I assume that what you say about Trump is a result of your extensive "researching." But what you say as a result of that does not explain nor negate what Trump has done during his brief time in office. Ergo, I have no confidence in the veracity or relevance of your sources. There are sources that picture Trump as a positive force. I don't care about them either. The actual facts of his doing "the job" unfolding before our eyes determines what I think about him vis a vis "the job."

BTW, I am still interested in how you believe that corporations will lead to the end of democracy in this country, but that judges usurping Congress's power to amend the Constitution simply by rewriting the law (the Constitution) through "interpretations" that suit their personal prejudices, will not endanger democracy in this country?

What a crock of #^&#^&#^&#^&. In the past 100 years you claim "progressives" have influenced our country we've become the most powerful nation on the planet, cleaned up so much of our environment, got rid of child labor, reduced poverty, worked to defeat multiple enemies, advanced healthcare, invested in science which has driven corporate innovation, rocked the best legal system in existence, expanded civil liberties etc... etc... etc...

Our country is great, largely because of progressive thinking. We can do a lot better but the proof is in the putting.

How is your life suffering because of progressive policy?

Don't forget they invented the unisex bathroom and sanctuary cities too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was great before Progressivism. Progressivism is not the reason our country is great. Progressive thinking is not a product of Progressivism. Nor vice versa. Actual progress, and progressive thinking advanced fairly steadily, with a few bumps in certain areas, throughout history, and are far more advanced by individual freedom than by government control. Progressivism as a political philosophy and system is not progressive in the literal, non-political meaning of the word. It was an erroneous, self-aggrandizing, label created by the founders of the movement. They thought they were the next synthesis of evolutionary human social and governmental progress.

Progressivism is not actually progressive as a political system. It is a newer, gentler (for the time being), version of past authoritarian regimes. The notion that it is the reason for human progress is, as you put it, a crock of #^&#^&#^&#^&. It has pretty much managed to flourish on the bedrock of this nation's founding.

It developed in ascendance starting slowly, then more quickly over time toward its present dominance. And as it is reaching its apex of power, it's growing, massive and unwieldy structure is beginning to be exposed by things like those that concern Pete F, such as Corporatism (Big Government/Big Busaness complex), disappearance of the middle class, and "income inequality." It is also crumbling into the fissures of division by race, gender, income level, class struggle, expansion of government dependence, destruction and minimization of individual motivation, atomization of national culture creating culture wars, descent into a meaningless Post Modern relativism with its psychological stresses, alienation, futile wars, unsustainable government debt, I would add godlessness but that would be considered a plus by Post Modern, Social Marxist, Progressive relativists.

I live in CT (an extremely progressive state), and pay $900 more a month in taxes, than I would if I lived in NH. So you tell me...

And maybe you could ask that question to Kate Steinle's father

More parents here that you could ask https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...gh-victims.htm
If we are going to label a group based on an incident, there is plenty to go around

I didn’t label any group. Spence asked what harm has come to anyone from progressive ideas. The progressive notion of sanctuary cities led directly to kate steinles death, and you can deny that until you are blue, but it’s true. It’s also true that liberalism has led to crushing taxes in my home state of ct, and if Spence doesn’t think that causes harm, that shows you how aloof he is.

What made our country great is the idea that the individual has rights granted by god, and that the state serves the individual, not the other way around; also the concepts of individual liberty and upward economic mobility. These are the things that made us great, and progressives could not be more dedicated to the abolition of these principles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And what progressive idea resulted in Kate Steinles death, illegal immigrants or open carry being illegal?
"I was an alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial in San Francisco. I didn’t get a vote, but I saw all of the evidence and the jury instructions, and I discussed the verdict with the jury after it was delivered. Most of the public reaction I've seen has been surprise, confusion and derision. If these were among your reactions as well, I'm writing to explain to you why the jury was right to make the decision that it did.

I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the law that was read to us in this case. Defendants in this country have the right to a presumption of innocence, which means that if there is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence that favors a defendant, the jury must accept that interpretation over any others that incriminate him. This principle is a pillar of the American justice system, and it was a significant part of our jury instructions.


Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the undocumented immigrant who was accused of killing Steinle, was charged with first degree murder and the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. When the prosecution rested its case, it seemed clear to me that the evidence didn’t support the requirements of premeditation or malice aforethought (intentional recklessness or killing) for the murder charges. After having heard the evidence, I agreed with the defense’s opinion that the murder charges should not have been brought. The evidence didn't show that Garcia Zarate intended to kill anyone.

