Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions under fire over Russia meetings [Archive] - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

detbuch

03-03-2017, 10:45 AM

Sessions could have said he didn't meet regarding the election but did see the Amb. 2x - once for xmin. when he stopped by and once for ymin when blah blah blah.

He could have said even more than you suggest. He could have pointed out that his position in the Senate required meeting ambassadors from different countries, including Russia, that he may or may not have had even more than the two meetings he cited but couldn't remember, that other Senators had meetings with foreign ambassadors, that in the recent past during the Obama administration other Senators, even including Democrats, had met with a Russian ambassador . . . and on, and on.

A good lawyer will tell his client to answer questions specifically as asked an not to voluntarily provide more information than that which is asked. The intent of an adversarial interrogator, even if asking a seemingly innocuous question, is to evoke something which might be used against you. There was no valid reason to ask Sessions if he had met with any Russian other than if he did so in connection with influencing the election. Sessions answered exactly and specifically that valid question.

Instead by answering the way he did, it is now up for interpretation whether he lied or not.

Don't think it is a reason to quit but a further investigation is warranted.

Why does it require further investigation. The question was asked, and it was answered. If anything is now up for "interpretation" it's what was the actual point of Franken's question. Did he intend to ask if Session had met with "any" Russian for "any" reason? That would be largely inappropriate to ask. Or did he ask if Sessions met with someone in the Russian administration regarding, and influencing, the election. And that is the question Sessions answered.

Other than the intent of Franken's question, what further investigation is warranted?

RIROCKHOUND

03-03-2017, 11:08 AM

Given all the optics of the Trump (Manafort, Page etc) and Russia connection, this looks bad, especially given the context of Russia/overall election and Sessions involvement/prominent support of Trump. Agree with JR, there is substantial evidence, but nothing clear that it had a tangible impact.

However, if reports are true, that travel expenses for one of the meetings was paid by the campaign, then this warrants more investigation for sure.

p.s. did anyone see Page's interview last night? What a smug, weaselly little guy he appeared to be....

detbuch

03-03-2017, 11:58 AM

Old news that was not much explored by mainstream media, nor the Democrats, back in the day. But was about a real, verified, request by Ted Kennedy for Russian intervention in the 1984 election.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

If that was OK, then what is the fuss about not yet verified current allegations. Oh, well, things change. The Russians must be a far bigger threat now than they were at the height of the Cold War.

Here is the note to Andropov by Chebrikov who had received the request from Kennedy:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/kgb-letter-details-kennedy-offer-to-ussr

buckman

03-03-2017, 12:00 PM

Well they say if you repeat the story often enough it becomes believable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-03-2017, 01:56 PM

He answered lawyerly and stated he did not discuss things with the Russians WRT the election.

Interestingly, he did recuse himself from influence on this particular matter. Gee, wish other AGs were willing to recuse themselves when they got too close to the fire.

There is substantial evidence they tried to influence the election, there is no evidence they "hacked" the election.

thats a plus

scottw

03-03-2017, 02:15 PM

Al Franken is a third rate comedian soooooo...:huh::laugha:

Pelosi, Schumer and friends who lie out of habit on a daily basis for a living calling someone a liar and /or questioning someone's integrity??....this is precious

scottw

03-03-2017, 04:36 PM

ooops....liar liar pantsuit on fire http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/nancy-pelosi-sergey-kislyak-meeting-235653

PaulS

03-03-2017, 05:40 PM

Trump tweeted that Schumer met with the Russian Ambassador also. Schumer's response was he'll testify under oath what they discussed and asked if Trump and his cabinet would do the same. Somehow I don't think Pres. Trump will take him up on it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

03-03-2017, 05:46 PM

detbuch

03-03-2017, 05:46 PM

PaulS

03-03-2017, 05:49 PM

Moving the goalposts again.

Not sure what you're talking about I know Trump constantly moves the goal posts. Maybe you could clarify?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS

03-03-2017, 05:50 PM

better be under oath, sodium pentathol and a lie detector for Schumer...or.....maybe just waterboard him.....

Why do you think you he lies?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

JohnR

03-03-2017, 07:33 PM

Why do you think you he lies?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Po LI(e is silent) tician

detbuch

03-03-2017, 11:18 PM

Not sure what you're talking about [moving the goal post] I know Trump constantly moves the goal posts. Maybe you could clarify?

You said:
"Trump tweeted that Schumer met with the Russian Ambassador also. Schumer's response was he'll testify under oath what they discussed and asked if Trump and his cabinet would do the same. Somehow I don't think Pres. Trump will take him up on it"

Sessions sufficiently and correctly and specifically answered the question that was asked, not the general question that the media "interpreted" that he was asked--which already had moved the goalpost from his answer to the question posed to supposedly having to answer a question that wasn't asked.

No one, not even Trump, has asked Schumer to testify, nor to do it under oath. So his bravado is meaningless. But now, because of that meaningless bravado, the goalpost of "interpreting" whether Sessions lied or not (which already was a moved goalpost from his correct answer) has been moved to whether Trump and his cabinet would answer something under oath.

This is the method of expanding something from nothing. Which is what appears to be going on. There seems to be a method to the madness of stalling Trumps appointments other than just opposing everything he tries to do. Just before he left office, Obama expanded the circle of those who could have access to classified phone intercepts. (which could have been damaging to his administration if he had done that at the beginning of his tenure). So it is more difficult to discover who is disseminating the leaks to the media. By slowing down Trumps ability to "drain the swamp" of Obama loyalists in the intelligence agencies, they will continually be able to "drip, drip" stuff that may have the appearance of connection to Russia.

The real crime that is unquestionably happening is the leak of classified information. All for a political reason. The media is all in a constant buzz at the "drip, drip," but has nothing to say about its illegality, nor its potential danger to the nation's security. All this fabricated hornets nest of "bad optics," of the lightweight threat of Russian influence (which has been going on for a long time but only since Trump won did it seem to matter) deflects from the real and dangerous power and influence of the so-called "shadow government." This unprecedented use of our own deep state to try to bring down a government should frighten us more than Trump's bumble mouth.

wdmso

03-04-2017, 05:32 AM

Clinton I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Lie (he thought a BJ wasnt sex its was just a BJ) but he did lie

Sessions : “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”
some how not a lie and here we go again with others telling us what he really ment to say or that he answered honestly

what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.

The question was easy "communicated with the Russian government"
session willfully dodged and gave a false answer ... If he told the truth
franken would of followed up and sessions would have stated what he now is saying 3 days later

but again another shoe drops disclosures that he met with the Russian ambassador during the convention using campaign money and later in his Senate office in Washington.

PaulS

03-04-2017, 08:33 AM

Po LI(e is silent) tician

I don't think that all politicians lie. Certainly some do occasionally Certainly some do a lot. But with the 24-hour news cycle every comment is digested and it has gotten to the point where every misstatement is considered a lie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-04-2017, 09:28 AM

Clinton I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Lie (he thought a BJ wasnt sex its was just a BJ) but he did lie

If he truly thought that a BJ was not sex, then he did not lie. Perhaps, as Clinton did not know what sex is, you do not know what a lie is.

Sessions : “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

You left out the context of "those activities." Sessions claims he "did not have communications with the Russians" within the context of the activities under examination, which was Russia interfering with the election in favor of Trump. I do realize, however, that if it is difficult for you to grasp that saying something you believe to be true, but which is not true, is not a lie, you may have even more difficulty understanding that statements stripped of context can be worse than meaningless, they can be used to say that a statement is as lie when it isn't.

some how not a lie and here we go again with others telling us what he really ment to say

Sessions told us what he meant to say. I think that he would be the one to know that better than anybody else. And what he said was a specific response to a contextual question. Spence would understand this. Again, you may have trouble with that.

or that he answered honestly what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.

The question was easy "communicated with the Russian government"
session willfully dodged and gave a false answer ... If he told the truth
franken would of followed up and sessions would have stated what he now is saying 3 days later

If, in your scenario, Sessions answered Franken's follow up with what he is now saying, then what he is now saying clarifies that what he said in the first place is true. But, again, I understand that you have a hard time understanding that.

but again another shoe drops disclosures that he met with the Russian ambassador during the convention using campaign money and later in his Senate office in Washington.

The previous shoe didn't "drop." It was thrown at Sessions. And thrown back. As far as this current shoe being thrown, we'll see if it hits the mark. There sure are a lot of shoes flying at Trump and his team. And there sure seems to be a frenzied assistance by the media to keep them flying toward their target.

PaulS

03-04-2017, 10:27 AM

Sessions sufficiently and correctly and specifically answered the question that was asked, not the general question that the media "interpreted" that he was asked--which already had moved the goalpost from his answer to the question posed to supposedly having to answer a question that wasn't asked.

.

The "bar" wasn't moved, a 2nd one was created when Sessions choose to answer the question the way he did (and if he did it based on a lawyers advice, I can now understand why people here think so little of attorneys). The 2nd "bar" is whether he lied to congress, not whether someone met with the Russian ambassador. He met with the Ambassador during the time period when the hacking was a front page issue (6 months ago) so it is hilarious to compare his meeting with Schumers or Pelosi from 7 years ago.

Trump repeatedly said that no one had anything to do with Russia and he didn't think anyone he deal with did either. That has been shown not to be correct time and again as members of his campaign and others had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence agents in the year prior to the election. If Trump didn't make those statements things would be different. - so since Trumps statements have proven to be not true, let him (and Schummer) take lie detector tests to see the truth. Trump even made comments about Hillary's emails before they were release so trying to get to the bottom of the hack makes sense. Others on Trumps national security team even had language removed from the Repub. platform that mentioned giving the Ukraine weapons.

It is interesting that before campaign Americans had like a 15% favorable rating of Russia, now it is like 33%. (I wonder what Reagan would think of that). If someone from the Obama admin. did the things people from the Trump admin. seem to have done, this site would have needed another server.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers

03-04-2017, 03:23 PM

Trump of course being Trump started a fire across the street to deflect the continued interest in the Russian involvement and as usual he is blaming Obama for the supposed wire tap.

detbuch

03-04-2017, 10:06 PM

The "bar" wasn't moved, a 2nd one was created when Sessions choose to answer the question the way he did (and if he did it based on a lawyers advice, I can now understand why people here think so little of attorneys).

What's with this "bar" thing? I said the goalpost was moved (a common expression for what you did). I didn't mention any "bar." You move the goalpost then you change the word. Are you lying? You accuse Trump of lying when he misspeaks (or moves the goalposts)!

The 2nd "bar" is whether he lied to congress, not whether someone met with the Russian ambassador. He met with the Ambassador during the time period when the hacking was a front page issue (6 months ago) so it is hilarious to compare his meeting with Schumers or Pelosi from 7 years ago.

Are you saying that a Senator, one on the armed services committee, is not allowed, or must get clearance, to speak to a Russian ambassador because of what is front page news? Or that he is under suspicion if he does--even without any evidence of collusion. You do realize that investigations are supposed to be instigated because of evidence in hand, not in order to find evidence? The evidence is supposed to precede the investigation. Otherwise it is referred to as a witch hunt or fishing expedition.

