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.

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

I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.

"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.

I'm sure you are correct.

"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?

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."

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 ?

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

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.

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

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 ^^^^


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


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 "

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..

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

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

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

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.

[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

[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?

ever notice that only liberal/progressives are allowed to change stuff in our "living and breathing society" and in any way that they see fit to accomplish the task...legally/illegally/by contorting the process/through lies and deception....and once they changes things...those things may never be unchanged(no longer living and breathing but forever set in stone)..even through legal means or through due process/popular vote.... or else there will be marches/protests/rioting/violence/civil unrest etc...

this is much of why we cannot agree...the left demands and enjoys one set of rules(essentially lack of any strict adherence, evolving day to day depending on need, living and breathing morality, facts and truths) for themselves, while demanding and whining the right play by a strict set rules and restrictions

what is frustrating for the left about Trump is his remarkable ability to use every tactic that the left has used over time and turn it to his own advantage... to the left and media's great dismay and frustration....he plays them all like a fiddle and probably laughs himself to sleep each night dreaming about his next tweet and how it will send them all into a frenzy and off to their computer keyboards, news casts and talk shows to pound and sound out their next irrational thought