arguing with your libertarian based suppositions is as fruitless as arguing with Mather of the non-existence of witches and devils; his belief in their existence was certain, and he argued with certainty they were real his entire life. As you argue with certainty your judgements are sound. But the sound is as hollow as a half-empty drum.
Nothing to worry about with the carravans
https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2018/10/100-isis-terrorists-caught-in-guatemala-as-central-american-caravan-heads-to-u-s/
Dave, you might want to check this further. The ISIS terrorists were arrested and deported from Guatamala before the caravan made it out of Honduras.
Ron that does not matter
First it confirms Trumps claims
Next where there are 100 there can be 200
The issue is whether concern is justified
Not whether it can be proven one way or the other
Dave, I agree with you more than I disagree and disagree with Jay’s TDS most of the time. But in this case, I am leaning more to Jay.
But “Ron that does not matter
First it confirms Trumps claims”
It does matter. He is lying. He is making crap up. He is doing no good for the GOP in swing districts where his support is weak. Most likely will cause the house to flip when GOP loses close swing districts.
If you are in a bank a week after a bank robbery, that does not mean you are a robber nor are all the other people that came into the bank after the robbery part of the roberry. Just as catching 100 ISIS members in Guatamala a week or so before the caravan left does not mean the caravan is full of terrorist.
Yes, there could be bad guys in the caravan, just as there can be bad guys anywhere.
But it is time for Pelosi/Shumer/Warren/Clinton et al to stop making immigration a political hot potato, just as its time for Trump to stop making outlandish remarks and fix the immigration policies of the country.
If they can not do that, then LET THEM IN and let California, a sanctuary state, welcome them in and let them roam California freely. Going many other places, they will eventually get caught and deported. Not so in California unless they do other criminal acts.
A major part of tds
And the “lie” claims
Is an attempt to silence by demanding perfection
I beleive I posted links to Mexican sites noting that these caravans have a significant number of convicted criminals
DHS is now cofirming significant foreign presence specifically mid eastern
Put simply trump is not lying
At mos he is spinning
Even the spin does not compare to Benghazi was a spontaneous act
Mostly the left and the press do not like trumps style
He talks in broad generalities and usually in plebeian language
That is not accurately communicating
But it is not lying either
Obama did much the same only with erudite language
He was no more accurate
Frankly Obama lied more
He made knowingly false statements of matters of importance to those listening who relied on them in their own actions
That is lying
Spats over crowd sizes is of small consequence
Your analogy is flawed
The arrest of one bank robber tells you nothing about future robberies
The arrest of one terrorist increases the likelihood there are more
Which btw dhs has confirmed
Further if trump claim from out of the blue that the caravan contained terorists – something most would think as unlikely
The burden of proof is with him
But I after 100 terrorists are arrested in the same country
The burden shifts to those accusing trump of lying
In most circumstances when you accuse someone the burden of proof is on you
One of the issues is that we tend reasonably not to beleive those who have lied a lot in the past
Trump has said things and been accused of lying
Those past accusations are relevant to current credibility
We differ left/right of those past accusations
Trump said his campaign was wire tapped
It was
Trump said it was spied on
It was
Trump made a lot of campaign promises
He has kept them
Not could be
Are
Mexican police have been pelted with rocks
Had Molotov cocktails tossed at them
And been shot at
Also there are significant numbers of convicted criminals
Btw none of this should surprise
Ms-13 used Obama’s policy change for unaccompanied minors to move hundreds of new soldiers into the country
Once in ca
They can go anywhere
Immigration generally and the caravans are a losing issue for democrats
“Immigration generally and the caravans are a losing issue for democrats”
We’ll see Nov 6th after returns from house surburban swing districts. The message all election cycle has been immigration. Hardly anything positive on tax reform, economic growth, wage rate increases, job growth and the elimination of forcing people to purchase insurance they may not want or need. If immigration is a winning issue, the GOP will maintain control. If they misread the tea.leaves, then Maxine Waters will be heading the house finance committee.
Something like 80% of Americans would give trump what he wants on immigration
While some issues like family separation are weak for trump
Generally people either want the wall or at least do not vigorously oppose
They want fewer illegal immigrants
But they do not want the deportations needed to get them
We can deal better emotionally with stopping them at the border than removing them once they are here
The caravan could prove interesting
People will likely support everything short of shooting them to stop them
And possibly even that if they turn violent
Even the courts blocking trumps efforts to deal with them serves trump and republicans
Rip numbers are weird and inconsistent
Generally the goop had a very bad week
The bomber and shooter hurt
Despite the fact that dems are much more anti Semitic at the moment
But dems had a bad week too
Just not as bad as the gop
But gop numbers are recovering
Dems are not
But as you say we will see soon
In the short run dems taking the house would be bad particularly for trump
In the long run it would be bad for dems
The Democratic Party is in abysmal shape at the moment
There are no more giveaways that people actually want
Trump has taken blue collar whites an many blue collar dems
And they are not likely returning
Dems stand for nothing beyond outrage
And that will burn out
I think Maxine waters heading the finance committee would be great for the gop
I’d dems win the house it will be because the ran a class of excellent moderates in the pink districts people like Connor lamb
But if dems gain control those will not be the leadership and face of the party
Waters
Schaffer’s
Pelosi
Cummings
And other older very left dems from deep blue districts will have power
The moderates will be expected to deliver moderation
Or they will be gone in 2020
Further if dems control the house republicans do not have to accomplish anything
“Immigration generally and the caravans are a losing issue for democrats”
We’ll see Nov 6th after returns from house surburban swing districts. The message all election cycle has been immigration. Hardly anything positive on tax reform, economic growth, wage rate increases, job growth and the elimination of forcing people to purchase insuranceImmigration generally and the caravans are a losing issue for democrats they may not want or need. If immigration is a winning issue, the GOP will maintain control. If they misread the tea.leaves, then Maxine Waters will be heading the house finance committee.
Let’s hear the rationalizations for this from Apologists for President DickHead
I keep telling you over and over government is force
All law is ultimately enforced by men with guns prepared to use them
Immigration law
Recycling law
Law on the sale of loose cigarettes
If you are prepared to disobey a law not matter what
And those enforcing the law have no other effective means to enforce it they will kill you
As they did Eric gardener
There are thousands of people in this mob
They have busted through Mexican police barriers
They have thrown rocks and Molotov cocktails at police
There is credible evidence they have fired guns at Mexican police
Ms-13 near doubled in size in a few months when Obama was letting unaccompanied children through
I expect trump to demand that every peaceful alternative be tried
But ultimately if they try to force the border and no other means are available guns will get used
This is not the civil rights movement
Much of the country is not going to accept open borders
If this group gets through the next will be 100,000 or more much more
Most of us understand that
Do you
Ignore the crt. Talking head and listen to Christine amanpour interview of john Stewart
Separately cnn’s CEO confirmed the same thing
They are all trump all the time because even though their viewers say that is not what they want ratings and revenue shoot up when they focus on trump and tank when they do not
Trump is a fucking idiot.
Those who continue to support him are fucking idiots by default.
https://twitter.com/martin_dempsey/status/1058141515782983680?s=21
Their orders will be to stop the caravan from crossing
How they do so will be up to the commanders at the scene
But they will be authorized to use force if needed
All law rests on the willingness of government to use deadly force
Every single law
Even tiny ones
Even small regulations
There is no you can get away with littering if the only way to stop you is deadly force
Jay, you asked me to fill in a blank for dhlli, and it occurred to me that will just feed his word machine, so instead I will name him after Audrey II, the plant that feeds and grows on human flesh and blood. Well the TNM version, Audrey III, feeds and grows on our words which invariably get twisted into his distorted outlook and defense of Trump’s actions and words.
Little Shop Of Horrors was a great movie, Audrey III not so great.
dduck- I prefer the old days to present days, and as a born and raised ex-New Yorker, frequently find solace at this site, as you may too…
https://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/author/wildnewyork/
Ad hominem as art is still ad hominem
It is not argument
But why would I expect you to address the issues today
They never mattered to you before
Project veritable has recently caught Gilliam sienna and mccaskill telling what they thought were sympathetic journalists that they are lying in their campaign promises
Say whatever you want about Pv they still went in representing themselves as journalists
And they have video
So if trumps “lies” are so bad why aren’t these candidates ?
or do you just have different standards for right and left ?
A recent poll has trump’s approval rating well above any other significant politician
Above warren
Above Schumer
Above pelosi
And above the media
People beleive as you do that Trump lies
But much less than the media
Jay, thanks for the site. One of my all time American novels is Time and Again, Finney
The linked add is being excoriated by the press as racist
It is definitely a negaitive add
But is it racist ?
And if so why ?
I am tired of this garbage that words mean whatever the left wishes for the moment
Or what of this one ?