Trump repeatedly said that no one had anything to do with Russia and he didn't think anyone he deal with did either. That has been shown not to be correct time and again

Obviously Trump could not possibly know that "no one" had anything to do with Russia. And are you saying that it has been shown that Trump "didn't think" anyone he dealt with did either? How can what he thought be shown, other than what he says he thought?

as members of his campaign and others had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence agents in the year prior to the election.

Is this what you're referring to?:

"Several of Trump's associates, like Manafort, have done business in Russia. It is not unusual for U.S. businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society, according to the Times.
Law enforcement officials did not say to what extent the contacts may have been about business, the Times said.
Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, which Russian intelligence officials were on the calls, and how many of Trump's advisers were talking to the Russians. It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Trump himself, the Times said."

That all sounds foggy and inconclusive and doesn't give any evidence of campaign collusion. And doesn't point to anything Trump would necessarily know about. So does that mean you are lying or spreading fake news in that you are pinning something nefarious or illegal on Trump that has not been so pinned by our intelligence agencies?

If Trump didn't make those statements things would be different. - so since Trumps statements have proven to be not true,

Which statements by Trump were untrue? The one stating that no one had anything to do with Russia is so absurd that it cannot even be considered a lie. Either he considers himself clairvoyant or he meant, as usual, something different. Or the one where he didn't think anyone he dealt with did either? Its been shown that he didn't think that?

let him (and Schummer) take lie detector tests to see the truth. Trump even made comments about Hillary's emails before they were release so trying to get to the bottom of the hack makes sense. Others on Trumps national security team even had language removed from the Repub. platform that mentioned giving the Ukraine weapons.

Talk about hilarious! Trump vs Schummer in a duel of truth! Actually, I think if enough questions were asked about various things, I think Trump would win.

It is interesting that before campaign Americans had like a 15% favorable rating of Russia, now it is like 33%. (I wonder what Reagan would think of that).

Correlation is not causation. And, even if it were in this instance, this is a nothing burger.

If someone from the Obama admin. did the things people from the Trump admin. seem to have done, this site would have needed another server.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Seem" is the key word. Or made to seem might be more accurate.

Hey, how about the leaking of classified information? You got anything to say about that?

PaulS

03-05-2017, 09:39 AM

I made a mistake by saying bar instead of goal post. Lying - good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-05-2017, 01:51 PM

I made a mistake by saying bar instead of goal post. Lying - good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
i
Sort of what happens to Trump when he makes mistakes.

PaulS

03-05-2017, 04:36 PM

No, he frequently out and out lies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-05-2017, 05:05 PM

But hea Kushner and Flynn sat down in December at Trump Tower with Sergey Kislyak, according to a senior administration official, who described it as an "introductory meeting" and "kind of an inconsequential hello."
The meeting lasted for about 10 minutes, the official added. I know busy ambassadors run around for 10 min meetings

Gordon told CNN that along with national security advisers Carter Page and Walid Phares, Gordon stressed to the Russian envoy that he would like to improve relations with Russia. Gordon added that at no time did any inappropriate chatter come up about colluding with the Russians to aid the Trump campaign.

they Never asked them to stop hacking meddling
in our election

and this is FOX news answer:

The longtime Russian ambassador met with seven then-Democratic senators in a single sit-down in 2013, among other discussions – and reportedly was a frequent visitor to the Obama White House.

and then you have House Speaker Paul Ryan put it Thursday, “We meet with ambassadors all the time.”

detbuch

03-06-2017, 12:22 PM

No, he frequently out and out lies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's see. Here in this thread you make a Trumpian sort of misspeak by saying "bar" instead of "goalpost." Now, when Trump does that sort of thing, it's called a lie.

Then you try to claim that the "bar" (goalpost) was not moved, but that it was "created." Actually, that's just another way, a parsing, to say that the goalpost was moved--just create another goalpost in a different spot. That is, moving the goalpost from the position of answering the question from the context in which it is asked to the position of answering it in a broader context.

So you used the moved goalpost to infer that Sessions "lied." That his answer (his kick) didn't go through the uprights. But it actually did. It went squarely through the uprights of the first position of the goalpost. Your moving it to another position made it impossible for the kick to be good, to be true. Ergo, you manufactured a Sessions' "lie."

You also attribute, in this thread, two "lies" to Trump by parsing "lie" to being "not correct . . . time and again." Or Proven to be not true." Well, not correct is not a lie unless it is intended to be so. Nor, likewise, is "not being true." But not only is the "time and again" an unsubstantiated statement, but your "proved to be not true" is incorrect, not true. Your example of Trump's "didn't think" that his people where colluding with Russians is not only, on its face, not provable (you can't prove that he didn't think something), but your example of his campaign members "repeated contacts with Russian intelligence agencies" was not proven to be campaign collusion, as I pointed out in the Times article, nor even proved whether those conversations had anything to do with Trump. So your proof amounts to innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations for which there is no real evidence.

Now I'm not going to call these accusations lies, but when Trump says stuff like this, it is said that he lies--even by you. So I don't know if you're out and out lying, but your statements and misuse of words, just in this thread, would be called lies by folks like you if they came out of Trump's mouth. That's why I said "sort of what happens to Trump when he makes mistakes."

And, then, there is called a lie of omission. I asked for comments a few times, once in this thread to you, about the classified leaks against Trump. I asked if you had anything to say about those. They are real, not just foggy accusations. They are illegal and a threat to national security. Did you just forget, or did you intentionally omit to make a comment--a lie of omission? Maybe like you would accuse Sessions of?

I'm not accusing you of lying. But can you see how throwing out the word "lie," like the word "racist" and others, in loose, haphazard manner, ain't nice, and no way to make reputable argument or civil discussion?

PaulS

03-06-2017, 01:14 PM

Let's see. Here in this thread you make a Trumpian sort of misspeak by saying "bar" instead of "goalpost." Now, when Trump does that sort of thing, it's called a lie.

Then you try to claim that the "bar" (goalpost) was not moved, but that it was "created." Actually, that's just another way, a parsing, to say that the goalpost was moved--just create another goalpost in a different spot. That is, moving the goalpost from the position of answering the question from the context in which it is asked to the position of answering it in a broader context.

So you used the moved goalpost to infer that Sessions "lied." That his answer (his kick) didn't go through the uprights. But it actually did. It went squarely through the uprights of the first position of the goalpost. Your moving it to another position made it impossible for the kick to be good, to be true. Ergo, you manufactured a Sessions' "lie."

You also attribute, in this thread, two "lies" to Trump by parsing "lie" to being "not correct . . . time and again." Or Proven to be not true." Well, not correct is not a lie unless it is intended to be so. Nor, likewise, is "not being true." But not only is the "time and again" an unsubstantiated statement, but your "proved to be not true" is incorrect, not true. Your example of Trump's "didn't think" that his people where colluding with Russians is not only, on its face, not provable (you can't prove that he didn't think something), but your example of his campaign members "repeated contacts with Russian intelligence agencies" was not proven to be campaign collusion, as I pointed out in the Times article, nor even proved whether those conversations had anything to do with Trump. So your proof amounts to innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations for which there is no real evidence.

Now I'm not going to call these accusations lies, but when Trump says stuff like this, it is said that he lies--even by you. So I don't know if you're out and out lying, but your statements and misuse of words, just in this thread, would be called lies by folks like you if they came out of Trump's mouth. That's why I said "sort of what happens to Trump when he makes mistakes."

And, then, there is called a lie of omission. I asked for comments a few times, once in this thread to you, about the classified leaks against Trump. I asked if you had anything to say about those. They are real, not just foggy accusations. They are illegal and a threat to national security. Did you just forget, or did you intentionally omit to make a comment--a lie of omission? Maybe like you would accuse Sessions of?

I'm not accusing you of lying. But can you see how throwing out the word "lie," like the word "racist" and others, in loose, haphazard manner, ain't nice, and no way to make reputable argument or civil discussion?

I couldn't make it through the whole post. Got as far as the 2nd sentence

detbuch

03-06-2017, 01:28 PM

I couldn't make it through the whole post. Got as far as the 2nd sentence

That demonstrates why you think the way you do and say the things you say. Lack of information leads to false conclusions. Which, if you're Trump, will be called lies. And what is humorous is that what you say you couldn't make it through is pasted in italics right above your disclaimer. Those reading your post of self-willed ignorance will see that which you are ignorant of. And it doesn't make you look good.

But ignorance, they say, is bliss. Stay happy.

PaulS

03-06-2017, 01:41 PM

That demonstrates why you think the way you do and say the things you say. Lack of information leads to false conclusions. Which, if you're Trump, will be called lies. No, he out and out lies. And what is humorous is that what you say you couldn't make it through is pasted in italics right above your disclaimer. Those reading your post of self-willed ignorance will see that which you are ignorant of. And it doesn't make you look good.

But ignorance, they say, is bliss. Stay happy.

I know you have said in the past "what difference does it make" when I have pointed his glaring lies.

Keep defending a liar - shows a lack of morals on your part (see I can do that too).

detbuch

03-06-2017, 01:53 PM

I know you have said in the past "what difference does it make" when I have pointed his glaring lies.

Uh huh, moving the goal post again.

Keep defending a liar - shows a lack of morals on your part (see I can do that too).

See, there you go lying again. I have not defended his actual lies, whatever they may have been. I have certainly pointed out that what was called a lie wasn't actually a lie.

And, again, you deflect and refuse to comment on the illegal leaking of classified information that tries to undermine Trump.

Yet you, somehow, seem to picture yourself as more moral than Trump.

PaulS

03-06-2017, 02:35 PM

See, there you go lying again. I have not defended his actual liesAt one point in the past you said "what difference does it make", whatever they may have been. I have certainly pointed out that what was called a lie wasn't actually a lie. Can you give me an example

And, again, you deflect and refuse to comment on the illegal leaking of classified information that tries to undermine Trump. When dd you ask me? How did I "deflect"? And why do you think someone has to respond to everything you say?

Yet you, somehow, seem to picture yourself as more moral than Trump.

I actually do.. In fact, I would say the majority of the people who regularly post on this forum seem to have more morals than Pres. Trump in my opinion.

scottw

03-06-2017, 03:25 PM

I actually do.. In fact, I would say the majority of the people who regularly post on this forum seem to have more morals than Pres. Trump in my opinion.

doesn't the left traditionally hate and mock morality and those who speak of it...suddenly it's a big deal???

detbuch

03-06-2017, 04:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
See, there you go lying again. I have not defended his actual lies

PaulS :At one point in the past you said "what difference does it make",[Detbuch: in debating with you, it often doesn't make any difference. If you specifically bring up what I was referring to, I might be able to give you a more specific answer.

whatever they may have been. I have certainly pointed out that what was called a lie wasn't actually a lie.

PaulS: Can you give me an example Detbuch: I gave you some examples in the thread where you couldn't get past the second sentence,

And, again, you deflect and refuse to comment on the illegal leaking of classified information that tries to undermine Trump.

