Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-14-2017, 11:36 AM   #1
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,449
Is it just me

How is this normal

wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 11:43 AM   #2
Slipknot
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
Slipknot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 16,039
a montage of snippets of a bunch of exaggerations without the context is not normal to answer your question.

and whenthat kind of crap becomes normal, we have all lost

"A government that does not trust it's law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust" James Madison

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Regan
Slipknot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 01:10 PM   #3
Linesider82
CSA
iTrader: (0)
 
Linesider82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: CT
Posts: 1,806
Nothing has come close to saying this administration is a monarchy as miller described in his statements. No checks and balances are valid. This is not a cause for concern, this is a direct violation of the constitution. I'm not a rep. Im not a dem. That dude stated chit that goes against everything we fought against for this country to be the country we are.
Linesider82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 01:11 PM   #4
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,449
I suggest take the time and get the context ..as I did its doesn't change what you see and hear from this official ..
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 01:42 PM   #5
Linesider82
CSA
iTrader: (0)
 
Linesider82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: CT
Posts: 1,806
Everything is wait and see, take time for him to change, let's wait and see what happens... wake up. It's happening and if somehow anyone feels safer about their job, rights, home, family speak up. I don't see it.

I do want to blast my home state governor for literally taking gun ownership rights out of regular peoples hands in his recent statements of increasing personal carry permits from $70 to $300. I will not pay this, its against my 2A right, its against taxation without representation, and will do increased damage to the state of CT which for some reason (gov. fat) is doing the worst in my op of all states nation wide despite having one of the largest tax revenues in the country. Much of that has to do with policys held 20-30-40 years ago and is now on my back, and I'm angry about that.

What bothers me about Trump is not the Republican party, as I often mind myself relating to their claims, is how he is going about this, and yes I am "giving him his fair shake" however I am highly critical of how he is going about it because I fear we may end up with a government which is more aligned with today's Russian government, stagnant. Maybe our government was already there and Trump's changes will come off as smelling like a rose.

I do know his win as president, will be good for the US in the long haul, because it has ignited a fire in people who actually care about the country to run for X office, to try and fix things that seem to be irreparable, but much of Trumps promises to working class people esp. in coal industry are simply not coming back. Moreover, the union bargaining chip is being squashed as we type on here ... so that's terrible for most of us working class chumps like myself.
Linesider82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 02:41 PM   #6
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
I suggest take the time and get the context ..as I did its doesn't change what you see and hear from this official ..
Please do provide the context of which you speak. These edited videos chopped up to the point you only see and hear snippets and NOT context nor the questions which lead to the answer nor the full responses to those questions which give context and clarity and reason.

You accuse others of latching on to some snippet or meme they found on the net to shape their views. Yet that is exactly what you've done here.

From the snippets that were pasted together here, his edited responses contain the germ of reason in the larger answer to the probable questions. At least, from the larger context to which Miller is obviously referring, I believe he is correct in what he says. And his truncated answers are not scary as the expression on the faces and in the mutters of the panel at the end of the clip wish to convey.

I actually had to spontaneously laugh when I saw the reaction of that panel.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 02:55 PM   #7
Linesider82
CSA
iTrader: (0)
 
Linesider82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: CT
Posts: 1,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Please do provide the context of which you speak. These edited videos chopped up to the point you only see and hear snippets and NOT context nor the questions which lead to the answer nor the full responses to those questions which give context and clarity and reason.

You accuse others of latching on to some snippet or meme they found on the net to shape their views. Yet that is exactly what you've done here.

From the snippets that were pasted together here, his edited responses contain the germ of reason in the larger answer to the probable questions. At least, from the larger context to which Miller is obviously referring, I believe he is correct in what he says. And his truncated answers are not scary as the expression on the faces and in the mutters of the panel at the end of the clip wish to convey.

I actually had to spontaneously laugh when I saw the reaction of that panel.
so you agree with what this guy said in context? in what regard?
Linesider82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 03:25 PM   #8
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linesider82 View Post
so you agree with what this guy said in context? in what regard?
Rather than me writing a treatise on every aspect of the clip, provide me with a point or two in it with which you disagree. And I'll try to explain my agreement. Or, you may convince me that I am mistaken.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 04:23 PM   #9
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Please do provide the context of which you speak. These edited videos chopped up to the point you only see and hear snippets and NOT context nor the questions which lead to the answer nor the full responses to those questions which give context and clarity and reason.

You accuse others of latching on to some snippet or meme they found on the net to shape their views. Yet that is exactly what you've done here.

From the snippets that were pasted together here, his edited responses contain the germ of reason in the larger answer to the probable questions. At least, from the larger context to which Miller is obviously referring, I believe he is correct in what he says. And his truncated answers are not scary as the expression on the faces and in the mutters of the panel at the end of the clip wish to convey.