Rabbi Meyers gave this interview to cnn and then started getting death threats
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/01/politics/rabbi-jeffrey-myers-meeting-donald-trump-cnntv/index.html
These are the people we want ?
https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/migrants-assault-on-barrier-leaves-one-dead/
Trump is challenging birth right citizenship
However you feel
It requires a strained reading of the constitution that’ no originality could endorse to support trump on this
To git rid of birth right citizenship you would have to amend the constitution
Btw this was decided by scotus over a century ago
If this is Ark v United States it really does not clarify current issues. Ark was a Chinese family living in the United States legally. These people are in the United States illegally. Thats what SCOTUS is for, clarifying what they believe the authors of the amendment meant when defining “jurisdiction of the United States”.
To democrats, there is not a legal/illegal issue here. If there were, the elected officials in the party would not be passing laws that go against the national laws by creating sanctuary cities.
Just open the borders and let them in. California can afford to house them. The 1000 already at the border from earlier caravan, the 5000 or so coming and whatever number is gathering in Honduras now for the next caravan. California provides sanctuary status to these individuals, so they will be free to go where they want without fear of capture. Unlike NC where they get caught and held for CMS to deport.
The issue is not whether they were here legally
For most of us history there was no legal vs illegal
The question is whether they were subject to us jurisdiction
Many capable legal scholars right and left have addressed this
There is no credible challenge to birth right citizenship without amending the constitution
It is likely if this goes to scotus the decision will be 9_0
The alternative would have far broader effects than illegal immigrants
Further from a practice perspective it woul put us in the same idiotic position as Europe
If you do not grant citizenship to those born here you create tens of millions of very hostile people
If you want to do something possible limit the ability to bring family members
That probably only requires a law change
Or maybe that can be done by eo
Though based on the travel ban eo decision you are not going to prevent immediate family by eo
Proper originality does not rest on the intent of the authors but the understanding of the citizenry at the time of ratification
He’s talking about Trumpn; and about you Trump apologists who don’t give a shit about his shit.
Every day the media makes shit up
Every day democrats make shit up
As noted in another post recent pv releases have 3major democratic candidates saying they are lying to get elected
Just as Obama did about Benghazi
Is that less serious than what’re ever you are bothered by trump ?
Please tell me what has trump said that matches
Benghazi was a spontaneous uprising
Oe
If you like your doctor you can keep them?
If you are going to play the liar card
You had better have done so when Democrats told worse lies
Rick,
“…Part 1: Finding Common Ground” is reasonable. Your list contains strategy and tactics. Yes, those are some of the important approaches we could take, and tasks we could accomplish.
Nay-sayers, even very intelligent ones, think in terms of what is (the present) and what has been (the past) and are not adept at seeing ahead of time what can be.
Nay-sayers stated with absolute certainty of course that humans would never fly through the air. Early attempts at flight were mocked as foolishness. Nay-sayers could not “see” propeller planes or commercial jet airliners or space shuttles because they could only see what had been and what was. Have you seen the latest adrenalin junkies in those flying suits? Scary to me, but they are flying without airplanes!
How about those Xerox executives who saw an early version of a Windows interface with computer mouse and concluded that regular folks won’t use computers. They just couldn’t see something that would become so ubiquitous! Those execs might have been highly intelligent, might have been decent folks, but they just couldn’t see what didn’t yet exist.
I believe that our current political divide and escalating hatred will not be solved politically. The solutions will be more of a social change, but even the needed social change can’t occur without fundamental changes in the way we humans think and communicate. The ideas underlying the rhetoric being flung back and forth in current political exchanges are, for the most part, far too simple, narrow, and blunt for complex situations and nuanced problems.
As with complex surgery, or building a modern skyscraper or suspension bridge, or writing a novel that flows nicely, we need to do MANY things carefully and correctly to solve our socio-political issues, and yet so many people are knee-jerk reacting with finger-pointing and ridiculously over-simplified silver-bullet solutions.
You see it, Rick. Even though what you write doesn’t immediately change entrenched opinions, you are planting seeds! You do nice work!
“Nay sayers would say”
We are each free as individuals to take risks to try new things to pursue solutions that others claim can not work
We are free to choose to do so in concert with other like minded.
We are not free to experiment with society through force – government
Government may not attempt to defy history
To do what has never worked past or present
Or even to try what has never been tried
There is a reason libertarians commonly find uneasy alignment with conservatives
We can and many of us should be progressive in our own lives
We must be conservative when force will be used
there is only on change needed to moderate our life’s
Recognition that we can not impose our will on others through force
Your own space is the only safe space you are entitled to
you are free to insult others to your hearts content
But even being correct in your insults does not permit you to use force
You may call someone a hateful hating hater
You may be right
But you accusation does not justify the use of force
There ya go again, with your double standard double talking bullshitting.
Or have you already forgotten the justification/rationalization for governmental deadly force you approved hours ago:
“All law rests on the willingness of government to use deadly force
Every single law
Even tiny ones
Even small regulations”
Either you have standards or you do not
You have been unwilling to offer any therefore it is reasonable to assume you do not
Without standards you opinion has little meaning
It is at most a reflection of you emotion or ideology
My remarks on the use of deadly force are an observation of fact not a rationalization, justification, or opinion
Most laws and regulations do not meet the requirements to use deadly force
Those laws should never have been passed
But all laws whether they should exist or not are ultimately enforced with deadly force
If government will not enforce the law with deadly force
That law and possibly all law might as well not exist
Law is nothing more than a description of when deadly force by government is allowed
If you do not beleive some law should be enforced by deadly force if necessary
Then repeal the law
https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/02/sarah-lawrence-professor-samuel-abrams
I am not a ban on fan
Nor do I agree with some of what he said in this debate
Further he and frum were talking past each other much of the time
75% of bannon’seconomic nationalism is exactly the same as frum’s classical liberalism
What Frum made clear is exactly why ban on destroyed him
Frum accused trump/ban on of the politics a fear & hate
What is clear is that the fear and hate are from the left and their apologists
one group tried to silence this event
The same group that seeks to silence all debate
Not trump
But the left
The font of political violence today is from the left
Frum tried to blame savor and bower on trump
Demented people are going to do evil
They will always find some ideology to justify their actions
If their was no trump savoc would have picked something else
But those shutting down speakers
Silencing opposition
Are not steroid hopped people with mental health issues
They are people who beleive first
And then justify violence with belief
I think ban on is wrong about populism
But he is absolutely right about the elites
I would further note as I have said repeatedly
The shift that has divided the country is a LEFT shift
The data supports that
It started in 2008
The tea party is a slight left shift of the gop
Trump is a bigger left shift of the gop
But despite the right moving left the gap has grown
Those on the left have moved far to the left
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poq5ZrAc7pk&feature=share
“The man who shot dead two women at a yoga studio in Tallahassee before killing himself was a far-right extremist and self-proclaimed misogynist who railed against women, black people, and immigrants in a series of online videos and songs, BuzzFeed reports.”
Well, at least he didn’t pour coffee on his victims like those damn leftists, right Dave…
Absolutely
We should be far more concerned with placing political blame for the behavior of people with mental health issues who are going to do evil things no matter what an will always find some justification
Left, right, space aliens
Than myriads of of otherwise sane people who beleive that their ideology justifies violence
The media is controlled by the left
Someone sneezes funny and it will be blamed on the right
But antifreeze beats the crap out of people you will have to go to pretty right sights to even find out
And god forbid we should not find some way to blame trump for the actions of an anti Semitic trump hater
Even the Israeli prime minister said that no American president ever has been a greater friend to Jews
And trump hates Muslims which is why his first trip was to the Mid East
And he hates blacks and Hispanics which is why he has the largest portion of black and Hispanic votes of any republican since Reagan
Put simply you and the press are LYING
You equate failing to agree with you on policies with racism antisemitism homophobia and mysoginy
I do not agree with some of trumps policies
But my disagreement means I beleive trump is wrong
Not evil
He actually believes with some justification his policies will work
I also disagree with the left
According to your logic I must beleive they are racist homophobic hateful hating haters
That is true
But not because of policy disagreements
Not even because they shoul know their policies are wrong and will hope those they claim to wish to help
But because it is the left that is self evidently intolerant and full of hate
That is what it is when you hate others pretty much for any reason
That makes you like Fred Phelps
The Christian perspective is to hat the sin but love the sinner
When you hate people because you think they are wrong
At best you are no better than them
At worst if you are wrong about the p9licy you are much worse
Once upon a time even Obama said Americans have only one president at a time
Every single other president in us history has helped his successor
Bush was especially gracious
The Obama people could not beleive the kindness and assistance they were given in transition
Something they absolutely did not reciprocate
Violence isn’t a proper response to losing an election, and using the law to coerce one’s political enemies isn’t a proper response to winning one
There is no organized violence on the right
There is not call to violence on the right
Both are norms on the left
Ron…
We don’t generally agree on politics.