These are some of the facts that were laid out to us: Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence. The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting a further 78 feet to hit Steinle. The damage to the bullet indicated a glancing impact during the ricochet, so it seems to have been shot from a low height. The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety. (The jury members asked to feel the trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us.) The pixelated video footage of the incident that we were shown, taken from the adjacent pier, shows a group of six people spending half an hour at that same chair setting down and picking up objects a mere 30 minutes before Garcia Zarate arrived there.

There is a reasonable interpretation here that favors the defendant: He found the gun at the seat, picked it up out of curiosity, and accidentally caused it to fire. As a scared, homeless man wanted by immigration enforcement, he threw the gun in the water and walked away. The presumption of innocence, as stated in the jury instructions, required the jury to select this interpretation because it is reasonable and favors the defendant.

But why the manslaughter acquittal? Most of the confusion I've encountered has been over this part of the verdict, and it does seem to me personally that manslaughter is the appropriate charge for Steinle’s killing. However, given the evidence and the law presented in this trial, it is clear to me that the jury made the right decision.

The involuntary manslaughter charge that the jury was read included two key requirements: 1) A crime was committed in the act that caused death; 2) The defendant acted with "criminal negligence"—he did something that an ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone's death.
The jury members were not free to select the crime for part (1)—they had to use the one chosen by the prosecution, and the prosecution chose that crime to be the "brandishing," or waving with menace, of a weapon. As a juror, I found this choice puzzling, because the prosecutor presented absolutely zero evidence of brandishing during the trial. I don’t think we even heard the word “brandishing” until it was read as part of the charge during the jury instructions at the trial's end. No witnesses ever saw the defendant holding a gun, much less brandishing it. Given that baffling choice by the prosecution, the manslaughter charge was a nonstarter for the jury. Had a different precursor crime been chosen—for instance, the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon—the outcome might have been different.

Even in that case, however, it is not clear to me that part (2) of the manslaughter charge was proved. Only a single particle of gunshot residue was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up.

The jury did convict Garcia Zarate of the separate charge of illegal possession of a firearm, which indicates that the members felt it to be an unreasonable conclusion that he didn’t know he was holding a gun. He was in the seat where he claims he found it for about 20 minutes prior to the shooting, and he made some statements during interrogation that seemed to indicate that he had known what the item was. Without the benefit of being able to re-examine the evidence during deliberation, I’m not sure that I would consider that evidence to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but knowing these jurors, I would trust them to have made an accurate judgment if the manslaughter charge had survived the first requirement.

I have come away from this experience with a strong sense of respect for the jurors and their objective handling of a sensitive case under the national spotlight. I hope that I would have acted with the same level of maturity."
Phil Van Stockum is a mechanical engineer who lives in San Francisco and occasionally writes at abinitioblog.com. He is not a lawyer.

"And what progressive idea resulted in Kate Steinles death"

I'm not sure how you can possibly not know this, the answer is sanctuary cities. The shooter should have been deported, if he had been, she'd be alive.

Your quotes form the juror are meaningless. I'm not saying the guy should have been convicted of anything, maybe it was an accident. But the shooter never should have been allowed to remain.

You are concentrating on the legal issues related to the trial. Not the point.

There's also the impact of liberalism on the crushing taxes on the state of CT, on the fact that 75% of black babies are born fatherless (the ones that aren't aborted, that is). I'm not saying conservatism is perfect. I am responding to Spence's comment that liberalism hasn't harmed anybody.

But with a millions of variables you can't really say that's the case. While tragic her death was an extremely random event.

Regardless, you don't make policy over a single event like that.

The gun was lying under the bench
A man picked it up
It fired
What does his immigration status have to do with a death, other than to be a focus point for authoritarian white christian conservatives
One could also say that if there were no guns this would not have happened
"Only a single particle of gunshot residue was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up."

Jim will say that had he not been released he wouldn't have been there to pick up the unknown object. But like I said given the randomness of the entire thing that's kind of a silly way to make a point or policy for that matter.

One would think your statement is reasonable and correct, yet we have bumpstock bans because of a single event. Sounds like policy to me. A reactionary policy if ever there was one.