PaulS: When dd you ask me? How did I "deflect"? And why do you think someone has to respond to everything you say? Detbuch: In post #37 of the Sessions thread. And you don't have to respond to everything I say. But when you respond to most of the minor, unimportant stuff and not the more significant, it sure looks like your dodging, deflecting, moving goal posts, and "lying" by omission.

Yet you, somehow, seem to picture yourself as more moral than Trump.

PaulS: I actually do.. In fact, I would say the majority of the people who regularly post on this forum seem to have more morals than Pres. Trump in my opinion.

Yes you do have a high opinion of yourself. And, like Trump, you know how to make someone you don't like look like an immoral liar.

detbuch

03-07-2017, 08:52 AM

Why this massive daily frenzy over something for which there is no evidence? But even if there was some collusion, why not treat it like all the foreign collusions and inner surveillances that have gone on before? When Ted Kennedy asked the Russians in 1983 to help defeat Reagan in the upcoming 1984 election, and that was exposed later, WHILE KENNEDY WAS STILL A SITTING SENATOR, there was no media uproar, no congressional investigation, no tiny slap on the wrist, no call for him to step down . . . nothing. When Obama blatantly interfered with the re-election of Netanyahu--no big deal. No little deal. Not to worry. When Obama surveilled journalists that did stuff he didn't like--just a little blip, then gone. When we all removed Saddam Hussein there was later a big hullabaloo against Bush, but helping to remove Gaddafi and straining to remove Assad, no problem. When FDR's administration was riddled with Soviet agents who helped to turn China over to Mao and all of Eastern Europe over to Stalin, eh, the way the cookie crumbles. FDR's reputation was not tarnished. He is one of the Democrat's icons.

There does seem to be a pattern. When Democrats do it, it seems to be OK. When Repubs do it, or are accused of doing it . . . not so much.

Jim in CT

03-07-2017, 10:32 AM

When Democrats do it, it seems to be OK. When Repubs do it, or are accused of doing it . . . not so much.

Trump brings some of this upon himself with his childish rants. But a fair amount of anti-Trump coverage is what you correctly labeled as naked hypocrisy.

The refugee ban, for example. Obama banned refugees from Iraq for 6 months (because he concluded it wasn't safe for us to take any), and he gets to keep his Nobel Peace Prize. Bill Clinton banned refugees from Sierra Leone, and he's a hero. Trump does it, and he's the devil.

PaulS

03-07-2017, 11:13 AM

Yes you do have a high opinion of yourself. And, like Trump, you know how to make someone you don't like look like an immoral liar.

Yes, I do have a high opinion of myself. If you think a thrice married, serial liar (:biglaugh:) who has a long history of bankruptcy and stiffing people has more morals than you, then perhaps you need to reexamine your actions.

Jim in CT

03-07-2017, 12:06 PM

Yes, I do have a high opinion of myself. If you think a thrice married, serial liar (:biglaugh:) who has a long history of bankruptcy and stiffing people has more morals than you, then perhaps you need to reexamine your actions.

Bill Clinton isn't known for being a gentleman, and Hilary has been known to bend the truth. But again, it's only a character flaw when Republicans do it.

I would bet you, Paul, are a much better human being than Trump is. The Clintons? Not so much.

detbuch

03-07-2017, 07:38 PM

Trump brings some of this upon himself with his childish rants. But a fair amount of anti-Trump coverage is what you correctly labeled as naked hypocrisy.

The refugee ban, for example. Obama banned refugees from Iraq for 6 months (because he concluded it wasn't safe for us to take any), and he gets to keep his Nobel Peace Prize. Bill Clinton banned refugees from Sierra Leone, and he's a hero. Trump does it, and he's the devil.

I am not interested in Trump. It is tiresome to constantly be hearing, reading, talking about Trump. I didn't know much, nothing of significance, about him until he became a presidential candidate. The only emotional, guttural, "feeling" I associated with him (watched a small part of one of his Apprentice shows, couldn't stomach more than that) was a mild dislike. Then, as candidate, the supposed "truth" about him became the subject du jour. The dirt was suddenly "exposed." He became this nasty, evil brute who hated and mistreated everybody but himself. The quintessential narcissist.

Seemed strange that who was once one of the golden boys could so quickly fall so low. Felt a little sorry for him. But watching his performances, first against the mealy mouthed Republicans who were afraid that their shadow might not look right and tried to appear to be saying the right things in correct ways (except maybe Cruz a little bit), then against insufferable Hillary, and then against the sanctimonious Press, I began to have some admiration for his fearless responses and even his supposedly outrageous claims. He actually began to be more likeable, more human, foibles and all. Stories about the good and charitable things he had done were more believable. The outstanding way his children turned out, the dedication he seemed to have for his family, in spite of how many times he was divorced, hearing him talk on conservative radio (conversations which most progressives were ignorant of) fleshed out a different human being than what was being defined by all his opponents (very few who impressed me as paragons of virtue or of ability or honesty or of concern for my issue--preservation of the Constitution).

I didn't think he would win the nomination, so was not overly concerned about who he was being made out to be. But when he did win it, and then went up against Hillary, it became apparent to me that how he was being portrayed was as much, or more, an exaggeration as were some of his whoppers. It was apparent, to me, that most of what were called his lies were not, objectionable as they might have seemed. It was also apparent that they were effective. There was, and probably still is, effective method in his wacky, outlandish comments. And it is genuinely entertaining, as well as satisfying, to see the reactions they elicit from his opponents and the Press. His latest bomb that Obama wire-tapped him being a case in point. He went from defense to offence and now there's this floundering around looking for "evidence" and coming up with rebuttals that are more damning to the notion that Trump colluded with the Russians than damning to Trumps statement. He keeps turning chit to Shinola.

But enough about Trump! Get on with appointing Gorsuch. Return power to the states. Get a couple more SCOTUS Justices and fill a hundred lower court vacancies with original textualists. I don't care where Trump was allowed by some groupie to put his hand 10 years ago. The real Trump doesn't compare badly as a person to the host of Presidents we've had in the past. We tend to forget some of the real doozies that have occupied that office, and forget the sexual proclivities and closet foul mouths of most of the "great" ones.

The President is not the Pope. Not the King. Not the Dictator. He is first and foremost the defender of the Constitution, and the faithful executor of his office. If he is virtuous in that, much as we might like him to be "moral" in terms of our own personal interpretation of morality, we should not expect more.

And there is such a thing as redemption. I may be way off, but there appears to be some of that in Trump. On the other hand, there is also the authoritarian in him. Maybe just ego which comes with presidential territory. And he may turn out to be more of a lefty than is good. It is right that Presidents don't serve more than two terms.

Jim in CT

03-07-2017, 08:16 PM

I am not interested in Trump. It is tiresome to constantly be hearing, reading, talking about Trump. I didn't know much, nothing of significance, about him until he became a presidential candidate. The only emotional, guttural, "feeling" I associated with him (watched a small part of one of his Apprentice shows, couldn't stomach more than that) was a mild dislike. Then, as candidate, the supposed "truth" about him became the subject du jour. The dirt was suddenly "exposed." He became this nasty, evil brute who hated and mistreated everybody but himself. The quintessential narcissist.

Seemed strange that who was once one of the golden boys could so quickly fall so low. Felt a little sorry for him. But watching his performances, first against the mealy mouthed Republicans who were afraid that their shadow might not look right and tried to appear to be saying the right things in correct ways (except maybe Cruz a little bit), then against insufferable Hillary, and then against the sanctimonious Press, I began to have some admiration for his fearless responses and even his supposedly outrageous claims. He actually began to be more likeable, more human, foibles and all. Stories about the good and charitable things he had done were more believable. The outstanding way his children turned out, the dedication he seemed to have for his family, in spite of how many times he was divorced, hearing him talk on conservative radio (conversations which most progressives were ignorant of) fleshed out a different human being than what was being defined by all his opponents (very few who impressed me as paragons of virtue or of ability or honesty or of concern for my issue--preservation of the Constitution).

I didn't think he would win the nomination, so was not overly concerned about who he was being made out to be. But when he did win it, and then went up against Hillary, it became apparent to me that how he was being portrayed was as much, or more, an exaggeration as were some of his whoppers. It was apparent, to me, that most of what were called his lies were not, objectionable as they might have seemed. It was also apparent that they were effective. There was, and probably still is, effective method in his wacky, outlandish comments. And it is genuinely entertaining, as well as satisfying, to see the reactions they elicit from his opponents and the Press. His latest bomb that Obama wire-tapped him being a case in point. He went from defense to offence and now there's this floundering around looking for "evidence" and coming up with rebuttals that are more damning to the notion that Trump colluded with the Russians than damning to Trumps statement. He keeps turning chit to Shinola.

But enough about Trump! Get on with appointing Gorsuch. Return power to the states. Get a couple more SCOTUS Justices and fill a hundred lower court vacancies with original textualists. I don't care where Trump was allowed by some groupie to put his hand 10 years ago. The real Trump doesn't compare badly as a person to the host of Presidents we've had in the past. We tend to forget some of the real doozies that have occupied that office, and forget the sexual proclivities and closet foul mouths of most of the "great" ones.

The President is not the Pope. Not the King. Not the Dictator. He is first and foremost the defender of the Constitution, and the faithful executor of his office. If he is virtuous in that, much as we might like him to be "moral" in terms of our own personal interpretation of morality, we should not expect more.

And there is such a thing as redemption. I may be way off, but there appears to be some of that in Trump. On the other hand, there is also the authoritarian in him. Maybe just ego which comes with presidential territory. And he may turn out to be more of a lefty than is good. It is right that Presidents don't serve more than two terms.
In a presidential primary debate, he bragged about the size of his hands. It's way beneath the dignity of that office. He does stuff like that a lot. It's a choice on his part unless he has tourettes. Policy wise, he was my favorite among the two choices. In time, maybe his vulgar tantrums will fail to be newsworthy. Not yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-07-2017, 08:19 PM

detbuch

03-07-2017, 08:46 PM

In a presidential primary debate, he bragged about the size of his hands. It's way beneath the dignity of that office. He does stuff like that a lot. It's a choice on his part unless he has tourettes. Policy wise, he was my favorite among the two choices. In time, maybe his vulgar tantrums will fail to be newsworthy. Not yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The size of his hands thing was a response to somebody's negative comment on the size. He didn't initiate it out of thin air. He debunked what was said. The dignity of that office is, for me, denigrated when a President trashes the Constitution. When a President becomes grabs more power than is delegated to him. When he does not do what the office calls for him to do. And when he consistently goes back on his promises.

detbuch

03-07-2017, 08:51 PM

I have no issue with him calling out the press because he is right. Truth doesn't bother me. But tweeting that Meryl Streep is overrated? If trump said she's an a-hole who gave a standing ovation to a violent, convicted child rapist, I would have liked that. Instead he engaged in the thoughtless personal attack.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, she attacked him first. Trump strikes back. I think she had it coming. And if he believes she is overrated, why not throw it back to her. Seriously, did the earth shake when he said she was overrated? Although, I like your version of what he should have said. Kind of think, though, that would have gotten a more earth shaking response than the one given to him after saying she was overrated.