But we both like to eat.
Here’s a recipe for dinner rolls I just tried.
I’m a novice at baking, but they came out delicious first try, and the chef is cute as hell.
Looks good. Both!
Looks good.
Both!
Are there sane people on the right knowingly lying for the purpose of gaining political advantage and/or defaming a political opponent
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-admits-she-fabricated-allegations/amp/
I am in Alabama right now
Visiting Montgomery and Selma and Tuskegee
This is quite interesting
Looking at actual real racism and comparing it to the fake racism claims of the left today
Those in the civil rights movement faced.certain beating and possible death
Both the leaders
And those who merely marched
They went toe to toe with actual evil and said
Hit me
That will make you weak and me strong
They understood that freedom is not free
They demanded freedom
Equal rights
Not special treatment for their victim status
Gavi;n McInnes is a whimpy whinny participant in the lefts cult of victim hood
He is not even close to sherif Clark
Or real racists
It is those on the left who think they are entitled to shout down
To silence
To resort to violence to supress those who dare challenge them that
Are the modern sheriff Clark’s
“What you hate for yourself, do not do to your neighbor
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-met-midterms-pittsburgh-trump-kass-20181031-story.html
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/show-civility-curbelo-meets-teen-threatened-kill
He gets it.
https://twitter.com/_fever7/status/1058898089841430528?s=21
Normal is not much of a standard
Obama’s administration was not normal
Regardless another fallacious argument
If sullies views determine your vote then why do we vote at all ?
Appeals to authority are an assertion we are too stupid to decid for ourselves
There is a long list of democrats defecting
Is that dispositive ?
Do you have an actual argument ?
I for one do not care if Jesus said he could not vote for trump
I am still responsible as a citizen and according to Christ’s precepts to make my own choices
What is it he gets ?
Trump is not on the ballot
To the extent trump owns the gop that is because the left has been batshit crazy for two years
Again what is it he gets
Use your words
Make complete and valid arguments
Not fallacies
In 1992 James car I’ll famously said
It’s the economy stupid
Is that no longer what the left believes ?
Or is it acceptable to infringe on rights and make all of us particularly poor minorities worse of to continue your agenda by force and without even the legitimacy of an electionj
https://twitter.com/alvardomitchell/status/1058160106175688706?s=21
You will never penetrate Dave’s defences Jay. He has one answer to anything… The left. Nothing anyone on the right could ever do, blow up a Federal building full of kids, shoot up the congregation of a black church, a synagogue, incite violence against women and others such as Gavin McInnis, none of it will ever escape his deflections that the left is to blame.
But, while tryinzg to get some acknowledgement from Dave about the harms to our country from the right you will find that you can reach Ron, a very different case of libertarian/conservative. We should concern ourselves with the people who are reachable and leave the utterly lost to themselves.
I agree, it’s futile to expect him to un-cement his cement head.
But his posts are like blatantly stupid graffiti that horribly catch your eyes each day, walking through your neighborhood. Ignoring them leaves them there, to persistently broadcast their dumb message. So I intermittently confront a few of his egregious comments, and don’t even bother to glance at more than one out of five with his name attached.
Im shutting off reading or responding until after Tuesday’s election outcomes are decided. And if the Dems don’t do well, I’m going on a social media hiatus to concentrate on bread and cake baking: a man’s kitchen is his castle 🏰
Jay I can not think of a single response of yours to a comment of mine that was not fallacious
That is precisely what you attack trump for
Why should anyone consider your attacks on trump credible when he is not distinguishable from you ?
“But his posts are like blatantly stupid graffiti that horribly catch your eyes each day, walking through your neighborhood. Ignoring them leaves them there, to persistently broadcast their dumb message. So I intermittently confront a few of his egregious comments, and don’t even bother to glance at more than one out of five with his name attached.”
Is there an argument in this response anywhere ?
A collection of derogatory adjectives is not even a fact much less an argument
If you can not make an argument
If you can do nothing besides ad hominem and other fallacies
Why should you be taken credibly ?
Facts logic reason are not “defenses”
Nor they impenetrable
Refute the using facts logic reason
It is that simple
Or that hard
Are there issues with 5he right
Absolutely
But actual conservatism even though often bad
Are not and never have been an existential threat
Further the modern progressive left is distinct
There is or once was an actual liberal left
Progressivism and real liberalism are radically different
Just as Naismith is not conservatism
And shhares more with the left
If it makes you more comfortable use statism rather than leftism
Left right I do not care if you beleive that government is the solution to whatever you think is a problem
Then you are a serious threat regardless of whether you label yourself left right or moderate
As to your examples busted people are not examples of organized political violence
Hodgkinson bower, sayonara, …are no different from hinkley or squeaky from
Okc is the closet thing to truly politically motivated violence from the right
Mcveigh was political
And he’s was responding to actual violence by government
Specifically ruby ridge and Waco
Mcveigh actions were not justified
Neither were the governments at ruby ridge and waco
At ruby ridge 3 peo0le were murdered by the fbi
The fbi fired first
They shot unarmed people
The same was true at Waco
Were weaver an Koresh broken ?
Absolutely
Was it ok to just murder them and nearly 100 others
Nope
Yet no one was held accountable
Mcveigh was doing exactly as he saw government do
Mcveigh was politically motivated
At the same time he was not motivated by misogyny racism homophobia or even politics
He was motivated by the same thing our founders were
An oppressive government
Frankly he was no different than the Irgun
Which committed acts of terrorism against the British
Or the ira
Can you give me a single example of organized political violence similar to that of the weatherman red brigades sla or anti fascist from the right ?
I can not think of one
Certainly there must be one
But the rarity is unsurprising
If you can justify the use of for e by the state to get your way
You can politically justify violence outside the state
You keep trying to use mcinnes as an example
While he is no hero
All violence by him and his group has been in self defense
It is arguable that he and his group violate the laws and principles by continuing to use violence even after the threat is gone
You are not free too kick someone who is on the ground just because they threw a punch at you
Regardless mcinness is a poor example
What has trump or any republican said that constitutes incitement in the same way as remarks of pelosi
Waters
Holder
Clinton Obama .?
Regardless if you expect not to be called out as a hypocrit
You must have condemned and with proportionate Ferver the actual incitement of those on the left
I am not happy with trumps rhetoric
But trump is just not the font of political violence
Both current facts and history reject that
After the 2016 election a Jewish cemetery was desiccated tombstones were broken …
The press and the left blamed trump
Turns out it was a couple of drunk black democrats who did not even know the cemetery was Jewish
The were bomb threats to dozens of Jewish synagogues an
D community centers
Trump was blamed
Turned out to be a fired progressive journalist trying to frame his ex girlfriend
Nearly all incidents blamed on trump heave proven to have nothing to do with trump or the right
I noted the Portland slasher earlier
When violence occurs you and the rest of the left immediate jump to the conclusion the right is at fault until proven innocent
Further we do not here the stories of left wing violence
Candice Owens was assaukted in Philadelphia
As were several police by protesters on the left
Did you eve here that ?
Snl just insulted a wounded navy seal over his wounds
I can go on and on
Portland Boston
Seattle
Us Berkeley
All organized left violence
Going back further the left mobs destroyed seatle when wto met there
Again when ever was there a right wing mob ?
There must be one example ?
Regardless hardly a day passes without an example of organized left mob violence
please name an existential threat from the right ?
Where do we have the actual right – not some nut job who can often be just as easily blamed on either side
The last east is bower – so we have a guy who has written that he hat es trump
That trump is a Jew lover
And somehow you spin this to be trumps fault ?
For what ? Having a family full of Jews ?
For issuing pardons to Jews ?
For according to the Israeli ambassador being the best friend the Jews have ever had .
What is obvious is that you blamed trump before you had any idea what was going on
As the left and media has done since trump emerged
Are dems anti Semitic for chritisizing Sheldon adelson ?
Or is it only anti semiticism when a republican draws attention to a wealthy nazi collaborator wh describes himself as antisemeticb?
Jay, I will miss you. As a fellow warrior (inflatious rhetoricus generalous) against the bilious word tide of Audrey III, I too should refrain from feeding his ego. I will try.
Keep fighting that good fight against speech you do not like
If you want credit
Make arguments
Facts logic reason
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/kemp-charges-georgia-democrats-attempted-voter-hack-abrams-fires-back-n931011
NYT:
“Mr. Kemp has made similar accusations in the past. In December 2016, he accused the Department of Homeland Security of hacking into Georgia’s voter registration records, as well the Georgia secretary of state’s computer systems. An independent investigation by the department’s inspector general, which operates independently from the department’s chain of command, found that the activity Mr. Kemp believed was suspicious was, in fact, normal behavior between computer systems.”