Boom
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I said event like that. A random accidental killing isn't the same as nearly a 1000 injuries and 59 fatalities and you know that...

Plus, the bump stock makes the semi nearly fully auto...which is heavily restricted to own and you know that...

Now that is called progressive thinking

And you know that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Antifa is good and you know that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can't say I advocate violent protest but the whole Antifa thing is mostly just a Trump deke.

Man, you're really out of touch. Antifa "activism" was an issue before trump, correctly, latched on to it. Several "conservative's" who attempted to speak on college campuses were harassed and stopped and violently attacked by Antifa before Trump became President and before he said anything about it.

I can understand, though, if you're ignorant of the significant Antifa violence and harassment pre-Trump since the mainstream media reported little to nothing about it. Trump helped to bring attention to what the media preferred not to mention. Most of us who don't turn our nose up at the alternative media knew about this stuff well before Trump said anything.

Media inattention was the deke.

Yea, it's such a shame people would be motivated by anti-Nazi intentions. What are they thinking? How many violent Antifa events happened before Trump came to the political stage? Why is Trump using them as a foil to legitimize nationalists racist groups?

The speakers they shouted down or attacked on campuses are not Nazis. Nor does Antifa oppose only Nazis.

Synopsis from Wikipedia:
"The Antifa movement is a conglomeration of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist militant groups in the United States. The principal feature of antifa groups is their opposition to fascism through the use of direct action. They engage in militant protest tactics, which has included property damage and physical violence. They tend to be anti-capitalist and they are predominantly far-left and militant left, which includes anarchists, communists and socialists. Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than politically."

Their choice of name is ironic. They are more fascistic than many of those they attack or shut down.

It's a shame that you use them as a foil to legitimize anti-capitalists, anarchists, communists, and socialists who destroy property, do physical violence, and shut down the speech of conservatives.

Trump does not legitimize racism or white supremacism. Those allegations are propagandistic twisting of his words in order to demonize him.

Sigh...

săracul copil

You asked who has been harmed by progressive ideas. Kate Steinle's family was horribly hurt, thanks to the liberal policy of not cooperating with ICE.

I also mentioned brutal taxes in CT, I mentioned black fatherlessness, all directly related to liberalism. No harm there? None at all?

"Regardless, you don't make policy over a single event like that."

Agreed. I wasn't using that event as a reason to advocate for policy, I pointed to it as evidence that liberalism has adverse side effects. Any wide-ranging agenda will.

I never said the guy intended to kill her. I said that if the city had cooperated with ICE, he would not have been there. I don't think it's a stretch to say it was an accident. But he shouldn't have been there to cause the accident. Is that going too fast for you?

I forgot guns don’t kill people. Illegals do
What do you propose to do to stop the majority of the terrorist killings in this country? More have been done by angry white men than by any other ethnic group.
Or are they not terrorists
Was Vegas an accident
Was Oklahoma City an accident
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's be very clear, OK? You're saying (and it sounds like Spence is saying) that if the shooter had been deported, it's reasonable to assume that someone else would have picked up the gun and similarly shot her in the back? Are you serious?

I was driving once, and I came around the corner, and right in the middle of the road, was a parked car. I hit it. It wasn't my fault, because whoever came around that curve next, was going to hit the car. It didn't matter who came next, they were going to hit the car.

You're suggesting that the same logic applies to this gun. That might be the most absurd thing I have ever heard. 95% of us aren't that stupid or thoughtless that we'd fire a gun in an open, crowded place. Even in San Francisco, people aren't that stupid.

"What do you propose to do to stop the majority of the terrorist killings in this country?"

I don't know. Play offense abroad, play defense at home. Having open borders isn't the way I would go about it, I know that much.

"More have been done by angry white men than by any other ethnic group"

First, Islam isn't an ethnicity, it's a religion. Second, if you're suggesting that white, non-Muslim terrorists have killed more Americans than the number that died on 9/11, can you share the data that supports that? I'm skeptical...3,000 died on 9/11.

"Was Vegas an accident "

No. And we also don't know if the guy was a terrorist, do we? Was he a soldier for some cause? Or just a nut? Not every mass killer is a terrorist. A terrorist kills in the name of some cause.

"Was Oklahoma City an accident"

Nope. That was a white terrorist, as are most abortion clinic bombings. Last time I checked, the death toll from the instances you refer, are nowhere near 3,000.