Jim in CT

03-07-2017, 10:21 PM

Again, she attacked him first. Trump strikes back. I think she had it coming. And if he believes she is overrated, why not throw it back to her. Seriously, did the earth shake when he said she was overrated? Although, I like your version of what he should have said. Kind of think, though, that would have gotten a more earth shaking response than the one given to him after saying she was overrated.

She did attack him first, and there is an adult way to respond to that, which is to use her own actions to tear her to shreds, but do it like an adult, like a prosecutor would do.

The earth doesn't shake when he does any of these things. But I'm on his side, and yet these things make me wince. If he responded by saying "she tosses laurels at the feet of child rapists, so I'm not concerned what she thinks of me", THAT would earn my respect. It would also make people think twice before throwing cheap shots at him. I don't want him to take the abuse silently like Bush did, but respond like a smart, mature adult. Sarcasm and humor is fine too, but put some factual truth in there. He just sounds like a little baby brat.

I hope we're on the right track. Have a good night.

detbuch

03-08-2017, 12:33 AM

She did attack him first, and there is an adult way to respond to that, which is to use her own actions to tear her to shreds, but do it like an adult, like a prosecutor would do.

The earth doesn't shake when he does any of these things. But I'm on his side, and yet these things make me wince. If he responded by saying "she tosses laurels at the feet of child rapists, so I'm not concerned what she thinks of me", THAT would earn my respect. It would also make people think twice before throwing cheap shots at him. I don't want him to take the abuse silently like Bush did, but respond like a smart, mature adult. Sarcasm and humor is fine too, but put some factual truth in there. He just sounds like a little baby brat.

I hope we're on the right track. Have a good night.

Yeah, I wish he was Reaganesque. But he is Trump. And Reagan also didn't have the Dems, the Press, or the establishment Republicans on his side. And if Trump was Reaganesque, he still wouldn't have them on his side.

There is probably a lot more than Trump's personality that arouses the frenzy to take him down. The hysteria is over what many say was a true watershed election, one which could have entrenched a Progressive globalist oriented government and opened the door wide to a more rapid surrender of sovereignty to a socialistic world order. Or which could put a halt to that direction and reestablish the so-called American experiment. And the election did not stop that battle.

That may sound extreme or desperate, but look at what is happening politically in the West. We, in the West, have been quietly herded into that world order, bit by bit, through most of the twentieth century. And the past half century was shaped by Western guilt for what Progressive Liberals claimed was its rape of the rest of the planet. It has reached the point where the Progressive governments of the West encourage and legislate massive emigration into its boundaries of those in the world we oppressed. This was supposed to create world harmony.

But it exacerbated the hatred of the "less advanced" peoples for the richer people of the West. And it validated more and more demands by the third world on the unjustly fat and comfortable West. And our own Progressively educated youth joined this march of social justice not only supporting the elimination of borders but demanding free stuff for everybody.

And we were told that all was well and good, that mass emigration was good. That workers were needed. That any stories of violence were manufactured or overplayed. And that protesting was racist. That resisting was nationalism. Nazism. Which sounded nice and just, and it delayed any significant pushback.

But the native populations in the West began to see the degradation of their cultures, more violence than was admitted, policies that transferred what they thought was their birthright to others who did not create the wealth and freedom of the West. And were awakened to the realization that demographics pointed to their becoming a minority in their own countries.

Trump's election is part of an anti-progressive globalism which was deconstructing Western societies and reshaping them from diverse family oriented people with distinct regional cultures who all had finally shed the shackles of monarchic or dictatorial ruling classes and tasted the fruits of individual freedoms and rule of law. And shaping them into what appeared to be, once again, cultureless collectives dependent on and ruled by overlords. This time not by ruthless tyrants, but by intellectuals who claimed to know how everyone should live. And that way was not what they loved and cherished. A way not connected to ancestors and family lineage, not to their beliefs, their religions, their cultural identities. A way that would eliminate all of that. And would, at the same time, relinquish what they had to what promised to be a veritable invasion of foreigners, many of whose ancestors fought their own in the past.

We have not been told how many Europeans support Trump. Cheered for his victory. And are becoming more "conservative" wishing to preserve their cultures. All of Eastern and Central Europe is becoming nationalistic and pushing back against immigration. Britain opted out of the EU in order to retain its sovereignty. France, with the greatest number of immigrants, may well elect a right winger. Germans as well as Italians, Danes, Swedes, etc. are protesting against what has been happening to their countries.

Trump is part of that revolution. If you actually listen to the tenor of the voices in Europe which are against the destruction of their cultures, you will hear voices that make Trump sound like Santa Claus. A sometimes crude Santa. And wishing that he wouldn't say things to make us wince is just pissing up a rope. Trying to be what he isn't would not be convincing.

Right now, he is fighting a war against which he cannot win if his base abandons him. And his opposition would not be any nicer to him nor less fervent to get rid of him if he was "presidential." How much he is being used by the establishment Republicans may be seen with what legislation they pass. The health care bill they've concocted does not bode well if it is as described by the more conservative Repubs. This may all just slide back into the same old Republicans as Democrat lite. And Progressivism may return stronger than ever. And Trump may help that along. If he survives. We shall see.

Have a good night.

wdmso

03-08-2017, 05:37 AM

love the verbal gymnastics defending Trump..

Wheres the evidence they demand against him

But these same people do not demand any evidence From Him with his Accusations .. then go on with with utopian statements

" finally shed the shackles of monarchic or dicatorial ruling classes tasted the fruits of individual freedoms and rule of law....

If you thinks thats Trumps plan ... thats amazing

The Dad Fisherman

03-08-2017, 06:43 AM

But she is over-rated :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-08-2017, 07:09 AM

Right now, he is fighting a war against which he cannot win if his base abandons him. And his opposition would not be any nicer to him nor less fervent to get rid of him if he was "presidential." How much he is being used by the establishment Republicans may be seen with what legislation they pass. The health care bill they've concocted does not bode well if it is as described by the more conservative Repubs. This may all just slide back into the same old Republicans as Democrat lite. And Progressivism may return stronger than ever. And Trump may help that along. If he survives. We shall see.

Have a good night.

If he would stick to facts and common sense, which he has on his side, he cannot lose. Instead of him tweeting that his enemies suck, he should tweet why they are so very very wrong. The people that elected him are open to that. And it would make his enemies think twice before acting the way they do. Just my opinion.

He is in a position to halt the moral and economic decline. But he needs to act like an adult. He can still be Trump, I'm not asking him to become George Will. If your goal is to destroy the people who are attacking you, then especially when you have facts and common sense on your side, you can respond more effectively by presenting your case, than by giving them the middle finger. Giving them the middle finger, emboldens his opponents. That's what liberals want, they desperately want to trade insults. The last the thing they want to do, is to talk policy, because their policies are asinine. Expose that to the light of day.

Got Stripers

03-08-2017, 07:56 AM

They reported this morning Trump brand is moving to China, so I guess the Russian deal fell through, hey they like golf over there I know that for sure.

The Dad Fisherman

03-08-2017, 08:12 AM

Got Stripers

03-08-2017, 08:35 AM

He is an adolescent 13 year old in a 70 year old body, he can't grow up it's not in him.

Jim in CT

03-08-2017, 08:49 AM

He needs more "Congressional Speech" moments and less "Kardashian Tweet" moments

That's exactly what I was trying, and failing, to convey. He doesn't need to be Abraham Lincoln, but he shouldn't be a Kardashian either.

Jim in CT

03-08-2017, 08:56 AM

He is an adolescent 13 year old in a 70 year old body, he can't grow up it's not in him.

Maybe.

But in my opinion (and we can certainly disagree) his policy ideas are way more productive for the whole of our citizenry, than Hilary's would be.

Obama went on TV and specifically said that the Carrier jobs in Indiana could not be saved, and he mocked Trump for predicting that they could be saved. Then Trump and Pence made a phone call, and did that which Obama claimed was not possible. It made Obama look like a complete idiot.

That is what Trump brings to the table, a refusal to believe that things can't be done, just because everyone else says it will take 9 years for an idea to get through the necessary sub-committees. He has no tolerance for that. That's the beauty of electing an outsider.

He wants to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure. And he wants to give big tax breaks to working families, to offset the costs of childcare. And he wants paid family medical leave. These are populist ideas that most people like, and he will ram them through faster than any of his predecessors would, because he is not part of the system that chooses to move at a glacial pace.

But all of that gets lost because of his Kardashian moments. The press certainly doesn't help, they will never, ever give him a fair shake. They can't bring themselves to say anything good about him. And shame on them for that. But he is doing everything he can, to make their job as easy as possible. And shame on him, for that.

He has the chance to be one of the most effective presidents ever. If he would just grow up a bit.

Got Stripers

03-08-2017, 09:30 AM

I'd like to see someone actually talk some sense into him, be it his family, close business associate or recently appointed cabinet member. Someone needs to convince him to give up the constant tweeter storms and just get to fing work governing.

I've said it before, it's concerning to me that someone this thin skinned is in charge of handling the many very serious global issues any president elect faces in his 4 year term. North Korea, Russia flexing their muscles, the middle east, the list of conflicts requiring a cool head is a long one.

I know he says he has nothing to do with the family interest, but the announcement this morning about the Trump brand moving into China, begs the question is he getting special treatment to influence his decisions moving forward.

Jim in CT

03-08-2017, 09:41 AM

Got Stripers

03-08-2017, 10:08 AM

Jim in CT

03-08-2017, 10:19 AM

I know Trump can't wake up one morning with a hair across his arse and decide to nuke North Korea, but I'm not so sure all of our allies and more importantly our enemies; can see through all the BS coming out of his mouth. Loose lips sink ships and nobody has as loose a lip as the Donald.

He will not be as diplomatic to our partners, as they may be used to. That's another valid concern. Trump's approach seems to be, to make people realize that they need his help, and should therefore be willing to put up with his brashness. That attitude has worked for him in previous endeavors. He think sit will translate to international relations. Time will tell.

These are valid concerns, I think. But if you watch NBC or CNN, you'd think that Britain had already announced that they signed a treaty with ISIS against the US. And forget about MSNBC, that is a truly deranged place.

Trump would do well do act more adult. And the media would do well to remember why the founding fathers gave their profession special protections that no other profession enjoys, and start living up to that, and earning it.

detbuch

03-08-2017, 11:01 AM

If he would stick to facts and common sense, which he has on his side, he cannot lose. Instead of him tweeting that his enemies suck, he should tweet why they are so very very wrong. The people that elected him are open to that. And it would make his enemies think twice before acting the way they do. Just my opinion.

He is in a position to halt the moral and economic decline. But he needs to act like an adult. He can still be Trump, I'm not asking him to become George Will. If your goal is to destroy the people who are attacking you, then especially when you have facts and common sense on your side, you can respond more effectively by presenting your case, than by giving them the middle finger. Giving them the middle finger, emboldens his opponents. That's what liberals want, they desperately want to trade insults. The last the thing they want to do, is to talk policy, because their policies are asinine. Expose that to the light of day.

That common sense, rational, grown-up approach has been used against Progressives for a long time. That has not been as persuasive to the voters as you seem to think it must be. When Progressives have academia, the mainstream media, Hollywood, on their side of the debate, polite conversation is not an effective weapon. Has any of your common sense, adult conversation on this forum persuaded any of those you debate?