There is not a single state that does not have tens of thousands of “Mickey mouses” or the like on their voter rolls
That does not have dead people or people who have left the state
Or listings for innumerable reasons that are clearly not voters
SCOTUS has imposed two requirements on states purging their voter registration databases
Written notification to that a name is to be purged before purging
And a failure to vote in three consecutive elections
That sounds reasonable to me
But dems have fought that tooth and nail
Dems have also fought voter I’d laws despite the fact that every voter I’d law allows voters without I’d to vote by signing an affidavit
Actual voter fraud is hard to prove
By the very nature of the fraud
You must prove a person voted and that they did so claiming to be someone they are not
When voting itself must be anonymous
And we are not permitted to demand I’d
Despite that we have statistical evidence of significant fraud
In New Hampshire in 2016
6000+ votes were cast by people who almost certainly were not residents
We know that there are likely millions of voters who vote in multiple states
Which is actually legal if you have multiple residence
But you may not vote for the same office twice
We have several precincts where thousands more people voted than are registered
I beleive we have a recent case in Texas where canvassers have been arrested for getting absentee ballots for elderly voters and then filling them out
The total size of fraud is likely small
But we have had a presidential election turn on 185 votes
And several senate elections on 2000 or less
Solving voter fraud is easy
But the left fights it tooth and nail
It is reasonable to beleive when a party opposes something 80% of people favor something is going on
Good on you Jay. Enjoy the fruits of your labor!
So Kemp is about as credible on hacking claims as the us intelligence community which has similarly accused Russia of hacking the grid
Meanwhile g some laptop owned by a power company employee that was ultimately not found to be hacked
I am in Montgomery Alabama posting from a tablet
Like those who claim to have problems posting
My big problem is with autocorrect
Not the number of posts
Feminist anti semitism for you
But everything is trumps fault ?
https://nypost.com/2018/11/04/dont-join-this-years-womens-march-unless-youre-good-with-anti-semitism/
Waco academia is a cult
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/academia-is-a-cult/2018/10/31/eea787a0-bd08-11e8-b7d2-0773aa1e33da_story.html?utm_term=.02e81449e4f1
So how well are the multiple assault charges against those on the left covered ?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/05/trump-ally-kris-kobach-donations-white-nationalists
“The Republican candidate for governor of Kansas, Kris Kobach, who has close ties to the Trump administration, has accepted financial donations from white nationalist sympathizers and has for more than a decade been affiliated with groups espousing white supremacist views.”
And Obama accepted donations from mid eastern terrorist groups
So what ?
“If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you’ve got no business being up here
Jesse M. Unruh Democrat
Very good article comparing political consent to sexual consent
https://mises.org/wire/we-need-metoo-movement-political-consent
President Donald Trump’s move to deploy troops to the U.S.-Mexico border is shaping up to cost $220 million, according to two U.S. defense officials who were not authorized to speak publicly.
Trump, who has made the caravan one of his prime targets in campaign speeches, said he is prepared to send as many as 15,000 troops to the border.
A Pentagon risk assessment found that the caravan did not pose a threat to the United States, a source said. This person also said that the caravan would take about a month and a half to get to the U.S. border.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/05/trump-border-deployments-could-cost-220-million-pentagon-sees-no-caravan-threat.html
This is a huge loosing issue for the left
If you think you are going to convince the something like 80% of the population that supports tighter immigration controls by made up numbers on costs
Your nuts
Regardless it is actually critical that trump stop this caravan
If he does not there will very rapidly be hundreds of thousands even millions at our border
Obama made the mistake of saying something about relaxing policies on unaccompanied minors and had 60000 n a few weeks and had to revert to draconian measures
If you want open borders
Let’s have that conversation
I would be happy to have that dialog
If you are not doing open borders then you are going to have to make tough often heart wrenching choices and you are going to have to enforce them
And as I keep telling you over and over all law is forced
Whatever immigration rules you decide
They will require men with guns to enforce them
And that we have a cost
All law has a cost
You cite a bunch of source that are all off the record
Unless they are on the record they are not official
You can not say they pentagon says unless the pentagon actually says
We have dealt with garbage off the record sources for 2 years they have nearly always been wrong
Btw while neither you nor I know what the pentagon actually says
We do know several things
You can not claim that trump and therefore government does not know the makeup of these caravans
And also claim to know they are safe
We actually know they are not
They are organized
They have violently broken through border controls at several countries
The have thrown rocks Molotov cocktails and even shot guns at Mexican police
They are clearly not safe
We also know that ms-13 managed to get about 3000 foot soldiers into the us when Obama briefly was letting unaccompanied minors in
That increase is more than all the kkk and neo nazis in the country
No one not bat shit crazy thinks these people are “safe”
Nor are they seeking to cross the border and get processed by the border patrol
They are looking to do exactly what they have done at every border they have crossed
To break through by force and completely avoid any authorities
Unless you are prepared to accept that
You are stuck with placing forces to stop them
Even if you intend to process them as normal
You will require substantial additional forces to do so
There is excellent reason to disbelieve all of these claims
If they were true they would be made on the record and defended on the record
According to dhs on the record there are at least 200 people with criminal records
That is convictions not arrests in the lead caravan
The first caravan is mixed with women and children in the lead
But is otherwise mostly teenage men
The 3-4 caravans that are following and forming
Are almost entirely young men
https://twitter.com/davidharsanyi/status/1059568110947233792?s=21
This hot idea of racism ?
https://quillette.com/2018/11/04/a-racial-shakedown-in-portland/
Probability of being fooled. Well when the president makes a misleading statement:
““The accuser of Brett Kavanaugh, a man who is a fine man, the accuser admitted she never met him, she never saw him, he never touched her, talked to her, he had nothing to do with her, she made up the story,” Mr. Trump told the crowd in Cape Girardeau, in southeast Missouri. “It was false accusations, it was a scam, it was fake, it was all fake.”
You don’t think he was talking about Ms. Munro-Leighton, do you, Every magician uses misdirection to fool you. You thought he meant Dr. Ford, didn’t you?
Then he said: ““And you know,” he went on, “when that came about, people were calling for him to immediately get out. Think of that. Think if he would have done that, and then we found out that it was all false accusations. False statements. A made-up story.”
Again you would think Dr. Ford or one of the identified women, not someone who got NO publicity, Ms. Munro-Leighton.
This guy is the ultimate sleaze and he is fooling a lot of people, and doing it very well.
I did not think anything of trumps statement
Unlike you I do not spend my life reading much less carefully disecting every utterance from trump
As to your analysis
As I payed no attention to the statement at all I could not possibly have been mislead
What is “misleading” is your presumption to be able to guess what I thought about something I was paying no attention to
Also misleading is your presumption to know precisely what trump intended
What is increasingly clear is that the only accusation against Kavanaugh that had the tiniest credibility was fords
And even that is dubious
We now have the affidavit from the person who claims fords allegations are about him not Kavanaugh
And they are pretty damning
He knew facts that were not public at the time of his statement
And provided facts more accurately than ford
He confirmed fords story entirely except two things
Kavanaugh was not their
The activity was cosensual
Several other representations of ford have been called into question
The bottom line is that it is not sufficiently clear that ford was lying to charge her with perjury
But her credibilty is shot
So even if trump was talking about ford
He was speaking accurately
Do you understand that they credibilty of all these accusations has been destroyed
What remains is which accusations constitute criminal false reports or criminal false statements
Those who live by weak claims that some statement is a lie must die by the same standard
I really do not care what standard you use
Do so consistently and to “get” trump you will have to take down the entire left
So whose actions are justified ?
https://t.co/AqcAnnSz50
YES! The weasel is gone!
Finally!
Florida perhaps the worst State Insurance Department. For those of you that think all the states will offer “good insurance policies” per the relaxation of the ACA minimum coverage provisions:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/Feds-shut-down-Florida-network-selling-ruinous-health-insurance-plans_173316621
“The trade commission said the financial consequences of the misrepresentations “have been ruinous for consumers, many of whom do not realize” the limits of the coverage until they incur substantial medical expenses.”
I’m sorry, Florida and some other states do a lousy job.
When I sold insurance I told everyone that you don’t buy insurance unless the company product is approved by NY State, and positively don’t buy if FL is the only state approval.
Anything government does will have winners and losers
Obviously changing coverage requirements will have losers
It will also have winners
Getting government entirely out of healthcare will have the largest long term net positive effect
But that will not happen
Because too many like you only see the benefits.of increases in government and not the costs
And only see the costs of decreases and not the benefits
An old but a goody
Trump should read it too
Both you and he fall for the same fallacy
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
As I have said before, you have the belief that people will only do good. And if that were true, we would need no laws. So you find it fine that one can sell crappy insurance, some unsuspecting customer buys the kool aide the salesman poured and she ends up bankrupt because the policy Happy Jack sold her had a fine print exclusion buried in page 7 of the appendix. I support national policies that are approved buy a national non profit organization funded by the insurance companies to approve policies that meet a national standard set up by no governmental groups. Like the joint Commission on Accreditation of hospitals.