The point is that the randomness of the event makes it statistically insignificant from a policy perspective.

Are you feeling OK?

I never, ever said, or even implied, that it was statistically significant, or credible enough to base public policy on.

You asked what damage liberalism has ever done to anyone. I pointed to this. You go tell her father that the sanctuary city policy played no role in this one, specific, isolated event.

While you're at it, stop dodging like a coward and tell us why taxes in CT, and black fatherless, also aren't hurting anybody. Because both are functions of liberalism.

Last I knew nobody, with few exceptions, is required by the government to live anywhere in the USA. If the taxes in your state are too high or you feel something is wrong there you can get involved in politics, move or whine about it.
Blaming progressive political legislation for black fathers not being responsible for their children is interesting. Is this fathering while black?

Terrorist: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
What date would you suggest starting to count terrorist acts in the USA?
If you start at 1500 you could start off with millions of natives, or you could start 9/12 and end up with a number. I guess you pick the date that suits your argument.

You guys cannot answer a direct question, can you?

I am aware that CT residents can move. I asked if the taxes cause any suffering? Because Spence asked who has suffered at all, because of liberalism.

I take care of my parents. If I moved to NH, I would pocket $900 more a month, every month, for the rest of my life. But my parents would be screwed, That that would cause them harm. Liberalism would cause them harm.

I get it, we all get, it, you and Spence can never, under any circumstances, criticize liberalism.

Pete, it's a yes/no question. Has liberalism in CT caused suffering to any of the citizens? Yes or no? You can't answer by saying "if you don't like it, move". That doesn't answer the question that was asked. And the question I asked, was an exact response to Spence's theory that liberalism never hurt anybody.

I could also ask about babies who survive abortion I guess, and who suffer a lifetime of medical issues and limited opportunities.

Liberals came up with the idea of paying young girls to have babies, and the brilliant idea of paying them more to not marry. When you give someone a financial incentive to engage in a behavior, you will see an increase in that behavior.

The late great Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was a very liberal senator from NY. In the 1960s, he predicted that liberalism (most of which he supported) was going to cause a large-scale breakup of the black nuclear family, which would be a catastrophe for black culture. He was 100% right.

Interesting, I'll have to tell my daughters that they can get paid to have babies. Or is this payment only available if you are black?
Moynihan did not just want to get rid of welfare, he wanted to replace it with a GAI of one type or another. This was proposed by Richard Nixon.
If I remember correctly, the no father requirement was a give back to conservatives to be able to pass the enabling legislation.

"I'll have to tell my daughters that they can get paid to have babies. Or is this payment only available if you are black?"

It's called welfare, maybe you have heard of it, perhaps not given your responses here. It applies to everyone who is poor. Blacks are poor in much higher numbers, also partly because of liberalism, because liberals want poor people to become addicted to welfare, so that they'll vote for whoever promises them the most.

Moynihan was a die-hard liberal who, unlike most diehard liberals, could still think rationally. That's why he has this one dire warning about liberalism, and no sane person would deny he was correct.

"If I remember correctly, the no father requirement was a give back to conservatives to be able to pass the enabling legislation"

I can't disprove that. I find it hard to believe the conservatives were asking for that, but I have no idea.

It actually was not a dire warning about liberalism, but about the welfare system breaking up the nuclear family. He proposed along with other moderate politicians, of both parties, a Guaranteed Annual Income. This would make it so that if you were down and out, for whatever reason, you would be helped. But it would be advantageous to you financially to work. The current system penalizes recipients for working by it's all or nothing approach. Just more evil moderate stuff.

Jim, it's funny how conservative ideas don't always have the intended result and sometimes become the things they want to change.
Look at the history of the family based immigration for a good example.
It was originally passed because the Supreme Court said that you could not exclude certain countries, and could not use quotas.
So they passed new legislation with the theory that if we make it so people can have their relatives come here, most of the immigrants for the past 75 years have been Europeans. We can give them an advantage because we want them, but we can't say that.

"It actually was not a dire warning about liberalism, but about the welfare system breaking up the nuclear family."

Who was advocating for the welfare that broke up the black nuclear family? The Tea Party? The Amish? Or Democrats?

For you and Spence, every post boils down to conservative=bad., liberal=good. Always, no exceptions.

We've discussed DPM before. Jim has never done the homework.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device