Policy is not the last thing the Progressives want to talk about. They talk policy all the time. Policy is totally what they are about. Government policy is government rule. The more policy, the more rule. Their policies may be asinine to a classical liberal who sees government as a necessary limited evil, but they are manna to people who have been conditioned to view government as the benevolent answer for all problems. Engaging in policy debates assumes the importance of policy, and places the debate within the Progressive framework of what government is.

And Progressives don't want to trade insults. They only want to dish them out to belittle their opposition while schmoozing the public with policies that supposedly make the people's lives better. Trading insults exposes their own as such and neutralizes one of their tactics.

The emotional side of politics, in the end, is the most powerful. It is easier to win over the minds of relatively free people by promising them more comfort with less responsibility than it is by just promising to protect and defend the freedom they already have. It is only among an enslaved people that liberty can evoke the strongest emotions.

As the Progressive notion of government keeps flooding us with its never ending tangle of policies that direct our lives, some of us begin to understand that we are losing something valuable in exchange for all the government's "gifts." In the freest part of the World, the West, there is this growing "feeling" that the exchange is a Faustian bargain. After incessant debates over policy which don't change the direction of government, the first emotional reaction is to raise the middle finger. The next step is to emotionally energize people to fight back against encroaching despotism. Trump is merely a step "in the right direction."

We may still have what's left of a Republic . . . if we can keep it.

detbuch

03-08-2017, 11:09 AM

He will not be as diplomatic to our partners, as they may be used to. That's another valid concern. Trump's approach seems to be, to make people realize that they need his help, and should therefore be willing to put up with his brashness. That attitude has worked for him in previous endeavors. He think sit will translate to international relations. Time will tell.

He doesn't seem to display brashness unless he is provoked to do so. So far he has been very diplomatic. But that cuts both ways. If partners or foes get lippy, they can expect to get some lip back in return. He works cooperatively with his staff. He has done so in his business ventures. He knows how to schmooze. But where do we get this idea that he will set off some nuclear bomb if someone rubs him the wrong way. I just don't get that.

These are valid concerns, I think. But if you watch NBC or CNN, you'd think that Britain had already announced that they signed a treaty with ISIS against the US. And forget about MSNBC, that is a truly deranged place.

Trump would do well do act more adult. And the media would do well to remember why the founding fathers gave their profession special protections that no other profession enjoys, and start living up to that, and earning it.

I agree with that.

buckman

03-08-2017, 11:16 AM

They reported this morning Trump brand is moving to China, so I guess the Russian deal fell through, hey they like golf over there I know that for sure.

Who's "they" ??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-08-2017, 11:28 AM

You know what's interesting, his children (at least Ivanka and Eric) don't act like him at all. When I see them on TV, they present themselves well, they appear poised and mature. He needs to act a bit more like them.

The way his children turned out and how they support him kind of tell me that there is something about Trump that we are missing when we sum him up to be this temper tantrum deranged teenager who will destroy our world.

"it's concerning to me that someone this thin skinned is in charge of handling the many very serious global issues "

You are right to have some concern. Fortunately, there are some limits to what he can do unilaterally, we have all kinds of limits to his authority, all kinds of checks and balances.

"the announcement this morning about the Trump brand moving into China, begs the question is he getting special treatment to influence his decisions moving forward"

Of course it begs that question. Handing the business to his kids, which I think is what he did, isn't nearly enough of a separation. He should have sold his entire family's interests outright.

So what happens if he gets impeached and removed from office? If he has sold his interests outright, does he get them back. Maybe he should just collect his pension, if he gets one. He did say that he is not going to collect a salary as President. Is that the case, I wonder?

Did the Founders of this nation give up all their stuff when they got elected to office? No. The bulk of their income actually came from their private interests and assets. That did not corrupt their ability to govern. And they defended and protected the Constitution far better than our "divested" politicians of today.

I think that business of divesting themselves is overplayed. It would certainly be exposed by our attentive media if a Republican President was using his office for financial gain. Maybe not so much if a Democrat one did. Whatever the China thing is, it cuts both ways. Although, with China to date, it seems to have been a one way street.

Jim in CT

03-08-2017, 01:04 PM

That common sense, rational, grown-up approach has been used against Progressives for a long time. That has not been as persuasive to the voters as you seem to think it must be. When Progressives have academia, the mainstream media, Hollywood, on their side of the debate, polite conversation is not an effective weapon. Has any of your common sense, adult conversation on this forum persuaded any of those you debate?

Policy is not the last thing the Progressives want to talk about. They talk policy all the time. Policy is totally what they are about. Government policy is government rule. The more policy, the more rule. Their policies may be asinine to a classical liberal who sees government as a necessary limited evil, but they are manna to people who have been conditioned to view government as the benevolent answer for all problems. Engaging in policy debates assumes the importance of policy, and places the debate within the Progressive framework of what government is.

And Progressives don't want to trade insults. They only want to dish them out to belittle their opposition while schmoozing the public with policies that supposedly make the people's lives better. Trading insults exposes their own as such and neutralizes one of their tactics.

The emotional side of politics, in the end, is the most powerful. It is easier to win over the minds of relatively free people by promising them more comfort with less responsibility than it is by just promising to protect and defend the freedom they already have. It is only among an enslaved people that liberty can evoke the strongest emotions.

As the Progressive notion of government keeps flooding us with its never ending tangle of policies that direct our lives, some of us begin to understand that we are losing something valuable in exchange for all the government's "gifts." In the freest part of the World, the West, there is this growing "feeling" that the exchange is a Faustian bargain. After incessant debates over policy which don't change the direction of government, the first emotional reaction is to raise the middle finger. The next step is to emotionally energize people to fight back against encroaching despotism. Trump is merely a step "in the right direction."

We may still have what's left of a Republic . . . if we can keep it.

"That common sense, rational, grown-up approach has been used against Progressives for a long time."

Not by a President. Bush just sat there and let everyone dump all over him, he never responded at all. Which is also not an approach I like.

When we show up and make our case, we win. That's why these wussies on college campuses would rather riot than let a conservative speak, because they know they have no response.

"When Progressives have academia, the mainstream media, Hollywood, on their side of the debate, polite conversation is not an effective weapon."

I disagree. When the left controls things, they don't win fact-based debates, they avoid fact-based debates. I watch NBC and MSNBC, I rarely see a conservative on there making effective points. Every once in a while MSNBC will throw a Klansmen out there, under the assumption that he represents everyone who isn't liberal. Show me a debate that Ann Coulter has ever lost. Or Trey Gowdy.

I do agree that control of media, academia, and Hollywood, is a massive obstacle. Bush responded by sating nothing when they attacked him. It didn't work. Trump responds by flying off the handle like a teenager. That won't work. The answer, I think, is in the middle somewhere.

But most people don't watch Foxnews, which means, most people only get the far-left take on everything.

Jim in CT

03-08-2017, 01:08 PM

So what happens if he gets impeached and removed from office? If he has sold his interests outright, does he get them back. Maybe he should just collect his pension, if he gets one. He did say that he is not going to collect a salary as President. Is that the case, I wonder?

Did the Founders of this nation give up all their stuff when they got elected to office? No. The bulk of their income actually came from their private interests and assets. That did not corrupt their ability to govern. And they defended and protected the Constitution far better than our "divested" politicians of today.

I think that business of divesting themselves is overplayed. It would certainly be exposed by our attentive media if a Republican President was using his office for financial gain. Maybe not so much if a Democrat one did. Whatever the China thing is, it cuts both ways. Although, with China to date, it seems to have been a one way street.

"The way his children turned out and how they support him kind of tell me that there is something about Trump that we are missing when we sum him up to be this temper tantrum deranged teenager who will destroy our world"

Of course. He's not the cartoon villain that the media is making him out to be. if you google "Trump generous charity" you will get all kinds of examples of his being very generous to those in need. At times, I think he has a very soft heart. But only one TV station will ever, ever bring that up.

"So what happens if he gets impeached and removed from office? If he has sold his interests outright, does he get them back. "

But owning a huge international business concern, can portray the appearance of a conflict of interest. I wonder what Romney's plans were if he won.

PaulS

03-08-2017, 02:37 PM

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1118373
Of course. He's not the cartoon villain that the media is making him out to be. if you google "Trump generous charity" you will get all kinds of examples of his being very generous to those in need. At times, I think he has a very soft heart. But only one TV station will ever, ever bring that up.

[/QUOTE]

I googled "Trump generous charity" and the titles of almost, if not all the titles on the 1st page indicated he is not that generous. I believe in NY social circles he was considered cheap.

Jim in CT

03-08-2017, 02:52 PM

I googled "Trump generous charity" and the titles of almost, if not all the titles on the 1st page indicated he is not that generous. I believe in NY social circles he was considered cheap.

http://theblacksphere.net/2016/09/trumps-generosity-media-blackout/

Not vouching for the source, but some of these are public knowledge, like the time Trump (the anti Semite) flew his plane across country to fly a sick Orthodox Jewish boy.

http://ijr.com/2015/11/461306-these-5-acts-of-kindness-reveal-theres-more-to-donald-trump-than-just-his-celebrity-persona/

http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2016/07/trumps-acts-of-generosity.html

https://townhall.com/columnists/lizcrokin/2016/07/10/trump-does-the-unthinkable-n2190160

Shall I go on?

Does that make him "generous" as far as billionaires go? I have no idea. I hang out with people who go camping for vacation.

detbuch

03-08-2017, 02:53 PM

"That common sense, rational, grown-up approach has been used against Progressives for a long time."

Not by a President. Bush just sat there and let everyone dump all over him, he never responded at all. Which is also not an approach I like.

I also don't like that approach. But Bush wasn't the only Republican to do that. Even worse, Republicans that did respond often did it on the same policy turf to which they were responding. That is a statistically losing method when your audience is programmed to see government as the distributor of goodies. No way are "conservative" policies going to consistently win in that scenario. That is asking the dependency programmed voting public to favor less goodies in favor of some idealistic personal responsibility. Sure, there are some, many, who can see the danger to liberty in the Progressive Faustian bargain. But, until the American public can be re-enlightened about the basis and reason for our founding, the goodie gatherers are going to outnumber the personal responsibility folks.

And the battle between the two types is essentially the battle between reason and emotion.

How can that battle be tipped toward reason? Infuse emotion into principle. If one cannot get emotional about liberty, especially over trading it away in order to get shiny objects, liberty as a principle ain't got a chance. Reagan was able to do that by the force of his charisma and powerful messaging of first principles. Lincoln was able to persuade half a nation to fight the other half with his beautiful rhetoric which spoke on principles of the freedom with which we are all endowed.

Wonkish nitpicking as a debate tactic favors the bigger gift giver. Sorry, but humans being what they are, that is just the way it is. I know, I know, you're not that way. A lot of people, for whatever reason, are not that way. But most are. Unless they can be revved up in the direction of "give me liberty, or give me death." That's a tough one, especially for folks who already have a fair amount of liberty.