No Ron I do not beleive people will only do good
I beleive that people will only do bad an succeed long term when government fails or worse helps
AGAIN
I buy from China all the time
The only protection I have is markets
And despite your claim that can not work it clearly does
Why do you constantly beleive in regulation when it always makes things worse and when the failures you fret about are common in highly regulated markets
While unregulated markets may not be perfect but they are inarguably better
I have no interest in a sex change or plastic surgery
But if I did I would not get it in the us
Our costs are higher and our quality lower
So happy jack screws a few customers people learn and no one buys from happy jack any more .?
Dad said he only recommended products blessed by NY
While I do not see a good reason NY should be in the market
I have no problems with jd powers
Or good housekeeping
Or ul
Or yelp
Or ….
Do you not check out the people you make major purchases from ?
I care about the reputations of Chinese vendors of products I pay .59 for
You are assuming that consumers are retarded
Government does a lousy job
Even of those things only government can do
That is inherent in using force rather than markets
dduck, i agree with you 100%, insurance companies will not sell products that are anything but a scam unless there is some regulation. They are worse than used car salesmen working in car lots with 10 cars located south of the railroad tracts in town. Right there with politicians!
So yes, there needs to be regulations. There needs to be some organization approving the policies. I would like to see the nation be able to buy policies that have only approvals from a private organization that sets standards. Something along the lines of the Joint commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. You have to be accredited by this private non profit organization which charges hospitals to accredit them, or they can not get Medicare/Caid reimbursement. And those should be policies sold across America, not state by state.
But I also do not want policies that have benefits that no one will use. Gay men and maternity coverage coverage. Why? Women over 50 and maternity coverage. Why? Women who have had hysterectomies and maternity coverage. Why? And I could add more, but you get the point. Last, if I make $200,000 a year and want to self fund medical care until my yearly cost is $25,000, why can’t I do that and set up a health savings account?
Last, how is it that insurance companies are making 3-4 times what they made before Obamacare came into existence. Aetna reported insurance profits of $1.5 billion for the year in 2005, before Obamacare.. Now they are reporting $1.2 billion for the 1st quarter in 2018 and repeated that in the second quarter. If that repeats each quarter that is $4.8 billion for the whole year, 3 times what they made before Obamacare. What games are they playing with the 80% rule for medical loss ratios. What costs have they been able to shift to medical losses that were not in that ratio when the laws were written? And why did United Health care and Humana’s stock price increase 5% to 6% just today after the Democrats took control of the house? Could it be they believe the democrats will squeeze in the individual mandate into some bill the Republican senate can not reject and get that back into law? That was the only reason insurance companies backed PPACA when it was proposed. There team of accountants and consultants knew exactly what would happen to their profits if approved with the mandate.
I can tell you why government f’ed over health care cost beginning in the 70’s, but it will take too much space here. i played the game well for 40 years and know exactly why we have cost so much greater than foreign countries. But the cost should not be a reason to force an individual to buy a product they do not want. The only protection people should have is protection from scam artist like this company. Florida was asleep at the wheel, but would one expect anything else from government agencies?
It is the involvement of government that assures us that insurance will be a scam
It is in part the imprimatur of government and regulation that falsely assures you that you are getting something of value
Do you know that it is regulations ERISA that prevents you from suing your insurance company when you get screwed ?
In actual free markets people do not for very long buy products that are scams
Today I buy goods from China all the time
I have near zero ability to gain redress from fraud
No government protects me
But I can be assured of getting what I paid for because being able to sell profitably requires maintaining a good reputation
It requires satisfying customers
What you fail to grasp is that without using force there is no sustainable means of profiting except delivering value
I beleive it is top ranking economist daron acemoglu who studied business misconduct where there was little regulation and he found that the market ultimately turned bad actors into good ones or bankrupted them
There in no route to long term profit that does not require happy customers
PERIOD
Your belief otherwise is not a fact
Well I am so glad you buy crap from China and it last. I just bought 8 halogen light bulbs (made in china) and not the cheapest, but the name brand “better bulbs”. I opened two boxes and the first two did not wok. I thought there was something wrong with my fixture in the shop. Got up with a meter and it had electricity. The third bulb worked. So the bulbs cost me 25% more than what they should have.
‘And I can give you other issues with other crappy products from China. So stop telling me Chinese crap at a lower price saves me money. BS!
As for insurance, policies are impossible to understand. Even for one who has worked in healthcare for 40 years. Government regulation is not the answer, but “just sell anything that you want” is not the answer either. You can regulate without the government involvement and that would be of much greater value than government involvement without the added costs.
In your world the requirement for auto liability insurance would not exist. Just sue someone if they injure you and don’t pay the bill. What an attorneys dream come true.
Sorry you have had bad experiences
I am not trying to claim nothing ever goes wrong
Nor that China is a guarantee
Did you check the reviews of the product you bought ?
I buy led bulbs directly from China all the time
I pay very little
They work fine
The few bad ones I get are easily covered by my savings
And I buy from vendors with 98% positive ratings
If you are buying from places with poor reviews
That would be your problem
If not then give your vendor a bad review
That will benefit all of us
As I noted no regulations protect my purchases from China
Why is health care
Or any other market different ?
Further even today people go to Thailand or brazil where there is little or no healthcare regulation for certain medical procedures
Particularly plastic surgery and sex reassignment
Those nations are now not only by far the cheapest
But also the best
People from Europe the uk and Canada go to places like India where there is minimal regulation for affordable procedures when their failed systems can not or will not deliver
The actual evidence is that regulation of anything
Including healthcare is a colossal failure
You think you can not trust businesses because the seek to profit
But that is the most important reason you can trust 5he
With respect to your recommendations
Maybe they are good ideas
Maybe not
You can not tell what is best absent a market to test it
In many areas we are moving to subscription services
Unlimited calling for $50/month
Maybe that is the right model for healthcare
Maybe not
Only an actually free market can tell us
It is not possible to know for certain what will work best ahead of time
I am constantly harping on apriori vs a posterior I
You can not dictate from the front – aka regulation
You can punish bad acts After they have occured
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DreKv-7WwAAbtdQ?format=jpg&name=large
It will be somewhat easier for those here on the left to view this objectively
As both race and gender issues tend to balance an allow left wing nuts to think more clearly
There can be no “beleivewomen “ rule
False accusations tend to be rare
And we should remember that
But they do occur and more frequently than brown Miller’s 2%
Regardless anything we do through government distorts incentives
Including incentives for false allegations
I do not support serious sanctions for kavanaughs false accusers
I do suport them a thorough investigation of the lawyers and other actors
Avantii in particular appears to have deliberately and knowingly corrupted the process
But back to the point
Regardless of what the accusation is
Due process matters
One of the failures in the Kavanaugh confirmation was the politicization of due process
There are no rights with respect to confirmation
But once the confirmation process turns into criminal accusations
The accused and accuser have due process rights
in A criminal context those of the accused are greater
They face loss of liberty
But in a civil conte t the reputation also rights are balanced
Both the accused and accuser have cross examination rights
If the sjc was going to hear fords allegations publicly
Then both ford and Kavanaugh should have been free to cross examine each other
https://www.thecollegefix.com/believe-the-survivor-heres-11-times-young-black-men-were-railroaded-by-campus-sexual-assault-claims/
For every action, there is a reaction.
As I said earlier, those who work for government are incompetent. They would be fired in most cases if they showed that incompetence in any other job.
But even in this case, does no one stop and asked “what can happen if we sign this regulation”. And Obama being black should have asked ” If I sign this, what impact will this have on black men”? Anyone with a brain bigger than their asshole should know if you sign a regulation like this, it is going to be used against blacks more widely than whites.
That is wrong, it is racist, but that is America! And DO NOT BLAME TRUMP! Its been this way since god only knows when. And it is happening in northern liberal schools as well as more conservative southern schools.
If the politicians will not agree more regulation is bad, then one would hope they would gather a group of people that live a real life in America and allow them to suggest what will happen when something is put into effect. I suspect many black people could see the handwriting on the wall with this one. An open ended legalized white attack on black males.
And where was Obama on this one blaming people for wrongs perpetuated on blacks? Very quite indeed.
The structure of government does not incentivize competence
Government strongly disincentivises risk taking
This sounds good but it is bad
Never taking even small risks is the same as incompetence
There is lots of data demonstrating that even policies and regulations used to benefit poor people tend to harm the poor and help the rich
You will never ever make law that those with money can not coops
Like Carlson or do not
If you do not like trumps comments about the press
Then you must also oppose angry anti fat mobs coming to the homes of opinion journalists they do not like
Threatening them
Their families
There is apparently even security video of a protestor threatening a pipe bomb
https://mobile.twitter.com/clairlemon/status/1060284074365935616
California shooter is reported to have had an illegal extender clip on his .45 cal. handgun.