I actually had to spontaneously laugh when I saw the reaction of that panel.
I love the deflection.. I posted what he said (and stated am I the only one who see's a problem with this)... it wasn't a blogger point view. posted as evidence they are his statments in real time to real questions .... I took the time to see the complete interviews prior to posting the montage.... of his rounds on TV Sunday morning ... So you support what he say's with out question and the manner in which they are expressed ok i see that ... I would guess however if this was 6 months prior and under the old administration by A senior adviser conducted in the same tone.. your response would not be the same

“We do not have judicial supremacy in this country,”

"What the judges did, both at the ninth and at the district level, was to take power for themselves that belongs squarely in the hands of the president of the United States

"No, the three judges made a broad, overreaching statement," Miller insisted. "This is a judicial usurpation of power."


"There are massive numbers of non-citizens in this country who are registered to vote," Miller told ABC News. "That is a scandal; we should stop the presses. That's the story we should be talking about, and I'm prepared to go on any show, anywhere, anytime and repeat it and say the president of the United States is correct, 100 percent."

DICKERSON: When I talked to Republicans on the Hill, they wonder, what in the White House -- what have you all learned from this experience with the executive order?

MILLER: Well, I think that it's been an important reminder to all Americans that we have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become, in many cases, a supreme branch of government. One unelected judge in Seattle cannot remake laws for the entire country. I mean this is just crazy, John, the idea that you have a judge in Seattle say that a foreign national living in Libya has an effective right to enter the United States is -- is -- is beyond anything we've ever seen before.

The end result of this, though, is that our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.



Sears and K-Mart this week have decided to pull Mr. Trump's home furnishing lines from their Web sites.

Is that a direct attack on the president's policies, as well?

MILLER: I'm not going make a comment on that. I don't have any information on it. I do want to say that Sean Spicer, as always, is 100 percent correct and that what he said is true and important. And I agree with it.

I have seen statements like this before only on the History Channel

Last edited by wdmso; 02-14-2017 at 04:29 PM..
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 08:16 PM   #10
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
So you support what he say's with out question

This is what you have referred to in another post as an "imaginary conclusion" by you. What I said was: "From the snippets that were pasted together here, his edited responses At least, from the larger context to which Miller is obviously referring, I believe he is correct in what he says." That is not support without question. It is a claim that I "believe" that (not unquestionably support) in what I think is the larger context to which he is referring he is correct.


and the manner in which they are expressed ok i see that ... I would guess however if this was 6 months prior and under the old administration by A senior adviser conducted in the same tone.. your response would not be the same

Your guess would be wrong. I would be concerned with what I considered the veracity of the statement. And would only comment on the tone, maybe sarcastically, if I thought he was putting on a tone and manner of emphatic truthfulness when he knew that he was lying.

“We do not have judicial supremacy in this country,”

In various ways, that is true. There is no general supremacy of the Court over the other two branches. They are co-equal within the domain assigned to them by the Constitution. The Court's constitutional power is to adjudicate if another branch is acting within its constitutionally enumerated domain. It does not have the power to enforce that decision (as was demonstrated by Andrew Jackson when he said re the Court's decision in the case that led to the infamous Trail of Tears) "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." And Jackson went ahead and did what he wanted in spite of the Courts ruling against him.

And Court decisions can be reversed, so are not necessarily "supreme" forever.

But the Court has no constitutional supremacy in creating law. It has only the power to interpret whether the law is being followed. Which is what I'm guessing Miller was referring to.


"What the judges did, both at the ninth and at the district level, was to take power for themselves that belongs squarely in the hands of the president of the United States

"No, the three judges made a broad, overreaching statement," Miller insisted. "This is a judicial usurpation of power."

As I said, this is what he meant by there not being judicial supremacy. The Judges disregarded settled constitutional law regarding which branch has power over immigration into this country, as well as disregarding Federal immigration law also which includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The only thin constitutional notions they could hang their decision on (1)was the question if there was religious discrimination inherent in the EO. But the fact that most Muslims (which reside outside of the seven designated countries) are not banned made that assertion ridiculous. At any rate the Federal statute would override that argument even if it were correct. And (2) the other notion was that there needed to be a rational basis for the ban. Rational basis as a level of scrutiny (the lowest level) was originally derived through faulty reasoning which created the famous footnote 4 in the U.S. vs Caroline Products Co. FDR's packed New Deal Court needed to defend the Federal Governments overreach in banning the interstate selling of a variety of milk--which on its face appeared to be an unconstitutional ban. The decision to uphold the Government's ban was on a concocted, supposedly rational, basis that the "filled" milk that the company produced was not as nutritional as whole milk and was injurious to public health. In actual fact, it was not injurious to health, but was healthy, nutritious. But it was cheaper than whole milk and was popular during the depression because it cost less. However, one of the main goals of the New Deal was to sustain pre-depression prices with the idea that it would help to sustain the devastated economy. Its effect was actually only to remove the ability of a cash strapped public to buy cheaper milk. And it effectively removed a competitor to the dairy industry.