The task is huge. "Conservatives" (constitutional) have to retake our educational system and have it sing their song rather than the Progressive siren call of the gift givers. That's a toughy. And a fairly long hall. But shaping the minds of our children in favor of freedom and personal responsibility is prerequisite to restoring the nation to founding principles. If that is done, most of the rest will follow. And appeals to the original "freedom of" paradigm rather than Roosevelt's "freedom from" will have the emotional appeal needed to favor responsibility over dependence.

At least, Trump has infused some emotion in his opposition to the lefties. And more than just the least, he has activated some urgency and energy as well. His New York brashness has its plusses and its (many) negatives. But, in the long run, he is just a beginning. If the movement (and his adopted movement), in the West as a whole, and here in particular, toward regional sovereignty and individual responsibility/liberty fails now, we may have to sink deeper into that soft despotism of dependency until another, less rational, revolution occurs.

When we show up and make our case, we win. That's why these wussies on college campuses would rather riot than let a conservative speak, because they know they have no response.

That is allowed by the lefties in power because it feeds the emotional demands of a large part of their base. It is not about "making a case." Therefor it doesn't convince lefties to become righties. Nothing, for the left is won or lost. They hold ground.

"When Progressives have academia, the mainstream media, Hollywood, on their side of the debate, polite conversation is not an effective weapon."

I disagree. When the left controls things, they don't win fact-based debates, they avoid fact-based debates. I watch NBC and MSNBC, I rarely see a conservative on there making effective points. Every once in a while MSNBC will throw a Klansmen out there, under the assumption that he represents everyone who isn't liberal. Show me a debate that Ann Coulter has ever lost. Or Trey Gowdy.

When did Progressives say that Ann Coulter has ever won a debate? No matter how quick witted, precisely on her mark she is, to a Progressive she is simply standing on the wrong ground. No matter how well her arguments defend that ground, it is wrong to begin with. To the lefties, It's like Hitler making a very persuasive reason for Nazism. Notice how even those on this forum, even if they are not pure Progressives, mock Coulter. She, like so many icons of the right, has been successfully demonized by the left. Most, even reasonable "moderates," can't get past her defined image. They'd rather not even listen to her or read her columns or books. She preaches to the choir. So don't go thinking she hands down wins debates. Even if you, or "conservatives" think she does. Ergo for Gowdy. Though when he talks law that may be a different matter.

I do agree that control of media, academia, and Hollywood, is a massive obstacle. Bush responded by sating nothing when they attacked him. It didn't work. Trump responds by flying off the handle like a teenager. That won't work. The answer, I think, is in the middle somewhere.

Again, he may not be flying off the handle. If you notice, most of the time he makes what seem to be outlandish remarks, he does so with a straight face and a rather calm manner. Doesn't often seem to go truly ballistic. Maybe emotional sometimes. And sometimes ballistic. Is that not acceptable? And a lot times it "works." Not in ways that folks traditionally understand.

But most people don't watch Foxnews, which means, most people only get the far-left take on everything.

Your last sentence sort of wraps it up. But it's not just the inattention to Fox News, but mostly the educational system from K through college. It is from that system that mainstream media and the entertainment industry is informed.

PaulS

03-08-2017, 03:33 PM

http://www.snopes.com/luck/trump.asp

I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Jim in CT

03-08-2017, 03:35 PM

Your last sentence sort of wraps it up. But it's not just the inattention to Fox News, but mostly the educational system from K through college. It is from that system that mainstream media and the entertainment industry is informed.

"The task is huge"

It is. Also hugely important.

I don't disagree with anything you said, except maybe one thing...when a thoughtful conservative does get a forum with liberals, and performs well, I do believe that some persuadable people (not the zealots on either side) will see who wins.

But you are correct, the liberals were brilliant to establish strongholds in academia and the media. Brilliant move, and very tough to overcome.

Jim in CT

03-08-2017, 03:36 PM

http://www.snopes.com/luck/trump.asp

I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I'm sure you are correct.

detbuch

03-08-2017, 05:34 PM

love the verbal gymnastics defending Trump..

What do you mean by "verbal gymnastics"? And can you cite some of the ones you're referring to?

Wheres the evidence they demand against him

Exactly, where's the evidence that Sessions, or Trump, or Trump's team colluded with the Russians to help Trump win?

But these same people do not demand any evidence From Him with his Accusations ..

All kinds of folks are demanding evidence from Trump (I assume that's who you are referring to) to back up his claim. Are you demanding it? I, personally don't demand any evidence, either from those who accuse Trump of collusion, or from Trump to back up his statement. I haven't heard of any evidence either way. Actually, Mark Levin has laid out a media trail of reportage that indicates that there was surveillance of Trump Towers, but I don't know if that is evidence.

I do observe, however, that there is a frenzied attempt to connect Trump with Russian collusion. That there is no evidence of it makes me wonder why there is such a desire to portray that he did collude. If anything, Trump's countercharge slowed down the drumbeats against him. That may pick up again. Especially if some actual evidence is found.

But even if there were evidence found, how would that be worse than what Dems have done in the past? Oh well . . . I apologize for not demanding evidence.

then go on with with utopian statements

" finally shed the shackles of monarchic or dicatorial ruling classes tasted the fruits of individual freedoms and rule of law....

What's utopian about that statement? Is there something in the statement referring to a perfect or idealistic state? Is there even an untruth or a lie in the statement?

If you thinks thats Trumps plan ... thats amazing

"Trump's election is part of an anti-progressive globalism which was deconstructing Western societies and reshaping them from diverse family oriented people with distinct regional cultures who all had finally shed the shackles of monarchic or dictatorial ruling classes and tasted the fruits of individual freedoms and rule of law. And shaping them into what appeared to be, once again, cultureless collectives dependent on and ruled by overlords."

Is their anything about Trump's plan in that statement? Are you denying there is an anti-Progressive movement occurring in Western countries?

Do you know what Trump's plan is?

detbuch

03-08-2017, 07:06 PM

I'd like to see someone actually talk some sense into him, be it his family, close business associate or recently appointed cabinet member. Someone needs to convince him to give up the constant tweeter storms and just get to fing work governing.

If the Dems would quit slowing down his cabinet selections, he could get down to effing work. In the meantime, he has met with foreign leaders, punched out executive orders, deleted other executive orders, met with business leaders and influenced some to do more business here, made proposals for tax cuts, prodded Congress to work on health care, instigated more movement on building The Wall, had a travel ban on and vetting of possible terrorists crafted, rejected, and remade, nominated a Supreme Court Judge, fought off and counter punched constant attacks on his character and loyalty, had some rallies, made some speeches . . . and some other things I can't remember off-hand.

I think you realize that everything he tries to do will be slowed down, litigated, criticized . . . opposed even by some in his own party. And that there is and will be a constant attempt to remove him from office backed by mainstream media--and if all fail to topple him, he will be tied up in knots out of which he will constantly have to extricate himself.

As far as I'm concerned, I won't be unhappy if he nor Congress get much "done." If Trump can help get us two or three good SCOTUS judges and fills the vacancies of the lower courts, reduces regulations and makes the country more business friendly as well as strengthening the military, that would be a good start, for me, toward making us freer and productive. If the Federal government would give us less obstacles to freely live our lives, protect our borders, and let us come up with solutions to our problems at state and local levels as well as in our personal lives, that would get us closer to whatever Trump means by "great again."

wdmso

03-10-2017, 05:57 AM

"Trump's election is part of an anti-progressive globalism which was deconstructing Western societies and reshaping them from diverse family oriented people with distinct regional cultures who all had finally shed the shackles of monarchic or dictatorial ruling classes and tasted the fruits of individual freedoms and rule of law. And shaping them into what appeared to be, once again, cultureless collectives dependent on and ruled by overlords."

Is their anything about Trump's plan in that statement? Are you denying there is an anti-Progressive movement occurring in Western countries?

Do you know what Trump's plan is?

Do you ??? I have heard nothing from Him but noise .. that in any way shape or form outlines or even explains his Plan

your creative writing about his intent is insightful very Knight on white horse here to save us from our enslavers .. but not based in reality.. How many freedoms have been stolen from you by these monarchic or dictatorial ruling classes which you list .. will the list be as colorful ?

detbuch

03-10-2017, 04:11 PM

Do you ??? I have heard nothing from Him but noise .. that in any way shape or form outlines or even explains his Plan

I didn't mention any Trump plan. You mentioned "plan." If you don't know his plan, why make a sarcasm about it?

your creative writing about his intent is insightful very Knight on white horse here to save us from our enslavers .. but not based in reality.. How many freedoms have been stolen from you by these monarchic or dictatorial ruling classes which you list .. will the list be as colorful ?

Nor did I say anything about Trump's "intent" in the passage you cite: "Trump's election is part of an anti-progressive globalism which was deconstructing Western societies and reshaping them from diverse family oriented people with distinct regional cultures who all had finally shed the shackles of monarchic or dictatorial ruling classes and tasted the fruits of individual freedoms and rule of law."

I was speaking of Western society as a whole. The process toward individual freedom started in the West, in Europe, long before the American Experiment. But it got going into high gear with the American Revolution. Obviously all the Western countries, including the US, freed themselves from the above said shackles, advanced toward individual freedom, and created similar but varied rules of law protecting their freedom.

The current Progressive movement is about reshaping regional and cultural differences. The UN is a model or a start for centralized world government. Regional differences are cause of division and conflict. The goal is to tamp down and eventually eliminate the differences by melding them all into an agreed upon sameness. The goal is noble. World harmony and equality.

For that to happen much history and current culture will have to be forgotten or rewritten or re-"interpreted." And the true diversity existing in the human genome will have to be engineered to eliminate differences potentially harmful to a central order. And family heritage will have to be subsumed by patronage of the State.

I don't think that the Progressive model is, as you might say, "based in reality."

As for stolen freedoms, to discuss that would require that you and I agree on what freedoms are and which did we get in our Revolution. And how they are protected and guaranteed. And further, it would be required of us to agree on what it means to "interpret" the Constitution that does that. Since we have shown that we don't agree on that, it is probably futile to give you a list of freedoms lost.

But I'll point out one way that it has happened as an example of the many, and make some general comments.

Early encroachments on Constitutional interpretation were done through the Commerce and the General Welfare Clauses. For FDR's New Deal to happen, for instance, the Constitution had to be "tortured" (the word used by one of the four members of FDR's Brain Trust when he admitted that most of the New Deals creations of agencies and production of regulations were done by "torturing" the Constitution out of recognition) and "interpreted" into something it is not. An early example involved protecting the New Deal's attempt at stabilizing the price of commodities by not letting them drop. So the farmers' output was limited by quota so as not to "overproduce" which would bring the price down (which, ironically would have been a boon to the poor and unemployed during the depression). So when a certain wheat farmer (in Ohio if I remember correctly) produced a small amount above the quota for his personal use, the federal government fined him using the Commerce Clause as justification.