No doubt the above stories will NOT move the needle on better gun controls measures including better control of one’s own weapons.
Liberty for all.
In the state with the toughest gun control in the country we have a pretty bad mass shooting
So tell me again why the laws that did not work here will work nationwide ?
dduck, please explain why you think more gun laws will solve this problem when CA already has the strctest laws on the books. So you have one gun with , lets say 30 bullets, or a sshooter carries three 45’s that have 10 plus one in the chamber that is legal. Total shots 30-33.
And three 45’s are easier to conceil than one with an extended clip if in the gun.
The details do not matter
The ca shooting proves again that gun laws don’t work
More guns bigger mag
Ar-15
Does not matter
If you want to kill a lot of people you will find a way
Do we infringe on rights, or do we attack the root of the problem?
The easy way is to infringe on rights and only get those that follow the law to follow the law.
The hard way is to solve the real problem. The lack of family committment is the killer.
I have tried 7 times to link the article to this comment. Word Press is crap! Since we have over 1000 comments here it takes me 2-3 minutes just to open the comments and then 304 minutes for a comment to post,
The articel concerned all the shooters where white males without father figures. That there are not female shooters because most kids are raised by a mother when divorced. Went on to give ways to get the social interaction needed to fill the void of fatherless sons.
Sorry I could not get it to link.
3 to 4 minutes,
#9
Ron, I won’t respond to the other Libertarian, but you appear to be a rational person.
Would stricter laws and the potential for prison time help convince careless (I would say culpable in injuries and deaths) to SECURE your F—– weapons from friends, families and burglars. So many kids are killed and injured from unsecured guns that their numbers exceed all other countries ( I exclude he countries down south).
Lazy, uncaring family members are guilty of contributing to negligent homicide. In most localities adults that let underage drink to the point where the kids get involved in harmful activities, are subject to laws on the books in many places. -Whether they are enforced is an other matter.
Just because all gun control laws don’t work all the time, we can’t be sure some don’t work some of the time. No one can prove that some shooters and potential shooters may have had trouble getting their choice of weapons, ammo and clips.
As Trump said (paraphrased) “you can’t be sure there aren’t terrorists in the caravan) regarding what hw says is an “invasion and a national emergency).
Meantime, I feel much safer in NYC, where the gun laws are very strict, then I do when I am in CA.
Regarding the guy selling his book, he is a well meaning, I am sure liberal shrink, that is just mouthing platitudes and psych stuff.
My father died when I was 9 years old, he lived in Canada, so I saw little of him growing to age. No I didn’t have a step dad or father surrogate and was not the most law abiding kid.
No, I, and other poor kids like me did not grow up to be mass shooters (no money and no availability of guns), although some wound up in prison.
Liberty for all!.
dduck, to me there is a difference between gun control and gun safety. If a child gets your gun, then whatever punishment approved by the state is fine with me. My dad was a police officer. He kept his gun locked up, but if I even tried touching it while he had it on his person, I got my ass whipped. I only tried that once. (Yes that was before child psycologist said we were mentally damaged from our butts getting smacked). Why anyone would leave a gun laying where a child could just pick it up and shoot is beyond my ability to mentally process. I can understand stupidity in hiding a gun in a bedroom drawer more than just laying a gun down.
Fatherless sons. Yes, many grow up fine. But many do not. Just look at the black community before welfare impacted the black family structure and contributed to the growth of fatherless black males. While whites become withdrawn and angry internally, then rage creates mass shootings, blacks look to gangs when they are much younger, the gang members take the place if the father and their violence happens over a much different period of time in different ways. But its still “fatherless” driven.
Did
Any time you want a rational debate on anything I am here
The only impediment to that ever has been you
“Would stricter laws …..?”
Do you have some evidence that stricter laws on anything would accomplish anything ?
I do actually believe that those laws that are vigorously enforced without any discretion create an incentive to obey them
But even our criminal laws are poorly enforced
The data seems to demonstrate that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder
If the death penalty is not an incentive to obedience why do you think gun laws will serve as an incentive ?
Laws that are not vigorously enforced without discretion have near zero deterrent effect
And we do not vigorously enforce laws because it is very expensive
If you want these strong gun laws are you prepared to pay the high price to enforce them ?
Are you prepared to kill people to enforce these laws ?
Because ultimately that is what every law means
Ask Eric garner
If all you are going to do is pass a law – any law, and then walk away and pretend people will magically obey it
Go away, because you are an idiot and a tyrant
All law comes not only at the expense of rights and freedom
But a significant cost to enforce
Or no benefit if you do not enforce it
Further anything bad you can do with a gun is already illegal
Why do you expect that someone willing to commit mass murder is going to be deterred by a fine for a 30 round magazine ?
Again laws do not magically change the world
The change behavior and only if vigorously enforced
Finally, it is always stupidity to pass laws that are outside the power of government to enforce
That erodes the rule of law
Technology is rapidly removing things from the domain in which government has any hope of controlling
You can buy a CNC machine for about $1500
With that you can today readily make your own ar-15 lower receiver
The rest you can easily buy
Or a colt 1911 semi-automatic pistol
Or large capacity magazines
Passing laws to criminalize air would be stupid
They are not enforceable
Guns are not the only laws running afoul of progress and technology
I can easily buy many prescription drugs over the internet cheaply today
You can not prevent ordinary people from getting antibiotics
As an example as well as some other drugs with more to come
We are a few years away from Star Trek type replicators for most chemicals – drugs
3D metal printing is becoming affordable
You will not need a cnc
Laws stand zero chance of accomplishing what you hope today
That will only be worse in the future
The burden of proof when you wish to use force and restrict the freedom of others is on you
That said
Yes we can prove that gun laws are ineffective
Crimes committed with guns in highly regulated cities are ubiquitous
Further the AU sudden shift to draconian gun laws created a controlled experiment
AU an NZ are culturally demographically and in rates of violence identical
AU enacted strict gun laws
NZ did not
Decades later there is no difference in rates of murder and other violence
Put simply AU dramatic gun laws accomplished nothing
I am not particularly interested in trumps appeals to emotion
We do know there are criminals in the caravans
We do know there are Midwesterner
Though those are not the critical issues
The key issue is that open borders does not work with severe limits on the social safety net
Therefore you are stuck with limited immigration
And that means you must make choices
You can not allow everyone who wishes to come to the us
S if you allow the caravans
Who are you saying no to ?
I beleive ca’s gun laws are stricter than nyc’s
NYC,s violent crime rate is 589/100k ca’s is 339/100k
You are safer in ca
Kentucky is one of the safest states with a violent crime rate of 225/100k
Only a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of people grow up to be mass killers
It is one of the rarest crimes and rarest causes of death
There are far more serious thing that we can actually do something about without infringing on liberty
Absolutely most kids from broken homes do not grow up to be mass shooters
That said we have lots of incredibly strong statistical correlations not just to mass shooters but to all kinds of bad adult outcomes
And for girls as well as boys
Broken families strongly correlate to bad outcomes beyond just violence and crime
And we know that those social safety net programs are a substantial factor in the destruction of families
150 years of Jim Crow could not do what 20 years of the great society did
Destroy the black family
Sorry, Ron, we need “gun control”, meaning keeping as many guns out of the hands of those that might shoot another human or themselves, and MORE gun safety, meaning prison for “careless” people like the stupid grandfather in AZ.
Does anyone need an illegal clip extender, or bigger magazines for semis? I don’t see a need except for convenience and lousy shooters.
You seem to ignore the fact that in NYC we are safer than you Libertarians in your locals.
And to your many do not, I will say most do grow up OK as far as fatherless kids.
dduck, I wont debate more gun control as we will never agree. The major reason I don’t accept more gun control, other than issues with the constitution that SCOTUS would have to decide if something did go through, is the fact that anything we make illegal would still be on the street. Where you believe making something illegal will take it off the streets, I believe only those that are willing to break the law now are the ones that would have these same things once we had stricter laws. Drugs have been illegal since the early 1900’s and the more control placed on them, the more they become a problem. Alcohol history proves that. If you cant find it in a store, then the cartels and gangs would have control over the supply. And they would find a supplier to meet demand.
You can look on the internet and plans are available for making gun clips. Very easy if you have any metal working abilities. A few pieces of metal made into a container, a spring and a few other small parts. So in making those illegal to buy, you just find someone to make them if you could not find a illegal one on the street.. And that is after about 30 years of finding these things and getting many already made off the street which may never happen. Every time the government mentions gun control of any kind, my idiot brother in law is out buying more weapons and ammo. “AINT GONA COME AND TAKE MY GUNS WITHOUT A FIGHT”. I have no idea how many automatic weapons and filled clips he has hidden in his place, but I bet he could start a store.