And most importantly, it introduced another spurious way the Progressive Court could allow government to skirt the Constitution.

The irony in the 9th Circuit application of rational basis in this Trump EO case is that the original application was for the express purpose of expanding government's power vis a vis the Constitution, but in this current case it was used to limit government power. And the concept of rational basis was not even given its full scope. Rational basis as originally conceived by the Court required only that "Under rational basis review, it is entirely irrelevant what end the government is actually seeking and statutes can be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data. Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a legitimate interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand rational basis review. Judges following the Supreme Court's instructions understand themselves to be obligated to seek out other conceivable reasons for validating challenged laws if the government is unable to justify its own policies"

Ironically, rational basis scrutiny was used in this case to deny government policy rather than justify it. And the Court not only didn't seek out other conceivable reasons for validating the EO, it didn't recognize the very conceivable and even likely occurrences that the government based its policy on.

I believe that all of the above is part of what Miller meant by judicial usurpation of power, etc.


"There are massive numbers of non-citizens in this country who are registered to vote," Miller told ABC News. "That is a scandal; we should stop the presses. That's the story we should be talking about, and I'm prepared to go on any show, anywhere, anytime and repeat it and say the president of the United States is correct, 100 percent."

That's an opinion many people have, and if he has the moxie to go on any show and repeat it, more power (and luck) to him. I'm agnostic on that opinion, but I'm not hysterical about it.


DICKERSON: When I talked to Republicans on the Hill, they wonder, what in the White House -- what have you all learned from this experience with the executive order?

MILLER: Well, I think that it's been an important reminder to all Americans that we have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become, in many cases, a supreme branch of government. One unelected judge in Seattle cannot remake laws for the entire country. I mean this is just crazy, John, the idea that you have a judge in Seattle say that a foreign national living in Libya has an effective right to enter the United States is -- is -- is beyond anything we've ever seen before.

I don't disagree with that per what I said above

The end result of this, though, is that our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.


Is this really supposed to be controversial. That the President will use his powers to protect the country?

Sears and K-Mart this week have decided to pull Mr. Trump's home furnishing lines from their Web sites.

Is that a direct attack on the president's policies, as well?

MILLER: I'm not going make a comment on that. I don't have any information on it. I do want to say that Sean Spicer, as always, is 100 percent correct and that what he said is true and important. And I agree with it.

Like Pontius Pilate might say, I find no fault in what he said. I certainly don't get all quivery fearful, nor have the stunned "OMG did he say that" reaction that the panel at the end of the video had.

I have seen statements like this before only on the History Channel
Thou protesteth too much. Get thee to a safe space

Last edited by detbuch; 02-14-2017 at 10:27 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 01:27 PM   #11
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 3,821
I happened to watch that entire interview, not just the snippets and the hair on the back of my neck went up listening to him. That is a scary dude with scary view of where the power should rest. Authoritarian state is I'm sure something he'd love to see.

Watching him in another interview continue to answer the same question about producing proof of supposed voter fraud in NH in the exact same way (less proof of course), stating over and over again that for a long time it is widely known by all in the NH political scene that there is widespread voter fraud in NH.

Add the expanding Russian connection pre and post election and no I don't feel safer. A white house in chaos at this point is never a good thing. The only thing feeling better is my retirement account, but that was to be expected with all the deregulation planned.

I'm sure the Russian connection is nothing as it's all being reported by the "fake media".
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 06:41 PM   #12
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
I happened to watch that entire interview, not just the snippets and the hair on the back of my neck went up listening to him. That is a scary dude with scary view of where the power should rest. Authoritarian state is I'm sure something he'd love to see.
I haven't seen the entire interview. I gave a detailed opinion of what I thought Miller meant by the statements on the edited clip. I thought, from that limited information, that he had a correct view on where the power should rest. Apparently, my explanation was not satisfactory to you. So I would be very interested in your opinion, having seen the whole interview, on why his view of where the power should lie is scary.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2017, 07:02 PM   #13
hq2
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 269
Take a look at today's POTUS rant. Pure Captain Queeg stuff. But actually, I've stopped worrying about a nuclear war with the Donald. Why? Because the defense department won't give him the nuclear codes; they'd wind up in the Kremlin.

Yes folks, every bit the insanity I predicted - and more. Even I couldn't believe things like the rant against the AUSTRALIAN prime minister; straight out of a bad episode of "The Apprentice". The sooner we get to impeachment or Article 25, the better off we'll all be.
hq2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com