The farmer took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. The problem for the government was that the Commerce Clause is actually an interstate commerce clause. So, per the Constitution, for the government to win, the product had to cross state lines and it had to be sold, (actual commerce). But FDR's Progressive Court found that the farmer actually affected the aggregate price of wheat because he didn't buy it. So, even though the wheat never crossed state lines (was not interstate) and was not sold (commerce), the farmer lost, as did the rest of us, the ability to grow stuff for ourselves if the government says we can't for whatever reason it concocts. And it vitiated the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause. The government can invoke the clause in any case in which the outcome can, in any way, affect commerce. Which just about involves anything we do. The amount of rights that have been limited or eliminated under the precedent created by this "interpretation" are many, and boundless in the future.

This case can be multiplied in manifold instances, fist by Court cases with twisted "interpretations." Then added to by the creation of a plethora of agencies which have unconstitutional plenary power to regulate almost every aspect of our lives. Agencies which produce 80 thousand new pages of regulations, on top of the old ones, every year.

Various court cases have limited or even destroyed much of the Bill of Rights. As well, religious and Speech rights have been narrowed or eliminated. Gun rights have been narrowed and are constantly under assault. Eminent Domain has been stretched to give government more power to seize land than was originally given to it. And much, much more. What is rarely mentioned anymore is what was once referred to as the vast residuum of rights reserved to the people. Those being the innumerable rights outside of those few granted to the government. But, the expansion of all-powerful regulatory agencies along with Court interpretations have, over time, somehow managed to expand government rights to include that vast residuum once belonging to the people and the states, and basically left only those granted to us by the Bill of rights, which, as I've said, have also been narrowed. If you are truly interested, you can research and read up on what has been lost in terms of individual rights.

And keep in mind, much of what is lost is potential. For instance, the Court decision on the ACA, not only gave the power to the Federal Government to force us to buy health insurance under penalty of a tax if we don't, it has by precedence given the government power to force us to buy anything else under the same penalty. So, even though we can now buy or not buy broccoli as we choose without penalty, it's not because we now have some unalienable right (one of those vast residuum of rights we once had) not to buy it without penalty, it's only because the government has not, at this point, decided to restrict that right. But it now has that right (which it once didn't have) and we have lost that "right."

In this way, the precedence set by various individual cases, have actually spawned potentials for unlimited regulation of anything that can be imagined to relate to any precedence under the umbrella of the decisions made.

This could be expanded to a book to give you the list you asked for. But some on the forum don't like to read more than a couple of sentences, so I'll leave it off here. Hope you get the gist. If not, it probably won't be a tragedy. I certainly don't want to invoke the "chicken little" type argument you don't like. (Which, you probably haven't noticed that you often do.)

wdmso

03-10-2017, 05:28 PM

Nor did I say anything about Trump's "intent" in the passage you cite: "Trump's election is part of an anti-progressive globalism which was deconstructing Western societies and reshaping them from diverse family oriented people with distinct regional cultures who all had finally shed the shackles of monarchic or dictatorial ruling classes and tasted the fruits of individual freedoms and rule of law."

I was speaking of Western society as a whole. The process toward individual freedom started in the West, in Europe, long before the American Experiment. But it got going into high gear with the American Revolution. Obviously all the Western countries, including the US, freed themselves from the above said shackles, advanced toward individual freedom, and created similar but varied rules of law protecting their freedom.

The current Progressive movement is about reshaping regional and cultural differences. The UN is a model or a start for centralized world government. Regional differences are cause of division and conflict. The goal is to tamp down and eventually eliminate the differences by melding them all into an agreed upon sameness. The goal is noble. World harmony and equality.

For that to happen much history and current culture will have to be forgotten or rewritten or re-"interpreted." And the true diversity existing in the human genome will have to be engineered to eliminate differences potentially harmful to a central order. And family heritage will have to be subsumed by patronage of the State.

I don't think that the Progressive model is, as you might say, "based in reality."

As for stolen freedoms, to discuss that would require that you and I agree on what freedoms are and which did we get in our Revolution. And how they are protected and guaranteed. And further, it would be required of us to agree on what it means to "interpret" the Constitution that does that. Since we have shown that we don't agree on that, it is probably futile to give you a list of freedoms lost.

But I'll point out one way that it has happened as an example of the many, and make some general comments.

Early encroachments on Constitutional interpretation were done through the Commerce and the General Welfare Clauses. For FDR's New Deal to happen, for instance, the Constitution had to be "tortured" (the word used by one of the four members of FDR's Brain Trust when he admitted that most of the New Deals creations of agencies and production of regulations were done by "torturing" the Constitution out of recognition) and "interpreted" into something it is not. An early example involved protecting the New Deal's attempt at stabilizing the price of commodities by not letting them drop. So the farmers' output was limited by quota so as not to "overproduce" which would bring the price down (which, ironically would have been a boon to the poor and unemployed during the depression). So when a certain wheat farmer (in Ohio if I remember correctly) produced a small amount above the quota for his personal use, the federal government fined him using the Commerce Clause as justification.

The farmer took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. The problem for the government was that the Commerce Clause is actually an interstate commerce clause. So, per the Constitution, for the government to win, the product had to cross state lines and it had to be sold, (actual commerce). But FDR's Progressive Court found that the farmer actually affected the aggregate price of wheat because he didn't buy it. So, even though the wheat never crossed state lines (was not interstate) and was not sold (commerce), the farmer lost, as did the rest of us, the ability to grow stuff for ourselves if the government says we can't for whatever reason it concocts. And it vitiated the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause. The government can invoke the clause in any case in which the outcome can, in any way, affect commerce. Which just about involves anything we do. The amount of rights that have been limited or eliminated under the precedent created by this "interpretation" are many, and boundless in the future.

This case can be multiplied in manifold instances, fist by Court cases with twisted "interpretations." Then added to by the creation of a plethora of agencies which have unconstitutional plenary power to regulate almost every aspect of our lives. Agencies which produce 80 thousand new pages of regulations, on top of the old ones, every year.

Various court cases have limited or even destroyed much of the Bill of Rights. As well, religious and Speech rights have been narrowed or eliminated. Gun rights have been narrowed and are constantly under assault. Eminent Domain has been stretched to give government more power to seize land than was originally given to it. And much, much more. What is rarely mentioned anymore is what was once referred to as the vast residuum of rights reserved to the people. Those being the innumerable rights outside of those few granted to the government. But, the expansion of all-powerful regulatory agencies along with Court interpretations have, over time, somehow managed to expand government rights to include that vast residuum once belonging to the people and the states, and basically left only those granted to us by the Bill of rights, which, as I've said, have also been narrowed. If you are truly interested, you can research and read up on what has been lost in terms of individual rights.

And keep in mind, much of what is lost is potential. For instance, the Court decision on the ACA, not only gave the power to the Federal Government to force us to buy health insurance under penalty of a tax if we don't, it has by precedence given the government power to force us to buy anything else under the same penalty. So, even though we can now buy or not buy broccoli as we choose without penalty, it's not because we now have some unalienable right (one of those vast residuum of rights we once had) not to buy it without penalty, it's only because the government has not, at this point, decided to restrict that right. But it now has that right (which it once didn't have) and we have lost that "right."

In this way, the precedence set by various individual cases, have actually spawned potentials for unlimited regulation of anything that can be imagined to relate to any precedence under the umbrella of the decisions made.

This could be expanded to a book to give you the list you asked for. But some on the forum don't like to read more than a couple of sentences, so I'll leave it off here. Hope you get the gist. If not, it probably won't be a tragedy. I certainly don't want to invoke the "chicken little" type argument you don't like. (Which, you probably haven't noticed that you often do.)

Sure sounded like you knew his plan if you dont know what Trump's plan is? why the big answer ... you could expanded to a book but I don't read fantasy ......

laws are not created in a vacuum they are made by men and women we elect... the world changes thats the nature of things

nostalgia is the blanket of the fearful

detbuch

03-11-2017, 12:30 AM

Sure sounded like you knew his plan if you dont know what Trump's plan is? why the big answer ... you could expanded to a book but I don't read fantasy ......

Sure sounds like you know how to spout gibberish. And how to read something that doesn't exist (maybe the reason for the spouted gibberish). I never mentioned a plan. I didn't speak of a plan. I didn't say anything about Trump's plan. You're the one who brought up "plan."

laws are not created in a vacuum they are made by men and women we elect... the world changes thats the nature of things

Now you're moving the goalpost. Your switching from "rights" (freedoms) to "laws."

And you're demonstrating that you do not understand this nation's founding. You don't understand the Declaration of Independence. So you don't understand the purpose of the Constitution and why it was written the way it was. It shows to me that when you took the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, you didn't know what exactly you were swearing to defend.

The Constitution limits government's (your elected men and women) ability to write laws which infringe on individuals' unalienable rights. They are unalienable because they precede the Constitution. And precede all man made laws. You can refer to unalienable rights as natural rights, or rights provided not by men but by a creator. Rights as laws created by men and women are not unalienable since men and women can write those laws out of existence or abridge them however they choose. If all rights were granted by humans, then no right would be unalienable. And there would be no guarantee against despotic administrations instituting tyrannical laws. Nor any legal guarantee against those men and women stripping people of rights.

The Bill Of Rights are examples of specified unalienable rights. Those rights are not granted by the Constitution. They are pre-existing rights which the Constitution defends. The "rights" in the Bill Of Rights are not man made written "laws" as such. They are limitations against law. They are limitations on governments ability to write laws. The same can be said about what was once referred to as "the vast residuum" of individual rights. The Bill Of Rights are referred to by some as a charter of negative liberties. They are rights that government cannot negate nor abridge. The government has negative (no) right to deny them.

It may be that all laws are written by Humans. But not all rights are--if you adhere to the principles of our founding and the Constitution. There are no man made laws creating life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are natural ""rights" inherent in human nature.

On the other hand, if you adhere to the principles of Progressivism as your statement strongly implies, then you believe there are no rights except those granted by government. And all rights are positively expressed by laws written by government (men and women we elect). And because you believe all laws are written by men and women, then you must believe that the law written by men to limit men and women's ability to write laws, the Constitution, is null and void. Because if all laws are written by men and women then there is no limit to their ability to do so. Ergo, for you, as it de facto is for Progressives, the Constitution is nonsense and an impediment to the ability of men and women to write laws prescribing all rights.

Which is why I said: 'it would be required of us to agree on what it means to "interpret" the Constitution . . . Since we have shown that we don't agree on that, it is probably futile to give you a list of freedoms lost."

So I apologize for the "big answer." I wasted both of our times. No doubt I have done so again with this big answer.

It is ironic, though, when you said the "world" changes, that's the "nature" of things. It was the Constitution that was written to reflect nature, and specifically human nature, and natural law. You say you don't read fantasy, yet refer to "nature" not as a concrete, material thing, but as some abstract "nature" of perpetual change. Although your notion is a perfect expression of Progressivism, that the "nature" of things is change, that nullifies the notion that there is a constant human nature, or even a constant nature. Which all rather nullifies concepts such as law and rights if their is no constant reality on or in which those things exist. How can even science operate without constants? What is a law or a right that constantly changes? Without some constant fundamental on which to build law or imagine a right, then laws and rights are fantasies that come and go in fictive definitions. Everything is relative so nothing truly exists except in relation to something else. Laws and rights exist only in relation to Transitory occasions. What may be a law or a right in this occasion may not be so in an unlimited number of other occasions. The function of law becomes completely arbitrary. In effect laws and rights are fantasies of the moment.