I am sorry that I can not buy into the views that laws stop bad people from doing bad things. Like I said, you can take an AR 15 into a night club with 30 bullets in the clip. Or you can take 3 pistols that are much easier to hide that have internal capacity of 11 (10 in the clip and 1 in the chamber) and still blow 30 people away. In fact an AR15 with 22 caliber shells is not as deadly as 45 pistols you can put in your pockets. Bullets twice the size and twice the power.
Personally I could care less as I have one bolt action 22 rifle and one 20 gauge double barreled shotgun. I use the shotgun to kill squirrels at the bird feeders. Other than that, they are not used.
I just know when laws are written, those that do not want to follow them find ways to break them. And gun control would be no different. We don’t have prisons large enough to house all the gun law breakers if that happened.
The actual needs of humans are quite small and have been met in the worst of conditions for 150000 years
Everything else is wants
We do not need clean air we want it
The fact that something is a want rather than a need does not justify government interferance
NYC is one of the safer major cities in the country
Nearly everywhere that is not a major city is safer
California as a state is safer than nyc
Though ca cities are less safe
If we wish to be safer maybe we should ban cities
There is at least an actual statistical correlation between cities and violence
There is none between gun laws and violence
If you want to be taken credibly do not offer arguments that are so obviously false
The data on Sefer you exists
As noted nyc is safer than most major cities
It is still less safe than most of the country
No correlation exists between gun laws and violent crime
So yes absolutely we know that g in laws will not make us safer
This is part of my rant about Ron’s “common sense”. Argument
Much of what many people think is common sense is just bad first order thinking
The fact that it sounds reasonable that something would work does not mean it will
Mass shootings are lower in the us than the rest of the world
Oops
https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-botched-study-fooled-the-world-about-the-u-s-share-of-mass-public-shootings-u-s-rate-is-lower-than-global-average/
The only thing that has ever worked or will work in healthcare is free markets
So says the data
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2018/10/02/employers-could-slash-their-health-costs-overnight-so-why-dont-they/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
For those that believe in government, our healthcare system should look good to them.
1. The reason those healthcare facilities can bill less and just one charge is they do not accept medicare billing,
2. The reason hospitals bill for every little item is due to Medicare. 1968, Medicare began, government paid based on cost, cost calculated by % cost of each revenue department in hospitals, revenue used to determine percent medicare represented of the cost, hospitals paid for that cost.
3. Cost findings no longer used to reimburse hospitals, but government still requires the same cost reporting. Hospitals pay up to $100K for consultants yearly to file that report.
4. Cost of healthcare in this country also much higher due to government controls on available labor. Nursing schools, pharmacy schools, Medical schools all basically controlled by states. That is why graduate nurses make on average $65,000 to start, Pharmacist $125,000 to start and doctors much more. In USA, these are all 25% or more than starting salary in UK. And medium sized hospitals will employee 700+ nurses alone. They maintain a cap on labor supply, thus running up salaries with shortages of manpower available.
5.Many insurance companies pay hospitals based on a percent of Medicare reimbursement. So if Medicare pays hospital A $1.00 and Hospital B $2.00, they might pay 125% of Medicare, so they pay $1.25 and $2.50 respectively. They require the same billing methods as Medicare.
If government stays the hell out of how people buy insurance, concierge doctor, or what is often called direct-pay medicine can take off and become a prominent method of receiving care. People buy this, buy catastrophic coverage and self fund healthcare. But if government forces people to buy crappy healthcare insurance that only makes the rich richer by increasing insurance company profits 3-4 times what is expected corporate returns on investment, then this method will be available but not many will use it.
And I expect Nancy Pelosi to bury the individual mandate into some unrelated bill that will bring back that requirement in the future. She will use a bill the senate can not refuse to pass.
We will have to see what pelosi can do
I think that trump is pretty flexible
But I do not think senate republicans are
Further both need each other in 2020
So I do not think trump is going to run afoul of McConnell or visa Versa
Pelosi needs to come off as reasonable or democrats will get massacred in 2020
At least in the house
There is still plenty of analysis remaining but the theme thus far appears to be that
Moderate dems did well in pink and purple areas
But in blue areas the dems went way to the left and alienated lots of the country outside their enclaves
I actually hope that trump manages to successfully end mueller
Adam schiff can investigate to his hearts content
Political investigations belong in congress
Dems will also be publicly answerable if those investigations do not produce
That is appropriate
While if they are productive they will reap the rewards
Political wars should be done by politicians in public
We should not have doj fbi cia on snipe hunts based on ops research that has no merit
Predicting what’s dems will do is difficult
I think it is likely incredibly politically dangerous to keep up the partisan rancor
But they get to make their own choices
It is possible they might actually come together and work with republicans
I am not sure that is not dangerous – not to democrats but to the country
I would prefer gridlock to d’s and r’s cooperating
So you are upset about trumps purported lies
Why are you not upset about these ?
The most important point which should be considered as we see what is going on in Florida Georgia and arizona right now is that the most significant factor in any precinct is that precinct
If there are long lines
That is not evidence of state predjudice
But of local incompetence
If there are delays in counting ballots
Or problems with ballots
Or voting machines
These are all local problems
The fault if any lies locally
https://www.themaven.net/theresurgent/api/amp/theresurgent/erick-erickson/where-do-we-go-when-journalism-fails-us-BSoxUDmsaE-oqiG3uNUxbg/?__twitter_impression=true
So was was Acosta accosted or was he the accoster?
https://apnews.com/c575bd1cc3b1456cb3057ef670c7fe2a
Another sleazy moment from the WH.
I am glad you think so but buzzfeed announced much earlier that if you take the original hires video and convert it to a gif you get exactly what walison posted on Twitter
Regardless look at the original
There are SEVERAL issues regarding Acosta
He was given his allotted question and he refused to stop when his turn was over
He has done this many times before
He physically resisted returning the mike to the intern when she came for it
Whether he physically struck her – as it appears or merely physically resisted is not relevant
He used force when he was nite justified in doing so
This infraction is small I.e. Acosta should not be charge with battery or theft
Which he actually could be
Yanking his credentials is the appropriate response
Cnn can send another reporter
There is no first amendment issue
Acosta is still free to whatever time cnn will give him to attack trump
This is a losing issue for the left
Your can look at the source video over and over and you can not conclude that Acosta’s actions were appropriate
As one person tweeted at the minimum this is the same as yanking the microphone back from the hostess at a karaoke bar when your turn is over
The bar would appropriately ban you
Particularly if it was not your first offense
Here is hot air referencing the buzzfeed evaluation
So let’s go point by point
1) Acosta clearly touched the intern
Which he denied repeatedly on Anderson cooper
Using YOUR definitions that makes Acosta a LIAR and Anderson cooper an abettor of lies
Or maybe we should all chill out and quit trying to make every disagreement or minor factual inconsistancy into an egregious lie
2 as poor as infowars credibilty might be – and it is pretty bad
They win this one
Most people can not tell the videos apart aside from resolution
There is no evidence of alteration
Only artifacts from conversion to different frame rates format and resolution
3) the original high res video and the gif show the same thing
It is the cnn video that was edit to remove Acosta’s reaching for the interns are that is altered
4) Acosta was behaving like a petulant child
Exactly as the left and media constantly accuse trump
He was punished proportionately with his behavior
5) I can not find Obama actually suspending a reporter though I am pretty sure he did
Hoverever he investigated reporters
Threatened to suspend them
And demanded that news organizations censure their own reporters
Which they did repeatedly
Numerous reporters were disciplined,ined for remarks about Obama that were tame compared to what is said about trump by reporters every day
6) clearly sanders did nothing wrong
The claims he knowingly used a doctored video is just ludicrously stupid
Given that the doctored claim is dubious and the original exists and shows the same things
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/11/08/buzzfeed-actually-not-clear-video-shared-white-house-doctored/
“Donald Trump Played Central Role in Hush Payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal
Federal prosecutors have gathered evidence of president’s participation in transactions that violated campaign-finance laws”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-played-central-role-in-hush-payoffs-to-stormy-daniels-and-karen-mcdougal-1541786601
Adding adjectives to a legal act does not convert it into a crime
It it legal to pay someone to be silent about any otherwise legal activity
There is no crime being covered up
The very fact that there is an investigation demonstrates political corruption within government
This “violated campaign finance laws” garbage is similar
It is still unknown whether campaign funds were used at all
If they were trump ‘s campaign was significantly self financed
Even if every single fact lined up exactly as you hope
This issue is already decided
John Edwards used over $1m of actual campaign funds to coverup an ongoing affair during a campaign
The prosecution failed
This is a dead issue
campaign finance law violations result in nothing more than fines if we are lucky
Clinton received over $40m in donations from donors beyond their max
A more serious violation
I do not think that fee even fined her
Further there is no consequential investigation of Clinton for collusion with Russia and campaign finance law violations related to the Steele dossier
Because though much more serious than this Daniels garbage
The violations are just not that serious
I would note that Obama received contributions from all over the world particularly from the Mideast in 2008
Which is highly illegal and nothing was done
And bill Clinton had famous scandals receiving money from the Chinese
The fact is campaign finance laws are just plain stupid
Campaign funds are used for speech and government may not regulate speech even through the back door
Paying Daniels not to speak is a first amendment issue
Free speech is about much more than the right to speak
It is the right to speak anonymously
As well as the right to not speak which includes the right to accept money to not speak
So what does it take to get you to let go of this fake crime garbage ?
