Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions under fire over Russia meetings

[Got Stripers]

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]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.

[wdmso]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"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 ?

[The Dad Fisherman]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[PaulS]

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

I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I'm sure you are correct.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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]

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[wdmso]

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

[PaulS]

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]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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]

[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]

[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?

[scottw]

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