And that is precisely the nature of man made ideas which are not based on actual and constant natural phenomena. Pure, imaginative fiction. Beautiful in their own right. But not functional as law or rights, nor much else that has to be translated into the "real" world.

nostalgia is the blanket of the fearful

That's a poetic string of words. But nostalgia is a lot more things than that limited definition. Besides, in what you're responding to, I didn't say anything nostalgically. I was being matter of fact. My pointing out how freedoms were lost, for instance, were factual. Not nostalgic at all. But if you're off in some fantasy la-la land, things might seem nostalgic to you.

scottw

03-11-2017, 07:20 AM

Paul is going to be very jealous .....

wdmso

03-11-2017, 08:20 AM

PaulS

03-11-2017, 09:50 AM

Paul is going to be very jealous .....

I feel left out.

Awfully cold this morning. My walk on the beach is going to be tough in a few minutes. Thinking maybe I should go to Turkey for the warm weather. I wonder if there is anyone who could get me discounted rates.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS

03-11-2017, 09:56 AM

The thing that is most pathetic to me about the whole Flynn issue is that the Trump Administration knew for 3 weeks that Flynn met with the Russian Ambassador and did not say a word until the Washington Post broke the story. Looks like they were trying to sweep it under the rug
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-11-2017, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
"Trump's election is part of an anti-progressive globalism which was deconstructing Western societies and reshaping them from diverse family oriented people with distinct regional cultures who all had finally shed the shackles of monarchic or dictatorial ruling classes and tasted the fruits of individual freedoms and rule of law. And shaping them into what appeared to be, once again, cultureless collectives dependent on and ruled by overlords."

Is their anything about Trump's plan in that statement? Are you denying there is an anti-Progressive movement occurring in Western countries?

Do you know what Trump's plan is?

I never mentioned a plan. I didn't speak of a plan. I didn't say anything about Trump's plan. You're the one who brought up "plan."

Seems you are in mistaken ^^^^

No, I am not mistaken. There is no mention of a plan by Trump in my statement. When I said his election was part of anti-globalism, against a Progressive globalism, I threw his election in as part of this movement in Western societies as a whole as demonstrated by the rest of the statement. I wasn't saying it was Trump's plan to be a part of the movement. Nor was I even inferring it. If I wanted to say it was his plan, I would have said it was his plan. That's why I said that I didn't mention a plan. That's why I didn't mention a Trump plan. The anti-globalist movement is not a plan. No centralized authority is directing it. It is a nearly simultaneous anti-globalist pushback in almost all Western countries.

Now you're moving the goalpost. Your switching from "rights" (freedoms) to "laws."

How else are theses losses taken .. certainly not by the barrel of a gun

the goal post are the same .. all 3 are effected by laws

Don't know what you're referring to here, but you asked me to give you a list of lost freedoms. I gave you a specific instance of one and how it was accomplished, and I listed several others in a general manner rather than a tedious case by case. Your response seems to have been merely that the world changes--that's the nature of things. So if its just the nature of things that we lose freedoms, why ask for a list? Certainly, from your attitude, you're not concerned by lost freedoms--it's just the nature of things--why get nostalgic about lost freedoms? (as I said, I wasn't being nostalgic. I was being factual)

And you're demonstrating that you do not understand this nation's founding. You don't understand the Declaration of Independence. So you don't understand the purpose of the Constitution and why it was written the way it was. It shows to me that when you took the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, you didn't know what exactly you were swearing to defend.

And there it is in a nut shell ... so any freedoms That were lost were at the Hands of Men or women who like me it seems "do not understand this nation's founding. You and they don't understand the Declaration of Independence. So you and them don't understand the purpose of the Constitution "

No, the freedoms were lost at the hands of men(mostly) and women who DID understand our founding and its documents. They knew exactly what they were doing. And they "interpreted" the Constitution in deceptive ways to make it appear that what they were doing was constitutional. It's just that many men and women, like you as you say, accepted their ploy as genuine. That the Constitution was being defended and supported while it was actually being sabotaged.

So based on all this if you had a Time machine what period in our history would satisfy your Views ... or a time when there was 100% consensus on your views of the bill of rights the Constitution or Declaration of Independence..

It's not a question of mere views. Law, if it is to be applied to more than one person, cannot merely be a point of view. The Constitution, as law, applies limitations on, mostly federal, government's power to abridge or deny the people's freedoms/rights by enumerating the areas only in which it is allowed to do so. It leaves criminal statutory law up to states and localities where the citizens have power to decide by majority rule.

The Constitution provides the only way to change its structural limitations on government--amendment. That is not affected by time. It is always to be so. Though the Constitution can be changed, it is to be done by formal amendment, not by judicial whim to suit a judge's notion of changing times

My guess is any time in history you would have the same argument as you do today and i would have the same counter argument and neither of us in my eye have the solution

Law is not up to you nor I to change. Different arguments whether affected by time or personal whim cannot change law. Law is formal. And it must be changed in a formal manner.

As I said, if you think mere time or point of view can change the Constitution, you don't understand it. If you don't think the Constitution should any longer be applied, that's a different story. That would be the Progressive argument. Understandably, the structure of the Constitution makes the Progressive idea of government impossible to apply, so, if it cannot be done by amendment, unless there is some kind of revolt by enough people to forcefully eliminate the Constitution, then change must be done by deception or "interpretation."

As I said, since you and I have shown that we do not agree on what constitutional "interpretation" is, we can't agree on what freedoms have been lost.

And it doesn't seem by your responses, that lost freedoms are of any concern to you. Mentioning them is mere nostalgia--the blanket of the fearful.

wdmso

03-11-2017, 05:17 PM

[QUOTE=detbuch;1118553]Law is not up to you nor I to change. Different arguments whether affected by time or personal whim cannot change law. Law is formal. And it must be changed in a formal manner.

As I said, if you think mere time or point of view can change the Constitution, you don't understand it. If you don't think the Constitution should any longer be applied, that's a different story. That would be the Progressive argument. Understandably, the structure of the Constitution makes the Progressive idea of government impossible to apply, so, if it cannot be done by amendment, unless there is some kind of revolt by enough people to forcefully eliminate the Constitution, then change must be done by deception or "interpretation."

As I said, since you and I have shown that we do not agree on what constitutional "interpretation" is, we can't agree on what freedoms have been lost.

But isn't that the problem "the interpretation of data" if we had the same "interpretation" why even take about it?

And it doesn't seem by your responses, that lost freedoms are of any concern to you. Mentioning them is mere nostalgia--the blanket of the fearful. My concern is to you all losses Taken have been nefarious ... when I in fact see the March of time and the modern age and technology our founders had great vision but it was impossible for them to provide a document that would address every scenario presented in todays world [/QUOTE

The constitution is not a size fit all document

The Constitution of the United States is a living document because it was written to be adapted by future generations. If it had not been written with such intentions, the government would be unable to ratify new amendments since this in itself is a change.

so well have to agree to disagree

detbuch

03-11-2017, 10:08 PM

[QUOTE=wdmso;1118564 But isn't that the problem "the interpretation of data" if we had the same "interpretation" why even take about it?

detbuch: If there are different interpretations of data, are all interpretations correct? If you're saying the Constitution is data, which is a big stretch, but if we consider it data, and we use that data as a measure for deciding a case, and different judges read the data in different ways to come to different conclusions, is the data being used correctly by all the judges? Let's say we call a ruler data (a sort of measurement Constitution), and the length of a stick is to be decided. And when the ruler is applied to the stick the number on the ruler at the end point of measurement is 12. If 5 judges interpret that to mean the stick is 15 inches long and 4 judges interpret it to mean the stick is 12 inches long, are the majority of judges correct?

wdmso: My concern is to you all losses Taken have been nefarious ... when I in fact see the March of time and the modern age and technology our founders had great vision but it was impossible for them to provide a document that would address every scenario presented in todays world

detbuch: There may have been some good losses. But there have been many bad ones. Whether a loss is good or bad is not the relevant point for me. How it was done is what is important. The nefariousness is not in the loss, but in the process. If the loss is done in the proper constitutional manner, so be it. If it is done unconstitutionally, it is nefarious.

The Constitution was not meant to address every scenario, but to address which Branch or which level of government from federal to local, if any, had the power to regulate classes of scenarios. The founders certainly knew that technology and knowledge would advance new ideas and products. That's why they didn't try to specify scenarios but instead mentioned very broad classes of scenarios--regulation of interstate commerce for instance. This would encompass all manner of new things that could be involved in interstate commerce. If any type of scenario doesn't fit within the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution, then the federal government has no power to regulate it. And if some new type of scenario arises, that does not fall within enumerated powers but the people and their representatives believe that government should have the power to regulate it, the Constitution can be amended to include an enumeration giving some branch of government power to do so. I don't know of any such new scenario having arisen. For instance, the Founders probably didn't know that jet airliners would be invented. But the broad areas covered by the enumerations easily allow jets as well as all other inventions to either be regulated by the federal government or left alone for the people or the states to regulate or not.

wdmso: The constitution is not a size fit all document

detbuch: Yes and no. Some sizes (most) are to be left to states and to the people. The size created by the constitutional enumeration of powers all fit federal government regulation.

wdmso: The Constitution of the United States is a living document because it was written to be adapted by future generations. If it had not been written with such intentions, the government would be unable to ratify new amendments since this in itself is a change.

detbuch: We have an old wooden spoon that has been handed down by a couple of generations. It is used for different purposes and to stir new and different stews and soups than it did when it was new. Is it a living spoon?

The "living document" schtick was an invention of the early Progressives like Woodrow Wilson who considered the Constitution to be an outdated impediment to their notion of government which was one that needed to be unshackled from restricted enumerations of power. Government, for the Progressives, was to be a central power able to do anything it considered good for all citizens without being limited to a few specific categories. It was too difficult to amend the Constitution, so it had to be given a new breath of "life" simply by interpreting it in any way necessary to suit its needs.

The Progressives didn't fear unlimited government because they thought history had come to a good place in time where enlightened men ruled the day. And, besides, Americanism, the American character, would not allow despotic authoritarians. American authoritarians would only do good, not evil. If you want to swallow that bilge, no one (except a nefarious authoritarian) can stop you. I think that Progressive notion is idiotic. History has never arrived at the good place Progressives imagined. Human nature has not changed. We still have wars and dictators and evil despots. We will always have power seekers, and they will eventually be found at top levels of government. American or otherwise.

The nature of living things is they eventually die. It is only those inanimate abstractions such as ideas that don't actually die because they were never alive. They can exist forever. They can be forgotten. They can be remembered again by following generations after having been forgotten

If a document were somehow "living," then it will die. If it is an abstract idea formed by words, it can exist and be used as long as generations choose to. If it is to survive through change, then some words have to be changed--amended. If generations do in its name what the document does not allow, without changing its words, then the document no longer exists except as a picture on the wall. Neither alive nor dead. Just defunct.

wdmso: so well have to agree to disagree[/QUOTE]

Why can we not agree?