Or we could pay some attention to a real crime where there is actual fraud theft and actual harm
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/rep-linda-sanchezs-husbanded-indicted-for-theft-of-federal-funds
dd, cant read. Pay wallwall
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/wsj-bombshell-report-details-trump-role-in-daniels-and-mcdougal-pay-offs
dd, I am missing something here. I also am not following issue. So where did I miss the money coming out of the campaign funds?
Ron, I think technically the “payoff” may be considered a contribution to the campaign, not coming out of the campaign
dd, I am anything but a legal mind, but even I find that to be a stretch, and a big one at that. But its enough to give some house committee red meat to investigate until the next election
Look I think our campaign finance laws are just plain stupid specifically because they mean any advocacy by anyone can be called a campaign finance law violation
If I agree to have a candidates sign in my yard I have contributed something of value
Do I have to report that ?
It is trivial to call anything an illegal campaign contribution
But if you are asking for the “logic” here
The claim is that the wrk done benefiting trump constitutes a campaign contribution
By participating in trying to buy a story
The trump campaign benefitted
This is ludicrously stupid and the left would never apply that to their own
And the right rarely goes so legally stupid as the left so we do not usually see tit for tat
I would note that the courts have just censured the ny ag and appear to be prepared to award exon legal fees I. One of these stupid climate change lawsuits
Because the ny ag made claimed they had evidence and when presented with a demand for proof provided a legal argument that was about as weak as that this one
Ignoring that any restrictions on political advocacy in any form must survive the first amendment
And campaign finance laws can not
There is a separate issue that also exists in the Exxon case
That also applies to the obstruction argument
You can not take an action that is otherwise legal and criminalize it based on your opinion regarding the intention of that action
In the Exxon case Exxon used a cost of carbon from government sources instead of a value preferred by alarmists in several studies and in advocacy
The ny ages claimis that because using the alarmist figure would produce different results
And because she beleive Exxon intended to reach specific results that Exxon’s work is fraudulent and runs afoul of sec Regis
With respect to trumps assorted ndas
This is perfectly legal
Trump has paid for silence in the past before being a candidate
While it is arguable and possibly true that trump sought the ndas to serve his campaign
He also had other reasons to do so
And further need not provide reasons at all
A bad act must be bad regardless of the reason
The same is true of obstruction claims
So you link to a story that says all the parties involved were openly careful to avoid running afoul of campaign finance law as Damning ?
You have uncovered a conspiracy to NOT violate the law
Does Dr. Ford deserve death threats?
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/08/665407589/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford-continues-receiving-threats-lawyers-say
“Ford’s lawyers stressed that she continues to need protection.
“Dr. Ford and her family have tremendous gratitude for the generous crowdfunded contributions they have received,” her lawyers said. “These funds have been used exclusively for necessary costs of physical security and housing occasioned by coming forward about her sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh.”
Ford’s lawyers added that any unused funds would be donated to “organizations that support trauma survivors” but declined to say whether Ford had decided which organizations to support.”
No ford should not be receiving death threats
Blame the democrats who doxed her
She justifiably did not wish to go public
Making credible public accusations is dangerous
Makes unsupported ones is even more so
Then again don lemon should not receive death threats
Tucker Carlson should not receive death threats or be attacked by anti family in his home
Celebrities should not be making death threats – even in gest
Democrats should not be calling for kicking opponents
For harassment
For incivility
You can not credibly bemoan trumps rhetoric when your own is worse
dd,,Ford does notvdeserve threats. Those working for FBI that was with Mueller should be moved over now to investigate these and throw them in jail, max term, no parole.
Butvagain, had Feinstein turned this over to FBI in July and let them investigate with other things, this would notnbe happening.
I admit, Trump is a good con man and maneuverer, but I think he missed his chance to upset/thwart the Mueller investigation. Wittes of the Atlantic says why:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/10-reasons-whitaker-might-not-foil-mueller/575467/
Oddly I agree mostly with Wittes except for spin
I think the mueller investigation is essentially complete
Unlike Wittes I think it has leaked like a seive and there are no surprises forthcoming
What sessions resignation means is that there will be no further baseless expansions
That mueller will have to put up or shut up
And right now I think he holds a hand full of garbage
I could be wrong
But that is unlikely
We have been promised so many things that have not materialized
There is zero reason to beleive any remaining rumors are true
The mueller investigation will likely die quietly
I suspect his report will ultimately be made public but I would not expect that quickly
By thwarting the release of doj/fbi records to the gop house lack of cooperation by both the Obama administration and even the trump administration despite trumps orders that has been normalized
Just to be clear
The Obama doj should have been required to provide the house records on fast and furious
On the page investigation
On the handling of 5e Steele dossier
The irs should have been required to turn over records to the house
And the house should be provided with muellers report
There is very little that congress asks for that it should ever be denied
Whether republican or Democrat
National security is not a basis for denying congress information
If representatives or their staffs release classified information jail them
The only legitimate executive privilege is the presidential privilege
Advise solicited by or provided to the president is privileged
And only that
Oversite, checks and balances requires providing information
Whether trump or Obama is president
Beyond congress what can be provided to the public should be
And that is much of what government does
Very little of the activities of government should ever be classified
Birds of a feather stick together:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/fbi-probing-company-closed-by-ftc-with-ties-to-matthew-whitaker
Do we need to list all the dubious companies the clintons are associated with ?
I see no allegation in here of wrong doing by Whitaker
Andrew MacArthur seems to think he is well qualified
MacArthur further notes that one must be careful trying to tie a lawyers legal representation to their views
A legal opinion would not as an example qualify as a conflict
Working on a tangential case would not be a conflict
Whitaker as an example tangentially represented someone who might be a witness against someone other than trump
That is not a conflict
While Rosenstein participated in the firing of Comey
Even the remote possibility of an obstruction claim conflicts Rosenstein
While I think we have not seen an obstruction claim from mueller partly because you can not obstruct by doing what you are legally permitted to do
It is also possible that mueller avoided obstruction to protect Rosenstein
Regardless no matter what happens regarding the ag
I think Rosenstein will be removed permanently from the mueller investigation
And that means mueller must put up or shut down
“I don’t know Matt Whitaker,” Mr. Trump told reporters as he left Washington for a weekend trip to Paris. But the president stressed that he did know Mr. Whitaker’s reputation well, calling him “a very respected man.”
“Mr. Trump’s own words from just about a month ago, when he said in a “Fox & Friends” interview: “I can tell you Matt Whitaker’s a great guy. I mean, I know Matt Whitaker.”
Mr. Whitaker has also visited the Oval Office several times and is said to have an easy chemistry with the president, according to people familiar with the relationship. And the president has regarded Mr. Whitaker as his eyes and ears at the Justice Department.”
So ?
There is only one question of consequence
Can trump appoint Whitaker as interim ag
I have heard a lot of debate
As best I can tell the primary question is whether sessions resigned or was fired
Being asked to resign and doing so is resigning
Sessions was free to say no and get fired
Obviously he left reluctantly
At the same time sessions publicly offered to resign several times
I doubt this will amount to much
Someone will be nominated
Probably shortly
The issues regarding Whitaker will likely result in a quick confirmation
Regardless trump has the upper hand
He can lose on Whitaker and fire Rosenstein
He can replace Whitaker immediately with Acosta
Who is more likely to shutdown mueller than Whitaker
What is most likely is that no matter what mueller will be removed from Rosenstein
Which should have happened long ago
Mueller will be told to turn over any investigations that are not specifically of trump or of trump/Russia to doj
Which he should have done long ago
He will be asked by whoever replaces Rosenstein to justify whatever further steps he wishes to take based on the actual law
We will get rid of these ludicrously stupid obstruction claims that could just as easily have been leveled against Obama
That will end any basis for subpoenaing trump
Mueller will produce a report and be done
Democrats in the house will spend another 2 years on this witch hunt
Which they will either be rewarded for or pay for in 2020
I can’t maneuver in this thread anymore, so I moved to the empty Class System thread.
Moving, thank you!